The javelin is an extremely impressive bit of technology, but it may have been made obsolete by drone technology which has significant advantages. It is likely that both technologies will continue to exist for some time, as the javelin may provide a faster response to a surprise tank attack. The future may be a hybrid weapon. The weakness of the javelin is its high cost compared to FPV drones.
@@Only-Me-UC that might have been true a few months ago, not sure it is true now. For a state a drone is a fraction of the cost of a javelin missile. The Ukrainians have greatly improved and diversified the explosives and warheads used by their drones. There are videos of a single drone destroying a T90 tank, but even four or five drones are still cheaper than one javelin missile. The latest drones appear to have autonomous control features, similar to fire and forget. These are immune to GPS and telemetry jamming. This is clearly an important area for development. The only Ukrainian drone technology that is questionable are those that drop or fire Napalm. These deserve to be banned under international law. Similarly there is scope for the delivery of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and radiological. Putin should be aware that a nuclear weapon is not the only war to deliver a lethal level of radioactive contamination. Ukrainian use of drones has brought into question the design of a whole host of mobile armour.
@@Only-Me-UC Just not true and that has been the problem in the Ukraine , they have been dropping shaped charges ontop of the thin part of tanks with devastating effect for a fraction of the cost for Javelin. Ukraine doesn't have the $ for Javelin and why the lower cost Nlaw was also really appreciated. The new Abrams has moved the engine vents to the rear vertical than on top as it was so easy to disable the engine buy dropping not much more than a grenade with HMX costing as low as $100 a KG, what is more important it allowed the Ukraine to proliferate with weapons. All the tanks out there have not faired well from top down weapons and drones have been preferential due to ridiculously low cost and being more effective due to hugely wider deployment.
Over 50% of Russian losses are now due to $400 FPV drones armed with HEAT Grenade warheads, and the rate continues to increase. Most tanks in Ukraine never use their gun on another tank (their entire reason for existence), before being destroyed by a drone. Neither trenches, mines, nor armor, are a defense against drones, and the infantry are terrified of them. While Javelins, NLAWs, and other ATGMs are still useful, they are too expensive and in limited supply for anything but emergency use. Ukraine will produce 1,000,000 drones this year, and production continues to increase.
Oh it's like a modern version of Panzerfaust but it's stupid because you can used it ones. I didn't understand why these little and stupid missile are so expensive (33.000 Euro) it must be possible to build a anti tank rocket for 3.300 Euro and use the tube again.
The rocket in the Bazooka was NOT 5 Meters long..LOL! The rocket was 1.8 ft. long.. Leave it up to the SWEDISH... They have the best engineers in the WORLD I believe... Wernher von Braun was half Swedish...
$178,000 for a Javelin!! $40,000 for the NLAW...The Javelin though can reach out and touch you from much father away 2500 yards compaired to the 800 yards of the NLAW.. Something to keep in mind.. Plus the Javelin is much more sophisticated than the NLAW.. If I were an Infantry man I'd want the Javelin...
Ukraine has a high number of highly educated engineers in all areas, contrary to many american views that 'they are a backwards former soviet republic'. They've alredy shown this, and they are in the works of back-engineering many of the western weapon systems they are given, in case the Putin-loving Trump comes to power. It'll take some time, but given the components, they'll manage in much of their endeavours, for sure, and history shows us that eventually promises from allies wears thin, so if a country do not see to their own interests, they'll be let down. Ukraine has the probability to become a european weapon-developing/manufactoring powerhouse in the near future, as both german, swedish and french weapons manufacturers already have put in ink cooperation in several areas.
I disagree with your accusation that Americans (I'm one) view Ukraine as being a backward country. On the contrary. The Ukraine's have shown themselves as being both brilliant and brave.
@@tippski5229 Ok, maybe that was a generalization of US citizens, but none the less, it is what I've seen and heard a bit of, a bit degrading of europeans. Call me trump-damaged. But Im to old to blame it on that ;)And by a bit,.I mean interviews with, as it seems, the 'less educated' pupulace.
The people in my country ( U.S.) do not view the Ukrainian people or military in that light. We view their warriors and population in a very good way. Period
Its as allways only a spiral of measures and counter measures , today the ATGM makes the tank obsolete ,tomorrow acktive counteremessures make ATGMs obsolete again ,than they find a new way to destroy tanks and than new countermessures
Well they are obsolete which is why the U.S. military isn't building new ones just maintaining and updating the ones we have. Nobody is designing new tank guns which is think is a mistake but drones, and a 1000 other reasons have made tank much like the horse in ww2 useless. Soon it'll all be drones anyway
Or some active system that strikes to incoming threat. That is going to be must, to keep tanks ongoing. But better armor needed and it should be light weight hopefully. Then track's should go and using 6 or even 8 wheel drive drain. Tanks must move, they cannot hide today's sensors and radars with some basic smoke.
The 'Tank' isn't obselete but current MBT's have been shown to be extremely vulnerable on both sides. New focus is on upgunning IFV style platforms that are lighter, smaller, faster with much more range and much higher MTBF. Shedding the weight and making tanks smaller the easiest way is to remove the crew and the protection for them and the 'tank' will likely be a whole new range of crewless vehicles and they will still be 'tanks' but what we have is increasingly becoming obselete.
Javelin is fire and forget, but with a range of only 2.5 km, well... who will approach the enemy armor at 2.5 km to shoot it ? It is kind of peculiar weapon. MLAW is even worse. I doubt these work in real war situations.
I’m confused. You describe the Mauser rifle starting with a T as the first real anti tank weapon. As a German weapon shouldn’t the first letter of this rifle have been P for panzer?
Nope T is correct the british called them tanks, and so did the germans, since they didn't have tanks yet at that point. Their 13.2mm cartridge was even called "tank und flieger" describing the munition's intended targets en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/13.2%C3%9792mmSR#:~:text=The%2013.2%20%C3%97%2092%20mm,introduced%20during%20World%20War%20I.
two weaknesses. cost per round, supply chain. This missle often will cost more than the tank it kills. Manufacturers can only make so many rounds per month and those rounds got to get to the troops who have the launcher.
Are you nuts 🤦♂️🤷♂️. Tanks cost multiple millions of dollars , even the cheapest Russian tanks cost multiple millions 🤷♂️. So no the cost per missile is not even close to exceeding the cost of the tank 🙄
Nlaw only has a 1.8kg 115mm shaped charge that can defeat 150% to 700% of its diameter, depending on the charge quality, which is more than 500 mm armour with the NLAW warhead. The overfly top attack (OTA) for armoured vehicles mode with 500mm penetration likely means its effective for any current tank as actual intel seems to collaborate. Javelin is 8.4kg warhead that supposed can defeat > 760mm armour and again top down mode tandem-charge that deafeats reactive armour... You don't need to destroy a tank just make it inoperable and the reason why modern armies are being equipped with Javelin and NLAW is because that is something they do with ease. It was the bad design of the Russian autoloaders that where cooking off and resulting in turret flying destruction, but any inoperable tank is a dead tank on the battlefield.
Perfect for defence and attack.
Each one is perfect, on different predilection of terrain and tactics.
The javelin is an extremely impressive bit of technology, but it may have been made obsolete by drone technology which has significant advantages.
It is likely that both technologies will continue to exist for some time, as the javelin may provide a faster response to a surprise tank attack. The future may be a hybrid weapon.
The weakness of the javelin is its high cost compared to FPV drones.
Pending on what tank its heading for, the drone has nothing on the Javelin. for now?
@@Only-Me-UC that might have been true a few months ago, not sure it is true now. For a state a drone is a fraction of the cost of a javelin missile. The Ukrainians have greatly improved and diversified the explosives and warheads used by their drones. There are videos of a single drone destroying a T90 tank, but even four or five drones are still cheaper than one javelin missile.
The latest drones appear to have autonomous control features, similar to fire and forget. These are immune to GPS and telemetry jamming. This is clearly an important area for development.
The only Ukrainian drone technology that is questionable are those that drop or fire Napalm. These deserve to be banned under international law. Similarly there is scope for the delivery of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and radiological. Putin should be aware that a nuclear weapon is not the only war to deliver a lethal level of radioactive contamination.
Ukrainian use of drones has brought into question the design of a whole host of mobile armour.
@@Only-Me-UC Just not true and that has been the problem in the Ukraine , they have been dropping shaped charges ontop of the thin part of tanks with devastating effect for a fraction of the cost for Javelin. Ukraine doesn't have the $ for Javelin and why the lower cost Nlaw was also really appreciated.
