Use of ATGM

[flamingknives]

Some M72s are being issued, but they are by no means standard. I think that the M136 is more plentiful, and Talley are making M141s for the Army, which are specifically for taking out structures etc.

There is potential for an updated M72, but not on issue right at the moment.

[aka_tom_w]

M141 link here web page

-tom w

[flamingknives]

www.talleyds.com for the people who make it.

Production is underway again - the Global security site is a bit old.

[MikeyD]

I understand M72 LAW was phased out due to its poor penetration perfomance in Vietnam (despite its claimed ability to pierce a foot of steel). The U.S. wanted significantly more penetration and significantly more behind-armor-effect than they were getting with the littleM72. The AT-4 replacement was much bigger - and used Carl Gustaf rifled recoilless gun technology instead of rocket motor, which helped with accuracy.

[akd]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I understand M72 LAW was phased out due to its poor penetration perfomance in Vietnam (despite its claimed ability to pierce a foot of steel). The U.S. wanted significantly more penetration and significantly more behind-armor-effect than they were getting with the littleM72. The AT-4 replacement was much bigger - and used Carl Gustaf rifled recoilless gun technology instead of rocket motor, which helped with accuracy.

The idea is to reissue stored M72s with "enhanced blast" warheads, but I'm not sure if this is going forward or not.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I understand M72 LAW was phased out due to its poor penetration perfomance in Vietnam (despite its claimed ability to pierce a foot of steel). The U.S. wanted significantly more penetration and significantly more behind-armor-effect than they were getting with the littleM72. The AT-4 replacement was much bigger - and used Carl Gustaf rifled recoilless gun technology instead of rocket motor, which helped with accuracy.

Eh? The AT-4 is a rocket launcher, although, as with every American type since the Bazooka, the rocket burns out completely before the projectile leaves the tube. The AT-4 (M136) has better range and better penetration gained by having a larger calibre.

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Less expensive or not I doubt a XM25 round can be put in a window first time at a range of 1,000m, or if it can they have improved it out of all recognition since last i looked at it.

Of course 1000 is outside the range of a normal small arm, but that works the same in reverse. The enemy sniper was at best using a Druganov, and was proabably well under 500m. The problem was his angle. He was something like 6 stories in the air behind a raised wall around the edge of the building. Firing back at him with small arms was simply not effective. Firing back at him with airburst 40mm rounds would have been. No need for ATGMs or UAVs.

Remember, the more specialized the solution the less likely it will be available at the time you need it. Or at least the more time it will take to employ. Having every squad armed with the XM25 means that capability is right there, all the time, every time. And very cheaply too. Javelin is also available to most squads most of the time, but it is horribly expensive and quite limited in terms of number of opportunities to use before running out. UAVs would be even less common and more expensive than XM25, though theoretically cheaper than a Javelin.

Point is an inexpensive munition in plenty that does the trick is better than an expensive and limited one.

Steve </font>

[juan_gigante]

I've used bazookas against all sorts of targets. While they don't do any direct damage, they cause oodles of suppression. I've gotten crews to abandon guns by shooting bazookas at them.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

A decent Sniper will be 600-800m and a good one better, the fact that the US isn't facing quality today doesn't mean they won't. and even without snipers i doubt a 40mm grenade will have the range capability of a 12.7mm let alone a 14.7mm HMG.

Peter.

[vincere]

This article is sort of relevent to wparts of this thread.

web page

Basically it says that the US army is looking at going back to 7.62 mm for thier standard round. 5.56 isn't cutting in the penetration stakes especially for fighting in urban areas. Also as may vets have pointed out not as leathal either.

I have no idea of the likelyhood of 7.62 comming back; but would be interested in peoples thoughts about it?

[Sirocco]

Will performance in CM:SF also be marked in terms of revenue spent?

[akd]

Originally posted by vincere:

This article is sort of relevent to wparts of this thread.

web page

Basically it says that the US army is looking at going back to 7.62 mm for thier standard round. 5.56 isn't cutting in the penetration stakes especially for fighting in urban areas. Also as may vets have pointed out not as leathal either.

I have no idea of the likelyhood of 7.62 comming back; but would be interested in peoples thoughts about it?

I'd take that article with a grain of salt.

The U.S. Army’s cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else.

That's a pretty bold conclusion without supporting documentation.

While the 5.56mm bullet was OK when used in an automatic weapon, it is much less useful when you have so many troops who know how to shoot, and can hit targets just as easily with single shots. In addition to better shooting skills, the troops also have much better sights, both for day and night use. It’s much more effective to fire less often, if you have troops who can do that and hit what they are shooting at with the first shot. Most American troops can.

That's a rather simplistic conclusion.

