Alexey K Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Did I miss RPG-29 or it isn't included in game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Charlemagne Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 No, the Russian don't use it as standard issue. They found it too heavy and expensive. Instead they use the RPG-7V2. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 19, 2015 Author Share Posted April 19, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) 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 April 19, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) 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 April 20, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Sorry guys, but all this discussion reminds me of good old asymmetrical warfare and black-capped people running with big metal tubes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Charlemagne Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) 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 April 20, 2015 by AtheistDane 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitehot78 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Well, it might come in one of the modules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) 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 April 20, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited April 20, 2015 by Kieme(ITA) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 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! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) 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 April 20, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 The AT-13 metis is very good at killing the Abrams from the rear with catastrophic results (all crew killed and big explosion) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Side turret : 500-550mm against HEAT.. (Single ERA) Side Hull: 300mm against HEAT (protected by double ERA) Rear Hull/turret Maybe 100-150mm Edited April 21, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Side turret : 500-550mm against HEAT.. (Single ERA) The M1A2 SEP v2 and M1A2 SA have DU inserts in the turret sides that raise it a little higher than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitehot78 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.