Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

RPG 7

Discussion in 'Other Weapons' started by Poppy, Sep 22, 2015.

  1. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,347
    Likes Received:
    691
    Not classified as small arms, but not artilliary (although it has been used as such). Not sure if this is the right area for this iconic weapon. ..An interesting read for those of us not in the know.

    http://www.g2mil.com/RPG.htm
     
    Otto, KodiakBeer and von Poop like this.
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    This is the WWII section so I'm not sure they belong here.
    According to wiki at:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms
    and
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Arms_and_Light_Weapons
    it would be classified as a "light weapon".
    Which is also consistent with:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/small-arms.htm
    although in some ways it would fit in the small arms catagory. Looks like the current trend is to lump the two catagories together though i.e "small arms and light weapons" rather than seperating the two.

    Certainly an interesting and influential weapon.

    Interesting note.
    http://www.poa-iss.org/CASAUpload/Members/Documents/9@SALWGuide_Legislation.pdf
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,135
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Enjoyed that, Poppy. Cheers.

    ( I sometimes wonder while reading long pieces on weaponry, ancient or modern, just why I enjoy them... but I do. )
     
  4. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    That is an interesting read. I've never given RPG's much thought. I was struck by the 1100 meter range of the anti-personnel warhead, even though it says "effective" range of 500 meters. As they say, close is good enough with grenades, and those are pretty damned large grenades. I'd hate to have somebody dropping those near me from half a mile away. It could make you nervous and your tent might not be near the latrine.

    The other aspect is that being so portable, they're perfect for hit and run attacks. You couldn't use mortars in the same way - you'd need a lot more men and it would be a lot slower to disengage and hump that stuff back out of range before the counter-fire came in.
     
  5. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    192
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    the Wolverines used them at everything and anything...with 100% hits!!
    RPGs hit 2 choppers at the Mayaguez ''rescue'' and as stated in Somalia....seems like a robust weapon....I read 115m/s velocity and effective range on moving target 300m...seems unbelievable, but it must be true if they can hit choppers....

    '''A U.S. Army evaluation of the weapon gave the hit probabilities on a 5 meter wide (15 ft), 2.5 meter tall (7.5 ft) panel moving sideways at 4 meters per second (9 miles per hour).[16] This probability decreases when firing in a crosswind due to the unusual behaviour of the round; in a 11-kilometre (7 mi) per hour (3.0 m/s) wind, the gunner can not expect to get a first-round hit more than 50% of the time beyond 180m.[17]

    50 m 100% 100 m 96% 200 m 51% 300 m 22% 400 m 9% 500 m 4%'' wiki article

    appears you have to have a good angle to hit a chopper though

    we had the SMAW ..it was a multipurpose weapon, but I thought flawed by having a spotting rifle to help 'first hit' capability...our AT Marines took a lot of effort to build a sandbag bunker one time, just to blow it up in an instant with a SMAW, for training ......but the Dragon was our portable anti tank weapon and you can see a big advantage the RPG7 has for mobility....the sight is separate on the Dragon and has to be attached
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I've read that there is also a hyperbaric warhead available for them now.
     
  7. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,135
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I didn't even know there was an Anti Personnel warhead for them.

    Made me go and look at the RPG-2, and later advances.
    Sort of fascinating how the Sovs ploughed this particular furrow in so different a way to Western armies. Some of the more modern variants on the theme have tremendous claimed penetration values.

    Paul Reed (Sommecourt here) shared some positive after-action reports a while back on using PIAT as a Mortar:
    Made me wonder for the first time on whether Bazooka was used in a similar (mortar) way - have a recollection there were (rare) Anti-personnel rounds for it... Must have a shufti now.
     
  8. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,347
    Likes Received:
    691
    Mods could move this thread into a proper spot if they want.

    Watching Live Leak and stumbled on a Russian video showing RPG 7 performance against bullet proof glass...It was all in Russian. ..Found a Youtube version with subtitles...realised i knew next to nothing about it. It was a learning experience.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J-uKNb6TaI

    It started with watching a new 120mm antipersonell tank round for the Leopard 2. Was going to post that as well. But the title of vid was not politically correct. A lot of people these days are extremely sensitive about words...I'm very sensitive to actions performed by people who don't like words.
     
    Otto and KodiakBeer like this.
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Question is where is it a better fit and is it worth it. Just a few more tie ins with the panzerfaust and it would be completely justified here. Maybe someone has the development history/time line and some comparisons .... hint ... :)
     
  10. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,135
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I had long thought that the Soviet RPG was a development from a substantial shipment of lend-lease bazookas, experience of Panzerfausts etc., and while that may certainly have played a part, a chap pottered onto 2T a few years ago and raised the 'RB65', developed by the Soviets in the 30s.
    (Referred to in some places as the B.S.Petropavlovskogo after it's inventor)

    [​IMG]

    Caveat - still not certain that is what's represented in the picture.
    Information exceptionally sketchy, and no record of any such Soviet device actually making it into play in WW2 as far as I know.
    (There were a couple of sites that discussed it, but both are now lighting up my AV software, so tread carefully.)
    Looks more like a recoilless gun than a rocket... perhaps.


    A few Youtube videos on the theme, but not much of any real 'meat'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHr1DA_-gOI
     
    formerjughead and lwd like this.
  11. Otto

    Otto Rested & Resupplied with MREs. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,459
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Was looking forward to digging into some anti-tank goodness, but g2mil.com appears down. I always cringe when I come upon a good military history site that is out of commission, hopefully this is not for good.

    Need to kick start the website rescue effort, methinks.
     
  12. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    A while back I read General Gavin's Memoir (82nd Airborne) and while it has the usual "it was another guys fault" for any screw-ups (like every other generals memoir), I was struck by his fondness for the various fausts the Germans had. It was a standing order to pick up any faust found in the field and they also cadged more from the units that disposed of enemy arms. The 82nd stockpiled and issued fausts to their troops. Gavin really like the big "bang" they produced and didn't give a damn about TO&E they were supposed to follow.

    I don't know why a similar weapon wasn't produced on the allied side. The Airborne were essentially light infantry, so they probably found these more useful than regular infantry that had AT guns and more artillery and mortar support.
     
  13. Otto

    Otto Rested & Resupplied with MREs. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,459
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    I remember reading an account of a German tank commander on the Russian front, late war. He mentioned he once saw panzerfaust wielding infantry on his flank, an experience that turned to sheer terror when he identified them as Russians. As the Russians captured large stores of panzerfausts, they began to equip entire platoons with the weapon, and turned it against the former owners.
     
  14. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    Could the British PIAT be considered the Allies equivalent to the Panzerfaust, and were British Paras at Arnhem equipped with them?
     
  15. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,347
    Likes Received:
    691
    The PIAT was surely useful, but it had short legs. Based on the spigot mortar, so...
    Only a 60% hit rate at 100 yards, and a 25% fuse failure rate.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
     
  16. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    I don't think anything on the Allied side had anywhere close to the explosives in a faust. I could be wrong - and if I am, somebody will jump in and correct me. It never occurred to me until this thread how the Piat's low velocity might be an advantage, but as somebody above pointed out you could loft that over a building and get a much bigger bang than a rifle grenade. A bazooka had a much higher velocity so I don't think it would useful as an indirect antipersonnel weapon at close range. You'd have to have a line of sight.
     
  17. Pacifist

    Pacifist Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    90
    I don't know of any ranged, single shot, self contained, anti tank weapons similar to the faust used by the allies.
    The Russians had AT grenades and antitank rifles. The US had bazooka's, rifle grenades and recoiless rifles. The British had AT grenades, rifle grenades, anti tank rifles and piats.

    Excerpt describing a soldier in close proximity to a faust blast. The effect was non lethal but the shaped charges concussion did stun him and pepper him with shards of metal.
    https://youtu.be/Kls_6qsP7yI?t=4m40s
     
  18. Otto

    Otto Rested & Resupplied with MREs. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,459
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Please post it, I'll address any PC commentary.
     
  19. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,347
    Likes Received:
    691
    Oi, it was an anti personnel round. Like a shotgun round for 120mm...Ill try to find it on utube again.
     
  20. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    It was portable though, that's one similarity, though I do agree that alone doesn't make it the allied equivalent to the faust.
     

Share This Page