Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

MILAN

The MILAN (Missile d'infanterie léger antichar; "light anti-tank infantry missile") is a man-portable, wire-guided semi-automatic command to (SACLOS) anti-tank guided missile system developed jointly by and through the Euromissile consortium. Development began in 1962, with trials starting in 1971 and operational entry into French and German service in 1972 as a second-generation anti-armor weapon designed to defeat tanks. Subsequent upgrades, including the 2 (1984) with improved range and penetration, 3 (1995) featuring enhanced electronic countermeasures resistance, and the extended-range MILAN ER (post-2006), have sustained its utility against evolving armored threats, though its wire-guidance limits mobility compared to modern systems. Over 360,000 missiles and 10,000 have been produced, with adoption by more than 40 nations including major exporters like , , and , reflecting its cost-effectiveness and reliability in anti-tank roles across diverse conflicts from the Iran-Iraq to recent Eastern operations. While effective in direct-fire engagements against main battle tanks—penetrating up to 1,000 mm of rolled homogeneous armor equivalent with warheads—the system's exposure of operators during guidance has drawn tactical critiques in high-threat environments, prompting transitions to successor munitions in advanced militaries. Now manufactured by as the successor to Euromissile, the remains in limited production and stockpiles, underscoring its historical role in democratizing anti-tank capabilities for dismounted troops.

Development History

Origins and Conception

The (Missile d'infanterie léger antichar) anti-tank guided missile system was conceived in the early 1960s as a joint Franco-German initiative to equip with a portable, second-generation weapon capable of defeating increasingly advanced armored vehicles amid escalation in . Facing the proliferation of heavily armored tanks, military planners in and sought to overcome the inaccuracies of first-generation manually guided missiles, such as the French , by developing a wire-guided system with semi-automatic command to (SACLOS) guidance. This approach allowed a single operator to maintain sight on the target while the missile launcher automatically transmitted steering commands via thin wires, enhancing hit probability to over 90% under optimal conditions. The project originated under the Euromissile consortium, established by French and West German firms—including (predecessor to ) and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm—to pool resources for cost-effective development independent of U.S. systems like the TOW missile, which NATO allies viewed as potentially restrictive due to export controls and interoperability concerns. Initiated in , the effort prioritized a man-portable design weighing under 30 kg for the complete system, enabling deployment by two-person teams from prone positions or light vehicles, with an emphasis on penetrating up to 400 mm of rolled homogeneous armor equivalent at ranges of 25 to 2,000 meters. This conception reflected broader imperatives for standardized, European-led anti-tank solutions to bolster forward defense against massed Soviet armored assaults, with and committing to joint funding and production sharing to mitigate national budget strains while advancing technological sovereignty. focused on solid-propellant propulsion for reliable launch and a (HEAT) warhead optimized for shaped-charge penetration, drawing on empirical testing data from prior programs to ensure battlefield viability.

Initial Production and International Collaboration

The anti-tank guided missile entered serial production in 1972, following its acceptance into service by the and West armies after trials completed in 1971. This initial phase focused on the MILAN 1 variant, a wire-guided system designed for man-portable use against armored targets. Production was managed by the , formed as a joint Franco-German venture between the French firm (now part of ) and the German company Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB). This collaboration, rooted in a 1960s agreement to pool resources for second-generation anti-tank weaponry, divided responsibilities: France handled airframes and guidance, while Germany contributed propulsion and launch systems. The partnership reduced development costs and ensured for forces, with early output directed toward equipping infantry units in both nations. By the mid-1970s, cumulative exceeded initial targets, supporting exports to allied countries and laying the groundwork for licensed abroad, though core initial output remained under Euromissile control in . Over the system's lifespan, more than 360,000 missiles and 10,000 launch units have been manufactured, underscoring the enduring success of this bilateral effort.

System Design and Technical Specifications

Guidance and Launch Mechanism

The MILAN anti-tank guided missile system utilizes a wire-guided semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) guidance method, where the operator maintains visual contact with the target through an optical or thermal sight on the firing post, and the system's electronics automatically transmit steering corrections to the missile via insulated copper wires unspooled from the missile's tail during flight. The firing post incorporates a sighting unit with a daylight optical telescope and, in later variants, an integrated thermal imager for night or adverse weather operations, paired with a guidance electronics module that tracks the missile's position relative to the line of sight using an infrared beacon on the missile's rear. This setup measures angular deviations—typically up to 8 degrees laterally and vertically—and relays proportional command signals through the wire link to adjust the missile's control surfaces, ensuring it intercepts the target with high precision, achieving hit probabilities exceeding 90% under optimal conditions. The launch mechanism centers on a portable, reusable firing post (weighing approximately 24 kg for the 2 configuration) mounted on a collapsible , which interfaces with the 's sealed, disposable launch container via electrical connectors for arming and initiation. Upon trigger activation, a small electrical impulse ignites the 's booster stage, ejecting it from the tube at speeds around 55 m/s with a backblast zone of about 8 meters, after which the wire guidance spool deploys and the sustainer rocket motor activates at 150-300 meters range to propel the to its cruise velocity of 200 m/s. This two-stage propulsion minimizes initial signature and enables firing from confined spaces with reduced risk to the operator, though full deployment requires a clear rear to dissipate exhaust gases. The wire guidance provides inherent resistance to electronic countermeasures, as commands are transmitted optically via the physical link rather than radio frequencies, though it limits maximum range to the wire length of about 2,000-3,000 meters depending on the variant.

Warhead, Propulsion, and Performance Metrics

The is equipped with a () , with early 1 variants featuring a single charge and later models such as 2T and 3 incorporating a configuration to counter (). The uses a small precursor charge to detonate tiles, followed by a main that penetrates approximately 880 mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA). Propulsion is provided by a motor in a dual-thrust supplied by (now part of Eurenco). The boost stage launches the from the tube to 3 meters in 1.5 seconds, clearing the operator, while the sustainer stage then propels it at over 200 m/s for up to 11 seconds. Key performance metrics for the standard system are summarized below:
MetricValue
Minimum range25 m
Maximum range2,000 m (standard); 3,000 m ( variant)
Maximum speed>200 m/s
Flight time (max range)12.5 s
Hit probability94%
System reliability95%
The variant features a multi-effect capable of penetrating up to 1,000 mm RHA or equivalent , or over 3 meters of , while maintaining wire-guided semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) accuracy.

Variants and Upgrades

MILAN 1

The 1 represented the initial production variant of the anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) system, jointly developed by and through the Euromissile consortium starting in 1962, with trials commencing in 1971 and entry into service in 1972. Designed primarily for use against armored vehicles, it emphasized portability, accuracy, and reliability in a man-portable configuration suitable for Cold War-era battlefield requirements. The missile employs semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) guidance via thin electrical wires unspooled during flight, allowing the operator to maintain visual track of the target while the system automatically transmits steering commands; this setup requires a clear line of sight and operator skill to counter environmental factors like wind or obscurants. The solid-fuel rocket motor propels the 7.1 kg missile—measuring 1.2 m in length and 0.115 m in diameter—to speeds of approximately 200 m/s, achieving an operational range of 25 to 2,000 m with a minimum arming distance of about 200 m to avoid premature detonation. Flight time to maximum range typically spans 12-15 seconds, enabling engagement of moving targets up to 15-20 km/h under ideal conditions. Equipped with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead of 103 mm caliber, the MILAN 1 detonates on contact via a piezoelectric , optimized for penetrating conventional rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) without countermeasures; early assessments indicated effectiveness against T-55 and tanks prevalent in opposing forces during its introduction. The complete , including the tripod-mounted firing with optical sight and , weighs around 24-30 , operated by a two-person team (gunner and loader/assistant) for rapid setup and firing from prone or sheltered positions. While effective against non-reactive armor, the MILAN 1's single-warhead design proved vulnerable to emerging spaced and composite armors by the late 1970s, lacking the standoff distance needed for optimal performance; this shortcoming, coupled with no , limited its utility against second-generation tanks, driving upgrades in later variants like the MILAN 2, which introduced a 115 mm with an extendable probe for doubled penetration depth. Production of MILAN 1 ceased as improved models proliferated, but stockpiles remained in service with numerous export operators into the and beyond.

MILAN 2 and 2T

The MILAN 2, introduced into service with the French, German, and British armies in 1984, represented an upgrade over the MILAN 1 primarily through an enhanced high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead measuring 115 mm in diameter. This variant employed a single shaped charge warhead augmented by a standoff probe, enabling penetration of approximately 550 mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA). The upgrade addressed limitations in armor defeat capability against evolving tank protections, while retaining the core wire-guided semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) system, 2,000 m effective range, and portable tripod-mounted launcher configuration. The MILAN 2T further advanced the system by incorporating a tandem HEAT warhead specifically engineered to counter explosive reactive armor (ERA) on modern main battle tanks. This design featured a precursor charge to detonate ERA tiles, followed by a primary charge delivering penetration of up to 880 mm RHA behind the reactive layer. Introduced as an interim enhancement before the extended-range MILAN ER, the 2T maintained compatibility with existing MILAN 2 launchers and fire control units, ensuring logistical continuity for operators. Both variants achieved high reliability, with hit probabilities exceeding 90% under optimal conditions, owing to the operator-tracked optical guidance and minimal flight time of around 12.5 seconds to maximum range.

MILAN ER

The ER (Extended Range) represents the latest evolution in the family of man-portable anti-tank guided missiles, introduced to address the need for greater standoff distance against modern armored threats equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA). Developed by primarily for the , it extends the effective range from the 2,000 meters of earlier variants to 3,000 meters while incorporating a multi-effect warhead designed to defeat ERA through tandem or sequenced effects. Key enhancements in the ER include a boosted system enabling the extended without altering the missile's core dimensions—maintaining a of approximately 1.2 meters and of 0.115 meters—or its wire-guided semi-automatic command to (SACLOS) guidance mechanism, which relies on operator tracking via a stabilized sight for high resistance. The achieves penetration of up to 1,000 mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) equivalent after , surpassing prior models' capabilities against reactive protections. Production and testing milestones for the ER culminated in successful series qualification firings by in , where missiles accurately struck targets at the maximum 3,000-meter range during live demonstrations. It integrates with advanced launchers such as the MILAN ADT (Appui Direct Tir), which supports both ER and legacy MILAN munitions for , allowing infantry units to employ older stockpiles alongside new extended-range rounds. This variant entered service post-2014, emphasizing portability for dismounted troops with a total system weight around 30 kg including the tripod and sight, and has been prioritized for to allies requiring upgraded anti-armor capabilities amid evolving threats like improved defenses.

Combat Employment

Chadian–Libyan Conflict

The Chadian–Libyan War (1978–1987) concluded with the Toyota War phase (January–March 1987), during which Chadian forces, supported by France, utilized MILAN anti-tank guided missiles to inflict severe losses on Libyan armored formations. France supplied Chad with over 400 Toyota pickup trucks modified to mount MILAN launchers, enabling highly mobile, long-range engagements against Libyan T-55 tanks and other vehicles that lacked effective countermeasures to wire-guided missiles. In the Battle of Fada on 2 January 1987, Chadian units equipped with systems destroyed 86 Libyan T-55 tanks and captured 31 more, alongside over 100 armored personnel carriers, demonstrating the missile's precision in disrupting static defenses and convoys. Subsequent operations exploited this capability; by mid-March 1987, during the assault on Ouadi Doum , Chadian forces used to neutralize Libyan armor amid minefields and entrenched positions, capturing the facility and destroying dozens of and hundreds of vehicles. The 's semi-automatic command to line-of-sight guidance allowed operators to engage targets at ranges up to 2,000 meters from concealed positions in vehicles, outpacing Libya's cumbersome Soviet-era equipment and poor tactical adaptation. Overall, Chadian strikes accounted for the destruction or capture of approximately 800 Libyan tanks and 3,000 other vehicles, with Chad suffering minimal armored losses due to the system's standoff effectiveness and aerial support. This imbalance compelled to accept a in September 1987, effectively ending its occupation of northern .

Falklands War

The entered combat for the first time with British forces during the of 1982, deployed by units such as the , 42 and 45 Commandos , and other infantry formations to target Argentine fixed defenses and bunkers rather than armored vehicles, as the invading Argentine garrison possessed few tanks or significant mechanized assets beyond light armored cars like the AML-90. Equipped with semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) wire guidance and an infrared-capable sighting unit, MILAN detachments—typically two-person teams carrying multiple missiles—provided precise, standoff during night assaults, suppressing machine-gun nests and destroying reinforced positions to enable infantry advances. In the on 11–12 June 1982, five detachments from 3 Para, each armed with three missiles, engaged Argentine 7th Infantry Regiment strongpoints, demolishing bunkers and neutralizing machine-gun fire that threatened advancing troops, thereby reducing British casualties in the assault on this key objective overlooking Port Stanley. The system's shaped-charge proved effective against sandbagged and timber-reinforced fortifications, delivering devastating effects that demoralized defenders through , , and . However, the section near the western summit suffered a direct hit from an Argentine Czekalski 105mm recoilless gun, killing the three-man crew and highlighting the vulnerability of exposed operators maintaining line-of-sight guidance. MILAN was also employed in other final-phase battles around Stanley, including Two Sisters (45 Commando, 11–12 June) and Wireless Ridge ( and 7th Gurkha Rifles, 13–14 June), where it fired on Argentine positions from distances that minimized exposure, suppressing fire and deterring counterattacks during the push to liberate the capital. Earlier in the campaign, at on 28–29 May, MILAN supported 2 Para's assault by targeting defensive works, adapting its anti-armor role to "" functions amid the archipelago's rugged terrain and adverse weather. Despite challenges like the missile's 30 kg weight complicating long yomps over and , wire entanglement in high winds, and operator visibility requirements, MILAN's accuracy—dependent on skilled crews—outperformed expectations in low-light conditions, validating its utility as a versatile and influencing post-war evaluations of man-portable guided systems for expeditionary operations. No precise aggregate data on firings or confirmed impacts exists in declassified records, but its contributions to breaking fortified lines were credited with easing the decisive ground phase, where forces prioritized close-quarters over armored maneuvers.

Gulf War

The MILAN anti-tank guided missile was deployed by coalition forces during the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War, serving as a key infantry anti-armor weapon in the operations of nations including France, the United Kingdom, and Egypt. These systems were integrated into light armored and infantry units for potential engagements against Iraqi armored vehicles, though the brief duration of the ground campaign—from February 24 to 28, 1991—limited their combat applications due to overwhelming coalition air superiority and rapid mechanized advances that neutralized much of Iraq's Republican Guard and regular army armor prior to close-quarters infantry actions. French forces under contributed the second-largest European contingent, with approximately 18,000 personnel in the 6th Light Armored Division positioned on the coalition's western flank. launchers equipped anti-tank platoons within battalions and vehicles like the , prepared to counter Iraqi T-55 and Type 69 tanks during the advance toward As-Salman airfield. However, the division encountered minimal resistance after coalition airstrikes had degraded Iraqi positions, resulting in few documented firings; French units destroyed several Iraqi tanks primarily through direct fire from reconnaissance vehicles and artillery support rather than man-portable missiles. British Army units, including the 3rd Battalion within 1st Armoured Division, employed platoons in dismounted assaults as part of the VII Corps maneuver to encircle Iraqi forces in . On February 24, 1991, these teams supported battlegroup advances against Iraqi defenses, leveraging the missile's wire-guided precision for potential anti-tank roles amid the division's destruction of over 200 Iraqi vehicles in 100 hours of fighting. Success was attributed to the system's reliability in conditions, though specific kill counts for remain unquantified in declassified reports, with most Iraqi armor losses ascribed to tanks and air strikes. Iraqi forces reportedly possessed missiles acquired through prior imports, deploying them defensively against incursions, but their impact was negligible; no armored losses were attributed to Iraqi-operated systems, reflecting poor training, electronic countermeasures, and the suppressive effects of tactics. Egyptian contingents, focused on defensive roles during Operation Desert Shield, paraded -armed vehicles but saw no offensive combat use of the system. Overall, the underscored 's role as a supplementary asset in high-mobility operations where preemptive air and armored dominance reduced opportunities for infantry-guided engagements.

Yugoslav Wars

During the Bosnian War, a key phase of the from 1992 to 1995, MILAN anti-tank guided missiles were integrated into the arsenal of (UNPROFOR) contingents deployed to safeguard designated safe areas and humanitarian corridors against armored incursions by the (VRS). forces, operating fighting vehicles armed with MILAN launchers, utilized the system for mobile anti-tank defense in high-threat environments, including operations around and . rapid reaction units similarly equipped Milan teams within airmobile brigades, deploying 84 such systems by mid-1995 to bolster protection against VRS T-55 and other tanks during defensive stands at exposed positions. These deployments reflected the constrained UNPROFOR mandate, prioritizing deterrence over offensive operations, with MILAN's wire-guided SACLOS precision enabling effective engagement of armored vehicles at ranges up to 2,000 meters under restricted rules of engagement. Combat use occurred in sporadic defensive actions, such as repelling VRS probes near UN observation posts, though comprehensive records of launches, hits, or penetrations against ERA-equipped targets like M-84 tanks are sparse owing to classified after-action reports and the chaotic operational context. Post-war inventories indicate limited adoption by Bosnian government forces via embargo circumvention, but primary verified employment traces to multinational peacekeeping elements rather than indigenous belligerents.

Afghanistan

MILAN missile systems were supplied to fighters during the (1979–1989) as part of U.S. efforts under to equip insurgents against Soviet armored columns and infantry fighting vehicles. These wire-guided missiles, originally of French-German design, enabled operators to engage Soviet and targets at ranges up to 2,000 meters, contributing to asymmetric attrition of mechanized units despite the system's operator exposure risks. Footage from the period documents launches against Soviet armor, highlighting the missile's role in disrupting convoys and fortified positions. Post-Soviet withdrawal, cached MILAN stockpiles from the 1980s resurfaced in Taliban hands during the U.S.-led intervention (2001–2021), where insurgents adapted the aging systems for ambushes on coalition convoys lacking heavy armor. In eastern Afghanistan around 2010, Taliban fighters fired MILAN at joint U.S.-Afghan patrols, exploiting the missile's tandem warhead variants for potential penetration of up-armored HMMWVs, though hit rates remained low due to degraded batteries and operator inexperience with wire-guidance. Such uses were sporadic, as Taliban doctrine favored unguided RPGs and IEDs for their simplicity, but demonstrated the persistence of legacy Western ATGMs in post-occupation arsenals. International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) contributors, notably the German , deployed for defensive fire support in northern from 2002 onward, integrating the system on 1A3 infantry fighting vehicles to counter light armor and bunkers. German troops fired in engagements like those near , where the missile's semi-automatic command-to-line-of-sight guidance provided precise strikes up to 2 kilometers against insurgent positions, supplementing and air support. Operational data indicates effective neutralization of technicals and firing points, though the system's vulnerability to electronic countermeasures and requirement for line-of-sight limited offensive applications in rugged terrain. By , as ISAF transitioned to forces, employment declined amid shifts to lighter, more mobile systems like the Spike-MR.

Iraq Wars

During the , Iraqi forces employed anti-tank guided missiles, originally supplied by in the , against coalition armored vehicles, though with limited success due to the missiles' age and the superior protection of Western main battle tanks. British tanks, for instance, withstood direct MILAN impacts alongside multiple strikes; one such incident involved a hit by a MILAN at point-blank range and 14 RPGs near , allowing the crew to remain safe inside until evacuation, after which the vehicle was recovered and repaired. British forces also utilized the during the initial phases of the invasion, with from firing the weapon at Iraqi positions on the on March 21, 2003, to support amphibious assaults and neutralize bunkers and light armor. The system's wire-guided semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) operation proved reliable in urban and coastal engagements, though British units began transitioning to more advanced systems like in subsequent years. In the post-invasion phase against , particularly from 2014 onward, Kurdish forces in northern received MILAN systems through international support, including training by German advisors, and employed them effectively against armored vehicles and improvised fighting platforms. operators used the MILAN to halt advances, such as in defensive actions around and during village recaptures like Fadiliya in October 2016, where fighters prepared the missile for strikes on militant-held positions. In 2017, reportedly fired MILANs at Iraqi government T-72 tanks during clashes over , penetrating one vehicle and highlighting the missile's continued utility in asymmetric conflicts despite its second-generation design.

