Why didn't the US ever feel like it needed an RPG-style squad weapon?
LAW, AT-4, not the same.
Carl Gustav I head that the SF liked it.
The Marines have the SMAW which is somewhat close.
>>29773108
They do less damage and you have to pay region free DLC or pre order with Mountain Dew
>>29773108
Gustav
Rockets are big and bulky to carry.
Our infantry focuses on anti infantry, which make up the bulk of our enemy, activity.
We have at4s just incase we run into something up armored or fortified, but we also have
>mortar
>artillery
>air support
>tanks
>Bradleys
Or even fucking Humvees with tow missles
Rpgs make sense from an insurgent perspective because they don't have these things.
>>29773332
/thread
>>29773332
This makes a lot of sense.
>>29773332
Off by one.
Also true. We could create a man portable RPG similar and field it but it would still see a limited role. Also we've been refielding the M202a1, so we have something better already.
>>29773355
Nice triple dubs.
>
The RPG-7 is way more accurate that the M202, the AT-4, or the LAW, to say the least.
The Marines came up with the SMAW. Some SF units use the Gustav. The regular Army just never wanted a squad rocket. Maybe they think grenade launchers suffice.
Massively different doctrine, US has the m72 which is sufficent today still.
Different theory, American infantrymen have always been synonymous with "rifleman". Carrying around a rocket looks almost cowardly or strange for an American.
>>29773576
>citation needed
>>29773355
>>29773377
Damn.
The SMAW is fucking badass but it's a little too complicated the USMC is working on an upgrade to it that includes a full time thermal sight/Infrared combo sight with no optic sight IIRC
>>29773576
Why 5 rockets when you can carry 25 40mm ?
>>29773878
The SMAW's coaxial aiming round 9mm was cool but in combat it's useless because the moment the enemy sees one of those fat tracer rounds fly they hose you down. Source - former Marine.
>>29773390
Refielding the M202? That's badass.
>>29773108
they did make and kinda adopt the US-made RPG-7 just recently. See: >>29773437
Also the good ol' Bazooka and its couple successors were similar, reloadable AT weapons.
>>29773108
Is the RPG good against tanks or infantry?
>>29774102
Can confirm.
That's exactly what they taught us in School of Infantry back in '04
"We are required by order to teach you the following..."
"If you ever do it you deserve to be killed when you're targeted by every haji in a 180 degree arc"
>>29774364
There would be some occasions where you could fire it from a somewhat covered position and you could use the tracer to dial in the trajectory right? Not completely useless right?
>>29774445
Yes but the odd of circumstances like that happening would be about as common as using the AT-4 against tanks in any US military engagement since 2005.
>>29773108
>>29773437
Gee Billy how come your NCO lets you have TWO optics?!
>>29774445
>500m max range for HEAT HEAA
>Probably less then 1km for HEDP or NE
SMAW's have Irons and a ballistic drop scope anyway.
Never saw the point of the spotting rifle, I think it was just a hold over from the B300.
The Israeli's btw used a british designed SUIT scope pulled off a Romat or Galil with a stadia reticle for the B300. The US adopted something more along the lines of the Panzerfaust 3's Hensdolt or the Carl G's optic
>>29774364
A carryover from the days when the SMAW was an anti-tank weapon first.
Spotting that 9mm tracer is a lot harder if you are buttoned up in a T-72 or a BMP-1.
>why doesn't the US have rocket propelled grenades
But we do, OP, and they're a lot smaller and laser guided too....
RPG is only for mighty Abu Hajaar, infidel American pig dog. May he forever roll.
>>29774956
>lets make a 40mm grenade that costs 100 grand
>Fuck money
>>29773390
>refielding the M202a1
refielding a motherfucking 4 barrel napalm rocket?
holy shit I'm glad to be alive
also, we don't have antiarmor rockets and shit because we don't need them.
we run into tanks, just get on the horn and call in various support to make that thing not exist anymore.
![soldiers1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BwRXFl6.jpg "soldiers1[1].jpg")
>>29773576
You must have been asleep for the past 5 years, because the regular Army adopted the Gustav for use in Weapons Companies a while ago.
It became standard issue in Light Infantry units in 2014
Ok, actual, real answer inbound.
I'ts a question of doctrine, a word that /k/, in all it's CoD-fueled experience, doesn't know the significance of.
I don't need to explain that the RPG-7 was developed by the Soviets during the Cold War, and, as such, needed to fit into the Soviet doctrine of fighting a fast-paced war on the offensive against NATO.
All of the Soviet infantry was mechanized. That meant every single soldier fought off of a BMP, BTR, or even just a truck, but that soldier wouldn't ever need to stray far from his squad vehicle.
As such, the soldier only needed to carry enough to dismount, engage the target, and mount back in.
Ammunition is stored in the vehicle, and carried in a rudimentary rucksack.
The RPG gunner does not even carry a rifle.
The Soviets expect to face off against heavy NATO armor, so they need to mount the biggest, most powerful explosive you can physically mount on a standard, mass-issue AT weapon, which will need to be fired frequently.
Hence, the RPG is the way it is. A compact disposable launcher like the LAW is unnecessary, and although the RPG-18 fits that role, they're a supplementary weapon, not the standard infantry issue AT weapon.
You have to remember that the RPG-7 also precedes such weapons by decades, and the Soviet structure remained unchanged despite this.
Since the US operated differently, it didn't need a similar weapon because it doesn't work within its doctrine. Simple as.
>>29774956
>>29775029
Its actually a 40mm manpad that can be launched through a 203 or 320 IIRC. Pretty neat, but I have no idea how the guidance works or how effective it could be against aircraft. I'm assuming its designed for lightweight helicopters.
>>29774260
Yes. There's a range of warheads. The big coming thing is thermobaric rounds. Very effective in urban combat or against enemies in hard cover.
>>29774260
The nice thing about the RPG-7 as a platform is that it's super versatile, and effectively future-proof.
No need to reinvent the wheel, just design a new warhead to fit the original launcher, and you're good to go.
Enemy built better armored tanks? No problem, just design a better warhead, and sling it on. You can even mount rounds designed for much larger launchers like the RPG-29.
Infantry giving you lip? There's a vast selection of of antipersonnel munitions to choose from.
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/usa/airtronic-usa-rpg-7-e.html
>>29775029
>load up
>POONK
>goodbye 4 years of pay
>>29775081
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf1FWqFTNnM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-O1hQasMB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2CXy4NBEtU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpvsJWW73v8
>>29773437
Tacticool and 10x the price. That's American alright
>>29773437
why does Army camo suck so much dick?
>>29775759
Because the decided to be all French and instead of using something works they used something that was unique.
>>29775100
Why aren't weapon platoons and companies enough? Alternatively, why doesn't the US do the same thing?
>>29773108
The Bazooka came before the Panzerfaust.
The SMAW is the Carl Gustav.
Recoless rifle technology>Rocket propelled.
>>29775855
For the Soviet model, the BMPs were supposed to work in conjunction with the MBTs, who would do most of the tank-killing, supplemented by ATGMs fired off the AFVs. Fundamentally, those are plenty efficient assets with which to take on NATO armor. Any additional necessity was taken on by the RPG gunner.
Dedicated weapons companies effectively concentrate a useful asset in one area, whereas Soviet strategy was to punch at every single point in the line simultaneously until a weak spot breaks through, then pouring all the forces through that hole.
NATO units instead needed to reinforce any potential gaps with maximum firepower, then encircle isolated pockets of Soviet forces that broke through.
Us military is retarded. Soviets paid with more blood than anyone else in WW2 and learned a fuck lot more. To further expand on some shit that i know, the RPG is essentially the last-line in Anti-tank weaponry lines of site and was seen as essential, especially in an era where many anti-tank missiles such as the common Malyutkula missiles had a dead-zone of hundreds of meters of minimum range due to the guidance package. So it was essential they had they anti-tank weapons to fill the the close-range gap.
>>29775982
False, the RPG's can have much larger warheads. See late model Tandem warhead RPG's that slide right into a 60's vintage launcher. pretty fucking neat
>>29775313
>the year is 2096
>everyone is now firing AI guided tank killing top attack munitions from underslung grenade launchers
>meanwhile in rossiya Boris still lugs around a ye olde RPG-7
>the Russians are now firing what appears to be playdough at their targets from their RPGs
>tfw they're actually nanites
WAR HAS CHANGED
>>29776021
>False, the RPG's can have much larger warheads
I did not mean in actual effectiveness, I mean in actual overall performance recoiless is better.
>>29776021
Yeah, except the average US Infantry or Mechanised company in WW2 was up to it's neck in Bazookas. There's a reason German armoured counterattacks never accomplished much. By the end of the war the US had elastic defence down to a fine art. Which informed their cold war doctrine against the Soviets. Who, unlike the Germans, actually had the numbers for full scale operational offensive warfare as a usual thing. The US could finally put their doctrine into full use.
>>29776097
Not that guy but more effective how?
The system is heavier, the warheads are limited in diameter which will impose limits on munition design. The ammunition is heavier, since all the propellant is in the expulsion charge with the exception of rocket assisted munitions.
The only possible plus on RR's is that since they're low-pressure rounds you could just use it as a light weight man portable mortar system but I'm pretty sure that's what RR's were supposed to do in the first place and really if you make a proper optic you could do the same thing on any RPG type system anyway.
>>29776078
Oh god. This is a future I don't want to take part in.
The US military is a buncha retards, thats all.
They had air support as a crutch so they didn't need to win firefights
>>29773332
You still use at4's? I thought you guys switched to the Carl Gustav or something
>>29774102
Anyone know if there has been a confirmed kill with the SMAW's spotting gun?
>>29776097
kek you mena recoilless where hte rounds are much heavier due to the need for the counter balancing load you chucklefucking idiot
Do we have any unguided infantry weapons? The RPG is essentially immune to jamming and countermeasures, because far as I know it uses no guidance. You just aim and fire.
>>29775185
It's not a MANPADS. The Pike is basically a portable laser guided missile to take out light vehicles and fortified positions so an infantry squad doesn't have to waste a javelin rocket to do it.
>>29776796
SMAW, AT-4, LAW, and Carl Gustav
>>29776796
AFAIK most bullets are resistant to jamming as well
>>29776921
>most
I want to know what bullets aren't resistant to jamming.
>>29773108
>Why didn't the US ever feel like it needed an RPG-style squad weapon?
When Army came to 'Murican industry and ask them for cheap and reliable rocket grenade launcher, one half asked "What is cheap?" and other "What is reliable?".
>>29774631
Kek'd
>>29775313
>effectively future-proof
Not really. The small diameter of the tube limits the size of the rocket motor which limits the weight of the warhead. It's no coincidence that RPG-7s are virtually useless beyond 300m while a Panzerfaust 3-IT-600 us useful up to 600m.
>>29773332
That's.... actually a great explanation.
>>29773576
But that's wrong, you idiot. The internal ballistics of the RPG are based on rapid acceleration and short barrel length.
>>29773108
For a good while, the law was very effective and was standard issue for troops in Europe.
>>29773390
>M202a1
Also handy for taking out final bosses
Can a M202 take LAW rockets?
>>29776588
Different purposes
>>29773332
Then why did the Russians develop it? Surely the Soviets had their own artillery, mortars, air support etc.
>>29773108
US switched to ATGMs in this role (squad designed anti-tank weapon). First Dragon now Javelin.
RPG is a crutch. The range is short and it is a weapon of last resort. USA thinks in terms of combined arms. If your infantry is close enough to a tank to shoot at it, you're most like fucked anyway in a real war.
>>29774127
>neat.jpg
>>29776198
Do you understand what kind of hell it is to be under fire from Americans? They're doctrine is pretty much send as many bullets flying in your direction as possible, if you run, you'll be shot to pieces. If you stay in cover, you'll be vaporized from 30,000 feet.
>>29773108
Because the extent of hadji armor and anti armor is disassembled/diffused RPGs and toyotas
You wanna know what the us has?
>>29778895
Different time, different doctrines.
The RPG-2 was back in the 50s, combined arms were certainly a thing but the sort of integration we have today was a long ways off, it wasn't too far-fetched to envision a scenario where an infantry squad would need pretty serious AT capability with little to no support. The RPG was a pretty elegant solution at the time, the contemporary "bazooka" designs meant you had to increase launcher size to increase warhead size, but the RPG-7 let you launch a huge fucking warhead with a relatively small launcher, which not only meant superior AT performance but also let you pull all sorts of weird shit with crazy specialized warheads like tandem and thermobaric charges, which is why the same basic design is still relevant today.
>>29773108
A better question and real US weapon shortfall was having no equivalent to the SVD. The LAW wasn't as good as the RPG but close enough. The SVD in it's time was the only scoped rifle that filled the designated markmen role
>>29778450
>internal ballistics
>barrel affecting rocket's ballistics
>>29779867
Probably because the M16 was felt to be accurate enough at long ranges? Not sure. But almost everyone has Dragunov envy.
>>29773437
It's not real. It's MILES.
http://www.google.ch/patents/US7927102
>>29780100
http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/airtronic_rpg_7_usa_21.jpg no :)
>>29779867
Your average US rifleman is almost always supported by a vehicle of some sort, be it a Humvee, Bradley, M113, Stryker, or any combination of those and more.
Why would they need something that can put a few rounds out to ~800 meters accurately when all of the above come with at least a .50 cal that can put a bunch of rounds out at 1800 meters effectively?
If they REALLY needed it, they have M14s
>>29773108
they are so ubiquitous on EVERY battlefield that it would only duplicate something already present.
>>29780212
>that optic
>that foregrip
>>29780238
Soviet doctrine heavily relied on vehicles, squad numbers included the guys who drove the tranpsorts
>>29779522
God that's terrifying
>>29776078
>still using RPG-7
WAR NEVER CHANGES
>>29779867
Because generals are fudds.
>muh irons
>>29776694
There is no such thing as confirmed kills. That's a myth. I do know an 0351 that swears up and down he shot a dude with it in Iraq.
>>29779867
Possibly the M21, which came out only a few years after the SVD. One could argue that it wasn't used exactly like the SVD back then or that it wasn't "designed from the ground up" as a DMR, but it was pretty much the functional equivalent.
>>29779867
M14 Mod 0, 1, and 2. M39EMR, M21. They all do the job just as well.
If you like Ugg boots there's also the SCAR-H DMR
>>29782225
>but it was pretty much the functional equivalent.
Yeah? Was it deployed at the infantry squad level?
>>29776588
Nah. We finally got AT-4s to where they work in buildings and vehicles without taking out everyone with the backblast.
>>29781487
As the Germans said of our artillery, this is how a rich man fights a war.
>>29782305
>One could argue that it wasn't used exactly like the SVD back then
>>29782305
>>29782560
Addendum: what I meant by "functional equivalent" is that it was a scoped autoloading rifle with a quick-detachable box magazine chambered in a full-powered rifle cartridge. I suppose going by those standards one could say even the old scoped SVT40s and G43s would count, but I was just responding to the idea that the US didn't have anything that could have been used as a DMR like the SVD in that time period. Maybe that's not what that poster was talking about, I dunno.
>>29782716
At the time the SVD was some crazy slavic space magic. For the time period it was extremely accurate for military semi-auto standards, it was also reliable, cheap, and lightweight.
The really impressive thing was the PSO though.
>Passive IR Filter, have fun trying to take out a guy with an SVD at night even if you DO have NVGs
>Really fucking elaborate reticule
>Removable and reattatchable without losing zero
The M21 was comparable in a lot of ways but at the time of introduction and for a good while afterwards the SVD and PSO were at the top of the game in terms of TECHNOLOGY, it'd be the equivalent of comparing the new HK G28 to the MSG90.
>>29773390
>Also we've been refielding the M202a1
WHAT!?
I thought the entire stock was given to Worst Korea
>>29779867
>>29780238
M110 now
>>29780238
Nah, his point is that the soviets were using the idea of a DM with appropriate rifle on a platoon? level since ~63, while such a job is relatively new in 'merica. Had there been a cold war, those SVD dudes would have made infantry fights a dreaded experience for the west.
>>29776113
>Yeah, except the average US Infantry or Mechanised company in WW2 was up to it's neck in Bazookas.
False. You can look up the TOE's yourself.
>There's a reason German armoured counterattacks never accomplished much.
And that reason was Germany's poor materiel situation, especially regarding fuel.
>>29775004
Abu Hajaar was the one with the MG3. I think it was Abu Rawndan or whatever ,with the RPG.
I still get your point tho
>>29782883
>>29775066
>>29774127
>>29778482
https://www.wired com/2009/05/us-incendiary-weapon-in-afghanistan-revealed
We've been refielding it for a while. We tooooooootaly aren't using the incendiary rockets man. Srsly. We swear guys.
