"Tactics of firing the M72 LAW" Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticlePeteMurray takes a look at Microfigs' Soviet T-80B tank and a BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle in N scale.
Featured Workbench ArticleAdam gets to paint a cool figure, and then paint his dead counterpart.
Featured Book Review
|
Wolfhag | 21 Aug 2017 11:48 p.m. PST |
Source: link This was all new to me and I fired them numerous times. Single firing. In single firing, you fire at a target with only one LAW. This method is used only at ranges of 50 meters or less. Beyond that range, single firing is ineffective, as the chance of a first-round hit is low. Sequence firing. In sequence firing, you prepare several launchers for firing. After firing the first LAW, note its impact. If you get a hit, continue to fire, using the same sight picture, until the target is destroyed. If the first round is a miss, adjust the range and lead of succeeding rounds until you get a hit. Then continue to fire until the target is destroyed. Pair firing. In pair firing, you and another gunner prepare two or more LAWs each, and fire at a target one at a time. You swap information when firing at the target. The gunner seeing a target identifies it and gives the estimated range and lead he will use (for example, TANK, 150 METERS, FAST TARGET), then fires. If the first gunner misses, the second gunner quickly announces a revised estimate of range and lead (as appropriate) and fires. Both gunners continue exchanging range and lead information until one gets a hit. Once the range and lead are determined, gunners fire at the target until it is destroyed. Pair firing is preferred over sequence firing, as it lets the gunners get hits fasten the gunner firing the second round can be ready to fire as soon as the first round impacts. In sequence firing, you must get another LAW, establish a sight picture, and fire. Pair firing also has the advantage of having two gunners track the target at one time. Volley firing. In volley firing, you and one or more other gunners fire at once. Before firing, each gunner prepares one or more LAWs Gunners fire on command or on signal until the target is destroyed for example, TANK, 100 METERS, SLOW TARGET, VOLLEY FIRE, READY, AIM, FIRE. Volley fire is used only when the range to the target and the lead have been determined. Range can be determined by map, by pacing, or by the results of pair firing after a target has been hit. The volley method is best because more rounds are fired at a target at one time. That increases the chance of a hit. Wolfhag |
Gaz0045 | 22 Aug 2017 1:46 a.m. PST |
I recall being taught about volley/ salvo fire, the consensus being that you would be very lucky to kill on the first shot or be able to fire from the same position twice, our 'warload' was 2 LAWs each initially…..if the 8 man section was at full strength! |
badger22 | 22 Aug 2017 7:36 a.m. PST |
I was the battery tank killer team NCOIC a couple of times( mostly because I volunteered and nobody else wanted to do it) and I taught my teams all of those things. And of course I learned it from a gnarly old vet who had used them before. Owen |
Legion 4 | 22 Aug 2017 2:35 p.m. PST |
I remember being trained in those firing techniques. And in most cases everyone who was not carrying a heavy weapon in my Squads would carry a LAW or 2. |
Wolfshanza | 22 Aug 2017 10:27 p.m. PST |
Generally carried one or two in RVN. Used them like RPGs. Almost got a kill at about 150 yards but missed by about a foot :( He left and didn't come back ! |
LORDGHEE | 22 Aug 2017 11:23 p.m. PST |
The law story I like was on Grenada, when the BTRs attacked every ranger with a law started running toward them screaming "mine. MINE MINE!" seems a lot of laws where issued, as the BTRs quickly all blew up. |
Tired Mammal | 23 Aug 2017 4:21 a.m. PST |
If that's how good M72s are I suspect that most WW2 rules significantly overrate bazookas and Panzerfausts. At least their chances to hit at any rate. That and battery issues with bazookas to get them to fire in the first place but I think that was fixed by 44. |
Legion 4 | 23 Aug 2017 6:32 a.m. PST |
Not sure if that is entirely true. The Panzerfaust was considered effective but at only very close range. As was the UK PIAT. However the PIAT was not considered as effective as the Panzerschreck AFAIK. And the Panzerschreck had a little longer range and along with the US Bazooka could do some damage. Even if it does not "blow up" the AFV but inflict a mobility kill, e.g. blowing off a road wheel or track, etc., Could certainly make some crews bail out. The threat of the Infantrymen packing an AT weapon of some type is something AFV crews don't like very much. We had M113s and we know how "fragile" they were. The RPG then and today is a good example of that type of weapon. But as noted by later in WWII tactics and techniques along with better weapons had improved. And that carried on all the way thru to today. For better or worse, any Inf AT weapon is better than nothing generally. I know we felt that way … Each of my Squads packed a M47 Dragon, and we didn't think that would be effective but at the time it was good to have a man packed AT wpn with @ 1000m range. And again everyone that was not carrying a heavy weapon could carry 1 or 2 M72s. Was glad when the AT4 was adopted a few years before I ETS'd. Was coming into the inventory. I remember having some NCOs from the BCT/AIT unit on post come over an give my Mech Company a class on those. There were some available for live fire range training. And I wanted to get my troops trained in using those. As the only ones who really had the training at that time were the very "new guys" coming from BCT/AIT. And it seemed to be an improvement over the LAW. |
Wolfhag | 23 Aug 2017 12:08 p.m. PST |
The only real action I think the LAW saw against tanks was at the Special Forces Camp at Lang Vei near Khe Sanh. IIRC 6-7 PT-76's assaulted the camp at night. They had 106mm RCL's that took out 1-2 before they were knocked out. The Special Forces guys fired off 6-7 LAWS with two malfunctioning, one they could not get the safety unlocked, one missed from 75 yards. It's quite an exciting read and would make a great VN small unit scenario: link Doesn't the AT-4 have that 9mm ranging gun ballistically matched to the round? When I was in we didn't have any tactics for firing the LAW. I doubt if a Marine every fired one at a tank. Fortunately, when I went on a Med Cruise after the 1973 Yom Kippur we were issued individual close assault anti-tank weapons that were Top Secret at the time. Wolfhag |
Apache 6 | 23 Aug 2017 2:05 p.m. PST |
Wolfhag: I think you are thinking of the SMAW, it is equipped with a 9mm spotting rifle. The next variant will be fielded soon will replace it with a laser range finder. The LAW rockets were brought back into the system around 2005. They have been used in combat a lot recently, for urban combat and as a direct fire against strongpoints. I don't think any have been used against tanks. |
Wolfhag | 23 Aug 2017 2:28 p.m. PST |
Apache, Yes, thanks. SMAW is what I think the Marines are using. I saw them on the range firing the 9mm spotting rounds that give off a puff of smoke. Lasers, cool. I think the LAW worked fairly well against bunkers in the jungle too. IIRC the LAW had a black powder propellant that burned all at once so there was no backflash into your face like a solid rocket propellent. I still remember the distinctive "bang" it made when fired. Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 23 Aug 2017 3:34 p.m. PST |
The only real action I think the LAW saw against tanks was at the Special Forces Camp at Lang Vei near Khe Sanh. IIRC 6-7 PT-76's assaulted the camp at night. They had 106mm RCL's that took out 1-2 before they were knocked out. The Special Forces guys fired off 6-7 LAWS with two malfunctioning, one they could not get the safety unlocked, one missed from 75 yards. I heard the same. We were told to look at M72 tube to see if it had printed on it "w/coupler". As the first gen had the bad habit of the warhead falling off the rocket while in flight. Doesn't the AT-4 have that 9mm ranging gun ballistically matched to the round? Could be wrong but I don't think so. No ranging round for the AT-4. think you are thinking of the SMAW, it is equipped with a 9mm spotting rifle. I believe the US Army never used the SMAW AFAIK. Primarily/always the USMC. And I do think the Laser Range Finder is better than a Ranging MG … on any weapons system. Now the 106mm RRs on the M50A1 Ontos, IIRC, had a .50 cal. ranging MG, IIRC. link The LAW rockets were brought back into the system around 2005. I was told the same from Vets who served at that time. And yes, was informed it was very useful vs. structures, bunkers, etc. |
|