Man-portable anti-tank weapons have proved very effective in the hands of the Ukrainians, destroying scores of Russian armored vehicles since the start of the war six months ago, helping to halt the advance on the capital Kyiv.. At least a dozen countries, including America, the UK and Germany, send them to Ukraine. America's latest support package, announced on Aug. 8, includes both top-of-the-line Javelin launchers and the simpler AT4 model. One shot from the first costs about 100 times more than a shot from the second. As Western countries run out of their most high-tech stocks, they may be tempted to supply less efficient but cheaper models.. How this can affect the war, writes The Economist.
Today's anti-tank weapon is the successor to the Bazooka, an American man-portable rocket launcher introduced during World War II.. The installation was so effective against armored vehicles that the light tanks of that time could not protect their crew and oppose anything to this installation.. Modern launchers have become even more formidable. Javelins, the most high-tech model, has an infrared targeting and target acquisition system, allows you to lock on and pursue a moving target at a distance of up to 2.5 km. Operates on a " Warhead weighing 8.4 kg dives on the target, which allows it to penetrate even thick armor. One rocket costs 198 thousand dollars - the same as Ferrari. Manufacturers say this reflects the cost of complex electronics.; critics say Javelins are overpriced.
Cheaper models can do a lot of damage for less cost.. Britain's Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW) costs roughly $33,000 per shot. The system has an optical sight, night vision and is capable of hitting moving targets.. The system is easier to carry and allows you to shoot from a more protected position than the Javelin.. But NLAW cannot be controlled after launch, and its range is less than 1 km.. However, with the help of NLAW, the Ukrainians destroyed a number of Russian armored vehicles, including some of the best Russian tanks..
The cheapest anti-tank weapons can not get close to the Javelin, but still play an important role in the war. Swedish-designed AT4 costs about $2,000 to launch. The effective range of the system is 300 meters, but there is little chance of hitting a moving target at such a distance.. The system cannot penetrate the frontal armor of modern tanks, but can easily destroy other armored vehicles, such as? like armored personnel carriers and self-propelled guns. The Soviet-designed RPG-7 costs only a few hundred dollars and has such? same range. Some analogues of the American-made design are used in Ukraine.
As the war rages on, it may be difficult for Ukraine's allies to supply modern anti-tank weapons like Javelins at current prices.. By mid-August, America had sent about 8,500 Javelins, but was accustomed to buying no more than 800 pieces a year.. The U.S. does not disclose its holdings, but The Economist analysis suggests that over the years, the American army has purchased a total of about 34,500 units.. Production cannot be ramped up quickly and there is competition for limited supply: other European countries are demanding more of their arsenals. This means that the AT4 and other simpler anti-tank weapons can fill Ukraine's ever-growing need.
[see_also ids\u003d"
Fortunately, thanks to the Javelin and other weapons, Russia has already lost most of its most modern tanks.. Even less advanced man-portable launch systems can take out old models of armored vehicles that Russia will have to rely on.. And although anti-tank weapons have played a decisive role in the defense of Ukraine, they are less useful in the offensive..
If Ukrainian forces hope to regain lost territory, they will need more long-range artillery to clear a path for troops.. Deliveries to Ukraine of expensive anti-tank weapons may fall, but they have already done their job.
Earlier it was reported that Ukraine is taking away the initiative at the front from Russia.. Russia still has a fire advantage, but Ukraine has a stronger rear in the form of allies. WSJ sorted out who would have the advantage going forward.