|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???