View Full Version : One misunderstood, the other; wish we had?
I have been a student of small arms now for a long time, however, my "trigger time" with them is sometimes either limited and/or non existant. This holds true with the explosive kind especially (READ: non existant). I do collect INERT grenades as allot of you all know, showed them here, quizzed you guys and as TS said, "You won't be able to fool them", everybody ID'd them to a "T". Real quickly I might add.
My readings about SOG have always made me think of to two weapons. One, as I stated in the title of this thread I really believe is misunderstood, not so much as what its purpose is but how it is used and how it could be used. This is the ordinary Rifle Grenade. I have spent years researching this "Poorman's Mortar" for a long time and have come to the conclusion that we as a military should have kept it in some form or another. There are a number of other countries out there that still use this device because of one reason or another. Israel being one. I understand (maybe I am wrong, if so please tell me so) that the 40mm was developed to replace the RG. IMHO, I feel that there is only so much "Bang-for-your-buck" that you can achieve in a 40mm projectile to make it effective, whereas, with an RG you have unlimited possibilities and uses. The advantages of the 40mm that I see are: accuracy at short and long ranges, and its ability to be rapidly fired through a crew served weapon such as the Mk19. Side note here: AM, you might be happy to hear this or you might not be but my sources have hinted to me that the pump action 40mm you used/seen in Vietnam has been resurrected and is going through T&E as I type this. Of course their are changes being made with the design. I am just not sure what she will look like or if they can get her "reliability" up to better percentages. I am being told however, and this is third hand info, that she is not going to look too much different on the outside than the original. AM, good or bad? Jeeez, come to think of it, TR probably already has the 411 on it. Anyways, all I am saying is I firmly believe that the RG, with the right design(s) and with modern technology (ie, Polymers) the way it is, that it would be a better choice on the battlefield. I really want to hear opinions on this weapon from everybody, especially the QP's who have either used them and/or were on the recieving end.
The other weapon is the RPG. Again, I believe that this weapon has unlimited possibilites for uses. It is cheap, just like RG's, and like RG's you are not restricted in the warhead size so much as you are with the AT4/6/8. I have always felt that the military may have dropped the ball in infantry anti-tank weapons when it keeps trying to design a better, disposable AT/Bunker Buster. Again, what does everybody here think of the RPG and should we go with it and drop the AT's and their equivalents?
Guys, I have no "actual" experience with any of the above as I stated before. Never fired an RPG though I have an INERT rocket for one. I have only held the launcher and looked throught its sight(s).
With RG's, I occassionally launch them off of the end of my Garand for fun and for freindly competition. These RG's are all INERT of course and allot fun, especially, when you get a few friends together and try and see who'll be the first one to land one in a 12 foot circle at 200+ yards. It doesn't take much practice to achieve bullseyes either on the ground (using indirect or direct fire) or hitting a tree trunk at the same distance to test your direct fire acbilities.
Let me know what you all think and share your opinions.
i never fired a rifle grenade...my father did during WWII and Korea...he was not a big fan...he passed 10 years ago, so i can't revisit the conversation (besides, i recall Jack and / or Jim were present, as well)...
with a 40mm grenade, i had a WP round, HE, and shot round...i could launch a smoke greande to mark a target...i thought it was a versatile weapon, probably more in the M203 configuration than the M79/M1911 combo i was first issued in the 82nd...i confess, i was a better grenadier with the M79...
my $0.02...
Kinda weird Steve.......... I shot expert with all types of weapons, ours and foreign. Thing was I seemed to have a 'special' relationship with the Thumper. Never knew why. Just adjusted the sights for elevation. The first round was always on or close, from there it was just an adjustment in my head. The rest were dead on. That weapon was great from 30 some yards, to close to 400 plus yds. Now give me a break you guys........ it's been awhile. Damn! :D
PS,
Could whack the hell out of scheisse with the 3.5 too.
Seems to me, with both and some others........ 'Kentucky Windage' was a HUGE part of the equation.
Kinda weird Steve.......... I shot expert with all types of weapons, ours and foreign. Thing was I seemed to have a 'special' relationship with the Thumper. Never knew why. Just adjusted the sights for elevation. The first round was always on or close, from there it was just an adjustment in my head. The rest were dead on. That weapon was great from 30 some yards, to close to 400 plus yds. as a grenade launcher, i believe the M79 was superior to the 203...but having that M16 attached made gave me a warmer and fuzzier than a 1911...but when it came to launching a 40mm grenade, yup, i'm all for the M79...
Peregrino
08-05-2005, 08:16
My first unit still had M-79s too (1977 1/38 Inf, 2ID, ROK). In El Sal (mid-80's) we issued them to the ESAF. I still have a soft spot for "Thumper" (where my collarbone used to be :D ). For launching grenades, I'll take it over the 203 any day. The only rifle grenades I ever saw were foreign. As soon as we had enough M-79s for the ESAF, they disappeared and I never saw them again. Bigger bang but we couldn't carry as many rounds and they were "inconvenient". MAB32 - I would recommend against shooting grenades off of a Garand that I had some feelings/expectations for. Unlike the WWII and Korean War soldiers, you don't have a depot to fix it or an arms room to replace it from when it breaks (and eventually it will). FWIW - Peregrino
The Reaper
08-05-2005, 08:21
MAB32 - I would recommend against shooting grenades off of a Garand that I had some feelings/expectations for. Unlike the WWII and Korean War soldiers, you don't have a depot to fix it or an arms room to replace it from when it breaks (and eventually it will). FWIW - Peregrino
Good reason to buy a beater and use it just for grenade launching.
TR
I can just hear it now...
"Honey, these three guns of yours all look the same. Why do you need three of the same thing?"
"Well, one is for shooting at the range. One is for spare parts. And one is for launching grenades."
::Complete silence::
:D :D
I can just hear it now...
"Honey, these three guns of yours all look the same. Why do you need three of the same thing?"
"Well, one is for shooting at the range. One is for spare parts. And one is for launching grenades."the counter to this argument is "how many pair of shoes do you need...? you only have two feet...."
this is also followed by silence....
......
this is also followed by silence....
If your lucky!!! :D
Looking at MAB32's post spurred a question that I never knew how to ask and receive an answer. Since this board has the knowledge it may not hurt to ask.
The rifle grenade is the poor man's mortar and could also be used in the direct fire mode. But my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?
Last duty assignment was in an infantry bn and I was told this, but never found anyone to back up this claim. I just wonder if that is one of those things they teach 11C's in AIT that is not in the book.
One of the funnest things I got to experiance while assigned to the unit was hanging with the bn mortars (81's) and riding the baseplate to settle it. :D
One way to keep a private occupied is ask him to count the rings on an 81mm mortar until he gets it right. ;)
Bravo1-3
08-05-2005, 10:30
If your lucky!!! :D
Very lucky!
As for the origional topic: I have no experience with the M-79, but I fired a lot of rifle grenades off of the FAMAS in Tahiti, and from an M-16a1 in the PI with the Phil. Navy. I prefer the M-203. The rifle grenades are big, and it's a lot like running around in the jungle with 60 or 81mm mortar rounds strapped to your chest. With a 203 vest, you can carry far more ammo with the same weight as 5 or 6 rifle grenades.
Like any other platform, once you've gotten enough trigger time to figure it out the M-203 can be extrememly accurate. I could consistantly put HEDP rounds through window-frame targets with one out to about 250 yards. The only M-79 I've ever seen was in the hands of a Phil-Marine SgtMaj, and he wasn't about to let a bunch of American E-3's shoot it. :D
The rifle grenade is the poor man's mortar and could also be used in the direct fire mode. But my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?nope...they were designed for use with a base plate, not a butt stock...
nope...they were designed for use with a base plate, not a butt stock...
I'm a 96B, don't know much about them. To say the least, I was skeptical. Thanks for killing that myth. The NCO told me it (60mm) could be trigger fired from the hip. Guess he'd end up like our Afghan soldier with the recoiless rifle. :eek:
Still fun to hang one out of an 81. Most powerful one that I've ever got to experience was a charge 3. Hawaii is pretty restrictive on how much distance you can lob indirect. Cool feeling having your insides get knocked around. Worse than that is an AT-4 fired from a bunker. Backblast bouncing off the rear wall 20ft away will still smack you in the back pretty hard. :D
Bravo1-3
08-05-2005, 10:38
But my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?
Not with a 60mm mortar. You can't depress the barrel enough even without the bipod.
The Reaper
08-05-2005, 10:45
my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?
Mortars unlikely.
40mm grenades, depends on the range, your tolerance for danger, the threat, and how badly you need to shoot them with that right then.
TR
Peregino,
She's a beater, bought her a while back when Arlington Ordnance was importing them back into the states. I use a M7A3 launcher and it makes things allot easier on everything including the shoulder. Now if I had an M8 for the carbine, then I would definately be worried. FM's from back then stated that RG's should only be fired in "emergencies" from it and especially so if you where using the folding stock. Either way, from the Carbine you were suppose to fire it from the ground only. You did this by using "Kentucky windage" and placing the Carbine's toe of the stock in the ground firmly. Some FM's will even tell you that you were to fire them with the heel and toe of the stock sideways in soft ground. On the folding version you placed the rear part of the receiver where it meets the stock on the ground. This makes you fire them from an "upside down" position on the rifle. M8's are running $250-300 for one. Guess their so high because there wasn't many made.
The little M7's commonly referred to as the "Vitamin Pill" gave you extra yardage when used in conjunction with HE, Smoke, AT, AP, & WP rounds. Can't use them on Streamers or Flares. The M7 was NEVER to be used on the Carbine.
I have been talking to our guys coming back from Iraq and asked them if they were allowed to use recovered RPG's for their own use while on patrol. All of them stated "No". When asked why, my one buddy (he was training the ING) stated that "we could use AK's ourselves but the ING's were the only ones to be in possession of them." Jeeez, they even took away all of his M67's before he started working with the ING. He ended up buying a few F1's from the black market outside of Baghdad for $3.00 a piece. Do we have a shortage of M67's out there?
Peregrino
08-05-2005, 11:08
Looking at MAB32's post spurred a question that I never knew how to ask and receive an answer. Since this board has the knowledge it may not hurt to ask.
The rifle grenade is the poor man's mortar and could also be used in the direct fire mode. But my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?
Last duty assignment was in an infantry bn and I was told this, but never found anyone to back up this claim. I just wonder if that is one of those things they teach 11C's in AIT that is not in the book.
One of the funnest things I got to experiance while assigned to the unit was hanging with the bn mortars (81's) and riding the baseplate to settle it. :D
One way to keep a private occupied is ask him to count the rings on an 81mm mortar until he gets it right. ;)
Small minds are easilly entertained. ;) The fun part is the look on their face when you have to define "rings" after he's counted it 4-5 times only to have you tell him there are none. I've never encountered a 40mm mortar. The infamous Japanese "knee mortar" of WWII fame was small calibre but I don't remember the exact diameter. There is "direct fire" then there is "direct lay" two completely different actions commonly confused by the uninitiated. Trigger fire (the old M19 and the new "don't remember the #", Brit mortar we've had for about 20 years) mortars can be used either way. Both have a small base plate specifically for "hip shoots" (shooting in a hurry - not shooting from the hip). Direct lay is a common mode of employment, direct fire is usually an act of desperation or stupidity (personal opinion). I'm talking about infantry use - the Navy PBRs have a different type of mortar that is designed to be direct fired. There's also a type of Russian(?) mortar that was clip fed (5 rounds) and mounted in a wheeled vehicle that is designed for direct fire. Never seen one in person. IIRC somebody posted a video clip of a test fire with it mounted in a HMMV sometime last year. HTH - Peregrino
So after I hijacked (slightly, sorry) back to the original idea.
AT-4's uses a directional gas jet warhead to penetrate the armor. Hot gas opens a hole, charge detonates inside to create spalling subsequently killing whatever is inside. Penetration 400mm of rolled homogenous armor (no countermeasures, reactive armor, etc). Warhead is 4lbs of HEAT.
RPG-7V's have a warhead that is 1mm larger and .6lbs more charge. It is a shaped charged warhead that explodes only once. I has a small metal core that burns through armor and has no explosive action after it penetrates armor. The core typically exits the other side of the APC, etc. Kinda like a dep uranium round. The heat created does the damage since there is no secondary (technically) explosion. It's penetration is the same as an AT-4 as long as it is a truely perpendicular shot. It's performance degrades with increased angle of engagment.
AT-4: self contained and private proof. More friendly to rough use and safer overall.
RPG-7V: multiple parts (launcher, motor, warhead, booster), takes practice to prep the round prior to firing and is not your friend once armed. Bumping it hard enough could cause a detonation.
This is what I don't know for sure. Once the RPG is armed for use, ie the motor is affixed to the warhead and locked into position, is there anyway to un-arm and take it down for future use?
Seen them, held them but never fired them. FOB 52 had a $hitload of weapons when I was in IZ. The S-2 of 2-5 was a infantry PL in my old BN and took me on a weapons fam. Interesting stuff. :lifter
Edited to add: I know jack,....TR smacked the sense into me below. Thanks TR.
Peregrino
08-05-2005, 11:18
jbour13 - You need to do a little more research before expounding on munitions and their effects. Especially shaped charges and why the AT-4 is a dual system. Your other questions can also be answered easily. Try "Jane's" for starters. Peregrino
The Reaper
08-05-2005, 11:20
Both the AT-4 and the RPG use a shaped charge to penetrate the target. The rounds are both free-flight, fin-stabilized, rocket-type.
Both use a Point Initiated-Base Detonated firing system for the warhead.
The molten liner is detonated from the rear by the noze located fuse upon contact with a hard surface and "burns" through the target with a penetrator it is reformed into, known as and looking somewhat like a carrot.
The shaped charge function is technically referred to as the Monroe effect.
Penetration and diameter of the penetration is a factor of liner depth, angle, and composition, compounded by optimization for the desired target.
Most U.S. shaped charges designed for armor penetration use a copper liner or other metal. Many of the preformed shaped charges (like the 15 and 40 lb. Shaped Charges) for breaching earth or concrete use a glass liner.
The main difference between the two weapons is whether you want a re-usable launcher and the different features of each. Both are equally effective. IMHO, the AT-4 is a repackaged 84mm Carl Gustav round into a disposable, single-shot system.
TR
jbour13 - You need to do a little more research before expounding on munitions and their effects. Especially shaped charges and why the AT-4 is a dual system. Your other questions can also be answered easily. Try "Jane's" for starters. Peregrino
I got the info from FAS.org The info for the RPG-7V came from a TRADOC bulletin:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf
AT-4 is from:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/at4.htm
May be bad info. I'd like to know what info I re-gurgitated that is incorrect.
I don't have the money for Jane's, wish I did though.
The Reaper
08-05-2005, 11:29
I got the info from FAS.org The info for the RPG-7V came from a TRADOC bulletin:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf
AT-4 is from:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/at4.htm
May be bad info. I'd like to know what info I re-gurgitated that is incorrect.
I don't have the money for Jane's, wish I did though.
jbour, you have a tendency to shoot before aiming.
The warhead info you regurgitated say the same thing about both rounds, except that there is no secondary explosion by the AT-4. It is a standard 84mm HEAT round. The PG-7VR warhead for the RPG has a secondary explosive charge to assist in defeating reactive armor.
The spall is part of the target armor which is heated and fragged off the interior. The carrot also comes through and is an additional source of kinetic and pyrotechnic effects.
You are also wrong about the warhead weights. You cited the weights of the rockets themselves.
The RPG-7 is in no way like a depleted uranium round except that they are both munitions.
The penetration of both rounds is reduced as the angle increases.
Neither weapon is private proof, but the RPG-7 is more robust. The AT-4 is not necessarily "More friendly to rough use and safer overall."
You need to separate your characterizations of the RPG-7 launcher from that of the various PG-7 warheads it can fire. All of the examples I have used can be decocked , the round is merely placed in the launcher prior to use and is frequently carried that way (without cocking the launcher).
Would you like for me to look for additional errors in your post?
TR
Peregrino
08-05-2005, 11:37
I got the info from FAS.org The info for the RPG-7V came from a TRADOC bulletin:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf
AT-4 is from:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/at4.htm
May be bad info. I'd like to know what info I re-gurgitated that is incorrect.
I don't have the money for Jane's, wish I did though.
You misquoted your sources - both rounds function identically. The charge does not detonate inside the target. Spalling is a result of the initial armor penetration. TR's explanation is complete and correct. And in fairness I commented too quickly. The AT-4 is not a dual charge. IIRC that's only the larger missles. (I see TR is already on this - so I'll quit now.) Peregrino
QP's, Thanks for the corrections, I mis-interpereted the info. I'm not a munitions guy and read it as being a primary explosion designed to open the armor and a follow-on detonation to create the spalling to destroy the intended target. Just trying to understand, not trying to dig myself in. I see the bottom and would like to clarify my post. I'll limit myself to questions on the effects then.
