I was 11H Army National guard ( M901) Active Army 11th ACR ( NTC) we did something called " Angel misssions " where we would be air assault in on hueys mocked up Then three years with the 101st ! Good times , thanks for the vidja man !

Anything to say about Polands backfilling of war machinery?

Any thoughts on possibility of Russia reverse engineering Javelin missile(some were captured by their army)?

During World War II, Nazi Germany developed many missile and precision-guided munition systems. These included the first cruise missile, the first short-range ballistic missile, the first guided surface-to-air missiles, and the first anti-ship missiles. Germany developed a design for a wire-guided anti tank missile derived from the Ruhrstahl X-4 air to air missile concept in the closing years of World War II. Known as the X-7, it was probably never used in combat and allegedly had serious guidance to target issues. It never entered service, though a few were produced. probably failed due to the resources and the time that Germany had to successfully complete this project. And later the Russians just took that concept and implemented it. No witchcraft involved 😌

@@mynick937 russia could reverse engineer it, but their manufacturing capability has been shit, ever since the dissolution of the soviet union, not to mention the inability of russia to produce quality electronics. Who knows, Russia might send some javelins to china to they can manufacture it

No. Those angry eyes only dazzle. Even then the Russians tried to pump up the capabilities of the system.

To be fair it doesn't seem like they're doing... fucking anything actually

Shtora 1 aps doesn't work like that, it sends out ir signals in different wavelengths (that is why they glow red) to disorient the missile and should work against tow missiles, more modern missiles like brimstone and spike are designed to not be affected by shtora aps.

@@harrywright6544 Shtora has been removed from most modern versions of Russian tanks in favor of reactive armor. It turns out that it wasn't real reliable and was just a weak spot on the turret.

Against previous versions of the TOW, yes. But it never could affect what was dubbed as TOW 2 and beyond. It’s interesting considering the TOW 2 is older than Shtora.

Death on a Leash! 6th Marines TOW Platoon here

I was in a 0352 reserve unit. We used to pee on trees to test the thermals. Oh the fun of technology.

I can see how TOWs could end up destroying more tanks than the Abrams, the TOW seems to be more accurate beyond 3km (especially against moving targets) and better penetration at that range. It seems that the sights were the deciding factor here that allows the maximum potential range to be exploited.

@@Treblaine If you are talking about the Gulf War, the real one, Bradley's were in front of the Abrams. The main engagements were by Armoured Cavalry Units. Please give some context as to the years you are talking about.

@@Treblaine 3750 M to be exact.

Nice, let's see Paul Allen's AGM missle launcher

I’m curious about why it’s speed is the issue outside of having to defeat APS? I recently found out that the TOW is actually faster than it’s contemporaries of it’s time (i.e HOT, Milan, Konkurs).

It's 2022. Why aren't phone charging cables made of TOW wires?

@Andrew Not for this application (tripod-mounted missiles) - a hypersonic missile would be too heavy. My understanding is that the Javelin is supposed to replace the TOW

@@jeffbenton6183 hypersonic is just too expensive and extremely complex to be used in this role

The British improved their CLOS "Command Line of Sight" system. The early missiles used "acceleration control" where the operators joystick directly acted on the control surface. If you pushed the control in one direction the missile kept turning and kept accelerating. It kept flying in that direction once the joystick was released. It was very had to control. The second generation of British CLOS missile such as Vickers Vigilante and BAC Swingfire used "Velocity control" . In this system the missile had an autopilot with a compass which was aligned with a compass on the operators sighting station. When fired the missile dead reckoned its way into the operators field of view and simply headed in the same direction as the cross hairs. There was still a joystick but its purpose was only to make fine adjustments with small nudges. This was much easier to control and could attack targets only 200ft/60m out to miles. It allowed the missile to be sighted well away from the operator (unlike TOW). I think this system will make a come back now using precision autopilots of the kind of IMU "Inertial Measurement Units" used on NLAW. You can still have fiber optic cables (that can be cuit) and a TV seeker but this way there is no way of jamming the missile or back tracking to the operator.

@@williamzk9083 Isn't fire-and-forget and LOAL capable ATGM going to replace most of this though? Here in India, our Armed Forces kept badgering our boffins for a 3rd gen IIR fire-and-forget. This resulted in an entire family of 3rd gen ATGMs, which are basically the first ATGM to be designed in India:- 1.) Nag (hellfire class missile in weight warhead and range but not in guidance, ground vehicle launched, LOAL mode: TV feed through data link and terminal guidance by IIR seeker. IIR seeker only in LOBL mode. Top-attack or direct attack modes. The seeker itself was challenging and is now more capable than that of Israeli Spike and comparable to Javelin's seeker in sensitivity when spotting tanks when ambient temperatures in deserts are only a little off from those of the tank, our Army and boffins got into a fight over this capability lol). 2.) HeliNa (Nag, but for Army attack heptrs) 3.) Dhruvastra (Nag, but for Air Force attack heptrs) 4.) SANT (4th gen, Heptr launched, MMW active radar homing, IIR seeker instead of , data link, 20 km range) 5.) MPATGM (man-portable, 4km range, top or direct attack, LOBL only, IIR seeker) . Funnily enough, our Boffins made 2nd generation ATGMs after 3rd gen ones. Primarily the SAMHO, which is SAL guided and launched from tank main cannons.

I was a dragon gunner.yep ..that was the ultimate pos.

Was Army EOD, we did a lot of training on the Sagger too…And yea, the Dragon can eat a bag of dicks…We’d use the dragon as a FU problem to eod techs because of its pretty much dozen ejection hazards from all those little crap rocket motors.

Agreed Dragon POS, It was fun watching them do their hop, skip, jump down range and hit nothing.

There are different variants and I belive the one that goes top down is the Tow-2B

Exactly correct

Yep, the TOW is great but ATGM's like Stugna are latest generation.

@@F4Wildcat if i may, i think Stugna is more of a latest iteration, than latest generation. Latest generation were those that use fire and forget be it SACLOS (instead of MCLOS like TOW or Stugna), or predictive course guidance (like NLAW).

@@dimasakbar7668 Ofcourse you may. Thanks for the info!

Are we past the point of risking running out of other weapons with the same/better capabilities? Or is it not worth the transport space, instead sending other stuff.

There were also glide bombs and glide torpedoes designed by the Germans in Ww1 to be used by Zeppelins or large Biplane Bombers.

It’s strange, one never thinks of a torpedo, as a missile. When I read that, I pictured it flying over the top of an enemy ship, turning around and hitting the ship! 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️

It’s still couldn’t save them from the emus.

@@Mortablunt of only they'd lured the emu into an amphibious assault.

That's awesome I didn't know that

Yes but the Russians did have dazzlers to confuse the tracking system

@@badlt5897 We the gunners were the tracking system.

TOW is also considered a wire guided missile, not a Smart guided missile. Dazzlers only work if the missile has to track a target.

@@dra6o0n older TOW variants were vulnerable to IR dazzlers due to them onterfering with the ir strobe on the rear of the missile that the launcher uses to track missiles location.

@@badlt5897 newer TOW variants use a more anvanced strobe/sensorbsetup to render IR dazzlers ineffective.

Is it just straight up wire or is it braided with spectra?

@@ElectricityTaster Just solid wire

@@petem.3719 so if we had two of these tow rockets and a tesla battery, we could tase yo mamma.

@@ElectricityTaster Not unless they were earth penetrating rockets

@@petem.3719 come on, you gotta admit it was a pretty good yo mama joke.

In all seriousness reach out to him. (PM/email). Deployed with him. Good dude. A lot of what you posted, and what you know, is nearly lost information at this point. Buried in tech manuals and FMs you can’t find, or don’t exist anymore, and even if you can, they don’t provide any real world experience. He might very well do an update if he gets enough information. I am willing to say it would be in more detail if he had those details to put in.

Yes... I was 11HE9 from 86-90 and was with 2ID in Korea (Camp Howze) too. We had M901 ITVs and the other big advantage they had was the ability to deploy in hull down positions with just the hammerhead exposed and then fire off two missiles with minimal chance that enemy armor could even see them from 3.75k meters. Downside to them was reloading made them exposed because the hammerhead had to tilt at 45 degrees or so for reloading which made them very visible at range. That and riding around in one felt like you were riding around in a moving container of fuel, hydraulic fluid, and explosives just waiting to go up in a ball of flames with the first incoming round.

@@Vevay1961 I was in 88-92 and when I was in Korea I was 1/503 CSC (Combat Support Company). Light infantry, 3 platoons of Humvee mounted T.O.W. plus a platoon of light mortars and a platoon of Scouts. I was at Camp Hovey/Casey except for my DMZ rotation to Warrior Base and guard posts Collier and Ouellette.

@@RemedialRob In summer 87, I did GP Collier for 30 days and then rotated back down to Warrior Base and did recon and ambush patrols in the Z for the rest of our 4 month rotation. When I was there they put the 11HE9s up at GP Collier so we could use the thermal imaging sights from our TOWs to monitor the rice paddies all around Collier and keep an eye on Propaganda Village. Rotated back to Ft Lewis where we had Fast Attack Vehicles which were basically dune buggies with TOWs and M2 on them. They were experimenting with a "Motorized" concept for Light Infantry. Those were fast and fun when deploying to Ft Irwin and Yakima Firing Ranges for desert exercises. Real pain in Ft Lewis rainy days though.

Oh yeah. Just like the A-10, the Bradley got more kills with the missiles rather than the gun.

@@Trve_Kvlt In fact, the A-10's cannon seems to be the biggest threat to friendly forces.

Jeez, lazerpig videos really have an Impact. Never seen people discussing A-10 in this light before his series

@@juliuszkocinski7478 Everyone loves to hate on the A-10 gun now. Except all the soldiers and Marines saved by it and the poor dumb basterds who were on the receiving end. The latest trendy thing recently.

@@Julianna.Domina a lot of blue on blue in that war for sure

I can imagine the poor SOB assigned to get out and drag a couple thousand yards of wire back in after firing so the other guy can't pick it up. "PVT Snuffy, get out there and get my wire!" "Sgt, they're still shooting at us?" "Did I ask?"

@@tiny_tex whenever we did gunnery all the TOW trucks carried C-Wire stake on them so afterwards they could use it like a reel to wind it back up. So you’re not far off 😂

That visual is the best anti-terrorist commercial I can think of. The dude cut in half lived long enough to know he was...

Someone decided kites were too old school?

Do you want to get Frankenstein's monsters... Because that's how you get Frankenstein's monsters. " FIRE GOOODDDD...."- Gene Hackman

I liked mine on M966, a bit more agile than a APC

That ground tripod was the DUMBEST idea ever. Only good as a backup in case your vehicle was disabled.

@@maddmoxx6414 But, with the M901 you could erect the hammerhead and sit hull-down, and fire and observe without exposing the vehicle to enemy fire. It did suck to drive; you couldn't drive on a slope of more than 30 degrees without fear of rollover. With the hammerhead up it was less than that.

1988 also Ft. Benning. Largely the same organization structure in Korea but back at Benning when I was mechanized things were different though.

I was an 11H in Benning in 82-83. In AIT, a guy in my platoon told me that his mother worked at the company that was building TOW missiles. We had the first gen missiles, she told him that TOW 2 were in production and they were already working on TOW 4. Ours were mounted on APC’s and jeeps, yes, those crappy little jeeps.

11H- Ft. Benning 1987-1988.😁👍🇺🇲

Note on “crappy little jeep”. Army/USMC both looking at a similar size platform. Oh the Hummer is nicer in many respects. But to much vehicle for some jobs. v6!

I was with the 9th ID (motorized) at Ft Lewis we had anti-tank heavy battalions and brigades. At the time the 9th ID was considered an experimental division, we got to play with all the new toys and develop doctrine for them and constantly changing unit configuration and reflagging. In 3 short years I was with 2/23, 2/60, 1/33 armor, 1squadron 2nd ACR (motorized) and their was one more just can't remember... Armor branch was having a tug of war with the infantry with who gets to claim motorized, they took all the 11H and reclassified them as 19D. A typical battalion had 3 anti-armor companies 1 rifle company. Anti-armor companies had 3 TOW platoon each platoon consisting 5 M996, and a crew of 3. One battalion could reek havoc with an Armored Brigade, but sucked against dismounted infantry, just didn't have the force protection with so few soldiers.

Yeah 1973 was a game changer for Armoured Warfare

Not that much of a game changer. Sagger entered service in 1963. Bantam entered service in 1963.

@@Merecir what do you mean? I just gave the perfect example, two armies fighting twice for the same territory, one lost the entire campaign in only 6 days (!!). Then merely six years later it was armed by masses of Sager missiles and defensive SA2 batteries and was able to generate significant gains and hold the new line, only to lose everything once again after overextending. Such a massive improvement in military performance in so little time is almost unheard of in military history. Hell, the Egyptians still refer to that war where they ended up begging for a ceasefire and had their entire 3rd army completely cut off and sorrounded in the Sinai desert for weeks - a "victory" after their former humiliation of 1967. And it's almost entirely due to these two weapon systems.

I also remember hearing about those Sagers were frequently flown into the ground because they were controlled by a joystick.

They used the Israelis as their guinea pigs and test bed prior to full adoption.

