42 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

Of course not; but then, it was designed in the 60s and never ever intended to combat the sort of threats that exist today. Really it's used more as a cheap way to get some explosives on-target by worse-off (and often illegal) militaries than an actual primary anti-armour weapon any more, though they've tried to keep it slightly relevant with the PG-7VL upgraded charge. Australian soldiers in Afghanistan often encounter it in anti-infantry use, and the Afghanis probably know how to use it better than the Russians ever did by now!

[Razven]

I think every Coalition soldier would tell you an RPG-7 is the least of their worries when compared to facing an massive IED. But anyway, RPG-7s, still good for light-trucks, wall-busting and anti-infantry but not much else. To be honest, I doubt there's much that a RPG-7 can penetrate that a M2 HMG with the proper rounds can't. Besides, RPG-7s have a backblast, which I remember reading the accounts of a British EOD recalling a person firing an RPG attempting to hit their convoy 7 yards away, missed and sent two of his buddies flying into a wall behind him due to the backblast.

On a unrelated note, I'd reckon the portrayl of RPGs in CoD4 is pretty accurate since they it's a very hit and miss thing at ranges of 75+ yards.

Edited by Razven, 15 May 2009 - 08:51.

[CommanderJB]

Razven, on 15 May 2009, 18:48, said:

I think every Coalition soldier would tell you an RPG-7 is the least of their worries when compared to facing an massive IED. But anyway, RPG-7s, still good for light-trucks, wall-busting and anti-infantry but not much else.

It's been found useful for scrapping selected bits of an Abrams or Bradley; even though it won't cause much more than superficial damage to the structure, hitting a tank in its sights or tracks with an RPG-7 can still be enough to dramatically reduce its combat effectiveness. A Challenger II in Basra a few years ago had its sights shattered by gun and RPG fire and threw its tracks entering a ditch, and had to withstand four more hours of gun, RPG and ATGM (in the form of a Milan) attack before friendly forces arrived to pull it out. The happy side is that the tank was never breached, the crew were fine and it was back in action a few hours later after getting it back to base and giving it a quick brush up and new components.
But as a threat to life, I most definitely and completely agree about the IED. It's off the lethality charts compared to an RPG these days.

Razven, on 15 May 2009, 18:48, said:

To be honest, I doubt there's much that a RPG-7 can penetrate that a M2 HMG with the proper rounds can't.

I don't. The most modern M2 AP bullet, the SLAP (Saboted Light Armour Penetrator) round, can penetrate about 34mm of armour plate at 500m. The RPG-7's basic 1961 version could penetrate 300mm, and the modern PG-7VL grenade can penetrate 550mm. Bit of a difference. They may be old and Mercenaries 2 may be overly generous but I wouldn't underestimate them.

Razven, on 15 May 2009, 18:48, said:

Besides, RPG-7s have a backblast, which I remember reading the accounts of a British EOD recalling a person firing an RPG attempting to hit their convoy 7 yards away, missed and sent two of his buddies flying into a wall behind him due to the backblast.

Probably, although the Chechens seemed to get on alright.

Razven, on 15 May 2009, 18:48, said:

On a unrelated note, I'd reckon the portrayl of RPGs in CoD4 is pretty accurate since they it's a very hit and miss thing at ranges of 75+ yards.

I think CoD 4 is being a little generous with the balance there. According to Wikipedia, which sources a 1974 US Army training manual, these are the hit probabilities for a '7.5 x 15 foot panel crossing at 9 miles per hour':

Quote

Range Percent
50 m 100%
100 m 96 %
200 m 51 %
300 m 22 %
400 m 9 %
500 m 4 %

Edited by CommanderJB, 15 May 2009 - 10:54.

[Razven]

You have to remember that the information back then was based on Russian army quality, not an RPG that's been buried in the desert for god knows how long. Prolonged burying will probably put some wear and tear into the fins and if one of them is off, chances are it's not going to fly in much of a straight line.
Given that at least a reportedly significant portion of Chechen rebels are trained by the Red Army or were at one point in the military, I'd fear an RPG in their hands more more than your typical Middle Eastern insurgent.

The general consensus about the Taliban in A'stan these days are that they are brave, but not great at employing their tactics and weapons to full use.

[CommanderJB]

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But your original statement was a general one about RPGs which implied very strongly that test results from captured insurgent RPGs showed that the weapon itself was very inaccurate and inferior to weapons like the Carl Gustav. Whether you meant to do so or not I'm not sure but what my posts were intending to showed is that those results are not demonstrative of the RPG being a bad weapon; rather they are demonstrative of the effects of poor training and maintenance.

Edited by CommanderJB, 15 May 2009 - 10:57.

[Dutchygamer]

Ehm, why change the subject from recoilless rifles to RPG's

[SquigPie]

Not quite sure.

Because they are the same...wait no...that doesnt make any sense...

Oh well, LONG LIVE THE OFFTOPIC ADMIN!

