Talk:Rocket-propelled grenade

Effectiveness

It says that theRPG is innefective against armour but on BBC news a damaged M1 abrams was shown. It had been hit by an rpg-7 and had a large hole in it

Distribution and cost

Anyone have data on distribution and/or typical costs. I think this info would give a good window into the users and what they might use it for. I'm thinking about 3rd world vs. 1st world combatants..... Dobbs 00:18 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

Launching

All RPG's DO use pressure to launch the round, just not high pressure. So I guess I'll re-write the part about being similar to a rifle to avoid confusion. The fact is, the front part of the warhead IS sealed in the front of the launcher. The rocket activates and pressurizes the warhead in the tube. This overpressure (both within the tube, and to the rear - the much higher temp of the exhaust gas provides a pressure differential to the rear as well), helps to push the rocket from the tube. Because of this overpressure - and resulting spurt of high speed not possible with such a short burn by the action of the rocket motors impulse alone - the rocket does not have to contiune burning past the forward lip of the launcher in order to gain enough speed to be stable at exit. This keeps the rocket from burning the user. Sorry for the confusion! Dobbs 16:01 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

I've edited the tactics section for South Africa to note that APCs drove in ever WIDENING circles, not narrowing, in order to defeat APC teams. So sayeth this well cited article we already link as a resource. Alereon 11:36, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Name

StonewallJack 8/16/05

I have updated the description for the acronym RPG-7. The mistaken translation of "Rocket Propelled Grenade" is VERY prevalent, even amongst soldiers. I removed references to the U.S. LAW as an RPG as this is not an English acronym to begin with and it is not used in any other context other than referring to the Russian RPG and those copied, or built under license. I can't speak for all western militaries, but the U.S. and I'm assuming U.K. (same language, almost:) do not use the acronym RPG when referring to their own weapons of similar design. The word grenade has a different usage in the American military lexicon then in other countries. As an example, in German, a anti-tank round is called panzer granate and mortars are granatenwerfer (grenade launcher), where in the English it’s a "mortar" firing "rounds". Although the English dictionary definition for grenade fits the general meaning, the word grenade is exclusively used to describe hand throw explosives, or launched, unguided explosives of equivalent tactical use. This would not include an anti-tank weapon, which is referred to as "rocket" or "missile". The word missile is more or less the English equivalent for other languages usage of the word grenade. Enough semantics. I also changed the description of the tandem warhead. The purpose of the tandem warhead is to detonate reactive armor prior to impact, making it waste its energy prior to the primary warheads impact. It has nothing to do with composite armor as this works under a different principle. In laymen’s terms its spreads the highly directed energy of the shaped charge and diffuses it over a wider area. This is discussed briefly in the Army Times if anyone wants to look it up (I don't remember the link now, but will add later). Lastly, The tactical usage was far too simplistic. The most important aspect in the tactical usage and countering of any platform, weapon, unit etc., is the terrain it is being used in. One cannot simply say, "Well equipped armies do this". Long ranged weapons are not an effective solution in restrictive terrain. Also, the rules of engagement of any given combatant can also largely affect the tactical options available. Read Patton's recommended tactics on urban warfare, in his book "War As I Knew It" and think if this would be politically appropriate in Iraq.

I was a Non-Commissioned Officer and gunner in M1A1 MBT's for five years ending about a year ago. I don't speak Russian but an Army friend who was Military Intelligence, specialized as a Russian linguist, did the translation. I was also trained in the correct translation of RPG anyway as well as most of the information added/changed. For these reasons, I cannot be more specific with tactics or on their application in Iraq. My changes are more consistent with the general tactical employment of the RPG and it's relative counters; at least enough for the casual reader coming here for a general description of the RPG.

StonewallJack 8/16/05

Title?

If Rocket Propelled Grenade isn't the correct name for this, why is the article still there? If we're to stand by our words it seems we should move this to RPG, right? --Dvyost 06:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the issue a bit more in the introduction to both explain slightly better why it is an issue and why it still is a good term to use for this class of weapons (widespread layperson's term, if technically incorrect.)--Martin Wisse 20:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Then make a redirect. Call it RPG (weapon)

I agree. MMad 08:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

handheld antitank grenade-launcher

Shouldn't this Page be turned into "handheld antitank grenade-launcher" or RPG (weapon/gun/something)? RPG does not stand for rocket propelled grenade.

RPG

I cleaned up the initial description a little. The term Rocket Propelled Grenade is "never" correct. It's like saying APC stands for "Army People Car". As a former soldier this is a pet peeve of mine. I can't speak for all militaries that use the English language, but this does not follow U.S. military naming convention. Everything follows the standardized naming convention of 1) What it is, and 2) What it does. The correct Russian translation follows this convention, I.e.. Handheld (you can carry it, its not vehicle mounted or crew served), Anti-tank (what it is for), Grenade Launcher (what it is). This tells everyone that it is A) A weapon system. (Not a piece of ammo, like a rocket, but the launcher etc.) B)It's for killing tanks and tank like targets. C) What it does(Grenade, in English, without anything more descriptive, would indicate a weapon designed for antipersonnel). Rocket Propelled Grenade does not have any meaning. It does not describe this weapon at all. It sounds like it is describing a piece of ammunition for another weapon system, like a Rifle Grenade or something similar. Think of it like calling a tank (MBT) a Self-propelled Gun (SPG). You could say that this is technically correct, however anyone who knows anything about modern warfare, knows there is a HUGE difference between the two. This is such a common mistake, I see it in the news all the time. Please don't perpetuate it here. It's almost as bad as calling anything with tracks a tank (as a former tanker, I hate this one with a passion, as do (should) all tankers). I have edited this article before (StonewallJack. Changed email, lost password), but it has been changed again. This article needs to be renamed, but I don't have the privileges necessary right now. If someone else wants to do it until I can, please do so.

Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata ("Hand Anti-Tank Grenade")

Not all RPG's use the pressure of an expelling or propelling charge to propel the High-Explosive, Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead to the target. The World War II Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata ("R=Hand, P=Anti-Tank, G=Grenade") Model 43 or RPG-43 (External link here) and RPG-6 are two hand thrown grenades with HEAT heads. They are thrown, by hand, high into the air over a target and deploy streamers to orient the head of the grenade downward so that the shaped charge of the HEAT warhead strikes the, normally thinner armor, top of an armored vehicle. They work well in a MOUT setting when vehicles are moving on the streets and soldiers are throwing these hand grenades from the windows or the roof tops of buildings. Also there is not always a rocket motor involved with the more common RPG's seen on television news casts or in the movies. The PG-2 has no rocket motor whatsoever. Only the propelling charge, connected just behind the fins, drives the projectile to the target. The PG-7 does in fact have a rocket motor however it does not ignite when the trigger of the launcher is pulled. This would injure the firer. When the launchers trigger is pulled the expelling charge is ignited, the round leaves the tube, and then, only after it is a safe distance from the firer, the rocket motor ignites and propels the round to the target. The PG-2 and PG-7 only become RPG-2 or RPG-7 when the round is loaded in the "hand held" launcher.

The Russian designation for hand thrown HEAT grenades is now identified as Ruchnaya Kumulyativnaya Granata (R=Hand, K=Shaped Charge, G=Grenade). See the RKG-3. The "P" has been changed to "K" but the use and results are the same.

Addtitional information.--Eod1sg 01:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Title is doubly incorrect

Even if it was translated as a grenade propelled by a rocket (which is apparently incorrect), one should still add a hyphen: "Rocket-propelled grenade" 169.237.6.178 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources

I came across this discussion when looking for information on a different RPG. It is interesting; I'm not a military guy, and never heard this before. As a Wikipedian, I would advise citing a reliable source. While it does have the ring of truth, individual statements and suppositions are not acceptable here. In particular, given that all but one of the existing sources in the "External Links" section use the term Rocket Propelled Grenade, and the other one simply gives the Russian expansion without contrdicting the English expansion, the introduction appears to contradict the article's existing sources. That's no good. --DragonHawk 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Effective tactic?

The "Tactics" section contains the following as the last paragraph:

In Iraq, U.S. anti-insurgent operations developed another effective tactic. In misty, dusty or night-time situations, advanced optics, such as infrared telescopes, permit helicopter gunships to surveil convoys from beyond human-visible range, and still attack insurgents with inexpensive anti-personnel fire. This approach is more economical than area-denial. Protecting as little as 20% of the convoys rapidly depletes an area of active insurgents.

There are a lot of absolutes in there that at best sound like estimates, if not propaganda. Moreover, terms like "depleting an area of active insurgents" are not neutral encyclopedic style, but rather euphemisms. Given that the Iraq "insurgency" shows no significant cool down, is there any evidence that the paragraph is more than propaganda and wish-fulfillment? --Stephan Schulz 12:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. This article was the first edit I've done and I didn't want to change everything. I personally thought most of the entries under tactics a little questionable.

StonewallJack 8/16/05

• The tactics section is indeed filled to some extent with trivial info that goes beyond RPG/light AT-warfare. Should be cleaned up. Scoo 11:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, also. The "Tactics" section should probably look something like this:

• Intended employment of RPGs as light antitank weapons, including ambush tactics
• Usefulness for antipersonnel and bunker-busting
• Adoption by guerillas and insurgents
• Notable information about tactics in particular wars: Israeli wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq

The extensive discussion of anti-insurgent warfare in Iraq should be pared down—perhaps it can be moved to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005#Iraqi insurgency, or one of the referred sub-articles there, and this article can refer to that. —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 16:58 Z

Last anonymous edit

I'ver taken out the text of the last anonymous edit and moved it here, as it did not fit the text at that point. I'm not knowledgable enough to see if the point made is correct, so could somebody who is please take a look at this? --Martin Wisse 20:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[EDIT: this explanation is quite incorrect. What you've described here is a recoilless rifle. With early anti-tank rocket systems, like the Bazooka or Panzerschreck, the rocket is burning as it leaves the tube, and the user often needs a shield or facemask and hood to avoid being burned. Modern systems usually have a small initial charge to blow the rocket out of the tube, and the main engine only ignites once it is a safe distance downrange. See RPG-7.]

реактивный противотанковый гранатомёт

I've changed the incorrect term: "Ручной противотанковый гранатомёт, Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot" to the correct one: Reaktivniy Protivotankniy Granatomyot (реактивный противотанковый гранатомёт), "rocket anti-tank launcher". I will change the other RPG sites as I have time. For those who would doubt this I include a link to a Russian language site that uses th correct term: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl02-r.htm. I'm not sure where the term "Ручной" or Hand(-held)(the "-held" aspect of the term is implied in Russian) came from, however, a quick review of the Russian RPG Wiki sites show them to also be inaccurate and with several different variations on the meaning of РПГ. I suspect "Ручной" has been transfered from term RPK/РПК "Ручной пулемёт Калашникова" which translated from Russian is "Hand(-held) machinegun of/by Kalashnikov". Nathan Arnold 25 APR 2007

when was the first one made

i come to find this and its not included

Myth that is not mentioned

Surprisingly, nobody has pointed out that rocket launchers have NO effect on weather, and about 40% of the public actually believes they do. Is this article assuming that anyone that believes this is completely moronic?

It probably assumes that they've never heard of it... Unless either someone asks or edits are made suggesting they do affect the weather, it's better not to mention it at all. Don't correct something that isn't wrong yet. Leushenko (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

British Challenger 2's did not use ERA in Iraq

The part where it says a rpg-29 penetrated th ERA of a british Challenger 2 is wrong. Challengers did not use ERA in Iraq. Ive never heard of them having ERA although it would not be hard to make some for it. Like the M1A2 with the TUSK package ERA is not difficult to produce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaja6009 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the source: The Challenger 2 is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world and those used in Iraq by the British Army are built with Dorchester armour, the composition of which is top secret. The tank is also fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull. The MoD has finally confirmed that the tank's armour was breached last August and has said that an investigation was conducted to discover why the ERA appears to have failed. However, the department refused to comment on its findings, citing security reasons.

In the August attack, which occurred during an operation to arrest a leading insurgent in the town of al-Amarah, in southern Iraq, the Challenger was damaged when a Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade, known as an RPG-29, defeated the ERA and penetrated the driver's cabin. --Sus scrofa 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern battle tanks

It currently says that most modern tanks are "largely immune" to fire from anti-tank weapons. This seems wrong. Even the most advanced vehicles run on tracks, and all tracks are vulnerable (I know that sometimes tracks come undone in simple day-to-day exploitation). When a tank is hit in the track it is a mobility kill. I think the sentence should be removed or somehow changed.209.181.58.51 (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about what RPG "IS"

First the letters RPG, PG, & OG are really РПГ, ПГ, and ОГ respectively. They are acronyms for the words: РУЧНОЫ ПРОТИВОТАНКОВЫ ГРАНАТ or ГРАНАТОМЕТ (Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot). The word РУЧНОЫ translates to, Hand or Manual depending upon usage. The word ПРОТИВОТАНКОВЫ translates into Antimechanized which in the USA we would say Anti-tank. The word ГРАНАТ means fired; ГРАНАТОМЕТ translates into launched, projected or fired by shoulder depending on the translation source.

РПГ would then mean Hand Fired (or utilized) Antitank, ПГ Shoulder Fired Antitank.

The Soviet Character "O" when used on ordnance does mean High Explosive. So ОГ would translate to Shoulder launched High Explosive.

I think there is some confusion about what RPG "IS" The RPG-2 and RPG-7 are launchers. The PG-2(Chinese Type-56), PG-7 and OG-7 are the ammunition for their respective launcher. PG indicates anti-tank (HEAT) and OG indicates HE (fragmentation). So the RPG-7 is capable of firing the PG-7* and OG-7*. The PG-7* does have a rocket motor that ignites after it clears the launcher. The PG-2 and OG-7* do not have a rocket motor and are propelled solely by the expulsion charge within the launcher. There is an RPG equivalent to the U.S. M72 LAW, in the RPG-16 (which fires the PG-16 rocket) There are RPGs that are in fact hand grenades The PRG 43 is one example. I think this is where some of the confusion comes from. The RPG 43 is an anti-tank hand grenade however the base of the acronym RPG in this case are slightly different Russian words (Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata). The Term RKG is used on current Hand anti-tank grenades as the post above implies (as in the RKG-3)

Therefore:

RPG-2 = Hand anti-tank launcher/weapon PG-2 = Anti-tank projectile

RPG-7 = Hand anti-tank launcher/weapon PG-7 = Anti-tank rocket OG-7 = High explosive Projectile

RPG-43 = Hand Grenade anti-tank RKG-3 = Hand Grenade anti-tank RETEODSFC (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know the Russian language better and some little wrong things you said should be corrected. "Граната" in Russian means "Grenade", presumably the hand-held variety or the ammunition for its launcher. "Гранатомет" means "Grenade launcher," from the noun for grenade and the (sort of archaic) verb метать which means to throw. Literally, Grenade-thrower. So "граната" and "гранатомет" aren't interchangeable.

Also, while with some weapons the R (cyrillic Р) stands for "Ручной" or "Hand-held" (RPK), in this case "Реактивный," or "Jet-propelled / Jet-driven" (literally, "Reactive"), makes more sense.

The O (cyr. О) probably stands for "Осколочный," meaning "Fragmentary" in English. "High-exlposive" is called "Фугасный" in Russian. The P (cyr. П) in "PG" is "Противотанковый," "Anti-tank" like you said, but that means cumulative or shaped charge.

Anyway, I just think the way it's stated in the article is sufficient and doesn't require any super-confusing "clarification." :) This is a nice web-site if you want to find definitions of words from English to Russian, vice versa: http://www.multitran.ru/

Very handy tool. 70.59.150.74 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)