Rearm the American Infantry for WWII.

This is an article about traps and mines. It has nothing to do with anti-tank rockets.
The LAW case was VC scavenged as a battlefield discard and VC reused and repurposed as a man-tripped one time only mine or improvised projectile (grenade) launcher.

It was a favorite Vietnamese improvised expedient. You should give the enemy nothing to use against you, not even a spent howitzer shell propellant cartridge casing. Police your battlefield. Lesson learned.
 
You should give the enemy nothing to use against you
If they are already well supplied with high explosive and detonators, the rest of the trap material is unimportant. No fiberglass tubes, guess what? they will Gilligan's Island some bamboo as a replacement
 
If they are already well supplied with high explosive and detonators, the rest of the trap material is unimportant. No fiberglass tubes, guess what? they will Gilligan's Island some bamboo as a replacement
But the fiberglass tubes save them man-days of work. And if it is used as a grenade dump trap, the fiberglass tube will be re-used. Cannot do that with bamboo. And I point out that in the WWII context it has been suggested that the tube for the equivalent ordnance device would be steel.
 
Last edited:
The LAW case was VC scavenged as a battlefield discard and VC reused and repurposed as a man-tripped one time only mine or improvised projectile (grenade) launcher.

It was a favorite Vietnamese improvised expedient. You should give the enemy nothing to use against you, not even a spent howitzer shell propellant cartridge casing. Police your battlefield. Lesson learned.
Is this your way of saying that you don't like single-shot rocket launchers, and is this your only indictment of single-shot rocket launchers?
 
I do not like inefficient weapons. And it is not my only indictment of the LAW which was ineffective in its primary tank killer role.
No man-portable ATRL has ever been particularly effective against tanks. The point has always been self-defense against tanks by breaking tracks and engines or damaging optics and guns. The infantry kill tanks with AT guns, recoilless rifles and guns, or ATGMs, depending on the time period. As far as squad-level ATRLs go, few designs, if any, have prompted the kind of global mimicry and incessant modification and upgrading as the LAW. It's inexpensive, lightweight, effective against light armored vehicles, and it can give the infantry a way to delay MBTs until real AT units show up. I wouldn't bash the gun on a Bradley because it can't get through a T-72's frontal armor, because that's not the point. In the real world, the Bradleys killed T-72s with missiles, just like how basically every army that used LAWs had a heavier anti-tank weapon that could reliably defeat a tank's frontal armor.
 
now let's look at what slr's nations adopted during the interwar period
All the weapons above, were never universally adopted. All had problems, with weight, reliability, length and overly complex.

In WW2 they were given to special tr

None would have made the ordinance board weight limit, and that technically included the M1 Garand.

Post war, none of the big three, (FAL, G3 & M14) would past the weight test.

Remember FAL was designed for 7.92x33mm
 
The LAW case was VC scavenged as a battlefield discard and VC reused and repurposed as a man-tripped one time only mine or improvised projectile (grenade) launcher.

It was a favorite Vietnamese improvised expedient. You should give the enemy nothing to use against you, not even a spent howitzer shell propellant cartridge casing. Police your battlefield. Lesson learned.
They used anything and everything

Including coke cans as booby traps

You crush or shoot the tube after use.

“police your battlefield”.
Yer we call 911 afterwards
 
They used anything and everything

Including coke cans as booby traps

You crush or shoot the tube after use.

“police your battlefield”.
Yer we call 911 afterwards
It applies to WW II as a potential lesson learned, so lets address in WWII terms.

If you use combustible case cartridged howitzer shells (cardboard and Wellin breach plug) and no-throwaway reusable rocket launcher tubes (Kind of like a Russian style RPG, preferably.), then the enemy has no-ready made pre-sized and engineered to his specific use improvised explosive or mechanical booby trap parts you left behind in your retreat to scavenge off you as he now retreats from you during the Battle of the Bulge.

And he will be the one yelling "medic", instead of you because of it, due to your superior battlefield acumen and hygiene. Police after yourself. No-one else will do it for you as well, or has as much incentive. Good soldiering demands such good housekeeping.
 
Last edited:
No man-portable ATRL has ever been particularly effective against tanks. The point has always been self-defense against tanks by breaking tracks and engines or damaging optics and guns. The infantry kill tanks with AT guns, recoilless rifles and guns, or ATGMs, depending on the time period. As far as squad-level ATRLs go, few designs, if any, have prompted the kind of global mimicry and incessant modification and upgrading as the LAW. It's inexpensive, lightweight, effective against light armored vehicles, and it can give the infantry a way to delay MBTs until real AT units show up. I wouldn't bash the gun on a Bradley because it can't get through a T-72's frontal armor, because that's not the point. In the real world, the Bradleys killed T-72s with missiles, just like how basically every army that used LAWs had a heavier anti-tank weapon that could reliably defeat a tank's frontal armor.
1. Depends on user training, type of AT weapon and the tank infantry team against which it, the AT weapon, is used.
2. Mobility kill is asking for point aim out of a rocket system. That means pure dumb luck and a brave user or an engine hit by same user into the back of the tank.
3. RPGs are also mimicked. See 1 and especially 2.
4. The gun on a Bradley CAN get through a T-72's armor package from the rear. Refer to 2.
 
