Sitting at a desk in a Western office, this is cool.
Thinking that this is practical life and death for real people is heart wrenching.
Thinking that I am within five miles of a tank (as are many Americans; I suspect that outside of the U.S. tanks are even more proliferate), this is somewhat scary.
Every time there’s a video of one of these things being put to use, it’s invariably followed by “fuck, yeah!”, high fives or other form of celebration. But they didn’t just destroy a tank, they also killed the crew, burning it alive. In fact some of the crew may still be alive and smoldering at that very moment... War is war, do what you have to, but celebrating a killing is just wrong.
I agree that the fate of a tank engineer being struck by an anti-tank missile is not great, but when comparing the scenarios of having a tank be disabled and its crew dismembered with the devastation that said tank will bring to civilians and civilian buildings, I'd much rather have the tank get disabled. The sad reality is that the tank operators will probably operate a tank to commit some atrocities some time before the anti-tank missile will be able to commit it's own atrocities upon the tank.
I think pointing out that weapons of war are bad is like saying that water is wet. However, comparing the power of destruction between the tank and the anti-tank missile launcher, both can disable each other, but the damage one can do to humans and infrastructure is just disproportionate - it's ultimately a moral good to destroy a tank.
Indeed, morality is twisted in war times. But I don't think they are celebrating killing fellow humans, they are celebrating defending their homeland from invaders.
I'm generally pro-peace in every single way. But I see a difference in celebrations from the people who are invading versus celebrations from the people who are defending themselves against invaders. One I'm fine with, the other I'm not.
As many others have already done, the people in the tank has a choice between continuing to follow orders, or going against orders and leave their jobs/equipment behind. I feel very little sympathy right now towards the people who are continuing to follow orders even if they are aware they are invading their bordering country.
They don't celebrate killing, they celebrate one less tank that can go on to kill their families, to stop their country being overrun - and, in the heat of the moment, I guess they celebrate having survived the encounter.
Yes. However that tank could also have prevented other families from being killed. These days we are seeing Putin's war on TV, but another war inside Ukraine has been ongoing for 8 years now. We couldn't see it on western media, of course, but families and civilians were also killed by the same army we're now supporting. So I won't celebrate either, because here, there are no good and bad.
Nepizdi. The guerilla war wagered in East Ukraine saw lots of civillian casualties despite best efforts of the Ukrainian military, not because of its involvement. And there would be no civilian casualties if Russia wasn't supporting the separatists and if they weren't constantly pushing misinformation over their borders.
> And there would be no civilian casualties if Russia wasn't supporting the separatists and if they weren't constantly pushing misinformation over their borders
Sure. And there would be no civilian casualties in Ukraine if its government didn't insist in joining NATO and cease to be a neutral country.
This wasn't that great of an issue until the annexation of Crimea. This is a false narrative, please sosi huy. So what if a sovereign neighbor wants to join a defensive alliance? NATO, unlike Russia, hasn't ever attacked its neighboring countries. Countries seek to join NATO to deter Russia from invalidating their sovereignty.
Well, NATO is not just a "defensive" alliance, it's more of another tool used to primarily protect the interests of the US. And of course NATO attacked countries in the past. You remember Yugoslavia, or Bosnia and Herzegovina? They were bombed by NATO just the same way today Ukraine is being attacked by Russia.
NATO were not the instigators there, not by a long shot. It was overreach, sure, but I fail to see the equivelancy. NATO didn't invade any country and didn't seize any territories.
Being a citizen of an eastern european country that joined NATO, I can promise you that my and other countries like mine are free-er to do what they please than they would be if they hadn't joined NATO.
Please, anyone reading the comments of the person above, don't be fooled, this is Russian propaganda, whether the person above is acting in good faith is irrelevant.
> NATO were not the instigators there, not by a long shot. It was overreach, sure, but I fail to see the equivelancy. NATO didn't invade any country and didn't seize any territories.
That's not the point. It was an attack and civilians died. Don't pretend that some civilians deaths are better than others just because we, the good guys from the NATO, were just "saving the world" another time.
Also, we can say Russia is not the instigator here as well, and they are just addressing Ukraine's lack of compliance with the Minks agreements and attacks to the Russian communities in eastern Ukraine.
> Please, anyone reading the comments of the person above, don't be fooled, this is Russian propaganda, whether the person above is acting in good faith is irrelevant.
I know, everything other that the official "free world" statements is propaganda. You may suggest the HN admins to ban my account, just to get a community with more plurality where only the official statements from the western countries are allowed.
You forgot to mention that another war ongoing for 8 years now was also started by Putin.
And when things go to court, like with MH17, all the evidence points that it's russia and its puppets is killing civilian families.
>like with MH17, all the evidence points that it's russia and its puppets is killing civilian families.
Evidence? That sounds like an understatement to me, we have details history of the whole thing including communication with command and photos of the route the BUK took afterward going into Russia. Its beyond shadow of doubt it was russian military that is responsible for MH17
So you think it was inappropriate to celebrate winning battles against hitler? When there are hundreds of thousands of murderers (“soldiers”) coming to your country, sometimes to genocide your people, is there never a point when a little morale boost becomes okay? In the Ukraine, they are deliberately targeting civilians and laying minefields - you can’t cheer a little bit when you manage, as the underdog, to hit back?
The nearest tank to me is on display in Mezes Park in Redwood City. That's a good 10 miles off and the tank is early ww2 and completely non functional.
There used to be a private tank collection / museum in Portola Valley but I think the heirs of the owner preferred to have dollars rather than tanks so it's been sold off.
It was a very nice collection while I lasted. The vast majority of his tanks were in running condition with the guns intentionally disabled. Not many people alive today can say they climbed inside a nazi tiger tank in running condition. And yet this guy had one in his garage, sitting there dripping oil, parked facing a working US Sherman of the same era, and a soviet T34 next to it. All run.
But back to the point, that was also like 15 miles at least from where I live.
Maybe I'm older. It feels like "war-hardware porn" to me. Watching the opening to the video in a language I do not understand — it could have been that I was watching a terrorist training video.
The video here is the interesting thing, more than the weapon.
Would it be theoretically possible to learn war from the internet, the same way you can learn programming? Watch some Youtube videos? Practice with your mates?
My intuition is that no, soldiering involves a lot of learning-by-doing, you need hours of practice stripping and reassembling your Kalashnikov, and amateurs will quickly get killed by professionals.
> Would it be theoretically possible to learn war from the internet, the same way you can learn programming? Watch some Youtube videos? Practice with your mates?
> My intuition is that no, soldiering involves a lot of learning-by-doing, you need hours of practice stripping and reassembling your Kalashnikov,
I think you could, to a degree. The US Army has a bunch of training manuals online, for instance. But it would definitely have to be coupled with some kind of war-game type practice where you actually try to implement what's in them and fill in the gaps.
But it's also obviously limited to the kinds of tools you'll have access to. So rifleman-type stuff, not anti-tank missiles like this.
> and amateurs will quickly get killed by professionals.
I think that's mainly a function of practice and preparation. No way an amateur will have the kind of practice and experience of a professional.
> My intuition is that no, soldiering involves a lot of learning-by-doing, you need hours of practice stripping and reassembling your Kalashnikov, and amateurs will quickly get killed by professionals.
I think this entertaining video of 2 Ex British army soldiers playing against 50 Airsoft players nicely supports your intuition:
I think you can learn all skills off the internet. What you cant learn off videos is coping with adrenaline rush. There is this great Mike Tyson quote:
"Everyone Has a Plan Until They Get Punched in the Mouth"
This was very apparent when I did martial arts. Many people with colorful belts from limited contact (for example karate) schools crumpled after receiving a couple painful hits/kicks.
There can't be a lot of learning from your mistakes. Make a mistake and dead. Or someone else makes a mistake and dead. Or even don't make a mistake and dead. Not a profession I would be good at.
The AK was designed for easy and fast maintenance the gun can be easily disassembled, cleaned and lubed in a matter of minutes, without training. If you can change a lightbulb you can “strip” an AK.
I would say that the knowledge and muscle memory can certainly be learned over YouTube with practice, but there is more to military than knowledge. There is an attitude and stress resilience. It’s one thing to know something, it’s a whole other thing to recall that during high stress scenarios. Knowledge goes out the window when the bullets fly.
So discipline is needed. High-intensity training under less than ideal circumstances can build that discipline. You can’t sweat the small things and need to focus on accomplishing the mission, absent ego and while being highly adaptable. Most military training focuses around building and reinforcing those kinds of skills.
There is definitely such a job. In the mid-90s between university semesters I did temporary work in SW London. One company I worked at for a few weeks was called Adpax - they specialised in making packaging, particularly for munitions. I just had to put washers in small plastic bags, or detonators into boxes. In the larger building next door I saw them making enormous boxes to fit all kinds of stuff - including what looked like missile parts. I did a brief stint in that building, can't quite remember what exactly I did except wear a mask and wield a glue gun. Felt quite heady at the end of the shifts.
I did a load of work in small companies in and around London as a way of funding travel after finishing school. I was blown away by the number of jobs the arms industry provides. My favourite one was making model aircraft, sometimes at 1:1 scale.
not sure if they have any courses specific to munitions, but RIT is one of the few schools that has a dedicated Packaging Science degree. My nephew started this year. He was turned onto it during a campus tour. He, and the rest of us, had never heard of such a degree before. I think a lot of other schools would have a class or two in an ME program.
>Is there a job for designing packaging specifically for munitions? If so, I'm wondering how does the job description look like.
It's the same as designing packaging for anything else. They just want industry specific experience depending on the role. These companies are getting their entry level hires from the same pool of engineering grads everyone else is.
The main outer shell looks like it's recyclable plastic, but then inside that it (from 1:18 onwards) looks like heavy-duty Styrofoam / "Extruded polystyrene foam" which I know my local council won't take.
Styrofoam is terrible stuff - bulky but not heavy (it's 98% air), not recyclable, and fragile enough that it's almost guaranteed to break down into fragments and small beads which are light enough to be dispersed by a breeze. Microplastics to go.
In the UK, our local Council also frowns on that; and I do not think that Ukraine has a huge shortage of Styrofoam that we should send it over. I don't think anywhere is short of it. It's everywhere.
Most competitive FPS streamers set delay, otherwise you get stream sniped.
On more serious note if you want war cosplay check out Kadyrow tiktok and instagram, they LARP running around behind secured Russian lines with a whole multiple cameras crew pretending to take part in active engagements by shooting at abandoned buildings or into the air.
That’s their “job”. The fighting is for the poor bastards who happen to not be ethnic Russians and not Chechens. Even in hell everybody has their reserved role and for the army their role is to die ( some things never change ) while for the Chechens their role is to be a caricature of themselves conveniently spreading the fear around the world so the next time the army doesn’t even need to fight. It’s pure gangsterism coming from inside the head of a really small man.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Which is a bargain, really, considering they're reported to have >90% effectiveness against Russian tanks that cost, what, 100x more? Asymmetric warfare.
> Which is a bargain, really, considering they're reported to have >90% effectiveness against Russian tanks that cost, what, 100x more? Asymmetric warfare.
I don't disagree and know there are good reasons for the price (e.g. high reliability, complex with low production volumes compared to similar civilian goods). It's just kind of mind-boggling that a small consumable item like that is so expensive. According to Wikipedia a Javelin is even more at $240,000.
> Which is a bargain, really, considering they're reported to have >90% effectiveness against Russian tanks that cost, what, 100x more
The newer ones like T-80 and T-90, yep, around ~100x more. And that's discounting any specialised equipment on the tank (like sensors, anti-tank rockets, etc.) and the crew. Russian tanks are made to be simple to operate, but they still require some training, you can't just throw a random conscript in it and expect them to be of much use.
As a Swede I'm happy to see that our Swedish weapons are in the right hands.
I believe we've sent 5000 AT-4[1]. I'm not sure this is one of them though. From a rough Google Image search this does not look an AT-4. But what do I know...
The NLAW was itself co-developed by Sweden and the UK, and is known in Sweden as the RB-57 [1]. They are manufactured by Thales Air Defence in Belfast, Northern Ireland, using parts supplied by a variety of sub-contractors which include Saab of Sweden.
Thanks. I'm glad someone knows these things better than I do. I'm also happy (and sad) that someone else will have to do the dirty job of firing these beasts.
Thinking that this is practical life and death for real people is heart wrenching.
Thinking that I am within five miles of a tank (as are many Americans; I suspect that outside of the U.S. tanks are even more proliferate), this is somewhat scary.