Why USA use launchers "for one use"?

S

seth

New Member
I would ask why western armies (especially USA) use personal (shoulders) anti-tank launchers "for one use", like AT-4, LAW, Predator. Why they don't use "bazooka" or "rpg" style launchers, where soldier can carry more ammunition.

You can write your opinion of which style is better.
 
Because tanks rarely are just sitting around alone and exposed. As soon as you light a tank up it tends to draw a lot of attention and AT-4s are freakin' heavy when you're trying to shoot and scoot.
 
Usually (or atleast Swedish military) use the AT-4 in groups in other words several soldiers with one each shooting at one target. Its better then having one guy with say RPG that has to reload in which the tank will have spotted this soldier and taken him out. And they are cheap! :)

And when your done you just throw them away which will result in alot less to carry around on, when one with an RPG will have to carry it around when hes done, and if the enemy gets hold of it and ammo they can reuse it, this can't be done with an AT-4 :)

We also use the carl gustav that can be reloaded and reused :)
 
Last edited:
Because it's cheaper and more effective

A ATGM like the Javelin has a reusable guidance computer that you attach to a disposable launch tube. There isn't any point in hauling around extra shit you don't need.
 
The Norwegian Army use both the Carl Gustav recoilless cannon and the M72 LAW on infantry unit levels - perhaps it has changed now so it is one or two per platoon but we use them anyways :)
 
The Norwegian Army use both the Carl Gustav recoilless cannon and the M72 LAW on infantry unit levels - perhaps it has changed now so it is one or two per platoon but we use them anyways
Click to expand...

We use a similar set up, but with either one or 2 M72 LAW per 10 man section. The disposable tube also protects the rocket inside, and is lighter to carry than a re-usable job. The M72 is basically just a fibreglass tube, so why not carry a few?
 
Yeah thats another great thing with the AT-4 (Pskott) can be thrown in dirt, water and takes alot of beating but still operates, not sure if that can be done with a RPG.
 
RPGs are still versatile and good. Of course it sucks to get caught in the fire that comes out the back. Saw a guy get his foot burned from an rpg.
 
AussieNick said:
We use a similar set up, but with either one or 2 M72 LAW per 10 man section. The disposable tube also protects the rocket inside, and is lighter to carry than a re-usable job. The M72 is basically just a fibreglass tube, so why not carry a few?
Click to expand...

The setup up here is 4 pr 8 man section. The M72 is a light, easy to use and robust weapon; The only thing I find negative is the poor sights, but that was changed in the mid 1990s making it so much more precise.

And so much fun you can have with it at the shooting range :rock:
 
Last edited:
seth said:
I would ask why western armies (especially USA) use personal (shoulders) anti-tank launchers "for one use", like AT-4, LAW, Predator. Why they don't use "bazooka" or "rpg" style launchers, where soldier can carry more ammunition.

You can write your opinion of which style is better.
Click to expand...
If you ever pick up a LAW, you'd notice something right away. Its really really light. Lighter than the 45 handgun I had picked up right before the LAW. Single-fire anti-tank weapons are a lot less of a pain in the ass to pack along with you.
 
Wheezcellbert said:
RPGs are still versatile and good. Of course it sucks to get caught in the fire that comes out the back. Saw a guy get his foot burned from an rpg.
Click to expand...

Same issue with the AT-4 aswell, pretty sure the M72 have the same problem.
 
AlexKall said:
Same issue with the AT-4 aswell, pretty sure the M72 have the same problem.
Click to expand...

As long as you know how to handle the weapon and keep clear of the back blast you encounter no problems. Guess that applies to a number of weapons.
 
sunb! said:
As long as you know how to handle the weapon and keep clear of the back blast you encounter no problems. Guess that applies to a number of weapons.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, just making it clear that the weapon someone spoke of wasnt the only one :)
 
AlexKall said:
Yes I know, just making it clear that the weapon someone spoke of wasnt the only one :)
Click to expand...

How about the Eryx, Milan and Javelin? Anyone who knows? I recall the Eryx ignites the rocket engine a few meters away from the platform?
 
How does the initial "boost" take place? Must be something that pushes it out of the tube, just a question of what and in what way :)
 
The Eryx can "soft launch" where it'll pop out of the tube at a low speed (for a missile) and then boost to full power when a few hundred meters away from the control unit. It can do this because it uses thrust vectoring instead of fin stabalization, so it can hold an accurate flight path at those low speeds.
 
How about the Eryx, Milan and Javelin? Anyone who knows? I recall the Eryx ignites the rocket engine a few meters away from the platform?
Click to expand...

Yeah they still have a back blast, in order to launch it out of the tube. The javelin for example fires straight out, then the main engine kicks in and it boosts up in a big way. The idea is just to reduce the back blast danger area... but there is still one.
 
sunb! said:
The Norwegian Army use both the Carl Gustav recoilless cannon and the M72 LAW on infantry unit levels - perhaps it has changed now so it is one or two per platoon but we use them anyways :)
Click to expand...

So the Carl Gustav is NOT a rocket launcher? This confuses me because Germany used the "Panzerfaust Carl Gustav" before the Panzerfaust 3, which is a rocket launcher was introduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top