Only designing for a single use lets it be much more lightweight, durable, and cheap (the components need to only withstand a single shot). It’s not a new concept either, the original Panzerfaust from WW2 was a single use anti-tank gun.
Not defending fascists, but most assault rifles today can trace some design lineage back to the StG 44. Which is usually regarded as the first practical assault rifle.
Yeah, the design of the AK-47 was strongly inspired by the StG 44. Just because a technology originated in a fascist country doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily shit.
Yes but it makes more sense when you realize nato is inherently an aggressive and offensive force. You want lightweight and disposable AT because your doctrine is defined by mobility and the reliance on air dominance on the assault. This is in contrast to Russia who mostly relies on multi use anti tank weapons because their doctrine is primarily more defensive based.
…wait, can those things not be reloaded? Did the US MIC seriously make the antitank equivalent of a disposable razor?
Yeah they’re single shot so yeah
Only designing for a single use lets it be much more lightweight, durable, and cheap (the components need to only withstand a single shot). It’s not a new concept either, the original Panzerfaust from WW2 was a single use anti-tank gun.
Maybe basing your military tech off of an evil military that also absolutely ate shit is not a good idea
Not defending fascists, but most assault rifles today can trace some design lineage back to the StG 44. Which is usually regarded as the first practical assault rifle.
Yeah, the design of the AK-47 was strongly inspired by the StG 44. Just because a technology originated in a fascist country doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily shit.
No, they buy it from Sweden. It is the low cost alternative to the reusable ones. Also easier to use due to the lower weight.
China and the Soviet Union also use/used disposable anti tank weapons, before everyone gets on their high horses about capitalist inefficiency.
Yeah they’re good for gun and run missions for lesser skilled/guerrilla groups
Yes but it makes more sense when you realize nato is inherently an aggressive and offensive force. You want lightweight and disposable AT because your doctrine is defined by mobility and the reliance on air dominance on the assault. This is in contrast to Russia who mostly relies on multi use anti tank weapons because their doctrine is primarily more defensive based.