jackehammondFolks,
More than a few links listed in messages state that the AT4/M136 individual infantry antiarmor weapon is a “rocket”. This is not true (it does not help that the first early manual for the AT4 by the US Army stated it was a “rocket”). It uses the same principle as the Carl Gustav with a plastic blow out plug in the rear of the shell.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondFolks,
See the link below. This is the Russian Army idea of how to combat the threat from infantry antiarmor weapons especially ATGW. I have no idea what the four containers on the side are. I have a feeling the twin cannons are 30mm.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondHNN shows more images of Hizballah weaponry and the dissected RPG-rounds:
More pictures including AT-4, AT-5, TOW, RAAD, SPG-9 etc:
http://www.hnn.co.il/index.php?module=albums;task=view;id=1080
Dear Vaiar,
If that one RPG round below the “Made in Iran” sign is a HEAT warhead it has to have an awesome penetration. HEAT warheads penetration is a factor of its diameter. A rule of thumb is a factor or four to six. So if a HEAT warhead is 100mm that means it has a penetration of 400 to 600mm. That HEAT warhead looks to be about 130mm to 150mm. that means a penetratio of between 800 to a 1000mm! I can not see the projectile having much range. And with that size of a warhead the secondary rocket assist motor is probably not present because warheads like that from RPG type launcher have a tendency to weather-**** and the larger the diameter the worst the weather ****. I would say the effective range is no more than 150mm.
Jack E. Hammmond
jackehammondIndeed the rear section containing the rocket is fitted to the front section and you have a weapon ready to fire.
Dear Garry,
Look at the photos of the RPG-29 and the break point for the rear section and the projectile nexts to it. Something is not going to work. The rocket projectile with its HEAT warhead and probe with HEAT charge is to long????
Both fire large amounts of gas rearwards to propel a projectile forwards. Both burn out before the projectile leaves the tube. Both are ballistic weapons that are unpowered in flight.
In a recoiless weapon the charge is exploded in a micro second like the charge in an artillery shell. With a rocke the charge is burned out as it leaves the tube over a time period. A short time period true. But a long time period compared to a recoiless weapon that is not a rocket.
It also makes aiming and hitting a moving target difficult to impossible. Especially when under enemy suppressive fire.
You can tell the difference between guidance systems by looking at the systems… I am impressed. If the AT-4 and AT-5 and Milan and TOW work without being decoyed I really don’t see why they would bother with the older much more difficult to use CLOS guided Sagger when the SACLOS version is not that much more expensive and is much more likely to get a hit.
To the first. That is true. All of it is true. But after 500 meters of flight when the missile has been obtained it is less a factor for aiming. And whether it is CLOS or SACLOS having rounds exploding near you will effect guidances. But the reality is that almost any SACLOS system can be decoyed as it is tracked by some source in the tail. This is why the British designers of the SWINGFIRE designed it with a system that gathered it like a SACLOS but after it was gathered it was guided by CLOS. If you can get a similar source to be picked up by the tracker or dazzle it you can decoy or jam it. The human eye and brain can distinguish this problem. During the Iranian-Iraq War the Iraqis even developed a crude jammer against the early US TOWs. And during the Gulf War 1991 US Abrams and other vehicles had jammers against the French/German HOT. To your second, yes. The SAGGER launching post are the very early ones with just a periscope sight unit for gathering and guiding the missile in flight. The SACLOS system requires a seperate window unit for the tracker that gathers the missile and then tracks in in flight. Some more modern ATGW have just one window that does both (the MILAN was one of the first) but most of the brochures and articles show SAGGER launching posts that give the SAGGER SACOS ability to have two windows. One for the gunner and one for the tracker. Also SACLOS are more expensive for the launching posts. By a large factor.
Finally, Garry, I do not understand you. We can all be mistaken and disagree. I admit when I am. But you for what ever reason take it personally. Why?
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondBtw Jack can you tell me what you mean with “I hate to be the one defending the Russians”.And also “RPG-18….second one is a Russian copy of the US M72 LAW”.In concept yes,but if you just look over the dimensions it’s totally different.
Dear Member,
I meant that in tongue and cheek (just as in Russia you have some people before the collapse of the USSR who found it strange defending the US).
But while off topic, for the record I defended Russia over that “accidental” shooting down of the Korean 747 (I warned that in the future we may regret condemning Russia and then came the shoot down of the Airbus) and Russia having to use heavy artillery and bombardmen of Grozny.
Finally, the one person I have the utmost respect for in history is Lord Montagu of Beulieu who told the UK House of Lords the following in 1917 during the Gotha bombing raids. It took guts, something lacking with todays politicians and journalists.
