What is wrong with RPGs?

Suhiir · #1 November 19th, 2011, 10:54 AM

Some NATO forces do use RPG type weapons, the Carl Gustaf and Mk 153 SMAW for instance.

Many NATO forces use some sort of 40mm grenade launcher. While a single 40mm is hardly as devastating as a single RPG over the course of a battle the 40's probably do more damage.

As an anti-tank weapon sure the RPG has better range and hitting power then an M72 LAAW, but the newer AT4 is much better vs armor. And NATO has tons of Dragon/Milan/Javelin launchers that beat an RPG hands down as an anti-armor weapon.

The RPG is a very useful, fairly effective, and relatively cheap weapon. As an anti-infantry squad support weapon probably only the Mk 153 SMAW is better. But as an anti-armor weapon it's definably 2nd or 3rd rate.

As a side note I've always thought RPG accuracy in WinSPMBT was over rated ... but that's me.

EOT · #2 November 19th, 2011, 01:16 PM

The German Panzerfaust 3,PzF 3-IT,PzF 3-IT seem to have very good heat penetration and accuracy.

Weapon Tube Heat Penetration Accuracy

PzF 3 RPG 70 5
PzF 3-IT RPG 90 15
PzF 3T DC RPG 80 10

M2 Carl-G Rifled 40 6
M3 Carl-G Rifled 50 6

RPG-7 RPG 33 5
RPG-7V RPG 50 5

AT4/A Smooth 42 5
AT4/B Smooth 60 5

For the cost/specs the PzF 3 has got to be the most deadly Inf section AT weapon you can have SPMBT

Suhiir · #3 November 20th, 2011, 12:16 PM

Yeah I'd forgot the PzF 3, excellent weapon.

runequester · #4 November 21st, 2011, 12:22 AM

The RPG-2, RPG-7 and so forth were pretty much developments of the Panzerfaust concept of a simple, man portable weapon that could be issued to the infantry squad and probably stuck around as much because it's a simple, efficient weapon, that was well understood.

Soviet armaments were chosen as much for their suitability to equip a mass army and conduct a "people's war" as anything else.

Considering the lifespan and service life of the RPG-7, it's hard to say they were wrong, and there's a lot of newer, more potent models out there.

Griefbringer · #5 November 22nd, 2011, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runequester

The RPG-2, RPG-7 and so forth were pretty much developments of the Panzerfaust concept of a simple, man portable weapon that could be issued to the infantry squad and probably stuck around as much because it's a simple, efficient weapon, that was well understood.

I would say that RPG-2 and RPG-7 as crew-served, reloadable anti-tank rocket launchers are conceptually closer to the humble US bazooka (which BTW was supplied to the USSR in small numbers as part of the lend-lease trade).

Panzerfaust concept of a single shot, disposable anti-tank weapon operated by a single person is seen in a number of other post-WWII weapons, such as M72 LAW, AT-4, APILAS and RPG-18.

troopie · #6 November 22nd, 2011, 09:59 PM

When I was in the SADF back in the Seventies, we used RPGs when we got them. The Terrs had no tanks, but RPGs will slot a bunker. And unlike with a bunker bomb, you can do the bunker from a safer distance.

troopie

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #7 January 15th, 2012, 02:43 PM

Wanted to find a home for this article so used the search mode, it seems a good place. It's an article on the JAVELIN a good article. At present though it's in an abbreviated form though normally they do unlock them in time.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...missile-03440/

Regards,
Pat

Griefbringer · #8 November 21st, 2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The RPG is a very useful, fairly effective, and relatively cheap weapon. As an anti-infantry squad support weapon probably only the Mk 153 SMAW is better. But as an anti-armor weapon it's definably 2nd or 3rd rate.

If we are talking about the classic RPG-7, it might be worth keeping in mind the historical framework. In the early 60's when it was taken into use, it would pose a threat to most of the armour in use at the time.

Also, at that time it fares pretty well (at least in SPMBT) when compared to other similar man-portable anti-tank weapons around the world. For example a jolly US platoon would have for anti-tank defence a pair of M20 bazookas or 90 mm recoilless rifles.

However, once you get to the early 80's and the new generation of western tanks (M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2) starts to roll out with their heavier and more HEAT-resistant armour, a basic RPG-7 starts to look less impressive.

scJazz · #9 November 21st, 2011, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griefbringer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The RPG is a very useful, fairly effective, and relatively cheap weapon. As an anti-infantry squad support weapon probably only the Mk 153 SMAW is better. But as an anti-armor weapon it's definably 2nd or 3rd rate.

If we are talking about the classic RPG-7, it might be worth keeping in mind the historical framework. In the early 60's when it was taken into use, it would pose a threat to most of the armour in use at the time.

Also, at that time it fares pretty well (at least in SPMBT) when compared to other similar man-portable anti-tank weapons around the world. For example a jolly US platoon would have for anti-tank defence a pair of M20 bazookas or 90 mm recoilless rifles.

I just had to chuckle. The original post came about cause I am playing a mid 60s campaign and my tanks are very allergic to RPG-7 fire while conversely my stupid LAWs and 90mm RCL suck in ways hard to describe

Having this experience I got to wondering why in the hell everyone doesn't use RPGs. Of course I have since answered my own question but your post made me smile.

Griefbringer · #10 November 22nd, 2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scJazz

The original post came about cause I am playing a mid 60s campaign and my tanks are very allergic to RPG-7 fire while conversely my stupid LAWs and 90mm RCL suck in ways hard to describe

I think this might be a case of the observer bias - weapons always seem more effective when fired by the enemy than when fired by your own troops.