Anyone care to comment why no NATO army uses/used anything like the RPG?

[Sequoia]

Yes this may be an ill-infomed question.  The question comes from playing Combat Mission and not direct experience.  And yeah the Bundeswehr and USMC have their rocket launchers but those strike me as requiring a higher skill level to use. The US Army seems to be using the Javelin in a similar manner. It just seems like the simple and cheap RPGs would be a valuable  asset in any army.

 

Thanks

[MikeyD]

I read somewhere that US Army has a hard-and-fast rule that rocket launcher warheads can't be larger than the launch tube. So their version of Carl Gustav  doesn't use the German oversize warhead.

US actually manufacturers their own RPG-7 named the PSRL-1. They're sold to US allies who can't do without their RPGs but don't have access to Russian manufacturers for various reasons.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You can just say 'Ukraine' you know. 

[IICptMillerII]

Part of it is conception. The RPG, like the Ak series, is just a very prolific weapon system.

The US has operated a number of equivalent handheld AT weapons since the introduction of the RPG, such as the M72 LAW, the AT-4, the SMAW, and the Carl Gustav. The Gustav being the closest in concept to the RPG. Disposable launchers tend to be pretty cheap, especially the LAW and are very similar in effect to the RPG. IIRC the Army is actually expanding its use of the Carl Gustav, which can fire different warheads (like the RPG) and can fire many warheads out of a single launcher without wearing it down (also like the RPG).

The javelin is a different type of handheld AT weapon, seeing as its guided. It is more related to an ATGM than an RPG. 

Not a bad question at all. I'm sure many others have wondered the same thing. 

[Bulletpoint]

My guess would be that NATO countries have a culture where they don't actually expect their regular infantry to do much on the ground fighting. Enemy strongpoints are expected to be located by infantry, but then taken out by precision munitions fired by artillery, vehicles, and aircraft.

In recent wars where Western countries have been involved, they have left the actual city clearing to local forces who are armed with weapons like RPGs.

The reason for this culture seems to be that the political cost of casualties has increased heavily since WW2, especially for Western countries fighting interventionist wars far from their home soil.

[Sgt Joch]

I would say the simple answer is that NATO forces don't see a need for that type of weapon. For example, U.S. rifle squads already have plenty of 40mm grenade launchers, AT-4s and Javelins which can handle enemy AFV and infantry targets. Plus NATO forces are usually backed up by plenty of direct fire from IFV/AFVs, plus mortars/artillery/air support.

RPGs would not really add anything, but would be one more weapon soldiers have to lug around and that has to be kept supplied by supply services.

 

[Lethaface]

Not sure how much extra skill the SMAW, Panzerfaust, Carl Gustaf etc require over RPGs. At the same time most of the NATO armies actually have professional armies, so even if it required some extra skill that wouldn't have to be a problem.
Plus all these weapons have different rounds available, quite similar in concept to the RPG I'd say.

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Not sure how much extra skill the SMAW, Panzerfaust, Carl Gustaf etc require over RPGs. At the same time most of the NATO armies actually have professional armies, so even if it required some extra skill that wouldn't have to be a problem.
Plus all these weapons have different rounds available, quite similar in concept to the RPG I'd say.

Depends on the specific weapon, but something like a LAW or AT-4 is just as simple to aim and fire as an RPG. Same with the SMAW and Gustav as well. They use the same simple iron sight and trigger/button to fire concept as the RPG. 

[Lethaface]

14 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Depends on the specific weapon, but something like a LAW or AT-4 is just as simple to aim and fire as an RPG. Same with the SMAW and Gustav as well. They use the same simple iron sight and trigger/button to fire concept as the RPG. 

Having never fired any of m, that's what I'd think. The Pz Faust 3-IT has some laser range finder system IIRC, but I doubt it will be much more complex than pressing a button to gauge the range first and press the trigger to fire after that sequence has been completed.

[Combatintman]

RPGs also come in various flavours - the RPG-18 for instance is essentially a Russian version of the LAW.  I think therefore we're getting tied up in nomenclature.  If you boil the thing down to the essentials, RPGs are manportable short-ranged weapon systems that can be carried by a single combatant in which a rocket comes out of one end of a tube and exhaust gases from the other end and have a reasonable chance of knocking out a static armoured vehicle up to 500m and a moving one at 300m.  The Charlie G, LAW, Panzerfaust etc which were, and still are, widely deployed in NATO forces are all exactly the same when viewed from that perspective.  Therefore there is nothing particularly uniquely Russian/Soviet about the concept of having such a weapon system.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

53 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

The Charlie G, LAW, Panzerfaust etc which were, and still are, widely deployed in NATO forces are all exactly the same when viewed from that perspective.

This. 

[MikeyD]

RPG-7 is useful as a substitute weapon on the battlefield when your force can't afford to field more fitting weapons systems.

US had been planning to field a groundbreaking light tank for perhaps the last 70(?) years. Unfortunately each design was worse than the one before. Each time they attempted a 'technological leap forward' they fell on their faces. In the meantime direct fire infantry support weapons were deprecated in anticipation of new armor support 'just around the corner'. At the start of the Iraq war US infantry was making wide use of Javelin (at about 80k a pop) as a direct fire support weapon. By the end they had brought in Carl Gustav because it was just too darned expensive to use the fancy stuff in years long occupation duties.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

31 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

RPG-7 is useful as a substitute weapon on the battlefield when your force can't afford to field more fitting weapons systems.

Unless you are in a built up area, at which point it punches hugely above its weight.

[Glubokii Boy]

i pretty nice video about the Carl Gustav..

 

[DerKommissar]

I do not think it is fair to compare disposable launchers to reusable launchers to ATGMs. They all have their place, although that place may be different -- depending on doctrine.

In principle, the reusable launcher has the ability to deal with a wide array of targets, with different warheads. Naturally, these weapons need a 2-man team: a gunner and someone to lug around ammo.  Should every squad have a dedicated 2-man launcher team? Should they only be in support weapons squads? Should they only be in heavy weapons platoons, companies, etc.?

It may not be advantageous to have every light infantry squad weighed down by the launcher and ammo. Especially, if the opponent does not have armour or fortified positions. It would be better to issue them a Light Anti-tank Weapon, just in case. I am guessing you'll see them more widely used with NATO forces in Central/Eastern Europe and less so in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.

Soviet doctrine is about bang for buck. If their successors can, in any way, add a little bit more oomph to the squad, they'll do it. Special operators may choose to go for a disposable RPG, instead, though. 

[Sequoia]

18 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Unless you are in a built up area, at which point it punches hugely above its weight.

Right. That's really the source of my question from playing CMSF and running into them. CMSF probably has an over representation of scenarios set in built up areas I suppose.

[DerKommissar]

I've wondered why there's no Carl G's in Khabour Trail. It is in service with the CAF, and most missions are in built-up areas.

My theory is that the plan for the CMSF Campaign put an emphasis on speed. Almost every mission is Attack/Assault, and you are given plenty of organic, and off-map fire support. The infantry sometimes struggles to keep up, and gets tired.

I've seen the LAW being used once or twice, but I generally don't close in on fortified positions without a Leo or a LAV to keep company. Infantry firefights happen at longer ranges, or are over before they can launch one.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

I've wondered why there's no Carl G's in Khabour Trail. It is in service with the CAF, and most missions are in built-up areas.

  Check your vehicles.....They can be acquired by units in Nyala MRAPs.

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[DerKommissar]

Just now, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Check your vehicles.....The can be acquired by units in Nyala MRAPs.

OMG, I'm almost done the campaign... wish I knew this sooner! Thanks!

[Freyberg]

15 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

i pretty nice video about the Carl Gustav..

 

Very interesting - thanks

[chuckdyke]

Panzerfaust comes close. 

[Combatintman]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Panzerfaust comes close. 

They are all the same as I said in my earlier post - exhaust gases go out one end and a rocket goes out the other.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

But some animals are more equal than others:

[HUSKER2142]

Actually, RPG-7 is a cool thing, even for a professional army. In fact, you have pocket artillery, the main thing is to replace the grenades with more modern ones. On my own behalf, for RPG-7, there is a very lack of a rangefinder sight for quick aiming, it would be useful.

[Artkin]

Did someone say M3? Or Mk 153?

Or do you mean front loaders specifically?