The RR is still one of the best light weight AT systems ever made. 0352 here

Recoiless rifle is going strong. One has a confirmed kill on a Russian T-90M, the top operational MBT in their arsenal. ***Shut up Armata fans. I said operational MBT. Get a T-14 into the fight and you may return to yelling at me all you want.***

@@slartybarfastb3648 depends where the shot was placed. If it was from above any tank won't be able to withstand 84mm RR. If it was from the rear, most tanks also would not survive the shot. Only except the M1A2 Abrams with ERA which has a blow out ammo storage at the rear which allows the crew to survive a back blast. Secondly, if any MBT were to take multiple hits from the side by RR shots, ERA blocks would be decimated and thus leaving the exposed side armor for a follow up shot. Again, no MBT in the world can survive a rapid RR engagement without dishing back enough supporting fire/suppressive fire back at the RR, AT teams. Therefore tanks when used without the range and the care taken will result in losses to all kinds of weaponry. Why the US and UK had such incredible success with MBTs during the Gulf War and the follow on Iraq War was due to the desert environment, allowing tanks to engage from far away ranges beyond RR and ATGM fire. Infantry was always far ahead of tanks and the over reliance in CAS and precision strike delivery by loitering air superiority allowed for a more successful use of MBTs. Whereas in Ukraine the Russians have literally tens of thousands of surplus T72s which are always being uprated to the T72B3M variant which are then sent to newer conscript/greener outfits to utilize more archaic Russian tactics which is to use numbers to overwhelm positions. Thereby resulting in heavy armor losses. The Russians intend to fight like that as they keep the elite guards units for critical spearhead assault missions to break the enemy once enough green main army divisions are sent to soften up or force Ukrainian forces to commit to a certain defensive point.

@@ConstantineJoseph What will the Russians do when they run out of cannon fodder to protect the limited numbers of 'real' units? There was no over reliance on CAS and in the open desert warfare of Iraq the infantry was not "far in advance of armor". The Iraqis were blind at night, out ranged, out of supply, demoralized from the previous month of constant air strikes and MLRS. Poor communication and stuck in static positions known to Coalition forces through months of surveillance. Instead of going with 'you didn't fight fair' argument, maybe the Russians should have spent the last 30 years studying the '91 Gulf War instead of everything they've tried in Ukraine so far.

I wonder why TOW-missiles don't have that function. Maybe the US Army never thought of it. It's obviously great for defensive warfare and not so much for offensive. And I'd guess that US army doctrine is highly aggressive.

@@Fuhrerjehova I'd agree. Plus, TOW (and STUGNA) are heavy. Really heavy, like over 100kg without ~30kg reloads. Given US mobile doctrine that means vehicle mounted unless it's a fixed defense like the Korean DMZ.

tell him... he failed...as he knew it would. 2003 the only failed rounds were had were from shit wire spools.

@@jackmountain8503 Will do! Any idea what percentage failed?

Why did you call them " crappy little jeep " just asking .

@@patrickeckhard7958 www.militarytrader.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_936/MTc5MTU3ODEzMzU5MDI3OTYw/m151a2-m825-mutt-adrian-winget-graf-1413trimmed.jpg Well, just look at it. Very crowded inside, too small, no protection for the occupants and very little ground clearance.

Was also 11H in 82 to 96, started with TOW mounted on jeep, then on HumV. Also had m60 machine guns mounted on jeeps.

@@rancherfarmerguy Those jeeps really sucked, didn’t they?

@@lowandslow3939 damn sure did. Absolutely no protection. no room, had pull damn trailer everywhere with your ruck and gear. Front passenger seat was removed for the racks that held Xtra missles. The little seats where gunner and a-gunner sat had no belts (fell into patch of cactus at Ft Carson once that me pulling thorns out for days) cold, hot, wet, dusty depending on weather, and slow when convoying. Was glad to see them go.

@@GH-jl2td always a good idea to test against the White Russians.

You only gave samples of your super pooper weapons to show future customers weak spots and countermeasures. You have to be an idiot to waste money on HIMARS with 70 kilometers, when you can buy TORNADO S with 120 km and 200 km three times cheaper. Let's wait until winter time when Ukrainian weapons will finished completely and Ukraine will be fully dependent on nato forces 👏 By the way, Europe already feeding 5 millions Ukrainians!

@@GH-jl2td American general during the Gulf Wars said "I like Russian weapons. They make good targets" We basically destroyed 3,000 Russian tanks in 100 hours without a single tank loss.

@@genem895 Putin is the Custer of Russia. He is a narcissistic man who believes he can risk everything to complete his legacy. Like General Custer he will be remembered for failure and defeat.

The opposite is valid too 😁

yeeeeeeep! Every square foot on an airplane is worth a lot, if they already have TOWs, then send something else

Russian kornet is 10km in range meanwhile javelin and tow is 3km, doubt ukraine need them, they will throw it away.

@@OSTemli We know. Everything Russian is better. Heard it all before.

@@OSTemli that doesn't really matter it rare to get a line of sight past 1-2 miles

0352s for life!

The Tow rocket would still be versatile on drones, it has sights on the target from above. It's just less effective the more cover the field has. Problem is that Tow missiles are too big. Will we ever see things like micro missiles which shoot a swarm out of a drone?

just make a miniature one that's 1/5th the size and ten times faster. it'd be obscene with a shaped charge on the head

Except it's way cheaper to produce and has it's own purpose.

@@manitoba-op4jx not sure the wire would stay intact at mach 7.

With graf you mean grafenwöhr I guess. Funny a little shithole near where I live is known to thousands of Americans.

@@AllisterCaine Your attitude sounds like it left you an impression.

there are a bunch of videos out there of failed short rounds hitting the ground 20 feet ahead of the weapon, whats up with the TOW missile that it does that?

@@Taskandpurpose 19D here, we get a lot of time with these. There can be a couple reasons for the failure but they all result in the same thing, a failure for the propellant to ignite. It could be there was a failure for the missile itself to begin the ignition sequence (as it was explained to me by our CI, the firing of the missile from the tube and the ignition of its propellant are separated and the operator is only in command of the launch.) I’ll try to keep this message short for the sake of my own sanity but basically anything that would cause the propellant to not ignite after launch. System failure, bad propellant, etc

Humidity and wire snaps, Seen 1 out of 3 short fire or go crazy during an live fire in South Korea in 2003ish. Many issues with the long term storage of the tow misslies. We even switch over to AT4's and only used the tow sight stand alone as an expensive spotting scope...506th INF korea to Iraq

Yeah, that part sounded weird. Tungsten slug would do that. But an airframe or even a tandem HEAT warhead?

Was this in early 1988, because i saw a similar mishap?

@@sog4646 must be...by 2004 we saw them fly everywhere but on target or one direction...

You can also always claim the prize of having the biggest Big Boy Toys. I had a skydiving instructor who was active duty missile boat captain. Can't say which one, his name, or base. I was in awe to be on friendly terms with a guy who's day job is to park on the seafloor with enough firepower to melt a good portion of the planet. "I'm a truck driver, it can be pretty exciting at times...What do you do?" 😲

@@slartybarfastb3648 Had a friend years ago who was special forces. When asked what he did in the military, he would say "I jump out of planes and kill people."

@@jiminauburn5073 Skydiving is an interesting sport in terms of people you meet. My drop zone trains many of the special forces in using the square ram air parachutes. ETACs/JTACs, PJs, Seals, MARSOC. Those guys are a special breed. I think the USAF PJs are the most fun though. A bit more laid back and less intense. I couldn't have more respect for them. Sport skydivers choose to jump, can take a day or month or years off. SOF guys see it as one more skill in a long list of dangerous skills and training which just goes along with the job. They jump when their told to jump and learn fast.

Among other things

Heh, not often that I see people call the Cobra that. I tip my hat to you good sir.

Wouldn't blame him for it. Younger folks tend to forgot that early revolutionary year, Iranian armed force used many western made weaponry, which they acquire en masse during Shah's regime. Also, if anything, formerly combat infantry MOS.

@@dimasakbar7668 To this day there are still western platforms in use there. Acquired pre-revolution, such as the export version of the F-14. Granted there really can't be much left from 40+ years ago. But it does go to show that they wouldn't disregard a good weapon just because of where it came from. A good weapon is a good weapon, full stop. Personally I am not the biggest fan of modern day Iran (though I must say, the history of Iran/Persia is incredible and does not get the attention it deserves in the west), but the fact that they still fly the F-14 gets a nod of approval from me. God I love that jet. Really it isn't much different than how the Taliban rearmed themselves with everything the US left behind. With the only real difference being that the US sold Iran all that stuff under the Shah, while the US just abandoned everything in Afghanistan to the Taliban. But in practical terms, I don't really see a difference. (also, even if dated by todays standards, the fact that they keep some of these platforms that are older than I am (over 40) in service, speaks volumes for how good some of them are... say what you will about the practices of different countries, but the weapon platforms/systems that have come out of the west since the 60s or so have often shown themselves to be great weapons... of course not everything is great, but that shouldn't need to be said as it is a truism, but if I don't say it someone will go "but what about _______?" in some childish gotcha crap.) Fun fact: From what I have read both Iran's and Ireland's names both stem from the same early Proto-Indo-European word. Granted there are a few thousand years of separate development (PIE apparently died 4,000-4,500 years ago) and this is somewhat iffy as PIE is a reconstructed language but I find this interesting if it is indeed true.

