Military Review

Soviet anti-tank grenade launchers. Part 1

54
Soviet anti-tank grenade launchers. Part 1



During the Great Patriotic War, the main anti-tank weapons of the Red Army infantrymen were anti-tank hand grenades, incendiary bottles KS and anti-tank guns. At the initial stage of the war, as an improvised means of fighting armored vehicles, bundles of fragmentation grenades and fuel bottles were used, equipped with improvised igniters (more details here: Anti-tank weapons of the Soviet infantry during the war).

To use these anti-tank weapons, it was necessary to approach the enemy tank throwing distance, which was associated with great risk. Unfortunately, nothing similar to the German Panzerfaust or the American Bazooka was received by our infantry during the war.

In 30 in the USSR under the leadership of L.V. Kurchevsky, work was carried out to create recoilless, or as they said then, dynamo-reactive systems. Due to the adventurous traits of the designer’s character and the short-sightedness of his high-ranking patrons, they used dynamo-reactive cannons with a loaded rifled barrel to replace the entire field artillery. Naturally, this undertaking was doomed to failure, for which Kurchevsky eventually lost his life. As subsequent events showed, specialized anti-tank smooth-bore guns were much more promising, firing a feathered cumulative projectile at a distance of several hundred meters and light hand-held rocket launchers served by one fighter.

The development of such weapons in the USSR, it was conducted in wartime, in the 1944, a reusable hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher RPG-1, originally designated as LPG-44, entered the tests. This weapon was created at the Research and Development Range of the small arms and mortar armament of the GRAU under the guidance of the GP. Lominsky.

For its time, the RPG-1 had quite acceptable combat characteristics. The range of a direct shot of an 70-mm over-caliber cumulative muzzle-loading grenade reached 50 meters. Grenade with weight 1,6 kg normal punched 150 mm homogeneous armor. Its stabilization in flight was carried out by a rigid feather stabilizer. Black powder was used as a propellant charge, which gave a thick cloud of clearly visible white smoke when fired.

With a caliber of 30 mm and a length of about 1 meter, an unloaded grenade launcher weighed a little more than 2 kg and had a fairly simple design. On the trunk of the RPG-1 mounted hammer-type firing mechanism, aiming bar and wooden thermal protection lining. The top of the grenade served as a front sight when aiming.

On tests, the weapon showed very encouraging results. Without waiting for the end of field testing, the preparation of mass production and the production of pilot batches of grenade launchers and grenades for large-scale military tests in the army in the army began. But because of the unreliable operation of the fuses of a cumulative grenade and the unstable characteristics of the propellant charge, the weapons were greatly delayed. As a result, due to the end of hostilities, obsolescence, and the development of more promising RPG-1 models, it was never adopted.

In 1947, a more successful model entered into service - the RPG-2. The grenade launcher was created under the direction of A.V. Smolyakova in the Design Bureau GSKB-30 of the Ministry of Agricultural Engineering. Having a similar device, the RPG-2 was significantly superior to the RPG-1 in combat performance. The range of direct shot RPG-2 increased to 100 meters. An 82-mm cumulative PG-2 1,85 grenade weighing 200 kg could pierce 1200 mm armor, which was then enough to fight medium and heavy tanks. Undermining the charge after hitting the target was carried out by a bottom fuse. The grenade launcher had a length - 4,5 mm and weight - XNUMX kg.


RPG-2


The same smoky gunpowder in a cardboard sleeve served as a propellant charge, which was attached to a cumulative grenade just before the shot with the help of a threaded connection. The stabilization of the PG-2 on the trajectory was carried out by six flexible steel feathers, folded around the tube and unfolding after the departure of the grenade from the barrel.

The design of the RPG-2 was quite simple. 40-mm steel seamless pipe with wooden lining in the middle part was used as a barrel to protect against burns when fired and more comfortable to use the weapon in low temperatures. At the RPG-2 mounted mechanical sight, designed for a distance of 150 meters. The trigger type trigger mechanism with a striker mechanism ensured the reliability and convenience of firing a shot.

Mass deliveries of the RPG-2 to the troops began in 1949. Being a fairly simple, inexpensive and effective weapon for its time, it became widespread and was used in many armed conflicts of the 50-80's. In addition to its direct purpose - the fight with armored vehicles - RPG-2 could destroy firing points and light fortifications. Quite often it was used against manpower, although the fragmentation effect of the PG-2 grenade left much to be desired.

RPG-2 except the USSR was produced in Egypt, in Vietnam, in the People's Republic of China, the DPRK, Poland and Romania. In Poland and the PRC for the RPG-2, their own anti-tank shots were created, while in the DPRK they developed and adopted a fragmentation grenade. In a number of Asian and African countries, the RPG-2 grenade launcher is still in service. In the design of the RPG-2 when creating were laid successful technical solutions, which later became the base when creating more advanced grenade launchers.

At the same time, the RPG-2, created by wartime technology, had a number of drawbacks. A significant disadvantage was the use of black powder in the propellant charge, which had a low energy potential and unmasking thick white smoke. In conditions of high humidity, the cardboard sleeve swelled, which made loading impossible, the powder itself when becoming damp became unsuitable for firing. The low initial speed of the grenade - 84 m / s made it very susceptible to wind drift on the trajectory. To get even with an average side wind in a tank at a distance of 100 meters was a very difficult task.

In addition to a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher with an effective range of several tens of meters, the military also wanted to have a long-range, rapid-fire and accurate infantry means of fighting tanks, served by a crew of 2-3 people. In 1950, the anti-tank defense complex was adopted as part of the LNG-82 82-mm easel anti-tank grenade launcher PG-82 anti-tank grenade.


LNG-82 machine gun grenade launcher


The design of the heavy-duty grenade launcher began as early as 1942 in the special design bureau No. 36 of the USSR People's Commissariat for Petroleum Industry under the leadership of A.P. Ostrovsky and chief designer N.G. Grigorian, at the end of 40-x, PP was connected to this work. Shumilov. Initially it was planned to use a turbojet grenade, stabilization of which was carried out by rotation. However, since the cumulative munition rotates at high speed, the cumulative jet “sprays”, which greatly reduces armor penetration, this method of stabilization was later abandoned.

In contrast to Kurchevsky's recoilless pipes, a thin-walled barrel without grooves was used in the LNG-82. The barrel consisted of two parts: muzzle and breech, connected by a coupling. The barrel of the grenade launcher was mounted on a machine with a wheel course and a folding shield. On the trunk fastened shoulder support, sight and self-firing firing mechanism. In addition to protecting the calculation from bullets and fragments, the shield protected the calculation from the action of powder gases. When fired, the glazed observation windows in the shield were automatically overlapped with protective metal flaps. The LNG-82 calculation consisted of three people: the gunner, the loader and the ammunition carrier. The range of the LNG-82 stand-off grenade launcher reached 200 meters, and the firing rate was 6 rounds per minute. The mass of the LNG-82 grenade launcher was 32 kg, which was even less than the weight of the SG-43 machine gun on the wheel machine.


PG-82


In the cumulative PG-82 grenade, a jet engine was used on smokeless nitroglycerin powder. The stability of the grenade after the shot was provided by a stabilizer of six hard feathers. Grenade PG-82 with weight - 4,5 kg normal pierced 175 mm homogeneous armor.

In the middle of the 50's, the LNG-82 grenade launcher was upgraded, with the aim of improving the working conditions of the calculation, the sights and shoulder rest were changed. To destroy enemy personnel and destroy light field-type fortifications, the OG-82 fragmentation grenade was inserted into the ammunition. Expansion of the range of ammunition significantly improved the combat capabilities of the grenade launcher, especially in defense. With the range of the aimed shot by the grenade of the OG-82 - 700 m, it gave a radius of a continuous defeat - 12 m.

In the Soviet army, the LNG-82 belonged to the anti-tank infantry of the battalion link, where they were used until the second half of the 60-s. Later they were replaced by more advanced models of grenade launchers and anti-tank guided missiles.



LNG-82 was delivered to the allies of the USSR under the Warsaw Pact and to the countries of the “third world”. This machine gun grenade was actively used during the hostilities in Afghanistan. At the moment, it is hopelessly outdated and almost universally decommissioned.

In the second half of 50-x in GSKB-47 (now FSUE "GNPP Basalt") was created RPG-4, the design of which in many respects repeated RPG-2. Using the successful technical solutions of the previous model, the developers tried to get rid of the shortcomings of the RPG-2 and increase the effective firing range. For this purpose, the diameter of the grenade launcher increased to 45 mm, and a larger-diameter charging chamber was introduced, which significantly added the amount of propellant charge. Direct shot range increased to 140 meters, and sighting range of shooting up to 300 meters. In this regard, changes were made to the sights. At the breech breech in order to disperse the jet stream was mounted socket.


RPG-4


The anti-tank grenade compared to PG-2 has undergone minor changes, its caliber remained the same, but due to the change in the focal length and the shape of the cumulative funnel, armor penetration increased to 220 mm.

The RPG-4 anti-tank grenade launcher in 1961 successfully passed ground tests. But due to the appearance of more promising models, significantly exceeding in firing range and armor penetration, the RPG-4 was not adopted.

In the same year 1961, after a complex of comprehensive tests for service, the RPG-7 entered, which later became a real “bestseller” and a grenade launcher “of all times and peoples”. When it was created, the designers of GSKB-47 took into account the experience of the combat use of the domestic RPG-2 and foreign models. Specialists from the Tula TsKIB SOO and the Kovrov Mechanical Plant also took part in the development of the RPG-7. Grenade launcher shot PG-7В developed under the direction of VK. Firulina.


RPG-7


The design of the RPG-7 was based on successful technical solutions of the RPG-2 with a reusable starting device and a shot with the above-caliber warhead. RPG-7 has a special charging chamber in the middle of the barrel - this allows you to more efficiently use the energy of the propellant charge. To disperse the jet during firing and the elimination of recoil is the socket in the breech breech. Unlike PG-2, where only the starting powder charge is used, the RPG-7 grenade launcher used PG-7В shots with a jet engine - this not only increased the direct shot range to 300 meters, but also significantly improved the accuracy. The speed of the PG-7В flight at the moment of departure from the trunk is 120 m / s, at the end of the active segment it increases to 300 m / s. A unique feature of the PG-7B anti-tank grenade was the use of a piezoelectric fuse.



To stabilize PG-7B, four drop blades are used. To increase the accuracy of fire and compensate for errors in the manufacture, the grenade rotates at a speed of several tens of revolutions per second.



Depending on the modification, the anti-tank grenades for the RPG-7 are 70-105 mm caliber and 260-700 mm armor penetration. In the 80-90 year, the Basalt specialists for the RPG-7 created thermobaric and fragmentation ammunition, which seriously expanded the flexibility and combat effectiveness of the grenade launcher.

The RPG-7 became the first Soviet anti-tank grenade launcher, where an optical sight was used. It is used to observe and guide the grenade launcher at the target, taking into account the amendments. The presence of the PGO-7 sight (or its modifications of the PGO-7В, PGO-7В-2, PGO-7В-3, etc.) scales of the side and rangefinder grid improves the accuracy of shooting and allows you to effectively introduce corrections taking into account the speed of movement targets, range and ballistics of different types of jet grenades.

An optical sight with an increase in the target 2,7 creep is an optical system of prisms and lenses in a sealed metal case, to prevent fogging filled with dry nitrogen. To improve visibility in difficult weather conditions, the sight is equipped with a set of light filters. A rubber cap is put on the lens to protect it from contamination and prevent unmasking glare. In the dark, the backlight scale is used. On the 2001 of the RPG-7B2 and RPG-7D3 modifications, together with an optical sight, a mechanical sight is set for firing thermobaric and fragmentation grenades. In addition to the standard optical sight on the RPG-7, it is possible to use night sights. A grenade launcher with a night sight has a mechanism that disables the sight at the time of the shot, to prevent it from being flashed when the rocket grenade is fired from the barrel. For shooting with RPG-7 with a night sight it is recommended to use a foldable detachable bipod.



The combat debut of the RPG-7 took place at the end of the 60-s in the jungles of Southeast Asia. With the help of Soviet grenade launchers, Vietnamese partisans not only fought with American armored vehicles, but also delivered effective strikes at transport convoys and fortified positions. It also turned out that an anti-tank grenade launcher can be an effective means against low-flying helicopters. There have been many instances when pilots of American jet combat aircraft stopped performing combat missions or carried out unarmed bombs dropping by taking a shot from the RPG-7 to their side for a MANPADS missile.



In the Soviet states, there was a grenade launcher in every motorized infantry unit. RPG-7 for decades was the main type of anti-tank grenade launcher in the Soviet Army. With a weight without grenades - 6,3 kg and a length of 950 mm grenade launcher could hit all modern tanks. Especially for the airborne troops, the RPG-7D was developed, the design of which allowed the grenade launcher to be disassembled and folded in preparation for the landing.

Despite the appearance of new grenade launchers in 80-90-s in our country, the creation of increased efficiency shots for the RPG-7 allows it to fight all types of armor and remain in service with the Russian army. According to the criterion of "cost-effectiveness" and the weight and size characteristics of the RPG-7, it still remains unsurpassed among modern reusable grenade launchers. In 1988, the reactive anti-tank grenade PG-7BP "Resume" with a tandem combat unit, designed to combat tanks equipped with dynamic protection, entered service. Unfortunately, not many of these modern-day ammunition have been supplied to the troops, the main types of grenade launchers for RPG-7 are currently PG-7BC and PG-7 BAT - with armor penetration 400-500 mm.

RPG-7 grenade launchers were widely exported and participated in many large and small wars. It is no coincidence that American films RPG-7, along with Kalashnikov assault rifles, appear as weapons of the “bad guys.” In Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the casualties of the anti-terrorist coalition’s armored vehicles fell on the fire of the RPG-7.



In different countries, attempts were made to self-upgrade the RPG-7, its sighting devices and grenade launchers. At the arms exhibitions, grenade launchers with laser designators and collimator sights, as well as regular cumulative grenades equipped with fragmentation shirts were repeatedly demonstrated. However, laser and collimator sights with an unconditional improvement in ease of aiming can be effectively used only at a distance of a direct shot, and weighting of anti-tank rocket grenades with fragmentation shirts leads to a significant reduction in the firing range. From the same series, homemade attempts to increase the fragmentation and high-explosive effect of PG-7 by winding steel wire or tape on them and attaching trotyl sticks. Naturally, such a "self-made modernization" significantly reduces the range and accuracy of the shot and often represents a danger to the grenade launcher himself.

RPG-7 produced or produced: in Bulgaria, Georgia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, China, the DPRK, Pakistan, Romania and the United States. In Iran and the United States, modifications of grenade launchers and shots to them have been created, significantly different from the Soviet prototypes.


RPG-7 shots developed in Iran



Fath Iranian Rocket Launchers


An Iranian grenade launcher called Fath is produced in two versions, Normal and Commando (a shortened version for special forces).


American grenade launcher Airtronic USA RPG-7


In the US, private gun companies offer several versions of grenade launchers based on the RPG-7. Of greatest interest are products of the company Airtronic USA. The grenade launcher known as the Airtronic USA RPG-7, in addition to the simplified mechanical sighting devices, is equipped with Picatinnyrail guides, which makes it possible to install a wide range of optical and night sights. In addition, the grenade launcher Airtronic USA RPG-7 has a plastic butt, which is a rather controversial decision.


Airtronic USA Mk.777


Another development company - Airtronic USA Mk.777 - was perhaps the easiest among the well-known modifications RPG-7. This option has a carbon fiber barrel with a thin-walled steel liner, which made it possible to reduce the mass of an unloaded weapon almost twice while retaining all its combat characteristics. Grenade launchers made in the USA allow firing of all the ammunition available for the RPG-7.

Having become one of the most common and effective models of light anti-tank weapons, RPG-7 is used in armies of more than 50 states. Taking into account foreign copies, the number of RPG-7 produced exceeds 1 million copies.

In 1963, the mass production of the 73-mm heavy machine-based anti-tank grenade launcher, the Spear-LNG-9, began. He, as well as the RPG-7 was created in GSKB-47 (now FSUE "Basalt"). Its appearance was due to the desire to increase the range of effective fire of anti-tank weapons of motorized rifle units. Although the LNG-9, being a rather heavy weapon, did not deserve such fame as the RPG-7 - this machine-based grenade launcher, which replaced the LNG-82, was also widely used and participated in many armed conflicts. In fact, the LNG-9 was a lightweight breech-loading recoilless rifle on a tripod machine. With a barrel length of 670 mm, the effective range of the LNG-9 for tanks is 700 meters, which is more than twice that of the RPG-7. Rate of fire to 6 rds / min.


LNG-9


73-mm active-reactive grenade PG-9 after the completion of the jet engine accelerated to 700 m / s. Compared with PG-7, the PG-9 anti-tank grenade had much better accuracy and was less susceptible to the effects of wind on the trajectory. The anti-tank gauge cumulative PG-9 grenade is equipped with an instantaneous piezoelectric fuse. In the tail section there is a jet engine with a six-pronged stabilizer and tracers after a shot. The starting charge consists of a sample of nitroglycerin powder in a fabric cap, placed in a metal perforated tube with a diaphragm, of an igniter charge with an electrical fuse. Penetration of a cumulative grenade, depending on the modification - 300-400 mm.


Shots for LNG-9


The LNG-9 grenade launcher is equipped with the 4,2 PGO-9 multiple optical sight. The tripod allows you to fire with a maximum elevation angle of + 25 °, the horizontal pickup angle is + -15 °. The design of the machine allows you to adjust the height of the line of fire ranging from 390 - 700 mm from the ground. With a total length in the combat position 1055 mm and weight 48 kg, the grenade launcher can be transported over short distances by the calculation of four people. For transportation over long distances, the grenade disassembled disassembled into separate units.



In the 60-70, the heavy-duty grenade launcher was repeatedly upgraded; shots with enhanced armor penetration and a direct shot range increased to 9 meters were injected into the LNG-900M ammunition load. The fragmented grenade OG-9 was adopted to the modernized grenade launcher. Fragment shot does not have a jet engine, but only the starting powder charge. The maximum firing range of fragmentation grenades is 4500 meters. An updated version of the LNG-9M grenade launcher received a new sighting device - PGOK-9. It consists of two separate sights: one for shooting direct-fire cumulative grenades, the second for working with a frag grenade. Especially for the Airborne Forces, the SPG-9D machine-mounted grenade launcher was developed - with a wheel-tripod machine. Modifications - LNG-9H, LNG-9DN, LNG-9MN, LNG-9DMN - were equipped with a PGN-9 night sight.

The design and dimensions of the LNG-9 grenade launchers allows them to be mounted on various vehicles and light armored vehicles. This quality turned out to be especially popular in the airborne troops and in mobile reconnaissance and shock units. Self-propelled grenade launchers, as a rule, were used not to combat armored vehicles, but to destroy manpower with fragmentation grenades and to destroy light shelters.



In addition to the USSR, LNG-9 grenade launchers and ammunition for them were licensed in a number of countries of the former Eastern bloc. This weapon has proved itself well in many local wars. Relatively light weight and good accuracy allows you to effectively apply LNG-9 in street battles. Despite a decent age and modest by modern standards, the armor penetration performance of the LNG-9 grenade launchers regularly get into the lenses of cameras in “hot spots”. They can often be seen in reports shot in the south-east of Ukraine and in Syria.

In 1970, the Airborne Forces entered the TKB under the leadership of I.Ye. Rogozin hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher RPG-16 "Strike". Unlike the RPG-7, it used the 58,3 - mm caliber cumulative PG-16 grenade. Due to the high initial and marching speed of the anti-tank grenade, it was possible to significantly increase the range of the direct shot and the accuracy of shooting.


RPG-16


With a direct shot 520 shotgun range, PG-16 grenade could penetrate 300 mm homogeneous armor. Aiming at the target is carried out using the built-in mechanical sight or the removable 2,7-multiple optical sight PGO-16. Compared with the RPG-7, the RPG-16 landing grenade launcher turned out to be heavier and more cumbersome. Its mass was - 10,3 kg, and the length of the assembled - 1104 mm.



As you know - “disadvantages - the continuation of the merits. This fully applies to the RPG-16 anti-tank grenade launcher. At the time of adoption of the RPG-16 into service, it was not inferior to the RPN-7 in armor penetration, significantly exceeding its accuracy and range of the shot. However, after 10 years, after the appearance of the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard-2 tanks, the characteristics of armor penetration ceased to suit the military. For the RPG-7, this indicator grew with the increase in the caliber of the head of the grenade, but in the RPG-16, using a caliber grenade, this direction of improving the fighting qualities was impossible. As a result, the RPG-7D again began to enter the Airborne Forces with new anti-tank grenades.

Due to their good accuracy and range of fire, RPG-16 grenade launchers were popular among the Soviet special forces in Afghanistan. Naturally, there they were not used against tanks, the sniper's rocket-launcher shots destroyed the manpower and firing points of the Afghan insurgents. Quite limitedly, RPG-16 was used in armed conflicts in the post-Soviet space. Currently, RPG-16 grenade launchers in the combat units of the Russian armed forces are not being used, although they have not been officially removed from service.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://russianguns.ru
http://ryadovoy.ru/militarizm/antiarmored/grenade_RPG.htm
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 10 March 2016 07: 22
    10
    The article is a plus! Thank! from myself I recommend a series from the Stars- Domestic Anti-tank grenade launchers- well shot.
    1. bionik
      bionik 10 March 2016 07: 31
      +1
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      from myself I recommend a series from the Stars- Domestic Anti-tank grenade launchers
      I also watched great films !!!
      1st movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovhxtvwMIY 2nd movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bSL9BbxAUI
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 10 March 2016 08: 15
    +4
    Sergey! Article plus! Yesterday in the comments you announced the first part of this article. I promised you something in addition to grenade launchers. So from the "sapper's library". B. Pribylov. E. Kravchenko. "Hand and rifle grenades." It contains about the first Russian grenade launchers from the time of the 1st World War. But since the fight against tanks of that time was not relevant, basically these weapons were developed against infantry , as well as further developments before and during the Second World War. Many ideas later found application later ..
  3. EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 March 2016 08: 37
    -4
    Unfortunately, nothing similar to the German Panzerfaust or the American Bazooka was received by our infantry during the war.


    The "bazooka", among other things, was demonstrated to the Soviet representatives, but they refused such dubious happiness, in the future this pukalka will still be disgraced in Korea. With the German grenade launchers of the end of the war, which, in general, are also very poor, it simply could not be compared. A good powerful cannon would steer and pedal then.
    1. avt
      avt 10 March 2016 09: 01
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      . With German grenade launchers of the end of the war, which in general are also very miserable, it simply could not be compared.

