Military Review

Soviet infantry anti-tank weapons (part 4)

Soviet infantry anti-tank weapons (part 4)

In the second half of the 60s, Soviet motorized rifles had at their disposal sufficiently effective anti-tank defense systems. The staff of each rifle department was a grenade launcher with RPG-2 or RPG-7. The anti-tank defense of the battalion was provided by the calculations of the SPG-9 easel grenade launchers and Malyutka portable anti-tank systems. However, individual infantrymen, left alone with the enemy armored vehicles, as in the years of the Great Patriotic War, could fight tanks the enemy only with hand anti-tank grenades. The RKG-3EM hand-held cumulative grenade normally could penetrate 220 mm of armor, but despite several degrees of protection, manually-shot cumulative ammunition was a huge danger for those who used it. According to the instructions, a fighter after throwing a grenade should immediately take refuge in a trench, or behind an obstacle that protects against fragments. But even so, an explosion of approximately 500 g of TNT at a distance of less than 10 m from the grenade launcher could lead to shell shock. In the course of real hostilities, in repelling the attacks of enemy armored vehicles, soldiers were the last to think about personal safety, and the use of powerful hand-held anti-tank grenades, which had to be used shortly, inevitably led to large losses among the personnel.

In order to increase the anti-tank capabilities of the infantry in the immediate vicinity of the leading edge in 1967, the specialists of TsKIB SOO and SSSBP "Basalt" began the development of a new individual anti-tank weapons, which was supposed to replace the manually thrown cumulative grenades RKG-3. In 1972, the RPG-18 “Fly” disposable anti-tank grenade was officially put into service.

RPG-18 "Fly" in the stowed position

Although the RPG-18 is actually a disposable grenade launcher, it was called a “rocket-propelled grenade” —that is, consumable ammunition. This is done to facilitate the process of recording and decommissioning, since it is much easier and faster to write off an anti-tank grenade used or lost during combat operations or exercises than a rocket launcher.

A number of sources say that work on the RPG-18 began after the Soviet specialists turned out to be American disposable grenade launchers M72 LAW, captured in Southeast Asia. It is difficult to say how much this is true, but in the Soviet rocket grenade some technical solutions are used, which were previously used in the American M72 LAW.

Smooth-wall "trunk" "Flies" is a telescopic sliding structure of the outer and inner tubes. On the surface of the outer pipe printed detailed instructions for the application of the RPG-18. But this, of course, does not mean that practical skills are not needed for the effective use of a rocket grenade.

Instructions for use of the RPG-18 reactive grenade Mucha

The outer tube made of fiberglass protects the shooter from the effects of powder gases during a shot. In the rear upper part of the inner tube, made of high-strength aluminum alloy, there are shock-release mechanism assembled in one case with a locking device and a primer-igniter grenades. The length of the RPG-18 in the stowed position is 705 mm, in the cocked battlefield - 1050 mm.

RPG-18 "Fly" in a combat position and a split layout showing the internal structure in the stowed position

Even before the departure of the 64-mm rocket-propelled grenade from the barrel, complete combustion of the starting powder charge takes place in the barrel of the disposable trigger device. In contrast to the previously adopted jet anti-tank grenades PG-7 and PG-9, the cumulative RPG-18 grenade flies further by inertia, without acceleration by a sustained jet engine. The initial speed of the cumulative grenade - 115 m / s. In flight, a pomegranate is stabilized by four feather stabilizers that open up after departure from the barrel. To bring the rotation to grenade at a speed of 10-12 rev / s, the stabilizer blades have a slight slope. Rotation of the grenade is necessary to eliminate errors made in the manufacturing process and to increase the accuracy of shooting.

Sights include a spring-loaded front sight and diopter. The front sight is a transparent glass with 50, 100, 150 and 200 meters marked. At the level of the top of the aiming mark, corresponding to the range of 150 m, horizontal strokes are applied on both sides, which can be used to determine the distance to the tank. The effective firing range of the Fly is no more than 150 meters, but this is about 7-8 times as large as the maximum range of a hand-made cumulative Grenade RCG-3. Although the 64-mm RPG-18 grenade contains less explosive charge, the thickness of the homogenous armor punched is 300 mm, the Fly has surpassed the hand-held anti-tank grenade. This is due to the fact that the developers used a more powerful explosive - “okfol” (phlegmatized octogen) with a mass of 312 g and carefully selected the lining material and the geometry of the cumulative funnel. Undermining the warhead when hitting the target is made by an instantaneous piezoelectric fuse. In the event of a miss or failure of the main fuse, the grenade is undermined by the self-killer. The disadvantage of the RPG-18 can be considered that the rocket grenade cannot be returned to its original safe state after being transferred to the combat position. Not used for the intended purpose, the cocked jet grenades must be fired towards the enemy or blown up at a safe distance.

Although the RPG-18 weighing about 2,6 kg is about twice as heavy as the RCG-3, the reactive grenade has many times higher efficiency. In the hands of an experienced fighter, this weapon in 70-80-ies posed a serious danger to all types of armored vehicles. At a distance of 150 m, in the absence of a side wind, more than half of grenades are placed in a circle with a diameter of 1,5 m. The greatest probability of hitting tanks is when shooting at a side from a distance of no more than 100 m. When firing at moving objects, it is very important to correctly determine the optimal distance for opening fire and choose anticipation. Although the RPG-18 grenade does not have an active part on the flight path, a powerful jet of the shot may cause a dust or snow cloud to form, which is unmasked by the shooter. As in the firing of other anti-tank grenade launchers, when firing an RPG-18 behind the shooter, a dangerous zone is formed, in which there should be no other military personnel, obstacles and flammable objects.

Comparing the RPG-18 with the American one-time 66-mm M72 LAW grenade launcher, it can be noted that the Soviet model with a smaller caliber on the 150 g is heavier. With a higher initial speed - 140 m / s, the sighting range of the M72 LAW is the same - 200 m. The length of the American grenade launcher is 880 mm, folded -670 mm, which is less than that of the Fly. The armor penetration of the cumulative M72 LAW grenade containing 300 g Octola, according to US data, is 350 mm. Thus, it can be stated that with a slightly smaller overall dimensions, the American model practically does not differ in combat characteristics from the Soviet one.

M72 LAW grenade launcher shot

Like the Fly, the one-time M72 LAW grenade launcher can no longer be considered an effective means of fighting modern tanks, and therefore is used mainly to destroy light field fortifications and against manpower.

In Soviet times, the RPG-18 was produced in huge editions. In the motorized rifle squad, which is in defense, a rocket-propelled grenade could be issued to every fighter. In addition to the Soviet Army, rocket-propelled grenades “Mukha” were delivered to the Allies under the Warsaw Pact and to a number of friendly countries of the USSR. The licensed production of the RPG-18 was also conducted in the GDR. Although the RPN-18 in 80-s did not provide penetration of the frontal armor of the newest Western tanks, the production of the Fly was going on until the 1993 of the year. In total, approximately 1,5 million RPG-18 units were produced.

Soviet-made rocket grenades spread around the world and were actively used in many regional conflicts. However, most often they were used not for armored vehicles, but for manpower and for the destruction of light field fortifications. Based on service and combat performance, the RPG-18 can no longer be considered a modern anti-tank weapon, and although the “Fly” is still formally in service with the Russian Army, this rocket grenade in units of constant combat readiness has been replaced by more advanced models.

Already in the middle of 70's, it became clear that the RPG-18 was not able to penetrate the multi-layered frontal armor of promising West German, British and American tanks. Yes, and the widespread American M48 and M60 after installing additional screens and dynamic armor dramatically added to the security. In this regard, simultaneously with the saturation of troops with RPG-18 jet grenades, the development of a more powerful anti-tank infantry ammunition was underway. In 1980, the RPM-22 "Netto" anti-tank grenade entered the Soviet Army. In fact, it was the development version of the RPG-18 with increased caliber to 73-mm. A larger and heavier cumulative grenade was loaded with 340 g of explosives, which, in turn, increased the armor penetration. When hit at a right angle, the cumulative warhead could penetrate 400 mm in homogeneous armor, and at an angle 60 ° from the normal - 200 mm. However, it is wrong to consider the RPN-22 simply increased in size. Designers TsKIB SOO creatively reworked the design of a disposable rocket grenade, significantly increasing the characteristics of the new product. In the RPG-18, instead of the outer pipe, a retractable nozzle is used, which increases the length of the starting device by only 22 mm, in the RPG-100, after expanding the pipe, the length increases by 18 mm. Instead of the VP-345 fuse, a more reliable VP-18 is used with a cocking on 22 meters from the muzzle and self-destruction through 15-5 seconds after the shot.

Disposable rocket grenade RPG-22 "Net"

The development of a new powder charge formulation with an increased burning rate made it possible to reduce the duration of engine operation. This in turn increased the initial velocity of the projectile to 130 m / s while simultaneously shortening the barrel length. In turn, the direct shot range reached 160 m, and the aimed range of fire increased to 250 meters. The modified trigger mechanism has the ability to re-cocking in the event of a misfire. The length of the RPG-22 in the combat position was reduced to 850 mm, which made the treatment more convenient. At the same time, the mass of RPG-22 has become the most in 100.

On the outer plastic pipe RPG-22 also has detailed instructions for use. As in the case of the RPG-18, after bringing the RPG-22 into a combat position, unspent grenades must be fired towards the enemy or blown up in a safe place.

The release of the RPG-22 in our country lasted until the 1993 year. In the middle of 80's, the licensed production of the RPG-22 "Netto" was developed in Bulgaria at the Arsenal plant in Kazanlak. Subsequently, Bulgaria offered these anti-tank ammunition in the global arms market.

RPG-22 rocket grenades were actively used in hostilities in the post-Soviet space. They have proven to be an effective and reliable means of defeating lightly armored vehicles and firing points. At the same time, when shooting at modern main battle tanks, the RPG-22 demonstrated that it is capable of striking tanks only at the side, at the stern, or from above, when firing from the upper floors or roofs of buildings. During the first Chechen campaign, there were cases when the T-72 and T-80 tanks withstood 8-10 RPG-18 and RPG-22 hits. According to reviews of military personnel who participated in the hostilities, the RPG-22 is a more effective weapon when firing at enemy manpower than the RPG-18. Rocket grenades showed themselves well in street fighting, for example, they could hit the militants who had taken refuge behind the walls of urban buildings.

In 1985, the RPG-26 Aglene anti-tank grenade entered service. When developing this munition, the specialists of NPO Bazalt took into account the operating experience in the troops of the RPG-18 and RPG-22. In particular, in addition to increasing the armor penetration, the transfer of the grenade to the combat position was facilitated, the possibility of transferring from the combat position to the traveling one became easier, the length of the ammunition in the combat position was reduced. The time taken to transfer a rocket grenade from a marching to a combat position was reduced by two times.

Disposable rocket grenade RPG-26 "Aglena"

Although the caliber RPG-26 remained the same as in the RPG-22 - 73-mm, thanks to the use of a more sophisticated jet engine, the initial speed of the grenade was 145 m / s. In this regard, the accuracy of fire increased, and the direct shot range increased to 170. Improving the design of the cumulative warhead while maintaining the same caliber allowed us to increase the armor penetration to 440 mm. The weight of the RPG-26 is 2,9 kg - a total of 200 g more compared to the RPG-22.

The new infantry anti-tank ammunition has become easier structurally and much more technologically advanced in production. The starting device RPG-26 is a monoblock fiberglass pipe impregnated with epoxy resin. From the ends, the tube is closed with rubber plugs discharged when fired. To transfer the RPG-26 to the combat position, a safety check is retrieved. After casting sights in the combat position, the firing mechanism is cocked. The shot is made by pressing the trigger. If necessary, remove the trigger from the platoon, you should lower the rear sight in the horizontal position and fix it with a check.

Despite the fact that the Agleni RPG-26 rocket grenade can penetrate only the onboard armor of modern tanks, this ammunition is in service with the infantry and airborne units of the Russian army. With the help of RPG-26 you can hit lightly armored vehicles, destroy manpower and light field fortifications of the enemy.

In 80, the battle between armor and anti-tank weapons continued. In 1989, the Tavolga RPG-27 rocket grenade, which differed from the RPN-26 mainly in the 105-caliber tandem warhead, unified with the RPG-12NXXP rocket grenade for the reusable RPG-7 rocket launcher, entered service.

Reactive anti-tank grenade RPG-27 "Tavolga"

This ammunition is able to hit the normal 600 mm armor, covered with dynamic protection. The initial speed of the RPG-27 grenade is about 120 m / s. Direct shot range - 140 m. The transfer of the grenade launcher from the traveling position to the combat position and back is carried out in the same manner as that of the RPG-26.

Comparative sizes of RPG-26 and RPG-27

RPG-27 compared with RPG-26 has become longer on 365 mm. The mass of 105-mm anti-tank ammunition increased almost 3 times and is 8,3 kg. It is believed that the increase in the cost, mass and dimensions of a disposable rocket grenade, with a certain decrease in the range of a direct shot, is an acceptable price for the ability to fight modern tanks covered with multi-layer combined armor and dynamic protection. However, in the time that has passed since the RPG-27 appeared, the security of the Leopard-2, Challenger-2 and M1A2 SEP Abrams tanks has increased significantly. According to information published in open sources, armor in the frontal projections of these machines with high probability can resist when hit by RPG-27.

Simultaneously with the creation of disposable jet grenades of increased armor penetration, munitions for reusable grenade launchers were improved. As mentioned in the second part of the review, in an 1988 year, an RPG-7 grenade launcher was shot with a tandem warhead PG-7BP. This munition was developed in the framework of the OCR “Summary” after a sharp decline in the effectiveness of the use of anti-tank grenade launchers against Israeli tanks equipped with Blazer dynamic defenses was revealed during the fighting in Lebanon in 1982. The combat part of the PG-7BP grenade, consisting of two cumulative combat units - the front (precharge) caliber 64 mm and the main caliber 105 mm, provides penetration of 600 mm armor after overcoming the dynamic protection. With an increase in the mass of the PG-7BP rocket launcher to 4,5 kg, the range of the aimed shot was only 200 m. It is quite natural that the leadership of the Ministry of Defense wanted to have powerful anti-tank weapons with a greater effective firing range, while maintaining the relatively low cost typical of reusable grenade launchers and unmanaged jet grenades. In connection with this, shortly before the collapse of the USSR, the NPO Bazalt created the reusable Vampire RPG-29 grenade launcher. This weapon with a loaded barrel is conceptually close to the VDVshnom RPG-16. For shooting from the RPG-29, a shot is used with a tandem warhead used earlier in PG-7BP.

Grenade launchers PG-29B (top) and PG-7BP (bottom)

The complete combustion of the pyroxylin powder charge ends before the grenade leaves the barrel. At the same time, grenade PG-29В accelerates to 255 m / s. The range of the aimed shot of the RPG-29 reaches 500 meters, which is two times higher than in the shooting of the PG-7BP tandem grenade from the RPG-7. After the powder charge burns out, stabilizers are released, which open up after leaving the bore. The absence of a jet engine operating in flight, makes it possible to simplify the design of a grenade launcher and ammunition, as well as reduce the impact of shot products on the calculation.

For a clearer visual observation of the flight of the grenade it has a tracer. In addition to the cumulative grenade for the RPG-29, a TBG-29В shot with a thermobaric warhead equipped with a charge of 1,8 kg was adopted. In its striking effect, TBG-29В is comparable to 122-mm artillery shells. This ammunition is ideal for hitting enemy personnel in trenches, bunkers, rooms up to 300 cubic meters. The radius of a continuous defeat of manpower in an open area is 8-10 m. In the case of a direct hit of the power of the charge, it is enough to break the 25 mm steel armor sheet. However, the shot on a modern tank thermobaric ammunition is unlikely to pass for him without a trace. In the case of a grenade detonation TBG-29В on frontal armor damage will receive sights, observation devices and tank armament.

RPG-29 grenade launcher and cumulative PG-29В grenade with stabilizers opened

Smooth caliber barrel rocket launcher is made detachable for easy transportation. In the process of the shot, an electric igniter is used to ignite the reactive charge. Its operation is due to an electric pulse, which is generated by a trigger mechanism located in the grenade launcher itself. Similar shot production schemes are used in LNG-9 and RPG-16 grenade launchers. During the military trials, a coordinated calculation of three people per minute made four aimed shots.

Loading grenade comes from the rear breech. The grenade launcher has an open mechanical sight, but the main scope of the PGO-29 (1P38) optical lens with the increase of the 2,7 crater is provided. For shooting in the dark at the RPG-29H modification, the 1PN51-2 night sight is used. For convenience of shooting from a prone position, there is a back bipod.

After completion of the tests, the RPG-29 in 1989 was adopted. However, the grenade launcher did not enter the troops. With a weight with an optical sight 12 kg and length in the combat position 1850 mm, the RPG-29 was too heavy for a platoon-level anti-tank weapon. At the level of the company and the battalion, he lost the available ATGM. The heavy and bulky Vampire did not fit into the concept of using anti-tank weapons in a global war, with massive use of tanks, artillery and ATGM. In addition, the saturation of the Soviet motorized rifle units with the most diverse types of anti-tank weapons was already high.

Despite this, the RPG-29 is in demand from foreign buyers. In 1993, at the IDEX-93 weapons exhibition in Abu Dhabi, the grenade launcher was first demonstrated to the general public. Official deliveries of the RPG-29 were conducted in Syria, Mexico and Kazakhstan. After the successful use of "Vampires" in 2006 in Lebanon against Israeli armored vehicles, a small number of upgraded RPG-29 purchased the Russian Ministry of Defense.

In addition to some changes designed to improve ease of handling and reliability, a combined optical-electronic sight 2Ц35 was installed on the grenade launcher. This electronic device is mounted instead of a standard optical sight. The effectiveness of the RPG-29 significantly increased when simultaneously with the use of a new sight weapon is mounted on a tripod machine.

RPG-29 on the machine and with a combined fire control device

The built-in laser range finder can measure the distance to the target with high accuracy during the day and at night and calculate the necessary corrections when firing at a distance of up to 1000 meters. In this case, the RPG-29 occupies the niche of a light recoilless gun.

It so happened that a significant part of the “Vampires”, staged with Syria, fell into the hands of all sorts of terrorist groups. This weapon has created many problems not only for Israeli tank crews, but also for the military forces of the Syrian and Iraqi forces. In the period from 2014 to 2016, video footage of burning and exploding Syrian tanks filled the Internet. Militants armed with captured RPG-29 flashed regularly in frames. However, to date, the emergence of new videos with the participation of "Vampire" has almost stopped. The fact is that the stocks of the rocket-propelled grenades captured from the government forces dried up, and the experienced grenade throwers were mostly knocked out.

Although the Vampire RPG-29 was not produced in significant amounts during the Soviet era, it became the last anti-tank grenade launcher formally adopted by the USSR. But this does not mean that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, work on promising reusable grenade launchers and rocket-propelled grenades in our country stopped. You can read more about Russian rocket launchers here: Russian anti-tank grenade launchers and disposable rocket grenades.

Based on:
Articles from this series:
Soviet infantry anti-tank weapons (part 1)
Soviet infantry anti-tank weapons (part 2)
Soviet infantry anti-tank weapons (part 3)
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amurets
    Amurets April 14 2018 07: 18
    Sergei. Thank. The series turned out to be informative.
  2. Cat
    Cat April 14 2018 07: 22
    Dear Sergey, many thanks for the series of articles, I read it with pleasure!
    More than all pleased that the continuation follows !!! hi
  3. igordok
    igordok April 14 2018 07: 50
    Thank you.
    At one time, "Fly" became a household name for disposable grenade launchers. Now, it seems, they gradually began to forget about her.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 April 14 2018 19: 52
      At one time, "Fly" became a household name for disposable grenade launchers.

      It was so. Yes, and now often all of this is called a "fly." At one time, in a container because of the "Flies" he dragged cards. wink
      1. Dedall
        Dedall April 14 2018 23: 39
        Respected Glory1974, I want to add my "five cents" about tubes from the "fly". This is due to the fact that fellow countrymen of our hero-academician often made a mine of directed action out of them. They dug it against the wall, resting it at one end. A checkmark of TNT was laid there, and then a few bolts and nails. Undermining the "stretch" of ultrasound and nylon threads.
        1. Glory1974
          Glory1974 April 15 2018 08: 57
          often made from them a mine of directed action.

          It happened. I saw something like that on a banner. We were forbidden to use trophy ones. There was a case when a fighter shot from a crypt fired and it exploded, two wounded. Either they were stored incorrectly, or prepared as a mine.
  4. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 14 2018 08: 29
    The article is well written .... even hard to find fault! But try! :
    1. Regarding RPG-18 ... It would be nice to note that on the "base" of RPG-18 an anti-aircraft mine ТМ-73 was created.

    2. The author notes that the armor-piercing power of the 73 mm RPG-26 grenade is higher than that of the 73 mm RPG-22 grenade by changing the “design of the cumulative warhead.” I assume that not only ... Yes, the shape of the cumulative “funnel” changed ... but the weight of the RPG-26 grenade (1,8 kg) versus the RPG-22 grenade (1,5 kg) ..... (though I bring the data only from memory ...). I assume that the number has been increased BB ...
    3. Yes, the length of the RPG-29 "Vampire" barrel is too big ... reason: the presence of ammunition with insufficient rocket fuel burning speed. The 2-35 optoelectronic sight exists in the 2 versions (PUO-day; KPUO- "round-the-clock": day and night ...) There is an “alternative” to “Vampire” - the “loudly known” RPG-32 “Hashim”: the barrel is shorter, the “wide assortment” of ammunition, there is an easel version with an optoelectronic sight. For some reason, the RPG is of the same type with Hashim does not appear in service with the Russian Armed Forces. Presumably: A universal grenade-throwing and flame-throwing system is being developed in Russia, which can, subsequently, replace old samples.
    PS Grenade launchers have development prospects: 1. "general" equipment of grenade launchers with optoelectronic sights (TV camera, thermal imager, laser range finder, ballistic computer)
    2.Increase: 125-mm RPG-28, 115 / 150-mm NLAW, 140-mm SRAW ...
    3. Development: a) correctable; b) self-aiming; c) with ANN grenades (for example, the same NLAW, SRAW ...)
    As for Russia, it makes sense to think about the development of the 125-mm RPG. Opponents will say: the bandura is heavy (RPG-28 "Cranberry") .. But the Chinese are running with their 120-mm PF98 with a "joyful laugh" ....
    The new 125-mm RPG should consist of: a) reusable carbon fiber PU; b) cartridge-shots in fiberglass containers; c) tripod machine (optional); d) optoelectronic sight (optional).
    The 125-mm caliber will allow you to create relatively inexpensive, but quite effective self-aiming ammunition. These can be grenades of the SPBE-K type for destruction from the top or with a transverse (relative to the longitudinal axis of the projectile) EFP charge for hitting the roof or sides when flying .. .
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 14 2018 09: 13
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Caliber increase: 125 mm RPG-28, 115/150 mm NLAW, 140 mm SRAW ...

      In NLAW and SRAW, the increase in caliber is caused by the need to deploy charges at an angle to the axis of the rocket to hit the target on the fly.
      RPG-28- to increase the diameter of the charge / cumulative funnel, i.e. increased armor penetration
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 14 2018 11: 01
        Quote: Spade
        In NLAW and SRAW, the increase in caliber is caused by the need to deploy charges at an angle to the axis of the rocket to hit the target on the fly.
        RPG-28- to increase the diameter of the charge / cumulative funnel, i.e. increased armor penetration

        I won’t argue very much. In my “note” I pointed out something similar: that is, increasing the caliber of grenade launchers makes it possible to create relatively inexpensive self-aiming grenades with an effective arrangement of EFP charges to hit the armor in the roof and on the side during the flight ..
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 14 2018 18: 27
        Quote: Spade
        In NLAW and SRAW, the increase in caliber is caused by the need to deploy charges at an angle to the axis of the rocket to hit the target on the fly.

        By the way, pay attention to the SRAW MPV ... with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead (assault / anti-bunker ...) ... there is no need to "deploy a charge" wink
  5. faiver
    faiver April 14 2018 10: 35
    as always, for an article by five points, everything is detailed and correctly laid out on shelves
    1. The comment was deleted.
  6. Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 April 14 2018 15: 13
    "Oh, there is not enough!" (Eva Smirnova, advertisement for the juice "My Family") laughing
    But seriously, thanks, as always. From SW. Sergey and his frequenter, a beautiful ally hi drinks
    I think that “Vampire” can be perceived as an outspoken “bastard” (well, you understand, this is not a cold weapon, but a completely different meaning No., just, the rules of the site ...), and a kind of modern - more light and mobile - iteration of the "Spear". Yes, yes, I know that these are different classes with different constructs (RPG and recoilless), I’m talking about a similar concept of application (the need to calculate for dragging the unit and ammunition, transport for at least some kind of mobility, mostly long-term - though not in the full sense stationary - deployment, ambush tactics, ...).
    "Meadowsweet" is also hemorrhoids; Yes, the characteristics are impressive, but the carrying of this shaitan pipe complete with a vest, helmet, AK with ammunition, water, soldering, first-aid kit, flashlight, knife, equipment and other ammunition - but at decent distances ... brrrr negative In this whole family, “Aglen” and its anti-personnel “colleagues” (the RShG family) are the “golden mean” - and knock out a tank (just blind, immobilize, disarm - it’s not necessary to destroy), and put an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle down, and suppress a machine-gun nest, Yes, you never know the application options. More recent units (28, 30, 32) have the same drawbacks - heavy, bulky, production volumes are insignificant, application practices, etc. - are not enough for an unambiguous assessment of combat effectiveness.
    1. Bongo
      April 15 2018 04: 31
      Quote: Raphael_83
      "Oh, there is little here!" (Eva Smirnova, advertising the juice "My Family") laughing
      But seriously, thanks, as always. From SW. Sergey and his frequenter, a beautiful ally

      Only Olin for some reason deleted the comment. request
      Quote: Raphael_83
      It seems to me that “Vampire” can also be perceived as an outspoken “bastard” (well, you understand, it is not a cold weapon that is meant, but a completely different meaning no, just the rules of the site ...), and a kind of modern one - more easy and mobile - iteration of "Spear".

      With the weight and dimensions of the Vampire, the military preferred the ATGM. While in street fighting "Vampire" can be very effective. But who thought about it in Soviet times?
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 30 August 2018 22: 39
        Quote: Bongo
        Although in street fighting "Vampire" can be very effective

        In street battles, the LRO, the RCG is effective, and the 29th is too heavy and bulky - take a piece of the 120th pipe one and a half meters long, stone it with 13 kg and try to climb this dilapidated building with this farm - it may come to know what you need for battle in the city and what not :)
  7. NF68
    NF68 April 14 2018 15: 22
    Good article.
  8. K.A.S.
    K.A.S. April 14 2018 16: 36
    good article. I apologize. for my opinion after reading the first part.
    I liked the first parts. when it came to the birth of anti-tank weapons! and a lot of modern weapons when he served (many commentators think too). then ... I richly baked such kind of good ...
    I remember how I walked around the range and took (oops d ... k) shot empty grenades for a souvenir!
  9. Curious
    Curious April 14 2018 21: 14
    "In the course of real hostilities, in repelling the attacks of enemy armored vehicles, soldiers were the last to think about personal safety, and the use of powerful hand-held anti-tank grenades, which had to be used shortly, inevitably led to large losses among the personnel. "
    An interesting source of this information.
    1. Bongo
      April 15 2018 04: 27
      Quote: Curious
      An interesting source of this information.

      Ask about the percentage of losses among those who in the years of the Second World War repelled the attacks of German tanks with incendiary bottles, bundles of grenades and anti-tank grenades.
      But it is not clear that you question? The fact that manually throwing anti-tank grenades is extremely dangerous for those who use them, or that when the enemy tanks break through to our leading edge, are the servicemen obliged to do everything to stop them regardless of their risk to life? Or that grenade launchers are more effective than hand-held anti-tank grenades? request
      1. Curious
        Curious April 15 2018 06: 38
        Your phrase:".... and the use of powerful hand-held anti-tank grenades, which had to be used shortly, inevitably led to large losses among the personnel."
        I’m interested in a source that contains information specifically about losses from your own anti-tank grenades, about which you are writing. You are based on something?
        "Take an interest in the percentage of losses among those who during the years of the Second World War repelled attacks of German tanks with Molotov cocktails, bundles of grenades and anti-tank grenades."
        I have never met such statistics, where the percentage of personnel losses from own anti-tank weapons in general and among those using bottles, bundles of grenades and anti-tank grenades in particular would be indicated. If you know one, please name it.
        On the dangers of hand grenades for applying them - a separate issue.
        1. Bongo
          April 15 2018 07: 09
          Quote: Curious
          I have never met such statistics, where the percentage of personnel losses from own anti-tank weapons in general and among those using bottles, bundles of grenades and anti-tank grenades in particular would be indicated. If you know one, please name it.

          These data are in the reports of loss of personnel during the Second World War. If you have a desire, you can find them yourself, frankly, lazily. In addition, the publication says the following:
          According to the instructions, the fighter, after throwing a grenade, was to immediately take cover in a trench, or behind an obstacle protecting from splinters. But even so, an explosion of about 500 g of TNT at a distance of less than 10 m from the rocket launcher could lead to a concussion.

          For the sake of experiment, take cover in a trench and undermine the TNT block in 10 from yourself 400 g - feelings that are not forgotten. Imagine how it is in the open when using a grenade in a steel case?
          Quote: Curious
          On the dangers of hand grenades for applying them - a separate issue.

          It seems to me that you contradict yourself.
          1. Curious
            Curious April 15 2018 08: 26
            There is no contradiction in my questions. As I do not have for you and a clear answer. All the best.
            1. Bongo
              April 15 2018 11: 18
              Quote: Curious
              There is no contradiction in my questions.

              Really? No. Can we talk about how far the anti-tank grenades are a danger to personnel?
              Quote: Curious
              As I do not have you and him a clear answer.

              Obvious things do not need proof. hi
              1. Curious
                Curious April 15 2018 14: 28
                "Obvious things don't need proof."
                In principle, with this phrase you answered my question. It follows from it that the stories about the severe losses of personnel from your own anti-tank grenades are your own thoughts, because according to your logic, since an anti-tank grenade is big, its use is deadly. It seems to you how obvious that does not need proof.
                So many weapons tales are born that the Internet is full of, as they seem obvious to their authors.
                As for grenades, if they are used in accordance with the Manual on Small Arms. Hand-held fragmentation and anti-tank grenades and incendiary bottles, then they do not pose any danger to personnel. If in a battle the situation is such that a grenade or any other weapon has to be used against all the rules, then this is not a weapon problem. If you have not mastered the skills of owning your weapons sufficiently, bringing them to automatism and blew yourself up with a grenade in the heat of battle - this is not a grenade problem.
                In case of inept or negligent handling, any weapon is mortally dangerous to personnel.
                When firing from the same RPG-7, behind the grenade launcher closer than 30 m there should not be people, ammunition, explosives and fuel; there should not be any obstacles at a distance of 2 m behind the grenade launcher slice. There should also be no local objects in the direction of fire for which the grenade could touch during flight.
                Agree that in the heat of battle a grenade launcher may not fulfill these requirements. But you do not say that RPGs are mortally dangerous to personnel, although, at first glance, this is obvious.
                And about the distance at which the grenade is dangerous.
                There is such a term - "safe removal". This is the distance at which the defeat of personnel is obviously impossible.
                For the F-1 grenade, safe removal is 200 m.
                For anti-tank grenades, based on the "Subversion Guide", the guaranteed safe distances are 700 - 1000 m.
                You, Sergey, write good interesting articles. But you, for some reason, react very painfully to the questions asked to you. With such a variety of topics that you are considering, some mistakes are inevitable. This is normal. Is it worth it to react to criticism?
                1. Bongo
                  April 15 2018 14: 44
                  Quote: Curious
                  It seems to you how obvious it is that it needs no proof.

                  It’s not only “seems” to me, it is so.
                  Quote: Curious
                  And about the distance at which the grenade is dangerous.

                  Let's compare the rcg-xnumx and the distance at which it does not pose a danger to the grenade launcher at break? In addition, you can compare the effectiveness and firing range of even the most primitive grenade launcher and the same figure in a hand-held anti-tank grenade? And it's not just about the "safe" distance, the grenade launcher needs to get closer to enemy armored vehicles on the battlefield. If you follow your logic, then grenade launchers are not needed, you can do well with hand-held anti-tank grenades, and this will not affect the loss of personnel.
                  1. Curious
                    Curious April 15 2018 21: 01
                    Sergey, it’s really hard to have a discussion with you. If it were Samsonov, I would have sent him in the ass. But you write normal articles in which there are certain conceptual errors. Indication of these errors for a reason unknown to me causes you to have a very negative reaction.
                    In any criticism you see the enemy. Read whether Biryukov G.F., Melnikov G.V. Fighting with tanks. - M .: Military Publishing House, 1967. If they do not lead you to the understanding that there is an anti-tank grenade in the anti-tank system, I’m pass.
                    1. KKND
                      KKND April 16 2018 15: 34
                      Listen, Victor, you raised the right topic and at the same time you are wrong. The situation is such that it is impossible to seriously criticize this author. You can only point out typos and outright absurdities.
                      The author, Sergei, it is quite understandable, this is weakness, but human weakness.
                      What do you want VO of this author to lose?
                      Once again, whether you were in his place, perhaps you were worse off.
                      And criticizing is always easy.
          2. gross kaput
            gross kaput 30 August 2018 22: 59
            Quote: Bongo
            These data are in the summary of personnel losses during the Second World War.

            Come on? just the same in the reports there is a column - a defeat from their own PT funds?
            Don’t tell my slippers - do you have any idea how the loss reports were presented?
            It started from com. companies and above - there were only three conditions - irrevocable, sanitary and missing.
            What you are talking about is not "loss summaries" but statistics, stat. records that concerned the loss of personnel were kept, firstly by special departments - for deserters, violators, convicted by tribunals, etc. and secondly, hospitals - but hospitals summarized statistics only on sanitary losses and irrecoverable deaths in hospitals or recognized as unfit for further service (disabled people). The statistics of doctors included gunshot wounds and their severity, sediment and mine-explosive injuries, burns, frostbite diseases, etc. BUT the doctors were directly parallel to how one or another soldier received a mine-explosive injury and this was not reflected in any statistics.

