Rocket Launchers,
Post them, explain which is your best and why.
Missile Launchers are also acceptable but please no Javs.
We don't know dick about launchers because we can't own them.
>>29134861
This thread is specifically made for aesthetic use.
>>29134861
>living in commiefornia or new york
M72 LAW is still used today
Especially the upgraded versions
They are great for killing people, lighter armored vehicles, technicals or cars, and shooting at buildings.
Cant really take out tanks because of bigger and better armor + era + aps but it might do shit to T55s, T62s, T64s and old T72s
I shot the M72 multiple times as a conscript. Its a pretty decent light thing, but as stated, it will only have a significant effect on older APC`s and Tanks. I got the empty launcher tube after I fired my last one, and use it regulary to smuggle stuff across the border.
>>29134827
There is no such thing as best rocket launcher, since it would be "jack of all trades, master of none" sort of thing. What one ideally needs are several rocket launcher designs that compliment each other and fit to different roles. Small caliber disposable rocker launchers firing HEAT-rocket like LAW are cheap, handy and light, but cannot take out modern MBTs. While large caliber rocket launchers can take out also modern MBT with HEAT-rockets, they are are expensive, bulky and heavy. Plus in addition of those two it is nice to have something that fires rocket that is optimized to be used against buildings and something that fires rocket that has decent high explosive warhead with good fragmentation.
It is possible to use disposable rocket launcher designs for all those roles, or pick a rocket / recoilless rifle that can used for most or even all of them, but it is difficult to say which is the smartest way of doing it.
>>29135695
A jack of all trades, master of none, is still better than a master of one.
>>29134827
I still dig the good ol' RPG-7. It still seems to kick ass, and being a reloadable weapon with multiple ammo types available, it's versatile as fuck. The modernized variants can also weight almost half of that the original wood+steel ones do.
I've only ever handled M72A5 and some APILAS. I dig how you can easily carry around a couple M72 with rest of the gear. With the newest version offering an improved penetration, making it on-par with AT-4, it's pretty handy emergency anti-armor tool. Mobility kill and destroyed optics / turret is still better than nothing.
The NLAW seems pretty cool tho', being able to take down even MBT.
>>29135080
M72 EC LAW is listed as 450mm RHA
>>29135695
Do you know how I know you don't know what you're talking about? Let me help you, it's because you're spouting shit.
>>29135080
dumb question, if one LAW is not enough to penetrate modern armor could you get a better result attacking the same tank with multiple LAWs?
and if this works would it be better for a squad to carry multiple LAWs or have a single guy carrying a Javelin? (as a weight and portability issue)
>>29136052
You would have to hit the tank in the EXACT same spot with the second rocket.
>>29136139
so thats a no.
>>29136052
Like you mean, no. A second rocket would do the same damage as the first, unless it was placed better (but that has nothing to do with the number of hits)
>>29136148
>>29136052
the old Finnish defense forces training for the average joes running around with M72s pretty much said told that in order to score an actual kill against modern MBTs, you and your partner both would have to get fairly close, and both of you would have to blast both of your LAWs to the same vehicle.
Yes, there are still weak spots, and all those electronics sticking out of the tank are still vulnerable to even smallarms fire, but making a T-80, T90, Abrams or Leo2 go kaboom with mere M72? Highly unlikely.
M72 are still not completely obsolete though; like said, they're good self-defense tools against lightly armored vehicles, MG nests, etc. Plus you can do that mobility kill against tanks as well.
Pic related is the M72 EC LAW (66 KES 12) in the use of Finnish Defense forces.
>>29135947
Feel free to elaborate. Our military at the moment have disposable rocket launchers:
- 112-mm Apilas for killing MBTs.
- 66-mm LAW (M72A5) for killing all less armored vehicles.
- Bunker-busting version of 66-mm LAW (M72A9) to be used against buildings.
Adding to that one more LAW loaded with rocket that has HE-Frag or thermobaric warhead would be a nice addition to those.
Until recently also used to have 95 S 58-61 recoilless rifle, which had HEAT and HE ammo and much longer range than the disposable stuff, but they were recently retired.
How is that bad? Especially since disposable rocket launchers are supply-wise treated as ammunition in here. Since all soldiers are trained to use them, it is easy to boost antitank- or bunker-busting capability of any infantry unit by just asking ammo supply with disposable rocket launchers of specific kind.
While going through the PHA before a huge operation, not everyone was issued LAWs, AT-4s or Dragons. Whenever we gained a foothold in enemy territory, we would loot their arms cache. Many of us carried RPG-18s.
~325th AIR, 82nd Airborne
>>29134861
Spotted the faggot who havend done military service.
Also Carl Gustav masterrace.
>>29139075
The CG is not a rocket launcher, same goes for the AT-4
>>29139088
Yeah, that is correct. But it usually does the same job as most stuff listed here
>>29139108
That is true.
>>29139088
CG is basically a recoilless rifle tube, but there is a rocket-propelled round available for it.
>>29134827
> honk honk, best rocket launcher coming through, with the flag
>>29139188
Ex deeeeeee you're le funny bro.
>>>/v/ Here's a board with lots of other radical teenagers that share your interests!
Could someone explain to me the difference between rocket launchers and recoilless rifles?
>>29139231
Sure, a rocket launcher works by having the rocket engine attached to the projectile and continiues to accelerate the warhead untill it runs out of fuel.
A recoilless rifle is baisically a small cannon where you let some of the hot gases escape out the other direction to counter the recoil. This produces a large backblast that can be lethal to anyone behind the weapon.
>>29139019
>Effective firing range 25–350 m
>Killing mbts
lol...
>Warhead: 1.5 kg shaped charge capable of penetrating 720 mm RHAe or 2 m of concrete
>Killing MBT
Why not just give them an explosive vest and tell them to kamikaze the tank.
>>29139477
> explosive vest
> kamikaze the tank
> desire for shoes intensifies
>>29139768
Top Kek.
Man I miss that game.
>>29139803
I've noticed that the US military has yet to introduce a MANPAD/MANPAT rocket launcher with a laser-lock-on rapid-fire mode.
Hopefully that's something that The Donald will fix next year.
>>29139853
And I have so far not seen any huge ass chinese helicopter with nuclear bombs. I guess they keep it secret.
