UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER
AD861318

NEW LIMITATION CHANGE

TO
Approved for public release, distribution
unlimited

FROM
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't.
agencies and their contractors; Critical
Technology; OCT 1969. Other requests shall
be referred to Department of the Army,
Army Concept Team in Vietnam, APO San
Francisco 96384.

AUTHORITY

Assistant Chief of Staff for Force

Development [Army] ltr dtd 13 Sep 1973

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

 a

AVHOGC-DST (22 Oct 69) let Ind

SUBJECTs M72A1E Improved Light Antitank Weapon

HEADCrUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, VIETKAM, APO San Francisco 96375

Co mmander in Chief, United States Army., Pacific, ATTN: GPOP-DT, STO:
APO 96558
1. The attached final letter report is forwarded for review and transmittal
to Department of the Arny. Request one copy of the CINCUSARPAC forwarding
indorsement be furnished to Comanding General, US Army,, Vietnam, ATTN:
and Commanding Officer,SAVNGC-DST
Ar• Concept Team in Vietnam (ACTIV).

2. NUCOM message, DTG 251812Z Jul 69, states the difficulty with the
squeeze was corrected byStrigger
the addition of lubricant to the trigger
mechanism. The noise level of the improved LAW is not considered to be
significant problem. Sa
3. This Headquarters concurs in the conclusion that the improved LAW is
suitable for use in RVN and recommends the MT72A be type classified
Standard A.

FOR THE COMUA1DR:

!6 t .

'1 Inclm' jo uN .,-;

* I,.,...
as

Best Available Copy OV 1710 ,

. 3
 STAT1 ? 02 UNCLAsJfM •

This dooument is subject to spolal *gpott e@utrolt 8 SAW *Gb

transmittal to foreign government s or'tOrSlz vat@onal my be
mde o=1r with prior a oa t-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY CONCEPT TEAM IN VIETNAM
APO San Francisco 96384

AVIB-GCD

SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72AIEI Improved Light

Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/691)

Commanding General
United States Army, Vietnam
ATTN: AVHGC-DST
APO 96375

1. REFERENCFS

a. Message, 46290 AVHGC-DST, Headquarters, US Army, Vietnam,

22 April 1968, subject: M72EI LAW With Improved Warhead (ENSURE)(U),
ConfiOntIal.

b. Message, 890450 DA, Department of the Army, 12 December 1968,

subject: ENSURE 241-M72AIEl LAW (U).

c. Message, 903654 DA, Department of the Army, 3 April 1969,

subject.:, M72AIE1 1AW (ENSURE 241)(u).

2. PURPOSE

The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the suitability of

the M72AIEI Light Antitank Weapon (improved LAW) for use by US Army
units in the Republic of' Vietnam (RVN).
3. OBJECTIVES

a. 0bjoetive 1. To evaluate the capabilities of the imnroved LAW.

b. Ohbective 2. To evaluate the operational characteristics of

the improved LAW.

c. Objective 3,. To d.termine user accerntability of the improved TAW,

AVIB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72AlEl Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/69I)

h. BACKGROUIND

In February 1068 the US Army, Vietnam (USARV) conducted an evaluation

of 61 M72 LAWs. Because of the defects and limitations found in the M72,
USARV submitted an Expedited Non-Standard Urgent Requirement for Equip-
ment (ENSURE) request for an improved LAW in April 196a. The M72AIEl
LAW was the result of this request. The first. shipment of imrroved LAWs
arrived in RVN during March 1969.
5. SCOPE

The improved LAWs were used by the evaluating units in combat

operations.

6. DESCRIPTION

The improved LAW is a 66mm light antitank weapon system. It consists

of a lightweight, shoulder fired rocket launcher %see Figure 1) and a high
explosive antitank (HEAT) rocket (see Figure 2) which contains a high
explosive shaped charge primarily intended for penetration of armored
targets. It may also be used effectively against bunkers and other
light field fortifications and gun emplacements. The comract, portable
weapon is issued as a preloaded single shot, disposable launcher with a
HEAT rocket.