The new Abrams has moved the engine vents to the rear vertical than on top as it was so easy to disable the engine buy dropping not much more than a grenade with HMX costing as low as $100 a KG, what is more important it allowed the Ukraine to proliferate with weapons.
All the tanks out there have not faired well from top down weapons and drones have been preferential due to ridiculously low cost and being more effective due to hugely wider deployment.
Javelin and NLAW are too short range, but because they are fire-and-forget they are perfect for drones.
@@dimitristripakis7364 I refer you to the last sentence of my post.
It was obviously before the drones came, esp fpv.
Over 50% of Russian losses are now due to $400 FPV drones armed with HEAT Grenade warheads, and the rate continues to increase.
Most tanks in Ukraine never use their gun on another tank (their entire reason for existence), before being destroyed by a drone.
Neither trenches, mines, nor armor, are a defense against drones, and the infantry are terrified of them.
While Javelins, NLAWs, and other ATGMs are still useful, they are too expensive and in limited supply for anything but emergency use.
Ukraine will produce 1,000,000 drones this year, and production continues to increase.
Amazing video! This anti-tank weapon really makes tanks obsolete. Incredible technology!
I think you need to update to include drones...
soby the same logic, machine guns make troops obsolete. They are obviously not
Oh it's like a modern version of Panzerfaust but it's stupid because you can used it ones. I didn't understand why these little and stupid missile are so expensive (33.000 Euro) it must be possible to build a anti tank rocket for 3.300 Euro and use the tube again.
The rocket in the Bazooka was NOT 5 Meters long..LOL! The rocket was 1.8 ft. long.. Leave it up to the SWEDISH... They have the best engineers in the WORLD I believe... Wernher von Braun was half Swedish...
Only his bottom half 😊
He should have said "point five metres" (.5 m) - and it's not "just shy of", but "a bit longer than".
So, he was just half engineer and half of best? Or 75%?
$178,000 for a Javelin!! $40,000 for the NLAW...The Javelin though can reach out and touch you from much father away 2500 yards compaired to the 800 yards of the NLAW.. Something to keep in mind.. Plus the Javelin is much more sophisticated than the NLAW.. If I were an Infantry man I'd want the Javelin...
Ukraine has a high number of highly educated engineers in all areas, contrary to many american views that 'they are a backwards former soviet republic'.
They've alredy shown this, and they are in the works of back-engineering many of the western weapon systems they are given, in case the Putin-loving Trump comes to power. It'll take some time, but given the components, they'll manage in much of their endeavours, for sure, and history shows us that eventually promises from allies wears thin, so if a country do not see to their own interests, they'll be let down. Ukraine has the probability to become a european weapon-developing/manufactoring powerhouse in the near future, as both german, swedish and french weapons manufacturers already have put in ink cooperation in several areas.
I disagree with your accusation that Americans (I'm one) view Ukraine as being a backward country. On the contrary. The Ukraine's have shown themselves as being both brilliant and brave.
@@tippski5229 Ok, maybe that was a generalization of US citizens, but none the less, it is what I've seen and heard a bit of, a bit degrading of europeans. Call me trump-damaged. But Im to old to blame it on that ;)And by a bit,.I mean interviews with, as it seems, the 'less educated' pupulace.
The people in my country ( U.S.) do not view the Ukrainian people or military in that light. We view their warriors and population in a very good way. Period
About right.
Its as allways only a spiral of measures and counter measures , today the ATGM makes the tank obsolete ,tomorrow acktive counteremessures make ATGMs obsolete again ,than they find a new way to destroy tanks and than new countermessures
Yawn.People have been saying tanks are obsolete since the end of WW1 and every war after that.
Well they are obsolete which is why the U.S. military isn't building new ones just maintaining and updating the ones we have. Nobody is designing new tank guns which is think is a mistake but drones, and a 1000 other reasons have made tank much like the horse in ww2 useless. Soon it'll all be drones anyway
The only thing that can replace armor is better armor.
Or some active system that strikes to incoming threat.
That is going to be must, to keep tanks ongoing.
But better armor needed and it should be light weight hopefully. Then track's should go and using 6 or even 8 wheel drive drain.
Tanks must move, they cannot hide today's sensors and radars with some basic smoke.
Yawn, using a old saying we see? With very effective drone technology only getting better and better it appears your logic is yesterday's meme.
The 'Tank' isn't obselete but current MBT's have been shown to be extremely vulnerable on both sides.
New focus is on upgunning IFV style platforms that are lighter, smaller, faster with much more range and much higher MTBF.
Shedding the weight and making tanks smaller the easiest way is to remove the crew and the protection for them and the 'tank' will likely be a whole new range of crewless vehicles and they will still be 'tanks' but what we have is increasingly becoming obselete.
The "obsolescence" of tanks has been with us for decades. Yet they remain a mainstay of armies. I suspect they will still be around for a while.
8:54 "...What do you think about anti tank weapons?..." I think we are in debt to the tune of $35T and we can't afford them.
Javelin is fire and forget, but with a range of only 2.5 km, well... who will approach the enemy armor at 2.5 km to shoot it ? It is kind of peculiar weapon. MLAW is even worse. I doubt these work in real war situations.
Innovation of modern warfare weapons will continue as long as mankind never stop fighting against each other
Iron is element, steel is that product that they use.
Unique
The missile at approximately 8 minutes 40 seconds is not a Javelin, looks more like a Hellfire
What are you going to replace them with?
Can't be all obsolete or you couldn't have a war.No toys in the cupboard, no fun.
What happened to the German 88mm? It was perhaps the best anti-tank weapon developed during WWII.
The 88 diameter can't shoot a sufficient size Sabot round. The lowest effect diameter is the 105,on the older leopard.
A tad too heavy to carry by a foot soldier.
This is whelping that will take your tracks out to 😅
I’m confused. You describe the Mauser rifle starting with a T as the first real anti tank weapon. As a German weapon shouldn’t the first letter of this rifle have been P for panzer?
Nope T is correct the british called them tanks, and so did the germans, since they didn't have tanks yet at that point. Their 13.2mm cartridge was even called "tank und flieger" describing the munition's intended targets
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/13.2%C3%9792mmSR#:~:text=The%2013.2%20%C3%97%2092%20mm,introduced%20during%20World%20War%20I.
@@zenger74 Thank you for clearing that up for me. After hearing your explanation it makes perfect sense.
Cheap Drones will take Over, Once AI catches up ( Can't be jammed) Drone's will be the future, how many cheap drones can you buy for one $178k Javelin
Ever heard of hk aps?
❤😂😂🎉🎉🎉😢😢😮😮😅😅
two weaknesses. cost per round, supply chain. This missle often will cost more than the tank it kills. Manufacturers can only make so many rounds per month and those rounds got to get to the troops who have the launcher.
Are you nuts 🤦♂️🤷♂️. Tanks cost multiple millions of dollars , even the cheapest Russian tanks cost multiple millions 🤷♂️. So no the cost per missile is not even close to exceeding the cost of the tank 🙄
Rubbish click bait again old video casting together
So where the helll is the one on the thumbnail? Can you say clickbait 🐂💩?
This is all just stock footage put together.
Maybe but truthfully tanks are already obsolete.
These soldiers make tank obsolete, the muslims make these soldiers obsolete.
Bullshit with a 1kg warhead will not destroy any heavy tank only older designs and you have to hit the right place
Nlaw only has a 1.8kg 115mm shaped charge that can defeat 150% to 700% of its diameter, depending on the charge quality, which is more than 500 mm armour with the NLAW warhead.
The overfly top attack (OTA) for armoured vehicles mode with 500mm penetration likely means its effective for any current tank as actual intel seems to collaborate.
Javelin is 8.4kg warhead that supposed can defeat > 760mm armour and again top down mode tandem-charge that deafeats reactive armour...
You don't need to destroy a tank just make it inoperable and the reason why modern armies are being equipped with Javelin and NLAW is because that is something they do with ease.
It was the bad design of the Russian autoloaders that where cooking off and resulting in turret flying destruction, but any inoperable tank is a dead tank on the battlefield.
Box long needed too intelligent box 🗃 man operations use delta policy hold
Box more detailed to target needed square unit intelligence command structure policy law unot square 🗃 bocxs needed shorten barrel battery needed surround baytery with box engineering thiee
Huh?
@@tippski5229the fvk did he say 🤔🤷♂️. 🤣🤣🤣🤣