Web and Tech – The Freedomist

The Mighty D-30 – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna June 26, 2026

Artillery is the King of the battlefield, and has been for nearly three hundred years.

Set up a D-30 howitzer and watch the crew work. The gun arrives towed muzzle-first behind a truck, trails folded flat. The crew unhitches it, lowers the central hydraulic jack — lifting the wheels clear of the ground — and swings the two outer trail legs outward, each through 120 degrees, until all three rest on the earth and are staked in place. The whole evolution takes under two minutes. The gun can now traverse through a full 360 degrees and engage a target in any direction without being repositioned. That is not a feature common to artillery; it is a feature specifically engineered into the D-30 by its designer, F.F. Petrov working at Plant No. 9 in Sverdlovsk, in the 1950s, and it remains one of the most practical innovations in postwar artillery design. Sixty-five years after the D-30 entered Soviet service, its three-legged silhouette is still appearing in drone footage from Ukraine, on both sides of the front line.

*Afghan National Army instructors fire the 122 milimeter D-30 howitzer, Oct. 4, 2010. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Zachary Wolf. Public Domain.*

A Caliber With a Long History

If nothing else, Russians love stability. They adopted the 7.62x54R rifle cartridge in the 1890’s…and still use it today. The D-30’s 122mm calibre did not arrive with the Cold War. Russia adopted that bore in the early twentieth century, and it became central to Soviet artillery doctrine through the Second World War, when the M-30 howitzer — also a Petrov design, also from Plant No. 9 in Sverdlovsk — served as the backbone of divisional artillery across every front from Barbarossa to Berlin. By the mid-1950’s the M-30 was aging and its limitations were apparent: a split-trail carriage that restricted traverse to just 49 degrees, a barrel too short for the ranges modern warfare demanded, and a weight that strained the logistics of rapid mechanized advance. Petrov’s bureau was tasked with replacing it, and the design that emerged kept the calibre and the ammunition commonality while discarding everything else about the M-30’s architecture.

The result was the 2A18, designated the D-30 in service. Where the M-30 had a conventional split-trail carriage limiting it to a narrow arc, the D-30 used a three-legged tripod arrangement that permitted the full-circle traverse. Where the M-30’s barrel was a stubby 22.7 calibres long, the D-30’s ran to 38 calibres, driving muzzle velocity and range substantially higher. The effective range with standard HE ammunition reached 15.4 kilometers; with modern rocket-assisted projectiles, 21.9 kilometers. Rate of fire peaked at ten to twelve rounds per minute, sustained at five to six. The crew required — commander plus seven, or in some configurations six — was manageable for a divisional artillery unit. The Soviet Army adopted it in 1960 and began exporting it to Warsaw Pact allies and client states shortly afterward.

*D-30 (2A-18) 122mm howitzer. 2007 photo by George Shuklin. CCA/1.0 Generic.*

The Three-Leg Trick and What it Means

The 360-degree traverse deserves more analytical attention than it usually receives, because it was not simply a convenience feature. Soviet doctrine for motorized rifle divisions expected artillery to operate in fast-moving, fluid engagements where the threat direction could change rapidly — including from armored vehicles breaking through to artillery positions. A conventional split-trail howitzer caught by an unexpected flanking attack has no practical recourse; the crew cannot swing it to bear in time. The D-30’s crew can. With its HEAT round, the D-30 can penetrate over 450mm of rolled homogeneous armor — sufficient to defeat any IFV and most tank side armor — and the all-round traverse means the gun is in effect a self-defending anti-tank weapon of last resort, capable of engaging targets in any direction without emplacement changes. The US Army’s own assessment noted that the D-30 was “fully suitable for antitank defense” and could be equipped with infrared or passive night sights for direct-fire engagements after dark.

*Drawing of BK 13 HEAT projectile used in D-30 gun-howitzers. 1997 drawing by J.H. Morgan and J. Pittman, United States Government. Public Domain.*

This dual-role capability — indirect fire howitzer and emergency anti-tank gun — was a deliberate Soviet design choice rooted in the expectation that artillery positions in a fast-moving European war might need to defend themselves. It added no meaningful weight or complexity. It cost nothing beyond the carriage design itself. It is, in retrospect, one of the more elegant solutions in Cold War artillery engineering.

The same barrel assembly went into the 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzer, which entered service in 1972 and gave motorized rifle regiments equipped with BMP infantry fighting vehicles a tracked, armored platform using the same ammunition as the towed D-30 batteries in the division behind them. The logistical coherence was intentional. Over 12,000 D-30s were produced across the Soviet period, with licensed or derivative manufacture in China, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Iran, and Iraq. It remains in production internationally and in service with more than 60 nations.

A Combat Record Spanning Decades

The D-30’s operational history reads like an atlas of post-1960 conflict. It fired in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Lebanese Civil War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the Iran-Iraq War — where both sides used it in the kind of grinding, WWI-adjacent attrition that consumed ammunition by the trainload — the Gulf War, the Yugoslav Wars, the Syrian Civil War, the recent Tigray War, and the ongoing conflict in Myanmar. No other postwar artillery piece has fired in as many distinct conflicts across as many continents. Its appearance in a conflict zone is almost a predictor of that zone’s geopolitical history: wherever the Soviet Union sold weapons and influence, the D-30 eventually followed.

Afghanistan was a particular proving ground. Soviet D-30 batteries engaged Mujahideen positions across mountain terrain that challenged every other piece in the divisional inventory. After the Soviet withdrawal, the gun remained with Afghan forces — and then with both the Afghan National Army and Taliban-adjacent formations — requiring US Army trainers to become proficient on it themselves in order to build Afghan artillery capacity. The JPEO Ammunition command was still procuring spare cannons, breeches, and fire control conversion kits for Afghan D-30s as recently as 2016.

Ukraine and the Drone Problem

The D-30’s presence in Ukraine is as a weapon on both sides of the line, which is itself a commentary on how thoroughly Soviet materiel saturated the world across the Cold War decades. Ukrainian forces inherited substantial D-30 stocks from the former Soviet military, and have supplemented them with captured Russian pieces. Russian forces continue to field them in motorized rifle formations alongside more modern systems, pulling them from storage reserves as attrition has consumed more capable equipment.

The drone age has been unkind to the D-30 in ways that go beyond mere vulnerability. A towed howitzer is by definition a slow-moving, visually distinctive platform that requires time to emplace and displace. On a battlefield where reconnaissance UAVs can locate a firing position within minutes of the first shot and direct a Lancet loitering munition or FPV drone onto it before the crew can limber up and move, the D-30’s greatest operational asset — its two-minute setup time — becomes a liability rather than an advantage. Ukrainian drone operators have documented and filmed the destruction of Russian D-30s throughout 2024 and into 2025, with Defense Express reporting confirmed drone strikes against the type in the Northern Slobozhanske direction as recently as late 2025.

The artillery doctrine Ukraine has developed in response to this environment emphasizes what analysts have called “shoot and scoot” discipline: fire a short mission, displace immediately, move before the counter-battery or drone response arrives. That discipline demands mobility. A D-30 towed by a Ural-4320 truck can reach 60 kilometers per hour on road and reposition within a few minutes of unlimbering — fast enough, if the crew is well-trained and the intelligence picture is managed carefully. Not fast enough, if it isn’t.

*Shot from the D-30 howitzer. Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, via mil.ru, 2021. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

The D-30’s longevity is ultimately a product of the same qualities that have sustained every other piece of Soviet-era equipment in this series: rugged simplicity, ammunition commonality with a vast global stockpile, and a design architecture that asked nothing exotic of the armies operating it. The gun that Petrov’s bureau produced in Sverdlovsk in the 1950’s did not promise sophistication. It promised reliability, range, and the ability to swing in any direction and kill whatever came at it. In sixty-five years of continuous combat across six continents, it has largely delivered on that promise — and it is still being asked to do so.

*The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To*

The Immortal BMP

Michael Cessna June 19, 2026

On the morning of November 7, 1967, Western military attachés watching the annual Revolution Day parade roll across Red Square got their first look at something that had no equivalent in any NATO inventory. It was low, fast, amphibious, and bristling with weapons that no armored personnel carrier had any business carrying — a 73mm main gun and a rail-mounted anti-tank guided missile capable of killing a main battle tank at 3,000 meters. NATO scrambled to assign it a reporting name, settling on M-1967, because no one yet knew what the Soviets called it. What they called it was the BMP-1 — Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty, or “fighting vehicle of the infantry”, in English — and its appearance in that parade triggered a reappraisal of mechanized warfare doctrine across the entire Western alliance that is still unfolding today.

A New Category Of Weapon

To understand why the BMP-1 caused the reaction it did, it is necessary to understand what came before it. The armored personnel carrier of the mid-1960s — the American M113, the Soviet BTR-60, and the British FV432 — was essentially a “battlefield taxi”. Its job was to move infantry to the edge of a fight, at which point the soldiers dismounted and the vehicle pulled back. The APC carried a machine gun for self-defense. It was armored against small arms and shell fragments. It was not expected to fight alongside tanks; it was expected to survive long enough to deliver its cargo and withdraw.

*BMP-1 vehicles belonging to the 152nd Mechanised Brigade, May 2024. Photo by 152 окрема єгерська бригада, Ukrainian Army. CCA/4.0*

The BMP-1 discarded that entire concept. It was designed from the outset as a fighting vehicle in its own right — a platform from which infantry could engage the enemy without dismounting, and which could itself engage tanks, bunkers, aircraft, and infantry through its own organic weapons. Every infantryman in the troop compartment had a firing port and a vision block. The vehicle carried an NBC over-pressure system allowing it to operate in a contaminated environment — a direct product of Soviet doctrine that treated tactical nuclear weapons as a normal feature of any future European war. The BMP-1 was not designed for the wars the West had been fighting. It was designed for the war Soviet planners expected to fight: a high-speed armored offensive across a nuclear-contaminated Central Europe, with infantry and tanks advancing together under the same protective shell.

*The firing arcs of the firing ports on the BMP-1 MICV. Image from a US Army TRADOC (“Training And Doctrine Command”) technical briefing, dated 30 June 1977. US Army image, 1977. Public Domain.*

In theory.

When Western analysts instantly grasped what they were looking at, the reaction was acute. There was no NATO equivalent. Only West Germany had been moving in a remotely similar direction with early development work that would eventually become the Marder, and even that was years from fielding. The consensus in 1967 was that the Soviet Union had stolen a significant doctrinal zone, and the Western responses — the M2 Bradley, the Marder, the British Warrior — would take fifteen years to reach the field. Overnight, the BMP-1 had created an entirely new category of weapon: the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and it had created it alone.

The Gap Between Theory And Practice

The BMP-1’s combat debut came in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Egyptian and Syrian forces used it against Israeli armor. The results were sobering for Soviet doctrine. The 73mm 2A28 Grom gun proved inaccurate beyond 500 meters — less than a third of its theoretical effective range. The AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missile, mounted on a launch rail above the gun, could not be effectively guided from inside the cramped turret, requiring the operator to expose himself to do so. The vehicle’s aluminum-reinforced steel armor proved vulnerable to .50 caliber machine gun fire in the sides and rear, and to 106mm recoilless rifle rounds all around. In the heat of the Sinai, crews kept roof hatches open for ventilation, exposing them to fire from elevated positions. Soviet technical teams deployed to Syria in the war’s aftermath to gather data, and what they gathered was not encouraging.

*Four BMP-1s in Afghanistan. 2005 photo be “davric”. Public Domain.*

Afghanistan confirmed and extended those findings. Soviet BMP-1s operating in the mountainous terrain of the Hindu Kush encountered an enemy that understood their vulnerabilities precisely. Mujahideen fighters armed with RPG-7’s penetrated BMP-1 armor in approximately 95% of hits, frequently igniting the ammunition stored within the fighting compartment. Soviet soldiers — the people the vehicle was designed to protect — responded by riding on the outside of the hull rather than inside it, a damning commentary on the gap between the vehicle’s theoretical protection and its actual survivability. The BMP-1’s front-left seating arrangement, which placed the driver and commander in tandem alongside the engine, meant that a single mine blast or RPG hit could kill both simultaneously.

BMP-2 AND BMP-3: The Lessons Applied

Soviet engineers had begun drawing conclusions from the Yom Kippur data before Afghanistan confirmed them. Work on a successor vehicle began in 1974, and the BMP-2 entered service in 1980, reaching Afghanistan in time to serve alongside its predecessor. The changes were pointed. The Grom’s 73mm low-pressure gun was replaced by a 30mm 2A42 autocannon capable of engaging both infantry and light armor with high accuracy at ranges the original gun could never reliably achieve. The Sagger missile was replaced by the AT-4 Spigot and later the AT-5 Spandrel, with the launcher repositioned for better usability. The turret was redesigned to improve commander visibility. The gun’s elevation arc was extended sharply upward — a direct response to Afghan mountain fighting — allowing it to engage targets on high ground that the BMP-1 could not reach. The BMP-2 became and remains the most widely produced variant of the family, the backbone of Soviet and then Russian motorized rifle formations through the Cold War’s end and beyond.

*Slovak Republic BMP-2, during a live-fire exercise with US Army forces, 2015. US Army photo. Public Domain.*

The BMP-3, which entered limited Soviet service in 1987, represented a more radical departure. Rather than the graduated improvements of the BMP-2, the BMP-3 introduced an entirely new weapon package: a 100mm 2A70 gun capable of firing both conventional ammunition and laser-guided anti-tank missiles, combined with a coaxial 30mm 2A72 autocannon and three 7.62mm machine guns. The combination made it one of the most heavily armed infantry fighting vehicles in the world by firepower, though at a cost in complexity and production expense that limited its numbers. Russia entered the 2022 invasion of Ukraine with an estimated 400 to 750 active BMP-3s — a fraction of its BMP-2 holdings — supplemented by vehicles drawn from storage.

The Ukraine Reckoning

The BMP series has paid a severe price in Ukraine. By mid-2024, open-source tracking by Oryx had documented over 500 visually confirmed BMP-3 losses alone — a figure representing the destruction or capture of potentially the entire pre-war active fleet, with losses continuing to mount through 2025. BMP-1s and BMP-2s, operated by both sides, have been destroyed in numbers too large to track precisely. The vulnerability pattern is familiar: thin side and roof armor, ammunition in the fighting compartment, and no meaningful protection against the FPV drones that have become the dominant anti-vehicle weapon in the theater.

*Destroyed Russian BMP, near Kiev, Ukraine. 2022 photo by “Flamberge-Flamberge”. CCA/4.0 International.*

Russia’s response has been production and adaptation rather than replacement. Rostec confirmed a shipment of upgraded BMP-3s to the Russian Ministry of Defense in January 2026, claiming production running 40% above plan at 463 vehicles per year, with new builds incorporating ERA, improved belly protection against mines, electronic warfare systems, and upper-hemisphere armor responding directly to drone threats. A further development, the BMP-3M ‘Manul’, has been explicitly framed as a response to the US-supplied M2A2 Bradley and German Marder 1A3 IFVs fielded by Ukrainian forces — the same Western vehicles the BMP-1’s 1967 appearance first drove NATO to develop.

The wheel has come full circle in an ironic way. The vehicle that shocked NATO into creating the infantry fighting vehicle concept is now being redesigned to compete with the vehicles that NATO built in response to it. The BMP’s core idea — that infantry and armor should fight together rather than separately, that the carrier should itself be a weapons platform rather than a taxi — has proven more durable than any specific iteration of the vehicle embodying it. What changes with each generation is the answer to the same question the Soviet designers at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant were wrestling with in the early 1960s: how much protection is enough, and against what?

The BGM-71 TOW: A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna June 12, 2026

On the morning of May 2, 1972, Chief Warrant Officer Carroll Lain made history without fully realizing it. Flying a UH-1B Huey over the Central Highlands of South Vietnam, he fired an experimental anti-tank missile at a North Vietnamese tank during the Easter Offensive and hit it. The weapon was the BGM-71 TOW — Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided — pulled from storage barely three weeks earlier and rushed to the battlefield by a three-plane airlift. That first shot destroyed a captured American-built M41 tank. By the end of the day, four tanks, a truck, and an artillery piece were wrecked. The TOW had arrived. It has not left since.

TOW-armed AH-1S Cobra attack helpicopter of the US Army on the flight line, during Operation BRIGHT STAR ’85 (1985). Photo by US Army camerman SSGT David Nolan via US National Archives. Public Domain.

More than 700,000 BGM-71s have been produced in the fifty-five years since that morning, making it one of the most proliferated anti-tank guided missiles in history. It has been fired in anger from Vietnam to the Bekaa Valley, from the deserts of Iraq to the rubble of Syrian cities, and most recently across the steppes of Ukraine. No American anti-tank weapon has a longer unbroken combat record. That longevity is not accidental — it reflects a design architecture flexible enough to absorb five decades of warhead, guidance, and platform upgrades without requiring a fundamentally new missile — and it raises an uncomfortable question about whether a system conceived to kill Soviet armor in the Fulda Gap remains adequate for the battlefield that has emerged in the 2020s.

The Design Logic To Kill Tanks

Hughes Aircraft began development in 1963 in response to a US Army requirement for a heavy anti-tank guided weapon capable of defeating the Soviet armor then entering service. The design brief was demanding: the missile had to be effective from both ground mounts and helicopters, had to defeat contemporary Soviet tank armor at ranges out to 3,000 meters, and had to be accurate enough that a single gunner with a sight could guide it without specialized training in manual joystick control. The answer was SACLOS — semi-automatic command to line of sight — guidance. The gunner keeps the crosshairs on the target; the missile’s flight computer does the rest, reading the position of an infrared flare on the missile’s tail and transmitting corrections down the wire that spools out behind it in flight. Full-scale production began in 1968; the US Army fielded the system in 1970.

The wire itself is both the system’s defining characteristic and its principal tactical limitation. At its quoted maximum range of 3,750 meters, a TOW is in flight for roughly twelve seconds — twelve seconds during which the gunner must remain stationary, eye to sight, tracking the target while the missile guides itself toward it. In a suppressed or obscured environment, those twelve seconds are an eternity. The wire can be cut by terrain obstacles. The guidance link can be disrupted by smoke, dust, or electronic countermeasures. The launcher is a crew-served weapon weighing over 90 kilograms fully assembled, not something a single soldier moves quickly. These were known constraints from the beginning. The Army accepted them in exchange for a system that could reliably kill tanks at ranges beyond the effective reach of most direct-fire weapons available to infantry.

*A Stryker vehicle crew belonging to the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, fires a TOW missile. Note the wires playing out of the missile in flight. 2009 photo by Victor J. Ayala. CCA/2.0 Generic.*

For the Marine Corps, the problem of the wire-guidance carries special problems. A TOW missile being fired over salt water – or even plain water – can cause a serious loss of control, potentially shorting out the guidance wires completely. Modern versions of the TOW have tried to correct this by ditching wire-guidance entirely in favor of wireless systems, but with only limited success to date.

Variants And The Arms Race With Soviet Armor

What distinguishes the TOW’s half-century run is the relentless pace at which its warhead evolved in direct response to Soviet armor improvements. The original BGM-71A delivered a simple shaped-charge warhead capable of penetrating around 430mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) — sufficient for defeating the T-54 and early T-62. By 1981, the BGM-71C Improved TOW introduced a telescoping nose probe that detonated the warhead at standoff distance for optimum shaped-charge performance, pushing penetration toward 700mm of rolled homogenous armor. When the Soviet Union fielded explosive reactive armor on its tanks in the mid-1980s, the response was the BGM-71E TOW-2A in 1987, which added a small precursor charge in the nose probe to detonate the ERA block before the main warhead arrived.

The most conceptually significant variant came in 1992 with the BGM-71F TOW-2B. Rather than attacking a tank frontally — where armor is thickest — the 2B flies over the target at a preset height above the gunner’s line of sight, then fires two downward-aimed explosively formed penetrators through the thinner top armor of the turret when sensors detect the tank beneath it. The dual-mode fuze uses both a laser altimeter and a magnetic sensor to confirm the target. It is, in effect, a solution to the T-72’s carousel problem arrived at from a different angle than the Javelin‘s: instead of a steep plunging attack, the 2B attacks horizontally but shoots downward. The TOW-2B Aero extended the system’s range to 4,500 meters. A wireless radio-guided variant eliminated some of the wire constraint for platforms where wire deployment is impractical, but not in all cases.

The Modern Combat Record: From Desert Storm To Syria

Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was the TOW’s largest conventional combat deployment. Thousands of missiles and hundreds of launchers were fielded across the 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, and 24th Mechanized Division, mounted on HMMWV’s, M113 APC’s, LAV-TUA (TOW Under Armor), Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters. Against Iraqi armor — largely T-55s and T-72s caught in the open desert without combined-arms support — the TOW performed precisely as designed.

Marines from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force show their LAV-AT light armored anti-tank vehicle to a group of coalition soldiers during the ground phase of Operation Desert Storm. USMC photo by LCpl Alvarado, 1991, via US National Archives. Public Domain.

Syria provided a different kind of test. Beginning around 2013, opposition groups supplied with TOW missiles through the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program used them extensively against the Assad regime’s armor in complex urban and semi-urban terrain. The results were filmed and posted widely, providing an open-source library of TOW engagements against T-55s, T-72s, and BMP infantry fighting vehicles in conditions far more demanding than open desert. The system’s performance under those conditions — engagements through rubble, across built-up areas, in the kind of cluttered visual environment that degrades optical tracking — validated that a trained two-man crew could operate it effectively even where the geometry was unfavorable. According to analysts tracking the conflict, probable thousands of Assad’s armored vehicles and fortified positions were struck by TOW missiles over the course of the civil war.

In Ukraine, TOW missiles arrived as part of US security assistance packages in 2023 and again in December 2024, mounted primarily on Bradley IFVs already in Ukrainian service. The Bradley-TOW combination proved effective against Russian armor in the same conditions that have degraded every other armored system in the theater: FPV drone surveillance, mined terrain, and the absence of reliable air cover. The wire-guidance limitation becomes less significant when the system is vehicle-mounted with a stabilized sight and the engagement range is dictated by available cover rather than the missile’s maximum reach.

The Wire’s Limits In The Drone Age

The twelve-second exposure problem that was a known constraint in 1970 looks different in 2026. On a battlefield saturated with FPV drones capable of striking a static position within seconds of detection, a crew operating a tripod-mounted TOW launcher is vulnerable in ways that the original design brief never contemplated. The system’s requirement for the gunner to remain stationary and exposed throughout the flight time is a survival liability that vehicle mounting partially mitigates, but does not eliminate. Wire-cutting by terrain obstacles remains a failure mode, though it is manageable in trained hands.

Raytheon, which acquired Hughes in 1997 and has manufactured TOW missiles ever since, has stated its production line can produce up to 10,000 missiles annually and has active contracts with the US Army for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. The US military has designated the TOW as remaining in service through at least the mid-2030s. Over 40 allied nations operate it. That institutional momentum is substantial — the logistics chain, the training base, the platform integration across dozens of vehicle types — and it represents a form of staying power that purely technical analysis tends to underweight.

A wire guided Tube Launched Optically (TOW) sighted Missile ejects a plume of flame as it is fired from its High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), by Marines from the TOW Platoon, Weapons Company, Third Battalion, Second Marine Regiment, during Combined Arms Exercise (CAX) 5-97, Twentynine Palms, CA. 1997 photo by LCPL E. J. Young, USMC. Public Domain.

The TOW is not the most capable anti-tank missile available in 2026. The Javelin’s fire-and-forget capability and top-attack profile represent a genuine generational advance, and the proliferation of loitering munitions has created new options for armor defeat that do not require a gunner to hold a sight on a target for twelve seconds. What the TOW retains is exactly what it has always offered: good range, a proven warhead capable of defeating any tank currently in service in its TOW-2B configuration, a platform-agnostic launcher compatible with vehicles and helicopters from three dozen countries, and a production base that can be scaled up. Carroll Lain’s first shot in 1972 was a proof of concept. Half a century of continuous upgrades turned that proof of concept into one of the most durable weapons systems the United States has ever fielded.

The T-72: The Cookie-Cutter Tank

Michael Cessna June 5, 2026

The turret flies off cleanly — a forty-ton steel cap launched ten or fifteen feet into the air by the pressure wave of its own ammunition cooking off inside. It became the signature image of Russia’s war in Ukraine: T-72’s reduced to a burning hull and a displaced turret, the phenomenon so predictable it acquired a name. NATO analysts called it the “jack-in-the-box.” The Ukrainians called it a gift. That a tank designed in the late 1960s as an affordable alternative to a more advanced Soviet design is still absorbing those lessons in 2025 says something unflattering about Russian procurement — and something complicated about the T-72 itself.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Soviet tank development.

Origins Of The Economy Tank

The T-72 began not as a primary Soviet tank project, but as a parallel design for rapid mobilization, developed at the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil, while the more sophisticated T-64 remained the prestige program. Designer Leonid Kartsev, joined by Valeri Venediktov, drew on the best features of the T-64 and the older, simpler T-62 to produce in the T-72 what was essentially a throwback to 1960s design logic, fitted with an improved autoloader and a two-component main armament stored in a less cumbersome configuration than the original T-64’s. The result was intentionally unglamorous: cheaper and faster to build, easier to maintain, and suitable for export to Warsaw Pact allies and client states who would never receive the classified T-64. Field trials ran from 1971 to 1973, and upon acceptance the Chelyabinsk Tank Factory immediately ceased T-55 and T-62 production to retool for the new design.

*T-72B’s at the Chebarkul training ground, 2017. Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

Approximately 25,000 T-72s of all variants were produced throughout the Soviet era and beyond, making it one of the most numerous main battle tanks in history. The autoloader — the feature that most defined it — reduced the crew from four to three by eliminating the human loader, allowing a lower, more compact hull profile. The carousel mechanism fires at a quoted average rate of eight rounds per minute, cranking the gun up three degrees above horizontal to align the breech with each shell. It was an elegant solution to the problem of crew size and vehicle volume. It was also the design decision that would eventually turn T-72s into the most photogenic casualties in modern warfare.

The Carousel Problem

The autoloader stores its propellant charges and projectiles in a ring around the base of the turret — a “carousel” sitting at precisely the point where incoming fire is most likely to penetrate. Unlike modern, post-1970 Western tanks, which stow ammunition behind blow-out panels designed to vent explosive forces upward in the event of a catastrophic penetration, the T-72’s carousel offers no such protection. A penetration of that zone triggers rapid cook-off, blowing the turret clear of the hull and eliminating the crew. The effect is spectacular and lethal in equal measure.

*Russian T-72B3 “cooking off”, after being struck by Ukraininan forces, 2022. Uknrainian Ministry of Defense. Public Domain.*

The T-72’s ammo-in-turret design magnified kills throughout the Ukraine war, though artillery accounted for much of the actual stopping power. What Ukraine demonstrated — and what analysts had long suspected — was that the vulnerability becomes catastrophic when combined with the proliferation of top-attack weapons. Javelins, NLAWs, and FPV drones all strike from above or at steep angles, hitting precisely the turret ring and upper hull where the carousel sits. The tank was not designed against this threat class. Nothing in its upgrade lineage fully addresses it.

Positions of crewmembers in a Soviet T-72 tank. The driver (1) is seated in the vehicles front, commander (2) and gunner (3) are positioned in the turret, directly above the carousel (4), which contains the ammunition for the autoloading mechanism. 2010 image by Alexpl. CCA/3.0 Unported.

Fifty Years Of Variants – All With One Fundamental Flaw

The T-72 has proven remarkably adaptable within the constraints of its basic architecture. As of 2025, operators range from Algeria and Armenia to India, Belarus, and Azerbaijan, with around 40 nations fielding some variant of the platform. India operates over a thousand under the designation Ajeya. The Czech Republic developed the T-72M4CZ with a Western Perkins engine and composite armor reaching 570mm equivalent at the turret face. Poland, Yugoslavia, and Romania all produced licensed or derivative variants. Russia’s own T-72B3M, the current frontline upgrade, added Relikt explosive reactive armor, the Sosna-U thermal sight, and more recently hard-kill active protection systems — the first of which began appearing on frontline units in late 2024.

None of it solved the autoloader problem. In early 2024, a T-72B3 became the first tank in the world to frontally penetrate a US-supplied M1 Abrams in a tank-on-tank engagement in Ukraine — a data point Russia promoted heavily. The Abrams loss was real. So were the roughly 1,700 T-72s Russia has lost in the same theater. At the outset of the invasion in February 2022, Russia deployed approximately 2,100 late-model T-72s; estimated losses across the war now stand at around 1,700 vehicles, according to various sources.

The Lessons Ukraine Teaches

Ukraine became a real-time laboratory for what happens when a 1970s tank design meets cheap, proliferating drone technology. FPV drones carrying small explosive payloads proved capable of defeating T-72s consistently, detonating ammunition in the carousel even through improvised cage armor welded on to deflect the strikes. Russian crews responded with the so-called “turtle tank” configuration — welding metal roofing over the hull and turret — which reduced the drone threat while simultaneously eliminating visibility, ventilation, and the tank’s already marginal speed advantage. As Russia’s modern armor was depleted or withdrawn, Moscow fell back on T-62s from the 1960s and eventually T-55s, pulling vehicles from storage bases in the Russian Far East to back-fill frontline losses.

T-72 at the Drawsko Pomorskie training ground, *2008. Polish Ministry of National Defense. Public Domain.*

The question every other T-72 operator is now asking is how much of this transfers to their own strategic situation. The answer depends on adversary, terrain, and the quality of combined-arms integration the tank operates within. Ukraine showed that the T-72 fails catastrophically when used without adequate additions of mass, infantry, air cover, or electronic countermeasures against drone threats. It showed rather less about what a competently integrated T-72 force might accomplish — because Russia rarely provided one. For the forty-odd nations still fielding the platform, that distinction matters decisively. The tank’s flaws are structural and unresolvable without a fundamental redesign. Whether those flaws are decisive depends on what they are being asked to do, and against whom.

The Little Missile That Could – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna May 1, 2026

In this series, we have looked at many weapons that refused to die, weapons that conquered the world through simplicity, and weapons that failed their operators despite genuine technological ambition. This week, we look at something rarer: a weapon whose single most important moment in combat history changed the entire Western understanding of armored warfare overnight – and whose descendants are still being sold on the world market today. The Soviet 9M14 Malyutka – “Little One” in Russian, designated “AT-3 Sagger” by NATO – is not a weapon many casual readers will recognize by name. But its fingerprints are on nearly every anti-armor doctrine written since 1973, every advanced armor development, and every ATGM guidance improvement that followed its debut on the banks of the Suez Canal in October 1973.

The Weapon

Development of the Malyutka began in July 1961, when the Soviet government assigned competing design teams at the Tula and Kolomna arsenals to produce the USSR’s first man-portable anti-tank guided missile. The design brief drew on Western systems of the 1950s – the French Entac and Swiss/West German Cobra – but the Soviets pushed for a smaller, more portable package optimized for infantry carry. The result entered service in 1963: an eleven kilogram missile that fits into a fiberglass suitcase that functions as a base for the missile’s launch rail, guided by a joystick an wire control system, using Manual Command to Line of Sight (MCLOS) guidance.

*The periscopic sight and joystick control unit for the Soviet Sagger AT-3 anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) system. 1984 image from US National Archives. Public Domain.*

*AT-3 Sagger/9K11 Malyutka ATGM in its fiberglass carrying case. US Army photo. Public Domain.*

MCLOS guidance is exactly what it sounds like. The operator acquires the target, launches the missile, and then manually steers it to impact by watching a flare on the missile’s tail and manipulating a joystick that sends correction signals down a wire unspooling behind the missile in flight. It demands genuine skill, steady nerves, and an operator who can remain stationary and focused while a tank crew actively attempts to kill him. Soviet production peaked at 25,000 missiles per year during the 1960s and 1970s, making it almost certainly the most widely produced anti-tank guided missile in history. Exports went to over 45 nations, from Afghanistan and Algeria to Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

The weapon could be carried by a single infantryman, fired from the ground using a simple suitcase-style launcher, or mounted on vehicles including the BRDM reconnaissance vehicle and the BMP infantry fighting vehicle. Maximum effective range was 3,000 meters – considerably beyond the effective range of any unguided rocket reviewed so far in this series. The basic warhead penetrated more than 400mm of rolled homogeneous armor. On paper, for its time, it was a genuine tank killer.

*9M14 Malyutka anti-tank missile on BMP-1 APC, at the Army History Museum and Park in Kecel, Hungary. 2005 photo by WikiUser: VargaA. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

October 1973: The Sagger Panic

On October 6, 1973 – Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar – Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal in a coordinated assault that caught the Israeli Defense Forces badly off-balance. What followed in the first 48 to 72 hours was one of the most shocking reverses in Israeli military history, and the Malyutka was at the center of it.

Egyptian infantry crossed with Malyutka teams carrying three times the normal missile load. They deployed in static firing positions along the eastern bank and waited for Israeli armor – specifically the tank-heavy Israeli counterattack doctrine that had worked so devastatingly in the Six Day War of 1967. The Israeli tank crews – victims of “Victory Disease” – helpfully obliged, charging forward without infantry support in the manner that had defeated Arab armies six years earlier.

The Malyutka teams were ready.

The results were catastrophic. In the first days of the war, Egyptian Sagger teams knocked out Israeli armor at a rate that generated genuine panic in Israeli command structures. In total, Sagger’s knocked out more than 800 Israeli tanks and other combat vehicles during the war. A period known simply as the “Sagger Panic” set in, during which the future of the main battle tank as a concept was openly questioned – by NATO planners as much as by the Israelis themselves. If Egyptian infantry with Soviet missiles could kill Israeli Centurions and M60 Patton tanks at will, what would Soviet infantry equipped with the same missiles do to NATO armor in Central Europe?

*Israeli M-60 main battle tank, destroyed during fighting in the Sinai Peninsula, 1973. Photo from””Military Battles on the Egyptian Front” by Gammal Hammad. Public Domain.*

The answer the Israelis eventually developed was both tactical and improvised. Artillery concentration on suspected Sagger operator positions – suppressing the men rather than intercepting the missiles – proved effective. Tank crews learned to advance aggressively toward launch signatures rather than halt and present stationary targets. Firing rounds in front of the tank to generate dust clouds disrupted operator visibility. Moving laterally while the missile was in flight, exploiting the MCLOS system’s requirement for continuous operator correction, helped to cause misses. These Israeli adaptations were subsequently adopted wholesale by NATO as standard ATGM countermeasure doctrine. The “Little One” had, in six days of combat, restructured how the Western alliance thought about tanks, infantry, and the relationship between them.

*An Israeli soldier with a Sagger anti-tank rocket. 1974 photo by Israel Press and Photo Agency (I.P.P.A.) photographer. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

The Weapon’s Limitations – And Its Evolution

The same combat record that demonstrated the Malyutka’s shock effect also revealed its constraints. MCLOS guidance demanded a level of operator training and composure that mass-fielded infantry forces could not reliably produce. Combat hit probabilities for MCLOS variants have been documented at approximately 25% under real conditions – effective enough in the hands of well-trained Egyptian teams in prepared positions, but far less reliable in dynamic, fast-moving and violent combat. The minimum engagement range of 500-800 meters forced operators into exposed forward positions. And the slow missile speed – averaging a mere 120 meters per second – gave alert tank crews meaningful reaction time if they spotted the launch.

Soviet designers addressed these limitations progressively. The 9M14M Malyutka-M, entering service in 1973, improved the motor to reduce flight time. The 9M14-2 Malyutka-2, entering service in 1992, replaced MCLOS with SACLOS – Semi-Automatic Command to Line of Sight – guidance, the same improvement that distinguished the Dragon II from its predecessor, dramatically reducing operator skill and workload management requirements. The 9M14-2M added a tandem HEAT warhead for use against reactive armor. Serbian engineers at VTI developed the Malyutka-2T with a 1,000mm penetration tandem warhead and a radio-guided variant with a range of 5 kilometers and a speed of 200 meters per second – a very different weapon from the 1963 original in almost every parameter except the basic airframe.

China produced its own unlicensed derivative, the HJ-73 Red Arrow, in multiple improved variants. Iran produces the RAAD-T – itself a reverse-engineered copy, supplied to Hezbollah and various militia forces and documented in conflicts across the Middle East and Yemen.

Still In The Field

The Malyutka family has appeared in virtually every significant ground conflict since 1973: the Iran-Iraq War, Grenada, the Gulf War, both Chechen Wars, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine, on both sides. Free Libyan Army rebels were filmed using Saggers in 2011. Syrian opposition forces uploaded Sagger firing videos from 2012 onward. Current confirmed operators include Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Syria, Iran, and a range of non-state actors who have acquired the weapon through the vast quantities exported during the Cold War.

*Map with 9M14 operators in blue and former operators in red. 2015 image by WikiUser: Jurryaany. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

The weapon that crossed the Suez Canal in a suitcase in 1973 is still on the world’s battlefields in 2025 – modernized, copied, improved, and proliferated to an extent that makes any meaningful accounting of current stocks essentially impossible. That is the definition of a weapon that solved a real problem, in a way that the world found impossible to stop buying.

The Dragon was America’s answer to the same requirement at roughly the same time. The Malyutka was the Soviet answer. One of them changed the world. The other is remembered primarily for its 20% hit rate and the relief that the Javelin finally arrived.

The Dragon They Loved To Hate – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 24, 2026

Every series has its cautionary tale. The M72 LAW refused to die because it kept solving real problems. The RPG-7 conquered the world through its sheer brutal simplicity. The Carl Gustaf earned its longevity through continuous intelligent evolution. The SMAW survived on institutional momentum and genuine urban assault utility. This week, we going to look at the weapon that rounds out this series on a different note entirely – the one that didn’t work very well, that the troops genuinely disliked, that the Army was trying to replace almost from the moment it was fielded, and that still managed to serve for 26 years before the Javelin finally put it out of its misery.

Meet the M47 Dragon.

*US Marine carrying the M47 Dragon Anti-Armor Missile System, May, 1997. USMC Photo by LCPL E.J. Young. Public Domain.*

The Dragon holds a legitimate historical distinction: it was the first man-portable, shoulder-fired, wire-guided anti-tank missile to reach production. That is genuinely significant. Every weapon system we have covered in this series has been an unguided rocket or recoilless round – point it, pull the trigger, hope for the best. The Dragon was something categorically different: a wire-guided missile that the operator steered to the target using a tracker that read infrared emissions from a pyrotechnic source on the missile’s tail, automatically transmitting correction signals through a wire that unspooled behind the missile in flight. In theory, a trained operator could guide a Dragon onto a tank at 1,000 meters with precision that no unguided rocket could match. In theory.

The Pit of Origin

The Army’s requirement for what it called a Medium Antitank Weapon dated to 1959 – the same Cold War imperative that drove the entire weapons landscape we have been exploring in this series. The Soviets were fielding T-55s and T-62s in massive numbers, and NATO needed infantry-portable anti-armor capability at every level of the force structure. The heavy end was covered by the BGM-71 TOW, a crew-served wire-guided missile that remains in service today. The Dragon was supposed to cover the medium range – something one man could carry and fire, that could kill a tank at ranges beyond what any unguided rocket could reliably reach.

McDonnell Douglas won the development contract in 1966. The weapon was designated FGM-77, nicknamed ‘Dragon’ in 1967, and first fielded to U.S. Army units in Europe in January 1975. The Army assigned one Dragon per rifle squad, with a dedicated anti-armor specialist as the operator. Approximately 7,000 launchers and 33,000 missiles were eventually produced, with export sales to Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and pre-revolutionary Iran.

*Map of M47 Dragon operators in blue with former operators in red. 2015 map by Wikimedia Commons User Jurryaany. **CCA/4.0 Int’l**.*

On paper, the specifications were reasonable for the era: effective range of 65 to 1,000 meters, maximum range of 1,500 meters, a HEAT warhead capable of penetrating 330mm of rolled homogeneous armor on the base model. The guidance system required no assembly before firing – the operator simply removed the shock absorbers, attached the tracker unit, sat down, and fired. Lighter than most contemporary guided anti-tank systems in Western Europe, it gave American infantry a tank-killing capability at the squad level that was genuinely novel.

In practice, the Dragon was a mess.

The Problems Begin

The guidance system demanded that the operator track the target continuously from the moment of firing until impact – in the open, stationary, for up to eleven seconds on a base-model Dragon shot at maximum range. Eleven seconds is a very long time to sit still while a tank crew, now aware they are being engaged, attempts to shoot back. The Dragon’s distinctive “popping” sound as its side-mounted thruster rockets fired corrections downrange announced the shot to anyone within earshot. U.S. Army planning documents from the Cold War period acknowledged bluntly that Dragon crews were expected to take heavy casualties in any actual European land battle.

Soldier of the 25th Infantry Division firing an M47 Dragon anti-tank missile during Exercise COBRA GOLD ’87, Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand, 1987. US Army photo by SSGT Valentino M. Gempis. Public Domain.

The hit probability numbers were damning. A U.S. Army study of Dragon firings under combat conditions found a hit rate of approximately 20%. For a weapon whose entire value proposition rested on guidance precision, this was a serious indictment. The causes were multiple: the sudden loss of the missile’s 30-pound weight from the shooter’s shoulder caused many operators to flinch badly enough to break target track at the moment of launch. The wire could break. Bodies of saltwater – a notable concern for a weapon issued to Marines – could interfere with the missile’s circuits. Crosswinds degraded accuracy. Over-correction by the operator caused the missile to ground itself. And the base warhead was quickly rendered inadequate by Soviet advances in explosive reactive armor.

The Marine Corps, to their credit, did not simply accept the situation. In 1986 they initiated a product improvement program that produced the Dragon II – an 85% increase in armor penetration, entering USMC service in 1988. A further upgrade, the Dragon III, added a tandem warhead precursor charge. The Army, already focused on finding a replacement, largely declined to participate in the improvement program. The two services were, characteristically, heading in different directions with the same weapon.

Combat Record and Exit

The Dragon saw combat in Grenada in 1983, and during Desert Storm in 1991, where 150 launchers and 5,000 rockets were deployed. Its performance in the Gulf War was, at best, unremarkable – the conflict’s short duration and the Iraqi Army’s swift collapse limited meaningful data collection. What the Gulf War did confirm was that the Dragon’s export customers had occasionally lost weapons to advancing Iraqi forces, making Iraq an inadvertent operator of American anti-tank technology – a recurring theme in Middle Eastern arms flows.

Soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division scan for targets with an M47 Dragon anti-tank weapon in the firing position during Operation URGENT FURY, October, 1983. The soldier in the foreground is carrying two M72 light anti-tank weapons over his shoulder. US Army photo by SPC 5 Edward Nevala. Public Domain.

The weapon the Army had been waiting for arrived in the form of the FGM-148 Javelin, a fire-and-forget infrared-guided missile that allowed the operator to acquire the target, lock on, fire, and immediately take cover – no eleven-second tracking requirement, no sitting in the open while the missile flew. The Javelin entered service in 1996, and the Dragon was officially retired from U.S. service in 2001. The US Army destroyed its last remaining missile stocks at the Anniston Defense Munitions Center in Alabama on September 8, 2009. It was not a moment of particular mourning.

The Dragon’s afterlife has been appropriately ironic. Iran reverse-engineered it as the Saeghe, which has been supplied to Hezbollah and various militia forces across the Middle East. Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand continue to operate versions of the system. The weapon that American infantry quietly despised for a generation has found a second career in the hands of non-state actors and smaller militaries that cannot afford the Javelin – which, at roughly $175,000 per missile, represents a rather different procurement universe.

Conclusion

The Dragon is the necessary counterpoint to everything else in this series. The M72, the RPG-7, the Gustaf, and the SMAW all demonstrate that simple, well-matched solutions to genuine problems tend to outlast their predicted obsolescence. The Dragon demonstrates the corollary: that technological ambition without adequate attention to the human factors of combat – the flinch, the exposure time, the noise signature, the weather vulnerability – produces weapons that technically work, while practically failing the people who carry them.

The Javelin learned those lessons. The Dragon paid for the education.

The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 17, 2026

The Bunker Buster

For the last few weeks, we have walked through the M72 LAW, the RPG-7, and the Carl Gustaf – three weapons that between them define the spectrum of man-portable anti-armor and assault systems that have shaped infantry combat since the 1960s. Each represented a coherent, and unique, design philosophy: the M72 disposable and simple; the RPG-7 cheap and reloadable; the Gustaf precise and multi-role. Today we look at the outlier – the weapon that does not fit neatly into any of those categories, was adopted by exactly one branch of the U.S. military, and spent its entire service life being replaced by systems that never quite replaced it: the Mk 153 Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, universally known as the SMAW.

