M72 - Creating a Legend

[@Nonose_s2]

Fun fact: about 30% of finnish population knows how to fire this weapon.

[@Kevin-fj5oe]

Ain't gonna doubt it

[@Medisterkakemonster]

everyone who has watched Beverly Hills Cop II knows how to fire one, but is 30% of the finnish population able to hit anything with it? I know I could'nt...

[@johnharker7194]

It's just a button. 90% of the world's population could figure that out. But whether they understand backblast is an entirely different matter. There are handy instructions on the old American tubes.

[@headcrab4090]

Rambo fired one from inside of a helicopter ;)

[@naui_diver9290]

Another fun fact: 100% of Americans know how to fire all weapons.

[@dougmoore5252]

Nammo is an outstanding company

[@petesheppard1709]

A problem in Vietnam was also poor storage and accounting for unit age. Increased ruggedness was part of the weapon improvement.

[@johnloosemore9949]

4:53 Note the rocket motor propellant burns completely before the rocket exits the tube... a VERY fast propellant burn, and not what we usually think of when we think "rocket." As a small arms repair specialist (as opposed to infantry) in the Army during the 1980's, I never got to fire an actual LAW, but did stand by and watch them fired a couple times. The launch definitely sounded more like a "boom" than a "swish"! This is different from the concept of the Soviet-designed RPG-7, which uses a lighter "kick-out" charge to get the rocket downrange a ways, where the slower-burning rocket motor then ignites. In both designs, the idea is to not have the firer get a face full of rocket exhaust. 4:19 It is sometimes said that the "warheads" on early M72s exploded prematurely, but I think this guy is getting at a more probable issue. Cracks or other defects in the propellant would cause it to burn even faster than designed, over-pressuring the motor housing and causing the rocket motor (rather than the actual warhead) to explode at launch. Not a good thing, in any case. It is vital that the propellant can withstand temperature changes, aging and rough handling without cracking, as cracking increases the surface area that is burning and generating pressure at a given moment.

[@loopdelooperlouis5541]

The only dislike on this video was given by at4 gang.

[@rolsen1304]

M72 made in Norway, AT4 a swedish design. But At4 is a more versatile weapon, almost man portable artillery. M72 is a guerilla weapon, light, simple, cheap, effective. They are not really in the same category.

[@ah64dbeast37]

M3 Carl Gustaf beats both in my opinion... Its reusable and more versatile. But I love the m72 and love it when it's used, with at least 1 m72 per fireteam.

[@tomsoki5738]

@@ah64dbeast37 heavy

[@ah64dbeast37]

@@tomsoki5738 yeah but not really the M4 or M3E1 is the same as a CLU for the javelin ATGM. No it's not the same but neither is its mission. The M3E1 is a replacement for the smaw in the usmc for good reason. The weight is offset by the ammo variety. But in my opinion the at4 and m72 are Irreplaceable.

[@johnnytyler5685]

This video was linked in an article that was describing how the Danes just delivered 2,700 of these M72s to the Ukrainian military today (on 2 March 2022). IMO these are probably going to be one of the most useful weapons for the Ukrainians in their fight to repel the Russian invaders. The Javelin is obviously the best anti-tank weapon on the market but it's big and bulky and also somewhat complicated. Your average Ukrainian civilian isn't going to be able to pick up a Javelin and fire it at a Russian tank. But an M72? Literally the PERFECT weapon for that. You could pass them out to anybody, give them a brief overview on how to use it and let them go to work on the Russians. Hell, a Ukrainian civilian who just finds one laying in the street can almost certainly figure out how to use it without any training whatsoever. That is going to be huge if this invasion morphs into an insurgency where Ukrainian civilians are going to have to launch attacks on Russian armor that is sitting in the center of their cities. Plus one single person can carry a bunch of them whereas a person can only carry one Javelin. And based on the absolutely WORTHLESS Russian JUNK we are seeing abandoned by the Russians THE SECOND they start to receive incoming fire, it really doesn't even matter if these are capable of penetrating a Russian tank (even though I absolutely believe that they will) because just hitting the tank is going to be enough to cause the Russians inside of it to jump out and run away. In addition to more Turkish drones, this is probably one of the most-needed weapons for the Ukrainians right now.

[@hardheadjarhead]

The Javelin is good at long range. This is more flexible in that it can easily be used against bunkers and armor at close range. It isn’t too useful in a front shot on a T-72 with reactive armor….but will take out AFVs and APCs handily. Really all of the weapons we’ve sent work well in a layered defense. Given proper context, they all can come in to play.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

They arnt powerful enough, countries that do use them use them mostly on emplacements and buildings. They will destroy technicals, russian IFVs and APCs, but need 5 or so shot from within abiut 100 range in quick succession to destroy tanks. So you can carry around 10 of these things around for dedtroying 1 or 2 tanks if you get very lucky, or just use things like NLAWs.

[@TruthNerds]

2:35 This explanation (more accurate because the propellant burns up entirely while the projectile is in the tube) makes little sense. For one, this was also the case for the Panzerfaust (and don't confuse the Panzerfaust with the Panzerschreck here…) The two systems were quite different though… the Panzerfaust was a disposable recoilless gun. A recoilless gun is effectively a gun which is fired with an open breech, negating recoil. I.e. the projectile is driven out of the tube by the expanding gases of the propellant burning up behind it. The Bazooka on the other hand was a reusable rocket launcher… the propellant wasn't located behind the projectile but on the projectile and, while it burnt rapidly, it still did so much more slowly than in a recoilless gun. A rocket nozzle directed the exhaust out of the rear of the projectile. Compared to a rocket launcher, a recoilless gun has some advantages: It's much easier to produce and requires less propellant for achieving a given muzzle velocity. However, a recoilless gun also has some disadvantages… in particular, because of the high pressures, the tube has to be very strong, all the more so if it's to be reused. This was one of the reasons for making the Panzerfaust a one shot system, the tubes were simply bent out of shape after firing. Even so, the Panzerfaust 30 was heavy at 6.4kg compared to the _reusable_ Bazooka's 7.4kg with a single rocket (+1.5kg for every rocket more). Also, the backblast of recoilless guns is big… covering a much larger area than for a rocket launcher and typically making their use in confined spaces unsafe. What does all of this have to do with accuracy? Good question! Both recoilless guns and rocket launchers can be highly accurate. To achieve a given effective range, a different amount of propellant is needed relative to the mass of the warhead. In a recoilless gun, increasing the propellant mass also requires strengthening the tube significantly though. Longer range Panzerfaust designs did achieve much higher ranges but at the cost of increased weight… e.g. the Panzerfaust 100 was about 40% heavier than the already heavy Panzerfaust 30.

[@javireyes3020]

It stopped being a rocket to become a recoilless cannon !!! WOW !!!

[@anadoluprepping6876]

They are different weapons and have different roles maaan.

[@karlhans6678]

@@heathcliff8624 but the rocket of the M72 stops igniting after it leaves the launcher, so its a recoilless weapon.

[@hardheadjarhead]

I always thought that was a particularly accurate weapon. If you knew the range, you could mail to target.

[@maddmaxx9819]

I love the smell of just fired M72 in the morning! It... It smells like victory!

[@ioanbota9397]

Realy I like this video

[@tech9auto223]

They always show the Munro effect and just says on hitting the target it explodes but doesn't tell you how the detonator on the nose ignites the explosive behind the copper cone ??

[@jnygaarddk]

Is this new airburst version intended for "crowd control" (long range hand grenade)?? Or can it also be used against helicopters?? I could see the use for tha later, so you don't have to both M72 and FIM92 with you.

[@TheGesox]

1:53 wait the germans used copecages back then ?

[@postandghost9391]

Personally, I prefer the AT4. I could never avoid pinching my fingers on that fucking extendo button, shit got me every time.

[@lukasdinter1289]

4:50 ... The what charge???

[@Misha-dr9rh]

The black powder one that ignites the rocket motor

[@lukasdinter1289]

@@Misha-dr9rh Black Powder was eliminated from military use since the late 19th century as far as i know... thats what i was trying to say with my comment

[@yelectric1893]

Lukas Dinter it’s a tool. Black powder is the primer, not what does the job.

[@yelectric1893]

An effective tool isn’t determined by its antiquity; only if it works.

[@lukasdinter1289]

@@yelectric1893 dude there is definitely no black powder used in this weapon

[@laakona8381]

Whenever you hear someone call the M72 a "Laws Rocket", you know they only know about it through Hollywood.

[@tahahormozan]

There was no mention if its returning can make Heavier M-136 obsolete like the way MAAWS had made MK-153 SMAW

[@javireyes3020]

Could be better with a tandem warhead, the primary charge could be a 40mm warhead like the 40mm M433 HEDP grenade simple, easy, why they never upgrade the m72 like this?

[@tomsoki5738]

Easy? Said like someone that knows absolutely nothing about weapons design. The warhead is far to small to incorporate that, and tandems are only useful against ERA, if you are shooting at the front of a tank with an M72 you are insane, it can’t go through the normal front armour let alone ERA, it’s for the rear side, rear and top of MBT’s but really only for AFV’s now.

[@jyotirmayamohanty5723]

What about Panzerfaust 3 ?

[@heathcliff8624]

It went 30 Meters. That's close.

[@ericferguson9989]

@@heathcliff8624 The Panzerfaust 3 is a modern variant in current use. It boasts a sustainer rocket, allowing it to fly further. Its warhead is more in line with an Apilas or Law 80, able to penetrate about 800 mm RH steel plate.

[@fpscanada3862]

@@ericferguson9989 800mm?

[@ericferguson9989]

@@fpscanada3862 I'll look it up. I was just going off the top of my head.

[@ericferguson9989]

@@fpscanada3862 Yup. According to all-knowing Wiki, 700mm RHA for the original and 900mm for the improved Panzer Faust 3IT. (Your results may vary. Always be sure to read and follow the label. Please enjoy responsibly:))

[@hermanlindqvist7238]

Just buy the Carl Gustaf m4 and you'll be fine ;)

[@larserikertzgaardringen7426]

Or use both.

[@daroth7127]

the modern panzerfaust

[@РенатРоссия-ь3е]

Шмель лучший!

[@LePuputsch]

Acknowledge it: at the beginning it was a good weapon, without DU. Then LAWs with DU were manufactured. An Asian manager sells them.

[@dogsnads5634]

What on earth good would DU do... This uses the explosive effect of the munition to penetrate, not a high velocity solid round....

[@LePuputsch]

@@dogsnads5634 the M72 LAW indeed usually did not include DU (except in a last version...). But DU is used for gassing purposes and to hide the nuclear flash in a varsity of application, many missiles still (even though there is a dismantling and new weapons deployed are without DU, they do a clear nuclear flash usually).

[@megamillionfreak]

Check out Yugoslav/Serbian M80 "Zolja" ("Wasp"), 64mm.

[@trungbao8452]

Useless when they met the PT 76 😂