Talk:M72 LAW - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simon9 (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 23 July 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:16, 23 July 2007 by Simon9 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:0.7 nom

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Progression from the Bazooka?

If the LAW is a single use weapon, isn't this a disadvantage as compared to the original Bazooka (granted it does not leave a smoke trail and has no recoil)? I think there should be mention of the reasoning of this change in the article.

I think that would be better put into an article on infantry anti-tank weapons and the change in personal infantry anti-tank weapons from mostly reloadable, to a very high percentage of disposable weapons, and then back again recently. The M72 replaced the M20A1/M20A1B1 "Super-Bazooka" which had itself replaced the M9A1 Bazooka. The M72 was then replaced with another disposable weapon, the M136. However, in the United States military, a return to heavier weapons, such as the Mk 153 Mod 0 SMAW and the Carl Gustav M3 show that perhaps the disposable trend may be in the process of being reversed.

Sure, go ahead.

Also, why does the title say the weapon is a LAW but in the article it says the weapon is a Light Anti :Armor Weapon (LAAW)? Dilbert 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

According to US Army TM 9-1340-214-10, it is a Light Antitank Weapon (LAW) system, so I changed it, because this is straight from the manual. There is no mention of the LAAW acronym in the manual talking specifically about the M72. Thatguy96 21:54, 26 January 2006

Why is it Disposable?

What's the point of a disposable rocket launcher? Doesn't it cost more money and isn't it more convenient to have a reloadable weapon like an RPG-7?220.101.101.183 08:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)?

I can think of a couple of advantages off the top of my head, easier from a logistics POV to have a disposable unit that you can just treat as a round of ammo, and once you've used up your ammo for a launcher such as the RPG-7, you're left with a 15lb club to carry around. Just playing devil's advocate here, personally I think that reloadable is the way to go for reasons of cost and versatility. The weight becomes less of an issue if ammo for the launcher is also carried by people other than the grenadier. Riddley 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Riddley is basically correct IMHO...The LAAW (which I thought was the original abbreviation - Light Anti Armor Weapon, not Anti Tank) was designed as "throw away" weapon. Most likely due to comparisons of what a soldier can actually carry: i.e. a comparison of the weight of a couple of LAAWs vs the weight of a permanent launcher and a bunch of warheads (or whatever their called) distributed amongst a squad. In other words, maybe half the squad members carrying a LAAW or two each works out better than one or two guys carry a launcher and one round apiece, and everyone else humping addit'l rounds... The LAAW is basically a fiberglass tube and the important part is the warhead. For anything re-loadable, the importance shifts to the launcher - you'd have to have a metal launcher, maintain it like your rifle, etc etc... The advent of helicopter warfare (1950s-60s) made resupply of disposable equipment much more viable too....Engr105th 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

M72 LAW vs RPG-7

Personally, i'm a bit confused with the armour penetration statistics of these 2 weapons. Can someone tell me which is better in armour penetration?chubbychicken 07:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The short story is that the any of the anti-armour rounds used in the RPG-7 have more armour penetration than the standard (66mm) round in the M72. Armour penetration from a conical shaped charged is a function of the diameter of the charge. The warhead on an RPG-7 launched round can be anything up to 105mm or more Riddley 17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

...and the RPG is reusable and cheaper, and you can carry a lot af spare charges instead of a lot of bulky tubes. Sorry, the russkies made it better this time. Randroide 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a caption on that picture

Given the equipment and the rifle, I assume this image is a very early one. Can anyone positively identify the rifle? Maury 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Its an M1 Garand type. The picture's file name gives the indication that it was taken in 1960 at Ft. Benning, GA. It would appear to have been a staged promo photograph of a new system. The Redstone Arsenal has a similar one from the last '50s when the LAW was in development. -- Thatguy96 15:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Units

72.159.168.35 changed the Imperial but not metric units. Not sure which is authoritative, but they should at least be commutative, no? MKV 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

specifications

Isn't there a problem with the following specifications ? I thought 1 in is 2.54 cm, if it is the case, 54.97 in is 1.38 m. Same goes for the weights.

Launcher

   * Length:
         o Extended: less than 1 m (54.97 in).
         o Closed: 0.67 m (24.8 in).
   * Weight:
         o Complete M72A2: 2.3 kg (8.1 lb).
         o Complete M72A3: 2.5 kg (8.5 lb).

Svartkell 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reusing the launcher?

Can an M72 laucher be repacked by the factories after being fired? I've heard that they can be, but that doing so is overly expensive and unreliable for it to be a common practice.74.36.192.6 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...it probably can be re-packed...but as you said, doing that would likely cost more than just buying more off the factory line. It might be viable in training practice where you can recover the tube, but in real combat the soldier is going to throw down this "one shot" weapon after he uses it and move on. I doubt recovering these to send back to the rear would be much of a priority...Engr105th 00:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

M72 in Australian service

"The Australian Army also utilizes the M72 LAW as a secondary anti-armour weapon but they primarily use the FGM-149 Javelin Missile. M72 LAW's are stored in reserves and only withdrawn when the Australian Defence Force uses it."

This is wrong. All Australian infantry are trained on the M72A6 during their rifleman's course, and they are carried operationally by Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for use in the anti-fortification role. It also makes no reference to the 84mm Carl Gustaf which was the primary anti-armour weapon in the Australian Army until the recent introduction of the Javelin. Simon9 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories: