Talk:Mk 153 Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

HEDM[edit]

I'd just like to note that the SMAW doesn't have a "HEDP" rocket. It DOES have a High Explosive, Dual Mode (HEDM) rocket capable of destroying hard and soft targets.

The "HEDP" is referenced in several Marine Corps manuals as the "High Explosive, Dual Purpose" (HEDP) rocket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.43.242 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

HEDP is an older nomenclature. Check out the newer manuals, or ask any fleet Assaultman in the Marine Corps. Chances are, if they've been in under 6 to 8 years, they refer to it as HEDM. Additionally, referring to the dual mode rocket as HEDP is generally considered a faux pas reserved for younger Marines out of SOI who still get their rockets confused with their m203 grenades.

SMAW-Novel Explosive[edit]

There is a thermobaric round known as the SMAW-NE. It is not capable of breaching, so it is usually shot following a hole made by the HEDP (High Exposive Dual Purpose) warhead. The SMAW-NE round is an H6 thermobaric fill as described here: Talk:GBU-43_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb#H6_Explosive 70.125.43.99 02:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to include this here without it being on the page, yet. This is from the July 2005 magazine Marine Corps Gazette:

"* Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure. While the Marines were able to keyhole shots, there were times when no window or door was available for them to engage the enemy fighting position. The Marines in our section had an 80 percent success rate on first round shots. We found the technique that worked the best was to work them in tandem about 5 to 10 meters apart, and fire the shots sequentially. However, when the units were dispersed, a good team could fire both rounds in less than 30 seconds."

Article can be found here: http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/search/counterinsurgency.asp

Remember these are block buildings.... PETN 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Moved to proper space. PETN 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


SMAW-Follow Through Grenade (FTG)[edit]

There is also a SMAW FTG or follow through Grenade. I would also suggest you break up this article into the other SMAW types. IE. SMAW-LEAP, or the one that can be fired from indoors. The standard SMAW has a 30 meter danger area that is 60 degrees and another 60 meters beyond that is caution. When you fire SMAW the original, the ground lifts up from the pressure. Also, the it is 178 decibles when fired and goes from 0 to it's terminal velocity within the length of the fiber glass barrel. If you fire from indoors, the roof will come in. The Spotting Rifle that is attached, is ballistically matched to the rocket. The spotting rifle fires a 9 mm round that is encased in a 7.62 jacket, with a .22 Winchester Hornet for charge.

To get back on point about the SMAW FTG, it is a shape charge with a grenade behind it. You fire it at a masonry or concrete wall and the grenade with whatever fill, smoke, chemical, thermal, et al. goes through the wall and detonates behind it. It is "rumored" that this is what started the fire in Waco, Texes. The hypothosis is mentioned at this site: http://www.alamo-girl.com/03603.htm There is also testimony of people knowing the weapons were used. If you guys have anymore questions feel free to ask. 70.125.43.99 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Page Edit[edit]

I edited the main page and added the newer weapons and also put overviews of the rounds for it. I do think this article should be split. PETN 17:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the split tag. Why would this be split? It all refers to the same weapon. Riddley 13:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just looked at the Catagories this was in. This is very seldom used against tanks with the HEAA round. I was a SMAW gunner for 5 years, and I never even saw an HEAA round. The max effective range is only 250 meters. You wouldn't want to be 250 meters away from an enemy tank. This weapon is used for breaching and for bunkers mostly, however it can be used against light skinned vehicles with the HEDP round. The HEAA is just impracticle. I would suggest creating a new catagory and put this, the LAW, the Bazooka, etc. in it. PETN 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits as they were copied from this site. GfloresTalk 04:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I put the information up with links so it can be rewritten. PETN 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deployment[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, not a field manual. The deployment of the weapon is information for handlers. This information should be removed.

Whoever was a SMAW gunner for five years and never saw an HEAA round, obviously PETN wasn't employing the weapon enough to make that call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.185.16 (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most likely he never saw a HEAA round because of the expense. I am taking this figure from memory, but I believe that the HEAA round was something like $12,000 dollars. For a HEAT round the HEAA had unbelievable penetration. --Jackehammond (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

.

Trivia on the SMAW[edit]

  • The US Army was one of the SMAW users for a short period of time. And not the one man SMAW-D either.
  • The reason it was not an export success even to close US allies was the HEDP round. The Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, VA was very opposed to anyone having access to that special fuse they developed for it.
  • A firm (can't remember the name, but I have a photo of it somewhere) at AUSA 1987 showed a new liner for the HEAT warhead for the SMAW HEAA round. It was made of depleted uranium. Had unbelievable penetration according to the manufacture and the government engineer from Dahlgren with him. But it was canceled due to the DU and heavy metal scare tactics of certain groups. Unlike most HEAT warhead liners it was not a cone or trumpet shape, but cupped shape. A Chinese gentleman walked up while we were talking. They suddenly stopped talking. After the Chinese gentleman left, they said they knew they could not tell me not to, but requested I did not pass any of the information on to that person. I said Ok -- I thought it was dumb to exhibit it if it was that important, but kept that to myself -- but he never approached me about what we were talking about. Although one other guy from China asked me it I could go to the Hughes booth and get some information about the 30mm Chain Gun. Nope! --Jackehammond (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox is sorely lacking in actual information[edit]

Range? Price? Weight? Speed? Come on guys...99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin?[edit]

In the infobox, it lists the US as the location of origin, though in the text, it states that the weapon is based on the Israeli B300. As per the M240 machine gun article, I think it would be better to include both Israel and the US as the origin (or just Israel, but that leads to a whole other issue as to whether this weapon is notably distinct enough from the B300 to actually deserve it's own page... but I digress...) In any case, I am going to add Israel to the origin in the infobox.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Backblast Danger Citation?[edit]

After thinking that the backblast danger zone listed (Lethal at 30 meters and exteremely dangerous out to 90 meters) seemed a little absurd, I asked a few ex-military and current military people who all said that that was certainly not correct as far as they knew and that it was definitively shorter. Anyone able to get a citation for that information? I can't seem to find one. Otherwise it'd seem reasonable to get rid of that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striker121 (talkcontribs) 07:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)