[Golan]

Speaking about recoilless weapons, it should be noted that every projectile weapon does have recoil due to conservation of momentum. For that matter, EM weapons like Railguns and Coilguns (Gauss-Rifle) also have recoil even though working without a propellant.
The point of "recoilless weapons" is simply to have the momentum apply to something other than the gun - sometimes this is a dummy weight that is ejected from the rear or the propellant itself. Imagine taking Newton's cradle and having both outer balls lifted, then hit the remaining balls at the same time - the two will simply keep bouncing while the balls in the middle will not move at all (in a theoretically perfect case). Now, in reality there will also be a bit of friction and other stuff involver, which inevitably leads to the gun also absorbing a bit of the recoil, but it's much less and can be compensated much more easily by the weapon operator.

Edited by Golan, 15 May 2009 - 19:30.

[Razven]

SquigPie, on 16 May 2009, 1:38, said:

Not quite sure.

Because they are the same...wait no...that doesnt make any sense...

Oh well, LONG LIVE THE OFFTOPIC ADMIN!

No, it wasn't off topic at all, it was a comparison of weapons systems, one of which is a recoilless rifle.

And Re: Golan's post
That is a good way of putting things, I think I'm going to paraphrase that when I'm asked about recoil-less rifles.

[CommanderJB]

SquigPie, on 16 May 2009, 3:38, said:

Not quite sure.

Because they are the same...wait no...that doesnt make any sense...

Oh well, LONG LIVE THE OFFTOPIC ADMIN!

They're certainly more topic-relevant than gauss/coil/railguns; as Razven has already demonstrated to you, the original link to the discussion was by way of comparison, which is entirely justified. I am willing to allow a broad range of discussion beyond what would be generally considered 'off-topic' in this forum because it generates so little activity.

[SquigPie]

Its not like I'm talking about freaking Phazor Gunz, Coil/Gauss and Rail weaponry have been under research in a long time. Thus they should be considered possible and realistic. They just doesn't work yet.

And if it have to be excisting recoilless weapons then.... maybee just a very very small gun? so small that you can't even feel its recoil. But then it would probably only be capable of killing ants....

[Golan]

Railguns and Coilguns/GaussRifles actually do work pretty well and there are fully functional prototypes of both weapons. The problem is simply that as with all new weapon systems, they are still very basic adaptions and thus cannot compete with "conventional" weaponry so your not gonna see them used any time soon other than in some testing scenarios.

[CommanderJB]

SquigPie, on 16 May 2009, 16:28, said:

Its not like I'm talking about freaking Phazor Gunz, Coil/Gauss and Rail weaponry have been under research in a long time. Thus they should be considered possible and realistic. They just doesn't work yet.

Did I say they were not? No, I didn't. Nor do I believe that they are. The U.S. Navy is researching one for the Zumwalt-class destroyer as we speak, though it won't be their first weapon. However, whereas Razven made a connection by comparing a recoilless rifle with an RPG, which was then debated, there was no comparison linking coil/gauss/railguns to an actual recoilless rifle.
I was willing to (and did) let it slide before, but if you make a point about 'off-topic' behaviour when acting no better yourself then please don't be surprised to see it picked up on.

Edited by CommanderJB, 16 May 2009 - 08:21.

[Golan]

He mentioned Gauss- and Railguns as recoilless weapons in this post (which I would dispute, but meeh...).

Edited by Golan, 16 May 2009 - 09:48.

[CommanderJB]

No, really?
Try and credit me with a little bit of intelligence for reading the threads I moderate. The point was that they are not the recoilless rifles of the topic, and nor was any connection to them made. This was not the case in Razven's earlier post that started the RPG debate.

Edited by CommanderJB, 16 May 2009 - 12:26.

[Golan]

I'd argue that there was nothing but that single sentence of Razven that made the connection from the RPG-7 to the CG, but alas, you're the boss.

Regardless, speaking about recoilless rifles, does anyone know how much effective momentum is lost with the compensating dummy?

Edited by Golan, 16 May 2009 - 14:56.

[tank50us]

Quote

No, the Carl Gustav is unguided, though it uses rifling and a higher spin to achieve a decent ballistic accuracy. I'm also unsure where you got the SRAW designation from; that actually refers to the 'Short Range Attack Weapon' FGM-172 Predator, a completely different and much more modern rocket launcher notably seen in the Tom Cruise remake of War of the Worlds

the AT Weapons seen in War of the Worlds are the SMAW (being used by a Marine on the hill where a line of LAV-25s and M1A2s get raped by the Tripods), Carl Gustav, and FGM-148 Javelin firing in it's direct attack mode [both used to bring down a tripod at the end] (used against buildins, close-range tanks, and even helicopters!). The SRAW (or Predator if you prefer) is the AT Weapon used by US Forces in Battlefield 2, and is actually the smaller, and cheaper to counterpart to the Javelin. The SRAW is a one-time use weapon, and can only fire in direct attack mode (vs the Javelins direct and top-attack modes), and has a much shorter range then the Javelin.

FGM-148 'Javelin' (as seen in War of the Worlds) (and one at a training exercise)

FGM-172 'Predator'

[CommanderJB]

Well, darn it. Can you blame me though?!

Seriously though, always happy to be corrected. Thanks for the info.