US And Other Shoulder Fired Anti Tank Weapons. - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - US And Other Shoulder Fired Anti Tank Weapons. (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/31/2005 10:39:06 AM EDT

[#1]

How about TOW?
Any field experiece?
Was it ever used as a "man packed" system or just vehicle mounted?

I like the RPG concept. Good old Panzerfaust with a few improvements.
RPG have been used as Anti-Helicopter weapons. Aim towards helicopter at a distance betond maximum range, self destruct mechanism creates a shotgun like pattern. Does any of the US guided systems have this capability/

ACK

Posted: 12/31/2005 11:04:32 AM EDT

[#2]

Tows were a regimental asset and we rarely were in the field with them. We did go to a couple of thier shoots though...awsome weapon .

They were always mounted on a jeep or hummer, but there is a tripod for it, never saw it used. The dragon is like a spitball compaired to the TOW's capability.

Posted: 12/31/2005 3:29:08 PM EDT

[#3]

What are the anti helocopter capabilities of a TOW?

Also, how does the British LAW-80 stack up against the AT-4?

Anyone have any experience with the M202(?). The 4 round shoulder fired rocket launcher that was an incendary IIRC. I'm pretty sure there was one in an Aanold movie - Commando?

-K

Posted: 12/31/2005 4:12:14 PM EDT

[#4]

I've used the Carl Gustav 84mm quite a bit (since each infantry platoon in the Danish army had at least three of them). For a while I trained gunners on it, and have fired it a lot, including the fused canister anti-personnel rounds and aweseo illumination rounds, in addition to the "regular" AT rocket rounds. The regular AT round can penetrate a lot, and we expected it to be effective against pretty much any soviet tank up to and including the T-72 (except for bad frontal shots on sloped armor, obviously)

In the late 1980s there was also an enlarged AT round available. It loaded a charge in the back (lilke the normal rounds), and then a larger war-head in the front. It could penetrate 900 mm of homogenous steel armour, which could handle anything in the Soviet arsenal at the time, even frontal (I believe). However, I never actually fired one of the enlarged warheads, so I'm certainly no expert.

Posted: 12/31/2005 6:45:33 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I've used the Carl Gustav 84mm quite a bit (since each infantry platoon in the Danish army had at least three of them). For a while I trained gunners on it, and have fired it a lot, including the fused canister anti-personnel rounds and aweseo illumination rounds, in addition to the "regular" AT rocket rounds. The regular AT round can penetrate a lot, and we expected it to be effective against pretty much any soviet tank up to and including the T-72 (except for bad frontal shots on sloped armor, obviously)

.

Ah the good old Charlie G! Ask the Argentine Navy how good it is!

The Argentine Corvette ARA Guerrico took a hit from one during the invasion of South Georgia courtesy of the Royal Marines... it left a mark!

ANdy

Posted: 12/31/2005 6:58:11 PM EDT

[#6]

I went to Javelin school about a year ago, and all they gave me was a little pin with a picture of a tank in brackets, and the words "Fire and forget"

So does anyone know if the CLU is really worth $350,000??

Posted: 12/31/2005 8:17:53 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember US troops being armed with the M-136 (AT4) and the M-72 LAW as shoulder fired anti Tank weapons, and a 90mm recoiless rifle for some Ranger units. The M203 has some anti armor capability with it's HEDP round too, but more for lighter armor than tanks.

Has this changed at all?

How do these weapons compare to those of other countries - such as the RPG, especially with the more advanced rounds for it. How do they compare with the British Law-80 or the Swedish Carl Gustav or others?

How effective are these weapons against armored threats - assuming they actually hit?

Discuss........

-K

40mm 'HEDP' -> Good vs a M113, BTR, BRDM, Stryker or armored truck, etcr... Useless against tanks, close to useless against a modern APC/IFV...

i highly doubt the 40mm 'HEDP' would do much to the strykers you must not have seen the military channel lately they were showing some impressive video from iraq of strykers running over IED's and not being blown to shit. and the IED's were more than likely 155mm arty shells rigged to blow so if it can be rolled on it side and then put back up right and dive away. after something like that.

i dont think the 40mm would do much but maybe make the stryker laugh at it.and say damn that tickled.

the stryker is not a hummer it dont blow up to easy.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN SOMETHING

Posted: 12/31/2005 8:27:17 PM EDT

[#8]

Next funshow I am going to purchase a spent tube.

Posted: 12/31/2005 10:09:49 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
<<<<< Former Dragon gunner here.

If you have questions about that piece of shit, fire away.

Yeah, I've got lots of questions about it.

Why do you call it a POS? IIRC it was a 1000 meter weaponunless you had to do alot of manuvering with it in which case the reange would be less. How often could you expect to hit with it? How reliable were they? How effective were they? How hard to carry were they? Were they maintainance intensive?

I spoke with an 11M who had been in GW1 and he seemed to really like his.

So what's the story?

-K

It was a 1km max range, NON-fire-and-forget weapon...

So you pop one off at an enemy tank, and you have to keep the sights on the tank 'till impact...

1km is a VERY VERY SHORT distance when dealing with tanks... IIRC, FM7-8 reccommended that the Dragon be employed as an ambush weapon (eg let the enemy roll past & go for a side shot...

Posted: 12/31/2005 10:18:36 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The Mk153 SMAW in the Marine Corps is a specialized item, it is carried by 0351 Assault men and meant to breach bunkers. Its standard warhead has dual action fuze with instant action for hard objects (armor) and a delay for soft objects like bunkers and buildings. There is a HEAA (anti-armor, HEAT warhead, but it is often not seen)

It has a new NE (Novel Explosive) warhead which is a FAE that got allot of use in Fallujah and has around the effect of a 155 HE round.

The army bought allot of SMAW-D years ago which is basically the HEDP warhead in a disposable tube.

The SMAW, SMAW-D and AT-4 (which in itself is anti armor warhead from the Karl Gustav in a disposable tube) are basically recoilless weapons. So they are very loud when shot because of the tremendous amount of gas put out the rear to equal the weight of the outbound projectile. The army is buying some AT-4 CS rounds to allow more use in the urban environment, the CS is a low pressure launch version

Yeah,it's funny,when I was in SOI the instructor was saying that a SMAW wasn't a viable threat against armor. After seeing it demonstrated,I wouldn't wanna be anywhere near being hit by one.

If by 'armor' you mean the M1 or Leo2... It's not... No unguided rocket launcher is...

Not only is the armor too thick, but unless you have a way to mask your heat signature, you'll be spotted & obliterated long before you reach the 200-300m maximum range of such a weapon... And even if you do manage to disable one tank, they almost never work alone (it will either have other tank(s), infantry, or APCs supporting)....

To deal with that threat, you need at a minimum a weapon like Javelin or TOW-2.... Even then you're not assured a kill against a modern western tank... If rocket-launchers were effective, the Iraqis would be bringing down our armor left & right with RPGs.. They're not - the tanks knocked out in OIF have by-and-large been IED hits....

If you're shooting at something like the Stryker, BRDM, BTR, or BMP... Then you have a viable weapon.... Less so for the BMP & Bradley, which have tank-like firecontrol electronics, and stand a good chance of detecting an antiarmor ambush before they enter the kill zone...

Posted: 12/31/2005 10:24:38 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember US troops being armed with the M-136 (AT4) and the M-72 LAW as shoulder fired anti Tank weapons, and a 90mm recoiless rifle for some Ranger units. The M203 has some anti armor capability with it's HEDP round too, but more for lighter armor than tanks.

Has this changed at all?

How do these weapons compare to those of other countries - such as the RPG, especially with the more advanced rounds for it. How do they compare with the British Law-80 or the Swedish Carl Gustav or others?

How effective are these weapons against armored threats - assuming they actually hit?

Discuss........

-K

40mm 'HEDP' -> Good vs a M113, BTR, BRDM, Stryker or armored truck, etcr... Useless against tanks, close to useless against a modern APC/IFV...

i highly doubt the 40mm 'HEDP' would do much to the strykers you must not have seen the military channel lately they were showing some impressive video from iraq of strykers running over IED's and not being blown to shit. and the IED's were more than likely 155mm arty shells rigged to blow so if it can be rolled on it side and then put back up right and dive away. after something like that.

i dont think the 40mm would do much but maybe make the stryker laugh at it.and say damn that tickled.

the stryker is not a hummer it dont blow up to easy.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN SOMETHING

Mobility kill...

Rubber tires -> weakness of said vehicle...

Suffice it to say, I'm not a fan of the 'Wheeled Wonder'... Yeah, it's better than a hummer, but it's still not APC/IFV material.... It's a westernized BTR, nothing more, nothing less...

Posted: 12/31/2005 11:19:10 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

i highly doubt the 40mm 'HEDP' would do much to the strykers you must not have seen the military channel lately they were showing some impressive video from iraq of strykers running over IED's and not being blown to shit. and the IED's were more than likely 155mm arty shells rigged to blow so if it can be rolled on it side and then put back up right and dive away. after something like that.

i dont think the 40mm would do much but maybe make the stryker laugh at it.and say damn that tickled.

the stryker is not a hummer it dont blow up to easy.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN SOMETHING

<<<<<<<<<<<-----Fan of Strykers

Posted: 1/1/2006 4:53:36 AM EDT

[#13]

A Stryker can drive one multiple blown out/lost tires. It is actually harder to get a mobility kill than a track.

Posted: 1/1/2006 5:24:32 AM EDT

[#14]

Anyone have any hard info on how the spall liners are working? I recall that the military was installing Kevlar spall liners on the interior of Bradleys; ostensibly to stop fragments from RPGs or 20-30mm rds from penetrating the armor and bouncing around, killing the crew.

I know it's not a super accurate depiction of ATGM use, but in the game Battlefield 2, you can play the AT class, where you can guide an ATGM. It's hard enough to use against a moving target, but man, if you mis-time it and the tanker is looking, I find that I get killed before the slow missile can hit the target. I imagine that the Dragon must really suck in that regard.

