What is wrong with RPGs?

[scJazz]

OK, I know it is just a game and this is probably the wrong place to ask but...

Perhaps someone, ex-military with any luck, could explain to me why Western militaries generally don't use RPG like weapons? Generally speaking, RPGs have better range and appear to be very easy to use.

KEYWORD: GENERALLY

So what gives? What makes weapon systems like the AT4 preferable?

[KAreil]

I'm not ex-military, but I'll give the question a shot anyway...


I think most western military is still somewhat preparing for a big "shooting war" -> mass of tanks,...

And as far as I know a RPG has no real MBT-killing-power above very very short range.



Second reason could be that the military are slowly adjusting to the now present asymetric warfare...and against suicide bombers etc an RPG is also nu use...



Just my 2 cents...

[EOT]

The AT4 is recoilless. Western military's do use rpg's. Guided AT weapons are usually heavy/require a power source (battery) and the rounds are very expensive. Guided AT weapons are generally used for long range heavy/modern armoured threats. Guided AT weapons use thermal signitures to lock onto their designated target, best used against modern amour with a great heat signature.
Recoilless weapons are used for short range engagements against lightly armoured vehicles/troops/fortifications. These RPG's cost a lot less and are much easier for infantry sections to carry and use on a battlefield fighting a low-tech insurgency war.

In SPMBT there are no bean counters so go ahead use your Javelin to take out that sniper hidden in a building)

[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)

[Wdll]

Then you know first hand some of the reasons they are not used by Western forces

Use your artillery to suppress enemy and potential enemy deployed areas where your units are going to pass through. Also, it's better to not have your MBTs go first unless you know there is no enemy hiding in the bushes.

[Mobhack]

The RPGs are nicknamed "wobbling goblins" apparently.

The initial charge expels the round from the tube, and then some large knife-like fins pop out to stabilise it. Unfortunately, these fins make the round very susceptible to weather-cocking (the nose of the round will tend to point into the wind).

Once the round is out and attempting to stabilise, a secondary rocket motor fires to give it the range. The rocket will kick in at a random orientation of the wobbling round - so where it goes next is a little bit indeterminate. This secondary charge initiation is apparently the main source of inaccuracy.

Apparently some folks are "natural" RPG gunners, a bit like with cricket bowling or baseball pitching. They are few and far between. The system also needs a lot of rounds fired by the gunner to achieve any sort of proficiency.

Tube AT weapons generally "spin up" the round inside the launcher - rifled ones (Carl Gustav) certainly do. Western rounds tend not to have a secondary "kicker" going off down range to disturb the initial trajectory.

Secondary rocket boosters are always a problem - e.g. unguided RAP artillery rounds, which have a longer range, but also a wider dispersal of impacts due to the rocket initiation being semi-random throwing the rounds off course, depending exactly when they kick in.

All you wanted to know about the RPGs: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/RPGDec06.pdf

Cheers
Andy

[Suhiir]

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]

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