>Is it shit?
M72 LAW was incredibly successful and lasted decades before being succeeded by the AT4, and even then the LAW has a niche in insurgent busting
saw great use in vietnam, was was succesfully used by israelis ro fend off T-55s and T-62s
Its a different thing entirely. LAWs are for whoever can carry one to give broadly distributed anti tank/anti structure capability, RPGs have dedicated gunners. Its more like the Carl G in terms of doctrinal use, except soviets elected to put an RPG in every squad instead of its own platoon, for better or worse. Its telling that the RPG18 didn't supplant the RPG7 at all, because they've simply got a different role.
>How does it compares to the RPG-7?
The M72's 5.5lb total weight(later 8lb) allows it to be spread out easily amongst a platoon without seriously inhibiting the job of a rifleman, this made it so any man could be a tank killer with their single use launcher. The RPG-7 could not practically do this, the launcher itself was 14lb empty, when you include the weight of ammo, any man carrying one is basically relegated solely to the anti-tank role. So while your solitary RPG man might not be in a firing position, with LAW in distributed in numbers, any man an armored vehicle passes is a threat meaning much more targets of opportunity.
The RPG-7 has a couple things in its favor. Reusability, once you fire a LAW the tube is just a tube, an RPG can be reloaded. Longer range for another thing, the LAW has a practical range out to 200m while the RPG is 300m. There is also ammo variation, you can carry reloads of anti-tank, thermobaric or fragmentation warheads and have ammunition for any occasion.
The big one in the RPG-7's favor is upgradability. LAW rockets must fit in the back of a 66mm tube which means any rocket developed for it must be a certain size. RPG's are recoilless rifles with rocket powered projectiles so they launch the warhead of the front. You can attach much larger warheads to keep the system relevant like the tandem heat charge, picrel. This has lead to a continuous increase in penetration well above what LAW systems are capable of leading to its replacement as a viable ant-tank weapon against modern MBT's.
I think both systems have their merit but if I had to pick a system to give my army... in the 1960's against that era of tanks I might choose LAW, today though it would be RPG-7.
It's worth noting that the newer warheads for the 7 are largely unusable. The tandem charge warhead, for instance, has a MAXIMUM effective range of around 100m. It's probably better than being useless altogether, but not by a lot
Its not as good as it was, but its still pretty decent. They have newer ones with better penetration and FFE capability, but its still limited by bore size. The AT4 is generally better performing, but its also 50% larger and 3x the weight, so the LAW still has its place.
actually the opposite. they've tried several times to find a replacement but it's easier said than done. AT4 is more of a disposable MAT weapon than a LAT, M72 is in the sweet spot for being light and providing just enough fire power in a pinch. Modern warheads on it are surprisingly decent and constantly being improved.
Several nations who ditched the LAW in favour of the AT4 have re-adopted the LAW in the last two decades.
>Several nations who ditched the LAW in favour of the AT4 have re-adopted the LAW in the last two decades.
You can see why, there is a lot of armor and fortifications on the battlefield that aren't a modern MBT and at 15+lbs you can't really hand out AT4's like candy in the same way you can the LAW.
Probably not. I think it's probably one of those weapons with a good use case and handy. It's small and light and good enough. Sometimes, that's all you need.
>is it shit?
depends on the target, is it a tank? >yes
if you shoot anywhere that is not the turret cheeks and is not covered with ERA, then it is still viable, their engines are at the rear, so that's a good place to start if you want to stop it (not the merkava though, they have the engine at the front). the M72 EC mk.1 has 450mm pen. And NAMMO is working on a drone carried top-down version >no
shoot anywhere not covered with ERA, IFVs and APCs have their engines in the front, so that's a good place to start if you want to stop it. shooting at jets would be silly, but shooting at helicopters that is hovering should be no problem if you're a good shot/get close enough (we've all seen the videos of Ukies shooting down ruski helos with Stugna-P)
>IFVs and APCs
I think another thing to consider about these light weight weapons is the expanded role light armor plays on the modern battlefield. The APCs and IFVs are still a staple but vehicles like soft skin Jeeps and light trucks of the Vietnam era have been replaced by Infantry Mobility Vehicles or MRAPs usually bullet proof, protected against small explosions / shrapnel and even mine resistant. Many of these vehicles can practically function as light APC's with room for 5+ passengers or remote operated heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers. Giving every soldier a light weight weapon that can deal with light armor is not the worst idea since running into them with nothing but a rifle isn't going to end well.
The other nice thing about the LAW is that after you’ve fired the rocket, the tube makes a Jim-dandy booby trap.
You duct-tape it up in a tree, remove the pins from a few grenades, and keeping the spoons pressed down, carefully slide them up the empty bore.
Once you load a few up the pipe, close the hinged rear cover and just slightly pin it closed.
Then run your trip wire where you want it so that the enemy opens the can on himself and gets a few frag grenades dropped on his and his buddies’ shit.
You can get creative and tie off some tethers around the fuse throat of the grenades and anchor them so that the grenades don’t all just fall out and hit the deck, but dangle in the air before exploding…you get some nice air burst action behind that-real effective if your targets ain’t noobs and hit the deck when they hear the spoons fly off..
Many Vietnam GIs got fricked up with this trick before they learned to crush and mangle expended launchers if they weren’t going to improvise with them.
For workplace safety reasons, I would advise to remove pin only from one grenade, and keep rest safe until you slid the one you removed pin from down the tube
>Is it shit?
M72 LAW was incredibly successful and lasted decades before being succeeded by the AT4, and even then the LAW has a niche in insurgent busting
saw great use in vietnam, was was succesfully used by israelis ro fend off T-55s and T-62s
Still being used to date, so probably not.
Being used in Ukraine to fulfill its intended purpose of blowing up BMPs and t-72s
How does it compares to the RPG-7?
For 1, completely 2 different systems.
>The law is fire and forget.
>rpg is fire and get sniped in the head and picked up by someone else
Its a different thing entirely. LAWs are for whoever can carry one to give broadly distributed anti tank/anti structure capability, RPGs have dedicated gunners. Its more like the Carl G in terms of doctrinal use, except soviets elected to put an RPG in every squad instead of its own platoon, for better or worse. Its telling that the RPG18 didn't supplant the RPG7 at all, because they've simply got a different role.
>How does it compares to the RPG-7?
The M72's 5.5lb total weight(later 8lb) allows it to be spread out easily amongst a platoon without seriously inhibiting the job of a rifleman, this made it so any man could be a tank killer with their single use launcher. The RPG-7 could not practically do this, the launcher itself was 14lb empty, when you include the weight of ammo, any man carrying one is basically relegated solely to the anti-tank role. So while your solitary RPG man might not be in a firing position, with LAW in distributed in numbers, any man an armored vehicle passes is a threat meaning much more targets of opportunity.
The RPG-7 has a couple things in its favor. Reusability, once you fire a LAW the tube is just a tube, an RPG can be reloaded. Longer range for another thing, the LAW has a practical range out to 200m while the RPG is 300m. There is also ammo variation, you can carry reloads of anti-tank, thermobaric or fragmentation warheads and have ammunition for any occasion.
The big one in the RPG-7's favor is upgradability. LAW rockets must fit in the back of a 66mm tube which means any rocket developed for it must be a certain size. RPG's are recoilless rifles with rocket powered projectiles so they launch the warhead of the front. You can attach much larger warheads to keep the system relevant like the tandem heat charge, picrel. This has lead to a continuous increase in penetration well above what LAW systems are capable of leading to its replacement as a viable ant-tank weapon against modern MBT's.
I think both systems have their merit but if I had to pick a system to give my army... in the 1960's against that era of tanks I might choose LAW, today though it would be RPG-7.
It's worth noting that the newer warheads for the 7 are largely unusable. The tandem charge warhead, for instance, has a MAXIMUM effective range of around 100m. It's probably better than being useless altogether, but not by a lot
At this point it is a light anti-structure munition, for which I'd consider it excellent; as an anti-vehicle weapon, no
This
Its not as good as it was, but its still pretty decent. They have newer ones with better penetration and FFE capability, but its still limited by bore size. The AT4 is generally better performing, but its also 50% larger and 3x the weight, so the LAW still has its place.
It weighs 3,5Kg and can pierce 300mm on the cheap, AT weapons don't come any more cost-effective than this
It can fit neatly inside a hollowed out baguette- the perfect assassination weapon
actually the opposite. they've tried several times to find a replacement but it's easier said than done. AT4 is more of a disposable MAT weapon than a LAT, M72 is in the sweet spot for being light and providing just enough fire power in a pinch. Modern warheads on it are surprisingly decent and constantly being improved.
Several nations who ditched the LAW in favour of the AT4 have re-adopted the LAW in the last two decades.
>Several nations who ditched the LAW in favour of the AT4 have re-adopted the LAW in the last two decades.
You can see why, there is a lot of armor and fortifications on the battlefield that aren't a modern MBT and at 15+lbs you can't really hand out AT4's like candy in the same way you can the LAW.
Aye, and the addition of anti-structure and firing from enclosed spaces are huge bonuses for the sorts of conflicts we've seen in recent times
Probably not. I think it's probably one of those weapons with a good use case and handy. It's small and light and good enough. Sometimes, that's all you need.
>is it shit?
depends on the target, is it a tank?
>yes
if you shoot anywhere that is not the turret cheeks and is not covered with ERA, then it is still viable, their engines are at the rear, so that's a good place to start if you want to stop it (not the merkava though, they have the engine at the front). the M72 EC mk.1 has 450mm pen. And NAMMO is working on a drone carried top-down version
>no
shoot anywhere not covered with ERA, IFVs and APCs have their engines in the front, so that's a good place to start if you want to stop it. shooting at jets would be silly, but shooting at helicopters that is hovering should be no problem if you're a good shot/get close enough (we've all seen the videos of Ukies shooting down ruski helos with Stugna-P)
TLDR: depends on how you use it
>IFVs and APCs
I think another thing to consider about these light weight weapons is the expanded role light armor plays on the modern battlefield. The APCs and IFVs are still a staple but vehicles like soft skin Jeeps and light trucks of the Vietnam era have been replaced by Infantry Mobility Vehicles or MRAPs usually bullet proof, protected against small explosions / shrapnel and even mine resistant. Many of these vehicles can practically function as light APC's with room for 5+ passengers or remote operated heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers. Giving every soldier a light weight weapon that can deal with light armor is not the worst idea since running into them with nothing but a rifle isn't going to end well.
The other nice thing about the LAW is that after you’ve fired the rocket, the tube makes a Jim-dandy booby trap.
You duct-tape it up in a tree, remove the pins from a few grenades, and keeping the spoons pressed down, carefully slide them up the empty bore.
Once you load a few up the pipe, close the hinged rear cover and just slightly pin it closed.
Then run your trip wire where you want it so that the enemy opens the can on himself and gets a few frag grenades dropped on his and his buddies’ shit.
You can get creative and tie off some tethers around the fuse throat of the grenades and anchor them so that the grenades don’t all just fall out and hit the deck, but dangle in the air before exploding…you get some nice air burst action behind that-real effective if your targets ain’t noobs and hit the deck when they hear the spoons fly off..
Many Vietnam GIs got fricked up with this trick before they learned to crush and mangle expended launchers if they weren’t going to improvise with them.
For workplace safety reasons, I would advise to remove pin only from one grenade, and keep rest safe until you slid the one you removed pin from down the tube