What is wrong with RPGs?
 

OK, I know it is just a game and this is probably the wrong place to ask but...

Perhaps someone, ex-military with any luck, could explain to me why Western militaries generally don't use RPG like weapons? Generally speaking, RPGs have better range and appear to be very easy to use.

KEYWORD: GENERALLY

So what gives? What makes weapon systems like the AT4 preferable?

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

I'm not ex-military, but I'll give the question a shot anyway...


I think most western military is still somewhat preparing for a big "shooting war" -> mass of tanks,...

And as far as I know a RPG has no real MBT-killing-power above very very short range.



Second reason could be that the military are slowly adjusting to the now present asymetric warfare...and against suicide bombers etc an RPG is also nu use...



Just my 2 cents...

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

The AT4 is recoilless. Western military's do use rpg's. Guided AT weapons are usually heavy/require a power source (battery) and the rounds are very expensive. Guided AT weapons are generally used for long range heavy/modern armoured threats. Guided AT weapons use thermal signitures to lock onto their designated target, best used against modern amour with a great heat signature.
Recoilless weapons are used for short range engagements against lightly armoured vehicles/troops/fortifications. These RPG's cost a lot less and are much easier for infantry sections to carry and use on a battlefield fighting a low-tech insurgency war.

In SPMBT there are no bean counters so go ahead use your Javelin to take out that sniper hidden in a building:D)

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

OK so I forgot about the fact that AT4s are recoiless. Score one in their favor.

RPGs are...
Cheap
Easy to use
Effective

What am I missing here?
RPGs > AT4 and every LAW similar weapon

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

What you might be missing is what MANY people tend to miss when they talk/*****/whine (Not you) about "Western" strategy and weapons (like the oh so stupid "we don't need tanks").

RPGs (and other weapons and tactics used in guerrilla warfare) are the limited amount of successful they are, because their enemy, more or less NATO forces, are good guys, in a manner of speaking. If for example Hitler was in charge of an occupational force in any of the cities where there was heavy fighting, he would have ordered the bombing of the whole city, innocents be damned, till there was nothing left standing. But, when you have NATO who they have to follow rules and try to play nice and try to avoid civilian casualties etc, then you have an occupational (or any word you may want to use) force which fights with its hands behind its back, blindfolded. They manage to use the low tech weapons, including RPGs, with the level of success they do because their enemy has to play nice, has to be careful not to destroy or kill tons of potential targets and has to go near them and let them attack from point blank range from all directions.

It's like having one company of musketeers fighting enemy swordsmen, but not allowing them to use their weapons even aim, till the enemy is at 2meters away. Of course the swordsmen will manage to get kills.

But, if there was nothing holding them back, there wouldn't be as many casualties among NATO forces as there are, and RPGs would probably have very limited successful use. Hard to use your RPG from close range when there is no cover or when in any move there is ****load of fire your way.



So, the only way NATO forces would need to use the RPG would be when fighting....who?

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

No actually WDII I was honestly curious. In playing several campaigns I've found RPGs = scary and my AT weapons = suck. I generally play American units generally configured as Reinforced Combined Arms Companies or Battalions (approx 2 MBTs per company). Because of the extreme threat to armor posed by RPG armed infantry my MBTs have been lagging further and further to the rear and my poor IFVs are getting smacked down pretty badly. This made me wonder what purpose AT4s serve. Which led me to examine SMAWs, LAWs, and RPGs, etc. Which led me to many hours of googling :)

This is what I found...

American Infantry Doctrine moved away from dedicated grenadiers supporting riflemen to everyone is a riflemen in a rifle squad/platoon. Hence the use of the M16/M203 combination vs M79 grenade launchers. AT4/LAWs appear to be a result of this doctrine. Depending on the Armor threat level every single infantryman (every other, every 4th, etc) can be equipped with a 15 lb disposable anti-armor weapon. In Eastern block (Russian, Chinese, etc) infantry squads there must be a dedicated team to carry the 12 lb launcher and 5 lb warheads. This removes a rifleman from the squad and limits the scaling of response in an environment with a heavy armor threat.

AT4s are...
accurate
carry a heavier effective payload
recoiless
have a limited back blast danger

RPGs are...
less accurate
carry a smaller effective payload
recoiless
have a stunningly dangerous back blast
have an complicated reload process (complicated by comparison to a single shot weapon like the AT4 getting even more complicated when people are shooting at you:eek:)

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Then you know first hand some of the reasons they are not used by Western forces :p

Use your artillery to suppress enemy and potential enemy deployed areas where your units are going to pass through. Also, it's better to not have your MBTs go first unless you know there is no enemy hiding in the bushes. :)

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

The RPGs are nicknamed "wobbling goblins" apparently.

The initial charge expels the round from the tube, and then some large knife-like fins pop out to stabilise it. Unfortunately, these fins make the round very susceptible to weather-cocking (the nose of the round will tend to point into the wind).

Once the round is out and attempting to stabilise, a secondary rocket motor fires to give it the range. The rocket will kick in at a random orientation of the wobbling round - so where it goes next is a little bit indeterminate. This secondary charge initiation is apparently the main source of inaccuracy.

Apparently some folks are "natural" RPG gunners, a bit like with cricket bowling or baseball pitching. They are few and far between. The system also needs a lot of rounds fired by the gunner to achieve any sort of proficiency.

Tube AT weapons generally "spin up" the round inside the launcher - rifled ones (Carl Gustav) certainly do. Western rounds tend not to have a secondary "kicker" going off down range to disturb the initial trajectory.

Secondary rocket boosters are always a problem - e.g. unguided RAP artillery rounds, which have a longer range, but also a wider dispersal of impacts due to the rocket initiation being semi-random throwing the rounds off course, depending exactly when they kick in.

All you wanted to know about the RPGs: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/RPGDec06.pdf

Cheers
Andy

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Some NATO forces do use RPG type weapons, the Carl Gustaf and Mk 153 SMAW for instance.

Many NATO forces use some sort of 40mm grenade launcher. While a single 40mm is hardly as devastating as a single RPG over the course of a battle the 40's probably do more damage.

As an anti-tank weapon sure the RPG has better range and hitting power then an M72 LAAW, but the newer AT4 is much better vs armor. And NATO has tons of Dragon/Milan/Javelin launchers that beat an RPG hands down as an anti-armor weapon.

The RPG is a very useful, fairly effective, and relatively cheap weapon. As an anti-infantry squad support weapon probably only the Mk 153 SMAW is better. But as an anti-armor weapon it's definably 2nd or 3rd rate.

As a side note I've always thought RPG accuracy in WinSPMBT was over rated ... but that's me.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

The German Panzerfaust 3,PzF 3-IT,PzF 3-IT seem to have very good heat penetration and accuracy.


Weapon Tube Heat Penetration Accuracy

PzF 3 RPG 70 5
PzF 3-IT RPG 90 15
PzF 3T DC RPG 80 10

M2 Carl-G Rifled 40 6
M3 Carl-G Rifled 50 6

RPG-7 RPG 33 5
RPG-7V RPG 50 5

AT4/A Smooth 42 5
AT4/B Smooth 60 5

For the cost/specs the PzF 3 has got to be the most deadly Inf section AT weapon you can have SPMBT

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:

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

When I was in the SADF back in the Seventies, we used RPGs when we got them. The Terrs had no tanks, but RPGs will slot a bunker. And unlike with a bunker bomb, you can do the bunker from a safer distance.

troopie

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

At least not every army of the era that uses RPGs has elite troops to hit fast moving tanks at anything further than 5 hexes...

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

One big advantage of the RPG-7 in the Soviet OOB is that it is available in great numbers, with almost every infantry squad packing one. And on top of that you can have also scout squads with them (though with limited ammo), ATGM teams with them (for close defense) and even chemical warfare teams with RPG and a rocket-propelled flamethrower!

Compared to that, the meager supply of 1-2 bazooka or 90 mm recoilless rifle teams per US infantry platoon might not sound very impressive, with the rifle squads only packing a few 40 mm HEAT grenades and bunch of LAWs for close defense.

As for the frustration with the M72 LAW, I can sort of understand that - having spent a whole lot of them in-game trying to hit immobile Viet Cong ammo bunkers from three hex range with rather limited success. At 1-2 hex range they are more useful, but that can be too close for comfort on a modern battlefield.

However, having carried and fired (practice round only) M72 variant, I would say that from a common infantryman point of view it is not too bad - it is light, easy to carry, easy to use, and gives you something to shoot back if enemy tanks get too close (valuable morale booster). It would hopefully also be available in sufficiently large numbers.

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Wanted to find a home for this article so used the search mode, it seems a good place. It's an article on the JAVELIN a good article. At present though it's in an abbreviated form though normally they do unlock them in time.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...missile-03440/

Regards,
Pat

Re: What is wrong with RPGs?
 

Wish I could read the rest of that article!