RPG/RPO Thread

As we were talking about anti tank warfare. Here is amazing performance by both FSA and SAA.

I think it is ridiculous to compare RPG 7(A rocket propelled grenade) to SPG 9( a tripod man portable recoliless gun) and At 3 Sagger which is wire guided anti tank missile. 

Better comparison should be RPG 7 vs M 67 vs Carl Gustaf if it is about to be man portable anti tank system, or SPG 9 vs M 40 if it is about recoilless rifle vs Recoilless rifle thread. If it is about anti tank missile then I dont know any Western Counter part of it except MILAN ATGM.

How ever this weapons made Armour very much vulnerable.

SSDD wrote:I think it is ridiculous to compare RPG 7(A rocket propelled grenade) to SPG 9( a tripod man portable recoliless gun) and At 3 Sagger which is wire guided anti tank missile. 

Better comparison should be RPG 7 vs M 67 vs Carl Gustaf if it is about to be man portable anti tank system, or SPG 9 vs M 40 if it is about recoilless rifle vs Recoilless rifle thread. If it is about anti tank missile then I dont know any Western Counter part of it except MILAN ATGM.

How ever this weapons made Armour very much vulnerable.

From a technical (not tactical) point of view the main qualitative differentiating factor between RPG-7 and SPG-9 is that the RPG-7 is hand-held while the SPG-9 is tripod mounted, hence the use of the terms ручной vs станковый in their respective designations. The means of propulsion for most of their grenade types is the same for both RPG-7 and SPG-9, with both using a two-stage propulsion subsystem involving a "recoilless gun" first stage and a rocket second stage.

Of course, tactically RPG-7 and SPG-9 have very different roles.

By the way, can someone knowledgeable in Russian please give the literal meaning of the adjective "станковый"?

The author of this thread is not wanting a comparison between these three items.

He is after an evaluation of each on a modern battlefield.

He is from Scotland and Scotland is about to have a referendum on its independence and he is looking around for cheap weapons to equip the soon to be Scottish Army... which hasn't been separate from the British Army for quite some time.

Currently the British Army uses Javelin which is enormously expensive but is fire and forget against some targets and has stand off range against many others... RPG and SPG-9 are both fire and forget but not guided, while the 3km range of Sagger makes it able to fire at many targets from standoff ranges.

It is actually very interesting that the RPG-16 actually has a rocket that is similar to the rocket used in the SPG-9, which is also very closely related to the 73mm rocket used in the BMP-1s main gun.

The main difference is that the RPG-7 rocket has a 40mm rocket tube while the 73mm rockets of the SPG-9 and BMP-1 are larger calibre bodies.

If I was arming a military force now on a budget I would buy RPG-7 but I would ignore the SPG-9 and Sagger and buy brand new Metis-M1s as they are designed so the missiles themselves are devoid of seekers and sensors and are incredibly cheap, yet have a range of 2km and a penetration of 950mm.

USA airtronic made a 3,5kg composite version of standard rpg launcher cutting its weight to half from 7,1kg... i guess you could increase the tandem-warhead caliber from 105mm there to 125-130mm.

^^^ Yeah RPG-7 is not dead, I wonder why Russia don't modernize it? Be it digital optics or new munition.

GarryB wrote:If I was arming a military force now on a budget I would buy RPG-7 but I would ignore the SPG-9 and Sagger and buy brand new Metis-M1s as they are designed so the missiles themselves are devoid of seekers and sensors and are incredibly cheap, yet have a range of 2km and a penetration of 950mm.

hi garry thanks for the posts and the post explaining that i wasnt comparing the systems, i think your choice of anti tank weapons are spot on, the only benefit of the sagger at-3 would be cost being (probably) the cheapest guided anti tank weapon on the market.

the other point of the thread was that these systems are still in widespread use, and are they still capable weapons on the modern battlefield. there has been some good info being discussed,

Regular wrote:^^^ Yeah RPG-7 is not dead, I wonder why Russia don't modernize it? Be it digital optics or new munition.

The optics on the Multicam one are more expensive than the launcher tube.

USA airtronic made a 3,5kg composite version of standard rpg launcher cutting its weight to half from 7,1kg... i guess you could increase the tandem-warhead caliber from 105mm there to 125-130mm.

The problem has not been balance of the weapon, it has been balance of the weight of the warhead at the front end and the rocket motor power.

The limit of the RPG-7 has been its 40mm calibre rocket motor which has a fixed performance. As warheads get heavier the balance of the rocket is further upset so the rocket needs to be lofted more and more.

The RPG-16 introduced a 57mm calibre rocket, but it also had a 57mm calibre warhead so it was more like the SPG-9 or 73mm rocket from the BMP-1.

The RPG-29 has a 105mm rocket tube but it is huge.

^^^ Yeah RPG-7 is not dead, I wonder why Russia don't modernize it? Be it digital optics or new munition.

They added new super elevation attachments to the scope to allow rockets to be used to greater distances, and also have developed 105mm calibre rockets to improve penetration and effect on target (HEAT and Thermobaric respectively) to the level of the newer RPG-29.

Most of the new optics they are developing like the Shahine Thermal Weapons Scope can be used on PKP and RPG alike.

the only benefit of the sagger at-3 would be cost being (probably) the cheapest guided anti tank weapon on the market.

I am not so sure... you could probably buy a whole lot second hand, but the quality could be dodgy. Maintainence and equipment would not be cheap, though its main advantage over Metis-M1 is its superior range by about 1km.

Otherwise the Metis-M1 is lighter and more portable, more accurate, better penetration, and still in production and widespread use.

Fit a thermal scope and it becomes a day/night/all weather capable system that is portable and very powerful including thermobaric armed models perhaps for use against aircraft.

the other point of the thread was that these systems are still in widespread use, and are they still capable weapons on the modern battlefield. there has been some good info being discussed,

It is also important to keep in mind that even in an army like the US Army there are probably 100 other vehicles that operate with tanks in support or other roles, so even if the weapon can't penetrate a modern western tank from the front it can cripple it from the side or rear and take out all the supporting armour.

The other feature of course is that ATGMs are used on the modern battlefield for a range of targets like bunkers and MG or sniper positions and with HE warheads the Metis-M1 would be excellent in that role too.

The optics on the Multicam one are more expensive than the launcher tube.

An important feature... if your ATGM is expensive then it might be too expensive to deploy widely or to actually practise with... which makes them less effective. RPGs can be widely deployed... even in their disposable versions and actually fired in training and in combat against a wide range of targets.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

SSDD wrote:I think it is ridiculous to compare RPG 7(A rocket propelled grenade) to SPG 9( a tripod man portable recoliless gun) and At 3 Sagger which is wire guided anti tank missile. 

Better comparison should be RPG 7 vs M 67 vs Carl Gustaf if it is about to be man portable anti tank system, or SPG 9 vs M 40 if it is about recoilless rifle vs Recoilless rifle thread. If it is about anti tank missile then I dont know any Western Counter part of it except MILAN ATGM.

How ever this weapons made Armour very much vulnerable.

From a technical (not tactical) point of view the main qualitative differentiating factor between RPG-7 and SPG-9 is that the RPG-7 is hand-held while the SPG-9 is tripod mounted, hence the use of the terms ручной vs станковый in their respective designations. The means of propulsion for most of their grenade types is the same for both RPG-7 and SPG-9, with both using a two-stage propulsion subsystem involving a "recoilless gun" first stage and a rocket second stage.

Of course, tactically RPG-7 and SPG-9 have very different roles.

By the way, can someone knowledgeable in Russian please give the literal meaning of the adjective "станковый"?

With respect to the tactical roles of these weapon systems, the following examples can be given.

RPG-7: In the mechanized groupings of the ground troops, its main role is that of a section-level weapon, with 1 X RPG-7 per BMP or BTR based mechanized infantry section (per BMP or BTR).

SPG-9: In the mechanized groupings of the ground troops, its main role is that of an AT weapon in the BTR-based mechanized infantry battalions, with a section of 3 X SPG-9 in the antitank platoon of a BTR-based mechanized infantry battalion.

9P111 Malyutka: In the mechanized groupings of the ground troops, its main role was that of an ATGM system in the BMP and BTR based mechanized infantry battalions, with 2 X 9P111 systems in each of the 3 ATGM sections of the antitank platoon of the BMP and BTR based mechanized infantry battalions.

Regular wrote:^^^ Yeah RPG-7 is not dead, I wonder why Russia don't modernize it? Be it digital optics or new munition.

yeah just adding piccatiny rail ,and different detachable atachments you can make rpg a even more nasty weapon.

Making the tube 60mm or 70mm calibre would go a long way to improving performance too.

I suspect however that the RPG-32 could be a good solution with a modern thermal scope with ballistic computer and laser rangefinder the launcher would not be cheap, but it would be all weather and useful for other uses like determining coordinates for targets for targeting with satellite guided weapons.

Having rockets protected in their own light launch tubes that are clipped to the sights you can have an enormous range of rockets appropriate to the requirements of the troops... when rockets are obsolete for your use you can export them to allies that can still use them and make larger calibre weapons for yourself.

Apart from increasing calibre I would only perhaps add a simple gyro stabiliser to the rocket to make its path more predictible which should make it more accurate yet remain cheap... having each rocket in their own launch tube protects it from damage and makes it easier to carry.

More on these later.

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?

Sure. RPG-7s and their modernised variants are among the most versatile systems; with warheads available for everything from anti-tank, to bunker-busting, to air-burst fragmentation.

RPG-7V2s would be a great buy for Scotland; they are cheap and one can be issued to every squad. Disposable RPG systems (RPG-18, RPG-26, RPO-A) can make up the balance by equipping another couple of soldiers in the squad; the disposable systems are lighter, quicker to employ, have a higher velocity/range and don't require a loader; as compared to 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?

Recoilless rifles? Nope, there are better options these days.

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?

Nope. Even more obsolete.

hi flaming P, i know ive asked on a few threads about Scottish defence force etc, but this topic wasnt aimed at it ( i know some people dont like the topic). Of course SPG-9 wouldnt be worth buying for a new army, AT-3 in modernised form maybe, but theres better equipment out there, RPG-7 i agree on. This thread was more about the use of these weapons seeing as they are still in large quantities around the world, and still being used in conflicts. AT-3(modern form) i believe i read somewhere that this is the cheapest ATGM available on the world market, so i would think poorer nations will still be purchasing/making these for sometime. And the SPG-9 has had new rounds developed for them (Polish made it think). But as always i like replies and views. thanks for your input.

Hello, I saw a video on the Shmel-M and I think it's a great weapon. A little bit of reading seems to point out that this is a "rocket launcher" but the footage below claims that it can "reach long range without use of propulsion motor":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYNRWRZVy1g&t=8m10s

So I'm guessing it's more like a recoilless rifle shooting a tail-finned projectile? If so, wouldn't this be cheaper than the RPG rounds for the same warhead type, since you don't need to manufacture the rocket motor components?

It is very much like a recoilless rifle in that the blast that accelerates it burns only while the rocket is in the tube... much like the RPG-29.

The RPG-7 uses a sustainer motor to increase average speed and flatten the trajectory to improve the chances of a hit.

The Shmel-M is actually a family of rockets that replaces the RPO-A, the RPO-D, and RPO-Z. RPO-A is the thermobaric missile with a fuel air explosive warhead that creates a powerful blast on target... it detonates like an explosive.

The RPO-D creates dense smoke... it would be ideal for firing into a house with bad guys inside... a couple of those through a window and you wouldn't be able to stay inside for long.

RPO-Z is an incendiary round designed to start fires over a fairly wide area.

So with the RPO system you can blow down the house, smoke them out, or burn it down.

Note it is an engineer weapon, not an infantry weapon.

The infantry uses the RPG with HE and HEAT warheads for a range of targets, while the engineer troops are equipped with the RPO-M, and Bur.

For multipurpose use there are RMG, and RShG-1, and 2 for use against field fortifications and light vehicles etc etc.

There is also the reusable RPGs (7 and 29) and the disposable RPGs (22, 26, 27, 28) and the new systems (reusable 32, and anti APS 31).

GarryB wrote:It is very much like a recoilless rifle in that the blast that accelerates it burns only while the rocket is in the tube... much like the RPG-29.

So without a need for a sustainer motor, theoretically, its rounds should be cheaper to produce than RPG-7 rounds yes?

GarryB wrote:The Shmel-M is actually a family of rockets that replaces the RPO-A, the RPO-D, and RPO-Z. RPO-A is the thermobaric missile with a fuel air explosive warhead that creates a powerful blast on target... it detonates like an explosive.

As I understand it, the RPO-A is a strictly thermobaric warhead with very little fragmentation, correct? If so this is much more suited for urban combat where you want to minimize collateral damage. However, looking at the video, it seems that the projectile has a soft nose/cap (if the aim was little fragmentation this would be understandable). Would it be able to penetrate thin glass windows and similar obstruction before setting off?

GarryB wrote:So with the RPO system you can blow down the house, smoke them out, or burn it down.

The RPO-Z is not unlike a mini napalm in that regard yes? Do you have any info on what it contains and how it actually works? The RPO-D is a pure smoke or can it be loaded with tear gas? This would be very useful in urban combat against non-state combatants (e.g., rag-tag rebel terrorists).

GarryB wrote:Note it is an engineer weapon, not an infantry weapon.

Any reason why? True it lacks a HEAT warhead to defeat armor, but IMHO this is perfect for infantry-vs-infantry in urban or open terrain.

kjasdu wrote: Would it be able to penetrate thin glass windows and similar obstruction before setting off?

thin glass windows ?   

РПО ПДМ-А employ a tip mounted optimized small charge to create a way through in way more solid obstacle (relatively thick not reinforced concrete ones too) before detonate the main thermobaric charge.
A similar solution was adopted in latest versions of the tank main gun launched guided missile 9М119Ф1 purposely designed to destroy dispersed and entrenched manpower  .

It is commonly stated that RPO is a weapon used only in the engineer groupings, but the pattern of deployment is actually pretty complicated.

Here are just a few examples to illustrate the situation.

1- Each BMP or BTR in a mechanized infantry section or in an ATGM section of the ATGM platoon of a mechanized infantry company carries an RPO, but not BMPs or BTRs in, let's say, a shoulder-fired SAM platoon.

2- Reconnaissance groupings have a lot of organic RPO launchers, pretty much in every BMP and BRM.

3- Airborne mechanized groupings have a lot of RPO launchers.

2- Engineer grouping have RPO teams.

3- There are flamethrower battalions that are under the operational command. Each of them have 243 RPO teams in three flamethrower companies. Under the "old" organizational system, one of these battalions was organic to each army or corps.

So without a need for a sustainer motor, theoretically, its rounds should be cheaper to produce than RPG-7 rounds yes?

RPG-7 rounds are more complex but not excessively so.

The RPO rockets are much heavier and contain more fuel and more explosive which should add cost.

As I understand it, the RPO-A is a strictly thermobaric warhead with very little fragmentation, correct?

The RPO and RPO-A are designed for blast effect rather than fragmentation yes.

Would it be able to penetrate thin glass windows and similar obstruction before setting off?

Just off the top of my head the RPO was designed to explode on impact so for best effect you had to aim for a window of a building. The RPO-A added a penetrating charge that blew fuel through relatively thin walls and detonated it so you didn't have to get it in a window to be effective.

AFAIK the new models (M) have smart fuses that will detonate the missiles depending on what is hit... if it hits something it can physically penetrate it will delay detonation until the outer shell is penetrated... if it hits something solid like armour it detonates immediately.

The RPO-Z is not unlike a mini napalm in that regard yes? Do you have any info on what it contains and how it actually works?

From the photos I would say Phosphorus with a bursting charge to initially spread it around.

The RPO-D is a pure smoke or can it be loaded with tear gas? This would be very useful in urban combat against non-state combatants (e.g., rag-tag rebel terrorists).

If it is phosphorus then the smoke is Phosgene gas and therefore rather more potent than tear gas.

Any reason why? True it lacks a HEAT warhead to defeat armor, but IMHO this is perfect for infantry-vs-infantry in urban or open terrain.

It is brilliant for clearing cave structures and buildings... the sort of thing you call in the engineers for.

For most other targets (armoured) the RPG-7/-29 are fine, and the remaining targets (soft) the thermobaric rockets of the RPG-7/29 are fine for too.

It is commonly stated that RPO is a weapon used only in the engineer groupings, but the pattern of deployment is actually pretty complicated.

Here are just a few examples to illustrate the situation.

The Russians and the Soviets consider RPO to be a flame thrower essentially, which is generally used by Engineers rather than general infantry... though the latter can use it and when it might be useful... clearing lots of concrete bunkers etc it can be issued and carried.

Here are a few pictures of GSh-7VT (ГШ-7ВТ) grenade that I was referring to in my UR Bulat posts. The second picture is the one that shows its standard EFP with the optional fragmentation element (liner); the fragmentation pattern in this mode would consist of the EFP projectile plus 12 additional fragments.

The GSh-7VT concept is an extremely interesting concept, and a series of books of thousands of pages can be written just about its generalities.

As far as I know, one of the aspects of this projectile, in the configuration shown in the first picture, is that the EFP doesn't explode upon impact with the target. This is a hypersonic antitank system.

The way it works is that the EFP explodes just after the projectile is a safe distance away from the gunner, and then the EFP hits the target up to 150 meters away. This means that only the first stage of the PG-7-like projectile is utilized; the second stage probably just gives an acceleration that initiates the warhead.

This design is about the best a person can do regarding an unguided handheld hypersonic weapon.

For the countless types of guided small-size/handheld hypersonic weapons that the Russians have developed, they use other technologies.

Look at the info sheet.



What a bizarre weapon. The EFP in the rear detonates first, passes through the middle of the front "grenade" and blows a hole in the target. The front "grenade" then passes through the hole made by the EFP then detonates behind the target.

It has 50mm RHA penetration.