In the movie _The Beast,_ the main character repairs the firing mechanism of an RPG launcher using parts from a nondescript, ostensibly decades-old, rifle. Was that possible? Or would even MacGuyver have found it impossible?
I remember this weapon from my Marine grunt days in Vietnam. We had captured one after a firefight with the NVA near the DMZ in early 1968. It was the first once I ever saw and I got a chance to inspect it. I remember it had sort of a folding sight (RPG-7?) and I was very impressed with its compact size (especially when compared to the 3.5 rocket launcher we were using). We also captured a back pack made for carrying 2 RPG rounds (if I remember correctly), the backpack still contained the RPG rounds. At the time I thought it was a really impressive and sensibly designed piece of kit (and still do).
Like Chieftain said: "On the Abrams or other MBT's, frontal armor is just one side of 6, and RPG-7 is still capable enough to penetrate other 5 sides".
You don’t have to completely destroy the tank. Knocking out the tracks, damaging the gun sight… would force the tank to retreat for repairs, forcing it to stop shooting at you.
@@danielaramburo7648 Yes - known as a "mobility kill" (destroying its tracks or engine) or a "mission kill" (forcing it to be unable to achieve its objective by damaging it badly).
The important thing to realize is that not everything is a tank. The RPG is very effective against light armored, or unarmored vehicles, which tend to outnumber tanks by a huge margin. It's also extremely effective against infantry, especially when assaulting fortified positions. This thing will blow right through sandbags, and a rocket through a window or in a firing slit can knock out positions with a single shot.
I was watching the book of Eli the other day and my wife said “would a rocket launcher really make it through the apocalypse?” The rpg-7 sure as hell could.
G'day, The Steel and Wood Would, T' be sure...; But what about the Propellant, Detonators Explosives...; They MIGHT be servicable for DECADES, Depending on how they were stored. But, Have you ever tried Scratch-building an Electro-Pyrotechnical Igniter from RAW MATERIALS coming to hand ? What about a Disposable Dry-Cell Battery to fire the Igniter...? Post Apocalypse, mate Once the Flatteries Go Bat, And are rooted, the RPG-7 is at best A Bat Or a Club... In reality. Such is life, Have a good one. ;-p Ciao !
My buddy was a helicopter mechanic in the U.S. Marines. He told me about helicopters that would get shot down or damaged by RPG hits. He said it happened way more often than people would think...
@@chethemerc7841 stingers and more advanced mana pads with a network of high caliber anti air guns together can prove hell to airborne and air assault operations you westerners are lucky you’ve never fought an actual powerful enemy with proper support even us Iraqis resistance in Fallujah gave us army hell
@@Veldtian1 the Soviets captured a bunch of Panzerfausts on the Eastern Front and put them to good use, same with US Bazooka's obtained through lend-lease. I imagine both were of great interest to their designers! The PF really was a devestating piece of kit
As a paratrooper in the South African Army during the Angolan Bush war in the 80’s we used captured RPG’s. Never used them against tanks, but they were extremely effective bunker busters or anti personal weapons. You can teach someone to use it in less than half an hour, can jump out of an aircraft with it and have a rough landing and it still works. Only problem was some of the rockets were recovered from buried weapons caches and were less than reliable. I saw booster charge pop it out the tube and then the sustainer not kick in and it go bouncing across the ground in front of you. Or only half the sustainer rockets would fire and it would go corkscrewing wildly. But when it worked it gave an infantry platoon some serious firepower. As for the detonates at 980m, I saw an instructor demonstrate this and fire it into the air. We all watched it disappear over the horizon and he shrugged and said “Well, it doesn’t always work” I seriously would not waste a round on trying to hit something more than 100m away.
@@sebastiangorka200 Of course we must have lost, I mean why else would Fidel Castro reward the generals in charge of the war by executing them when they returned to Cuba? 🤣
We had the Law rocket in the US military. It had a horrible plastic sight and was pretty much one shot junk with a huge back blast. First time I fired an RPG-7 I wondered how the Russians had such a good weapon with a small back blast while we were stuck with the LAW.
LAW is a single-shot weapon the sights can be plastic because you only fold them out when you use the weapon. They do not need to be rugged enough to be used multiple times. LAW do not need a launcher and is light 2.5 to 3.5 kg depending on the model. This makes it possible to give one to every soldier in addition to their rifle. A RPG-7 is 6.3 kg of 7 kg depending if you have optics or not. That is just the launcher, the warheads are 2 to 4.5 kg, and the common HEAT warhead is at 2.6 kg. So RPG-7 ammunition is the same weight as a complete LAW. The result is the weapon is one for specialists, not something you can give to every soldier. As the other post stated Soviets copied LAW and other single-use systems with their own single-use RPG. RPG-18 is very close to the LAW in design. LAW is not the US weapon system of the time that is like the RPG.-7 that would be the bazooka and the M67 recoilless rifle. M67 was adopted in 1959m the weight is, 17kg launcher with 3-4 kg projectiles. Today it is Carl Gustaf that the US military uses. it predates the RPG-7 the first model is from 1948, The current launcher has a weight of 6.6 kg, the original was at 14 kg. Ammunition in the 3-4 kg range. As a sing use weapon LAW was replaced or more exactly augmented with the AT4 which is at 6.7 or 8 kg, the one that is better to fire indoors is heavier. It is just as the LAW has plastic sights. So RPG-7 provided a lighter reusable anti tanks weapon than what US had at the time , it is the M67 not the LAW that is the comparable system. There is a large difference between weapons that are the main weapon of a soldier compared to additional weapons added to riflemen.
Any weapon should be built to high tolerances whether reloadable or disposable. The ammunition must be accurately made, the barrel precise and the gun sights boresighted and aligned and tough enough to survive mishandling. Tolerances must be measured, tested and certified. The idea of using primitive sights to save money is absurd as it gets solider killed and shortens the range of the weapon. The German Panzerschrek had a muzzle velocity of 110m/sec (much faster than bazooka) and should have had a fantastic accuracy but it seems to have been limited by its crude mass production. The 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 was a breached weapon that fired much the same ammunition only a little faster 140m/sec had much higher range and accuracy since it was built to very high tolerances.
@@target844 You can immagine in WW2 a German squad opening up a case of 6 Panzerfausts and issuing 6 of them to the 12 man squad. It was light enough to carry easily. The alternative is probably giving 2 Panzerschreks with loaders and you still don't have the fire power and have to drag the weapon with you as you try to escape.
@@williamzk9083 I agree with the Panzerschreck vs Panzerfaust comparison. A Panzerschreck is like a RPG-7 and a Panzerfaust is like a modern disposable weapon like a LAW, AT4 etc. This was the point of my post, western forces primarily selected the single-use squad weapon because everyone can carry and fire one. Soverts selected first multiple uses but later adopted a lot of single-use for exactly this reason. Many Western powers did not have a light for a reusable launcher at the time. I suspect the reason was the single-use was considered good enough against light armored vehicles and the heavier but longer range and higher penetration systems were intended to be used against tanks. That was the point of my post and why LAW vs RPG-7 is not a good comparison. LAW and RPG-18 is a good comparison the design is very similar and RPG-18 is likely in large part a copy of the LAW because it was fielded a decade later and I would be extremely surprised if the Soviet engineer did not have access to capture LAW from Vietnam
If ever there was a weapon that NATO forces should have just blatantly copied, it's probably the RPG-7. The fact that the warhead isn't contained inside the launchtube means you can screw literally anything that is within a certain weight and has some level of aerodynamics onto the rocket motor and launch it. It's absolutely brilliant. Probably one of the most cost effective weapons ever in modern history. I think only a long pike to take down a fully armoured knight comes close. This thing can take down even a modern MBT worth millions for a few hundred quid. And if there are no tanks, no problem. Just strap an HE warhead to the rocketmotor and use it to take down dug in infantry, of demolish their fortifications with it. It really is a piece of man-portable artillery.
It has been copied. The German Panzerfaust 44 is very close in design. 44 the diameter in mm not the year, it was adopted in 1963 so just after the RPG-7. Panzerfaust 3 is a semi-disposable modern variant of it. Functionally but not identical in design is the Carl Gustav was common in 1960 as an anti-tank weapon. It has made a comeback in the 2000s for use against infantry and fortification. It has a better range and higher accuracy than the RPG-7 and its ammunition is a lot more advanced like time delays high explosive warhead you can detonate above an enemy behind cover. It was heavier than the RPG-7 in the past but the modern launcher has the same weight. This is the most common weapon system that gives the capabilities you talk about for Western nations. The Swedish military has used the Carl Gustav to do all mentioned above and more since it introduction in 1948. US Ranges and other light units have had more weapons like this then most other US units that used vehicle-based weapons for the task. Western power makes single-use anti-tank weapons like LAW, AT4 etc that you can give to every soldier in addition to a rifle, not just dedicated soldiers like you need with the RPG-7. The launcher is at 7kg and ammunition weight is 2-4 kg per round. A complete LAW has the same weight as an RPG-7 round The Soviets did understand the advantage too and they coped with the side, just look at the RPG-18. RPG-7 is problematic against tanks today, a more efficient way is to use something like NLAW that can take out modern battle tanks. It cost a lot more but is more capable, you do not need to flan a tank to destroy it. You need to include the cost of your killed soldiers too. RPG-7 is made in the west too. PSRL-1 is a US made clone with modern features like a better grip and rail for mounting accessories like optics. It is compatible with all RPG7 ammunition The production started in 2016 it is intended as aid for US allied nations used to the RPG-7 and integration sales. The weight is only 4.3 kg
In 1988 I got to live fire a RPG-7 in Germany. Target was about 100 yards and with only iron sites I got a hit. And yes, it was a stationary target and no one was shooting at me but if I could get a hit on my first shot then with a little practice I sure I could have got a better hit and started reaching out further. Cheap, simple and reliable.
Hamas is using home-made RPG tandem warheads with great effectiveness against Israeli armor in Gaza. Several Merkavas have been disabled and destroyed. When fired within 50 meters, the tank’s Trophy system can’t react fast enough.
@@taibro3868I've heard they target the back hatch entrance of the tank. Or they also launch 2-3 rpgs at a time to make sure it enters all the way thru
@@taibro3868if you look at the Hamas videos, one thing that’s glaringly obvious is that Israeli tanks and apcs/ifvs like the namer are just operating on their own, one tank in the middle of hostile territory without infantry or even other tanks for support. They’re drunk on their delusions of superiority.
Oh yes, I really enjoyed this :) One of the best (IMHO) "speeches" I've heard in last years (about weaponry). Very, very well put together. No unnecessary BS around, but everything that's important/valuable. A diamond! Many could learn how to speak about anything from you Chris. Thank you, it was a pleasure.
Great documentary (as usual). Just saw videos from Ukraine, where they "field-converted" and fitted complete mortar rounds as warhead. Probably no great distance or precision, (saw them fire at about 45°angle), but as you said "man portable artillery".
Ha. While some made in Ukraine are indeed field conversions, in Romania we've made those as a factory product from the late 80s onward and we also have a 73mm version for the AG-9 (RPG-9), some of which, coincidentally somehow also appeared in Ukraine...
Given the fast pace of the modern battlefield, ersatz artillery from using handheld launchers is a lot better than having indirect fire support arriving too late, or no fire support at all. Mortars are technically man-portable artillery, but they cannot be fired on the move, and shoot and scoot tactics require more time to deploy and pack up the mortar and ammo.
Anti tank trenches would be a cool video. How do they work/what are they supposed to do? How have they changed, or stayed the same? Countermeasures to anti tank trenches?
In 2006, a Merkava got stuck in a ditch in Lebanon. Sometimes, the best weapon is a rock (Ethiopia), log (Finland), mud (Ukraine), or a hole in the earth
One of the other things slat armor does is deform the shape of the penetration. If the cone in the warhead is no longer a cone after squeezing through the slats then the lens-ing effect won't take place (at least not the same degree) and will act more akin to a HE than a HEAT.
@@Veldtian1 I don't know, he might not have even seen it coming. What was even more lucky was my single seat truck took an antitank recoilless rifle round squarely in the side window. Punched right through the bar armor and detonated against the glass, came inside the cockpit and lodged in the windshield. Tail boom of the round ended up on the dash and steering wheel.
So you talked a bit about the basic PG-7V warhead, the most iconic warhead for the RPG-7. But I thought I'd add a bit of info about some of the other warheads available for it. It was in service for quite a long time after all, and the Soviets/Russians made efforts to keep it relevant. There is the PG-7VM, which improves the penetration to 300mm (from the 260 of the basic PG-7V). This entered service in 1969. There is the PG-7VS, which further improved the penetration to 400mm, and entered service in 1972. There is the PG-7VR. This is a tandem charge warhead designed to defeat ERA (there is a small warhead in front of the main warhead that is meant to set off the ERA early) and can penetrate up to 750mm of armor. This entered service in 1988. Unlike the other warheads, this one still poses a significant threat to modern tanks (still won't penetrate the frontal armor of most modern tanks (unless it finds a weak point), but will slice right through the side armor of any tank that I know of). If you ever see a particularly long warhead sticking out of an RPG-7, that looks like it has a mini PG-7 warhead in front of a bigger one, that's probably the PG-7VR. And there is the OG-7V, which is a fragmentation warhead meant entirely for anti-personnel work. This is the only one that doesn't have its own rocket motor, relying entirely on its launch velocity to project forward. This apparently entered service quite late, in 1999 (so not something you'll see in a Cold War scenario). If you ever see a little cone that is no larger than the barrel sticking out of an RPG-7 then that's probably the OG-7V. 20:07 I will note that it absolutely was meant to kill tanks. It wasn't designed to penetrate modern composite armor, only because modern composite armor didn't exist at the time it was designed. If they didn't want it to be able to continue killing tanks, I can't imagine that the Soviets would have upgraded the warhead so much over its service life. Which is not to say that was not intended for all of the other roles for which it is used, such as destroying lightly armored vehicles, destroying infantry in buildings/bunkers, destroying obstacles, etc... It was absolutely meant to fill all of those other roles as well, and remains just as effective at those other roles as when it was first designed.
There are more interesting variants as well, like the Type-69 airburst HE warhead, used extensively by Taliban in Afghanistan, and the TBG-7V, which is a thermobaric warhead
@@kyriakoskitsios In proper application the RPG7 proves to be effective against modern MBT to this very day, the RPG29 adds reach which the RPG7 legs with larger warheads.
That was very good. May I ask, have you covered the 6 and 17-pounder anti-tank guns used in Normandy Plus? My Dad was an anti-tank gunner in the Argyles. I remember one of his stories was about how hard-hitting the 17-pounder was they shot through the berms and bocage and with such a flat trajectory it was so effective with pill boxes and armor. After the wars end he transferred to the Paras and continued his career with these remarkable guns. (retired in 65 as RSM and loved it all )
I've met a Canadian tank commander while on exercise in Gardelegen, Germany. Back then, the Canadians were using Leo2A5 (I think... Not sure about the version) leased from the German Armed Forces which they had also used in Afghanistan. He recounted a mission during which he was hit by two consecutive RPG missiles to the side of the hull, and while none made it through the armor, he told me that the sheer force of it feels like you've just experienced a major car accident: Absolutely disoriented, stunned, no hearing, no idea what just happened, etc... It took them quite a while to get up and moving again and that was when he heard over the radio that he had just been hit by RPG coming from a nearby compound. Back at the camp, he looked at the armor, made some photographs of it (I saw them -the damage was clearly visible, but nothing terribly unsettling to the eye) and had a troublesome night thinking how lucky he was but also because the physical shock of it was still present and kept his body alert. Prior to that, I had always believed that as long as the projectile does not make it through, you're out of harm's way, but that's far from the truth. The worst scenario might not happen (it setting the fuel on fire or blowing up the armor compartment) but the blast is still considerable. If an RPG-7 can do that to an MBT's crew, imagine taking an RPG to a patrol vehicle... No chance. If the projectile does not penetrate and kill you, the blast very likely will.
Around 2004 or so, an M1A1 in Iraq was knocked out by a hit at the turret ring. There were some surprisingly detailed photos uploaded to a milblog. Probably would never happen today. Anyway, the weapon had made a neat hole in the ring and then you could see the splash pattern of copper inside the turret. It hadn't done a lot of damage but did hit an electrical box, knocking out power, and the concussion broke the gunner's legs. People in the comments were speculating about some new Russian ATGM. Eventually the answer came: RPG-7. Fired at close range in a city.
Great presentation with excellent dialog and graphics to explain the RPG-X line of weapons. Thank you so much for your proof that a weapon has to cost $Thousands (like the Javelin) to be a tank killer. We now know that cheaper effective weapons can give infantry many tools to complete missions. In 2004, my unit was tasked into Fallujah. I would add to your commentary that the RPG-7 is also very dangerous for infantry. An Iraqi was about 50 meters from me, and loosed a round from his RPG-7 right at me. I was lucky, the round went by my head about 1 meter away and smacked into a stone wall about 10 meters behind me. The explosion knocked me and 2 team members to the ground. We were okay but I couldn't hear in my right ear for 2 days. Had that round hit any of us and exploded in our midst, none would have survived I am convinced. So in summary, I would add, you don't have to be a tanker to fear this terrible and effective weapon.
It`s very interesting to see related tank items as almost no one covers them any where, just recently Australian Armor Museum just had a 2 part segment on the MG-34 and all of it`s accessories and maintenance kit.
I wondered why I kept waking up in hospital every time I fired my RPG-7 out of the kitchen window. Next time I'll use the lounge window instead - there's loads more room for the back blast.
I remember seeing a diagram of the sight picture of the Chinese version of the RPG 7. It had two sets of graticules, one for NATO tanks , the other for soviet tanks !
Very good presentation! I’ve been seeing these weapons in news photos for years without a full understanding of their design and employment. You have remedied that, so thank you.
I have a demilled RPG7, also bulgerian. The thing seems extreamly simple. the rockets are the hard looking part. I have a demilled ruissan pg-7 (export for spanish countrys) warhead. the fin assembly (which I also have the cardboard that would cover the charge that goes over the fins) is very intresting and finely machined, the rocket motor itself seems like it would be fairly complex to make, though sadly I don't have any of the shaped charge bits, it's just hollow in there.
I was demo'd one of these when I was in Quantico. The instructor who taught us how used it really liked the RP7 and said he wished the US used something similar. This was back in the late '80s.
when i was in ulster i was attached to the ruc and we often moved caches of seized weapons and devices. the ira had their own home made version of the rpg called the paddy 7. it was more or less a large firework with an impact fuse on the end. it was reasonably effective against guard towers, but then the addition of wire cages stopped this. they had a range of around 200 yards and were not very accurate. also the trail of smoke exposed the operators position. they were only around until about 1982, where they were replaced with a mortar version.
The RPG 7 is still a great weapon. Most trucks have thin skin, so the RPG can kill them. The RPG 7 can kill old tanks, forcing rulers to spend more tax on big tanks with great weight from thick skin The RPG 7 forced the tank to have so much weight that the tank made these days cant cross a bridge or a field of mud. The RPG 7 can take down helicopters and hit boats. This showed in Vietnam. The RPG 7 can break walls, trees, and rocks; killing a man cowing there.
It kind of reminds me of the M2 Browning in a way. Iirc, the .50 cal was originally envisioned as an anti-tank gun way back at the end of WW1, but has evolved to be used against largely anything that isn't heavily armored
I would intentionally make city planning with zig zag highways that make it hard for tanks to move directly to your cities, and then the highways would be routinely bridged with a fail weight of 50 tons per 30 feet to deal with thse things.Make your cities designed to reject expensive MBTs and you'll really hobble state of art militaries. More countries need to be designing their roads and highways to exclude the expensive stuff from easy access. Level the playing field.
@@neglectfulsausage7689 You will cripple the economy that way. And tracked vehicles like tanks and APCs are notorious for moving offroad, making the whole idea rather pointless.
An insightful chat on the history and use of the RPG-7, with a clear & concise format, and expertly delivered... Thanks for sharing, Excellent effort! 🍻
@@ethanmorrissey8277 a different language? Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт, РПГ when translated into Latin alphabet gives you Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot, RPG. It means hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher, the original RPG acronym has nothing to do with the term Rocket Propelled Grenade, this term applied to an existing acronym and has been commonly adopted while not being the correct meaning of the acronym. This is just a case where the more commonly assumed acronym just happens to also correctly describe the item (at least in part).
You forgot the Swedish 103(S) which used barred armor att the front, although classified for quite a good time. Love your channel, thanks for all the hard work!
it's not quite unique (I say in a nice way) as quite a few scopes for shooting people have the same feature based on the average target being 1.8 metres tall (I think). What I liked was the difference in height between NATO tanks and WarPac tanks, so they went middle for diddle (just in case!) But - excellent comment in any case!
Yes, very well researched and presented. The Panzerfaust and the Panzershreck's love child, with Uncle Bazooka as god parent. The PIAT never had children sadly (but possibly that was for the best.)
Interesting - I hope you will cover the Carl Gustav recoilless... because that is one bloody brilliant AT weapon too. In Denmark its called the Swiss Knife of the infantry
Our "Buffalo" route clearance truck took one of these to the front right seat area in 2004. It went in one side, sprayed molten copper and armor bits and out the other. We did not have anti RPG slat armor yet. Everyone lived though they were all wounded. Bad day from a cheap weapon.
Fun fact: the Russians were the first ones to call these "RPG". The term "rocket-propelled grenade" is a backronym from the Russian acronym РПГ (Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт, Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot), meaning "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher", the name given to early Russian designs.
The easier the weapon is to use, the faster and more people will be able to use it. It's not always necessary to complicate everything. Especially when it comes to serial weapons
@@chadclay1643 No babe, not all Soviet weapons are made in Russia by Russians, not at all. But almost all Russian weapons were designed in Soviet times, often by Ukrainians or Belarussians or Poles or Armenians by nationality and typically based on German and American designs, such as RPG-2. Bazalt, the company that designed RPG-7 in early 1960s, was by then headed by D. D. Rukazenkov from Ukraine. So thanks for your effort sweetie, try it on someone else.
@@f4ust85 oh you did a quick Google did you darling, Rukazenkov is a Russian name, Bazalt is a Russian company, Ukraine didn’t exist during soviet times and its successor the rpg 30 is currently wrecking the Ukrainian counter offensive as we speak, now good day madamn 😁😁
We replaced the PIATs with the RPG-7 for a small time before choosing the Carl Gustav as our standard issue RL. The RPG-7D was used by our paratroopers during 1971 war during Tangail paradrop.
Slat armor isn't protecting the vehicle by detonating a HEAT warhead away from the vehicle. Actually often that leads into more lethal jets being formed. What slat armor does, is that it ruins the shape of the charge as it collides with the bars. Even if it doesn't cause the warhead to not explode, it causes the warhead to deform. And for shaped charges, it is very important that the lining is just right, so it forms the neat tight stream of metal. If the shape gets deformed, it won't be balanced, the stream is disturbed and it won't penetrate the armor. This is why Russian cope cages don't work. They don't understand that NLAW and Javelin rockets actually detonate away from the tank, instead of being triggered by physical contact. Hence a javelin/NLAW warhead will never make contact with the slat armor, giving it no chance of deforming the warhead.
the "cope cages" were there for suicide drones and loitering munitions. Remember the russians kept a close eye on the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, where Armenia lost a huge number of armored vehicles to Azeri loitering munitions.
Sorry, but wherever you're getting your info is completely wrong. Javelin is absolutely a contact fuze weapon, it makes a physical contact with armour. NLAW does detonate above the target. And I would assume the freaking British Tank Museum has way more information and credibility than you.
As a person who have shot plenty with these, when I was on service in the Bulgarian army I can say few things - first it sounds like a canon and even in open field you need ear plugs - shoothing in a room is like blasting a granade in the room you are - it will puncture your eardrums at least, second it is acurate - I've repeatedly shot 4 by 3 meters targets from 300 meters. Third - make sure nobody is behind you because he will fly :). Great weapom!!! When you aim you correct the aim point in the direction of the wind, because the wind pushess the back fins and the rocket which actually this is turns and flies in the direction of the wind. I was a squad comander and my captain gived all shots to me because the soldiers was too scared from this - as I said ... you need to here the boom it makes ... you would not believe how deafening it is :))) ... and no recoil at all
"If you fire one of these in the room of a house out a window, make sure there's at least 2 meters behind you." Hopefully I'll remember that the next time I'm firing an RPG from a house window. Thanks Chris! 😜
I was informed regarding the incident in 2007, where a IED or RPG had caused a drain plug to be pushed into the cabin which damaged the the drivers foot but not causing any damage to the vehicle.
An RPG-29 round in August 2006 penetrated the frontal underside hull which was equipped with ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, but only lightly damaging the tank, which drove home under its own power. Since then, the explosive reactive armour has been replaced with Chobham Armour and the steel underbelly lined with armour as part of the Streetfighter upgrade as a direct response to this incident.
@@averagejoeveteran2043 not to be rude but ever single thing you said was incorrect, it was August 2006, it penetrated the frontal underside hull which was equipped with ERA during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, the tank was damaged, but was able to drive home under its own power. Since then, the explosive reactive armour has been replaced with Chobham Armour and the steel underbelly lined with armour as part of the Streetfighter upgrade as a direct response to this incident.
@@Alex-cw3rz I did say that I had been informed in 2007 of an incident, this was because I was in Al Amarah in 2007. This does not mean the information I was given was correct hence I asked for the full details
I was going to annoyingly correct the RPG moniker you used at first with Rocket Propelled Grenade but you explained it perfectly that it's not really the meaning but it has stuck as the backronym.
For some reason the US Army went with the LAW. There is a US company that makes RPG 7s. Tanks have significantly different armor thicknesses by location…… thick at front, thin at rear.
Hi Tank Nuts, let us know what else you'd like to see from Anti-Tank Chats!
In the movie _The Beast,_ the main character repairs the firing mechanism of an RPG launcher using parts from a nondescript, ostensibly decades-old, rifle.
Was that possible? Or would even MacGuyver have found it impossible?
Have you guys considered AT mines?
Maybe the Stugna-P system compared to the other systems currently in use in ukraine
le. Panzerfaust 44 "Lanze"
Dragon's teeth!
I like this guy. He is calm and easy to listen to, and often takes the time to go into interesting details without overcomplicating things.
Yes. He sounds like he had experience in pre mission briefs / post mission debriefs
Yes he's great at presenting these
He's an excellent presenter, so is David Wiley
I counted 55 ah’s and uhm’s, not really a good presenting technique…
@@Mrtweet81 You have no idea how human communication works, do you?
I remember this weapon from my Marine grunt days in Vietnam. We had captured one after a firefight with the NVA near the DMZ in early 1968. It was the first once I ever saw and I got a chance to inspect it. I remember it had sort of a folding sight (RPG-7?) and I was very impressed with its compact size (especially when compared to the 3.5 rocket launcher we were using). We also captured a back pack made for carrying 2 RPG rounds (if I remember correctly), the backpack still contained the RPG rounds. At the time I thought it was a really impressive and sensibly designed piece of kit (and still do).
a lot of soviet equipment was extremely well designed and cheap
@@thefarter6462simple, cheap and effective
Скорее всего это был РПГ-2
@@АндрейЕремин-щ8ц yep the RPG-2 has a folding front sight, and was super common in Vietnam
@@Gameprojordan The Chinese model was the B40.
Like Chieftain said: "On the Abrams or other MBT's, frontal armor is just one side of 6, and RPG-7 is still capable enough to penetrate other 5 sides".
You don’t have to completely destroy the tank. Knocking out the tracks, damaging the gun sight… would force the tank to retreat for repairs, forcing it to stop shooting at you.
Yep
@@danielaramburo7648 Yes - known as a "mobility kill" (destroying its tracks or engine) or a "mission kill" (forcing it to be unable to achieve its objective by damaging it badly).
I'm looking forward to you trying!
Not a challenger it couldnt.
The important thing to realize is that not everything is a tank. The RPG is very effective against light armored, or unarmored vehicles, which tend to outnumber tanks by a huge margin. It's also extremely effective against infantry, especially when assaulting fortified positions. This thing will blow right through sandbags, and a rocket through a window or in a firing slit can knock out positions with a single shot.
This. Most people do not realize that the most armored combat vehicles are not tanks.
@@CloneDAnon Doubtful that anyone would want to shoot naval ship with an RPG ._.
@@CRITICALHITRU Now that you've said it I want to give it a try...
@@trolleriffic I meant it's hull, but if you lob the thing on deck, you are guaranteed to cause trouble.
Rpg also explode after 950m so you can airburst it
I was watching the book of Eli the other day and my wife said “would a rocket launcher really make it through the apocalypse?” The rpg-7 sure as hell could.
Your wife asks interesting questions
i mean it’s a really simple rocket launcher
G'day,
The Steel and Wood
Would,
T' be sure...;
But what about the
Propellant,
Detonators
Explosives...;
They MIGHT be servicable for
DECADES,
Depending on how they were stored.
But,
Have you ever tried
Scratch-building an Electro-Pyrotechnical
Igniter from
RAW MATERIALS coming to hand ?
What about a Disposable Dry-Cell Battery to fire the Igniter...?
Post Apocalypse, mate
Once the
Flatteries
Go Bat,
And are rooted, the RPG-7 is at best
A Bat
Or a Club...
In reality.
Such is life,
Have a good one.
;-p
Ciao !
There’s a million of them in Afghanistan. Point proven....
@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle well shes a keeper
My buddy was a helicopter mechanic in the U.S. Marines. He told me about helicopters that would get shot down or damaged by RPG hits. He said it happened way more often than people would think...
17:17 he talks about it.
Literally Black Hawk down were downed by RPG fire
Hovering or slow moving Helos would be easy targets. Flying full tilt would be difficult.
@@josephstalin9357 Operation Gothic Serpent.
@@chethemerc7841 stingers and more advanced mana pads with a network of high caliber anti air guns together can prove hell to airborne and air assault operations you westerners are lucky you’ve never fought an actual powerful enemy with proper support even us Iraqis resistance in Fallujah gave us army hell
A very interesting and well presented episode - thank you. The RPG series is proof that "quantity has it own quality".
and this is also a quality instrument
it has not only ridiculous quantity but plenty of quality as well
You just need 1 to destroy a tank. It's Soviet engineering quality.
@@bbcmotd It's heavily philosophically inspired if not entirely based on the Panzerfaust.
@@Veldtian1 the Soviets captured a bunch of Panzerfausts on the Eastern Front and put them to good use, same with US Bazooka's obtained through lend-lease. I imagine both were of great interest to their designers! The PF really was a devestating piece of kit
Self destruct switch is about 900 metres.....used have these fired at us in Afghan, they would stand 900ms away and let them blow up over the FOB.
Move your FOB 10 meter closer, it explodes behind you
@@dukenukem8381 Genius idea !!!
@@catlee8064 I got your back Bud.
They just where not smart enough to make a frag sleve
them afghanis also tend to not remove safety caps before firing btw
As a paratrooper in the South African Army during the Angolan Bush war in the 80’s we used captured RPG’s. Never used them against tanks, but they were extremely effective bunker busters or anti personal weapons. You can teach someone to use it in less than half an hour, can jump out of an aircraft with it and have a rough landing and it still works.
Only problem was some of the rockets were recovered from buried weapons caches and were less than reliable. I saw booster charge pop it out the tube and then the sustainer not kick in and it go bouncing across the ground in front of you. Or only half the sustainer rockets would fire and it would go corkscrewing wildly.
But when it worked it gave an infantry platoon some serious firepower.
As for the detonates at 980m, I saw an instructor demonstrate this and fire it into the air. We all watched it disappear over the horizon and he shrugged and said “Well, it doesn’t always work”
I seriously would not waste a round on trying to hit something more than 100m away.
@@sebastiangorka200 The Angolans and Cubans were too busy running away.
@@robstone4537 ah yeah thats why you lost the war, uh huh
@@sebastiangorka200 Of course we must have lost, I mean why else would Fidel Castro reward the generals in charge of the war by executing them when they returned to Cuba? 🤣
You mean the SADF?
We had the Law rocket in the US military. It had a horrible plastic sight and was pretty much one shot junk with a huge back blast. First time I fired an RPG-7 I wondered how the Russians had such a good weapon with a small back blast while we were stuck with the LAW.
LAW is a single-shot weapon the sights can be plastic because you only fold them out when you use the weapon. They do not need to be rugged enough to be used multiple times.
LAW do not need a launcher and is light 2.5 to 3.5 kg depending on the model. This makes it possible to give one to every soldier in addition to their rifle.
A RPG-7 is 6.3 kg of 7 kg depending if you have optics or not. That is just the launcher, the warheads are 2 to 4.5 kg, and the common HEAT warhead is at 2.6 kg. So RPG-7 ammunition is the same weight as a complete LAW. The result is the weapon is one for specialists, not something you can give to every soldier.
As the other post stated Soviets copied LAW and other single-use systems with their own single-use RPG. RPG-18 is very close to the LAW in design.
LAW is not the US weapon system of the time that is like the RPG.-7 that would be the bazooka and the M67 recoilless rifle. M67 was adopted in 1959m the weight is, 17kg launcher with 3-4 kg projectiles.
Today it is Carl Gustaf that the US military uses. it predates the RPG-7 the first model is from 1948, The current launcher has a weight of 6.6 kg, the original was at 14 kg. Ammunition in the 3-4 kg range.
As a sing use weapon LAW was replaced or more exactly augmented with the AT4 which is at 6.7 or 8 kg, the one that is better to fire indoors is heavier. It is just as the LAW has plastic sights.
So RPG-7 provided a lighter reusable anti tanks weapon than what US had at the time , it is the M67 not the LAW that is the comparable system. There is a large difference between weapons that are the main weapon of a soldier compared to additional weapons added to riflemen.
Any weapon should be built to high tolerances whether reloadable or disposable. The ammunition must be accurately made, the barrel precise and the gun sights boresighted and aligned and tough enough to survive mishandling. Tolerances must be measured, tested and certified. The idea of using primitive sights to save money is absurd as it gets solider killed and shortens the range of the weapon. The German Panzerschrek had a muzzle velocity of 110m/sec (much faster than bazooka) and should have had a fantastic accuracy but it seems to have been limited by its crude mass production. The 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 was a breached weapon that fired much the same ammunition only a little faster 140m/sec had much higher range and accuracy since it was built to very high tolerances.
@@target844 You can immagine in WW2 a German squad opening up a case of 6 Panzerfausts and issuing 6 of them to the 12 man squad. It was light enough to carry easily. The alternative is probably giving 2 Panzerschreks with loaders and you still don't have the fire power and have to drag the weapon with you as you try to escape.
@@williamzk9083 I agree with the Panzerschreck vs Panzerfaust comparison. A Panzerschreck is like a RPG-7 and a Panzerfaust is like a modern disposable weapon like a LAW, AT4 etc. This was the point of my post, western forces primarily selected the single-use squad weapon because everyone can carry and fire one. Soverts selected first multiple uses but later adopted a lot of single-use for exactly this reason.
Many Western powers did not have a light for a reusable launcher at the time. I suspect the reason was the single-use was considered good enough against light armored vehicles and the heavier but longer range and higher penetration systems were intended to be used against tanks.
That was the point of my post and why LAW vs RPG-7 is not a good comparison. LAW and RPG-18 is a good comparison the design is very similar and RPG-18 is likely in large part a copy of the LAW because it was fielded a decade later and I would be extremely surprised if the Soviet engineer did not have access to capture LAW from Vietnam
@@target844 Not every panzerfaust was meant for a single use. There was a version you could reload.
The rpg and ak are amazing feats of simple engineering.
If ever there was a weapon that NATO forces should have just blatantly copied, it's probably the RPG-7. The fact that the warhead isn't contained inside the launchtube means you can screw literally anything that is within a certain weight and has some level of aerodynamics onto the rocket motor and launch it. It's absolutely brilliant.
Probably one of the most cost effective weapons ever in modern history. I think only a long pike to take down a fully armoured knight comes close.
This thing can take down even a modern MBT worth millions for a few hundred quid. And if there are no tanks, no problem. Just strap an HE warhead to the rocketmotor and use it to take down dug in infantry, of demolish their fortifications with it. It really is a piece of man-portable artillery.
It has been copied. The German Panzerfaust 44 is very close in design. 44 the diameter in mm not the year, it was adopted in 1963 so just after the RPG-7. Panzerfaust 3 is a semi-disposable modern variant of it.
Functionally but not identical in design is the Carl Gustav was common in 1960 as an anti-tank weapon. It has made a comeback in the 2000s for use against infantry and fortification. It has a better range and higher accuracy than the RPG-7 and its ammunition is a lot more advanced like time delays high explosive warhead you can detonate above an enemy behind cover. It was heavier than the RPG-7 in the past but the modern launcher has the same weight. This is the most common weapon system that gives the capabilities you talk about for Western nations.
The
Swedish military has used the Carl Gustav to do all mentioned above and more since it introduction in 1948. US Ranges and other light units have had more weapons like this then most other US units that used vehicle-based weapons for the task.
Western power makes single-use anti-tank weapons like LAW, AT4 etc that you can give to every soldier in addition to a rifle, not just dedicated soldiers like you need with the RPG-7. The launcher is at 7kg and ammunition weight is 2-4 kg per round. A complete LAW has the same weight as an RPG-7 round
The Soviets did understand the advantage too and they coped with the side, just look at the RPG-18.
RPG-7 is problematic against tanks today, a more efficient way is to use something like NLAW that can take out modern battle tanks. It cost a lot more but is more capable, you do not need to flan a tank to destroy it. You need to include the cost of your killed soldiers too.
RPG-7 is made in the west too. PSRL-1 is a US made clone with modern features like a better grip and rail for mounting accessories like optics. It is compatible with all RPG7 ammunition The production started in 2016 it is intended as aid for US allied nations used to the RPG-7 and integration sales. The weight is only 4.3 kg
NATO did tho or atleast the us did make their own rpg system for former Warsaw pact countries
In 1988 I got to live fire a RPG-7 in Germany. Target was about 100 yards and with only iron sites I got a hit. And yes, it was a stationary target and no one was shooting at me but if I could get a hit on my first shot then with a little practice I sure I could have got a better hit and started reaching out further. Cheap, simple and reliable.
East German army?
no, it was a opfor weapons course for the US army
@@gwc656g I see.
Hamas is using home-made RPG tandem warheads with great effectiveness against Israeli armor in Gaza. Several Merkavas have been disabled and destroyed. When fired within 50 meters, the tank’s Trophy system can’t react fast enough.
I wonder how much they can penetrate. It helps that the merkava tankers are morons
@@taibro3868I've heard they target the back hatch entrance of the tank. Or they also launch 2-3 rpgs at a time to make sure it enters all the way thru
@@taibro3868650mm of rha
@@taibro3868if you look at the Hamas videos, one thing that’s glaringly obvious is that Israeli tanks and apcs/ifvs like the namer are just operating on their own, one tank in the middle of hostile territory without infantry or even other tanks for support. They’re drunk on their delusions of superiority.
Oh yes, I really enjoyed this :)
One of the best (IMHO) "speeches" I've heard in last years (about weaponry). Very, very well put together. No unnecessary BS around, but everything that's important/valuable. A diamond!
Many could learn how to speak about anything from you Chris. Thank you, it was a pleasure.
Great documentary (as usual).
Just saw videos from Ukraine, where they "field-converted" and fitted complete mortar rounds as warhead.
Probably no great distance or precision, (saw them fire at about 45°angle), but as you said "man portable artillery".
Old fire extinguisher bottles too.
Ha. While some made in Ukraine are indeed field conversions, in Romania we've made those as a factory product from the late 80s onward and we also have a 73mm version for the AG-9 (RPG-9), some of which, coincidentally somehow also appeared in Ukraine...
Given the fast pace of the modern battlefield, ersatz artillery from using handheld launchers is a lot better than having indirect fire support arriving too late, or no fire support at all.
Mortars are technically man-portable artillery, but they cannot be fired on the move, and shoot and scoot tactics require more time to deploy and pack up the mortar and ammo.
Anti tank trenches would be a cool video. How do they work/what are they supposed to do? How have they changed, or stayed the same? Countermeasures to anti tank trenches?
I saw a video where a Ukrainian tank used its tracks to bury a Russian trench, sometimes you have to get creative.
@sam8404 that might explain why some Russians are reported to attack with showels.
In 2006, a Merkava got stuck in a ditch in Lebanon. Sometimes, the best weapon is a rock (Ethiopia), log (Finland), mud (Ukraine), or a hole in the earth
@@sam8404 This tactic is very old, as it is effective. I remember seeing documentaries that show its use in the battle of El-Alamain
One of the other things slat armor does is deform the shape of the penetration. If the cone in the warhead is no longer a cone after squeezing through the slats then the lens-ing effect won't take place (at least not the same degree) and will act more akin to a HE than a HEAT.
Right. And quite a small HE, at that…
@@GuyChapman Tom Cruise type bloke then?
Saved one of our vehicles in Afghanistan. Instead of going through teh driver's window, it hit the bar armor and fragged the outer layer of glass.
@@SoloRenegade Did his life still flash before his eyes?😂Lucky dude.
@@Veldtian1 I don't know, he might not have even seen it coming.
What was even more lucky was my single seat truck took an antitank recoilless rifle round squarely in the side window. Punched right through the bar armor and detonated against the glass, came inside the cockpit and lodged in the windshield. Tail boom of the round ended up on the dash and steering wheel.
So you talked a bit about the basic PG-7V warhead, the most iconic warhead for the RPG-7. But I thought I'd add a bit of info about some of the other warheads available for it. It was in service for quite a long time after all, and the Soviets/Russians made efforts to keep it relevant.
There is the PG-7VM, which improves the penetration to 300mm (from the 260 of the basic PG-7V). This entered service in 1969.
There is the PG-7VS, which further improved the penetration to 400mm, and entered service in 1972.
There is the PG-7VR. This is a tandem charge warhead designed to defeat ERA (there is a small warhead in front of the main warhead that is meant to set off the ERA early) and can penetrate up to 750mm of armor. This entered service in 1988. Unlike the other warheads, this one still poses a significant threat to modern tanks (still won't penetrate the frontal armor of most modern tanks (unless it finds a weak point), but will slice right through the side armor of any tank that I know of). If you ever see a particularly long warhead sticking out of an RPG-7, that looks like it has a mini PG-7 warhead in front of a bigger one, that's probably the PG-7VR.
And there is the OG-7V, which is a fragmentation warhead meant entirely for anti-personnel work. This is the only one that doesn't have its own rocket motor, relying entirely on its launch velocity to project forward. This apparently entered service quite late, in 1999 (so not something you'll see in a Cold War scenario). If you ever see a little cone that is no larger than the barrel sticking out of an RPG-7 then that's probably the OG-7V.
20:07 I will note that it absolutely was meant to kill tanks. It wasn't designed to penetrate modern composite armor, only because modern composite armor didn't exist at the time it was designed. If they didn't want it to be able to continue killing tanks, I can't imagine that the Soviets would have upgraded the warhead so much over its service life. Which is not to say that was not intended for all of the other roles for which it is used, such as destroying lightly armored vehicles, destroying infantry in buildings/bunkers, destroying obstacles, etc... It was absolutely meant to fill all of those other roles as well, and remains just as effective at those other roles as when it was first designed.
There are more interesting variants as well, like the Type-69 airburst HE warhead, used extensively by Taliban in Afghanistan, and the TBG-7V, which is a thermobaric warhead
Good additional information, cheers!
The Soviets also made a "thermobaric" warhead for the RPG. Very bad news if you were caught by it.
The rpg29 is much more effective. Even on modern tanks.
@@kyriakoskitsios In proper application the RPG7 proves to be effective against modern MBT to this very day, the RPG29 adds reach which the RPG7 legs with larger warheads.
That was very good. May I ask, have you covered the 6 and 17-pounder anti-tank guns used in Normandy Plus? My Dad was an anti-tank gunner in the Argyles. I remember one of his stories was about how hard-hitting the 17-pounder was they shot through the berms and bocage and with such a flat trajectory it was so effective with pill boxes and armor. After the wars end he transferred to the Paras and continued his career with these remarkable guns. (retired in 65 as RSM and loved it all )
An excellent video essay - comprehensive history and excellent analysis. Thank you for this valuable hard work.
I've met a Canadian tank commander while on exercise in Gardelegen, Germany. Back then, the Canadians were using Leo2A5 (I think... Not sure about the version) leased from the German Armed Forces which they had also used in Afghanistan. He recounted a mission during which he was hit by two consecutive RPG missiles to the side of the hull, and while none made it through the armor, he told me that the sheer force of it feels like you've just experienced a major car accident: Absolutely disoriented, stunned, no hearing, no idea what just happened, etc...
It took them quite a while to get up and moving again and that was when he heard over the radio that he had just been hit by RPG coming from a nearby compound. Back at the camp, he looked at the armor, made some photographs of it (I saw them -the damage was clearly visible, but nothing terribly unsettling to the eye) and had a troublesome night thinking how lucky he was but also because the physical shock of it was still present and kept his body alert.
Prior to that, I had always believed that as long as the projectile does not make it through, you're out of harm's way, but that's far from the truth. The worst scenario might not happen (it setting the fuel on fire or blowing up the armor compartment) but the blast is still considerable. If an RPG-7 can do that to an MBT's crew, imagine taking an RPG to a patrol vehicle... No chance. If the projectile does not penetrate and kill you, the blast very likely will.
Around 2004 or so, an M1A1 in Iraq was knocked out by a hit at the turret ring. There were some surprisingly detailed photos uploaded to a milblog. Probably would never happen today. Anyway, the weapon had made a neat hole in the ring and then you could see the splash pattern of copper inside the turret. It hadn't done a lot of damage but did hit an electrical box, knocking out power, and the concussion broke the gunner's legs. People in the comments were speculating about some new Russian ATGM. Eventually the answer came: RPG-7. Fired at close range in a city.
really like how you go into the detail of the weapon, its history and its relevance in todays combat situations
Got to love the wood finish on Soviet weapons.
Happy Easter
A subject I did not anticipate but throrougly appreciate
Great presentation with excellent dialog and graphics to explain the RPG-X line of weapons. Thank you so much for your proof that a weapon has to cost $Thousands (like the Javelin) to be a tank killer. We now know that cheaper effective weapons can give infantry many tools to complete missions. In 2004, my unit was tasked into Fallujah. I would add to your commentary that the RPG-7 is also very dangerous for infantry. An Iraqi was about 50 meters from me, and loosed a round from his RPG-7 right at me. I was lucky, the round went by my head about 1 meter away and smacked into a stone wall about 10 meters behind me. The explosion knocked me and 2 team members to the ground. We were okay but I couldn't hear in my right ear for 2 days. Had that round hit any of us and exploded in our midst, none would have survived I am convinced. So in summary, I would add, you don't have to be a tanker to fear this terrible and effective weapon.
Very cool and highly informative. Hope other systems will be covered later on like the Carl Gustav 84mm?
Fascinating video, thank you for going into such detail into how it works, which was very different to how a layman like me imagined.
The technical side of your videos continues to improve, very nice lighting set up for Chris.
There's not a wasted word in this video, it's well-delivered facts that are presented in a compelling talk.
This was a great video. Dealt with this weapon from the wrong side, and it sure wasn’t fun. Thanks for making it.
I dealt with it from the right side(just training, not combat) and it was fun.
It`s very interesting to see related tank items as almost no one covers them any where, just recently Australian Armor Museum just had a 2 part segment on the MG-34 and all of it`s accessories and maintenance kit.
Another brilliant presentation. Thank you Mr. Copson.
Great presentation on the RPG 7, thank you.
Good of Chris to give us tips for the next time we're firing an RPG-7 from a building :)
I wondered why I kept waking up in hospital every time I fired my RPG-7 out of the kitchen window. Next time I'll use the lounge window instead - there's loads more room for the back blast.
Thanks!
Outstanding exploitation of the most noticeable anti tank/personnel weapon in the world known.
Throughly enjoyed this video.👍🏻⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
This is the most complete and well laid out video I’ve seen about the RPG-7, it really filled in the gaps of what I knew of this weapon
I remember seeing a diagram of the sight picture of the Chinese version of the RPG 7. It had two sets of graticules, one for NATO tanks , the other for soviet tanks !
😂
Very good presentation! I’ve been seeing these weapons in news photos for years without a full understanding of their design and employment. You have remedied that, so thank you.
AK-47, RPG-7, Vodka, T-34, Legends never die
Wonderfully informative chat on this most versatile weapon. Instructive and expertly delivered piece. Many thanks.
I served in soviet army in 1977-79 and I had РПГ-7
@offroadguy7772 No.Once I almost went deaf when I forgot to plug my ears
Русски?
@@malegria9641 No.I'm tatarian from Russia
I had no idea how much complex engineering went into what is now such a common and traditionally thought of as a "simple" weapon.
I have a demilled RPG7, also bulgerian. The thing seems extreamly simple. the rockets are the hard looking part. I have a demilled ruissan pg-7 (export for spanish countrys) warhead. the fin assembly (which I also have the cardboard that would cover the charge that goes over the fins) is very intresting and finely machined, the rocket motor itself seems like it would be fairly complex to make, though sadly I don't have any of the shaped charge bits, it's just hollow in there.
shape charge is just explosive and a copper cone . demilaterized it wont have explosive of course
"bulgerian", "spanish countrys" - definitely an American here🤣
I was demo'd one of these when I was in Quantico. The instructor who taught us how used it really liked the RP7 and said he wished the US used something similar. This was back in the late '80s.
had same experiance teaching on opfor ranges in ger ..... took about 10 min to train very ergomatic souldier regolarly got first round hits
another great video :) i need more of mister Chris Copson on my screen :)
An excellent presentation, interesting, informative and enjoyable.
Subscribed.
Bit around 6:10 with the name is fascinating, I didn't know that.
Had the opportunity to hold an RPG-7, and its so amazingly light.
when i was in ulster i was attached to the ruc and we often moved caches of seized weapons and devices. the ira had their own home made version of the rpg called the paddy 7. it was more or less a large firework with an impact fuse on the end. it was reasonably effective against guard towers, but then the addition of wire cages stopped this. they had a range of around 200 yards and were not very accurate. also the trail of smoke exposed the operators position. they were only around until about 1982, where they were replaced with a mortar version.
Please do one on the RPG-29
The terror of the Israeli tank crew
Extremely interesting points, great work. ❤
Wonderfully detailed explanations from cris copson. All the history of rpg's accounted for.nice video.
The RPG 7 is still a great weapon. Most trucks have thin skin, so the RPG can kill them. The RPG 7 can kill old tanks, forcing rulers to spend more tax on big tanks with great weight from thick skin
The RPG 7 forced the tank to have so much weight that the tank made these days cant cross a bridge or a field of mud.
The RPG 7 can take down helicopters and hit boats. This showed in Vietnam. The RPG 7 can break walls, trees, and rocks; killing a man cowing there.
It kind of reminds me of the M2 Browning in a way. Iirc, the .50 cal was originally envisioned as an anti-tank gun way back at the end of WW1, but has evolved to be used against largely anything that isn't heavily armored
I would intentionally make city planning with zig zag highways that make it hard for tanks to move directly to your cities, and then the highways would be routinely bridged with a fail weight of 50 tons per 30 feet to deal with thse things.Make your cities designed to reject expensive MBTs and you'll really hobble state of art militaries. More countries need to be designing their roads and highways to exclude the expensive stuff from easy access. Level the playing field.
@@neglectfulsausage7689 You will cripple the economy that way. And tracked vehicles like tanks and APCs are notorious for moving offroad, making the whole idea rather pointless.
Zig zag keeps vehicles in sight longer. The barriers on sides of highways that zigzag stop tanks easy. @@ShadeAKAhayate
@@neglectfulsausage7689 A tank does not need a highway. Or a road.
An insightful chat on the history and use of the RPG-7, with a clear & concise format, and expertly delivered...
Thanks for sharing,
Excellent effort! 🍻
I get surprisingly often ridiculed or insulted when I try to point out that RPG does not in fact stand for "Rocket Propelled Grenade"...
Except now it does. It would be considered a backronym. An acronym that is applied after the fact.
It translates to "Handheld Anti-tank Grenade Launcher"
Except that's exactly what it stands for ???? What else would it be ?
@@ethanmorrissey8277 a different language? Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт, РПГ when translated into Latin alphabet gives you Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot, RPG. It means hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher, the original RPG acronym has nothing to do with the term Rocket Propelled Grenade, this term applied to an existing acronym and has been commonly adopted while not being the correct meaning of the acronym. This is just a case where the more commonly assumed acronym just happens to also correctly describe the item (at least in part).
It's what English speakers use and it gets the message across.
You forgot the Swedish 103(S) which used barred armor att the front, although classified for quite a good time.
Love your channel, thanks for all the hard work!
Fun fact: The PGO-7 can also be used for rifles, as well as for observing artillery.
In Avganistan soviets used it as AK optics, there is a 9 hole chanel test of it
The soviets do love their dovetail mounts
@@dankovac1609 Yes, it is because the dust cover on the mass produced AK had play in it, making it impractical to put a scope on it.
I love this series. Thank you from the depths of my anti-tank little heart.
10:05 That's a really interesting and unique way to estimate range, based on the average height of tanks.
it's not quite unique (I say in a nice way) as quite a few scopes for shooting people have the same feature based on the average target being 1.8 metres tall (I think). What I liked was the difference in height between NATO tanks and WarPac tanks, so they went middle for diddle (just in case!) But - excellent comment in any case!
