RPG/RPO Thread

yes, the limitation of the RPG7 tube is bad... however at the same time modern opto-electronics are getting so tiny that it is possible to package a very small sensor (or even a tail laser command receiver)... adding only a few grammes of weight to the grenade.... with modern System On Chip and CMOS sensors its possible to even package a simple "fire and forget" nose clip for the RPG-7V rockets with clip on guidance vanes... adding maybe 150g to the system.. with a small LCD for the operator to see where the rocket is going.

I know for sure that a simple SOC with embedded memory and a 1M CMOS sensor with IR-LEDs would cost maybe $100... simple micro actuated vanes for guidance all built on a "sleeve" which can be fixed onto any legacy RPG rocket... simple, cheap, easy to use.

Click on trigger... it locks the target image and launches rocket.
duck back under cover and rocket finds its way to the target.

Of course using a more modern RPG-29 launcher makes the process simpler in engineering terms.. but the added weight, cost.. and much lower availability of launchers makes such a system only useful for a "richer" client base (who, already have METIS as a better option anyway).

a simple laser guidance kit for RPG7... even with a narrow arc of operation (reducing size of guidance vanes) would add precision attack capabilities for simpler units at lower cost.... a low cost simple "fire and forget" sleeve for existing grenades for $100 a pop would be even better!

I'd expect this to be the sort of thing the Chinese or Israelise or Serbs would develop... Russia would much rather protect sales of METIS missiles and wean off the customers from the "legacy" RPG-7s!

yes, the limitation of the RPG7 tube is bad... however at the same time modern opto-electronics are getting so tiny that it is possible to package a very small sensor (or even a tail laser command receiver)... adding only a few grammes of weight to the grenade.... with modern System On Chip and CMOS sensors its possible to even package a simple "fire and forget" nose clip for the RPG-7V rockets with clip on guidance vanes... adding maybe 150g to the system.. with a small LCD for the operator to see where the rocket is going.

One solution to the problem of the 40mm rocket tube and the increased rocket projectile weight is an attachment for the optical sight that increases its elevation so the rockets are fired up on a more lofted trajectory at launch to extend the firing range of the system.

The Russians have developed a new electronic fusing system for their artillery that includes control fins for artillery shells of 152mm and greater calibre that can be attached to the nose of shells. It includes an electronic fuse and a Glonass system plus control surfaces to allow guidance of the shells by satellite. I suspect a similar nose mounted sensor/control surface arrangement could be applied to RPG rockets to allow precision guidance of the missiles. The use of a disposable tube the same calibre of the weapon would allow folding wings to further balance the rocket in flight and alleviate some of the balance issues.

The Ugroza guidance systems for unguided rockets could just as easily be applied to shoulder launched rockets as unguided aerial rockets with optical seekers with laser target marking detection capability.

The advantage of the RPG is that it is cheap and simple and easy to use, so turning it into a mini javelin does not make much sense... I would think that a unified launcher with a smart launcher should be the first step, with perhaps guided rockets being a next logical step as the technology matures.

The Russians have the Metis-M1 in service which ticks all the boxes in terms of range, accuracy, and penetration at very low cost... something like $13,000 US dollars per missile... which is incredibly affordable considering no tank has 360 degree 950mm armour protection.

a simple laser guidance kit for RPG7... even with a narrow arc of operation (reducing size of guidance vanes) would add precision attack capabilities for simpler units at lower cost.... a low cost simple "fire and forget" sleeve for existing grenades for $100 a pop would be even better!

Probably the most viable use of such an RPG could be where you split the team in two with one crewman with a laser target marker and the other crewman with the shoulder fired rocket firing towards the target but lofting the rocket to fly on a steep trajectory. With a big warhead the trajectory will be relatively high anyway so by getting him to fire on a bearing up in the air with the laser target marker marking the target top with a laser beam with the standard optical sensor of the Ugroza guidance system for unguided rockets making the missile manouver to hit the top of the tank target you get the best of all worlds... the target marker could be a tiny UAV and the rockets could be volley fired or singly fired at a group of enemy tanks to ensure a kill. It could all still be pretty cheap and with diving top attack rockets far more likely to effectively kill a modern MBT with a shoulder fired weapon.

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi all, would be great to see some good views on the following subject.

RPG-7The RPG-7 as you all know is the most used shoulder launched anti tank weapon in todays conflicts. Its been copied numerous times, but many western forces (i was in the British army) have played down its usefullness mainly down to accuracy and penetration. I personally think its cheap, easy to use, and with the variety of rounds available, its cheapness allows an army to field more anti tank weapons and purchase more rounds, and i would imagine troops training on the system would have greater chance of actually firing a live round, not like when i was in training there was only 8 live LAW 94 allowed for a company of men which meant 8 people got to fire out of around 80 men, and this was about the only chance some people got. Ive fired and RPG-2 which turned out to be extremely faulty (video clip available if people want to see)Whats your views on the RPG-7?

SPG-9Anti tank gun(man portable type) systems are no longer used by the western nations and production of newer systems have long gone, but yet so many older types are still in service with various armies around the world and the Russian SPG-9 is probably the most common and mostly mounted on a 4x4 etc. New upgraded rounds have been produced over the years. But should it be confined to storage/reserve forces? should armies purchase new more updated equipment?
AT-3 SAGGERI would also like to ask the same question about the AT-3 Sagger  even with its many upgrades should this also be replaced by newer systems?

Some of you may ask why i ask such questions. But we can't get away from the fact that despite new systems being developed most of these new systems are either only in use by a handful of forces around the world or in small quantities. The cost of these new systems are sometimes not an option for some countries and then you got got production issues. So with the changing conflicts around the world many armies/rebels/terrorists still relies on this older equipment or finds themselves up against this older equipment.

Well if we look at the experience of Rpg-7s in Syria used by Rebels..they are next to useless against Tanks and
even light armored vehicles. Have seen a few videos of T-72s taking 7+ hits of rocket grenades and nothing.
Rpg-7s seems most useful against combat troops on to attack fighters inside a building.  here is a video of Rpg-7s failing many times..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Wjq3ogLTw&feature=share&list=UU0-BJmmq9v7sDwoEM5Xao8Q

Seems you need a lucky shot to disable an apc or a tank with cheap portable rockets.
For modern combat you need nothing less than JAvelins or Kornets ,RPG-29,Rpg-30s and others heavy rocket grenades.
here is arena defense.

https://youtu.be/dJz1QSZ-sRw

I think Rpg-7 will still have a important role in the battlefield against enemy soldiers ,but their role agains armored
vehicles is questionable for their low range..and vulnerability for using them. people who fire an RPG-7 will have to expose to the fire of machine guns or the gun of a tank that is not alone and properly defended.

Don't be fooled... the new RPG-29 has a fixed calibre of 105mm so in theory the RPG-7 can use a larger warhead... the warhead on the RPG-28 disposable RPG has a warhead 125mm in calibre and is more powerful than the RPG-29 or RPG-27 and could be used on the RPG-7 though with a steep ballistic path.

Having said that the RPG-7 with thermobaric warheads will continue to be a very powerful anti personel weapon... I would say the problem in Syria for the RPG-7 is lack of new potent rocket designs.

Vann7 wrote:
Well if we look at the experience of Rpg-7s in Syria used by Rebels..they are next to useless against Tanks and
even light armored vehicles. Have seen a few videos of T-72s taking 7+ hits of rocket grenades and nothing.
Rpg-7s seems most useful against combat troops on to attack fighters inside a building.  here is a video of Rpg-7s failing many times..

Well i dont agree, in Iraq ther are cases where RPG-7 took out M1A1 tanks, the PG-7VL can penetrate> 500 mm RHA (19.5 in), that should be enough when fired against side or rear. An APC should be penetrated from all angles.
The PG-7VR can penetrate> 750 mm RHA, and that is adequat against all Tanks, side or rear.
Its a question of warhead, not sure the rebels always have knowledge so they dont fire HE. Also it may be old ammo, not functional.
The SPG-9 RR is obselet but the RPG-7 with modern warheads is still a cheap effective weapon in close combat.

rpg-28 is best russia has , its not exported and strictly controlled , its better by 20% in penetration then any rpg-7 od -29 round... on the other hand its single use and also fragile.
those penetration values are also under ideal conditions and usually something is off during combat ,besides exported rounds are slightly less performing and rough conditions more or less damage the detonators making them less sensitive and late on detonation.... and the correct timing is crucial for good penetration.consider a round going 200m/s ,if the detonator is off by 1 milisecond thats 20cm od distance closer to armour and plasma beam is not forming well.

rpg-28 is best russia has , its not exported and strictly controlled , its better by 20% in penetration then any rpg-7 od -29 round... on the other hand its single use and also fragile.

I doubt that.
The 125mm RPG-28 dates back to the late 1990s, and yes it is strictly controlled in terms of exports, but it is fully operational with Russian Army units.

It is hardly fragile... it is packed in its own protective container unlike RPG-7 or RPG-29 rounds and as the rocket itself is the majority of the weight of the system compare with the light fibreglass tube launcher then carrying 2 rounds per soldier is about the best they could manage whether it was a disposable launcher or not.

It would not surprise me if they didn't come up with a new launcher hybrid with external warhead (like the RPG-7) but with a tube diameter large enough to allow a significant rocket motor to be fitted.

Of course I rather expect the RPG-32 might be adapted but with 135mm or 152mm tubes for even larger calibre rockets.

The other area of growth potential would be full calibre tandem warheads to improve penetration with lighter more powerful explosives and liners used to minimise weight.

those penetration values are also under ideal conditions and usually something is off during combat ,besides exported rounds are slightly less performing and rough conditions more or less damage the detonators making them less sensitive and late on detonation.... and the correct timing is crucial for good penetration.consider a round going 200m/s ,if the detonator is off by 1 milisecond thats 20cm od distance closer to armour and plasma beam is not forming well.

Goes both ways of course... not all armour arrays were made perfectly and during operational life standing outside in the heating of the day and freezing of the night cavities can form, rubber liners can perish and fail etc etc. A lot of the protection supposedly from angled armour comes from the angle of the plate, so a low velocity round like an RPG has a more curved trajectory and actually often impacts at a slightly nose down angle which reduces the angle of incidence of the penetration which reduces the effectiveness of angled armour.

Equally the layers and spacing of materials used are often optimised to stop a particular type of penetrator so different materials of penetrator can effect the protection level of the armour array too.

For instance having a DU layer might shatter some forms of penetrator, yet with other materials it might vapourise and become far more deadly to those around the impact point for centuries to come (unless it is cleaned up of course).

If an individual wants a man portable cheap and simple weapon to open a tank the RPG-28 is not a bad choice.

double post

Well i dont agree, in Iraq ther are cases where RPG-7 took out M1A1 tanks, the PG-7VL can penetrate> 500 mm RHA (19.5 in), that should be enough when fired against side or rear. An APC should be penetrated from all angles.
The PG-7VR can penetrate> 750 mm RHA, and that is adequat against all Tanks, side or rear.
Its a question of warhead, not sure the rebels always have knowledge so they dont fire HE. Also it may be old ammo, not functional.
The SPG-9 RR is obselet but the RPG-7 with modern warheads is still a cheap effective weapon in close combat.

Yes there are cases..where M1A2 tanks were also attacked from the rear and killed people inside in IRAQ too. But in the vast majority of cases require several hits to slightly disable a tank and kill at least 1 crew member. But It remain to be seen who will be the brave man who will expose itself to a tank gun with an Rpg-7. Because you will be blown in pieces. under a competent driver/gunner or killed by soldiers with machine guns backing the tank. Rpg-7 in syria in hands of rebels have been next to useless .. in the best best case you need several hits to kill 1 soldier inside and the the other 2 crew leave the tank and survive...and the tank only suffer light damage and is fully repaired and working next day.  I have seen more Mercenaries videos killed trying to disable a tank with an Rpg-7,than tanks disable by them..

here is one T-72 taking several hits..

https://youtu.be/Lko_s9nEQPc

So the performance of Rpg-7s are not very good even to T-72 using reactive armor. Fortunately RPG-7 are very cheap ,but it is a myth they can destroy a tank.. they only disable it at best but lightly. RPG-29 in the other hand can fully destroy tank if you hit near its ammo.  And not saying Rpg-7s are useless.. they are very usefull against infrantry or light armor ,but they shouldnt be used against more armored tanks unless you are lucky and are in the right place ,right time and the tank is alone in urban area without any infantry support.. ie.. not properly used.
[/quote]

^
For a bad dancer even his balls are in the way. Old stocks of inferior Egyptian PG-7 are no joke for tank and especially bmp crews. Less common is PG-7VR. And it could do wonders against SAA tanks. It seem to work on newer western tanks pretty well

The main problem for the Iraqis is that western vehicles are unfamiliar... when aiming at a T-72 they knew where the fuel is stored and where the ammo is located and also where the crew sit.

A bit of extra experience and training and better rocket warheads and there would be little problem in dealing with any MBT.

GarryB wrote:The main problem for the Iraqis is that western vehicles are unfamiliar... when aiming at a T-72 they knew where the fuel is stored and where the ammo is located and also where the crew sit.

A bit of extra experience and training and better rocket warheads and there would be little problem in dealing with any MBT.

The RPG-28 is a beast, kinda like having a tank gun in your hands. If I were to face an Abrams, this would be my go to weapon.

Dealing with tanks might look good on Youtube videos from Syria war. But how many of those RPG shooters get return fire? In Syria - rarely. Thanks for urban environment, lack of good sensors and lack of eyeballs.
When Russians were attacking Grozny in Second Chechen war tanks and BMPs and even Shilkas were sitting behind. Infantry was vanguard. Fire support behind them was so deadly. If You chance it and try to take out armour behind them then You'll get some attention. AT threats were no1 priority. Russians even engaged suspected positions with ATGMs with thermobaric warheads. Not to mention razvedchiki who were silently sitting on high buildings and scanning for targets and reporting them.

Indeed... even having access to a powerful weapon like RPG-28 you still have the problem of getting within 300m without being seen and you certainly want to be in a place to attack the tank from the sides or the rear... you of course would use terrain and cunning... use resources like mines to channel and direct the enemy... with the Abrams you can further channel it by weakening certain local bridges so the can't cross them and knowledge of where soft ground is can be used to your advantage... an ambush in a forest where the ground either side of the road is very soft is one example... lay mines on either side of the road for a few hundred metres and then in the centre of that mined area put mines across the road in plain view with a few more dug in.

The tanks will stop when they see the mines, but the mines at the sides of the road will mean they can't leave the road easily. They might turn on the spot and leave... which is when you shoot them in the rear with your rockets... aim for the rear of their turrets to try to set of their ammo...

Even best tanks could be compromised. But it takes planning and I would say a doctrine of attrition. Not all fighters are able to put a proper resistance. In some Syrian war battles FSA were completely wiped out even in their comfort zones. They have loads of ATGMs, RPGs, but the more Syrian war goes the less damage they inflict.
Soviet school of attrition warfare employed by chechens on other hand proven to be deadly in first Chechen conflict. They used all the tricks in the book. Any tank would be knocked out after being showered by RPGs by people popping out severs, basements, high buildings. Not all insurgents can pull it off though.

By the way here is the video of tank that was penetrated by rpg(?). I can only presume what it was RPG, they stated that likely it was shot from basement because of an angle. Tank was saved, but driver mechanic most likely killed (RIP). Tank will back in service soon, but cheap AT a

@11:16
Any idea was it RPG-29 or RPG-7? I'm not a specialist at penetration patterns.

I doubt anyone could tell based on the penetration hole like that... especially as the RPG-7 can use 105mm HEAT warheads of the same type used on the RPG-29.

The lower front armour of many tanks is generally not the most heavily armoured either.

Vann7 wrote:
So the performance of Rpg-7s are not very good even to T-72 using reactive armor. Fortunately RPG-7 are very cheap ,but it is a myth they can destroy a tank.. they only disable it at best but lightly.  And not saying Rpg-7s are useless.. they are very usefull against infrantry or light armor .

Well, i talk about the weapon system RPG-7, not the tactical way of using them. In desert combat they will be useless, in a city fired from top floors down on top of tanks they would easy take out every modern tank, as none can deal effectively with top attacks.
Reactive armor, yes they stop or interfere with HEAT warheads, even with APFSDS, so the AT-4 (US or Swedish) will be just as useless against it not just RPG.

well there are proceses during contact with plasma and composite armour /ceramic takes away heat so the copper is part vapourised part cooled and solidifies into solid crystals ,the solid copper is soft and uranium armour stops its high speed easily. but if you choose uranium liner into rpg round you will get much better penetration against DU armours because its denser and harder.So heat protection equvivalent against rpg round of 1200 mm for copper liner will give 900mm for DU liner so theese specialised non exported 105mm rounds are still good for russian army and russian manufacturers are reluctant to increase calibers of heat rounds just yet.

Rpg type 7v wrote:well there are proceses during contact with plasma and composite armour /ceramic takes away heat so the copper is part vapourised part cooled and solidifies into solid crystals ,the solid copper is soft and uranium armour stops its high speed easily. but if you choose uranium liner into rpg round you will get much better penetration against DU armours because its denser and harder.So heat protection equvivalent against rpg round of 1200 mm for copper liner will give 900mm for DU liner so theese specialised non exported 105mm rounds are still good for russian army and russian manufacturers are reluctant to increase calibers of heat rounds just yet.

You literally have no idea how monroe effect works.
DU in a RPG... maybe we should put tungsten into propellant and play Heavy Metal to it?

afaik its more dependent on ductility, while DU/W is good for jet resilience against composite armors optimized against copper liners.
Since RPG-7 is supposed to be cheap, DU and W are not good options since they are expensive as they are and cleanup too is expensive

DU is not actually that expensive... it is nuclear waste afterall... but the cleanup issues are very relevant.

AFAIK the favourite lining material is Molybdenum (spelling), though ferric steel might be a good material against DU armour as the latter reacts quite violently to ferric steel... ie softens and burns white hot...

not true the best metal turned out to be metaloid rare earth , osmium. because of dense plasma.but its extremely expensive. important to note is that DU liner must be homogenus.

Osmium is very expensive as f@ck. Very dense, good for hydrodynamic impacts where density is all that matters, still you're better off with using gold as liner since theres more of it.  

GarryB wrote:DU is not actually that expensive... it is nuclear waste afterall... but the cleanup issues are very relevant.

AFAIK the favourite lining material is Molybdenum (spelling), though ferric steel might be a good material against DU armour as the latter reacts quite violently to ferric steel... ie softens and burns white hot...

well you know if russia went against usa bit of residual depleted uranium cleanup issues would me minor compared to overall nuclear fallout so DU liners werent considered problematic exept in local conflicts.

For war they would be happy to use whatever did the job, but polluting your own country with nuclear waste during peace time is pretty stupid... though in a sense actually quite clever because down the road a bit having an extra arm might be useful to a soldier... they could aim and fire their weapon and reload ammo into mags at the same time...

The simple facts are that the only enemy Russia would need DU weapons to defeat they already have tactical and strategic nuclear weapons to defeat them, so DU weapons are not needed as such.

In other words any fight against the US would be the only fight to warrant DU liners but as such a conflict will not be decided by RPG warheads it is fairly pointless to make them.