Comments by "whya2ndaccount" (@whya2ndaccount) on "Explosive Reactive Armor: Common Misconceptions (feat. Prof. Paul Hazell)" video.

4:34: Apart from the physics/engineering, there is also a legal issue. It may sound daft but I as a commander am required to minimise the WH&S risks. The firing of the RPG / HEAT round is an action of the enemy. The effects of the defensive ERA type countermeasure has been legally argued as an action of friendly forces and falls into the same area as ensuring for example that friendly Infantry are not in the frontal arc of the tank when you fire APFSDS, in order to minimise the effect of the discarding sabots. There are similar legal questions about automated self defense systems such as AVEPS where exposed dismounts may be subject to effectively "friendly fire".
86
@Scorchluck No I'm not. Different countries have different laws. This reflects through Defence as well as other places. E.g. The US is happy to use land mines, many other countries deem them illegal. If your country has deemed AVEPS or ERA illegal then your AFVs wont carry it. Pretty simple.
12
@Scorchluck You are entitled to an opinion. It just doesn't count compared to binding legal advice.
3
@verrrx Well based on the long brief I need to give grunts (everyone from the Infantry OC down to a PTE in the room) before we do live fire combined arms fire and manoeuvre. Adding ERA and AVEPS would result in yet more briefs.
3