Comments on: M72 LAW making a comeback

By: Infidel Tababa

Infidel Tababa — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:08:40 +0000

Good to see this excellent piece of kit making a comeback. I agree with Dino. The LAW was never the best anti tank weapon to begin with. Since they are building them from scratch, versus pulling them from war stockpiles, they should consider a simple re-purposing of the round to focus on obstacle reduction/anti materiel/anti personnel. It should be easy enough to trade the shaped charge for a bit of HE and an incendiary frag sleeve without too much impact on the overall profile. The US arsenal has the disposable AT4, it’s reusable parent, the Carl Gustav in some SpecOps weapons lockers, and the Marine Corps has the SMAW all with highly effective anti-armor capabilities. There is no reason an infantry squad facing no armor threat should be without a few of these LAW rockets to fill the gap rather than carrying the heavier much more expensive AT4. Interestingly, I just read an article that hundreds of these rockets, serial traced back to Vietnam stocks, and early South American “unofficial activities” have been making their way onto the market and are the current popular choice for initiating ambushes among the mexican drug cartel.

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:56:14 +0000

The AT-4, and Carl Gustov are better in anti-armor use. But in Afghanistain theres no armor threat so a light M-72 will do the job well aginst infantry or shall I say terrorist targets.

By: Dino

Dino — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:30:52 +0000

This is the same weapon that earned the nickname “Ranger Key” in Panama? Kind of like giving our guys a one-shot RPG capability. Any mods to warhead or fusing to improve effectiveness vs. fortifications rather than armored vehicles?

By: AC434

AC434 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:09:32 +0000

I believe the Marines are thinking that the LAW cost less and is lighter than that AT4 (2 kg vs 6 kg).

By: jdun

jdun — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:33:01 +0000

They got rid of it because the SMAW and AT4 do a better job on all category except weight and length.

The Marines probably want it because they won’t be facing tanks in Afghanistan. It’s much lighter then the SMAW and can be ditched once fired. I bet the primary use for it is to take down fortification.

By: thebronze

thebronze — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:55:48 +0000

SWEET!!!!! I don’t know why the DOD ever got rid of it in the first place…