We must remember, the Javelin and the NLAW can be used for hitting other targets as well. They aren't only anti-tank weapons. The shortcoming of Javelin and NLAW is when they are used in urban areas. A Missile must fly a distance before it gets active, but these two systems have an advantage over older AT missiles. These are fire and forget weapons. Older AT missiles are wire guided, which means the shooter must aim/guide the missile all the way to the target. The shooter is also very exposed when he has fired the weapon because the missile launch or the back blast is very visible. Thus being a fire and forget weapon increases the survivability of shooter

Older AT weapons like older AT-4 and the Carl Gustav AT weapon cannot be fired in closed areas such as indoors and trough a window. New AT-4CS and the NLAW can do that, yet the missile cannot be used in close quarter battle, but pretty good to use against buildings and other targets.

It doesn't take long for a soldier to learn how to use either a Javelin or a NLAW, especially if he serves in an anti-tank unit and have been trained to use other anti-tank weapons. It takes minimum 6 months to train a civilian to be a decent soldier, preferably additional months. To train a soldier to use other weapons doesn't take long. Unless you try to take an artillerist to be a tanker or an infantry soldier. All soldiers have gone trough basic training and that is the beginning of being an infantry soldier.

I served in an anti-tank unit and I have fired a lot of different AT weapons and using them isn't harder than using an assault rifle. They sound a lot more than assault rifles and machine guns, but it isn't hard to learn how to use AT weapons

Originally Posted by MontyB

In VaBanque doesn't Schustereit claim that Germany invaded the Soviet Union in order to defeat Great Britain and that Goering tried to talk Hitler out of it (p181).
Again I won't argue with his statistics just the conclusions he draws from them.

I think you look at things far too literally, ATGMs do not have to have a 100% kill rate to be effective, I would argue that just the thought of an ATGM crew in an area will cause poorly trained armour crews to get nervous and change the way they operate.
Much like the rumour of a PzKpfw-VI caused allied troops consternation the psychological effect of the Tiger was far greater than its battlefield impact but that impact was effective in pushing the enemy out of its normal operating environment and increased casualties and material loss.

With regard to the current ATGMs in Ukraine I disagree entirely with your conclusions, my knowledge and understanding of the use of these things is rudimentary at best and I am not going to argue tactics or kill rates as I don't know them but what I will argue is human nature, if Ukrainian service frontline personnel did not see a value in these weapons they would not take them.

I am prepared to bet that rather than hump a bulky 22kg Javelin or 12.5kg NLAW around a battlefield if they thought they were useless they would either not take them and load up on items they thought they would need or dump them at the first available opportunity.

I am also prepared to argue that Ukraine would not have been calling for more of them if they were just being dumped on the side of the road because soldiers weren't using them, what the continued demand for them tells us is that the soldiers using them see vale in them and that is all that really matters.

That the aim of Barbarossa was to force Britain to give up,is a historical fact .
About the Javelins,which were claimed by the media to have a 100 % killing rate, for which there is no proof : as tanks were not and are not a decisive weapon, their elimination can not be decisive .The Russians used their tanks as a substitute for their infantry and given the fact that tanks can not replace infantry,the Russian tactic is an indication of how desperate their situation was already before the war .
No one said that Javelins are useless but the reality is that they are not decisive,as the elimination of 1100 + tanks is not the cause of the Russian failure .
There were few ATW in February 2022, but no one is claiming that this was the cause of the Russian advance ( besides :the Russian advance was a sign of failure,as was the German advance after the Summer of 1941 in the USSR ).
About the killing rate of ATW :Ukraine has received 100000 ATW following the US ,but today Ukraine is not eliminating more tanks/trucks than in March,and,if they do it,it is irrelevant :to kill 10 % more tanks, 10 % more ATW are insufficient .The Russians are not retreating because the use of Javelins and Drones .

They are retreating because they have advanced,unwillingly,too fat and with the small force they have ,they can only hold a small front ,besides,as for Barbarossa, an advance of hundreds of km,was not needed,neither was it possible .
The German plan was to defeat the Soviets on the border,this would,hoped they, cause the fall of the Soviet regime, and this would make possible an advance ( mostly by train ) of small armed occupation forces, to the Volga . The Panzer Divisions would return to Germany .
The Russian plan was a variant of the German plan,with the exception that the Russians had not the intention to advance to the border with Poland and Romania ,such an advance was not only impossible but also not needed .
Everything changed when the Russian plan failed : the Ukrainians did not run away in March and the Russians were forced to go west,hoping that a small advance would finish the war, when this did not happen,an other advance was started,etc ,..

About tanks advancing on road or of road :when they advance of road this causes also problems,as
the advance of road is much slower
the consumption of fuel is bigger
there are big problems to supply the tanks
there are also big, and IMHO,bigger problems than on road, to protect tanks advancing of road during their advance by day and when they are busy with rest and repair at night .
Ten tanks + 40 trucks who advance of road need much more space than ten tanks and 40 trucks who advance on road .
And,in this war, the advance was not an aim for the Russians but only a desperate attempt to do what they had failed to do in March on the border .

Originally Posted by lljadw

That the aim of Barbarossa was to force Britain to give up,is a historical fact .
About the Javelins,which were claimed by the media to have a 100 % killing rate, for which there is no proof : as tanks were not and are not a decisive weapon, their elimination can not be decisive .The Russians used their tanks as a substitute for their infantry and given the fact that tanks can not replace infantry,the Russian tactic is an indication of how desperate their situation was already before the war .
No one said that Javelins are useless but the reality is that they are not decisive,as the elimination of 1100 + tanks is not the cause of the Russian failure .
There were few ATW in February 2022, but no one is claiming that this was the cause of the Russian advance ( besides :the Russian advance was a sign of failure,as was the German advance after the Summer of 1941 in the USSR ).
About the killing rate of ATW :Ukraine has received 100000 ATW following the US ,but today Ukraine is not eliminating more tanks/trucks than in March,and,if they do it,it is irrelevant :to kill 10 % more tanks, 10 % more ATW are insufficient .The Russians are not retreating because the use of Javelins and Drones .

They are retreating because they have advanced,unwillingly,too fat and with the small force they have ,they can only hold a small front ,besides,as for Barbarossa, an advance of hundreds of km,was not needed,neither was it possible .
The German plan was to defeat the Soviets on the border,this would,hoped they, cause the fall of the Soviet regime, and this would make possible an advance ( mostly by train ) of small armed occupation forces, to the Volga . The Panzer Divisions would return to Germany .
The Russian plan was a variant of the German plan,with the exception that the Russians had not the intention to advance to the border with Poland and Romania ,such an advance was not only impossible but also not needed .
Everything changed when the Russian plan failed : the Ukrainians did not run away in March and the Russians were forced to go west,hoping that a small advance would finish the war, when this did not happen,an other advance was started,etc ,..

It isn't a historical fact at all as it never eventuated and even had the Russians surrendered then is no proof or corroborating data to suggest Britain would have given up.

I also don't entirely agree about Russian aims, I suspect initially it was meant to be a short, sharp shock that would result in Ukraine acquiescence to Russian demands, when that failed their arrogance pushed them to think they could make it to the Polish border.

On the whole I think Lukashenko's map is not a Photoshopped joke but rather the hopes of deluded leaders.

Originally Posted by MontyB

It isn't a historical fact at all as it never eventuated and even had the Russians surrendered then is no proof or corroborating data to suggest Britain would have given up.

I also don't entirely agree about Russian aims, I suspect initially it was meant to be a short, sharp shock that would result in Ukraine acquiescence to Russian demands, when that failed their arrogance pushed them to think they could make it to the Polish border.

On the whole I think Lukashenko's map is not a Photoshopped joke but rather the hopes of deluded leaders.

That the aim of Barbarossa was to force Britain to give up and not to exploit the conquered territories,is a historical fact : Hitler told this several times to his generals .It is very likely that,if Britain had capitulated, Hitler would not/could not attack the Soviets .
After Britain's refusal to give up, Hitler tried to force Britain to give up by intensifying his sea and air war against Britain . After this failed, he had no other option than Barbarossa .
He knew that Britain would fight as long as it had the support of the US,as he could do nothing against the US,he decided to attack the Soviets,hoping that the defeat of the USSR would strengthen Japan and that the US could not and continue LL and fortify their possessions in the Pacific .
And time was running out for Germany as in 1941 Britain,US and the Soviets would be stronger than in 1940 and in 1942 they would be stronger than in 1941 .