RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

View Poll Results: Favorite Light AT Weapon
RPG-7 series 6 13.04%
RPG-16 2 4.35%
M72 LAW/RPG-18 13 28.26%
Carl Gustav 16 34.78%
AT-4W/M136 2 4.35%
Armbrust 1 2.17%
SMAW 1 2.17%
Panzerfaust 3 2 4.35%
Other (please specify) 3 6.52%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-25-2016, 02:38 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,521
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-15-2016, 10:44 AM
Medic's Avatar
Medic Medic is offline
Resident Medic, Crazy Finn
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: In the cold north called Finland
Posts: 265
Default

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.
__________________
"Listen to me, nugget, and listen good. Don't go poppin' your head out like that, unless you want it shot off. And if you do get it shot off, make sure you're dead, because if you ain't, guess who's gotta drag your sorry ass off the field? Were short on everything, so the only painkiller I have comes in 9mm doses. Now get the hell out of my foxhole!" - an unknown medic somewhere, 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-13-2020, 10:41 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,796
Default 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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-25-2020, 08:37 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,020
Default

on a side note I found that Carl Gustaf is great fake name to use
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-25-2020, 11:19 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,968
Default

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,
__________________
My reality check bounced,

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-25-2020, 01:02 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.