Poll- Favorite Light AT Weapon
 

We polled just about every other small arm, why not T2K-era light AT weapons? To define our parameters (and therefore limit the options a bit), "light AT" here means a system that can be carried and operated by one person.

I voted for the only one I've used IRL. :)

Well if we're talking T2K weapons, you just can't go past the PzF-11-1 from the 1st ed heavy weapons book. Light weight, high damage, good penetration, and a respectable blast radius too.
Although depicted on the 2nd ed heavy weapons cover, there's no stats inside the book for it. :(

As for what I've personally used, that's the M72A6 LAW (aka "66" due to the size of the projectile) and 84mm Carl Gustav. Both are a little outdated, but still effective against most likely targets.

The optics and spotting rifle on the SMAW increase chance of hitting
 

The SMAW is a very good system, with good optics and a spotting rifle. Very effective anti armor round. The dual purpose rounds will destroy bunkers/buildings and lighter AFVs. Thermobaric round which would not be available in T2K is pretty awesome.

The LAW is great since they are light. Don't try to engage a modern MBT though.

I am not sure what to vote for this one. I know from first hand experience that the AT-4 sucks. The RPG-7 has some advantages, accuracy is not a soviet strong point. But it works every time almost with out fail, due to the lack of safeties. Unlike the first two, I have never used the LAW, but everyone that I talked with who did loved it. Small lightweight compact and works. So I am leaning RPG or LAW, not sure to what to vote for.

A note on the 84mm Carl Gustav - technically it's a crew served weapon as an individual would struggle to a) carry enough rounds to matter and b) reload quickly. You can pretty much forget about carrying a rifle with it and still be effective in a fight.

When you really, truly have to take out that tank.
 

Other:
The M29/M388 Davy Crockett. Just to be sure.:D

The other point to mention about the Carl Gustav, is that it's a proper multi-purpose weapon, much more so than pretty much every other weapon on offer in the poll.
The Charlie G has HE, HEAT, HEDP, APers, Smoke and Illum rounds available and the training round is a mass of heavy material very well suited for punching in doors or smashing holes in light walls without blowing up or setting fire to everything in sight... and it will seriously mess up anyone hit by it even if they hide behind a car or house wall hehehehe.

It's also not recommended to fire it with a hangover, as we invariably did for some unknown reason.... :p

I almost didn't include the CG in the poll because, of all of the weapons listed, it is the most in need of a loader/ammo carrier. But, since it is so versatile, so venerable, and still so widely used, I figured that it would be irresponsible not to include it.

If I was the designated light AT gunner of my hypothetical T2K party, I think that I would go with the RPG-7. It's not so heavy that I couldn't carry a carbine or SMG as well, and it's ammo would, of all the systems listed, probably be the easiest to find in the field. It's pretty versatile too.

The one shot systems would be preferable if my primary role wasn't AT/fire support.

I'd probably take the CG if I had a designated loader/ammo carrier/local security type to assist me.

The SMAW is also a crew served weapon
 

While I like the SMAW, it is also a crew served weapon. The team normally includes a gunner and team leader. One is armed with a rifle, the other a carbine.

In my opinion, the RPG-7 is much less accurate and reliable then western munitions.

I've seen a lot of malfunctions, duds and 'erratic flight paths from RPG-7s when employed by the Albanian Army, Saddam's Iraqi Army, and the Taliban. Yels, some of those misfires where likely due to training (or lack of it) and the logistics systems (or lack of same). Even in hte hands of the 7th Division of the "New Iraqi Army" which had good training from USMC and Polish Army instructors the RPG seemed to be 'less reliable/accurate'

Yep smile
 

Same fer me m-72 and only at bunkers laugh. er 1968-69

I chose the M72 because I'm lazy and don't like to carry a heavy tube after my ammo is gone. It is not the best one on the list, I would reserve that for the Carl G or RPG-7.

AT-4. It's what I'm used to, though I'm just as proficient with an M72.

Voted M72, but IRL only drove rocket targets!:(

Well, I've been trained on the M202A1, but have only had a chance to fire it twice (Once one rocket only, the next a full clip. Cowhouse IRL up at Hood.)

Am I the only one who thinks the US military should reverse-engineer and improve the RPG-7 for our own use? I know some US company has done it, but no bites from the US military.

Airtronic makes the USA RPG-7 and the Mk 777 there are marketed towards countries with RPG-7 ammo stockpile look for a better launching unit.

Here some pictures of US troops using the weapons

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-7-derivative/

https://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.ht...551818&page=27

Info on the weapons system

http://tonnel-ufo.ru/eanglish/weapon...pg-7-mk777.php

Company Website

http://www.airtronic-usa.com/products/

The U.S. company's variant has a CAR/M4 stock that makes it look "TAPCO'd".

Check out Larry Vickers (Vickers Tactical) YOUTUBE videos with US Special Forces training with several Heavy Weapons Systems. Every SnakeEater Weapon's Specialist is trained in the use of traditional RPG-7 Rocket Launchers now. Larry has some cool videos about Heavy Weapons.

I picked the LAW72 because it is compact and very effective at destroying bunkers and strong points. I have fired two LAWS in my service and they were both reasonably accurate against stationary targets. MBT's would laugh at a LAW.

I also got to fire the first generation M136/AT4. The muzzle blast was ferocious and due to the flat trajectory, it could hit a target at 500 meters if you did your part. The one I fired had a 9mmP "marking cartridge" on the left top side of the launcher. You would fire the 9mm Tracer and if it hit the target, you fired the rocket IMMEDIATELY. I believe later M136 Launchers deleted the 9mmP Marking Rifle, but I'm not sure. I thought the M136 was too big and too heavy for an infantry weapon.

I had the privilege to fire an RPG-7 on two separate occasions. The first time was a "battlefield capture" during Restore Hope. It was a Russian RPG-7 with the original Russian 2.7X optic (PGO?) on it. The rocket was a Russian PG7V HEAT warhead. It had quite a report as well. It sounded like a shotgun blast when you set it off. It was very accurate with the optic (it had windage and ranging STADIA in it). The launcher was also very reliable with its percussion ignition system. I liked that the warhead had a piezo-electric fuse that wouldn't allow the rocket to arm until the rocket motor ignited. The round had a "kicker charge" that shot the round out of the launcher to a range of about 11 meters before the motor engaged and the G-forces armed the fuse. The backblast reached up to 10 meters but the "kicker charge" was violent enough to blow off a limb up to 2 meters behind the launcher. You could burn the back of your legs if you angled the launcher more than 45 degrees upward.
The Second "RPG-7" I handled was during a trip to Iraq where I was providing protection to a local businessman who was doing business with the new Iraqi government. It was much cruder in construction and didn't even have any provision for an optic. It was armed with a captured Iranian "Najaf" round. This launcher had similar characteristics to the earlier RPG-7 but was not nearly as accurate. The "Najaf" round also scared the hell out of me because it had no safety or minimum arming distance. The officer (captain?) giving the demonstration said he had seen them explode when dropped. So much for "state of the art" Iranian hardware.

There was a rep from Bofors at that demonstration who was hawking the M2 Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifle. It was too expensive for the Iraqis, but the Army is equipping our infantry platoons with those bad boys (the Rangers have had them since the 90's). I think this is a good thing. From what I saw, it is a very accurate, powerful AND flexible weapon.

The final weapon system I have some experience with is a practice dummy rifle grenade a friend of mine bought at a gun show. It is steel and fired from any 7.62mm rifle (we have shot it off an SKS, Yugo AK, and FAL) which has a standardized grenade launcher adapter (looks like a flash suppressor) using blanks. I was surprised to find that the Yugo rifles would accept the NATO round using their integral launchers. All you have to do is raise the ladder sight to cut off the gas to their actions. You have to turn the FAL's gas valve to off. It weighs about a pound and had a max range of about 150 meters. The grenade's bulk would be around Bulk 1 for carrying.

I do not know about first generation AT4's but current production ones, are terrible weapons. Every time a unit would go to the life fire range we had to have an EOD team on standby so that when they called us because they had a "Dud" we could get the range open again quickly. It was not really that they have a high dud ratio, it is that they have so many safeties that they do not work well. Their was one AT-4 range that had been shut down for years we were training our company, each day we sent one team out to find and destroy as many AT-4 rockets as they could at the end of the week (seven teams) we destroyed well over 1000 "Dud" rockets.

I hate to break it to you, they probably just told you that to make you feel safe, but the Soviet ones do not have any safeties on them either, not in less you count the cardboard cover over the piezo as a safety. Most Soviet weapons have very few if any safeties.

Guerillas who just stuff the spares in a ruck find out bouncing them ticks off the arming counter and it will blow up when loaded in the launcher. Also most experienced RPG gunners remove the scope, it's easy to get a viscous "scope eye". Told to me by former force recon guys from the Reagan era.

For you very smart types
 

could the M-72 damage a tread enough to cause the said large metal beast to become a pill box?

I would say very likely, but I do not know if it has the ability to do so after penetrating the skirt armor.

Of course the skirts don't cover 100% of the tracks either.

i gotta go with the goose. lets face it there is a round for every occasion even if the thing does weigh more than i do.

Very true, I would say you have a decent chance if it is stopped, and if it is moving a poor chance of hitting the tracks.

My favorite AT weapon is either a concealed anti tank ditch,
or if I don't actually have the time to dig such a ditch than an IED in a place the tank must drive over. (The bottom of a tank is relatively unarmored).
Even if I don't actually penetrate the tank's armor, a mobility kill (breaking the tracks) will probably be good enough for other forces waiting in standby to disable or capture the tank.

Adi

FYI the Army is bringing back the Carl Gustav across the board

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...3-carl-gustav/

".S. Special Operations units, who need portable, lightweight firepower, have been toting the M3 Carl Gustav since 1989. Some regular infantry units in Afghanistan have carried the Carl Gustav since at least 2011, but they had to request and show a need for the weapon to get it. Now, Infantry Brigade Combat Teams in the U.S. Army and National Guard will receive these weapons at a rate of 27 per brigade, or one per platoon of 40 soldiers. "

It's about time!

I agree - it was long overdue - its a lot cheaper to use, still very effective and if you want to bust a bunker its a lot better to use it than something designed to kill a tank

I vote for the LAW72 (or 66 KES 88, as the A6 model is called), as it is the one light anti-tank weapon I have actually fired. Last time I did, I shot the BMP target right in the middle of the turret ring from 150 meters (it was a stationary canvas target and I was using training rocket ordnance, a kind of a dart that makes a handy coat hanger when fired or struck in to a treetrunk).

If a slightly heavier disposable AT weapon of Twilight: 2000 -era was an option, I'd go for the French Apilas (or 112 RKES APILAS as it is locally called). I've fired one of those too and I can tell you, the best way to demonstrate firing it without actually firing is to have three buddies, helmet, protective vest, a pair of entrenching tools and a bucket of sand. The procedure goes as follows:

Wear the helmet and the protective vest. Have two your buddies hit you simutaneously with the ETs (one in the side of the helmet and another around the region of your diaphragm) with the third one pouring the bucket of sand down your neck. It's pretty accurate, really, as with Apilas the rocket ignites right next to your ear. A funny little detail, by the way, is that the weapon comes with a pair of earplugs. It also causes the so-called Apilas Gunner's Rash - it comes from having the edge of your helmet above and not behind the folding face-shield, as well as a bloody nose if you have even the slightest gap between your face and the face-shield.

It's Alive!
 

Based on the new responses on the Favorite APC/IFV thread, I thought a bit of thread necromancy might be in order.

on a side note I found that Carl Gustaf is great fake name to use

The LAW is what I was trained on in Basic and carried the first few years in the Army. Pretty much the entire quad had at least one, if not two or three. I even carried one even though most of the time I was the designated Dragon gunner (most of the units I was with, I was the only C2)

They are small, light, and useful for many purposes. But their performance against anything but light armor or the rear of heavier-armored vehicles suck. That's why the Army replaced them with the AT-4, which was unfortunately bigger and heavier and not as easy for the squad to load up on them. In Desert Storm, we only had four AT-4 gunners (I didn't have one, since I was toting the Dragon, along with an assistant gunner who carried a second round).

As I said, the LAW has a myriad of uses, and a squad can carry an S---load of them. Maybe that's why the Marines are reintroducing improved versions of the LAW,

I do not know anything about the marine improved version, but I know that the Army was issuing them (as replacements for the AT4) before I got out, I have to make the assumption that they had to order new ones as they were the only explosive device that we could not get for training (we could get 16 inch shells, but not M72 Laws) due to they not being in the supply chain. Did that mean that they did not have any, or just so few I do not know.

Favorite Unguided RPG/rocket and an additional question...
 

So first the general question: what's your favorite in-game unguided RPG/rocket system? For me it's an RPG-7 or compatible system. It's not going to kill an MBT but it will do some damage to most of the vehicles and emplacements the PCs will encounter. It beats out the M72 due to the fact it's reloadable and in a European campaign you'd find ammo all over.

My second question is one of doctrine. It seems like in Pact armies RPGs were handed out like candy down to the platoon level. How is/was the situation in NATO armies? Assuming a platoon/squad in Europe at "Good luck you're on your own" was fully kitted out, what would their M72/M136 supply look like? Would just weapons squads have them or would you see rifle squads carrying a few?

Would a rifle squad instead have M79/M203s to deal with emplacements and such?

My players just love M72 LAW. It’s the only antitank weapon they haul around in their games and they are shooting practically everything with it.

In Finnish military they teach using M72 LAW (KES in Finnish) and antitank mines in recruit training. And every unit have antitank mines and LAW: s not just in army but in Navy and Air Force too.

It doesn’t matter where you serve or what you do. Navy quartermaster units have mines and LAW:s. Air Force unit that 300 kilometers from front lines have them too!

In the US Army, the disposable anti-tank weapons (LAW and AT-4) were considered items of ammunition, like hand grenades, and issued according as part of each unit's "basic load", an allocation based on a mix of factors - budget, anticipated mission/threat, available transport, etc. They do not appear on an unit's MTOE (modified table of organization and equipment) and vary from unit to unit, although similar type units would bear a strong resemblance to each other (i.e. a light infantry company with a planned deployment to Korea's basic load would look a lot more like a light infantry company headed to CENTCOM's than it would to a motor transport company in the first company's division). I found reference to LAWs being issued on the basis of 27 per infantry company in the 1960s but by the 90s that probably changed radically. Declassified planning documents describe a goal of 74,000 AT-4s in Europe, 55,000 in Southwest Asia and none in the Pacific for 1992.

M203s (M79s had been retired even from the National Guard by the 90s), on the other hand, were issued two per infantry squad and scattered elsewhere throughout the Army. Assigned dedicated anti-tank weapons were M72 Dragon/Javelin at company-level and TOW at battalion level (plus the TOWs mounted on the Bradleys, of course). By the 80s the LAW was acknowledged as insufficient for anti-tank use, instead being cast as an anti-bunker/BMP system and a last-ditch close-range AT weapon for use from the side/rear.

As for what a unit stepping off on the 2000 summer offensive in Europe would have? Lord knows, it could be anything from any European nation. The production lines for AT-4/LAW would have been shut down for over two years, so the number available would be whatever the GM decides is appropriate...

In T2K Poland circa July of 2000, the easy answer might be, “Anything is better than nothing”!

That said, the RPG-7 in its Soviet/WARPAC form is a pretty good piece of kit for a variety of applications. It’s fairly light, ammo is varied, plentiful and fairly light; as long as you understand weapon/ammo limitations it can be effective against a range of targets. You can even fire an RPG “indirect” against an area target if you’re good enough at math! The three factors against the RPG are: 1. The soft launch characteristics may limit use of certain covered/urban firing positions; 2.crosswind can severely affect the projectiles accuracy; and 3. inexperienced or panicked operators have a tendency to leave the fuse safety cap on causing the round to dud.

The PZF3 is a heavier, less varied (only HEAT, Tandem HEAT, and HESH) RPG. It’s got soft launch, a longer ranged and more accurate projectile made to destroy modern tanks, and it has better human factor engineering (inertial fuse rather than manual cap). That said, the round is heavy and it wasn’t as widespread, with Germany and Italy being the main users in the late 90s. The earlier PZF44 was also fielded, but the lighter ammunition gave effects more akin to an RPG round. If I could sustain it, the PZF3 would be better for fighting tanks and field fortifications than the RPG, especially in a city,

For disposables, the AT4/LAW80 class weapons far outshine the M72/RPG18 in terms of accuracy, target effects, and range. But, they’re heavy and would have been less plentiful than the older and smaller weapons. One AT4 round is going to add a lot to the burden of the carrier; but the M72 is much lighter. It’s not abnormal to see them carried in twos or threes by several members of a patrol for volley firing in an anti armor ambush or against field fortifications.

Basis of issue will vary. By OB, RPG7 type launchers were issued one to every MR, Airborne, and Naval Infantry squad. Scout cars, AT carriers, and recon assault co vehicles all had one per. There were also provisions of armed border troops and internal troops to have them. RPG-18 type weapons seemed prioritized to airborne, naval infantry, and troops in mountains before MR troops. Special purpose and deep recon troops would have access as required.

I’ll caveat on the example of western fielding with a couple of examples.
In training AT4s are one per squad (a rifleman usually has it; the other lucky rifleman carries a SKEDCO and an aid bag) with extra rounds held in tracks or unit trains depending on unit. M72s were envisaged as one per every rifle carrying squad member with extras stored elsewhere. That said both are issued and managed like ammunition.

Anecdotally, a light/airborne/air assault infantry unit fighting without tank support issues and carries as many AT4s as possible. Every combat vehicle in the D Co or AT Plt will usually have at least one strapped to the gunner’s hatch or in reach of the commander for use against hard/“worthwhile” targets. You’ll also see them with the non combat vehicles like the mortars or C2/log elements for firepower or to replenish line units. Two-to-four AT4s is typical for a squad load for offensive ops (pretty much anybody not on a weapons team or carrying a special weapon/equipment) balanced out with demo and grenades. Since they can be used to create a breach and clear the first room, they see a lot of use. Defensively, AT4s can be pre stocked in fighting positions, with others cached nearby. They’re employed as a direct fire weapon on the fire plan and normally integrated into the fire plan to achieve synergistic effects with the MG, SAWs, GLs, and JAV/Dragon.

M72s are a similar concept, but smaller and lighter. Reading up on Grenada, most line platoon Rangers jumped a LAW in addition to their other gear with the airland gun jeeps coming in festooned with them. In operational employment of the law, they can be used as an “every man” weapon, with an entire plt less weapons squad, PL/PSG, and specialists carrying at least one, with 2-3 being common depending on mission and terrain considerations. LAWs don’t have the power of an AT4, so they’re going to be used in multiples a lot of times. They types can even be mixed, with AT4 for houses and walls while the LAW is used for weapons positions and light skins like technicals or cars/trucks.

Supply being equal, ammo issue can vary widely by unit. Some units strictly control it, issuing basic load and no more with crew served ammo, mortar rounds, AT4s, grenades, etc according to policy guidance or oporder. Others have policies like issuing double basic load (in mags or as reloads varies by unit) and a normal minimum allocation by team/squad of AT4s, grenades, etc (“everybody carries a 60mm round, drop it off on your way up”). Anecdotally there are units that have policies that then place the pallets of ammo in the unit area along with a stack of NBC bags, kit bags, straps and 550 so you can “anything after the minimum, help yourself, you're grownups”. Anecdotally, replacements in such units normally show up with duffle bags and rucks crammed with whatever extra ammo, batteries, and consumables was available (or resourced from other units) to take forward.