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: 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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Shaka of Carthage    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/20/2003 11:45:02 AM
You are not taking into consideration how the RPGs are used. They are used like grenade launchers, anti-personnel. Espcially, since they can airburst. And this doesn't take into consideration that the AK/RPG combo has been around for roughly 50 years. Took US 15 years before they caught on. Comparison to the AT-4 As anti-tank weapons, the AT-4 is superior. But it has one problem. Not reusable. For armored or mechanized infantry, the AT-4 is superior. For infantry, especially light infantry, its the RPG.
Quote    Reply

Kodiak    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/20/2003 12:27:10 PM
Yes, I agree, I was comparing the anti-armor RPG warhead to the AT-4. I think the disposability of the AT-4 is an asset, because you just leave the tube. On an RPG, you have to have lug the launcher and all the rounds. What about the new javelin and predator systems, with dual-stage launch? I think that it is a sweet system. I must say, though, that especially for poorer militias, rebels and 3rd-world armies, that the RPG has delivered tremendous bang for thge buck.
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/20/2003 1:11:47 PM
The disposiblity and how you have to carry the RPG and its rounds is the very thing that is in favor of the RPG. Add up the weight of 6 RPG rounds and a RPG. Compare that to carrying 6 AT-4. See what I mean? Javelin and Predator... same concept. Great weapons as long as I don't have to carry them. For Armored/Mech Infantry, its a yes. For Infantry, its a no-no.
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4 ... I'm paranoid, yea right.   6/22/2003 12:08:44 PM
I've mentioned this before, but this is like the fourth time I've seen something posted in strategypage that is directly related if not the actual topic that was being discussed here. It doesn't bother me, but at least drop a note somewhere and say "good job guys, you are providing us with alot of good subject matter". Then again, I could be off my meds and paranoid.
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4 ... strategypage   6/22/2003 12:20:14 PM
For Armored and Mechanized infantry, the AT-4 is superior. Not for Infantry and Light Infantry. Thats the problem with disposable weapons. They weigh too much for people who have to carry them all the time.
Quote    Reply

11b10    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4 Vs. M3 (MAAWS)   6/22/2003 2:43:47 PM
I have read that the Rangers and seals are carrying the M3 (MAAWS). Would this be an asset for the Infantry.Though the rounds weigh 2 or 3 lbs more,it is comparable to the RPG.It also has a variety of rounds and plenty of punch.Or should it stay a candy shelf item for the special operators.
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4 Vs. M3 (MAAWS)   6/22/2003 5:04:59 PM
If I was in the 82nd, the M3 is the weapon I would give my hunter-killer teams.
Quote    Reply

Vympel    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/23/2003 12:37:14 AM
The AT-4 is not superior to the latest generation of RPG-7 warheads. The PG-7VL round (93mm) has penetration of 600mm. The tandem HEAT 105mm round has penetration of 750mm RHA, and the ability to defeat ERA. Comparing the AT-4 to the original 1960s PG-7 warhead is inane. It also has the OG-7V 40mm anti-personnel warhead, and the TBG-7V thermobaric weapon. It's a complete weapon system. It also has optics as standard and the ability to mount a night sight. The AT-4 has no appreciable advantage over the latest RPG-7 variants. At least keep the comparisons contemporary, ok? I should also point out the Russians also use disposable weapons, just not to replace the RPG-7V1 (current standard model, in service since 1995). The RPG-18 and RPG-22 are obsolete disposable LAW type weapons- the latest disposables are the RPG-26 (72.5mm warhead- 500mm penetration) and the RPG-27 (105mm warhead- 750mm penetration). There are also assault rocket grenade versions- with a precursor armor piercing charge followed by a thermobaric warhead. These are the RShG-2 (72.5mm, based on RPG-26) and RShG-1 (105mm, based on RPG-27). Nuff said.
Quote    Reply

Kodiak    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/25/2003 8:53:13 AM
AT-4 has no appreciable advantages? Really? an RPG is accurate for 100 meters, and self destructs @ 800, that is its range. The AT-4 is accurate up to 300 meters, and has a max 2100 meter range, almost 3x that of an RPG.
Quote    Reply

Vympel    RE:RPG Vs. AT-4   6/26/2003 3:29:19 AM
"AT-4 has no appreciable advantages? Really? an RPG is accurate for 100 meters" LOL. Where do you get this information from, pray tell? Effective range against a stationary target for the RPG-7V is 500m, and effective range against a moving target is 300m. This is from Jane's Infantry Weapons. What's your source? Your ass? "and self destructs @ 800, that is its range. The AT-4 is accurate up to 300 meters, and has a max 2100 meter range, almost 3x that of an RPG." Oh, that's a real useful advantage there, good luck hitting anything smaller than a mountain at 2,100m. *roll eyes*
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT