Some are beginning to say that tanks are becoming obsolete because of this. But consider this-as long as there are small arms and bomb threats to the infantrymen, there are still a requirement for fast mobility in warfare(it still is faster to move on a tracked or wheeled armour than on foot), and the evolution of active and passive protection against anti-tank weapons is moving forward, tanks and mechanised armour will continue to be there
Nope, sorry... The real war has always been/will be in the sky, including the last days of the second world war. To stubbornly fight the ground forces is nothing but human stupidity. In fact, the moment an army takes control of the air, the war should have ended there. But today, there are no commanders who will understand this kind of doctrine, and it will not be in the short term.
@@mastermariner490 well, as long as arms manufacturers see this arms race as a business, expect some of them will always offer at a lower price but with the same benefits and advantages.
Artilery seems to be getting along well with drone technology. Even civilian market drones are working as a boosters to artillery fire effectiveness on modern frontline.
The artillery duel is the really interesting part of the war in Ukraine right now, moreso than the ATGM's that were the hero of the first month. I think artillery and drones will become an increasingly blurry concept over time. Like, artillery will launch an loitering munition, which flies around until the enemy artillery fires, and then you have counterbattery fire coming in within a few seconds rather than within a few minutes. In just 5-10 years, the artillery duel currently happening in Ukraine will seem like the every end of an era of old fashioned artillery. And all the "addictive" smart junk is gonna be key to the new era. When you can do accurate fire at 10x the range, and improve your time to hit by 10x, the cost of the smart stuff makes sense. And remember, stuff like Javelin is basically 1980's technology. Today a Raspberry Pi is $25, and the CPU in a cheapo cell phone might be barely over $1, and they are insane supercomputers from the future compared to the smarts in something like a Javelin. The smarts won't actually be a huge driver of the cost of ATGM and Artillery systems going forward. The silicon is cheaper than the explosive. All of the cost of military gear is really from custom engineering and low volume of production compared to consumer goods. You can basically throw in CPU's for free. And when you make everything smart, you bring down the unit costs of teh smart stuff with economies of scale.
No, I don't think we are getting to comfortable within the technological bubble. What we are seeing is that artillery is becoming more precise, longer ranged and cheaper and easier to keep supplied. Precisely because the drone technology is out there.
Wrong. We've generally made our systems so expensive and time consuming to produce(by chasing the cutting edge of technology) that we don't have enough of them to protect ourselves and can't replace losses in war. Western military stockpiles are pretty small, we can't afford more and we generally don't have cheaper "good enough" solutions to make up the numbers when it matters.
The video is basically an appeal against the general public's fascination with new advance weapon systems the media always reports on and how they are not the wunderwaffe thats gonna change the face of war forever. How it is dangerous to assume that these systems are not without their own flaws that cause problems.
@PJ Rivera Nato strategists have in case of a large scale near peer conflict given most modern weapons a life expectancy of around 6 months up to a year. That was the optimistic assessment. The biggest loss of active units was not destroyed but stuck in maintenance. A lot of our fancy gear has the same issue German tanks had during WW2 over-engineered and overly reliant fine tuned equipment. Meaning stuff breaks easily even when just taking a hit this also has to do with better modern weapons aimed at them. So in case of a near peer conflict expect to see a lot of the good old reliable popping up pretty quickly unless one side manages to dominate the early conflict.
You make a great point, in the event of a full scale war there is a big question of if western countries have the capacity to field these advanced systems without expending their supply very quickly.
I saw an article that the company that makes the Javalins isd doing it's best to ramp up production as quickly as possible. I think you will find that the same goes for the NLAW as well. The thing is that what is being used in Ukriane is a massup of all different kinds of anti-tank systems some high tech and some low tech, but the thing is that Ukraine is using all of them smartly because they are like a NATO military in command structure. They have their own system, as well, in Ukraine that they are using very effectively.
But my dude, who were those weapons designed to fight? The Russians. With the small amount given to Ukraine they have destroyed a significant amount of Russia's tanks. Immagine if the hellfires, drones, and 10,000 Abrams were involed.
@@flossordie2256 In general they were designed to fight a near peer opponent who has a traditional fighting capability, ie another country with an army, which is the kind of fighting the armed forces of any country should be getting ready for.
@@flossordie2256 they have not. They have destroyed quite a few tanks from Donetsk and Lugansk, surplus soviet-era stuff. The Russians haven't even bothered to send their modern weapons to the battlefield.
The less expensive systems definitely have their place especially at knife fighting distance, but long standoff atgm’s are an excellent force multiplier, and preserve the lives of infantry especially when fighting armor heavy forces ,and should be considered to be essential to an effective modern fighting force along with the less expensive types 😎
The key thing to understand is that any military needs a variety of weapon systems that give them options to adapt to any situation. Its not just about having the best kit for specific scenarios but having the right tools for the right jobs.
less expensive? 4 javelin launchers with 3 missiles each is equivalent in cost to an M-1 series tank that holds 40 rounds. The range for both is the same. However, the round from the M-1 series tank will be much faster from firing to hitting the target, as well as much, much faster firing a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th round. The only benefit of the Javelin is it can be a Fire and forget; however, that's because it takes so long to get on target in comparison to a tank.
@@andrewschliewe6392 How so? 4 CLU: (249700 * 4) + 12 missiles: (12 * 240000) = $3,878,800 and the cost of modern M-1 is around $8,920,000. Even T90 is ~$4,5000,000 in 2016 (account for inflation and you'll get even more). And no, you cannot stop neither modern M1 nor T90 with just an rpg7 (at least it is highly unlikely).
I'm not sure it's really an issue of modern armies being overreliant on ATGMs as much as the spiraling cost of ATGMs in the West and ATGMs being used in a general fire support role against enemy hardpoints. So armies need to become more selective of the targets they use ATGMs against and reintroduce recoilless rifles, grenade launchers, and heavy rocket launchers to deal with unarmored targets. Or there needs to be a new class of lower-cost guided munitions that can fill the same fire support role but armed with modular anti-personnel or demolition warheads instead. To a certain degree, I believe armed drones are filling that role.
Pretty much. It's why the US wasn't able to beat Vietnam or The Taliban. Enemies know that to get the US out of war is to make it last as long as possible and as bloody and expensive as possible, Americans are far too liberal and can't stand pain.
Without close air support, destroying a $4 million dollar tank and crew with a $25k NLAW is quite cost effective and may be the only option available depending on circumstances.
But you have to get closer to artillero to do that n troops are more important than equipment. Plus not all of those will hit target or destroy them. Once you shoot you better run n hide. If allow
I'm a former American Army armor officer and doctrinally NATO trained for a long range battle all through the Cold War and our weapons systems reflected that including our ATGM's. Javelin was a direct result of realizing that it's predecessor Dragon was lacking in practically every aspect of it's performance, and as such was designed to give infantry a realistic ability to engage armored vehicles at intermediate ranges beyond the effective range of more man portable units like AT4, LAW, and RPG. But terrain dictates tactics, and much of what we're seeing in Ukraine is either extreme medium to long range ATGM strikes or ambushes. I'm sure that in some of the city fighting RPGs of all sorts were rapidly depleted but a perfect example of the limitation of those type of weapons in those situations is the video where the NLAW is fired at the Russian tank at inside minimum arming distance and the weapon just breaks up on the turret. Which may fall back to your comments about adequate training. I know that in the American Army force structure has flexed so many different times over the years and apparently is doing so again to reflect a more balanced mix of IFV/armor in a composite platoon. That will be a lot of firepower all ranges of engagement. But you're not wrong about the lead time and availability of components to produce technically sophisticated weapons of all sorts and I'm sure that governments around the world are looking at their supply chains quite differently now. Securing reliable supplies and stockpiles are rare earth minerals has been a strategic focus of the United States government now for more than a few years and seeing the disruption of international trade in commodities from the war in Ukraine has given that a more intense focus.
You must be a fool to use a modern, long range ATGM system like Javelin in a urban area where you cannot see your target at more than 1-200m, and you need to be mobile. An old RPG will serve you better, since a team can carry easily a dozen of reloads, is 100x cheaper, A LOT more resilient to abuse, and - like we saw - a lot easier to use ; A 12 yo kid can "learn" to use an RPG in 5 min !
@@mirandela777 That is why you need both. US army use AT4 for closer engagements and Javelins for longer ranges. It also depend on the nations... for example in Sweden where I live the NLAW is the perfect AGTM as the ranges on the battlefield are quite rarely be more than you need. Javelins are overkill... for the US who need to operate in more diverse regions you need more capabilities. They probably could use both Javeline, NLAW and AT4 to be more economical, but you also need to consider logistics to supply different weapon systems.
@@mirandela777 logistics have always been a weak point of any army for as long as there have been armies. Men need to be fed. Their weapons need to be repaired and replaced. Horses need to be reshoed, arrows resupplied, And that supply chain needs to be protected. It's one of the reasons the Germans lost its Stalingrad. The Russians came around the back side and attacked their supply chain. Once It couldn't be supplied that was it. Nothing new here. What's changed is the weapons and how we employ them. The tank was a perfect weapon during world war I and world war II. New and radical. Certainly worked well during the Iraq war as well. It doesn't work well in every environment. The Japanese did not employ big tanks. For good reasons. Will the tanks still be part of future warfare? Of course they will. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be best at what they do. Loitering drones that can identify enemy tanks and take them out with top hits Might replace ATGMs, But I think in the end they'll probably just supplement it. There's still the supply chain problems and issues and cost there as well.
@@RobFomenko - "logistics have always been a weak point of any army hahaha !!! Where you learn that dude ?? NOP, only for unprofessional armies, leaded by idiots. Just an example: Germany to Moscow distance is the same with Moscow to Germany, right ? But how then just Germany suffered a lot with logistics to get there and fight there, but the same do not occur when the russians hunted down the germans all the way back ?? Reason - the russians had competent maintenance officials, decent or even great logistics, when, on the other hand, the germans have only idiots in charge. Like some said, once you reach the rank of General, you are not worried anymore about tactics, but yes, about logistics. "It's one of the reasons the Germans lost its Stalingrad. The Russians came around the back side and attacked their supply chain. Once It couldn't be supplied that was it." Wrong dude, the russians ENCIRCLED them ! A much severe blow, because getting cut from your logistical chain is not at all the same with getting encircled ! So no, the n.a.z.i lost at Stalingrad because of a much simpler fact: they got SURRENDERED !!! Please do not invent BS - they got surrendered and obvious, one of the results when you got surrendered is you are cut out from your logistics. But the main thing is not you run out of ammo and/or ammo, but yes, you cannot retreat ! And the Stalingrad defeat was not a result of "logistics" ( even if that play a role in) but yes, because dumb generals allowed to get encircled. Educated commanders avoid, at any cost, such situations - dumb commanders, ignore that and later this lead to the destruction of that army. Reason you MUST avoid getting encircled in first place - right ? But Ukr never learned, they get in "cauldrons" since day one and their dumb commanders allow this again and again. "Loitering drones that can identify enemy tanks and take them out with top hits" - we are not yet there, mate ! Loitering drones today are easily brought down by AA fire or / and EW systems. Did you notice how many drones are loosing Ukr / day ? Any drone who depends on a real time connection with a human controller is a weak system, once that link can be jammed / cut anytime by a force who employ EW systems, the GPS can be jammed, etc. Remember the big expensive US drone who was captured and forced to land by Iran ? The reason why now USA refused to give Ukr expensive drones - because they know the russians will "steal" them easily. And a drone who can carry an ATGM is a BIG drone, who will light-up any radar in the region, thus an easy target for any AA system - so yeah, do not expect to see many drones able to hit tanks in Ukr since the russians dominate the sky there and they use a lot of AA firepower. You are not fighting there the Iraqi insurgents with rusted AKs, but yes, a modern army, with hypersonic missiles, nukes, etc - the kind of army US never fought since ww2 !
There's a big difference in the usage of both doctrines between East and West. The West use their big ticket items primarily for anti-armor with the Carl Gustav being the exception. Eastern forces use their RPGs for everything and aren't shy about shooting them at singular troops either. This means the West doesn't need massive inventories of these things to be effective, they just need enough to engage enemy armor. Which they already have enough units to do. They have other tools for engaging enemy troops over a wide area or entrenched troops in a reinforced building.
Not disagreeing with your point here. But isn't AT-4 likely to be used as anti -bunker or infantry when the situation is needed? I've seen some reports calling it a multi -purpose weapon that's more or less good for most situations when it comes to firepower for infantry. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Edit: Don't mind my English, it's not my first language. It's actually the third.
@@Flavio42442 Which isn't their specialized systems like the Javalin. They aren't firing off a missile worth tens of thousands against an emplacement. Also, the AT-4s effects against a reinforced building is suspect. If you have no chance of encountering an enemy vehicle you'd just leave the Javalin at home and bring more 40mm.
@@Talishar I see. Don't mind if I ask you this. Why the javelin Is so talked about when like any other AT systems, the javelin is actually a defensive weapon that can't realistically win entire conflicts? Or can it? I'm not familiar with the javelin or similar systems, that's why I don't ever put my option about them.
I would agree with you on the fact that perhaps many of our more technologically advanced weapons are overly expensive in comparison to cheaper more mass-producible versions, at the same time I think it is critical first to look at why they're so expensive especially considering the components that they're made out of. For instance the battery on the javelin is not only unreliable, but is also non-rechargeable and in comparison to modern batteries holds a much smaller charge while also having to be kept in a certain environment to prevent degrading. Because of this every single time that this battery is used you have to buy an entirely new one which is much more expensive then having a battery that you could simply recharge. If you replaced that battery with a Lithium-Ion battery you get the same result but with a much cheaper to produce and rechargeable option. As such doing so would drastically reduce the cost of using such equipment. And and that's just one thing, I'd be willing to wager that there's a million other things just like that in countless pieces of military equipment that cause the cost of these things to be exorbitantly over expensive.
Many of these weapons are old and considered obsolete especially the wire guided versions. Battery tech has improved since then. Fitting more modern battery systems can't be "that" much of a problem. Can it?
@@alanjenkins1508 maybe make a lithium version of the battery? Make a conversion kit? So when u need it quick and ready you can have it fresh from shelves, while the conventional battery can be stored for the future? Is it too much?
@@alanjenkins1508 well then don't use lithium ion, my point was that the battery design is old, and could be replaced with a much more effective and cheaper modern alternative version, that could save large amounts of funding. the fact that those batteries aren't rechargeable alone dramatically increases the strain on logistics they impose. Even if you don't use Lithium Ion, any form of rechargeable battery would be a massive upgrade.
The anti-tank meta seems to have plateaued, for now. The anti-air meta seems to have more buffs each time, along with their counter measures, more dynamic
Anti tank missiles are just one tool that’s part of the arsenal. Don’t give up on the rest of the tools thinking one will be the Swiss Army knife to replace the rest.
14:00 wut? Drones only multiply Artillery effectiveness! most of the casualties, on both sides, are still driven by artillery commanded with the help of spotter drones (even cheap, civilian quadcopters). The impact of attack drones such as the Bayraktar are blown out of proportion by media, just like ATGMs are. In reality, they almost never make it back home. Slow moving, easy to spot, limited capabilities... on the other hand, dirt cheap quadcopters spotting for artillery are being the most impactful tool of the conflict. Again, on both sides.
True. Is far easier to down a Bayraktar than a cheap Amazon bought, quadcopter . And in urban condition, I will say those cheap toys are even better, since they just can hang over a target until the first arty strike comes.
the Russians have adapted to anti tank missiles. they just assault with troops. they made the calculations and come up with solution of using tanks as back up or artillery. the gun on the tank are more valuable than the troops. it is working as you can tell on the battle field. the one thing the Ukraine war has done it has adapted the Russians to anti tank weapons.
The lack of discussion on how effective field artillery firing HE/SQ is at killing tanks and light armor is proving to be is interesting. I suspect that 50% of Russian armor losses are due to artillery firing HE rounds. I don't think it is appreciated in the West how vulnerable armored units are to effective artillery fire.
Fortunately while the General public fellates the Javelins and Nlaws, more serious discussion by wargamers, military circles and enthusiast has been a lot more inclusive. The Stugna got a lot of love back in March. Ukrainian Artillery has even been spoken off as better than NATO in certain areas.
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 - was never such thing like "Ukr artillery" lol ! Every fking piece of Ukr hardware was RUSSIAN, dude. Educate yourself. From bullets, guns and fighters. The russians are killed by weapons made by their own countryman, sadly. What most uneducated peoples, especially muricans, ignore is the fact this is a civil war between brother nations, who started with Ukr muppets killing their own peoples in Donbass for 8 years ( clear definition of "civil war" !) and russians joining those Ukr citizens from Donbass to fight the neonazi from Kiev. But main point is - 90% + of all Ukr hardware is russian at origins. Probably you have weapons made by some russian worker killing now peoples from his own family.
Artillery would have to be spot on target with their first shot. There are preset procedures for armor if there's artillery. Otherwise, the armor is gonna move and they can move pretty fast overland
@@andrewschliewe6392 excalibur munition has consistently scored direct hits at 40km hits 155mm he on top of a vehicle is gona knock it out but artillery has to constantly move or it will get counter batteryed also with the wide spread use of drines artillary is getting hit before it can get setup or moved warfare now days is all combined move fast hit hard and out maneuver the enemy is the way to win these days
Carl Gustav is one of the most cost effective systems in the world. Roughly $500 to $3000 per round. And the majority of IFV's you can take out with the simple HEAT round. The only time you would need the really expensive rounds is if you need to hit past 1 kilometer (iron sights). The fact that a CG with a HEAT round took out a T90 in Ukraine should open the eyes of people from the more super expensive systems.
More importantly, it provides a low-cost option for destroying bunkers & bridges, breaching structures, delivering screening smoke at distance, and hitting infantry with FRAG rounds.
@@MonkeyGus That is a mere technicality, fact remains that the CG with the cheapest ammo rendered a T90 inoperable to the point where it needed to be destroyed permanently in order to not fall into the Ukrainian armys hands
Carl Gustave is a somewhat bulky launcher you are stuck with after firing it. T-90 was a victim of all the best attack opportunities favoring the Carl Gustave soldier. Tank drove too close to a town or city full of mid rise buildings. Any tanks vulnerability increases the closer it gets to a built up area where the enemy is presented with top attack opportunities onto a tank. The missiles does not even have to penetrate the tank to disrupt it's operation. Just damage it's gun optics and periscopes is enough to rondure a tank useless.
The lack of proper supporting infantry tactics will always highlight the major weaknesses of tanks and other fighting vehicles. Tanks were made and still will be best in roles supporting the infantry, such as everything else on the battlefield should do.
Because Russia didn't declare war, they can't use their concepts. This means they don't actually have most of their infantry with their armored units to protect them
In history class, we learned and it was kind of driven home that the Germans had better tanks in World War II, but they had a very difficult time keeping the tigers in the king tigers in the field. They were so complicated and they had such a hard time getting replacement parts that they would often be out of commission, and once they were destroyed they were hard to replace, especially as their logistics system broke down. The Sherman's come on the other hand, we're easy to fix, they were a lot of them and it was possible to salvage parts from other tanks. A lot and also basically, they are operating under the assumption that any enemy can be defeated a short amount of time, if there was a 5-year long war, it would be difficult to keep up the same level of capability.
Ah yes the "tiger, kingtiger good" line, but one should not forget, those were the HEAVY "breakthrough" tanks in few numbers and came in at late 1942, the bread and butter of the Axis tanks were mostly medium, light tanks and "assault" guns, of these which the ordinary Sherman M4A1 and later versions were superior, when the Sherman was upgunned with the 76.2mm gun and calibre, even it could face Tigers head on if so needed, and that late in the war, the US/CANZUK had near complete air coverage in Europe so picking off a few kingtigers or panthers that were still in operating condition wasn't a complicated task.
I find your logic extremely flawed. Mainly… World War II is very very different from Modern Conflicts. There isn’t really any reliable comparison. Second… if shit were to hit the fan, western countries can and will ramp up production of equipment. Those that cannot can and will buy from the US of A. The costs remain but you can’t really be effective with Cheap garbage anymore. RPGs for example cannot penetrate the front of most MBTs in Service today and they wouldn’t really get close enough to do so. We in the west have insane training doctrines and we actually know how to protect tanks against AT attacks.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 the point of the video is that you don't necessarly can up the production of certain, more complex, itens. Take ship guns in ww2 for example, a bunch of Dido class AA cruisers had to use 4.5 in instead of the 5.25 inch gun, because they didnt had enough machinery to ramp up. US also had a Steel shortage which doomed something like the Alaska to be build only at thr end of the war. And you underestimate the RPG7... Also no isn't theres some stuff about tanks being hit time and time again just to go back to base and be repaired, you doctrine can be really good, perfect if you will, its not gonna make you invunerable to enemy action
@@gerfand But western countries are just plain better at training for alternatives. The optics and sensor packages on Modern Western MBT’s are able to be rotated 360 degrees, and since we don’t use our tanks in groups of 1 or 2 (like what the Russians are currently doing) there are more Tanks to spot potential targets. Add in the IFV’s and Infantry support, it’s unlikely that any enemy is going to be able to get the jump on our troops (Urban combat not withstanding) But as far as pertaining to superior Western AT weaponry, the hit ratio is high enough and there are enough in storage/being made to kill almost every tank in Russian/Chinese inventories, and with stuff like the Javelin and NLAW it’s usually a one hit kill, so not even our own tanks would survive a hit from them. The logic here that we should start using unguided AT weapons because they are cheaper is bonkers and retarded, and will only be putting our own soldiers at risk.
Also: Until there's a replacement that can do what a tank does, tanks will not be obsolete. They may struggle a bit more now than they used to, but obsolete? No.
As long as an opposing force continues to deploy tanks, the need for anti-tank technology will always be relevant. The rabbit hole of which you speak, about the continued use of tanks in modern warfare, is all boiled down to fighting fire, with fire. When the enemy turns up, bring the bigger gun. And when technology moves beyond this, then move with it. This is only as relevant as the latest trend. Be ready for change, but be able to successfully deal with the now.
I was a tanker from '82 to '92,,, Last two yrs I was with a T and E unit, during the Gulf War, we helped with the AAWS-M, later known as the Javelin,,,we've had cordless drills for more than 30 F'n YEARS !! The whole battery thing is a strait up cash grab by DoD Contractors, was around those guys for two years, can't unknow some things,,,,,Part #2,,It's great to send a turret 200ft(61m,for you metric, and smarter types!), and to blow lesser armored vic's to scrap, with an N-LAW but that's ONE shot per ONE man, and a LOT of bang for a LOT of BUCK, great if you're mounted, but any trekking, it seems a wast when all you REALLY need to do is STOP the tank/IFV,,,,I'm thinking an M72 in 80mm to 90mm, everyone in a squad carries 1-2,(3?), multi-purpose warhead, YOU GOT SOME FIRE POWER !!! And if you think(not you Mat) you just made an Armor Plated Pillbox,, have you ever heard the term "Bomb Magnet",, I can't speak for them, but I'D RUN ANY GAUNTLET to the WOODS, HOPE'N FOR THE BEST !!!!! If you can just STOP THEM !!! Then pick them off,,,,,,,,,
What do you mean overly reliant? Is there such a thing as overly reliant military wise???? These Anti-tank weapons work incredibly effective against all the odds its facing.
The RPG-7 will continue to relevant for a while, it becomes an improvised indirect fire weapon when mounted with 82mm mortars on modified boosters and it's also an excellent anti-personnel weapon. The Chinese have developed laser and thermally guided rounds for it too. The best AT weapon in the Ukrainian conflict however is the Stugna-P laser guided missile with its remote fire console. Its configuration allows you to fire the missile from behind cover, whereas systems like the Kornet, Konkurs or Fagot need the operator to be at the launcher to guide the missile manually via the onboard optic and controls. Half the time Russian guided AT weapons are used against infantry and built up targets, which brings up the question of if it's Anti-Tank weapons we're after, or just general purpose infantry guided weapons systems and weapons that you can fire remotely from behind cover.
The best anti tank missile in Ukraine is javelin and countrys have used remote fire anti tank missiles from decades from the early Russian one and British ones like swing fire
@@MrTangolizard i dunno dude, didnt seen any video of javeline hiting anything in this conflict, only footage of firing itself, maybe they killing the grass. On other side there a lot of videos of NLAW, Kornet and RPG hitting and destroying stuff. Problem with Javeline - Its absolutely obsolete outside its designated role, if there no tanks to shoot you just walk around with useless tube (and it takes 2 to operate it) 1 person with RPG can easily carry 5 different charges and use AT or AP depending on situation while being times cheaper.
@@iMost067 there 2 different types of systems a RPG is more comparable to a CG not a javelin and I would assume you haven’t seen any videos is because you maybe haven’t seen them not because it doesn’t happen I’ve fired a RPG and there trash
Anti tank missile(ATGM) is extremely expensive for infantry weapon. But for using against armored vehicles like MBT or IFV, or APC, it is are quite cheap and effective weapon. Modern AGTM costing $250k a pop is just 1/10-1/100 of price of modern NATO armored vehicles costing $3-20 M. And think of the maintenance, supply, logistic cost of these expensive armored vehicles. And crew training and paycheck, too. ATGM has low acquisition, upkeep and training cost. Even at low utilization and hit ratio of 10%, it pays still favorably for ATGM. Just expand manufacturing capacity of Javelin production by 10 times: from 4,000 a year to 40,000 a year by Lockheed-Martine. It will make Javelin price even cheaper.
In addition, there's the training and logistics cost as well. A tank crew is a big investment in time and money to train up (and hard to replace quickly), whereas with a modern fire and forget Anti tank missile, a standard soldier can be quickly trained up on it. And a Tank or AFV requires a whole support infrastructure, including specialised mechanics, fuel, transport to the battlefield and so on. When you factor in the lifetime cost _before_ conflict begins and the field support needed, the cost difference just massively increases.
Not quite. Yes a tank cost millions, but it caries 40-50 rounds at 10k per shot. Javelins are the equivalent, in terms of range (NLAW is not). Javelins cost $200k plus. The tank has 4 crew, a javelin team 2. Over a longer conflict the cost value favours the tank. A study quoted on Cheftans YT stated that for a major power tanks comprised 30% of their fire power for 2% of their personnel. Tanks have a very important role. What remains to be tested is if newer light tanks, like IFVs with 120mm are better. My conclusion is that while tanks are expensive, they represent great value for money.
@@KevinMcLaren71 In Ukraine, we did not see many active fighting or engagement of MBT in either defensive role or offensive role. They are usually hiding under shadow of forest or behind building or being destroyed on the road or street. Not many tank vs tank battle or breakthrough archived by marching army of tanks. I see not much benefit of having large army of MBT's. IMHO, army of self-propelled howitzer, coupled with reconnaissance UAV drones, seems to be much more useful than army of MBT's in both defensive role and offensive role. I think that MBT should be used only as close guard to protect army of artilleries and infantry.
"We should give the infantry cheap RPGs, and if they suffer more casualties because they have to get closer and the weapons are less effective, that's a risk I'm willing to take." Spoken like a true artillery man who never saw a more expensive, technologically complicated SPG or artillery system he didn't like.
I would go so far that all Western weapon systems are prone to this: a lot of them are a wonder of technology, but they cost a hefty sum and are not as available. After all, we are seeing issues with supply right now in Ukraine and NATO is not directly involved
The problem is that, Ukraine is limited in weapon it can use. Had it been a full scale war with NATO, javelin wouldn't be neither nearly as crucial nor is such high demand, most kills would be done by air to ground missiles and guided bombs. Oh, and don't forget, russian airforce would cease to exist.
@@solarissv777 a full scale war with NATO aould quickly bring the nukes into play, which makes any and all other asset look irrelevant (which is why there hasn't been one in the first place)
I feel that drones are complimentary to artillery -- drones spot the enemy, then artillery destroys it. A drone, particularly a small one, is unlikely to carry much ordnance itself, but if it's directing an artillery battery/regiment, then it has lots of firepower at its disposal.
Mr. Matsimus, you just came up with a very interesting topic. When I was at war, 30 years ago (ex. Yugoslavia), the most powerful anti-tank weapon was the RPG. Actually, not the most powerful but we always had an RPG on hand. M60BST Recoilless gun or 9M14 Maljutka were a rarity on the battlefield. We had another M80 Zolja and M79 Osa. These are weapons of close combat. If you have 2-3 tanks and / or AFVs in front of you, and if the vehicles are without proper support, you can let the vehicles in the point blank range. And a hit is guaranteed. That means 100 - 200m. In a situation when you are attacked by about 10 tanks, when they come to the point blank range, you are overrun. To prevent such situations, tanks should be destroyed at a greater distance. And this is where modern guided or self-guided systems come into play.
"modern" systems are no better than cheap, old ones ( like the ancient RPG ! ) in urban warfare ! Hell, a "modern" system is just a piece of crap ( is much bigger, heavier and bulky ! ) when you fight armor between houses and/or ruins. What use you have for "range" when your field of view is just 1-200 m ?? Reason why Chechen fighters hunt the Ukr with old RPGs - not because they cannot use modern systems, but because they need MOBILITY and firepower. A team of 2 can carry 8-10 rockets at will, for the old RPG. How many Javi.s can carry a team of 2 ?
@@mirandela777 I'd like to see an RPG 7. Take out an m1 Abrams. It never happened. Just because the RPG is still around doesn't mean it's the same weapon. The newly developed shape charges that the RPG has is not the same system. Of course it's natural for things to evolve over time and to get better at doing their job. Still, while I see your point, it still doesn't make any sense. Modern militaries use a multi-layer defensive system. The ability to hit out beyond meters or more means that you are going to start killing further out. As those tanks come in closer and realize that not only have they lost their platoon leader but their company commander and even battalion commander even before they get to see you, means that a lot of them will probably pop smoke and Get the heck out of there. If you wait until they're right, on top of you, you're going to get run over. Well, not every environment is conducive to shooting out at 3000 m, the same time not every environment is conducive to tank warfare. In heavy forest The ranges will be a lot shorter. And that of course doesn't even count air cover. Warfare is changing. You either stay on top of it or get above it, or lose.
@@RobFomenko - you are talking BS again dude - if you are an ignorant, that do not mean "never happened " ! lol ! - means just you ARE an ignorant ! Here, to "educate" you: ( rpg 7 vs M1 Abrams) "It could disable or effectively rendered one combat ineffective , yes. A hit to the rear of the turret could explode the rounds there , requiring a rebuild only possible at the LIma tank plant in Alabama. Some hits to the rear hull might disable the motor, or batteries, or a hit to the tracks , road wheels, sprocket , might render the tank immobile, until it is fixed. A “lucky” hit to the hull sides or a weak point in the armor scheme might penetrate to the crew area and injure or kill one or three crewmen. " source: Christopher Perrien Former 8 Years US Army 5 Active, at U.S. Army (1985-1993)2y
Your point is valid, however I think it's not applicable in this time. After graduating from basic, AIT and airborne School in 1976, the army deemed me a person that could be trained in the dragon anti-tank ATGM program. The dragon was not a fire and forget weapon. At the time other than the dragon and the tow missile, The only other thing we had was the LAW. While the law might take out a BMP from the side, it certainly wasn't any match for the t60. And I wasn't looking forward to having to use a dragon on a Soviet Armada of tanks swiftly coming towards me. Of course we have other things too, such as the m1 Abrams, the warthog, hellfire missiles from helicopters and drones as well as artillery. Now Things are a bit different but there's still the same. Truth is, that we were told that the big bad Soviets would be coming across the fulda gap with massive armor concentrations and we were going to have to hold them back with laws and dragons. Fortunately that never happened. Regardless of how expensive a NLAW or a javelin missile system is, it's still a whole lot cheaper than that tank you're firing against. It is just one part of a multi-layered system designed to stop Russian armor from coming at you. Do I think that it's a waste of money as an American taxpayer? Absolutely not! My youngest son is now an infantryman. I want to give him every advantage to stay alive in a conflict. If it means throwing dollars at it then so be it. I get the whole supply chain issues but what's next? Slinging rocks with slingshots? No. As long as there will be humans willing to fight other humans and use whatever resources they have, it's a lot cheaper and better for a nation's psyche, to have a well supplied and trained military, versus the alternative. Just ask Ukrainians.
My impression is not that modern militaries are "reliant" on them, more-so that they finally understand that it is a minimum requirement to have multiple of them with every squad.
I think the modern military as we've seen in several conflicts over the last twenty years are overly reliant on tactics and troop deployment that are a throw back. Failing to address the dangers of asymmetrical warfare and the technological advances of man pads and drones. But I'm sure many defense departments around the world are working feverishly to mitigate that new challenge. Thank you Matsimus.
The US Army has focused on asymmetrical warfare for several decades. Only recently has it started to prepare for conventional war again. You aren't a veteran of the US Army, are you?
@@aaronlopez492 Even back in the 70s and 80s when I was in the Army, we spent a lot of time training in asymmetrical warfare. Although my MOS was 11H (anti-armor), I spent a lot more time doing light infantry and counter insurgency training than anti-armor training. I trained with Special Forces, Rangers and French Commandos in this kind of warfare. After I got out in the 80s, they stepped up this kind of training even more for Iraq and Afghanistan. If we lacked sufficient training in any area, it was in large scale conventional operations.
