Infantry Anti-tank Weapons
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Granted some of these may be similar but I think the rub lies in the "effectiveness".
I read a report recently that claimed the RPG has a shape charge that is capable of punching through the armour of ANY tank in use today. Surprising claim to me but I am not in possession of information to confirm or refute such.
But I do very clearly recall from basic training being told that the LAW was only effective by hitting the track or the rear of a tank. The range sergeant said something to the effect of it being the equivalent of throwing bb's at a Mack truck.
Yes, you are correct Sherman but they can be employed by infantry to disable a tank turret or track. Would you disagree?
I read a report recently that claimed the RPG has a shape charge that is capable of punching through the armour of ANY tank in use today. Surprising claim to me but I am not in possession of information to confirm or refute such.
But I do very clearly recall from basic training being told that the LAW was only effective by hitting the track or the rear of a tank. The range sergeant said something to the effect of it being the equivalent of throwing bb's at a Mack truck.
Yes, you are correct Sherman but they can be employed by infantry to disable a tank turret or track. Would you disagree?
If i had a granade as my weapon and a tank as my target, i would seriously consider running away. admitedly, you can disable a tank with a granade, but that dose not happen much.
As to the RPG 7, , its original penetration capability was around 320mm of steel. The modern MBTs have the equivilent of around 500-1000 mm of steel, depending on the area of the tank. there arehowever two exeptions:
-Most of these MBTs have spots that are much thiner and if those are hit the RPG wll penetrate.
-There are new RPG warheads, that were made to penetrate modern armor...The include bigger shaped charges, tendom shaped charges(to deal with reactive armor and so called "cages") and so on....
As to the RPG 7, , its original penetration capability was around 320mm of steel. The modern MBTs have the equivilent of around 500-1000 mm of steel, depending on the area of the tank. there arehowever two exeptions:
-Most of these MBTs have spots that are much thiner and if those are hit the RPG wll penetrate.
-There are new RPG warheads, that were made to penetrate modern armor...The include bigger shaped charges, tendom shaped charges(to deal with reactive armor and so called "cages") and so on....
the original RPG is a shaped charge. It is a small one, but a shaped charge non the less. Like I said, the RPG is so common that many countrys made special warheads for it, with diffrent cpabilities. This includes(but is not ilimited to): Israel, China, Switzerland, Russia....
Armyjaeger
Active member
One very effective infantry anti tank weapon is missing from that poll list, guess what it is...that's right the anti tank mine 
as for what goes to LAW and RPG, you could knock out a vehicle such as BMP but that's just about it against a battle tank I would consider hiding somewhere.
as for what goes to LAW and RPG, you could knock out a vehicle such as BMP but that's just about it against a battle tank I would consider hiding somewhere.
AussieNick
Forum Digger
Right firstly maybe the poll should have included something more modern, like the TOW, or Javelin system, or even the MILAN system or the Carl Gustav 84mm.
With that in mind I'd say the Javelin system.
As for the 66 LAW, that's a joke. Nobody in their right mind would use that against modern armour. Same with grenades, satchel charges or a "Bazooka".
With that in mind I'd say the Javelin system.
As for the 66 LAW, that's a joke. Nobody in their right mind would use that against modern armour. Same with grenades, satchel charges or a "Bazooka".
sleepyscout
Active member
The RPG-7 is may have a decent charge and the new rounds might be some what effective, its the cost that makes the rpg soo effective i have seen several bounce of bradlys and abrams there not acurate and not that effective on armor. However if the enemy shoots a 100 one is bound do hit some thing. In nov of 03 the street value of a rpg was less then 30$ american in Ar ramadi, its over 200$ now but only because smuggling could be bad for thy health.
The At-4 was not even mentioned there not acurate past 300meters but they make a big boom.
The javelin is by far the most superior infantry carried anti tank weapon.
The top attack option will penetrate any armored vehicle in the world and with a range of 2500 meters nothing comes close.
The At-4 was not even mentioned there not acurate past 300meters but they make a big boom.
The javelin is by far the most superior infantry carried anti tank weapon.
The top attack option will penetrate any armored vehicle in the world and with a range of 2500 meters nothing comes close.
That is a slight overstatment....Alot of things come close and even match. Look at this:
http://israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/anti-armor/gill_spike/GillSpike.html
I doubt most of those weapons though could destroy an M1abram though. I seen those babies cop all types of fire and the crew is still safe. Crews from iraq however tell me they fear mostly satchel charges that are placed under roads.
I would say a satchel charge, if you can lure modern tanks into one.
I would say a satchel charge, if you can lure modern tanks into one.
AussieNick
Forum Digger
I agree with you 100%. The Aussie SAS used them devestatingly in the first days of the second gulf war against an Iraqi army tank battalion... bearing in mind these are 4 man patrols on foot or land rover, they absolutley decimated the Iraqi armour with them, and the above armour explosion is a fantastic way of defeating modern (even reactive or caged) armour.
No it isn't. You wouldn't even think about firing one at a modern MBT. We carry the 66 for the purpose of engaging light/soft skinned vehicles and engaging bunker/dug in positions. Nobody in my regiment would be deluded enough to think a 66 would even bother modern tankies.
CABAL
Active member
As I have posted before "It depends on the armor of the vehicle"
I do agree that the LAW is not effective against Modern MBT although you can't entered the Battlefield without one. It is considered versatile because it is light to carry and gives you decent amount of firepower against soft/lighter targets though not very great as a AT Weapon.
I do agree that the LAW is not effective against Modern MBT although you can't entered the Battlefield without one. It is considered versatile because it is light to carry and gives you decent amount of firepower against soft/lighter targets though not very great as a AT Weapon.
DTop
Active member
Just FYI, in the American military at least, the Dragon has been replaced by the Javelin.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/M47.html
Also, the M72 LAW has been replaced by the M136 AT4 Anti-Tank Weapon.
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_at_missiles_at4.php
While we're at it, the Bazooka was replaced by the Super Bazooka which in turn was replaced by the M72 LAW.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/m28rocket.html
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/M47.html
Also, the M72 LAW has been replaced by the M136 AT4 Anti-Tank Weapon.
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_at_missiles_at4.php
While we're at it, the Bazooka was replaced by the Super Bazooka which in turn was replaced by the M72 LAW.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/m28rocket.html