What is wrong with RPGs?

[scJazz]

OK so I forgot about the fact that AT4s are recoiless. Score one in their favor.

RPGs are...
Cheap
Easy to use
Effective

What am I missing here?
RPGs > AT4 and every LAW similar weapon

[Wdll]

Originally Posted by scJazz

OK so I forgot about the fact that AT4s are recoiless. Score one in their favor.

RPGs are...
Cheap
Easy to use
Effective

What am I missing here?
RPGs > AT4 and every LAW similar weapon

What you might be missing is what MANY people tend to miss when they talk/*****/whine (Not you) about "Western" strategy and weapons (like the oh so stupid "we don't need tanks").

RPGs (and other weapons and tactics used in guerrilla warfare) are the limited amount of successful they are, because their enemy, more or less NATO forces, are good guys, in a manner of speaking. If for example Hitler was in charge of an occupational force in any of the cities where there was heavy fighting, he would have ordered the bombing of the whole city, innocents be damned, till there was nothing left standing. But, when you have NATO who they have to follow rules and try to play nice and try to avoid civilian casualties etc, then you have an occupational (or any word you may want to use) force which fights with its hands behind its back, blindfolded. They manage to use the low tech weapons, including RPGs, with the level of success they do because their enemy has to play nice, has to be careful not to destroy or kill tons of potential targets and has to go near them and let them attack from point blank range from all directions.

It's like having one company of musketeers fighting enemy swordsmen, but not allowing them to use their weapons even aim, till the enemy is at 2meters away. Of course the swordsmen will manage to get kills.

But, if there was nothing holding them back, there wouldn't be as many casualties among NATO forces as there are, and RPGs would probably have very limited successful use. Hard to use your RPG from close range when there is no cover or when in any move there is ****load of fire your way.



So, the only way NATO forces would need to use the RPG would be when fighting....who?

[scJazz]

Originally Posted by Wdll

***Lots of stuff regarding tactics***

No actually WDII I was honestly curious. In playing several campaigns I've found RPGs = scary and my AT weapons = suck. I generally play American units generally configured as Reinforced Combined Arms Companies or Battalions (approx 2 MBTs per company). Because of the extreme threat to armor posed by RPG armed infantry my MBTs have been lagging further and further to the rear and my poor IFVs are getting smacked down pretty badly. This made me wonder what purpose AT4s serve. Which led me to examine SMAWs, LAWs, and RPGs, etc. Which led me to many hours of googling

This is what I found...

American Infantry Doctrine moved away from dedicated grenadiers supporting riflemen to everyone is a riflemen in a rifle squad/platoon. Hence the use of the M16/M203 combination vs M79 grenade launchers. AT4/LAWs appear to be a result of this doctrine. Depending on the Armor threat level every single infantryman (every other, every 4th, etc) can be equipped with a 15 lb disposable anti-armor weapon. In Eastern block (Russian, Chinese, etc) infantry squads there must be a dedicated team to carry the 12 lb launcher and 5 lb warheads. This removes a rifleman from the squad and limits the scaling of response in an environment with a heavy armor threat.

AT4s are...
accurate
carry a heavier effective payload
recoiless
have a limited back blast danger

RPGs are...
less accurate
carry a smaller effective payload
recoiless
have a stunningly dangerous back blast
have an complicated reload process (complicated by comparison to a single shot weapon like the AT4 getting even more complicated when people are shooting at you)