The point is that a soldier with a Javelin is a much less visible target than a big vehicle. Even if he runs just 40 meters away between the firing of the missile and its impact, any return fire aimed at the original site will likely miss him. And there can be a hundred of such Javelin-equipped soldiers in range.
But there may be cheaper and better models one day. This war has shown that ATGMs, MANPADs and their ilk have a huge potential, which means that a lot of countries and companies are going to pour resources into R&D. This usually means an overall improvement in capabilities and possibly a reduced price tag.
As an analogy: once it would be considered too expensive and impractical to equip infantry with night vision en masse. Russia still cannot do that, but for rich Western countries, it is an absolutely realistic option.
Have you ever humped a combat load? It sucks. You’re rolling out with 40 lbs of stuff hanging off you before we even talk sustainment.
Javelin has gotta be 40-50 lbs. Add that on. Want an extra missile? Add another 30 or so.
Now suppose you don’t run into any armor, this is why every infantryman doesn’t/won’t carry one. Maybe 1 per squad, if we want to be super aggressive maybe 1 per fireteam. But that’s now a machine gun they’ve left out, what if they really needed more suppression?
It’s a trade off and humans aren’t capable of bringing all the nice to haves to every fight. This is why there won’t be hundreds in a company.
Most of the weight is in the missiles themselves at 35 lbs (15.9kg) the targeting unit is only 14 lbs (6.4kg). So for defensive scenarios or preset ambushes the missiles could be brought in via vehicle and prestaged.
Not to go in circles here, so the ultimate point here is same as the article: there have and will continue to be a threat / counter threat environment and will continue to evolve.
What we are witnessing from Russia is not how armor should be employed. Armor is not suddenly obsoleted due to tech that’s been out for decades. That take is probably overly simplistic and wrong.
Only 14lbs for the CLU. That's HEAVY. Someone still needs to hump that around, plus the missiles. Plus all the battle rattle gear. The Army did away with the 11H MOS, so now everyone is either an 11B or 11C. Stuff gets heavy, and rarely gets lighter.
>>>But there may be cheaper and better models one day.
And when that "one day" comes around, the tank engineers will have outfitted every vehicle with Trophy-style active protection systems AND laser anti-missile/anti-drone remote weapons stations on the turrets.
>>>As an analogy: once it would be considered too expensive and impractical to equip infantry with night vision en masse.
Interesting that you mention night vision. We used to swear by equipping our infantry with IR lasers as well, for pinpoint accuracy during night combat. Now that more of our adversaries are using night vision, we are swinging back towards NOT using IR lasers because the active emission is just like the old Murphy's Law adage: "tracers point both ways".
Do you know what you call 100 Javelin equipped soldiers in a group? A target rich environment. The paper/rock/scissors idea would have mortars ranging down on that group in a flash. Try running away while humping 45lbs of gear while under mortar fire.
In no way can 100 men cover several square kilometers of terrain in anything close to an effective manner. That's roughly a company sized unit, and they "might" be able to have a 800m frontage, but that depends on how they're equipped. If they're light infantry with limited transportation, not a chance.
The tank would need to actually find the ATGM team though. It's relatively easy to detect a tank in the vicinity - they're loud and big. It's a bit tougher to spot a couple of guys in a bush (or in a ditch, or behind a wall, or in a thicket, or any number of hiding places)
Yeah a well employed heavy armor element, particularly supported by dismounted infantry and SHORAD is going to stomp an infantry element that has exhausted anti tank rocket/missile stocks. Not debating that for a second.
> I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member.
The idea is that the lack of NATO membership is just a formality. In any other aspect, Ukraine is a much more important geopolitical asset than said Latvia (with all due respect to the Latvians - I'm just imagining the way it plays out in Putin's head. Or at least the way I understand Piontkovsy here).
> If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond?
Yep. Piontkovsky even describes a potential limited nuclear strike scenario as part of the raising of stakes by Putin. AKA "are you willing to die for Narva[0]?"
I mean I find these analysis absurd, they seem based on the ideas not just that Putin is irrational but also that he knows nothing about the very things we would assume he knows about, stuff like how treaties and military alliances work.
I could totally understand some guy on the street thinking hey Latvia is nothing, if they won't defend the Ukraine then they won't defend Latvia but why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars they would otherwise rather keep out of think such a thing.
In fact I would assume his kneejerk opinion would be to believe that the only way to get all these weak nations to actually go to war would be if an attack happened on a NATO nation.
The purpose for much authorship is to sell copies. Writing a novel is a bunch of work, if that work doesn’t sell, the unpaid bills tend to cause problems. Tuning to sell more absolutely makes sense.
Novelists frequently have editors and other people who comment on and refine drafts. I don’t know what the OP is really asking- of course authors get opinions and feedback on drafts. If they want it. But for a classic buy-the-novel-read-the-chapters, clicks won’t be clicks of engagement, or they won’t matter because you pay before you read, so A/B testing won’t help. I’ll pay based on a review, and if the version I read is not the one I heard was good, I’ll be disappointed in the author and whatever medium provided me info about the work.
Possibly the OP is thinking of a new literary form.
Congrats!! We pride ourselves on our customer service, so if you have any questions, definitely feel free to reach out to us.
In the US, only about 2% of parents bank cord blood due to a huge awareness issue (that 2% is concentrated in wealthy, urban areas - think Greenwich, Beverly Hills, Upper East Side). In Singapore, however, rates can be as high as 30%, and in certain areas of China it's at around 10%. The greatest barrier in the US is for sure awareness and secondarily pricing, so we're working on trying to lower costs. When you first read this post, what was your first reaction? What are you most curious about?
We found it was quite common, and for the prices we paid (which are significantly cheaper than this startup - YMMV) it was a no brainer.
I was not convinced on the science today, but when it is cheap I figured that it is worth a punt on the assumption that science will improve in the next two decades. If not you've only spent about as much as a new Mac book Pro (from most providers) so worth the gamble.
