Let me see, do I go with a concept proven by M72, Rpg18 and every other recoilless weapon in service, or do I go with a failed chinese experiment advocated by Goldenpanda, who never has done any military service?
Difficult choice :rofl:
China's panzerfaust, a really small RPG
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
Let me see, do I go with a concept proven by M72, Rpg18 and every other recoilless weapon in service, or do I go with a failed chinese experiment advocated by Goldenpanda, who never has done any military service?
Difficult choice :rofl:
zaky
Junior Member
Here is a couple of interesting readings about how fight the Chinese in Korea.
Historical Perspective on Light Infantry , Scott R. McMichael (the second chapter is about the Korean War)
But my opinion about this weapon isn’t change. It works fine in theory: light, easy to use etc. but in practice exist a lot of weapons with better parameters.
Historical Perspective on Light Infantry , Scott R. McMichael (the second chapter is about the Korean War)
But my opinion about this weapon isn’t change. It works fine in theory: light, easy to use etc. but in practice exist a lot of weapons with better parameters.
Now Skorzeny and Goldenpanda, quit this untill it goes too far...
But to Goldenpanda as general, Like Skorzeny has pointed out you obviously haven't got any idea of how these kind of weapons are used in combat enviroment. This power-assisted hand-grenade is waste of resources, its as accurate as to fire firecrakers form your hand. It only possiple use would be somesort of over-long range hand-grenade thrower but to give that sort of weapon a anti-tank warhead? Ridicilous. Hand-grenades does the same trick with 10 times better cost-effectivines and if you really want to risk your life and go for anti-tank work, you can use dedicaded LAWs for that.
Most of you haven't used LAWs outside BF2, but us that have actually fired them in the outdoors knows that they are in facto the last dich of anti-tank weapons. The "last dich" means that they are really emergy weapons. You cannot destroy modern MBT without good premilinary planning and ambush strategies and with multible units using them and attacking on several angles. In finnish army, LAWs tough distributed to almoust all infantry troops, are collected together to dedicated "law-squads" that are tasked with several LAWs per combat-couple (a bad term but in here squads are divided to two-man sections) They are usefull against ACPs and in urban warfare but in true anti-tank work they are, just like us with D-30s directfiring mode only emergy solution.
This is illogical weapon and as the results shows it never went to fullproduction service, othervice all possiple terrorist around the world would be using this. My quess that this weapon is the failed attempt form chinese to try and developt a weapon to do the same role as the LAWs as they propably weren't able to desing such a weapon in those days. If Iremember correctly, Chinese adopted the LAW concept quite late compared to rest of the world (as with so many other things as well) but I wont say for certain as I cannot check it form the mainsite (which is down, again)
But as this discussion is getting too much to the worng side, I strongly suggest that you think twice before posting a reply. Exspecially when you really have no idea what you are talking about, keep quiet. If i spot certain kids posting their childish arguments based on the one and sole thetis (that china just is superior to all other) its considered as flaming and will be treated that way too.
But to Goldenpanda as general, Like Skorzeny has pointed out you obviously haven't got any idea of how these kind of weapons are used in combat enviroment. This power-assisted hand-grenade is waste of resources, its as accurate as to fire firecrakers form your hand. It only possiple use would be somesort of over-long range hand-grenade thrower but to give that sort of weapon a anti-tank warhead? Ridicilous. Hand-grenades does the same trick with 10 times better cost-effectivines and if you really want to risk your life and go for anti-tank work, you can use dedicaded LAWs for that.
Most of you haven't used LAWs outside BF2, but us that have actually fired them in the outdoors knows that they are in facto the last dich of anti-tank weapons. The "last dich" means that they are really emergy weapons. You cannot destroy modern MBT without good premilinary planning and ambush strategies and with multible units using them and attacking on several angles. In finnish army, LAWs tough distributed to almoust all infantry troops, are collected together to dedicated "law-squads" that are tasked with several LAWs per combat-couple (a bad term but in here squads are divided to two-man sections) They are usefull against ACPs and in urban warfare but in true anti-tank work they are, just like us with D-30s directfiring mode only emergy solution.
