+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: New MBT LAW (AT-4 successor) on field trials in Sweden

  1. #1
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    9,060

    New MBT LAW (AT-4 successor) on field trials in Sweden

    The MBT LAW (lately also named "Storm") by SAAB Bofors Dynamics combines the overflying capabilities of BILL 2 ("any tank any time") and the technology of the AT-4 CS, providing it with great capabilites and versatility. The new joint swedish-british man-portable anti-tank weapon is supposed to start replacing the AT-4 in the upcoming years. First deliveries for swedish and british forces in 2006.

    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/

    Short datas:
    Man-Portable
    Top-Attack
    Disposable
    Weight: 11,6 kg (about 25 pounds)
    Range: 20 to 600 metres
    Usage: MBTs, AFVs, soft targets, buildings.


    "Although the main targets are MBTs and Light Armoured Fighting Vehicles (LAFVs) other targets such as troops in buildings and non-armoured vehicles can also be effectively defeated. The weapon is intended for deployment with and firing by a single soldier. As the weapon is easy to handle and is of a robust design, it can be widely dispersed throughout the military organisation and can be fired from confined spaces due to the low blast overpressure design of the launch rocket, which based on AT4 CS proven technology."

    Photos from recent winter trials:






    Some more photos:



  2. #2
    Beer here. scrybe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    18,032

    It's got an ACOG on it? Nice.

  3. #3

    How much money per unit?

  4. #4
    Senior Member Dalleer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The days of Disco and Pink Flamingos
    Posts
    2,450



    Oh , Geez.. Look at all that electronic stuff attached to it.. It really makes me cry to hear that it's disposable. Damn , throwing all of that away.. One shot , one kill , huh ?

  5. #5
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    9,060

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalleer
    Oh , Geez.. Look at all that electronic stuff attached to it.. It really makes me cry to hear that it's disposable. Damn , throwing all of that away.. One shot , one kill , huh ?
    I'd say at least double the cost of an AT-4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peiper_76
    How much money per unit?
    I'd day there's probably some quick-release function for the scope and so on.

  6. #6

    Why not have a launcher and reloadable ammo ala RPG7 instead?

    Of course it all depends on the size of the projectile inside the tube. If the tube works as a partial barrel then its feasiable, but if the tube is just a container like the Javlin, then its best just to be disposable instead and with a removable control unit.

  7. #7
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    9,060

    Once more my guesses..

    Too keep it man-portable the tube consists of materials that is light but won't take repeated use.

    The tube is cheap.

    There's not really any tactical advantage to have a light tube and drag around a lot of heavy missiles instead of just drag around equally heavy ready-to-fire units.

    The sophisticated part is the missile and it's fixated in the tube back at tthe factory.

  8. #8
    wood pressed up against my cheek
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    25
    Posts
    6,759

    That thing is huge for a man portable antiarmor weapon. That's like carrying 2 AT-4s.

    Everytime you fire this thing you will have to scavenge it's high-priced electronics instead of just throwing it out like an AT4 tube

  9. #9
    Senior Member Parzival's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sweden/Iraq
    Posts
    1,197

    Is that like "one-use" weapon or can you use it several times?
    And that must be the best LAW weapon in the world right?

  10. #10
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    9,060

    @American Patriot

    It's not heavy compared to what it's supposed to do.

    Actually it often takes two AT-4 to take out a modern AFV. This will take out MBTs. It's just a nightmare for tank crews to know that just about every grunt out there has an efficient weapon to defeat them.

    It's the same with AT-4s that has added scope/electronics. I don't think it's a death sin in combat not to remove the scope if there's no time. A thousand bucks (?) isn't that much really.

    @Vacon

    Read (!)

    Who knows what's best and what's not? This may be the best LAW depending on the situation.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    10

    Not bad, but give me an Eryx any day.

  12. #12
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    9,060

    Why?

    Eryx isn't bad but...

  13. #13
    Member Sinfulcurves_AK107's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    TXXX
    Posts
    751

    I've seen this before, pretty cool.

    Here's a pic I like




    I also like Israeli's ~SPIKE~ system

    http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/p...d-spike-sr.htm

    So this is 115/150mm? I still think Russia leads the way for Anti-tank weapons. Just look at the TBG-7V round from the RPG-7V1 (105mm, but comparable to a 120mm artillery shell)

  14. #14
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    9,060

    Like this one ever better.



    I still think Russia leads the way for Anti-tank weapons. Just look at the TBG-7V round from the RPG-7V1 (105mm, but comparable to a 120mm artillery shell)
    Huh, do you even know what you're talking about..? There's even better rounds than that for our good ol' Carl-Gustaf.

  15. #15
    Senior Member usa320's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA, AND DAMN PROUD OF IT.
    Posts
    12,813

    bad move IMHO. One major bitch of Marines serving in Iraq was that the AT4 was a bitch to lug around on their back, so they starting breaking out old LAWs because they were smaller and lighter, more appropriate for the close in, building to building fighting. So it was kinda dumb IMHO to go and make the damn thing even bigger. They should tried to make the AT4 SMALLER.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts