Just use BUR or make the equivalent with an aiming module for the LAAW. Sticking someone with a 6 kg contraption to carry around is pointless. 

https://modernfirearms.net/en/grenade-launchers/russia-grenade-launchers/bur-eng/

Red7272 said:

The endless search for super lightweight systems because troops are apparently too stupid to use a transport really needs to die.

What transport do the troops have available to them that they are too stupid to use?

gatnerd said:

I just don't see the US ever engaging armor with Carl Gustaf's. Really, any armor not destroyed from the air, or engaged by tanks and other armored vehicles, is likely to be hit by Javelins...

Concur.

gatnerd said:

Where the Gustaf actually is useful is as a dismounted squad / platoon anti structure / anti personell HE lobber.  At which point the lighter launcher + more ammo of the 66mm is likely to be advantageous.  (Assuming a 66mm actually did result in a meaningful reduction in launcher and shell weight - not a given.)

Well, the M136 weighs ~15 lbs vs ~6 lbs for the M72, so it seems to me that a substantial weight reduction could be had with 66mm.

IMO, the real question is how effective would a 66mm recoilless rifle be?  For instance, how much would HE casualty radius reduce?

stancrist said:

What transport do the troops have available to them that they are too stupid to use?

You mean real armies or the US army? The list of NATO members that have not entirely mechanised their infantry is a whole one. 

And yes it was a throwaway insult at the US military hierarchy rather than the troops themselves. 

stancrist said:

IMO, the real question is how effective would a 66mm recoilless rifle be?  For instance, how much would HE casualty radius reduce

I don't really know much about how warhead design changes between rocket propelled grenades and recoilless rifles. 

But the fragmentation warhead for the 66mm LAW looks extremely effective - 4000 tungsten BB's, with a real 15m lethal radius (ie fragments penetrating 12" in ballistic gel at 15m.) 

If the Carl Gustaf 'M66' could replicate that, but with a more accurate launcher and lighter shell (~5.5lb M66 shell vs 10lb LAW) that would seem pretty handy. 

Red7272 said:

...it was a throwaway insult at the US military hierarchy rather than the troops themselves.

Kindly don't call the troops stupid, if you mean to insult the leadership.

Has the UK withdrawn from NATO then? Canada? Czech Republic? France? The Netherlands?

Or are you making stuff up in order to create your "throwaway insult"?

66 is 78.6% of 84 - linearly. In terms of volume it's 48.5%.

It doesn't necessarily mean that stuff will be half the weight, but it does mean that available volume for HE fill will be that much smaller, if not more - you can't cut wall thickness below a certain amount.

Take 23 mm vs 30 mm autocannon ammunition as an example. The linear fraction is about 78%, and the volume fraction is 45%, so it's about the same ballpark.

Going by Tony's tables, the heaviest 23 mm shell weighed 204 g while the heaviest 30 mm shell weighed 430 g, which is much closer to 45% than to 78%.

Thank you, thats very helpful. 

Do you know, is there any reason to think that a Gustav 66mm warhead would be smaller then 66mm HE warhead on the LAW?