# Checking to the Anti-Tank Threat



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

> *Russia to Dominate $5.33B Anti-Tank Market Through 2014*
> 
> Posted 08-Dec-2005 13:50 | Permanent Link
> Related stories: Industry & Trends, Missiles - Anti-Armor, Other Corporation, Projections & Assessments, Russia
> ...



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/




> RPG-26, RPG-27, RShG-1
> 
> 
> 
> ...





http://www.warfare.ru/?catid=278&linkid=2199


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2006)

Interesting that gangs can get RPG’s, yet Canada has a hard time equipping our reserves with anti-tank weapons and ammunitions. 

Actually the RPG would make a good weapon for the Rangers, lots of firepower for minimal weight, cost and a good selection of warheads. Plus I suspect being Russian designed will work in the cold quite well.


----------



## pissedpat (28 Feb 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually the RPG would make a good weapon for the Rangers.



Are polar bears that much of a threat that we need to give the rangers RPGs? Their Lee Enfields seem to be good enough for them at the moment.


----------



## Guy. E (28 Feb 2006)

OOOOOOooooooooooo the WWF aint gonna like this one.

(if i knew RPG drills I would have something witty to say right now...)


----------



## Thompson_JM (28 Feb 2006)

Targets to your front. Large white Bear....

watch and shoo.....


HES COMMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

BLAM!


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2006)

For the time being, the rangers have no need for anything like the RPG

Notice how we never gave the rangers the C1?.... there's a reason why we didn't give seasoned hunters automatic & semi automatic weapons.... the Bears and everything else within walking distance wouldn't stand a chance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Mar 2006)

It would make a good anti-sub weapon for surfaced subs, won’t sink it, but could damage ballast tanks and such. I realize they don’t need it now, but times are a changing, what the threat will be in 10 years might be very different. Training them on heavier weapons and keeping something like the RPG and 60mm mortar as part of their inventory could give a patrol some serious teeth at a minimal weight cost.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2006)

Colin,  there is a perfectly good weapon currently in the system capable of performing that task: the Carl G.

It was used in exactly that role in the South Atlantic in 1982 when a platoon of Royal Marines holed a submarine at Grytviken, South Georgia.  (IIRC.)


----------



## Guy. E (6 Mar 2006)

That was regarding the Falklands war?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2006)

That's right Guy

Edit to correct original error:  I got it wrong.  I just rechecked Max Hastings.  The Marines at Grytviken took on a Corvette with a Carl G as it came in to dock.  The submarine Santa Fe was damaged by helicopter attack (Wasps dropping depth charges and torpedoes). 

My error and my apologies for the confusion.  Memory fade.

Cheers.


----------



## Steel Badger (6 Mar 2006)

Now if we only had enought to have 1 per platoon, I could consign the mock-ups to the bin and the PIAT back to the museum.



Sigh

The 84 and its associated (new ) ammo are quite good...just very very sparse in the Rsv world.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Mar 2006)

I remember they holed a corvette/patrol boat don't remember the submarine though


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2006)

You're right Ex-Dragoon.

See edit to my previous.

Cheers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Carl G, but weight in a sled/ski doo patrol is everything. A RPG adds a lot of firepower for minimal weight penalties. It is also a simplistic system that requires little training and has a huge variety of ammunition for it. I Believe the Finns have been using them for this type of work.


----------



## Guy. E (7 Mar 2006)

Was not the General Belgato (sp) sunk by a British sub?


----------



## big bad john (7 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> Was not the General Belgato (sp) sunk by a British sub?


Yes it was.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2006)

I take your point Colin.  Though maybe the question should be asked why we are conducting these patrols just with Skidoos.  I know we don't have many BVs but aren't some of them still running?  Are they not suitable for the environment? Can't we get them there or get them back out?

Assuming that the BV is compatible with the environment I would think that adding a pair of them as support vehicles to a Skidoo patrol might not be a bad thing.  Then that weight issue becomes less problematic.....OT I know.... :-[


----------



## Guy. E (7 Mar 2006)

We have BV 206's (?) in CFS Alert. I even think I have seen one in Winnipeg at the AF Base...

I think one of the main things are, if a skidoo breaks down, you can easely tow it to where you need to. If a BV goes for a fart, then you need to fix it or find a way to tow it (harder then a sled). Also, I don't think BV's can't go anywhere the speeds a sled can if it has to.

That being said, BV's can carry allot more weight tools and weapons.

Perhaps both would work good.


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Mar 2006)

With modern (guided) AT rockets costing LOTS of money....I don't know why we don't move towards something more low-tech like the RPG-7.  Costing a few hundred bucks a shot, we could let our guys practice with it a lot more than we could say, an Eryx, and while not as capable, it certainly would be a big boost to a small unit's fire-power without adding a huge amount of weight.

Ok, again, sailor weighing in on an army thing...but from that perspective, does it make sense?  

NS


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2006)

Did you check your BackBlast Area before firing posting?   ;D


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Mar 2006)

Heh   

*Backblast CLEAR*

Or not.

NS


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2006)

"Notice how we never gave the rangers the C1?.... there's a reason why we didn't give seasoned hunters automatic & semi automatic weapons.... the Bears and everything else within walking distance wouldn't stand a chance."

-Yeah, they would.  They started buying AR-15s in Frobisher Bay in the 1980s and  - being Eskimos - it took them all of about 30 nanoseconds to figure out the mechanism and convert them to full auto in their workshops.  The circle of life was then complete: why be a subsistence hunter when you can just go out and bust caps and have fun?  The Horse Police apparently didn't think it was funny.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Mar 2006)

I agree that BV are great and some armed and armoured ones would be nice also. But as mentioned they have their drawbacks also.

Giving our guys up north more ability to attack/defend with simple tools like the mortar and RPG. Then forces any country that wishes to push the envelope to up their force to have to deal and plan against the threat. It’s one thing to claim it’s a group of scientist armed with rifles and another to say that the soldiers are just tourist. Right now all a patrol can do is watch and report. What if they came up against a opposition patrol equipped with MTLB or armoured BV’s, they likely couldn’t out run them and could not fight them. Also no chance against a fortified crew served weapon. I not talking about making them assault troops, but they could drop mortar rounds onto the enemy camp and harass their patrols, until a bigger stronger force can be positioned to deal with them. Right now they would have problems dealing with a group armed with AK’s and LMG’s  

If we leave a vacuum up North, people are going to fill it at our expense. Having a bunch of tough and well armed guys patrolling will help make people think twice. Look at the Falklands, cutting back the military just encouraged the Aregeis.


----------



## Guy. E (10 Mar 2006)

Then would not ranger patrols with snowmobiles and sea based electronic sensors in the Arctic backed up with some form of strategic northern based air defence work?


----------



## TCBF (10 Mar 2006)

I think sensors and Rangers, with a mid-Canada based force of conventionaly warheaded IRBMs.  Why send a plane, where a missle will do?


----------



## Guy. E (10 Mar 2006)

Because not everything up there could be a hostile threat that needs destroyed immediately. It could be some Norwegian transport for example. I don't think that you want to sink it and kill everyone on board, seize the ship cargo, take the crew captive... If it is perhaps a US, Chinese or Russian Sub blowing the thing up could spark a war and even thoe thats why we are here, I for one don't _like_ the idea of *more* of them.


----------



## TCBF (11 Mar 2006)

You don't build missiles like that to blow things up - you build them so you have the OPTION of blowing things up if you have to.  Speak softly, and carry a large stick - where everyone can see it.

"If it is perhaps a US, Chinese or Russian Sub blowing the thing up could spark a war and even thoe thats why we are here, I for one don't like the idea of more of them."

See above.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Mar 2006)

Well my understanding is that the few fighter/bombers we do have that are flying, lack the proper armaments to support any of the Ranger patrols that did find anything. Last I heard is that the stocks have not been replenished since the last shooting war. (I hope I am wrong)

Problem with aircraft is you can’t not depend on the weather at the target area, operating base or in-between cooperating.  

Sensors, aircraft and Satellites are all important tools, but they mean little if you can’t put the boots onto the ground.


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Mar 2006)

I'll reffer you down the list to the Conventional ICBM article.  

Give the Rangers a big radio, and let them call in a strike 

Walk softly....

heheh

NS


----------



## mac10inmymullet (17 Mar 2006)

I bet that if I had an RPG-7 fitted with dual tandem warhead, I could take out humvees, G-Wagons, BMPs, T55's ect ect. I don't know why Canada hasn't bought thousands of lightweight highly effective RPG7's.
Must be politics. The Israelis absolutley love them. The Americans in Iraq wish they had them. Stupid politics. Russian weapons are some of the best around.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Mar 2006)

Have you handled a lot of Russian Weapons?


----------



## mac10inmymullet (17 Mar 2006)

No I just read a lot of stuff. Can you enlighten me?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Mar 2006)

reading and being familiar with the weapon(s) are two entirely different things.


----------



## geo (17 Mar 2006)

Hmmm... I'm impressed. C&P in 9 posts.... sounds like a record


----------



## Gouki (17 Mar 2006)

Mac ... you're going to hear something very valuable to you. It's called "stay in your lane" and you will probably hear it quite a lot more if you don't ... well, start staying within them.


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2006)

"Hmmm... I'm impressed. C&P in 9 posts.... sounds like a record"

- Trust me - it ain't.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 Apr 2006)

What many dont realize about the RPG series is that its current popularity is not so much its succes in grd-grd roles but its grd-to-air capability.  They make great improvised SAMs, especially when combined with heli ambush tactics.  

Although the current warhead does limited damage against many armoured fighting vehicle types, it is still good for anti-personnel in closed in areas, blowing up flammable/explosive stores, clearing bunkers, taking out light doors, and damaging machines with fragile operating mechansims (i.e. aircraft rotors).


----------



## el_wiersema (16 Apr 2006)

Well, i don't think the rangers really have to worry to much about heavy armour. Killing small animals on the other hand.... :threat:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2006)

Actually the list of available warheads for the RPG’s is quite staggering. Quite a few of them are meant for Anti-personal. Although I don’t remember seeing an illumination round but there might be one. The launcher vary in quality depending on who and when it was made.


----------



## HItorMiss (19 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Although the current warhead does limited damage against many armoured fighting vehicle types,



RPG 7M has a penetration of 300mm or rolled homogeneous steel armour, how limited do you think that is?
there are known case's of the 7M (most widely used and available warhead) having penetrated the armour on the M1A2 Abrams tanks.

Nice opinion Centurian but it's just that, an opinion. And it's also wrong.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Apr 2006)

RPGs are too simple to use, even with iron sights.

They are light, and very simple to maintain and operate

In brief (and from memory):

- cockk weapon (its like a hammer on a revolver and not hard at all)
- place weapon on safe (safety like a Ruger 10-22)
- insert rocket - its idiot proof, there is a guide and it only goes in one way.
- flip up the sights
- aim (self explanatory):
- and fire
- safety to safe

quickly reload by going thru the above again.

Also the warheads self destruct too, so not as many blinds as other AT wpns.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 Apr 2006)

Hmmm... never heard of an illumination round for the RPG series....  would WP with a timed detination fired straight up count? (as long as they run under cover to avoid WP particles!)  :blotto:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2006)

Well that would be an exciting way to celebrate a wedding!!!  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Apr 2006)

Plus the RPG will allow the Rangers to fish for food along the way.  ;D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcM3VZpUnCA&search=RPG


----------



## Centurian1985 (21 Apr 2006)

Hah!  Hilarious...isnt there a tape out their showing Iraqis fishing with grenades as well?


----------



## geo (23 Apr 2006)

and this is what you get if you give them catfish something to fight back with......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUleTWDwUeE&search=RPG


----------



## mustialwaysremember (28 May 2006)

Will 400 KGs or RDX or C4 with a big conical shape charge blow up an M1A2 Abrams tank?


----------



## Thompson_JM (29 May 2006)

mustialwaysremember said:
			
		

> Will 400 KGs or RDX or C4 with a big conical shape charge blow up an M1A2 Abrams tank?



I'm no Expert but i think 400 Kgs of RDX or C4 will do a lot of damage to pretty much anything...... 

but the better question is why do you need to know this? Planning some Insurgency Operations Osama?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (30 May 2006)

Given how most IEDs are made, someone messing around with 400kgs of straight RDX in the hope of using it in one is more likely to be the subject of a post blast investigation prior to any attack.

D

Holy run-on sentence.


----------



## Thompson_JM (11 Jun 2006)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Given how most IEDs are made, someone messing around with 400kgs of straight RDX in the hope of using it in one is more likely to be the subject of a post blast investigation prior to any attack.
> 
> D
> 
> Holy run-on sentence.



400kgs of amonium nitrate on the other hand.....
God Help me if i see a Cube van in kandahar......  ;D


----------

