View Full Version : M72 LAW's for US Army
From today's DoD contract awards. I had thought that the AT4 filled that particular role:
Nammo Defense Systems Inc., Mesa, Arizona, was awarded a $498,092,926 firm-fixed-price contract for the full rate production of M72 Light Assault Weapon variants and components for shoulder-launched munitions training systems. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 19, 2026. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Newark, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-22-D-0002).
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/2880108/
It seems that the LAW has been significantly updated in recent years:
https://www.nammo.com/product/our-products/shoulder-fired-systems/m72-series/m72-fire-from-enclosure-a8-and-a10/
https://www.nammo.com/product/our-products/shoulder-fired-systems/m72-series/m72-anti-structure-munition-a12/
Maybe cheaper and therefore easier to field across the Army, hopefully. I really don't want to roll into WWIII without all of the rockets.
LAWs have been back for over 10 years. We did a rocket range in the fall of 2010 at Pendleton (we shot the crap out of the then new LAWs). Lack of armored enemy targets in the GWOT made the armor penetration and size/weight of the AT-4 un-needed. Upgraded warheads make the new LAWs almost as effective as the AT-4. As far as I know the AT-4 is still in production and being issued just not primary for line units.
Who is the biggest threat to the US today, you don't want to waste a AT-4 on a deplorable's F-250.
Business_Casual
12-20-21, 20:57
I guess MBTs are fairly rare globally, while bunkers, improvised positions and technicals are far more prolific.
In truth, they both suck against a modern MBT. The AT4 is better than the LAW against armor though.
Lower price, lighter weight, and weaker charge help to make the LAW more versatile. Think of it as more of a general purpose "have a crappy day" package. It's really great for redecorating sniper hides without killing the neighbors, etc.
In truth, they both suck against a modern MBT. The AT4 is better than the LAW against armor though.
Lower price, lighter weight, and weaker charge help to make the LAW more versatile. Think of it as more of a general purpose "have a crappy day" package. It's really great for redecorating sniper hides without killing the neighbors, etc.
Probably would work pretty well against the hundreds of thousands of light skinned vehicles that near peer countries have too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's now a reduced caliber (42mm vs 66mm) version with a carbon fiber warhead, for a "kinder and gentler" effect:
https://i.imgur.com/7Nj8arQ.jpg
Guys i know who went to Afghanistan in the mid teens were using LAWs. They said the weight and size made them far more useful in the mountains than the AT4.
The AT-4 was always a PITA to carry. I wonder if they improved the durability and reliability of the LAW? Always heard they were relatively easily damaged.
I think most of the damage/reliability issues date from the Vietnam era when common carry method was horizontally under the flap of a ruck. If you carry them vertical on the ruck with a pouch on the bottom to stick the end into you don't have as many issues,
I do wonder about the need for the AT-4 with the LAW, Carl Gustav M3 and FGM-148 Javelin.
The downside in my mind is that the LAW is viewed by some as a replacement for the 40mm grenade. Which in my view is even more versatile, and much easier to field and supply in bulk.
Both are good tools, one should not supplant the other.
RPG-7 can take out any Toyota...
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-21, 10:55
There's now a reduced caliber (42mm vs 66mm) version with a carbon fiber warhead, for a "kinder and gentler" effect:
https://i.imgur.com/7Nj8arQ.jpg
Hang them on low level drones?
We used them throughout GWOT. Most of the time when we did not want to Hump a Gustav on a HELO OP or long infills. I have always liked them, fast to employ and weigh hardly anything.
We used them throughout GWOT. Most of the time when we did not want to Hump a Gustav on a HELO OP or long infills. I have always liked them, fast to employ and weigh hardly anything.
Agree completely. After all, I have standard screwdrivers, phillips screwdrivers, different sizes of each, and a Leatherman with one of each type. Which one do I "need"? Well first tell me what I'm gonna be doing and where I am gonna be doing it.
Who is the biggest threat to the US today, you don't want to waste a AT-4 on a deplorable's F-250.
If it's a F-350 with a snowplow up front, "Send It"! :D
We used them throughout GWOT. Most of the time when we did not want to Hump a Gustav on a HELO OP or long infills. I have always liked them, fast to employ and weigh hardly anything.
Oh c'mon, I thought you snake-eaters embraced the suck! ;)
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-23-21, 15:46
....hump a Gustav.....
Oh c'mon, I thought you snake-eaters embraced the suck! ;)
Ain't no suck to embrace on most helo insertions: almost always within 5k of the 'X', and unless you are moving vertically, the weight doesn't matter that much.
Humping in is a whole 'nother beast, and I'd carry 3 LAWs over one Gustav.
This discussion is mostly moot for me because I usually didn't have to carry any of them: I had enough to carry. Other poor schleps had to carry them.
I think it all comes down to encumbrance. The M72 has always been easier to carry versus the AT4 or Carl Gustav. You can realistically load every Soldier in a squad with a M72. You can't expect an Infantry squad to do the same with an AT4. Its size makes it cumbersome.
The big question is how many Javelins can an Infantry squad hump. We've seen how effective Javelins are for stand off targeting of troops in the open against built up positions.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Grand58742
01-04-22, 11:22
It's funny that somehow a lot of things old become new again during the various conflicts we have had since WWII. The GWOT is no exception to this as we've seen some old kit come back into favor because the modern replacements couldn't keep up or were unsuited to the mission.
In Vietnam, older WWII and Korean War era aircraft that should have been "obsolete" like the A-1, A-26, AC-47, AC-119 and AT-28 suddenly found themselves thrust into the front lines.
In the GWOT, the M14 got a new lease on life, the M72 came back into favor, the A-10... okay, that one is timeless even though the USAF keeps trying to be idiots and retire it without a replacement... hell, even a WB-57 was sent to Afghanistan that rolled off the assembly line in 1953 (it was refurbished several times over it's career). Literally an aircraft that had not been in active service with the US military since 1974 and was brought into service because of its unique characteristics and mission profile.
I'm kind of an advocate for the Soviet model of "never throw anything away because you might find a use for it eventually."
It's funny that somehow a lot of things old become new again during the various conflicts we have had since WWII. The GWOT is no exception to this as we've seen some old kit come back into favor because the modern replacements couldn't keep up or were unsuited to the mission.
In Vietnam, older WWII and Korean War era aircraft that should have been "obsolete" like the A-1, A-26, AC-47, AC-119 and AT-28 suddenly found themselves thrust into the front lines.
In the GWOT, the M14 got a new lease on life, the M72 came back into favor, the A-10... okay, that one is timeless even though the USAF keeps trying to be idiots and retire it without a replacement... hell, even a WB-57 was sent to Afghanistan that rolled off the assembly line in 1953 (it was refurbished several times over it's career). Literally an aircraft that had not been in active service with the US military since 1974 and was brought into service because of its unique characteristics and mission profile.
I'm kind of an advocate for the Soviet model of "never throw anything away because you might find a use for it eventually."
well said
It's funny that somehow a lot of things old become new again during the various conflicts we have had since WWII. The GWOT is no exception to this as we've seen some old kit come back into favor because the modern replacements couldn't keep up or were unsuited to the mission.
In Vietnam, older WWII and Korean War era aircraft that should have been "obsolete" like the A-1, A-26, AC-47, AC-119 and AT-28 suddenly found themselves thrust into the front lines.
In the GWOT, the M14 got a new lease on life, the M72 came back into favor, the A-10... okay, that one is timeless even though the USAF keeps trying to be idiots and retire it without a replacement... hell, even a WB-57 was sent to Afghanistan that rolled off the assembly line in 1953 (it was refurbished several times over it's career). Literally an aircraft that had not been in active service with the US military since 1974 and was brought into service because of its unique characteristics and mission profile.
I'm kind of an advocate for the Soviet model of "never throw anything away because you might find a use for it eventually."
Agreed, the JAV is great but how many guys can be given a LAW and carry one compared to a JAV? Three or four LAWs might be better than one JAV.
It's funny that somehow a lot of things old become new again during the various conflicts we have had since WWII. The GWOT is no exception to this as we've seen some old kit come back into favor because the modern replacements couldn't keep up or were unsuited to the mission.
In Vietnam, older WWII and Korean War era aircraft that should have been "obsolete" like the A-1, A-26, AC-47, AC-119 and AT-28 suddenly found themselves thrust into the front lines.
In the GWOT, the M14 got a new lease on life, the M72 came back into favor, the A-10... okay, that one is timeless even though the USAF keeps trying to be idiots and retire it without a replacement... hell, even a WB-57 was sent to Afghanistan that rolled off the assembly line in 1953 (it was refurbished several times over it's career). Literally an aircraft that had not been in active service with the US military since 1974 and was brought into service because of its unique characteristics and mission profile.
I'm kind of an advocate for the Soviet model of "never throw anything away because you might find a use for it eventually."
That's also the Marine Corps' material management philosophy. Comes from decades of getting the army's hand-me-downs.
RE: the M-14, we trained on them for DM rifles during GWOT. They were older than everyone in the platoon.
The 7.62x54R cartridge is a sterling example of that. Invented in the century before last.
The 7.62x54R cartridge is a sterling example of that. Invented in the century before last.
Yeah, but the PKM is really good, actually.
Edit: thats not a dig on the LAW…. I like the LAW.
Averageman
01-05-22, 16:21
I just thought about an Infantry Company volley firing M72 LAW's at an enemy fortress.
I nearly passed out and needed a cigarette and a nap afterwards.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.