7. APPROACH

Initially, 500 improved LAWs were made available to the 4th, 9th,
and 25th Infantry Divisions. During JTune 1969, an additional 1000
improved LAWs were made available to each of these units. A or..y
field evaluation period, 1 April to 4 July 1969, was used for collecting
data.

3. ENVIRONMENT

The areas of operation for the three evaluating units were as faollows:

h4th .hnfuntry Division - Western Plateau

9th Infantry Division - Mekong Delta
25th Infantry Division - MekonjT Terrice.

During the evaluation period all three regions experience4 heavy rainfall
(14.32 to 22.2 inches). Temperatures ranged from 570 to 900 in the
Western Plateau, and from 730 to 1000 in the Mekong Delta and Terrace.

2
AVIB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72A1EI Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/69I)

I'- 0

H
AVIB-GCD
OUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72AIE1 Improved Light
Antitan' -v eapon (ACG-13/69I)

E-
4._

SI'
AV IB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72AIEl Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/69I)

9. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three operational factors and their performance variables were

investigated:

a. Weapon Capabilities

(1) Type of targets engaged

(2) Effect on target

b. Operational Characteristics

(1) Configuration

(2) Malfunctions

(3) Disposal

c. User Acceptability

(1) Training requirements

(2) Basic ammunition load.

Information for meacuring these factors was obtained from responses

to questionnaires by personnel who had employed the improved LAW on
combat operations. Three ACTIV evaluators, one for each evaluating
division, conducted structured interviews with the respondents and
other personnel concerned with employment of the improved LAW. The
term respondent as used in this report refers to tho.e personnel who
completed the questionnaires.

10. THAINING AND DMFONSTRATIONS

a. A New E'ulrment Tialning Team (NMT.) conducted informal train-

ing and briefings at Long Binh Post, RVN, for the ACTIV project officer
and three evaluators from 18 to 23 March 1969, This training included
familiarization firing and tests of the effectiveness of the improved
LAW against simulated bunkers and an armored personnel carrier (APC).
The NEPT", accompanied by the ACTIV project officer and the three
evaluators, gave similar instruction and demonstrations to the three
participating divisions.

5
AVIB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72AIEI Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/691)

b. Since there was no data on the capabilities of the improved LAW

to destroy field fortifications, three simulated bunkers were constructed
at Long Binh. The improved LAW was fired against these targets to
familiarize the evaluators with the weapon and to determine the weapon's
effect on various blinker configurations.

(1) One of the simulated bunkers was constructed of six feet of

compacted laterite-filled sandbags, backed by a 3/4-inch sheet of plywood.
A second sheet of 3/4-inch plywood was erected at a standoff distance of
six feet behind the bunker. Twelve feet in front of the bunker was
a ten-gauge chain link fence (see Figure 3). The first improved LAW
was fired from a distance of 160 meters, penetrated the fence and
bunker, but failed to pass completely through the standoff sheet of
plywood. Seven subsequent rounds passed through the fence, bunker,
and both sheets of plywood. A circular pattern (three feet in diameter)
was etched on the standoff sheet. This spall pattern was caused by
fragments from the rocket's copper cone and elements of the laterite-
filled sandbags.

(2) The second simulated target was constructed similar to the

first, but contained four feet of compacted laterite-filled sandbags.
Nine rounds easily penetrated the fence and bunker and produced the same
type spalling effect as noted on the first bunker's standoff sheet.

(3) A third bunker was constructed with 3/4-inch sheets of

plywood and filled with loose laterite soil. There was a chain link
fence 12 feet in front, and a standoff sheet of 3/4-inch plywood in
the .rear (see Figure 4). Three rounds were fired from a distance of
160 meters. Although the rounds failed to pass completely through the
standoff sheet, the bunker was demolished.

c. During the demonstration at Long Binh one improved LAW round

was fired into a salvaged APC. From a distance of 160 meters, the
warhead made a 1 3/4-inch entry hole and passed through both sides of
the vehicle. Metal spall from the warhead and the vehicle's armor plate
caused damage to the interior of the APC and started a small fire in
the engine compartment.

