Great video and article. I don't get it? Why train people to stand up and shoot? They should be in simulated cover and use a tree, post or log to steady the tube.

Thanks for watching! Probably a matter of familiarisation with the weapon before considering how to use it from cover.

Goated game

Read my mind buddy. Getting a headshot with one always got me giggly.

Bf 4 too

Crap, I was so scared when I saw a dude with one of em’

Marines in the GWOT remembers this.

Lmao not until Biden!!!! He left thousands upon thousands of pieces of equipment and weapons over there. Blows their record keeping out of the water just like Biden's gelatinous brain

@@Riorozen You can match up new optics to the system, hence the rail system. There is also a method to match the rocket to a laser aim point that had a 95% first shot hit, but of course that requires some sort of night optic devise to see the laser, and really only good at night. But yeah, the spotting riflr rounds failed to burn around 50% of the time.

By the 2010’s the SMAW optic was replaced with an ACOG which was excellent. Also never saw a spotting rifle round not burn. Some feeding and ejecting issues with the spotting rifle but usually due to poor maintenance which was always swiftly corrected.

@@Mavrick121 I think they bought new production after 9/11. They introduced the NE warhead in 03/04, so by 2010 it was most likely newer production

9x51 essentially.

@@TheArmourersBench2 for 1 ammo deal 😅

What’s the reason for the frankenstein-like nature of that round?

Yeah, that might indeed be what's going on. They seem to be working.

It depends what the consequences of firing "potentially compromised rounds" are. Are we talking 'it's a dud, so you just throw it away', or are we talking 'it blows up in the launcher'?

@@jic1 if you are operating one and there's a catastrophic failure then it's suddenly not your problem anymore.

Too kind. Thank you for watching!

It’s because the USMC has a different fighting doctrine than the other branches, hence why they’re using the HK M27 IAR; the Carl Gustaf is a welcome addition, it’s primarily because we were still figuring out how to acquire the plans to domestically produce the CG as we we’re doing with the SMAW

It usually has more to do with budget than the "different." Sometimes the "different" is important though. Not every Army system works well under the conditions and with USMC doctrine. Usually it's budget, or it's a case of a manufacturer not having the capacity to fill a USMC order because they're filling someone else's order.

At the time when the SMAW was introduced (mid 80s), the SMAW had several advantages over the Carl Gustaf. It was lighter, more compact, had a more penetrative anti-tank round, and benefits from sealed ammunition containers that are loaded directly into the weapon. However since the SMAW only has a few principal users who didn't see fit to upgrade it, it basically stayed the same over its service. Thus leading to the situation today where the latest Carl Gustaf variants are now superior to the SMAW.

Have fired both, the cg is so far ahead it's hardly comparable

@@Riorozen There was a system to use the standard USMC laser attachment with the smaw that was almost guaranteed a first round hit without the spotting rifle if done right, but the USMC never really had a need to use it, so it never got widespread,and it was only efdective at night when the laser was visible with nods.

Thanks Jared, glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching!

Thank you! Really appreciate it!

Mhmm, just pointing it out. We see what we see. The one rocket we see seems to do fine. Thanks for watching.

Could well be yeah, seem to work fine. Thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching!

Has the mos been changed to "Assaultperson" to be PC or is it abolished under the new doctrine?

Funny enough, they actually changed the name to Assault Marine back in 2020ish.

​@@TheLazyLabrador They changed it in like 2018. Despite the fact that I have never seen, nor heard of a wook Assaultman.

Oh did I say 66th, it's definitely the 68th as that's what I've written in the accompanying article. Thanks!

@@TheArmourersBench No worries, I'm kind of a nerd when it comes to unit naming.

Stuff like that us important. Thanks for watching

I suspect you're right. I would imagine we'll see Ukrainians use it like an RPG-7

Maybe it depends on range? At shorter ranges maybe they feel it's not worth the time but it still might be useful for extreme range shots. Otherwise you'd expect them to remove the spotting rifle entirely to save weight and cost.

i figure its more something you would use if you have time at either the beginning of an assault right before everyone opens up or preparing a defense such as how tanks will lase multiple landmarks to keep note of ranges

Those rounds would also be useful for suppressing anyone on the other end. Biggest threat is someone who is behind a machine gun at the other end.

@@TheArmourersBench short distance we’d rapid fire tracer rounds but would take our time long distance for accuracy.

yeah....sour grapes!

Yeah, beat him up!

As one Ukranian solider said. "We're lucky they're so fucking stupid"

Meanwhile the eastern side of Ukraine is covered in tank turrets. 🤣

He ish shooting at4,is Swedish. Sweden is not even part of the NATO now

Good question, would expect to have seen it in use with Russian forces. 30 has been used fairly widely but not seen any sign of 29. Can only assume it hasn't been issued at scale yet.

@@TheArmourersBench since the beginning I always wondered, I mean it has in Iraq and Syria but I yet to see a single soldier carrying one. I always thought of it as a great weapon but I doubt soldiers that carry it and it's ammo would think likewise after a few days login that thing around. Nevertheless from a defense position point of view I would take that over a lot of unguided AT weapons. ✌

I’d take the Airtronic personally

Any launcher is better than no launcher though.

I need to do a video on the Airtronic

Did you not watch the video? He literally said it features aluminized explosive for enhanced blast lethality. Which is just another way of saying it has a thermobaric warhead

​@Robert Taylor objectively false. The SMAW has the looks if nothing else. The spotting rifle feature is pretty dope too. Also, aren't thermobaric weapons generally a bit of a no-no?

Indeed, that would make sense. Thanks for watching.

for anti-armor ops, the SMAW slightly outperforms the AT-4. SMAW HEAA penetrates up to 24 inches of armor compared with 16.75 for the AT-4. for bunker busting, there’s no comparison. SMAW can destroy bunkers that AT-4 simply cannot.

It seems they are shooting French LRAC89 in that particular footage.

Yea any idea what tank is at 1:53 at the back near the truck?

@@niekbeentjes8849 AMX13, cannon removed

@@niekbeentjes8849 maybe an old S35 some D2 / B1

@@docteurlowbat Thank you so much, I just found out myself Its indeed a AMX13 chassis with a M24 Chaffee Turret with gun removed for drivers training DTT. Maybe only one remaining!!

At the time they were lighter than the M2 CG but now the modern M4 is much lighter and has a wider array of munitions capable of more than the SMAW's family of rockets.

What?

Here's our SMAW-D video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aaqAeaaoyKmZj2w.html

Depending on the rocket type, it's range is 500m ish.

Yes. Rockets and recoilless rounds are huge and the blast is already bad enough. You don't need to fire them over 3-400 meters, that is when you use ATGMs instead.

It's a 9mm *projectile,* but it's not 9x19. It's a special spotting cartridge with a trajectory matched to the main munition.

*Battlefield 3

@@stevemc6010 perhaps

Oh wow, that's a game isn't it? Bang-bang. So cool.

@@kiereluurs1243 yeah

On its own sure. It’s not the only price of kit they have however.

They're intended to improve first hit probability but in reality the tracers often don't extend out far enough and they can also give away position. They are definitely issued but they are increasingly rare on modern systems.

I've seen it being used and going from the video and what others have said it jams all the time. It's generally a waste of time unless you can sit around out of cover for a minute or two before you can fire. Frankly it's better to exit cover and fire, see where you hit if you missed, back into cover to reload, exit cover and fire again and hope you hit. It's also pointless against a moving target like a tank generally does. An optical sight with a sighting table would be quicker.

I think we might see Ukrainians using them just like RPG-7s, I don't think they'll be using the spotting rifle much.

A spotting round was a feature on the British LAW94. I trained on an indoor simulation training facility in Germany as a teenager. It was fun. The computer would work out if you hit or missed and show it on the screen. I took a couple spotting rounds before switching to main armament. That was 1991

@@Punisher9419 Please be quiet fella. Its getting embarrassing now watching you make this stuff up.

Appreciated Mike!

@@TheArmourersBench You're welcome.

It doesn't have to stop a T72 it only has to stop a BMP. That frees up more expensive munitions like the NLAW or Javelin that are needed for tank hunting.

By the Israelis? Was not aware of that

@@josedorsaith5261 It's got far more in common with late cold war disposable AT weapons than a Bazooka. It's basically a reloadable LAW94.

@@zoiders I'm sure there's plenty of bunkers and machine gun nests for it to take out too.

@@jic1 Drones seem to have rapidly taken over the role of clearing sangars but you are right- bang is bang no matter which system you use.

Because they are free and any AT weapon that can take on a BMP is better is better than no AT weapon. The BMP is probably the single greatest threat to Ukrainian infantry on the ground because they are simply so prolific and you can't stop one with small arms.

Two reasons. 1. The USMC will do anything they can to not use US Army equipment if they can help it. 2. The SMAW is easy to operate and fire as a single person and the ammunition is lighter. the CG really benefits from an assistant gunner for loading and carrying ammunition. Overall the SMAW is ideal for when an AT4 is too small and a Javelin is too big and you happen to be a marine.

I’ve read there are US Army units equipped with the Carl Gustav. That may or have not means the USMC will adopt it replacing their own SMAW

​@@LordOceanus why marines don't want to use general american stuff?

@@tetispinkman9135 Because the Marines are special and very proud of being different.

Not really disposable as you can reload the smaw

Traditionally they’re lighter than reloadable systems.

Ease of use. When the need arises, you can just hand out M72/AT-4 to any old rifleman without much, if any, training. Point and shoot, in the case of the AT-4 it even has instructions on the tube. This isn't that, however. The rounds come self contained and the tubes are disposable, the more "complicated" firing unit, however, is now.

Thanks! Well the SMAW is a rocket launcher not a recoilless rifle, they just fill a similar role. As I mention the original design comes from Israel's IMI. Thanks for watching!

It's amazing how confidently incorrect you are. It was the Israeli B-300 that was copied and turned into the SMAW, not the Swedish Carl Gustaf 84mm. Even then, SMAW is a licensed and highly modified copy, not an unlicensed carbon-clone. On a technical level they aren't even similar.

@@ndx6779 Even if you show signs of having a slight learning disability it's still reasonable to expect that you can read and understand e.g. basic texts from the two weapons' official information.

​@@TheArmourersBench I'm a bit stunned here to be honest, but I have respect for your channel as other videos have been interesting and accurate. *However.* My friend, you'll have to prepare better for next video. I'm sorry to tell you that this "MK153" *most certainly* IS categorized as a 'recoilless rifle' or 'recoilless rocket launcher'. Without question the Carl Gustaf and Mk 153 go under the same weapon category. Don't get fooled by meaner-sounding lingo that _the manufacturer_ chooses to market the weapon under, rather *always* delve beneath and understand the weapon's functionality. I do *not* intend to sound patronizing, but just use your favorite search engine to view the weapon and it can't escape anyone with even just broad military weapon understanding that it *IS* a typical *_recoilless rifle._* Or the more fancy _recoilless rocket launcher_ if that's what you or the producer prefer. Now, I suspect you've been fooled by the term _"rocket launcher"_ when researching. Regarding this I assume the Americans and Israelis want to set their product apart and somewhat shuffle the deck by adopting the perhaps more impactful and badass-sounding _ROCKET_ component. Evidently both weapon shoot precisely the same type of rocket-propelled munitions, which for some unimportant reason the "rocket" component is more emphasized when reading product information about this weapon online. The ammo used are almost identical (obviously different caliber), even if the Carl Gustaf according to official records have a much wider selection of ammo types beyond "standard" _HEDP, HEAT rocket-assisted projectiles_ and the fancifully Americanized or Israelized _"SMAW-Novel Explosive"_ anti-structure munitions. [The last fancy denotation had me giggling as SAAB naturally and simply names it _anti-structure munition._ Even if it of course also has a delayed fuse-setting.] Now the main take-away or advise I suggest you consider, is to consciously always try *not* to get fooled, distracted or buy into the typical American or perhaps Israeli marketing-trap by being impressed by all their countless, badass-sounding and almost pathological acronyms and mumbo-jumbo. Instead *always* go for the hard facts and dig into *how the weapon performs and functions in real life.*

@@ph6560 It's so deliciously ironic that you insult me and declare that I have a "learning disability" but you can't even demonstrate a Wikipedia-level understanding of these weapons. "basic texts from the two weapons' official information", My brother in christ, have *you* even read their information? In what ways is the SMAW a plagiaristic copy? You took an entire novella to explain that because the SMAW and Carl Gustaf both shoot rockets and blow stuff up, that the SMAW must be a copy because it was invented later. Kindly sod off and go look in the mirror, then you'll see the one with the learning disability.

Seek help.

@@TheArmourersBench but be real with yourself they really are look at the current situation or are you blind by that too Young men are dying left and right

If you'd commented without a dozen Russian flag emojis we could have a conversation about the futility of war and its enormous human cost but I honestly don't think you'd get it.

@@TheArmourersBench oh I get it but do you. Ukrainian has no future joe Biden and Hunter Biden will pay for all they shit they started

@@righthand2571 sure thing Vatnik.

Yes it's based on the IMI B300.

Finally someone says it. F*ck that archaic, gangly ass, 500m max engagement, ten second time on target, piece of sh*t.