Are these effective against modern russian tanks?

Are these effective against modern russian tanks?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    very good against T-55

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so yes

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does the rocket browse Reddit?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because it's a LAWlicon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's the PrepHole rocket

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no
    even side performance is disappointing, with the turret side easily resisting it and even parts of the side hull
    T-62 is about the best you can hope to beat, and the T-62M upgrade makes even that a dicey prospect

    lack of post-pen effect is also an issue, some T-55s could take more than a dozen hits despite easily penetrating the armor because it just doesnt produce a lot of spall or frag

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I assume you mean the rocket doesn't produce spall or fragments but it made me wonder are there any vehicles with armor that reduced those without the use of liners like we see on modern vehicles?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends, a side hit to the rear half of the turret or to the side hull will go through if it doesn't hit ERA. The lack of composite on the side of T-72s/T-90s is a big weak point since they rarely add ERA to the entire side, just the front third

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, it'll frick the shit out of anything else Russia has rolling around though and they're cheap enough that you can hand them out fairly liberally

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No if russian tanks in question have ERA installed, with explosives inside them. Yes if they're a standard russian tank of this war.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By modern, T90? No not really. There are variants in principle should pen, but I wouldn't stake my life on it because that's just pure RHA and doesn't account for composites and laminates.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >but I wouldn't stake my life on it because that's just pure RHA and doesn't account for composites and laminates.
      the worst T-72, with the steel-textolite-steel array, was given 90% immunity to the M72 from the front, with only small zones on the turret being vulnerable

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would you use the old as frick versions instead of any of the updated versions? Newest versions have 450mm of pen.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not going to stop a T72

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        made for infantry against BMP's and such

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They also make holes in hard cover

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's a version with an HE warhead and configurable delay fuse for light bunker busting

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, it will

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        20mm bushnell stops a t-72, frankly at this point I would be surprised if a decent boys rifle shot couldn't take one out

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A boys rifle hit on a veiw port or periscope would do some damage, but at that point a 7.62 would do too

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            periscopes and optics are armored to resist small arms fire.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for the videogame image and opinion, homosexual

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That's not going to stop a T72
        Aaaack

        ?t=1117

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Genuinely surprised. Not sure if the shot placement was good so that there was less armor on the path due to drivers headspace or such, or if russian armor composition is just a lot worse than reported.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The soviet tanks have massive gaping holes in their armor scheme because they were designed by slapping composite armor onto a steel tank. That's why they have large sections of regular steel near otherwise significantly more protective composite that is quoted in paper stats. This is a glaring issue for all composite soviet tanks that hasn't been mended since 1968.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there is a massive hole in that area to fit the hatch and the periscope

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Lucky shot!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because the OPs question is a thinly veiled reference to the current conflict, and NATO members are looking to offload old stocks and buy the new ones you're mentioning for themselves.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >modern russian tanks?
    golfcart, btr or mtlb?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s highly dependent on version but even the latest ones are kind of anemic compared to something like an AT-4 or APILAS. There is only so much you can squeeze out of a 66mm warhead.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They should never be your sole AT option. They are great compliment for better systems because everyone knows how to use them and everyone can easily carry at least one of them.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >russian tanks
    >modern

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Finnish light AT spam tactic (from wiki)
    >In accordance with the weapon's known limitations, a pair of "tank-buster" troops crawl to a firing position around 50 to 150 meters (160 to 490 ft) away from the target, bringing with them four to six LAWs, which are then used in rapid succession until the target is destroyed or incapacitated. Due to its low penetration capability, it is used mostly against lightly-armored targets.

    You really miss the main point of it, they're dime a dozen and absolutely everywhere.

    Tanks are taken out by better options but anything else gets SEVERAL hits and burns.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      even as a light anti-tank weapon the LAW is already woefully inadequate and outright obsoleted by the AT4

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        AT4 is bigger and heavier.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the only time you would ever want a LAW over an AT4 is for firing at soft targets like machine gun nests
          but for anything remotely resembling a conventional war, every squad will have an AT4 as intended and LAWs will be left at home
          there is a reason the LAW was replaced by the AT4 to begin with, in the actual anti-tank role the AT4 is superior

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not an anti-tank weapon, it's for trucks, light vehicles and APCs and other shitboxes at best. An answer to the Russians' "we will drown you in BTRs and MT-LBs!!"

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It hasnt been for that in ages either, the AT4 has superceded it there as well due to better post-pen effect

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In case you didn't notice M72 is still widely used and in production in multiple nations including US.

                Did a LAW trooper frick your mom or something?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can carry 2 LAWs for the weight of 1 AT4, I'd rather have the LAWs in a general use case scenario since odds are you won't run into a tank, and with the LAW you can carry 2-3 for BMPs/MT-LBs or dug in infantry

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This. The first LAW I saw used in this war was by a Ukie in an alley hitting one of those canvas roofed trucks that was driving by.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                These guys have LAWs don't they?
                Seemed to work pretty well on the VDV aluminium personal carriers.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes
                The BMD its not a thick boy and at best will keep out light arms fire and some fragmentation

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every squad might have an AT4 but every person will have a LAW or two.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This, it's better to think of it as modern version of the molotov wienertail. With how much iron the russians like to spam out (less now than earlier but still) it's a great lightweight and cheap option to outfit every frontline personell with one, or just have a crate of them in a defensible position. It'll do well against anything short of an mbt and even then it's better than nothing. Heavier options for dedicated tank killer squad still exist like the nlaw or javelin.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >obsoleted by the AT4

        Yes and you miss the point again.

        Every squad can have the AT4 but every PERSON will have the LAW.

        It takes out light armor at a moment's notice, simple as.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A diplomat or ambassador was attacked with a law and small arms fire in Lebanon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The thing about the LAW is, its the smallest AT rocket. Everyone can carry one, maybe even two. And its useful against most vehicles and troops in bunkers or buildings. Its not a Javelin or even an NLAW but organic AT firepower for all infantry is nice to have.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's also classified as ammunition, unlike a Javelin or Gustaf which need launchers, so administratively its spammable too. Troops on defense can expect to have supply trucks pull up and drop off a pallet of LAWs at their position without needing to ask for it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thing is, modern ATGM have shown they are way over spec for killing Russian Crap armor. If you're seeing T-72 turrets flying though the sky, that probably means you can downsize that warhead and still get a mission kill. A LAW with a modern seeker and attack profile sounds pretty appealing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            LAWs are unguided but given improvements in electronics you probably could make one with some form of guidance. Even just the NLAW's style of pseudo guidance.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not him but I finally know what you guys mean ever since the webm of troops attacking with disposable rockets

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In any situation I would rather have it than nothing at all. Who knows you might get lucky.

      Is the only way they will really be effective, like the Bradley vs T90 video, slapping the T90 around with 25mm didn't destroy it but it fricked the crew and systems up enough to render it combat ineffective.

      https://i.imgur.com/g2rBzmv.jpg

      Why would you use the old as frick versions instead of any of the updated versions? Newest versions have 450mm of pen.

      I wouldn't put any stock in T72 performance or protection after the last two years, even if It doens't pen the crew are probably going to jump out and run away.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The modern russian tank being deployed is the T-62, so yeah.

    But anyway, against any tank it will pen the sides and rear without ERA

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We called those "M72 Paint Scratchers" back in the 80s. Against a T-72 the only chance was against the tracks, roadwheels, and the rear. They were pretty handy against bunkers and fighting positions, though.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >modern russian tanks
    Do you mean a T-90M or a T-55 Obr. 2024?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they'll pen the sides and rear of any tank in existence provided you don't hit ERA and it'll continue to do so until hardkill APS can reliably hit rockets that are fired at extremely close ranges

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >hey'll pen the sides and rear of any tank in existence provided you don't hit ERA
      M1 was designed to tank RPG hits from the sides from the get-go.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >M1 was designed to tank RPG hits from the sides from the get-go.
        Hull can't stop basic b***h PG-7VM (300mm) with side shot.
        Turret can.
        But RPGs with higher pen like M72 EC Mk.1 (450mm) or PG-7VL (500m) would go through turret with side shot

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Hull can't stop basic b***h PG-7VM (300mm) with side shot.
          Yes it can, in the forward areas where the crew compartment is. Only the rear hull housing the engine is vulnerable.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well no, but where are you going to find a modern russian tank since most of them are smoking wrecks in Ukraine...

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not against modern ones, but it should be able to at least thoroughly ruin the day of T-62 crews and the like. Nowadays they exist just to frick up BMP's and other light vehicles.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even an old Soviet RPG is effective against modern armor with volume of fire. The doctrine of rocket salvo is for this purpose, six men targeting the same tank in a planned ambush. A simple MLRS can also be welded and wired from unguided launchers for stationary and portable deployment at low cost.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Consider the humble Yasin, an inexpensive and wooden modification of the old RPG used by Palestinian Mujahideen to engage tanks, armor, and personnel. This is enough to fight tanks.

      This is suitable for armored bulldozers and the most advanced tanks in the world, especially in high volume of fire. As are IEDs, planted as mines or rigged to drones. As long as the rocket motor burns and delivers a functional payload it is worth using.

      These are not complicated devices, it is a basic mechanical detonation mechanism at the tip and some even run on rocket sugar. The difficulty is in securing line of fire in an ambush, which is aided by intelligence of armor movements.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the best you can hope for is a mobility kill

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A Russian T-90M Proryv tank achieved a remarkable feat by destroying a Ukrainian drone command center from an exceptional distance of 9 kilometers, as disclosed in a video interview by the Russian Ministry of Defense on March 22, 2024.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The most modern LAW variants that Finland and Norway are producing have a penetration of about 450mm so it's good enough to take out IFV's and APC's but not great against MBT's. You could maybe disable one with a good shot to the side or tracks or the rear or if you're really lucky the turret ring but it's more of a last resort than anything else. There are anti-structure LAW's in production as well that are mostly intended to be used in either urban warfare or against dug in positions. The main advantage of the LAW is just that they are so lightweight that you can hand them out like candy to just about everyone and teach them to use one in like 5 - 15 minutes.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From what I understand the point of such weapons is to prevent infantry formations from being completely overrun by armored units by giving them *something* to fight back with, rather than to actually kill tanks outright. You need more potent anti-armor tools for that.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Canada apparently sent thousands of old LAWs early in the war. Never ended up seeing much footage of them being used.
    I wonder if got turned into drone ammo rather than used.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *