M203 grenade launcher vs RPG-7V

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
Return to Topic Page

Subject: M203 grenade launcher vs RPG-7V
TriggaFingaz 2/26/2005 11:12:00 AM

M203 vs RPG-7V I am deliberately comparing two different weapons (grenade launcher vs rocket propelled grenade) because the RPG-7’s nearest US equivalent, the AT4 (M136) is not carried or used in the same prodigious manner by US troops. Same rules for why I do not compare the M203 against its nearest equivalent, the Russian made GP-25 and BG-15 grenade launchers becoz not only are they not used widely by our Islamist foes, they are too similar to the M203. Please add to my comparison table. The M203 is better than the RPG-7 because: A) One soldier can operate it without assistance. B) The M203 gunner can still use his M16/M4, while RPG gunners rarely can carry a rifle at the same time as the launcher and its PGs. C) One soldier can carry more rounds (24) in his vest, while the RPG backpack carries about four? D) The M203 does not have a huge smoke trail or bright muzzle flash. E) The M203 can lob shells in the direct and indirect fire mode, the RPG is capable of indirect fire but tougher becoz no quadrant sight. (I may be wrong, correct me if necessary.) F) M203s can launch a wider variety of grenades- HE, HEDP, smoke, illumination, buckshot. The RPG has lethal anti-armour and anti-personnel rounds, but no marker or obscurant shots. G) The M203 does not require a clear space behind the user to compensate for backblast. The RPG-7V is better than the M203 because: A) It has a greater range. B) It can destroy vehicles, fortified positions and even choppers with greater ease than 40mm M203 rounds. (this will be open to debate!) C) Its rockets have larger blast radius. (Correct me if wrong!) Are there more contributions available???

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

smitty237 12/30/2007 2:55:07 PM

Mr. Picky thinks that indirect fire is for shooting at things that you can't see, rather than using a higher than usual trajectory to hit something that you can. As such I would class a 40mm grenade launcher as direct fire rather than indirect.

I get your point, but I would have to disagree. At the M-203 range we were taught how to shoot through windows and such the like, but the weapon is mostly used as a rifle mounted mortar. If you can actually see an enemy soldier within the three hundred meter range of the M-203, you'd still be better off shooting him with your rifle rather than than launching a grenade at him, in my opinion. There are actually two sights on the M-203. One is a simple flip up sight with a few different ranges listed on the side, while the other is a more complicated and precise sight that is mounted on the side of the weapon. Most soldiers I knew tended to use the simpler and less accurate sight because for the most part with an M-203 you needed to put rounds in the area, and not on a specific target such as a person, bunker, or vehicle. You may be able to see the target, but with at ranges of greater than a hundred and fifty meters or so you're pretty much lobbing rounds at it and hoping to get close enough to kill the enemy with shrapnel or compelling him to keep his head down or flee the AO.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 12/30/2007 4:06:15 PM

If you don't mind me asking - I realise that the quadrant sight accounts for elevation - how do you get the bearing to the target?

Quote Reply

Yimmy 12/30/2007 4:59:22 PM

Flaming, you are being picky. Obviously the M203 isn't an indirect fire weapon, however the error is in using the wrong military jargon, not in the logic. The M203 does use a different ballistic profile to rifles, and as such no doubt does have its advantages.

I tried mocking the military TLA (Three Letter Acronym) in another thread, and alas nobody found it funny.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 12/30/2007 5:11:02 PM

Well, I did say that I was being picky.

smitty237's post interests me though - I always thought that the M203 was a pretty direct weapon and he's on about lobbing grenades at things that you can't see.

Incidently, on the theme of being picky, TLA stands for Three Letter Abbreviation. An acronym is an abbreviation that makes a pronouncable word.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 12/30/2007 5:39:40 PM

Incidently, on the theme of being picky, TLA stands for Three Letter Abbreviation. An acronym is an abbreviation that makes a pronouncable word.

Funny you mention that, I had a little debate in my head at the time of posting as to which was the correct word.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 12/31/2007 5:35:59 AM

As seen from the Israeli forum, terrorists like hamas and hizbollah in particular no longer prefer infantry assaults for defense but rather horde tons of guided anti tank missiles which they use to defend themselves against the Israeli infantry. There is some method to their madness. Though expensive, the guided ATGM rd provides direct fire arty support that is guided, and when your troops don't stand a chance in man to man.

From the press reports it sounded like Hizbollah was using guided ATGM's against the Israeli infantry more like sniper rifles than artillery.

Makes a certain amount of sense, how many sniper can hit a target at 2000m (~1¼ miles)? Something to keep in mind for future conflicts.

Quote Reply

ker 12/31/2007 7:52:10 PM

From the press reports it sounded like Hizbollah was using guided ATGM's against the Israeli infantry more like sniper rifles than artillery.

Makes a certain amount of sense, how many sniper can hit a target at 2000m (~1¼ miles)? Something to keep in mind for future conflicts.

And as I understand they were hitting buildings where IDF were grouped together. The possibility of making a wire/radio guided missile with a warhead sized to kill a weapon(MG, mortar ect) crew may be a result of their tactical innovation. They could be fired off an RPG-7 and controlled from separate device. The shooter with less training taking more risk than the "pilot" with more training.

Quote Reply

smitty237 12/31/2007 8:25:21 PM

If you don't mind me asking - I realise that the quadrant sight accounts for elevation - how do you get the bearing to the target?

I realize that we both speak the King's (or Queen's) English, but sometimes things still get lost in translation, especially when you're talking to the prodigal children of the Empire. I assume you're asking how we determine the range to the target. If that's the case, then it based upon an American shooting principle called "dead reckoning", which essentially means making a (somewhat) educated guess. In reality the term "dead reckoning" comes down to a shooter saying to himself, "I reckon that the (deer, bear, enemy soldier, et al.,) is a hundred and fifty yards (meters) away."

Actually there is a little more training to it than that, but you get the idea. It isn't hard to guess distances within a few hundred meters or so, and when it comes to linear distances of less than a kilometer, Americans tend to think in terms of "football fields" (American football, of course). Two "football fields" is roughly the equivalent to two hundred meters. If the M-203 grenadier is trying to put rounds on a ridge line or wood line in the distance, he will first estimate the range. He will adjust the sights to the estimated range and take the shot. Based upon the first impact he will make adjustments, much like a mortarman would. He could then either adjust the sights to the right range, or he could then just manually adjust the angle of fire by lift or dropping the barrel. That is where the training comes in.

As far as the whole indirect vs. direct fire issue goes, I think I would have to agree with Yimmy somewhat and say that it is a matter of semantics. Probably the most accurate description of the M-203 is that it is a direct fire weapon that can be effectively used in the indirect fire role. The grenade launcher fills a unique niche in the rifle squad. It can "lob" a grenade much farther and more accurately than a man can throw one, but it doesn't have the weight of a mortar and doesn't require a crew. Rifle grenades have been around for a long time, but the advantage of the M-79 and M-203 systems (among others) is that they don't take a rifle out of service, and in the case of the M-203 the rifle is still fully functional and ready for action.

Quote Reply

smitty237 My turn to be picky 12/31/2007 8:35:14 PM

Well, I did say that I was being picky.

smitty237's post interests me though - I always thought that the M203 was a pretty direct weapon and he's on about lobbing grenades at things that you can't see.

Incidently, on the theme of being picky, TLA stands for Three Letter Abbreviation. An acronym is an abbreviation that makes a pronouncable word.

Since we're discussing semantics, Webster's defines an acronym as "a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term," which matches your definition, but it also defines it as "an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters." You can call Federal Bureau of Investigation agents "pheebees," but it really pisses them off.

Happy New Year, lads.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 12/31/2007 8:41:09 PM

The transalantic divide scores another victim!

I wasn't thinking of elevation but azimuth - i.e. how do you know which way to point the thing?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT