AT4 underpowered?

[Piecekeeper]

Its just my feeling. Its only useful sometimes in short distance against light armored vehicles. Ive tried this one when i was in the Swedish army and i think it was also effective in long distances and against medium armored vehicles.

[theFightingSeabee]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fc8_1203046594

I agree.

[Flanker15]

The AT-4 in CM:SF is the standard HEAT 420mm of penetration against RHA version. It'll got through the armour of the BMP1/2, BRDM, BTR70 and various parts of various tanks. It also has to hit something important on the other side of the armour to knock the vehicle out remember (firing one through the back end of a BMP will hurt passengers but might not damage any vital systems.)

The AT-4 in that video is most likely the HEDP version (since there's not much need for AT there) which is a anti-infantry anti-structure warhead, it's not in CM:SF.

I've personally knocked out many PCs and a few T-55s with them in SF.

[Piecekeeper]

So...will the AT-4 CS version maybe come with the module? (Hitting bmp in the back will make it burn, because the fuel is in the backdoors )

[MikeyD]

I hear there's been some grousing about the AT4 in Iraq. Problems like the round failing to detonate when it hits a (and passes through) a car. Germany purchased oversize warheads with standoff probes for their Carl Gustaf (the non-throw-away version), but the U.S. steadfastly refuses to field warheads larger than the weapon's firing tube - for safety and handling reasons I believe. The smaller Vietnam-era LAW was reintroduced into U.S. service a couple years ago. For some purposes it seems AT4 is too small to be effective, for others its too large.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

So...will the AT-4 CS version maybe come with the module? (Hitting bmp in the back will make it burn, because the fuel is in the backdoors )

There shouldn't be any fuel in the doors. They are supposed to be filled with sand before they go into action.

[MikeyD]

Wow! Sand in the BMP door fuel tanks to act as additional armor? I am genuinely surprised, I hadn't heard anything like that before. That is one cool little snippet of information

[Piecekeeper]

Interesting. Did not have that in the Swedish BMP-1 (strbdv 501).

[Chainsaw]

Interesting. Did not have that in the Swedish BMP-1 (strbdv 501).

He means PBV 501, nothing else 8)

[Piecekeeper]

He means PBV 501, nothing else 8)

Hehe, of course (long time ago).

[Combatintman]

Got a source for the sand in the fuel tanks thing - I've never heard of it before.

[Secondbrooks]

There shouldn't be any fuel in the doors. They are supposed to be filled with sand before they go into action.

Hmm. Granted i don't know much about BMP, but asked from someone who knows quite well and he finds it to be bit odd. Problem being how to take it off? On field conditions that might be bit tricky. And doors might become bit heavy to handle when filled with sand.

More info on subject would be welcome.

[Combatintman]

And then what happens when you remove the sand and put fuel back in etc etc. I'd be surprised if this is true.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John Kettler]

Combatintman,

A new one on me, but here it is straight from the BMP-1 Wiki, Troop Compartment section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1

"The airtight closed rear doors of troop compartment actually contain addition fuel tanks with 60 liters of fuel in the left door and 70 liters in the right, but the Soviet/Russian regulations say that door fuel tanks must be pumped over and filled with sand as additional protection of troopers before entering combat zones."

Since the Wiki for the BMP-2 indicates that the chassis for the two are virtually identical,

I presume this also holds true for the Yozh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-2

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

The BMP is an ooooold cold War design, predating the Bradley. And look at all of the changes Bradley has gone through since the early 80s! I'm not surprised a cool idea for fuel stowage in 1975 would be considered a bad idea in the new millenium. I wonder if this sand-in-door rule predates the war in Chechnia.

[flamingknives]

IIRC, the original concept for the fuel tanks is that they stopped certain types of radiation.

That said, I can't think which sort. Alpha is stopped by sheets of paper, Beta can't get through more than a couple of millimeters of aluminium, while Gamma will go through a decent distance of lead (Feet?)

[Sgt.Rock of Easy Company]

Alpha particles won't penetrate skin, paper or clothing. Beta particles will partially penetrate the skin and sheet metal will stop most of them. Gamma rays will go straight through you and 15cm of concrete or 20cm of earth will only stop half of them.

[Combatintman]

Ok - Wikipedia ain't the greatest source but having skimmed the article it looks pretty comprehensive and corroborates a lot that I'm familiar with.

Therefore ... as stated earlier I'm pretty surprised!

[Secondbrooks]

Its just my feeling. Its only useful sometimes in short distance against light armored vehicles. Ive tried this one when i was in the Swedish army and i think it was also effective in long distances and against medium armored vehicles.

What i don't know is that do CMSF simulate time of aiming. It seems that they are quite fast with their AT-moves: they have rifle, during next second they have AT4 and inside that same second they have already shot it (and usually missed).

Also: Usually both AT4s are shot same time, another by AT specialist (if alive) and another by someone else. How big impact specialisation has on accuracy? Seems that it's quite big, atleast with Syrian squads. Another thing is that if non-specialized guy shoots first, how much this affects in specialist's accuracy (dust, smoke etc factors)?

As sometimes AT4 seems to be quite accurate and sometimes not accurate at all. Could be luck... Or maybe some other factors.

[Flanker15]

AT4s can be used by non AT soldiers and not receive any penalty, it's in the manual.

As for them firing them as a snap shots, I have seen that too but sometimes they aim more if they are under no real threat.

[Secondbrooks]

AT4s can be used by non AT soldiers and not receive any penalty, it's in the manual.

What! Your did read manual :eek:

That is so gamey :mad:

[Combatintman]

Not sure specialisation is so much of an issue - years ago when I was in the infantry we did both Charlie 'G' and 66mm LAW in basic training. Like any weapon system its pretty much point and press. After basic I was labelled the specialist anti-tank gunner in the section - not for prowess but because I was the new guy and the Charlie 'G' was the heaviest bit of kit. Which weapon did I fire most - the SLR like the rest of the blokes,

[MikeyD]

About weapons being used by non-specialists, I do get a chuckle when i see U.S. missile launcher tubes with a big "fires this direction" arrow in yellow. Theres usually a 'how-to-fire-this' plate or decal on those weapons just in case a PFC mess hall cook has to use one in a tight situation.

[Secondbrooks]

Not sure specialisation is so much of an issue - years ago when I was in the infantry we did both Charlie 'G' and 66mm LAW in basic training. Like any weapon system its pretty much point and press. After basic I was labelled the specialist anti-tank gunner in the section - not for prowess but because I was the new guy and the Charlie 'G' was the heaviest bit of kit. Which weapon did I fire most - the SLR like the rest of the blokes,

True. But what i've noticed by my 1 year experience in AT-works is that riflesquad's M72 wielders which are regular jaegers are not as good with M72 as AT-trained jaegers in AT-team of platoon (using both 112mm Apilas and 66mm M72). What we AT-guys had over riflemen was that we had shot tens of innerbarrel bullets and small practicerockets shot with each weapon (+lots of drilling) while riflejaegers trained more in... well using rifle and acting as part of jaeger squad, they had AT-traning too but in lesser forms.

Then again our system seems to be somewhat different. We have so called specializement phase (lasting 2 months) after basics where many troops get deeper traning to their weapon system(s), drills and stuff before they are sent to their jaegercompanies etc. Only after that companies can start training as a whole unit, before that they are just bunch of riflesquads and transportvehicles. Well this was how in my brigade sorted things out, hard to say is/was that national way of doing things or not.