This is illogical weapon and as the results shows it never went to fullproduction service, othervice all possiple terrorist around the world would be using this. My quess that this weapon is the failed attempt form chinese to try and developt a weapon to do the same role as the LAWs as they propably weren't able to desing such a weapon in those days. If Iremember correctly, Chinese adopted the LAW concept quite late compared to rest of the world (as with so many other things as well) but I wont say for certain as I cannot check it form the mainsite (which is down, again)
But as this discussion is getting too much to the worng side, I strongly suggest that you think twice before posting a reply. Exspecially when you really have no idea what you are talking about, keep quiet. If i spot certain kids posting their childish arguments based on the one and sole thetis (that china just is superior to all other) its considered as flaming and will be treated that way too.
goldenpanda
Banned Idiot
Golly I can appreciate your input as Finnish soldier. But why do I need to be scared to keep quiet because "I don't know what I'm talking about"? Or to be warned about flaming when I'm the one being called "childish"?
you have not directly rebutted any of my points. All you've done is describe a different philosophy in a different army. In fact your description points out how dangerous soldiers feel about using a shoulder launched weapon at close range, exactly one of the problems type 79 tries to address. The two photos of soldiers holding them is not good indication of how they should be used, since they don't seem to have the aiming device installed.
Now, will Golly leave my opinion as my opinion, and not try to force his views once again? Let's see what this forum is about afterall.
you have not directly rebutted any of my points. All you've done is describe a different philosophy in a different army. In fact your description points out how dangerous soldiers feel about using a shoulder launched weapon at close range, exactly one of the problems type 79 tries to address. The two photos of soldiers holding them is not good indication of how they should be used, since they don't seem to have the aiming device installed.
Now, will Golly leave my opinion as my opinion, and not try to force his views once again? Let's see what this forum is about afterall.
Kim Jong Il
Banned Idiot
please don't tell me they are going to replace the RPG-7 with little version of the RPG? Oh by the way, can you make the images a bit smaller so it can be easier to read.
Well I personally don’t see any point in fielding weapon of this class to your troops. Considering that you already have proven concepts like rifle granades, RPGs and LAWs fielding weapon that is inferior to all of them in concept and in practice is basically stupid…
IMHO you would be lucky to hit barn doors with this thing at any range outside pistol range, I cant imagine how would you hit moving target, and realistically if opposing force has any brains and uses any kind of combined forces doctrine you will be long dead before you will be close enough to use this weapon against them.
Armor penetration capability is ridiculously low and it wont even penetrate t-62 armor and it is similar to penetration capability of 1970s ex.Yugo cumulative rifle granede. On other hand rifle granade has one great advantage and this is that you can use it at longer range, with greater accuracy and you will hit armored vehicle on top side where its armor is weaker(and you can carry similar quantity of them)…
What Golly was trying to explain is that even with superior weapon like LAW or RPG you will be lucky to score hit at tank and even luckier if you manage to survive to talk about it… I was trained to use LAW and if it is not easy to hit target with it (tube rested at your shoulder and with sights) I can only imagine how difficult is to hit anything with this bastard child of granade and RPG.
People's War or no People's War tank doctrine in last 40 years relies on combined forces concept where tanks are supported by infantry, infantry fighting vehicles and with constant air and artillery support. And in such environment survivability of makeshift militia armed with such BS weapons is basically nonexistent…
IMHO you would be lucky to hit barn doors with this thing at any range outside pistol range, I cant imagine how would you hit moving target, and realistically if opposing force has any brains and uses any kind of combined forces doctrine you will be long dead before you will be close enough to use this weapon against them.
Armor penetration capability is ridiculously low and it wont even penetrate t-62 armor and it is similar to penetration capability of 1970s ex.Yugo cumulative rifle granede. On other hand rifle granade has one great advantage and this is that you can use it at longer range, with greater accuracy and you will hit armored vehicle on top side where its armor is weaker(and you can carry similar quantity of them)…
What Golly was trying to explain is that even with superior weapon like LAW or RPG you will be lucky to score hit at tank and even luckier if you manage to survive to talk about it… I was trained to use LAW and if it is not easy to hit target with it (tube rested at your shoulder and with sights) I can only imagine how difficult is to hit anything with this bastard child of granade and RPG.
People's War or no People's War tank doctrine in last 40 years relies on combined forces concept where tanks are supported by infantry, infantry fighting vehicles and with constant air and artillery support. And in such environment survivability of makeshift militia armed with such BS weapons is basically nonexistent…
Im not trying to convert you to the world of reason, only prevent clueless kids to not to belive such illogics
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions and expecially point out if someone is wrong. But Isthvan said it pretty clearly, these sort of weapons are of little practical usega, unless used in higth tactical precission and by mens and more importantly units that are dedicately trained for such. The weapon isent usefull as the concepts it is desinged for arent and more importantly werent liveble in the battle field since mid 60's...
Well, my point of view is that thing ( I can't really call it a AT Weapon) is quite useless...
Why ? for the few reasons below..
1- Muzzle velocity is too slow, 54m/s is very slow (hockey player can shoot theirs pucks at this speed, I know what I'm talking about, I've played in the Quebec Junior AAA hockey league for 3 years as a winger, we are able to deflect pucks of this speed, you can see it coming at you and still have time to duck for cover or place your stick to try to deflect the puck in the net...a M72 LAW is around 200m/s in comparaison) It's too slow to be accurate, I mean that if you're trying to shoot a target at 50m, it will take around 1second of travelling before the round hit the target,and if it's a moving target, except if you're shooting from the front, the rocket will miss.
2-Penetration really not enough... 100mm at 65 degree... I don't think it's 100mm composite armor, it's more something like steel, and believe me, in ours days, 100mm of steel is nothing compared to most modern armor (a M72 LAW's penetration is around 350mm and it's found unsuitable against modern armour).
3-By my experience... I'm a canadian reserve soldier with a recon specialist qualification, I've been trained with the M72 LAW and the M2 Carl Gustav recoiless rifle, AT weapon are not easy to use, it's really not simple as just aim and shoot, it's a bit more complicated, that's why it's hard to hit target with... I don't think that a soldier on a battlefield with the stress of battle can really hit something with... It was already hard enough for my squad in exercise with MILES laser to hit target with a Carl Gustav (people will agree with me that the Carl Gustav is a great and proven weapon i think) without getting killed, so imagine with a riduculous handgrenade-like weapon with which you can't even aim... forget about it....
Why ? for the few reasons below..
1- Muzzle velocity is too slow, 54m/s is very slow (hockey player can shoot theirs pucks at this speed, I know what I'm talking about, I've played in the Quebec Junior AAA hockey league for 3 years as a winger, we are able to deflect pucks of this speed, you can see it coming at you and still have time to duck for cover or place your stick to try to deflect the puck in the net...a M72 LAW is around 200m/s in comparaison) It's too slow to be accurate, I mean that if you're trying to shoot a target at 50m, it will take around 1second of travelling before the round hit the target,and if it's a moving target, except if you're shooting from the front, the rocket will miss.
2-Penetration really not enough... 100mm at 65 degree... I don't think it's 100mm composite armor, it's more something like steel, and believe me, in ours days, 100mm of steel is nothing compared to most modern armor (a M72 LAW's penetration is around 350mm and it's found unsuitable against modern armour).
3-By my experience... I'm a canadian reserve soldier with a recon specialist qualification, I've been trained with the M72 LAW and the M2 Carl Gustav recoiless rifle, AT weapon are not easy to use, it's really not simple as just aim and shoot, it's a bit more complicated, that's why it's hard to hit target with... I don't think that a soldier on a battlefield with the stress of battle can really hit something with... It was already hard enough for my squad in exercise with MILES laser to hit target with a Carl Gustav (people will agree with me that the Carl Gustav is a great and proven weapon i think) without getting killed, so imagine with a riduculous handgrenade-like weapon with which you can't even aim... forget about it....
Last edited:
I forgot my pass and the "forgot pass" feature wasn't working.
Romel, that's why -- and you seem to not want hear this -- you fire the thing INSIDE the trench, by looking at the target through a refractive mirror, when the Soviets tank rush you! Pretty clever if you ask me.
Chinese quotation armor pentration in incident angle from perpendicular, where 0 deg is head on. Usually they give the maximum angle that the weapon can be used, such as 62, 65, or 68 degrees. For example the 120mm PF98 is quoted as 800mm head on, 230mm at 68 degrees. For the type 69 (reverse engineered from RPG-7 with 300-400mm headon) the figure is given as 120mm at 65 degrees. Similarly with the AT-4 class PF89 (600mm headon, 180mm at 65deg). Therefore the type 79 (100 mm at 65 degrees) can knock out T34 pretty much any way you fire it, and T72 anywhere but the front.
Chinese source on PF98
Another one that talks about PF89
(very slow)
Romel, that's why -- and you seem to not want hear this -- you fire the thing INSIDE the trench, by looking at the target through a refractive mirror, when the Soviets tank rush you! Pretty clever if you ask me.
Chinese quotation armor pentration in incident angle from perpendicular, where 0 deg is head on. Usually they give the maximum angle that the weapon can be used, such as 62, 65, or 68 degrees. For example the 120mm PF98 is quoted as 800mm head on, 230mm at 68 degrees. For the type 69 (reverse engineered from RPG-7 with 300-400mm headon) the figure is given as 120mm at 65 degrees. Similarly with the AT-4 class PF89 (600mm headon, 180mm at 65deg). Therefore the type 79 (100 mm at 65 degrees) can knock out T34 pretty much any way you fire it, and T72 anywhere but the front.
Chinese source on PF98
Another one that talks about PF89
(very slow)
Last edited: