Hubbry Logo
Manual command to line of sightManual command to line of sightMain
Open search
Manual command to line of sight
Community hub
Manual command to line of sight
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Manual command to line of sight
Manual command to line of sight
Manual command to line of sight
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Manual command to line of sight (MCLOS or MACLOS)[1] is a method for guiding guided missiles.

With an MCLOS missile, the operator must track the missile and the target simultaneously and guide the missile to the target. Typically the missile is steered with a joystick, and its path is observed through a periscope-type telescopic sight. The missiles are usually equipped with a magnesium flare in the base that automatically ignites on launch and allows the gunner to visually track the fast-moving missile in a manner similar in concept to tracer ammunition.

MCLOS requires considerable training and practice to master, since even a minor disruption in the gunner's concentration would likely cause a miss. These guidance systems have marginal accuracy on tank-sized targets, even with perfect line-of-sight by the gunner, due to erratic flight paths requiring timely manual corrections. As demonstrated by the Israeli Army under fire from Soviet-armed Arab states, responding to the distinctive smoke puff of a missile launch with rapid manoeuvres and immediate counter-fire minimizes their accuracy, as very few anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) gunners maintain their concentration on a fast-moving tank for the entire flight time of the missile while under suppressing fire.

MCLOS guidance today has mostly been replaced by the easier-to-use semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS), which allows the gunner to merely track the target with an optical sight (which guides the missile), rather than being forced to both visually track the target and fly the missile manually. The Vickers Vigilant attempted to solve this by using a "velocity control" method with an on-board gyroscope, rather than simpler "acceleration control".

Accuracy

[edit]

The accuracy achieved by MCLOS missiles is hard to put a firm figure on, since it is highly dependent on the skill of the operator and any distractions the operator has to contend with (such as being fired upon). Actual figures from combat operations suggest that it is much lower than SACLOS guided missiles.

  • Six-Day War 1967 – AT-1 Snapper – limited use, only one tank kill is attributed with a hit probability of less than 25%.
  • Vietnam War 1972 – fired by American troops, the French SS.11 – about 10% compared with over 50% for the SACLOS BGM-71 TOW.
  • Yom Kippur War 1973 – AT-3 Sagger – between 25% at the start in well trained Egyptian hands and 2% at the end in less well trained Syrian hands once the threat was understood by Israeli tank crews.

MCLOS missiles and guided bombs

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Manual command to line of sight

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Manual command to line of sight (MCLOS) is a first-generation missile guidance system primarily used in anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), where a human operator manually steers the missile along the direct to the target using visual or optical tracking and a control device such as a . In this method, the operator simultaneously tracks both the missile's position—often illuminated by a or —and the target, issuing real-time commands via radio, wire, or links to correct deviations and ensure interception. This operator-in-the-loop approach demands high skill and concentration, as the system's accuracy depends entirely on the gunner's ability to maintain alignment, with hit probabilities of around 70% for systems like the AT-3 Sagger under optimal conditions. Developed in the early era, MCLOS represented a significant advancement over unguided rockets for precision strikes against armored vehicles, with notable examples including the Soviet 9K11 Malyutka (NATO: AT-3 Sagger), the French , and the French ENTAC system. These wire-guided or radio-command s were deployed in major conflicts such as the 1967 , the 1973 , and the , where they proved effective at ranges up to 3,000 meters but were limited by visibility, weather, and the operator's fatigue during the 20-30 second flight time. The guidance loop incorporates electro-optical sensors and stabilization compensators to process angular errors between the missile and target, often modeled using six-degree-of-freedom dynamics that account for , , and control surface adjustments. Despite its pioneering role, MCLOS has largely been supplanted by more advanced semi-automatic command to (SACLOS) systems, which automate tracking while requiring only by the operator, thereby improving hit rates to over 90% and reducing demands. Modern for legacy MCLOS systems often employs simulators with prerecorded video feeds and inertial modules to replicate real-world tracking challenges, ensuring operators can handle countermeasures like smoke or decoys. While less common today, MCLOS principles persist in some low-cost or legacy ATGMs proliferated across over 45 countries, underscoring its historical impact on anti-armor warfare.

Overview and History

Definition and Core Concept

Manual Command to Line of Sight (MCLOS) is a guidance technique employed in certain weapons systems, such as missiles and bombs, wherein a human operator visually tracks both the target and the projectile while manually issuing steering commands to direct the projectile along the line of sight (LOS) from the operator to the target. This method places the operator directly in the guidance loop, requiring real-time visual monitoring and corrective inputs to maintain the projectile's trajectory, in contrast to autonomous guidance systems that rely on onboard sensors for self-correction. At its core, MCLOS operates on the principle of keeping the aligned with the LOS through proportional adjustments made by the operator, ensuring the intercepts the target by nullifying angular deviations from the sightline. The LOS involves three key positions: the operator at the guidance station, the target at a remote , and the in flight, where the operator observes the relative positions via optical means and commands lateral accelerations to the to align it precisely with the straight-line vector extending from the operator to the target. This alignment maintains a constant LOS angle, ideally approaching zero as the nears the target, thereby facilitating without requiring the to compute its own navigation. Fundamental to MCLOS are the concepts of the and manual command inputs. The represents the unobstructed, straight visual path from the operator's position to the target, serving as the reference trajectory for guidance. Commands are typically provided through manual interfaces, such as a or control stick, allowing the operator to transmit adjustment signals—often via radio, wire, or links—to alter the projectile's flight path in response to observed deviations. This approach demands continuous operator vigilance to track both elements and issue timely corrections, distinguishing MCLOS from more automated variants of .

Development and Early Use

The concept of manual command to line of sight (MCLOS) guidance emerged in the mid-20th century during , driven by the need to address the inaccuracies of unguided munitions in naval and aerial warfare. German engineers pioneered early radio-command systems, with the glide bomb representing one of the first operational implementations in 1943; this 3,000-pound armor-piercing weapon was steered via radio signals by an operator maintaining visual line-of-sight contact from an aircraft, enabling precise strikes against ships like the Italian battleship Roma. Similarly, the , developed from 1943, employed wire-guided MCLOS for manual control, though it remained in prototype stages without combat deployment due to the war's end. These WWII efforts laid the foundational principles for post-war advancements, shifting focus from unguided projectiles to operator-directed precision. In the , MCLOS systems evolved significantly with the maturation of wire-guided anti-tank s, emphasizing portability and infantry use amid tensions. French engineers at developed the , the first operational MCLOS wire-guided anti-tank , entering service in 1955 after trials beginning in the early ; it required manual control via optical tracking, marking a pivot to ground-based applications. Britain followed with the in the mid-1950s, a lightweight wire-guided system jointly developed with and entering service in 1958, which improved on earlier designs through better stabilization for visual tracking. The introduced its AT-1 Snapper () in the early 1960s, a wire-guided MCLOS entering service in 1960, reflecting parallel advancements in wire technologies to counter armored threats. By the 1960s, MCLOS transitioned toward enhanced visual systems with refined optics to simplify operator tasks compared to emerging semi-automatic alternatives, facilitating broader adoption in anti-tank roles. The U.S. adopted the French ENTAC (MGM-32A) in 1963, a wire-guided MCLOS with improved beacons for visual line-of-sight acquisition, deployed to counter Soviet armor during escalating global conflicts. The Soviet AT-3 Sagger (), introduced in 1963 as the first man-portable Soviet ATGM, relied on manual optical tracking via a , entering widespread production and export by the mid-1960s. Initial military applications focused on anti-tank defenses, with early deployments in units; notably, North Vietnamese forces first employed the Sagger during the 1972 in the , where it inflicted significant casualties on U.S. armored vehicles through manual visual guidance over ranges up to 3 kilometers. These systems reduced reliance on complex automation, prioritizing operator skill in visual environments to achieve hit probabilities around 50-60% in training scenarios.

Principles of Operation

Guidance Mechanism

The manual command to (MCLOS) guidance process begins with the operator visually acquiring and designating the target, establishing the initial (LOS) from the launch platform to the target. Upon launch, the operator continuously monitors the 's position relative to this LOS, typically through optical sights or displays, to detect any angular deviations caused by initial trajectory errors or external disturbances. As the progresses, the operator issues corrective commands—such as left/right for horizontal adjustments or up/down for vertical—proportional to the observed deviations, which are transmitted to the via radio, wire, or other links to actuate control surfaces or thrusters, steering the back toward the LOS. This real-time adjustment loop continues until impact, ensuring the remains aligned with the target along the LOS. The navigation logic in MCLOS relies on proportional control, where the operator generates command signals to minimize the angular deviation between the missile's path and the LOS. The core principle is to apply corrections that drive the error angle to zero, with the magnitude of each command directly scaled to the size of the deviation for effective tracking. Mathematically, the command signal δ\delta is given by δ=k⋅θ,\delta = k \cdot \theta, where δ\delta represents the steering input (e.g., deflection angle or acceleration command), kk is the proportionality gain factor tuned for system responsiveness and stability, and θ\theta is the LOS error angle, defined as the angular misalignment between the missile's line from the operator and the target LOS. To derive this, consider the missile's position in a coordinate system relative to the operator: let (xl,yl,zl)(x_l, y_l, z_l) be the missile coordinates, with the LOS aligned along the xx-axis toward the target. For small angles, the horizontal error angle is θH≈arctan⁡(yl/xl)≈yl/xl\theta_H \approx \arctan(y_l / x_l) \approx y_l / x_l, and the vertical error θV≈zl/xl\theta_V \approx z_l / x_l. The operator observes these errors visually and applies δH=kH⋅θH\delta_H = k_H \cdot \theta_H and δV=kV⋅θV\delta_V = k_V \cdot \theta_V, where the gains kHk_H and kVk_V account for dynamics like missile speed and range. This proportional relationship arises from classical control theory, ensuring the corrective acceleration a≈(Vm2/R)⋅δa \approx (V_m^2 / R) \cdot \delta (with VmV_m as missile velocity and RR as range) counters the deviation rate, reducing θ\theta exponentially toward zero without overshoot when kk is appropriately damped. In practice, operators intuitively implement this logic, though advanced systems may augment it with derivative terms for damping. Maintaining LOS during flight is influenced by the launch platform's stability and atmospheric conditions, which can introduce perturbations to the guidance process. Platform motion, such as or maneuvers in airborne or vehicular launches, disrupts the operator's reference frame, necessitating inertial stabilization systems to isolate the sighting and preserve a steady LOS. Atmospheric effects, including gusts and variations, alter the missile's through aerodynamic forces, requiring the operator to compensate for induced deviations in real time; for instance, crosswinds shift the effective LOS, amplifying error angles θ\theta and demanding higher gain adjustments. These factors integrate into the proportional control by scaling the observed θ\theta to include environmental offsets, ensuring robust guidance under varying conditions.

Operator Involvement and Control Process

In Manual Command to Line of Sight (MCLOS) systems, the operator plays a central by visually acquiring the target and the immediately after launch, then sustaining tracking of both under potentially high-stress conditions such as environments with distractions or movement. This involves real-time to issue corrective commands that keep the aligned with the to the target, often requiring the operator to interpret the 's position relative to the target and respond accordingly. Typical engagements for short-range applications last 10-30 seconds from launch to impact, demanding continuous focus throughout this period to maintain guidance effectiveness. Training for MCLOS operators emphasizes skills akin to marksmanship precision, where individuals practice aligning sights and issuing commands under simulated pressures to build proficiency in tracking and correction. Simulator-based training is essential, utilizing tools like video replays of missile flights and six-degree-of-freedom models to replicate real scenarios without expending live munitions, allowing repetition until mastery is achieved. Operator fatigue and experience levels significantly influence control quality; less experienced users may struggle with sustained attention, while prolonged sessions can degrade performance due to mental exhaustion. The control process begins with the operator using input methods such as a or pressure switches to generate steering commands, typically aligned through an optical sight that provides a reference for the . These inputs are transmitted to the , where they address deviations from the intended path, with the operator monitoring a visible marker like a rear on the to gauge corrections. Human reaction time introduces delays of approximately 0.2-0.5 seconds, which can compound errors if not anticipated, particularly in dynamic scenarios. Integration with fire control systems aids aiming by stabilizing the launcher's orientation, but the operator remains responsible for ongoing adjustments during flight.

Technical Components

Tracking and Sensing Systems

In manual command to line of sight (MCLOS) systems, visual tracking of the target and missile is primarily achieved through optical sights, such as periscope-type telescopic sights, which allow the operator to maintain the while observing the missile's trajectory. These sights provide the necessary alignment for guiding the missile via manual inputs, with early examples like the British Vigilant anti-tank missile employing a 3.2x optical sight to facilitate simultaneous tracking of both the target and . To enhance visibility of the missile during flight, onboard beacons or flares are integrated into the missile's design, typically a magnesium flare at the base that ignites automatically upon launch, enabling the operator to visually detect and correct the missile's offset from the line of sight. Ground-based optical sensors, aligned with the sighting system, further support this by detecting the missile's position relative to the target through the flare's light signature, ensuring precise manual adjustments. The integration of these components has evolved to include stabilized cameras and electro-optical systems, improving line-of-sight maintenance on mobile platforms like or through inertial stabilization modules that counteract vibrations. These advancements enable day/night operations via detectors sensitive to various wavelengths, with magnification levels typically ranging from 4x to 10x in modernized telescopic sights to balance and detail for effective tracking at extended ranges. Early MCLOS wire-guided systems relied on basic optical sensors for detection, while 1970s developments incorporated infrared-augmented to extend low-light capabilities without compromising manual control. Command signals derived from these sensing inputs are transmitted to the , often via wire links in legacy designs. In manual command to line-of-sight (MCLOS) systems, command links primarily consist of radio frequency (RF) links for wireless transmission or wire-guided alternatives for enhanced jam resistance in short-range engagements. RF command links enable real-time guidance without physical tethers, as exemplified by the missile, which employs an onboard radio transmitter to relay operator commands to the missile's control surfaces via adjustments. Wire-guided systems, such as the anti-tank missile, utilize trailing conductive wires to transmit low-voltage electrical signals, providing inherent immunity to electronic jamming but limiting mobility due to wire spooling constraints—typically preventing breakage at ranges under 3 km. These wire links are particularly suited for ground-launched applications where ranges remain under 3 km to prevent wire breakage. In wire-guided designs, spools manage the trailing wires to maintain connection during flight. Control interfaces for operator inputs commonly include joysticks for manual steering, allowing the operator to deviate the missile from the line of sight as needed. Commands are transmitted to the missile, often via wire links in legacy designs. Visual MCLOS operations are constrained to ranges of 2-5 km, dictated by the operator's ability to maintain simultaneous tracking of the missile's flare and the target.

Applications

MCLOS in Missiles

In MCLOS systems, aerodynamic control surfaces, typically fins or canards, are actuated by electro-mechanical servos that interpret and execute operator commands to adjust pitch, yaw, and roll for precise line-of-sight alignment. These servos, often powered by small batteries within the , enable rapid response to manual inputs, ensuring the remains visible and correctable during flight. For anti-tank missiles, flight profiles incorporate low-altitude trajectories with programmed hops—brief ascents followed by descents—to navigate uneven , evade ground clutter, and maintain operator visibility while minimizing exposure to defenses. A seminal example is the Soviet (NATO: AT-3 Sagger), introduced in 1961 as a man-portable, wire-guided MCLOS weighing 10.9 kg with a shaped-charge capable of penetrating over 400 mm of armor at ranges up to 3,000 m. The operator uses a on the portable launcher to steer the via trailing wires, tracking a on the against the target through optical sights. In tactical roles, the Malyutka equips anti-tank teams in motorized rifle units, enabling portable operation from dismounted positions or light vehicles to engage tanks and armored personnel carriers at standoff distances. The French Nord AS.11, an air-launched variant of the system from the early 1960s, exemplifies MCLOS adaptation for anti-ship roles, with wire guidance allowing operators to manually direct the 30 kg against small surface vessels at ranges up to 3 km using flares for tracking. Post-2000, legacy MCLOS systems like the Malyutka continue to see use in by non-state actors, as evidenced by ongoing deployment in conflicts.

MCLOS in Guided Bombs

In guided bombs, MCLOS systems are implemented through retrofit kits added to conventional unguided free-fall munitions, primarily consisting of steerable control fins, a forward-mounted electro-optical seeker such as a television camera, and a rear datalink for transmitting real-time imagery and receiving operator commands to maintain the bomb on the line of sight to the target. These adaptations enable lateral steering via aerodynamic surfaces, contrasting with the propulsion-driven adjustments in missiles, while the unpowered ballistic trajectory limits the guidance phase to a brief window of 20-40 seconds post-release, necessitating swift target lock-on and minimal drift correction. A prominent example is the U.S. Air Force's , introduced in the 1980s as part of the Modular Guided Weapon System, which employs TV-guided MCLOS variants where a weapon systems operator in the launch aircraft manually directs the bomb using live video feed over a datalink, achieving precision against fixed high-value targets like bridges or bunkers. The system integrates with aircraft release mechanisms on platforms such as the F-15E and F-111F, allowing midcourse corrections until impact. The Israeli family of guidance kits, developed by , incorporates manual override modes in its electro-optical variants, permitting "man-in-the-loop" MCLOS intervention by the operator to adjust the flight path in real time via datalink, enhancing flexibility against moving or obscured targets. Tactically, MCLOS-guided bombs facilitate precision strikes from medium-altitude aircraft releases, reducing compared to ordnance, though high-speed drops from fast jets challenge initial line-of-sight acquisition due to rapid separation and environmental factors like wind. In 21st-century applications, hybrid systems like enhanced variants combine MCLOS manual control with GPS/INS for autonomous navigation in jammed environments, extending to over 100 km while retaining operator veto authority.

Performance Characteristics

Accuracy and Influencing Factors

The accuracy of manual command to line-of-sight (MCLOS) guidance systems is typically quantified using hit probability under controlled conditions. For representative first-generation MCLOS anti-tank guided missiles like the Soviet AT-3 Sagger ( in manual mode), hit probabilities are generally 60-70% against stationary targets at 2 km under ideal conditions with a trained operator, dropping to 25-50% against moving targets or in scenarios due to extended flight times of approximately 26 seconds at velocities of 115 m/s. In real-world conflicts like the 1973 , hit rates for MCLOS systems fell to around 20-30% owing to operator stress and target dynamics. Several factors influence MCLOS accuracy, primarily stemming from the manual nature of the guidance . Operator skill is paramount, as the controller must simultaneously track the target and using optical sights, with even brief lapses in concentration leading to deviations; studies indicate that inexperienced operators can reduce hit probabilities significantly compared to trained personnel. conditions, including elements like , , or , degrade line-of-sight tracking by obscuring the missile's or the target, potentially halving and accuracy. Missile dynamics also play a role, where higher speeds relative to line-of-sight (LOS) rates exacerbate control demands, and low velocities prolong exposure to these errors. These influences propagate through the guidance loop, with error sources including human input deviations, command transmission delays or noise in wire/radio links, and atmospheric effects. Mitigation strategies focus on enhancing operator capability and system stability to counteract these factors. Rigorous training programs, including flight simulators that replicate LOS tracking under varied conditions, can elevate hit probabilities to 70-80% for proficient users by improving reaction times and recognition. Stabilized optical sights, incorporating inertial platforms or gyro-stabilization, reduce platform motion-induced errors (e.g., from vehicle vibration), enabling more precise manual corrections; such upgrades in later MCLOS variants have improved daytime accuracy by 20-30%. Over time, integrations like low-cost electro-optical cameras for LOS stabilization have improved performance in legacy systems, bridging the gap from 1960s-era designs like the AT-1 Snapper.