Information was collected on 110 tactical firings of the Improved

LAW. Figure 5 shown the number of firings by mission and by type of
target. In this report, reconnaissance by fire is used 'to denote a
type of target rather than a method of employment.

€,6
AVIB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report -M72A1Ej. Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/69T)

121

CPF3. Dunker With Six Sandbaes.

_ J7A_

Pr;~i:4. Runker !ý'Ijjed With Loose Laterite.

 AVIB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72AIF1 Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/691)

_'YPYTARGEP
TYPE MISSION Buil,.trnp !nunker Personnel Reconnaissance Total
-- _by Fire

ý3econnaizsance in 28 29 11 18 86
Force
Perimeter Defense 3 0 5 1 9
•ong Range Patrol 2 2 4 0 8
AXmbush Patrol 2 2 2 1 7
Total 35 33 22 20 110

FIGURE 5. Employment Data by Type Mission and Type Target.

a. Buildings

The improved LAW was used against buildings-whose walls were

constructed of mud and'stone, and whose roofs were made of tile, thatch,
or tin. A round hitting the side of a building often caused its entire
wall and part of the roof to fall. When a tile roof was struck by a
warhead, the roof normally caved in and pieces of tile slid off the
supporting framework. Thatch roofs sometimes caught fire after being
penetrated by the round. When a round struck a tin roof, several
sheets would normally fly from the roof. A hole was always made
at the point of impact.

b. Bunkers

Enemy bunkers were normally constructed of packed dirt (ten

inches to three feet thick) with logs and packed dirt as overhead cover
(three to four feet thick). In 12 reported cases, the firers who engaged
bunkers achieved first-round hits. Sometimes the destructive force
of the round would completely demolish the bunker as well as blowing.
off the overhead cover. In other instances, the roof of the bunker
would collapse, entombing its occupants. In almost all instances,
firing from enemy machinegun and RPG bunkers ceased after they were
engaged by an improved LAW round.

c. Personnel

There were five instances in which the improved LAW was used
to repel enemy forces during night attacks. The effectiveness of the
weapon could not be determined during these attacks because helicopter
gunships and artillery were employed simultaneously. Additionally, the

8
AVIB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - MT2AlEl Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/69I)
bodies of the enemy troops were so badly mangled that the cause of

death could not be ascertained.

d. Reconnaissance by Fire

The improved LAW was also used effectively in a reconnaissance

by fire role. In 1 instance, 3 rounds were fired into a bamboo hedge-
row (3 to 5 feet thick) at a range of 200 meters. The warheads cleared
a path through the bamboo trees (one to three inches in diameter) and
caused two secondary explosions. When thicker hedgerows were encountered,
four rounds would normally clear the desired path. By using this
technique, booby traps were detonated and concealed enemy gunners were
probably discouraged from firing.

12. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

a. Accuracy

The improved LAW was more accurate than the M72 because of the
improved front and rear sights and the higher velocity of the round.
b. Misfires

There were only two reported cases of misfire. Both. resulted

when the safety would not stay in the off (forward) position.

c. Trigger

Respondents had difficulty squeezing the trigger. This situation

caused the firer to pull the weapon slightly off target, sometimes
resulting in the round being fired short of the target.

d. Noise Level
There were numerous complaints about the weapon being too loud
during demonstration and practice firings, but none during combat
operations.
e. Disposal

No difficulties were encountered in disposing of the launcher

after use.

9
AVIB-GCD
SUBJECT: Final Letter Report - M72AlEI Improved Light
Antitank Weapon (ACG-13/691)

13. USER ACCEPTABILITY

a. One of the principal reasons why respondents liked the improved
LAW was its simplicity. Untrained personnel could read the instructional
decal on the side of the launcher, prepare the weapon for firing, and
achieve first-round hits. During the evaluation period it was subjected
to varying weather and transport conditions. The improved IAW was
reliable and able to withstand rough handling.

b. Two improved LAWs were normally carried by a rifle squad, while

APCs carried at least three when they were available. One platoon
leader always carried five to nine LAWs when he dismounted from his
APC to engage enemy bunkers.

14. FINDINGS

a. The improved LAW was used effectively to destroy buildings,

bunkers, booby traps, and enemy personnel.

b. The trigger of the improved LAW was difficult to squeeze and

the weapon made too loud a noise when fired.

c. Respondents liked the improved LAW because it was reliable,

withstood rough handling, and was simple to use.

15. CONCLUSION

The improved LAW is suitable for use by US Army units in RVN.

16. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the US Army Materiel Command:

a. Take action to reduce the amount of force required to squeeze

the trIreer of the improved TAW.

b. Lowcr the noise level of the Improved LJAW, if practical.

1 "nci E "REID
Distribution '"olonel, Tnarntr:"
Commandi np

10
 A DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA.- R & D
"4 -;UJi classification of tito., body of abatgcl and Indexing annotation muist be mntered whena A. overall sawf elanet
i-t141JATIMG ACTIVITY (Coeporese *athiie) U. REPORT SECURI1TV CLASS8FICATION

AvRmy Concept Team in Vietnam UNCLASSIFIED

APO San Francisco 963814 Sb. oatoup

.4~OtTITLE

tfi2A~lEl 114PROVED LIGHT ANTITANK WEAPON

G.ý8CAIPTIVIE NOTIES (TypeO oftefopr andE SAolunve dates)

Final Letter Report

rl U.i-jfM0tHORS) (Fir. ft name. mMi.ff Initial, 14008 OWm.)

David H. Weddington, LTC, Infantry

R"P-OAT DATIE Ma TOTAL NO. OF PASES 76. 140. O0 *1treP

Oc~tober l)A(*,O1
~I'ACCT OR GRANT NO. to. ORIOINATOR'S REPORT NUW*SERIS)

C TNOACTIV Project No.,ACG-13/69I

Sb.OTHR RPORT NO(8ft(Any o6.ealNoe"#eWmny A. -

None o

1).0iUTMUTION STATIEMENT

z;;F'PLlI4eMTARV NOTIES 1'2. 6109ORINS MILITARY ACTIVITY

LNone
F

j US Army, Vietnam
APO San Francisco 963T5
!1'11tArmy Concept Team in Vietnam evaluated the M72AlEl Light Antitank Weapon (improved
lAW) to deteriainpa its suitability for use by US Army units In the Republic at Vietnam.
wealpon was evaluated by the 14th, 9th, and 25th Infantry Divisions from 1 April to
'i'Li
14 july 3.969 in regular combat operations. During the evaluation, the improved LAW was
la*~
iirarily against enemy bunkers, buildings, and personnel, and in a reconnaissance-
rixe role. 'The findings of the evaluation were:
The
rij~ mproved LAW was used effectively to destroy buildings, bunkers, booby

I~s, .rad e~nemy personnel.

'.MTetrigger of the improved LAW warn difficult to squeeze and the weapon made
loud a noise when fired.

3. Ulsers liked the improved LAW because It was reliable, withstood rough handling,
qi3aai mple to use.

it was concluded that the improved LAW Is suitable for usi6 by US Army units In
h..it was recommended that the US Army Materiel Command take action to lover the
I1J.,'level and reduce the amount of force required to squeeze the trigger of the
hilt-oedLAW.

*~D I "V4141473 "MU'I PON

O AWYU:&.A66 JAW.4 Wt4ICM is _____________________
 somuity craeil~lestio _______

'.LINK A aIK LIN c

ROLEC W? ROLE9 WI ROLE IWT

LIGHT ANETITANKC WEAPON (LAW)

LAW

IMPBOVED LAW