Well you're right, the obvious reason is accuracy at range. The Soviets began experimenting with missile-armed tanks in the 1950s in a series of configurations for their "next generation" MBT that eventually resulted in the T-64. Some were wholly missile armed (and quite comical in appearance, I might add) while others had tube-launched missiles and some had external launchers.

 

All configurations were impractical for an MBT and the T-64 intially lacked a gun-launched missile capability. It is good to keep in mind that a gun-launched missile was more important for Soviet vehicles than for NATO tanks when it came to accuracy at range because, at the time, FCS and stabilization gear (i.e. T-55 and T-62) was quite inferior to what was fielded in NATO, not to mention the loose "qualtiy control standards" of Soviet industry in producing guns and ammunition.

 

By the time of Kobra, AT plinking (ideally employed by platoons in overwatch of advancing columns, in much the same way as IS-series tanks were supposed to provide overwatch to T-34s several decades before) was only part of the reason ATGMs were integrated on Soviet tanks. Kobra had a very high speed by contemporary standards (averaging 300-400m/s), and it was also intended to trade shots with NATO ATGM carriers (eg Jaguar, Swingfire) at long ranges. Massed NATO ATGMs had, by this time, become a very serious threat to Soviet armour.

 

You should also keep in mind that the Soviets DID have specialist heavy ATGMs in service in the form of Konkurs (typically mounted on BRDM-2) and Shturm (MT-LB). Both types intitally suffered from reliability and accuracy problems, Konkurs in particular, but these were subsequently resolved and Konkurs was quite popular in Afghanistan (BMP-2). Shturm also had considerable success (Mi-24).

 The missile armed tanks was Khrushchev's idea and plan I believe, and you are right some of them are comical if not stupidly over engineered. I was aware of the AT-3 and AT-5 mounts on the BRMD, as well as the system based on the MB-LT but those like you said had reliability issues as well as being rather light. I however I was more thinking on Khrushchev's original idea of a MBT based ATGM system to support the tanks advances.

 Also a bit off this mini topic; but with the Soviet political rhetoric ?that they would not attack NATO? why were their tanks designed to be optimised for attacking and not defending?

"The missile armed tanks was Khrushchev's idea and plan I believe, and you are right some of them are comical if not stupidly over engineered. I was aware of the AT-3 and AT-5 mounts on the BRMD, as well as the system based on the MB-LT but those like you said had reliability issues as well as being rather light. I however I was more thinking on Khrushchev's original idea of a MBT based ATGM system to support the tanks advances. "

 "Also a bit off this mini topic; but with the Soviet political rhetoric ?that they would not attack NATO? why were their tanks designed to be optimised for attacking and not defending? "

I say that both are offensive in design purpose, but that Russian tanks are SWARM tanks. The thing that makes a T-90 a swarm tank is that its supposed to flood an enemy defense by flowing through it like ants. No defense is perfect. If you can put enough units on the march and attack everywhere, you are going to find a gap in the line. Once you find the gap you push through and you roll the line up. The Russians designed to this purpose in everything they built from the basic infantry rifle all the way up to their rocket forces. Cheap, numerous, and good enough to get the job done was the mantra..The T-90 reflects this.

What was the US counter? Was it the static tank, as the slightly mobile pillbox? [Challenger 1 and Centurion]. No. it was the Abrams. Heavy armor was a must, as was an antitank gun. But speed and ground crossing was emphasized. The heavy mass was necessary because facing Zerg tactics the Russians would get close. That was inevitable. What was also inevitable that a sitting tank would be hit by enemy airpower and ATGMs from overwatch. So you shoot and move. You do that anyway when you counterattack into the shoulder of a penetration. So you design for it. The Abrams sacrificed some flank armor for speed and it sported the state of the art direct fire control system at the time of its introduction. You don't design a shoot while moving tank if you just plan to sit there, B.  How a tank is used determines how it is designed.  US  armor tactics are NOT European. Think of how the Germans fought in defense and then think of how the US fought in defense.  We burned up infantry to hold ground, slow the enemy down and conserved tanks to counterattack an enemy. That is straight US Civil War cavalry experience as well as the Native American Wars.  Germans or Russians tended to burn up tank forces trying to hold ground in defense or to attack. When you are tank  oriented that makes sense to you,  but when you are infantry/artillery oriented,  you tend to see your armor as an exploitation arm or counterattack force to augment what your infantry just won, and so you design tanks to that requirement..

When looking at the M1 and T-72/90 in the context of a Central Front conflict, the M1 seems to me as being more defensively orientated than the T-72. I say this for several reasons:

I say that both are offensive in design purpose, but that Russian tanks are SWARM tanks. The thing that makes a T-90 a swarm tank is that its supposed to flood an enemy defense by flowing through it like ants. No defense is perfect. If you can put enough units on the march and attack everywhere, you are going to find a gap in the line. Once you find the gap you push through and you roll the line up. The Russians designed to this purpose in everything they built from the basic infantry rifle all the way up to their rocket forces. Cheap, numerous, and good enough to get the job done was the mantra..The T-90 reflects this.

Yes, this sounds right.

What was the US counter? Was it the static tank, as the slightly mobile pillbox? [Challenger 1 and Centurion]. No. it was the Abrams. Heavy armor was a must, as was an antitank gun. But speed and ground crossing was emphasized. The heavy mass was necessary because facing Zerg tactics the Russians would get close. That was inevitable. What was also inevitable that a sitting tank would be hit by enemy airpower and ATGMs from overwatch. So you shoot and move. You do that anyway when you counterattack into the shoulder of a penetration. So you design for it. The Abrams sacrificed some flank armor for speed and it sported the state of the art direct fire control system at the time of its introduction. You don't design a shoot while moving tank if you just plan to sit there, B.  How a tank is used determines how it is designed.  US  armor tactics are NOT European. Think of how the Germans fought in defense and then think of how the US fought in defense.  We burned up infantry to hold ground, slow the enemy down and conserved tanks to counterattack an enemy.

But how effective would this approach have been in a Central Front scenario? Soviet tanks are precisely optimized for attacking entrenched infantry, and the T-90 in particular reflects this by the introduction of Ainet fuzes. You obviously know more about American doctrine than I do, but I don?t think relying wholly on entrenched infantry and artillery will be sufficient when the enemy is attacking with massed armour with artillery support when the air-battle is contested.

That is straight US Civil War cavalry experience as well as the Native American Wars.  Germans or Russians tended to burn up tank forces trying to hold ground in defense or to attack. When you are tank  oriented that makes sense to you,  but when you are infantry/artillery oriented,  you tend to see your armor as an exploitation arm or counterattack force to augment what your infantry just won, and so you design tanks to that requirement..

Germans and Russians used tanks in defensive roles out of necessity precisely because there was a danger that entrenched infantry could not hold the position vs massed armour. Both armies emphasized the need for an armoured counter-thrust, but neither were shy about using some of their tanks in dug-in defensive positions.

I. Weight Class. It's been mentioned a million times before that Sov