To: John Jorsett
After hearing about the question regarding armor thrown at SecDef Rumsfeld, I found myself wondering how RPGs function, so I went and found this article. Thought others might find it informative as well.
To: John Jorsett
Good post. Here's some info. on the 66mm rkt, LAW M-72:
General Information
a. Launcher.
-Length (Extended) ........ Less than 1 meter (34.67 inches)
-Length (Closed) .......... 0.67 meters (24.8 inches)
-Weight
... 2.5 kg (5.5 pounds)
-Firing Mechanism ......... Percussion
b. Rocket.
-Caliber .................. 66 mm
-Length ................... 50.8 cm (20 inches)
-Weight.................... 1.8 kg (2.2 pounds)
-Muzzle Velocity........... 144.8 mps (475 fps)
-Minimum Range (Combat).... 10 meters (33 feet)
-Minimum Arming Range...... 10 meters (33 feet)
-Maximum Range............. 1,000 meters (3,300 feet)
4 posted on
12/11/2004 11:18:29 AM PST by
demlosers
To: Squantos
5 posted on
12/11/2004 11:22:59 AM PST by
patton
(Changing culture is like moving a cemetary. You don't get much help from the residents.)
To: John Jorsett
Looks like All-You-Can-Eat night at Joe's Chili Shack ;)
10 posted on
12/11/2004 11:36:56 AM PST by
freedumb2003
(When does the Revolution start? I'm going for a bike ride for a while. Please fill me in later.)
To: John Jorsett
The article is a little misleading about comparing RPG's and mortars. A RPG is not just a better version of a Mortar. A mortar can hit targets behind a wall, building, hill, or in any number of defensive positions such as a trench or dugouts. In short it does what it does and better than any other weapon we have at the moment for getting at anything you can't get a straight shot at. Also for any good mortarman hitting a target he can see is not a problem, only when a spotter has to used giving coordinates is there a time lapse between zeroing in on a target.
11 posted on
12/11/2004 11:37:33 AM PST by
ABN 505
To: John Jorsett
Every American hould have an RPG in their pickups.
To: John Jorsett
17 posted on
12/11/2004 11:45:48 AM PST by
KoRn
To: John Jorsett
What puzzles me is why we spend a $1 billion to build 1 atomic-powered mouse trap instead of building a billion $1, spring-powered mouse traps. We are capturing thousands of these things from the tangos and blowing them up on an EOD range then shooting $15k rockets at the tangos. Why not just dispose of these by returning them to the tangoes in the finest point-and-shoot manner, carefully and lovingly delivered into the first mosque/school/hospital/whatever that fires on our troops? So, Abdul Mohammed Mohumud Abullah Finkelstein (III), you like RPG's? Here's one for you...and another...and another...etc....and about 1,000 rounds of 7.62mm Warsaw pact ammo, freely dispensed from a slew of captured AK-47s....(we fired our cannons 'til the barrels melted down and we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round...)
27 posted on
12/11/2004 12:26:52 PM PST by
dzzrtrock
(When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat (Ronald Reagan))
To: John Jorsett
To: John Jorsett
It all started with the Panzerfaust. I always thought "rocket propelled grenade" was a misnomer, as tbe warhead of an anti-tank rocket has a lot more power than an ordinary hand grenade.
To: All
How to defeat an RPG bearing ba$tard:
Click
42 posted on
12/11/2004 1:13:58 PM PST by
MoodyBlu
(Still searching for the elusive tagline...)
To: John Jorsett
In short, works about as well or a little better than the old WWII/Korean war bazooka. Cheaper to manufacture and spread all over the world (thanks to the old Soviet Union).
Not to be laughed at. A serious weapon/threat.
43 posted on
12/11/2004 1:18:11 PM PST by
LibKill
(Former USMC Sergeant)
To: John Jorsett
excellent post, I bookmarked it.
50 posted on
12/11/2004 1:40:34 PM PST by
t_skoz
("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
To: John Jorsett
Because the mortar shell has to go up before it can come down, much of its speed is dedicated to getting it far enough up into the air -- so against a ground target, it has limited reach. . . . You can solve the range problem by improving the path of the projectile - a straight line from launching device to target is far more efficient.
This is not true. To achieve great range, something resembling a parabolic trajectory is required. An ICBM does not travel a straight course to its target, for instance.
To: John Jorsett
The author makes a fatuous statement that a missle fired in a straight line that stays in a stright line has a better chance of hitting the target and with less time to target as though he has forgotten altogether the very basic physical fact that nothing propelled can help but fall 16 feet in the first second of its travel or, at the very least, the distance from the height of the projecting device to the plane below it.
He also phiosophizes that the motivation and ideal of ballistic weapons is their removal from harm's way they provide the combatant using them; I propose and have always maintained that it is the separation from guilt and witness that is the greater emotional impetus.
58 posted on
12/11/2004 3:05:16 PM PST by
Old Professer
(The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
To: John Jorsett
Mmmh. I don't think it's possible to understand how an RPG works without an explanation of the shaped or
hollow charge warhead...
59 posted on
12/11/2004 3:17:04 PM PST by
muib
To: John Jorsett
great article!
but can I have a question? Someone told me the large blast of RPG-7 could hurt shooter, so shooter is prohibited from continuous high-speed shot. is this true?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson