Anti tank weapons become anti personel weapons

[CR6]

The Germans had some success with Panzerzerstörergruppen (tank destroyer groups), which consisted of 2 squads of troops built around 3 rocket launchers apiece.

Found at: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust3.htm

[Rifleman]

I understand that they can be successful, but would there be an advantage for U.S. squads to have rocket based fire teams instead of automatic rifle/LMG based fire teams? Or at least teams of both types in the same squad.

[Jones_RE]

I think a fire team without a light machine gun/automatic rifle would lack sufficient suppressing fire to operate independently against enemy infantry. They'd be dandy against unsupported tanks, though.

You might get a better result by building a slightly larger fire team around both a rocket launcher and a machine gun. The machine gun provides suppressing fire, while the rocket gives the team extra punch at close range.

You need the right rocket launcher, though. It should be lighter than the current SMAW (RPG-7 size/weight seems ideal), and provided with anti-personnel warheads.

I think it's noteworthy that the US Military has not focused on the use of recoilless technology to a very high degree. Perhaps this is because tanks, artillery and air support are more useful in a conventional battle. I think there's a strong case to be made for employing a smaller, organic weapon in the infantry fire team. For one thing, an RPG sized warhead is less destructive than the tank main gun rounds or Javelin's we'd be using in its place. For another, it's faster to employ - an important consideration given the fleeting nature of insurgent opponents. Finally, it doesn't bear the stigma of an air strike, which always seems to piss the third world off.

[aktarian]

I understand that they can be successful, but would there be an advantage for U.S. squads to have rocket based fire teams instead of automatic rifle/LMG based fire teams? Or at least teams of both types in the same squad.

I doubt it. Hezbollah and Chechens used them to counter enemy's advantage in armor. US doesn't face that problem as it's light infantry (which guerillas generaly are) is unlikely to face enemy superior in armor without benefits of heavy weapons (armor, arty, air power) of it's own.

I agree with Jones that there is need for RPG-7like weapon. Light, easy to use, cheap and relatively effective. It doesn't have to be able to defeat modern tank with ERA because thy are unlikely to face US infantry and if they do they can be taken out by armor, air power or ATGMs. But it should be able to knock out a bunker, take out MG in building and have warhead that can be used against mass of infantry (which would be effective against North Koreans as well).