Are towed anti tank guns obsolete?

>>33080362
depends where.
yes in the west, no in sandland.

>>33080362
Missiles have pretty much made them obsolete everywhere that matters.

>>33080362
Mostly. They were questionable during WW2. Modern tanks can take at least 90mm shots to the front and anti-tank guns aren't maneuverable enough to ensure flank shot. The weight of a 120mm cannon is just too much to make infantry lug around with reloads.

Without the ability to move an anti-tank gun by hand it's basically a static gun emplacements and modern artillery and air strikes makes that pointless without a fortified position.

The whole idea was basically an ad hoc measure to use light artillery pieces against tanks.

>>33080362
With the introduction of modern APS systems, they have some validity, but recoilless rifles that can be pulled by infantry are more effective.

File: Batalionul_612_artilerie_antitanc_18.jpg (3MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x1500px

>>33080384
>Missiles

But they are expensive

They are more relevant than towed howitzers

File: 1944-buick-m18-hellcat-tank-destroyer-front-three-quarters-view-in-motion.jpg (406KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 2048x1360px

>>33080362
>Are towed anti tank guns obsolete?

Yes.

>>33080362
As with 99% of the weapons in the world:
Depends on your doctrine.
Weapons don't exist in a void.

The most modern example of an AT gun would be the soviet 2A45 Sprut, that can move by itself and shoot ATGMs.