• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

No more Carl G?

Why is the M203 being compared to the M72?
they would seem to be different beasts altogether. Admittedly the M72 is past it's prime, but I would rather have some AT ability rather then none. It certainly would be enough to take out most AFV's we would come across, except for protected T-72's and up, except for rear shots. Anyone have the armour penetrations of the M72/A3?
Originally posted by Colin P:
[qb] Anyone have the armour penetrations of the M72/A3? [/qb]
Dnd.ca sais 300mm, other souces say 275mm.... I‘d rekon about 280mm, depending on range.
Anyone have the armour penetrations of the M72/A3?
I couldn‘t find my notes, but according to the official army site here, the M72 will penetrate 300mm of ‘armour‘. By ‘armour‘ they probably mean RHA. Off the top of my head, I think it will penetrate a few feet of concrete and about 6 feet of earthworks. Don‘t quote me on that though.

The M-72 has been obsolete for years and has been replaced in the U.S. by other systems. I can‘t see us replacing the Carl G anytime soon.

FFV 502 HEDP - weight 3.3kg, range 500m
More specifically, from my notes:

Moving hard target: 300m effective range
Bunker, Fortification: 500m
Troops in the open: 1000m

I know there is a big debate about the future of TOW in the US Army, and they do have a varity of different warheads being designed to expand it‘s use for Anti-material, possibly a HEP round also.
We use TOW too, and anti-armour is its primary purpose. The problem is that its wire guided, meaning you can‘t leave until the missile hits the target, making you quite vulnerable.

An armour expert want to clarify?
Can you still not make mobility kills on a tank with the M72?
The TOW is also constrained by overhead wires and large bodies of water if I remember correctly. I understand that some of the newer ATGM‘s are going to fibre optic cable to prevent this.
The TOW (II?) missiles are being phased out in Canada as well, apparently.

I remember hearing that the TUA M-113 will be phased out in favour of giving the ADATS platorm a dual air/ground capacity. As for what missiles it will use, I don‘t know.

As its been said, the TOW is wire guided and INCREDIBLY SLOW. I remember seeing a live one fired on the ranges in Meaford a few years ago. It shot at a sea container about 2 or 3 clicks away and took forever to get there.

Besides, the TOW is a concept out of the early 70‘s. It‘s been updated since then, but better stuff is available.
willy said:
The effective range of the Carl Gustav is not 2000m.  I believe that it is 5 or 600m for a stationary target, 400m for a moving target, but that's from memory.  Maybe someone in the infantry could correct me if I'm wrong.

The effective range is 400m on a stationary target, and 300 on a moving target with HEAT-T ammo. with RAP ammo, its 700m for both moving and stationary targets
You just replied to a thread that is 1.5 years old. Great work.
Ah, cut the new guy a break, besides when searching these old topics its easy to forget to check when the last message was sent, sometimes.
BKells cut the guy some slack eh. Everyone harps on do a search here and add to an existing thread instead of starting a new one and a guy comes on and does that and you dump on him.

Now as long as this one is re opened.

Does it make sense to retire old weapons such as the 84mm and/or M-72? At present I' d say no.Unlike the C7/C9 replacing the C1/C2  we don't have something newer and shinier in the pipeline and probably won't for a while. The shopping list of dew kit is pretty long already and is this a priority?

We might as well hang onto what we do have at least for now especially when it does the job. Don't equate old with ineffective. Besides as pointed out dry TP is essential to good morale in the boonies.
Perhaps in the rush to divest ourselves of heavy armour, the powers that be decided that there didn't need to be these portable AT rockets in the sections.  The Carl G is a good piece of kit and adds some serious punch.  It is spurious to compare the M203 grenade with the M72 as they are intended for completely different purposes.  What is the current status of the M-72 and the Carl G MAW?
I got a nice pamphlet on the Carl G at AUSA and picked one of their new ones up; pretty skookum.  They have a wide range of ammunition available for the thing and the tech said they are designing a FAE round (or was it a thermobaric; can't remember) for the thing that will make it a good urban assault weapon.
Question: Does the Carl G still use a .22 cal round to sight in the main projectile, or has a laser ranging sight ( perhaps passive night viewing or thermal )   been added?
CarlG never had a spotting round -- the 106 did- the Brit Law80 did...

Thermobaric is FAE for all practical purposes
KevinB said:
Thermobaric is FAE for all practical purposes

Both are blast weapons - thermobaric is one-stage while the FAE is essentially a two-stage weapon.  This is what I remember from reading about them.  But you're correct in the sense that they'll kill hadji in the same way.
At the weapons school this summer the info was that the 84mm isn't going anywhere fast.