@@whyjnot420 Arafat used uzis

@@andrewgates8158 Like I said, a good weapon is a good weapon. At the end of the day pragmatism tends to win over idealism.

yikes that's crazy, way cooler than anything I've found in antique shops or surplus stores in the US I gotta say

That wire was surprisingly strong, high tensile and very thin. Perfect for a garrote, but wear gloves. I had a big spool of it back in the 70s and used it for all kinds of things for the next 40 years. After use, the wire just lays on the ground between the launcher and the target.

Did you fight in the first gulf War ?

@@djay1012 I was writing trench war doctrine at NTC at the time then we were going to go, but sadly the stood us down after 24 hours of the start... we got a hero parade at every town we pulled into on the way back home on the bus. Finally made it over there in 2003-2005, 2008 with Army Reserve doing fuel convoys. We were a high priority target, ran the gauntlet every night.

fr

Funnily enough, in India's case, the first ATGM we developed was a family of hellfire-class but IIR guided 3rd gen ATGM and a man-portable javelin class with an equally capable seeker. Earlier, we were importing all our ATGM from Russia, France and Israel and they were mostly 2nd gen, yet expensive. But now, with local design and production, 3rd gen missiles might not cost that much more than the 2nd gen ones we were importing. So its understandable why our military is outright replacing all 2nd gens with 3rd gens, with the exception of cannon-launched ATGM for tanks.

Javelins are much better and the Ukrainians themselves have also been using their own built Stugna anti-tank missiles with great effect so far and it seems to be more modern and much lighter than the TOW.

Russian kornet range 10km, tow 3km

Depending on how stocks of other stuff lasts, they might. TOW isn't gong to be as useful as Javelin or other more modern systems, but there will be a few use cases for it. It is quite training intensive compared to what Ukraine already has, too, so not a first choice

​@@OSTemli Not particularly relevant in this war. Yes, having range is nice, especially when target is driving away from you, but most engagements in the Ukraine war have been either at much shorter ranges or much longer ranges using artillery. It's very hard to spot tanks from beyond 2km in the Ukrainian countryside anyways, not to mention there's far too much obstructing view anyways. This is one of the few cases where it's the Russians creating a capability in their weapon systems that's almost never going to be used, whereas the Murican design is a lot more reasonable.

Honestly, I think we've probably pretty much exhausted our stockpiles of TOW. That total produced number doesn't mean they're all maintained. All warheads, guidance systems, rocket motors have a mandated useful design life. Any TOWs made during the 70s, 80s, 90s have likely been shot, given away or scrapped. I don't know the rates of production, but I doubt it's very much at this point. Javelin has taken over and we cleared the shelves giving TOW to Syrian rebels (SDF), and Kurds, and 39 other countries.

probably ate the omelette MRE, that has the same effect

@@josedorsaith5261 Slaughtered their targets. Not the entire Russian Army. Place things into context dude.

Wire guidance is pretty good. It doesn't emit any signals that can be detected or jammed. Some system such as MMP use a fibre optice wire with a TV in the nose. Lasers can be detected and a more powerfull laser or counter battery fire sent back.

@@williamzk9083 "Lasers can be detected" He is talking about a beam-riding system though.

@@death_parade There are two types of laser detector. One type detects the beam directly (it requires several detectors on the tank) and measures the precise direction it is coming from. You can then find the laser source very quickly. Apart from a warning they can be used to deploy smoke, dazzling flares, point a laser straight back to damage optics, point the gun to face with the heaviest Armour and begin searching for the missile/projectile or any tell tale puffs of smoke caught on camera. The other type of laser detector has sensors pointing at several areas of the tank/aircraft itself and detects the indirect light providing a warning and an idea of what sector the laser threat is in.

Good job

@@Fatty_WB thanks🤯😳😭🥇🤣🤣😹😹🤫😃🤫💀🐮🐮🐮🥶🥶🤑🤑🤑

you got that right. dehydrated pork patties all around!