Talk:RPG-7

Diameter

How should the weapon's Diameter be measured? It has a 70mm diameter warhead, but a 40mm tube where the rocket is inserted. I always said it was a 70mm, but it is changed back to 40mm on this page constantly. - Gunmaster45

• I think it's the same as any other gun, the diameter of the tube / barrel is what matters, since that's what matters when you're working out what you can actually put into the gun. Vangelis 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rocket Launchers in general

Are rocket launchers better if they are reloadable or unreloadable?

That depends a lot on what you want them to do. The RPG-7 is actually more of a crew-operated weapon as are most GMPGs and reloadable rocket launchers. If you need one soldier to be able to blow up a tank, you'd typically have him carry a single-shot disposable launcher like the LAW for Vietnam. Hughjefender.

Except a single LAW wouldn't do jack against a tank. It's effective mainly against APCs or unarmored vehicles. --JEESUS 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

- LAW rockets seem to have done fine for 1950s/1960s-era tanks, since that was the time it was introduced. It was intended to perform the same as the original RPG-7. Though we have newer and more effective anti-armor launchers, the LAW still has it's viable uses and advantages today. But the point is you can't compare the performance of 40+ year old Anti-tank rocket systems against modern-day heavy armor, because the result is obvious, and a bit misleading. I doubt original RPG-7 warheads are much good against MBTs today either. StanTheMan 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of a reloadable system when updating or upgrading is easier because only the warhead needs to be changed and the launcher doesn't. This is a cost-effective solution because stockpiles of existing launchers are still usable and the old warheads can be expended in training and exercises. As for performance against modern MBTs, the RPG-7 can be surprisingly effective, even with the original warheads. The user has to more creative in getting a shot into the side or rear armor or to try a top-attack from an elevated position such as the balcony on an apartment block. Since the rockets and warheads are relatively cheap, multiple shots from different angles on the same target is a tactical option. Used officially by 40 countries (and more unofficially) and manufactured in 9 of them (including Iraq, explaining why so many are available there) there will be no shortage of rockets and launchers for current and future conflicts.

- 'Side or rear armor' or 'top shot'? That's not the same thing. A LAW can be used effectively in any of those spots as well. Again, it's a bit misleading. I just didn't like the offhand, vague, and slightly ignorant comment that a LAW isn't quite that effective. Anyway, to the original point, as Hughjefender said, it's all about what role you intend the weapon to play specifically, same as any weapon (among other things). As the above comment stated, there are numerous advantages to reloadable systems. But there are advantages to non-reloadable ones as well. Whether a launcher is outright 'better' if it's reloadable or not is a somewhat inane question that can't be answered in that manner. It's like asking if a revolver or a pistol is better and expecting a clean answer either way. StanTheMan 05:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

- Almost all of the past or current light anti-armor weapons are ineffective against tanks over the frontal arc, and have limited effectiveness against APC/IFV and other lighter armored vehicles. Either the armor is too thick, is made composite armor (Chobham used on M1 Abrams), reactive armor, or spaced armor, will lessen or nullify the effect of HEAT warheads. Tandem warheads (developed as an upgrade for the RPG-7) will increase the chance of damaging the tank. The advantage the M72 has is light weight and is still used for that reason. Which is better? Depends on the role and availability. If weight is an issue, the M72 is a clear winner at 2.5kg complete. The RPG-7 weighs 7kg for the launcher and 2 (fragmentation), 2.5 (single stage HEAT), or 4.5kg (tandem HEAT or thermobaric) for the warhead. But if flexibility, anti-armor performance, and range are more important, the RPG-7 is the better option.

- Well anyway, there you are. They both have pros and cons, and that's all I was getting at. It all really depends on what you want out of the weapon, same as any other weapon. That said, the RPG-7 is/was a better launcher as an active main weapon for a soldier (or a team) that's meant to go after armored vehicles and other certain targets, given the reload-ability function allowing it to use other more specialized and newer warheads (And I appreciate a little extra info on them, as well as clarification about the overall effectiveness of 'light' anti-armor launchers in general). Anyway, the LAW and newer AT-4, with their considerably lighter weight and (In the case of the LAW) better compactness are easily one-man carryable/operable launchers, and what I consider more as an secondary weapon for 'just-in-case' antiarmor situations. In that regard, I wouldn't say it's fair to compare the RPG-7 with the LAW, as one being a reloadable system and the other not makes them inherently unequal - The M3 system or something of the like would probably be a little more comparable to the RPG-7, especially for the present day. That all aside, again, being reloadable or non-reloadable isn't something that makes a launcher inherently better or worse, it all depends on what you're looking for out of it overall. StanTheMan 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)