Are Modern Militaries overly Reliant on Anti-tank weapons? | ADDICTED TO JAVELIN & NLAW 

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

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.

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.

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.

Translation: Are modern militaries too reliant on keeping their troops alive?

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.

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 😎

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The cost of ATGM systems has gone down exponentially over the past 60 years.

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,,,,,,,,,

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.

There's a company in the USA now making a copy of the RPG7. This seems like a good idea to me.

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.

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.

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.

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

At the end of the day, ATGMs are the best tool for dealing with armour until something else is made

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.

Matt, love seeing you active again as I miss your content when you're not around

what i dont understand is why they dont develop a rechargeable battery for the CLU

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.

Absolutely LOVED the intro with the rifled barrel taking the stage!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

As the song goes: Gonna have to face it, I'm addicted to LAW...

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

First thought in my mind when seeing the title; how else would you defend against a nation addicted to tanks?

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.

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.

Maybe a system like the Stugna is a better middle ground which you could say is like a step beyond the TOW 2.

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.

Really enjoy your channel in general and this video in particular. Timely and thoughtful. (Personal quibble - you could use a line editor)

as long as the tanks cost way more then the atgm that takes them out its a win imo

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.

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.

What are tanks but huge piles of technology? As long as the cheaper technology can take them out, all of these missiles are well worth it.

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.

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.

*You are the Cause, and we are the Effect.*

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.

Aspects of your video remind me of the conversation around "Are carrier battle groups obsolete?"

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 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….

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.

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

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.

Looking up random articles online definitely isn't the way to look into this subject. No serious military is arguing for removing tank from its army...

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

It’s effective. A single or team of soldiers with the fire power of an MBT. Force multipliers for sure.

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....

The bane of tanks has always been infantry, thats why its suicidal for tanks to go into urban environments without the proper support

Well said Matt. This was an ongoing debate in the CAF back when I was serving

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).

Self-propelled artillery will not become obsolete

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.

I would say: yes... ...but then I remember that Russia has tank reserves.

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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Anti-tank weapon (

You'd think they would be more obsessed with Anti-aircraft weapons.

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 could stick some cameras and a radio connection on an old shitbox tank, put a brick on its accelerator throw it in gear so it drives towards the enemy to do some scouting and bait out expensive ATGMs.

The problem is that we constantly see the videos where the Anti-tank missiles destroy the target but what about all the times they miss, misfire, or fail to inflict serious damage, I would like to know how many AT missiles are fired per kill on average.

Indeed the ManPads are the new darlings of war. The strategy of holding, advancing or retreating needs the inclusion of various weapons utilized most effectively. Under a robust drone canopy is where the best use for the Javelin or NLAW can be determined. Capabilities for artillery and tanks do not mean they are obsolete, it's just how we use them with our other weapons. I envision drones landing in enemy territory to form a surveillance blanket relaying the information before making a commitment. Knowing where the enemy is and where they are going can be assigned to multiple platforms with NLAW's and Javelin's a part of, but not the only one, to thwart the enemy.

as you mentioned India, yes you are right we were planning to buy the Israel SPIKE ATGM ( LR ) but because of the cost plus the less no. thing you mentioned we dumped them and went to buy more french ATGM ( MILAN ) and kornet in 2021, the no. of MILAN is set to 5000 ( not exact but almost there) and the same amount of kornets but at the same time we are also buying carl Gustav plus spike nlaws for that pinpoint target thing. Yes, tech is good but what will we do if we have non to fir at the enimy. And we are one of the biggest cargustov operators too.

It doesn't matter about the best tank, it's where is the best anti tank. In addition , where are the best drones.

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.

It is the favorite because it is the stealth and mobile tank on the battlefield.

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

Interesting point about supply line integrity. It would suck to have the best weapons in the world, but not be able to make any more because your silicon chips are all made in another hemisphere.

Matsimus, would love a video on the 6.8x51 and NGSW

I guess having 1,000 infantry with RPGs againts a battalion of tanks has better odds over 100 infantry with Javlins? I believe definitely tanks are a necessary element in warfare. As warefare technology further allows the widening range of capabilities the more devices we need to combat them. We need a diversified range of weapons to combat the enemy.

im callin it, the future is an updated striker with an amos+shorad with drones doin balistics calculations. avoiding any form of direct fighting.

Thank you for a reasoned discussion of defense vs offense vis-a-vis the tank as a tool

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.

Mat, I feel like you underplayed the training necessary to make effective use of older, unguided, anti-tank weapons. Yes, the instructions for using a Carl Gustav or RPG-7 can be printed on the side of the launcher, but that doesn't mean that someone picking it up for the first time will be able to use it well. There's a significant level of learned skill and muscle memory to using those weapons, that I would guess takes as much, or more, training time to gain as the technical skills needed to operate an ATGM.

One should also not underestimate the "fleet in being" aspect of ATGMs. If every infantryman MIGHT have an Javalin, you have to skirt him much further if you want to bypass him. You have to be much more carefull of buildings too. Things that make infantry asymetrically dangerous are very usefull simply for the extra limitations they place on armour, aircraft etc. Sure occasionally someone will barrel down the road and run into your ambush allowing you to show off the awsomeness of your shiny new ATGM, but the important part is actually the many time they DON'T do that because they fear the ambush. Those are encirclement not made, arty positions not overrun, supply dumps not taken. It makes infantry a much more effective blocking force.