JMackenzie,
You need to broaden your horizons and gain a bit more experience before spouting off about the continued utility of specific weapon systems. Your comments regarding the 84mm quite clearly illustrate my point. We all know that the Carl Gustav is largely incapable of obtaining a catstrophic kill against the latest generation of MBTs. However, who is to say that we will necessarily be fighting an enemy equipped with T-92, M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger II, Leopard II, etc? Indeed, the likelihood of Canadian soldiers facing such an enemy force is remote in the extreme. More likely, the current and anticipated operating environment will see Canadian elements faced with a non-peer, asymmetric enemy force perhaps (perhaps!) equipped with "monkey model" T-55s or T-72s.
Notwithstanding the above, the issue of the 84mm's utility against main battle tanks is largely irrelevant. We have the TOW and ERYX missile systems to deal with tanks, and will (hopefully soon) be augmenting those systems with ALAAWS. The tanks that we realistically expect to face are not a problem. The ERYX and ALAAWS will quite capably deal with the limited MBT threat. Neither of those missile-based AT systems replaces the Carl Gustav.
The predominant threat to Canadian soldiers on operations for the foreseeable future is Light Armoured Vehicles, armed "Technical" vehicles, VBIEDs, bunkers, caves, buidlings and other "hard targets". The 84mm is ideal against those types of targets, and is far more applicable to short-range operations in complex/urban terrain than any of the current and planned AT missile systems. The Carl Gustav's portability, comparative light weight, high rate of fire, wide range of ammo natures, mechanical simplicity, reliability, etc, make it one of the most versatile support weapons within the infantry inventory. There is a reason that the U.S. Army Rangers purchased the M3 Carl Gustav in the 1990s. There is a simiilar reason why the USMC retain similar capability in their SMAW. All of that to say, you won't see the 84mm replaced by anything in the Canadian inventory for quite some time. It is simply too useful and well-suited to our needs.
If your logic held true and the only reason for having anti-armour weapons was to destroy enemy tanks, then I might agree that the 84mm is past its prime. Unfortunately, your comments are based on the false assumption that the Carl Gustav need be capable of destroying modern MBTs. That is most definitely not the case. Your apparent lack of understanding about extant threats within the modern operating environment and the relevant capabilities and limitations of infantry support weapons suggests to me that perhaps you should sit back and listen for a while, or at least stick to subjects that you know.....
