Infantry AT weapons

[Grizzly]

Just FYI the AT-4 is not a re-loadable weapon, its one shot and discarded after use. At 40in long and roughly 15 lbs, I personally would not want to carry two on my back and on that note HAT should only have one round due to total weight of the weapon system and size. I personally do not have any problems with AT but I do have a few questions. How many LAT infantry can be in a squad? Also why was the AT-4 chosen over the SMAW?

[Conman51=US=]

rpg vs. abrams

read the third post down..and the 7th...well all i can see is taht rpgs arent very effective against tanks...idk how a LAt 4 would do agaisnt a tank similar to teh abrams..im guessing its the at4> rpg..in RL...

[Flanker15]

Originally Posted by Conman51=US=

rpg vs. abrams

read the third post down..and the 7th...well all i can see is taht rpgs arent very effective against tanks...idk how a LAt 4 would do agaisnt a tank similar to teh abrams..im guessing its the at4> rpg..in RL...

That really depends what kind of warhead you stick into it, the original PG-7V warhead has about 100mm less penetration than the At-4. The larger version of it (PG-7VL) has about 100mm over the AT4 and the T-heat warhead version will go through almost twice as much armor (even higher than most modern ATGM such as the Javelin, SRAW and AT-14).
The reloadable over-caliber design of the RPG-7 meant that it could remain useful far beyond it original purpose.

[M_Striker]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Also why was the AT-4 chosen over the SMAW?

Cause the SMAW is more of a bunker killer and the AT4 is more classic :P

[jhoson14]

If u want two shots just let the squad have more then one guy with LAT!!

I dont want any changes on game about the LAT and HAT,i am just sayng a way to go around the tnink about 2 rounds on the kit.

Squad with 2 LAT would kill a APC inside Flag very Easy.

And with 2 guy's with LAT and the limited number of Kits others Squad's will run without a LAT on group.

[ostupidman]

Actually 2 LAT's would be realistic for a squad. General doctorine is that you fire both rockets at the same time thereby giving a high probability of a hit and kill. Squads aren't big enough in PR though.

As for RPG's against tanks. If you look back to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan RPG's were used to great effect against the soviet reactive armor equipped tanks. The RPG squads would work in groups, the first shot would set off the reactive armor and the following two shots to the same location would allow penetration.

HAT does not need more of a reload time. It's reload time is already massive as is. As for the splash damage a HAT is not only designed for anti-armor purposes but also anti-emplacement and infantry. If we look at how the SRAW ingame is portrayed is would be the SRAW-MPV which has a large blast radius designed to absolutely obliterate light armor entrenched infantry emplacements.

[IAJTHOMAS]

Originally Posted by ostupidman

As for RPG's against tanks. If you look back to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan RPG's were used to great effect against the soviet reactive armor equipped tanks. The RPG squads would work in groups, the first shot would set off the reactive armor and the following two shots to the same location would allow penetration.

That was in late 70s/80s though wasn't it? Hardly relevant to todays tanks.

Not all of the Soveit tanks would have had reactive armour either, and even if they did it didn't always cover all of the tank from what I can make out of the soveit MBTs of the era.

But obviously such tactics would work, as the soveits used a form of ERA I think. This would differ in the way it work from the composite type armour such as chobham/dorchester.

[[R-DEV]Katarn]

The majority of todays tanks were designed in the 70's and 80's. It is still relevant today.

[[R-DEV]Eddie Baker]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Also why was the AT-4 chosen over the SMAW?

The Mk-153 SMAW is not a squad level, single-shot disposable weapon. It is found in the weapons platoon of a US Marine rifle company in the assault section. Two-man SMAW teams are attached to the rifle platoons or are otherwise task organized. The US Army does not use the Mk-153 SMAW, and only has a comparable weapon system in one unit, the 75th Ranger Regiment (Carl Gustav M3 84mm Recoilless Rifle). However, both US Army and US Marines use the AT4/M136.

If you meant the SMAW-D (single-shot, disposable "bunker buster" weapon based on the HEDP round used by the Mk-153 launcher), it can be used against soft-skinned vehicles, but its preferred use is against structures and fortifications. It is issued as the Bunker Defeat Munition (BDM) M141.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Eddie Baker

The Mk-153 SMAW is not a squad level, single-shot disposable weapon. It is found in the weapons platoon of a US Marine rifle company in the assault section. Two-man SMAW teams are attached to the rifle platoons or are otherwise task organized. The US Army does not use the Mk-153 SMAW, and only has a comparable weapon system in one unit, the 75th Ranger Regiment (Carl Gustav M3 84mm Recoilless Rifle). However, both US Army and US Marines use the AT4/M136.

If you meant the SMAW-D (single-shot, disposable "bunker buster" weapon based on the HEDP round used by the Mk-153 launcher), it can be used against soft-skinned vehicles, but its preferred use is against structures and fortifications. It is issued as the Bunker Defeat Munition (BDM) M141.

Actually, the USMC does not use the AT4 much at all is what I was told. I was told by one of my instructors that we don't even primarily use the AT4 but the LAW instead(costs?).


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-law-won-0151/