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

Thor · 02-22-2005, 06:21 PM

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:

scrybe · 02-22-2005, 06:28 PM

It's got an ACOG on it? Nice.

Peiper_76 · 02-22-2005, 06:56 PM

How much money per unit?

Dalleer · 02-22-2005, 07:01 PM

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 ?

Thor · 02-22-2005, 07:24 PM

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.

Steel21 · 02-22-2005, 07:30 PM

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.

Thor · 02-22-2005, 07:39 PM

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.

American Patriot · 02-22-2005, 07:45 PM

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

Parzival · 02-22-2005, 07:51 PM

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?

Thor · 02-22-2005, 07:54 PM

@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.

Raslin · 02-22-2005, 09:24 PM

Not bad, but give me an Eryx any day.

Thor · 02-22-2005, 09:38 PM

Why?

Eryx isn't bad but...

Sinfulcurves_AK107 · 02-22-2005, 11:59 PM

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)

Thor · 02-23-2005, 12:40 AM

Like this one ever better.

Quote:

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.

usa320 · 02-23-2005, 12:45 AM

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.

02-22-2005, 06:21 PM	#1
Thor Banned user Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 9,068	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:

02-22-2005, 06:28 PM	#2
scrybe Beer here. Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 17,702	It's got an ACOG on it? Nice.

02-22-2005, 06:56 PM	#3
Peiper_76 Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 342	How much money per unit?

02-22-2005, 07:01 PM	#4
Dalleer Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The days of Disco and Pink Flamingos Posts: 2,452	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 ?

02-22-2005, 07:30 PM	#6
Steel21 Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 539	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.

02-22-2005, 07:39 PM	#7
Thor Banned user Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 9,068	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.

02-22-2005, 07:45 PM	#8
American Patriot wood pressed up against my cheek Join Date: Apr 2004 Age: 24 Posts: 6,761	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

02-22-2005, 07:51 PM	#9
Parzival Senior Member 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?

02-22-2005, 07:54 PM	#10
Thor Banned user Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 9,068	@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.

02-22-2005, 09:24 PM	#11
Raslin Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 10	Not bad, but give me an Eryx any day.

02-22-2005, 09:38 PM	#12
Thor Banned user Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 9,068	Why? Eryx isn't bad but...

02-22-2005, 11:59 PM	#13
Sinfulcurves_AK107 Member 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)

02-23-2005, 12:45 AM	#15
usa320 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA, AND DAMN PROUD OF IT. Posts: 12,763	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.