Marines with 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, fire Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons during Exercise Koolendong at Bradshaw Training Area, Aug 23, 2014. USMC photo by Sgt. James Gulliver. Public Domain.

The SMAW is a Marine Corps weapon, through and through. It was fielded in 1984 as a Marine Corps-unique system; the Army borrowed 150 launchers and 5,000 rockets for Desert Storm, then gave them back (as the FGM-148 Javelin was coming online in the mid-90’s, along with the increasing intent to adopt the Carl Gustaf to replace both the M67 Recoilless Rifle, and the positively awful M47 Dragon), and for four decades it has been the Corps’ primary tool for the mission the name describes: assaulting fortified positions. Not primarily killing tanks – though it can, to a point – but destroying bunkers, breaching walls, collapsing buildings, and suppressing crew-served weapons dug into hardened positions. That is a different set of mission requirements than any of the weapons we have previously covered in this series, and it produced a different weapon.

Where It Came From

The SMAW’s lineage runs through Israel, which is fitting – the Israelis have spent decades solving exactly the kind of close-quarters urban assault problems the SMAW was designed for. In the late 1970s, Israel Military Industries developed the B-300, an 83mm reloadable rocket launcher optimized for infantry assault operations. The Marine Corps, looking for a replacement capability after the collapse of the FGR-17 Viper program – the same procurement disaster that sent the Army to the AT4 – found the B-300 and adapted it for American service.

*Marines test SMAW at Camp Lejuene, 1982. USMC/Infantry Magazine. Public Domain.*

The American version added one distinctive and genuinely unusual feature: a spotting rifle. Mounted on the right side of the launch tube, this 9mm device fires ballistically matched tracer rounds at the target before the main rocket is launched. The idea was sound – use cheap tracer rounds to confirm the firing solution before committing an expensive rocket to the shot. In practice, it added weight, complexity, and required the operator to expose himself repeatedly to enemy observation while working through the spotting process. It was a British design concept grafted onto an Israeli launcher for American Marines, which gives you some sense of the SMAW’s somewhat eclectic ancestry.

The result weighed 16 pounds unloaded, fired 83mm rockets loaded from the rear, and entered service with the Marines in 1984 – the same year the Army was fielding the AT4 and the same period the M72 was being theoretically retired. In practice, all three ended up in service simultaneously, which tells you something about the difficulty of replacing any weapon system that actually works.

Combat Record

The SMAW’s combat record is built primarily around the Iraq War the began in 2003, and specifically around the Battle of Fallujah. In the street-by-street fighting of both the first and second offensives in 2004, the weapon found its calling. The SMAW-NE – “Novel Explosive,” which is the military’s characteristically understated designation for a thermobaric warhead – proved devastatingly effective against the fortified rooms, tunnels, and hardened positions that Iraqi insurgents had constructed throughout the city. A thermobaric warhead works by dispersing a fuel cloud and then igniting it, producing an overpressure wave capable of collapsing lightly constructed buildings and lethal to personnel in enclosed spaces. It is not a subtle tool.

A US Marine Corps (USMC) troop with the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, fires an MK-153 SMAW round at an insurgent stronghold during Operation Al Fajr, Fallujah, Iraq. Marine Corps photo by LCPL J.A. Chaverri, USMC, November, 2004. Public Domain.

When the SMAW-NE lacked the penetrating power to breach certain reinforced walls directly, Marines developed a two-shot technique: first fire a High-Explosive Dual-Mode round to punch a hole through the wall, then send the thermobaric round through the opening into the room behind it. Tactically effective, if somewhat baroque. The broader point is that the weapon was being adapted in real time to meet a combat environment no one had fully anticipated – which is, as we have noted throughout this series, what separates useful weapons from expensive museum pieces.

In Afghanistan and Iraq more broadly, the SMAW gave Marine infantry squads a direct-fire breaching and suppression capability that neither the M72 nor the AT4 provided. The Army, which had returned its borrowed SMAWs after Desert Storm, later developed its own derivative – the SMAW-D, designated the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition – a disposable single-shot version using the same warhead. Even the Army eventually admitted the mission was real.

The Spotting Rifle Problem & Mod 2

The original SMAW’s spotting rifle was its perpetual liability. It was over 30 years old by the 2000s, experiencing increasing failure rates, and the process of firing multiple tracer rounds to range a target was slow and exposed the operator. In 2013, Marines at Quantico tested a modified SMAW with thermal and laser range-finding technology that replaced the spotting rifle. The results validated the concept, and in 2015 the Marine Corps contracted for the SMAW Mod 2 – a complete overhaul that replaced the spotting rifle with a Modular Ballistic Sight, incorporating a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and thermal capability. Weight dropped from 16 pounds to 13 pounds. Fielding to the Fleet Marine Force began in November 2017.

The Mod 2 was, by all accounts, a significant improvement. It was also, almost immediately, announced as the weapon’s final iteration before replacement.

The Gustaf Takes Over

The Marine Corps has been transitioning to the Carl Gustaf M4 as its primary infantry shoulder-fired system – and in doing so, has eliminated the 0351 occupational specialty, the Infantry Assault Marines who were trained specifically in SMAW employment. The Gustaf’s broader ammunition family, lighter weight in its M4 configuration, and compatibility with laser-guided rounds made the case for consolidation straightforward. Why maintain two separate systems, two separate MOS pipelines, and two separate logistics chains when one weapon covers the mission set of both?

The answer, for forty years, was institutional inertia, procurement complexity, and the SMAW’s genuine effectiveness in the one role it was specifically designed for. Those are not trivial reasons. But the Gustaf’s evolution has finally rendered them insufficient.

The SMAW is not gone yet – it remains in inventory and, as of 2023, Ukrainian forces of the 68th Jager Brigade were documented using it in operations against Russian forces. Old weapons, as we have noted repeatedly [https://freedomist.com/are-you-sure-you-want-to-throw-that-away/] in this series, have a way of finding new wars to fight. But its role as the Marine Corps’ primary assault weapon is drawing to a close, replaced by the Swede that finally convinced everyone it could do the job better.

This forms a fitting end to this series on man-portable anti-tank weapons. From the M72 to the RPG-7 to the Gustaf to the SMAW – four weapons, four design philosophies, and one consistent lesson: the weapon that solves a real problem, solved well, outlasts every prediction of its obsolescence.

Next time, we’ll look into a weapon that didn’t work so well – the M47 Dragon.

The Goose Is Loose – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 10, 2026

Previously, we have looked at the M72 LAW and the RPG-7 – two weapons born from the same fundamental problem, that solved the issue by two very different design philosophies: One is disposable, one is reloadable. One is American, one is Soviet. Both are still on the world’s battlefields today. This week, we look at the weapon that split the difference between them, outlasted both as a frontline system in the world’s most capable militaries, and is currently destroying Russian tanks in Ukraine: the Carl Gustaf 84mm recoilless rifle.

U.S. troops call it “the Goose,” or just “the Gustaf.” The British call it “Charlie G.” The Swedes, who invented it, call it the Granatgevär m/48 – “Grenade Rifle, Model 1948.” Whatever you call it, the weapon has been in continuous production and frontline service since 1948, is now operated by more than 40 countries, and in 2022 a Ukrainian crew used one to destroy a T-90M – Russia’s most advanced operational main battle tank. Not bad for a design that was old when the Korean War started.

What A Recoilless Rifle Even Is

Before going further, it is worth taking a moment to explain what a “recoilless rifle” is – because the term confuses people who are used to thinking about weapons in terms of either conventional rifles, artillery or rocket launchers.

When a conventional firearm – or cannon – fires, the propellant gases accelerate the projectile forward, and by Newton’s third law, an equal and opposite force pushes back against the shooter. That is “recoil“. In a pistol or rifle, the weapon’s mass and the shooter’s body absorb it. In a large-caliber weapon, like an artillery piece, uncontrolled recoil would be catastrophically injurious to the shooter and structurally ruinous to even a stout tube.

*Cumulative shell (H.E.A.T) diagram. 2005 image by Robert Blazek. Public Domain.*

The recoilless design solves this by venting a precisely calculated portion of the propellant gases out of the rear of the weapon through a cone-shaped Venturi nozzle at the moment of firing. The rearward thrust of those escaping gases almost exactly cancels out the forward thrust driving the projectile. The net result on the shooter is dramatically reduced recoil – not zero, but manageable even from the shoulder. The tradeoff is that the rearward ejecting blast of gases is substantial, creating a “danger zone” behind the weapon and generating a dramatic visible signature. But for a weapon that can deliver an 84mm shaped-charge round accurately at 500 meters, that is a tradeoff most militaries have been willing to make for over seven decades.

A coalition force member fires a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle system during weapons practice on a range in Helmand province, Afghanistan; Feb, 2013. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Benjamin Tuck. Public Domain.

The Gustaf fires its rounds at 290 meters per second – nearly three times the muzzle velocity of a World War II bazooka. The result is superior accuracy at range, and a rifled barrel that spins its projectiles for further stability. This is not a “point and pray” weapon – with proper training, it is a precision tool.

The Weapon & Its History

The Carl Gustaf’s origins trace to the Swedish Army’s experience in watching World War II unfold from the sidelines and drawing many correct conclusions. Sweden’s first attempt at a shoulder-fired recoilless weapon – the 20mm Pansarvärnsgevär m/42 – was already obsolete when it entered production in 1942, capable of penetrating only about 40mm of armor at a time when German and Soviet tanks were fielding considerably more. Designers Hugo Abramson and Harald Jentzen at the state-run Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori scrapped the small-bore approach entirely, scaled their design up to 84mm in diameter, and paired the recoilless principle with a shaped-charge warhead. The resulting weapon entered Swedish service in 1948.

It first saw combat with Swedish UN peacekeepers during the Congo Crisis of the early 1960s, where it proved rugged and versatile under operational conditions. Export orders soon followed. The M2 variant, introduced in 1964, spread the weapon across NATO and allied militaries. U.S. Army Special Forces, the Rangers, and the British SAS adopted the M3 variant in the 1990’s for bunker-busting and anti-vehicle work. By 2014, the U.S. Army was ordering the Gustaf for conventional infantry units deploying to Afghanistan, specifically because enemy forces could reach American troops with RPG-7s at ranges where U.S. squads had no equivalent direct-fire response.

*Swedish rocket launcher in action at a roadblock in Katanga, during_Operation_Unokat, December, 1961. Unknown author. Public Domain*

The current production model, the M4 “MAAWS” (Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System), weighs under seven kilograms – about 15 pounds – and measures less than one meter in length. It accepts a digital fire control device that communicates ballistic data directly to programmable ammunition. It can fire laser-guided rounds developed jointly by Saab and Raytheon, accurate to 2,500 meters. It can also fire the same basic HEAT rounds it was firing in 1948. That backward compatibility with legacy ammunition means nations can modernize their launchers without replacing their ammunition stockpiles – a procurement detail that matters enormously for smaller militaries.

The Ammunition Story

The Gustaf’s real competitive advantage over both the M72 and the RPG-7 is its ammunition flexibility, and this is where the “multi-tool” description earns its keep. The current round family includes:

Anti-armor HEAT rounds, including a tandem-warhead variant capable of defeating reactive armor
A High-Explosive Dual-Purpose round effective against bunkers and light armor
Anti-personnel rounds including a flechette “shotgun” load described by one veteran Ranger as “a giant shotgun where it shoots inch-long little needles at a huge spread”.
Smoke and illumination rounds for screening and marking.
A confined-spaces HEAT variant safe to fire from inside buildings.
And finally, a laser-guided multipurpose munition effective at 2,500 meters.

*A Depiction of Ammunition Variants for the MAAWS. Undated US Army graphic. Public Domain.*

No other man-portable shoulder-fired system offers this range of capability from a single re-loadable launcher. This is why, despite weighing more than the M72 and costing considerably more per launcher than an RPG-7, the Gustaf has not only survived but expanded its user base across seven decades of continuous warfare.

Poland ordered the Carl Gustaf M4 system in a deal worth over $1.2 billion in March 2024. Japan ordered 300 units in 2023. Australia, the Baltic states, and NATO as a whole have placed ongoing orders. The weapon’s procurement momentum is accelerating, not declining.

The Bottom Line

The M72, the RPG-7, and the Carl Gustaf represent three answers to the same question: how do you give infantry the ability to destroy armor, breach fortifications, and suppress defended positions without becoming dependent on vehicle-delivered fire support that may not be available? The American answer was disposable simplicity. The Soviet answer was cheap reloadability. The Swedish answer was precision versatility – and it cost more and weighed more, but it has proven more capable in more operational contexts than either alternative.

*U.S. Marine fires an M3A1 Multi-role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System during unknown distance engagement training, Aug. 14, 2023. USMC photo by Cpl. Aidan Hekker. Public Domain.*

In a budget environment that increasingly rewards lowest unit cost procurement, the Gustaf’s continued and expanding success is a useful reminder that the cheapest weapon per unit is not always the most economical weapon per mission accomplished.

The Goose is still flying. And judging by the order books, it will be for some time to come.

The RPG-7: The Titan of the Man-Portable Anti-Tank World – Tools of the Trade

Michael Cessna April 3, 2026

Last week, we looked at the M72 LAW – a 1963 American design that refused to die, and recently earned a genuine second act through Norwegian engineering ingenuity. This week, we look at the weapon on the other side of that Cold War equation: the RPG-7. Where the M72 is the more elegant solution – lighter, more sophisticated, but ultimately more expensive to produce – the RPG-7 is the Soviet answer to the same problem, while coming from a fundamentally different philosophy about what this sort of weapon system is supposed to be.

The weapon’s full designation is Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot-7 – “Hand-held Anti-tank Grenade Launcher, Model 7” – though the English backronym “Rocket-Propelled Grenade” has stuck hard enough that most people have forgotten it was ever anything else. Development began in 1958, to replace its predecessor, the RPG-2 the weapon was formally adopted by the Soviet Army in 1961, and it has not stopped being produced or used since. Over nine million units have been manufactured. It has seen combat in more than 80 countries. It is, without serious competition, the most widely distributed anti-armor weapon in the history of warfare.

Design Philosophy

The RPG-7’s design lineage is still the same as the M72 – the US bazooka, and the German Panzerfaust, both attempting to solve the fundamental problem of giving infantry a fighting chance against armor at range – but the Soviet solution diverged sharply at the design level. Where the M72 is disposable and self-contained, like the Panzerfaust, the RPG-7 is reusable like the bazooka. The launcher tube – a 40mm steel tube, wood-wrapped for heat protection, weighing about 15 pounds – is a permanent asset. The rocket-propelled grenades are loaded separately at the muzzle, with the oversized warhead protruding forward of the tube in the weapon’s distinctive silhouette.

*A Romanian soldier aiming a AG-7 (licensed RPG-7 copy) during a military exercise of the romanian 191st Infantry Battalion. Photo by Dragoş Anghelache. CCA/3.0*

This reusability carries real tactical implications. A squad equipped with RPG-7s can carry multiple warhead types for the same launcher – anti-armor, anti-structure, thermobaric, fragmentation – and select the appropriate round for the target. The M72 gives you one round per tube. The RPG-7 gives you one launcher and as many rounds as your ammunition bearers can carry (typically three spare rounds per carrier). For conventional Soviet infantry doctrine, which envisioned massive combined-arms engagements against NATO armor in Central Europe, this made sense. One RPG-7 per motorized rifle squad (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1998/infantry-rpg.htm) was the standard Soviet assignment – a number that irregular forces consistently exceeded in practice, if at all possible.

*Some RPG-7 Ammunition types. Image by LivePi3.14, 2005. CCA/4.0 International*

The weapon does, however, present real limitations that deserve honest acknowledgment. A 1976 U.S. Army evaluation found that in an 11 km/h crosswind, a gunner firing at a stationary, tank-sized target could not expect a first-round hit more than 50% of the time at 180 meters. The backblast, while less dangerous than many Western counterparts in confined spaces – Soviet doctrine allowed firing from inside rooms with only two meters of standoff – is still substantial and signature-generating. And the weapon’s effective anti-armor range tops out around 300 meters against a moving target, limiting its utility as armor protection has advanced.

But its strengths are formidable, and they are the strengths that matter most in the environments where most of the world’s actual fighting gets done.

A Polish and US soldier load an RPG-7 during combined live-fire training at Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area in Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, Oct. 29, 2016. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Lauren Harrah. Public Domain.

Combat Record

The RPG-7’s first confirmed combat use was during the Six-Day War in 1967, and it has barely paused since. In Vietnam, it became the primary tool of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces against American armor and, critically, helicopters – a use case the weapon was never designed for, but adapted to with lethal effectiveness. In Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, the Mujahideen employed it as their weapon of choice against Soviet armor, APCs, trucks, and helicopters, averaging one RPG for every ten to twelve fighters in the field…or, roughly one RPG-7 per squad.

The Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 produced the RPG-7’s most famous moment in American military consciousness: Somali militiamen used the weapon to shoot down two U.S. Army MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, triggering the events immortalized in the 1999 book and 2001 movie “Black Hawk Down“. The irony runs deep – the CIA had taught Afghan Mujahideen how to use the RPG-7 against Soviet helicopters during the 1980s, and the technique came back to haunt the US military.

In Chechnya, the weapon demonstrated what disciplined urban employment looked like. Chechen hunter-killer teams of three to four fighters – an RPG gunner, a machine gunner, and a sniper – simultaneously engaged single Russian armored vehicles from multiple elevations, including ground level, second and third stories, and basements, while the sniper and machine gunner suppressed supporting infantry. Russian armored columns in Grozny during the first Chechen war may have lost 100 tanks and 250 armored fighting vehicles. This is the tactical template that every urban army has had to study since.

In Ukraine today, the weapon is in simultaneous use by both sides – Ukrainians firing Soviet-designed RPG-7s against Soviet-designed tanks, while Russian forces do the same. Texas-based AirTronic USA has supplied a modernized American variant, the PSRL-1, to Ukrainian forces – a US-built RPG-7 derivative, fighting Russian armor. The symmetry is almost poetic.

*PSRL-1 (modified American copy of the Soviet/Russian RPG-7) in use during training by soldiers of the National Guard of Ukraine. Photo by ngu.gov.ua. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

The Broader Point

The RPG-7 costs somewhere under $500 per launcher. Warheads run roughly $100 to $500 per round depending on type. A single M1 Abrams main battle tank costs approximately $10 million. The math here is not complicated, and it is precisely that math that drives procurement decisions in most of the world’s militaries – not the ones planning to fight peer adversaries across the Fulda Gap, but the ones planning to fight the wars that actually happen: insurgencies, urban battles, and asymmetric confrontations where the side with the RPG-7 does not need to win every engagement, only enough of them, among other modes of warfare.

The M72 and the RPG-7 are mirror images of the same Cold War problem, solved by two different industrial philosophies. One is elegant, lightweight, and disposable. The other is crude, heavy, reloadable, and has outlasted every attempt to declare it obsolete. Both are still operating on the world’s battlefields today.

Next time: the Carl-Gustaf — the recoilless rifle that splits the difference.

The Old Dog Learns A New Trick – Tools of the Trade

Michael Cessna March 27, 2026

There is a recurring pattern in defense procurement that the Pentagon’s acquisition bureaucracy never quite manages to learn: the weapon system everyone writes off as obsolete has a habit of refusing to die, because the problem it solves refuses to go away. The M60 tank is one example. The M72 Light Anti-armor Weapon – the LAW – is another, a contemporary of the M60 and in some ways a more interesting one, because its “second act” required not just political will but genuine engineering ingenuity.

The M72 entered US Army and Marine Corps service in 1963, replacing the aging M20 Super Bazooka as the individual infantryman’s answer to armored threats. The concept was elegantly simple: a 66mm rocket, pre-loaded in a telescoping aluminum-and-fiberglass tube, weighing under five pounds, that one man could carry, deploy, fire, and discard. No maintenance, no crew requirement, no logistics tail beyond the round itself. The design lineage ran straight back through the American bazooka and the German Panzerfaust of World War Two – the perennial infantry problem of “how do you kill a tank without becoming a tank yourself” – solved with the tools of 1963.

Disposable Light Anti-Tank Weapon (LAW M72). Also shown is a cross-section of the launch tube with its accompanying payload, a 66mm rocket with a shaped charge warhead. Photo dated 1985-1990 from **Audiovisuele Dienst Koninklijke Landmacht** (AVDKL). CCA/4.0 Int’l

It saw its first extensive combat in Vietnam, where it earned a mixed reputation. The weapon was effective against light armor, bunkers, and fortified positions, but early production runs suffered from warhead detonation failures in flight, requiring a full recall and safety redesign. A large part of the early reports of failures of the M72 were shaped by the disaster of the Lang Vei Special Forces camp, which was overrun by Communist forces using PT-76 light tanks, vehicles which the M72 should have handled with ease.

*A Polish PT-76 amphibious light tank coming out of the water during an amphibious exercise. 1971 photo from “Czołg pływający PT-76. TBiU 12 WMON, Warszawa 1971.” Public Domain.*

A number of quality control and design issues surfaced immediately, which contributed to the base being overrun. The US defense establishment responded quickly. The corrected versions returned to service and remained there – through the wars of Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq – long after the system had nominally been “replaced” by the Swedish-designed AT4 in the mid-1980s.

In contrast, the Soviet bloc had the RPG-7, a near-direct copy of the WW2 Panzerfaust. While effective, it had all of the problems of the WW2 bazooka…but that’s for another article.

The lighter weight and lower cost of the LAW made it ideal for the kind of urban and mountain combat that dominated the post-Cold War operational environment. A soldier could carry two LAWs where one AT4 fit. That arithmetic matters.

The Huge Problem That Looked Unsolvable

By the time the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began generating serious after-action data, a specific and deadly – but not unknown – problem had crystallized around shoulder-fired rocket systems: the backblast.

Traditional rocket launchers – the M72 included – generate a massive cone of super-heated gas behind the shooter at the moment of firing. In open terrain, this is a manageable hazard. In urban combat, it is frequently a killing problem. A Marine firing from inside a room, a doorway, or from behind a wall faced an ugly choice: expose himself fully to take the shot from a position where the backblast had clearance, or fire from cover and risk serious injury or death from the blast redirecting off interior surfaces.

Packing crates being used to demonstrate the danger of the M72’s back blast. Ft. Lewis, WA. 1969 photo by L. Johnson, Photo Facility Branch, Audio-Visuals Department, US Army, Ft Lewis, WA. Public Domain.

According to Defense News [https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/11/nammos-new-m72-launcher-causes-no-damage-when-fired-from-inside-a-room/], several Marines died as a direct result of having to expose themselves to take shots that could not safely be taken from covered positions. The requirement was real, documented in blood, and the Marine Corps knew it.

*A US Army soldier fires an AT4, Ft Lewis, WA, 2007. Note the dramatic backblast from the AT-4. US Army photo. Public Domain.*

The Solution: Liquid Physics & Norwegian Engineering

The answer came from Nammo, the Norwegian-American defense manufacturer that had been producing M72 variants under license since 1966. Their engineers developed a patented system using an inert organic high-density liquid chamber at the rear of the launcher. When the rocket fires forward, the liquid is expelled rearward, absorbing and dispersing the energy that would otherwise produce the lethal backblast. The result is a fire signature at the muzzle roughly equivalent to a 9mm pistol at night – and a backblast so reduced that, in a demonstration firing inside a 12-by-15-foot shed in the Arizona desert, the only evidence of the shot was a spray of liquid on the rear wall and floor.

*Cut-away diagram of an M72 LAW rocket, from US Army Technical Manual TM 9-1300-200 General Ammunition. US Army image. Public Domain.*

The system, designated M72 Fire From Enclosure (FFE), qualified for US service and entered a five-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract with a maximum value of $498 million. The Marine Corps Systems Command announced in May 2024 that current M72 variants would be succeeded by two FFE configurations: the M72A8, optimized for anti-armor work against light vehicles, concrete walls, and APCs; and the M72A10, a multi-purpose anti-structure munition with a dual-mode fuze capable of defeating brick, adobe, earthen fortifications, and light vehicles. Initial deliveries of 1,930 M72A10s and 800 M72A8s were scheduled for calendar year 2024, with production at Nammo’s Mesa, Arizona facility ramping to maximum capacity by mid-2025.

The tactical implications are significant. A squad that previously had to maneuver into exposed firing positions to employ rocket systems can now maintain concealment throughout the engagement. The reduced visual and acoustic signature – equivalent to the flash of a 9mm handgun – means the shooter’s position is not immediately compromised by the shot. And at 13 pounds, the M72 FFE is light enough that a squad can carry three to six systems rather than the single, heavier launcher a squad might previously field.

The Broader Lesson

The M72 FFE fits squarely into the pattern visible across modern procurement: the weapons that survive are not always the most sophisticated, but the ones whose core function remains essential, and whose designers remain willing to solve new problems rather than declare the mission accomplished. Urban warfare is not a temporary phase of the operational environment. From Fallujah to Mosul to Mariupol, the defining tactical challenge of the past two decades has been combat in built-up areas, where engagement distances collapse, cover is everywhere, and the cost of exposure is measured in seconds.

A weapon system that began its life in 1963 solving the problem of Soviet tank columns crossing the Fulda Gap has been re-engineered to solve the problem of a soldier taking a shot from inside a building in a city the Pentagon did not anticipate fighting in. That is not obsolescence. That is adaptability – and in a budget environment where new platforms cost billions and take decades, adaptability is increasingly the only procurement strategy that works.

Next time, we’ll look at the RPG-7.

A Caliber With a Long History

The Three-Leg Trick and What it Means

A Combat Record Spanning Decades

Ukraine and the Drone Problem

A New Category Of Weapon

The Gap Between Theory And Practice

BMP-2 AND BMP-3: The Lessons Applied

The Ukraine Reckoning

The Design Logic To Kill Tanks

Variants And The Arms Race With Soviet Armor

The Modern Combat Record: From Desert Storm To Syria

The Wire’s Limits In The Drone Age

Origins Of The Economy Tank

The Carousel Problem

Fifty Years Of Variants – All With One Fundamental Flaw

The Lessons Ukraine Teaches

The Weapon

October 1973: The Sagger Panic

The Weapon’s Limitations – And Its Evolution

Still In The Field

The Pit of Origin

The Problems Begin

Combat Record and Exit

Conclusion

The Bunker Buster

Where It Came From

Combat Record

The Spotting Rifle Problem & Mod 2

The Gustaf Takes Over

What A Recoilless Rifle Even Is

The Weapon & Its History

The Ammunition Story

The Bottom Line

Design Philosophy

Combat Record

The Broader Point

The Huge Problem That Looked Unsolvable

The Solution: Liquid Physics & Norwegian Engineering

The Broader Lesson

You may have missed

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!