![]() |
![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Favorite Light AT Weapon | |||
RPG-7 series |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | 14.81% |
RPG-16 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 3.70% |
M72 LAW/RPG-18 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
16 | 29.63% |
Carl Gustav |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
17 | 31.48% |
AT-4W/M136 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 3.70% |
Armbrust |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 1.85% |
SMAW |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
3 | 5.56% |
Panzerfaust 3 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 3.70% |
Other (please specify) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
3 | 5.56% |
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I voted for the only one I've used IRL.
![]()
__________________
![]() |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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 Both are a little outdated, but still effective against most likely targets.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Other:
The M29/M388 Davy Crockett. Just to be sure. ![]()
__________________
"Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's also not recommended to fire it with a hangover, as we invariably did for some unknown reason....
![]()
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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' Last edited by Apache6; 04-05-2016 at 07:50 PM. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Same fer me m-72 and only at bunkers laugh. er 1968-69
__________________
Tis better to do than to do not. Tis better to act than react. Tis better to have a battery of 105's than not. Tis better to see them afor they see you. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/ESTAYLOR Free PDF's and print editions for cheap if you are interested. My bookface: https://www.facebook.com/ericsean.taylor.3 |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
AT-4. It's what I'm used to, though I'm just as proficient with an M72.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Voted M72, but IRL only drove rocket targets!
![]() |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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/
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
could the M-72 damage a tread enough to cause the said large metal beast to become a pill box?
__________________
Tis better to do than to do not. Tis better to act than react. Tis better to have a battery of 105's than not. Tis better to see them afor they see you. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I would say very likely, but I do not know if it has the ability to do so after penetrating the skirt armor.
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Of course the skirts don't cover 100% of the tracks either.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
__________________
the best course of action when all is against you is to slow down and think critically about the situation. this way you are not blindly rushing into an ambush and your mind is doing something useful rather than getting you killed. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. " |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
Tags |
polls |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests) | |
|
|