Thoughts on the LAW?

>>35051181
I fought the law, the law won.

>>35051181
So you want to add all that shit and still have it be man portable? Why not just downsize a Javelin? Also isn't there some 203 drone missile that may be the new hotness?

>>35051181
>Should we modernize the law so it can take out MBT's?
Already did, it's called the AT4, and it's past time to modernize that.
>Was it for its time?
Yes...but it's been brought back as the a6/7/8/9/10 IIRC, which are HE-only or penetrating HE, thermobarc etc for the Afghan war.
>What are your thoughts on the issue of spent tubes being captured by the enemy and used as booby traps
Retarded officer bullshit.
>Finally, what are the pros and cons of the weapon system in general
It's a good weight and size, very nice. Unfortunately, it's worthless against modern tanks (and probably the new generation of heavier IFVs); but that's what Javelins and TOWs are for.

File: Uusi Kevyt Kertasinko KES 12 - m72a9.jpg (812KB, 2048x1612px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 2048x1612px

>>35051181
>Should we modernize the law so it can take out MBT's?
The thing was just modernized by the Norwegians, the A9, and it now rivals even AT-4 in strength, while still being as compact and lightweight as the originals.

FDF and many other countries are replacing their old M72A5s with these new models now.

>>35051198
The Pike. 40mm HEDP warhead, laser guided, 2km effective range, only 2 pounds. It's more for killing technicals or snipers in qalat windows, not armored vehicles.

File: IMG_3933.gif (793KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 480x360px

BREAKIN THE LAW
BREAKIN THE LAW

>>35051198
>>35051181
>>35051247
so why not make a tank grenade that could be fired from a m203 that is laser guided

>>35051275
For starters, it's hard to make anything Anti-Tank at that size.
Second, laser guidance is easily disturbed.

We already got this thing coming out soon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftDTZChRQw

Reminder that it was so simple that PFC Forrest Gump was given a LAW

>>35051275
Because you'd need micronuclear californium warhead or fucking antimatter for a 40mm to be effective against MBTs

>>35051181
>What are your thoughts on the issue of spent tubes being...
given to your kids so they can destroy hundreds of nazi tanks while playing?
awesome idea, glad my father thought to do it for me.

>>35051743
To be fair he has a higher iq than the average 4channer.

40 years ago they were shit

>>35052220
are they still shit now?

>>35051889
What's to stop a californium LAW?

>>35054516
govt ineptitude and gerrymandering

>>35051181
They should shitcan those, and the AT-4's, and adopt the g'damn RPG system already, or give leg units a couple of Carl-g's per platoon.

>>35054935
The law and the AT-4 are more effective at providing AT weapons to infantry on the squad/platoon. smaller, easy to use (no training dedicated AT men), and especially one man operated (vs RPG, 1 man launcher + 1 man carrying rockets).

>>35055367
The LAW is a piece of shit, and pretty much always has been.

The AT-4 is fucking large enough that you might as well carry a Carl-G or RPG anyways, and dedicated and trained AT gunners are always going to be more effective than some Joe given a piece of shit disposable AT weapon, like a LAW or AT 4.

The Soviets had it right when they adopted the RPG system.

>>35055436
>The Soviets had it right when they adopted the RPG system.
Go look at Russian disposable tubes like the RPG-22 and RPG-26. These small tubes have a definite place in units against APC and IFVs. The US troops for example taking part in the Arrow 16 exercise in Finland were statedly surprised at the sheer amount of AT weaponry available in a Finnish jäger squad, at first causing notable casualties in Stryker units due to SOP more suitable to shitskin fighting.

>>35054935
Pretty sure they do. At4s are by necessity but gustavs and javelins are organic.

>>35055436
>dedicated and trained AT gunners are always going to be more effective than some Joe given a piece of shit disposable AT weapon, like a LAW or AT 4.
Which are at the company level in the HQ/Weapons platoon kept in reserve until needed, how often are infantry fighting tanks? They are more likely to face IFVs/APCs which the AT-4/LAW are adequate. Why carry a huge AT launcher w/ rockets when you can spread out a dozen or two launchers throughout the platoon?
>The Soviets had it right when they adopted the RPG system.
then why did they copy the US and make a disposable rocket launcher then?

We already have a RPG-7 like system too but it doesn't fit US doctrine that well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-Launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M141_Bunker_Defeat_Munition

>>35055503
The fuck out of here with your fake fighting bullshit and get back to me after you've done 3 years of combat against RPG armed enemy with only shitty laws or AT-4's to counter them with outside of designated goose teams.

>>35055507
When I left, the only dudes with goose teams were SOF, and the organic AT weapons among the conventional dudes were solely Javelins.

>>35055572
So you're not talking about the AT capabilities, but of direct fire support for infantry?
Why not mention that in your first post and save the trouble?

>>35055579
CG is now a platoon level asset.

>>35055579
>CG is now a platoon level asset.
Or was it a company level one, I can't recall. Probably in the weapons platoon after all. A little clumsy, but what can you do?

>>35055594
We had one per platoon

>>35055530
>Which are at the company level in the HQ/Weapons platoon...

And attached to platoons the way they should be in any decent unit....

>Why carry a huge AT launcher w/ rockets...

So you can have competent teams capable of employing them in direct fire or airburst mode.

>then why did they copy the US and make a disposable rocket launcher then?

Because they're fucking stupid.

>>35055530
>We already have a RPG-7 like system too but it doesn't fit US doctrine that well.
The Carl Gustav's been put into greater service exactly because the units on the ground require an RPG-7 role equivalent. Some haji sits on a mountain 800m away and shoots HE/FRAG rockets at US units and all they can do is shove their thumbs up their ass, spray some LMG fire and call in support.

>>35055604
Well, that's better. Still not good though, to be honest.

>>35055605
>Because they're fucking stupid.
Disposable launchers work just fine. It gives your unit a lot of light AT capability that can be spread out as necessary.

>>35055572
Okay Nani the fuck are you suppose to counter a RPG armed enemy with "shitty laws" or AT-4s?

>>35055585
>not talking about the AT capabilities, but of direct fire support
No, I'm talking about both, dude.

>CG is now a platoon level asset.
For who? Legs?

Like I said before, when I left the only folks that had Carl-G were SOF, and Regiment attached them to platoons as needed.

>>35054543
Kek

>>35055634
No idea what legs are, infantry?
>Like I said before, when I left the only folks that had Carl-G were SOF, and Regiment attached them to platoons as needed.
Everyone. It's become a part of ordinary TO&E.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a20998/m3-carl-gustav/
>U.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.
>

>we're talking about direct fire support
The M202 fires the same size rocket as the law so get one of those and put some HE/Thermobaric rounds and we are ready to party.

>>35051743
>implying forrest gump wasn't a genius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1retvmzRVn0

>>35055626
>It gives your unit a lot of light AT capability that can be spread out as necessary.

Yea, O.K.. I'll believe that when grunts actually use them to take out armor instead of calling for CAS or using something that actually works well, like the Javelin or Carl-G.

>>35055629
CAS and IDF....same with everything else, unless you have some goose or JAV teams.

>>35055665
They'd be using them when fighting against organized and cohesive mechanized or motorized units. Of course that's not going to happen in a long time, so in the meanwhile the US military will be geared towards fighting low intensity conflicts, so it can be completely fucked in its SOP, doctrine and equipment were a modern war ever start again.

>>35055647
>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.

It's about fucking time.

Gee....that only took fucking 30 years. This is exactly why I tell people not to join the military.

>>35055669
You counter the Rodent Patrol and Guard team with the Council for the Advancement of Standards or with a Internet Defense Force? I still can't visualize what you do with a competitive duck duck goose team or a Japanese Adult Video team in this situation.

>>35055717
Oh I get it now, you are talking about one of those Role Playing Games

>>35055717
If you can't figure it out, then I'm not telling you, and you shouldn't even be in this thread.

>>35051181
>Should we modernize the law so it can take out MBT's?

>66mm
>taking out modern MBTs