![]() ![]() in general it has assumed that it will not have dominance of the airspace and that supporting artillery assets may be unavailable (though the Russians do love their artillery). Russian (and subsequently GRM) doctrine is different. ![]() If you have to fight enemy tanks as American infantty, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong (which admittedly tends to happen in war). US forces rely on overwhelming air and artillery support, or use their own ground vehicles to combat enemy tanks. That's because in US warfighting doctrine, light infantry are not supposed to go toe-to-toe against enemy mechanised or armoured units. So against the side of the T-80U it would require a lucky shot to an unprotected area. However being still a single warhead (not tandem like the RPG-29), it would be foiled by ERA/NERA. The standard HEAT version (black/yellow bands) can penetrate 356-420mm RHAe. Pretty much the M72(A6) shouldn't be too effective against the sides (450mm RHAe) or even the rear (~220 RHAe depending on if fuel tanks are present). It should be noted that all the "modern" variants that are purchased by the Army or Marines, like the E8 and E10, are not meant for anti-tank work. The more common M72A6 is actually really bad at fighting tanks. The M72A4 only has penetration of 355mm RHAe (and its single warhead would be easily foiled by ERA/NERA). It should have about 430mm RHAe on the sides where it has ERA/NERA. The GRM equivalent would be if they got Kornets or an HJ-12.Īs it is, the M72 and AT-4s already are too effective against tanks.Ĭonsider the T-80U. that's a different class of weapon entirely than the RPG series. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |