Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Yeah I'd forgot the PzF 3, excellent weapon.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

The RPG-2, RPG-7 and so forth were pretty much developments of the Panzerfaust concept of a simple, man portable weapon that could be issued to the infantry squad and probably stuck around as much because it's a simple, efficient weapon, that was well understood.

Soviet armaments were chosen as much for their suitability to equip a mass army and conduct a "people's war" as anything else.

Considering the lifespan and service life of the RPG-7, it's hard to say they were wrong, and there's a lot of newer, more potent models out there.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

If we are talking about the classic RPG-7, it might be worth keeping in mind the historical framework. In the early 60's when it was taken into use, it would pose a threat to most of the armour in use at the time.

Also, at that time it fares pretty well (at least in SPMBT) when compared to other similar man-portable anti-tank weapons around the world. For example a jolly US platoon would have for anti-tank defence a pair of M20 bazookas or 90 mm recoilless rifles.

However, once you get to the early 80's and the new generation of western tanks (M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2) starts to roll out with their heavier and more HEAT-resistant armour, a basic RPG-7 starts to look less impressive.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

:):doh::mad::eek:

I just had to chuckle. The original post came about cause I am playing a mid 60s campaign and my tanks are very allergic to RPG-7 fire while conversely my stupid LAWs and 90mm RCL suck in ways hard to describe :)

Having this experience I got to wondering why in the hell everyone doesn't use RPGs. Of course I have since answered my own question but your post made me smile.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

The 60's (heck even the 50's) thru about 1972 was a bad period for NATO anti-armor capability.
With the introduction of the TOW in 1972 and the Dragon in 1975 things changed dramatically for the better.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

I would say that RPG-2 and RPG-7 as crew-served, reloadable anti-tank rocket launchers are conceptually closer to the humble US bazooka (which BTW was supplied to the USSR in small numbers as part of the lend-lease trade).

Panzerfaust concept of a single shot, disposable anti-tank weapon operated by a single person is seen in a number of other post-WWII weapons, such as M72 LAW, AT-4, APILAS and RPG-18.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

I think this might be a case of the observer bias - weapons always seem more effective when fired by the enemy than when fired by your own troops.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Probably :

RPG-2...............Acc=2 Whd=5 HEK=4 HEAT=20 Range=3
RPG-7...............Acc=5 Whd=5 HEK=4 HEAT=33 Range=10
M72 LAW...........Acc=5 Whd=4 HEK=4 HEAT=35 Range=3
M67 90mm RR...Acc=6 Whd=5 HEK=9 HEAT=35 Range=8

Then there's the problem that your opponents fire is always at least twice as accurate as yours :re: :eek: :re:

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Not only twice as accurate, but also twice as likely to penetrate the armour. And the penetrating hits are twice as likely to actually brew up the affected vehicle. And if the enemy is actually hidden and totally unexpected (like Spanish inquisition!) those values might be even higher.

As for the NATO anti-tank capability in the 1960's, do not forget that the first anti-tank missiles in NATO armies start appearing as early as late 50's. For example the French in SPMBT get their first ATGMs (SS-11 and ENTAC) as early as 1957.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Well there is the problem right there... Range 10. RPG-7 = Dead M60 Patton:mad: