Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/19/2004 1:56:30 PM EST
We have some great systems. The 40mm grenade launcher is awesome for use against dismount infantry in the open. The 84mm HEAT weapons are great for use against armor and hardened targets. The LAW was a decent lightweight weapon (after they made the rocket motors reliable).

But nothing we currently have in the inventory quite does what the RPG-7 does so well. While it may not do any of the jobs as well as the before mentioned weapons, it offers one clear advantage.....it can be reloaded and fired repeatedly. Most of those other weapons (minus the 40mm) are fire and forget type weapons with disposable tubes. A soldier packing around a large rocket (or recoiless rifle if you prefer the term) that can only be fired once seems like a real waste. And the 40mm grenade just isn't as effective against more hardened targets.

So why can't we create some sort of weapon similar to the RPG-7, a weapon that be reloaded and used again? Rounds of ammunition could be passed out among a rifle squad or platoon and instead of one bang, you could get 10, 12, 15, 20 or more per weapon. That would seem a far more effective method of operating for light infantry. People humping or operating in smaller groups can only carry so many self-contained disposable weapons. But a weapon that can be reloaded with additional rounds of ammo being spread throughout the unit just seems a much more sensible course of action.

I can even see a need for a weapon like this among larger armored and mechanized units. While they have more space for hauling around disposable weapons, imagine how having a reloadable rocket launcher could help out tank, Bradley, Stryker and M113 crews. If I had to dismount any of those vehicles for whatever reason and fight the enemy, I'd rather have a weapon like this with a few rounds stowed in the vehicle somewhere than a one time use weapon that takes up as much or more space.

So why don't we have one?
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:59:56 PM EST
Good question. U.S. Rangers do have the M3 84 mm Carl Gustav. My guess is that the RPG is too simple and cheap to produce. We like expensive high tech weapons.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:03:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:07:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Good question. U.S. Rangers do have the M3 84 mm Carl Gustav. My guess is that the RPG is too simple and cheap to produce. We like expensive high tech weapons.



Yeah, something like that! I'm sure the Carl Gustav at least has the range and accuracy of the RPG (and probably more) and I'm also satisfied it fires a much more powerful and effective round.

It just makes NO sense at all to walk around with a big bulky weapon that can only be fired once. None. Especially when you don't have to.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:08:09 PM EST
I agree totally. I have always wondered the same thing.

I don't see why a reloadable version of the LAW is not developed. That would come in quite handy.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:14:29 PM EST
We gotta have some challenge... I mean if everything was easy they wouldnt be wars it would be like the 2000 us dream team versus a retard wheelchair basketbal team.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:15:20 PM EST
Because the Pentagon Boys don't like to admit that somebody else, especially the Russkies, had a good idea worth copying!
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:21:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Good question. U.S. Rangers do have the M3 84 mm Carl Gustav. My guess is that the RPG is too simple and cheap to produce. We like expensive high tech weapons.



+1
Although there are so many in all the hot spots of the world, it seems redundant to buy our own. We've probably captured and destroyed tens of thousands already in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:22:06 PM EST
Does the Russian Army still use the RPG? They've been using an equivalent to the US M203 grenade launcher more and more.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:24:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 2:25:44 PM EST by A-nus]
I don't see a huge need for them, Now, the insurgance don't have many vehicles. But they are incredably effective and need to be in our inventory.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:26:53 PM EST
Because we have these...


Digital
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:26:56 PM EST
I sure as hell wouldn't want to hump around an RPG like weapon. I'm satisfied with what we currently have, and it appears to work well for us.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:27:04 PM EST
Guerrilla weapon. No use in todays US Army.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:30:17 PM EST
I've always wondered why don't have rifle grenades. Cheap and about as effective as a 203.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:30:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:33:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By A-nus:
I don't see a huge need for them, Now, the insurgance don't have many vehicles. But they are incredably effective and need to be in our inventory.




I dont think thats the point he's trying to make. If you have a reloadable RPG-like weapon with plenty of ammo, it can be used for lots of things besides an anti-vehicle role. You could even have anti-personell rounds for it.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:36:04 PM EST
what about the AT-4?I thought it was reloadable.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:41:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By colklink:
what about the AT-4?I thought it was reloadable.



Nope, fire it and ditch the tube. Not reloadable.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:42:59 PM EST
We did have something like the RPG7, during WWII, we had the bazooka.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:43:28 PM EST
M3
M72
M-134
M-203
Mk-19
SMAWS

All do part of the job that the RPG-7 does.

I think they do it at a lower weight/bulk penalty per round.

Especially when employed as an anti-personell round, RPG-7 vs M-203
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:48:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By dskeet:
I sure as hell wouldn't want to hump around an RPG like weapon. I'm satisfied with what we currently have, and it appears to work well for us.



Well, you guys are already humping around weapons even bigger. If you must hump a weapon, wouldn't you rather pack one that could at least be fired more than once?

My problem is not so much with the weapons we have as it is with the fact most are single shot. Nobody can convince me that you can carry a whole extra tube with self-contained round as easily as you could carry one tube and several extra rounds.

And as far as simplicity? Well, it doesn't get much more simple than an RPG. If the average Iraqi insurgent can pick up one of these and use it somewhat effectively, fully trained soldiers in the US Army aren't likely to have too much difficulty with one.

Besides, we can create something a helluva lot better than the old RPG, but just as easy to field and employ.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:49:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:50:19 PM EST
We have the M203 and the AT-4.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:59:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
We have the M203 and the AT-4.

Kharn



Yes. And neither offer what the RPG does which is my point. The 40mm grenade is a great weapon for use in dealing with dismounted infantry in the open. But it's less efective against vehicles and targets that have some level of cover. The AT4 can deal with those threats, but it's a one shot weapon. The RPG bridges the gap between the two.

In order to get my point across, would you rather go into battle with a guy in your aquad armed only with a one time use M203 or a guy who has a 203 plus a vest full of rounds?

I say we need more M3 Carl Gustavs to supplement the M203's already in stock. Both are good weapons but both are not equally suited to specific tasks. That's why we need both. And at least it can be reloaded which makes it more bang for the buck. I know if I was operating as a part of a squad or platoon size element, I'd rather have a guy with an M3 and several spare rounds spread out among the weapon carrier and other members of the unit than a guy with an AT4. It's all about firepower. A reloadable weapon offers much more of that.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:02:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 3:04:09 PM EST by eodtech2000]
I'll take an RPG any day of the week over the AT-4 or anything else we got. There are Thermobaric, FAE, HE-Frag warheads along with the ever popular HEAT warhead. The RPG is not hampered by a tube for the size of its warhead either. The RPG is cheap, reliable, simple to use, reuseable, and most definitely battle proven. We would rather spend millions on some farking toy that is inflexible and one shot throw away.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:03:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:05:57 PM EST
A RPG-7 with a few extra rockets is lighter to carry than a few AT-4's. Both can knock out armor, but the RPG-7 has a clear advantage. 1 man in a sqad of men with RPG-7 and multiple rockets can rack hell on an armor column or supply convey.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:08:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:16:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By TREETOP:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
In order to get my point across, would you rather go into battle with a guy in your aquad armed only with a one time use M203 or a guy who has a 203 plus a vest full of rounds?




What's being overlooked is that the majority of the weight, size, and expense of an M72 is THE ROCKET not the launcher. For your analogy to be fair, the 40mm round would have to be the same size as the M203 which is not the case. Also there's not enough room in a 40mm round to have enough explosive to compare to a SMAW or M72.

Bottom line is the launcher is disposable because that's what was decided on. I feel what we have is a better weapon system than the RPG-7, and I've got no complaints at all with the M72 or SMAW system- They've been killing bad guys for many years.



The M72 LAW is highly inadequate compared to the RPG, the RPG has a larger diameter HEAT warhead that is head and shoulders more powerful than the LAW. The LAW is limited to a 66mm Rocket - the HEAT warhead is pathetic (I have held a internal LAW HEAT warhead in my hand).

The RPG's HEAT warheads differ in cone diameter from 3.06 in. to 5.48 in., the newer RPG HEAT warheads can penetrate in excess of 500mm of Armor.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:26:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
We have the M203 and the AT-4.

Kharn



Yes. And neither offer what the RPG does which is my point. -CH



The M203 is probably a better anti-personell weapon that the RPG-7

The AT-4 is a better AT weapon than the RPG-7.

Most of the time when I see RPG-7's used in "action", that is the only weapon the "gunner" has.

A US sqaud, should have 1-2 M249's, 8-9 M16's, 2 M203's, and probably several AT-4's.

The "opposing team", assuming 10 men, would likely have 7 AK's, 2 RPG-7's, and 1 belt fed MG.

They give up rifle firepower to carry RPG-7's.

Also a grenadier can carry a whole lot more M203 rounds for AP use than an RPG-7 gunner can carry.

The RPG-7 is good because it is simple, and reusable. Warhead size isn't restricted, as the warhead doesn't go into a "barrel".
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:34:46 PM EST

I read in John Plaster's outstanding book 'SOG: A Photo History' that the SOG teams would tape packets of CS powder and bunches of nails to their captured RPG warheads, to make them even more destructive against personnel.

Just goes to show that the old RPG is even more versatile than what you might think.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:37:20 PM EST
The way I understand it, the RPG and similar weapons systems have been consistently rejected by Army Ordinance because the exposed warhead is considered unsafe. We have been facing these for 40 years now, starting with the RPG-2/B40 in Vietnam (further back if you count the Panzerfaust).

My understanding is that the SMAW is an up-engineered safer version of IDF PIP RPGs, where the warhead is no longer exposed.

Somebody here has to have the real story on this.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:39:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:42:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 3:54:16 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
We have some great systems. The 40mm grenade launcher is awesome for use against dismount infantry in the open. The 84mm HEAT weapons are great for use against armor and hardened targets. The LAW was a decent lightweight weapon (after they made the rocket motors reliable).

But nothing we currently have in the inventory quite does what the RPG-7 does so well. While it may not do any of the jobs as well as the before mentioned weapons, it offers one clear advantage.....it can be reloaded and fired repeatedly. Most of those other weapons (minus the 40mm) are fire and forget type weapons with disposable tubes. A soldier packing around a large rocket (or recoiless rifle if you prefer the term) that can only be fired once seems like a real waste. And the 40mm grenade just isn't as effective against more hardened targets.

So why can't we create some sort of weapon similar to the RPG-7, a weapon that be reloaded and used again? Rounds of ammunition could be passed out among a rifle squad or platoon and instead of one bang, you could get 10, 12, 15, 20 or more per weapon. That would seem a far more effective method of operating for light infantry. People humping or operating in smaller groups can only carry so many self-contained disposable weapons. But a weapon that can be reloaded with additional rounds of ammo being spread throughout the unit just seems a much more sensible course of action.

I can even see a need for a weapon like this among larger armored and mechanized units. While they have more space for hauling around disposable weapons, imagine how having a reloadable rocket launcher could help out tank, Bradley, Stryker and M113 crews. If I had to dismount any of those vehicles for whatever reason and fight the enemy, I'd rather have a weapon like this with a few rounds stowed in the vehicle somewhere than a one time use weapon that takes up as much or more space.

So why don't we have one?



We sort-of-do: the SMAW... Reloadable recoilless rifle developed by the Israelis and used by the USMC... Fiberglass tube, and none of the 'bad' habits of the RPG (wild 'flyer' shots, roasting anyone who gets in the wrong place behind, etc)...

The problem with the RPG is that they are bulky, innacurate (the rounds have a tendancy to go 'wild' every so often, due to no tube) and dangerous to anyone who may be behind them for quite some distance...

The issue with 'no tube' means bigger warheads, but it also means shorter range due to the lack of the stabilizing effect from the tube... Anyone wanna get within 100yds of a tank (which has a computer-controlled coaxial MG with 10,000rds of ammo, tied to a thermal sight & laser rangefinder) and try to pop it with an RPG before the gunner or TC sees you?

Remember, if the enemy has to take out an armored target, they have their RPG

If we need to take out an armored target, we have the Abrams, Bradley, Apache, Falcon & such available...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:42:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Most of the time when I see RPG-7's used in "action", that is the only weapon the "gunner" has.

A US sqaud, should have 1-2 M249's, 8-9 M16's, 2 M203's, and probably several AT-4's.

The "opposing team", assuming 10 men, would likely have 7 AK's, 2 RPG-7's, and 1 belt fed MG.

They give up rifle firepower to carry RPG-7's.



Considering that most 3rd world nitwits can't shoot for shit anyways it's no wonder they're such rocketfags. It's a fair trade-off for them.....a few less stockless, hip shooting AK riflemen ("Allah will guide my bullets...") in exchange for the area effect RPG7s.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:43:52 PM EST
www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/smaw.htm

Now the SMAW actually looks pretty darn nice. That is exactly what I was talking about. Too bad that it's mostly a USMC only weapon though. But, leave it to the US Marines to get it right.

I'm not saying the AT4 is by any means a bad weapon. The same goes for the M203. Both have their place. It just ticks me off to see troops forced to use them in roles where a weapon like the SMAW would be much more effective.

In urban combat situations with light ground forces the combatents, a weapon like the SMAW is a much better choice than the M203. It can punch through walls and get to the badguys inside. And it can be reloaded and used again. We need more weapons like that in the US Army.

And for those who say the AT4 being a self contained weapon does not handicap it,I ask how many times you've seen a soldier packing 5 or 6 of them on his back while on patrol? That's what I'm talking about. Heck, at least with a SMAW or an RPG, the gunner will likely have a few spare rounds of ammo on him. Even the insurgents pack extra rounds in what appears not much more than a burlap sack with straps on it. The AT4 is a great anti-tank and armored vehicle weapon for use in armored columns. But we can do much better for a shoulder-fired rocket weapon for use by light infantry, against light infantry. I'm at least glad the USMC has the MSAW in large quantity.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:45:22 PM EST
The SMAW is the IDF B300 bunker buster. The dual function warhead on it makes it ideal for what most infantry need, a weapon to destroy bunkers and other hardened points. Since it's standard warhead is not designed to kill heavy armor, it packs bigger punch than the standard RPG-7 round. When armor is the primary target the HEAA round is shot instead of the HEDP round, there is also a new thermobaric round that was tested during OIF I.

The SMAW-D is a disposable DP round and is what should be issued to most riflemen instead of AT-4s
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:49:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
We sort-of-do: the SMAW... Reloadable recoilless rifle developed by the Israelis and used by the USMC... Fiberglass tube, and none of the 'bad' habits of the RPG (wild 'flyer' shots, roasting anyone who gets in the wrong place behind, etc)...

The problem with the RPG is that they are bulky, innacurate (the rounds have a tendancy to go 'wild' every so often) and dangerous to anyone who may be behind them for quite some distance...


It does have some of the same problems, since it is a recoilless weapon it produces that same hellatious back blast area, just like the recoilless RPG, that will pick up loose objects behind the weapon and embed them in people if they are back there. It also is a smooth bore weapon and the projo is fin stabilized, but unlike the RPG doesn't have those really large fins to catch the wind, but it still happens.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:50:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By natez:
The way I understand it, the RPG and similar weapons systems have been consistently rejected by Army Ordinance because the exposed warhead is considered unsafe. We have been facing these for 40 years now, starting with the RPG-2/B40 in Vietnam (further back if you count the Panzerfaust).

My understanding is that the SMAW is an up-engineered safer version of IDF PIP RPGs, where the warhead is no longer exposed.

Somebody here has to have the real story on this.



Army Ordnance Corps has a history of ineptitude and bias especially to shit not made here. The Warhead being exposed is more unsafe, MY ASS, like a Fiberglass tube offers any more protection to bullets and frag.

Hell, just using current PBX explosives for an explosive filler, which are less sensitve to shock than C-4, this is an absolute joke of an argument. Heck, we could even make the fuzing a bit safer if need be too and that isn't very hard to do.

The RPG was designed in Russia and there lies the problem, It was NOT invented here!

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:58:01 PM EST
Spent one year in IRaq. Never used the AT4 I was issued, nor did I ever see or hear of a situation where the RPG would have been better suited to use than my MK-19 or a M203 launcher.
I don't think the US Army needs an RPG weapon.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:58:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
We sort-of-do: the SMAW... Reloadable recoilless rifle developed by the Israelis and used by the USMC... Fiberglass tube, and none of the 'bad' habits of the RPG (wild 'flyer' shots, roasting anyone who gets in the wrong place behind, etc)...

The problem with the RPG is that they are bulky, innacurate (the rounds have a tendancy to go 'wild' every so often) and dangerous to anyone who may be behind them for quite some distance...


It does have some of the same problems, since it is a recoilless weapon it produces that same hellatious back blast area, just like the recoilless RPG, that will pick up loose objects behind the weapon and embed them in people if they are back there. It also is a smooth bore weapon and the projo is fin stabilized, but unlike the RPG doesn't have those really large fins to catch the wind, but it still happens.



By backblast I was referring to the jet-hazard from the RPG...

The RPG is an actual ROCKET, not a recoilless gun...

So it's not just backblast, it's rocket exhaust, which does a whole lot more than just kick debris around...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:02:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/smaw.htm

Now the SMAW actually looks pretty darn nice. That is exactly what I was talking about. Too bad that it's mostly a USMC only weapon though. But, leave it to the US Marines to get it right.

I'm not saying the AT4 is by any means a bad weapon. The same goes for the M203. Both have their place. It just ticks me off to see troops forced to use them in roles where a weapon like the SMAW would be much more effective.

In urban combat situations with light ground forces the combatents, a weapon like the SMAW is a much better choice than the M203. It can punch through walls and get to the badguys inside. And it can be reloaded and used again. We need more weapons like that in the US Army.

And for those who say the AT4 being a self contained weapon does not handicap it,I ask how many times you've seen a soldier packing 5 or 6 of them on his back while on patrol? That's what I'm talking about. Heck, at least with a SMAW or an RPG, the gunner will likely have a few spare rounds of ammo on him. Even the insurgents pack extra rounds in what appears not much more than a burlap sack with straps on it. The AT4 is a great anti-tank and armored vehicle weapon for use in armored columns. But we can do much better for a shoulder-fired rocket weapon for use by light infantry, against light infantry. I'm at least glad the USMC has the MSAW in large quantity.

-CH



Another note:

It makes sense that the USMC has it, since the Marines are much more focused on lt-inf ops...

Army is much more likely to treat light infantry vs light infantry as 'Who forgot to bring the gun to the knife fight?', and alot of Army stuff assumes more vehicle-centric operations than the Marines...

(eg 'First rule of knife fighting: Bring a gun'... '1st rule for infantry fighting: bring armor')
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:08:19 PM EST
Mmmmmmm... Canister rounds! I'd hate to be one of the guys that had to lug the 90mm recoilless back in the Vietnam era.

BTW, isn't the RPG-7 (the model version) more of a third world item? Other than the AK or FAL, there must be a metric buttload of armories making that specific model. I thought the Russians had newer variants. I've heard of an RPG-18 variant used in Afghanistan back in the early 80's, and thought I heard someone say there is an improved RPG-22 variant out there.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:08:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By alloy6061:
Because the Pentagon Boys don't like to admit that somebody else, especially the Russkies, had a good idea worth copying!



Actually, the RPG is a ripoff of the German Panzerfaust.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:09:00 PM EST
The standard PG round for the RPG is shot out the tube via the same method as a recoilless weapon, about 10 or so meters down range a sustainer/assist motor kicks in.

Most people incorrectly assume the RPG stands for "rocket propelled grenade," however its Reaktivniy Protivotankoviy Granatomet, the Russian acronym for anti tank grenade launcher.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:24:32 PM EST
We have the Carl Gustav in our Army inventory as well as the LAW. The Gustav is assigned to the direct fire support platoons IIRC.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:29:43 PM EST
Cost of a SMAW = $13,000 per
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:48:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:53:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Cost of a SMAW = $13,000 per



It also comes with a pretty nice optical sight and a spotting rifle at that cost. I think the cost per round is around that of a AT-4 ( approx 900-1100 a pop)
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 6:20:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 6:20:32 PM EST by Phil_A_Steen]
Cost of AT4 = $1,480 each

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/at4.htm
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 6:30:17 PM EST
I'm pushing nearly 100 pounds for a ruck load now as it is... and you want me to carry more?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top