      Actually, the Germans did their designs on the basis of the Bazooka.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 10 March 2016 10: 35
        +3
        The Germans, on the basis of "bazookas", made 88-mm, so-called "rocket-propelled anti-tank rifles." A more perfect model was called "Panzershrek" ... And "Panzerfaust" were "true Germans"
        1. avt
          avt 10 March 2016 11: 12
          +4
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          I ". A more perfect example was called" Panzershrek ".

          “Ofenror” was forgotten in this line of numbers 43, 54.
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          ..And the "Panzerfaust" were "true Germans".

          Well that's yes- ,, true disposable Aryans " wassat
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 10 March 2016 12: 14
            +7
            Quote: avt
            “Ofenror” was forgotten in this line of numbers 43, 54.

            I didn’t forget! I couldn’t pronounce it!
            1. Bongo
              10 March 2016 12: 16
              +5
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              I didn’t forget! I couldn’t pronounce it!

              lol good
        2. alpamys
          alpamys 10 March 2016 19: 06
          +1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          The Germans, on the basis of "bazookas", made 88-mm, so-called "rocket-propelled anti-tank rifles." A more perfect model was called "Panzershrek" ... And "Panzerfaust" were "true Germans"

          by the way the panzershreki released Adidas smile
    2. Bongo
      10 March 2016 10: 10
      +5
      Quote: EvilLion
      The "bazooka", among other things, was demonstrated to the Soviet representatives, but they refused such dubious happiness, in the future this pukalka will still be disgraced in Korea. With the German grenade launchers of the end of the war, which, in general, are also very poor, it simply could not be compared. A good powerful cannon would steer and pedal then.

      Bazooka, Panzerfaust and Panzershrek were quite worthy means of fighting tanks for their time. What makes you think that "this pukalka" disgraced herself in Korea? what Do you have statistics on the use of these grenade launchers against the T-34-85, with the number of hits on the tank and cases of penetration or non-penetration of armor? In any case, the North Koreans and the Chinese quite successfully used captured bazookas against the American Shermans, and this despite the fact that the frontal armor of the Sherman is, albeit not much thicker.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 10 March 2016 10: 48
        +3
        On the Internet you can find articles where there are descriptions of the use of tanks (including the T-34-85) in Korea; as well as the "bazooka" against tanks in the same place ... Many descriptions note the insufficient effectiveness of the 60-mm "bazooka" "against the T-34-85. Therefore, the Americans urgently" transferred "the 88,9-mm" Super Bazooka ", a novelty of that time, to Korea.
        1. Bongo
          10 March 2016 11: 04
          +4
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          On the Internet you can find articles where there are descriptions of the use of tanks (including the T-34-85) in Korea; as well as the "bazooka" against tanks in the same place ... Many descriptions note the insufficient effectiveness of the 60-mm "bazooka" "against the T-34-85. Therefore, the Americans urgently" transferred "the 88,9-mm" Super Bazooka ", a novelty of that time, to Korea.


          I'm used to relying on documented sources. Unfortunately, the Internet with its "Vika" is not always such. During World War II, the 60-mm M1 Bazooka with armor penetration up to 100 mm was considered quite an effective means of dealing with German armored vehicles. And in Korea, it suddenly turned sour?
          Of course the 89mm M-20 Super-Bazooka was much more powerful, but heavier and longer. But it seems to me that the matter is different. The Americans and their South Korean allies had to somehow justify the breakthroughs of the North Korean thirty-fours, so they said that their grenades were of the wrong system.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 10 March 2016 12: 55
            +4
            In the first weeks, the situation at the front was sad for South Korean and American soldiers. The success of the KPA tank attacks was complete.

            The South Korean infantry units were completely demoralized. Not only had most South Korean soldiers never seen a tank before, but they quickly became convinced that their Bazookas were powerless against the T-34-85. The American soldiers were in the same condition. The battalion's main anti-tank weapon, 60-mm rocket-assisted rifles, turned out to be useless. When on July 5, 1950, 33 thirty-fours of the 107th KPA Regiment attacked the positions of the 24th Infantry Division of the US Army, the only effective anti-tank weapon was 105mm howitzers. With six 105-mm cumulative rounds - so many were available, they managed to knock out two tanks from a distance of 500 yards. During this battle, American infantrymen fired 22 shots at the tanks from the 60-mm Bazooka. To no avail!

            This only increased the demoralizing effect of North Korean armored vehicles.

            Bitter experience forced the Americans to urgently rearm. Only now the soldiers received 2.36-inch instead of 3.5-inch rocket rifles (grenade launchers, along with instructors, were delivered by air). The 3.5th Division received the first batch of 24-inch Bazookas. With their appearance, the position of the infantry began to change for the better. In the battles for Daejeon, the 105th KPA Brigade lost 15 T-34-85s, seven of which were destroyed by Super-Bazooka fire. To combat the tanks, special units of "tank destroyers" were organized, one of which was led (to inspire his subordinates) by the division commander, Major General William F. Dean. He personally decided to make sure that his soldiers now have weapons against the "invulnerable" T-34s. By the end of 1950, the DPRK troops had lost 239 T-34-85 tanks, most of which were hit by bazooka fire and aircraft. By the end of the war, the US Infantry Division had 465 3.5-inch Super Bazookas. Division YUKA - 258.
            1. Bongo
              10 March 2016 13: 57
              +5
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              The main anti-tank weapon of the battalion - 60-mm jet guns, was useless.

              It turned out to be useless because:
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              South Korean infantry units were completely demoralized. Not only that, most South Korean soldiers had never seen tanks before ...

              During World War II, completely different examples took place. So during the battles in Normandy, the main enemy of German armored vehicles were aviation formations and crews of anti-tank grenade launchers "Bazooka". During the counteroffensive on June 8, 1944, under the der. Brettville, the Germans were forced to begin their actions only with the onset of darkness, since during the day the aviation would not give them any chance of even getting close to the enemy. However, the offensive was unsuccessful. the crews of the M1 anti-tank grenade launchers opened sudden fire from a short distance on suitable German tanks "Panther", illuminated by fires.

              The 60-mm "bazookas" were especially effective in populated areas and on tight French roads. Their armor resistance was quite enough to defeat medium and heavy German tanks.

              Summarizing, we can say that the success of the use of any weapon largely depends on the training, training and morale of the soldiers. soldier
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 10 March 2016 15: 34
                +1
                Quote: Bongo
                but they also very quickly became convinced that their Bazookas were powerless against the T-34-85. The American soldiers were in the same condition. The battalion's main anti-tank weapon, 60-mm rocket-assisted rifles, turned out to be useless.

                Quote: Bongo
                During this battle, American infantrymen fired 22 shots at the tanks from the 60-mm Bazooka. To no avail!

                M-d-ah! Of course, information can be ... "turn like a drawbar! It hurts not nicely, you jab this" drawbar "! The wrong end!
                1. Nikolaevich I
                  Nikolaevich I 10 March 2016 16: 13
                  +1
                  The first bazooka was born in June 1942 year in the walls of the company General Electric. However, before the bazooka began to enter combat units, it managed to become obsolete. German tanks carried thicker armor than the creator of the bazooka had expected.
                  Tests carried out in the 704th battalion of tank destroyers in July and November 1944 showed that: “The bazooka cannot penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther and Tiger tanks, as well as the side armor of the Tiger tank. Nevertheless, the bazooka penetrates the side armor of the hull and turret of the Panther tanks.
                  As reported by an observer of the American Artillery and Technical Bureau, during the battles in Sicily (1943) from the bazooka it was possible to knock out the "Tiger" with a well-aimed shot into the driver's viewing slot. The limited range of the bazooka - only 100 meters - made it difficult to use it in battle, Not every soldier had enough self-control to let a German tank come to such a distance.
                  During an attempt by the US Army to break through the Siegfried Line in November 1944, the battalion of the 112th Infantry Regiment was attacked by German infantry from the 1055th Regiment and at least ten tanks and assault guns from the 16th Panzer Regiment. The Americans used bazookas. 'German tanks moved forward, ignoring the antipersonnel mines planted on the road. The defenders opened fire with bazookas. One of the tanks was hit, but the missile ricocheted off the armor. The Germans continued to move forward, firing cannons and machine guns at rifle cells, machine gun nests and buildings. Once in an anti-tank minefield, the German cars simply turned off the road, walked around the mines on the side of the road and drove back onto the highway. This invulnerability to bazookas and anti-tank mines has had an unusually strong demoralizing effect on soldiers. '
                  1. Bongo
                    11 March 2016 01: 51
                    +4
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    The limited range of the bazooka - only 100 meters - made it difficult to use it in battle, since not every soldier had enough endurance to let a German tank at such a distance.

                    Well, yes, our infantrymen had enough endurance to undermine themselves together with tanks with a bunch of grenades, and the Americans did not have enough endurance to let the tanks closer. wassat Only "Bazooka" how is it to blame? what In addition, the firing range of the German disposable Panzerfaust was even less than that of the 60mm Bazooka.
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    Tests carried out in the 704th battalion of tank destroyers in July and November 1944 showed that: “The bazooka cannot penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther and Tiger tanks, as well as the side armor of the Tiger tank. Nevertheless, the bazooka penetrates the side armor of the hull and turret of the Panther tanks.

                    100 mm armor penetration of 60-mm rocket-propelled grenades was quite enough to fight medium tanks, "Panthers" bazookas also struck quite confidently, which has been documented many times.
                    In addition, you contradict yourself; first you write:
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    Bazookas are powerless against the T-34-85. The American soldiers were in the same condition. The battalion's main anti-tank weapon, 60-mm rocket-assisted rifles, turned out to be useless.

                    Then:
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    Nevertheless, the bazooka penetrates the side armor of the hull and turret of the Panther tanks.

                    If my sclerosis does not change me, and most likely it does not change me, then the frontal armor of the T-34-85 hull is slightly less thick than the side armor of the German PzKpfw V "Panther" tank. Those. according to your logic, 60-mm cumulative grenades "Bazookas" piercing 50-mm German armor, are powerless against 45-mm Soviet? No. Of course, the penetration of armor does not always lead to the incapacitation or destruction of the tank, but to say that in 1950 the "Bazooka" whose cumulative grenades were by that time brought to the required condition became less effective when penetrating armor of the same thickness than in 1944 is completely unfounded.
                2. Bongo
                  11 March 2016 01: 44
                  +2
                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  M-d-ah! Of course, information can be ... "turn like a drawbar! It hurts not nicely, you jab this" drawbar "! The wrong end!

                  Well, write your article about the "drawbar" and justify it with statistical data of combat use.
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 11 March 2016 08: 37
                    +2
                    In Cuba, during Operation Zapata, the bazookas were also practically useless. In fact, the Cuban T-34s simply did not give a chance to use them effectively, because they did not come within the range of defeat and, taking advantage of impunity, they shot at the positions of the paratroopers from a safe distance. The losses of the Cuban army amounted to only one tank. After the destruction of all M41s, the fate of the landing was decided.
                    1. Bongo
                      11 March 2016 10: 36
                      +3
                      Quote: Riv
                      In Cuba, during Operation Zapata, the bazookas were also practically useless.

                      I agree, but not because of the low armor penetration of the Bazooka. Thanks to the competent tactics of using the T-34-85 and Su-100, the pro-American rebels who landed from the sea simply did not have the opportunity to use them.
                      1. Riv
                        Riv 11 March 2016 12: 43
                        +1
                        Isn't it the right tactics that decide everything on the battlefield? Any soldier must also use his weapon wisely. If the "Tiger" is knocked out with a bazooka from a hundred meters and strictly along the normal, then you need to let him go to these hundred meters and wait for him to put the board correctly. And if he is not going to drive up these hundred meters, then ... if you want to make yeast dough, but you do not have yeast, then you will not succeed.

