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 Both are a little outdated, but still effective against most likely targets.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!