M72 LAW procurement

[Slater]

I thought this thing was obsolete but apparently the USG is still buying them. Another site said that the Army was buying these on behalf of the USMC, but I don't see that indicated anywhere?:

The U.S. Army Contracting Command – New Jersey, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, on behalf of the Project Manager-Close Combat Systems (PM-CCS), intends to issue a solicitation for the manufacturing, testing and delivery of the M72 Light Assault Weapon (LAW) variants and components for Shoulder Launched Munitions (SLM) training systems, as follows:

1) M72A7 LAW with Graze Fuze Function and Night Vision Device (NVD) Mount, Department of Defense Identification Code (DODIC): HA29, National Stock Number (NSN): 1340-01-592-2069 in Scepter Container.

2) M72A9 LAW Anti-Structure Munition (ASM) and NVD Mount, DODIC: HA48, NSN: 1340-01-538-4308.

3) M72A8 LAW Fire From Enclosure (FFE) and NVD Mount, DODIC: HB26, NSN: 1340-01-650-6436.

4) M72E10 LAW FFE ASM and NVD Mount, DODIC: HB25, NSN: 1340-01-650-6472.

5) M72AS FFE Trainer Launcher, P/N: 55600, NSN: TBD.

6) M72AS Trainer Launcher, P/N: 51670-9, NSN: 1055-01-495-0009.

7) M72AS 21mm Trainer Rocket, DODIC: HA21, NSN: 1340-01-482-5049.

8) Components for SLM Training Systems.


https://beta.sam.gov/opp/8d5d6afda61144378c12198cc5a73abe/view?index=opp&sort=-relevance&page=1&keywords=m72&date_filter_index=0&inactive_filter_values=false

[SteyrAUG]

I don't recall that it's ever been replaced by anything better. We have bigger stuff, but no realistic 1:1 replacement.

[Grand58742]

I recall seeing something some time back (read that as years ago) the M72 was preferred because of the weight savings on foot patrols. Basically, you can carry more or less three of them per one M136.

As an anti-armor weapon, yes, it's "obsolete" with modern tank designs. As an anti-bunker system? It's still got some life.

[CRAMBONE]

There was an updated version released in the late 2000s. We did a rocket range in 2010 and had classes from Namo (the manufacturer). They went pretty in-depth about the updates to the system and the why it was re-adopted. It’s a pretty good piece of kit and nothing like the Vietnam era units. A lot lighter and smaller profile than an AT-4 and we haven’t face a significant enough armor threat to justify Grunts toting AT-4s on patrol in quite a while.

[TomMcC]

I recall seeing something some time back (read that as years ago) the M72 was preferred because of the weight savings on foot patrols. Basically, you can carry more or less three of them per one M136.

As an anti-armor weapon, yes, it's "obsolete" with modern tank designs. As an anti-bunker system? It's still got some life.

Can they still take out the tracks on a modern MBT?

[Straight Shooter]

In my time in the Corps in the early eighties..as an 0351 antitank man I fired a lot of LAW rockets. I loved the damn things. They were hard hitting and once you got the hang of it- pretty accurate to shoot. Had a few empties I kept for years- finally gave them away.
I remember Col. Jeff Cooper in his magnificent book To Ride, Shoot Straight & Speak the Truth, wondering why the U.S. military never adopted the RPG or a similar, reloadable rocket/grenade launcher. He praised the RPG as superior. Never got to fire an RPG.
Anyway- Ive no clue as to whats out there now, But I too always thought a reloadable weapon would beat the single shot one... thoughts on this?

[SomeOtherGuy]

From the title I thought this was going to be about private purchase, in light of current events.

On that note - if you could find a willing seller and NFA dealer (white-market), each one would be just a $200 tax for DD, right, since it's considered a one-use round of ammo?

[OH58D]

In 1983, in between a training flight between Fort Campbell and Fort Knox, met up some Rangers out at the Knox tank range. For training a decommissioned M113 Gavin was hauled out there and I got to fire an M72A2 LAW at the side of it. Impressive result with a neat hole thru the armor and eviscerated the inside. One and only time I fired a live rocket with that weapon.

[SteyrAUG]

In my time in the Corps in the early eighties..as an 0351 antitank man I fired a lot of LAW rockets. I loved the damn things. They were hard hitting and once you got the hang of it- pretty accurate to shoot. Had a few empties I kept for years- finally gave them away.
I remember Col. Jeff Cooper in his magnificent book To Ride, Shoot Straight & Speak the Truth, wondering why the U.S. military never adopted the RPG or a similar, reloadable rocket/grenade launcher. He praised the RPG as superior. Never got to fire an RPG.
Anyway- Ive no clue as to whats out there now, But I too always thought a reloadable weapon would beat the single shot one... thoughts on this?

I think with things like the RPG-7 there is a "we don't have it so it must be wonderful" mystique like there was with Kalashnikov rifles before they became very, very common. In the 1970s it was touted as the ULTIMATE small arms rifle, today we know you have to look for canted sights, trigger slap and a dozen more problems if you are talking about a non factory build.

LAW vs. RPG, sorta seems like the LAW isn't much heavier than the actual rocket in a RPG system and that means everyone can have one and you can skip the big TUBE of the RPG. Two feet long and about 5 lbs. seems to be the same for both the LAW and the RPG projectile (minus launcher). I suspect the RPG probably has more range and a better warhead, but probably nothing dramatic. Being able to outfit every guy in the group with even one LAW each really makes a difference.

[Diamondback]

If the training rockets were reusable and the launcher not NFA, that'd be a hell of a range toy... :D

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Damn, thought it was a group buy...

[vicious_cb]

In my time in the Corps in the early eighties..as an 0351 antitank man I fired a lot of LAW rockets. I loved the damn things. They were hard hitting and once you got the hang of it- pretty accurate to shoot. Had a few empties I kept for years- finally gave them away.
I remember Col. Jeff Cooper in his magnificent book To Ride, Shoot Straight & Speak the Truth, wondering why the U.S. military never adopted the RPG or a similar, reloadable rocket/grenade launcher. He praised the RPG as superior. Never got to fire an RPG.
Anyway- Ive no clue as to whats out there now, But I too always thought a reloadable weapon would beat the single shot one... thoughts on this?

Mr Carl G would like to have a word with you.

[Grand58742]

I think with things like the RPG-7 there is a "we don't have it so it must be wonderful" mystique like there was with Kalashnikov rifles before they became very, very common. In the 1970s it was touted as the ULTIMATE small arms rifle, today we know you have to look for canted sights, trigger slap and a dozen more problems if you are talking about a non factory build.

LAW vs. RPG, sorta seems like the LAW isn't much heavier than the actual rocket in a RPG system and that means everyone can have one and you can skip the big TUBE of the RPG. Two feet long and about 5 lbs. seems to be the same for both the LAW and the RPG projectile (minus launcher). I suspect the RPG probably has more range and a better warhead, but probably nothing dramatic. Being able to outfit every guy in the group with even one LAW each really makes a difference.

I tend to think the RPG-7 has a lot of things going for it since they have continued to update that system over the decades since introduction. However, there are drawbacks as well.

I'd tend to think the M72 and RPG-7 drawbacks offset each other especially during the times they were introduced. One RPG infantryman being the anti-tank solution in a squad with (reasonably) quick reloads, but needing security versus a rifle armed squad of M72 armed individuals, but only getting one shot at it per person.

[GTF425]

Mr Carl G would like to have a word with you.

I was about to mention the Goose.

It's like an RPG- but not a piece of shit.

[dwhitehorne]

So in the late 80's as a 0351 we switched over to the AT-4 by 1990. As a Dragon gunner in weapons company I was assigned to a line company during Battalion level exercises. Carrying the AT-4 was just as cumbersome as lugging the Dragon round. We didn't have any round simulators yet so we kept the expended rounds to tote around. The AT-4 was supposed to be for the 0311's but some how they always stuck them with the SMAW gunners in the weapons platoons of rifle companies so we helped carry the AT-4 when the Dragons and SMAW's were together.

The Shoulder Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) was the USMC's RPG with half the range. With a reusable launcher and multiple rounds it was the same idea as the PRG but the SMAW did not have the armor capability of the PG 7 round. I was never a SMAW gunner as I was always in a weapons company but I wondered why there was no HEAT round developed for the SMAW for the 0351's in a rifle company and just upgrade the LAW for the 0311's. David

[Nightvisionary]

So in the late 80's as a 0351 we switched over to the AT-4 by 1990. As a Dragon gunner in weapons company I was assigned to a line company during Battalion level exercises. Carrying the AT-4 was just as cumbersome as lugging the Dragon round. We didn't have any round simulators yet so we kept the expended rounds to tote around. The AT-4 was supposed to be for the 0311's but some how they always stuck them with the SMAW gunners in the weapons platoons of rifle companies so we helped carry the AT-4 when the Dragons and SMAW's were together.

The Shoulder Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) was the USMC's RPG with half the range. With a reusable launcher and multiple rounds it was the same idea as the PRG but the SMAW did not have the armor capability of the PG 7 round. I was never a SMAW gunner as I was always in a weapons company but I wondered why there was no HEAT round developed for the SMAW for the 0351's in a rifle company and just upgrade the LAW for the 0311's. David


I was trained as a 0351 Anti-Tank/Assaultman M-47 Dragon and SMAW gunner at SOI in the late 80's and served as a SMAW gunner in a weapons platoon the early 90's. It was an MOS with two different primary weapon systems and skill sets. The role of the 0351 Assaultman at the company level was to take out enemy bunkers, emplacements. and obstacles with the SMAW, bangalore torpedoes, and demo charges. This SMAW armed infantry Marine replaced the role of the flamethrower operator. There was not an anti-armor mission for the 0351 Assaultman so that is likely why HEAT rounds were not initially adopted although the rockets we were issued were HEDP and effective against light armor. The Anti-Armor capability was reserved for the 0351 M-47 Dragon gunners and 0352 TOW gunners at the battalion level.