Military Review

Reactive assault grenades

23
The experience of local conflicts of the last decades of the last century showed that the available infantry weapons do not always meet the requirements of the time. For example, in the fight against the Afghan or Chechen armed formations, anti-tank rocket launchers and grenades often had excessive power. The cumulative effect was simply useless, and the high-explosive and fragmentation effect of anti-tank ammunition did not ensure reliable and guaranteed defeat of the enemy. In the nomenclature of armaments of some units of the still Soviet armed forces there were jet flamethrowers, but the remaining fighters were forced to use only weaponswhat was available to them.


According to the results of the first war in Chechnya, it finally became clear that the troops needed a new jet weapon. His development was engaged in GNPP "Basalt". When creating a new type of weapons, two basic requirements were taken into account. First, it was necessary to minimize the price of weapons, since by that time the financial condition of the army left much to be desired. Secondly, it was necessary to ensure the maximum possible power of the ammunition during the shelling of manpower, shelters and lightly armored vehicles. It is these two factors that ultimately shaped the look of the new weapon.

In the light of recent wars, the main purpose of advanced weapons was the destruction of long-term firing points and similar fortified structures. For this reason, the new system received the general name "Reactive assault grenade" or RSHG. The word "grenade" in the name appeared exactly for the same reasons as in the case of anti-tank RPG-18 or RPG-22. It was supposed to make jet assault ammunition disposable, which, in accordance with the nomenclature of armaments adopted in the country, was designated by the word "grenade".

In the mid-eighties, the RPG-26 Agleni and RPG-27 Tavolga anti-tank grenades were adopted by our army. They differed from the previous grenades of their class with higher characteristics, as well as the possibility of reverse conversion from the combat position to the traveling one. The previous grenades did not have such an opportunity. For several years, the Soviet defense industry was able to master the mass production of new reactive anti-tank grenades. This is probably why the Basalt employees decided to make new RSHGs on their basis.

As a result of the modernization and processing of anti-tank ammunition, two versions of assault grenades appeared: RSHG-1 and RSHG-2. During their creation, the designers tried to achieve maximum unification both among themselves and with anti-tank grenades.

RSHG-1

The RShG-1 rocket assault grenade is a revised system of the Tavolga RPG-27. The launch device of the assault grenade almost completely preserved the appearance of the anti-tank grenade device. When finalizing, only the sights were changed, which was due to a different ballistics of the flight of ammunition. The rest of the starting device remains the same: a folding pipe made of fiberglass, closed at the ends with rubber caps. When fired, the latter are destroyed. Before firing, a fighter must pull out a safety check, spread out the sights and push the launch tube. During these procedures, firing mechanism is triggered. The shot is made using a special lever. The soldier has the opportunity to transfer the grenade from the combat position back to the marching position. To do this, the trigger mechanism is removed from the platoon, and the sights are folded and fixed by check.

Photo A.V.Karpenko


The greatest interest in the RSHG-1 system is its ammunition. It was created based on RPG-27 and TBG-7В rounds (ammunition for RPG-7 grenade launcher). From the first they took the tail end with the jet engine and stabilizers, from the second - the warhead. The result was a jet ammunition caliber 105 millimeters, carrying thermobaric warhead. An interesting feature of it is the use of a leading cumulative charge. If necessary, he breaks through the protection of light-armored vehicles, after which the fuel mixture weighing 1,9 kilograms comes into play. Its high explosive effect, depending on the specific conditions, is equivalent to 5-6 kilograms of TNT.

The grenade itself is ejected from the starting device using a solid propellant jet engine. The amount of charge is chosen in such a way that it completely burns out before the grenade exits the launch tube. Thanks to this, the shooter does not risk getting burns. At the same time, a dangerous zone with a radius of about 90 meters is formed behind the trigger in a sector of width 30 °. After exiting the grenade tube, the tail stabilizers are set at an angle to the flow. They spin the ammunition and thereby ensure its stability on the trajectory.

105-mm RSHG-1 rocket grenade weighs 8,3 kilogram and in combat position has a length of 1135 millimeters. A jet engine throws a grenade at a speed of 130 meters per second, which is enough to effectively hit targets at a distance of up to 200 meters. The maximum firing range is three times as long. The accuracy of the hit depends on the skill of the shooter as well as on external factors: side wind, target visibility, etc.

Reactive assault grenades
RSHG-1 and RShG-2 attack grenades


RSHG-2

Simultaneously with the reactive assault grenade of the first model, a similar system was developed under the name RSHG-2, based on the Agleni RPG-26 design. As in the case of RSHG-1, the developments in anti-tank grenade were widely used. For example, the launcher received only new sights and retained all the other features of its design. The use of the RSHG-2 grenade is similar to the use of the RSHG-1 and RPG-26.

The main innovation in the RSHG-2 system was jet ammunition. Since the caliber of the original Aglein anti-tank grenade in the 73 millimeter was smaller than that of Tavolgi and, as a result, with the RSHG-1, the Basalt staff had to develop a new thermobaric warhead based on the TBG-7B shot. In fact, the combat part of the RSHG-2 grenade is a reduced grenade tank for the RPG-7 with a lower charge of the fuel mixture. Fuse remained the same. The warhead is delivered to the target using the tail of a grenade, borrowed from the RPG-26 system ammunition. The solid propellant charge pushes the grenade and burns completely before it leaves the launch tube. On a grenade trajectory, it is stabilized by rotation due to folding planes. The combat unit of the RSHG-2 shot contains about 1,15 a kilogram of a fuel mixture with a high-explosive action at the level of 2,5-3 a kilogram of TNT.

The smaller caliber of the RSHG-2 rocket assault grenade compared to the first model caused noticeable differences in other characteristics. So, a grenade ready for use weighs only four kilograms and is 770 millimeters long. The shot leaves the launcher with an initial speed of 144 m / s and flies to a distance of up to 350 meters. The effective firing range with a hundred meters less.

Photo A.V.Karpenko


General features and benefits

Both assault grenades are capable of striking enemy manpower, lightly armored and unprotected vehicles, as well as shelters. Thanks to the use of original shots, they are able to break through brick and concrete walls of relatively small thickness. This allows you to destroy the enemy inside the building without a direct hit in the window or doorway. Sprayed grenade fuel mixture allows you to hit targets both indoors and in open spaces. An additional advantage of the RSHG-1 grenade is the leading shaped charge, thanks to which part of the fuel mixture is guaranteed to fall behind a wall or armored barrier, which greatly enhances the effect of the ammunition.

In addition to the characteristics of the new assault grenades and have economic advantages. Due to the widest use of old practices and products developed in production, RSHG-1 and RSHG-2 grenades almost do not require changes in the technological process and can be produced on the same production lines as Agleni or Tavolga. In fact, for the assembly of assault grenades it is only required to start the production of new sighting devices and warheads for RSHG-2. All other elements of the systems are borrowed from existing ones. Another advantage of assault grenades was the ease of training personnel. A fighter who has learned to use anti-tank RPG-26 and RPG-27, is able to quickly master the use of RSHG-1 and RSHG-2.

The ease of production, low cost, ease of use and training interested the Russian army and in 2000, both grenades were put into service. Assault grenades of both models are mass-produced and delivered to the units of the ground forces. It is noteworthy that, in contrast to jet flame throwers, RSHG-1 and RSHG-2 are sent not only to the troops of radiation, chemical and biological protection, but also to other types of troops. According to reports, both models of grenades are widely used by special forces in counterterrorism operations. With their help, special forces destroy criminals hiding in fortified buildings.

Impact of RSHG on BTR


Impact of RSHG on concrete shelter


On the materials of the sites:
http://world.guns.ru/
http://weaponland.ru/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://weaponplace.ru/
Author:
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhado
    Mikhado April 17 2013 08: 57
    12
    I immediately thought about Syria, how much easier it would be to clean Daraya from nonhumans with the help of such toys. Tanks are tanks, and here the power of a cannon shot is literally tame.
    Useful thing, what's there.
    1. urich
      urich April 17 2013 13: 38
      +5
      Today in Syria there is a situation where the militants have everything that the army has. Where did the RPG-29 come from? Now, if such things fall into the wrong hands, it will be even worse. In Syria, what has already been done in the next 50 years will not be fixed.
      To help the Syrian army, of course, it is necessary, but I do not think that there is a lack of ammunition (for example). Assad's problem is that he has few supporters. Half of the army has already fled and is fighting on the side opposite to Assad. Under these conditions, no matter what weapon you give, it will not help. It would be much more effective to leave the militants without material assistance. Only how to do this, if there are half of the Western countries and radical Muslims loot tumble.
      Now in Syria, the issue is no longer being resolved at the level of "who has stronger weapons and more"; there is a question of money. How long will Assad be able to feed the people and army loyal to him, while earning nothing, the current government will hold out there for so long.
      1. carbofo
        carbofo April 19 2013 18: 47
        +5
        You place accents wrong.
        For Assad, and many others in Syria, the question is not about food as such, but about life, many will die if pi ... uh opposition comes to power.
        There is no civil war, there is a military intervention.
        Despite the fact that some military men, for religious and other reasons, went to the monarchs, this does not mean that there are no normal people in the country.
        I remember one video with a BMP-2 gunner, a young student, an artist, if memory serves, volunteered for the army.
        The concept of homeland has nothing to do with the nationality of a person, this is the place that you are ready to defend with your blood.
        Remember our history of Russia, how many famous names and most of them are not traditional Russian names, Catherine 2 was German, Stalin was Georgian, Beria was also from the Caucasus, thousands of people from hundreds of peoples of the world glorified Russia with their deeds in the name of peace.
        Yes, we fought wars of conquest, but how we fought them !!! any Western person will turn gray from powerlessness to understand our benefit, if you tell him how it was, the main difference is that we did not enslave those whom we conquered, for Western culture it is nonsense.
        And most importantly, you measure the world with money - this is a mistake, it is a fact of your worship of the values ​​of those who measure the world by price, not values!
        Think about it .
  2. Canep
    Canep April 17 2013 10: 36
    +1
    The hole in the BRT in my opinion is not from a grenade, it looks more like a large fragment of an HE shell, it feels like a large piece of iron broke through the side.
    1. bazilio
      bazilio April 17 2013 13: 08
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      The hole in the BRT in my opinion is not from a grenade, it looks more like a large fragment of an HE shell

      Yes, but similar holes were shown as a result of getting from RPG 7


      It seems that the cumulative grenade should burn through and not break through the armor, although the armor of the armored personnel carrier is thin, which may therefore tear it so
      1. Zlaya makaka
        Zlaya makaka April 17 2013 15: 11
        +1
        Quote: bazilio
        Yes, but similar holes were shown as a result of getting from RPG 7


        No, if a cumulative grenade hits an APC, there will be a large hole, not a breach (hit next to the embrasure):

      2. avdkrd
        avdkrd April 21 2013 14: 05
        +2
        in the photo, it’s not from rpg, but from rshg. The fundamental difference is that in rsch only the leading charge is cumulative, and the main volume-detonating one. a small leading one provides the local local penetration characteristic of cumulative charges, and the main high-explosive rifle is a high impact equivalent to 5-6 kilograms of TNT (in relation to rsh-1), and with guaranteed penetration beyond the armor. When an RPG7 grenade hits an armored vehicle, the situation will be similar, since its high-explosive impact is also enough to break 20mm of armor, but 20 RPG is not enough for such destruction of a reinforced concrete shelter.
      3. Prometey
        Prometey April 22 2013 13: 43
        0
        Quote: bazilio
        It seems that the cumulative grenade should burn

        She owes nothing. The exposure time of the cumulative jet is too short to "burn through", or the temperature there must be at least 10 thousand degrees (or even more) in order to have time to burn through the metal layer. It precisely pierces the armor plate, like a dowel (otherwise there were no fragments as a secondary factor of destruction.
    2. Zlaya makaka
      Zlaya makaka April 17 2013 15: 08
      -2
      Quote: Canep
      The hole in the BRT in my opinion is not from a grenade, it looks more like a large fragment of an HE shell, it feels like a large piece of iron broke through the side.


      This is exactly what the defeat of an armored personnel carrier from the RShG looks like or if a TBG-7V arrives at it. In general, armored personnel carriers are somehow not impressive: cardboard armor, weak weapons, plus ergonomics. It seems that he was created with a snake in mind, and not a soldier with weapons and equipment. Very cramped and narrow. Armor is generally lovely - it holds almost nothing. And on the "seventy" there is also a problem with the engines.

      It would be better to buy a normal "Stryker" instead of this squalor. As I saw it, I fell in love: a spacious amphibious compartment, all-round protection against 14,5 mm (and holds 30 mm in the forehead! Compare with the armor of the BTR-80, which does not even hold a 7,62 submachine gun from 300 meters), an IED explosion also holds the RPG grilles in the kit, instead of a snake manhole on the side - a spacious reclining ramp in the back. A dream, not a car!
      1. Genady1976
        Genady1976 April 17 2013 17: 20
        +4
        If a vampire hits your favorite striker, the result will be similar to
        and with an armored personnel carrier. And why the Russian army another bullshit and even for big money.
        1. Zlaya makaka
          Zlaya makaka April 17 2013 17: 41
          -2
          Quote: Genady1976
          If a vampire hits your favorite striker, the result will be similar to
          and with an armored personnel carrier.


          If there are bars, nothing will happen. In Iraq, some vehicles had more than 100 hits from RPGs - and not a single penetration from behind bars. And then, there are very few Vampires now (almost a few), but PKMs are much more. And DShK. And monoblock RPGs. So: from all this, the BTR-80 makes its way with a bang. "Stryker" calmly holds all this from any angle.

          Quote: Genady1976
          And why the Russian army another bullshit and even for big money.


          For a lot of money, the Russian Federation would receive an armored personnel carrier that would significantly reduce losses in local conflicts. I believe that it is worth spending money to save the lives of Russian soldiers.
          1. bask
            bask April 17 2013 19: 03
            +2
            Quote: Zlaya Makaka
            For a lot of money, the Russian Federation would receive an armored personnel carrier that would significantly reduce losses in local conflicts. I think that

            To reduce losses mainly from IEDs, amers launched a program for the construction of MPAP. This allowed us to reduce losses, at times, rather than using, limited, Strikers,
            The number of MPIs in ameroes peril 27740 units !!!
            We in the Caucasus urgently need to adopt and deploy at least a thousand MDI, Typhoon, KamAZ, and the Urals,
            VPK-3924, SMP-3, Bear, This will reduce the losses from the bombings.
            And applying RE and from RPG.
            [Center]
        2. Waterfall
          Waterfall April 17 2013 17: 43
          0
          Therefore, we need to take outdated bullshit for a lamb (BTR-80/82), yeah.
      2. bask
        bask April 17 2013 17: 39
        +1
        Quote: Zlaya Makaka
        It would be better to buy a normal "Stryker" instead of this squalor. As I saw him, I fell in love: a spacious landing

        ,, Stryker ,, is just a modified version of the BTR ,, Piranha-3,, and far from an ideal and new option.
        ,, Patria AMV ,,,. Boxser ,,. SER Tor, Aligator ,, Nexter ,, All these APCs are superior to, Strikers, in all respects.
        Wait ,, Boomerang ,, I think it will not be worse.
        In our USSR, there was an option. Wheel BMP. ,, Object 1200 ,, was created in the Design Bureau of the Bryansk Plant in 1964 !!!!
        The landing was located, in front and behind the fighting compartment. Exit and entry, the landing is carried out through the aft door. And this is in the 60s .. Would have completed, and now this technique was relevant and modern.
        1. Zlaya makaka
          Zlaya makaka April 17 2013 17: 47
          -2
          Quote: bask
          ,, Stryker ,, is just a modified version of the BTR ,, Piranha-3,, and far from an ideal and new option.
          ,, Patria AMV ,,,. Boxser ,,. SER Tor, Aligator ,, Nexter ,, All these APCs are superior to, Strikers, in all respects.


          He is better than what is now in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and has been tested by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The machine is relatively run-in and debugged.

          Quote: bask
          Wait ,, Boomerang ,, I think it will not be worse.


          If it will be. Not the fact that the series will go: the example with Object 195 is very revealing in this regard.

          Quote: bask
          In our USSR, there was an option. Wheel BMP. ,, Object 1200 ,, was created in the Design Bureau of the Bryansk Plant in 1964 !!!!
          The landing was located, in front and behind the fighting compartment. Exit and entry, the landing is carried out through the aft door. And this is in the 60s .. Would have completed, and now this technique was relevant and modern.


          Wouldn’t take off. Exit from the stern: the same snake lah as in the APC, only at the back, and not from the side. The armor is insufficient. A bunch of problems with reliability and maneuverability.
          1. Genady1976
            Genady1976 April 17 2013 17: 58
            +2
            No need to buy, but you need to make your new best of all.
          2. bask
            bask April 17 2013 18: 23
            0
            Quote: Zlaya Makaka
            It is better than what is now in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and has been tested by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

            We now have nothing at all. The BTR-82 does not have anti-mine protection. This is the main thing + the modern armored personnel carrier should hold the warhead of the RPG-7 monoblock.
            And where the exit is not critical. They use their Amer, Textron, BBM MSFV, developed on the basis of a project of the M-1117 ASV armored vehicle tested in combat conditions, Guardian, Side entrance as on our armored personnel carriers, and they are fighting quite successfully in Afghanistan.


            Sorry hacked the BTR-90, the only modern option was, with good protection.
      3. urich
        urich April 17 2013 19: 18
        +2
        According to the soldiers who had to deal with this machine in Iraq, it proved to be very unreliable, poorly protected from anti-tank and small arms, having low firepower, as well as having significant structural flaws. Among the advantages of an armored personnel carrier was marked by a smoothness and comfort when driving on rough terrain, which is the hallmark of all the wheeled armored vehicles as compared to tracked vehicles.

        According to the soldiers who had a chance to fight on the Stryker, the BTR can be destroyed with one successful hit from an ordinary RPG-7 grenade launcher. In order to at least somehow protect the BTR from this very common weapon, all the vehicles located in Iraq were equipped with special anti-cumulation grilles. These grids are designed to undermine cumulative ammunition before they reach armor. At the same time, such lattices, which in reality stop only about half of grenades, seriously overload the BTR. Because of this, driver mechanics are forced to check tire pressure 3 times per day.
        http://topwar.ru/8231-kolesnyy-btr-strayker.html
      4. TS3sta3
        TS3sta3 April 17 2013 20: 10
        +2
        The Stryker is tall and heavy, and carries at least 50% more mass than the original suspension and drivetrain was designed to handle.
        As a result of the layout mismatch (high center of gravity), the machine tends to tip over when operating in off-road conditions.
        We're not talking about experimental off-road conditions here. Our information is based on six roll-overs that occurred at the National Training Center while the Strykers were on an unpaved track.
        This problem is especially acute for the mobile cannon system.

        http://sa100.ru/armor/stryker/Stryker1.php
      5. kot11180
        kot11180 April 17 2013 20: 46
        +1
        strange, such a wonderful striker, and the Americans themselves are not very happy with him, and his armor is not stronger than our BTR-80 (about 30mm - this is generally fondustik), about the convenience - they fought normally and are fighting now
    3. carbofo
      carbofo April 19 2013 18: 49
      0
      Most likely this is the result of an RPG hit, the cumulative grenade has a considerable high-explosive effect, and armored personnel carriers have thin armor.
  3. Hon
    Hon April 17 2013 14: 15
    0
    But it’s not clear why the RShG-1 is needed, RPO-M surpasses it both in firing range and in effectiveness, while not much more in mass.
    1. Jeka
      Jeka April 17 2013 16: 33
      +2
      Quote: Hon
      But it’s not clear why the RShG-1 is needed, RPO-M surpasses it both in firing range and in effectiveness, while not much more in mass.

      The fact is that RPO-M is only for arming the troops of the RBF, the infantrymen also need an effective means for fighting in the city. Therefore, these grenade launchers are called not flamethrowers, but assault grenades.
      1. Hon
        Hon April 18 2013 10: 58
        0
        They perform the same tasks, only RPO-M surpasses RShG-1 one and a half times.
        Quote: wih
        The fact is that RPO-M is only for arming the troops of the RBK

        And what can not be accepted into the armament of other branches of the army? The special forces are armed with flamethrowers. In addition, flamethrower units are in the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps. If I am not mistaken, motorized riflemen also have flamethrower platoons.
  4. Zlaya makaka
    Zlaya makaka April 17 2013 14: 56
    -1
    For example, in the fight against the Afghan or Chechen armed forces, anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launchers and grenades often had excessive power. The cumulative effect was simply useless, and the high-explosive and fragmentation effect of anti-tank munitions did not provide a reliable and guaranteed defeat for the enemy.


    The author, did the RPGs have excess power, as stated in the first sentence, or insufficient, as stated in the second sentence? Two sentences contradict each other.
  5. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn April 17 2013 17: 33
    0
    as far as I remember, Basalt produces them, it’s a pity there’s no video, they just show shooting at an armored personnel carrier and an UAZ, there was practically nothing left of the UAZ.
  6. Argon
    Argon April 17 2013 23: 50
    +1
    The thing, of course, is necessary, with "flies" in nature it is bad to fly well, they influence badly. The city is better, but also not that. The main thing is that there were a lot of them in the troops. Regarding the armored personnel carrier; I think that it is not worth turning it into an infantry fighting vehicle, or even into a wheeled tank. It will be destroyed anyway, or it will not be an armored personnel carrier, another price and it will not be so "available" in the army. I think a wheeled armored personnel carrier should have mine protection class, but not depriving it of amphibiousness, the use of dynamic protection is extremely undesirable. I saw how the self-made Kontakt boxes were detonated during an explosion. The armored personnel carrier should be tactics of combat use.
  7. Prometey
    Prometey April 22 2013 13: 13
    0
    And for some reason I am generally against the development of new grenade launchers and flamethrowers in our country. Better yet, cut production altogether. Yes, I'm wrong, not competent, etc. But all statistics show that all of our grenade launchers were used to combat their own armored vehicles. Yes, like all these RPGs, "Flies", "Cornets", "Fagots" and others had to destroy "Abrams", "Merkavas", "Leopards", "Challengers" and other "Bradleys". But for some reason, they most of all destroyed Soviet-Russian tanks of all modifications and armored vehicles, starting with Afghanistan, in the post-Soviet space and ending with the Middle East.
    Therefore, it turns out that the developers of manual anti-tank weapons invented weapons against their own army. Honestly, sad.
    1. Jarilo
      Jarilo April 27 2013 21: 22
      0
      Quote: Prometey
      Therefore, it turns out that the developers of manual anti-tank weapons invented weapons against their own army. Honestly, sad.

      This is not the fault of the developers.
      Too many traitors and traitors to the motherland have divorced in recent years.