Which ones is better?
AT-4 since it's lighter and disposable.
>>30110113
Legit question, what are the pros / cons of having a disposable weapon?
>>30110322
there are none.
>>30110113
I'm pretty sure I could throw an RPG7 into a trash can as easily as I could an AT4.
>>30110322
Its a shitty reason, but you only need to engineer them to fire once, so it ends up being a bit cheaper.
>>30110322
Pro - Use it, drop it and GTFO.
Con - Wishing you had a second shot.
>>30110322
Pro - don't have to lug around a useless hunk of shit when you run out of ammo
Con - Have to carry more than one if you want additional shots
>>30110322
You can build them lighter and less durable when they only have to survive a single use and once fired the weapon can be discarded, rather then having most of the weight continue to encumber the infantryman.
The AT-4 is a good choice to be carried by a dismounted assaultman. The RPG-7 is best used by a pair of soldiers, spreading out the weight and giving a second person to reload the thing.
>>30110322
Cons:
smaller calibre
no mid-fight choice of ammunition
pros:
rounds are theoretically more accurate in rear-feeder recoiless rifles
tighter and lighter package, since no extra ammo
>>30110322
I heard something about it being easier to issue the AT4 since it is technically counted as a round of ammunition instead of it being a weapon assigned to a soldier
>>30110107
This is a nice change from 9mm vs .45 or AR vs AK
Preformance speaking, they both blow shit up just about the same. One being disposable, the other being reloadable both come with their pros and cons.
>>30110322
>>30110342
>>30110343
>>30110347
>>30110350
>>30110353
AT4 weighs 15 pounds. RPG-7 with one shot weighs 20 pounds. The AT4 is effective at 300 meters, where the RPG-7 is highly inaccurate past 250 meters.
The Carl Gustaf
>>30110616
How many shots is it reuseable for
>>30110630
how many shots do you have?
>>30110630
Lots
>>30110630
Service life is somewhere above 600 rounds.
>>30110616
The carl gustav is basically the .40 to the 9mm vs .45 and the g36 to the ar vs ak.
>>30110414
>>30110107
Weight:
AT-4: 6.7 kg
RPG-7: 7 kg
Penetration
AT-4 HEAT: 420mm RHA
RPG-7 PG-7VL: +500mm RHA
AT-4 High Penetration: 500-600mm RHA
RPG-7 PG-7VR: 600-750mm RHA
Infantry Infantry options:
AT-4 HEDP: Small HEAT warhead followed by small explosive warhead.
RPG-7 OG-7: 210 gram HE with frag elements.
RPG-7 TBG-7V: 2kg Thermobaric warhead
Optics:
AT-4 : Apparently a nightsight
RPG-7 : PGO-7 (2.7x) , UP-7V Telescopic sight, 1PN51/1PN58 night vision sights and red dot reflex sight.
Type of rocket:
AT-4 Single Stage
RPG-7 two stage rocket with slow launch, can be fired from indoors.
Rockets you can carry into combat:
AT-4: 1 or 2
RPG-7: up to 7
You'd rather have an RPG-7 than an AT-4 if that was your only weapon, but originally the RPG-7 was for dedicated AT guys, while the AT-4 is carried by a rifleman along with his rifle.
I think with the lighter ammo for the AK74 over the AKM the russian RPG-7 gunners also started carrying a rifle, but before that the RPG was all they carried and maybe a pistol or smg.
>>30110322
You get to carry the useless tube back to prove that you expended it.
>>30110799
Same with AT4s, since long cylindrical objects seem to make great IED housings
>>30110107
one is outdated slavshit from the cold war
the other is outdated american shit
one can defeat semi modern armored vehicles, the other might total your HMMV if the goatfucker shooting it knows how to arm it into something more than a rocket propelled chunk of steel
>>30110796
>can be fired from indoors.
So can the AT-4 nowadays.
During my conscription we were taught to take used AT-4 tubes with us, to avoid them being used in booby traps or some shit. Empty tubs are relatively light though.
The projectile moves REALLY fucking fast, seems to hit almost immediately after you fire it. You're not gonna have time to scream "RPG!" like they do in the movies.
I was gonna say "AT4 is 84mm and RPG7 is puny 40mm," but actually looking up the RPG7 that I know next to nothing about, there's a massive range of warheads from 40mm frag, 85-93mm single stage HEAT, a bigger tandem HEAT and a thermobaric 105mm. Appearantly it only has little more than a third of the muzzle velocity of an AT4, and only two thirds of its effective range. The AT4 comes at you at 290m/s and has an effective range of 300 meters, so there's about a second to react granted you're at max effective range.
In any case, I wouldn't feel salty or cheated about being issued an AT4 instead of RPG7.
What's the SMAW for
>>30110820
Go back to COD faggot.
>>30110841
Fair enough
>>30110886
4-6 seconds fuse, so 450-500m max range on RPG7 rounds.That's why they are often used for AA if within 500m range.
>>30110932
Good luck hitting anything at all, especially with those second hand shit terrorizers use.
I always figured RPG-7 standard warheads could reach out to 5 hundred metres...
>>30110932
Outside of 1993 and Sole Survivor, how often does someone actually shoot down aircraft with an RPG7?
I'm not gonna say it doesn't happen, but it sounds like a seriously impressive feat to correctly anticipate where a moving aircraft is gonna be in 4-6 seconds at 500 meters.
>>30110939
it self explodes 4-6 seconds or ~450-500m and therefore produces airburst effect.
>>30110903
0351 here: Fortifications and light (read: technicals and outdated IFVs) armored vehicles
>>30110962
Successful hit does not always equal black hawk down.
Plenty of DShK fired in Country. How many birds are actually get shot down ?
>>30110963
Negligible for modern vehicles at a given range. Look up STANAG for blast protection.
Dumb question: does the bipod allow the RPG to be fired from a prone position? Or is it just for resting on higher surfaces to get a better aim?
>>30110932
No.
>>30110962
Luck or on when it's coming in for a landing.
>>30110963
It's not an Anti-aircraft fusing or warhead. It would not be effective without a direct hit.
>>30110959
Absolutely, though it takes a lot more training adjusting for wind at that range, while an idiot can more or less always hit at 100m.
>>30110987
You can fire them from prone even without the bipod, but the bipod helps in both scenarios.
>>30110985
OMFG !
Did I fucking say that it's a legit and effective MANPAD ?
>>30110965
Thank you for your service. I've heard they're pretty monstrous. Is the 9mm spotting gun on it actually used in practice?
>>30111008
Sort of.
>>30111008
Strongly implied.
>>30111007
I guess I just figured firing it while prone would involve some backblast concerns as far as legs and feets go.
I have never seen or even heard of an RPG used as AA, I've heard of a blackhawk being hit by one at very low altitude while standing still.
>>30111021
Beats getting run over by a tank.
>>30111021
Well you wouldnt' actually be prone, you'd have to be on your elbows so as to give the RPG a good rest.
>>30110820
>AT-4
>American
The AT-4 is a Swedish weapon. Nothing american about it.
>>30111015
Go play with fury animals.
>>30110995
No shit genius, it's a fucking two-part impact/time (point initiating, base-detonating, piezoelectric ignited) fuse.
>>30111021
I've seen someones head right behind an RPG being fired, it knocked him over but it didn't kill him. So your legs could probably take it.
Either way, when you fire a weapons with backblast while prone, you lie down in such a way that your torso and legs are at a diagonal angle to the launcher.
>>30111055
Fuck yourself nigger. You said retarded shit, deal with it.
>>30111070
Welp I'm an idiot. I didn't even consider that. In my mind i had it 100% certain you had to be body in line with the launcher to brace it or something.
>>30111097
Well that's why you are here to learn and discuss.
Better to answer a stupid question and get something out of it, rather than not ask it and keep a stupid belief, you're alright anon.
Here is a better picture, prone with a standard launcher without bipods, unlike the previous picture which is a Carl Gustav.
>>30111008
>MANPAD
>>30111093
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Next you gonna tell me that there is no such thing as plunging fire, and M430's can be fired out of '203/320's.
>>30110616
/Thread
>>30111008
you realise MANPADS doesn't stand for pads for men?
>>30111151
"S" decided to do it's own thing and left.
Can't edit on here.
>>30111143
CG is overrated as fuck.
>>30110965
The High Explosive Anti-Armor (HEAA) rocket is effective against current tanks without additional armor and utilizes a standoff rod on the detonator, allowing the explosive force to be focused on a small point and for maximum damage against armored targets. The HEAA round is capable of penetrating up to the equivalent of 600 mm of rolled homogeneous steel (RHA).
>>30111190
So basically no frontal MBT penetration.
>>30111200
It's more of an assault gun, than an anti-tank weapon in practice i believe.
it's obviously inadequate to even RPG7 in anti-tank role.
>>30111181
No it isnt. Its just a really good weapon.
>>30111213
What's good about it relative to other systems, like the more common RPG-7 for example.
>>30111106
fire at will!
>>30111242
One is a rocket launcher, and one is a recoilless rifle. They both have pros and cons and I cant really say that one is better than the other. The new CG M4 is probably more modern, but the RPG-7 has no restrictions on warhead diameter.
>>30111366
There is nothing the CG can do that RPG can't do. The RPG on the other hand is lighter, has much less backblast, and as far as i am aware, actually has more powerful warheads too.
The CG is also cumbersome and not something i would want to fire quickly and while standing.
CG is extremely obsolete, and making it slightly lighter doesn't change that. It was good, for 1948, but not 2016.
>>30110796
>RPG-7: up to 7
I would think that the max would be 6 as the carrier bags hold three rockets each (there are two bags between the gunner and his assistant) and it's not a great idea to carry the launcher itself around loaded.
I actually own an old Soviet RPG-7 rocket carrier bag but unfortunately I don't think I have any pics of it saved
>>30111396
Why would it be bad to carry it loaded?
>>30111396
You can carry quite abit, depending on what else you bring, a RPG-7 gunner on foot having to carry all his shit, still carry 2 extra rockets on the sides of his backpack, but 100% of soviet/russian and those following their doctrine, are mechanized and BTR carriers usually have 10 extra rockets for the gunner, so in the field a gunner may have as many as 16 rockets if he chooses.
>>30111402
depending on the warhead type, if the safety cap on the impact fuze falls off and you drop the launcher the wrong way, you can blow yourself to bits. It sounds farfetched but I've heard enough horror stories from Afghanistan and elsewhere to discourage me from ever carrying a loaded RPG around. It's much safer to keep the warheads in the carrier bag until you need them
>implying anon will ever have an RPG
I already have a demilled RPG-2 hanging on the wall, maybe one day I'll go full retard and make it a proper DD.
>>30111426
I completely forgot about mechanized infantry, thanks anon.
>>30111402
Impact detonated and exposed warhead, it has a fucking button on the nose hit that and boom.
Old SFC in my unit talked about how in Iraq, they saw some goatfucker trip with one in the tube and got mulched.
>>30111485
VP-7/M and VP-22 fuses are mechanically closed at booster burnout, and will not go BOOM at point blank. If goat fucker trips and falls, he has time to get up an run away.
>>30111485
Either this story gets told from time to time or this is a semi-regular occurrence.
Heard the same story from Afghanistan, goatfuckers tripping, dropping or throwing the damned warheads and blowing themselves up in the process.
>>30110799
This fella gets it. We had to do the same thing with LAW's.
>>30110962
Like a Big helicopter that had a seal team got hit with one a few years ago and it knocked it out of the sky.
>>30111551
Urban myths tend to get around.
>>30111485
>>30111466
either
a) bullshit desert legend
b) abu-bubba grenades
Carl Gustav 4 lyfe
>>30110343
>it ends up being a bit cheaper
Does it really? You can only use the launcher once after all, then you have to replace it. It might be cheaper per launcher, but not on a large scale.
>>30110107
Advantage of RPG-7: You can always choose the best type of grenade to be fired (anti-tank, frag, thermobaric, etc.)
Disadvantage of RPG-7: Abu Hajaar will mix up grenades for shooting at people and grenades for shooting at vehicles.
Advantage of AT-4: Abu Hajaar cannot mix up grenades for people and grenades for vehicles.
Disadvantage of AT-4: Most effective against vehicles.
>>30111807
You forgot that Abu will also forget to remove the safety pins from the rpg-7
>>30110107
The AMERICAN one
>>30111389
Variable time delay airburst
Effective AP warheads
More range (with rocket assisted ammunition)
Smoke rounds
Illum rounds
Direct or indirect firing.
To name a few of the top of my head.
>>30111820
kek
>>30111389
>Lighter
RPG-7 = 7kg
CG M4 = 6.6kg
And the ammunition is lighter for the CG afaik.
>less backblast
This is true, yet there is some new ammunition for the CG that produces very little backblast (similar to the AT-4CS)
>>30111820
And then when he fires, he makes a nice shot, but roasts his squad mates in the process.
>>30111833
>American launchers not pictured
Retard alert
>>30111466
>implying the fuse is always armed
PG-7 fuses are armed by setback but have no arming distance.
>>30111869
Which one is used by the FREE WORLD? Not the RicketyPooGas that's for sure
>>30110107
I'd wager the RPG-7. Reloadable launcher is superior to disposable launcher that can't even be collapsed like the old LAWs. The RPG-7 has more diverse type of ammunition while the AT-4 does not. Those talking about the Carl Gustav are forgetting how the Gustav is fucking older than the RPG-7 and weighs a ton more while allegedly causing injury to operators during repeated uses. The RPG can be operated by one user in an emergency more efficiently than the Gustav. The Gustav manages to also cost more per unit than the RPG-7 tube.
>>30111883
>>30111833
The RPG is more American than the Gustav and AT-4 at this point.
>>30111833
dubs confirm that entire world is America
>>30111915
Man I miss that yu-gi-oh the abridged series...
But its probably shit if I try to watch it again.
>>30111883
The RPG-7 is used by more western countries than the AT-4 is.
>>30110421
Carl gustav beats both
>>30111366
CG can fire rockets as well. they just use a teflon band to ignore the effect of the rifling
>>30111948
Isnt the RAPs for the CG ignited in midcorse? Or is there ammunition that exclusivly rely on a rocket engine?
>>30111021
>>30111070
With the CG you just lay at a 45 degree angle like in that pic. Once saw a guy who forgot to do it properly and got his right trouserleg blown away. Gave a nasty red mark along the leg but nothing else.
Pic related is what i use. Its the old M2 variant, heavy as fuck
The AT4 shoots much straighter plus you can lock on to enemy aircraft. You only get one shot though unless you have scavenger. The AT4 gets my vote.
>>30110353
So does US doctrine just expect soldiers to only have to shoot one armored target over the course of a mission? That just seems asinine, honestly.
recoilless rifle thread?
>>30111106
that's why you are here to learn
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahh /k/ is full of fat fucking retards.
>>30111974
dont know what RAP stands for but the rocket engine gets ignited at 45 thousands of a second after firing which gives the rocket full effect around 18 meters from the muzzle. the rocket has 300g of fuel and finishes burning after 1,5 seconds where its around 500m away
>>30111994
What you fail to see is that the RPG is used by dedicated AT-teams. The US has AT-teams to, but they are armed with bigger things than an AT-4. The AT-4 is just an additional support weapon that can be carried by any soldier, regardless of role.
>>30111993
>AT-4
>lock on to anything
Stop playing Bad Company and come back when you actually know something.
>>30112023
It totally does though. Tough luck if they have flares cuz you've only got 1 shot though.
>>30112011
RAP = RocketAssisted Projectile
Usually used regarding artillery munitions. Anyway thanks for the info.
>>30112015
No, the US just lacks a close-in dedicated anti-tank team/ system like the RPG 7 gunner doctrine is built upon.
>>30112031
kek. Cant you just respawn?
>>30111948
That doesn't make it able to shoot larger than bore warheads magically.
>>30112015
Seems like in practice the RPG-7 is carried by a fuckton of irregular infantry, where it makes sense.
For US infantry, if they're not looking to have AT capacity at a squad or platoon level, why issue it at all? 7kg on your back in case you might encounter a single armored target you can't call in CAS for?
>>30112047
That would hurt my k/d though.
>>30112053
Like I'm sure there's some reasonable thinking behind this, but I'm missing it.
In before "what are you doing expecting reasonable thinking from the military."
>>30112053
>RPG7
>Irregular infantry
oh shit here it comes. Just because sand niggers use it, doesn't make it shit.
Only a fucking retard wouldn't want organic AT capability at low level.
Not to mention it's capable of firing other types of munitions for bunker busting or anti personnel use.
>>30112074
Sorry for the sperging.
But US anti tank weapons make me MAD AS HELL
>>30112051
I wasnt adressing that point. instead i pointed out that the CG could fire both kinds of ammunition. Plus its improved accuracy definitely makes its ammo more effective despite it not being able to fire larger than bore warheads
>>30112043
Isnt the US Army going to field the CG or RAAWS to the whole army now?
Anyhow that is a doctrinal fault in that case as the AT-4 was never supposed to be used as the dedicated AT-weapon on a platoon/company level.
In Sweden each platoon has (or had, it might have changed now) three squads with light weapons (ARs, FN Minimis and AT-4s) and one dedicated support squad with CGs and FN MAGs.
>>30111752
IIRC AT-4s are reloadable.
>>30112087
RPG's fired by a trained gunner are not inaccurate.
Consider the fact the RPG7 comes with it's own scope with rangefinder and lead estimators.
US Anti-Tank weapons come with a big arrow that says FRONT TOWARDS ENEMY
>>30112098
>IIRC
Well you do not. They are single shot.
>>30112074
>oh shit here it comes. Just because sand niggers use it, doesn't make it shit.
If you're working on a distributed, irregular basis without support, having as much firepower on hand as possible makes sense.
Also fuck off with the "sand nigger" shit.
>Only a fucking retard wouldn't want organic AT capability at low level.
What I'm wondering is, if you want that capability so much, what the fuck is the point of having it if it expends after a single shot? Or is everyone going in with an extra awkward 7kg on their back?
>Mfw AT-4 and CG are produced by Sweden, the most effeminate country in the world
How can these weapons be produced by such big cucks?
>>30112098
>>30112112
Maybe he meant the tubes can be refurbished?
kind of a random concern
>>30112103
And the Arisaka had aircraft sights.
>>30112103
the RPG-7 is inherently more inaccurate than the CG and has almost half the range as well. Plus the CG, like the one in my pic comes with rangefinder and lead estimator as well. It has a rail for mounting different scopes as well. Only Points i will give the RPG is the light weight and the larger warheads you mentioned
>>30111724
>>30110616
Really don't know why it isn't adopted more. Maybe because of geo-politics, maybe because it looks heavy as fuck. Is it though ?
What about the MATADOR, developed by Israel and Chinese Israel. How's it perform ?
>>30112119
That's what I meant.
>>30110107
84 obviously
>>30112133
>more like;
>they sucked our dicks so we went with the AT-4
>>30112118
We werent cucks in 1948 & 1986 when these weapons was invented. A majority of our defence export goes to the US.
The left is ofc bitching about how we shouldnt support "de ebil murrican imperialism" but nobody cares about them.
>>30112119
>>30112134
The fibreglass (is that the correct term) is usually pretty fucked by the fiering and its by far the ceapest part of the AT-4 so I dont think so. But I can ask my sister later, she works at SAAB.
>>30112117
>Also fuck off with the "sand nigger" shit.
Go back to >>>/tumblr/ faggot
>>30112160
it's not like they'd be picking them up in the middle of a war, anyway. shit's disposable
>>30112140
Who sucked whos dick? Both are produced by SAAB.
>>30112140
Made by the same manufacturer though
>>30112144
Except for half the democrats
>>30112103
>>30112123
Think he's referring to shit he saw in a FW vid, where Ian talked about the timer and airbust function that the Taiban used,
>>30112168
The VC used the leftover tubes from previously used AT weapons in the VW to make traps and shit.
>>30112172
>Half the democrats
Wich ones are the democrats? Social democrats? Sweden democrats?
>>30112178
>fight 3rd world light infantry with AT weapons
meh
>>30110107
Wrong pic, fixed for you.
>>30112181
The shitty ones.
>>30112170
Oh, then I suck dicks apparently.
>>30112160
It's 'fiberglass' unless you're a fog breathing britbong.
>>30112168
It's disposable, but it can be reusable.
>>30112207
What a shit meme. is that supposed to be clever?
Carl Gustav is rarely used, because it's heavy as fuck, and isn't very an portable, since it's well, heavy as fuck.
>>30110421
>The AT4 is effective at 300 meters, where the RPG-7 is highly inaccurate past 250 meters.
With AT4 qualification fire is done at 100-250 meters range. With RPG-7 at 200-400 meters.
>>30111200
>So basically no frontal MBT penetration.
No RPG or similar weapon can penetrate the frontal composite armor of an modern MBT.
>>30112226
>i don't know what TOE is
>>30112267
>confusing doctrine with capability
>>30111389
>There is nothing the CG can do that RPG can't do.
Accuracy and range.
>>30112246
The m/48 is heavy as shit (11.7kg), the m86 (should be the M3 in US service) is 9.2 kg. The M4 is 6.6kg.
>>30112275
>a handheld rocket launcher designed in 1960 is the same as a 100,000 modern AT system guided by a thermal scope that weighs like 4x more
Are you fucking retarded?
>>30112118
Recently they also made that horifying jumping frag grenade, so at least their military R&D didn't get cucked.
>>30112095
Yes it is already a thing, one per platoon.
>>30112281
Qualification fire is what truly reflects capability of weapon system. It is real practical range of the weapon where every dingus could reliably hit target. Could weapons system used beyond that? Yes but not by average idiot with around 50% hit probability.
>>30112322
>a handheld rocket launcher designed in 1960 is the same as a 100,000 modern AT system guided by a thermal scope that weighs like 4x more
They literally have same place in TOE but you don't know what it is.
>>30112335
This is why i'm confused when i tell people the RPG has a scope and they act like it's still worthless shit.
with US AT you kentucky windage that shit. No shit you're going to miss a moving tank at range, especially a slimmer soviet model with less vertical height...
>>30112318
Loaded/unloaded ?
>>30112343
I don't care about your deliberate misintereptation and shitposting.
>>30112335
>Qualification fire is what truly reflects capability of weapon system
This is false, qualification simply shows competence with using something.
>>30112335
Doesn't AT4 qualification typically involve pistol flare rounds?
>>30110107
They make AT4s that can be used in buildings/vehicles without killing the shooter and anyone around them with the backblast.
>>30112369
Yeah competence to hit target with specific weapon.
>>30112369
>implying you don't have to give all these shiny toys to some half-retarded dipshit at the end of the day who is held to those standards
Anon, i....
>>30112386
Yes. Same for RPG-7 it is done with live rounds or with training subcaliber device.
>>30112394
What happens if you plug the back of an RPG-7 and fire it?
>>30112394
the rpg has been doing this for over 50 years
>>30112442
they should fill them with confetti
>>30112450
There's enough videos out there of durkas getting one another with the backblast to know that's not true.
>>30112133
My uncle was in the UK Army during the whole Cyprus thing, apparently it was the running joke at the time that only the dumbest person in a platoon would try and hit the target during AT training because naturally, they'd be the one saddled with the Carl Gustaf. He was the dumbest one but was smart enough to kiss ass so he could swap his SLR for a Sterling L34A1 to lighten his load. From what he says they were pretty infamous, but that may be more attributed with the overall combat loads of the British soldier at the time, having to lug a battle rifle and ammo as well as gear.
>>30112246
desu its not the heaviness thats the problem, its just awkward to carry on the back while doing fire and movement/urban combat or trench warfare. Though its breddy great to shoot at 600m with
t. i ran around with it for 6 months
>>30112607
maybe because they're durkas, retard
>>30112671
Even durkas can't make a weapon system do things it wouldn't normally do.
>>30112690
but durkas do things people wouldn't normally do with a weapon system.
>>30112720
Nah, they just ignore the warning labels.
Webm related
>>30112399
>I don't understand the word competence
>>30112801
>using that homo version of firing CG
Why would you do it on fire and movement is beyond me
>>30112607
Theres backblast, and 'fire when your friend's face is 5 inches behind the rocket' blast.
Way less than traditional american AT.
The RPG is propelled by a black powder charge for a relatively mild backblast, until the rocket kicks in a safe distance.
You seen the fucking back blast on a RR?
You need like 40 meters of open space in an arc to the rear or else people can get fucked up.
>>30110107
I'd say it's an uneven comparison. They're supposed to do different things. The RPG-7 is supposed to be a multipurpose infantry launcher, but the AT-4 (depending on which variant) is more isolated to one role. A better comparison would be the RPG vs the SMAW and the AT-4 vs the RPG-18. But if you really want to compare the two, it depends on what you're doing with it. If you're trying to retain the ability to neutralize vehicles with minimum weight then the AT-4 is the weapon for the job, but if you want a launcher with a variety of warheads that you can carry a number of rockets for then the RPG trumps the AT-4. The AT-4 can do a number of things but you have to have the corresponding variants for those specific roles like in the video below.
https://youtu.be/4MWBImzAaY0
>>30111888
It's really unfair to compare the AT-4 with the RPG-7 in any case.
RPG-26 vs the AT-4 is more fair, both east and west deploys disposable rocket launchers.
The advantage of the CG is that you get better range, far better accuracy and far better ammunition options compared to the RPG-7.
>>30112450
The backblast from an rpg can kill.
>>30112975
Nah, we're just more cautious when it comes to our estimates.
>>30111485
Heard that story on Forgotten Weapons.
>>30110421
I would love to see you hitting a tank driving at 35 mph with AT4 at 300 meters
>>30113332
I hit a fast moving BMP in project reality at that distance once
>>30113052
>The RPG-7 is supposed to be a multipurpose infantry launcher
>multipurpose
First not anti-tank round for RPG-7 was made in 1988, 27 years after RPG-7 was designed, fragmentation round OG-7V was made in 1998, 37 years after.
>>30112607
>>30113332
Given the projectile velocity it would be easier with an AT4 than an RPG.
>>30113446
its a good thing they didn't call it a rocket propelled anti tank weapon then.
also if its RPG in english what is it in russian?
>>30113537
Did he died?
Backblast is a bitch.
>>30113614
>if its RPG in english what is it in russian?
RPG
>>30113614
>also if its RPG in english what is it in russian?
GPR
>>30111049
M136 and "AT-4" are like M249 and Minimi.
The M136 is slightly "Americanized" in that the army added in some features, but kept the core weapon the same.
Then the Swedes adopted the Americanized version of the original AT-4 they designed.
>>30113614
PПГ
>>30113614
Motherland Land Torpedo (MLT)
>>30113614
>also if its RPG in english what is it in russian?
RPG-7 PПГ-7 but different words. Rocket Anti-tank Grenadelauncher (Peaктивный Пpoтивoтaнкoвый Гpaнaтoмeт).
Funny thing disposable greande launchers are called PПГ RPG too, but this has another meaning: Rocket Anti-tank Grenade (Peaктивнaя Пpoтивoтaнкoвaя Гpaнaтa)
>>30110616
Isint the Carl Gustav more of a utility weapon? As in busting bunkers, fortified positions and light armor. Is it still effective against heavy armor?
>>30112133
The CGM2 was a stupidly heavy lump of metal.
It weighed 36 pounds empty, and 44 pounds loaded.
It didn't fit with the US doctrine at the time, since the weapon was too heavy to be carried by a rifle squad, and the weapons squad was armed with the *snicker* M47 Dragon for long ranged work.
When the US needed something like the Carl Gustav, the Rangers and other snowflakes got it, but bureaucratic inertia prevented big army from getting Carl Gustavs.
>>30113854
>Is it still effective against heavy armor?
With flank shot of course it is effective.
>>30113854
Yes, it's a utility piece.
It can kill armor, from the side, with the right warhead; but it's still an unguided direct fire weapon and fighting armor with those is a last-ditch affair. If you expect heavy armor (any armor) bring Javelins.
>>30113958
The problem with Javelins and other advance infantry AT-systems is they require a team of 2-3 guys in order to prove effective. Sam with the Carl-Gustav that it required a shooter and a loader to function effectively in battle field conditions. With the advancement of modern armor and tank protection the prospects of a single man weapon being able to take out MBT's is looking consistently less likely.
>>30114036
RPGs can destroy any tank that i know of from the side, and you don't want to fight a tank from the front anyway, ever.
Every single squad has one, and it only requires a single guy to operate it.
>>30114036
Javelins are smart, tandem-warhead, top-attack (which bypasses some older Russian APS) systems.
At Debecka Pass Jason Brown scored 19 of 22 hits with one.
Of course, those were mostly T55s, T72s, and Russian APCs; but TOWs like the 2B (top attack with dual remote EFP and classified counter-APS systems), for example, are rated to penetrate and defeat all existing active-protection systems.
>>30110616
The jump version of the carl can be fired 200 times before having to get it tested by a weapon tech.I cant remeber how much armour each type of round can penitrate.
>>30110714
but .40 and the g36 are both garbo
>>30114061
Except those with reactive armor.
>>30114061
An RPG-20 can, which again takes a few people to effectively use and is more of a company asset.
I doubt the tandem charge of an RPG-7 can take out any modern MBT from the side.
>>30114213
What are tandem warheads?
I don't know what they are but I heard they defeat reactive armor and exist for both the Gustav, RPG, Javelin, and oh yeah, about every rocket launcher there is...
>>30112801
>Gustav is so heavy you need two people to fire it
>>30114213
for those you tell Abu Ridhwan to give you a tandem grenade
>>30114256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR
>>30114317
>On 28 August 2003, it achieved a mobility kill against an American M1 Abrams hitting the left side hull next to the forward section of the engine compartment.[3] It penetrated a fuel tank, flooding the compartment with fuel.
M1 ABRAMS BTFO BY ANCIENT SOVIET SPACE MAGIC
>>30112947
wut? please reword in an understood language
>>30114378
>tank from 1980 defeated by rocket from 1988
>>30114306
Good job retard, there are many things to complain about/make fun of in this reservist shitshow and you picked the only thing they did right with their crew operated weapon.
>>30111724
Lol, someone posted a picture of my unit and its not one of mine, I think this is from a mid-deployment training course before doling out the CG on a platoon level.
>>30113398
I hit a retreating Bradley at 600m with one on insurgency game mode. Granted I was sitting on the cache and had already fired like 30 rounds.
>>30114417
Basically, the AT assitant hugging the AT rifleman is retarded. he should be laying in covering fire not hug him.
>>30114764
if i had to guess i'd think he's hugging him to ensure the guy firing he's not in the backblast area
>>30112267
>>30112281
not the guy you responded to but how would you explain these then. according to these results your average idiot can't hit 50% beyond 200m
>>30113746
Kek
>>30114880
your average american idiot
>>30113537
dat pink mist
>>30114828
he can still lay covering fire, you basically take 3 steps to the right.
t. CG operator
>>30114306
>>30114764
The primary use of that stance is not to stabilize or lighten the load, but for the assistant gunner to quickly reload the rifle after the shot. This was the pair can quickly fire several grenades to ensure a vehicle kill or blanket a large area with shrapnel.
>>30115029
>>30115262
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSWk-VwG3P4
>>30113614
>also if its RPG in english what is it in russian?
RPG
Rocket Propelled Grenade is a backronym. The real acronym is something in russian
>>30110107
>>30115302
thats been clarified multiple times over get back on the fucking bus david
>>30111121
>>30111151
>>30111178
MANPAD still gets all the words, System is just one of those extra bullshit words to make things sound more important.
With or without the S, it still sounds funny.
>>30115322
That cover flapping around reminds me of something I saw on /b/ once.
>>30115519
anus like sleeve of wizard
>>30110421
there are modern variants of RPG-7 that weight mere 7 kilograms.
>>30114880
meant for >>30112335
rpg is cheap, it have a good variety of ammo types so it's multipurpose, you can carry many shots.
at4 it's not so cheap, low variety of ammo, you have one shot so you cannot fail and cannot fire at more than one objective.
>>30115808
If you carry five rounds for the RPG you should compare that to having five AT-4s
How quickly can a trained operator reload and ready an RPG-7 after firing?
>>30114880
> to but how would you explain these then
CIA geeks can't shoot RPG-7 for shit? Above are requirements for Russian infantry conscripts (same was in USSR around 1985). Two moving targets 250-350m tank and 300-400m IFV, 4 rounds. For an ''expert'' need to hit both. To passing qual need to hit at least one AFV target.
pic related
>>30111807
>>30111820
>>30111859
Fucking kek
>>30116644
>Two moving targets 250-350m tank and 300-400m IFV, 4 rounds
This is pretty close to the CIA estimate.
>>30114153
>mfw firing $6 million of ordnance to blow up russian crap
>>30111985
Tripod?
>>30112318
M2 should be 14,2kg and M3 10,7kg
>>30110799
>>30111611
God fucking damn. I don't ever fucking remember expended AT4s being heavy at all, but idea of not being able to get rid of the tube while out of the wire makes me angry.
>>30117947
Seriously. What they told us in basic was that you fire it, break the sights off, then take those back.
>>30110932
That is extremely wishful thinking man
