Talk:Rocket-propelled grenade

message: I have updated the description for the acronym RPG-7. The mistaken translation of "Rocket Propelled Grenade" is VERY prevalent, even amongst soldiers. I removed references to the U.S. LAW as an RPG as this is not an English acronym to begin with and it is not used in any other context other than referring to the Russian RPG and those copied, or built under license.  I can't speak for all western militaries, but the U.S. and I'm assuming U.K. (same language, almost:) do not use the acronym RPG when referring to their own weapons of similar design.  The word grenade has a different usage in the American military lexicon then in other countries.  As an example, in German, a anti-tank round is called panzer granate and mortars are granatenwerfer (grenade launcher), where in the English it’s a "mortar" firing "rounds".  Although the English dictionary definition for grenade fits the general meaning, the word grenade is exclusively used to describe hand throw explosives, or launched, unguided explosives of equivalent tactical use.  This would not include an anti-tank weapon, which is referred to as "rocket" or "missile".  The word missile is more or less the English equivalent for other languages usage of the word grenade.  Enough semantics.  I also changed the description of the tandem warhead. The purpose of the tandem warhead is to detonate reactive armor prior to impact, making it waste its energy prior to the primary warheads impact.  It has nothing to do with composite armor as this works under a different principle. In laymen’s terms its spreads the highly directed energy of the shaped charge and diffuses it over a wider area.  This is discussed briefly in the Army Times if anyone wants to look it up (I don't remember the link now, but will add later).  Lastly, The tactical usage was far too simplistic.  The most important aspect in the tactical usage and countering of any platform, weapon, unit etc., is the terrain it is being used in.  One cannot simply say, "Well equipped armies do this".  Long ranged weapons are not an effective solution in restrictive terrain.  Also, the rules of engagement of any given combatant can also largely affect the tactical options available. Read Patton's recommended tactics on urban warfare, in his book "War As I Knew It" and think if this would be politically appropriate in Iraq.  
I was a Non-Commissioned Officer and gunner in M1A1 MBT's for five years ending about a year ago. I don't speak Russian but an Army friend who was Military Intelligence, specialized as a Russian linguist, did the translation. I was also trained in the correct translation of RPG anyway as well as most of the information added/changed.  For these reasons, I cannot be more specific with tactics or on their application in Iraq.  My changes are more consistent with the general tactical employment of the RPG and it's relative counters; at least enough for the casual reader coming here for a general description of the RPG.
StonewallJack  8/16/05
"where in the English it’s a "mortar" firing "rounds"
Yeah but the british army are very pedantic like that, e.g if soldiers call thier rifle a "gun" you will get a bollocking because according to the army a gun is defined as having a caliber of over 100mm or something like that.
86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: StonewallJack 8/16/05

message: Not all RPG's use the pressure of an expelling or propelling charge to propel the High-Explosive, Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead to the target. The World War II Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata ("R=Hand, P=Anti-Tank, G=Grenade") Model 43 or RPG-43 (External link here) and RPG-6 are two hand thrown grenades with HEAT heads. They are thrown, by hand, high into the air over a target and deploy streamers to orient the head of the grenade downward so that the shaped charge of the HEAT warhead strikes the, normally thinner armor, top of an armored vehicle.  They work well in a MOUT setting when vehicles are moving on the streets and soldiers are throwing these hand grenades from the windows or the roof tops of buildings.  Also there is not always a rocket motor involved with the more common RPG's seen on television news casts or in the movies.  The PG-2 has no rocket motor whatsoever.  Only the propelling charge, connected just behind the fins, drives the projectile to the target.  The PG-7 does in fact have a rocket motor however it does not ignite when the trigger of the launcher is pulled.  This would injure the firer.  When the launchers trigger is pulled the expelling charge is ignited, the round leaves the tube, and then, only after it is a safe distance from the firer, the rocket motor ignites and propels the round to the target.  The PG-2 and PG-7 only become RPG-2 or RPG-7 when the round is loaded in the "hand held" launcher.
The Russian designation for hand thrown HEAT grenades is now identified as Ruchnaya Kumulyativnaya Granata (R=Hand, K=Shaped Charge, G=Grenade). See the RKG-3. The "P" has been changed to "K" but the use and results are the same.
Addtitional information.--Eod1sg 01:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hand held, anti tank, grenade launcher 99.255.140.103 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: '''R'''uchnaya '''P'''rotivotankovaya '''G'''ranata ("Hand Anti-Tank Grenade")

message: Thi article really needs sorting out. Firstly - as mentioned above - there is no such thing as a Rocket-propelled grenade, it exists only as a misconception. 
Secondly the scope of the article seems continually confused. I feel that an article covering the RPG-series of weapons is noteworthy, and would be useful - but it should only cover RPGs, and not other similar weapons or generic information on those; the article Shoulder-launched missile weapon should be the one to cover these topics.
So I think the best course of action is:
Rename this article as RPG (weapon)
Move any information that does not concern RPGs to shoulder-launched missile weapon
Move most of the information about employment - generic information should probably belong in the above article, information relating to specific weapons should go in the article for the respective weapon
Redirect Rocket-propelled grenade either to RPG (weapon) or to shoulder-launched missile weapon, I'm not sure which is most appropriate. Jellyfish dave (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name and Scope

message: Even if it was translated as a grenade propelled by a rocket (which is apparently incorrect), one should still add a hyphen: "Rocket-propelled grenade" 169.237.6.178 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title is doubly incorrect

message: I came across this discussion when looking for information on a different RPG.  It is interesting; I'm not a military guy, and never heard this before.  As a Wikipedian, I would advise citing a reliable source.  While it does have the ring of truth, individual statements and suppositions are not acceptable here.  In particular, given that all but one of the existing sources in the "External Links" section use the term Rocket Propelled Grenade, and the other one simply gives the Russian expansion without contrdicting the English expansion, the introduction appears to contradict the article's existing sources.  That's no good. --DragonHawk 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite sources

message: The "Tactics" section contains the following as the last paragraph:
In Iraq, U.S. anti-insurgent operations developed another effective tactic. In misty, dusty or night-time situations, advanced optics, such as infrared telescopes, permit helicopter gunships to surveil convoys from beyond human-visible range, and still attack insurgents with inexpensive anti-personnel fire. This approach is more economical than area-denial. Protecting as little as 20% of the convoys rapidly depletes an area of active insurgents.
There are a lot of absolutes in there that at best sound like estimates, if not propaganda. Moreover, terms like  "depleting an area of active insurgents" are not neutral encyclopedic style, but rather euphemisms. Given that the Iraq "insurgency" shows no significant cool down, is there any evidence that the paragraph is more than propaganda and wish-fulfillment? --Stephan Schulz 12:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective tactic? 

message: i come to find this and its not included
1939  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.196.101 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  when was the first one made 

message: Surprisingly, nobody has pointed out that rocket launchers have NO effect on weather, and about 40% of the public actually believes they do. Is this article assuming that anyone that believes this is completely moronic?
:It probably assumes that they've never heard of it... Unless either someone asks or edits are made suggesting they do affect the weather, it's better not to mention it at all. Don't correct something that isn't wrong yet. Leushenko (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth that is not mentioned 

message: The part where it says a rpg-29 penetrated th ERA of a british Challenger 2 is wrong. Challengers did not use ERA in Iraq. Ive never heard of them having ERA although it would not be hard to make some for it. Like the M1A2 with the TUSK package ERA is not difficult to produce.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaja6009 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British Challenger 2's did not use ERA in Iraq

message: It currently says that most modern tanks are "largely immune" to fire from anti-tank weapons. This seems wrong. Even the most advanced vehicles run on tracks, and all tracks are vulnerable (I know that sometimes tracks come undone in simple day-to-day exploitation). When a tank is hit in the track it is a mobility kill. I think the sentence should be removed or somehow changed.209.181.58.51 (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern battle tanks 

message: I removed this from line 2 of the article:  RPG is a transliteration of РПГ, the Russian abbreviation of Reaktivnyy/Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot (реактивный/ручной противотанковый гранатомёт), "jet/hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher".
RPG stands for Rocket-Propelled Grenade.  If you can prove me wrong with a reliable, citable WP:SOURCE that states that the RPG acronym actually comes from Russian, then please add the information back, but you must include an inline citation.  Tempshill (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that "Rocket-Propelled Grenade" is a backronym (indeed, checking backronym, its even listed as an example of a false acronym). The Rusian RPG-2 and RPG-7 were extremely widely used and deployed, and thus the name became generalized.  However, not all weapons generally called RPG's actually use a rockets, some use other recoilless propulsion systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian transliteration note removed from lead - uncited 

message: This article contradicts itself. The opening paragraph disagrees with the article itself. It says modern tanks are not vulnerable to rpg's. Yet in the article it states how rpg's can cause mobility kills.  The article is missing 2 instances of modern tanks being penetrated by rpg-29's In 2004 a m1a2 abrams was penetrated by a "mystery" projectile that entered through the side and embedded in the oppisite wall. No casualties but still a penetration. I read in the edit section of a 2nd incident where a Challeger 2 had a rpg-29 go through ERA and the super tough frontal arc composite armor. This should be listed. The article states how hezbollah used rpg-29's and other atgms to take out 50 tanks. SO how can it be that modern tanks are not vulnerable. In the Chechnya section it fails to mention that up to 80 t-80 tanks were damaged by rpg team. The t-80 is a modern tank(although the armor  under the era is weaker than western tanks and the t-90) it is still a modernt tank entering service around the time of the m1. My biggest probelm is that the opening paragraph contradicts what you read in the article regardless of my opinion. A better sentence would be modern tanks are  only vulnerable to penetration from newer rpg's like the rpg-29 while older models can cause mobility kills and damage other systems on the tank. Tell the russians in chechnya that rpgs are no worry for tanks and he will laugh in your face.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.198.79 (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the following para from the Lebanon section as none of it seems to be actually about RPGs. Ashmoo (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanon section: Israeli tank tangent

