User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:18:27 PM EDT
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:22:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Yeah, discuss and post pics too (battle damage, etc). I would like to learn a little bit about the new RPG rounds and the supposed "golden BB" round that penetrated an M1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:23:32 PM EDT
[#2]
We got to use some of these down in Panama.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:26:30 PM EDT
[#3]
The US Marines (I'm not sure if the Army has them also) also have SMAW's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:28:32 PM EDT
[#4]
Basically...
The Javelin = the shit. Its shoulder fired and goes almost vertical right out of the launcher. Comes at its target from almost straight over it and hits the target on the top where they arent armored as much. IIRC, only American tanks and Chinese tanks have armored turrets on top. There's also the Dragon, but we havent really ever been taught or learned about it. www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:33:19 PM EDT
[#5]
I had thought the Dragon wasn't used any more - do you know if that's actually the case? Either way, I was refering more to shoulder launched "dumb" rounds - not guided ones like the Dragon and Javelin. But I'm still curious about the Dragon. -K |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:34:05 PM EDT
[#6]
That's an M-72, right? How well did they work? -K |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:42:05 PM EDT
[#7]
RPG-18. I personally didn't get to use one against a vehicle but mine did get to blow a chunk of FdE barracks wall away. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:44:52 PM EDT
[#8]
They are actually being re-fielded in their A7 or A8 variant with a bunker buster warhead. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:49:59 PM EDT
[#9]
US rangers use the gustav, its very effective against light to medium tanks, great to take out bunkers, you can feed it an array of munitions too. The LAW and the AT4 have there place, the LAW is strictly for min. armored targets while the AT4 can deal with at T72 without a problem, but the shooter would have to be close for it to be effective. More so than anything these days we're seeing guided (laser or wire) shoulder launcher rocket launchers like the milan to take out targets, but there very expensive at 100 thousand dollars a pop and a CO or higher has to give the shooter permission to fire, even in the heat of battle. An AT4 needs only a squad leaders permission to be fired. The RPG7 is a great weapon as well, highly mobile and can be supplied with several types of rockets, anti personal, HEAT, tandem warheads to defeat reactive armor, KO7 warheads that contain a fragmented collar for antipersonal, TBG7 which is a fuel-air thermoberic warhead to take out entrenched personal. The RPG7 is very cheap to produce and cheap to equip and train, it is in my opinion the best shoulder launched anti armor/personal weapon out there, i could go on for hours on this topic
 heres a couple pics of my shoulder launcher goodies, all have been demilled. McMBulgarian RPG-7 and an East German RPG-18  Spanish M20 3.5 inch bazooka  US M72 LAW and US AT4  US M20 3.5 inch Super Bazooka  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:55:43 PM EDT
[#10]
All our gunners carry one or two AT-4's in the turret with them, and we have seen a few RPG-18's here and it seems like everyone has RPG's here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:59:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Must be an army thing, we allow the troops on the scene decide what needs to be fired and when. Seen some 70,000 dollar Javelins used to take out technical vehicles and no one said a word. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:00:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Sorry. Only pic I could find.
 Armbrust 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:01:20 PM EDT
[#13]
40mm 'HEDP' -> Good vs a M113, BTR, BRDM, Stryker or armored truck, etcr... Useless against tanks, close to useless against a modern APC/IFV... 90mm RR & LAW (68mm) -> retired, replaced with AT-4 (Army) & SMAW (USMC, like the AT4 but reloadable, ala Gustav or classic Bazooka/RR) Gustav ~= AT4 (84mm Recoiless, but the AT4 is shoot & toss, of course) RPG-7 -> about equal to the LAW... Varies, as the exposed warhead allows for all kinds of mutations... SA-7 is essentially a mutant RPG turned into a 1st gen MANPADS... RPG-18 (single-shot weapon) -> about equivalent to the AT4 They are best described as 'Anti-Armor' weapons, since they have limited effectiveness against modern (Western) tanks... Any of 'em will fuck up an APC or IFV pretty good... There have been instances where a M1 has taken 30-odd RPG-7 hits and survived to fight again... A lucky hit can get a mobility-kill (read tank can't move, but weapons & turret are still online) on an Abrams or similar... Which leaves whoever just launched that rocket dealing with a very pissed off tank crew... Plus, the range of a 120mm is about 3mi, these rockets are good to 200m or less... If you're up against western (US/UK/DE) armor, you're dealing with the latest in thermal imaging technology, and that tank gunner is likely going to see you, lase you & get a firing solution long before you have a shot... 'HEAT UP! FIRE! (BOOM) ON THE WAY!' So most of the time, tank vs RPG team, the tank wins... NOW, an actual ANTITANK MISSILE like the Javlin, TOW-II, Milan, Kornet, or similar - that's a whole different ballgame - those can definately fuck up a top of the line tank... But they're expensive, and not as widely available as a plain old rocketlauncher like the RPG-7 (which is the one they shoot at US forces in Iraq).... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:07:29 PM EDT
[#14]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:11:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Ahh.....gotcha. For the most part the Dragon is dead, but they are still floating around. And the LAW was brought back last year by the Marines in Fallujah.  But not for 'anti-tank purposes'... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:16:14 PM EDT
[#16]
IIRC, they were using the SMAWs to take down fortified houses thru structural damage... Supposedly, the troops were getting good enough that 3 or 4 well aimed rockets could bring down a good sized building.... Didn't hear anything about the old LAWs being used... Hmm... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:17:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Umm.. no. American tanks are actually some of the lightest-armoured modern tanks when it comes to the turret roof. They used all the weight of steel up front. Challenger 2, some Leopard 2 variants and Merkava IV are probably all contenders for best top armour. There are other top-attack ATGMs in the world, Sweden has the Bill, Israel the Spike, and the TOW-2B from the US, Javelin's main advantage is that it's fire-and-forget, which I believe only Spike competes with. Predator SRAW is worth noting, it's a kind of semi-intelligent rocket. It doesn't so much have a targetting system as much as it just figures out lead from its pre-launch movement, and figures out an intercept point from there. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:19:39 PM EDT
[#18]
I cannot remember if it is an A7 or A8 but we have started to issue them. It has more of a bunker buster warhead and is not as large/bulky as an AT-4 so it is easier to carry and more effective at what we are using them for. The AT-4 just makes a neat hole often when you want to collapse a bunker, etc. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:55:07 PM EDT
[#19]
There were a couple articles, including one or two that were posted here on Arf talking about it. The LAW is smaller/lighter than the AT4 and 3-5 can be carried on a soldier compared to only 1 AT4. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:56:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Do you have any reading material on this? I coulda sworn I read an article last year that had to do with the Javelin and the tanks that had top armor. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 2:17:44 AM EDT
[#21]
More like a unit thing, we certainly don't have any constraints like that. Ammo was made to be used. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 2:46:53 AM EDT
[#22]
The RPG-7 that has plagued us in Iraq is an insidious weapon.
I am very surprised we don't have a comparable - but better - alternative. You can't argue its effectiveness. It's relatively light, very deadly, man portable, armor piercing (not that the insurgency has armor. Well, maybe Hillbilly Armor), and they are cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 3:56:40 AM EDT
[#23]
<<<<< Former Dragon gunner here.
If you have questions about that piece of shit, fire away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 4:19:08 AM EDT
[#24]
Javelin spanking a T-72 video |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 4:46:48 AM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 4:47:06 AM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 5:32:37 AM EDT
[#27]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 5:39:49 AM EDT
[#28]
Kharn |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 5:53:46 AM EDT
[#29]
Motorcityman
You have got to tell me where you get those wonderful toys!!!!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 6:26:34 AM EDT
[#30]
Getting your hand blown off usualy doesn't kill you, but your not going to much else. I think most of the rounds they are using are anti-armor, not ati-personel. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 9:30:38 AM EDT
[#31]
The T-72 in that video was slightly rigged... (Read: They packed it to the gills with explosives). Still, a kill is a kill, even the non-spectacular ones.
Yes, I'm quite sure that M1 has much thinner armour than most up top. Turret roof is about two inches or less, whereas the Swedish variant of Leo 2 has about a foot of spaced armour. For strength, the Israelis deleted the loader's hatch entirely on the Merk IV. The other main difference between Javelin's top-attack profile and other ATGMs is the flight path. Javelin flies up, and dives down on target. Other top-attack ATGMs fly straight and level, a couple of meters above point of aim, and shoot downwards. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage to the Javelin's dive is that it can have a much larger warhead (As there's no angles involved) to help punch through roof armour. The disadvantage is that if the target is hiding under a bridge or some such, Javelin needs to select its 'level flight' attack profile which simply pits its moderately sized (For an ATGM) warhead against the full front armour of the target. Bill and TOW 2B do not have this issue. They have smaller warheads, but can attack the top of a tank even if it is hiding under overhead cover. NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 9:32:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Javalin AT System.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 9:34:23 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 10:00:47 AM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 11:23:48 AM EDT
[#35]
So I'm going to stand by my assertion that the RPG has many shortcomings especially against a force on the level of the US military, but it's CHEAPNESS hides it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 2:07:26 PM EDT
[#36]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 2:10:53 PM EDT
[#37]
I would see this as being more an inditement of the Iraqi's than the weapon system. In skilled hands with the appropriate warheads it could be a good weapon. Especially if they were to come out with improvements for it ie. increased accuracy, better sites, morepowerful warheads, etc. -K |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 2:35:20 PM EDT
[#38]
If I remember correctly, the gunner had to expose himself to the target, at a range of one kilometer or less, for the duration of the missile's flight, up to 30 seconds, after revealing himself to the target with the missile's backblast. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 3:44:20 PM EDT
[#39]
-K If I remember correctly, the gunner had to expose himself to the target, at a range of one kilometer or less, for the duration of the missile's flight, up to 30 seconds, after revealing himself to the target with the missile's backblast. It also has/had a severe mass shift upon fire. It is very easy to drive it into the ground after firing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 4:25:13 PM EDT
[#40]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 4:30:17 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 4:57:18 PM EDT
[#42]
My brother was a Dragon gunner in the Marines from 87-93. He speaks just as highly of them as you seem to :) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 5:02:27 PM EDT
[#43]
This is on par from what my brother told me. Against stationary targets, you had more range. if the target was moving, your range decreased due to manuvering. He also said that the missle was slow. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 5:05:55 PM EDT
[#44]
the dragon is very slow and the launch signature is HUGE! a javelin gunner can launch, dump the tube, and unass his launch site(avoiding return fire) before his missile even hits the target. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 5:57:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Multiply that cheapness to our cheapness. I'll explain. You have an RPG team that is in hiding. Convoy rolls by, four RPG shots 1 hit on a HUMVEE or a gas tanker. How many deaths has that RPG just created? I would not discredit the RPG. We might win the battle but by what cost. 4 or 5 deaths and destruction of an vehical. Compared to an RPG team of maybe 3 to 4 men. 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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 6:13:56 PM EDT
[#46]
I have very limited experience with these types of weapons, but I will share what I've seen. The last AT I went to (I was an 11B in the Guard), we had several dragons to fire off towards the end of the 3 wks. They were taking volunteers to shoot them, but only from E4 and below, and I was an E5. Anyhow, what was mentioned earlier about them going into the dirt (way low, way early) seemed to be true from what I saw. Can't remember how many were fired but it was several and I think only 1 gunner got a hit on the target. We also had 1 or 2 fail to fire and had to call in engineers to dispose of it. The scariest thing that I saw was when one detonated in air at what looked like about 25-35 yds from the tube. Thankfully nobody was injured or killed. No sooner than we saw the backblast, the sonofabitch just blew up in the air. I don't know if they were old rounds or what. Must have been the "X dragon PD" model, LOL
I have fired the AT4 though, and I will say it was probably one of the coolest things I've ever done. The 1st time I ever shot one, I hit a tank at 300m. Without a doubt, the best single round of ammunition I've ever fired  They were a helluva lot louder than I expected them to be. If you're not fully awake when somebody nearby touches one of them bitches off, you'll wake up real quick! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 6:31:33 PM EDT
[#47]
How well (or how poorly) does the SMAW, AT4 and Carl Gustav perform against the latest generation of russian style tanks such as the T80 and other similar sized/armored main battle tanks? TIA |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2005 6:32:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Yeah the AT4's are fun to shoot, I'm javelin qualified and that thing is the cats ass.
Fuck a Dragon though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2005 4:01:44 AM EDT
[#49]
I'm curious about this too. How well do these weapons perform against modern armor? Also, how do our weapons compare to other Western/Eastern weapons? -K |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2005 7:02:15 AM EDT
[#50]
It was not really a POS. Yes it was capable of a one klick shot, a good friend of mine made a eleven hundred yard hit once. I took nine shots and recorded eight hits, I missed my second shot, I was using the night tracker for the first time and sent it right over the top of the target, I was a pretty good gunner some guys were as good some were not, I guess most of the guys would hit 75% of thier shots. It might disable a t-72 if you hit the track thats about it, it would not penatrate its armor, we were instucted to take rear angle engine shots if possable. It would penatrate the soviet block tanks prior to the t- 72. As far as reliabilty , I witnessed well over a hundred live shots I recall maybe three faulty rounds and a couple of hang fires. They were heavy and somewhat awkward to carry, although they come with a sling they were still a pain the ass, but with experience you find a decent carry mode. The only maintenence needed was on the trackers, as the weapon itself was disposable. The night tracker was big and reqiured a lot of tlc, the day tracker was easy to maintain, but we were grunts, if there was a real problem they got sent to some techs to get fixed. The biggest problem with the dragon was the round moved too slow, a anti tank round moving at 100 yards per second just won't work, and it was not "FIRE AND FORGET" with that said, I would not fire one in combat at a tank at a range greater than say 250 yards. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
