Chris Copson of The Tank Museum has an in-depth look at the RPG-7 and its history as an effective hand-held tank-killing weapon and poor man’s artillery.
Some highlights:
How a HEAT RPG charge works: “There is a trumpet-shaped liner in this section inside an aerodynamic fairing. And behind that is a copper cone, and underneath that is the RDX explosive charge. When that detonates, it fires what’s effectively an enormously powerful bolt of kinetic energy forward. That’s what’s called the Munroe effect, and it will penetrate up to 260mm of rolled homogeneous armor.”
The Russians were thought to have lost over 100 tanks in Grozny during the first Chechan War.
Seven of eight U.S. helicopters brought down in Afghanistan were from RPG fire.
Four Black Hawk helicopters taken down in Mogadishu were taken down by RPG fire.
Methods evolved to combat RPGs include explosive reactive armor, improvised outer armor, and slat armor.
“Can an RPG 7 round penetrate the composite frontal armor of the modern main battle tank? No, it can’t. But it was never intended to.” But the more modern RPG-29 can.
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 8th, 2023 at 1:49 PM and is filed under Media Watch, unions, video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The RPG series of weapons are astonishingly useful, in the right hands. Those hands need plenty of practice, and a decent amount of luck.
The overall system does have its problems, however. One of which is the rounds; not being carried in unitary packaging, once you get them out of the packing crate and start hauling them around the battlefield, they’re a perishable item. Not to mention, the prep time and all the rest of the issues that go with having two pieces that you have to put together.
Generally, the rounds are prepped and then carried in handy two- or three-rocket backpacks. This ain’t necessarily a good thing, because they get banged around and beaten up, plus all the attendant issues that are created by having the rounds essentially out in the open and easily damaged.
The Western idea of having the rounds packaged up until the moment of firing has a lot to recommend it. You don’t have them getting beaten up by handling, you keep them protected, and there’s a lot less issue with keeping track of the things. Plus that, they’re weather-tight, which is not true of the RPG boosters that tend to absorb moisture like crazy and then behave oddly.
There’s a totally different mentality at play with regards to an awful lot of this stuff; the US and NATO package, package, package. The Soviets? Nope; they’ve got everything left loose in the ammo crates, and the crates are generally relatively fragile. The NATO ammo packaging is usually sturdy enough that they’re always repurposing the ammo cans and cases for missiles for storage and other uses.
Once you unpackage the Soviet/Russian stuff, you’re expected to use it. NATO munitions are usually fairly easily repackaged and turned in, because the rounds are hermetically sealed in most cases up until the point of firing, particularly with infantry AT systems. Artillery ammo and tank ammo, not so much… But, the canisters that stuff goes into for shipping and storage are there and you can reuse the hell out of it.
It would be interesting to see a parallel examination of all of the anti tank weapon design responses to the RPG lineage and the RPG-7 in particular by NATO weapons manufacturers, arguably all falling short until the Javelin/NLAW era top-attack systems.
I have always wondered why there has never been a straight copy of the RPG-7 even offered by any western defense industry manufacturer to the US military.
Recalling the machining “mistake” which led to the testing failure of the US 30-06 chambered copy of the German MG-42, and thus the continuation of all those existing contracts for the heavy ungainly 30cal Browning, I’m betting the design is too simple to justify a high enough price, even including all the “improvements” that such an offering would inevitably include.
For reasons why the whole RPG concept was never taken up by anyone in the US establishment, see my post.
The RPG is simply too fragile to meet most Western standards. The closest equivalent to it would be the Panzerfaust 3, and that system has a unitary round that the sights and handgrip/trigger unit clips on to. The Soviet idea of a reloadable weapon is not implemented due to the issues with transporting the round unprotected.
The RPG-7 is a useful system, but its inherent drawbacks are what keep anyone in the West from adopting it. Not the least of these drawbacks are wrapped around the rocket motor/expelling charge and the way that they’re not packaged or protected on the battlefield.
Personally, I find the Carl Gustav a far more attractive weapon. The rounds are packaged up nice and clean, the trajectory of the projectile isn’t as wind-sensitive, and the whole thing is a much more useful proposition. Granted, the launcher weights are a lot heavier, particularly in the older versions, but the range of useful rounds is far wider.
The RPG family is an attractive proposition. When you’re getting them for free, and you don’t really give much of a rip about your soldiers. There are reasons the Israelis didn’t keep on using the ones they captured, and went to what became the SMAW and Spike systems.
Like anything, however, you have to consider the RPG-7 as being part of a combat system. It just doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense outside its context, and without the rest of the system that’s meant to be working with it.
[…] have entered U.S. in past 3 months, while thousands of arriving rafters are deported BattleSwarm: An In-Depth Look At The RPG-7, also, Russia Running Out Of Soldiers And Shells? Behind The Black: Report recommends Congress […]
kirk might be a little autism. Im not being mean. Hes stuck on concept over how to solve it. Imagine sealing RPGs in blister packets like you get toys in a store. We could do anything to seal them until “its time to use them” in order to make the system better. The idea that because russia decided to go with a backpack hauling system that might risk them being damaged doesnt mean we have to do it the same way if we adopted it. Just invent a tube to hold thme in like at-4s.
The RPG series of weapons are astonishingly useful, in the right hands. Those hands need plenty of practice, and a decent amount of luck.
The overall system does have its problems, however. One of which is the rounds; not being carried in unitary packaging, once you get them out of the packing crate and start hauling them around the battlefield, they’re a perishable item. Not to mention, the prep time and all the rest of the issues that go with having two pieces that you have to put together.
Generally, the rounds are prepped and then carried in handy two- or three-rocket backpacks. This ain’t necessarily a good thing, because they get banged around and beaten up, plus all the attendant issues that are created by having the rounds essentially out in the open and easily damaged.
The Western idea of having the rounds packaged up until the moment of firing has a lot to recommend it. You don’t have them getting beaten up by handling, you keep them protected, and there’s a lot less issue with keeping track of the things. Plus that, they’re weather-tight, which is not true of the RPG boosters that tend to absorb moisture like crazy and then behave oddly.
There’s a totally different mentality at play with regards to an awful lot of this stuff; the US and NATO package, package, package. The Soviets? Nope; they’ve got everything left loose in the ammo crates, and the crates are generally relatively fragile. The NATO ammo packaging is usually sturdy enough that they’re always repurposing the ammo cans and cases for missiles for storage and other uses.
Once you unpackage the Soviet/Russian stuff, you’re expected to use it. NATO munitions are usually fairly easily repackaged and turned in, because the rounds are hermetically sealed in most cases up until the point of firing, particularly with infantry AT systems. Artillery ammo and tank ammo, not so much… But, the canisters that stuff goes into for shipping and storage are there and you can reuse the hell out of it.
It would be interesting to see a parallel examination of all of the anti tank weapon design responses to the RPG lineage and the RPG-7 in particular by NATO weapons manufacturers, arguably all falling short until the Javelin/NLAW era top-attack systems.
I have always wondered why there has never been a straight copy of the RPG-7 even offered by any western defense industry manufacturer to the US military.
Recalling the machining “mistake” which led to the testing failure of the US 30-06 chambered copy of the German MG-42, and thus the continuation of all those existing contracts for the heavy ungainly 30cal Browning, I’m betting the design is too simple to justify a high enough price, even including all the “improvements” that such an offering would inevitably include.
For reasons why the whole RPG concept was never taken up by anyone in the US establishment, see my post.
The RPG is simply too fragile to meet most Western standards. The closest equivalent to it would be the Panzerfaust 3, and that system has a unitary round that the sights and handgrip/trigger unit clips on to. The Soviet idea of a reloadable weapon is not implemented due to the issues with transporting the round unprotected.
The RPG-7 is a useful system, but its inherent drawbacks are what keep anyone in the West from adopting it. Not the least of these drawbacks are wrapped around the rocket motor/expelling charge and the way that they’re not packaged or protected on the battlefield.
Personally, I find the Carl Gustav a far more attractive weapon. The rounds are packaged up nice and clean, the trajectory of the projectile isn’t as wind-sensitive, and the whole thing is a much more useful proposition. Granted, the launcher weights are a lot heavier, particularly in the older versions, but the range of useful rounds is far wider.
The RPG family is an attractive proposition. When you’re getting them for free, and you don’t really give much of a rip about your soldiers. There are reasons the Israelis didn’t keep on using the ones they captured, and went to what became the SMAW and Spike systems.
Like anything, however, you have to consider the RPG-7 as being part of a combat system. It just doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense outside its context, and without the rest of the system that’s meant to be working with it.
My overall take is “Decent weapon, not for me…”
[…] have entered U.S. in past 3 months, while thousands of arriving rafters are deported BattleSwarm: An In-Depth Look At The RPG-7, also, Russia Running Out Of Soldiers And Shells? Behind The Black: Report recommends Congress […]
[…] last week’s look at the RPG-7, commenter Kirk noted that he thought the Carl-Gustaf recoilless rifle (essentially a much-upgraded […]
kirk might be a little autism. Im not being mean. Hes stuck on concept over how to solve it. Imagine sealing RPGs in blister packets like you get toys in a store. We could do anything to seal them until “its time to use them” in order to make the system better. The idea that because russia decided to go with a backpack hauling system that might risk them being damaged doesnt mean we have to do it the same way if we adopted it. Just invent a tube to hold thme in like at-4s.