Syrian Civil War and ISIS Conflicts

Syrian opposition forces captured anti-tank guided missiles from Syrian Arab Army stockpiles during the that erupted in 2011, employing them against regime armored vehicles in multiple engagements. The Syrian government had originally procured approximately 200 launchers and 4,000 missiles from and between 1978 and 1979. By 2013, state media displayed seized systems allegedly used by rebels, highlighting their proliferation among non-state actors through battlefield captures rather than direct foreign supply. Footage from conflict zones, including province, documents rebels launching missiles at and tanks, demonstrating their role in asymmetric ambushes despite the system's manual wire-guidance limitations compared to later semi-automatic models like the TOW. In battles against the (ISIS), Kurdish-led forces in and affiliated Peshmerga units in integrated systems into their anti-armor arsenal, targeting ISIS vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) and captured tanks. A notable instance occurred in January 2016 near , , where Peshmerga operators destroyed an approaching ISIS VBIED using a missile at a roadside checkpoint, preventing a potential . In 's Deir ez-Zor region, opposition elements fired rare strikes against ISIS positions in 2022, often alongside and thermobaric weapons for combined effects. Kurdish YPG/SDF fighters trained with systems supplied via coalition partners, though debates persisted over the missile's tandem warhead sufficiency against up-armored ISIS T-72s and captured tanks. The MILAN's deployment in these conflicts underscored its utility for in resource-constrained environments, with hit probabilities exceeding 80% in trained hands under optimal conditions, but vulnerability to electronic countermeasures and wire severance reduced reliability against targets. and use contributed to localized tactical successes, such as halting armored advances, yet lacked the volume and precision of proliferated TOW missiles to alter strategic outcomes decisively.

Russian Invasion of Ukraine

France and Italy provided MILAN anti-tank guided missile systems to Ukraine shortly after the Russian full-scale invasion began on February 24, 2022, as part of broader Western military aid packages to bolster Ukrainian defenses against armored advances. France delivered initial batches including MILAN-2 variants with tandem warheads capable of defeating explosive reactive armor (ERA), followed by additional shipments such as three systems in early 2024 and 15 more systems announced in June 2024. By March 2025, France continued support with further MILAN deliveries alongside other equipment, emphasizing the system's wire-guided, semi-automatic command to line-of-sight operation for ranges up to 2,000 meters. Ukrainian forces deployed systems in defensive operations during the early phases of the invasion, particularly in northern regions like and Sumy oblasts, where operators used them to engage Russian armored columns and fighting vehicles. Footage and reports from September 2023 documented -2T strikes penetrating Russian tanks equipped with , such as variants, demonstrating the missile's utility against modernized Soviet-era armor despite its second-generation guidance limitations compared to systems like . underwent to master the system's sights and control, enabling day-night engagements, though its wire guidance exposed operators to counterfire risks in open terrain. While specific kill counts remain unverified due to , contributed to of alongside other ATGMs, with reports highlighting successful applications against invading vehicles in static defensive roles. By mid-2024, reliance shifted toward drones for longer-range strikes, but retained value for precision targeting in close-quarters anti-armor tactics, underscoring its role in where man-portable systems offset numerical disadvantages in heavy armor. No independent assessments confirm overall hit probabilities in exceeding the system's historical 90%+ in controlled tests, as environmental factors like and mobility reduced wire-guided efficacy against maneuvering targets.

Operators

Current Operators

The MILAN anti-tank guided missile remains in active service with the armed forces of more than 40 countries, primarily as a man-portable for anti-armor roles, with production continuing for upgrades like the Milan ER variant. , as a primary developer and manufacturer through , maintains significant inventories of Milan 2 and newer variants, including recent deliveries of 15 s to in June 2024 to support ongoing operations. , the co-originator of the , continues to employ it alongside vehicle-mounted integrations such as on fighting vehicles. operates the variant as a mainstay second-generation ATGM, though stocks are reported as outdated and depleting, prompting trials of replacements like the as of August 2025. fields the advanced 3, noted among limited operators of this tandem warhead upgrade designed for enhanced penetration against reactive armor. actively deploys French-supplied systems in defensive roles against armored threats, with documented strikes confirming operational effectiveness in 2024. Other nations, including various partners and export recipients in and the , retain for its reliability in asymmetric and , though many are transitioning to successors where budgets allow.

Former Operators

The United Kingdom operated the MILAN from the 1970s until its phase-out between 2005 and 2008, when it was replaced by the Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) for shorter ranges and the FGM-148 Javelin for longer-range engagements to address limitations in fire-and-forget capability and vulnerability to countermeasures. France, a co-developer of the system, introduced in 1972 but initiated its retirement in alongside other legacy systems like ERYX and , transitioning to the fifth-generation Missile Moyenne Portée (MMP, now ) for improved multipurpose effects, reduced signature, and network-enabled operations; deliveries of replacement units began that year, with full divestment completed by the early 2020s. Ireland employed as an infantry anti-tank weapon from the 1970s, procuring FGM-148 systems starting in 2003 to supplant it due to the latter's superior top-attack profile and reduced operator exposure; the transition aligned with evolving requirements in armored-threat environments. Belgium utilized for dismounted anti-armor roles but requested 240 Block I missiles and associated launchers in 2012 to replace it, citing needs for enhanced lethality against modern armor; subsequent acquisitions of systems like further indicate complete phase-out by the mid-2010s amid broader inventory modernization.

Combat Effectiveness and Empirical Data

Hit Rates and Penetration Success

The system's hit probability is reported at 94% in manufacturer specifications, derived from semi-automatic command to (SACLOS) guidance that allows the operator to track the via a wired link and optical sight, correcting the missile's path in . This figure reflects performance under controlled test conditions, with overall system reliability at 95%. Empirical combat data on hit rates remains limited, though training exercises have yielded near-100% success in small sample firings, highlighting the system's accuracy when operators maintain amidst countermeasures like smoke or . Penetration success depends on the warhead variant and target armor. The baseline 1 warhead penetrates up to 400 mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) using a single . The 2 introduces a design to defeat (ERA), achieving over 550 mm RHA penetration, while the 2T variant exceeds 800 mm against homogeneous steel in laboratory tests. Advanced iterations like ER feature multi-effect s capable of defeating 1,000 mm of ERA or equivalent RHA, sufficient against side and rear aspects of Cold War-era main battle tanks such as the , though frontal turret penetration against modern composites may require precise targeting of weaker zones. In operational contexts, including defensive actions against armored advances since 2022, firings have demonstrated success in disabling vehicles when hits are achieved, leveraging the warhead's ability to breach lighter IFV armor or unarmored targets outright.

Role in Deterrence and Asymmetric Warfare

The MILAN anti-tank guided missile system's man-portable design and semi-automatic command-to-line-of-sight guidance allow operators to engage armored vehicles at effective ranges of up to 2,000 meters, contributing to deterrence by creating a persistent threat that compels adversaries to limit exposed mechanized advances or employ extensive countermeasures such as active protection systems and overwatch. This capability aligns with broader emphasizing precision-guided munitions to enhance conventional deterrence, as the system's reported 94% hit probability and 95% reliability impose high attrition risks on tank formations, thereby elevating the operational costs of armored offensives in contested environments. In , where numerically inferior or lightly equipped forces confront superior armored opponents, the MILAN enables hit-and-run ambushes and defensive standoffs that disrupt conventional maneuver advantages. groups, for instance, captured MILAN stockpiles from regime ammunition depots as early as August 2013, utilizing them to target tanks and other vehicles in urban and rural engagements, which prolonged conflicts by neutralizing government armor superiority and forcing reliance on or assaults. Hezbollah's employment of during the exemplifies this role, where teams integrated the missile with terrain concealment to strike Merkava tanks, contributing to over 50 armored vehicle losses and necessitating tactical shifts toward dispersed operations and enhanced infantry-armor integration to counter the asymmetric threat posed by such portable systems. These applications underscore how MILAN's tandem warhead penetration—effective against reactive armor—empowers non-state actors to impose disproportionate casualties, deterring aggressive ground incursions and compelling state militaries to adapt doctrines prioritizing anti-ATGM measures like jamming over traditional massed assaults.

Operational Limitations and Criticisms

Technical Drawbacks

The system's wire-guided semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) mechanism imposes a maximum of approximately 2,000 meters for standard variants, constrained by the length of the guidance wire spool, which limits its utility against distant or fast-moving targets compared to longer-range radio- or laser-guided successors. This wire dependency also introduces risks of entanglement with environmental obstacles, such as overhead power lines or terrain features, potentially causing mission failure or requiring repositioning that exposes the operator. Operator exposure remains a core technical limitation, as the SACLOS design necessitates maintaining uninterrupted visual contact with the target via the optical sight for the duration of flight—typically 10-12 seconds at maximum range—leaving the firer vulnerable to return fire without the anonymity afforded by systems. The system's reliance on an () beacon on the missile's tail for tracking further heightens susceptibility to countermeasures like IR jammers (e.g., Shtora systems), which can disrupt the optical follow-up by overwhelming or blinding the sight's sensor, thereby derailing the missile mid-flight. Additional constraints include a minimum engagement range of around 400-500 meters for accurate guidance stabilization, below which the missile's control surfaces lack sufficient time to correct trajectory, rendering close-range use ineffective. IR smoke grenades can also interfere with the sight's tracking of the missile beacon, exploiting the system's dependence on clear line-of-sight rather than autonomous onboard . These factors collectively reduce reliability in cluttered or contested environments, where modern active protection systems on armored vehicles can detect and intercept the relatively slow-flying (average speed ~180 m/s) during its extended exposure time.

Strategic Vulnerabilities in Modern Contexts

In contemporary conflicts characterized by pervasive and precision , operators face heightened risks due to the system's requirement for sustained line-of-sight guidance, which necessitates exposure in relatively static positions for up to 15-20 seconds during missile flight. This vulnerability is exacerbated in environments like the , where unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) enable rapid detection and targeting of anti-tank teams, often leading to preemptive strikes before launch. Wire-guidance, while resistant to certain radio-frequency jamming, does not mitigate visual or thermal acquisition by enemy sensors, rendering teams susceptible to or munitions. The MILAN's semi-automatic command to line-of-sight (SACLOS) tracking relies on an , making it particularly vulnerable to soft-kill countermeasures such as jammers—for instance, the Shtora , which disrupts automatic tail-light tracking and forces manual correction, reducing accuracy. screens or obscurants further degrade operator visibility, while the missile's minimum engagement of approximately 400-500 meters limits utility against close-in threats, a common scenario in urban or fluid maneuvers. In peer adversaries equipped with advanced suites, even wire-based s encounter interference through directed energy or multi-spectral disruption of the guidance . Against modern armored vehicles featuring active protection systems (APS), the MILAN's tandem-warhead variants (e.g., MILAN 2T) exhibit reduced efficacy, as hard-kill interceptors like Israel's Trophy or Russia's Arena can neutralize incoming projectiles mid-flight by detecting and exploding proximity warheads. APS engagement envelopes, effective against threats approaching at 70-700 m/s, encompass the MILAN's flight profile, with interception rates exceeding 90% in tested scenarios for similar SACLOS ATGMs. This shifts strategic calculus toward favoring fire-and-forget or top-attack munitions, diminishing the MILAN's role in high-end symmetric warfare where tanks operate under layered defenses. Operationally, the system's immobility during firing—operators cannot relocate or shoot on the move—compounds risks in dynamic battlespaces dominated by intelligence fusion, as evidenced by tactical analyses of infantry anti- employment in , where unshielded teams suffer high attrition from reconnaissance-strike complexes. Limited range (maximum 2,000-3,000 meters for extended variants) further constrains standoff engagement against long-range guns or threats, underscoring a broader doctrinal pivot away from legacy wire-guided systems toward networked, autonomous alternatives.

References

  1. [1]
    MILAN Anti-Tank Missile System - Army Technology
    Mar 16, 2022 · The system was developed for the French and German Armies and over 360,000 missiles and 10,000 launch units have been produced since 1972. MILAN ...
  2. [2]
    MILAN - Weaponsystems.net
    Origin. France Germany ; Type. Man portable anti-tank missile ; Entered service. 1972 for Milan 1 1984 for Milan 2 ; Status. In service ; Development. 1963 - 1971.
  3. [3]
    MBDA MILAN (Missile d'Infanterie Leger ANtichar) - Military Factory
    Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the MBDA MILAN (Missile d'Infanterie Leger ANtichar) Wire-Guided Anti-Tank ...
  4. [4]
    Milan - GlobalSecurity.org
    Dec 29, 2012 · Milan is a second generation anti-tank weapon, the result of a joint development between France and West Germany with British Milan ...Missing: conception | Show results with:conception
  5. [5]
    Milan missile - CAT-UXO
    The Milan system (formerly designated as SS-9) was designed and developed by the Franco-German consortium of Aerospatiale and Messerschmitt Bolkow-Blohm and is ...<|separator|>
  6. [6]
    MILAN 2T French Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM)
    Feb 25, 2025 · A Western European anti-tank guided missile. The design of the MILAN started in 1962, it was ready for trials in 1971, and was accepted for service in 1972.
  7. [7]
    Milan Missile - Hansard - UK Parliament
    Oct 22, 1976 · Arrangements have also been made between BAC and the Franco-German consortium Euromissile, and accepted by the Governments of France ...
  8. [8]
    Milan 2 Anti-Tank Weapon System - Defense Advancement
    The system employs a semi-automatic command-to-line-of-sight (SACLOS) guidance mechanism. Operators track their target through an optical sight, while the ...
  9. [9]
    MILAN 2 French Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM)
    Aug 7, 2024 · The MILAN 2 variant, which entered service with the French, German and British armies in 1984, utilizes an improved 115 mm HEAT warhead. The ...Missing: conception | Show results with:conception
  10. [10]
    MILAN ER (Extended Response) Anti-Tank Missile System
    Feb 9, 2014 · The wire-guided SACLOS offers anti-jamming efficiency in clutter environments. The man-in-the-loop option further ensures accurate ...
  11. [11]
    MILAN 1 French Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM)
    Aug 7, 2024 · A European anti-tank guided missile. The design of the MILAN 1 started in 1962, it was ready for trials in 1971, and was accepted for service in 1972.
  12. [12]
    Milan (Anti-tank guided missile launcher) - Army Guide
    The MILAN 3 system is the latest version. It has been in production since 1996 and due to its 2T (tandem) military warhead it can destroy modern reactive armour ...
  13. [13]
    MILAN Anti-Tank Missiles: History, Features, and Variants - Testbook
    The MILAN was a joint venture between France and West Germany during the 1960s. It was introduced as an anti-tank weapon and quickly became the primary antitank ...Missing: conception | Show results with:conception
  14. [14]
    [PDF] MILAN 2 MISSILE - Flames Of War
    The MILAN 2 variant uses an improved 115mm high-ex- plosive anti-tank (HEAT) shaped charge warhead with an armour penetration of 550mm.
  15. [15]
    Antitank missile system Milan-2 ( Milan-2T ) - Missilery.info
    When a new BC is detonated with a 280 mm tip, the armor penetration is more than 800 mm (homogeneous armor). When detonated in the laboratory at a distance of ...
  16. [16]
    Milan ER - Army Recognition
    Jul 21, 2024 · The first guided firing of the missile took place in May 2006. The first test of the complete system, firing post and missile, took place in ...
  17. [17]
    MBDA completes series production testing of Milan ER missile
    Oct 21, 2014 · MBDA has successfully carried out test-firings of its Milan extended ... range of 3km. The missile is primarily developed for the French ...
  18. [18]
    Milan ER Hits Target at Maximum Range of 3,000 Meters - Deagel
    The wire-guided missile struck the centre of the target at a distance of 3,000 meters, MILAN ER's maximum range. Following on from a number of preparatory test ...
  19. [19]
    MBDA completes MILAN ADT ER missile test firing - ResearchGate
    The design of MILAN ADT ER is such that the standard in service MILAN ATGW can also be fired from the new launcher, which will allow older missiles to be used ...
  20. [20]
    Toyota War 1987 - OnWar.com
    Chadian mobility and firepower (both attributable to the use of some 400 Toyota pickup trucks armed with machine guns or MILAN anti-tank missiles, masterfully ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Chad and Libya: The Impact of the Great Toyota War - History Defined
    Nov 3, 2022 · ... MILAN anti-tank guided missiles in the truck bed? ... Since the Libyan Civil War in 2011, relations between the two countries have worsened.
  22. [22]
  23. [23]
    "We know that it is better to have a good TOYOTA than a T-55". Key ...
    Apr 23, 2024 · The Chadian forces seized vast quantities of equipment (they captured 31 T-55 tanks and destroyed another 86) during the engagement while ...
  24. [24]
    Forgotten Conflicts: The Libyan-Chadian War - Sea Lion Press
    Oct 2, 2020 · They had also been supplied with 400 brand new Toyota pickup trucks and Milan Anti-Tank Missiles by France. The Chadians at this time had ...
  25. [25]
    Milan weapon | Legends Live On
    May 27, 2025 · At Mount Longdon, British troops used it to destroy enemy bunkers and suppress machine gun fire, thereby easing the advance of infantry forces.
  26. [26]
    Missiles, Falklands War - Naval-History.Net
    The attack by Lieutenant P C Manley and POA J A Balls in their Wessex on Port Stanley on 11 June 1982.Missing: engagements Islands
  27. [27]
    The Battle for Mount Longdon - SP Company
    Jun 12, 2020 · Five Milan detachments each carrying 3 missiles, the primary RAP group and the press (Les Dowd-Reuters and Tom Smith-Daily Express) The ...
  28. [28]
    Bloody Showdown at Stanley - Warfare History Network
    Elite British troops launched a series of daring assaults in mid-June 1982 against Argentine outposts protecting Port Stanley in the final phase of the ...
  29. [29]
    THE FALKLANDS CONFLICT, APRIL - JUNE 1982
    ... MILAN Anti Tank missile section near the western summit. The three man section suffered a direct hit from a Czekalski 105mm Anti Tank Gun fired by Corporal ...
  30. [30]
    ground phase of the "Desert Storm" offensive - Arquus Defense
    The ground phase of this offensive began on February 23, with the French objective of seizing the As-Salman airport. The progression to the airport took place ...
  31. [31]
    Milan Platoon 3RRF Battlegroup conducts a dismounted assault
    Feb 25, 2025 · In an armoured infantry battlegroup, the Anti-Tank or Milan ... The Gulf War 1991 - Milan Platoon 3RRF Battlegroup conducts a dismounted assault.Missing: missile | Show results with:missile
  32. [32]
    Former Yugoslavia - UNPROFOR - United Nations Peacekeeping
    The rough cost to the United Nations of UNPROFOR in 1994 was about $1.6 billion. The costs are met by assessed contributions from Member States.Missing: MILAN | Show results with:MILAN
  33. [33]
    Bosnia - National Army Museum
    There was no peace to keep in Bosnia, and UNPROFOR did not have the mandate to enforce a ceasefire. ... Warrior main armament, Milan missiles, mortars, artillery ...
  34. [34]
    Bosnia - Hansard - UK Parliament
    Jun 9, 1995 · Its equipment includes Lynx, Gazelle, Chinook and Puma helicopters, TOW and Milan anti-tank and Javelin surface-to-air missile systems, together ...
  35. [35]
    U.N. Buildup in Bosnia Eyes 'Mogadishu Line' - The New York Times
    Jun 7, 1995 · The first, the 24th Airmobile Brigade, has 1,400 infantry troops, 84 Milan antitank missile teams, 48 Lynx antitank and battlefield support ...
  36. [36]
    The Barely Told Story of America's Greatest Half-Assed Heroes
    Jul 6, 2025 · Why did Soviet forces abandon Afghanistan in 1989 after nearly 10 years of war? ... Some credit the CIA-supplied Stingers and French MILAN anti- ...<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    How did MILAN ATGMs make their way to Afghanistan during the ...
    Mar 13, 2022 · MILAN missile systems were among the numerous weapons sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s by the United States to combat Soviet troops.
  38. [38]
    Euromissile Milan ATGM - YouTube
    Aug 27, 2008 · Afghan Mujahideen fire a Milan anti tank missile at a Soviet armored vehicle.Missing: Bundeswehr | Show results with:Bundeswehr
  39. [39]
    The Taliban´s Latest Toy – European Anti-Tank Missiles
    Dec 13, 2010 · The MILAN, which weighs only about 17 Kilos and can be operated by two men, has been used in several wars and conflicts since the 1970s, for ...<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    Taliban ambush US convoy with RPGs and a Milan ATGM leftover ...
    May 22, 2022 · Taliban ambush US convoy with RPGs and a Milan ATGM leftover from the Soviet Afghan War (Afghanistan, 2000s)
  41. [41]
    Afghanistans new defense capability; What do you know about the ...
    Jan 6, 2025 · The Milan has a maximum range of 2 km and the Concours has a maximum range of 4 km. The Concours has a higher penetration power than the early ...
  42. [42]
    German MILAN Anti-Tank Missile - Military.com
    Jan 14, 2013 · ISAF - German MILAN antitank missile system in action in Afghanistan.Missing: Bundeswehr | Show results with:Bundeswehr
  43. [43]
    MILAN Anti-Tank Missile System - Military.com
    Feb 5, 2013 · The MILAN Anti-Tank Missile System is fired off in Afghanistan. Check out the slow motion replay around the 30 second mark!
  44. [44]
    In Iraq 2003, a Challenger 2 tank in Basra managed to tank ... - Quora
    Jun 11, 2024 · In Iraq 2003, a Challenger 2 tank in Basra managed to tank multiple RPG hits and even Milan Anti Tank, while in Baghdad, an M1A2 Abrams was ...Why do Brits think that a Challenger 2 survived 80 RPG hits in Iraq ...How did the performance of the British Challenger 2 tank in Iraq and ...More results from www.quora.com
  45. [45]
    Challenger 2 in hulldown position during Operation Iraqi freedom ...
    Jun 27, 2020 · Some Challenger 2 even survived more than 14 RPG hits and MILAN ATGW attack at point blank range. So far during the Iraqi invasion campaign, ...Missing: ATGM | Show results with:ATGM
  46. [46]
    Images Of War: The Ground War - CBS News
    Mar 23, 2003 · AP A British Royal Marine from 42 Commando fires a Milan wire-guided missile at an Iraqi position on the Al Faw peninsula, southern Iraq, Friday ...
  47. [47]
    Milan Anti-Tank Missile - British Military Weapons - Elite UK Forces
    The Milan is a wire-guided anti-tank missile system, which has seen action with UK forces in the Falklands conflict, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and the invasion ...Missing: War | Show results with:War
  48. [48]
    Anti-Tank Missiles Counter ISIS Ground Game | Military.com
    Nov 16, 2015 · Meanwhile, Kurdish Peshmerga forces wielded the Missile d'Infanterie Leger Antichar, or MILAN, light infantry anti-tank missile to stop ISIS ...Missing: insurgents | Show results with:insurgents
  49. [49]
    Iraqi forces battle Islamic State for control of Mosul - Reuters
    Oct 27, 2016 · A Kurdish Peshmerga fighter looks through a Milan missile before recapturing from Islamic state militants the Fadiliya village in Nawaran, ...
  50. [50]
    Did a Chinese-Made Anti-Tank Missile Kill America's Best Tank in ...
    Oct 25, 2017 · The Iraqi military's Joint Operations Command accused the Peshmerga of targeting the tank with a wire-guided MILAN anti-tank missile launcher, ...
  51. [51]
    Questions loom over Bundeswehr's mission in Iraq – DW – 10/23/2017
    Oct 23, 2017 · The Bundeswehr declined to confirm or deny to Deutsche Welle that the MILAN was used by peshmerga against Iraqi forces, saying that Germany ...Missing: insurgents | Show results with:insurgents
  52. [52]
    MILAN - Wikiwand
    MILAN is a Franco-West German anti-tank guided missile system. Design of the MILAN began in 1962; it was ready for trials in 1971, and accepted for service ...Missing: Storm | Show results with:Storm
  53. [53]
    State TV Shows MANPADS And French MILAN AT Missiles ...
    Mar 22, 2013 · However, it's important to understand that not only does the Syrian military use MILAN missiles, but so do many other countries in the ...
  54. [54]
    Seven Years of War — Documenting Syrian Rebel Use of Anti-Tank ...
    May 4, 2018 · This article will detail the collection of footage of Syrian rebel anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) use and their impact on events during the Syrian civil war.
  55. [55]
    Peshmerga Destroy ISIS VBIED - Military.com
    Jan 15, 2016 · Peshmerga forces at a roadblock destroy an ISIS VBIED racing to their position with a Milan ATGM near Mosul, Iraq ... Islamic State of Iraq and ...
  56. [56]
    War Noir - X
    Dec 15, 2022 · ... ISIS militants in #DeirEzZor. Apparently a rare MILAN anti-tank guided missile, RPG-27 anti-tank weapon and a RPO-A 'Shmel' thermobaric ...
  57. [57]
    We Watched Kurdish Troops Train With Guided Missiles - Medium
    Aug 17, 2015 · They watched as two young Peshmerga second lieutenants disassembled a large tripod for a MILAN anti-tank guided missile launcher.Missing: insurgents | Show results with:insurgents
  58. [58]
    Ukraine will get more MILAN missiles - what is it? - Technology Org
    Jun 12, 2024 · Its latest package will include 15 MILAN anti-tank missile systems and it is not the first time that France gives these weapons to Ukraine.Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications
  59. [59]
    CAESAR Howitzers, Milan ATGMs Are Being Sent to Ukraine
    Apr 26, 2022 · French firepower is coming to Ukraine. An unspecified number of CAESAR Howitzers and Milan ATGMs are being sent to the Ukrainian forces.
  60. [60]
    Italy joins growing list of weapon donors to help Ukraine's defense
    Feb 28, 2022 · The Italian cabinet signed off on a measure authorizing the dispatch of Stinger surface-to-air missiles, mortars and Milan, or Panzerfaust, ...Missing: ATGMs | Show results with:ATGMs
  61. [61]
    Ukraine Uses French-Donated Milan 2T Anti-Tank Missiles to Target ...
    Sep 1, 2023 · Ukraine Uses French-Donated Milan-2T Anti-Tank Missiles to Target Russian Tanks ERA Explosive Reactive Armor.
  62. [62]
    France Provided €3.8B Worth Weapons to Ukraine since 2022
    Mar 4, 2024 · The Ukrainian military also received 1,002 AT4 hand-held disposable grenade launchers, three Milan ATGMs, and an unspecified number of missiles ...
  63. [63]
    France Strengthens Military Support to Ukraine with Milan and ...
    Mar 27, 2025 · Operated from a lightweight firing post, the MILAN has an effective range of up to 2,000 meters and can be used both day and night thanks to ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  64. [64]
    Ukraine's Military Describe Milan ATGM Appliance - Defense Express
    Aug 12, 2022 · The soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine used the Milan ATGM during the battles against russian invaders in the Chernihiv and Sumy Oblasts.
  65. [65]
    Ukrainian soldiers are mastering MILAN anti-tank guided missiles
    In Ukraine, the Defense Forces are undergoing intensive training in mastering MILAN-2 anti-tank systems. Militarnyi informs about this with reference to CNN.
  66. [66]
    ATGM MILAN - Art of War
    ATGM MILAN This lightweight anti-tank missile system was adopted in 1977, and since then, over 300,000 units have been produced in various modifications.Missing: first partners
  67. [67]
    Army's stock of anti-tank guided missiles & launchers is ... - ThePrint
    Mar 6, 2025 · The mainstay ATGMs currently in use by the Army are the French-origin Milan-2T with a 2 km range, and the Soviet semi-automatic wire-guided ...
  68. [68]
    Indian Army Completes Third Trials of New MPATGM Anti-Tank ...
    Aug 27, 2025 · Once inducted, the MPATGM will replace the second-generation MILAN and 9M113 Konkurs anti-tank guided missiles used by the infantry, parachute, ...
  69. [69]
    Milan - Deagel
    It was introduced in 1970s as a second generation anti-tank weapon system. The weapon systems consists of Milan missile and the missile launch post. Its ...
  70. [70]
    French MILAN "Lightweight Infantry Anti-tank Missile" being ... - Reddit
    Sep 22, 2024 · French MILAN "Lightweight Infantry Anti-tank Missile" being operated ... Spartan's armed with Milans proved rather successful in Desert Storm ...
  71. [71]
    Ukraine - Milan - GlobalSecurity.org
    Apr 22, 2023 · Design of the MILAN started in 1962; it was ready for trials in 1971, and was accepted for service in 1972. MILAN is a portable medium-range, ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  72. [72]
    Javelin - Think Defence
    In 1972, Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) and Aérospatiale SA formed a joint venture called Euromissile, now part of MBDA, to develop a man-portable anti-tank ...
  73. [73]
    British Army hits “world first” Javelin missile shot out to 4km
    May 22, 2025 · In January 2003, the UK Ministry of Defence announced the acquisition of 18 launchers and 144 missiles as a replacement of the Milan system ...
  74. [74]
    France receives missiles, launchers to replace Milan anti-tank system
    Nov 30, 2017 · The French authorities ordered the MMP in 2013 from MBDA after rival pitches from the Javelin joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Raytheon ...<|separator|>
  75. [75]
    MILAN - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
    Type: Guided missile launcher ; Caliber: 103mm (MILAN 1), 115mm (all later variants) ; Weight: 52.9 lbs (24 kg) (complete system), 14.8 lbs (6.7 kg) (MILAN 1 ...
  76. [76]
    Better Safe Than Sorry: Irish Peacekeepers Are Bringing Javelin ...
    Oct 19, 2021 · Ireland first bought its Javelins in 2003 to replace its older wire-guided Milan anti-tank missiles. As with the Javelins in recent times ...
  77. [77]
    Belgium To Replace Milan Missile With Block I Javelin Missiles
    Aug 7, 2012 · The Government of Belgium has requested the U.S Defense Security Cooperation Agency for purchase of 240 Block I Javelin Missiles and ...
  78. [78]
    What was the hit rate with Milan missiles during your training ... - Quora
    Dec 18, 2024 · 100% hit rate, in two years I only fired four live Milan Missiles. each was a hit. In fact at Putlos, during the BAOR anti tank ...How effective are anti-tank weapons, such as TOW missiles or RPG ...How good are anti-tank missiles, and what do tanks do to combat ...More results from www.quora.com
  79. [79]
    MILAN anti-tank missile systems for the Ukrainian army
    Apr 15, 2022 · Already in 1972, the ATGM was adopted by the customer countries. Serial production for their armies and the promotion of the complex on the ...
  80. [80]
    Syrian rebels captured ammunition depot with Milan / Konkurs anti ...
    Saturday's raid yielded French-made Milan anti-tank missiles, Russian Konkurs missiles and Grad rockets, according to video footage which showed ...
  81. [81]
    Syrian rebels captured ammunition depot with Milan / Konkurs anti ...
    Aug 5, 2013 · Syrian rebels captured an ammunition depot north of Damascus from President Bashar al-Assad's forces on Saturday, August 3, 2013, ...
  82. [82]
    The Hezbollah Myth and Asymmetric Warfare - Small Wars Journal
    Aug 17, 2010 · ) Hezbollah were not armed with ” Armed with sophisticate ATGMs”. They had AT-3,4, 14, and Milan. Old Systems. Once the IDF operations and ...
  83. [83]
    MILAN - War Thunder Wiki
    Aug 3, 2023 · Summarise and briefly evaluate the weaponry in terms of its characteristics and combat effectiveness. Mark pros and cons as a list. Pros ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  84. [84]
    F2 Milan - Official Squad Wiki - Fandom
    The maximum effective range for the Milan ATGM is 1750 meters; beyond this range, the missile will stop guidance and drop to the ground. When shooting at ...
  85. [85]
    From Anti-Tank to Multi-Purpose - Defense Update:
    Dec 30, 2010 · While this guidance system has proved effective, it is still vulnerable to counterfire, countermeasures or interference. Although popular, such ...
  86. [86]
    Berger: Ukraine War Demonstrates Vulnerability of Tanks to Missile ...
    David Berger said the Russian forces seemed to be ineffective in using a combined arms approach in that they were not using “maneuver to bolster your fires or ...
  87. [87]
    A Dutch assessment of the M47 DRAGON and MILAN, 1977 - Reddit
    Aug 16, 2021 · The DRAGON satisfies the tactical requirements concerning effective range; the MILAN has a somewhat greater range, but is only effective at ranges above 500m.ATGMs as anti infantry weapons? : r/WarCollege - RedditThe ATGM gap : r/warno - RedditMore results from www.reddit.comMissing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  88. [88]
    [PDF] An Ode to the Sagger Drill - AUSA
    Although vulnerable to disruption through target movement or visual obfuscation, command. LOS ATGMs are more cost-effective to produce, and they avoid ...<|separator|>
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Collaborative Point Paper on Active Protection Systems - DTIC
    The system is capable of defeating ATGMs and RPGs, approaching at speeds between 70 to 700 meters per second. The system employed eight 107mm anti-missile ...<|separator|>
  90. [90]
    Hardkill APS overview - Below The Turret Ring
    Jan 7, 2017 · Laucher-based active protection systems suffer however from certain specific disadvantages: ... protection against ATGMs, RPGs, longrod KE ...
  91. [91]
    Modern ATGM capabilities - Euro-sd
    Mar 3, 2025 · The demand for anti-tank guided missiles is expected to grow in the near future, with a clear need for new capabilities.
  92. [92]
    Why Have Ukrainian ATGMs Destroyed So Many Russian Tanks?
    ATGMs like the Stugna have proved highly effective during the war in Ukraine. They've destroyed countless Russian armoured vehicles and provided endless ...