NLAW: British Anti-Tank Missile Used to Destroy Russian Tank
Ultimate American
138 tūkst. prenumeratorių
LAW, developed by Sweden’s Saab, weighs 27 pounds and has a combat range of 65 to 2,600 feet. Saab claims NLAW can “defeat any modern main battle tank.” Each costs around $40.000 but that is nowhere near as expensive as the tanks they are fired at.
Šiame vaizdo įraše skambanti muzika
Sužinokite daugiau
Klausykitės be skelbimų, naudodami „YouTube Premium“
Daina
A Tale of Vengeance
Atlikėjas
Aakash Gandhi
Albumas
A Tale of Vengeance
Licenciją „YouTube“ suteikė
YouTube Audio Library; BMI - Broadcast Music Inc.
Komentarai
Vacys Motuzas
Watchers
prieš 7 dienas
Russia should discontinue the use of tanks and APC's, as it is futile against these NLAWS, STINGERS, JAV's and other tank busting weaponry. Russia must deploy a swarms of armed UAV's and Hypersonic missiles, special forces, mercenaries into the war theater and study the tactics of the Ukrainians, who were trained and now helped by retired USMC and other British special forces, apart from other special forces from NATO countries. This way they can restructure, reorganize and find new tactics to counter-attack the enemy. Seems to me that they are 'cannon fodder' after all. Very unfortunate to see so much of Russian military hardware go to waste. With significant loss of lives on Russian side, it is appalling that Putin has lost his best commanders. As I see it, they have lost the war altogether, hands down.
Vacys Motuzas
Zachary Davis
prieš 9 dienas
These weapon systems can be utilized very creatively. Whether on purpose or not, Ukrainians seem to be taking out specific/critical/etc targets in almost systematically in a way that leaves Russia’s military (i.e. the convoy of likely conscripts/etc and select higher ranked personnel that are the brains of the operation on the ground) and these clearly targeted strikes are having an impact on the effectiveness of Russia’s military convoy that seemingly renders them as effective as a snake with its head chopped off. It’s almost as if the Ukrainian attacks are/have effectively damaged if not chopped off the head/brains(highest ranked personnel accompanying the ground units) of the snake(Convoy) leaving the body of what appears to be conscripts flailing like a chicken/snake with its head partially and or completely chopped off. It’s as if the convoy lost a critical amount of the battlefield accompanying brains of its operations..
Vacys Motuzas
Steven Smith
prieš 9 dienas
Yeah it's completely shifted the balance in favour of the infantryman. I used the LAW 94 in my time. It's essentially the same thing only it had no guidance and hit the tank from the side. It used spotting rounds to get the range where you'd then switch to the HEAT round. I'll never forget the safety check rotation - safe lever, change lever, cocking handle, sights. The Russian development of explosive reactive armour required the development of top down systems. What essentially happens is that the warhead uses a HEAT shaped charge to punch a hole into the armour where the explosive material then penetrates and melts everything inside. What does the damage is the munitions inside the tank exploding.
Vacys Motuzas
Peter Mallia
prieš 7 dienas (redaguota)
The NLAW has a shape charge that is directed downwards to attack the tanks turret, which fires a super hot jet of copper from a copper cone that becomes molten under the high pressure of the detination of it's warhead, it can also be used for direct attack mode too, so it does touch the tank if direct attack mode is used rather than airburst mode.
Vacys Motuzas
scottyotty2hotty
prieš 8 dienas
The thing to keep in mind is that NLAW was never meant to compete with the much more expensive Javelin. The Brits, at least, not sure about the Swedes, still field Javelin after all. It was designed to be a replacement for older free-flight rocket systems like AT4 and 66mm and in that regard, it's a game changer. It's light enough that it can be distributed amongst the rifle companies of a battalion and not kept to a dedicated anti-tank platoon, giving the whole battalion an effective means of defending themselves against armour.
Vacys Motuzas
Gunnar Andersson
prieš 1 dieną
In 1999, Swedish Bofors, from the Celsius Group (subsequently bought by Saab AB), began development of a new man-portable anti-tank weapon for the Swedish mechanized infantry, which were lacking both tanks and anti-tank weapons.[3][14] The system—referred to as the MBT LAW—quickly caught the interest of the British Ministry of Defence, who invited Saab Bofors Dynamics to compete in their Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon’s-programme in January 2001, which sought to replace the obsolescent LAW 80s; in May 2002, Saab's MBT-LAW was selected as winner over Matra BAe Dynamics' Kestrel (FGM-172 SRAW), resulting in the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the British and Swedish defence authorities in June.[12] Accordingly, development of the Swedish–British joint NLAW System-programme was assigned to Saab Bofors Dynamics in Sweden, while manufacturing was to be done mostly in the United Kingdom, with final assembly carried out by Thales Air Defence; the two major teaming partners have a marketing agreement, enabling any potential costumer to procure the system from either Saab Bofors Dynamics or Thales Air Defence
Komentarai: 7
Populiariausia
Pasaulio eros
Emocijų srautas
Naujausia EMC apyvarta
Anketoje apsilankė vartotojasVacys Motuzas » 1 EMC
Anketoje apsilankė vartotojasArturas Mickus » 1 EMC
Anketoje apsilankė vartotojasDovile Smith » 1 EMC
Anketoje apsilankė vartotojasSarunas Motuzas » 1 EMC
Anketoje apsilankė vartotojasStanislovas Kavaliauskas » 1 EMC
.png)
Vacys Motuzas