But you can occasionally down a slow moving chopper, or one that's moving in a straight line directly away from you (certainly if he's headed straight right at you and not shooting)...

I'd wonder if the real SMAWs were ever tested against a helicopter drone?

Posted: 1/1/2006 5:30:03 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

I'd wonder if the real SMAWs were ever tested against a helicopter drone?

I wouldn't plan on shooting a SMAW into the air, the back blast will fry anyone if elevated too high.

Posted: 1/1/2006 6:44:37 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I'd wonder if the real SMAWs were ever tested against a helicopter drone?

I wouldn't plan on shooting a SMAW into the air, the back blast will fry anyone if elevated too high.

Well there you go. Useful information to be sure. I know it's only a game, and not a very realistic one.

Posted: 1/1/2006 7:50:26 AM EDT

[#17]

The 40mm HEDP will penetrate about 2" of armor. That's about the same as what a .50 Cal (12.7mm) at under 200 Meters can do. Beyond that, the .50 doesn't have the velocity to get through things like a BMP side, etc. but the 40mm HEDP does because it doesn't rely on velocity. So sometimes there's alot of "fudging" about what can get through something and what it can't in real life. A rule of thumb is if it's .50 Cal protected, then it's 40mm HEDP protected, though it may not be a case in every engagement.

Like always, the internet world of statistics is completely different than the real world of operations.

Posted: 1/1/2006 8:03:14 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
What are the anti helocopter capabilities of a TOW?

Also, how does the British LAW-80 stack up against the AT-4?

Anyone have any experience with the M202(?). The 4 round shoulder fired rocket launcher that was an incendary IIRC. I'm pretty sure there was one in an Aanold movie - Commando?

-K

The TOW has been used against helicopters in the past succesfully. It's not the best weapon to use, as it's a pretty slow missle, running at around 500 MPH and you aren't very maneuverable when you're guiding it, but it has the range. Artillery and friendly ADA would be the most effective means. Remember, a helicopter isn't operating in the "air" enviroment. It operates in the "ground" enviroment, so combined arms (like getting a tank shot, or arty barrage, etc.) can be just as effective against a helicopter as it is against any vehicle.

The TOW is 6" in diameter, so even if it's a dud, that's a pretty big hole to punch in any aircraft. Considering the power of the warhead is quite good, there's no problems with actually getting a kill. It's more a matter of getting a hit. If you get the hit, you'll have the kill.

Posted: 1/1/2006 8:26:33 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted: Divide each sides casualties by the political cost of sustaining them. As long as your enemy was willing to pay that cost its an awsome weapon and that what was it was made for. In skilled hands I would be scared of the RPG. Not all of the bad guys are "backward ass musliums. Those backwards ass musliums (re:Talaband) cleaned the Soviets clock in Afgainistan with that weapon. They did'nt have the airpower that we had or the support of the natives that we had. In Iraq we have the air but thats about it. I respect you view but I see faults in it.

So the RPG isn't a combat weapon, it's a political weapon. That proves that it's combat effectiveness is insignificant. It's a showpiece to hold above Haji's head for the cameras, a toy, a boogeyman to "scare" Americans. The Soviets brought the RPG's to Afghanistan and they had more of them as well as more RPG rounds. So the RPG in muslim hands wasn't effective there at all because it's cheapness advantage was nullified by the Soviets having more RPG's. The missile that cleaned the Soviet's clock was the American Stinger because it removed the air cover. We still have air cover in Iraq & Afghanistan because the RPG is pathetic against aircraft.

Posted: 1/4/2006 3:54:53 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Anyone have any hard info on how the spall liners are working? I recall that the military was installing Kevlar spall liners on the interior of Bradleys; ostensibly to stop fragments from RPGs or 20-30mm rds from penetrating the armor and bouncing around, killing the crew.

I know it's not a super accurate depiction of ATGM use, but in the game Battlefield 2, you can play the AT class, where you can guide an ATGM. It's hard enough to use against a moving target, but man, if you mis-time it and the tanker is looking, I find that I get killed before the slow missile can hit the target. I imagine that the Dragon must really suck in that regard.

But you can occasionally down a slow moving chopper, or one that's moving in a straight line directly away from you (certainly if he's headed straight right at you and not shooting)...

I'd wonder if the real SMAWs were ever tested against a helicopter drone?

I shot down an F35 once with an Eryx

. Saw him coming straight at me and I guided the missile right into his nose. Yes, that is correct.

Teammate: "Good shot"

That Stryker looks beat up. Anyone looking for an R&R job?

Posted: 1/4/2006 5:51:34 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Mobility kill...

Rubber tires -> weakness of said vehicle...

Suffice it to say, I'm not a fan of the 'Wheeled Wonder'... Yeah, it's better than a hummer, but it's still not APC/IFV material.... It's a westernized BTR, nothing more, nothing less...

Equally suffice to say, I do not share your opinion. For what it is, it's a great vehicle. Just don't use it as a tank.

NTM

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - US And Other Shoulder Fired Anti Tank Weapons. (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us