AT-4 in action

[Capt. Toleran]

There have been a couple of vids, but this one had one of the best action shots:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d40_1177704642

One thing I've noticed in almost all of the AT-4 vids is that the soldiers seem unprepared for the loudness of the rockets, with all of them either temporarily deafened or feeling like they lost an eardrum. Makes me wonder if they provide any hearing protection with that rocket, even just simple earplugs. Literally 4 different vids I've seen have ended with one of the guys (either firer or observer) commenting they could not hear out of their ear due to the loudness. I haven't heard similar complaints about the RPG.

[Sirocco]

Here's another, of the AT4 CS:

AT4 CS firing demonstrations

[Capt. Toleran]

Here's a testing one (not CS) in the field, soldier not prepared for the sound, and worried about his eardrum being popped:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31f_1176791676

Btw, nice vid Sirocco

[John Kettler]

Capt. Toleran and Sirocco,

Not only is that thing really loud, but it would appear that the reverb effects in games from explosions, unless the audio has been tweaked, are in fact accurately represented. Recently, FutureWeapons showed part of the firing trials for a new version of the AT-4 which can be launched from almost any even modest sized space if there are a few square feet of opening right behind the firer.

The weapon now blows a plume of water mixed with something (forget what) rearward in an almost harmless cloud, allowing firings which would've roasted the firer before. SOFAIK, this model is not yet in service.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The weapon now blows a plume of water mixed with something (forget what) rearward in an almost harmless cloud, allowing firings which would've roasted the firer before. SOFAIK, this model is not yet in service.

I think that's the CS version, and I believe that's saltwater, at least according to the Wiki entry.

[Severin]

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the point of this weapon. I mean assuming the following somehow don't work:

1) Air power

2) Friendly armor

3) Dedicated infantry AT team

4) Those 3 "last resort" Javelin teams your platoon has

What chance does one of these (carried at what? squad level?) have again hostile armor?

[Sirocco]

I think in the current context these weapons have more use hitting strongpoints than armour. You won't always have air support, or friendly armour, to hand, and having a tool that can free up an attack with one big boom has to be priceless at the tactical level.

[John Kettler]

Sirocco,

Now that you mention it, that seems right to me. My memory was so bad all I could remember was water +

something.

Regards,

John Kettler

[flamingknives]

All ATGWs have a minimum range, and the AT4 pre-dates the Javelin.

Plus they cost a couple of orders of magnitude less than a Javelin.

the AT4 HP CS (high penetration, confined space) is in service with the British Army as ILAW (Interim LAW - in-between NLAW and LAW80)

[MikeyD]

"Why use this when the tank is right there? Just curious."

Probably has something to do with the different destructive effective of a big expensive 120mm HEAT round versus a thow-away 85-ish(?) mm round. In the 80s the U.S. almost fielded a lightweight 90mm low-pressure gun to help with infantry support. AT4's about as close as their ever going to get in that regard.

Commenting on the AT4 sound, even the end-users (soldiers) don't seem to realise its a recoilless rife and NOT a rocket launcher. It looks like most AT4 demonstrations posted on YouTube are under the title "Bazooka thingy".

[SgtMuhammed]

They used to tell us that in training. Maybe they quit.

[Morten Poulsen]

I used to fire the swedish Carl-gustav before beeing upgraded to At4(end of cold ware- no more real rounds). I remember it as having the same specifications and rounds/rockets as the AT4 (except from reloads).

I like to add that that with the standard hearing protection 'plugs', it takes a couple of minutes before the ringing goes away.

It's not the sound that get's in your ears but the pressure wave comming from the initial kick-out charge. The shape of the blast wave is designed to give the crew the lowest impact (if you remember to keep your mouth open). Any by-standers are in for the real shock/noise.

I remember that when used from a trench, the safty distance (side way's was 8 meters. To give you all a clue on the force, I remember a firering execise with the old type gas-mask and a winter cold. After the first shot, there was no problems breathing. But looking out the mask, was a big no go .

The real problem in the old days when soldiers was not allowed to carry any sun classes. The problem with the recoilless rockets, was that when the rocket gets 10-20 meters down range the rocket engine ignites. If you was so careless to let go of the sight and try a direct look, you would have sand and dust kicked in your eys.

[flamingknives]

Most western LAW - type weapons burn all of their propellant before they leave the tube. Only the RPGs, guided rockets and miscellaneous other rounds have a sustainer motor.

[Morten Poulsen]

Ahh. yes I see. Having far shorter effective range but better penetrating effectivnes. The new trade off. But yes would I have liked NLAW or similar systems in my times. Them lepards would have keept there distance.

At4: http://products.saabgroup.com/PDBWebNew/GetFile.aspx?PathType=ProductFiles&FileType=Files&Id=4978

CarlGustav Heat: http://products.saabgroup.com/PDBWebNew/GetFile.aspx?PathType=ProductFiles&FileType=Files&Id=4981

NLAW: http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Capabilities/weapon_systems.htm

[flamingknives]

Actually, the tradeoff was typically equivalent range, similar performance but bigger launch signature.

