Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade
EKG    5/19/2006 12:25:10 AM
When I first saw that improved versions of the LAW were being made I was excited. Then I got to thinking... The LAW probably has about the same penetration through RHA as an RPG, ~12 inches. However, the venerable Energa 75 rifle grenade has penetration of ~15 inches. Effective ranges of both are around 200 meters, though realistically the Energa has a direct fire range of more like 150 meters. So, is the 50 meter more range of the LAW worth the 5.5 (versus approx 2 pound or less Energa) pound weight, and the over 2 foot closed length (versus about a foot for the Energa)? When you look at it the rifle grenade is generally less bulky as well, and doesn't leave a firing signature like I assume the LAW does. The M72E8 would leave less signature then the regular M72, but it would also weigh more. The M72E10 might... might... be better in the anti-personnel role, but then again a RG similar in size and weight to the Energa would be absolutely devastating at close range if made into a pure fragmentation type. I don't believe the Energa is a bullet pass through type RG, but with modern technology this could be solved as well. What do you think? Personally I think its just to compensate for the lack of the 5.56's power, which correspondingly reduces rifle grenade range.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Horsesoldier    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/19/2006 11:03:14 AM
I think the rifle grenade has generally been relegated to obsolete status by most militaries because of its lack of accuracy (indirect fire type trajectory and relatively low velocity) and severe recoil (requiring weapon to be braced on the ground to employ safely) . . . but I readily admit this may not reflect the state of the art with such devices and is mostly based on 1950s era "how to fire" instructions that accompany the manual for a couple of older weapons I own. In that context, however, given the choice of a rifle grenade on an FAL/SLR or a LAW, I'd prefer the LAW in most circumstances. As I say, though, more modern designs might prompt me to reconsider that, I'm just not up to speed on what's out there these days.
Quote    Reply

EKG    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/19/2006 12:21:45 PM
I get your point, and your right, there are a rocket assisted rifle grenades out there. But realistically, what kind of tank is a LAW going to be taking out these days? More like LAVs or Hummers right? So for that you could make a dual purpose HEAT and Frag rifle grenade, bullet pass through, about 3 quarters the weight of an Energa. You would have a direct fire weapon out to 100 yards or so with the use of a regular cartridge, the added recoil being fully manageable. Maybe if a LAW had more range I would find it useful, as it is I would always prefer a couple of good, modern rifle grenades, of which there are many. The Israelis still use rifle grenades, thats good enough for me. They have a bunch of modern ones.
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/19/2006 12:34:56 PM
Yeah, I'd much prefer a Carl Gustav to a LAW, but there's a bit of an apples and oranges issue there. I'd think LAWs would mostly be used these days for bunker busting and taking out strongpoints in buildings, with even shooting a light AFVs and softskinned vehicles being a secondary. I'm pretty sure the continued US interest in the M72 design is strictly because it's a compact bunker buster (especially with thermobarics in the mix).
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/19/2006 1:51:51 PM
Carl Gustav has a serious rear flame issue when firing. The rear blast range is 4 times longer than M72, which make the shooter an obvious target. Rifle granades are replaced by granade launchers. Rifle granades require either blanks to fire it or to be FN "bullet through" type granades with reduced HE payload. Granade launchers allow multiple types of granades to be fired from unified launcher attached to infantrymen's battle rifles. Carl Gustav can launch a warhead of 3kg to about 1000m. M72 can throw a HEAT warhead of 1kg to about 300m. A granade launcher can fire a 0.3kg warhead up to 400m. While a rifle granade can only wrap a 0.3kg warhead and is accurate only about 200m. Rifle granades have to be gone, but comparing the rest is just like comparing water melons to oranges to grapes.
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/19/2006 2:25:50 PM
>>Carl Gustav has a serious rear flame issue when firing. The rear blast range is 4 times longer than M72, which make the shooter an obvious target.<< Actually, the Carl Gustav's rear danger area is mostly from flying debris. Signature is pretty minor compared to rockets and missiles. It is hellishly loud, though, and nobody except maybe somebody buttoned up inside a tank is going to be unclear on the fact that someone just lit them up with a CG.
Quote    Reply

Tiber1    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/19/2006 3:59:10 PM
I've never live fired the Carl Gustav, but ran a Law range one day as we used up old stock. Fired a bunch of them. I've always liked them for what they are. They are fairly light and compact. They are pretty reliable (even those old war stock rockets past their prime). I wouldn't want to go against any thing heavy, but they are not made for it. As was said before. They are really for bunkers, buildings and the odd light vehicle you might run into. They fit into a great niche between a 40mm grenade and a real anti-tank weapon. If a M72 can't take out your target you are better off calling in a air strike or your unit's anti-tank team. As someone who always seemed to get stuck carrying the at-4's, I hated how uncomfortable they are to carry over time. I think I still have bruises on the back of my thighs from the damn things.
Quote    Reply

Professor Fickle    RE: newer Rfle Grenade links>   5/19/2006 4:36:27 PM
New rifle grenades have a bullet catcher like GREM US army will used one. HERE is A FREAKY link: The Grenade Rifle Entry Munition is a 100mm high-explosive insensitive munition that provides a safe and effective means of defeating all types of entry doors without endangering troops or sacrificing the element of surprise. launched from the end of a rifle with the use of standard rifle ammunition, GREM is simple to use and requires minimal training. Specifications: Projectile Type Ballistic Warhead Type: 120mm High-Explosive Insensitive Munition Weight: 1.5 Pounds (.68 kg) Length 15.4 Inches (391mm) Excluding Standoff Rod Performance Maximum Range Maximum Range 36 Yards (33m) Here is a video!!!!!!! Pleas look!>
Quote    Reply

EKG    RE: newer Rfle Grenade links>   5/19/2006 5:16:49 PM
Yellichink I disagree. Unless the grapes your talking about are puny 40mm rounds with a casualty radius of 5 meters. Modern, 200+ meter range anti-personnel rifle grenades can have a casualty radius of 30-50 meters easily. The M203 has a maximum effective range against stationary point targets of 150-175 meters. So in light of these facts, what do you think of rifle grenades now? If your going to use the same tired recoil argument, most if not all of our combat soldiers would be very happy to have an effective modern rifle grenade with a casualty radius of even 30 meters, for a tradeoff of a stout punch of the shoulder. Professor, great link! I don't really know where the Carl Gustaf came into this, I'm strictly comparing the LAW to rifle grenades as they have similar roles. In Vietnam the LAW was used to good effect almost exclusively as an anti-personnel weapon, I'm saying we could have just used rifle grenades. A rifle grenade can be fired from inside a room too.
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    RE: newer Rfle Grenade links EKG   5/19/2006 7:48:05 PM
Back in the old days in Taiwanese army, my unit still had boxes of T57/M14 rifles for mobilization. And, yes, we still had rifle grenades. Those old type rifle grenades requires blank round to fire it. Not a particular good idea. The grenader has to unload the mag, pop out the chambered round, insert the blank and load the rifle grenade. This is not particularly difficult if you're operating Lee Enfield, which has magazine cut off, but a pain in the a$$ when operation a autoloading rifle. The type of rifle grenades which have 30-50m frag-range is used by battle rifles firing 30.06 or 7.62NATO. Try that with puny 5.56 and the result will be hilarious. That's why FN Helstal created bullet-trap rifle granades to be used on their FN FNC, but that particular rifle grenade is not any better than 40x33mm. I don't know if you have ever heard of something called RAW (Rifleman's Assault Weapon), which is a strange looking ball-like and gas-launching, rocket propelled weapon. They didn't invent this strange-looking gas trap mount to fire that big ball of plastic bomb for no reason. Also, rifle-grenades are fin-stablized, unlike rotational stablized grenade launcher, are more prone to inaccuracy. That's why they are wrapped with slightly higher punch in FN bullet-trap one: 10m!? Compare this with old French rifle-hand-grenade launched from old MAS 39 rifle, this is also a small punch. Brits had tried that, but they bought AG36s for their finally fixed L85A2.
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    RE: newer Rfle Grenade links   5/19/2006 7:53:37 PM
"New rifle grenades have a bullet catcher like GREM US army will used one." bullet catcher, or bullet-trap, or bullet-through, is not a new technology. FN Herstal made their first bullet-trap rifle grenade in 1988. Many armies have bought that one and they are now buying 40mm grenades. I don't think a special entry munition will change much.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT