The use of "Lancets" against enemy tanks is not effective enough

9

Another video of the use of the Lancet loitering ammunition in the NVO zone has appeared. This time, kamikaze drone operators tried to disable an enemy tank. But even two arrivals of the Lancets on a heavy combat vehicle did not give the desired effect. It was not possible to break through the armor of the tank.


Probably, in this case, armored vehicles used ammunition with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, and not with a cumulative one. In any case, this video clearly demonstrates that the engineers of the Kalashnikov concern need to work on strengthening the combat power of loitering ammunition.


At the moment, the "Lancets" are very effective against enemy manpower and light equipment. Military correspondents from the scene regularly share footage of the destruction of American howitzers M777 with these ammunition. But, alas, it is ineffective against a tank, as this video filmed in the Ugledar direction shows.

The suburbs of Vuhledar remain one of the most tense points of contact on the front line. The Russian army is working on fortifying the enemy with all available means, including using the heavy flamethrower system TOS-1A Solntsepek. But the Armed Forces of Ukraine regularly bring reserves here and put up fierce resistance.
Reporterin Yandex News
Reporterin Yandex Zen
9 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Orange bigg Offline Orange bigg
    Orange bigg (Alexander ) 17 February 2023 16: 09
    0
    .Probably, in this case, armored vehicles used ammunition with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, and not with a cumulative one. In any case, this video clearly demonstrates that the engineers of the Kalashnikov concern need to work on strengthening the combat power of loitering ammunition.

    We need a simplified analogue of the loitering ammunition Harop with a warhead of 20 kg. Then the tank can really be pierced into the tower. I agree. Here the engineers should work. But then the work will pay off in full.
  2. Vox_Populi Offline Vox_Populi
    Vox_Populi (vox populi) 17 February 2023 19: 41
    0
    This has long been known, by the way, and against other armored vehicles, and guns too, it is not always effective ...
  3. usm5 Offline usm5
    usm5 (George) 17 February 2023 21: 05
    0
    Well, it's probably not all bad. The fragments and the blast wave probably disabled the sight, observation devices, etc. Even the gun barrel could be spoiled. There is a cumulative warhead on the Lancets, but in a particular case there simply weren’t any, and the tank must have been very annoying.
  4. DO Offline DO
    DO (Dmitriy) 18 February 2023 04: 19
    -2
    It was not possible to break through the armor of the tank.
    Probably, in this case, armored vehicles used ammunition with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, and not with a cumulative one.
    ...
    But against the tank, he, alas, is ineffective

    Damn, so was the fragmentation or cumulative warhead on the Lancets shown?
    If cumulative, the result is very strange. For both 3 kg, and even more so 5 kg, a cumulative warhead will pierce any conventional armor without protection. And was the tank equipped with protection? And if so, which one?
    If the warhead is fragmentation, it is useless to shoot it at the tank. Is that to bring down attachments.
    So, making a peremptory conclusion about the unsuitability of the Lancets against tanks without exact knowledge of the answers to the above questions, the author shows blatant incompetence.
  5. Sergei N Offline Sergei N
    Sergei N (Sergey N) 18 February 2023 16: 36
    0
    If I'm not mistaken, there are two warhead options for the Lancet. One is high-explosive fragmentation, and the second is cumulative. There are many videos on the network using the Lancet with a cumulative warhead.
    Most likely, in this case, there was no "Lancet" with a cumulative warhead at hand. Therefore, we decided to use the "Lancet" with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead.
  6. Sergei N Offline Sergei N
    Sergei N (Sergey N) 18 February 2023 16: 48
    0
    The second blow to the tank had to be delivered at the moment when the crew was engaged in extinguishing the fire.
    1. Primorsky Offline Primorsky
      Primorsky (Eulampius) 18 February 2023 20: 18
      0
      Do not forget that the troops are commanded by humanists. The story about the fleeing Ukrainian Armed Forces, who were allowed to safely swim across the river in Lisichansk/Severodonetsk, is very revealing. It is a pity that the enemy does not appreciate this.
    2. wlkw Offline wlkw
      wlkw (Vladimir) 18 February 2023 23: 34
      0
      It can be assumed that they faded from the sound of an incoming ammunition, especially since one has already arrived, it is quite possible that they were waiting for the second
  7. wlkw Offline wlkw
    wlkw (Vladimir) 18 February 2023 23: 36
    0
    Yes, it’s normal ammunition, it’s just from the light category, a tank, this is too difficult a target for it, but besides tanks, there are a lot of “interesting” things on the battlefield.