I don't mind if you pick apart the post TR, I would actually enjoy the constructive criticism and know if what I'm reading is correct and how to best educate myself and others. It's essentially my job to understand the capabilities of these weapons systems. You're the ones that teach HN troops the right from wrong, and I'm just as ignorant to the capabilities. I just don't have the ability to decipher all of the complicated terminology that is going to affect how people move on the battlefield.
By private proof I should have said because it has pictures and instructions on the AT-4 telling you how to employ it (effectively with no training....probably not). Can you dispell the rumor that an RPG warhead is not as sensitive to bumping and detonation as some have led me to believe. I'd like to know since we (generalized troops) may come along them on the battlefield and have to move them. General rule should apply, don't touch if you don't know, but it'd be good info if the munition/weapon posed a continued threat to troops. Especially if you had to pick-up and move and didn't want it to recirculate back into enemy inventory.
And along the lines of Dep Uranium rounds, I understand the basic differences. Just wanted to point out that the action of the rod going through the other side of the APC like a dep round would. I know the radioactive issues with dep rounds put it completely into a different category. More appropriate analogy could have been something like the old 30.06 AP rounds having a tungsten core. Don't know if that is more appropriate.
I'll stop bugging you QP's and try to break down the info to my simple minded standard and educate myself.
Thanks for the info so far.
V/R
SGT B
QP's, Thanks for the corrections, I mis-interpereted the info. I'm not a munitions guy and read it as being a primary explosion designed to open the armor and a follow-on detonation to create the spalling to destroy the intended target. Just trying to understand, not trying to dig myself in. I see the bottom and would like to clarify my post. I'll limit myself to questions on the effects then.
I don't mind if you pick apart the post TR, I would actually enjoy the constructive criticism and know if what I'm reading is correct and how to best educate myself and others. It's essentially my job to understand the capabilities of these weapons systems. You're the ones that teach HN troops the right from wrong, and I'm just as ignorant to the capabilities. I just don't have the ability to decipher all of the complicated terminology that is going to affect how people move on the battlefield.
By private proof I should have said because it has pictures and instructions on the AT-4 telling you how to employ it (effectively with no training....probably not). Can you dispell the rumor that an RPG warhead is not as sensitive to bumping and detonation as some have led me to believe. I'd like to know since we (generalized troops) may come along them on the battlefield and have to move them. General rule should apply, don't touch if you don't know, but it'd be good info if the munition/weapon posed a continued threat to troops. Especially if you had to pick-up and move and didn't want it to recirculate back into enemy inventory.
And along the lines of Dep Uranium rounds, I understand the basic differences. Just wanted to point out that the action of the rod going through the other side of the APC like a dep round would. I know the radioactive issues with dep rounds put it completely into a different category. More appropriate analogy could have been something like the old 30.06 AP rounds having a tungsten core. Don't know if that is more appropriate.
I'll stop bugging you QP's and try to break down the info to my simple minded standard and educate myself.
Thanks for the info so far.
V/R
SGT B
I'm no munitions expert, but I was raised by AM. It is my understanding that the standard RPG round is of the HEAT type. No "Rod" to speak of is present. The outer housing of the projo is usually stamped sheet metal, and there may or may not be a metal (Copper usually) liner in the inverted cone on the nose end of the charge.
I could be mistaken though
I'm no munitions expert, but I was raised by AM. It is my understanding that the standard RPG round is of the HEAT type. No "Rod" to speak of is present. The outer housing of the projo is usually stamped sheet metal, and there may or may not be a metal (Copper usually) liner in the inverted cone on the nose end of the charge.
I could be mistaken though
On page 7 of the FAS.org site for the RPG round it says small metal core is formed after the warhead is detonated.
I stand corrected.
The Reaper
08-05-2005, 15:35
If that is your job, you need more training than you are going to find on the internet.
I have seen a lot of guys using RPGs who I do not think could read the instructions on the AT-4.
I have seen a lot of beat up PG-7s, none that I am aware of have failed to function as designed. The nose cone is hollow on the front half, with just the piezo-electric initiator and its wires inside, and the fuze usually has a plastic cap on it as shipped.
The back half of the warhead contains the detonator, and the shaped charge with liner. Probably 75% of the warhead is empty space for standoff. The "stick" behind the warhead contains the propellant and is an attachment point for the fins.
A HEAT round like the rockets you refer to is a chemical energy round. The DU, sabot, and AP rounds are examples of kinetic energy penetrators. You cannot launch a kinetic projo from your shoulder fast enough to penetrate modern armor, hence the fact that all shoulder fired AT rounds I am aware of are of the shaped charge variety.
The odd thing about the PG rockets is that they are very succeptible to winds, and that unlike most other rockets, they turn INTO the wind, so windage is reversed.
Next time you require this much info, it will cost you beer.
TR
If that is your job, you need more training than you are going to find on the internet.
I have seen a lot of guys using RPGs who I do not think could read the instructions on the AT-4.
I have seen a lot of beat up PG-7s, none that I am aware of have failed to function as designed. The nose cone is hollow on the front half, with just the piezo-electric initiator and its wires inside, and the fuze usually has a plastic cap on it as shipped.
The back half of the warhead contains the detonator, and the shaped charge with liner. Probably 75% of the warhead is empty space for standoff. The "stick" behind the warhead contains the propellant and is an attachment point for the fins.
A HEAT round like the rockets you refer to is a chemical energy round. The DU, sabot, and AP rounds are examples of kinetic energy penetrators. You cannot launch a kinetic projo from your shoulder fast enough to penetrate modern armor, hence the fact that all shoulder fired AT rounds I am aware of are of the shaped charge variety.
The odd thing about the PG rockets is that they are very succeptible to winds, and that unlike most other rockets, they turn INTO the wind, so windage is reversed.
Next time you require this much info, it will cost you beer.
TR
I'd much rather know and be broke from buying rounds than taking rounds and buying it big time.
I don't drink so you'll have to pick up the slack, horrible...I know. :D
The Reaper
08-05-2005, 15:38
On page 7 of the FAS.org site for the RPG round it says small metal core is formed after the warhead is detonated.
I stand corrected.
That is the molten "carrot" I referred to.
If you are going to acknowledge your errors individually, this is going to take a lot of time.
It does not normally overpenetrate a hard target unless is is thin skinned. It loses heat and energy very quickly during penetration.
The holes are also very small in diameter, the exact size is again, to some degree a design function of the diameter, depth, and liner of the charge.
TR
Next time you require this much info, it will cost you beer.
Hell, does this mean I can just buy a couple of kegs and sit down and learn indefinitely?
Sounds like the best deal I've seen since W-M started selling his book. :lifter
Gene Econ
08-05-2005, 18:31
Guys:
Interesting comparisons of the RPG and the AT-4. Brought back memories of armor / anti-armor net assessments and the various testings that occured.
Just to clarify and not correct. Liners are part of the cone of the shape charge. The liner inverts when the shape charge inverts on detonation and generally takes on a kind of metal plasma form. It gives a bit more kinetic energy to the chemical energy if there is a way of putting it. The whole mess burns through the armor. Pyrophoric effect, if I got that one spelled right. It has been about fifteen years since I messed with that stuff.
Don't confuse liners for shape charges with 'fire formed' penetrators either. Explosive Formed aka 'Fire Formed' are kinetic energy although the penetrator was formed from chemical energy. He, he, he. I was involved with more than a few experiments with EFPs.
Caution on being impressed by things penetrating X amount of RHA. No modern tank uses RHA anymore and laminated armor is mostly intended to defeat long rod penetrators but also assists in defeating chemical energy as the density of the armor changes. I think I can say this as pretty much a fact these days that the use of RHA as a standard for penetration is obsolete -- not generally used when discussing anti armor weapons as it represents a consistent standard for modeling and laminated armor doesn't.
So far, from my understanding, there has only been one incident of a supposed RPG penetrating the hull armor of an M-1 Tank. The Army still isn't sure it was an RPG though and honestly, no one knows but it did penetrate the skirt and went through the side of the tank above one of its wheels. No casualties.
Another thing that has been brought out but is important to know is that slight angles of obliquity have dramatic effects on penetration for both shape charges and kinetic energy weapons. I think that five or ten degrees of obliquity cancels out about fifty percent of the effect right off the bat.
From what I understan, shape charges still need a stand off roughly equal to the length of the chemical cone. Thus the shape of the RPG warhead no doubt. Reactive will work on RPGs. We just don't need reactive as the armor packages on our armored vehicles are sufficient to defeat most hand held AT weapons. I am not talking about Hellfire missles or the like and I bet a Javelin would destroy an M-1 as it is top attack. Oh yes, if you ever saw one reactive tile go off, you would understand why the Army doesn't want to use them.
As a note -- many Stryker Vehicles with the 1/25th SBCT have taken numerous hits with RPGs and so far I think only one or two have received catastrophic kills as a result. Obliquity angles, a significant 'RPG Screen' (cage) and applique armor tiles have allowed these vehicles to take serious RPG hits and keep on moving down the road. It is the kamakazi car and truck bombs that have destroyed Strykers.
I also got involved in hyper velocity KE to an extent. Very difficult to deal with stability at hyper velocities and more difficult to get the projo going at hyper velocity. When I left that world, there still wasn't a definition for hyper velocity. It started at 10K fps but as technology couldn't push a dart that fast, the system started watering down its standards. When I left, it was down to 8K fps.
How's that for three years of my life? That and a dollar gets me a cup of PX coffee. Did have some good times watching experiments though.
Gene
The Reaper
08-05-2005, 18:41
Just a heads-up.
This theoretical and hardware discussion has been okay so far.
Before we get too far into what our armor has or does not have, or what is a better penetrator of our vehicles, we are not going to get into any discussion here that would give the bad guys additional info on how to attack our vehicles more effectively.
Anyone asking questions for that info will be dealt with.
Thanks for your attention.
TR
On top of what TR and Peregrino have stated, I think the RPG is the way to go with infantry at all levels. You are not restricted by bore size for the size of your warhead and it's PG & OG series rockets have room for SF/QP "Field Modification(s)". Ambush Master can really attest to this fact with his "porcupine" rounds he used in SOG. With the size of the OG rounds you could probably wrap the thing in BB's or something similar and duct tape it all to give it more fragmentation on top of what it already has.
On a side note, Bulgaria seems to be the country to watch for future development and PIP's on the rocket portion of the weapon/RPG. They have already tested, fielded, and placed on the market a "Thermobaric" round. I saw a short video clip of it in action a while back. Seems to be a very nasty weapon for MOUT and with its design being purposely built for that type of ops, I am suprised that none of them have surfaced in Iraq or Afghanistan. The video clip shows it being used on what appears to have been a wood framed structure. Therefore the blast was much more spectacular than when they used it on a more solid structure (second part of the clip). I will go back and try and locate the clip and post it here for everyone to see how these rounds work. The principal behind these rounds is like that of the old FAE's of the 60's. Chemical, Binary or otherwise, is emitted out of the rocket warhead creating an instantaneous vapor when the nose come into contact with something solid. Almost immediately the vapor mixes with the right amount of air in the target (complex way) then it is all set off by a delay fuze. This creates incredible blast "overpressures" within the structure, killing everybody inside and literally blowing up and out the room or building.
Here is what they look like:
www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/article/article.janes.fae-grenade.jidr010104_2_n.html
Rifle Grenades are now made of polymers with most of the metal going towards the fuze and body (sometimes). The "bullet Thru" and the "Bullet Trap" have taken over the market and it is somewhat "rare" to find the old style that have to be launched using what is commonly called a Ballistite round. Weight is not a problem these days. The problem lies with how to carry them. Most will carry them in a quiver style bag or strapped to their web gear or vest (the Serbs and Croations secure them to their vests and even had special vests made up for just that purpose). I have seen some Latin American and South American countries just secure them any way they can on their person, usually tied to the belt or taped to the shoulder harnesses. With the two aforementioned types of launching methods, there IMHO (and uneducated), no real reason for not using them. The biggest reason to use them is cost effectiveness. Practice RG's can be reused over and over again with long lifes afforded to rubber and polymer constructions. Practice rounds for the 40mm can only be used once and at one time were expensive to make, still are but not as much as they used to. I am referring to the ones that had a small explosive charge in the nose with dye. Peregrino, TR, and others, you will know more about this than me (could they have been designated M382?). Anyways, we move on to "casualty radius". The 40mm HEDP has one of 5-9 meters. A RG on the other hand can up that to approximately 15 meters (some of the older style Israeli BT/AP-AT APERS-HEAT's are 20 meters). The Yugoslavian M60 AP RG has a similar radius. Once a "recruit" has had enough "time" on the range in order to achieve acceptable accuracy he/she then can be issued RG's for confict resolution when the time arrives. Factoring in the climate on the battlefield, the stress of being shot at I would think a person could at least put them through a window at 100 yards, knock out a squad at 200+ yards out in the open, and achieve at least a M/K on armor at shorter ranges out to 100 yards(?) What do you all think?
Here is pretty good site that has been down for a while but back up and deals with the 40mm vs RG's:
www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/riflehandgrenades.htm
NOTE: THe above is "off & On".
This one shows the "jet" from a shaped charge:
www.llnl.gov/str/Baum.html
Interesting site on the Hellfire:
www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/HELLFIRE/product-HELLFIREII.html
enjoy
I am a little lost here. Problem I see with RPS's is the size of rds limits the number one can CARRY (key word). Selection of rds adds more limits. When one carries another something, something else has got to be left behind. Example carrying another RPG round means less ammo for the rifle. I think from my own experience the average grunts carries way to much, and sometimes not enough of the right stuff when the shit hits the fan.
I think the M79/blooper/thumper is a great compromise for Infantry Vs Infantry. One can carry more blooper rds than RPGS. I guess if a person is mechanized no biggy, But for the ground pounder a biggy especially when you have to carry a few 60 mike mikes, a can of gun ammo, plus your own gear. And if 81's go out with you, you have to help carry their stuff too.
The only weapons of Mr. Charlies that anyone liked were the AK 47 and the light weight 60 mike mike tube. Noone would use a AK 47, because the sound tended to draw "friendly" fire. I also think the RPG tube is long and can be a hinderance. We had the LAWW, (?) but there was not much use for them where I was.
In case of Armour, I think the A-10 Warthog is the cats meow....... for other options there is always the radio, call for support.
Just some thoughts, I can be way behind the times. I just never thought much of having a RPG, but would not mind owning a Blooper gun(M79)
The Reaper
08-09-2005, 12:10
I think there is a bad comparison taking place here.
The real alternatives are 1) AP: 40mm GL vs. Rifle Grenade, and 2) AT: RPG vs. LAW/AT-4/Carl Gustav 84/etc.
TR
The way I am looking at it is this:
If I were going into combat and had "MY" choice between each item in the two categories it would be rifle grenades over the 40mm and the RPG over the samples given by TR. The reason I feel is simple. RG's nowadays are very lightweight, usually a 1/4 to 2 pounds (depending on construction). With this weight comes "more" explosive power and the capability to do much more damage to structures, machinery, vehicles, bunkers, etc., etc. The 40mm is limited by it own design. You get what you have and nothing else. Add on the launcher (M203) to a rifle and you have a bulky, heavy weapon. With the RG the flash hider is the launcher, the bullet in your weapon is the propelling device, recoil is on par with a 203 if not less and everybody now has the poor man's mortar. You also get acceptable accuracy (ask the Bosnians and SERB's) and any error on your part can/is made up by the wider blast/fragmentation of the warhead.
The same thing can be said for the RPG. With the "enclosed/disposable" AT weapons you are again restricted as to the diameter of the warhead and what it can do. Rockets for the RPG can be almost any diameter theoretically as long as the body where the propellant is contained has been carefully loaded. What I mean by this is that the CG & CP (center of gravity and center of pressure) are very close to one another thus giving it stability over longer range. The problem with "windcocking" is always going to be there with both and all types of RG's, RPG's, rockets, and missiles. Like I stated before, Bulgaria is coming out with better quality, more warhead confirgurations, and lighter weight.
The above is just my opinion with allot of research done on my part and I feel that it could be useful to the QP's. You guys are the "masters" of improvisation. AM's "porcupine" rounds are enough proof to me! :)
The Reaper
08-09-2005, 13:16
MAB:
Spoken like a man who rides for a living. :D
Those little 2 lb. items have a way of adding up. 100 lbs. of lightweight gear still weighs 100 lbs.
The basic soldier already has way more stuff than he can carry. It is a zero sum game. You add two pounds, you have to take away two pounds of something else. Like food. Or my spare pair of socks.
Given that, I'll take the 20 rounds of 40mm over the 5 rifle grenades, any day.
On the RPG, I would tend to agree with you on that one. We copied the wrong German AT weapon. The Carl Gustav and 90mm RCL were nice, but the launchers (and ammo) are very heavy.
TR
TR,
Ya, but you should see my Batmans's utility belt.