Kiwigrunt's last post regarding M-72's got me thinking about rockets and AT weapons in the Squad/Section, and it reminded me of an article by Wilf in Asian Military Review a few months ago on the requirement for LAW-type weapons in the Platoon and Section. His chief point seemed to be that LAW-type weapons were best for Infantry Sections not only due to weight issues but especially becuase their distribution throughout the Section reduced or eliminated the requirement for having to site dedicated, heavier (and more readily identifiable to the enemy) AT weapons teams along likely avenues of approach at the Section and Platoon level. And to be honest, the force of his argument is pretty difficult to resist.

Now, I will admit to having been strongly influenced by Lester Grau's piece on the RPG-7 (amongst others), and most especially by Eric Hammel's Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, 1968. During the fighting for Hue, the US Army and the USMC found that the M-72 was of marginal use against fortified positions and fighting positions in buildings. The best weapons were found to be the main guns of tanks, 106mm RR, and the old 3.5 inch rocket launcher (our original predecessor site, The MOUT Homepage has a piece on Hue and the use of such weapons in it by two of the participants), and the latter was also particularly effective for mouseholeing, while the M-72 was useless for the task. And of course, it was in action against NVA/PAVN T-55s that the M-72 was discovered to be practically useless against MBTs. Not that the RPG-7 is substantially better against tanks; only the odd hit on a weak spot will take an MBT out, but like the (more or less) long-gone 3.5" bazooka, the RPG-7 is fairly decent for taking out field fortifications and fighting positions inside buildings.

It's also a pretty nasty thing to run into during a firefight, and a number of armies issue one or two rocket launchers to each squad/section to enable them to win the firefight as quickly as possible (as well as for use against armour and field fortifications). The PLA, for one, issues a pair of PF 89's to each 8-10 man Squad, but sees fit to issue only a single AR. The NVA/PAVN carried (and still carry) at least one RPG in each 9-man Squad, as does the NKPA, in addition to the Section's single LMG or AR. Grau's article points out that the Iranians liked to issue a pair of RPGs to each Squad, and of course the Russians themselves carry an RPG in each 10-man Section in addition to its pair of ARs.

The observation that I'm trying to point out here is that a rocket launcher or recoilless gun in the 12-15 pound range, that can be carried, loaded, and fired with ease by just one man is a pretty handy and useful piece of kit to have in the Squad/Section, and mainly for non-AT tasks. The M-72 LAW, and roughly comparable weapons, are more or less ineffective in the AT role (just as the RPG and similar weapons are) but are also more or less ineffective dealing with field fortifications, buildings, and of course in the suppressive role during firefights. The RPG and similar weapons, however, are more or less effective in those areas.

Now, weapons like the Carl Gustav, the Mk. 153 SMAW, the RPG-29, and the MBT-LAW are much more effective against armour, and have the advantage of greater range in the AT role than the RPG and similar-type weapons. And of course, they are as good or better than RPG- or 3.5" inch RL-type weapons against field fortifications and, certainly in the Carl G's case, more effective against infantry in the open and for laying smoke. But, these weapons are well over twenty pounds each (they tend to be in the 25-29 pound range), and while they can be carried, loaded, and fired by one man, it is slow and cumbersome to do so in comparison to the RPG-7 or the old 3.5" bazooka. And a good deal more ammunition can be carried for the same weight for an RPG or 3.5" RL than for a Carl G, SMAW, MBT-LAW, etc, which is good for use in the firefight as well as in sustained fighting through field fortifications or urban areas.

Mechanized Infantry Sections have carried the M-3 version of the Carl Gustav, but within the operational context that the Battalions they were a part of were intended for mainly defensive operations against a potential Soviet attack, so losing 2 men out of a (nominally) 8- or 9-man Section was judged tactically appropriate given the prevailing and anticipated METT-T conditions. That may well have had to give if conditions were rather different and sustained offensive operations were expected to be necessary.

I guess my contention/proposition is that if any light AT weapon short of a top-attack (and fairly heavy) weapon like MBT-LAW, BILL, Javelin, and the like, stands no better than a gambler's chance of taking out an MBT (and for some of the same reasons as when a gambler actually wins), then light AT weapons like the RPG and the old 3.5" rocket launcher should be carried by Infantry Platoons with a view to winning the fire fight and busting up field fortifications and fighting positions within buildings. With LMGs/ARs, underslung grenade-launchers, the addition of RPG-type rocket launchers provide a solid "triple jeopardy" tactical capability at Squad, Section, and Platoon levels. I may well be wrong, but I rather suspect that existing LAW-type weapons won't provide this, or like the cancelled Predator, only at a weight that rivals or approaches that of top-attack weapons.

If this contention/proposition is more or less correct, then in what proportion should an RPG- or 3.5" RL-type weapon be present in the Platoon and especially is Squads or Sections? One per Squad/Section, or one per Fire Team? And if so, what will this do to Squad/Section sizes?