Jack E. Hammond
“The Germans had a perfect right to bomb London. London was defended by guns and aeroplanes, and it was the chief center of the production of war munitions. We were, therefore deluding ourselves in talking about London being an undefended city and about the Germans in attacking it being guilty of an act unworthy of a civilized nation.” (Lord Montagu of Beulieu to the House of Lords late 1917)
jackehammondIf you want to bring in copying then the M72 is a Panzerfaust copy with a very light warhead.
The RPG-18 is both larger and more powerful than the 66mm LAW.
The M72 copies the concept of the Panzerfaust, just as the RPG 18 copies the concept of the M72. The RPG-18 and its replacements in the form of the RPG-22, RPG-26, RPG-27, etc etc are used as direct fire artillery for use against targets too hard for bullets like buildings, light vehicles etc etc.
Dear Garry,
I am not even going to touch the above. What you are stating is like saying that the US Garand M1 is a copy of the Mauser 98.
Jack E. Hammond
The AT-7 Saxhorn is the Metis. The Metis-M is the AT-13
That I can not dispute either way. Early classification was an improved AT-7. That is all I know.
Current model Saggers produced today do use SACLOS guidance.
Some do some don’t. It all has to do with the launching post (not the missile itself). Many nations find it cheaper to remain with the CLOS system.
The side armour of an M1A2 is about 400mm. The rear armour is even less. The roof armour is even less still. it is also plenty for bringing down a hovering helo…
I have no way of knowing because the US Army still has it classified. Anyway the armor is CHOBHAM which treats even kinetic energy penetrators different much less HEAT projectiles. When I did my first article about the early Abrams in 1982 I asked about the part of the turret betwen the cannon mantle and the hull about it being a “shot trap”. I was told that while it looks like a shot trap using CHOBHAM armor treated it differently.
jackehammondThey also received some Bazookas under lend lease, but didn’t produce versions of them either.
Not really sure of Anthony Beevors credentials… by the time the Soviets got their hands on large numbers of Panzerfausts I’d have thought they had already worked out a way of blowing down the internal walls of buildings so they could move between houses undetected. Doors and windows are places to get shot entering or leaving. You make your own hole if you want to live very long, and most Anti tank weapons do not use blast power to defeat armour. To a solid stone wall all a Panzerfaust would do is burn a small hole about 2-3 cm across in it. A wooden cross with blocks of explosive placed at each end is what they actually used and is still used to this day as the best way of blowing a hole large enough for a human to crawl through.
Dear Garry,
What you described with the wooden cross and blocks of HE is true (it is called a “Mouse Holing Charge). But I have seen demonstrations when I use to go to AUSA in Washington DC in the 1980s at a Marine base south of Washington with various antitank weapons from other nations. I guarantee you the blast effect does have an effect on brick and concrete walls. Not as effective as HEP or “Mouse Hole Charge” but still effective. In fact in one battle the French had in Iraq they used the APILAS against buildings and because of its 112mm HEAT warhed the effect was devestating.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondAccording to my information the Soviets didn’t have any rocket propelled anti tank weapons at all during WWII and the first to enter service was the RPG-2, which did not enter the war till well after WWII.
The RPG-2 had a rocket motor of very short operation that blew the rocket out of the tube. It had no sustainer rocket to flatten the trajectory like the RPG-7 did so it was more limited in range and the weight of warhead it could carry and its trajectory was ballistic.
Dear Garry,
First, I never stated that an RPG entered service before WW2 ended. Second neither the Panzerfaust, RPG-2 or the RPG-7 use a rocket motor to eject the projectile from the tube. All use a variation of the “Davis” principle. In effect the launch tube is open at each end. When the charge behind the projectile is exploded part of the force is used to eject the projectile forward and the rest is allowed to escape to the rear causing a recoiless effect. In this pure version though only 90% of the force is spent on sending the projectile forward. In the pure “Davis” principle you have a counter weight (usually birdshot) that is the weight as the projectile which is blown to the rear which results in a 50/50 split of force of the explosing of the ejection charge. The former Yugoslavian M57 is a good example of that and a close cousin to the RPG-2 (which does not use the counter weight).
Jack E. Hammond
PS. If you have a chance read TANK KILLING by Ian Hogg who is recognized even by the Russians as an expert in infantry weapons including antitank weapons.
jackehammondFolks,
I was wrong. The RPG-29 is not like the Israeli B-300 or the French STRIM. The round is loaded in the breach section like the older 3.5 inch Super Bazooka it seems. Sorry for the misinformation.
Also, one member has stated that the M72 is like the older German Panzerfaust. How can this be? The Panzerfaust is a recoiless weapon where pressure is equalized by gases being expelled to the rear as the projectile is sent forward (similar to the Davis principle with out the added counter weight shot). The M72 is a rocket.
