as modern anti tank missiles can destroy tanks and crew why are they not obsolete?

Answer 1

Short answer: they are not 100% effective.

Against US tanks, not even 5% effective, and that's being generous.

Even when a US tank is disabled (not destroyed!) by a lucky shot, the crew survival rate is so close to 100% that it is a surprise when one is killed or even seriously hurt.

In a famously televised event, a US tank on the way to Baghdad in March '03 was disabled-- unable to move-- because a lucky RPG shot had bent something in the track. That's like getting a flat tire, and under peacetime conditions the tank could be loaded on a flatbed trailer and taken away for repair. Under combat conditions, standard procedure is to rescue the crew (who didn't get a scratch) and destroy the tank in place, which involves disengaging some safety features (including the ammunition loader's door) and planting charges inside.

One design element: the ammunition storage compartment is (a) armored even better than the crew compartment and (b) designed with an upward-directed blast door that opens if the ammunition is ignited in place, leaving the crew intact inside (just uncomfortably warm).

Older model tanks are, of course, vulnerable to newer model anti-tank measures. Hint: that's why newer ones are developed and fielded.

Answer 2

Just because they are called anti-tank missles, doesn't mean they are. Examples of defense:
Slats: these are like a metal fence that you can see on strykers. The missle hits the "fence" and either bounces off (timed charger, pin hits the space part of the slat) or blows up before it hits the main armor.

Slopped armor: You can see the slop on the turrent of the M1A2. This is armor that is put at a 60 degree angle to increase the amount of armor thickness from a straight on attack. It also increased the chance of the projectile deflecting off.

Explosive armor: This blows up the warhead before the warhead can explode.

Composites: different elements besides iorn (steel) are used, making the armor so tough that the projectile can't penetrate.

Smoke and chaff: these are used to fool guided missles into missing the tank..

Anti-missle projectiles: This is a fairly new defense (and still in the expermental stage) that destroys the enemy missle while it is still in the air.

Answer 3

It depend on the version, old AT-3,AT5,milan can't destroy modern MBT, (eg) M1A2,challenger 2, leopard 2 , Merkeva iv, t-90 used composite armor with explosive reactive amour (ERA),for now AT 14, AT 15, has powerful explosive can penetrate over 1000 millimeters of steel armor protected by explosive reactive armor (ERA), made of two explosive first one to destroy the ERA and second to armor, which as more chance to destroy any MBT Tank.

Answer 4

Good question-Iraq had plenty of them in 1991 and in 2003. Did not help them. Combined arms is what wins battles. So tanks and infantry are not obsolete as long as they support each other.

Answer 5

You have to get a pretty good shot off to "kill" a tank. You may disable a tank, but a catastrophic kill is rare.