I really hate weapon systems in any arsenal that seems like it's in some sort of purgatory. Oversized and overly capable for some light jobs, but not heavy enough and not capable enough for heavy duty work. Like the F-16, I think the AT-4 is really the wrong weapon for the two general combat situations we are most likely going to encounter. The first combat situation is against some 3rd world country which would have a very low number of capable armored divisions with equipment that is T-62's at the very best. The AT-4 is very capable of dealing with these tanks that would be BMP's, M113's, T55's, and T-62's, but the M72 is also capable of punching through these vehicles as well, considering the heaviest of the bunch the T-62 only has about 250mm of RHA, where the M-72 has up to 375mm of power.
An arguement can be made that the M-72 is incapable of defeating the larger peices of armor such as the T-72. But due to the lack of a tandom charge from the AT-4, it is also incapable of punching through the ERA of a T-72, T-80 or T-90 tank. For these targets, I believe the only capable individual weapon system is the Javelin missle system.
So we opted for a weapon that is almost 3 times heavier, and costs a lot more yet is overly capable dealing with low-intensity targets, yet not proficent enough to take on modern day tanks. It can be argued that the AT-4 has 100m greater effective range, but is that worth 3 times the weight? The M72 is almost light enough that it could be a standardized weapon in every rifleman's equipment. The AT-4 is basically only carried by one soldier per squad. Is the M72 better than the AT-4 at taking out bunkers, buildings, and entrenched positions? No, but's it's no slouch at it either. If given the choice I think I would go with the weight savings of an M72 over the AT-4 any given day.
What's your opinions? Am I wrong that the AT-4 is too heavy for today's jobs, but not capable enough for future large scale battles?
Edit: I kinda wanted to add that for 2 kilo's more (which is substantial I understand) You can opt for a Carl Gustav which is reloadable and has the capability for a Tandam charge warhead that could at least defeat a T-72 and perhaps even a T-80/90 if hit in the right spot (side, rear).
An arguement can be made that the M-72 is incapable of defeating the larger peices of armor such as the T-72. But due to the lack of a tandom charge from the AT-4, it is also incapable of punching through the ERA of a T-72, T-80 or T-90 tank. For these targets, I believe the only capable individual weapon system is the Javelin missle system.
So we opted for a weapon that is almost 3 times heavier, and costs a lot more yet is overly capable dealing with low-intensity targets, yet not proficent enough to take on modern day tanks. It can be argued that the AT-4 has 100m greater effective range, but is that worth 3 times the weight? The M72 is almost light enough that it could be a standardized weapon in every rifleman's equipment. The AT-4 is basically only carried by one soldier per squad. Is the M72 better than the AT-4 at taking out bunkers, buildings, and entrenched positions? No, but's it's no slouch at it either. If given the choice I think I would go with the weight savings of an M72 over the AT-4 any given day.
What's your opinions? Am I wrong that the AT-4 is too heavy for today's jobs, but not capable enough for future large scale battles?
Edit: I kinda wanted to add that for 2 kilo's more (which is substantial I understand) You can opt for a Carl Gustav which is reloadable and has the capability for a Tandam charge warhead that could at least defeat a T-72 and perhaps even a T-80/90 if hit in the right spot (side, rear).
Comment