Reading the book 'Iron Fist' I was quite surprised to learn that the RPG-7 was actually (in its initial varients at least) quite ineffective. In Vietnam it had difficulty in penetrating the M113 (aluminium armour), and the M48A3 Patton was practically invulnerable - and the Centurians the Aussies used were still better protected. Part of the problem was apparently its lack of accuracy, but it also seems to have lacked punch.
seems odd as I would have thought it would use a shaped HEAT charge which isn't the hardest thing to make. I bet a panzerfaust 60 could penetrate a 60's M48A3 Patton. FNG
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... highlight= another RPG discussion*. might find some interesting stuff there *well, question really, but it turned into a discussion and i am alive, just been in exile for some time (currently lurking)
Lacking punch could have been defects in quality control - the problem with RPG-7 and its ilk is that they're extremely cheap, nearly ubiquitous and can be used by virtually anyone... If it hits at too much of an angle then the graze fuse might not go off, if it does go off then there will be some penetration, but since hollow charge penetrates along a straight line the "effective" thickess of the armour will increase as impact angle increases, (simple geometry), so overall effectiveness will reduce.
The RPG7 was developed in the 60's yet it can still knock out the occasional M1A1 or T-80U... if that aint effective i dont know what is. Of course there are plenty of more effective anti-tank launchers out there, which prompts me to ask what is the predominant anti-tank launcher of the US armed forces? i know theres the SRAW, the LAW and the Carl Gustav but i dont know which are still used or how effective they are?
Ask the Royal Marines about Charlie G. AFVs, APCs, submarines, ships... anything that gets in the way gets shot at
There have been instances of M1s taking hits that started a fire that eventually disabled the tank but no instances of RPG-7s penetrating the armor of an M1 AFAIK. In the assault on Baghdad M1s took literally hundreds of hits from RPGs with the vast majority being ineffective.
In the 1991 Gulf War, there was far less urban fighting so the Iraqi's would likely not have had the opportunity to kill an M1 from the back which has been done repeatedly throughout this war. Like any other tank, the M1 Abrams has been shown to be succeptible to RPG-7 fire in the side, back and from the top. There have been plenty instances of penetration, not necessarily causing total destruction but at least disabling the M1. The Abrams is by no means 'Immune' from RPG-7 fire, it is as vulnerable as any other contemporary MBT.
Smeghead wrote: The current launcher is the M136 AT-4. It, like the Gustav, is of 84mm caliber, fires HEAT, recoiless, and designed by a Bofors subsidiary.
I asked for evidence of an armor penetration by an RPG. That tank was one of the ones I mentioned that was disabled by a fire started by an RPG. It was destroyed by another M1 during the drive into Baghdad since it had to be left behind. The armor was not penetrated. I don't recall anyone using the term "immune" (except you).
Eh? call me crazy but you didnt ask for anything. And you're right, i DID use the word 'immune' (well done spotting that) There's no need to get defensive, i didn't mean to imply YOU were using the word immune, just used it as neat summarising word for my post Ah, enough being a smartarse, here is your evidence... http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=491 http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/def ... solved.htm I had to do some searching. but i found an instance of an M1A1 being penetrated in the hull by a PG7VR round, fired from an RPG-7 - this one: http://www.milparade.com/catalog/pdf/101.pdf Granted the PG7VR is relatively recent technology, compared to the old RPG-7, but it is still cold war era. Of course Grieg is right. the large majority of Vehicle losses are by no means solely due to RPG7 fire... RPG7s usually can only immobilise an M1 (if that) and the US will destroy the disabled tank themselves to avoid insurgents getting their hands on the munitions/technology inside.
Same thing as penetration by RPG-7. M1 tank woth a lot of taxpayer money is lost. The only difference is that it costs ( a tank shell/aviation bomb or two) US more to destroy it completly. Interesting piece of news. Jardanians will start producing new RPG-32 (105mm) under the name Hashim. It will be joint project with Russian firm Bazalt (also known as original designer and producer of RPG-7) and Jordanians. Producer will be joint venture firm JRESCO (Jordanian-Russian Electronic Systems Company). System itself is in final stages of testing (according to article tests should be concluded this month). Factory will be situated in town of Zarqua. All key subsystems ( optical sights, warheads) will imported from Russia. I wonder how long before it is tested in Iraq by insurgents? RPG-32 has two subsystems: Lounching tube for repeated use (up to 200 lounchses), with optical sight that allowes efective use for ranges up to 700m. Warhead of 105mm, has AT tandem(double?) shaped charge warhead capable of penetrating 700mm RHA (Rolled Homogenous Armour) or thermabaric warhead against infantry and softer targets. Weight of warhead approx. 6kg, entire system with tube around 10kg.
I was aware of the "mystery projectile" penetration of an Abrams but I was not aware that it had been determined that a 2 stage RPG was responsible. Since that is the only known case out of literally hundreds of hits by RPGs I doubt that it causing that much concern however in any case the TUSK upgrade for urban combat will take care of that potential vulnerability with the use of slat armor and explosive reactive armor on the sides and rear.
