Wow, finally. Once again big Army bringing up the rear.
Could have used these back on my Astan trip. Instead we launched AT4 after AT4 at qlat walls, with negligible effects.
The Army procurement process never ceases to amaze. Unit after Unit submitting urgent need statements and finally the PEO, etc. get around to making it a standard issue.
P.S. - I'd also like an RPG as issue over the AT4. After shooting ANA RPG's I'm a fan
It makes sense to someone. I'd like to know the line of thinking behind the adoption of the various disposable launchers, LAW/AT4/Dragon/Javelin...
Again, I do think there is something to everyone having an AT weapon immediately available. But, I can see the issue with it not being the right warhead for the job.
On the other hand, it's hard for the command to see into the future, and figure out what the grunt on the ground will face from the enemy...all the while the enemy is adjusting his tactics.
When the Soviet threat was much more real, stopping Soviet armor was probably a much bigger concern then having to dig a haji out of a cave.
Of course on Okinawa, didn't they flood the caves, then float gas on the sea water and burn 'em? American ingenuity!
While it seems I am blindly defending procurement...what I am really interested in the thought process behind previous acquisitions, the environment..both battlefield & political, the perceived threats of the time, training and resource concerns, etc.
I just don't think the various "pentagon wars" type stuff is as prevalent as some profess it to be.
As far as the various Panzerwhatever's....wasn't the M1 Bazooka the first to use the shape charge? Or did the internet lie to me again?