message: Hey, im pretty new here, is it ok if I put down the countries that use the RPG? and if so, can I put down conflicts where it has been used? Bhatti53534 (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: contributing

message: *This article is using the russian translation of a handheld rocket launcher as it's justification for existing. This would be like having an article on "Machinegewehr" and then saying the same thing that's already in machine gun. Also, using the definition established in the first sentence of the article, wouldn't the bazooka be an RPG too?
*The article even admits itself "Rocket-propelled grenade" is a backronym. The only way I can see keeping this article is if an RPG was really a launcher that fired grenades that were rocket propelled. --Phil1988 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2009(UTC)
::Actually, what you're suggesting would be like moving assault rifle to "Sturmgewehr," pointing out the correct translation is "storm rifle" and berating people in the opening paragraph for calling anything but the StG series of weapons an assault rifle even though that doesn't match the modern usage of the term. Meanings change, it's one of the perils of speaking a living language. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  couple things 

message: The RPG is NOT a weapon, it is an ammuntion type that rocket launchers fire.
:No it isn't, the RPG is the weapons system for which there is ammunition with different warheads that can be fired. 99.255.140.103 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a weapon. You might have a point if rocket-propelled grenade were actually the correct translation. The original Russian, as shown in the article, explicitly terms the RPG a 'launcher'. TaintedMustard (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some corrections needed 

message: This article needs streamlining - it would seem appropriate to have an article about the Soviet/Russian weapon 'family' on wikipedia (although as discussed above the title should probably be RPG (Weapon) and not Rocket-propelled Grenade), but the information about other weapons would appear to be more suited to the Shoulder-launched missile weapon or ATGW articles. Jellyfish dave (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Focus 

message: RPG stands for something like shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket in russian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.159.220 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket=propelled grenade is a backronym 

message: The Panzerfaust article states: "The basic concept was that of a recoilless gun; neither the Faustpatrone, nor its successor the Panzerfaust were rockets." [for "rockets" presumably read "rocket launchers"?]
However, this page http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzerfaust.htm says they were.
I'm confused - can anyone clarify this?
Notes:
1) There was a weapon used in WWII called the Panzerschreck which the article describes as an "anti-tank rocket launcher" (yet the Panzerschreck isn't mentioned in this article on rocket-propelled grenades)
2) There's a weapon called the Panzerfaust 3 which the article describes as either an "anti-tank rocket launcher" or a "rocket-propelled grenade" [are those terms totally synonymous or are there differences?] [I Googled, but couldn't find out if there ever was a Panzerfaust 2]
:That article is wrong. The Panzerfaust was a recoiless gun that used a powder charge to launch a warhead which had no integral propulsion system; if you look at the article's own diagram of a Panzerfaust warhead, it is literally just a warhead, and it says the tube was full of gunpowder which would be pointless if the round was self-propelled. The Panzerschreck was a copy of the American bazooka which did launch rocket-assisted projectiles. The Panzerfaust 3 is a modern RPG system; all RPGs are anti-tank rocket launchers, but not all anti-tank rocket launchers are RPGs. Herr Gruber (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panzerfaust: were the German WWII Panzerfaust weapons rocket-propelled grenade launchers or not? [I'm confused] 

message: Isn't the bazooka the first RPG? If so, shouldn't it get more than a passing mention? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bazooka 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rocket-propelled grenade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006174558/http://www.mrfa.org/ccbfund.htm to http://www.mrfa.org/ccbfund.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430184415/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rusav/rusav.htm to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rusav/rusav.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rocket-propelled grenade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140412063943/http://terrorism.about.com/od/tacticsandweapons/g/RPGs.htm to http://terrorism.about.com/od/tacticsandweapons/g/RPGs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Just merge it with that. It would solve the problem of having an entire page dedicated to an incorrect name for anti-tank rocket launchers 2A02:810B:4B3F:FF08:8143:EDB1:8F2D:3DB9 (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page "rocket launcher" already exists 

message: If a shoulder-fired missile is a broader category, then which shoulder-fired missile is not a rocket-propelled grenade?
Could you give me one example? You might say: "a recoilless rifle", but does it change anything when a projectile can be fired from one's shoulder? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoulder-fired missile 

message: in this tab of this page, the infobox for the challenger 2 is broken. - MountainKemono (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPG effectiveness infobox broken