File: mtow.png (411 KB, 655x544)

411 KB PNG

Let's say that for the purposes of entertainment and/or profit, you were tasked with outfitting a bunch of mostly ordinary vehicles with armor, missiles and guns for prolonged fighting. The obvious answer* is technicals with whatever you can weld into the bed, but if one were to design dedicated tech, would it be closer to anti-tank weaponry or anti-aircraft? AT is smaller scale and already in use, but one thing that caught my eye about anti air stuff is armament designed to burst and still do damage on a near miss from shrapnel because most aircraft are so thin skinned that you don't need a direct hit with a dedicated penetrator round like modern anti tank missiles, which seem like overkill for vehicular use. Even armored cars are pretty thin skinned compared to a tank. Which is great if you get the first shot, but less great for prolonged entertainment. Would there be reason to take anti air systems and just scale them down, or just take AT systems and make them cheaper and smaller? How much of AT effectiveness relies on modern fire and forget systems compared to having to manually aim a TOW or Kornet? On a scale of 1 to 10, how retarded am I for even thinking about this? I already know I'm retarded in general, I only have small arms autism and can't into vehicles.
*the second obvious answer, as demonstrated by the US and friends in years past, is "put M2s on everything because .50 BMG will turn anything on four wheels into Swiss cheese," and that's also pretty cool for wheeled dogfighting but limiting in terms of spectacle.