            As for the models of weapons that are dangerous for their personnel, then in this case, the command of the units wrote a report that, for example, when using anti-tank grenades VPGS-41, there are cases of grenade explosions when fired and the personnel refuses to use them. On the basis of such "letters from the field," GAU hastily checked the received signals and corrected the situation, but even in this case no targeted statistics were kept.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 15 2018 17: 11
        "Take an interest in the percentage of losses among those who, during the Second World War, repelled attacks of German tanks by Molotov cocktails, bundles of grenades and anti-tank grenades." ////

        I suspect that they all died. Anti-tank grenade - suicide, a bunch of ordinary grenades -
        especially. Applied from complete despair and the complete absence of other means.
        Even the anti-tank rifle was called goodbye, Motherland.
        I remember the story of a relative, colonel of heavy artillery. Alumni meeting
        front-line release of the art school after the war: “almost everything came from heavy artillery, from the anti-aircraft gun too — less than half, from the anti-tank — two disabled people without legs.” He said frankly: "I survived because we fired from our howitzers from the front line, and the Germans answered us extremely rarely."
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 15 2018 10: 45
    I fired from LAW - once. We were taught. And from RPG-7. But i don't
    got to shoot. But grenade launchers were never handed out to soldiers.
    When one of ours asked:
    "Is it possible to shoot a tank from an RPG?" the sergeant replied: "Are you crazy, I saw a tank -
    report on the walkie-talkie and hide, do not lean out. Whoever needs it will do it. "
    In Israel, it is believed that infantry should not engage in tanks: large losses,
    small effect. Only specialized units: "anti-tank special forces."
    And tanks are like anti-tank weapons. Each infantry company is given its "personal"
    tank under the command of an infantry company.
    1. Grim Reaper
      Grim Reaper April 15 2018 21: 30
      Quote: voyaka uh

      When one of ours asked:
      "Is it possible to shoot a tank from an RPG?" the sergeant replied: "Are you crazy, I saw a tank -
      report on the walkie-talkie and hide, do not lean out. Whoever needs it will do it. "

      I imagine a similar situation near Moscow, Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk.
      Alexei, in the variant of the Israeli-Arab wars, this is correct. But in the version of the global battle, when the soldier has two choices: to die, or die, but try to at least slightly harm the enemy.
      Everyone will make a choice.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 15 2018 22: 35
        I just told you how things are with us. Without any conclusions and historical generalizations.
        Each army has its own way.
      2. Blue fox
        Blue fox April 16 2018 16: 55
        So during the Second World War, the understanding came that specially dedicated artillery units should fight the tanks first of all (from there the change in the staff structure and IPTAPs, etc.), and the infantry was instructed to let the tanks pass through itself and cut off the enemy infantry.
        True, this does not mean that infantry should remain defenseless against tanks in general, and besides tanks on the battlefield of that time, there are other armored vehicles on the battlefield.
  11. Blue fox
    Blue fox April 16 2018 16: 49
    Quote: Bongo
    For the sake of the experiment, take cover in a trench and blow 10 g of TNT 400 meters away from you - the sensations are not forgotten.

    You won’t feel much in the trench, in any case you will be deafened no more than firing from your own machine gun, but outside the trench you can completely deafen and in an unpleasant set of circumstances break the eardrum, not to mention the likelihood of "catching" a flying stone.
    PS Somehow, when 400 grams were blown up on the surface of the earth at a landfill, a piece of dried earth flew into a sanitary cap at a distance of 50 meters in a capillary drove into a caponier and made a decent dent.
    PSS This I just noticed from experience. :) But the article is competent, plus it's nice to read comments where they remembered rocket-propelled grenades as ammunition for mining.
  12. 52
    52 April 17 2018 13: 07
    Great cycle. Many thanks!
  13. tima_ga
    tima_ga April 18 2018 20: 34
    All four parts are super, it’s a pity that the cycle has ended. Thanks a lot.
  14. indeec
    indeec April 22 2018 20: 44
    Thanks for the article.
    Recently, I got the “Youth Technique” for the 5th month of 1965, on page 17 there is a photo of the tests of an anti-tank jet gun dated 1931. Can't you tell me anything about this?
  15. gross kaput
    gross kaput 30 August 2018 23: 28
    This was done in order to facilitate the process of accounting and decommissioning, since it is many times easier and faster to discard a used or lost anti-tank grenade during combat operations or exercises than a grenade launcher.[/ I]
    Yes, no - this was done primarily due to the fact that the RPG-18/22/26/27 are non-standard weapons of the company - i.e. there are no separately assigned fighters armed with them, they can arm all company soldiers, while they are not stored in the company but at the RAV warehouse and should be issued to companies only if there was a risk of encountering enemy tanks.
    The modified trigger mechanism has the ability to re-cock in case of misfire. [I]

    I give a hint - you yourself posted a picture with an RPG 18 label - take an interest in what is written there, and it turns out that on an RPG-18 in the event of a USM misfire, it also re-cocked without any problems.