Posted on 04/02/2022 8:16:13 AM PDT by FarCenter
...
Ukrainian forces have expertly used the Javelin and the NLAW to destroy Russian tanks as they have moved in convoys and deployed in combat to assault Ukrainian cities and towns. The weapons are carried by infantry soldiers on foot and can be fired from positions of cover and concealment. Both are "fire and forget" weapons, meaning that once they have been aimed at a target and tracked for a short period, they can be fired by the user, who is then able to drop the weapon and move away to safety. The NLAW is disposable. The weapon is meant to fire a single missile and then be discarded. The American Javelin can be reloaded and used to fire multiple missiles, but in an emergency can be discarded if the soldier using it has come under fire and must retreat from his or her position. Both weapons are designed to use high-tech location systems to hit the tops of tank turrets where they are lightly armored and highly vulnerable.
But here is the real deal: The NLAW disposable missile costs around $25,000, and the Javelin rocket launcher system costs about $180,000 and fires a missile that costs around $75,000. Both rocket launchers are being used in Ukraine to destroy tanks that cost upwards of $2 million each. The cost differential is obvious. It's even better when you consider the RPG-7, which costs around $1,000 and fires missiles that can cost as little as $100 each. (Costs can go up to as much as $500 for RPG warheads when they use armor piercing or air-burst technology.) Their cost-effectiveness is amazing when you consider that they're being used to knock out Russian APCs costing more than $1 million each.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Dead Putinistas...
The ability of modern infantry antitank weapons to inflict heavy losses from ambush and defensive positions was first demonstrated by the Egyptians against Israeli armor during the Yom Kippur war. The issue is these weapons are not so effective in taking territory. One still needs tanks and other armored manuevre units.
Dead DeepStaters.
Where is the infantry to protect the tanks? Any helicopters? Or UAVs?
The author fails to mention the reason Ukrainian soldiers are able to get into position to use their antitank weapons is the complete inability of the Russians to use combined arm tactics. It has been known for decades that armor will get eviscerated if unsupported by infantry and artillery
The ante has been upped quite a bit since the Yom Kippur war because you can now be ~25 miles (Switchblade range) from what you are attacking. If you don’t want to take territory, then it is a lot cheaper to defend with drones and anti-tank missiles than ~10 million dollar tanks.
Yep.
And/or air support, now drone defenses and drones as well.
The Russians have lost the drone battles in this war.
Funny.
The frequent response is that Russia simply isn’t using their tanks correctly. They need to be part of combined arms.
The problem is this is very hard. The new weapons have incredible range. A javelin or stigma can take out a tank at 2 miles.
That means you need an infantry screen of that diameter around your vehicle, and any house and cluster of trees needs to be cleared before proceeding. This is slow, requires lots of men, and leads to casualties in the infantry side.
Ukraine has been far more effective relying on infantry platoons moving quickly in civilian vehicle through safe zones, and then on foot in combat situations.
More like ridiculous Bidenoganda.
Ukraine has also become a graveyard for journalistic truth and US Government virtue
Too bad that cat is out of the bag.
The real issue is the Russians didn’t take the gloves off for further fear of western non- military sanctions.
It seems that at the start of any war, we fight them with yesterday’s tools.
This is nothing new. And...the MIC loves it.
I am not expert on who uses what weapons. But I would think that China is quite a ways ahead of Russia when it comes to higher tech stuff (drones, hypersonic, other missiles, etc).
“The author fails to mention the reason Ukrainian soldiers are able to get into position to use their antitank weapons is the complete inability of the Russians to use combined arm tactics. It has been known for decades that armor will get eviscerated if unsupported by infantry and artillery.”
Yeah, I am surprised the Russkies don’t apply that. I mean, they historically had no qualms about committing massed formations of infantry, so you’d think they could have spared a few for armored operations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.