True quality of RPG-7

[Harrod200]

It's been said many times on the forum (and was my personal belief) that in comparison to such as the AT4, an RPG-7 was primitive and had minimal penetration abilities.

According to Wiki, an AT4 HEAT round will penetrate up to 420mm RHA, while a standard PG-7V round (the bog standard one) will penetrate up to 330, so reasonably inferior.

The problem comes with such as the PG-7VL (up to 500mm) and especially the PG-7VR (up to 700 after defeating reactive armour). Judging purely by those numbers, the higher level ammo for an RPG-7 is actually quite superior to the more 'advanced' AT4.

So are these numbers correct and, as long as you're not using the cheapest ammo, an insurgent with an RPG could really have better AT ability than a squaddie with an issue LAT? Add to that the ERA defeating capabilities of the VR (which AFAIK is lacking totally from western weapons, though it's not like we need it currently) and it could actually be considered a superior weapon system...

Anyone in the know know whether these sort of numbers are correct and my previous "RPG-7 = weak" mentality was correct, or if it was simply due to ignorance, and they are actually a bigger threat than percieved.

EDIT

Looking more, a LAW 80 is able to penetrate 700mm, so is the USMC issued a rather inferior weapon or are AT4's normally armed with HP ammo (600mm)?

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

And, interestingly, the British forces replaced the LAW-80 with the AT-4 (as the ILAW), pending the introduction of NLAW/MBTLAW.

Anyway, the RPG-7 is still a viable weapon system because like many things Russian it was continually updated rather than being fully replaced. New warheads have been developed and introduced throughout its career, often as off shoots of other projects. IIRC, the PG-7VR is essentially the warhead from the RPG-29 bolted onto a stick that fits in the RPG-7.

Also, these new rounds are significantly heavier than the original PG-7V with little improvment in propelling rocket and so don't travel as far. Effective range for the PG-7VR is only around 200m compared to 500m for the PG-7V or around 300m for the AT-4. Also to be considered is the weight of the unit. An AT-4 comes in at 6.7kg or there abouts, while an RPG-7 comes in at 6.3kg (with scope) + the weight of the warhead which can be between 2.2kg and 4.5kg. Additionally, an expended RPG-7 can't simply be dropped, as it can be reused. Also, it means there is a single dedicated gunner using the RPG and only a set number of launchers per unit size, where as with weapons like the AT4, LAW or RPG-18 anyone carrying ammunition is a gunner as well, which means theres less danger of the only weapon and operator getting slotted in open ground covered by the enemy removing the units AT capability and once they've been fired they can happily be dumped.

Another thing going for the RPG-7 is its wide variety of rounds. It can be adapted to enguage most targets as it also has thermobaric and fragmentation rounds in addition to its AT warheads.

[ryan d ale]

Also to be kept in mind are economics and availability of 'parts'.

Quit talking about penetration and size.

A .22 could damage the optical sight/camera. Well...if not, I'm sure a 5.56 would have no problem.

Penetrations are better for ensuring elimination but eliminating the ability for the target to return fire should be included.

[master of the templars]

Originally Posted by ryan d ale

A .22 could damage the optical sight/camera. Well...if not, I'm sure a 5.56 would have no problem.
\

.22 of an inch is actually slighly bigger than 5.56mm

[Harrod200]

5.56 == .223"

Back on topic?

[master of the templars]

5.56 mm = 0.218897638 inches

this was confirmed by 3 websites

[Hardtman]

Originally Posted by master of the templars

5.56 mm = 0.218897638 inches

this was confirmed by 3 websites

Additionally, it's been confirmed by my calculator.
1"=25,4 mm.
As such 5,56 mm/25,4 mm = 0,2188976377952755905511811023622 inches

But on topic now: As Bob already stated, the simple "throw-away" nature of the AT-4 makes it a deal more versatilee to use.
The RPG would be something you'd want in a rather high-pitched battle, where you can just fire away repeatedly from a fortified position, while the AT-4 is nicely suited as a backup when you don't know if enemy armor is to be expected.

[Epim3theus]

I did a quick search on the loss of vehicles by the dutch army in afghanistan, but couldn't find anything.
But i know of at least 2 occasions where an APC was disabled due to RPG hits, one time taking both legs of the driver. The other time when an APC (Patria, .50 cal MG armed) was send "up front" to evacuate wounded personel, got shot and crippeled and had to be abandoned.
Ofcourse they don't go into detail about the circumstances in wich the apc's got taken out, and these losses were mentioned on the side in the newspaper reports commenting on the human cassualties. After all the first cassualty of war is the truth.
Btw how much armour does an average apc have now a day?

[jozi02]

I asked my friend who served in Afghanistan for half year, and he knew couple situations when Polish version of Patria (KTO Rosomak) with additional armor, was hit from RPG and wasn't disabled. And, he said, that main reason of it is that insurgents in Afghanistan use mostly old RPG-7 produced in China, which were stored in very bad conditions for many years, and many time used with homemade ammunition.

BTW. Here u can see photos of HMMWVs which were hit but weren't penetrated by RPG
ImageShack - Hosting :: chineeserpgatworkps7.jpg
ImageShack - Hosting :: d31gw4.jpg

[M1126 Stryker]

Many of the rockets the insurgents/terrorists have are poor quality and can fail to work due to many different reasons. While the basic PG-7V can penetrate some 300mm of armor (if it works) the after-effects are often quite limited. The angle of impact also has a greater effect on most RPG-7V rockets than it does on more modern anti-tank weapon.