Poll- Favorite Light AT Weapon

[Olefin]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Tegyrius]

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.

[Raellus]

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?

-

[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.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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?
-

I’ll take a stab. First, I’m going to break the grenades out into two types: low velocity (M203 type) HEDP and high velocity (Mk19 type) HVHEDP. For the US Army they’re the most common 40mm rounds out there. If you’re getting a speedball or 3/5 push, it’s what’s most likely in the package. Both are pretty effective against a wide target set, but the HV is a little easier to hit with and carries further since it’s got more oomph behind it. Neither of them are going to penetrate an MBT’s frontal armor, but they’ll penetrate most light armored vehicles.

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.

[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.

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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?

-

A really lucky series of hits might damage antennae, smoke grenade dischargers, dazzlers, stowage boxes, a coax or possibly foul up a road wheel on an MBT.
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.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbres

A really lucky series of hits might damage antennae, smoke grenade dischargers, dazzlers, stowage boxes, a coax or possibly foul up a road wheel on an MBT.
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.

IF you can set your engagement up, AND you have no other option to hand, a Mk19 with HVHEDP is potent for most targets short of a tank. It’s got the technical capability to achieve an immediate kill on those type of threats.

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.

[Homer]

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.

[Raellus]

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.

-

[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.

[Homer]

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.

[Trooper]

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.

[bash]

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.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by bash

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.

Doctrinally RRs, LAW type weapons, etc. can be used to neutralize threats in the first room in a building, establish a breach (with hesh or point det type warheads), or suppress field fortifications. Some current generation weapons have been fielded with thermobaric, specialized breaching or pass through type warheads for just such a purpose.

If your PCs are facing 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 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.

[HaplessOperator]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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?

-

I used to carry about a baker's dozen and one in the tube anytime I left the wire after I had a 203 issued, and made wildly liberal use of them at every opportunity. They do absolutely horrific things to soft targets on the other side of residential and commercial structural walls, and will eat through a little over two inches of armor-grade steel, to include most aspects of the BMP. Nail a crew position, and you're going to torch and hamburger the person behind that hatch. A lot of those hatches you're talking about have trouble survivng high-angle 7.62x51mm AP fire.

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.