NLAW (Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon) (British Army)

[SKB]

^ NLAW

The Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW), also known as the Main Battle Tank and Light Anti-tank Weapon (MBT LAW) and in Sweden known as the Robot 57 (RB-57), is a fire-and-forget, lightweight shoulder-fired disposable (single-shot) missile system, designed for use by infantry. The missile is guided by calculation based on PLOS (predicted line of sight), and can carry out a top attack or direct attack on an armoured vehicle. It has its origins in a joint British–Swedish project begun in 2002 to replace Cold War-era weapons. Users of the weapon include the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, and Ukraine.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_gene ... ank_Weapon

[SKB]

(Forces News) 18th January 2022


(Forces News) 9th March 2022

British troops in Lithuania have been demonstrating some of the anti-tank weapons which the UK is sending to Ukraine. The NLAW and Javelin have already been used effectively against Russian armour and Britain is promising further shipments.

[Phil Sayers]

Very popular in Ukraine - where they now have over 3,500 of them:

[bobp]

We have sent over 3600 NLAW to date.

[Paul4Ukraine]

Very popular in Ukraine - where they now have over 3,500 of them:

Very inspiring video. He says that civilians have asked for NLAWs but they can't be issued with them. Probably, understandably, the cost.

But they could be trained to use a very cheap drone, not the cheapest, but a couple of rungs up. With forward facing video for piloting and the ability to carry a modest charge, duly prepared.

The $64,000 question is this: If the intention was only to disable the tank [maybe hit the front/rear wheels to wreck the track, wheel and drive, possibly the joint between the turret and the body] what would be the weight of such a charge?

There are more issues but if an adequate charge is light enough, this might be a weapon for all the civvies.

[Tempest414]

What the new civil defence force need is cheap guns and RGP-7 plus maybe 60mm mortars on mass cheap easy to use kit

[mr.fred]

The $64,000 question is this: If the intention was only to disable the tank [maybe hit the front/rear wheels to wreck the track, wheel and drive, possibly the joint between the turret and the body] what would be the weight of such a charge?

Anti-tank mines typically have more than 5kg explosive, and they have the ground containing the charge can directing it into the track.

[Paul4Ukraine]

The $64,000 question is this: If the intention was only to disable the tank [maybe hit the front/rear wheels to wreck the track, wheel and drive, possibly the joint between the turret and the body] what would be the weight of such a charge?

Anti-tank mines typically have more than 5kg explosive, and they have the ground containing the charge can directing it into the track.

The $64,000 question is this: If the intention was only to disable the tank [maybe hit the front/rear wheels to wreck the track, wheel and drive, possibly the joint between the turret and the body] what would be the weight of such a charge?

Anti-tank mines typically have more than 5kg explosive, and they have the ground containing the charge can directing it into the track.

Thanks. That's very helpful.

Too heavy for the type of drone I have in mind (but not too heavy for others). If one were to get back to my original suggestion, a hit on the most vulnerable areas with a view to taking the tank out of commission, what do you reckon a rough idea of the weight needed might go down to?

[mr.fred]

Thanks. That's very helpful.

Too heavy for the type of drone I have in mind (but not too heavy for others). If one were to get back to my original suggestion, a hit on the most vulnerable areas with a view to taking the tank out of commission, what do you reckon a rough idea of the weight needed might go down to?

Artillery delivered AT bomblets are down to less than 0.25kg by dint of using a shaped charge. Whether you could reliably deliver them accurately enough to be effective using a drone is up for debate.

[Paul4Ukraine]

Artillery delivered AT bomblets are down to less than 0.25kg by dint of using a shaped charge. Whether you could reliably deliver them accurately enough to be effective using a drone is up for debate.

This seems complicated. If one were to use the best of regular plastic explosives, how, as a rouigh estimate, would the figure of 0.25Kg be changed?

[mr.fred]

This seems complicated. If one were to use the best of regular plastic explosives, how, as a rouigh estimate, would the figure of 0.25Kg be changed?

If you’re stuck to plain explosives, you’re back to substantial charges, as far as I can tell.
The desperate manual attacks on AFV in previous conflicts used large charges and modern tanks are somewhat more robust.
Shaped charges became the go-to solution for infantry (hence light) anti tank for a reason.

[Paul4Ukraine]

]
If you’re stuck to plain explosives, you’re back to substantial charges, as far as I can tell.
The desperate manual attacks on AFV in previous conflicts used large charges and modern tanks are somewhat more robust.
Shaped charges became the go-to solution for infantry (hence light) anti tank for a reason.

Thanks for all this. I'm sure you're right. I have a "lack of comprehension" issue. I'll have to present the alternatives.

[Lord Jim]

You could always strap an RPG-7 Rocket to your drone and Kamikaze it onto the target.

[Paul4Ukraine]

You could always strap an RPG-7 Rocket to your drone and Kamikaze it onto the target.

I sense his lordship is being facetious.

But, setting aside the fact that it is heavier than the shaped charge idea by an order of magnitude, it would need a different drone. If the RPG tube is removed, it should work. But is the spring in the trigger in the nose so stiff that it might not go off with the relatively gentle bang into the target that the drone would give it? i.e. to be technical, what is the spring rate?

Also, what is the difference in explosive power of the two proposals?

[Tempest414]

what we are seeing is very good use of drones to spot the enemy and to set up a kill box for artillery or fast moving mortar teams and direct fire

Fast moving Mortar teams using 60 and 81mm mortars can set up and use the drone to spot fire from 3km's away they can rain rounds in for 60 seconds before moving and resetting. 6 teams or 3 men could by 2 teams firing for a min at a time could deliver 30 rpm for 6 to 9 mins before bugging out this would mean 180 rounds of 60 & 81mm mortar rounds coming in from a unfixed force is going to upset your day

[Lord Jim]

Yes the Ukrainians seem to have got the sensor to shooter cycle pretty much down pat with the use of their Drones. I am surprised teh Russians are not better than they have been given their experience in Syria and the Donbass. Maybe the Ukrainians have learnt the lesson fro the latter too?

[Paul4Ukraine]

what we are seeing is very good use of drones to spot the enemy and to set up a kill box for artillery or fast moving mortar teams and direct fire

Fast moving Mortar teams using 60 and 81mm mortars can set up and use the drone to spot fire from 3km's away they can rain rounds in for 60 seconds before moving and resetting. 6 teams or 3 men could by 2 teams firing for a min at a time could deliver 30 rpm for 6 to 9 mins before bugging out this would mean 180 rounds of 60 & 81mm mortar rounds coming in from a unfixed force is going to upset your day

Yes, this is all good military practice. But we are dealing with a citizen army with the minimum of training and no experience at all. From the Twiitter video above, we have Ukrainians willing to fight but not enough NLAWs to go around, and, I suspect, no RPGs that are spare. I still think there is a project around cheap mid level drones with forward facing video and an impact triggering munition slung underneath. It's a matter of specifying.

[Tempest414]

As an ex small arms weapon instructor with the RAF I can say adapting a mid size cheap drone and then teaching 100's if not thousands of people to fly them to level which they are effective is for me a non starter. Even if you could these drones are slow enough to be counted by small arms fire or even smoke

when it comes to giving the masses the ability to fight you need to form them into small groups led by a well trained reg so a mortar platoon of 40 or so this platoon would have 3 sections each section could have 3 mortars. Each mortar would need 1 reg and 2 other people so out of a platoon of 40 you need 10 reg's and 30 others to hump the mortars and bombs around also in very quick time these others will learn to set up and use the mortars

the best way to use the masses is to have them doing jobs they can be trained for in a few days or are already trained for

[SW1]

There is also quite a difficult conundrum to arming the masses, for one discipline in not being drunk with a gun and forming vigilante groups if left to there own devises and perhaps more importantly where the line is between a combatant and non combatant. Does the enemy just assume everyone is a target.

[Tempest414]

There is also quite a difficult conundrum to arming the masses, for one discipline in not being drunk with a gun and forming vigilante groups if left to there own devises and perhaps more importantly where the line is between a combatant and non combatant. Does the enemy just assume everyone is a target.

Quite however in this case the Russian's are making everyone a target anyway. we have given over 3500 NLAW in total Ukraine has well over15,000 anti tank weapons

[SW1]

There is also quite a difficult conundrum to arming the masses, for one discipline in not being drunk with a gun and forming vigilante groups if left to there own devises and perhaps more importantly where the line is between a combatant and non combatant. Does the enemy just assume everyone is a target.

Quite however in this case the Russian's are making everyone a target anyway. we have given over 3500 NLAW in total Ukraine has well over15,000 anti tank weapons

Indeed I do wonder how much more of a difference it would of made had we started the upstream training engagement sooner or more of it and with more U.K. manufactured specialist weapons like starstreak, brimstone maybe even watchkeeper ect. Maybe that part of defence review was closer to the truth than some wished to acknowledge.

[Tempest414]

So today a video pop up on youtube of dispersed Ukrainian 60mm mortar teams hitting a Russian artillery site

[Paul4Ukraine]

... in total Ukraine has well over15,000 anti tank weapons

They have probably been targetted for bombing. Do you know if they still exist?

[Tempest414]

what we know is on top of the 20,000 + RPG 7, 18, 22 plus other Soviet kit they have been given

3600 NLAW
4500 LAW
5000 AT-4
5000 Panzerfaust 3
300 units + 1200 missiles Javelin
100 Carl Gustaf
plus other kit = 19,000 anti tank weapons so between this and there Soviet kit something like 40,000 man portable high impact weapons

[mr.fred]

... in total Ukraine has well over15,000 anti tank weapons

They have probably been targetted for bombing. Do you know if they still exist?

Some will have been lost to enemy action, others will have been expended on Russian armour
Most will still exist, either in dispersed locations or in the hands of Ukrainian soldiers. I imagine that there will be more dispersal of any stocks following the attack on Yavoriv yesterday.