Isn't that the ranging principle used on the reticle on the Dragunov SVD refle.
That has been a real education for me. Thank you.
Yes, very well researched and presented. The Panzerfaust and the Panzershreck's love child, with Uncle Bazooka as god parent. The PIAT never had children sadly (but possibly that was for the best.)
PIAT had a low launch signature. No smoke and hardly any sound. A lot of Bazzoka and Panzershrek disclosed their position and lost their life.
A most informative video. Well done!
Interesting - I hope you will cover the Carl Gustav recoilless... because that is one bloody brilliant AT weapon too. In Denmark its called the Swiss Knife of the infantry
Excellent video. Great content and Chris's presentation style is spot on.
WELL , THE PROPHECY WAS 7 MONTHS TO SOON. RPG DID CAUSED MORE THAN 200 MARKAVA TANKS OUT OFF SERVICE.
Our "Buffalo" route clearance truck took one of these to the front right seat area in 2004. It went in one side, sprayed molten copper and armor bits and out the other. We did not have anti RPG slat armor yet. Everyone lived though they were all wounded. Bad day from a cheap weapon.
Fun fact: the Russians were the first ones to call these "RPG". The term "rocket-propelled grenade" is a backronym from the Russian acronym РПГ (Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт, Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot), meaning "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher", the name given to early Russian designs.
He mentions this in the video
@@druup3488 He did, but then he also missed the 'handheld' part :)
thx for interesting calm and neutral presentation of information.
Jamsheed has entered the chat
JAMSHEED!!!
Rest in piece Jamsheed
Very enjoyable video and presentation. Thank you for the work you put into it.
If I ever make it back to the UK first place I'm going is Bovington.
RPG-7 is the reason why US Army rangers were defeated in Mogadishu
Thank you.
Great video.
Happy Easter.
Cheers
The simplicity of a few Russian models of military equipment has made them legendary
Soviet, not Russian
The easier the weapon is to use, the faster and more people will be able to use it. It's not always necessary to complicate everything. Especially when it comes to serial weapons
Oh it’s soviet not Russian, as if the two are unrelated 😂it was designed and built in Russia , the company predates the revolution ffs
@@chadclay1643 No babe, not all Soviet weapons are made in Russia by Russians, not at all. But almost all Russian weapons were designed in Soviet times, often by Ukrainians or Belarussians or Poles or Armenians by nationality and typically based on German and American designs, such as RPG-2. Bazalt, the company that designed RPG-7 in early 1960s, was by then headed by D. D. Rukazenkov from Ukraine. So thanks for your effort sweetie, try it on someone else.
@@f4ust85 oh you did a quick Google did you darling, Rukazenkov is a Russian name, Bazalt is a Russian company, Ukraine didn’t exist during soviet times and its successor the rpg 30 is currently wrecking the Ukrainian counter offensive as we speak, now good day madamn 😁😁
This video is so informative. I feel like I know everything there is to know about the weapon.
Now we use RPG29 already. Kornets even better.
Good talk. Very informative. Nice history notes.
I am intrigued that the rocket booster is printed in English. Are these now standard issue, or an export model? ;-)
Would love a video of the efficacy of the Yassin 10 vs the Merkava 4
We replaced the PIATs with the RPG-7 for a small time before choosing the Carl Gustav as our standard issue RL. The RPG-7D was used by our paratroopers during 1971 war during Tangail paradrop.
Lol, nice, well they were working so why not use it... but were they british made RPGs?? Or purchased from somewhere
@@olgagaming5544 Russia.
Excellent content as always. Look forward to seeing you guys at Tiger Day!
Slat armor isn't protecting the vehicle by detonating a HEAT warhead away from the vehicle. Actually often that leads into more lethal jets being formed.
What slat armor does, is that it ruins the shape of the charge as it collides with the bars. Even if it doesn't cause the warhead to not explode, it causes the warhead to deform. And for shaped charges, it is very important that the lining is just right, so it forms the neat tight stream of metal. If the shape gets deformed, it won't be balanced, the stream is disturbed and it won't penetrate the armor.
This is why Russian cope cages don't work. They don't understand that NLAW and Javelin rockets actually detonate away from the tank, instead of being triggered by physical contact. Hence a javelin/NLAW warhead will never make contact with the slat armor, giving it no chance of deforming the warhead.
the "cope cages" were there for suicide drones and loitering munitions. Remember the russians kept a close eye on the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, where Armenia lost a huge number of armored vehicles to Azeri loitering munitions.
Cope cages where for rocks and Molotov in the post day 3 rioting.
Sorry, but wherever you're getting your info is completely wrong. Javelin is absolutely a contact fuze weapon, it makes a physical contact with armour. NLAW does detonate above the target.
And I would assume the freaking British Tank Museum has way more information and credibility than you.
@@Unknown1355 His information is correct. Google "shaped charge "stand-off"".
As a person who have shot plenty with these, when I was on service in the Bulgarian army I can say few things - first it sounds like a canon and even in open field you need ear plugs - shoothing in a room is like blasting a granade in the room you are - it will puncture your eardrums at least, second it is acurate - I've repeatedly shot 4 by 3 meters targets from 300 meters. Third - make sure nobody is behind you because he will fly :). Great weapom!!! When you aim you correct the aim point in the direction of the wind, because the wind pushess the back fins and the rocket which actually this is turns and flies in the direction of the wind. I was a squad comander and my captain gived all shots to me because the soldiers was too scared from this - as I said ... you need to here the boom it makes ... you would not believe how deafening it is :))) ... and no recoil at all
I'm curious as to why almost no movie or game uses the pg07 sight?! I hate trying to use the iron sights to hit something over 100 meters.
Play STALKER Anomaly, my friend ; )
I guess because it is confusing to use without prior reading
"If you fire one of these in the room of a house out a window, make sure there's at least 2 meters behind you."
Hopefully I'll remember that the next time I'm firing an RPG from a house window. Thanks Chris! 😜
Can we have more information about the RPG 29 penetrating a CR2?
I was informed regarding the incident in 2007, where a IED or RPG had caused a drain plug to be pushed into the cabin which damaged the the drivers foot but not causing any damage to the vehicle.
An RPG-29 round in August 2006 penetrated the frontal underside hull which was equipped with ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, but only lightly damaging the tank, which drove home under its own power. Since then, the explosive reactive armour has been replaced with Chobham Armour and the steel underbelly lined with armour as part of the Streetfighter upgrade as a direct response to this incident.
@@averagejoeveteran2043 not to be rude but ever single thing you said was incorrect, it was August 2006, it penetrated the frontal underside hull which was equipped with ERA during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, the tank was damaged, but was able to drive home under its own power. Since then, the explosive reactive armour has been replaced with Chobham Armour and the steel underbelly lined with armour as part of the Streetfighter upgrade as a direct response to this incident.
@@Alex-cw3rz I did say that I had been informed in 2007 of an incident, this was because I was in Al Amarah in 2007. This does not mean the information I was given was correct hence I asked for the full details
@@Alex-cw3rz At the time that challenger 2 lower glacis was just steel.
👍ANOTHER AWESOME VID👍I DIG the way u broke down the weapon. This YANK is a loyal follower. Keep up the good work😎😎😎
A video on the ptrs-41 wpuld be cool
Hey!
Where's the original host of this chats?
Excellent presenter, joy to listen to.
An RPG in a tank museum is like a dog in a cat shelter.
I was going to annoyingly correct the RPG moniker you used at first with Rocket Propelled Grenade but you explained it perfectly that it's not really the meaning but it has stuck as the backronym.
The weapons of the freedom fighters
another excellent job by Mr. Copson. loved the video.
Have a lot of experience using this..... in squad, ARMA and in VR :)
For some reason the US Army went with the LAW.
There is a US company that makes RPG 7s.
Tanks have significantly different armor thicknesses by location…… thick at front, thin at rear.