There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting.

No.

The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver. Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.

No it can't. SCAR comes in two versions: the 5.56mm SCAR-L and the 7.62mm SCAR-H. The SCAR-H can be easily converted to 7.62mm Russian.

A decision on the army’s new assault rifle will probably come sooner, rather than later, because the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are making a lot of Internet noise over the issue.

Here's some more useful internet noise:

http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by lucero1148:

In a small scale war like what Syria would be and Iraq is now a 90mm or 105mm gun would be more effective and much cheaper.

Which makes me wonder, are there any M48s or M60s in running condition or that could be brought to running condition? Or would the lack of spares, etc. make that just too impractical?

Michael

[Kurtz]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Eh? The AT-4 is a rocket launcher, although, as with every American type since the Bazooka, the rocket burns out completely before the projectile leaves the tube.

The projectile of the AT4 does not have a rocket engine. The propulsion is made by a propellant in the launcher. Some of the propellant gases are used to move the projectile, some are vented backwards to eliminate recoil. This system is/was also used by various recoilless guns.

A rocket launcher would have a rocket engine attached to the projectile. This rocket engine may or may not burn out before the projectile leaves the launcher.

I think it's easier to get higher muzzle velocities with a recoilless weapon than with a rocket launcher.

[flamingknives]

I'm pretty sure that my confusion is justified, as the US army FM 3-23.25, chapter 3, states:

The M136 AT4 is a round of ammunition with an integral, rocket-type cartridge. The cartridge consists of a fin assembly with tracer element; a point-initiating, base-detonating, piezoelectric fuze; a warhead body with liner; and a precision-shaped explosive charge

[Kurtz]

Yeah, I was just nit-picking.

But MikeyD is correct, it uses the same principle as the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle.

Quite funny that the FM has adopted marketing speak: "precision-shaped explosive charge". Sounds like something out of a sales brochure.

[akd]

Found an interesting M-72 pic:

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/7481/14ms.jpg

[flamingknives]

That's a Marine, isn't it?

[Drusus]

There is a nice video of firing a spike here. www.mil.fi

[Battlefront.com]

Regarding that website talking about 7.62 vs. 5.56...

I didn't read it but do know there is a debate about it. However, the XM-8 was not cancelled because of the round it used, rather that it was expensive, still having problems, and offered no real performance advantage over the M4. The military is in no position to spend truckloads of money to replace something that works with a wild card that holds no advantage for the risk. The XM-25, on the other hand, does offer an advantage. It also uses 5.56 and not 7.62.

Steve

[Dillweed]

I always told that it wasn't the size of your round, but how you use it that counts.

[flamingknives]

Err, the XM-25 uses a 25mm grenade. The XM29 would have used 5.56mm in a secondary weapon, but only because the amount in service/stocks, like the British sticking with the .303 for such a long time.

Strategypage ought to come with a good pinch of salt. Their articles are frequently shot through with errors. (a recent artillery piece had the British army operating the FH70 - at least 7 years out of date.

[Battlefront.com]

Dillweed,

I take we will see ATGMs being used against other targets than tanks in CMSF then?

Uhm... of course CM has always been about simulating real warfare, not a characterization of it. If guys shoot $100,000 ATGMs at snipers in the real world, then why would we prevent this from happening in CM:SF? Of course we'll try hard to implement conditions that realistically shape the use of these weapons as they would be used in real life. I'm sure Javelins are rarely used for such things as taking out a single enemy combatant, so we would not be happy if the game favored this as a regular tactic.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

This may have been mentioned previously but when it comes to the 7.62mm v 5.56mm discussions it is worth remembering that Finland never deserted the heavier bullet.

The reasoning being that in their heavily forested environment the heavier bullet is less easily deflected by light undergrowth.

One would think that with the forests, thus all the very close quarter combat, one would expect that the smaller bullets, and more ammo, would have advantages but the Fins were never sold on the 5.56mm bullet. The heavier, slower bullet does a better job in their view.

The last of the hold outs .

All the best,

Kip.

[vincere]

akd, and flamingknives I think that you're right about that site; it is a bit tabloid like. akd the report you linked was quality, thanks. Three points I picked from it are that there were a few complaints about the 5.56 round; but generally those interviewed thought that the round is adequate if the shots are well placed (especially two well placed shots). But the report does recomend both round be scientifically tested and given ratings. Second, that soldiers did not mind carrying extra weight in the weapon if it meant increased leathalty. Thirdly, just personal interest: the whole buy off shelf slings was interesting as I personally thought one of the best things about the SA80 was its sling.

Kipanderson, I didn't know that Finland kept the 7.62, cheers. Wonder if nay other countries kept it.