|
Just read a dossier on a Danish combined arms battalion (infantry heavy) around 1985. They were suppsed to be using M72 LAW akin to US forces, handing them out to platoons in a rather leisure way. The rest of their equipment was subpar, compared to larger NATO countries, but that's a different story.
It's sturdy and the M3 comes in at 10 kg, so it's reasonably handy for its fire power. Also, ammunition is compact and can be distributed among the members of a team, squad or group. I favor the Panzerfaust 3, but I think I'd really appreciate to have a Carl Gustaf in 2000. Ammunition is easier to produce. Blueprints for about a dozen warheads are available, covering every aspect of direct fire support. It even comes with a flechette round. |
This is kind of nit-picky, but 4e makes the RPG-16, which was pretty much only issued to VDV troops, ubiquitous. Every random encounter that includes a Soviet light AT weapon specifies that it is an RPG-16. In reality, the RPG-17 was MUCH more widely issued/fielded than the RPG-16. Furthermore, both types were being supplemented/replaced by the disposable RPG-18 [M72 LAW clone], and more capable Soviet LAW's were entering Red Army service when the Cold War ended.
I can merge this thread with the Favorite Light Anti-tank Weapon poll thread, if you like. https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....favorite+light Let me know. - |
Quote:
|
After reading this War is Boring article and a pretty good thread over on Lightfighter, I've been taking a fresh look at rifle grenades. Absent a house rule, they still require skill point investment in Heavy Weapons (v2.0) or Grenade Launcher (v2.2), but I think there's something to be said for a light anti-armor/anti-cover weapon that is compact, doesn't require a separate launch tube, and can be salvoed by a whole squad. Mechanically, Penetration 30C isn't nearly as good as even a LAW's 55C, but that'll still do unpleasant things to a soft-skinned vehicle and have some effect on most AFVs with a side or rear hit.
- C. |
It's kind of an unguided AT round...
I hope this isn't off topic, but does anyone here have any first-hand experience with 40mm HEDP rounds? Like, have you seen what kind of damage it can produce?
Against the armor of a typical MBT, I assume it would do little substantive damage, but against lighter armor- say, that of a BTR, for example- what kind of damage could 40mm HEDP do? I've always imagined that unless hit hits a crewman's station, weapon, or critical automotive component, the light AFV would be still able to continue normal operations (although non-critical hit could, I suppose, still cause the crew to panic and withdraw). Am I underestimating the effect of 40mm HEDP? - |
Quote:
One thing that may happen, regardless of system, is the replacement of manportable ATGMs in infantry units with RR type weapons, or the adoption of an arms room concept where a weapons squad or platoon maintains ATGMs and RRs for use as appropriate. This has already happened in OTL, with weapons platoons in some units maintaining the Javelin and the M3 for use as mission dictates. In other units, the Javelin has been temporarily replaced with the M3 due to cost of Javelin rounds, volume of fire advantages, and lack of a requirement for heavy armor defeat. Where available, disposable AT weapons still have a place supplementing RR or ATGM fire. Some armies, for example the British Army, did maintain the Carl Gustaf as a squad weapon. Not sure how this worked, but at the platoon level it’s very effective as a support weapon along with tripod mounted MGs. |
Quote:
HEDP is good for penetrating walls, car bodies, light armor, etc. They’ll create spall in addition to the dissipation effects of the shaped charge if they hit masonry or armor. Probably not a catastrophic vehicle kill off a single round unless it hits fuel or ammo, but personnel casualties, equipment damage, or a mobility kill (they will crack a road wheel or split an engine block). A roof hit will do a pretty good job of shredding an MTLB troop compartment. It’ll penetrate a BMP1 or 2/BTR/BRDM class vehicle from any angle and the top and rear of a T-54/55. HVHEDP is similar, except it’s normally a 3-5 round killing burst instead of a single round coming in. It’s got much longer range, higher rate of fire, and a higher muzzle velocity so you have much better chance against short range movers, unlike with the 203. Mk19 fire that hits will kill a soft skin or BMP/BTR/BRDM from any angle and will achieve penetration on some MBTs from side/rear/top. Against a 2S1 a representative burst to the front will destroy engine, running gear, and drivers compartment. Another capability the Mk19 (and most auto cannons) have is breaching and destroying cover. Against masonry or concrete a spiral or “Z” pattern will cause enough damage to collapse the wall. This can create a breach or expose enemy positions for other weapon systems (when supporting a rifle platoon, for example). Burst from a Mk19 firing HVHEDP can also be used to cut or blow down vegetation to expose enemy positions in a tree line, for example. |
Quote:
It was envisioned in doctrine that the M72 would be deployed in volley fire (5 fired simultaneously) at side or rear of armor. Norway apparently manufactured the M72 LAW under license with Bardufoss manufacturing them. In my view for both real life and the T2K world the LAW by the late 1980's was not ideal but definitely better than nothing. Your mileage may vary considerably. My bet is in the T2K world that would definitely be the case. |
Quote:
They would be much more useful against BTR's or possibly BMP's-the caveat being the BMP would have a much longer reach to engage you. I'd rather not face down a BTR 60 or BTR 70 with 40 mm but it would be better than nothing. |
Quote:
The ideal engagement would be something like a close (about 600m) shot from a stationary platform against a stationary target with accurate range data fired off a zeroed t&e with tactical surprise. Followed by an immediate repositioning while your wingman does the same thing and the 7.62 gunners suppress any dismounts who escaped. Start changing variables and things get iffy rather quickly. One of the disadvantages of the vehicle platforms in the mid-90s was a lack of armor and optics for the gunner. With the exception of the AAAV, the mounts mainly consisted of a pintle or tripod using either the Mk64 (hard; more common) or Mk93 (soft; less common) mounts. Both mounts could be used with a t&e; freegunning could be problematic since there was no tracer to correct with and the time of flight was so long. The Mk93 was more complex to install and maintain because it was buffered, but gave better results for accuracy during sustained fire. Also, the Mk64 required adapter plates to step down from Mk19 to .50 cal (one more thing to misplace in the connex!). Either way, the gunner was exposed from at least the navel up (like the 1st Ed. box art) with only their trusty PASGT vest to protect them from shrapnel, small arms to KPV fire, or the 3000m ranged 2A42 with HE ammo. Optics wise, the TVS5 image intensifier (from the cover of the 1st ED US vehicle guide!) was the NVD for the Mk19, and once boresighted and zeroed it was… ok. Ideally you coordinated your fire with an ILLUM mission or a 203 grenadier shooting ILLUM. The trajectory of the Mk19 made laser aiming lights impracticable until the adjustable sight bracket was fielded in the latter part of the 90s along with the picatinny rail MWO on the feedtray cover (it came in about the time rail madness started, so if you use rails in your game, it’s there). If you didn’t have optics, you used the tangent or battle sights and burst on target adjustment (sensing rounds until on, then killing burst). It was quick, and accurate if you knew or could estimate range to target (deliberate engagement drill included dismounted observer with a laser range finder if time permitted). Whenever possible you tried to set up known ranges in your position (trp markers or just landmarks). OTL, one of the issues common to the 203 and Mk19 was the dud rate of explosive and TPT munitions and the lack of MILES replication. The dud rate restricted use of explosive or TPT in training to hard targets, baseline ranges or the occasional range with offset targets and dud areas designed into them. So no real use as a maneuver support weapon or in a live fire training with service ammo. There is a solid nose TP round, but as it’s almost impossible to sense and gives no effects it was likewise in limited use. Likewise with MILES; since there are no blanks or Hoffman type devices, the Mk19 was generally replaced with a .50 cal during force on force training. If it was retained, it was adjudicated with the O/Cs god gun, which was exceptionally unrealistic. Even ranges like White Sands, and Udari put the ixnay on maneuver live fire with the mk 19. Hope this helps. |
If I had to carry it, I’d take the LAW. It’s light, you can carry multiples for the weight of a single of other disposables; even the new ones are questionable on a tank, but they’re plenty useful for other targets and light enough to make volley fire practicable; and even when fired the tube is still useful for other purposes.
If I had enough of a force to have a support and maneuver element, I’d go with the Carl Gustaf. I’d want enough guys to hump extra rounds since there’s a max of about 8 that the team can carry along with the Goose. Combined with a belt fed MMG team you can engage a range of targets, support maneuver, and maintain a more effective volume of fire than with AT4s or other disposables. |
RPG-7 FTW
If it hasn't already been mentioned, there are a couple of ammo types available for the RPG-7. In addition to two types of HEAT rounds (single and tandem charge), there's a fragmentation anti-personnel rocket, and a thermobaric round.
