Ukrainians urged not to rejoice at British grenade launchers for fighting in the city

“They will shoot at us”

Great Britain organized an air bridge to supply the Ukrainian army with anti-tank systems. According to some reports, five C-17 heavy military transport aircraft delivered at least 1,100 NLAW anti-tank missile systems to Kiev. Many people in Ukraine rejoice at this military assistance. But not all. Some citizens of Nezalezhnaya saw a threat in the supply of weapons intended for fighting in the city.

Photo: Ministry of Defense of Ukraine

British arms deliveries contrast with the position of the same Germany, whose foreign minister recently confirmed that the FRG will not supply weapons to Ukraine.

The range of the NLAW systems – 600-800 meters. They are designed for fighting in urban environments. In this regard, Natalya Semenchenko, a professor at the Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, wrote a post on her Facebook page under the heading “Facebook has exploded with thousands of likes, and I'm ready to cry” hellip;.

She quoted one of the reports in the Ukrainian media: “The British Ministry of Defense has provided Ukraine with its best weapons for contact urban fighting. NLAW — expensive melee weapons. This is a quality reinforcement for professionally trained light infantry fighting in the city…".

As noted in the characteristics of the British “wonder weapon”, “such a unique and expensive system can only be trusted by operators with excellent tactical thinking as part of well-trained units in order to understand exactly where and when to shoot such a missile.” p>

To this, Semenchenko remarked: “But I doubt that we have many of them.”

But what bothered her most was that the Ukrainians were happy with weapons meant for fighting in the city. «Urban melee — it's terrible! – writes Semenchenko. — This is a huge number of civilian casualties! And this is inevitable and has already been proven by experience.

According to her, more than a dozen major cities in the world turned into ruins after street fighting: Mosul, Basra, Aleppo, Raqqa, the suburbs of Damascus, Grozny.

< p>“And this list, apparently, they want to decorate with several more million-plus cities of Ukraine,” wrote Semenchenko. — To our misfortune, according to military experts, the big city — this is the best battlefield for the weak and less technically advanced side of the armed conflict.

She gave the arguments of the defenders of fighting tactics in the city: and to shelter it from the superior firepower of the enemy, as well as to supply it with materiel for a long time and make up for losses in people and equipment. Neither mountains, nor forests, nor jungles today provide such an opportunity.

“Since practice has not shown a good solution for storming cities, bloody battles are needed! – Professor noted. — However, history knows no examples of the complete cleansing of the city from the civilian population. Opponents do not fight in it, as on a battlefield. In almost all cases, the population in the cities was significantly larger than the military. So how do peaceful FB readers get so much happiness about the transferred weapons? They will shoot at us. We will all suffer! And then numerous victims will be just statistics for the strategists of these battles.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.