Project Reality Forums

Additionally, Talley has received contracts in 2005 to produce about 24000 M72A7 rounds for the U.S. Marine Corps, which intends to use the weapon in urban combat.

Source:
Talley M72 LAW

As one of PR's MAs wrote, the USMC still uses M72s in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the M136. Unfortunately, I couldn't find that quote anymore. It would be nice if an MA could confirm this.
With the M72 included in PR for the Canadians, it would be rather easy to add the M72 to the alternative LAT kit.
The only benefit would be more diversity in US AT weapons, however, editing that single kit shouldn't take that much time either.

Spawn

ive seen some brits using it as well, cant confirm it tho at moment.

How about left click AT4 (used mainly on armor as its 84mm) and right click law (for use on infantry maps for bunker busting, LAT sniping into cover as its only 66mm and has shorter effective range), but then we would lose the ability to choose scope/iron.

i dunno really, im just bored at work and brain farting. But As its made already, and can be implemented with retaliative ease into other factions well, more variety = winrar.

(source for the mm and range, wiki.)

gazzthompson wrote:How about left click AT4 (used mainly on armor as its 84mm) and right click law (for use on infantry maps for bunker busting as its only 66mm), but then we would lose the ability to choose scope/iron.

That's what I suggested.

true, but as i said we would lose the ability to choose iron/scope for them weapons right? as for example AT4 is under left with scope, and LAW under right with iron. what if u wanted AT4 with iron?

That's true. In order to balance things, one could make the M72 cost less "ammo points" than a regular LAT so it's easier and faster to get a LAW from an ammo bag since it's not as heavy as the M136.

The LMB/RMB is unknown by a large number of the community who don't come here. Imagine the poor guys that tries to take armour with the LAW.

yah thats why i suggested AT4 on left click.. which is the default right?

A lot of countries still use it, its light, easy to use and effective, the US army still uses them too.

gazzthompson wrote:yah thats why i suggested AT4 on left click.. which is the default right?

Exactly.

gazzthompson wrote:ive seen some brits using it as well, cant confirm it tho at moment.

L72A9 Light Anti Structure Munition (LASM) linky. The original L1A1 66mm was phased out in the 80s (along with the Carl Gustav) when LAW 80 came in. This is a relativly new design with much more explosive (though its not a shaped charge, so no good for tank killing, though whether the old M72 was either is another matter. It is however, so called "enhanced blast", which is a nice way of saying thermobaric without bringing up the negative connotations) than the anti-tank variant and featuring the abiltiy to be fired from enclosed spaces.

Will be partially replaced by MATADOR-AS when that finally comes in as Anti Structure Munition (though I suspect the lighter and smaller LASM will remain in use for some time after that)

pretty interesting. the 72 is lighter and costs less to manufacture than the AT4. plus the lack of armoured targets in the current counterinsurgency situation as well as the need for a more practical rocket system (a soldier or Marine can carry two M72s rather than just one AT4) in urban or mountainous environments is what's winning the 'hearts and minds' (haha) of coalition soldiers. POW take that military history degree.

oh yeah, found this:
[html]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mar ... -won-0151/[/html]

The Default AT kit is scoped anyway right? So maybe just have one scoped and one unscoped, possibly having the AT4 unscoped since it does more to armor and the ironsights more for just personal defense like the HAT Kit. Then the LAW can be scoped since its more for inf/fornication purposes and less range on the round and power.

Lange wrote:...since its more for inf/fornication purposes...

shit, i can't imagine bringing one into the bedroom. could go bad real quickly.

TheOldBreed wrote:pretty interesting. the 72 is lighter and costs less to manufacture than the AT4. plus the lack of armoured targets in the current counterinsurgency situation as well as the need for a more practical rocket system (a soldier or Marine can carry two M72s rather than just one AT4) in urban or mountainous environments is what's winning the 'hearts and minds' (haha) of coalition soldiers. POW take that military history degree.

oh yeah, found this:
[html]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mar ... -won-0151/[/html]

I mean, yes the M72 LAW would seem a logical weapon for use in some USMC maps. It is lighter, thus faster to move and dish out. But its rocket's diameter is significantly smaller than the M136 AT4 that it was intended to be replaced by. But yes, I do support the idea due to the diversity of weapons I'd like to see.

TheOldBreed wrote:pretty interesting. the 72 is lighter and costs less to manufacture than the AT4. plus the lack of armoured targets in the current counterinsurgency situation as well as the need for a more practical rocket system (a soldier or Marine can carry two M72s rather than just one AT4) in urban or mountainous environments is what's winning the 'hearts and minds' (haha) of coalition soldiers. POW take that military history degree.

oh yeah, found this:
[html]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mar ... -won-0151/[/html]

One of my old instructors in the Marine Corps told me they weren't using the AT4 either, they were using the LAW. Makes sense, sense the backblast of the AT4 is probably much bigger than that of the LAW (AT4 is like 100 feet, 90 degrees).

spawncaptain wrote:s one of PR's MAs wrote, the USMC still uses M72s in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the M136. Unfortunately, I couldn't find that quote anymore. It would be nice if an MA could confirm this.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:The improved LAW has been making a comeback in both the Army and Marines because of its size. It collapses into a smaller package, and you can carry two of them for the same weight as an AT4. Some UK units, including SAS, kept (and still are) using the M72 for this reason after the 94mm LAW-80 was adopted.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:M72 is still around, Masaq. The improved variants (they're from M72A4 up to M72A9, I think) have made a comeback for MOUT/FIBUA because of their light weight and collapsibility; you can carry two of them for the weight of a single AT4, and they're shorter in stowed configuration (the AT4 is a meter long all the time). They come in HEAT and HEDP bunker-buster flavors, and the newest ones will have confined space launch capability. From what I understand they still don't pack as much of a penetrating/explosive weight punch of an AT4, but since you can carry more of them, it seems to balance out, at least on paper.

That would have been me. Unfortunately, in your search for those quotes, you didn't find that this is a resuggestion.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... -tank.html

Oh please, don't lock this thread. The suggestion that you provided a link to is mainly about giving the LAT kit more tubes, not more variety in AT weapons for the USMC. I don't suggest adding a completely new kit but rather changing one of the ones we already have, like with the SA-7 and the Stinger for taliban.
Thanks for confirming it though.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Unfortunately, in your search for those quotes, you didn't find that this is a resuggestion.

haha

Wait, LAT has a scope? o_o

No, the M16A4 that comes with the standard LAT kit of the USMC does.