USA Made RPG-7 Rockets
New US relationships have opened an innovative chapter in non-standard ammo!
When the US government announced its intent to procure 2,000 RPG-7 Launchers, it’s clear that things have become rather complicated in the area of weapons acquisition. That February 2009 announcement, which also identified needs ranging from 1,688 PKM 7.62×54mm machine guns to 162 NSV 12.7×108mm heavy machine guns, reflected the challenges of security assistance in the 21st Century. Unlike past eras, during which the US might have tried to standardize its alliances on US weapons systems, current relationships with countries like Iraq and Afghanistan have opened a new chapter in “Non-Standard Ammunition.”
Speaking to the International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium in May 2009, Mr. William Sanville, Project Director for Non-Standard Ammunition under the US Army Program Executive Office for Ammunition, explained that the terminology, “non-standard ammo,” has been around for a long time and has been applied to the specialized needs of the Army Marksmanship Unit or unique tactical training requirements at one of the Army’s training centers.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:00 am
My experience with the RPG goes back to Vietnam and also to Warsaw Pact/NATO weapons training in Germany. We found them to be quite dangerous to the user. The old Comblock rocket grenades were armed the instant you pulled off the safety cap, as opposed to NATO AT weapons, which are designed to arm themselves after traveling a specified distance from the user. The RPG is renowned for detonating when it hits a tree twig or even heavy rain after launch. Once you have armed the rocket, you had better fire it immediately; if you lose your target and have to move with the weapon, you are carrying a live, hair-trigger bomb. Maybe the US could fix this, but I would not want to use one.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I wonder if US government ever thought how legal that would be. Surety, they haven’t bought a license from Russians.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
what happened to the Swedish AT-12-T.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Did someone mention something about the AT-4 ? The Anti Tank Rocket Launcher..?
These units are 10,000$ each, and only fire once, and are non-reloadable… Think about that… Expensive as fuck (do the job against some tanks though).. and don’t reload.
Amazing these things went from concept to production out on the battlefield!
October 21st, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Thats crazy -The enemy already knows how to effectivley operate,repair and modify these weapons. They also have a source for the ammo and parts. Now we are going to flood the battle field with their favorite weapon!? At least our existing equivalent is useless to them as the projectiles are very difficult to come by. If they IED a vehicle and get only a few RPG parts -It will be will be enough to put togather a few new weapons for them.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Having worked win a Private Security Company, I can say with all honesty, the majority of our middle level leaders were Ukraines, and they of course were well versed in the use of the RPG7(funny story concerning this)
One evening we had a rumor of the bad guys coming to our compound, the Ukraines that lived in the House I was staying in said that if trouble broke out, to please come to their hooch, I asked why, they replied that they had 10 rpg, oh one launcher and 10 reloads, no no ……we have 10 launchers and 10 reloads….YOU CAN PLAY TOO!
October 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Why doesn’t the US Army use rifle grenades? They are used in the European armies. I don’t think they should replace the 40mm, but wouldn’t they provide increase lethality envelope for our troops. The newer rifle grenades go from simple frag rounds to anti-tank rounds and they have shoot through bases now.
Traaxx
October 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The RPG is a dangerous weapon. I am worried about US Soldiers using “old” weapons like this. What about using the new AT-4 with no back-blast.
Lets reduce the risk to American GIs and increase the risk to our enemies. Stepping backwards in our technologies is putting our soldiers at risk, and a bad tactical move.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
It.s about time, let them feel the pain, can’t beat’em join’em good choice for the modern day battlefield
October 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
great idea, cheap and effective.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I don’t beleive these are being fielded to american troops, but rather to Afgan and Iraqi troops who we train fight along side.
let them have the inferior weapons so when they end up working both sides, we still have the advantage.
the M-16/M4 weapons system has evolved a great deal. still not perfect but not garbage like back in vietnam either.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Sure Hope it’s Better than Early RPG-7’s that took your head off, when fired.. I agree it’s deadly, but the Bofors/Sweden Light antitank weapons are the Superior way to go.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:38 am
No lack of ammo in Iraq and Afg
October 14th, 2009 at 4:20 am
it is about time.. one of the best non crew serve weapons on the battle field
October 14th, 2009 at 3:36 am
why can’t the Govn’mt make Ak-47 and not got troops Killed as in Nam or are we just repeating it in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Wowsers, 40 years later, we’re finally looking at the most simple, effective weapons system of it’s kind!
Maybe we’ll get smart and buy some more, after all, it’s just about impossible to break, has a limited anti aircraft capability, is air burst capable, and ammo is available EVERYWHERE!
Somebody, on this one, finally awakened and smelled the coffee.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I don’t understand… what will the government say when they end up in enemy hands? Its a conspiracy!
September 21st, 2009 at 2:07 am
I have shot one of those, very fun.
“Back blast area clear!!”