Pretty much the entire western world has adapted for a asymmetrical warfare, indirect warfare, cyber warfare and even drones and man-pads. And it comes from a lot of experience from WW2 and forward. The importance of combined arms and adaptive forces is a big thing for most military today. Its a lot of other countries that are not adapted for this though. India, Russia, most of the middle east, most of Africa and most of south America. But then again they are relying on and facing a lot of equipment that is old so there has not been a need to adapt yet for them. Or they suffer from heaps of issues with corruption and what not.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Well technically speaking true, bombing an old man and a goat armed with a kalashnikov with a $150,000,000 weapons platform is definitely asymmetric warfare - wrong way around though.Only one side is depleting enormous resources.
I am amazed at the under utilization of drone technology, first thing I'd do is make a flying shot gun, next a flying automatic grenade launcher for bombing, lastly I'd make a dumb fire atgm carrier for attacking enemy armour.
War is the main driver of technology. You may say we are overly reliant on it but it's really nice to have to add to the generals and foot soldiers options. Anything that even gives you the slight advantage is always good. A modern day well trained solder is probably the most expensive infantry deployed combat platform in terms of difficulty to replace. For that reason, any technology that offsets the odds of attrition on your own side is a must have asset.
A lot can be learned from your video and this topic. Generally, this should serve to show how expensive conflicts are and thus why modern militaries should avoid direct conflict with each-other. Cheap and reliable tech should always be the mainstay of an army. However, as technology has improved so much over the past 60 years, it presents us with a force multiplier that cannot be ignored. While your ready supply of affordable AT weapons are issued and are being produced en masse in your factories from steel and wood, one guided ballistic missile or an EW campaign could potentially destroy future production. Modern warfare has since become very fast and total. While war always involved destruction of cities and farms, modern war makes it possible without even entering the opposing state’s territory. This makes all elements of war fighting susceptible to destruction. The key to overcome this is the will to fight on. So long as you can fight no matter the circumstances, the enemy would exhaust. But back to weapons. It makes sense to issue cheap and reliable weapons as a reserve/general issue system. For instance, an RPG 7 with traditional munitions available pre-1990, while still good, still can’t technically beat modern Active protection systems or even armor. But it doesn’t always have to. Combine arms fighting and effective tactics can share the burden of war fighting across branches. Use of unguided and guided anti tank weapons, communication, spotting, artillery, air assets, drones, radio/spectrum monitoring, terrain, weather, etc all have a role to play and should play that role. The standard infantryman should be taught how to utilize a LAW, a Gustav, an AT4, RPG 7, Mosquito, etc, while also having a latent production and reserve stores to tap into should their use be required. But emphasis should absolutely be on the use of advanced capable weapons systems as well as fortifying modern logistics and supply chains for national security purposes. Not to stir up things but letting China have access to the absolute majority of rare earth minerals certainly doesn’t help, no does isolating our oil producing allies
Good stuff Mat. I never wore a uniform but I follow these topics, and your channel among others extensively. ‘Murican myself but thanks for your service to the greater free world. A couple thoughts: We must always be wary of over reliance on ANY specialized system. We know well that our adversaries are clever and motivated, and must guard against our assumptions that any highly complex system will be reliable in a highly contested conflict against a peer (get that “near-peer” mentality outta here!) force. One thread you may want to pull a bit more: US Army TRADOC and others are doing a lot of work planning for future wars that are literally underground. The concept is based on the assumptions that 1) populations all around the world continue to urbanize (maybe deglobalization will slow or stop that trend) making urban combat ever-more probable and 2) that the drone revolution you mention (including loitering munitions, micro drones and networked swarms) will make risks to exposed forces unacceptably high, in many situations. The extended siege of the Azovstal steel plant gives a preview of this kind of battle. In this model, man-portable systems will undoubtedly remain vital. However I agree with your central point that we’re probably still over-emphasizing the higher-end systems and should think more about an “80/20” approach, weighted towards more reliable, economical and atrittable systems, even if they are less spectacular in performance….
Facts as a former scout infantry, current ng infantry bi agree with what you say, love your videos and telling the truth from an service members point of view. Especially that your Canadian, I worked with the Canadian dragoons when I was up at Drum. Massive respect keep up the great videos.
The RPG-7 is a dated system at this point. The only real advantage it has over the SMAW or Gustaf is the fact that the warhead size is not constrained by the tube. For future proofing that is good, being that a larger warhead can be designed and fitted far faster than replacing an entire system, but for the west to capitalize on that, they would be replacing all of their systems, for a platform that is significantly worse in weight, development, and familiarity to troops already trained on our current systems. The HEAA warhead fired by the SMAW supposedly has around 600mm of penetration, the AT-4 somewhere above 450mm, etc. For what they are designed to do, that is enough. It'd be a waste of time and money, and by the time its capabilities were on par with the closest two equivalents in US service (SMAW and Gustaf) it'd cost about the same.
The real benefit of the cheaper anti-tank options really seems to be the ability to hand them out at a lower org level. Not every squad can carry around a javelin and half a dozen missiles... Just about every squad can carry around an RPG and a couple of reloads. Quantity of fire, and opportunity *to* fire, is often underated... especially in an urban environment where sightlines can be short/narrow. Your comments about drones are interesting. In the current conflict they seem to be complimenting artillery as spotters, rather than having to rely on forward observers radioing in accurate coords, you have someone on the team with a live video feed of the target... Similarly, we are already seeing new tanks get outfitted with drone launchers/capabilities. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of tanks continues the moves towards autoloaders, but keep the fourth member as a designated drone operator for better spotting, situational awareness, and potentially even offensive capabilities.
100% agree, though I would extend your concerns to most Western military arms production. I also agree that drones are taking over the battlefield (RIP Redlegs, armor, and infantry).
The US at least relies on the part that, we plan to have air supremacy in almost any situation. We have smart artillery rounds, we have a shit ton of high quality tanks, and plenty of TOW and other system equipped mid level vehicles. So for this reason we figure we can spot and identify most large armored vehicles from a distance and destroy them using these methods from long distance. Odds are... the infantry are unlikely to suddenly get swamped in enemy tanks and only be able to count on themselves, their radio is their best weapon normally for that. In the cases infantry has to deal with armor, we do still have the system, like Javelin, arguably the or at least one of the best given its possible fire and forget nature and quite long range. If a random tank pops up that was hidden and some infantry are dealing with it, a good longer range single kill launcher in the squad is likely enough to deal with it. We do have the lower end launchers more for busting fortifications and lighter vehicles as well, but the reality is we can plan to equip our infantry with different launchers that require them to get closer to the big dangerous vehicles, and tell them to go charge and kill them. Or we can buy more smart artillery rounds, or more aircraft and let them call someone else up to deal with the problem instead, assuming those aircraft didn't wipe them all out before the infantry even got that close. So yes, many modern more technologically advanced countries do have rather... smart and expensive seeming anti armour launchers and missiles that might be quite expensive and supply chain troubled. But this is often a side effect of a different direction for budgeting and doctrine. If we value our infantry and don't want them to go charge up close to a tank we give them the longer range options. Those can't handle massed enemies, but our other hardware like aircraft and our own tanks can. So that's how we split our budgets and supplies and training. Now, how well this will work in reality... obviously varies case by case. But at least for the US, air supremacy does seem reasonable in many situations, and historically aircraft excell at finding and killing enemy armor given modern guided munitions. If you're mobile, again you probably got plenty of TOWs and tanks around, if your stationary or ground pounding them you're probably more defensive or at least advancing slowly enough there's some good artillery nearby. So ya, we probably will only need a limited number of munitions to counter armor for our infantry unless something somewhere majorly gets messed up. Good thing we can still use and have some cheaper launcher options... but cheap or expensive, who says we can even ship/supply them to a location if it's so cut off that we can't use these other options. In those cases individual more reliable pieces of hardware is arguably better for what you can store or ship in before lines get cut or something. Is it perfect, no... but it's a plan to make do with the situations we'd have with the budget and limits we have. Overall, I think it's solid. Can't argue a few more anti armor warheads on the Karl-Gustaf in storage might not be a bad idea.... but overall, I don't think it's really as big of an issue as you seem to be thinking or asking in this video. And ya, no surprise ukrainians don't have the dedicated logistics and communications set up for handling launchers and batteries and everything. You listened to the account from people fighting over there? Shit's often extremely chaotic, lacking clear organization, plenty of rough jurry rigged groups of people only generally knowing where others are in many cases. And with people using the Javelin for it's optics (which are great, and often used to spot stuff without actually launching a missile) you will run through batteries in some cases before you run through the missiles. They aren't trained on the exact times they'll last in varied weather or conditions. They don't have the set up supply to call back and get some more reliably or to know if they'll even be able to in another day or two. It's not ideal for multiple reasons there so ya... problems can and do happen. And for training... if someone needs to spend a day training to use something... that's not that much of a problem I'd argue. If they spend longer like on the Javelin... still ok. For reliability, Javelin is pretty reliable for the US, when used by people trained in them. And no one thinks we're invulnerable, we just think we have an option to counter the enemies, through various means... man carried launchers being one of them.
You mentioned that artillery might be the weapon that ultimately becomes obsolete, but what has Ukraine been asking for the most from the west.. its not anti-tank weapons but artillery. And as for the tank, well nothing has really changed since its was invented, its been used primarily for infantry support and thus why Russia is using some of its old T62 tanks for just this purpose. What Ukrainian troops are also discovering is anti-tank weapons in the Donbass which has a lot of open flat territory are not so useful.....except when they can defend towns, villages etc...
Thank you for another great video, your channel is truly a blessing. I salute everyone’s efforts analyse current events without diving into insane bias, as very many channels sadly started to do now. Also there so many incoherent footages, and some of them even edited, some reuse old videos from preceding low boiling conflict there. Reliability of incoming data for third side is really quite a concern, it’s easy to jump onto self serving conclusions.
Most of the Russian tank losses have been due to artillery and mines. There are videos of Russian T72s taking upwards of 5 javelins and still being mobile. Having said that a well placed ATGM will still take out a tank. Depends where you aim. There are videos of the most sophisticated M1A2S tanks being taken out by Soviet era ATGMs
Grain of salt, since I'm no military analyst or expert on equipment and doctrine, but as far as I can tell, the "overuse" of ATGMs seems to mostly be media hype and not reflective of what any nation is actually doing. As you mentioned, there is still a lot of focus on the use of tanks, such as that next-gen KF-51 or the MPF, and the MBT still has a lot to offer as our primary armor killer. People also have a bad habit of thinking in body counts and carnage, rather than consequences. Using the US Army as an example, since every light infantry platoon potentially has two Javelins, a skirmish between say, a Russian tank platoon and American rifle platoon is actually a fight between 3 exposed tanks and 2 concealed AT positions, which the Russians already know (from our TO&E). That's a hell of a risk to take to kill a handful of foot soldiers. It's kind of the same logic as historical Pikes and Bayonets: sometimes the mere inevitability of evisceration is all you need to win a battle.
OK well America has a bigger population so we could take the losses. I'd rather lose 4 guys to a tank than 4 guys AND a tank 4 US infantry men cost the taxpayers are 130k, 1 Abraham's cost 6 million! US could lose two men for every 1 ruskie they take out and still come out on top. All of this doesn't matter as nukes would be flying anyways, unless russ launches thiers and we have some pussy in office that refuses to retaliate.
This rant really doesn't seem to have any basis in reality. First off. the answer to the question asked is no, until such time as armored vehicles become non-existent, a means to deal with them is needed on all levels and for all ranges. Second off, the implied concern that Javelin production is happening at the expense of other systems is completely unfounded as far as I'm aware. Lastly, stand off weapons like the Javelin allow such public sentiment driven armies such as our own to avoid major losses for as long as possible while still remaining tactically viable. One might argue logistics, but a Javelin is still cheaper than an Abrams or Leopard 2.
I agree, im unsubbing, this rant was stupid and not grounded in reality, maybe if he made this video with Perun, who actualy seems to be able to take facts.
Anti-materiel rifles can do the job but they are limited on what they can do Recoilless rifles are add more punch but are limited in range ATGM are all purpose weapons able to be used in any situations The Javelin is expensive but like the Hellfire, it was morphed into all purpose weapon Cheaper would be nice but as Ukraine is showing, cheaper is definitely not better
As American general in Iraq, Norman Schwarzkopf, said; until you have boots on the ground you haven't won the war. Artillery and drones can do many things but they cannot win the war, tank is what is needed to spearhead infantry into the territory, put boots on the ground, secure the land and set up the next forward offensive. Anti-tank weapons are huge moneymakers for arms industry but hardly effect the final outcome of the war.
No worries Mat, artilery will remain a thing for a long time. If not forever. It's still, and will remain so, the most reliable way of delivering relatively inexpensive explosives in a relatively large amount on the target that is relatively far away.
I really like this video, really love you discuss military not in black & white, most people are too black & white whenever they discuss military topic, especially the people in the comment, military topic is complex, this is the reason why i still sub to you
Yes dude. We need them. A single tank can do a lot of damage to men and infrastucture. Those systems are still less complex and cheaper that said tank or apc.
That heavily depends on if ADS gets deployed or not, and the current Ukraine conflict has pressured various militaries to put a lot more money into things like EmRA (Electromagnetic Reactive Armor, think ERA but uses electromagnetism instead of explosives) and deploying ADS. Given that its likely that ADS will be commonplace and the fact that after the current initial run of IR Continous Wave lasers the various militaries want to invest in Blue-Green and UV lasers (especially of the _pulsating_ kind)... It is likely we'll see something straight out of Battletech, where a single missile isn't going to do much other than a coinflip on getting shot down while _salvos_ of missiles have a far better chance at hitting the target.
There is always the question whether your armed forces wants to be on defence or offense, if it wants to fight a defensive warfare than one may be able to do without tanks, armoured personnel carriers, mechanised infantry etc then anti-tank weapons, anti- aircraft weapons can somehow manage things, but if you want to fight an offensive or maneuver warfare then tank, armoured personnel carriers, artillery and a proper co-ordinated action between armour, infantry and artillery is a must and also proper air-cover and air support is also necessary for the success in the battles.
The war in Ukraine continually proves that what General Omar Bradley said continues to be true….”Amateurs study tactics; Professionals study logistics”. Tactics are important, small unit tactics are what allow a smaller force to overcome a larger force, and it has happened countless times throughout history, but tactics are more on the level of company, battalion, and brigade commanders. Once you get up to the level of General, and you are commanding tens of thousands up to hundreds of thousands of soldiers, you are (or should be) far more concerned with logistics and supply lines. The fact that western sanctions have shut down Russia’s largest and only tank and armored vehicle manufacturer (Uralvagonzavod) due to its reliance on foreign parts proves that Russia has not been in a position to fight an ongoing global conflict for quite some time. Russia is now sending T-62 tanks to Ukraine because they cannot build new T-72’s, T-80’s or T-90’s, or repair the damaged ones. This will further complicate logistics since the T-62 fires different ammunition from the newer Russian tanks (115mm vs 125mm). Tanks are definitely still going to be around for quite awhile. Mobile protected firepower, which is what a tank is at its core, is going to be needed on battlefields for decades to come. The difference is in how you use them. Desert Storm proved without question that it isn’t just what kind of tank you are using, but HOW you are using them. Russia has used the same basic tactics since before WW2, which is to overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers. Unfortunately for Russia, modern weapons allow a very small number of soldiers to annihilate very large numbers of opposing forces, and as long as the logistics train keeps running, there isn’t anything that Russia can do about it short of resorting to nuclear weapons. That’s a road I don’t believe even Putin is stupid enough to go down. But NATO is prepared to respond, even if he does.
@@shaider1982 every Allied General was surprised by the German offensive during the winter of 1944-45. That is, every Allied General except for Gen Patton. The fact that the Allies had properly planned and secured their logistics is what allowed them to quickly reinforce their lines and overcome the German offensive. The only reason Gen Patton was able to turn his entire Army of over 500,000 men 90 degrees and move them over 100 miles in two days to relieve Bastogne, was because they had the fuel, food, ammunition, trucks, and other supplies needed to immediately mount a counteroffensive.
@@shaider1982 ironically his strategic red haired stepchild was one of the very few who did see the intelligence reports out of the Ardennes prior to the Bulge and actually planned for it. Generals need to be logistically sound as well as tactically sound.
😂😂😂😂oh! you were finished?.. well allow me to retort...Russians are winning Big Time in this proxy...one hand in a pocket. Putin??😂😂😂 What does Vladimir Putin look like? Does he look like a bitch?! Does he look like a bitch? No? Then why are you trying to fu*k him like a bitch? 😎 ..did you ever wrongdoing..heard that? After all, the equation is: No Russia, no World, that is certainly 100%. 1/1
Everyone is so impressed with the potential of drones and unmanned vehicles. The first time an enemy on a large-scale level disables or even turns these systems against its users via electronically jamming of communication or hacking, the infatuations phase over these systems will quickly vanish.
I think you are looking at the problem from a single side of the equation. Tanks are more expensive than ever before and have even more complex production and maintenance. A weapon system that is ten or one hundred times cheaper than the thing it destroys on a regular basis and doesn't have extremely high failure rates puts more strain on the enemy than it puts on you. My understanding is that the simpler options can be provided in quantity to western units. That capability didn't go away.
Great video as always. I dont think we should be afraid of technology, I do not think artillery is on the way out, on the other hand recon drones makes artillery so much more dangerous. What we should be afraid of is not involving the end users (soldiers) when designing and implementing new technology. I have never used Javelins. But reading about the battery issues (I remember reading similar issues about Stingers?) it is quite clear this is not a technology issue, but bad design and lack of end user involvement from the procurement teams. And it baffles me that this has not been remedied a long time ago. Tank vs anti tank weapons. Tanks are not obsolete. Anti tank weapons can not replace them. Anti tank weapons are defensive weapons that can be very effective in ambush situations, but who in their right mind would use them in offensive operations against tanks? Tanks can do both defensive and offensive operations, but they are more expensive and have a huge logistical footprint. Still, Ukraine continually asks for heaver weapons including tanks, which clearly shows anti tank weapons alone are not enough.
From what I expect is that ATGMs are in short supply of the demand, a lot of stockpiles around the world are going to be empty. So it won't just be re-filling these stocks but also about how much should the stockpiles be expanded. The prior stock levels were quite low, maybe like 2 rockets per squad? That is not going to last more than a day of intense combat. Of course, for low intensity conflict it might last a week to a month. Because of this drastic rise in demand that will last for a while I fully expect a lot of ATGM push. But both drones and the advanced ATGMs do share the problem of requiring chips, which is an industry that has become even more strained and it is an industry that is hard to get going from scratch. Even China's been struggling to get its chip industry rolling, probably due to massive amounts of subsidies incentivizing people who arn't a good pick but have government connections to win the subs. As for tanks, well, we do see examples of tanks taking multiple ATGM hits and still function while others take one hit and launch a new satellite. Without knowing the vehicle's similarities in protection measures I can only assume that one has its kit in order and the other one might have been sold off/lost in logistics. The absence of infantry support to collaborate with the tanks is also a big part, tanks going on the attack unsupported is basically suicide. This isn't world of tanks where infantry don't exist and you have an automated detection ring around yourself while being invisible so long as you are partially concealed by a bush.
Supply always adjusts for demand if you're a producer country. We can make ATGMs far faster than we can make tanks destroyed by them. The ROI is off the charts.
@@mfuchs2004 though, some of these ATGMs are also multi-purpose and get thrown at more than just tanks. So some might have just stocked enough thinking, "can't need that many for just tanks." to now realizing that they need more and, as you've said, its easy to scale, transport, and store these.
Low cost "dumb" systems are definitely useful for fielding large numbers, but they're so limited in range that they're limited in their useful scenarios. In large open areas (Ukraine has a lot of those) you'll struggle to get within the 300m or so required to use an AT4 or Carl Gustaf effectively without being seen by enemy armour, where as an NLAW can reach 800m and a Javelin over 4000m, giving the operators much more safety. Simple systems are of course very useful in shorter range urban combat, but tanks shouldn't be getting too urban anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with the point you're making. Generally speaking the US is driving a move to more complex weapons, with sensor/hardware driven autonomous systems, which are networked with loitering capability. The aim is to ensure higher kill % from a single weapon, to maximise the value gained from the reduced number of delivery systems (basically we have fewer aircraft and artillery). The opposite approach, large numbers of lower capability weapons with a lower kill % (lets call that Russian approach) has its own merits, but in order to get parity of impact, you need many more delivery systems and shorter ranges of contact, which means much higher risk deployments. Isn't this really much the same approach as for Tank systems. Western tanks have much better fire control and sighting systems that allows (drives) longer range engagements and therefore a higher kill % with a lower probability of loosing your own Tank force. Thus we maximise the effectiveness of our smaller Tank force size against numerical superior opposite using less effective systems the require closer engagement ranges. I disagree on Drones in general. At the moment, most Armies haven't bothered to deploy any self defence system, whether EW/ECM driven or hard kill capability. especially against small sized recon drones. Surely artillery (or Tanks, infantry) should be protected by mobile AA and anti-drone weapon systems alongside whatever IFV they are deployed by. At the moment, we don't have much organic capabilities to deploy in this area (the UK army in particular).
You hit it right on the nail about the javelin batteries. Once you fire you have 4 hours to find targets or battery I out. Meaning you better not miss n find targets fast. Specially for $169k a pop.
About the javelin Vs kornet topic. Task& Purpose touched on it in one of his videos and I agree with him: javelin is 2-3km while kornet is 5km and can be 10km. But where does one infantryman find ranges of up to 10km in strategically important areas like cities. The 2-3km javelin is perfect for the avarage range infantry finds on the battlefield. But speaking of cities, the most important battlegrounds, the ranges keep getting smaller and suddenly one no longer needs smart munitions to kill a tank. One dumb munition fired at a correct angle might even bypass an active protection system.
I don’t think drones will make artillery obsolete if for only the reason you cite of cost. How much is a drone (suicide variety or otherwise) vs. an artillery shell? I think drones make the spotting job for artillery potentially easier but payload is an issue for them. And just as you said ATGMs are expensive so are Switchblade drones or their Turkish or Israeli variants. Cheaper than a tank but more expensive than artillery shells. Artillery will also be needed anytime you face an Anti-Access Area Denial scenario where you cannot call in airstrikes.
The phrase "anti tank" is a bit of a misnomer Since anti tank weaponry can just as effectively be used against literally any armored vehicle and in cases of things like the SPIKE missile even some aircraft aren't safe
The one of the biggest reason they are so expensive is we don't buy very many of them at one time if we ramp up production and produce just more than a few dozen a month the volume would bring down the price
Good insight. I was in the Marine's from 76-82, so I have seen a bit of technological change! I have a feeling the man-portable AT weapon system will probably transform into something more long-range and drone coordinated. I'm wondering if the tank isn't the one becoming obsolete and we'll end up with drone warfare!
It seems to me that a layered approach would be the most effective solution for infantry units. For example, a squad in the U.S. army of 14 soldiers could be armed with one Javelin team and three Carl Gustav teams. That would give them varied capabilities depending on the range and type of threat. The Javelin team could concentrate on tanks at longer ranges and the carl Gustav teams could concentrate on APCs, bunkers and infantry at shorter ranges. The rest of the squad can lay down suppressive fire with its machine guns and automatic weapons. This approach would hold down cost without sacrificing fire power.
This is a arms race between armor vs weapons. The weapons against tanks is superior to the current tanks, and the tanks that can withstand those weapons are just coming out
Agreed, but it shouldn't be the case. Tanks are dead. They serve no useful purpose in a tactical environment that isn't better performed by other systems.
High tech agm being too technical to be reliable is like mlrs guided rockets vs artillery. Artillery can’t compete on range or accuracy, but artillery only wins on cheap cost and volume.
Matt - isn't arty the counter to ATGM's? If there's a bush out there, drop a few rounds of arty or mortar on it. Tree line where the ATGM teams can be hiding? Arty it. Ditto combined arms - send the infantry up first, supported by said arty and armor....and the recon / drone tech. Man with a rifle (and drone and arty / mortar on call) vs ATGM team....
Artillery has it's limits when scouting-by-fire. It's expensive for that role, the shit breaks and the Infantry just filters back in. Worse yet for guys like Putin: he doesn't want to destroy Ukraine. He wants to steal it for himself. That makes him unwilling to properly commit his most destructive weapons systems.
I always figured a huge part of the cost is actually price gouging by the defense industry. IIRC, it was done with the Apache, I'm sure it's being done by every other manufacturer and other systems. Crack down on those companies taking advantage of government contracts and taxpayer money. I do agree though. Also, is the Gustav really that expensive? I would have thought it one of the more affordable options.
Speaking of India, every combat section has a Carl Gustav or an RPG depending on the operation area. But they're still buying hundreds of Spike ATGMs from Israel.
I am taking issue with your point of view. It is not that the Russian or ex-soviet systems have been all of a sudden forgotten, it is because, before the war in Ukraine, Eastern anti-tank systems were being used on NATO, Israeli or other vehicles in Afghanistan, The Middle East, Lebanon, etc, and there were next to no engagements of Soviet or Russian armored systems by systems designed in the west since Desert Storm or when the Canadians took out Serbian tanks in the Medac Pocket ( Tow missiles knocking out Serb Armored vehicles in 1993, PPCLI engagements) or Syrian rebels using TOW supplied by Israel in recent years . So, yes, it is good to see that Javelin, NLAW, LAW and Carl Gustav systems are doing what they were designed to do. BooHoo if these systems cost money, that is the price of doing the war thing, but better to spend money than having soldiers being killed because of cost-cutting measures or Tax Payer issues. There is not one battle-winning system, it is a combined weapon arena.
hes saying to look at cheaper alternatives not only because they are cheaper but the more expensive stuff cant be turned out as quick as well as to not forget that the enemy has these capabilities as well.. (in the field if faced with 5 enemy tanks would you rather your crew had 10 cheaper AT systems/rounds good to 2k or 1 high tech one good to 4k? )
@@blackdeath4eternity But we are, Europe sent Ukraine some realy realy realy cheap shitt, just what they need. Tons and tons of cheap weapons and a few of the over the top weapons. This video is not grounded in reality.
What find wonderous in the current conflict is the imagination of the defenders, specifically the use of commercial drones to direct fire to drop hand grenades on infantry, mortar crews ,RPG teams ect.. It just goes to show how important training and morale is. There just some things you can't cheap out on.
Cheap Amazon drones ( under 100-150 USD ! ) still can hang over a sniper nest and "guide" the HE round fired by an 50 yo T64 from 2-3 km distance ( or more) or just signaling the position for an arty battery. On Telegram are hundreds of vids where you can see the scaring results when you simply cannot take a step outside when the enemy has 2-3 cheap drones over your head. You will never know/see/hear before it is too late and a shell land on your pants.
Warheads delivered by supersonic rockets are impressive. However, larger drones carrying the same type warheads could do the job. Not on the battlefield maybe, but hidden tanks could become targets from the air. They would need to be low cost and easily available but provide another means of destroying enemy vehicles.
@@Dave5843-d9m - you simply cannot use a large drone for important targets - like that meeting days ago when a bunch of Ukr generals and commanders were "kalibrated" simply because: 1 - drones are SLOW ! Very slow, compared to a cruse missile. You get the info about target, you need to strike fast, before the targets changes location. 2 - big drones ( big enough to load a large warhead, 500kg lets say) are easy prey to ANYTHING, hell, even a ww2 era weapon can take them down with no sweat !Ukr battlefield is not Yemen, where big USA drones can hang over a target area for hours, without any worry ; A big drone like that will be immediately spotted by dozens of radars, and downed by hundreds of AA systems in place.
I remember not that long ago,they said hollow charge warheads were being made redundant with chobham type armour,then also with ERA. But now we have tandem warheads to deal with ERA,but every new technology begets another new technology to defeat it. If you're not careful,it'll get to the situation where one power launches it's single strike weapon against another power,only to be taken out by the other sides single weapon. I don't know the answer,well except for we stop continually fighting each other & try & co-operate with each other to deal with much more pressing problems the planet faces.
Very good points! People - and possibly also military planners - are taking the effectiveness of ATGWs for granted it seems, not considering indeed A. the spiraling cost, B. the fact that there are low tech countermeasures or countertactics imaginable, that will degrade the effectiveness of ATGW operators (heavy shelling with delayed fuzes to penetrate foxholes/trenches, specialized sniper teams that specifically identify and eliminate ATGW crew for example) and finally C. that the tank industry hasn't been really sitting idly watching the introduction of ever more sophisticated ATGWs. Newer and better APS-systems and electronic countermeasures (ECM) will find their way to main battle tanks. When looking at the war in Ukraine, some may tend to think that all a defender has got to do, is dug in really deep, pop up as soon as massed mechanized formations roll by and Bob's your uncle. Looking more closely, certain sources already suggest (see the video of Red Effect on the matter of a singel T-90M being lost) that not all tanks are equally vulnerable and that tank tactics seem (surprise, surprise) matter, as well as the effective apllication of combined arms doctrine, modern sensors, UAVs and sound (i.e. scrambled, frequency hopping) communications and coordination. Anyone who's championing this war as the victory of the ATGW is learning all the wrong and overly simplistic lessons here. Another point of contention is this: as you say @Matsimus, the supply lines of ATGWs are under stress, with certain critical parts being hard to come by. Have you noticed that thusfar only the least sophisticated Russian tanks appear to have been taken out in quantity, while very few if any advanced ones have? There's therefore a considerble chance that while western stockpiles deplete, the Russians still have their best tanks in reserve, albeit in less massive numbers. Now suppose these roll in and are bing used by properly trained crews, competent commanders and in perfect sync with the other combined arms on the battle fatigued Ukranian forces...
A couple slight points of contention I would like to address: 1. No discussion of asymmetric warfare or its use in modern battle calculus. Pretty clearly this is the reason behind the interest in ATGMs in most modern militaries. It's a cheap and effective way to repel superior armored forces with a dispersed and protracted insurgent campaign. 2. The arms being given, at least initially, to Ukraine have not been cutting-edge equipment. It's been more NATO clearing out old stock of 20+-year-old equipment and "donating" it to Ukraine, for a fee. Nothing in capitalism is ever free; there is always a cost associated. 3. Western oil companies were primed to start tapping into the oil and natural gas reserves in the Donbas and along the Crimean coast, which Ukraine had recently leased them. As much as I would like to believe this is a battle of principle, I think it is much a war of politics and economics. Ukraine has a lot of resources that it would love to export to the world's markets but Putin seems to prefer to keep them under a new iron curtain. NATO is content to wage a proxy war with Ukraine caught in the middle as long as it doesn't transcend their border and until things reach a tipping point, it's going to be a lot of stalemates and pointless bloodloss, of both military and civilian lives. Welcome to the 21st century, where all wars are fought over diminishing supplies of fossil fuel reserves.
Some are beginning to say that tanks are becoming obsolete because of this. But consider this-as long as there are small arms and bomb threats to the infantrymen, there are still a requirement for fast mobility in warfare(it still is faster to move on a tracked or wheeled armour than on foot), and the evolution of active and passive protection against anti-tank weapons is moving forward, tanks and mechanised armour will continue to be there
Nope, sorry... The real war has always been/will be in the sky, including the last days of the second world war. To stubbornly fight the ground forces is nothing but human stupidity. In fact, the moment an army takes control of the air, the war should have ended there. But today, there are no commanders who will understand this kind of doctrine, and it will not be in the short term.
Depending on price and production
@@mastermariner490 well, as long as arms manufacturers see this arms race as a business, expect some of them will always offer at a lower price but with the same benefits and advantages.
Unless they can make something that has the fire and maneuver a tank can provide, a tank will exist…
The current war could not have made tanks obsolete. Tanks were made obsolete by Saggers in 1973.
Artilery seems to be getting along well with drone technology. Even civilian market drones are working as a boosters to artillery fire effectiveness on modern frontline.
Kind of like spotting balloons of old in a way. Come full circle.
Long rang precision artillery with AP capabilities combined with skies filled with small drones will be crucial in the comming decades.
@@RickardvonEssen And in the future, infantry will be forced into underground war. At least from what I heard.
It is doing well with Artillery with Russian already.
The artillery duel is the really interesting part of the war in Ukraine right now, moreso than the ATGM's that were the hero of the first month.
I think artillery and drones will become an increasingly blurry concept over time. Like, artillery will launch an loitering munition, which flies around until the enemy artillery fires, and then you have counterbattery fire coming in within a few seconds rather than within a few minutes. In just 5-10 years, the artillery duel currently happening in Ukraine will seem like the every end of an era of old fashioned artillery. And all the "addictive" smart junk is gonna be key to the new era. When you can do accurate fire at 10x the range, and improve your time to hit by 10x, the cost of the smart stuff makes sense. And remember, stuff like Javelin is basically 1980's technology. Today a Raspberry Pi is $25, and the CPU in a cheapo cell phone might be barely over $1, and they are insane supercomputers from the future compared to the smarts in something like a Javelin. The smarts won't actually be a huge driver of the cost of ATGM and Artillery systems going forward. The silicon is cheaper than the explosive. All of the cost of military gear is really from custom engineering and low volume of production compared to consumer goods. You can basically throw in CPU's for free. And when you make everything smart, you bring down the unit costs of teh smart stuff with economies of scale.
I really appreciate the fact that you do your best to remain neutral and respectful with the topics and content. Reasons why I am still subscribed.
No, I don't think we are getting to comfortable within the technological bubble. What we are seeing is that artillery is becoming more precise, longer ranged and cheaper and easier to keep supplied. Precisely because the drone technology is out there.
Wrong. We've generally made our systems so expensive and time consuming to produce(by chasing the cutting edge of technology) that we don't have enough of them to protect ourselves and can't replace losses in war. Western military stockpiles are pretty small, we can't afford more and we generally don't have cheaper "good enough" solutions to make up the numbers when it matters.
@@alexdunphy3716 Sounds more like a problem with planing and stockpiling then the weapons.
The video is basically an appeal against the general public's fascination with new advance weapon systems the media always reports on and how they are not the wunderwaffe thats gonna change the face of war forever.
How it is dangerous to assume that these systems are not without their own flaws that cause problems.
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 Lucky us then, who have a ton of cheap weapons.
@PJ Rivera Nato strategists have in case of a large scale near peer conflict given most modern weapons a life expectancy of around 6 months up to a year. That was the optimistic assessment. The biggest loss of active units was not destroyed but stuck in maintenance. A lot of our fancy gear has the same issue German tanks had during WW2 over-engineered and overly reliant fine tuned equipment. Meaning stuff breaks easily even when just taking a hit this also has to do with better modern weapons aimed at them.
So in case of a near peer conflict expect to see a lot of the good old reliable popping up pretty quickly unless one side manages to dominate the early conflict.
You make a great point, in the event of a full scale war there is a big question of if western countries have the capacity to field these advanced systems without expending their supply very quickly.
I saw an article that the company that makes the Javalins isd doing it's best to ramp up production as quickly as possible. I think you will find that the same goes for the NLAW as well. The thing is that what is being used in Ukriane is a massup of all different kinds of anti-tank systems some high tech and some low tech, but the thing is that Ukraine is using all of them smartly because they are like a NATO military in command structure. They have their own system, as well, in Ukraine that they are using very effectively.
But my dude, who were those weapons designed to fight? The Russians. With the small amount given to Ukraine they have destroyed a significant amount of Russia's tanks. Immagine if the hellfires, drones, and 10,000 Abrams were involed.
The war would probably be over by then. A modern, full scale war probably won't last very long.
@@flossordie2256 In general they were designed to fight a near peer opponent who has a traditional fighting capability, ie another country with an army, which is the kind of fighting the armed forces of any country should be getting ready for.
@@flossordie2256 they have not. They have destroyed quite a few tanks from Donetsk and Lugansk, surplus soviet-era stuff. The Russians haven't even bothered to send their modern weapons to the battlefield.
The less expensive systems definitely have their place especially at knife fighting distance, but long standoff atgm’s are an excellent force multiplier, and preserve the lives of infantry especially when fighting armor heavy forces ,and should be considered to be essential to an effective modern fighting force along with the less expensive types 😎
Infantry and armor will always have a duel to see how far away they can kill each other.
The key thing to understand is that any military needs a variety of weapon systems that give them options to adapt to any situation.
Its not just about having the best kit for specific scenarios but having the right tools for the right jobs.
less expensive? 4 javelin launchers with 3 missiles each is equivalent in cost to an M-1 series tank that holds 40 rounds. The range for both is the same. However, the round from the M-1 series tank will be much faster from firing to hitting the target, as well as much, much faster firing a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th round. The only benefit of the Javelin is it can be a Fire and forget; however, that's because it takes so long to get on target in comparison to a tank.
@@andrewschliewe6392 How so? 4 CLU: (249700 * 4) + 12 missiles: (12 * 240000) = $3,878,800 and the cost of modern M-1 is around $8,920,000. Even T90 is ~$4,5000,000 in 2016 (account for inflation and you'll get even more). And no, you cannot stop neither modern M1 nor T90 with just an rpg7 (at least it is highly unlikely).
I'm not sure it's really an issue of modern armies being overreliant on ATGMs as much as the spiraling cost of ATGMs in the West and ATGMs being used in a general fire support role against enemy hardpoints. So armies need to become more selective of the targets they use ATGMs against and reintroduce recoilless rifles, grenade launchers, and heavy rocket launchers to deal with unarmored targets. Or there needs to be a new class of lower-cost guided munitions that can fill the same fire support role but armed with modular anti-personnel or demolition warheads instead. To a certain degree, I believe armed drones are filling that role.
Translation: Are modern militaries too reliant on keeping their troops alive?
Pretty much. It's why the US wasn't able to beat Vietnam or The Taliban.
Enemies know that to get the US out of war is to make it last as long as possible and as bloody and expensive as possible, Americans are far too liberal and can't stand pain.
Without close air support, destroying a $4 million dollar tank and crew with a $25k NLAW is quite cost effective and may be the only option available depending on circumstances.
But you have to get closer to artillero to do that n troops are more important than equipment. Plus not all of those will hit target or destroy them. Once you shoot you better run n hide. If allow
@@havanascp9602 And how many artillery shells are needed to take out a 2-man anti-tank crew on the move?
Indeed, you also need to upkeep a tank and it's very expensive
I'm a former American Army armor officer and doctrinally NATO trained for a long range battle all through the Cold War and our weapons systems reflected that including our ATGM's. Javelin was a direct result of realizing that it's predecessor Dragon was lacking in practically every aspect of it's performance, and as such was designed to give infantry a realistic ability to engage armored vehicles at intermediate ranges beyond the effective range of more man portable units like AT4, LAW, and RPG.
But terrain dictates tactics, and much of what we're seeing in Ukraine is either extreme medium to long range ATGM strikes or ambushes. I'm sure that in some of the city fighting RPGs of all sorts were rapidly depleted but a perfect example of the limitation of those type of weapons in those situations is the video where the NLAW is fired at the Russian tank at inside minimum arming distance and the weapon just breaks up on the turret. Which may fall back to your comments about adequate training.
I know that in the American Army force structure has flexed so many different times over the years and apparently is doing so again to reflect a more balanced mix of IFV/armor in a composite platoon. That will be a lot of firepower all ranges of engagement.
But you're not wrong about the lead time and availability of components to produce technically sophisticated weapons of all sorts and I'm sure that governments around the world are looking at their supply chains quite differently now. Securing reliable supplies and stockpiles are rare earth minerals has been a strategic focus of the United States government now for more than a few years and seeing the disruption of international trade in commodities from the war in Ukraine has given that a more intense focus.
You must be a fool to use a modern, long range ATGM system like Javelin in a urban area where you cannot see your target at more than 1-200m, and you need to be mobile.
An old RPG will serve you better, since a team can carry easily a dozen of reloads, is 100x cheaper, A LOT more resilient to abuse, and - like we saw - a lot easier to use ; A 12 yo kid can "learn" to use an RPG in 5 min !
@@mirandela777 That is why you need both. US army use AT4 for closer engagements and Javelins for longer ranges. It also depend on the nations... for example in Sweden where I live the NLAW is the perfect AGTM as the ranges on the battlefield are quite rarely be more than you need. Javelins are overkill... for the US who need to operate in more diverse regions you need more capabilities. They probably could use both Javeline, NLAW and AT4 to be more economical, but you also need to consider logistics to supply different weapon systems.
@@MrCABman1972 - logistics are the true weak point, in an attrition war - we see clearly this now.
@@mirandela777 logistics have always been a weak point of any army for as long as there have been armies. Men need to be fed. Their weapons need to be repaired and replaced. Horses need to be reshoed, arrows resupplied, And that supply chain needs to be protected. It's one of the reasons the Germans lost its Stalingrad. The Russians came around the back side and attacked their supply chain. Once It couldn't be supplied that was it.
Nothing new here. What's changed is the weapons and how we employ them. The tank was a perfect weapon during world war I and world war II. New and radical. Certainly worked well during the Iraq war as well. It doesn't work well in every environment. The Japanese did not employ big tanks. For good reasons. Will the tanks still be part of future warfare? Of course they will. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be best at what they do. Loitering drones that can identify enemy tanks and take them out with top hits Might replace ATGMs, But I think in the end they'll probably just supplement it. There's still the supply chain problems and issues and cost there as well.
@@RobFomenko - "logistics have always been a weak point of any army hahaha !!! Where you learn that dude ??
NOP, only for unprofessional armies, leaded by idiots. Just an example: Germany to Moscow distance is the same with Moscow to Germany, right ? But how then just Germany suffered a lot with logistics to get there and fight there, but the same do not occur when the russians hunted down the germans all the way back ??
Reason - the russians had competent maintenance officials, decent or even great logistics, when, on the other hand, the germans have only idiots in charge. Like some said, once you reach the rank of General, you are not worried anymore about tactics, but yes, about logistics.
"It's one of the reasons the Germans lost its Stalingrad. The Russians came around the back side and attacked their supply chain. Once It couldn't be supplied that was it." Wrong dude, the russians ENCIRCLED them ! A much severe blow, because getting cut from your logistical chain is not at all the same with getting encircled !
So no, the n.a.z.i lost at Stalingrad because of a much simpler fact: they got SURRENDERED !!! Please do not invent BS - they got surrendered and obvious, one of the results when you got surrendered is you are cut out from your logistics. But the main thing is not you run out of ammo and/or ammo, but yes, you cannot retreat !
And the Stalingrad defeat was not a result of "logistics" ( even if that play a role in) but yes, because dumb generals allowed to get encircled.
Educated commanders avoid, at any cost, such situations - dumb commanders, ignore that and later this lead to the destruction of that army.
Reason you MUST avoid getting encircled in first place - right ? But Ukr never learned, they get in "cauldrons" since day one and their dumb commanders allow this again and again.
"Loitering drones that can identify enemy tanks and take them out with top hits" - we are not yet there, mate ! Loitering drones today are easily brought down by AA fire or / and EW systems. Did you notice how many drones are loosing Ukr / day ? Any drone who depends on a real time connection with a human controller is a weak system, once that link can be jammed / cut anytime by a force who employ EW systems, the GPS can be jammed, etc. Remember the big expensive US drone who was captured and forced to land by Iran ? The reason why now USA refused to give Ukr expensive drones - because they know the russians will "steal" them easily.
And a drone who can carry an ATGM is a BIG drone, who will light-up any radar in the region, thus an easy target for any AA system - so yeah, do not expect to see many drones able to hit tanks in Ukr since the russians dominate the sky there and they use a lot of AA firepower. You are not fighting there the Iraqi insurgents with rusted AKs, but yes, a modern army, with hypersonic missiles, nukes, etc - the kind of army US never fought since ww2 !
There's a big difference in the usage of both doctrines between East and West. The West use their big ticket items primarily for anti-armor with the Carl Gustav being the exception. Eastern forces use their RPGs for everything and aren't shy about shooting them at singular troops either. This means the West doesn't need massive inventories of these things to be effective, they just need enough to engage enemy armor. Which they already have enough units to do. They have other tools for engaging enemy troops over a wide area or entrenched troops in a reinforced building.
Not disagreeing with your point here. But isn't AT-4 likely to be used as anti -bunker or infantry when the situation is needed? I've seen some reports calling it a multi -purpose weapon that's more or less good for most situations when it comes to firepower for infantry. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit: Don't mind my English, it's not my first language. It's actually the third.
@@Flavio42442 Which isn't their specialized systems like the Javalin. They aren't firing off a missile worth tens of thousands against an emplacement. Also, the AT-4s effects against a reinforced building is suspect. If you have no chance of encountering an enemy vehicle you'd just leave the Javalin at home and bring more 40mm.
@@Talishar I see. Don't mind if I ask you this. Why the javelin Is so talked about when like any other AT systems, the javelin is actually a defensive weapon that can't realistically win entire conflicts? Or can it? I'm not familiar with the javelin or similar systems, that's why I don't ever put my option about them.
@@Flavio42442 It's about killing multi-million dollar hardware with one tens of times cheaper.
@@Talishar Like a Mustang killing a F-35(actually impossible) sort of situation you say?
I would agree with you on the fact that perhaps many of our more technologically advanced weapons are overly expensive in comparison to cheaper more mass-producible versions, at the same time I think it is critical first to look at why they're so expensive especially considering the components that they're made out of. For instance the battery on the javelin is not only unreliable, but is also non-rechargeable and in comparison to modern batteries holds a much smaller charge while also having to be kept in a certain environment to prevent degrading. Because of this every single time that this battery is used you have to buy an entirely new one which is much more expensive then having a battery that you could simply recharge. If you replaced that battery with a Lithium-Ion battery you get the same result but with a much cheaper to produce and rechargeable option. As such doing so would drastically reduce the cost of using such equipment. And and that's just one thing, I'd be willing to wager that there's a million other things just like that in countless pieces of military equipment that cause the cost of these things to be exorbitantly over expensive.
Many of these weapons are old and considered obsolete especially the wire guided versions. Battery tech has improved since then. Fitting more modern battery systems can't be "that" much of a problem. Can it?
Lithium Ion is too fragile on the battlefield. You need batteries that are tough and can be stored ready to go for years wihout degrading.
@@alanjenkins1508 maybe make a lithium version of the battery? Make a conversion kit?
So when u need it quick and ready you can have it fresh from shelves, while the conventional battery can be stored for the future?
Is it too much?
@@alanjenkins1508 well then don't use lithium ion, my point was that the battery design is old, and could be replaced with a much more effective and cheaper modern alternative version, that could save large amounts of funding. the fact that those batteries aren't rechargeable alone dramatically increases the strain on logistics they impose. Even if you don't use Lithium Ion, any form of rechargeable battery would be a massive upgrade.
Surely the "kickbacks" for retired military officers and politicians in the military industry businesses aren't a price hiker?
The anti-tank meta seems to have plateaued, for now. The anti-air meta seems to have more buffs each time, along with their counter measures, more dynamic
Can someone please explain why the old guy responsible for pushing updates through is still clipping through the whitehouse?
Wow have some respect for the office.
@@BoleDaPole Sorry, just poking fun here.
@@BoleDaPole why show respect for Biden?! Absolutely no reason to respect this clown
Anti tank missiles are just one tool that’s part of the arsenal. Don’t give up on the rest of the tools thinking one will be the Swiss Army knife to replace the rest.
14:00 wut? Drones only multiply Artillery effectiveness! most of the casualties, on both sides, are still driven by artillery commanded with the help of spotter drones (even cheap, civilian quadcopters). The impact of attack drones such as the Bayraktar are blown out of proportion by media, just like ATGMs are. In reality, they almost never make it back home. Slow moving, easy to spot, limited capabilities... on the other hand, dirt cheap quadcopters spotting for artillery are being the most impactful tool of the conflict. Again, on both sides.
True. Is far easier to down a Bayraktar than a cheap Amazon bought, quadcopter . And in urban condition, I will say those cheap toys are even better, since they just can hang over a target until the first arty strike comes.
the Russians have adapted to anti tank missiles. they just assault with troops. they made the calculations and come up with solution of using tanks as back up or artillery. the gun on the tank are more valuable than the troops. it is working as you can tell on the battle field. the one thing the Ukraine war has done it has adapted the Russians to anti tank weapons.
Yeah but then you kill them with sniper rifle
The lack of discussion on how effective field artillery firing HE/SQ is at killing tanks and light armor is proving to be is interesting. I suspect that 50% of Russian armor losses are due to artillery firing HE rounds. I don't think it is appreciated in the West how vulnerable armored units are to effective artillery fire.
Fortunately while the General public fellates the Javelins and Nlaws, more serious discussion by wargamers, military circles and enthusiast has been a lot more inclusive.
The Stugna got a lot of love back in March.
Ukrainian Artillery has even been spoken off as better than NATO in certain areas.
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 - was never such thing like "Ukr artillery" lol ! Every fking piece of Ukr hardware was RUSSIAN, dude. Educate yourself. From bullets, guns and fighters. The russians are killed by weapons made by their own countryman, sadly. What most uneducated peoples, especially muricans, ignore is the fact this is a civil war between brother nations, who started with Ukr muppets killing their own peoples in Donbass for 8 years ( clear definition of "civil war" !) and russians joining those Ukr citizens from Donbass to fight the neonazi from Kiev.
But main point is - 90% + of all Ukr hardware is russian at origins. Probably you have weapons made by some russian worker killing now peoples from his own family.
Artillery would have to be spot on target with their first shot. There are preset procedures for armor if there's artillery. Otherwise, the armor is gonna move and they can move pretty fast overland
@@andrewschliewe6392 Laser guided Artillery rounds.
@@andrewschliewe6392 excalibur munition has consistently scored direct hits at 40km hits 155mm he on top of a vehicle is gona knock it out but artillery has to constantly move or it will get counter batteryed also with the wide spread use of drines artillary is getting hit before it can get setup or moved warfare now days is all combined move fast hit hard and out maneuver the enemy is the way to win these days
Carl Gustav is one of the most cost effective systems in the world. Roughly $500 to $3000 per round. And the majority of IFV's you can take out with the simple HEAT round. The only time you would need the really expensive rounds is if you need to hit past 1 kilometer (iron sights). The fact that a CG with a HEAT round took out a T90 in Ukraine should open the eyes of people from the more super expensive systems.
More importantly, it provides a low-cost option for destroying bunkers & bridges, breaching structures, delivering screening smoke at distance, and hitting infantry with FRAG rounds.
No t-90 has been knocked out by carl gustaf, that was a non penetrating immobility kill that was finished off by a friendly tank with APFSDS.
@@MonkeyGus That is a mere technicality, fact remains that the CG with the cheapest ammo rendered a T90 inoperable to the point where it needed to be destroyed permanently in order to not fall into the Ukrainian armys hands
@@MonkeyGus A mission kill is still a kill
Carl Gustave is a somewhat bulky launcher you are stuck with after firing it. T-90 was a victim of all the best attack opportunities favoring the Carl Gustave soldier. Tank drove too close to a town or city full of mid rise buildings. Any tanks vulnerability increases the closer it gets to a built up area where the enemy is presented with top attack opportunities onto a tank. The missiles does not even have to penetrate the tank to disrupt it's operation. Just damage it's gun optics and periscopes is enough to rondure a tank useless.
The lack of proper supporting infantry tactics will always highlight the major weaknesses of tanks and other fighting vehicles. Tanks were made and still will be best in roles supporting the infantry, such as everything else on the battlefield should do.
Because Russia didn't declare war, they can't use their concepts. This means they don't actually have most of their infantry with their armored units to protect them
You mean the infantry supporting Armor. 19K30 for life
Omg it's not " lack of infantry support "
Yall really don't get the fact that not every military has the same doctrine.
True, Russia is using maybe 25% of its military strength
In history class, we learned and it was kind of driven home that the Germans had better tanks in World War II, but they had a very difficult time keeping the tigers in the king tigers in the field. They were so complicated and they had such a hard time getting replacement parts that they would often be out of commission, and once they were destroyed they were hard to replace, especially as their logistics system broke down. The Sherman's come on the other hand, we're easy to fix, they were a lot of them and it was possible to salvage parts from other tanks.
A lot and also basically, they are operating under the assumption that any enemy can be defeated a short amount of time, if there was a 5-year long war, it would be difficult to keep up the same level of capability.
Ah yes the "tiger, kingtiger good" line, but one should not forget, those were the HEAVY "breakthrough" tanks in few numbers and came in at late 1942, the bread and butter of the Axis tanks were mostly medium, light tanks and "assault" guns, of these which the ordinary Sherman M4A1 and later versions were superior, when the Sherman was upgunned with the 76.2mm gun and calibre, even it could face Tigers head on if so needed, and that late in the war, the US/CANZUK had near complete air coverage in Europe so picking off a few kingtigers or panthers that were still in operating condition wasn't a complicated task.
I find your logic extremely flawed.
Mainly… World War II is very very different from Modern Conflicts.
There isn’t really any reliable comparison.
Second… if shit were to hit the fan, western countries can and will ramp up production of equipment. Those that cannot can and will buy from the US of A.
The costs remain but you can’t really be effective with Cheap garbage anymore. RPGs for example cannot penetrate the front of most MBTs in Service today and they wouldn’t really get close enough to do so.
We in the west have insane training doctrines and we actually know how to protect tanks against AT attacks.
@@screwstatists7324 1941, run out of gas?
Guy made a generalization, but... 1941?
@@PeterMuskrat6968 the point of the video is that you don't necessarly can up the production of certain, more complex, itens.
Take ship guns in ww2 for example, a bunch of Dido class AA cruisers had to use 4.5 in instead of the 5.25 inch gun, because they didnt had enough machinery to ramp up.
US also had a Steel shortage which doomed something like the Alaska to be build only at thr end of the war.
And you underestimate the RPG7... Also no isn't theres some stuff about tanks being hit time and time again just to go back to base and be repaired, you doctrine can be really good, perfect if you will, its not gonna make you invunerable to enemy action
@@gerfand But western countries are just plain better at training for alternatives.
The optics and sensor packages on Modern Western MBT’s are able to be rotated 360 degrees, and since we don’t use our tanks in groups of 1 or 2 (like what the Russians are currently doing) there are more Tanks to spot potential targets.
Add in the IFV’s and Infantry support, it’s unlikely that any enemy is going to be able to get the jump on our troops (Urban combat not withstanding)
But as far as pertaining to superior Western AT weaponry, the hit ratio is high enough and there are enough in storage/being made to kill almost every tank in Russian/Chinese inventories, and with stuff like the Javelin and NLAW it’s usually a one hit kill, so not even our own tanks would survive a hit from them.
The logic here that we should start using unguided AT weapons because they are cheaper is bonkers and retarded, and will only be putting our own soldiers at risk.
As the song goes: Gonna have to face it, I'm addicted to LAW...
Also: Until there's a replacement that can do what a tank does, tanks will not be obsolete. They may struggle a bit more now than they used to, but obsolete? No.
As long as an opposing force continues to deploy tanks, the need for anti-tank technology will always be relevant. The rabbit hole of which you speak, about the continued use of tanks in modern warfare, is all boiled down to fighting fire, with fire. When the enemy turns up, bring the bigger gun. And when technology moves beyond this, then move with it. This is only as relevant as the latest trend. Be ready for change, but be able to successfully deal with the now.
what i dont understand is why they dont develop a rechargeable battery for the CLU
I was a tanker from '82 to '92,,, Last two yrs I was with a T and E unit, during the Gulf War, we helped with the AAWS-M, later known as the Javelin,,,we've had cordless drills for more than 30 F'n YEARS !! The whole battery thing is a strait up cash grab by DoD Contractors, was around those guys for two years, can't unknow some things,,,,,Part #2,,It's great to send a turret 200ft(61m,for you metric, and smarter types!), and to blow lesser armored vic's to scrap, with an N-LAW but that's ONE shot per ONE man, and a LOT of bang for a LOT of BUCK, great if you're mounted, but any trekking, it seems a wast when all you REALLY need to do is STOP the tank/IFV,,,,I'm thinking an M72 in 80mm to 90mm, everyone in a squad carries 1-2,(3?), multi-purpose warhead, YOU GOT SOME FIRE POWER !!! And if you think(not you Mat) you just made an Armor Plated Pillbox,, have you ever heard the term "Bomb Magnet",, I can't speak for them, but I'D RUN ANY GAUNTLET to the WOODS, HOPE'N FOR THE BEST !!!!! If you can just STOP THEM !!! Then pick them off,,,,,,,,,
The battery issue was also a thing in the invasion of Afghanistan. Fueling the trucks and munitions is usually over looked until it bites your ankle.
At the end of the day, ATGMs are the best tool for dealing with armour until something else is made
The cost of ATGM systems has gone down exponentially over the past 60 years.
What do you mean overly reliant? Is there such a thing as overly reliant military wise????
These Anti-tank weapons work incredibly effective against all the odds its facing.
The RPG-7 will continue to relevant for a while, it becomes an improvised indirect fire weapon when mounted with 82mm mortars on modified boosters and it's also an excellent anti-personnel weapon. The Chinese have developed laser and thermally guided rounds for it too. The best AT weapon in the Ukrainian conflict however is the Stugna-P laser guided missile with its remote fire console. Its configuration allows you to fire the missile from behind cover, whereas systems like the Kornet, Konkurs or Fagot need the operator to be at the launcher to guide the missile manually via the onboard optic and controls. Half the time Russian guided AT weapons are used against infantry and built up targets, which brings up the question of if it's Anti-Tank weapons we're after, or just general purpose infantry guided weapons systems and weapons that you can fire remotely from behind cover.
The best anti tank missile in Ukraine is javelin and countrys have used remote fire anti tank missiles from decades from the early Russian one and British ones like swing fire
RPG is just the classic anti everything launcher on the cheap.
All RPG requires is the right person using it and the right rocket for the job.
@@MrTangolizard i dunno dude, didnt seen any video of javeline hiting anything in this conflict, only footage of firing itself, maybe they killing the grass. On other side there a lot of videos of NLAW, Kornet and RPG hitting and destroying stuff.
Problem with Javeline - Its absolutely obsolete outside its designated role, if there no tanks to shoot you just walk around with useless tube (and it takes 2 to operate it)
1 person with RPG can easily carry 5 different charges and use AT or AP depending on situation while being times cheaper.
@@iMost067 there 2 different types of systems a RPG is more comparable to a CG not a javelin and I would assume you haven’t seen any videos is because you maybe haven’t seen them not because it doesn’t happen I’ve fired a RPG and there trash
Anti tank missile(ATGM) is extremely expensive for infantry weapon. But for using against armored vehicles like MBT or IFV, or APC, it is are quite cheap and effective weapon. Modern AGTM costing $250k a pop is just 1/10-1/100 of price of modern NATO armored vehicles costing $3-20 M. And think of the maintenance, supply, logistic cost of these expensive armored vehicles. And crew training and paycheck, too. ATGM has low acquisition, upkeep and training cost. Even at low utilization and hit ratio of 10%, it pays still favorably for ATGM. Just expand manufacturing capacity of Javelin production by 10 times: from 4,000 a year to 40,000 a year by Lockheed-Martine. It will make Javelin price even cheaper.
ATGMs are great for defensive operations but do not replace armor for seizing terrain and rapid breakthrough
In addition, there's the training and logistics cost as well.
A tank crew is a big investment in time and money to train up (and hard to replace quickly), whereas with a modern fire and forget Anti tank missile, a standard soldier can be quickly trained up on it.
And a Tank or AFV requires a whole support infrastructure, including specialised mechanics, fuel, transport to the battlefield and so on.
When you factor in the lifetime cost _before_ conflict begins and the field support needed, the cost difference just massively increases.
Not quite. Yes a tank cost millions, but it caries 40-50 rounds at 10k per shot. Javelins are the equivalent, in terms of range (NLAW is not). Javelins cost $200k plus. The tank has 4 crew, a javelin team 2.
Over a longer conflict the cost value favours the tank.
A study quoted on Cheftans YT stated that for a major power tanks comprised 30% of their fire power for 2% of their personnel.
Tanks have a very important role. What remains to be tested is if newer light tanks, like IFVs with 120mm are better.
My conclusion is that while tanks are expensive, they represent great value for money.
FGM-148 Javelin is very expensive: Launcher with CLU costs 250.000 USD, and each Missile between 200.000 to 240.000 USD.
@@KevinMcLaren71 In Ukraine, we did not see many active fighting or engagement of MBT in either defensive role or offensive role. They are usually hiding under shadow of forest or behind building or being destroyed on the road or street. Not many tank vs tank battle or breakthrough archived by marching army of tanks. I see not much benefit of having large army of MBT's. IMHO, army of self-propelled howitzer, coupled with reconnaissance UAV drones, seems to be much more useful than army of MBT's in both defensive role and offensive role. I think that MBT should be used only as close guard to protect army of artilleries and infantry.
You'd think they would be more obsessed with Anti-aircraft weapons.
@JZ's BFF if that were the case then there would have been a lot more downed American Jets in the past two decades.
as long as the tanks cost way more then the atgm that takes them out its a win imo
It’s effective. A single or team of soldiers with the fire power of an MBT. Force multipliers for sure.
"We should give the infantry cheap RPGs, and if they suffer more casualties because they have to get closer and the weapons are less effective, that's a risk I'm willing to take." Spoken like a true artillery man who never saw a more expensive, technologically complicated SPG or artillery system he didn't like.
I would go so far that all Western weapon systems are prone to this: a lot of them are a wonder of technology, but they cost a hefty sum and are not as available. After all, we are seeing issues with supply right now in Ukraine and NATO is not directly involved
The problem is that, Ukraine is limited in weapon it can use. Had it been a full scale war with NATO, javelin wouldn't be neither nearly as crucial nor is such high demand, most kills would be done by air to ground missiles and guided bombs. Oh, and don't forget, russian airforce would cease to exist.
@@solarissv777 a full scale war with NATO aould quickly bring the nukes into play, which makes any and all other asset look irrelevant (which is why there hasn't been one in the first place)
I feel that drones are complimentary to artillery -- drones spot the enemy, then artillery destroys it. A drone, particularly a small one, is unlikely to carry much ordnance itself, but if it's directing an artillery battery/regiment, then it has lots of firepower at its disposal.
Hmmm Smaller recon drones sure can be good ways of spotting for artillery units.
Mr. Matsimus, you just came up with a very interesting topic. When I was at war, 30 years ago (ex. Yugoslavia), the most powerful anti-tank weapon was the RPG. Actually, not the most powerful but we always had an RPG on hand. M60BST Recoilless gun or 9M14 Maljutka were a rarity on the battlefield. We had another M80 Zolja and M79 Osa. These are weapons of close combat. If you have 2-3 tanks and / or AFVs in front of you, and if the vehicles are without proper support, you can let the vehicles in the point blank range. And a hit is guaranteed. That means 100 - 200m. In a situation when you are attacked by about 10 tanks, when they come to the point blank range, you are overrun. To prevent such situations, tanks should be destroyed at a greater distance. And this is where modern guided or self-guided systems come into play.
I think it was RB M57 44mm Rocket launcher ,followed by RPG 2 and RPG 7.
"modern" systems are no better than cheap, old ones ( like the ancient RPG ! ) in urban warfare ! Hell, a "modern" system is just a piece of crap ( is much bigger, heavier and bulky ! ) when you fight armor between houses and/or ruins.
What use you have for "range" when your field of view is just 1-200 m ?? Reason why Chechen fighters hunt the Ukr with old RPGs - not because they cannot use modern systems, but because they need MOBILITY and firepower. A team of 2 can carry 8-10 rockets at will, for the old RPG.
How many Javi.s can carry a team of 2 ?
@@mirandela777 I'd like to see an RPG 7. Take out an m1 Abrams. It never happened. Just because the RPG is still around doesn't mean it's the same weapon. The newly developed shape charges that the RPG has is not the same system. Of course it's natural for things to evolve over time and to get better at doing their job. Still, while I see your point, it still doesn't make any sense. Modern militaries use a multi-layer defensive system. The ability to hit out beyond meters or more means that you are going to start killing further out. As those tanks come in closer and realize that not only have they lost their platoon leader but their company commander and even battalion commander even before they get to see you, means that a lot of them will probably pop smoke and Get the heck out of there. If you wait until they're right, on top of you, you're going to get run over. Well, not every environment is conducive to shooting out at 3000 m, the same time not every environment is conducive to tank warfare. In heavy forest The ranges will be a lot shorter. And that of course doesn't even count air cover.
Warfare is changing. You either stay on top of it or get above it, or lose.
@@RobFomenko - you are talking BS again dude - if you are an ignorant, that do not mean "never happened " ! lol ! - means just you ARE an ignorant !
Here, to "educate" you: ( rpg 7 vs M1 Abrams)
"It could disable or effectively rendered one combat ineffective , yes. A hit to the rear of the turret could explode the rounds there , requiring a rebuild only possible at the LIma tank plant in Alabama. Some hits to the rear hull might disable the motor, or batteries, or a hit to the tracks , road wheels, sprocket , might render the tank immobile, until it is fixed. A “lucky” hit to the hull sides or a weak point in the armor scheme might penetrate to the crew area and injure or kill one or three crewmen. "
source:
Christopher Perrien
Former 8 Years US Army 5 Active, at U.S. Army (1985-1993)2y
Your point is valid, however I think it's not applicable in this time. After graduating from basic, AIT and airborne School in 1976, the army deemed me a person that could be trained in the dragon anti-tank ATGM program. The dragon was not a fire and forget weapon. At the time other than the dragon and the tow missile, The only other thing we had was the LAW. While the law might take out a BMP from the side, it certainly wasn't any match for the t60. And I wasn't looking forward to having to use a dragon on a Soviet Armada of tanks swiftly coming towards me. Of course we have other things too, such as the m1 Abrams, the warthog, hellfire missiles from helicopters and drones as well as artillery. Now Things are a bit different but there's still the same. Truth is, that we were told that the big bad Soviets would be coming across the fulda gap with massive armor concentrations and we were going to have to hold them back with laws and dragons. Fortunately that never happened. Regardless of how expensive a NLAW or a javelin missile system is, it's still a whole lot cheaper than that tank you're firing against. It is just one part of a multi-layered system designed to stop Russian armor from coming at you. Do I think that it's a waste of money as an American taxpayer? Absolutely not! My youngest son is now an infantryman. I want to give him every advantage to stay alive in a conflict. If it means throwing dollars at it then so be it. I get the whole supply chain issues but what's next? Slinging rocks with slingshots? No. As long as there will be humans willing to fight other humans and use whatever resources they have, it's a lot cheaper and better for a nation's psyche, to have a well supplied and trained military, versus the alternative. Just ask Ukrainians.
You cannot have too many anti-tank weapons.
My impression is not that modern militaries are "reliant" on them, more-so that they finally understand that it is a minimum requirement to have multiple of them with every squad.
I think the modern military as we've seen in several conflicts over the last twenty years are overly reliant on tactics and troop deployment that are a throw back. Failing to address the dangers of asymmetrical warfare and the technological advances of man pads and drones. But I'm sure many defense departments around the world are working feverishly to mitigate that new challenge. Thank you Matsimus.
The US Army has focused on asymmetrical warfare for several decades. Only recently has it started to prepare for conventional war again. You aren't a veteran of the US Army, are you?
@@jacquesstrapp3219 No sir I'm not.
@@aaronlopez492 Even back in the 70s and 80s when I was in the Army, we spent a lot of time training in asymmetrical warfare. Although my MOS was 11H (anti-armor), I spent a lot more time doing light infantry and counter insurgency training than anti-armor training. I trained with Special Forces, Rangers and French Commandos in this kind of warfare. After I got out in the 80s, they stepped up this kind of training even more for Iraq and Afghanistan. If we lacked sufficient training in any area, it was in large scale conventional operations.
Pretty much the entire western world has adapted for a asymmetrical warfare, indirect warfare, cyber warfare and even drones and man-pads.
And it comes from a lot of experience from WW2 and forward. The importance of combined arms and adaptive forces is a big thing for most military today.
Its a lot of other countries that are not adapted for this though. India, Russia, most of the middle east, most of Africa and most of south America. But then again they are relying on and facing a lot of equipment that is old so there has not been a need to adapt yet for them. Or they suffer from heaps of issues with corruption and what not.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Well technically speaking true, bombing an old man and a goat armed with a kalashnikov with a $150,000,000 weapons platform is definitely asymmetric warfare - wrong way around though.Only one side is depleting enormous resources.
I am amazed at the under utilization of drone technology, first thing I'd do is make a flying shot gun, next a flying automatic grenade launcher for bombing, lastly I'd make a dumb fire atgm carrier for attacking enemy armour.
I would say: yes...
...but then I remember that Russia has tank reserves.
War is the main driver of technology. You may say we are overly reliant on it but it's really nice to have to add to the generals and foot soldiers options. Anything that even gives you the slight advantage is always good. A modern day well trained solder is probably the most expensive infantry deployed combat platform in terms of difficulty to replace. For that reason, any technology that offsets the odds of attrition on your own side is a must have asset.
Really enjoy your channel in general and this video in particular. Timely and thoughtful. (Personal quibble - you could use a line editor)
A lot can be learned from your video and this topic. Generally, this should serve to show how expensive conflicts are and thus why modern militaries should avoid direct conflict with each-other.
Cheap and reliable tech should always be the mainstay of an army. However, as technology has improved so much over the past 60 years, it presents us with a force multiplier that cannot be ignored. While your ready supply of affordable AT weapons are issued and are being produced en masse in your factories from steel and wood, one guided ballistic missile or an EW campaign could potentially destroy future production.
Modern warfare has since become very fast and total. While war always involved destruction of cities and farms, modern war makes it possible without even entering the opposing state’s territory. This makes all elements of war fighting susceptible to destruction. The key to overcome this is the will to fight on. So long as you can fight no matter the circumstances, the enemy would exhaust.
But back to weapons. It makes sense to issue cheap and reliable weapons as a reserve/general issue system. For instance, an RPG 7 with traditional munitions available pre-1990, while still good, still can’t technically beat modern Active protection systems or even armor. But it doesn’t always have to. Combine arms fighting and effective tactics can share the burden of war fighting across branches. Use of unguided and guided anti tank weapons, communication, spotting, artillery, air assets, drones, radio/spectrum monitoring, terrain, weather, etc all have a role to play and should play that role.
The standard infantryman should be taught how to utilize a LAW, a Gustav, an AT4, RPG 7, Mosquito, etc, while also having a latent production and reserve stores to tap into should their use be required. But emphasis should absolutely be on the use of advanced capable weapons systems as well as fortifying modern logistics and supply chains for national security purposes. Not to stir up things but letting China have access to the absolute majority of rare earth minerals certainly doesn’t help, no does isolating our oil producing allies
Matt, love seeing you active again as I miss your content when you're not around
Good stuff Mat. I never wore a uniform but I follow these topics, and your channel among others extensively. ‘Murican myself but thanks for your service to the greater free world.
A couple thoughts:
We must always be wary of over reliance on ANY specialized system. We know well that our adversaries are clever and motivated, and must guard against our assumptions that any highly complex system will be reliable in a highly contested conflict against a peer (get that “near-peer” mentality outta here!) force.
One thread you may want to pull a bit more: US Army TRADOC and others are doing a lot of work planning for future wars that are literally underground. The concept is based on the assumptions that 1) populations all around the world continue to urbanize (maybe deglobalization will slow or stop that trend) making urban combat ever-more probable and 2) that the drone revolution you mention (including loitering munitions, micro drones and networked swarms) will make risks to exposed forces unacceptably high, in many situations. The extended siege of the Azovstal steel plant gives a preview of this kind of battle.
In this model, man-portable systems will undoubtedly remain vital. However I agree with your central point that we’re probably still over-emphasizing the higher-end systems and should think more about an “80/20” approach, weighted towards more reliable, economical and atrittable systems, even if they are less spectacular in performance….
Facts as a former scout infantry, current ng infantry bi agree with what you say, love your videos and telling the truth from an service members point of view. Especially that your Canadian, I worked with the Canadian dragoons when I was up at Drum. Massive respect keep up the great videos.
There's a company in the USA now making a copy of the RPG7. This seems like a good idea to me.
The RPG-7 is a dated system at this point. The only real advantage it has over the SMAW or Gustaf is the fact that the warhead size is not constrained by the tube. For future proofing that is good, being that a larger warhead can be designed and fitted far faster than replacing an entire system, but for the west to capitalize on that, they would be replacing all of their systems, for a platform that is significantly worse in weight, development, and familiarity to troops already trained on our current systems. The HEAA warhead fired by the SMAW supposedly has around 600mm of penetration, the AT-4 somewhere above 450mm, etc. For what they are designed to do, that is enough. It'd be a waste of time and money, and by the time its capabilities were on par with the closest two equivalents in US service (SMAW and Gustaf) it'd cost about the same.
The real benefit of the cheaper anti-tank options really seems to be the ability to hand them out at a lower org level.
Not every squad can carry around a javelin and half a dozen missiles... Just about every squad can carry around an RPG and a couple of reloads.
Quantity of fire, and opportunity *to* fire, is often underated... especially in an urban environment where sightlines can be short/narrow.
Your comments about drones are interesting. In the current conflict they seem to be complimenting artillery as spotters, rather than having to rely on forward observers radioing in accurate coords, you have someone on the team with a live video feed of the target...
Similarly, we are already seeing new tanks get outfitted with drone launchers/capabilities. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of tanks continues the moves towards autoloaders, but keep the fourth member as a designated drone operator for better spotting, situational awareness, and potentially even offensive capabilities.
100% agree, though I would extend your concerns to most Western military arms production. I also agree that drones are taking over the battlefield (RIP Redlegs, armor, and infantry).
The US at least relies on the part that, we plan to have air supremacy in almost any situation. We have smart artillery rounds, we have a shit ton of high quality tanks, and plenty of TOW and other system equipped mid level vehicles.
So for this reason we figure we can spot and identify most large armored vehicles from a distance and destroy them using these methods from long distance. Odds are... the infantry are unlikely to suddenly get swamped in enemy tanks and only be able to count on themselves, their radio is their best weapon normally for that.
In the cases infantry has to deal with armor, we do still have the system, like Javelin, arguably the or at least one of the best given its possible fire and forget nature and quite long range. If a random tank pops up that was hidden and some infantry are dealing with it, a good longer range single kill launcher in the squad is likely enough to deal with it.
We do have the lower end launchers more for busting fortifications and lighter vehicles as well, but the reality is we can plan to equip our infantry with different launchers that require them to get closer to the big dangerous vehicles, and tell them to go charge and kill them. Or we can buy more smart artillery rounds, or more aircraft and let them call someone else up to deal with the problem instead, assuming those aircraft didn't wipe them all out before the infantry even got that close.
So yes, many modern more technologically advanced countries do have rather... smart and expensive seeming anti armour launchers and missiles that might be quite expensive and supply chain troubled. But this is often a side effect of a different direction for budgeting and doctrine. If we value our infantry and don't want them to go charge up close to a tank we give them the longer range options. Those can't handle massed enemies, but our other hardware like aircraft and our own tanks can. So that's how we split our budgets and supplies and training. Now, how well this will work in reality... obviously varies case by case. But at least for the US, air supremacy does seem reasonable in many situations, and historically aircraft excell at finding and killing enemy armor given modern guided munitions. If you're mobile, again you probably got plenty of TOWs and tanks around, if your stationary or ground pounding them you're probably more defensive or at least advancing slowly enough there's some good artillery nearby. So ya, we probably will only need a limited number of munitions to counter armor for our infantry unless something somewhere majorly gets messed up. Good thing we can still use and have some cheaper launcher options... but cheap or expensive, who says we can even ship/supply them to a location if it's so cut off that we can't use these other options. In those cases individual more reliable pieces of hardware is arguably better for what you can store or ship in before lines get cut or something.
Is it perfect, no... but it's a plan to make do with the situations we'd have with the budget and limits we have. Overall, I think it's solid. Can't argue a few more anti armor warheads on the Karl-Gustaf in storage might not be a bad idea.... but overall, I don't think it's really as big of an issue as you seem to be thinking or asking in this video.
And ya, no surprise ukrainians don't have the dedicated logistics and communications set up for handling launchers and batteries and everything. You listened to the account from people fighting over there? Shit's often extremely chaotic, lacking clear organization, plenty of rough jurry rigged groups of people only generally knowing where others are in many cases. And with people using the Javelin for it's optics (which are great, and often used to spot stuff without actually launching a missile) you will run through batteries in some cases before you run through the missiles. They aren't trained on the exact times they'll last in varied weather or conditions. They don't have the set up supply to call back and get some more reliably or to know if they'll even be able to in another day or two. It's not ideal for multiple reasons there so ya... problems can and do happen.
And for training... if someone needs to spend a day training to use something... that's not that much of a problem I'd argue. If they spend longer like on the Javelin... still ok. For reliability, Javelin is pretty reliable for the US, when used by people trained in them.
And no one thinks we're invulnerable, we just think we have an option to counter the enemies, through various means... man carried launchers being one of them.
What volt & amp hour specs are the current javelin batteries?
Absolutely LOVED the intro with the rifled barrel taking the stage!
You mentioned that artillery might be the weapon that ultimately becomes obsolete, but what has Ukraine been asking for the most from the west.. its not anti-tank weapons but artillery. And as for the tank, well nothing has really changed since its was invented, its been used primarily for infantry support and thus why Russia is using some of its old T62 tanks for just this purpose. What Ukrainian troops are also discovering is anti-tank weapons in the Donbass which has a lot of open flat territory are not so useful.....except when they can defend towns, villages etc...
Thank you for another great video, your channel is truly a blessing. I salute everyone’s efforts analyse current events without diving into insane bias, as very many channels sadly started to do now. Also there so many incoherent footages, and some of them even edited, some reuse old videos from preceding low boiling conflict there. Reliability of incoming data for third side is really quite a concern, it’s easy to jump onto self serving conclusions.
Most of the Russian tank losses have been due to artillery and mines. There are videos of Russian T72s taking upwards of 5 javelins and still being mobile. Having said that a well placed ATGM will still take out a tank. Depends where you aim. There are videos of the most sophisticated M1A2S tanks being taken out by Soviet era ATGMs
Mostly satellite guided Artillery.
Grain of salt, since I'm no military analyst or expert on equipment and doctrine, but as far as I can tell, the "overuse" of ATGMs seems to mostly be media hype and not reflective of what any nation is actually doing. As you mentioned, there is still a lot of focus on the use of tanks, such as that next-gen KF-51 or the MPF, and the MBT still has a lot to offer as our primary armor killer.
People also have a bad habit of thinking in body counts and carnage, rather than consequences. Using the US Army as an example, since every light infantry platoon potentially has two Javelins, a skirmish between say, a Russian tank platoon and American rifle platoon is actually a fight between 3 exposed tanks and 2 concealed AT positions, which the Russians already know (from our TO&E). That's a hell of a risk to take to kill a handful of foot soldiers. It's kind of the same logic as historical Pikes and Bayonets: sometimes the mere inevitability of evisceration is all you need to win a battle.
OK well America has a bigger population so we could take the losses.
I'd rather lose 4 guys to a tank than 4 guys AND a tank
4 US infantry men cost the taxpayers are 130k, 1 Abraham's cost 6 million!
US could lose two men for every 1 ruskie they take out and still come out on top.
All of this doesn't matter as nukes would be flying anyways, unless russ launches thiers and we have some pussy in office that refuses to retaliate.
This rant really doesn't seem to have any basis in reality.
First off. the answer to the question asked is no, until such time as armored vehicles become non-existent, a means to deal with them is needed on all levels and for all ranges.
Second off, the implied concern that Javelin production is happening at the expense of other systems is completely unfounded as far as I'm aware.
Lastly, stand off weapons like the Javelin allow such public sentiment driven armies such as our own to avoid major losses for as long as possible while still remaining tactically viable. One might argue logistics, but a Javelin is still cheaper than an Abrams or Leopard 2.
I agree, im unsubbing, this rant was stupid and not grounded in reality, maybe if he made this video with Perun, who actualy seems to be able to take facts.
Not just atgm but high tech in general.
I had a group of privates return from basic to our Army Reserve until not knowing how to do land nav without a plugger.
The bane of tanks has always been infantry, thats why its suicidal for tanks to go into urban environments without the proper support
Anti-materiel rifles can do the job but they are limited on what they can do
Recoilless rifles are add more punch but are limited in range
ATGM are all purpose weapons able to be used in any situations
The Javelin is expensive but like the Hellfire, it was morphed into all purpose weapon
Cheaper would be nice but as Ukraine is showing, cheaper is definitely not better
As American general in Iraq, Norman Schwarzkopf, said; until you have boots on the ground you haven't won the war. Artillery and drones can do many things but they cannot win the war, tank is what is needed to spearhead infantry into the territory, put boots on the ground, secure the land and set up the next forward offensive. Anti-tank weapons are huge moneymakers for arms industry but hardly effect the final outcome of the war.
No worries Mat, artilery will remain a thing for a long time. If not forever. It's still, and will remain so, the most reliable way of delivering relatively inexpensive explosives in a relatively large amount on the target that is relatively far away.
I really like this video, really love you discuss military not in black & white, most people are too black & white whenever they discuss military topic, especially the people in the comment, military topic is complex, this is the reason why i still sub to you
Maybe a system like the Stugna is a better middle ground which you could say is like a step beyond the TOW 2.
Yes dude. We need them. A single tank can do a lot of damage to men and infrastucture. Those systems are still less complex and cheaper that said tank or apc.
Anti-tank weapon (
That heavily depends on if ADS gets deployed or not, and the current Ukraine conflict has pressured various militaries to put a lot more money into things like EmRA (Electromagnetic Reactive Armor, think ERA but uses electromagnetism instead of explosives) and deploying ADS.
Given that its likely that ADS will be commonplace and the fact that after the current initial run of IR Continous Wave lasers the various militaries want to invest in Blue-Green and UV lasers (especially of the _pulsating_ kind)...
It is likely we'll see something straight out of Battletech, where a single missile isn't going to do much other than a coinflip on getting shot down while _salvos_ of missiles have a far better chance at hitting the target.
There is always the question whether your armed forces wants to be on defence or offense, if it wants to fight a defensive warfare than one may be able to do without tanks, armoured personnel carriers, mechanised infantry etc then anti-tank weapons, anti- aircraft weapons can somehow manage things, but if you want to fight an offensive or maneuver warfare then tank, armoured personnel carriers, artillery and a proper co-ordinated action between armour, infantry and artillery is a must and also proper air-cover and air support is also necessary for the success in the battles.
The war in Ukraine continually proves that what General Omar Bradley said continues to be true….”Amateurs study tactics; Professionals study logistics”. Tactics are important, small unit tactics are what allow a smaller force to overcome a larger force, and it has happened countless times throughout history, but tactics are more on the level of company, battalion, and brigade commanders. Once you get up to the level of General, and you are commanding tens of thousands up to hundreds of thousands of soldiers, you are (or should be) far more concerned with logistics and supply lines. The fact that western sanctions have shut down Russia’s largest and only tank and armored vehicle manufacturer (Uralvagonzavod) due to its reliance on foreign parts proves that Russia has not been in a position to fight an ongoing global conflict for quite some time. Russia is now sending T-62 tanks to Ukraine because they cannot build new T-72’s, T-80’s or T-90’s, or repair the damaged ones. This will further complicate logistics since the T-62 fires different ammunition from the newer Russian tanks (115mm vs 125mm). Tanks are definitely still going to be around for quite awhile. Mobile protected firepower, which is what a tank is at its core, is going to be needed on battlefields for decades to come. The difference is in how you use them. Desert Storm proved without question that it isn’t just what kind of tank you are using, but HOW you are using them. Russia has used the same basic tactics since before WW2, which is to overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers. Unfortunately for Russia, modern weapons allow a very small number of soldiers to annihilate very large numbers of opposing forces, and as long as the logistics train keeps running, there isn’t anything that Russia can do about it short of resorting to nuclear weapons. That’s a road I don’t believe even Putin is stupid enough to go down. But NATO is prepared to respond, even if he does.
Still needs goos intelligence. Bradley was surprised at the Battle of the Bulge.
@@shaider1982 every Allied General was surprised by the German offensive during the winter of 1944-45. That is, every Allied General except for Gen Patton. The fact that the Allies had properly planned and secured their logistics is what allowed them to quickly reinforce their lines and overcome the German offensive. The only reason Gen Patton was able to turn his entire Army of over 500,000 men 90 degrees and move them over 100 miles in two days to relieve Bastogne, was because they had the fuel, food, ammunition, trucks, and other supplies needed to immediately mount a counteroffensive.
@@shaider1982 ironically his strategic red haired stepchild was one of the very few who did see the intelligence reports out of the Ardennes prior to the Bulge and actually planned for it. Generals need to be logistically sound as well as tactically sound.
😂😂😂😂oh! you were finished?.. well allow me to retort...Russians are winning Big Time in this proxy...one hand in a pocket.
Putin??😂😂😂
What does Vladimir Putin look like?
Does he look like a bitch?!
Does he look like a bitch?
No?
Then why are you trying to fu*k him like a bitch? 😎
..did you ever wrongdoing..heard that?
After all, the equation is: No Russia, no World, that is certainly 100%. 1/1
Everyone is so impressed with the potential of drones and unmanned vehicles. The first time an enemy on a large-scale level disables or even turns these systems against its users via electronically jamming of communication or hacking, the infatuations phase over these systems will quickly vanish.
I think you are looking at the problem from a single side of the equation. Tanks are more expensive than ever before and have even more complex production and maintenance. A weapon system that is ten or one hundred times cheaper than the thing it destroys on a regular basis and doesn't have extremely high failure rates puts more strain on the enemy than it puts on you.
My understanding is that the simpler options can be provided in quantity to western units. That capability didn't go away.
Great video as always. I dont think we should be afraid of technology, I do not think artillery is on the way out, on the other hand recon drones makes artillery so much more dangerous.
What we should be afraid of is not involving the end users (soldiers) when designing and implementing new technology. I have never used Javelins. But reading about the battery issues (I remember reading similar issues about Stingers?) it is quite clear this is not a technology issue, but bad design and lack of end user involvement from the procurement teams. And it baffles me that this has not been remedied a long time ago.
Tank vs anti tank weapons. Tanks are not obsolete. Anti tank weapons can not replace them. Anti tank weapons are defensive weapons that can be very effective in ambush situations, but who in their right mind would use them in offensive operations against tanks? Tanks can do both defensive and offensive operations, but they are more expensive and have a huge logistical footprint. Still, Ukraine continually asks for heaver weapons including tanks, which clearly shows anti tank weapons alone are not enough.
From what I expect is that ATGMs are in short supply of the demand, a lot of stockpiles around the world are going to be empty. So it won't just be re-filling these stocks but also about how much should the stockpiles be expanded. The prior stock levels were quite low, maybe like 2 rockets per squad? That is not going to last more than a day of intense combat. Of course, for low intensity conflict it might last a week to a month.
Because of this drastic rise in demand that will last for a while I fully expect a lot of ATGM push.
But both drones and the advanced ATGMs do share the problem of requiring chips, which is an industry that has become even more strained and it is an industry that is hard to get going from scratch. Even China's been struggling to get its chip industry rolling, probably due to massive amounts of subsidies incentivizing people who arn't a good pick but have government connections to win the subs.
As for tanks, well, we do see examples of tanks taking multiple ATGM hits and still function while others take one hit and launch a new satellite. Without knowing the vehicle's similarities in protection measures I can only assume that one has its kit in order and the other one might have been sold off/lost in logistics. The absence of infantry support to collaborate with the tanks is also a big part, tanks going on the attack unsupported is basically suicide. This isn't world of tanks where infantry don't exist and you have an automated detection ring around yourself while being invisible so long as you are partially concealed by a bush.
Supply always adjusts for demand if you're a producer country. We can make ATGMs far faster than we can make tanks destroyed by them. The ROI is off the charts.
@@mfuchs2004 though, some of these ATGMs are also multi-purpose and get thrown at more than just tanks. So some might have just stocked enough thinking, "can't need that many for just tanks."
to now realizing that they need more and, as you've said, its easy to scale, transport, and store these.
Well said Matt. This was an ongoing debate in the CAF back when I was serving
Low cost "dumb" systems are definitely useful for fielding large numbers, but they're so limited in range that they're limited in their useful scenarios. In large open areas (Ukraine has a lot of those) you'll struggle to get within the 300m or so required to use an AT4 or Carl Gustaf effectively without being seen by enemy armour, where as an NLAW can reach 800m and a Javelin over 4000m, giving the operators much more safety. Simple systems are of course very useful in shorter range urban combat, but tanks shouldn't be getting too urban anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with the point you're making. Generally speaking the US is driving a move to more complex weapons, with sensor/hardware driven autonomous systems, which are networked with loitering capability. The aim is to ensure higher kill % from a single weapon, to maximise the value gained from the reduced number of delivery systems (basically we have fewer aircraft and artillery).
The opposite approach, large numbers of lower capability weapons with a lower kill % (lets call that Russian approach) has its own merits, but in order to get parity of impact, you need many more delivery systems and shorter ranges of contact, which means much higher risk deployments.
Isn't this really much the same approach as for Tank systems. Western tanks have much better fire control and sighting systems that allows (drives) longer range engagements and therefore a higher kill % with a lower probability of loosing your own Tank force. Thus we maximise the effectiveness of our smaller Tank force size against numerical superior opposite using less effective systems the require closer engagement ranges.
I disagree on Drones in general. At the moment, most Armies haven't bothered to deploy any self defence system, whether EW/ECM driven or hard kill capability. especially against small sized recon drones. Surely artillery (or Tanks, infantry) should be protected by mobile AA and anti-drone weapon systems alongside whatever IFV they are deployed by. At the moment, we don't have much organic capabilities to deploy in this area (the UK army in particular).
You hit it right on the nail about the javelin batteries. Once you fire you have 4 hours to find targets or battery I out. Meaning you better not miss n find targets fast. Specially for $169k a pop.
About the javelin Vs kornet topic. Task& Purpose touched on it in one of his videos and I agree with him: javelin is 2-3km while kornet is 5km and can be 10km. But where does one infantryman find ranges of up to 10km in strategically important areas like cities. The 2-3km javelin is perfect for the avarage range infantry finds on the battlefield.
But speaking of cities, the most important battlegrounds, the ranges keep getting smaller and suddenly one no longer needs smart munitions to kill a tank. One dumb munition fired at a correct angle might even bypass an active protection system.
First thought in my mind when seeing the title; how else would you defend against a nation addicted to tanks?
I don’t think drones will make artillery obsolete if for only the reason you cite of cost. How much is a drone (suicide variety or otherwise) vs. an artillery shell? I think drones make the spotting job for artillery potentially easier but payload is an issue for them. And just as you said ATGMs are expensive so are Switchblade drones or their Turkish or Israeli variants. Cheaper than a tank but more expensive than artillery shells. Artillery will also be needed anytime you face an Anti-Access Area Denial scenario where you cannot call in airstrikes.
Drones make arty truly effective
The phrase "anti tank" is a bit of a misnomer
Since anti tank weaponry can just as effectively be used against literally any armored vehicle and in cases of things like the SPIKE missile even some aircraft aren't safe
The one of the biggest reason they are so expensive is we don't buy very many of them at one time if we ramp up production and produce just more than a few dozen a month the volume would bring down the price
*You are the Cause, and we are the Effect.*
Good insight. I was in the Marine's from 76-82, so I have seen a bit of technological change! I have a feeling the man-portable AT weapon system will probably transform into something more long-range and drone coordinated. I'm wondering if the tank isn't the one becoming obsolete and we'll end up with drone warfare!
It seems to me that a layered approach would be the most effective solution for infantry units. For example, a squad in the U.S. army of 14 soldiers could be armed with one Javelin team and three Carl Gustav teams. That would give them varied capabilities depending on the range and type of threat. The Javelin team could concentrate on tanks at longer ranges and the carl Gustav teams could concentrate on APCs, bunkers and infantry at shorter ranges. The rest of the squad can lay down suppressive fire with its machine guns and automatic weapons. This approach would hold down cost without sacrificing fire power.
Where do you think an infantry squad is 14 soldiers? its 9.
This is a arms race between armor vs weapons. The weapons against tanks is superior to the current tanks, and the tanks that can withstand those weapons are just coming out
Agreed, but it shouldn't be the case. Tanks are dead. They serve no useful purpose in a tactical environment that isn't better performed by other systems.
High tech agm being too technical to be reliable is like mlrs guided rockets vs artillery. Artillery can’t compete on range or accuracy, but artillery only wins on cheap cost and volume.
Matt - isn't arty the counter to ATGM's? If there's a bush out there, drop a few rounds of arty or mortar on it. Tree line where the ATGM teams can be hiding? Arty it. Ditto combined arms - send the infantry up first, supported by said arty and armor....and the recon / drone tech. Man with a rifle (and drone and arty / mortar on call) vs ATGM team....
Artillery has it's limits when scouting-by-fire. It's expensive for that role, the shit breaks and the Infantry just filters back in.
Worse yet for guys like Putin: he doesn't want to destroy Ukraine. He wants to steal it for himself. That makes him unwilling to properly commit his most destructive weapons systems.
I always figured a huge part of the cost is actually price gouging by the defense industry. IIRC, it was done with the Apache, I'm sure it's being done by every other manufacturer and other systems. Crack down on those companies taking advantage of government contracts and taxpayer money. I do agree though.
Also, is the Gustav really that expensive? I would have thought it one of the more affordable options.
You bring up some great points always love your channel Matt! Thank you
Speaking of India, every combat section has a Carl Gustav or an RPG depending on the operation area. But they're still buying hundreds of Spike ATGMs from Israel.
India has only Carl Gustavs, no RPGs. Next level is ATGM.
I am taking issue with your point of view. It is not that the Russian or ex-soviet systems have been all of a sudden forgotten, it is because, before the war in Ukraine, Eastern anti-tank systems were being used on NATO, Israeli or other vehicles in Afghanistan, The Middle East, Lebanon, etc, and there were next to no engagements of Soviet or Russian armored systems by systems designed in the west since Desert Storm or when the Canadians took out Serbian tanks in the Medac Pocket ( Tow missiles knocking out Serb Armored vehicles in 1993, PPCLI engagements) or Syrian rebels using TOW supplied by Israel in recent years . So, yes, it is good to see that Javelin, NLAW, LAW and Carl Gustav systems are doing what they were designed to do. BooHoo if these systems cost money, that is the price of doing the war thing, but better to spend money than having soldiers being killed because of cost-cutting measures or Tax Payer issues. There is not one battle-winning system, it is a combined weapon arena.
Nicely said.
hes saying to look at cheaper alternatives not only because they are cheaper but the more expensive stuff cant be turned out as quick as well as to not forget that the enemy has these capabilities as well.. (in the field if faced with 5 enemy tanks would you rather your crew had 10 cheaper AT systems/rounds good to 2k or 1 high tech one good to 4k? )
@@blackdeath4eternity But we are, Europe sent Ukraine some realy realy realy cheap shitt, just what they need.
Tons and tons of cheap weapons and a few of the over the top weapons.
This video is not grounded in reality.
@@peternystrom921 this video is not really about Ukraine as far as i can tell its about first world militaries.
@@blackdeath4eternity Maybe, but the only only first world Militaries in the world is in the West, rest is like stuck in the 1960-1970ish
The same applies for everything else. Like the Excalibur, like the onboard systems of AFVs, like soldier systems etc.
What find wonderous in the current conflict is the imagination of the defenders, specifically the use of commercial drones to direct fire to drop hand grenades on infantry, mortar crews ,RPG teams ect.. It just goes to show how important training and morale is. There just some things you can't cheap out on.
Cheap Amazon drones ( under 100-150 USD ! ) still can hang over a sniper nest and "guide" the HE round fired by an 50 yo T64 from 2-3 km distance ( or more) or just signaling the position for an arty battery. On Telegram are hundreds of vids where you can see the scaring results when you simply cannot take a step outside when the enemy has 2-3 cheap drones over your head. You will never know/see/hear before it is too late and a shell land on your pants.
Warheads delivered by supersonic rockets are impressive. However, larger drones carrying the same type warheads could do the job. Not on the battlefield maybe, but hidden tanks could become targets from the air. They would need to be low cost and easily available but provide another means of destroying enemy vehicles.
@@Dave5843-d9m - you simply cannot use a large drone for important targets - like that meeting days ago when a bunch of Ukr generals and commanders were "kalibrated" simply because:
1 - drones are SLOW ! Very slow, compared to a cruse missile. You get the info about target, you need to strike fast, before the targets changes location.
2 - big drones ( big enough to load a large warhead, 500kg lets say) are easy prey to ANYTHING, hell, even a ww2 era weapon can take them down with no sweat !Ukr battlefield is not Yemen, where big USA drones can hang over a target area for hours, without any worry ; A big drone like that will be immediately spotted by dozens of radars, and downed by hundreds of AA systems in place.
I remember not that long ago,they said hollow charge warheads were being made redundant with chobham type armour,then also with ERA. But now we have tandem warheads to deal with ERA,but every new technology begets another new technology to defeat it.
If you're not careful,it'll get to the situation where one power launches it's single strike weapon against another power,only to be taken out by the other sides single weapon.
I don't know the answer,well except for we stop continually fighting each other & try & co-operate with each other to deal with much more pressing problems the planet faces.
Not if the Enemy is Over Reliant on Tanks!!! 🤔
I will say, no matter how expensive anti tank weapons are, they are always cheaper than tanks. 🤷♂️
Self-propelled artillery will not become obsolete
Very good points! People - and possibly also military planners - are taking the effectiveness of ATGWs for granted it seems, not considering indeed A. the spiraling cost, B. the fact that there are low tech countermeasures or countertactics imaginable, that will degrade the effectiveness of ATGW operators (heavy shelling with delayed fuzes to penetrate foxholes/trenches, specialized sniper teams that specifically identify and eliminate ATGW crew for example) and finally C. that the tank industry hasn't been really sitting idly watching the introduction of ever more sophisticated ATGWs. Newer and better APS-systems and electronic countermeasures (ECM) will find their way to main battle tanks.
When looking at the war in Ukraine, some may tend to think that all a defender has got to do, is dug in really deep, pop up as soon as massed mechanized formations roll by and Bob's your uncle. Looking more closely, certain sources already suggest (see the video of Red Effect on the matter of a singel T-90M being lost) that not all tanks are equally vulnerable and that tank tactics seem (surprise, surprise) matter, as well as the effective apllication of combined arms doctrine, modern sensors, UAVs and sound (i.e. scrambled, frequency hopping) communications and coordination. Anyone who's championing this war as the victory of the ATGW is learning all the wrong and overly simplistic lessons here.
Another point of contention is this: as you say @Matsimus, the supply lines of ATGWs are under stress, with certain critical parts being hard to come by. Have you noticed that thusfar only the least sophisticated Russian tanks appear to have been taken out in quantity, while very few if any advanced ones have? There's therefore a considerble chance that while western stockpiles deplete, the Russians still have their best tanks in reserve, albeit in less massive numbers. Now suppose these roll in and are bing used by properly trained crews, competent commanders and in perfect sync with the other combined arms on the battle fatigued Ukranian forces...
A couple slight points of contention I would like to address:
1. No discussion of asymmetric warfare or its use in modern battle calculus. Pretty clearly this is the reason behind the interest in ATGMs in most modern militaries. It's a cheap and effective way to repel superior armored forces with a dispersed and protracted insurgent campaign.
2. The arms being given, at least initially, to Ukraine have not been cutting-edge equipment. It's been more NATO clearing out old stock of 20+-year-old equipment and "donating" it to Ukraine, for a fee. Nothing in capitalism is ever free; there is always a cost associated.
3. Western oil companies were primed to start tapping into the oil and natural gas reserves in the Donbas and along the Crimean coast, which Ukraine had recently leased them.
As much as I would like to believe this is a battle of principle, I think it is much a war of politics and economics. Ukraine has a lot of resources that it would love to export to the world's markets but Putin seems to prefer to keep them under a new iron curtain. NATO is content to wage a proxy war with Ukraine caught in the middle as long as it doesn't transcend their border and until things reach a tipping point, it's going to be a lot of stalemates and pointless bloodloss, of both military and civilian lives.
Welcome to the 21st century, where all wars are fought over diminishing supplies of fossil fuel reserves.