4 ms·

Are they giving these out to non-professional combatants since it's also instructing usage? And if so, are they giving it out to anyone that just asks? As far a

by Hamuko 5y ago

Are they giving these out to non-professional combatants since it's also instructing usage? And if so, are they giving it out to anyone that just asks? As far as I know, one missile costs as much as a base-spec Toyota Camry.

adolph 5y ago
Cost of Camry: $25,395 [0] Cost of T-72: $2,000,000 [1] 0. https://www.toyota.com/camry/2022/ https://www.toyota.com/camry/2022/ 1. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-current-price-of-a-T-72-tank https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-current-price-of-a-T-72-ta...
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Well yeah, the math works out if you can trade in an NLAW or dozen into an inoperational T-72, but I'm not entirely sure 7 minutes 20 seconds is enough time to turn untrained people into effective anti-tank infantry, and not just blow up themselves, their house, or even friendly troops.
- ed_balls 5y ago
  better comparison is that fully equipped tank, with a trained crew, maintenance and logistics is 10mln. To shoot eliminate a tank you need about 7 shots from a NLAW and about 4 people that need very little training. The best way to eliminate a tank to cut off supplies to it, so it's better to destroy trucks.
  - Reason077 5y ago
    Seven shots? According to the brochure, "Its armour-piercing warhead can destroy heavily protected MBTs in a single shot." https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
    - ed_balls 5y ago
      on average. You miss 70% and you may need 1-3 hits. (smoke or other protection, tank engine maybe cold etc.) Tanks with active protection are even better. You hit less than 10% with nlaw. Newest Javelin is a bit better. That's why light infantry focus on trucks.
      - adolph 5y ago
        Trucks are better targets since without them tanks aren't very mobile, whereupon artillery becomes more effective against them. A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon--four tanks--is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-sp... See also laager: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Laager https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Laager
- dragontamer 5y ago
  But those tanks are worth less than $8000 according to the Ukrainian IRS, so anyone taking those tanks as trophies doesn't have to worry about the tax implications (no matter their working condition). Thus: the farmers stealing tanks meme.
  - adolph 5y ago
    Folks in the US won't be so lucky if they are so unlucky as to have a war in their back 40. Intuit says IRS tax will be 25% of fair market value at time of finding. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-ab...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- mbreese 5y ago
  The GP didn’t mean the cost of the tank… but the cost of the NLAW. Which mentioned elsewhere here is around $40,000. So, the cost of the anti tank weapon isn’t that far off from the cost of a high-end Camry (XSE V6 $35,820).
  - Reason077 5y ago
    That's the point. These things cost only ~$40,000, yet are highly effective at destroying tanks that cost many times as much. Single-shot kill rates of over 90% have been reported
131012 5y ago
Who really wins a war? The one selling weapons...
dragontamer 5y ago
Unlikely. An untrained militia's job is to shoot small arms fire at the tank, causing the crew to button up' (retreat inside of the tank). With no one outside the tank, it becomes really hard to see things like NLAW or Javalin (USA version) troops. Maybe hiding on the 5th floor of the building 1.5km away. You can train anyone to shoot towards a tank. They don't need to aim very well for the crew to be forced into the tank either. Every additional person shooting at the tank is another location the tank crew needs to check for anti-tank infantry. So even an untrained rifleman who misses 100% of their shots is effective. -------- It's strategies like this that force US soldiers to march with tanks. But the Russians apparently are incompetent at combined arms combat. Soldiers outside a tank have better vision / eyesight, and can better radio the threats to the tank. The tank crew then prioritizes the shots better. The tank crew at best have crappy cameras (albeit night vision enhanced but still, it's not very wide scope of vision) ------- In any case, the Ukrainian military has many many trained soldiers. What they are missing is equipment. The militia / untrained are only there for support / force multiplying. No one expects the militia to march quickly, move into positions or operate sophisticated weapons. But standing somewhere somewhat safely while making loud bang bang noises (even if they miss) is still really useful.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > It's strategies like this that force US soldiers to march with tanks. But the Russians apparently are incompetent at combined arms combat. Infantry marching unprotected would be slaughtered by even semi-accurate small arms fire, especially from prepared positions. That's why there are armoured transport vehicles, and why the Russians developed an anti-personnel "tank" based on experiences in Chechnya, for close quarters fighting ( BMPT "Terminator") with machine guns, grenades and similar. They seem to be fully absent from the battlefield though.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > Infantry marching unprotected would be slaughtered by even semi-accurate small arms fire, especially from prepared positions. I'm no military expert. But my understanding of military tactics is that an IFV (ie: M2 Bradley) is expected to have its squad of ~6-soldiers dismount ahead of time. The 6-soldiers maneuver / flank as needed, while the IFV's 30mm cannon + rocket launchers + light armor can be used to fight some positions. So the full team is M1-Abrams (Tank with big 120mm gun + very thick armor, requiring specialized weapons to kill), M2-Bradley (IFV with 30mm gun + rocket launchers, with very light-armor) carrying a squad of 6 infantry. The infantry could fight from inside the M2-Bradley, or outside the Bradley (mounted combat or dismounted combat), depending on the circumstances. The M2-Bradley's armor is very thin and made out of aluminum. I don't think anyone expects the M2-Bradley to actually take much fire. ------- The M2-Bradley means that infantry can "march" with the tank at full speeds (M1 and M2 are designed to have similar top-speeds and maneuverability). But in a contested area, the squad-of-6 will dismount and run around (scouting, running cover-to-cover), and support the M1 and M2 as appropriate (Ex: looking for mines, calling out enemy bazooka / missile troops, etc. etc.). Mounted-combat (ie: the squad-of-6 shooting out of the M2's portholes and relying upon the M2's armor as cover) is if the group is trying to get somewhere, either retreating... or advancing... to some other position. In any case, anti-tank weapons designed for thick uranium-steel alloy armor would absolutely destroy an M2's aluminum armor. No one actually expects the M2 to seriously survive any serious firefight except only against the lightest of light firearms.

by Hamuko 5y ago

adolph 5y ago

Cost of Camry: $25,395 [0] Cost of T-72: $2,000,000 [1] 0. https://www.toyota.com/camry/2022/ https://www.toyota.com/camry/2022/ 1. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-current-price-of-a-T-72-tank https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-current-price-of-a-T-72-ta...

Hamuko 5y ago
Well yeah, the math works out if you can trade in an NLAW or dozen into an inoperational T-72, but I'm not entirely sure 7 minutes 20 seconds is enough time to turn untrained people into effective anti-tank infantry, and not just blow up themselves, their house, or even friendly troops.
ed_balls 5y ago
better comparison is that fully equipped tank, with a trained crew, maintenance and logistics is 10mln. To shoot eliminate a tank you need about 7 shots from a NLAW and about 4 people that need very little training. The best way to eliminate a tank to cut off supplies to it, so it's better to destroy trucks.
- Reason077 5y ago
  Seven shots? According to the brochure, "Its armour-piercing warhead can destroy heavily protected MBTs in a single shot." https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw
  - ed_balls 5y ago
    on average. You miss 70% and you may need 1-3 hits. (smoke or other protection, tank engine maybe cold etc.) Tanks with active protection are even better. You hit less than 10% with nlaw. Newest Javelin is a bit better. That's why light infantry focus on trucks.
    - adolph 5y ago
      Trucks are better targets since without them tanks aren't very mobile, whereupon artillery becomes more effective against them. A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon--four tanks--is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-sp... See also laager: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Laager https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Laager
dragontamer 5y ago
But those tanks are worth less than $8000 according to the Ukrainian IRS, so anyone taking those tanks as trophies doesn't have to worry about the tax implications (no matter their working condition). Thus: the farmers stealing tanks meme.
- adolph 5y ago
  Folks in the US won't be so lucky if they are so unlucky as to have a war in their back 40. Intuit says IRS tax will be 25% of fair market value at time of finding. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-ab...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
mbreese 5y ago
The GP didn’t mean the cost of the tank… but the cost of the NLAW. Which mentioned elsewhere here is around $40,000. So, the cost of the anti tank weapon isn’t that far off from the cost of a high-end Camry (XSE V6 $35,820).
- Reason077 5y ago
  That's the point. These things cost only ~$40,000, yet are highly effective at destroying tanks that cost many times as much. Single-shot kill rates of over 90% have been reported

131012 5y ago

Who really wins a war? The one selling weapons...

dragontamer 5y ago

Unlikely. An untrained militia's job is to shoot small arms fire at the tank, causing the crew to button up' (retreat inside of the tank). With no one outside the tank, it becomes really hard to see things like NLAW or Javalin (USA version) troops. Maybe hiding on the 5th floor of the building 1.5km away. You can train anyone to shoot towards a tank. They don't need to aim very well for the crew to be forced into the tank either. Every additional person shooting at the tank is another location the tank crew needs to check for anti-tank infantry. So even an untrained rifleman who misses 100% of their shots is effective. -------- It's strategies like this that force US soldiers to march with tanks. But the Russians apparently are incompetent at combined arms combat. Soldiers outside a tank have better vision / eyesight, and can better radio the threats to the tank. The tank crew then prioritizes the shots better. The tank crew at best have crappy cameras (albeit night vision enhanced but still, it's not very wide scope of vision) ------- In any case, the Ukrainian military has many many trained soldiers. What they are missing is equipment. The militia / untrained are only there for support / force multiplying. No one expects the militia to march quickly, move into positions or operate sophisticated weapons. But standing somewhere somewhat safely while making loud bang bang noises (even if they miss) is still really useful.

sofixa 5y ago
> It's strategies like this that force US soldiers to march with tanks. But the Russians apparently are incompetent at combined arms combat. Infantry marching unprotected would be slaughtered by even semi-accurate small arms fire, especially from prepared positions. That's why there are armoured transport vehicles, and why the Russians developed an anti-personnel "tank" based on experiences in Chechnya, for close quarters fighting ( BMPT "Terminator") with machine guns, grenades and similar. They seem to be fully absent from the battlefield though.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > Infantry marching unprotected would be slaughtered by even semi-accurate small arms fire, especially from prepared positions. I'm no military expert. But my understanding of military tactics is that an IFV (ie: M2 Bradley) is expected to have its squad of ~6-soldiers dismount ahead of time. The 6-soldiers maneuver / flank as needed, while the IFV's 30mm cannon + rocket launchers + light armor can be used to fight some positions. So the full team is M1-Abrams (Tank with big 120mm gun + very thick armor, requiring specialized weapons to kill), M2-Bradley (IFV with 30mm gun + rocket launchers, with very light-armor) carrying a squad of 6 infantry. The infantry could fight from inside the M2-Bradley, or outside the Bradley (mounted combat or dismounted combat), depending on the circumstances. The M2-Bradley's armor is very thin and made out of aluminum. I don't think anyone expects the M2-Bradley to actually take much fire. ------- The M2-Bradley means that infantry can "march" with the tank at full speeds (M1 and M2 are designed to have similar top-speeds and maneuverability). But in a contested area, the squad-of-6 will dismount and run around (scouting, running cover-to-cover), and support the M1 and M2 as appropriate (Ex: looking for mines, calling out enemy bazooka / missile troops, etc. etc.). Mounted-combat (ie: the squad-of-6 shooting out of the M2's portholes and relying upon the M2's armor as cover) is if the group is trying to get somewhere, either retreating... or advancing... to some other position. In any case, anti-tank weapons designed for thick uranium-steel alloy armor would absolutely destroy an M2's aluminum armor. No one actually expects the M2 to seriously survive any serious firefight except only against the lightest of light firearms.