During the Cold War, our heavy divisions were intended to be large anti-tank forces designed to absorb a massive Soviet armored onslaught and emerge victorious.
One weapon we adopted was the AT-4 infantry anti-tank weapon to replace the small LAW. The AT-4 was a single-shot weapon larger than the LAW and was based on the Swedish Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. It killed tanks better than the LAW. I saw it demonstrated--it was new then--during basic training.
It was all about killing tanks, then. Do that well enough and we'd win. Fail to do it and Russian armor was sitting on the east bank of the Rhine River--and we'd have lost.
Fast forward 25 years after we won the Cold War and had to face insurgents and terrorists in two wars who deployed no tanks, and we are simply buying the Carl Gustav for our infantry to be able to shoot at any targets:
The U.S. Army has ordered more man-portable recoilless rifles from Swedish defense company Saab.
Saab's Carl-Gustaf is an 84mm weapon initially used as an anti-tank weapon but now is considered multipurpose. It weighs 19 pounds, can be fired from the shoulder or using a bipod. With two soldiers operating it (one as a loader) it fires about six rounds a minute. One soldier can operate the weapon but with a reduced firing rate.
Using our small-unit anti-tank guided missiles to attack bunkers or houses with enemies in them was pretty expensive. A round from a recoilless rifle is a cheaper way to go.
That says a lot about who we think we'll have to fight--or rather, the complete lack of certainty about who we'll have to fight.
I wonder how many we'll buy? The article says we will field them in regular infantry units (special forces already use them). Will they become standard weapons up and down the line or just something added to units going to war against insurgents?
