← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis

RPG vs. M1

Thread ID: 13802 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2004-05-20

Wayback Archive

Walter Yannis [OP]

2004-05-20 12:46 | User Profile

Another fine article from the [URL=http://www.exile.ru/190/war_nerd.html]War Nerd[/URL].

Walter

By Gary Brecher ( [email]war_nerd@exile.ru[/email] )

In my last column, I went through the history of the RPG-7, a simple, unguided, shoulder-fired Soviet anti-armor weapon that' s been around for 40 years and is still going strong. And it just keeps getting better the older it gets. This little killer is responsible for more than half our casualties in Iraq, and it's made life Hell for American helicopters and Hummers.

The RPG

But one big question still has to be answered: what happens when an RPG-7 goes up against our MBT, the M1 Abrams? Some people, especially the damn Europeans, are already saying the M1 has turned out to be vulnerable to RPG hits. I don't read German, but I know gloating when I see it, and this site I found sounds like good old Euro-Gloating to me:

NETZEITUNG AUSLAND: Der Mythos des Abrams-Panzers ist zer

The trouble is, most of the sites talking about the RPG vs. M1 question are run by hardware fans who think everything depends on the quality of the tank design. I think it's a wrong argument. The fact is, the M1 is a pretty good tank, and it's running into trouble for the simple reason that we're using it in stupid ways. That can neutralize the best tank. Just ask the French, 1940-vintage. Their tanks were better than Hitler's, one-on-one, but his army understood tank warfare, and the French didn't.

The M1 has been in service for 20 years now, and so far it's worked pretty well. You can see it's a good design--like I said in my last column, sometimes one look can tell you whether a design is any good. The Spitfire was a better design than the Me109, and the P-51 was a better design than the Spitfire--and it showed. Apply that to American tanks and you get the impression ours weren't as good as the Russians'--until the M1. The M60, our pre-M1 MBT, was a tall, fat, clumsy-looking tank. Back when I was a kid (a tall, fat, clumsy kid, come to think of it) reading every issue of Aviation Week and Armed Forces Journal in the library (it was air-conditioned, for one thing, and my folks were too "careful with money" to get AC at home), I always got depressed by pictures of the M60. Every Russian tank from the T-55 on looked like a Corvette compared to our lousy Dodge pickup of an MBT.

Then came the M1. Finally we had a tank that looked wide, low, dangerous and fast. And it was. It stomped Iraqi armor in the few real tank battles we had in Gulf War I. I remember an Iraqi tank commander who said, "After two months of bombing, I still had 17 of my 24 tanks operative. After one battle with the M1s, I had three."

Still, some funny things have been happening this time around--and most of them seem to involve the M1 meeting the RPG-7.

The Army is shy about releasing info on this kind of thing, so it's hard getting clear data online about how many RPG rounds have hit M1s in battle, and exactly what happened when they did. I do know at least one M1 has been killed in Iraq by an RPG antiarmor round, and hardware freaks are saying Iraqi insurgents found a serious design weakness in the armor at the "armpit," where the turret meets the chassis.

Fact is, no tank in the world is totally invulnerable to RPGs, any more than any knight was totally invulnerable to arrows.

If you think of a tank as an internal-combustion knight, you get a better sense of how it's meant to work. The armor is concentrated up front, so the knight/tank can attack without having to hold back. The idea is that he has to be able to shrug off what they throw at him while he's spurring the warhorse full-speed over the battlefield--then hit hard.

If he's unhorsed--if the tank is forced to stop and deal with lots of dismounted enemy--then it's all over. It's as easy as knifing a turtle.

So the key doctrine on tank use is either keep them away from the enemy--which is why you get armies using tanks as dug-in artillery, the way most armies do today--or send them fast and hard, so the enemy has no time to probe their weak points.

Now think about how we're using our tanks in Iraq these days. We send them slowly through crowded Arab cities, or we set them down at intersections. Bad, bad way to use tanks. Instead of showing their heavily-armored front to the enemy, the enemy has a 3D view of the tank: from the sides, from behind, and worst of all, from above. A tank in a neighborhood of high-rise buildings is a target, that's all. Just ask the Russians what happened when they sent armor into the Chechen capital, Grozny, in '94.

What we're doing here is running a very expensive war game to find out where the M1's weaknesses are--back, sides, whatever.

These "weaknesses" don't matter if we were using the M1 right, using its fantastic on-the-move targeting system to blast enemy tanks on an open battlefield. If that's the war you're fighting--the war we fought in GW I--then it's totally smart to put the lighter armor on those places.

If you're fighting in Arab cities, like we are now, no tank is any good. A tank has two assets, firepower and speed. In a city, both those things are gone. It can't fire freely without killing civilians, and it can't move fast without crushing them in their houses. All it can do is sit there waiting for somebody to find the right firing angle to hit it on the lighter armor up top or underneath. It's like taking a knight and stationing him at a corner like a traffic cop: sooner or later somebody's going to slit his hamstrings with a cheap pocketknife.

So the lesson is: hardware just isn't that important in a war like this. In urban warfare, what matters is intelligence and propaganda, not firepower.

Another lesson: the more you compare the way we used our strengths in GW I with the way we wasted them in GW II, the more you respect Colin Powell. He got it exactly right the first time--meet the enemy in unpopulated, flat desert, stay the Hell out of the cities, stick with our strengths: air power and mobility.

Which brings up another big question: General Powell, how come you didn't resign when you must've known they had it all wrong this time around?

Sertorius

2004-05-20 12:59 | User Profile

Walter,

I saw some film footage awhile back during the fighting at Falluja where a Marine M-1 was knocked out. It had just come out from under an overpass. I suspect that any kills the Iraqis get are being cause by hitting the top of the turrent. As for the turrent ring shot, unless they have considerably improved the round itself, if any are caused there then the gunner is not only a damn good shot, but lucky as hell.

weisbrot

2004-05-20 13:13 | User Profile

I saw this last year; nothing ever followed the initial stories on the "mystery" round...

[url]http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php[/url]

October 27, 2003

‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what? Mystery behind Aug. 28 incident puzzles Army officials

By John Roos Special to the Times

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad “was hit by something” that crippled the 69-ton behemoth. Army officials still are puzzling over what that “something” was.

According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that “my little finger will not go into it,” the report’s author noted.

The “something” continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner’s seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.

As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of “mobility kills” since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7 but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers.

Mystery and anxiety

Terry Hughes is a technical representative from Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., who examined the tank in Baghdad and wrote the report.

In the sort of excited language seldom included in official Army documents, he said, “The unit is very anxious to have this ‘SOMETHING’ identified. It seems clear that a penetrator of a yellow molten metal is what caused the damage, but what weapon fires such a round and precisely what sort of round is it? The bad guys are using something unknown and the guys facing it want very much to know what it is and how they can defend themselves.”

Nevertheless, the Abrams continues its record of providing extraordinary crew protection. The four-man crew suffered only minor injuries in the attack. The tank commander received “minor shrapnel wounds to the legs and arms and the gunner got some in his arm” as a result of the attack, according to the report.

Whatever penetrated the tank created enough heat inside the hull to activate the vehicle’s Halon firefighting gear, which probably prevented more serious injuries to the crew.

The soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division who were targets of the attack weren’t the only ones wondering what damaged their 69-ton tank.

Hughes also was puzzled. “Can someone tell us?” he wrote. “If not, can we get an expert on foreign munitions over here to examine this vehicle before repairs are begun? Please respond quickly.”

His report went to the office of the combat systems program manager at the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, Mich. A command spokesman said he could provide no information about the incident.

“The information is sensitive,” he said. “It looks like [members of the program manager’s office] are not going to release any information right now.”

While it’s impossible to determine what caused the damage without actually examining the tank, some conclusions can be drawn from photos that accompanied the incident report. Those photos show a pencil-size penetration hole through the tank body, but very little sign of the distinctive damage — called spalling — that typically occurs on the inside surface after a hollow- or shaped-charge warhead from an anti-tank weapon burns its way through armor.

Spalling results when an armor penetrator pushes a stream of molten metal ahead of it as it bores through an armored vehicle’s protective skin.

“It’s a real strange impact,” said a source who has worked both as a tank designer and as an anti-tank weapons engineer. “This is a new one. … It almost definitely is a hollow-charge warhead of some sort, but probably not an RPG-7” anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade.

The well-known RPG-7 has been the scourge of lightly armored vehicles since its introduction more than 40 years ago. Its hollow-charge warhead easily could punch through an M1’s skirt and the relatively thin armor of its armpit joint, the area above the tracks and beneath the deck on which the turret sits, just where the mystery round hit the tank.

An RPG-7 can penetrate about 12 inches of steel — a thickness far greater than the armor that was penetrated on the tank in Baghdad. But the limited spalling evident in the photos accompanying the incident report all but rules out the RPG-7 as the culprit, experts say.

Limited spalling is a telltale characteristic of Western-manufactured weapons designed to defeat armor with a cohesive jet stream of molten metal. In contrast, RPG-7s typically produce a fragmented jet spray.

The incident is so sensitive that most experts in the field would talk only on the condition that they not be identified.

One armor expert at Fort Knox, Ky., suggested the tank may have been hit by an updated RPG. About 15 years ago, Russian scientists created tandem-warhead anti-tank-grenades designed to defeat reactive armor. The new round, a PG-7VR, can be fired from an RPG-7V launcher and might have left the unusual signature on the tank.

In addition, the Russians have developed an improved weapon, the RPG-22. These and perhaps even newer variants have been used against American forces in Afghanistan. It is believed U.S. troops seized some that have been returned to the United States for testing, but scant details about their effects and “fingerprints” are available.

Still another possibility is a retrofitted warhead for the RPG system being developed by a Swiss manufacturer.

At this time, it appears most likely that an RPG-22 or some other improved variant of the Russian-designed weapon damaged the M1 tank, sources concluded. The damage certainly was caused by some sort of shaped-charge or hollow-charge warhead, and the cohesive nature of the destructive jet suggests a more effective weapon than a fragmented-jet RPG-7.

A spokesman for General Dynamics Land Systems, which manufactures the Abrams, said company engineers agree some type of RPG probably caused the damage. After checking with them, the spokesman delivered the manufacturer’s verdict: The tank was hit by “a ‘golden’ RPG” — an extremely lucky shot.

In the end, a civilian weapons expert said, “I hope it was a lucky shot and we are not part of someone’s test program. Being a live target is no fun.”

John Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal, which is owned by Army Times Publishing Co.

Walter Yannis

2004-05-20 13:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Another lesson: the more you compare the way we used our strengths in GW I with the way we wasted them in GW II, the more you respect Colin Powell. He got it exactly right the first time--meet the enemy in unpopulated, flat desert, stay the Hell out of the cities, stick with our strengths: air power and mobility.

Which brings up another big question: General Powell, how come you didn't resign when you must've known they had it all wrong this time around?[/QUOTE]

That's a dangerous question.

A moment's reflection suffices to realize the answer is "Israel."

Walter

Centinel

2004-05-20 18:07 | User Profile

Dunno how vulnerable an Abrams really is to a RPG, but those Russian Kornet anti-armor missiles were sure giving American tankers fits during last year's ground offensive.

IIRC, the Bush administration was accusing the Ukrainians of selling them to the Iraqis and was rather pissed.

edward gibbon

2004-05-20 19:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE]In my last column, I went through the history of the [I][B]RPG-7, a simple, unguided, shoulder-fired Soviet anti-armor weapon that' s been around for 40 years and is still going strong[/B][/I]. And it just keeps getting better the older it gets. This little killer is responsible for more than half our casualties in Iraq, and it's made life Hell for American helicopters and Hummers.[/QUOTE]A greatly amusing photo of the past 20 years was Dan Quayle with two Latin American worthies, obviously 4 star generals or field marshals. Danny in his best John Wayne pose cradled the Soviet grenade launcher while being observed by the military men. Danny projected American toughness and resolve. One thing seemed out of kilter. Our man Dan, the Indiana guardsman, held the grenade launcher backwards.[QUOTE]According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that “my little finger will not go into it,” the report’s author noted.[/QUOTE]I suspect even a small hole such as the above should have caused so much shrapnel that the interior of the tank should have been destroyed. I am not an arms expert and am willing to defer to those who do know.

Suomi Finland Perkele

2004-05-20 20:48 | User Profile

...don't produce much of shrapnells or hot gases inside their targets. They produce jet of molten metal which is incorrectly named as plasma jet (metal doesn't really get to ionized gas in the explosion). That plasma jet forces its way through armor, like on combination of blowtorch and penetrating standard penetrator.

It'll move much like a ray of light and doesn't produce cloud of debris. If it doesn't hit to anything sensitive, like fuel or ammo, or any of crewmembers the tank may even continue it's actions.

Older WWII weapons like panzerfaust, panzerschreck and bazooka, used only hot explosion gases, and they usually killed whole crew if they penetrated the armor. But they didn't also do big hole. I have seen in local tank museum tanks which have beem destroyd by panzerfaust or panzerschreck, they have small holes in usually side of turret and the whole inside is burned up.

madrussian

2004-05-20 23:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]I saw this last year; nothing ever followed the initial stories on the "mystery" round...

[url]http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php[/url] [/QUOTE]

There was another story about a tank killed in a desert (before Baghdad) from several miles away by a mystery weapon. There were pictures too. Do a google search on kornet abrams.

A link to one story (also note they are talking about two tanks lost by that time early in the game): [url]http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/SciTech/iraq_kornetFAQ030327.html[/url]

Faust

2004-05-21 10:09 | User Profile

M60 vs. M1

Many article I read said the M60 and M1 used in Iraq War I back in 1990's both performed well and M60 was a lot cheaper. It would also seems the M1 can be taken out by RPGs. I have also wondered how well the "fantastic on-the-move targeting system " works in the real world...? Given the overall record of so-called super weapens one does wonder.

I might also add Halon has not made for few years now, you know the CFC ban. What will they do when we run out? [QUOTE] Whatever penetrated the tank created enough heat inside the hull to activate the vehicle?s Halon firefighting gear, which probably prevented more serious injuries to the crew. [/QUOTE]

Sertorius

2004-05-21 11:03 | User Profile

Weisbrot,

That's interesting. It helps bring me back up to date on something I haven't looked at in a number of years.

I would like to one day see a report that shows all the vehicles lost and what knocked them out. I haven't see anything on this except in individual cases.

Walter Yannis

2004-05-21 13:48 | User Profile

Please forgive my callowness, but is the RPG just a Russian (and I suppose, Chinese) thing.

Don't we make/use them, too?

That seems to be implied above.

Walter

Sertorius

2004-05-21 14:14 | User Profile

Walter,

The RPG is originally a Russian design. The Chicom version is a knock off.

We use the FFV (Anti)T(tank) 4. Occasionally you see a soldier with an item slung on his back that looks like a thick pipe. That is this weapon. It is a Swedish design of 84mm. This is a "fire and forget" weapon, meaning it can only fire one shot, unlike the RPG which is reloadable. They come in a variety of configurations, the primary one being factory loaded with HEAT. (High explosive antitank) Other versions come with smoke, illumination, and high explosive rounds. This weapon is sometimes erroneously called the "Carl Gustav," which is a different weapon system.

Walter Yannis

2004-05-21 15:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Sertorius]Walter,

The RPG is originally a Russian design. The Chicom version is a knock off.

We use the FFV (Anti)T(tank) 4. Occasionally you see a soldier with an item slung on his back that looks like a thick pipe. That is this weapon. It is a Swedish design of 84mm. This is a "fire and forget" weapon, meaning it can only fire one shot, unlike the RPG which is reloadable. They come in a variety of configurations, the primary one being factory loaded with HEAT. (High explosive antitank) Other versions come with smoke, illumination, and high explosive rounds. This weapon is sometimes erroneously called the "Carl Gustav," which is a different weapon system.[/QUOTE]

Is that the same thing as a laws rocket?

Faust

2004-05-21 16:29 | User Profile

Walter Yannis,

Yes, you are Right. Basicly The Soviet RPGs(Rocket propelled grenade), LAWs(light ant-tank weapon), panzerfaust, and such like are all children of the good old WWII bazooka. They have gotten better and changed over the years but the bacic idea is pretty much the same. They are small rocket propelled weapons with a shape-charged built for anti-tank use.

Other weapon such as the Swedish Carl Gustav shot shape-charges but are not rockets, they are recoilless guns.

[QUOTE]Rocket propelled grenade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A rocket propelled grenade (RPG) is a man-portable, shoulder-launched weapon capable of firing an explosive device longer distances than an otherwise unassisted soldier could throw. Its design purpose is broader than that of the Antitank Rocket Launcher, and it is somewhat less effective in that role than more specialized weapons.

The weapon

An RPG is composed of two major parts, the launcher and the grenade. Some types of RPGs are single use disposal units (the U.S. M72 / LAW, for example), others reuse the launcher by reloading it after each grenade is fired (the Russian RPG-7, for example). The most common grenades are a High Explosive (HE) or High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) round. This warhead is affixed to a rocket motor, to which fins are affixed.

The weapon is usually made inexpensively from stamped sheet metal or die-cast aluminium, fiberglass, or zinc . This reduces cost and weight, allowing the weapon to be distributed in even the poorest countries to infantrymen who usually must march to their objectives. In all common man-portable RPG systems the launcher rests on the user's shoulder, with the user aiming through a reticule. The rear of the launcher is open to allow the rocket exhaust to vent. Firing is accomplished with a trigger mechanism.

In an RPG , the launcher does pressurize to an extent. This overpressure allows the warhead to obtain enough speed (greater than that which could be obtained from the specific impulse of the rocket motor. This high speed is necessary to allow the rocket to have enough momentum to be stable in flight, without continuing to burn past the forward lip of the launcher. The RPG -7 is heavier and more robust than a M-72 LAW. This is due to the fact that the RGP-7 is reusable, and must be more rugged to withstand the stress of repeated firing. This is not meant to imply that an RPG is a cannon, the smaller overpressure (compared to a cannon or a rifle) being used to boost the speed of the warhead, not completely contain and create the thrust. The high temperature rocket exhaust is hazardous 15 to 20m to the rear of an RPG launcher. The launcher must be cleaned periodically. Failure to clean the launcher results in an excess of overpressure, which causes the reticule to be driven into the eye of the user, when the rocket does release. Blindness in one eye often results.

All RPGs are similar in basic operation, however there are significant differences in specific operation.

In the common RPG-7, the rocket/warhead is loaded into the front of the launcher. Pulling the trigger strikes a percussion cap. The cap ignites a solid-fuel rocket. The rocket propels the 85mm warhead forward without significant recoil. As the warhead emerges from the launcher, fins spring out from the base of the rocket tube, stabilizing the warhead's flight.

In the M-72 LAW (also reproduced as the Russian RPG-18) the launcher consists of two tubes, one inside the other. The outer assembly acts as a watertight container for the rocket and the percussion cap-type firing mechanism that activates the rocket . The outer tube contains the trigger, the arming handle, front and rear sights, and the rear cover. The inner tube telescopes outward toward the rear, and houses the firing pin assembly and detent lever. The detent lever moves under the trigger assembly in the outer tube, both locking the inner tube in the extended position and cocking the weapon. When fired, the propellant in the rocket motor completely combusts, producing gases around 1,400F(760C). The rocket propels the 66mm warhead forward without significant recoil. As the warhead emerges from the launcher, fins spring out from the base of the rocket tube, stabilizing the warhead's flight.