Also, I am aware of the different manufactures offering the SAGGER AT-3 in SACLOS options. But according to Janes years before Hezbollah (or Hizbollah or Hez’allah) they were trained by the Iranians to use the SAGGER in the older CLOS mode. This makes decoying/jamming very difficult. And the photos of captured SAGGER launcher to this date only show the older CLOS version. Mabye Hezbollah has the SAGGER in the SACLOS mode, but with the supply of the AT-4/AT-5 I see no reason.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29
” It entered service with the Russian army in 1989.”
Dear Member,
I have no way to know except what I have read. As to the Wikipedia article, I actually edited some of that article. Also the link it had to anothe article on the French Eryx showed an early TOW missile. That was taken down and now there is no photo (I didn’t take down though). That is the problem with Wikipedia. Sometimes it is the gospel and sometimes….well
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondROC HF-3 combine with Harpoon on Perry class frigate???
I wonder what they did with the 76mm cannon that was located there?
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondNo, tha’ts an RPG-29 projectile in its totality. The front part is the warhead, the rear is the motor with the pop-out control surfaces. They connect.
Dear Member,
I am going to have to bush up on my English grammer. What I meant was that was the complete projectile for the RPG-29 which has been taken out of its container it comes packed in. Like the Israeli B-300 when you are ready to fire you take off the front cap off of the container and plug it into a reusable launcher. The reason for the method (first developed by the French with the STRIM) is that it gives you double the tube length which increases the burn time of the rocket motor. The French developed the method to replace their 3.5 inch Super Bazookas which required you to take the projectile out of the packing container, insert it into the back of the launcher, connect the wires, etc. Besides time consuming there as a problem with this during dirty battlefield conditions.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondRPG-29 was started in production in USSR times, by the end of 80x. Many ex-USSR republic got its share of old soviet ammo stocks, including Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraina, etc. Ukraina alone sold almost 10 billions $ worth of old USSR weapons from its stock. Chechenian fighter are known to widely use RPG-29 and RPG-7 with modern warheads. There was a LOT of black-market scandals in ex-USSR republic, the most recent ones for example in Ukraina and Georgia where a lot of weapons was found missing. So, given the very, very low numbers of modern RPG’s and grenades in Hizbollah’s hand, we can conclude what its very likely what they got it from black-market sources in ex-USSR.
Dear Member,
You have information that goes totally against the published information of all the defense industry and media. Almost all state that the RPG-29 did not start production till the late 1990s long after the collapse of the USSR. Wonder which is right?
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondSo what is STFU meant to stand for then? What? Did my response hit a little too close to home? :rolleyes:
Anyways, I didn’t see your first post on this thread having any ‘on topic’ material. At least I entered this thread on topic.
Dear Member,
Try and please understand what we are trying to warn you about. Key Publishing Forums are a great place. One of the best on the internet. But Key Publishing makes it clear that they want as little politics and religion as possible on these forums. Not to long ago there was a great sub-forum called LAND WEAPONS and two groups (one from Europe and one from Asia) got into it big time and you want to know the adminstrations solution: They shut that forum down and deleted all the messages along with a lot of important material. I am not an old timer. But I can understand their view. They don’t want the same thing happening here as happed with LAND WEAPONS.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondFolks,
Well it seems that Russia in their defense ministery was lying. That is an RPG-29 projectile out of its storage/launch container (the container mates with the launcher like the French STRIM or the Israeli-B-300).
As to the C-801 vs the C-701 debate. There are Israelis in the defense industry (I will post the link later) which states one of the missiles “had to be” an C-801 because of the range it had to fly to impact the freighter further out to sea. It seems the only reason that that Israeli warship was not sunk was because Hezbollah expected the Israeli Navy to be on alert for such an attack. If they had known that the Israelis had shut down their defenses against antishipping missiles they would have sunk the Israeli warship most likely. The first missile fired was fired to fly a higher trajectory to cause the warships defense to concentrate on it (the one that nailed the freighter) then a second missile was fired moments after in a low approach. They believe the second missile was the C-701 which they believed was fired to the approximate position before they guided it with an optical unit. It had the range to reach the Israeli warship.
As to the AT-4 defeating a Merkeva I can only go by public sources in Janes and others. They state it only has an armor penetration of 550mm. Every source states that is not enough against a modern MBT. But the AT-5 (both missiles can be fired from the same launcher post) which is also shown in the photos of the link I provided has a penetration of 850mm. Not enough for a frontal arc penetration but enough for anything else. Also the Israelis were probably taken by the surprise by the range the Merkevas were engaged from – 4000 meters for the AT-5 missile. Could very well be totally wrong.
Btw, I think the Israelis would have been a lot more happier if the Iranians had supplied Hezbollah with their copy of the Dragon missile. =GRIN=
Jack E. Hammond
Sign In