I think the RPG is probably the best all-around weapon of its type. It combines the light weight of the M72 LAW and the reloadability and versatility of the Carl Gustav. It's light enough for one operator to carry both it and a pack of several reloads, it's reusable, there are a few rocket types it can employ, and reloads would be relatively plentiful (compared to say, a Panzerfaust 3) in the T2kU, given the system's simplicity and ubiquity. - |
Quote:
Distance was 125 meters. LAW rocket doesn’t have flat trajectory and its very easy to miss target if you don’t know exact distance. Antitank NCO told me that for basic grunt its pretty ok if you can hit stationery tank ranges less than 100 meters. Idea is to use mines to stop tanks and then finish them with LAW. Antitank troops use Apilas. It packs larger warhead. Flat trajectory and faster rocket mean more range and its easier to hit moving targets. On downside Apilas is bulky weapon that weights 11 kilos. |
On the bright side (for NATO) the RPG7 flip up sights are pretty rudimentary, requiring good range estimation, leading the target, and an ability to read the wind and remember that the projectile turns into the crosswind. BOT using the tracer element in the round is the best method suggested by exploited manuals.
The optical sight is better, since it has a range stadia and a crosswind/lead adjustment scale. That said, field tested hit probability against a static target at 300m (around 1 second time of flight) battle sight range is about 30%, improving to 50% on the second shot. Past 300m the tested first round hit probability declines sharply, while it increases by about a third for every 100m closer than 300m. Moving targets present a severe challenge past 300m and were found practicable within 100m during testing. Even with a hit exploited materials and operational experience suggest the RPG7 requires multiple hits to defeat a tank type target; the first hit to halt the target and the remainder to achieve sufficient damage to the target. Still, good piece of kit in trained hands with modern munitions and quality control. And the rounds are as common as ak rounds in most of the world’s garden spots. |
If you want extra dose of realism in your games, I highly recommend Gordon Rotmanns: The Rocket Propelled Grenade. Book is filled with information about soviet/russian launchers. You can get good understanding how RPGs have been used in Vietnam, Afghanistan or in Iraq.
There is also information on how to counter RPG threat to fortifications, vehicles and tanks. During last five decades many armies have developed tactics to deal with RPG threat. If you serve in armed forces or in reserves you should read this book. It gave me clear understanding that some fortifications we currently use in Finland are not RPG proof structures and Rotmann gave several ideas how improve those fortifications. |
Watching more than a few videos of urban combat in Ukraine (in Bakhmut especially) it's been interesting watching RPGs in action. Not to minimize the actual fighting there but the use of RPGs has mirrored how I've used/seen them used in T2K. The bad guys are holed in something/somewhere resistant to small arms. Out comes the RPG to soften them up so the good guys can get unpinned. The RPG operator takes cover to reload and then takes more shots as needed.
Prior to that I'd mostly only ever seen videos of them used by insurgent types. The insurgent uses seemed a lot more uncontrolled or inaccurate. Like if someone handed me an RPG and told me to shoot it at an oncoming tank. The results would not be impressive. Not to say insurgents never effectively use RPGs, it's just been interesting to see so much footage of what seems like effective use of them. |
Quote:
If your PCs are facing off with a group that doesn’t have a tank, CEV, or SP gun in support, you can use shoulder fired weapons teams “opening” buildings and strongpoints to allow the enemy to put a little pressure on them. Volley fired RPGs or RRs lobbed into the PCs “rear area” and detonating on salvage or time fuses are also a useful way to model these weapons besides the standard “jihad jundi” style direct fire. |
All the time and twice on Sundays.
Quote:
I had a fresh BMP dragged out from the boneyard just about every fourth time I took the platoon to the gunnery range (had plenty in stock) and you would not believe how little it takes to punch clean through one. Same thing with BTRs. We collectively spent about 50 years lying to ourselves about what Russian hardware can survive.* Kicker is that the way they're arranged, and with the absurd quantity of ammunition the things have in them, and where it's stored, you're more likely than not to ignite the fuel and detonate ammo hitting one basically anywhere except dead on from the front, but a LAW is going to fry the driver anyway. *Seriously, you can eat the things alive with .50 AP from most aspects, to include the turret, and that's not even looking at Mk211 Raufoss, or firing a long burst from a Mk19 at one; it looks like going at a can of Coke with a pen knife. AT-4s punch fairly vicious holes in the things, and would probably be a guaranteed brew-up if you hit anything but the tracks. They DO NOT build these things sturdy. And don't get me started on the monkey model claims. The Ukes smoked a home guard T-80 with a C-G, and they've been logging kills on T-90s with volley-fired AT-4s for the past two years. The "upgrades" as compared to export models for their tanks with regards to survivability are largely limited to a thin layer of polycarb and fiberglass placards in the turret and glacis, and with slightly improved skirts, IIRC. A lot gets made of the indigenous version's "composite armor," but it's nothing that makes a functional difference against even last-generation warheads. |
It's not really a light antiarmor weapon, but I loved the Dragon ATGM. It's light for a missile.
I'd love to get another combat shot with a Dragon just to see if I can do better. |
You can't just leave us hanging.
Quote:
|
Quote:
I was standing in a ditch when I fired. That probably led to Unintentional Grounding -- when you're not in a solid seated firing position, the sudden loss of weight on your shoulder when the missile leaves the tube can cause your shoulder to suddenly rise a little -- and the missile flies into the ground, or into the suspension in my shot's case. |
What about AT mines? Would they count as a light AT weapon?
Has anyone used them in their games? I imagine in real life they are fairy common? |
Sort of but not really.
Quote:
In real life, no, not so much. Mines aren't exactly common to begin with, and are generally handled by your brigade's or regiment's combat engineering component. They also don't get used all that often, since they're generally part of a fairly narrow use-case defensive policy, and if the brigade is functioning anywhere remotely normally, it's not exactly sitting in one spot and simply waiting for a hostile mechanized force to drive through them as they xlcede ground, mining the hell out of an area isn't going to do much more than create a hazard to your own forces and follow-on forces in addition to generating additional work and man-hours in de-mining the things. We also don't really keep all that many manually-emplaced mines in inventory these days, on top of AT mines being heavy as hell; the M19s weigh almost as much as an AT4. Last bit is that the ou don't generally just want anti-tank mines; their placement generally requires its own field of anti-personnel measures to keep the anti-tank mines from being disturbed. Closest thing to a mine that most infantry ever see are Claymores. |
Quote:
I wouldn’t call mines, wire, and obstacles AT weapons so much as I’d call them effects multipliers. You can use them to enhance the effects of other weapons systems quite well, and use them to help create space and time when overwatched. Some ways you can use mines,etc. 1. Place a tilt rod AT mine in a ford so the rod is below the water’s surface. First vehicle through runs over the mine, ford is blocked. If the enemy is doing their drills and clearing the fort with dismounts first, you’ve probably lost the mine, but they have to slow down and perform a dismounted clear. This gives an observer a fairly stationary troop target to call for fire on, and their force time to maneuver or reposition. 2. Put frat fencing or markers on every minefield you lay. Pretty soon the enemy starts to associate this as a signature of a minefield. With some barbed wire, pickets, and a few concrete dummies you can create a turning obstacle that will give you flank shots or force them to breach a dummy. 3. Bury a single magnetic AT mine in an elevated or ditched in section of road. You get a mine strike and a stationary, linear target stacked up behind it or the find it and dismount to clear. Hedge your bets on that with toe poppers or IEDs to the side where the infantry will move. 4. Use bounding type mines on the defense in ruins by mining the best passages for foot use. Put the mine on the enemy side of the passage to hit anyone bunched up waiting to go through the gap. 5. Put an AT mine or a dummy around the bend of a road so the lead vehicle won’t see it until they’re almost on it. Then, site a claymore to cover it. The enemy will likely try to blow it in place or grapnel it so as to avoid any anti handling devices. Use the claymore to remove those people. 6. The party is being pursued by a larger force. A pursuit deterrence mine, tripwire fused claymore, or even a hastily emplaned toepopper or Elsie mine will disrupt that pursuit and give time to get further away or set an ambush for the pursuers. Just one mine is usually enough to make people start looking for others. Those are just a few ways your party could use mines in a small scale. My take in things is that mines would see increasing use in T2K as mobile warfare slows down and cantonments and fortifications emerge. Mines offer a relatively low cost way to maximize the effectiveness of the remaining direct fire weapons and artillery. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.