Comments on: Introducing: The LAW-ski

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:32:57 +0000

Theres a big difference between the M203 and RPG. The CG may be a little pricey, but its not a “one and done” weapon. There should be a lot more to go around.

By: the dude

the dude — Sat, 16 May 2009 07:35:43 +0000

DefenseRreview is sh*t. Writing an

By: KragCulloden

KragCulloden — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:55:26 +0000

Rick — reading comprehension — how’s this — you keep ‘blathering on’ about what the RPG was originally designed for, which is something we all know. What you keep ignoring is the field reality of how RPGs are being used, which I keep trying to relay to you.
That is the comparison to the M203 — the RPG is actually USED, in COMBAT, against infantry the majority of the time. Its a splash damage weapon with horrible accuracy, high launch visibility, and poor reliability, hence the suicide weapon description used by another poster.
For the actual uses we encounter in combat, the M203 is the functional equivalent of the bad guys’ RPGs. Good for you that you looked up some Russian weapons and found out about the GP series. If we were fighting Russians then yes, GP would combare to M203. We aren’t. The bad guys are using their RPGs against infantry as area effect munitions. That is exactly what we use the M203 for.
Everyone knows the M203 is not an RPG, and an RPG is not a grenade launcher. The issue is functional equivalent in actual combat. Maybe this time it will actually sink in for you. Either way, its my last attempt at explaining this to you.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:34:50 +0000

I forgot to add, that carrying all those LAWs was great, if you were only faced with light armored vehicles. If you were faced with troops, fighting positions or heavy armor you were SOL.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:30:48 +0000

I would like to address the dud factor people keep harping on. I think there would be a huge difference between rounds and launchers made in the U.S. and rounds and launchers made who knows where and when. I also can see very little difference in exposing a troop when they are aiming an RPG, LAW, SMAW, Javelin, or whatever.
One LAW per squad? That’s laughable, one shot per nine men won’t cut it, that’s why doctrine was when I was in that every troop would carry a LAW or two and two rounds for the 60mm mortars.
While the reader who pointed out the original RPG was anti-tank, he failed to notice that after it’s deployment, rounds were developed for different roles. That’s the beauty of the Gustav and RPG is that a round could be loaded to fit the target.
I think the point some of us are trying to make, is that one time use launchers are probably not the best answer.

By: Stormhawk

Stormhawk — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:33:02 +0000

To jsallison, gsak, bdwilcox, Bob, Joe, Vstress, etc., etc., yes,yes, yes, we can all see that he used parts from a Tippman paintball gun and an AR15 for his mock up/prototype.
But back to the issues at hand: 1)do we need such a weapon, 2)with the new budget cuts on the way, will we be forced to move to less expensive and perhaps risker weapons like this in the near future, 3)what can be done with this idea to make it more useable, more feasible, deadlier to the enemy and less so to our soldiers in case we have to?

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:08:29 +0000

I maybe stupid, but I am smart enough to know that RPG is the Russian acronym for Hand-held, Anti-Tank Grenade Launcher. That’s not the name you give to an anti-infantry weapon. If you are ever in an armored hummer or MRAP when one of these things comes roaring in you will (maybe) appreciate the difference.
I am also smart enough to actually read the artical, which apparently you are not. The American weapons that are comparable to the RPG are the M3 MAAWS (the US version of the Carl Gustaf) and the Marines’ SMAW MK153, Mod 0. Neither is much more (and there are those who claim no more) capable than the RPG and both are far more expensive. Apparently you missed it, so let me quote where the artical states “M3 Carl-Gustaf

By: KragCulloden

KragCulloden — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:27:44 +0000

We’ve got some folks that are either stubborn or just stupid.
Its been made clear both in the article and in the comments that the US has far more capable, and expensive, weapons to fill the role the RPG line of weapons does.
Yes the US weapons are more expensive, and yes they are far superior in performance, reliability, and overrall combat effectiveness.
Do we need a cheaper, less capable, more dangerous weapon to augment the better but more expensive weapons that already are doing the job? Unless you’re stubborn or stupid, the answer is clearly no.
Final thought — some folks need to get their noses out of their books and webpage info sheets and see how the real world is working — RPGs are overwhelming used, in real life combat, as area effect munitions against infantry. Doesn’t matter what they were “designed” for decades ago, or how many mm of RHA the lab says it can punch through — they are actually used most to kill infantry and blow up soft skinned stuff — which functionally is the same thing we use an M203.
If an M203 doesn’t do it — use a LAW — LAW doesn’t do it — use a SMAW — SMAW doesn’t do it — use a Javelin — Javelin doesn’t do it — call in fire support.
We’ve got the bases covered.

By: jsallison

jsallison — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:34:09 +0000

It’s April 1st somewhere, right? Can I have one in APFSDS-T?

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:22:17 +0000

The RPG was built as an antitank weapon. It is the reason our lighter vehicles need RPG cages.
The antipersonnel loads came later.
M203 is a fine weapon. Unless of course you need to kill a tank, smash a building with a thermobaric warhead, or engage a target in the 450–900 meter range. Those are all things that an RPG in the hands of a proficient gunner can do that an M203 cannot. The NATO weapons that can do those things are all far more expensive than an RPG.