Fun fact, after one of the engagements between the Soviets and the Chinese over the Ussuri river's islets, the Chinese claimed that the Soviets were using combat lasers to burn down masses of their infantry attacking the Russian positions. What the Soviets actually used were the BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, firing incendiary warheads; this was the combat debute of this iconic Cold War weapon system, and since lasers were also a recent thing, the Chinese assumed that the wonder weapon which incinerated their troops must have been an energy-based one.
or is it? the soviets have the tendency to hide their cool stuffs and only reveal it as propaganda when western spies already found out what if the soviets actually use the laser tank to incinerate chinese soldiers as a test?
it is a fact that Chinese military at the time (during 60s-70s) treat laser weapon rather seriously, they assume energy based weapon will be in the field within the upcoming decades, in one of the PLA info book from 1978 titled ，they spend a whole episode of how to treat the eye damage and second degree skin burn. The weapon they referenced is the Gaylen Lyell Laser Rifle from 1964 featuring a possibly fictional ammunition for the laser round. Which is very bizzare.
@@imgvillasrc1608 i mean ZKZM-500 is pretty much the closest laser rifle we have to a lasgun. Most of the laser rifle around the world include other Chinese product are pretty much just blinding laser, while ZKZM-500 actually capable of burning human skin
@@itsuk1_1this is actually the actual real China that the actual American and British BBC propaganda mainstream media actually don't show you is actually really like and actually capable of actually doing and damm
40+ years ago when I graduated college as an engineering student, I attended a presentation by a USAF colonel who explained many of the issues with lasers as weapons. Dust and moisture in the air absorbs much of the energy. Fog and rain will likewise make such weapons useless. Even so, he said an airborne laser was twenty years from being deployed (at high altitude to shoot down missiles). Twenty years later, still no airborne laser weapon. At the time, the US Army was working on a laser system with the acronym CLAW, which would blind enemy gunners. It was discontinued because of war crime concerns and about what an enemy would do to the crews of these lasers if captured.
You seem to have forgotten about the Airborne laser Platform on a modified Boeing 747. Built to shoot down missiles. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-R2eehBk_DNQ.htmlfeature=shared
Fun fact, they had to run the film for that Bond film through the cameras some 64 times to get all the layers of the scene; any one screw-up would have meant starting from scratch.
@@michaelhowell2326 For that James Bond movie - Moonraker I'm pretty sure - they had to expose the film to light many times to get all of the different special effects onto it. Each time through the camera the cost of an error went up.
@@jimsvideos7201 so it's like if someone is developing photos in dark room with a red light, they just had to do incremental light adjustments? Sorry again for him being so dense, but I think he's getting it.
@@michaelhowell2326 You're getting there but this was before the developing stage. Consider this: If you were in a dark studio and took a picture of a person in the left side of the scene then took a picture of a different person on the right side (on the same piece of film, mind) tbh you'd have one picture of both people, but if person number 2 blinked you'd have to start again.
The problem is bad weather, smoke and other obstructions render it far less effective so in the end the more basic systems with munitions are generally more effective. However, when used sparingly and by ships with capacity for more effective larger versions. As a defensive system on aircraft for example it could be quite effective at blinding enemy missiles and causing them detonate early. So there is certainly a future for lasers in military service.
I can't see how that would be a problem: These laser systems were developed to disable (more or less permanently) enemy optics. Any fog, dust, smoke or tree coverage that would block the laser would also block the enemy optic systems making the laser not useless, but just unnecessary in that situation. Being line-of-sight only isn't really a drawback for your weapon if its intended target is also line-of-sight only.
@@qdaniele97 yes i agree however a lot of it's targets are not line of site dependent, such as anti radar missiles that lock on to a radar emission and follow it to the source.
So the idea was for it to work more like an anti-sensor like system instead of burning everything like an martian in a HG Wells book, like an modern laser weapon would do?
Another fun fact, I just saw a video of an American system called DE M-SHORAD, basically a LAV with a laser emitter. Whether using any laser on enemy soldiers is a war crime I can't say, but it about the only way to use the power levels currently available effectively.
@@regalplays7135 Guess which task it'll actually be capable of, given the power available. Once it can catastrophically kill a drone in well under one second, I'll consider it capable of that task.
I love how the fringe experimental side of the Russian and American military is awfully close to their _'Command & Conquer: Red Alert'_ equivalents. Edit: I really want to play those games again now but I remember how awfully that franchise met its end.
It's not even quite a coincidence, if you think about it-The artists making games about whimsical Cold War weapons and the engineers actually building whimsical Cold War weapons all grew up drinking from the same sci-fi punchbowl. Then as adults the former see an IRL device and think "ooh let's do our own one of those" while the latter see a fictional one and think "ooh could we really do one of those?" (Never mind that a lot of Red Alert was originally based around accounts of the Philadelphia Experiment, which while it _very likely_ didn't happen and is based on misunderstanding and misremembering of ship degaussing procedures with maybe a little senile confabulation thrown in, is at least _alleged_ to have been IRL technology. I'm skeptical but who knows what kind of crazy shit might be possible if you tickle the fabric of the universe just right?)
Another old game called State of War also had vehicles mounted with similar laser weapons. Don't know if it still runs on any modern PC's but it was also a good one.
there is another problem. beam widening. depending on the frequency, but expecially towards the higher frequencies / shorter wavelength, the beam widens and light scatters and loses effectiveness. furthermore, the laser is a high precision optical instrument. it's really hard to outfit it with enough shock absorbers that the optics don't get whacked out of alignment and be good enough to work with hundreds of kilowatts of light. and never forget the waste heat such a system produces.
i think it wouldn't be a warcrime it is designed to blind pilots/vehicle operators only, and they are viewing through an optic on a screen, which excludes it from what i understand (In international humanitarian law, the use of laser weapons is prohibited when they are specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.) it isn't designed to blind those using unenhanced vision and though it likely could, it isn't setup to target these threats, and if you say that isn't enough to exclude it, then the us is using warcrime lasers as well. i don't have any professional basis on this nor have i done an extensive amount of research on it, so feel free to correct me if you know more on the subject.
Once lasers become powerful enough, anyone caught in their crosshairs will never stand a chance. You can't evade a laser. If it misses, you outperformed it's targeting system, not the actual weapon.
FWIW specialized ablative armor (e.g. aerogels) and chaff clouds might be able to buy you time to get to get back into cover or terrain-mask. But yeah if they have line of sight to you it would be an absolutely terrifying weapon to face, even if it _is_ far enough in the future they'd be able to regrow your retinas.
@@frogisis it's a terrible way to go. A bright light and then you don't exist anymore. Lots of people say they would love to go out like that. So quick it's painless. Not me. I'd even take some pain over just instantly not existing.
А с какого это перепугу т-90, не эффективный. Это Леопарды и Абрамсы - НЕ эффективны. =D Пересвет! Одно слово - "пересвет". Новая, не очень секретная техника, для ослепления спутников.
I recall my dad saying that back in the 60s-70s in Poland there was a rumor of a skirmish on the border of the USSR/China and that hordes of ChiCom soldiers were cut down by Soviet lasers.
The Chinese thought that. They even provided info to medical troops on how to treat laser burns. They were greatly worried by the technological edge the USSR had over them at the time. However, in that incident, hordes of the invading ChiCom soldiers were burnt by the newly developed BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher (incendiary loadout).
@@krystianzyszczynski4115 Most "public rumors" do have certain basis aside from absolutely ridiculous urban legends. Yes, it was the Damansky incident, when the Chinese forces invaded Soviet territory unprovoked and attacked a border guards outpost. When it became clear that the outpost is practically destroyed, the Soviet commanders used the recently developed BM-21s to absolutely devastate the Damansky island. When the salvos were fired, the Chinese already had massive reinforcements arrive, so the troop saturation was very dense for such a small piece of land. The ensuing carnage taught them to stay on their side of the river, since most of their troops and armor were annihilated.
@@krystianzyszczynski4115 Glad to help. I guess, a mass salvo of rockets with their afterburner tails might look kinda like lasers, maybe that's where the legend originates.
The way that it sounds like, it may end up being the reason they will be bankrupted if trying to build it in big numbers and for maintenance keep up with. Also, would like to see that planes video in the future.
This never took off because it depended on chemical lasers. Refueling those takes for-EVER, and the chemical byproduct was just too much for what they got from the laser.
*We will never have high energy Weapons until they can make Clear-Metallic-Hydrogen stable (1,500,600 PSI) and then run a 5000 Amp Short through it. This should have a Phonon Density of 10,370,500 Joules per Sq.mm of beam area.*
IR lasers are pretty much worthless for blinding pilots because the glass used in the cockpit is not transmissive in that wavelength. The biggest limitation with laser weaponry is the targeting system, and the Russians absolutely weren't capable of developing an adequate system for a field grade laser weapon. It's easy to lock on and illuminate a satellite that's moving at a constant steady velocity, not so much for a vehicle or aircraft that frequently changes direction and speed.
I was a little bit surprised, why the author of the video called Ilushin-76 "Beriev - 60" then I googled and yes, this flying laser platform was really indexed as "Beriev". Interesting, never heard about it before!
You keep saying that it is a war crime and against the Geneva convention. But that protocol did not come into effect until the mid 90s and specifically has the clause that "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."
Am no scientist but am guessing that the reason we don't have that many laser based weapons like laser guns is cuz of the energy and also how much affective would that be to a more simpler bullet or missile
as for energy, nuclear should do the job.lasers are much more cheaper than missiles.think the reason they aren't mainstream is cus its a pain to develop.
It;s not that lasers can't be effective, just no more effective than a conventional kinetic weapon like a bullet. Bullets are cheaper, more reliable and have less issues on the battlefield. If lasers were better we'd already see them deployed everywhere.
My dad remembers hearing a legend in Poland, about Soviet tanks using Lasers against the Chinese in the 60s. My father was not a conspiracy theorist at the time, the internet didn't exist either, but the theory was word of mouth / common knowledge.
The Chinese thought that. They were greatly worried by the technological edge the USSR had over them at the time. However, in that incident, hordes of the invading ChiCom soldiers were burnt by the newly developed BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher (incendiary loadout).
Russia might of claimed they developed and had an actual functioning model but they never really existed or worked as advertised. I would love to see how much Russia could help global development and how much they would benefit from and how far along they would be if they were a Nato member and shared technology with the US, UK, Germany, France and etc.
Bro every prototype vehicle they have ever made, they have tested and the reports from those tests is what the soviet and subsequently russian military got, its the same information we are getting. Test reports are always the best most credible sources, you can find out there. A politicians can and might exaggerate about a weapons capabilites but not its designers
They have a laser on an IFV type of vehicle but its only used for pd against drones. They wouldnt make sense as an artillery type of weapon since the earth is curved.
i am still unable to fully comprehend the hypocricy of Jeneva Convention. Somehow precision blinding people is a war crime while incinerating or dismembering them with precision air strike is not. You either take of your cross os put on trousers, as we say.
it's never going to be viable because the lasers require massive amounts of power and all that power production/consumption produces massive amounts of heat that needs to be dissipated
When you mispronounce luftwaffe as luftwaffle, it's admittedly pretty cute. When you mispronounce weaponry as weapondry, I'm not super into it but I let it slide. When did this whole describe rather than subscribe thing happen, though? Really love your channel but it feels rather sloppy the more you do it.
1:53 it’s not a war crime. Article 3 of Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (aka. The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. Note that the Geneva convention has nothing to do with this. You can’t just use “Geneva convention” as a blanket name holder for the entire body of international law and conventions) states that: Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, (including laser systems used against optical equipment,) is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol. Melting equipment or burning troops to death is a legitimate military employment of laser weaponry. As long as they’re intended to burn Simone to death, poke a hole through them, melt equipment, destroy electronics, destroy or distrust sensors…. But they just so happen to blind someone unfortunate enough to get hit in the eyes but not die, it’s okay. You just can’t make a device that’s meant to permanently blind them. The reasoning signatories gave is it’s no different than physical munitions causing blindness. You don’t blind artillery because shrapnel designed to kill personnel and destroy equipment can get in someone’s eyes and blind them if they’re not in that kill radius. You can even absolutely blind someone using some of the higher powered laser rangefinders and target designators we use.
A: a laser which can put as much energy on the target in as short a period of time as a gun does not yet exist. If you had a 99% efficient laser ,you would then have a power supply problem, not unlike the railgun problem. Chemical energy storage wins again.