On unguided rockets, aiming in a cross wind is a little easier without the sustainer as the reaction to the wind is more predictable

[mazex]

Originally posted by Severin:

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the point of this weapon. I mean assuming the following somehow don't work:

1) Air power

2) Friendly armor

3) Dedicated infantry AT team

4) Those 3 "last resort" Javelin teams your platoon has

What chance does one of these (carried at what? squad level?) have again hostile armor?

You dont see the point? Look at the image below - it's at the top right part (the AT4 round on the picture is "brown" (ballast loaded) so my wife may sleep safe). And yes - the sound when firing it is shocking for everyone in the vicinity accept the person pulling the trigger (or rather pressing it)...

/Mazex

[Steiner14]

Is the one with the camcorder on drugs? Quite some videos from the US-"Army" show such a childish, civilian kind of behaviour.

No wonder why they get their arse kicked.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Severin:

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the point of this weapon. I mean assuming the following somehow don't work:

1) Air power

2) Friendly armor

3) Dedicated infantry AT team

4) Those 3 "last resort" Javelin teams your platoon has

What chance does one of these (carried at what? squad level?) have again hostile armor?

If you are separating the Javelin then what do you think the "infantry AT team," is using? You can kill enemy armor with the AT4 (I have a buddy that got a Bronze Star with V device for doing just that in Panama) and there is always a need for something that will punch holes in things.

Steiner14,

I wouldn't go there, I don't know how many patrols I went on with Bundeswehr units that seemed to find their way to beer tents.

[MikeyD]

The AT-4 was a replacement for the Vietnm era LAW which REALLY had trouble defeating enemy armor! At the time it was basically the biggest bang you could get and still be reasonably man-portable. The throw-away design is so the squad doesn't have to lug a launcher around with them - the Army recently designed a similar throw-away version of the Marine SMAW 'bazooka' (an actual rocket reapon!).

Interestingly, with holing tanks not applicable in Iraq the U.S. has been reissuing the smaller-lighter old LAW. Who cares if it can't hole a T55 from the front? its 'good enough' for most of the other jobs its called on to do.

[MikeyD]

"...You can kill enemy armor with the AT4..."

Depends on the enemy armor and from what angle. I'd really hate to face a T72 while carrying an AT4. T72's got a multi-core turret front and silica core bow. The Carl Gustave has been upgraded with a big-fat oversize warhead with standoff probe - But I don't know if even that could tackle a T72 head-on.That's why we've spent so much money on overflight profile/downwards firing weapons.

[flamingknives]

Going on the numbers available, the latest AT4s ought to hole a T72 from the front, as long as it doesn't have ERA.

I'm pretty sure that the LAW80 was supposedly good for killing conteporary MBTs over the frontal arc, provided ERA wasn't present. Modern AT4s will get through nearly as much armour.

ERA is the awkward stuff.

[Capt. Toleran]

Steiner, I think the soldiers were laughing more out of irony than glee per se, though I'm sure it was impressive to see that missle shot in person. All that shooting, all their training, a 100k missle gets it done in 1 second, dwarfing their efforts and pointing out the futility of modern combat in one quick burst.

[mazex]

Hmm, an interesting anequdote about the AT4 is that some of them where nicked from a military supply depot by Hells Angels here in Sweden. They where later used in a local "war" between HA and Bandidos... HA where reportedly not pleased with them as anti-personel weapons as the lethal effect is caused by a thin "beam" breaking the armour of a tank and then the heat and over pressure kills everyone inside. When they fired them at the Bandidos HQ one of the bandidos members was killed after a direct hit, but everyone else in the room survived. With to much air and open doors in the room, the effect was not that good obvioulsy. I don't know if the US army has the HEDP version in Iraq? Hells angels only got hold of the HEAT version...

When I did my service some guys at another platoon hit a moose dead on with a ballast loaded round as the one in my picture above. The moose was ripped in two parts... The officer supervising the exercise where the moose passed the firing range was reportedly very lame when he said "No one fire on that moose please..."

/Mazex

[flamingknives]

AFAICT, the lethal mechanism from a shaped charge is not overpressure. Apart from the human body being somewhat more resiliant to blast than most structures as a comparison from first principles, there are numerous accounts of tanks being hit and penetrated, but the crew surviving due to not being in the way of the jet. There was an M1 Abrams KO'd in Iraq by a lucky shot under the turret ring (or a plasma rifle in the 40W range, if you believe Kettler) and the jet crossed the tank, grazing the gunner's body armour and impacting a control box on the far side, which disabled the tank. Other than that, no damage, no injuries.

The lethal mechanism is the jet and associated slug, any spall knocked loose from the interior face of the armour and any energetics the jet happens to hit.

I don't know of anyone using the HEDP AT-4. The US has SMAW varients and the UK is acquiring the Matador for anti-structure work. Incidently, according to the US FMs, the SMAW has a pretty big backblast danger area. Do not fire from inside buildings.