Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lemontree
Coming back to the topic......
Someone here compared the Tungushka/ Linebacker and SAMs all in the same breath, which is incorrect.
The tungushkas/ ZSU-23x4/ Linebacker are AD systems designed to protect tectical assests like armour/ arty that need AD on the move, as aircraft need to make low level attacks against these moving targets. To use these systems for protection of static assets is foolhardy and does not serve the purpose (as the enemy bombs you from 15000 ft and above where these AD guns/ missiles cannot reach).
SAMs on the other hand are made for protection of strategic assets like HQs, importants bridges/ airfields/ nuke sites etc.
|
Hi Lemontree, I agree with you
In my view the Tungska/Shilka/Linebacker are good and effective weapons to protect against low altitude attacks and suppressing enemy's infantry.
If you have a column moving on battle terrain this is a most wanted vehicle for defense.... if a column of Amrams be attacked in mountains, forests, urban by brave ATGM (something like Kornet) users it would be Linebackers which can suppress them with its MASSIVE high rate power.... Same is to protect tanks from low altitude attack from air....
I actually like Tor-M1 as well. It can not be used against infantry but its reaction time is less than 0.1 second letting it attack few targets in a matter of few seconds on different directions. And it does it while it moves..... Yes it has short-range of just 12km but such weapon would not let Appach/Kamov/Mill slaughter the column..... Its PESA radar is good enough to attack even guided bombs!