The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 19, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: RPG Vs. AT-4
Kodiak    6/20/2003 10:40:26 AM
I've seen several comparisons between RPG's and 40mm grenade launchers on this site. IMO this seems to be unfair, comparing a rocket-motored munition with a smaller powder charge round. Of course the RPG will have more punch in this situation, but it is larger and not able to be put onto an M-16 (or I guess Kalishnikov would be applicable with respect to the RPG, still, can't be gone). If we are talking about comparing personal rocket launchers, then I submit the AT-4 is superior to the RPG in almost every aspect. Better accuracy, portability (it's shorter), range, and closing speed. And, of course, the standard high explosive warhead outperforms RPG's easily. Thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
crna_zvezda    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   1/14/2004 9:28:58 AM
"OK, I cna agree with all of this, but what about and RPG VS. the Javelin or Predator, and why did the US do away with our own RPG's in the 70's" I think you don't get it right here teh javelin system is intended to be a fire and forget anti tank/bunker weapon it is a guided system and not an RLR. There we should put the Metis or Kornet system against the Javelin. Another point the americans use superior air force to engage AFV's. The russians/ Ex commbloc preffered man squads since it is a more quiet matod.
 
Quote    Reply

crna_zvezda    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4 Russian lack of top attack missiles   1/14/2004 3:08:43 PM
The russians are currently developing a top attack missile derivated from their Krasnopol guided projectile. I have heard that the chinese are cooperating and even the Indians are interested. On the other hand I think teh TOP attack missiles will wait since Russia hasn't World aspirations any more (at least for a while). So these types of ordinance won't be needed in the Local conflicts russians fight or will fight. Then I repeat a market law: It's way easier to buy such systems than to develop them. Then as te americans are developping a light combat tank (the FCS program for the guys who are late) teh rpg would still be kept alive (like the good old avtomat 47).
 
Quote    Reply

TriggaFingaz    Advantage to RPG-7V   3/27/2004 2:06:33 PM
It?s has to be lighter for one man to carry an RPG-7V launcher and a bag of say, five rounds than to carry 5 tubes of M136/AT4 launchers. If each person in a nine man squad carries an AT4, each would only have one shot is they were split up from each other in battle. And I don?t think the Army or Marines can afford to give every one in an infantry battalion an AT4 to the last man. While the original PG-7 warhead of the 1960s penetrated 300mm of armour, that was 40 years ago. The modern PG-7VL warhead penetrates 600mm of armour against the AT4?s 400mm. Tandem warheads(PG-7VR) and thermobaric rounds (TBG-7V) can be fitted to the same RPG-7V launcher, while the AT4 is always a unitary HEAT warhead- you have to carry more tubes if newer warheads were developed. One more thing: AT4s and other disposable launchers (RPG-18, 22, 26, 28) leave a lot of battlefield garbage in the form of empty tubes which the enemy can turn to booby traps, while with an RPG-7V once the round is fired there?s no trash left behind. I?m sure that there?s an argument in favour of the AT4 since I seem so biased towards the RPG-7V above advantages but I can?t think of one?.
 
Quote    Reply

bulgarian    re:gf0012-aust    4/20/2004 4:37:46 PM
You asked about quantity of rpg-7 in the world Some sources sed that its about 7 millions atleast
 
Quote    Reply

wingnutx    a better comparison would be the Marine's SMAW   6/14/2004 5:51:35 PM
It has a reusable launcher and various warhead types like an RPG. If you see jarheads with a bunch of big tubes sticking out of their packs, those are SMAW rockets. link
 
Quote    Reply

WFG    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/16/2004 2:20:14 PM
An honest comparison of the RPG system as opposed to the AT-4 I believe would show the RPG to be a superior weapon. See the following: The RPG-7 is a recoilless, shoulder-fired, muzzle-loaded, reloadable, antitank grenade launcher. It fires a variety of 85-mm rocket-assisted grenades from a 40-mm smoothbore launcher tube. The launcher has two hand grips; a large optical sight; a thick, wooden heat guard around the middle; and a large, flared blast shield at the rear of the tube. The launcher is 953 mm long without grenade and 1,340 mm with grenade. The launcher weighs 7.9 kg and the grenade 2.25 kg. The RPG-7 is light enough to be carried and fired by one person. However, an assistant grenadier normally deploys to the left of the gunner to protect him from small arms fire. The internal rocket motor of the PG-7 grenade ignites after traveling 10 meters, giving the projectile higher velocity (sustained out to 500 meters), flatter trajectory, and better accuracy. Accuracy is further enhanced by four large, knife-like fins at the rear of the projectile which unfold when the round leaves the tube, and by smaller, offset fins at the very rear which produce a slow rotation. The maximum effective range is 500 meters for stationary targets and 300 meters for moving targets. Maximum range is 920 meters at which point the projectile self-destructs. The PG-7 grenade, with a shaped-charge warhead, has very good armor penetration (330 mm), capable of defeating all known armored vehicles. The RPG-7V model can be fitted with a telescope and both infrared and passive night sights. All RPG-7 models have an optical sight which can be illuminated for night sighting, and open sights are provided for emergency use. Reloading and re-aiming the RPG-7 requires a minimum of 14 seconds. A great advantage over the AT-4 since it is a one-shot disposible round. The M136 AT4 is a lightweight, self-contained, antiarmor weapon consisting of a free-flight, fin-stabilized, rocket-type cartridge packed in a one-piece, fiberglass-wrapped tube. The M136 AT4 is man-portable and is fired from the right shoulder only (does not have left hand fire capability like RPG). Unlike the M72-series LAW, the M136 AT4 launcher need not be extended before firing which means that it's not only heavier, it is also rather akward to carry. Though the M136 AT4 can be employed in limited visibility, the firer must be able to see and identify the target and estimate the range to it. Subsequent to the initial fielding of the weapon, a reusable night sight bracket was developed and fielded. It permits utilization of standard night vision equipment which proved to be impraticle and ineffective. The system's tactical engagement range is only 250 meters as opposed to the RPGs 300/500. The system weighs 15 pounds and can be utilized effectively with minimal training. The M136 AT4's warhead is claimed to have excellent penetration ability and lethal after-armor effects. The shaped-charge explosive penetrates more than 14 inches (35.6 cm) of armor at a 0% angle. I have seen these fired at M60A3 hulks and several hits on the flank of the turret yielded no penitration. So, these claims are questionable in my view. Bottom line, the RPG is very easy to use, reliable, versitile, reloadable, and can be fired from an enclosed area do to the use of the booster rocket. One man can easily carry 4 rds. and the normal crew of two can carry 8-9. The remaining members of a rifle squad can carry LAW/ RPG-23 type disposible weapons greatly increasing the AT capability of the squad. The AT-4 wieghs roughly the same as the RPG with only one shot capability, is only right hand fire, has shorter range, limited to one round type, is louder, and the flip-up sights are easily broken. This is not conclusive but, having fired both and seen what they can do, I tend to lean toward the RPG.
 
Quote    Reply

camothongAK105    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/18/2004 11:28:55 AM
just look at the latest variant of the RPG, the RShG-1/2 Thermobaric...very powerful. but I'm not sure if the Iraqi's are equiped or can afford these
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/19/2004 6:12:15 AM
The main reason why the RPG hasn't really caught on much is because for the most part its designed to take out other tanks. While other variants have been built (like the thermobaric warhead and quite possibly an anti-personel variant) this wasn't really its primary purpose. On the other hand US infantry doesn't face enemy armor all that often. When they do they tend to get everything from Predator missiles, Javelins, TOWS, and Hellfires from Apaches not mention any Cav support that might be tagging along. For the purposes of destroying a tank almost all of that is for the most part overkill. On the other hand taking out buildings and bunkers has led to the development of thermobaric warheads for the Jave and AT-4 and SMAW/SRAW. Again by the times these are needed the troops tend to be in really close (guess you could under 300m range). Its not great mind you but the battlefield has changed pretty radically for some aspects.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/19/2004 8:17:25 PM
RPGs are cost-effective, availible in large numbers, effective at the ranges that count (ranges appropriate in urban areas). The only problem is that the RPG-7 isn't a soft-launch so using the RPG means taking some care. I don't think the AT-4 is soft-launch either, so for the "one versus other" argument it won't be too important. The RPG is a flexible system where the AT-4 fires one type of missile. RPG doesn't have to "deploy" like a AT-4. AT-4 might have more range; but combat ranges are dropping steadily: in WW2 combat ranges were shortened considerably leading to the development of ARs: studies must be done to figure the "average" range of use of heavy weapons like rocket launchers and grenade launchers. I get a bad feeling the RPG is already optimum for it.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/20/2004 7:08:24 AM
Sorry Winsett but the AT-4 not having enclosed launch capability or soft launch isn't quite true anymore, the AT-4 has a soft launch/enclosed area launch capability on its new CS variant. Unfortunately as stated just about everywhere..cost kills can't compare, you're talking about an anti-tank missile here, not a rocket propelled grenade. Anyhoo as was said waaaaaaaaaaaay earlier this should be really compared to the carl gustaf M3 (the army has started issuing these to troops as of Dec 03 but training and doctrine I'm not sure if they've completed fully yet).
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/20/2004 9:42:11 AM
RPG-type weapons are like any other - they have some advantages and some disadvantages and thus are employed rather differently than your throw-away LAW type weapons such as M-72 and AT-4. The RPG's (and Carl G'. Pzf 3's, etc) can be operated by one person but are best served by a crew. AT-4 type weapons are strictly one-man operations. RPG gunner tend to be dedicated to their weapons - it is their primary arm - thus they get a lot more practice with them than the the average grunt who might be lucky to fire one live AT-4 a year. RPG type weapons tend to have more sophisticated sighting equipment which combined with better operator training tends to give them much greater real effective ranges and considerably greater accuracy than LAW type weapons in the hands of the average grunt. You get the idea. Basically AT-4's are an add-on at the squad level to impart a quick, cheap increase in firepower but with real limits in terms of range and accuracy. RPG's and the like are for use by dedicated teams.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/21/2004 1:52:15 PM
I was under the impression that the Carl Gustavs are still only issued to the Rangers: and even if they were issued to regular army, wouldn't such weapons be delegated to a special weapons unit (weapons squad, weapons platoon etc), contrasted with the insurgent/muj "one with ak, two with RPG"? So in any likely fight a squad goes up against a opposing force in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/other-hot-spot, the opposing force will have its RPGs, and the squad will have its regular loadout, which includes AT-4s. For "practical" purposes the comparison of the RPG and AT-4 is used; but for idealized platform vs. platform the Carl Gustav is pitted against the RPG. Anyone know if the M3 Carl Gustav has been approved for issue to the regular Army, not just Rangers?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/21/2004 2:17:42 PM
>>Anyone know if the M3 Carl Gustav has been approved for issue to the regular Army, not just Rangers << Seems like I've heard something about that, but no definite information. If memory serves me correctly, whatever I heard was on this website.
 
Quote    Reply

Crosshair    RE:a better comparison would be the Marine's SMAW   7/26/2004 3:07:45 AM
$13,000 per unit replacement cost??? Are these things gold plated or what??? You could easily outfit a squad with AK-47's, a couple RPG's, ammo, gernades, radio's, food, and other supplies for $13,000.
 
Quote    Reply

mustavaris    RE:a better comparison would be the Marine's SMAW   9/4/2004 12:33:00 PM
Hmmmm... I feel stupid, but I have to ask: what the H#¤¤ is spotting rifle on the SMAW?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy