Why are you mad? Im genuinely curious as to why militaries don't just get more atgms seeing as other anti-tank systems can't seem to actually kill tanks reliably
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
not him but there's rarery 1v1 encounter
when fighting against group of armor, your squad or member of your squad can carry recoiless rifle to kill off IFV, while other guy holding ATGM focuses the tank
and even then, it still depends on how armnored vehicle is. Its prolly a waste of atgm to use it on soviet era tanks with nearly no era
Are you...are you implying that a military can only choose one anti-vehicle weapon into its arsenal?
You don't seem to be worried about cost, so you're not planning to do this yourself outside of maybe ArmA...what are we doing here, Anon? What are you asking?
Depending on the definitions we use NLAW might not even be an ATGM. The NLAW isn't really guided in the traditional sense but rather a predictive weapon where the missile / rocket just goes fast enough that targets realistically won't ever have a chance to evade. That's also part of the reason why NLAW is so cheap by AT-weaponry standards.
Recoilless rifles are notably cheaper, easy to use and if terrain does not allow long-range fire, then the longer range of ATGM does not really matter. Plus many ATGM-systems have minimum range, so they cannot even be used from short range / very short range. Recoilless rifles are also nowadays not at numerous for the purpose as rocket launchers.
>Yeah but an ATGM is almost a confirmed tank kill. Recoilless rifles do fuck all against ERA
Incorrect. It is not that easy. Top- attack ATGM are quite effective against tanks with ERA, since one cannot cover every vulnerable point with ERA, but there is still huge number of non-top-attack ATGM in military inventories around the world. And there are recoilless rifles and antitank-tank rocket launchers with ammo specifically designed to deal with ERA.
Also - not all armored vehicles are tanks. There are plenty of APC, IFV etc in modern battlefield, so often it makes sense to also have small and light rocket launcher (like M72 LAW) that one can hand out like candy when needed. When it comes to weapons systems in nations antitank-weapon inventory more is more, while having only single antitank-weapon system against which the enemy might develop effective counter-measures is just plain retarded.
>Yeah but an ATGM is almost a confirmed tank kill. Recoilless rifles do fuck all against ERA
that's why our buddy Carl has been retired be every western military that used it. Oh wait, what's that? Militaries that stopped using it re-adopted it because of it efficacy? this is the first time I'm hearing about this
22kg per shot and lots of bulk - while warhead for recoilles/rpg weights 5kg max and takes way less space while costing 10nth of a missile... even shitty komar that weights 2kgs with launching tube is enough to take out most apcs/ifvs frontally without era...
I assume that was the idea with javelin. But you'll run out of the expensive stuff eventually, and you really want kabooms for stuff besides tanks. Sometimes you want to hit a truck, or a bunker, or a window in a building, etc. A recoilless rifle excels there. Nothing can beat uncle gustav's boom tube
then there were ATGMs but they were shit and xbawks hueg so we only put them on vehicles
then there were ATGMs and they were good but still huge, so they were only on vehicles or carried broken down in sections by crews and used in emplacements (e.g. TOW - pic related)
the existence of single man portable ATGMs is relatively recent (Javelin) and the existence of LIGHT, CHEAP man portable ATGMs is still to dawn.
realistically your infantry can be carrying something more useful anyway, like more grenades.
Have you watched any video of trench clearing in Ukraine in the past year?
What do you think US grunts did in Afghanistan and Irak when confronted with a hole in the ground, a mountain, or under a floor?
I don't know where you got this shit from, but hand grenades are used extensively. Look at any video from ukraine, you'll see them tossed like candy. The US basically ran out of grenades in places like Fallujah, because procedure was just to chuck one in every room before breaching.
Did you not deploy or were you in late Afghanistan?
Grenades were fairly commonly used in Iraq and early Afghanistan. SOP was often clear through a house quietly because of civilians>bump into enemy and shoot them>frag the rest of the rooms before going in to get the rest of their team.
And ofc they're being used by the dump pouch in Ukraine right now.
Being able to switch ordnance types for every shot is a hell of an advantage. Sure an NLAW of Javelin can kill a tank easier but a Carl Gustav HE round can shred motherfuckers in a house AND swap to AP to fuck a T72 immediately after.
is there something wrong with vatnik computers that they just utterly compress and destroy the data in any piece of media? every single video they touch seems to turn into a jumbled mess of pixels
I think it’s a combination of phone recording, low bandwidth in frontline areas and a chain of upload/download from various websites compressing the video each time (often automatically)
>double puff of smoke suggesting soft launch >round detonates above tank, some debris continues on >tank starts leaking fire and magic smoke >abandooooon
Was that an NLAW? Neat.
It's even neater than that. That was the opening salvo of the battle of Brovary which is a suburb of Kiev and is a few klicks behind the drone. That armored column extends down the highway to the horizon, and the entire thing gets destroyed/captured a few hours later because the tank they took out in that video was the one the general in charge of the entire column was in.
It's still tremendously lighter? Cg's are less than 7kg and the cartridges are between 4kg-5-kg a piece. For the weight of a single javelin shot, you could carry the carl Gustav and 3-4 rounds
I was six when the towers fell, a kid. When I was in 2nd grade, they had us write letters to the troops overseas.
My teacher was upset because my letter was about how cool I thought AT launchers were, like bazookas, and how it was my favorite type of fighting unit. Kinda funny in retrospect.
To this day, I still love rocket launchers and similar weapons. Like a giant rifle with massive firepower. Knowing what I know now about 9/11, the war, the government, the brewing revolt, the anti-government militias started by those same veterans, am thinking about rocket launchers again for practical reasons.
And it dawned on me. In a full scale revolutionary war on American soil, plenty of people, myself included, would be content or even overjoyed to simply play the role of a fella with a rocket launcher.
Everyone uses both, there is no product that combines the benefits from both until someone comes up with an incredibly cheap, small and lightweight Javelin that punches through large amount of tank armor.
ive heard that recoilless rifles cause brain damage to the operators and so nobody wants to use them, but the higher ups insist on it because there are tons of them in the inventory
who would in their right mind use such a thing? how do they find volunteers for it? i bet they give the thing to teenagers who think they are invincible or retards who think that they are safe as long as they dont make that 5th shot even though thats probably just a totally arbitrary limit and you can harm yourself at the first shot already. stupid weapon imo.
>that's probably just an arbitrary limit
It is, but not in the way you think it is. The actual limit is significantly higher, but because everyone's different and people are bound to violate it, they set the effective limit much lower. It's definitely not something you want to do all the time, but it's not as severe as everyone here makes it out to be
who would in their right mind use such a thing? how do they find volunteers for it? i bet they give the thing to teenagers who think they are invincible or retards who think that they are safe as long as they dont make that 5th shot even though thats probably just a totally arbitrary limit and you can harm yourself at the first shot already. stupid weapon imo.
Six shots in peacetime per day per gunner for the CG in norway iirc, though i've shot a lot more than that and been the loader for additional shots (loaders are right next to the tube looking backwards to check backblast area) because we had a fuckload of surplus to shoot that weekend. I'm 29 and i absolutely love that bitch, only had a nosebleed once because i was on some medicine, but have seen other fresh gunners get nosebleeds the first time they shoot
The upside to a system like Carl Gustaf is that it can use a wide variety of munitions. If you need to blow up a structure it has a separate thing for it and you can lob lumination and smoke rounds really fucking far as well and if you happen to have armor rolling towards you you can still either damage or destroy it depending on the target. If you have a main battle tank driving towards you everyone would love to have a Javelin, NLAW, Spike etc. but they are pretty shit if you have light infantry or machine gun positions that you need to take out.
Recoilless rifles are more suited general purpose and less expensive. You probably don't want to use a javelin to blow a hole in a compound wall, but with a Gustav you wouldn't think twice about it. And they perform adequately against armor.
>https://dn-defence.com/rgw-90/
The RGW series is based. It doesn't have the compact weight class of the M72, but it's a reasonable mass with good ergonomics and a versatile warhead. It's also just under subsonic velocity (~310m/s) which makes hitting moving or far targets much easier than the slower LAW, CG or AT4.
>"According to Ukraine's Ministry of Defense, a Carl Gustaf was used to destroy the first Russian T-90M main battle tank of the war"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_8.4_cm_recoilless_rifle
Apologize right now.
In Afghanistan grunts were using ATGMs on things that weren't tanks and it was wasting a lot of money so command started giving them recoilless rifles because it wouldn't waste as much money.
look at the price you retard
Yeah but an ATGM is almost a confirmed tank kill. Recoilless rifles do fuck all against ERA
recoilless rifle is almost a confirmed kill to any AFV
why use a $200k atgm on a shitty IFV?
Yeah but then you run into the tanks that are covering the IFVs and you cant beat its armor.
you are a fucking retard
Why are you mad? Im genuinely curious as to why militaries don't just get more atgms seeing as other anti-tank systems can't seem to actually kill tanks reliably
not him but there's rarery 1v1 encounter
when fighting against group of armor, your squad or member of your squad can carry recoiless rifle to kill off IFV, while other guy holding ATGM focuses the tank
and even then, it still depends on how armnored vehicle is. Its prolly a waste of atgm to use it on soviet era tanks with nearly no era
Are you...are you implying that a military can only choose one anti-vehicle weapon into its arsenal?
You don't seem to be worried about cost, so you're not planning to do this yourself outside of maybe ArmA...what are we doing here, Anon? What are you asking?
NLAW has tandem warhead for that reason.
NLAW isn't a recoilless rifle bro, it has a rocket motor
Depending on the definitions we use NLAW might not even be an ATGM. The NLAW isn't really guided in the traditional sense but rather a predictive weapon where the missile / rocket just goes fast enough that targets realistically won't ever have a chance to evade. That's also part of the reason why NLAW is so cheap by AT-weaponry standards.
>NLAW
>Tandem warhead
Recoilless rifles are notably cheaper, easy to use and if terrain does not allow long-range fire, then the longer range of ATGM does not really matter. Plus many ATGM-systems have minimum range, so they cannot even be used from short range / very short range. Recoilless rifles are also nowadays not at numerous for the purpose as rocket launchers.
>Yeah but an ATGM is almost a confirmed tank kill. Recoilless rifles do fuck all against ERA
Incorrect. It is not that easy. Top- attack ATGM are quite effective against tanks with ERA, since one cannot cover every vulnerable point with ERA, but there is still huge number of non-top-attack ATGM in military inventories around the world. And there are recoilless rifles and antitank-tank rocket launchers with ammo specifically designed to deal with ERA.
Also - not all armored vehicles are tanks. There are plenty of APC, IFV etc in modern battlefield, so often it makes sense to also have small and light rocket launcher (like M72 LAW) that one can hand out like candy when needed. When it comes to weapons systems in nations antitank-weapon inventory more is more, while having only single antitank-weapon system against which the enemy might develop effective counter-measures is just plain retarded.
>Yeah but an ATGM is almost a confirmed tank kill. Recoilless rifles do fuck all against ERA
that's why our buddy Carl has been retired be every western military that used it. Oh wait, what's that? Militaries that stopped using it re-adopted it because of it efficacy? this is the first time I'm hearing about this
Plenty of recoilless guns fire tandem warheads these days
>Recoilless rifles do fuck all against ERA
That's not true at all.
>Recoilless rifles do fuck all against ERA
>depicted in the first image: a tandem HEAT warhead
A Carl Gustav took out a t90m
ERA isn't even a real thing, it's made up
>Why use a recoilless rifle over an atgm?
Cost
Availability (Including operator training)
Set up time
Weight
A javelin is 22kg. With enough rucking i'm sure there could be a dedicated atgm guy organic to every platoon.
22kg per shot and lots of bulk - while warhead for recoilles/rpg weights 5kg max and takes way less space while costing 10nth of a missile... even shitty komar that weights 2kgs with launching tube is enough to take out most apcs/ifvs frontally without era...
I assume that was the idea with javelin. But you'll run out of the expensive stuff eventually, and you really want kabooms for stuff besides tanks. Sometimes you want to hit a truck, or a bunker, or a window in a building, etc. A recoilless rifle excels there. Nothing can beat uncle gustav's boom tube
why use ak over icbms?
recoiless rifles are cheaper, you can usually carry a lot of different types of ammo more than you can carry atgm ammo
Because it's all you typically need against light armor, thin-skinned vehicles, or structures. They're also cheaper, lighter, and less bulky.
in the beginning there were no ATGMs
then there were ATGMs but they were shit and xbawks hueg so we only put them on vehicles
then there were ATGMs and they were good but still huge, so they were only on vehicles or carried broken down in sections by crews and used in emplacements (e.g. TOW - pic related)
the existence of single man portable ATGMs is relatively recent (Javelin) and the existence of LIGHT, CHEAP man portable ATGMs is still to dawn.
realistically your infantry can be carrying something more useful anyway, like more grenades.
More grenades? What percent of infantrymen have actually thrown a grenade outside of training?
Rather odd non-sequitur
I'm not OP, literally just saying that hand grenades are pretty much never used.
Have you watched any video of trench clearing in Ukraine in the past year?
What do you think US grunts did in Afghanistan and Irak when confronted with a hole in the ground, a mountain, or under a floor?
I don't know where you got this shit from, but hand grenades are used extensively. Look at any video from ukraine, you'll see them tossed like candy. The US basically ran out of grenades in places like Fallujah, because procedure was just to chuck one in every room before breaching.
This board should be like starship troopers where every neverserved isn’t allowed to post about military matters
What percentage of nuke launch operators have actually launch an ICBM at an enemy city? They are completly useless!
No seriously who got to use a grenade I never fucking got to.
Did you not deploy or were you in late Afghanistan?
Grenades were fairly commonly used in Iraq and early Afghanistan. SOP was often clear through a house quietly because of civilians>bump into enemy and shoot them>frag the rest of the rooms before going in to get the rest of their team.
And ofc they're being used by the dump pouch in Ukraine right now.
Being able to switch ordnance types for every shot is a hell of an advantage. Sure an NLAW of Javelin can kill a tank easier but a Carl Gustav HE round can shred motherfuckers in a house AND swap to AP to fuck a T72 immediately after.
is there something wrong with vatnik computers that they just utterly compress and destroy the data in any piece of media? every single video they touch seems to turn into a jumbled mess of pixels
I think it’s a combination of phone recording, low bandwidth in frontline areas and a chain of upload/download from various websites compressing the video each time (often automatically)
its juts a even more zoomed in slowmo of a zoomed in drone shot. pressed into a webm
>double puff of smoke suggesting soft launch
>round detonates above tank, some debris continues on
>tank starts leaking fire and magic smoke
>abandooooon
Was that an NLAW? Neat.
It's even neater than that. That was the opening salvo of the battle of Brovary which is a suburb of Kiev and is a few klicks behind the drone. That armored column extends down the highway to the horizon, and the entire thing gets destroyed/captured a few hours later because the tank they took out in that video was the one the general in charge of the entire column was in.
It's called a battlefield. You don't send nice shit there unless it kills people
Walk 5km with TOW on your shoulder, you'll understand.
then walk 5km with a carl gustav and you suddenly wont understand anymore.
It's still tremendously lighter? Cg's are less than 7kg and the cartridges are between 4kg-5-kg a piece. For the weight of a single javelin shot, you could carry the carl Gustav and 3-4 rounds
I was six when the towers fell, a kid. When I was in 2nd grade, they had us write letters to the troops overseas.
My teacher was upset because my letter was about how cool I thought AT launchers were, like bazookas, and how it was my favorite type of fighting unit. Kinda funny in retrospect.
To this day, I still love rocket launchers and similar weapons. Like a giant rifle with massive firepower. Knowing what I know now about 9/11, the war, the government, the brewing revolt, the anti-government militias started by those same veterans, am thinking about rocket launchers again for practical reasons.
And it dawned on me. In a full scale revolutionary war on American soil, plenty of people, myself included, would be content or even overjoyed to simply play the role of a fella with a rocket launcher.
larp
>Why use a recoilless rifle over an atgm?
>Why use a hammer over a screwdriver?
Everyone uses both, there is no product that combines the benefits from both until someone comes up with an incredibly cheap, small and lightweight Javelin that punches through large amount of tank armor.
ive heard that recoilless rifles cause brain damage to the operators and so nobody wants to use them, but the higher ups insist on it because there are tons of them in the inventory
and your retinas can detach if you fire too many shots consecutively. Training is limited to three or four shots in succession or somethign like that.
who would in their right mind use such a thing? how do they find volunteers for it? i bet they give the thing to teenagers who think they are invincible or retards who think that they are safe as long as they dont make that 5th shot even though thats probably just a totally arbitrary limit and you can harm yourself at the first shot already. stupid weapon imo.
I agree the west should stop using it.
>that's probably just an arbitrary limit
It is, but not in the way you think it is. The actual limit is significantly higher, but because everyone's different and people are bound to violate it, they set the effective limit much lower. It's definitely not something you want to do all the time, but it's not as severe as everyone here makes it out to be
The actual wartime limit is more like 35-45 shots; and several American soldiers who went over it in Afghanistan had no damage beyond a bad hangover.
Six shots in peacetime per day per gunner for the CG in norway iirc, though i've shot a lot more than that and been the loader for additional shots (loaders are right next to the tube looking backwards to check backblast area) because we had a fuckload of surplus to shoot that weekend. I'm 29 and i absolutely love that bitch, only had a nosebleed once because i was on some medicine, but have seen other fresh gunners get nosebleeds the first time they shoot
The upside to a system like Carl Gustaf is that it can use a wide variety of munitions. If you need to blow up a structure it has a separate thing for it and you can lob lumination and smoke rounds really fucking far as well and if you happen to have armor rolling towards you you can still either damage or destroy it depending on the target. If you have a main battle tank driving towards you everyone would love to have a Javelin, NLAW, Spike etc. but they are pretty shit if you have light infantry or machine gun positions that you need to take out.
Recoilless rifles are more suited general purpose and less expensive. You probably don't want to use a javelin to blow a hole in a compound wall, but with a Gustav you wouldn't think twice about it. And they perform adequately against armor.
Javelin: 100k
RGW90: 5k
Given a budget of 500k, which would you rather have, 5 Javelins or 4 Javelins plus 20 dumb rockets?
>https://dn-defence.com/rgw-90/
The RGW series is based. It doesn't have the compact weight class of the M72, but it's a reasonable mass with good ergonomics and a versatile warhead. It's also just under subsonic velocity (~310m/s) which makes hitting moving or far targets much easier than the slower LAW, CG or AT4.
Can the RGW90/MATADOR use a targeting assist, like the one on the Alcotan?
yes, there is a re-usable targeting sight you can slap on it
Field fortifications and general fucking with infantery.
>"According to Ukraine's Ministry of Defense, a Carl Gustaf was used to destroy the first Russian T-90M main battle tank of the war"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_8.4_cm_recoilless_rifle
Apologize right now.
Because those fuck.
>Musti (Blackie)
The nordics love their recoilless guns don't thry
Yeah
In Afghanistan grunts were using ATGMs on things that weren't tanks and it was wasting a lot of money so command started giving them recoilless rifles because it wouldn't waste as much money.
Price and weight, next question.
Direct fire is obsolete.