Jump to content

Hmm.... where is RPG-29?


Alexey K
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, the Russian don't use it as standard issue. They found it too heavy and expensive. Instead they use the RPG-7V2.

 

It was adopted by Soviet Army and inherited by Russian Ground Forces. Since in game Russians are against USA with their armour it would be reasonable to equip infantry with some RPG-29s in addition to standard issue RPG-7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It was adopted by Soviet Army and inherited by Russian Ground Forces. Since in game Russians are against USA with their armour it would be reasonable to equip infantry with some RPG-29s in addition to standard issue RPG-7.

 

That's a pretty weak justification.  Unless there's really solid proof they're all but in the hands of Russian troops, or the rockets are stored in crates marked "For use in war against America" I feel like you're a bit SOL.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was adopted by Soviet Army and inherited by Russian Ground Forces. Since in game Russians are against USA with their armour it would be reasonable to equip infantry with some RPG-29s in addition to standard issue RPG-7.

 

Yup, over 20 years "in service" but never became standard issue for motor rifle troops.  They still use RPG-7.  Not too surprising since the RPG-7 system is superior in many ways.  Bigger numbers tacked onto to name don't always mean a better weapon system.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, over 20 years "in service" but never became standard issue for motor rifle troops.  They still use RPG-7.  Not too surprising since the RPG-7 system is superior in many ways.  Bigger numbers tacked onto to name don't always mean a better weapon system.

 

The RPG-29 is extremely deadly in CMSF. I have no hard numbers available, but judging from my experience, i think that it is more capable of taking out modern MBTs than the RPG-7. At least when we are talking about the base version of the RPG-7 without the tandem warhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the PG-7VR is the same warhead as the PG-29. The only thing that the RPG-29 has against the RPG-7VR is better accuracy at range. But it is heavier, bulkier and far less versatile (the rpg-7 can fire HE and thermobaric warheads, even if the thermobaric one with the penetrator against walls is not modeled). 

 

RPG-30/32 and RPG-28 , now.. that's a firepower improvement  (RPG-28 is 1000mm+ behind ERA with a 125mm warhead and RPG-30/32 is supposedly useful against APS)

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, but all this discussion reminds me of good old asymmetrical warfare and black-capped people running with big metal tubes.

 

Somehow RPG-29 have  made it's way to theese guys :)

Looks like those crates has actullay label "For use in war against America" written on them, but that text is written in Arabic langauge :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty weak justification.  Unless there's really solid proof they're all but in the hands of Russian troops, or the rockets are stored in crates marked "For use in war against America" I feel like you're a bit SOL.  

 

Actually, blitz-googling (yandexing, in fact :) ) failled to give any clear accounts on presence or absence of RPG-29 in troops as standard or special weapon.

Need some more digging into search engine.

 

P.S. What "SOL" stands for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, blitz-googling (yandexing, in fact :) ) failled to give any clear accounts on presence or absence of RPG-29 in troops as standard or special weapon.

Need some more digging into search engine.

 

P.S. What "SOL" stands for?

 

"SH*T out of luck"

 

Basically it means your uh...out of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest weakness of the RPG-7 compared to the RPG-29 is its weak rocket motor, which limits range and accuracy (at range).

 

And, as it was already mentioned the RPG-7 has the advantage over the RPG-29 of ammunition diversity - plus the fact that an empty RPG-29 weighs the same as a RPG-7 and 1-2 rockets (depends on rocket type).

Edited by AtheistDane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iirc chechens made good use of rpg-29s to smash russian armor.

 

Since most  of the chechen "army" of the 1994 war armed itself from soviet stockpiles on that territory, that would be meaning that there should be plenty of them in stockpiles in Russia.

 

I understand that the russian army prefers the rpg-7 with advanced warheads, yet seems to me it's kinda naive not to make use at all of a weapon capable of dealing with modern western tanks, in a confrontation with the west..

 

Would be seeing this weapon well in the specialized teams section of the buying screen..

Besides, if it was modeled in CMSF, must not be a big deal to port it to BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's about equal justification for giving US squads SCAR-L/Hs M202s, SMAWs, and SRAWs though.  We don't need to include every weapon that might exist in a warehouse somewhere and could possibly be useful.  

 

 

 

iirc chechens made good use of rpg-29s to smash russian armor.

 

Most of what I've seen references RPG-7s of various flavors.  Do you have a source for your statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest RPG-7 rocket has the same caracteristics as the RPG-29 and the russian army doesnt use it as a standard weapon. I would much prefer to see them adopt the RPG-27 as the standard disposable rocket since the RPG-26 is weak . But it is smaller and lighter and widely available. It is weak even when penetrating the top turret of an Abrams. It only destroyed the CITV, the balistic computer and the data sharing network the one time one of my soldiers achieved a top turret penetration. The RPG-27 would have destroyed the tank and injured or killed some crewmembers.

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have conducted some tests (while making a dense urban map), and from the top the RPG-7 Always scored a full kill out of abramses.

 

Yeah, but it can withstand multiple hits in it's butt, tough b*stard :)

 

In recent QB i had several Abrams tanks coming to town with my infantry in houses, mines, etc. One tank was hit by mine, immobilized and then poured with RPG fire from multiple directions. I managed to survive 10-12 hits to side and rear parts of hull and turret.

 

My official position is that it is... unfair! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the RPG-26 disposable ... top hits, rear hits penetrate and do damage (sometimes to critical components) but I did not see a crewmember taken out or a tank destroyed or abandoned. Such hits with the RPG-27 (disposable too but with the 105mm warhead of the RPG-29/7VR) would be kills. The RPG-26 is a weak 72.5 mm, resulting in much less catastrophic behind armor effects on an Abrams. To kill an Abrams, you not only need to penetrate the armor but also to have enough behind armor effects to disable or hard kill the tank, or force the crew to abandon. Using it nn the T-90A/T-72B3 or Ukrainian tanks, it can be more effective since they cook off much more easily. 

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the RPG-26 disposable ... top hits, rear hits penetrate and do damage (sometimes to critical components) but I did not see a crewmember taken out or a tank destroyed or abandoned. Such hits with the RPG-27 (disposable too but with the 105mm warhead of the RPG-29/7VR) would be kills. The RPG-26 is a weak 72.5 mm, resulting in much less catastrophic behind armor effects on an Abrams. To kill an Abrams, you not only need to penetrate the armor but also to have enough behind armor effects to disable or hard kill the tank, or force the crew to abandon. Using it nn the T-90A/T-72B3 or Ukrainian tanks, it can be more effective since they cook off much more easily. 

 

I didn't tracked what kinds of RPG actually hit that tank. But it was really beaten up.

What is level of protection of Abrams in side and rear projections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side turret : 500-550mm against HEAT.. (Single ERA)

Side Hull: 300mm against HEAT (protected by double ERA)

Rear Hull/turret

Maybe 100-150mm

 

So, one can assume that strikes to the rear hull should take out engine with high degree of probability, shouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's about equal justification for giving US squads SCAR-L/Hs M202s, SMAWs, and SRAWs though.  We don't need to include every weapon that might exist in a warehouse somewhere and could possibly be useful.  

 

 

Most of what I've seen references RPG-7s of various flavors.  Do you have a source for your statement?

 

I agree about the fact that there is not the necessity to implement every existing rl weapon in the game. Yet, my thought is that the RPG-26 would be a kinda "interesting" weapon to be included in BS - along with the SMAWs and SRAWs, which I believe will be included in a future marines module anyway. 

Besides,  I guess that as new modules come out, they will almost surely include new opfor formations and weapons, and the vast variety in tube launched AT systems enjoyed by the russians will eventually lead to the inclusion of some of them in game.

 

As about sources on the chechens RPG-26s, although I can't readily provide a link, I recall having watched several vids on youtube, and also news reports on tv in which "tank hunter" teams were armed with such weapons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...