                        It is clear that from a hundred meters it’s nevertheless more pleasant to scoff at the tank than with a ten glass bottle, or even better: to climb with an anti-tank mine. Nevertheless, Lend-Lease bazookas in the USSR did not seem to be supplied. I think the fact is that ours in the fight against enemy tanks relied on anti-tank artillery. At that time, it wasn’t seriously developed among the Americans, but we already had IPTAP regiments that were quite capable of their task.
    3. datur
      datur 12 March 2016 23: 33
      0
      But did ,, bazooka ,, - a copy of the German ,, panzer shrek ,, - did not have one drawback-electric start? wink and RPG-7- MECHANICS- ?? drinks
  4. igordok
    igordok 10 March 2016 08: 45
    +2
    Question.
    In PG-7B a piezoelectric fuse BP-7 is installed. Is it necessary to strike directly at the fuse for its operation or is it enough to collide any part of the PG-7? After all, an electric pulse will be generated by a piezoelectric element in any case. Although it may be weaker. This is a question of the effectiveness of large-mesh BTT screens.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 10 March 2016 09: 15
      +3
      Quote: igordok
      This is a question of the effectiveness of large-mesh BTT screens.

      Their task is to destroy the cumulative funnel, and not cause an explosion
      1. igordok
        igordok 10 March 2016 09: 29
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Their task is to destroy the cumulative funnel, and not cause an explosion

        Here I am about that. Can the screen destroy the warhead before the fuse fires? If the PG-7 is triggered by any hit on the screen, then the effect of the screens for lightly armored targets (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles) is scanty.
        As an electronics engineer, I know that ferroelectrics are very sensitive to shocks.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 10 March 2016 11: 04
          0
          Quote: igordok
          If the PG-7 will work from any blow

          SRI Steel for their screens voiced a probability of 50%
    2. Bongo
      10 March 2016 10: 05
      +8
      Quote: igordok
      Question.
      In PG-7B a piezoelectric fuse BP-7 is installed. Is it necessary to strike directly at the fuse for its operation or is it enough to collide any part of the PG-7? After all, an electric pulse will be generated by a piezoelectric element in any case. Although it may be weaker. This is a question of the effectiveness of large-mesh BTT screens.


      It is necessary to hit precisely the fuse. Moreover, when firing a safety cap, it is not necessary to remove it from it. Moreover, when using the RPG-7 in dense thickets or in tall grass, an uncaped cap will protect against premature undermining of the PG-7.
  5. Vadim237
    Vadim237 10 March 2016 10: 27
    +2
    Probably only RPGs Karl Gustav can compete in the range of shots from 7 RPGs
    1. Bongo
      10 March 2016 10: 40
      +5
      Quote: Vadim237
      Probably only RPGs Karl Gustav can compete in the range of shots from 7 RPGs

      Carl Gustav is still conceptually and constructively closer to light recoilless guns, like our RPG-29 "Vampire".
      1. padded jacket
        padded jacket 10 March 2016 11: 17
        +3
        During the Iranian-Iraqi war, experiencing an extreme shortage of fire support for the infantry (artillery mortars BO), Iran was forced to compensate for their lack with such "multi-barreled" RPGs smile It’s not known exactly, but I met the opinion that even then Iran issued a copy of the RPG-7 at home.
        Produced "multi-barreled" RPG Fath both on a car chassis and portable.


        It also produced this version of the RPG Fath for firing from shelters (trenches)
        1. padded jacket
          padded jacket 10 March 2016 11: 32
          +2
          Iran produces and a copy of our LNG-9 called Zafar. It is used both in a portable version and is installed on various cars.

          By the way, this is for RPG-7 information from Myanmar (they write what they do themselves, as far as I understand the translation smile)
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 10 March 2016 12: 09
          +2
          So is Iran the only thing? There were pictures on the Internet of "multi-barreled grenade launcher" systems (RPG-7) of Armenian origin
          1. padded jacket
            padded jacket 10 March 2016 12: 34
            +1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            So is Iran the only thing? There were pictures on the Internet of "multi-barreled grenade launcher" systems (RPG-7) of Armenian origin

            In Iran, multi-barrel RPGs appeared during the Iran-Iraq war, and in 1980-1988 then there was no multi-barrel RPG in Armenia, and there was no mention of the most independent Armenia. He appeared in Armenia only during the Karabakh war after 1990.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 11 March 2016 01: 51
              +2
              And I really argued, "who is the first"? No.
              1. padded jacket
                padded jacket 11 March 2016 13: 55
                +1
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                And I really argued, "who is the first"?

                So I don’t argue with you, I just wrote for information that they appeared in Iran a little earlier.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 March 2016 17: 04
          +3
          Quote: quilted jacket
          During the Iranian-Iraqi war, experiencing an extreme shortage of fire support for the infantry (artillery mortars BO), Iran was forced to compensate for their lack with such "multi-barreled" RPGs

          There is nothing new under the sun. Multi-barreled grenade launchers to support infantry instead of heavy and large-sized guns were used in domestic guns as far back as 1945:
          Each of these assault groups operated a group of “Faustniks” of 4 sappers (the squad leader and three “Faustniks”, one of which had a special machine for volley throwing). This machine was a purely domestic invention and allowed to simultaneously throw up to 10 faustpatrons. The group of “Faustniks” was armed with 50-80 Faustpatrons and 12 disks for machine guns. For the "transportation" of personnel and assets of the sapper assault group, one tank or self-propelled guns was also allocated, which also provided fire support.
          1. padded jacket
            padded jacket 10 March 2016 17: 42
            +3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            There is nothing new under the sun. Multi-barreled grenade launchers to support infantry instead of heavy and large-sized guns were used in domestic guns as far back as 1945:

            Can I have a picture? I have never seen or even heard of this.

            Not quite a topic but smile
            During the Iran-Iraq war in Iran, such a Mohajer-1 UAV of their own production was used, armed with missile launchers smile made on the basis of the RPG-7 / Fath missiles hit where they wanted the Iranians honestly do not know.


        4. Arkan
          Arkan 10 March 2016 20: 47
          0
          Romanians also fought three-barreled borders taking RPG-7 as a basis.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 March 2016 11: 56
        -2
        Be that as it may, neither RPG 7 nor Karl Gustav has shots penetrating modern tanks in the forehead, but the German Panzerfaust 3 has such a shot - armor penetration of 950 millimeters of armor for dynamic protection.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 10 March 2016 14: 02
          +1
          Waiting for arguments against.
          1. Bongo
            10 March 2016 14: 05
            +3
            Quote: Vadim237
            Waiting for arguments against.

            Apparently you will not wait ... request In fairness, it was also worthwhile to indicate the range of a direct shot of the Panzerfaust 3, its weight, cost and number of grenade launchers of this type.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 10 March 2016 14: 55
              +3
              Narot just doesn't really understand the need to shoot a tank in the forehead. Especially from an RPG. And especially from the Panzerfaust 3 and Karl Gustav type grenade launchers, which are currently capable of firing from the premises.

              They will put two or three bunkers for flanking fire in front of the front of the platoon stronghold, and they will knock out the tanks with fire on board.

              Besides, "Karl Gustav" is no longer an RPG. A full-fledged means of fire support for infantry with a high firing range. "Splinter" seems to be throwing at 1100
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 10 March 2016 16: 24
                -1
                Tanks head-on are inevitable in battle. "They will put two or three bunkers in front of the front of the platoon strongpoint for flanking fire, and they will knock tanks into the side with fire." These structures in modern warfare will become an easy target for guided artillery ammunition and guided missiles of MLRS.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 10 March 2016 16: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  These structures in modern warfare will be an easy target for guided artillery ammunition

                  If they see them
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 10 March 2016 23: 08
                    0
                    Everything is visible from above, especially since it takes time to make such structures.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 10 March 2016 23: 25
                      +2
                      Above weed is visible on the turf with which the bunker is masked.
                      1. Vadim237
                        Vadim237 11 March 2016 00: 11
                        0
                        I mean that the construction of these facilities will be visible, and weed is the last thing.
                    2. E.S.A.
                      E.S.A. 13 June 2017 11: 54
                      +1
                      Vadim237, the construction of a bunker-bunker usually occurs with concomitant disguise - for example, a piece of tissue 15x25 meters can be spread over the construction site and you will find it figs. And if there will be not one of these “sheets”, but between each compartment of a company (8 pieces) or a battalion (26 pieces), then the preliminary removal of bunkers-bunkers during air / artillery preparation is fraught with excessive shell overruns, most of which will inevitably fall on ordinary hills excess soil excavated during construction. And yes, usually soldiers (and the commander himself) do not know until the last moment where exactly the flanking firing point will be located - in order to avoid information leakage.
                      It is in such conditions that the enemy’s BTT goes to identify firing structures, literally substituting their sides for fire.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 10 March 2016 16: 43
              +1
              It weighs Panzerfaust 3, it’s with a tandem grenade, 14 kilograms, shoots at 600 meters, the cost is not known to me, but the number of pieces released has reached 400000, and another curiosity of this grenade launcher is its computer sight, which allows you to fire at moving targets.
              1. IS-80
                IS-80 10 March 2016 17: 20
                0
                All these Panzerfausts and RPG-7s have not been needed for a long time. We need an analogue of the Israeli Spike to the platoon and an analogue of Karl Gustaf to the department, only throwing titanium and other carbon version of the M3 type will work.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 10 March 2016 18: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: IS-80
                  just throw titanium and other carbon version of the M3 type will work.

                  Steel liner and fiberglass? There is a significant reduction in resource compared to M2 for the sake of weight reduction.
                  1. IS-80
                    IS-80 10 March 2016 18: 24
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    Steel liner and fiberglass? There is a significant reduction in resource compared to M2 for the sake of weight reduction.

                    1000 shots as far as I remember from the M3. The M4 also has 1000 shots. Is this not enough?
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 10 March 2016 19: 45
                      +2
                      Quote: IS-80
                      M4 also has 1000 shots.

                      Can I have a link? Even the Saab people themselves do not have this.

                      1000 rounds for such a complex is not enough. Roughly, lighteners 4 times an hour, 4 hours a day, for two with a penny a month the resource was shot.
              2. Massik
                Massik 10 March 2016 19: 53
                +1
                Quote: Vadim237
                and also a curiosity of this grenade launcher is its computer sight, which allows firing at moving targets
                A strange argument, as if the usual PGO-7 does not allow firing on crawling tanks?
          2. Hon
            Hon 10 March 2016 17: 18
            0
            and 500mm + dynamic protection is not enough to hit a modern tank in the forehead?
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 10 March 2016 23: 06
              +1
              Alas, not enough.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 10 March 2016 23: 20
              +2
              Our only grenade launcher that can penetrate the frontal armor of such tanks as: Leopard, Abrams, Leclerc, Cheleger, Ture 99 is RPG 28, only given its size and weight - you can’t hang more than 1 unit per soldier.
      3. datur
        datur 12 March 2016 23: 43
        0
        MDA-THESE 2 pieces are deadly mucks for TANKS !!!! - BUT ours is simpler and cheaper !!! HERE! By the way - in Syria, our T-72s are hollowed on the video by VAMPIRES-Apparently these creatures are trained by the Americans, because the animals know how and where to beat !!!! negative
  6. The comment was deleted.