Because the LMUR is not an ATGM. It’s a shrapnel head. It shouldn’t work the way it currently works in the game at all.
Well 155/152 mm HE shells also not designet to take out MBT, but if they score direct hit at the roof of the turret, are quite effective at knocking them out… so No. They are currently working as they should. After all its “light multi-purpouse guided missile” (Ракета Легкая Многоцелевая Управляемая)
Cool, and?
Its OP simple as so nerf it and stop defending it you one trick pony.
4 Likes
Probably a bit of column a and a bit of column b, Lmurs are expensive for Russia and their capability is not completely needed so they use them sparingly
Noone even knows if hellfure L is any good. Laser hellfires are always picked instead IRL possibly because radar guidance is not as guaranteed as laser. Btw same reason why kh38l is used most of the time instead of t.
People don’t need to use lmur on tanks because lancet and fpv made all western tanks obsolete anyway.
There’s s still footage of it being guided at moving ifvs though so the function is there.
In wt game that’s the primary function of any weapon lmur included.
1 Like
1 Like
Lancet while effective in Ukraine is not going to be effective in a war with a peer to peer adversary.
Lancet is a loitering munition, it has a limited anti armour warhead and it is easy to detect and jam.
Russian forces previously broadcast when Lancets were operating by switching off that jamming frequency. Lancet also isn’t cheap the with Russian export prices for Lancet 1 as 25,000 dollars, since then it has improved warhead, longer range improved EW system and now a launch vehicle.
FPV drones have not made Western tanks obsolete, otherwise why would UA still use tanks?
FPV drones are great for what they are and that is a cheap way to engage a tank or position, however that cost per unit increased dramatically when both UA and Russia realised they couldn’t use off the shelf FPV drones. They needed stronger engines, longer range, EW protection and greater payload those cheap drones become expensive. Then you ask yourself the question why am I using a drone that now costs 30k to do the work of a 2000 dollar artillery shell.
How? If Ukraine can’t handle lancet then the other armies won’t either
Ukrainian army is superior to any EU force.
1 Like
Numerical superiority but equipment? Not so much.
Delusional.
They have the most equipment that actually matters not museum artifacts like leopard 2
1 Like
? No modern IFVs, no modern airforce and most modern equipment is second hand. All respect to Ukraine but I really don’t see how they would be better equipped
1 Like
I want to call you a slur so much right now.
In fact the strength of the military award goes to EU. The adaptivity award goes to Ukraine. The incompetence stamp goes on rusia’s forehead and it’s there to stay indefinitely.
You think you can launch your lancet if anything with thermal signature is being turned into red mist well beyond it’s operational range? You really think you can overwhelm real layered air defence with your pocket money terrorist-technology drones? I’d look at that when rheinmetall with unrestricted budget pulls up to the function.
That’s like, the definition of delusional and you dare to call it someone else?
Calling leo 2 a museum artifact while the opposite side still driving around in heavily modified t-54s. interesting stance.
Can’t handle lancet he said… Like your temu SPIKE NLOS makes such a big difference, lol.
Only in your imagination lol
Do you know where the same army personel you called “superior to any EU force” is being trained? And by who? And why? A set of questions that will bounce a bit inside your head till it will reach it’s target, I know, but I have time to spare and so do you. Judging by how much rusian tv you apparently watch.
1 Like
thats crazy
Ukraine are handling Lancet, Lancet has a massive RCS. They can be easily detected and destroyed using systems like Gepard or even FPV drone interceptors.
While systems like Lancet have been successful the key issue with “cheap weapons” is you need to update them to defeat the counter. Your cheap drone/loitering munition then becomes more expensive as it is updated to defeat the countermeasures. Lancet started at 31K as it’s export price it was offered to other nations during the Syrian war. It has now changed so much it is likely the same price as a 60K the much maligned US Switchblade loitering munition.
Then on top of that you are not considering advanced EW and of course Lasers. Lasers are pennies per shot and can and do destroy drones. So a 20K drone designed to replace a 1500 dollar artillery shell can be intercepted and destroyed by a system that costs a buck a shot and has perfect accuracy.
Drones are not a threat to NATO
Literally rn watching lancet footage on 155 spg.
Doesn’t seem like “handke” to me
There are very few of them.
As I said Lancet is a capable system but it is counterable which is why Ukraine still have tanks because those Lancets are not always hitting the target.
If these drones/munitions worked like you think they should Russia would send massive waves and just destroy all of Ukraines SPGs, GBADS and Tanks
yet ,we’ve seen massive jumps in capability regarding laser defenses and that’s NATO research at peace time
1 Like