Limitations and Comparative Advantages

Manual Command to Line of Sight (MCLOS) guidance systems are inherently vulnerable to visual obscurants such as smoke screens, which can disrupt the operator's (LOS) to both the and target, significantly reducing hit probability. Additionally, the reliance on direct visual acquisition limits effective engagement ranges to approximately 3 km, constrained by optical and the operator's ability to track the 's beacon. The high operator workload—requiring simultaneous manual tracking of the target and via —further restricts capabilities, often preventing salvo fire or engagements against fast-moving targets, as the operator cannot effectively manage multiple threats without fatigue or error. Despite these constraints, MCLOS offers notable advantages in and cost-effectiveness, utilizing basic and mechanical controls that make it far less expensive to produce and maintain than laser-guided or GPS-based systems. Its manual, visual nature provides inherent resistance to electronic jamming, as guidance does not depend on radio or links susceptible to interference, making it reliable in contested electromagnetic environments. This low-technological footprint also suits resource-limited or low-tech operational settings, where advanced sensors or automation may be unavailable or impractical. Compared to Semi-Automatic Command to (SACLOS), MCLOS demands greater operator skill and imposes higher , as SACLOS automates missile tracking while the operator only maintains target aim, yielding hit probabilities up to 90% versus MCLOS's 60-70% under ideal conditions (lower in combat). Against systems, MCLOS lacks autonomy, necessitating continuous LOS but enabling real-time mid-course corrections for dynamic targets that autonomous seekers might miss. The following table summarizes key pros and cons of MCLOS relative to these autonomous alternatives:
AspectMCLOS ProsMCLOS ConsRelative to SACLOS/Fire-and-Forget
Operator WorkloadAllows direct control for adjustmentsHigh manual input limits multitaskingHigher than SACLOS (semi-automated); much higher than (none)
Jamming ResistanceStrong (visual/manual)N/ASuperior to both (link-dependent)
Cost/ComplexityLow cost, simple techLimited precision/rangeLower cost than both; simpler than
Target AdaptabilityMid-course corrections possibleIneffective vs. fast moversBetter corrections than ; similar to SACLOS but more skill-dependent

References

  1. https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/18304/index.pdf
  2. http://www.vti.mod.gov.rs/ntp/rad2012/34-12/9/09.pdf
  3. https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/FMFRP%206-90-1%20Tow%20Weapon%20System.pdf
  4. https://people.unipi.it/lorenzo_pollini/wp-content/uploads/sites/147/2019/08/SGN_1516_Guidance.pdf
  5. https://www.academia.edu/35782916/A_LITERATURE_STUDY_ON_COMMAND_TO_LINE_OF_SIGHT_MISSILE_SYSTEM
  6. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/hitlers-precision-guided-bombs-fritz-x-hs-293
  7. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/missile-air-air-ruhrstahl-x-4/nasm_A19510067000
  8. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196228/german-fritz-x-guided-bomb/
  9. https://development.weaponsystems.net/system/1129-Vigilant
  10. https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2021/07/soviet-atgms.html
  11. https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-32.html
  12. https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=1173
  13. https://www.historynet.com/north-vietnams-3-sagger-anti-tank-missiles/
  14. https://www.thearmorylife.com/at-3-sagger-missile/
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA298296.pdf
  16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2014.06.163
  17. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstreams/bd568225-b315-4474-a762-c5a004dd55e4/download
  18. https://weaponsystems.net/system/1129-Vigilant
  19. https://www.electronicsforu.com/technology-trends/precision-guided-munitions-guidance-techniques-part-1-4/4
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384857061_Design_of_a_servo_mechanism_for_controlling_missile_fins_in_pitch_and_yaw_planes
  21. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0717383.pdf
  22. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/row/at3sagger.htm
  23. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA135619.pdf
  24. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-15.htm
  25. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104578/gbu-15-guided-bomb-unit/
  26. https://defense-update.com/20030506_rafaels-spice-guided-weapon.html
  27. https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/spice-250-precision-guided-munition/
  28. https://en.missilery.info/missile/malutka
  29. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1117055.pdf
  30. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/SIPRI%20Yearbook%201983.pdf
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0030402614009966
  32. https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2016/JAN_MAR/1Trujillo_Adkinson16.pdf
  33. http://www.vti.mod.gov.rs/ntp/rad2023/1/5.pdf
  34. https://www.ijesrt.com/Old_IJESRT/issues%20pdf%20file/Archive-2018/January-2018/45.pdf
  35. https://defencereviewasia.com/anti-tank-guided-weapons/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.