Poll- Favorite Light AT Weapon

[Raellus]

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.

[Targan]

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

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by Targan

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

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

[Blink_Dog]

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

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

[.45cultist]

Voted M72, but IRL only drove rocket targets!

[Legbreaker]

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 Both are a little outdated, but still effective against most likely targets.

[Apache6]

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.

[CDAT]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[WallShadow]

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

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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.

[Medic]

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.

[Raellus]

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

[rcaf_777]

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

[pmulcahy11b]

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,

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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,

When I shot LAW 72 target was stationary T-54 tank. I estimated that distance was 100 meters. Shot barely hit tank in lower hull. Only couple inches lower and it would have been miss.

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.

[bash]

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?

[Trooper]

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!

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by bash

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?

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...

[Homer]

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.

[Ursus Maior]

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.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

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.

The Carl Gustaf is a great piece of kit. PZF 3 and its over caliber warhead is a better armor penetrator, but nothing touches The Goose for variety of munitions; versatility, and volume of fire. A good crew can keep up sustained fire against a position to support maneuver, shoot smoke, or provide accurate fire against point targets on the objective using bunker defeat, enhanced explosive, or plain old HEDP. Defensively, it can shoot an effective APERS round (was just flèchette but there’s also an airburst multi-projectile and and I’ve heard canister is in rdt&e), provide illum, and use a soft launch or HEAT-RAP (AT-4 type) round against most armor short of an MBT. It is heavier than other systems, but nothing is free!

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.

[Raellus]

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.

-

[bash]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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, and both types were starting to be supplemented/replaced by the disposable RPG-18 [M72 LAW clone], and even more capable Soviet LAWs were being introduced 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.

-

I'm fine merging the threads. I've found the doctrinal discussion super informative so getting that into the older thread would be cool.

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by Homer

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. no soft launch limits use of 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 interns 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.

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/Flaggin.

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” weapons, 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 in 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.

In middle/late Cold War period, ADA had M72 LAW's as part of the basic load out if they were division maneuver units. Unsure about Corps level assets.
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.