Inf. Anti-Tank weapons.

#6
Javelin looks to be the dogs bolllox, from what I've seen - anyone in here actually used one and like to comment?

Charlie Gee was shite. 66 always felt like a useful bang against anything but an MBT. Milan's infuriating minimum range was a PITA. 94 was an awful big lump for a one shot throwaway...

My favourite pre-Javelin - that actually did something to the target - was the Wombat... Deffo not really portable, but at least it felt like it would feck anything it hit...

I have a suspicion that we'd have done a lot better to follow the P'faust/RPG development route...
 
#8
The Javelin is a fire and forget missile. You have one of those little TV screens which can pick out the heat signature, then you get the target framed and fire. The missile will keep low and when it gets to the tank it climb up into the air before slamming down on the top of turret. You don't want to be on the wrong end of it.
 
#9
The enrga was one of those weapons I would try and avoid at all costs. As you know it fitted to an attachment on your rifle barrel. the sight if you can call it that was set for 25/50/75 yards and was like a half moon shape cut out for those three distances and you line up the target in the half moon shape with the curved top of the inerga. Now you put a ballisite cartridge in the breach to fire the bomb away. Now before you did that you unscrewed the fuse from the bomb and reversed it, now should you drop it or knock the fuse or should it hit any thing in flight then it went bang. Now at times when you fired it the Energa the ballistite cartridge had lost a lot of it's power and it just fell of the end of the rifle and the best thing you could do was to run like Fcuk.
 
#11
What's up with people?

Have you all forgotten Vigilant and Swingfire?

And as this thread seems to be being taken seriously :? I'd rather have the Charlie-G over the 66 any day.

Better range, better penetration, very accurate and at least with a hang-fire it was only count to 15 before re-loading, not five sodding minutes! :roll:
 
#15
I'd rather have the Charlie-G over the 66 any day.

Better range, better penetration, very accurate
You have got to be frikken kidding... I'm thinking of the issued UK version, without any fancy lasers or optics - the general consensus was that you couldn't hit a barn door if it fell on you with the blooody thing... Not to mention the fact that it was plainly incapable of penetrating anything heavier than a 432...
 
#16
botfeckid said:
You have got to be frikken kidding... I'm thinking of the issued UK version, without any fancy lasers or optics - the general consensus was that you couldn't hit a barn door if it fell on you with the blooody thing... Not to mention the fact that it was plainly incapable of penetrating anything heavier than a 432...
8O

Are we talking about the same thing?

84mm Carl Gustav versus 66mm LAW?

The former (in UK issue) had a 3x scope, fired a HEAT round that would penetrate 11.5 inches of armour, effective to 500m and was as accurate as a rifle,



compared to the plastic, fire once and chuck away 66, that was sighted to 350 metres but owing to it's inaccuracy was not used above 150, would penetrate 10 inches and the sights were a plastic and wire affair that hopefully popped-up when you extended the tube?
 
#17
Hi All,
I have a couple of 66mm tubes but need end caps and sling to complete for a display, anyone know where I can get some or have some kicking about? :?:
 
#19
Hmm: maybe not: as I said, I never saw a single optic sight associated with the CG in the early to late 80s -when does that date from? It would help, but I still think it was a too heavy, not punchy enough, too short range pig of a weapon to be any sort of serious anti-tank option, unless you were on a VC hunt as much as a tank hunt.

Without the optics, I knew of no-one who was confident of hitting anything - static - beyond about 250 meters. Moving (as tanks tend to...) I'd say 150 meters...

And that quoted penetration was against 'normal steel armour': by the 80's, the MBT's we were arguing with all made it about as useful as firing a pistol at the front of the thing (in fact, less useful - at least they might not notice a pistol shot, and turn their attentions on you - whereas Charlie G's signal smoke backblast guaranteed that you had a one shot capability, despite the notional reload...)

"Load, Loaded, Standby, Clear, Firing now, (miss...)reload (die)"... Sorry, it gave me as much confidence as a sacrificial goat.

Hwever, quite agree that the 66 was useless against MBTs - but as a battlefield piece of 'bang' that would hurt anything else (apc's, bunkers, etc etc), you could lash one across your webbing, and carry it without too much reminder of its presence. CG took two men away from any other useful function, in order to cart great heavy lumps of sharp-edged cr@p around the battlefield. Still, glad you liked it, you must be a) built like the incredible hulk, and b) some kind of uber-marksman..
 
#20
botfeckid said:
Hmm: maybe not: as I said, I never saw a single optic sight associated with the CG in the early to late 80s -when does that date from?
The 84 with optics was the Platoon anti-tank weapon (at least between 1970 and 1978) and it was a section weapon when mechanised. AVF432 had a carrying bracket in the crew compartment.

Without the optics, I knew of no-one who was confident of hitting anything - static - beyond about 250 meters. Moving (as tanks tend to...) I'd say 150 meters...
The optics had range and deflection graticules. Moving targets were engaged up to 400 metres, static ones up to 500.

We regularly trained on moving target ranges using TPTP rounds (albeit never on obliquely moving targets. The technology was pretty basic).

And that quoted penetration was against 'normal steel armour': by the 80's,
But that's what they were designed for!
whereas Charlie G's signal smoke backblast guaranteed that you had a one shot capability, despite the notional reload...)
Both weapons were issued when the threat was of massed Soviet-Bloc armour rolling over the German plains. They were intended to increase the Inf anti-tank capability. Given the failings that you attribute to the 84, why would the 66 be considered better? Its range and penetration was inferior, its signature backblast was 40 metres as opposed to 30, the stoppages/misfire rate was an order of magnitude higher than that of the 84. Second shot option was non-existent with the 66.
Re-loading and re-firing 84 compared to preparing a second 66? The 84 had a 6 rounds per minute rate of aimed fire.

Hwever, quite agree that the 66 was useless against MBTs -
Both of these weapons were intended to deal with passive armoured T54/55 and T62 at most. In that role, the 84 was superior.

"Bunker busting" etc. is another world but one that the G3 version of the 84 is still used for by quite a few armed forces.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top