Erwin Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 Taking a "big picture" view, the main objective of sending other nations' troops is less their combat value but the political fall-out if an invader hurts any of their nationals - as that would imply the invader was now at war with any and all nations whose troops have suffered losses. Hence the symbolic reinforcements. It's of personal interest as my family comes primarily from the Baltics (as well as Ukraine). The Baltic nations have no illusions that if the Russians were to invade, that any military allied/NATO support currently in those nations could stop the Russians reaching the Baltic. However, that would almost certainly cause NATO casualties that would immediately result in a widespread NATO vs Russia conflict - or so the theoretical strategy goes. It is heartening that Ukrainians are rushing to sign up. However, is that akin to UK in early WW2 where for many months there simply wasn't enuff weapons for all the new troops and they drilled with wooden rifles etc? I don't know... so it would be interesting to know what's in the Ukrainian stockpiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 26 minutes ago, John Kettler said: Did find some reporting of Latvian plans to supply largely unspecified military aid. But Estonia is also involved and is considering sending Javelins and 122 mm howitzers, among other military aid. Probably this is perspective plans how to supply Ukraine with lethal weapon evading Germany blocking in NATO Supply and Support Agency. Today three RAF C-17 delivered to Ukraine "modern short-range anti-tank weapon". There is no information what it can be, but many experts claim this is Saab NLAW. UK made a statemet about own plans on 17th Jan and on next day weapon arrived. On own way British C-17s flew around Germany airspace. Maybe situation demands fast decision and Germany could consider UK request too long time, due to their position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) @The_MonkeyKing This video reflects our armed forces as it were in 2018, but some things outdated. BTR-4 were on the armament of 25th airborne brigade too short time in 2015-2016 and later were moved to 92th mech.brigade, which have been receiving these APCs. BM Oplot really never was on armament neither air-assault nor ground forces. Only five T-84 Oplot mod.2001 were slightly upgraded and moved to service to ground forces. Ukrainian MoD confirmed that UK delivered NLAWs. Fourth C-17 probably already landed. Upd. Already seventh C-17 landed, each carried about 180-200 NLAWs Edited January 18, 2022 by Haiduk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 (edited) Having never seen anything on NLAW, here it is for those unfamiliar with it. Offhand, were I the Russians, wouldn't be thrilled these are arriving, not least because it can be fired from enclosed spaces that regular ATGMs simply can't be. Am finding it a bit difficult. to reconcile the single shaped charge with the ability to destroy any modern tank with one shot. Am fascinated that, unlike Javelin, no target lock is needed before launch. In any event, a C-17 could carry scads of such weapons, never mind four such huge aircraft.https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw Regards, John Kettler Edited January 19, 2022 by John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted January 19, 2022 Author Share Posted January 19, 2022 Seems like NLAW is going to become one of the primary short-medium range antitank weapons of the Ukrainian army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 Except NLAWs C-17 delivered several "big green boxes", which were prohibited to be photographed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Haiduk said: Except NLAWs C-17 delivered several "big green boxes", which were prohibited to be photographed That's the secret tea / red bull combo for improved solider performance 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireship4 Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 (edited) WRONG, it is the remains of the English cricket team. Quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT_LAW For a moving target, the gunner maintains tracking for three seconds, training the missile's guidance electronics to compute the target's angular speed. After launch the missile flies autonomously to the target making the necessary corrections according to the data acquired by the tracking. It is unnecessary for the gunner to consider the range to the target. After launch the missile's position in its trajectory always coincides with the target irrespective of range. Weight: 12.4 kg Length: 1.016 m Caliber: 115/150 mm Muzzle velocity: Initial: 40 m/s Maximum: High Subsonic: 200 m/s (Mach 0.7) Range: Minimum: 20 m Maximum: 600 m Guidance: Predicted Line Of Sight (PLOS) / inertial guidance Sight: Trijicon TA41 NLAW 2.5x20 which has V crosshair (inverted to normal acog /\ crosshair) Warhead: Combined overfly top attack / direct Cost : approximately £20,000 (2008) Operational temperature: -38 to +63 °C Nice. The targeting reminds me of some of the firing solutions used for straight-run torpedoes. Edited January 19, 2022 by fireship4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) According to this article, using conservative load-out figures, each C-17 can carry 216 NLAW, which, like Javelin, can be used in either a Direct Fire mode or Top Attack mode. This is a whopping improvement to the Ukrainian Army's anti-armor defensive capabilities, albeit to the relatively short range of 800 meters, as opposed to the 4000 meter plus range of Javelin. If you watch the embedded video, you'll see that NLAW's Top Attack mode isn't the same as Javelin's. From what I can see, it's like Bill's or TOW-2B's. Not quite sure how that would interact with the birdcage overhead armor, but I suspect the detonation wave would hit the birdcage armor first, possibly negating any basis for concern about the EFP/SFF penetrator getting through the bird cage armor and still remaining effective. The second video shows live fire in the field and Saab warhead tests, from which it's clear that there is only a single penetrator. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43912/c-17-loads-of-anti-tank-missiles-arrive-in-ukraine-courtesy-of-the-united-kingdom?fbclid=IwAR1UGQKwePwd824Ad3wOcfOsuVcObr_ecl3bJZ-kmiWobyA9t0U8rKG_23k Regards, John Kettler Edited January 20, 2022 by John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Haiduk, Did the ATGM shipments stop at 8 C-17 loads, or have there been more since yesterday? Also, a quick search surprisingly showed no statement at all. from the Kremlin on this major upgrade of Ukrainian antiarmor capability. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 45 minutes ago, John Kettler said: Also, a quick search surprisingly showed no statement at all. from the Kremlin on this major upgrade of Ukrainian antiarmor capability. Gee.....Sounds like they are probably not expecting their tanks to face this fearsome weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) Sgt.Squarehead, Russia's armor staying in Russia is, I'm sure the preferred solution for not only most of the world but of Russian tankers and other armored troops who become aware of just how much harder any attack on Ukraine has become as a result of British generosity with NLAWs, complete with British training teams, whose stay will reportedly be of limited duration. And that generosity, mind, is in an environment of other likeminded countries who have antiarmor systems of their own to send as gifts. Also, having to combat multiple antiarmor threat types greatly complicates the difficulties of defending against them. Would love to know how effective EFP/SFF penetrators are against tank turret roofs protected by Kontakt-5 or Relikt, which, by the way, doesn't completely cover the turret roof. And what of such ERA-protected tank turrets which are also fitted with birdcage armor, an item that by no means appear to have been standardized as to configuration, materials or their dimensions, to put it mildly! I place little credence in that little piece of military-technical theater the UA staged to show birdcage armor was ineffective. Regards, John. Kettler Edited January 21, 2022 by John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 8 hours ago, John Kettler said: And that generosity, mind, is in an environment of other likeminded countries who have antiarmor systems of their own to send as gifts. Also, having to combat multiple antiarmor threat types greatly complicates the difficulties of defending against them. You appreciate that works both ways, Russia has 'export opportunities' too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 16 hours ago, John Kettler said: Did the ATGM shipments stop at 8 C-17 loads, or have there been more since yesterday? Also, a quick search surprisingly showed no statement at all. from the Kremlin on this major upgrade of Ukrainian antiarmor capability. We already have lost count UK officially claimed 2000 NLAWs are shipping. There was a short statement of Mariya Zakharova Russian MFA representative - just a statement of fact, of course in negative light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Is the Ukraine paying for these or did Boris just donate them out of the kindness of his heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireship4 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) Probably saw an opportunity to regain some national credibility after we had a British civilian murdered during the attempted murder of two others (one a subject, one a visitor) with chemical weapons, without commensurate public consequence. Not to mention the more he can seem like Churchill at the moment the better he can fend off his rejection by the country as the odious tip of an arseberg. Yesterday about 16.30 UTC something like 5-7 Aeroflot airliners took off from Moscow, flew to Kaliningrad, did some racetrack patterns, then flew back. I'd love to know what that was about. All I can think of are: Pilot/soldier training for a possible upcoming task, to better get the lay of the land ELINT/ISR Dropping stuff/people (though some patterns were over the water enclosed by the artificial piers) A distraction It's amazing what you can see on flightradar24! Edited January 22, 2022 by fireship4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 1 hour ago, fireship4 said: odious tip of an arseberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Yesterday USA delivered next party of Javelin missiles and 100 M141 Bunker Defeat Munition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Haiduk said: 100 M141 Bunker Defeat Munition That doesn't sound terribly 'defensive'. It's amusing to me that the two countries most enthusiastic to fuel a war that would devaste the European economy for decades aren't actually EU members, but apparently the EU (other than Germany) hasn't noticed this yet. Be (very) careful what you wish for. Edited January 23, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey_Fox Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: That doesn't sound terribly 'defensive'. Also known as the SMAW-D. I don't think there has ever been a war where the winner never performed an attack, and if you're in an urban fight it's perfectly reasonable to use one of those on the building next to you which the enemy has gotten into. Edited January 23, 2022 by Grey_Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted January 23, 2022 Author Share Posted January 23, 2022 5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: That doesn't sound terribly 'defensive'. It's amusing to me that the two countries most enthusiastic to fuel a war that would devaste the European economy for decades aren't actually EU members, but apparently the EU (other than Germany) hasn't noticed this yet. Be (very) careful what you wish for. Let's keep politics out of this But indeed interesting weapon system. Maybe for urban warfare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 Twice in 1 day there are threads going south because of going political. Unlike the other one imma gonna lock this one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts