M-47 Dragon, in the table of organization and equipment

[Combatintman]

58 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

But won't the heavy load exhaust infantry team at a faster rate?  If my memory is correct , in CMBS, a squad will not be able to use "Fast" order after acquire one Javelin launcher and 3 missiles. They will become tired with half minute "quick" movement.       ( one of the solution is to have the squad take launcher and 1 missile, let another team or even the HQ team in the same platoon be the ammo bearer , carry another 2 missiles)

All very well but had the Cold War gone hot you would have seen a battlespace with a sh1t tin of armoured vehicles.  Any infantry unit that didn't have a decent anti-armour capability would have been toast.  As NATO would have been defending, your average infantryman wouldn't have had to move very far, and if they did, they'd get in their APC/AIFV.

[MikeyD]

I believe someone had posted awhile ago that their veteran father once referred to LAW as a 'placebo weapon'. They're of little utility against oncoming T64s but without them the infantryman would feel entirely defenseless, which would be a morale breaker. Dragon was a bit of an engineering nightmare that was unforgiving to inexperienced firers. M72 LAW was point-and-fire simple... but with 1/5th the range.

[The_MonkeyKing]

Well, in the Finnish army LAWs are for killing IFVs. Only to be fired at MBTs if you have the perfect shot(side/rear/top). 

I doubt LAWs were though as designated weapons against MBTs in the 70-80s.

[MikeyD]

M72 LAW was designed around 1963, before the composite armor T64 was a thing. 300mm penetration (A3 version in the game) was far better than the old 'Bazooka', and wasn't that much less than the 152mm Shillelagh's warhead! In our timeframe the Pentagon was charging ahead with a replacement weapon, the 70mm General Dynamics VIPER, which (like many projects around this time) was a disaster with huge cost over-runs that was canceled almost as soon as it was accepted for service. AT-4 didn't show up as a replacement til '87.

Edited April 15, 2021 by MikeyD

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

I believe someone had posted awhile ago that their veteran father once referred to LAW as a 'placebo weapon'. They're of little utility against oncoming T64s but without them the infantryman would feel entirely defenseless, which would be a morale breaker.

Yep, that's what my dad called their infantry portable AT weapons. I do not however know that it was the LAW. He served in the Canadian infantry through out the 60s and into the mid 70s before moving to staff positions for the last half of the 70s and into the 80s

A quick look shows that the LAW was around then but I'm not 100 percent sure if the CF used them from the get go - mind you I couldn't find anything else listed that might have fit the bill.

[sburke]

My experience so far in CW is treat your infantry not too far different than late WW2.  Get yourself positioned for side and rear shots.  And note your range is far superior to WW2 weapons.  Anyone who thinks they can scoff at LAWs and Dragons is gonna be in for a rude awakening.  Definitely not as bad as Javelins but you can still serve up some hurt. BMPs and BTRs are a nice target, especially if their crunchies are still mounted.

As for the Russian side.  ATGM heaven.  I learned to really like the BRDM 2 ATGM variant

[Los]

Agree with Burke

[MikeyD]

Apparently a lot of the recent Dragon picts you find on the web these days aren't actually Dragon but the Iranian 'Saegheh'. Precisely reverse-engineered Dragons right down to the rivet detail. To my eyeballs the only difference I can spot is a slightly more rounded shape to the foam rubber padding at the front of the sight. Otherwise, its a Dragon.

 

 

[MikeyD]

I feel a bit guilty ignoring the Cold War board during the recent Fire and Rubble hubbub. So here's something at random.