Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

[baboon6]

In the ‘New rules of war’ thread there are some interesting posts regarding effect vs efficiency, also with regards to economics.

In the ‘UK in Afghanistan’ tread baboon6 and davidbfpo linked this video, where a UK section fires a Javelin at a suspected enemy position thought to hold a single shooter. Note in this video also that the section has two DMs with sniper rifles with one carrying a Javelin and the other has a Minimi (with but stock extended) strapped to his pack as a sidearm. Also it did not look like the GPMG gunner had a number 2, unless it was the DM with the MINIMI. But I digress.

It must be the Dutch and the builder in me that screams ‘waste’ when I see that. From both an economical perspective (which rightly does not concern the trigger pullers who will use what is at their disposal, including CAS), but also from a carried weight perspective. No doubt weapons like Javelin and Spike are unsurpassed against MBTs in a ‘conventional’, like against like war, and also where their extreme range is required. However, in A-stan against AKs, and up to around a range of 500 m, how sensible is this trend towards using what used to be battalion/company level support weapons, at section level? (Will Javelin be the next IW?) Is the range advantage the big issue here and if so, is Javelin indeed often used at section level in excess of 500/600 m?

A historical example that would support the use of the longer-range weapons is Goose Green where B-coy 2-Para was pinned down for several hours in open ground and it required anti-tank platoon’s Milan to get them unstuck. But this was at battalion level.

There are many different unguided weapons available and they are improving in quality and effect, from the lighter M72 up to the heavier Metador and Bunkerfaust. Even the 1948 designed Charlie Guts-ache is still in the running. Australia is purchasing new ones.
Canada also still uses the Carl Gustav. Is there any feedback of its use in A-stan?

It seems that UK and US units at the sharp end of the stick are leaning increasingly towards the use of Javelin, almost exclusively at times. Again, is this mainly because of range advantage or is there more to it? Is there still good reason (other than from an accountants perspective) for retaining the heavier Bunkerfaust/SMAW type weapons or is the super expensive and heavy Javelin/Spike at section level the way of the future?

In the video at least one of the soldiers is carrying an M72A9 and that and the AT4 have been extensively used by UK troops in Afghanistan. A poster on another forum I frequent wrote that the AT4s his unit had received a year or two ago were unreliable with a high percentage of blinds; possibly they were in storage too long. The M72 (always referred to by British soldiers as a "66" after its calibre) is more popular, not least because of its lighter weight. At present it is being issued to British troops in Helmand instead of the AT4. The anti-structure version of the Matador weapon is meant to enter service with the British Army later this year, having been originally ordered as far back as 2006:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Should.....-a0168432753

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SI...ILES/5/925.pdf

So they are not exclusively using Javelins...

[Schmedlap]

A poster on another forum I frequent wrote that the AT4s his unit had received a year or two ago were unreliable with a high percentage of blinds; possibly they were in storage too long.

Blinds? Is that a British/Aussie word for dud? Or does that mean the sights were broken off?

[baboon6]

Blinds? Is that a British/Aussie word for dud? Or does that mean the sights were broken off?

It means a dud.