How the NLAW Anti-Tank Missile Auto Locks on Enemy Tanks 

I should have gone more into detail on this part. It shoots a shape charge down into the vehicle , there is a video demonstration of it towards the end of this video . It basically punctures a small hole in the armor that sends high velocity fragments into the hull focused on injuring the crew and igniting the ammo inside the tank more so than damaging the exterior pieces. That’s my understanding. Can’t be reloaded because it costs more to make a tube strong enough to be reloadable. Launcher tube needs to be made out of way heavier material to be reloaded. . The optics and sight are reusable it’s the munition that is one and done.

To defeat the ERA it must have a tandem charge.

@@ek8710 No it doesn't, the missile the NLAW is based on had tandem warheads but they realized that the main warhead had plenty of power to penetrate ERA by itself. Search for Bill2 presentation video and see for yourself.

Explosively formed penetrator - this one explodes in distance and forms its projectile on the way.

@@Taskandpurpose Explosively formed penetrator as mentioned by Andris. Basically the explosion shapes a plate of metal into a slug which blasts through the top of the tank.

"NLAW users are toxic, noob weapon, let's go 1v1, knifes only!" And that's when a knife guy shows up whit 25 knifes, 7 machetes, 2 can and 1 corkscrew openers.

@@Hk7762Tube so can I bring the American made Switchblade? Nothing better than a Kamikaze drone at a knife fight

Since when was any war fair :) I bet the Germans in WWI thought the first appearance of the British tank was unfair.

@@JustMe-gn6yf sure, bring it. Essentially though Kamikaze applies to any of the anti-tank missiles though. And switchblade is only remotely controlled so it’s kinda not so accurate to dismissed the human suicide pilots where the term really applies.

@@professorcrabs926 but it can linger above giving surveillance just like a drone then crash into its target and at 5.5 lbs for the 40mm warhead every grunt can easily carry one

I thought it was sound absorption. =P I guess Saab is great at destroying vehicles, but not at making them? o_O

Same stuff was on the old Dragon system doing the same job. It also sits inside the crates and cans of many munitions doing the cushion job.

Yea having been one of those Grunts who have to lug something similar around, we're quite rough with it...

@@striker8paints Javelin missiles and the Javelin CLU use the same material.

"unrivaled energy absorption and impact protectin" bunch of marketing bs, it's just a stiffer form of expanded polystyrene (styrofoam). The different material properties mean the bumper on the launcher has to have slightly different geometry (my guess, smaller because of the higher stiffness)

Thanks to every person involved in development of this „game changer“.

It is probably a lot of circumstances. Congratulations SAAB. If i was in a tank crew...I would shit my pants...

This Anti-Tank Missile is useless, and even Scott Rittor said it. All we've seen are edited videos. Here is the actual footage debunked:ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W9pVEP0AzZ4.html

As a human I'm proud because another human who has nothing to do with me invented something

@@coldjuice9293 Have worked for SAAB, not on the Robot 57 program though, so its not completely random.

So basically the tube is pretty low tech, and the high tech stuff either detonates on impact, or is detachable?

@@cerebraldreams4738 The tube is just like a tube for firing a rocket, but the Optic of the NLAW is expensive and sophisticated. It like Javelin where you can throw away the launcher but not the fire Optic because that cost a lot, can be reused and is also very sophisticated.

That was a fun show. Excellent work making it!

It is interesting. The LPR and DPR militias are posting tons of videos of them using stolen (?captured?) NLAWs on Ukrianian vehicles.

@@Boomkokogamez Standard sight is an ordinary ACOG.

Ah yes, militia-proofing.

that makes sense! can't let those sensitive bits get knocked around too much - thats military grade for ya

Seems like a good idea. Imagine carrying that thing for miles just to find out you accidentally bumped it on the ground, making it not work

At the risk of showing my age, they look similar to the end pieces on the older LAW 90 system. They were for protection, as a three foot tube on the back of your bergen or webbing would be fairly easy to damage, otherwise.

Yeah I love the foam - does the job with low cost and almost no mass.

Trump sent thousands of Javilin rockets to Ukraine when in office effectively saving Ukrainians from being overrun.

tens of thousands of NLAWs and javelins were delivered to Ukraine, and where are the thousands of Russian destroyed tanks? They are not here. there are losses of Russian armored vehicles, but they are not as big as expected. This weapon has completely failed!

@@markd8593 Hahahahahaha there is countless evidence of fucked up russian armour

@@markd8593 I remember there's a few drone that destroyed a tank, funny innit?

@@markd8593 Funny, from where I'm looking in the real world, the only thing that has completely failed is Russia's invasion... unless you count Wagner's very successful invasion of Russia - your military could learn a thing or two from those guys.

Yep, just a painful few meters away from being a dead tank.

@@godalmighty83 at least they didn’t turn the turret around

the NLAW also has a minimum distance - it was too close for the NLAW to set it self up

@@kit-geoffbullough8788 he had it on the wrong setting they can fire direct at short range but he set it to fire too late

The NLAW got two attackmodes (DA) direct attack and (DOA) direct overflow attack.

theres the better joke I was looking for haha

make a upgrated version with 5 times the range and call it the Mother of All NLAWS... MANLAWS...... it's MAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!

Thats what they call it in the british army

Well they call it the in law

. . . "Is your real name . . ." Les Dawson" . . ." ? Hee , hee.

They aren't as much because tanks evolved too. Crew of a Leopard 1 tank or M60 was equally toast when faced with Malyutka or Kornet. Its a race between a sword and a shield and one rarely gains a huge advantage over the other

RPGs are still useful today as of 30-40 years ago and it's reusable unlike the M72 LAW which is a one time use.

@@Rohliable which is why you can get American made rpgs. Of course they use foreign made rockets for now.

The movie fury gave a good depiction of how scary the panzerfaust was to a Sherman tank crew. Seeing what's going down in Ukraine there's no way in hell I'd be tankist. Give me a akm and some good boots,

@@Rohliable Thats why most militaries use carl gustav,however M72 comes in many new versions as well,anti armour with 450 mm pen,airburst,confined space etc etc.and they are lightweight and easy to carry.

There's already a top-attack version, the TOW-2B. It's been around several years.

top down attack mode has only 20 meters effective use beyond that its just visual to target

@@kamikaziking what, what missile are u talking about?

With what we are seeing in Ukraine, I wouldn’t be surprised if Lockheed and Raytheon team up to slap a javelin seeker on a TOW and call it 3.

@@peterearden Then it wouldn't be a TOW. At that point may as well just use a Hellfire.

Also, as the training systems were rolled out before the live system many troops were already competent with it. I first had training on it in 2008

I think I remember reading that it is detachable

Good point. Javelin's laser guide sight or whatever sighting thing it is is detachable

@@alawesy It is detachable and will go on a picatinny rail.

The doctrine is that when fired you're meant to take the sight off and either destroy it or lob it in a bush away from the tube

wonder how long the battery last and if it's rechargeable

Exactly, these systems all have different pros and cons. NLAW is for closer battles and ambushes, and simple to use, basically a guided RPG. Javelin is more complicated but has the longer range needed in more open places. Stugnas are less mobile but also have long range can be fired from cover. Then you have various unguided launchers - less accurate especially for moving targets but they don't need to be fired only at vehicles so they're more versatile. Starstreak takes more training than other MANPADS but defeats things like flares. etc.

Don't forget the simpler, cheaper and just as effective rockets, the at4, m4 recoilless etc

And the complete lack of any aps systems in Russian vehicles.

This Anti-Tank Missile is useless, and even Scott Rittor said it. All we've seen are edited videos. Here is the actual footage debunked:ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W9pVEP0AzZ4.html

One benefit both NLAW and starstreak have is currently neither can be spoofed unlike javelin and stinger. NLAW can also be used more effectively in urban environments and arms at a much closer range making it a great ambush weapon. Javelin needs ideally 2 people to operate effectively due to weight and bulk. One with the CLU one with 2 missiles.

I didn't see any proof of its effectiveness in Ukraine so far, and they wouldn't miss a chance to show something like that.

@@uros7426 what are you talking about?

I have heard the most effective weapons in these wars were mines. I would love to see Cappie doing a video on aftermath to analyze what eere the most successful weapons in this war.

Star Trek? Beam me up Scottie, there's no intelligent life down hear.

@@fish93837 I didn't see any video of using these things in Ukraine. Most of the destroyed tanks are from artillery and old soviet RPGs.

Yes, the weapon (no idea if NLAW) was too close, so it didnt have time to arm.

Yes. The shot was inside the minimum safe range and so the warhead never armed. It's kinda like that one scene in Hunt for Red October where they closed the distance to a torpedo before it armed. Just this time they started inside that range.

@@catlee8064 It was an NLAW, if you freeze frame the video, a clear view of the actual missile can be seen.

@@TheNewsDepot "Captain scared them out of the water"

If you look closely, it doesn’t appear to strike the turret, perhaps a stowage bin on the right rear of the turret. I suspect it was also in direct attack mode. Hard to tell, but something certainly detonated and probably not ERA on that part of the turret.

The sight can be detached...they thought of everything

@@hull294 It's what I would have done. Reduces what's thrown away to a tube, battery and a bit of wiring for the firing circuit. Probably costs about a grand.

Tanks provide lots of mobility and firepower. This idea will never be obsolete. But the tank designs will change like they always did since WW1.

MBTs will be replaced by unmanned gun carriers that are faster with lighter armor because you don't have 4 lives inside IFVs will exist as long as infantry does.

@@jeremywomack7090 I agree, we will probably see tank drones soon. They can also be very slim if they don't have to accomodate 3-4 people

@@jeremywomack7090 Just because its a drone, doesnt mean its not a tank.

They should have conical shape. They will be invincible. they should wear a billowing sheet, like a Halloween ghost, so that their shapeshifting powers can defeat target recognition. Instead of using ammo, which can explode, they can have crab pincers. Deadly at close range. Causing panic at long range. The turret should be screwed to the base, so it won't blow off no matter what. The tank should be able to fire inflatable dummy tanks toward any threat. Every third tank should have a baby on board and a sign saying "baby on board", as well as a little white flag tied to the nose, so the enemy has to look really closely before they shoot. Instead of armour, the tank should have just an empty frame, so enemy weapons pass through and burrow harmlessly into the ground. The tank should have a small rocket propulsion, so that when it detects an incoming weapon, it can boost out of the way at the last moment. Even Nintendo hasn't solved this tactic with generation 9 AI (6 generations ahead of real world NLAW), so it's probably logically impossible to beat.

900i convertible 350.000km

Still rocking my 2008 9-5 Vector

161,000 miles on my 9-3 and never uses a drop of oil or water, superb cars

@יונתן זנטון Had one of those but my wife at that time managed to warp the head 😩 . Cow of a job to fix

Very good cars , shame they destroyed themselves . The company not the cars

because it's a tradition... 1 9 4 3.... М4А4 Sherman Firefly.... lovely. who needs eyebrows, right?!

And they really invented the bases of the modern aircraft carrier; and the super armor of the M-1 tank is the UK composite armor.

All those systems are not purely British designed though are they. They're European consortium designed

@@Truthbomb918 that’s why if you read with the eyes god gave you, you will see I say “project management”, which is the hardest part by far.

@@ukironman1 if u used ur brain and wrote exactly what u meant maybe then people will understand what point ur trying to make

100% this. Trump's mindset is ineffective in the modern era, to put it nicely. We need connection, organisation, and mutually beneficial agreements.

What evidence do you have to suggest that our countries are becoming isolationist in a way that would have any bearing on such programmes?

@@B.D.E. how did Trump's mindset threatwn any such defence cooperation programme?

@@B.D.E. If only you knew that Trump never pushed for isolation, but only wanted the states to cooperate, not isolating each other to statehood alone.

@Dick Izzinya Exactly what you said is the exact thing that is scaring so many Americans… food shortages an so much more things all because of trade stopping! Why are we getting things from China we can make ourselves? Because it’s cheaper is my guess! Trade with our fellow Allie’s is one thing but why trade with China an Iran (the oil deal) when they hate us? We need to be making things those countries need from us not the other way around! An trump was so much better then the corrupt old man we have now!

in Direct Attack mode, the nlaw can take out charging cavalry.

Great point! :)

Crossbows and armor continuously evolved throughout the medieval ages in order to match each other. I don't think there ever was a point where crossbows were suddenly much stronger than the armor at the time, as you suggest.

@@zarwil there likely was a time as described but not for long

Any examples of game changers. Imagine the 90's when a reliable lightweight nightvision helmet mounted system allowed one side to own the night completely.

Hear, hear!

a golf ball

He's talking about a fire inside the crew compartment of the turret being able to detonate ammo. There is a barrier to prevent this.

Actually you both are incorrect. The T-72 suffers a catastrophic explosion because the autoloader is below the crew in the turret. If a shell explodes, it kills the crew and usually ignites the remaining rounds. In an M1, the ammo is stored in a compartment designed to direct the explosion AWAY from the turret (the outer shell of the ammo rack is thinner than the plate separating it from the turret). However, the same hit from an NLAW would likely kill or injure the M1 crew the same way it would the T-72 crew. The difference is just what happens when the ammo is hit. In an M1, the crew has a much higher chance surviving.

Unless the loader of the M1 has the door open to load a shell…

@@ThelVadam7777 that might be the case, I think it is a sliding door ... but compared to the T-72, that's a small window of vulnerability ...

@@ThelVadam7777 yes, that's why it's only opened for a few seconds while a new shell is being picked up. Interestingly enough the latest T90 mod added blast panels to the autoloader at the cost of ammo storage space making it safer for the crew but require resupply more often. If I'm not mistaken it still lacks fucking air conditioning but gotta cut costs somewhere lol

And so did your target I assume?

You mean it blew up in your hands?

Fun fact; At-4 is also swedish made

were not where

the javelin could be fired by a newbie with 15 mins of training and it was during development . and this day and age with all the kids with hundreds of hours of gaming experience these deadly toys are so easy to operate.

Yup, about 5minutes instruction then practice, of course the army turned it into several 40 min classes

Funny but they do and it's called the matador

Would that defeat the "L" part of the acronym? NLAW is an acronym for Next generation LIGHT Anti-armour Weapon. If you make it heavier it's hardly light anymore. It's already an uncomfortable 12.5kg (27.5lbs).

Making a missile with a caliber bigger than 150mms isnt that smart, way to heavy etc

I hate to be the one slogging it on foot tho.

ROFL I see what you did there I guess most of the responders here are too big weapon nerds to have a sense of humour.

Oy. You should be PUNished for that.

The most formidable of the Nlaws. Move with caution

this had me cracking up thank you for that 🤣

@@Taskandpurpose It reminded me of the scene from Iron Man 2 when Hammer calls his missile “the Ex-Wife” Lol!

I second. Nothing brings the pain like your suegra.

The most effective weapons on the battlefield are cheap drones and AT missile Stugna-P produced by Ukraine, which is 7k dollars - over 10 times cheaper than Javelin

Disposable is great. Complicated and expensive arent great, but we currently can't make a weapon system that is cheaper and less complicated without compromising on effectiveness.

It is pretty cheap compared to the Javelin

@@phunkracy Are you basing that solely on the number of videos of the Stugna? There's a bias at play, because the Stugna has a remote terminal which is easy to record.

@@alphablobmom5521 the bias is that stugna is more popular and easier to use? Maybe

The USMC needs to bring back assaultmen. The Gustav is an incredibly capable weapon, more capable than the SMAW due to increased range and accuracy, while maintaining a 15lb weight. Trained 51's could do a lot of damage with it against Chinese and Russian motorized forces.

thanks for watching glad you enjoyed it

yep and now that they are sanctioned by Taiwan any posibility of them getting military microtransistors is toast

Thats why we REALLY should close bussines with China RIGHT NOW, no matter what. Even if it means stop eating Chinese food.

I suspect that China wouldn't be in a hurry to strengthen Russia's military. The Chinese might be eyeing up some real estate in Russia's Far East and the weaker Russia becomes, the easier it would be to effect a hostile takeover.

Javelin is covered in the stuff as well...including the detachable CLU, the thermal sight.

the guidance system is so innovative

Until it didn't, they made the armour thicker and the crew were often loaded into the gun

now i cant stop thinking of bofors inventions that makes me proud as a swede =D m48 Carl gustaf, 40mmL60cannon and strv103 among others Ohhhh beautiful times beautiful times

@@Sgt.MajorDani Australian soldiers certainly had a fondness for old "Charlie Gutsache" A bigger Swedish hit than ABBA! Don't forget the other Carl Gustav: the Kpist m/45. That was a really nice SMG.

@יונתן זנטון well now you got the CG M4, less than a meter and only 7kg 👍🏻

@@mortified776 m/45 kpist is excellent, i would never forget it Not even among many other swedish arms and kalibers.. many Excellent inventions actually =) But my frame in this comment was around Bofors arms and it wasn't em who made the kpist Thats a proud production of Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori Bofors is big guns

@יונתן זנטון most weaklings manage to carry at4 at least =)

Night vision and red dots are available when you order them.....

@@catlee8064 no one bought any with NV

@@grandayatollah5655 nobody bought any because they were free

@@grandayatollah5655 Not calling you a liar , but id like to see the proof of that. No way a modern military DOESNT buy night vision gear for its AT weapon, especially when they themselves paid for the R&D.

Not every nation use the same sight for NLAW 😀

LOL I've been making that joke a while now, I APPROVE!

That wouldn't work. At that sort of range the chances of a miss would increase dramatically, you'd be relying on a target going in a straight line for far too long. It would also increase weight and size, the entire idea is that this is man portable. It's important to remember that NLAW is not the main AT weapon. UK uses this at the section level. Company level is Javelin still. Battle Group level could be seen as the Exactor (Spike NLOS). They're all complimentary. Thats likely to change in the future, its likely to be NLAW, MMP replacing Javelin and a much longer ranged Brimstone derivative replacing Exactor at the Battle Group level.

once they're available in the local surplus goodwill store I'll grab a few

Wait till 10,000 drones all loaded with explosives hive towards a group of people and slaughter every single person or downs 30 high-rises/bunkers ......I do believe everything you are seeing now is obsolete, including frontline soldiers.

Armor is effective when leveraged properly in combined arms operations and with sufficient infantry support to protect them. For basically as long as tanks have been around, having them driving around with little to no support has always left them extremely vulnerable. It's also important to note that as of now NATO nations (and Ukraine) are the only nations who actually have this capability. None of our adversaries do, except for potentially China who claims to have something similar but it has never been publically demonstrated or tested.

Keep in mind that NLAW is just one of the first of the third generation (and 20 years old). They are currently evaluating and finalizing the 'Guided Multipurpose Munition' that can be used as ammunition in a Carl-Gustaf launcher. It is basically a 84mm ATGM with +2,5km range. As with any Carl-Gustaf ammo, with a good crew you can fire about 6 times a minute. And... There will also be an AT4-style single use version, of course.

@@e2rqey The purpose of tanks is to protect infantry and give them heavy firepower as well. Modern tanks can spot enemies from longer ranges and in more conceal positions than soldiers nowadays. An infantry screen around a tank is just going immediately die from snipers and artillery fire.

Tanks are still great and very useful! (at parades and against banana republics with no friends).

How long before it's largely drone vs drone

There are already active protection systems that will foil Nlaw and Javelin attacks (see the Israli Trophy system, that is battle tested and works). I havent seen any deployed by Russia, but going forward it looks like its going to become a prerequisite for tanks going forward. Tanks will be around for a while yet.

@@carlchallinor4933 Sure, there are active system and Russia has some (Shtora-2 on older tanks and Afganit for T-14, a system similar to Trophy), but I think they are going to be lagging behind AT technologies. I mean, they work great against dudes in rags with RPG-7s, but radar-based systems could be jammed, laser-detection can be fooled etc. Plus, I expect swarm-based AT solutions pretty soon. There are already loitering munitions, the swarms are the new logical step.

@@mudmug1 how long before someone jams your internet connection to the drone? Netflix better start working on the issue.

Looks pretty bulky.

And the corruption. Probably only a small percentage of the research budget made it to actual research

interesting have they mass produced them in large numbers? are they really effective or is this what we're told? these are the questions I'll have to look into when I cover that HJ-12 . thanks for the comment!

and probably money it seems they cant even afford to keep their army fed so I dont belive they have millions of rubels to spend on weapons development when the west dosent evne have that many tanks

They have Kornets

I rather not see any weapon being use in our world

From UK with love )

Can never follow the damn assembly instructions of that missile...is it just me?

@@bmin7133 You are not alone, the stick figures are very unclear, last time we tried we blew up the chow hall cause we put the missile in backwards.

@@mrgunn2726 wow...thank goodness I didn't let my grannie try to put it together like she wanted to...

Is it the one where you think you're finished and then realize there's two parts left over?

@@xn85d2 Yes, but I did get meatballs and lignin berry sauce when I went to pick them up, take that Raytheon!

Russians are not a very smart people.

Well he’s Russian, that says it all….he probably still thinks they can’t.

That's what happens when you get all your knowledge of armoured warfare from War Thunder.

When older atgms could destroy one why not more modern ones

@@Truthbomb918 Because new stuff is bad, only blackpowder weapons are battle tested, don't trust what them liberal Americans do.

I would prefer being invisible rather than not, flying rather than walking, and having a hand-held weapon that does the same job as a big gun? One can dream :P

@@JavierChiappa everyone likes to fly until you get shot down and hand held weapons can't do the same as gun either due to price or range

Yup. As always, combined arms is the solution.

I think I would pass on being in a Russian tank. You are the target everyone is aiming at and here is the thing : if someone shoots you, it's probably because they have have weapon that makes your armor useless. Instead of making a tank, you can make 100 AT systems that will blast dozens of enemy tanks into non-existence.

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me War Propaganda is a hell of a drug. You need to be careful how much you are taking in. Take a step back and realize that EVERYTHING you are seeing from this conflict is propaganda in some form or another. From both sides. You're not seeing the guys who took a little too long with their NLAW and got blown to pieces by a 30mm from a BMP. You're only seeing the successes. You're seeing pictures and videos with either no context or whose "context" was added by others whose reliability you don't know. How did those "WMD" in Iraq turn out? We don't really know what's going on and likely won't have a somewhat accurate picture for many years. Thus we should not draw any conclusions based on the slanted picture we are being shown. Is there some truth in what we are seeing? Yes. Is it incredibly easy to lie with selective editing of real footage? Also yes. EVERY SINGLE "Counter" to the tank has been cheaper than a tank itself. That did not render tanks obsolete. The Tankgewehr was cheaper than the British tanks in WW1. Anti-Tank guns were cheaper than tanks in the interwar period and into WW2. Bazookas, Panzerschreck and Panzerfausts were cheaper than WW2 tanks. During the cold war, TOWs and AT-3 Saggers were cheaper than either sides tanks. Someone shooting at a tank only does so because they have a weapon that MIGHT penetrate the armor and MIGHT disable or destroy it. This is nothing new. The difference is that the tank has something that WILL, not might, WILL absolutely obliterate the person brave/dumb enough to shoot at a tank. That thing is a 100-125mm stabilized cannon that will kill anyone within 30'-60" of where the shell detonates. Nothing has come along to replace the capability that the tank gives.

So it is about as old as the NLAW in service, but no one is using it? And it doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar? And it isn't being exported?

@@colerape everyone can produce anything. It is the quality that makes the difference. China produces cars too, but there is no comparison between chinese and german cars

@@allennguyen4456 Actually you just compared them to each other. :P

I always got carrying the Charlie G around

But the javelin is réloadable and the command unit can be used as a high quality thermal optic... So the cost is not like for like. How much is a javelin reload?

@@robbiekazandjian8004 I think each missile cost 80k for javelin (command unit is like 140k), while an NLAW is 60k a piece.

@@robbiekazandjian8004 Good question. There's always a chance it will be damaged or captured though. Would be interesting to know the average lifespan and cost of ammo. I'd guess the average cost per tank destroyed is much lower with NLAW with its 3rd gen tech. Specially when you take servicing, repair and storage / transport of ammo into account. A reloadable unit will also be more complex and probably heavier. I just read online each missile reload is $175k - might be a mistake though. I'd guess the majority of the expense is in the payload, not the launcher.

It’s also a question if the tank is supported by infantry that is able to suppress the team that is attacking the tank and if the tank has APS or not.

Even the old RPG 7 penetrates 500mm of armor easily. The tandem round even goes 750mm+ This is incredible performance, and this weapon is decades old. The NLAW is a lot smaller and the shape charge is a lot smaller but because it is smart and targets the weak spot of a tank it has no problem with destroying any tank. This does not only go for the Russian tanks btw but the modern western tanks as well. Also every tanks ammo can explode. Western tanks usually have blow off holes for the pressure to vent is such a situation but still. The Russian tank strategy is not a bad idee by itself it is just not well made into a final product.

You should see what my phallos can do to a T72

@@sierraecho884 the new leopard 2 ammo is not able to go off even if it is hit directly by a RPG. It’s one reason why the newer models don’t have blowout door in the hull.

@@exo068 Ah I missed that development. I was with the PzH2000, this thing would just blow up when hit.

20 metres minumum range, if the operator had left it 1-2 seconds more he'd have popped the turret off.

The term Manpads is only used for anti aircraft missiles not atgms, the ad in Manpads stands for air defense

20m similar arming distance for the rpg

Well, the soviets really only won the winter war when they focused their efforts and men to the point closest to the finnish capital, allowing them to capture it, even then they didn't get a lot from that.

The same couldn't be said so on ukraine and its succesful defense of kiev.

Difference being in the winter war the west didn’t really do much to help. They are now pouring material, money and intelligence into Ukraine.

@@gamedominatorxennongdm7956 Karelia was half the country man what are you talking about?

@@kamikaziking Wait, what do you mean by that? Do you mean by terms of population or land.

It's the same kind of principle how the M1 Abrams main gun hits a moving target.

also needs a compartment to hold vape pens and cartridges.

Just think how dangerous it could be with a tactical flashlight or bayonet attached.

When designing the mark 2 version of the launcher it should also come with a heating element. The tube can then be used to brew up with after firing. Those troopers will need a cup of tea from somewhere.

The (detachable) scope being pic railed for easy usage on other weapon systems wouldn't actually be a bad idea.

@@christophertranter3475 I believe that was part of the original British Army spec

They will copy it, it's only a matter of time....

China already has the the HJ 12 which is like the Javelin. Expect some NLAW to fall in the hand of the Chinese with this war happening, stuff end up on the black market.

achtually the russian kornet from 1980's cook the abrams from any direction.

Didnt eh marines get deployed in Kosovo, where they faced similar conditions to what the Russians faced in Ukraine? Except this time, the marines actually didnt have 9999 unecessary deaths? I wouldnt worry about it.

I think many share your feelings!