EDITOR’S NOTE: Greetings folks…I’ve been in touch with David Crane from Defense Review who was interested in a little content swap between our two organizations and I thought I’d give it a whirl. This is his first entry in the experiment and I’m hoping we can get a little feedback from you folks on some of his more provocative content.
My good friend and professional contact, prolific infantry small arms/machine gun designer Jim Sullivan (a.k.a. L James Sullivan), has complained to me quite a bit about U.S. military infantry warfighters not having an American version of the Russian RPG-7 / RPG-7V shoulder-launched, anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade weapon system (recoilless rifle) at their disposal to match our current and potential future enemies RPG-7s / RPG-7Vs. The advantages of the RPG-7 anti-tank weapon system are several.
First, the size of the RPG-7s warhead/projectile is not limited to the size of the launcher tube, so you can use variable-size warheads that carry more payload and greater penetrative capability than an M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon a.k.a. Light Anti-Armor Weapon) 66mm HEAT warhead. Second, the RPG-7s reloadable/reusable aspect allows the user to carry a quiver of different types of RPG rounds (i.e. standard HEAT warhead, dual-HEAT warhead, and thermobaric rocket-propelled grenades) on his back and quickly choose the best one for the job, load it, fire it at the target, and then reach back and grab the next one in the quiver (or have his buddy grab it for him), load it, and fire it again, which may offer some tactical advantages over carrying multiple disposable rocket launchers on his back. And third, both the the RPG-7 and enhanced-armor-penetration-capable RPG-29 Vampir (Vampire) recoilless rifles respective launcher tubes, ammunition (grenade rounds), and training requirements are significantly less expensive than the U.S. militarys closest equivalents, the M3 Carl-Gustaf 84mm Recoilless Rifle / Multi-Role Man-Portable Anti-Tank Weapon a.k.a. M3 Carl-Gustav Recoilless Anti-Tank Rifle made by Saab AB a.k.a. Saab Bofors Dynamics and the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) MK153 Mod 0, which is an 83mm multi-purpose recoilless rifle.
The M3 Carl-Gustaf is, no doubt, an excellent weapon system, but it is cost-prohibitive (i.e. too expensive) for many armies to procure it in large numbers. The M3 Carl-Gustafs relatively high cost (launcher, ammo, and training) has even contributed to its relatively limited numbers in the U.S. military inventory. The U.S. version is designated as the M3 MAAWS (Multi-role Anti-Armor Anti-personnel Weapon System), and is primarily in use with U.S. military Special Operations Forces (SOF) under USSOCOM a.k.a. SOCOM.
Enter the good folks at Airtronic USA, Inc. who have recently developed an American-version a.k.a. Amerikansky RPG-7 / RPG-7V with a couple of M4/M4A1-Carbine-type features that U.S. military infantry warfighters should enjoy (see features below), and its about time somebody did. Quite frankly, an American-made RPG-7 / RPG-7V system is long, long overdue.
Airtronic USA RPG-7 Features:
- Mil-Std-1913 Quad Rail System for mounting combat opics (optical sights), flip-up BUIS (Back Up Iron Sights), aiming lasers/illuminators, tactical white lights, and vertical foregips
- Flip-Up BUIS
- AR-15 Carbine-type Vertical Foregrip
- AR-15/M16 Pistol Grip
- M4/M4A1 Carbine Collapsible/Telescoping Buttstock.
Read more at DefenseReview.com…
– Christian
I have never understood why we never had a weapon like this in large numbers in our inventory. It always seemed to make sense to have a launcher capable of taking several types of ammo, when I was in, all we had was the LAW (let’s face it, pretty useless). I also have never liked the shoot then discard designs, it just seems so wasteful.
I was pretty sure the M203 was the effective equivalent of the RPG. Is this a really late April Fool’s joke?
I also read DefenseReview.com regularly. If we are going to have those articles here, can we have all those “a.k.a.“s edited out? It really gets to be too much on the original site.
I like this content cross sharing. Plus with a made in U.S. version of the RPG we can compete for business with Russian suppliers and improve America’s balance of trade!
A m203 isn’t even close to an rpg. First there’s the gross difference in payload, then there’s the effective range, and then there’s the anti-armor capability.
I never understood the non-reloadable systems they developed for the US Military in the Anti-Armor role. Stuff like the LAW, AT-4, and the Javelin are primary examples. The Javelin in its defense is one heck of an effective tank killer and may need the tube to be so effective. But I think we need to give our troops a weapon like the RPG, just not an Americanized RPG. We need our own designed system that is based off ease of use, quick training, quick reloading, and inexpensive to train, load, and fire the thing.
Not for nothing, but IIRC, the argument for the non-reloadable or fixed warhead systems, and against the RPG/exposed warhead systems, was the latter’s susceptibility to secondary explosions. IIRC, NATO doctrine was to avoid those at all times.
Don’t know if the argument still holds, but note that the Russians have largely moved on to disposable tube systems.
“Don’t know if the argument still holds, but note that the Russians have largely moved on to disposable tube systems.“
The RPG-29 is a recent Russian creation designed specifically to defeat add-on armor like explosive tiles or the Stryker bird cage.
I don’t see any reason for this type of weapon in US inventories. The tube-stored and fired model is far superior in all the unsexy ways that matter — storage, transport, maintenance, and safety.
For comparison to an RPG7, yes the M203 is comparable. However, the M203 is far more accurate, more versatile, lower weight per “round”, and has the advantage of an indirect fire mode, versus the RPGs straight in shot.
For the highter numbered RPGs we have superior (though maybe not cheaper) capability in the SMAW, and I know of no one that would prefer ANY RPG over a Javelin for anti armor purposes.
This Americanized RPG is a weapon without a role, purpose, or need in US forces, IMO.
What happened to bringing the old “Bazooka” up to modern technology…Doesn’t cost enough?
Am I the only one that thinks this looks utterly ridiculous? The AR pistol grip isn’t even positioned to access the trigger comfortably.
I seem to remember that the US didn’t like expose warheads for their weapons and that was one of the reasons the PanzerFaust 3 was never adopted / evaluated, no matter how effective the weapon.
The “LAW-SKI”: a Polish incarnation of the LAW, obviously.
well well. Finally!
Everybody is always picking on the AF & The Navy for doing there job, Air dominance for exemplay.
Ever on the Army which has a very very bad track record, nobody cares about.
M-16 follow on, anybody?
Who needs the Bradley linebracker?
…
Good Afternoon Folks,
The RPG 2,5 or 7 or Chi Com B-40 or B-41 are rather crude but never the less, fine weapons for the low tech insurgent warrior. As NOT noted in this article none of these weapons use any electrical connections, using simple percussion cap firing and most 82mm mortar rounds the user can unscrew the fins and replace it with a “stick” or rocket motor and be in the RPG business. Another advantage to this weapon is that there are so many of them out there that it is profitable for third party countries to make specialized rockets, such as the Swiss Company that make a super shape round that will pass through an M-1A1 Abrams tank. The round is painted yellow and thus the tankers call it the pencil.
The reason the U.S. hasn’t adapted a weapon like the RPG is because it’s basically a suicide weapon. In the time it takes to stand up and sight the weapon you are a target long enough for even the poorest rifleman and as mentioned in another response the PRGs are wildly inaccurate with a high rate of misfires.
The Chi Com. B-40/B-41’s we encountered in Vietnam had about a 50% rate of misfires, the Chi Com 57mm and 75mm Recoilless Rifles were the weapons of choice by the VC and NVA to deal with M-48s or M-113s and they had a lot of dud rounds.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I think they could decrease the weight of the LAW tube and make it field-reloadable, while decreasing the cost, with a little modern manufacturing grease.
The projectile the LAW fires is very similar to an RPG, I’d take the added expense of an electronic firing mechanism though.
–Jeff
The M203 is not even in the same world as an RPG-7. The RPG is rated to penetrate 20 inches of armor (modern ones are much more) vs 2 inches for a 40mm HEDP grenade.
AC434 got it right. In the past the US has rejected every type of weapon that has an exposed warhead due to safety concerns. The PF III was an excellent weapon that was rejected for that reason.
As for why use a disposable weapon, it is because you can give them out like ammunition. When the LAW came out you went from one AT gunner per squad to eleven. Guys used to pack three M72’s apiece, and believe me, you don’t hump an extra 21 pounds of gear through a jungle if you think it is worthless. There weren’t a lot of tanks to fight, but those things were death to bunkers, buildings and vehicles.
Christian:
I like Defense Review — great content on current smallarms developments. He keeps up with interesting defense-related product releases better than most.
But THIS GUY NEEDS AN EDITOR, BADLY! He uses “aka” and “i.e.” with incredible frequency and redundancy. I’ve been following his site for more than a year, and I definitely read it less lately as a result. If you can get him to police himself a little more, that’d be outstanding.
*I definitely approve of you carrying his fine articles — I just want dude to back off the aka’s a little. (A lot.)
There’s more to choose from than an RPG-7 clone & weapons that are currently in US service. If there is a need for a front loading rocket launcher, the US should take a hard look at the German Panzerfaust 3. It’s reloadable, the ammo is transported in disposable containers & it can be fired from inside enclosed spaces.
I personally think that a simplified and diversified line of LAW rockets would do the trick. Ditch the Anti-tank idea, (unless you happen to see a moron in a T-55 that is) and develop rockets for breaking bunkers, blowing buildings, popping vehicles, and maybe even an Airburst/fragmentation style for dealing with idiots in large groups.
The only problem is that whole “Simplified” word. We never can seem to nail down that concept. Somehow we always wind up with more gizmos then gear.
Having never fired any of the above, and having no idea if the point has merit, I’m a little shy about any kind of exposed munitions for launched systems. Seems too vulnerable to sympathetic detonation. Totally agree with other posters, though — some kind of multi-warhead launcher would be nice, considering the diversity of targets that rockets are used on lately. The SMAW is a nice start, since it has so many warheads.. anti-armor, anti-position, and anti-everything (thermobaric rounds), but a lighter one-shot version would be awesome.
Gustav too expensive? Many countries still use it. The RPG will go tactical in US service and cost would likely rise. These light armor things are used as bunker busters. Lets just hand out some M72 (the new more powerful ones), one per squad.
Doesn’t this weapon run a huge risk of collateral damage due to poor ammo quality?
Also, is there not a huge risk in people firing this weapon in the wrong direction when faced with a gust?
It could use some work. I suggest the following:
1)The sight should be on the side, not top mounted. Allows you to shoot from cover better.
2)You’ll probably need a butt-burn protector to protect your tush from the back flame too. If you use a camo guncase (with a sling) made of flame retardent material to carry it in, you can use that to cya from the flame.
3)If you’re going for an optical solution with the sight, perhaps go with a “lead it” window format so it would be easier to hit moving targets and I have seen commercially available sights for rifles that help you determine range and hold over for long “cross the valley” shots.
4)Make sure it can use the ammo currently most availble (what the bad guys are using) plus new ones we can develope. Remember what Sun Tze said about a cart of your enemies provisions being worth, what was it? three times your own?
Am I the only one who gets the joke picture?
I suppose so. But RPG is a direct-fire weapon, which would imply faster response times, than the M203. Their point ranges are quite similar now that I think about it.
However, we have nothing in response to the superior punch of a RPG rocket, hence our inspection of LAW.
I heard the submarine crews are starting to train with these…
The RPG was built as an antitank weapon. It is the reason our lighter vehicles need RPG cages.
The antipersonnel loads came later.
M203 is a fine weapon. Unless of course you need to kill a tank, smash a building with a thermobaric warhead, or engage a target in the 450–900 meter range. Those are all things that an RPG in the hands of a proficient gunner can do that an M203 cannot. The NATO weapons that can do those things are all far more expensive than an RPG.
It’s April 1st somewhere, right? Can I have one in APFSDS-T?
We’ve got some folks that are either stubborn or just stupid.
Its been made clear both in the article and in the comments that the US has far more capable, and expensive, weapons to fill the role the RPG line of weapons does.
Yes the US weapons are more expensive, and yes they are far superior in performance, reliability, and overrall combat effectiveness.
Do we need a cheaper, less capable, more dangerous weapon to augment the better but more expensive weapons that already are doing the job? Unless you’re stubborn or stupid, the answer is clearly no.
Final thought — some folks need to get their noses out of their books and webpage info sheets and see how the real world is working — RPGs are overwhelming used, in real life combat, as area effect munitions against infantry. Doesn’t matter what they were “designed” for decades ago, or how many mm of RHA the lab says it can punch through — they are actually used most to kill infantry and blow up soft skinned stuff — which functionally is the same thing we use an M203.
If an M203 doesn’t do it — use a LAW — LAW doesn’t do it — use a SMAW — SMAW doesn’t do it — use a Javelin — Javelin doesn’t do it — call in fire support.
We’ve got the bases covered.
I maybe stupid, but I am smart enough to know that RPG is the Russian acronym for Hand-held, Anti-Tank Grenade Launcher. That’s not the name you give to an anti-infantry weapon. If you are ever in an armored hummer or MRAP when one of these things comes roaring in you will (maybe) appreciate the difference.
I am also smart enough to actually read the artical, which apparently you are not. The American weapons that are comparable to the RPG are the M3 MAAWS (the US version of the Carl Gustaf) and the Marines’ SMAW MK153, Mod 0. Neither is much more (and there are those who claim no more) capable than the RPG and both are far more expensive. Apparently you missed it, so let me quote where the artical states “M3 Carl-Gustaf
To jsallison, gsak, bdwilcox, Bob, Joe, Vstress, etc., etc., yes,yes, yes, we can all see that he used parts from a Tippman paintball gun and an AR15 for his mock up/prototype.
But back to the issues at hand: 1)do we need such a weapon, 2)with the new budget cuts on the way, will we be forced to move to less expensive and perhaps risker weapons like this in the near future, 3)what can be done with this idea to make it more useable, more feasible, deadlier to the enemy and less so to our soldiers in case we have to?
I would like to address the dud factor people keep harping on. I think there would be a huge difference between rounds and launchers made in the U.S. and rounds and launchers made who knows where and when. I also can see very little difference in exposing a troop when they are aiming an RPG, LAW, SMAW, Javelin, or whatever.
One LAW per squad? That’s laughable, one shot per nine men won’t cut it, that’s why doctrine was when I was in that every troop would carry a LAW or two and two rounds for the 60mm mortars.
While the reader who pointed out the original RPG was anti-tank, he failed to notice that after it’s deployment, rounds were developed for different roles. That’s the beauty of the Gustav and RPG is that a round could be loaded to fit the target.
I think the point some of us are trying to make, is that one time use launchers are probably not the best answer.
I forgot to add, that carrying all those LAWs was great, if you were only faced with light armored vehicles. If you were faced with troops, fighting positions or heavy armor you were SOL.
Rick — reading comprehension — how’s this — you keep ‘blathering on’ about what the RPG was originally designed for, which is something we all know. What you keep ignoring is the field reality of how RPGs are being used, which I keep trying to relay to you.
That is the comparison to the M203 — the RPG is actually USED, in COMBAT, against infantry the majority of the time. Its a splash damage weapon with horrible accuracy, high launch visibility, and poor reliability, hence the suicide weapon description used by another poster.
For the actual uses we encounter in combat, the M203 is the functional equivalent of the bad guys’ RPGs. Good for you that you looked up some Russian weapons and found out about the GP series. If we were fighting Russians then yes, GP would combare to M203. We aren’t. The bad guys are using their RPGs against infantry as area effect munitions. That is exactly what we use the M203 for.
Everyone knows the M203 is not an RPG, and an RPG is not a grenade launcher. The issue is functional equivalent in actual combat. Maybe this time it will actually sink in for you. Either way, its my last attempt at explaining this to you.
DefenseRreview is sh*t. Writing an
Theres a big difference between the M203 and RPG. The CG may be a little pricey, but its not a “one and done” weapon. There should be a lot more to go around.