Does the US/NATO field shoulder fire anti personnel rockets? or is that a uniquely eastern thing?

Modern battlefields are not static user, are you telling me that the best the west could come up with is lugging artillery shells around when their counterparts in the east have had portable varied shoulder fired rounds for decades.

Okay so its definitely useful but it isn't very portable, so do we have a smaller version that can take the role of an rpg?

I didn't know this, I need to find a video.

> it isn't very portable
The M3 was about 20lb. The M3A1 replacing it is about 15, no heavier than a SAW.

>so do we have a smaller version that can take the role of an rpg

That's backwards. the RPG tries to do the job of a 40mm grenade and a Gustaf and is shitty at both. Specialization is better.

>youtu.be/5WrQ_I4Ewcs
Found one, the shells look much smaller than they do in the wiki

Attached: digital_flora_uniform_by_angwypanda-d9c7zv5.jpg (368x319, 59K)

There have been M72 LAW variants designed with an anti structure rather than HEAT warhead for ages. Those weigh not much more than a RPG-7 reload. Then there are grenade launchers and small mortars which overlap in roles as well

That's not bad! How many rounds does a typical soldier carry if fielding this weapon? Specialization is good but so is the availability of the weapon. The best part of the rpg imo is you can equip a large number of soldiers with it without sacrificing other needs.

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Oh boy, we got an expert over here!

There is an American co. that makes RPG launchers w/picatinny rails but you'll never see one

Gotcha, I guess it's just harder to see, does every small unit have a launcher like that? I assume we would have those as an integral part kind of like how we have a heavy gunner in each small unit.

Whats a thermobaric grenade? Pretty sure you cant do that with a 40mm or have a western equivalent.

I've seen a few videos with SF using these. They usually had a quad bike loaded down with them and could just spam an enemy position if need be. It's pretty awesome. I'd be interested to know the weight of the projectiles being used. Probably not quite as portable as an RPG but seems much more effective. Another thing is RPG's are long as hell.

I admit I was wrong, I thought those rounds were larger than they are and I thought it was some defense company trying to sell a super inconvenient weapon at the cost of some poor soldiers back.

AT-4s have been modified against personnel and in use in that role for ages. they hand them out to normal infantry. And this is also a difference in doctrine. Generally if you fielding RPG-7s every squad gets one, while the Carl Gustav is commonly used by a special weapons team on the platoon level designed around the gustav. They carry the extra ammo and dont forget: bigger ammo= bigger boom.

Jokes on you the russians already have 43mm thermobaric grenades.

Attached: 1280px-Grenade-launcher-GM-94.jpg (1280x951, 182K)

NATO forces don't really need to rely on man portable explosives as much, so they're not as common when there's little purpose not using a 40mm or arty

> Whats a thermobaric grenade

Behold the XM1060 40mm thermobaric grenade, frend.

Each projo is about 5lb. Typically the gunner carries 1 in the tube, his AG carries a 2-pack, and there are more in the trucks or spread out among the platoon. If everyone is dismounted, they might each carry a second 2-pack (which is quite bulky, so normally nah).

Attached: thermobaric 40mm.jpg (175x377, 12K)

You were right in that they are fuck heavy. Weight has only recently come into focus as an important aspect in an infantrymans effectiveness due to recent experiences especially in afghanistan with guys loaded down with 60 pounds of gear not being very mobile(understandable) while their local opponents run around with 15-20 pound kits and are as such able to maneuver easier and over longer distances. So if you are thinking that this weapon, has been introduced without regard for its weight, you would be correct.

dats pretty cool, havent seen that one before.

on the topic of RPG vs Carl Gustav: If your RPG team doesnt suck dick, they can carry ~9 rockets between them, with 1 in the tube and 4 ready to fire. i think most of it is just a difference in doctrine here, what with the RPG being a squad weapon and the carl gustav meant for weapon teams and all.

I do understand it would be more effective and it makes sense in our current conflict but wouldn't it be not smart in a conventional war? What happens if the weapons team gets knocked out? Is the platoon screwed

The M72 LAW is occasionally issued for this purpose. I had some once but not every unit did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW

the difference is with eastern doctrine there is an individual that carrys the rpg and a backpack full of warheads.

In western doctrine we have at4's that are easily portable.

This actually dates back to the cold war when they were meant for that purpose. generally, you are not wrong, but the carl gustav in that role was part of a system. the infantry grunts in the platoons would be issued m72 laws and later AT4s, while the carl gustav was there for a more specialized tank killing option, meaning: longer range and better penetration capabilities. the ruskies actually ended up copying the law with the rpg-26 and rpg 18, the yugoslavs did the same too.

Based oldfag shitting on retarded OP's.

The US uses AT4, M72 and Carls.

negativ-o. soviet doctrine assigned an assistant to the rpg gunner and they ended up copying the LAW with the RPG-26 which they are fielding alongside the RPG, very much like us.

In a conventional war, entire battalions get blown off the map. Worrying about platoons getting screwed isn't a thing.

The nice thing about AT4s is that on exercise, every fire team gets one....in real war, you roll up to the ammo point (or supply rolls up to you) and hands out as many as you can carry and cache. Every 2-man LP/OP is packing 3 or 4.

When you dig into the details it's just about tradeoffs. Instead of an RPG team in your squad carrying one launcher with 9ish rockets you have two or three guys with 40mm launchers and a couple of dozen rounds between them, and then maybe one guy with an AT4 or M72.

I don't know what's current for Russian infantry but a well-equipped jihad "squad" would probably have an RPG, PKM and then everybody else has rifles. The RPG makes a lot of fuss (and they have more need of an anti-vehicle weapon) but you've got one machine gun and a couple of rocket shots against a lot of 40mm grenades and multiple SAWs even if you're just fighting one squad.

M72 is a self contained unit, so an individual soldier can carry one as part of his kit, spread throughout a squad. The British army were issuing them in Afghanistan under the designation LASM (light anti structure munition) to give something for foot patrols to carry with a more effective range than an under barrel grenade launcher.

If you're talking about an analogue to the RPG, we just use 40mm grenades and launchers. Easier to carry and more Chad than a virgin RPG.

>tfw playing bad company 2 right now

Attached: 1534774365327s.jpg (216x234, 6K)

How many M72s and AT4s do yall think we have in inventory?

Like hundreds of thousands or something? I remember reading a former document where the government was talking about decomissioning like tens of thousands of those Dragon AT missiles as part of the Cold War surplus.

Gotcha so in a conventional war we would have laws throughout the lines?
Entire battalions would obviously get destroyed but In a modern conflict you need to have your forces being self reliant. If a team getting wiped is all it takes to overrun a platoon than that effect will snowball quickly.

Attached: hrveagbn79a11.jpg (401x400, 46K)

>Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
This is the cost of range, accuracy, and power. They've got a computerized aiming/priming system that mean you can get on target from 1 km away, and set it to airburst wherever you like.

Compare it to the RPG-7, which has rounds of similar mass, but a maximum range of 500m and difficulty hitting anything past 200m. The propulsive efficiency of a recoilless rifle is superior to a rocket, meaning longer range or larger payload at similar round mass, and the accuracy is better than unguided rockets as well. The cost, of course, is far lower than guided missiles.

A single-shot recoilless rifle or missile can be lighter (at least for the first shot or two), but then it's hard to afford such an excellent targeting system.

>Look at the size of those rounds, you could carry maybe 2 per person
Just read the wiki:
>Army Rangers found the M3 Carl Gustaf was best employed using a two-man team. One person would carry the launcher and be armed with a pistol for personal protection, and the other would carry 5–6 rounds of ammunition and act as a spotter for the gunner.
It's a man-portable cannon, like a mortar but for direct fire. It's faster to set up, aim, and shoot than a mortar and hits from angles a mortar can't. They gave them out to stop soldiers using costly Javelin guided anti-tank missiles on stationary targets. Carl Gustav rounds are only a few percent of the cost of Javelin missiles.

It's the quicker sniper fucker upper, and a general answer to fire from terrain cover.

5 pound large rounds being to heavy/big is a valid concern user, especially when compared to the lightness of other platforms.

That would be very strange

Always remember the picture is a fake.

Attached: 1454019773001.jpg (434x720, 59K)

we have a lot, in afghanistan we had a quarter of a connex full of javelins, but didnt have the clue or however its spelt, they weren't even on our books, left over from marsoc cowboys.

Then we had a shit ton of at-4's and these other ones that were like a at-4 and old law combined where they collapsed down, but looked like a law.

We had two in every vehicle and carried one or two for ever patrol

Real picture.

Attached: 1454019773002.jpg (600x424, 74K)

What is this supposed to be highlighting?

No one does, idiot.

lol I had to inspect one of those busted old conexes full of Marine ammo, long story short it contributed to a multiton controlled detonation after the ordnance guru declared they were all Code H.

Doesn't that create conventional weaknesses?

>tfw russians actually try to photoshop their fuckups to be right

Attached: 0_CATERS_SINGING_SEALS_THREE_TENORS_01-800x498.png (800x498, 609K)

That's what I thought! thanks user I thought I was crazy for thinking that this was an issue. Since we learned about issues with weight in Afghan, are we actively pursuing changes in weight or just switching doctrine?

Just put Walt on the mk19

Attached: cdeb4adbda886685372bfd606f2b7f46.jpg (640x1136, 101K)

Attached: AT4.gif (450x274, 2.78M)

>implying any of this is retarded
Jesus what happened to/k/

I have personally carried 12 of them plus my normal combat gear.

Manimal. He brings buildings down.

Well I'm not entirely familiar with Russian doctrine but I would assume its similar.

Dont those have very limited range?

About the same as accurate rpg fire

It makes sense as a mortar team set up but 6 rounds is pretty small for a 2 man team and also seems like there is still a need for a smaller more available option.

1-800-R-U-SRS

That's honestly good, they need to be readily available.

Weird considering you are looking at an example in the op

>AT rocket
>ANTI PERSONNEL
Pick one

In what? An extra 60 lbs on top of your 60 lb pack? Did you think you were combat effective? Also how did you carry them being as large as they are.

>What is 40mm
>What is LAW

Six of these attached to a metal backpack frame.

Wasnt really all that mobile, but that wasnt the point in that exercize either. 60 lbs is like 25 kg in real numbers isnt it, so that sounds about right.

Attached: 274358066_c3a9b8fd-4aaf-41ae-a8d7-b466e40145bc.jpg (2048x1536, 502K)

RECON PRO BOWL
>CO: Patterson
>XO: Fick
>Team Leader: Colbert
>Driver: Persons
>SAW gunner: Walt
>Mark 19 gunner: Manimal
>Moustache Man: Pappy
>Comedic Relief: Cpt America
>It's Not Gay: Rudy

For anti personnel use? Yes. Grenades.

IIRC something like a clean million M-72s were made, can't tell you about the gustavs or javlins though

More then one million AT-4s was probably produced for the Swedish Army alone. They were to be handed out to everyone and his mum should war come

M72s Are still made for yall niggas

user, if you need more than 2-3, you're either have shit accuracy, in very big trouble, or just really want to fuck someone's day.

It is expected that only around 50% hits a moving target, and that you need 2 - 3 of them to make sure that target is destroyed

>these replies
Are you fuckers serious? How are you just learning about the Carl Gustaf?

Considering the CG is even older then the RPG-7, and by a wide margin too, I have no clue...

Evidently the Ukrainians bought a bunch.

Attached: National-Guard-of-Ukraine-Purchases-AirTronic-PSRL-US-Made-RPG-7s-22.jpg (768x430, 46K)

If it's not mobile it's not very good for modern conflict user, also get out of here with your bullshit numbers.

>super limited range

What is the actual reason to make this

$$$

In a conventional war you are definitely going to be more in a big trouble situation and if you need to hit a moving target good luck

Defencive warfare is 100% a thing user, and vehicles are usually used to carry things too these days.

The metric system is also by far superior, and nothing bullshit about it.

Honestly looks really unnecessary

Just having a few guys in the squad carry one of these tubes would be a huge advantage in firepower. Couple that with LAAWs, AT4s, and 40mm grenades it definately has its place. I have no experience with the CG, but I have a few shots with the SMAW under my belt. It’s nice to have something that can punch through a hardened target at your disposal. I think getting the CG as a platoon asset is a great thing.

It's a cheap, modernized alternative to the outdated Russian RPG-7 that still uses that still utilizes the endemic RPG-7 rockets. It's everything an RPG-7 is but superior in every single way while only being marginally more expensive AND being in factory new condition rather than surplus.

In other words, the market is for relatively successful, Western-friendly third world countries that can afford something better than African militia tier slavshit surplus but still can't afford/can't be trusted with contemporary Western weapons.

it's strange that this need hasn't been noticed by the thousands of servicemen whose lives depend on this doctrine. you should go apply for a job at the army, they would probably pay you a lot of rubles salary.

Right and in a conventional war static positions will not work. Maybe vehicles carrying it would work but it seems like a disadvantage compared to something easily portable by troops like an rpg

It's a question of the war you're fighting and who you're fighting it against, really. That western soldier, American, Australian, Brit, whoever really, has different operational needs to that Afghan insurgent. That guy's out on patrol, he's carrying a plate carrier, he's carrying comms equipment, he's probably carrying a couple of day's food in rations and he's got to be largely self contained for what may be a few days outside the wire. He's also carrying equipment largely purchased to smack around Soviets, Russians or Iraqis in uniforms. Not goat herders. That insurgent? He's got his rifle, some rounds, maybe a few grenades and if he's doing real well for himself, maybe some Soviet milsurp netting to hang it all off. These days they're even sometimes turning up with NVGs stolen by/from local security forces but you get the idea. This guy's just got to be able to fling some lead at the westerner devils as they walk through town. Supply? That town's home and he stops being a combatant the moment he drops his rifle, he doesn't need to worry about logistics like that. Comms? He's got a phone and he's probably in shouting range of his entire chain of command anyway.

Point is, it's not quite as straightforward as 'just make them lighter'.

>that still uses that still utilizes

I think I had a stroke there.

Attached: rpg-7-stock.jpg (2400x461, 69K)

It's actually lighter than an RPG-7

Company that makes it is called Airtronics btw

its 4
t.conscript

For offesive operations you carry less ammunition and are more mobile, for defensive ones you prioritize firepower and protection. This isnt really rocket science if you have ever been in a combat unit.

The RPG has serious disadvantages wich makes me belive that you would need twice as much ammunition to hit or destroy a target anyway.

Also, pretty much all of our frontline troops are issued the lighter AT-4s anyway, and literally everyone is trained on them.

It makes much more sense when you add the other combined arms.

I was a scout in an LAR platoon. We had 203s, MGLs, SMAWs, and LAAAWs in Afghanistan. Not to mention the 4 25mm chainguns and the 8 vehicle mounted 240s. US doctrine is always about combined arms

How many will be issued per platoon?