Если уголь будет сырым, разжечь мангал будет трудно.

That is a very common question.

In Russian, when you are talking about a real future condition, it is normal to use the future tense in both parts:

• Если уголь будет сырым, ...
• ... будет трудно.

So Russian says, literally, something like If the charcoal will be damp, it will be difficult..., even though that sounds wrong in English.

Compare:

• Если уголь будет сырым, разжечь мангал будет трудно.
  = a future situation

• Если уголь сырой, разжечь мангал трудно.
  = a general fact or a present situation

So yes, будет after если is completely normal here.

Because the sentence has two separate predicates:

1. уголь будет сырым = the charcoal will be damp
2. разжечь мангал будет трудно = lighting the grill will be difficult

So each clause needs its own predicate.

Structure:

• Если уголь будет сырым
  = conditional clause

• разжечь мангал будет трудно
  = main clause

Russian is not repeating the same word unnecessarily here; it is simply building two full future statements.

Because сырым is the instrumental singular form of сырой, and after быть Russian often uses the instrumental for the predicate adjective or noun, especially in past and future contexts.

So:

• уголь будет сырым = the charcoal will be damp

This is a very standard pattern.

You will often see the same thing with nouns too:

• Он будет врачом = He will be a doctor
• Она была уставшей = She was tired

With adjectives, nominative is sometimes possible in some contexts, but будет сырым is the most natural and standard choice here.

Here сырой means damp, wet, or not dry enough.

This word has several meanings depending on context:

• сырой хлеб = bread that is underbaked / not properly baked
• сырое мясо = raw meat
• сырой уголь / сырые дрова = damp charcoal / damp firewood

So in this sentence it does not mean raw in the food sense. It means the charcoal has moisture in it, so it will not catch fire easily.

Because уголь here is being treated as a material/substance, like charcoal or coal in English.

Russian often uses the singular for mass substances:

• вода = water
• сахар = sugar
• уголь = coal/charcoal

So Если уголь будет сырым... means If the charcoal is damp...

If you used a plural form like угли, that would usually mean coals/embers, which is a slightly different idea.

Because разжечь is perfective, and it focuses on the result: successfully getting the grill going.

• разжечь = to light, kindle, get burning
• разжигать = to be lighting, to light repeatedly, or to focus on the process

In this sentence, the idea is:

• it will be hard to succeed in lighting the grill

So разжечь fits better than разжигать.

Compare:

• Разжечь мангал будет трудно.
  = It will be hard to get the grill lit.

• Разжигать мангал трудно.
  = Lighting a grill is hard / The process of lighting a grill is hard.

The second version is more general or process-focused.

You might hear зажечь in some contexts, but разжечь мангал is the more natural collocation here.

The difference is roughly:

• зажечь = to ignite, to light
• разжечь = to kindle and get burning properly

With fires, charcoal, stoves, grills, and campfires, разжечь is often the better verb because it suggests not just a tiny spark, but getting the fire going.

Common combinations:

• разжечь костёр = light a campfire
• разжечь печь = fire up a stove
• разжечь мангал = light a grill/brazier

So this sentence uses the most idiomatic verb.

It is in a case: it is accusative singular, because it is the direct object of разжечь.

The reason it looks unchanged is that мангал is a masculine inanimate noun, and for those nouns:

• nominative singular = accusative singular

So:

• мангал = nominative
• вижу мангал = accusative

That is normal.

Compare with an animate noun:

• брат = nominative
• вижу брата = accusative

So мангал has changed function, but not form.

This is an impersonal construction, which is very common in Russian.

Words like these often work this way:

• трудно = difficult
• легко = easy
• можно = possible / allowed
• нельзя = impossible / forbidden
• интересно = interesting

Russian does not need a dummy subject like English it.

So:

• Разжечь мангал будет трудно.

literally feels more like:

• To light the grill will be difficult.

In natural English, we usually say:

• It will be difficult to light the grill.

So the English it is just a grammatical placeholder. Russian does not need one here.

Yes.

In Russian, a subordinate clause introduced by если is normally separated by a comma from the main clause.

So:

• Если уголь будет сырым, разжечь мангал будет трудно.

And if you reverse the order, you still use a comma:

• Разжечь мангал будет трудно, если уголь будет сырым.

So the comma is not optional here.

Yes, definitely.

Russian word order is flexible, and you can move parts of the sentence around to change emphasis.

For example:

• Если уголь будет сырым, разжечь мангал будет трудно.
  Focus first on the condition.

• Разжечь мангал будет трудно, если уголь будет сырым.
  Focus first on the result.

• Мангал будет трудно разжечь, если уголь будет сырым.
  Also possible; this puts a little more attention on мангал.

The original sentence is very natural and clear, but it is not the only possible word order.

Мангал is a kind of charcoal brazier / barbecue grill, especially the kind used for grilling skewered meat such as шашлык.

It is often an open metal container where charcoal burns underneath the food.

So in many translations, grill is fine, but мангал is a bit more specific than every possible kind of grill or barbecue.

Yes, but it means something slightly different.

• Если уголь будет сырым, разжечь мангал будет трудно.
  = If the charcoal turns out to be damp / will be damp, it will be hard to light the grill.
  This is about a future situation.

• Если уголь сырой, разжечь мангал трудно.
  = If the charcoal is damp, it is hard to light the grill.
  This sounds more like a general rule or a present-time statement.

So both are grammatical, but the original sentence is specifically framed as a future condition.