1. Depends on user training, type of AT weapon and the tank infantry team against which it, the AT weapon, is used.
2. Mobility kill is asking for point aim out of a rocket system. That means pure dumb luck and a brave user or an engine hit by same user into the back of the tank.
3. RPGs are also mimicked. See 1 and especially 2.
4. The gun on a Bradley CAN get through a T-72's armor package from the rear. Refer to 2.
1. It's purely a question of technical characteristics. There is only so much armor a 1 kg HEAT warhead can go through, and after-armor effects are going to be anemic compared to something larger.
2. Components vulnerable to an M-kill or F-kill make up a very large proportion of the profile of a tank, so they are likely to be the point of impact of any successful hit.
3. RPGs and M/48s are a different class of weapon. They are much heavier than M72s and still struggle against tank armor.
4. An M72 can also hurt a T-72 with a hit to the rear.
 
1. It's purely a question of technical characteristics. There is only so much armor a 1 kg HEAT warhead can go through, and after-armor effects are going to be anemic compared to something larger.
2. Components vulnerable to an M-kill or F-kill make up a very large proportion of the profile of a tank, so they are likely to be the point of impact of any successful hit.
3. RPGs and M/48s are a different class of weapon. They are much heavier than M72s and still struggle against tank armor.
4. An M72 can also hurt a T-72 with a hit to the rear.
Which is why the portable infantry AT weapon is one intended for the 6 o'clock follies. Otherwise, use a tank.


Self-explanatory.
 
One can goes off the patrol scatterswith unexploded cans to be cleared later. A dozen grenades dump and half the patrol dies.

This is rocket science at the grunt level.
The IRA manufactured home made RPGs with a bit of drainpipe and two packets of digestive biscuits and you really think the biggest issue with LAW type weapons is that the Viet Cong could use the tube to make IEDs?
 
1. Depends on user training, type of AT weapon and the tank infantry team against which it, the AT weapon, is used.
2. Mobility kill is asking for point aim out of a rocket system. That means pure dumb luck and a brave user or an engine hit by same user into the back of the tank.
3. RPGs are also mimicked. See 1 and especially 2.
4. The gun on a Bradley CAN get through a T-72's armor package from the rear. Refer to 2.
I mean the answer isn't disposable rocket launchers or reloadable rocket launchers. It's good to have both in your overall arsenal and both function best for different roles.

I mean the Soviets/Russians themselves adopted disposable rocket launchers themselves. It's something that virtually every country more heavily armed then Costa Rica has somewhere in their military arsenals.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No man-portable ATRL has ever been particularly effective against tanks. The point has always been self-defense against tanks by breaking tracks and engines or damaging optics and guns. The infantry kill tanks with AT guns, recoilless rifles and guns, or ATGMs, depending on the time period. As far as squad-level ATRLs go, few designs, if any, have prompted the kind of global mimicry and incessant modification and upgrading as the LAW. It's inexpensive, lightweight, effective against light armored vehicles, and it can give the infantry a way to delay MBTs until real AT units show up. I wouldn't bash the gun on a Bradley because it can't get through a T-72's frontal armor, because that's not the point. In the real world, the Bradleys killed T-72s with missiles, just like how basically every army that used LAWs had a heavier anti-tank weapon that could reliably defeat a tank's frontal armor.
Uh,

Some guy named Carl is on Line Two. Says he want's a word. Something about a Corvette?

Didn't realize your were a car guy.
 
Last edited:
Which is why the portable infantry AT weapon is one intended for the 6 o'clock follies. Otherwise, use a tank.


Self-explanatory.
This video helps explain why the point of infantry tank defense is not to destroy the tank with a huge AT gun or missile but to degrade the tank's combat capability, which doesn't require direct armor penetration (or even specialized anti-tank weapons).
I mean the answer isn't disposable rocket launchers or reloadable rocket launchers. It's good to have both in your overall arsenal and both function best for different roles.

I mean the Soviets/Russians themselves adopted disposable rocket launchers themselves. It's something that virtually every country more heavily armed then Costa Rica has somewhere in their military arsenals.
Soviet motor rifle units carried RPG-7s for specialized grenadiers and then enough RPG-18s (basically the Soviet copy of the M72) to give every other soldier one.
Uh,

Some guy named Carl is on Line Two. Says he want's a word. Something about a Corvette?

Didn't realize your were a car guy.
The M2 Gustav literally weighs as much as six or seven M72s. It was very much a platoon- or company-level AT weapon, definitely not comparable to the M72. The newer models are much lighter and more similar in weight and bulk to the RPG, Russian motor rifle units don't have the separate weapons squads and platoons at the platoon and company level, so they incorporate somewhat heavier AT equipment at the squad level. Regardless, the RPG and Gustav are designed for different roles than the M72, so their AT capability should not be compared without proper context.
 
Top