Warheads

The HE (grenade) warhead is designed for use against exposed troops, light armor (including APCs), bunkers and other 'soft' targets of opportunity. In Afghanistan and Somalia it was effective against helicopters. The HE warhead is impact fused, and detonates with a large explosion in the direction of travel. The case and charge generate moderate amounts of shrapnel and blast.

The HEAT (anti-tank) round is a standard shaped charge penetrator, similar in concept to those used in Main battle tanks . In this sort of warhead, the shape of the explosive material within the grenade focuses the explosive energy on a copper (or other similar metal) lining. This melts the metal and propels it forward at a high speed. This speed, along with the high temperatures and pressures involved, converts the metal into a narrow, solid jet. The jet's high speed and narrow impact zone allows it to punch through Rolled Homogenous Armour (RHA) used in armoured vehicles including some types of Main battle tanks.

Specialty grenades are available for illumination, smoke, CN (tear gas), and white phosphorus. Though rarely used, the Soviet Union developed a fuel-air explosive warhead.

Accuracy limits the standard RPG-7 to a practical range of 50m, although it can reach 150 or even 300m in skilled hands. It has an indirect fire (bombardment) range to 920m, limited by the 4.5 second self-destruct timer. There are rumours of laser-guided Israeli RPG-7s accurate to the self-destruct radius.

Tactics RPGs are a favorite counter-technology weapons for insurgents.

The basic scheme is to get close, and make the shot count. To counter this, well-equipped armies prefer to maintain some distance and destroy the RPG shooters with artillery, antipersonnel gunfire or bombardment with submunitions, fuel-air bombs or napalm. Less-well-equipped armies use infantry screens to destroy RPG teams. Obviously, laser-guided RPGs would completely change these tactics.

The shooter must shoot and scoot. RPGs are usually visible, and some leave a smoke trail leading back to the shooter. In Afghanistan Mujahideen shooters who shot and stood died from counter-fire.

In Afghanistan, Mujahideen insurgents used RPG-7s to destroy invading Soviet vehicles. To assure a kill, two to four RPG shooters would be assigned to each vehicle. In areas where vehicles are confined to a single path, (road in mountains, swamps, snow, urban areas) RPG teams trapped convoys by destroying the first and last vehicles of the convoy. This was especially effective in cities. Convoys learned to avoid approaches with overhangs, and to use a screen of infantry in hazardous areas.

Multiple shooters were also effective against heavy tanks with reactive armor : The first shot would be against the driver's viewing prisms. After that, shots would be in pairs, one to set-off the reactive armor, and the second to penetrate the tank. The favored parts of the tank were the top and the back of the turret. Chechen rebels attacked Russian tanks from basements. This was effective because the tanks' guns could not depress far enough to allow return fire. Both artillery suppression and infantry screens prevented antitank attacks by RPG teams. Russian tank columns were eventually protected by including antiaircraft artillery that were able to depress and destroy Chechen ambushes.

South African and Soviet APCs would be shot as soon as they stopped to let off troops. The South Africans developed a doctrine of driving the APC in narrowing circles, using automatic gunfire from one side to destroy the RPG teams. This prevented the APCs from becoming stationary targets as they would if they stopped to let off troops.

Helicopters would typically be ambushed as they landed or hovered. Again, multiple shooters were most effective. Both of the Blackhawk helicopters lost by the U.S. in Mogadishu, Somalia, were downed by RPG -7s. In Afghanistan, Soviet helicopters countered by clearing landing zones (LZs) with antipersonnel saturation fire. They also began arriving with unpredictable numbers of wingmen (two or three), to upset Afghan force estimations and preparation. The Afghans countered by digging prepared firing points with overhangs. The Soviets countered by using fuel-air bombs to clear LZs. The Afghans countered by changing to longer-ranged weapons (Stinger missiles) and prevailed.

Afghans sometimes used RPG -7s at extreme long range, exploded by their 4.5 second self-destructs. This performed expedient indirect antipersonnel bombardment, and sometimes was used to discourage reconnaissance by aircraft.

During the U.S invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation, the rocket-propelled grenade became a favored weapon of the Iraqi guerillas fighting U.S troops. Since RPG-7 rounds cannot penetrate M-1 Abrams tank armor, it was primarily used to attack soft-skinned Humvees in supply convoys and as an anti-personnel weapon to target patrols.

History

The most widely distributed and used RPG in the world is the RPG-7, developed by the Soviet Union. The Soviets developed the basic design of the RPG during WW II, imitating and combining important design features of the US Bazooka and the German Panzerfaust.

The abbreviation RPG is an interesting example of a cross-cultural designation, since it translates to both English Rocket-Propelled Grenade and Russian as Raketniy Protivotankoviy Granatomet, "a rocket anti-tank grenade launcher". .. External Links

* M72 / LAW
* RPG-7
* RPG-7
* Countering The RPG Threat
* Gary Brecher on history and use of the RPG.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propelled_grenade[/url]

[url]http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:YG0ZRy_uJZgJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propelled_grenade+rocket+bazooka+rpg&hl=en[/url] [/QUOTE]

MadScienceType

2004-05-21 17:50 | User Profile

Walter, the LAW is an older, Vietnam-era rocket launcher. It fires a 66mm rocket as opposed to the AT-4's 84mm, but the principle is much the same. Fire-and-forget and non-reloadable.

We have no equivalent to the RPG, which is a real shame, because it seems to be very useful and effective.

Link to a gallery of the actual tank under discussion in this thread. Interesting pictures, BTW.

[url]http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=solved.htm[/url]

Suomi Finland Perkele

2004-05-21 18:55 | User Profile

...sorry panzerfaust isn't modelled after bazooka, not even inspired after it. it is ingenious design. Germans were quit interested of shaped-charge(hollow charge) explosives. And they independently designed system to launch them from range.

Idea maybe came from some improvised explosives they used in destroying Belgian forts at start of WWII. German engineers filled about 1/3 of champagne bottles with smokeless gunpowder and installed an detonator attached to firing line(cable etc?) to it, then they poured sand over powder and put it to roof of fortress. Champagne bottle load could penetrate about 100mm armor steel and much more of the concrete.

Even standard nitrocellulose gunpowder can detonate if teased enough with powerfull detonator.

Panzerschreck BTW. was modelled and inspired after bazooka.

German antitank weapons played essential role in Finlands defence agaisn soviet massive assault in 1944, they broke the back of Soviet armored assault with help of concentrated use of artillery and air strikes. Finland was only country capable of stopping Soviet strategic offensive without losing big land areas and much of men in WWII. And that wouldn't have been possible without German assistance and hardness of Finnish defender.

madrussian

2004-05-21 19:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Faust] The abbreviation RPG is an interesting example of a cross-cultural designation, since it translates to both English Rocket-Propelled Grenade and Russian as Raketniy Protivotankoviy Granatomet, "a rocket anti-tank grenade launcher"...[/QUOTE]

RPG in Russian means Ruchnoi Protivotankoviy Granatomet, a "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher".

Walter Yannis

2004-05-22 05:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]RPG in Russian means Ruchnoi Protivotankoviy Granatomet, a "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher".[/QUOTE]

I thought "granomyot" was translated as "mortor" round (sp?)

What are those things in Russian - you know, the ones that are standing tubes that lob shells short distances?

madrussian

2004-05-22 15:42 | User Profile

minomet.

Walter Yannis

2004-05-22 17:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]minomet.[/QUOTE]

Ooops. I made a boo-boo in a document that I did recently.

Better fix it fast.

Thanks.

Walter

madrussian

2004-05-22 19:44 | User Profile

Interesting documents you make.

Walter Yannis

2004-05-23 06:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Interesting documents you make.[/QUOTE]

So is a mortor round a "mina?"

Is that the same word for landmines?

It seems strange they'd use the same word for that.

Walter