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: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
bunkerdestroyer    RE: newer Rfle Grenade links>   5/21/2006 5:26:57 PM
hs: yeah, unless modified, I dont see it doing much to breach a metal gate for a compound, or a reinforced door. But in Urban warfare-ie Fallujah, I think it would do great for going into the houses/rooms. Def. give the enemy a nasty suprise.
 
Quote    Reply

EKG    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/23/2006 6:43:02 PM
Interesting... So what I see here is that the impediments against the anti-tank rifle grenade are: 1. The 5.56 is too weak to launch it... Well this is true. But the 5.56 is too weak to do a lot of things... In any case. So... I'm convinced now that the LAW does have its place... As a direct fire bunker busting type weapon. However, I have to disagree that 40mm grenade launchers are superior to rifle grenades. I don't know what this low accuracy thing is about, you could easily make a rifle grenade and grenade mount/spigot mount very accurate. The M203 can hit a window sized target at up to 150 meters. If you're trying to tell me, that with modern technology we couldn't get a rifle grenade to do that that was much more powerful then an M203, and that was cost effective, sorry, but your plain wrong. If you're trying to tell me that you couldn't clamp a rifle grenade onto the end of a rifle in the time it takes you to eject a 40mm shell and put in another one, you're wrong as well. Another one was that rifle grenades are of less then potent power... Compared to what a tank shell? Then yes. But you can scale a rifle grenade from M67 fragmentation grenade power, all the way up to literally more powerful then either an RPG or LAW. Now, as to the indirect fire thing, there were two different blank cartridges used to launch rifle grenades out of a FAL, a normal one, and a super one. With the super recoiling one you had to brace the rifle against the ground, effective range indirect 400 meters. But with the normal one you CAN easily fire from the shoulder and direct fire against small groups of humans at 100 meters or so. How do I know this? Well, read a few books about the Rhodesian brush wars and you'll find that their pointman would carry an Energa 75 on the end of his FAL, then upon spotting a team of enemies, instead of firing one bullet and only killing one while the rest went for cover, he would fire the rifle grenade and kill or disable all of them. With a pure antipersonnel grenade you could extend this same power out to 200 meters. You have convinced me though, that the LAW has its place.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/23/2006 7:48:00 PM
Carrying a rifle with a rifle grenade fitted sounds a tad daft to me. Firstly, the centre of gravity being so far forwards must make it a bitch to carry. Secondly, if you stumble onto an enemy just a few meters away, you are helpless. Thirdly, it givs you only one shot at it, as I doubt shooting a hail of standard rounds after the grenade would be practicle, what with having to change the gas pluig etc. In the past I have been taught that the point man should have his weapon on automatic, with the safety off. However, I dare say having a 40mm grenade launcher loaded with a fletchette round in addition to the rifle on repitition/automatic would be even better.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/23/2006 7:50:27 PM
the 40mm is more accurate(fired plenty of them) and would have an easier time taking out a bunker or a room position from 50/100 yds away due to a more direct line of fire..... friend of mine in the princess patricias had a guy in his platoon who was hell on wheels with a 40mm. they had a dead tank on the range and he was able to drop them consistently through the turret ring at upwards of 200 metres.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/23/2006 7:57:26 PM
if the bad guy is inside the minimum safe arming range it's perfectly safe to fire the grenade into him. kinda wasteful hehe. also you might consider that given the terrain in rhodesia you were likely to have decent sight lines and some range to the engagement.
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/23/2006 8:23:06 PM
ekg: never fired a rifle gernade, but from the manuels(and I cant quote a thing from them) and from seeing them in pratice, I can almost guarantee that the 40mm on a m-16 is quicker to reload than a RG. ALL you have to do, after the weapon has been discharged is to keep the weapon in the ready position, open the breech, quickly get a round out of your vest and insert it. Close the breach, aim and fire. The reload process would only take for the average soldier, under 5 seconds and to re-acquire an area target, under 10 seconds to acquire and fire, perhaps a tad longer for a point target. Thats for the average soldier, and not a skilled one. For the RG, a lot longer, esp in just acquiring a second round-in a combat situation, NOT sitting in the open on a table or so waiting to be fired. The basic mechanics of it would dicated the average person would take a good deal longer(but not much longer) perhaps your supersoldier example is one of the few who are speedy, but we are talking the average soldier.......
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/23/2006 8:25:51 PM
ekg-sorry, part 2 you did have a point about the new tech, but that is a two way street. Sure, update the RG all you want, and then, go next door and give the 40mm a new filler and charge, so now, you get 50% greater punch and 50% greater range, etc..etc.... so, you can do it with both rounds. In the generic, I still believe the 40mm is the better choice.
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/23/2006 8:30:03 PM
ehran.....yeah, for myself, about the only thing I would be a danger to would be troops in the open, and that would be only after 2-3 rds. I am left handed and I rarely hit a bunker(training) or a tank/apc target, esp beyond 75 yds.....good think that wasnt my issued weapon. hehehe.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Talley M72E8/M72E10 LAW Versus the Common Rifle Grenade   5/24/2006 6:32:09 PM
>>However, I have to disagree that 40mm grenade launchers are superior to rifle grenades. I don't know what this low accuracy thing is about, you could easily make a rifle grenade and grenade mount/spigot mount very accurate.<< A 40mm projectile is launched through a rifled barrel. A rifle grenade is lobbed into the air on a wing and a prayer. The inaccuracy of rifle grenades is why, at least in part, the 40mm GL has become its replacement. >>How do I know this? Well, read a few books about the Rhodesian brush wars and you'll find that their pointman would carry an Energa 75 on the end of his FAL, then upon spotting a team of enemies, instead of firing one bullet and only killing one while the rest went for cover, he would fire the rifle grenade and kill or disable all of them. With a pure antipersonnel grenade you could extend this same power out to 200 meters.<< Just finishing up Fire Force by Chris Cox (deliberate SP mistake to get past Strat Pages editor) and have read and reread Top Secret War by Ron Reid-Daly several times. Also recently read Robin Moore's pretty dreadful The White Tribe which, while fictional, is based on first hand experiences in country during the war. I haven't encountered any reference to rifle grenades in either the autobiographical books or Moore's fiction that I can recall. But in any case, embargoed Rhodesia's use of obsolete weaponry is not a really compelling argument, to me, for its resurgence. The Rhodesians had first rate tactics for the situation they found themselves in, but their military very much made do with what they could get, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Horsesoldier   5/24/2006 6:50:32 PM
I am very interested in the Rhodesian conflict, and you sound fairly well read on it, what books would you reccomend (for informed but fairly light reading)?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics