"RPG eye" Is it real or made up?

[John Kettler]

Am asking the question here because those who'd know frequent this Forum. "RPG eye" is something I encountered while watching a C.S.I. Miami episode in which anti-immigrant whites used an RPG-7 to blast a Cubano's tienda or small shop. The claim is that recoil forces cause the firer's eye surround to be bruised and contused by the sight optics at launch, creating a firing telltale detectable when the firer goes to the emergency room for treatment.

I've never heard of such a thing, nor read of it, and I figure something would've been said about it if it really did happen, given all the RPGs anonymously slung at our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. To me, this may simply be a plot device created to allow a followable evidence trail to make the episode work. OTOH, maybe this only happens if the weapon's improperly held, allowing it to sock the RPG operator's eye as a result of the sight's not being snugly held to the eye socket before pulling the trigger. In the latter case, then an untrained operator might well frang himself or herself.

So, what's the truth here? Can anyone tell me?

Regards,

John Kettler

[theFightingSeabee]

You're firing a rocket with great force right next to your face. These rockets really boom out of the launchers. Anything can happen. If you don't have a perfect grip, the whole thing can launch out of your control, much less bruising your eye.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=121_1212951769

This isn't an at4 like the caption says nor is it an RPG, but it shows the kind of force involved.

[hoolaman]

That clip seems to show the tube being pulled forward by the rocket, which is not illogical when you think about it.

Theoretically a tube launched rocket will not have backward recoil like a gun, all the gases go out the back.

Most RPG's don't have a sight that goes up to the eye anyway. Sounds very unlikely to happen often enough to be a "thing".

[akd]

RPGs are essentially recoilless (notice the lack of a shoulder stock), with the pressure of the propelling charge (the rocket itself ignites 10m after launch) escaping out the rear, but I did find this:

In an RPG, the launcher does pressurize to an extent. This overpressure allows the warhead to obtain enough speed (greater than that which could be obtained from the specific impulse of the rocket motor). This high speed is necessary to allow the rocket to have enough momentum to be stable in flight, without continuing to burn past the forward lip of the launcher. The RPG-7 is heavier and more robust than a M-72 LAW. This is due to the fact that the RPG-7 is reusable, and must be more rugged to withstand the stress of repeated firing. This is not meant to imply that an RPG is a cannon, the smaller overpressure (compared to a cannon or a rifle) being used to boost the speed of the warhead, not completely contain and create the thrust. The high temperature rocket exhaust is hazardous 15 to 20 m to the rear of an RPG launcher. The launcher must be cleaned periodically. Failure to clean the launcher results in an excess of overpressure, which causes the reticule to be driven into the eye of the user, when the rocket does release. Blindness in one eye often results.

[hagebono]

I think that the guy on the receiving end of the rocket obviously has issues to worry about. The other would be anyone in the back blast area. Beyond that, I'd say inexperience or improper care could cause an eye problem. But I'd say they deserve it...

[MikeyD]

Well, I do recall a YouTube video of some soldiers goofing off with confiscated weapons. One soldier (Army? Marine?) decided it would be fun to fire a SPG-9(?) recoilless gun off the shoulder and apparently knocked his front teeth out in the process! But an SPG-9 is not an RPG.

[f-bomb]

when i was in the marine corp i got to fire a smaw once. i was thinking that it was really going to recoil a lot, but it did indeed pull me forward just a bit.

[flamingknives]

You're firing a rocket with great force right next to your face. These rockets really boom out of the launchers. Anything can happen. If you don't have a perfect grip, the whole thing can launch out of your control, much less bruising your eye.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=121_1212951769

This isn't an at4 like the caption says nor is it an RPG, but it shows the kind of force involved.

It's a LAW80, and it looks for all the world like the user didn't remove the front cover (which you're supposed to do). The rocket burns out in the tube and I'm told it has the same thrust as a Tornado engine in reheat.

Correction, it looks more like an M141 SMAW-D

[sdp]

- you don't think it's a LASM?

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1465.aspx

regards/

sdp

[Secondbrooks]

We had AT-weapon in past which outlooks was pretty similar to RPG-7 (or earlier models), but it was recoiless rifle, which had sieve (to "filter" backblast from biggest debris) which was prone to get choked (=get filled)... When it did that and loader didn't clear it, recoil is said to be pretty rough as backblast remained in weapon instead of blasting to backside of weapon. That could hold potential to cause some nice bruises.

And i think RPG-7 has just same kind, altough not as prone to get choked, sieve... But i'm not sure and won't bother to check.

[flamingknives]

Definitely not any stripe of M72. It's too big and the two sections are too even, and there are elephant's feet at each end, which aren't used on M72s

[Dietrich]

Am asking the question here because those who'd know frequent this Forum. "RPG eye" is something I encountered while watching a C.S.I. Miami episode in which anti-immigrant whites used an RPG-7 to blast a Cubano's tienda or small shop. The claim is that recoil forces cause the firer's eye surround to be bruised and contused by the sight optics at launch, creating a firing telltale detectable when the firer goes to the emergency room for treatment.

Sounds like a plot device to me. I'd find it less implausible if the weapon used by the anti-immigrant whites was a bazooka (M1, M9, or even M20), i.e., an American-made weapon.

Speaking of inaccurate but convincing technical stuff in movies and TV shows, has anyone ever seen a movie or TV show which depicted the view through binoculars accurately? (In other words, contrary to what one actually sees when looking through binoculars, in movies and such the view is depicted as being framed by a symmetrical Ven diagram, similar in silhouette to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venn-diagram-AB.svg.)

[MikeyD]

What WAS that AT weapon on Liveleak? it looked like the front half of an AT4 wedded to the back half of a SMAW. I know there's a throwaway SMAW version that looks like an AT4 but I really doubt that was what it was. Confusing.

[flamingknives]

M141 BDM, AKA SMAW-D

[JonS]

Speaking of inaccurate but convincing technical stuff in movies and TV shows, has anyone ever seen a movie or TV show which depicted the view through binoculars accurately? (In other words, contrary to what one actually sees when looking through binoculars, in movies and such the view is depicted as being framed by a symmetrical Ven diagram, similar in silhouette to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venn-diagram-AB.svg.)

Heh. Maybe once?

But, you know, I give them a pass on that one. I've thought about it, and I think way more people would be confused by a single circle than the Venn Diagram ... although admittedly that may be because most people are so used to seeing the Venn-diagram in movies, so much so that it's become a kind of defacto standard or reality. To be honest, I think I'd do a double take and go "wait, that's wrong ... er, no it isn't" if they started doing it the 'right' way.

Also, bear in mind that with a rectangular screen, you can get a lot more usable/visible image on the screen with the Venn-diagram than with a single circle. I suspect that may be a pragmatic consideration too.

*shrug*

[John Kettler]

People,

Very much appreciate the feedback on an admittedly odd topic!

Dietrich,

From what I can tell, Hollywood never moved past the early days of warfare, back when field glasses (two short telescopes side by side) were used, as opposed to binoculars. I share your vexation!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Splinty]

OMG Bino grogs!!!!!

[Dietrich]

I give them a pass on that one. I've thought about it, and I think way more people would be confused by a single circle than the Venn Diagram ... although admittedly that may be because most people are so used to seeing the Venn-diagram in movies, so much so that it's become a kind of defacto standard or reality. To be honest, I think I'd do a double take and go "wait, that's wrong ... er, no it isn't" if they started doing it the 'right' way.

Also, bear in mind that with a rectangular screen, you can get a lot more usable/visible image on the screen with the Venn-diagram than with a single circle. I suspect that may be a pragmatic consideration too.

The Venn View Effect is one of the many little (and not-so-little) untruths Hollywood has perpetuated since practically the beginning of cinema -- cars provide effective cover from assault rifle and even machine-gun rounds (though they are apt to burst into flames or even explode after taking as few as half a dozen bullets), fighter pilots need not aim off when using their on-board machine-guns or cannons to target an evasively maneuvering aircraft, et cetera, ad libitum, ad nauseum. My take on it is that the general moviegoing public is so ignorant of many facts of even fairly basic physics that if films depicted such things accurately, the average audience member would feel confused and would think special-effects tomfoolery was afoot.

Movie screens haven't always been rectangular ("letterbox" format). Thus some old movies don't need to have the ends of the frame trimmed to fit a 4:3 television screen. Indeed, one old film in particular, Fritz Lang's The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, when viewed on a non-widescreen TV yields narrow black areas to the sides of the frame.

From what I can tell, Hollywood never moved past the early days of warfare, back when field glasses (two short telescopes side by side) were used, as opposed to binoculars. I share your vexation!

But when looking through field glasses, would one see a single circle or a Venn diagram as is shown in movies?

Though some binoculars have a single objective lens, most modern (20th century) binoculars have dual eyepiece lens and dual objective lenses and thus work as illustrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binocularp.svg.

All this talk about misrepresentation of optics makes me want to watch the part in Black Hawk Down where the NVG-equipped Delta operators take out the crew of a truck-mounted recoilless gun, so as to notice whether or not the view through their NVGs is depicted accurately (since, as I recall, the NVGs they had were of the single-objective-lens type).

[JonS]

The Venn View Effect is one of the many little (and not-so-little) untruths Hollywood has perpetuated since practically the beginning of cinema -- [examples snipped]

Sure. But IMO this one is way way down the little/trivial end of the scale.

Furthermore, movies tend to be - and should be - about story telling. Not physics lectures.

Movie screens haven't always been rectangular ("letterbox" format).

Actually, they have always been rectangular. The aspect ratio has certainly changed over the years, but I'm pretty confident it was never 1:1. ISTR some rather old war movies where the venn-diagram effect (VDE) was so horribly exaggerated it was obviously done to maximise screen use.

Furthermore, the increasing aspect ratio is an argument in favour of newer films using the VDE more, rather than rejecting it.

Also:

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

[JonS]

... movies tend to be - and should be - about story telling. Not physics lectures. ...

Edit: ... which is not to say they get a free pass on the laws of physics, but a certain suspension of disbelief is allowed and expected. IMO, as long as physics doesn't get mangled, I'm okay with bending it to suit the needs of a story. The VDE is well below my personal threshhold. 'Splody cars is kind-of ok. Etc.

Or, put another, way, I'd much rather watch an engaging and entertaining movie that butchered physics, than a tedious movie that was accurate. Star Wars, for example, would have us believe that a habitable planet could exist in a twin-sun solar system ... that was ok. Armageddon, on the other hand, was tedious AND butchered gravitational (and other) physics. That was not ok.

[MikeyD]

I recall one film that had 'correct' physics in-theaters and was fixed for TV.

Waaaay back in 1984 the film 'Red Dawn' came out. I was a (comparative) youngster and saw it in the theater. An early scene a distant mountainside is bombed by the fearsome Nicaraguan invaders (what can I say, it was '84). It took a second or two for the BOOM to reach the heroes in the foreground. A couple years later I see the film is playing on TV. That early scene comes, the mountainside erupts, but this time the sound arrive immediately! They altered the film for TV! Apparently they must've figured the concept of the 'speed of sound' was beyond the mental capacity of the viewing audience.

[Dietrich]

Furthermore, movies tend to be - and should be - about story telling. Not physics lectures.

...which is not to say they get a free pass on the laws of physics, but a certain suspension of disbelief is allowed and expected.

But why are there certain things (of which there are not a few) that they never (or virtually never) depict according to how things actually work?

I'd much rather watch an engaging and entertaining movie that butchered physics, than a tedious movie that was accurate. Star Wars, for example, would have us believe that a habitable planet could exist in a twin-sun solar system ... that was ok. Armageddon, on the other hand, was tedious AND butchered gravitational (and other) physics. That was not ok.

I view physics integrity (or lack thereof) according to context. Contrary to the claims of certain lazy critics, Stars is not science fiction -- it makes no claims of being in any way scientific and is so obviously fictional -- thus does not need to uphold the laws of physics (at least, not nearly to as great an extent as a movie like Apollo 13).

I understand that moviemaking technology has played a part in the perpetuation of cinematic physics rule-bending.

For example, in the 1969 film Battle of Britain, one shot shows the view of a Spitfire pilot looking through the reflector gunsight at a Bf 109 as he maneuvers in a fairly tight turn to bring his guns to bear on the enemy fighter. When the ring of the gunsight's reticle frames the Bf 109, the Spitfire pilot fires his guns, even though both planes are banking steeply. In reality, the Spitfire's fire would pass well behind and below the Bf 109 both because of how the planes are maneuvering and because of the time it would take for the rounds from the Spitfire's eight .303-in machine guns to cover the 400 or so yards to the Bf 109.

The expectation of this shot is that it depicts the Spitfire pilot shooting at and scoring hits on the enemy aircraft. Since in reality the Spitfire pilot shooting thus would not yield hits on the Bf 109, the action of the shot could be changed so that, say, the Spitfire approaches a seemingly oblivious Bf 109 from behind and ever so slightly below (and perhaps ever so slightly to one side as well), so that when the Bf 109 is framed in the reticle and the machine-guns roar, the fire actually strikes its intended target, on account of the minimal deflection needed to score hits in such an instance.

And here is where advanced moviemaking technology could make its mark. Since in the 1969 film they used actual aircraft for the aerial battle scenes, they couldn't very well be actually firing at each other. Were the film to be remade nowadays, even if they used actual aircraft, they could add the fighters' fire through CG or even (as was done in Captain Corelli's Mandolin) create the aircraft digitally. So long as the result is nothing like Pearl Harbor.

Flags Of Our Fathers had an interesting example of integrity to reality: in one ground-level from-a-distance shot of twin-engined bombers bombarding Mount Suribachi, you can see not only the aircraft and the explosions several hundred feet below them but also the bombs themselves plummeting from plane to mountainside. It gave me a sort of chill to see the falling five-hundred-pounders.

Actually, they have always been rectangular. The aspect ratio has certainly changed over the years

True. I stand corrected. What I meant to say is that the aspect ratio of movies has not always been 16:9 or even 4:3.

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

Thanks for the link. 'Tis enlightening reading.

Waaaay back in 1984 the film 'Red Dawn' came out. I was a (comparative) youngster and saw it in the theater. An early scene a distant mountainside is bombed by the fearsome Nicaraguan invaders (what can I say, it was '84). It took a second or two for the BOOM to reach the heroes in the foreground. A couple years later I see the film is playing on TV. That early scene comes, the mountainside erupts, but this time the sound arrive immediately! They altered the film for TV! Apparently they must've figured the concept of the 'speed of sound' was beyond the mental capacity of the viewing audience.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was that someone involved in getting Red Dawn ready for TV saw that scene, noted the delay between explosion and boom, and thought, "Wait, that isn't right", and then had it changed because they thought it was wrong (rather than because they thought the audience wouldn't get it that if a bomb goes off a mile away you don't hear the explosion as soon as you see the 'fire and sulphur').

I say they should have people who check for physics veracity in movies (at least movies that purport to take place in the real world) just as they have people who check for continuity and people who act as "technical advisors" and such.

[JonS]

But why are there certain things (of which there are not a few) that they never (or virtually never) depict according to how things actually work?

Cinematic convention, that effects both movie makers and movie goers.

Consider Saving Private Ryan - there is an iconic shot when the squad is patrolling from place to place where the squad is silhouetted walking across a paddock. In fact, i think that shot was used on the posters? Anyway, the 'problems' here are that the squad should never be moving that close together, and that they should never be moving where they are skylined. Also, it's at least plausible that they shouldn't be chattering away like 12-yo schoolgirls while they're patrolling. Yet, they do all those things. Why? Cinematic conventions, and to move the story along.

For example, in the 1969 film Battle of Britain, one shot shows ... [gunsight example]

Sure. But how many people actually know how a reflector gunsight works? Or care? Why confuse people by doing it 'right', when you can do it 'wrong' but advance the story and keep everyone engaged. To my mind, that's a little like the SPR-geeks whining that the US helmets had the 'wrong' chinstrap. It's true, they did ave the 'wrong' chinstrap, but who cares?

Your example of sneaking up behind an unsuspecting enemy for a no-deflection shot is all very well, but it sounds like a yawn-fest of a movie. BoB is about dogfighting. Not sneaking up on people.

OTOH, we all have our own little quierbles. I gagged in "Thin Red Line" when the howitzers didn't recoil, though I accept that most folk won't have noticed (or even be able to recall the scene). I also gagged in "Pearl Harbor" when the backdrop was a bunch of Ticonderogas (or Arleigh Burkes, or some other uber-modern class of ship). OTOH, I was pretty fvks0ring annoyed by PH by then anyway, so my tolerance level had dropped way down.

[JonS]

I say they should have people who check for physics veracity in movies (at least movies that purport to take place in the real world) just as they have people who check for continuity and people who act as "technical advisors" and such.

They do. They're called "Director" and "Producer". What they say goes.

[Dietrich]

how many people actually know how a reflector gunsight works? Or care? Why confuse people by doing it 'right', when you can do it 'wrong' but advance the story and keep everyone engaged. To my mind, that's a little like the SPR-geeks whining that the US helmets had the 'wrong' chinstrap. It's true, they did ave the 'wrong' chinstrap, but who cares?

To my understanding, it's not a matter of knowing how a reflector gunsight works. The problem with the shot in Battle of Britain that I cited is that the Bf 109 would be out of view when the Spitfire pilot opened fire, because of how much he would need to aim off.

As far as I know, the sort of chinstrap doesn't matter because it doesn't have any clear bearing on the action. What does have a bearing on the action in SPR (in the final battle scene, anyway) is that there are at least one MG42 and one MG34 that never fire. In my view, including weapons that were key to German small-unit infantry tactics but disallowing their contribution to the firefight would be like giving the Rangers and Airborne only M1 Garands (that is, leaving out the M1919s and BARs and Thompson SMGs like they had in the movie).

And then there's Miracle at St. Anna, in which three of the four 92nd Infantry Division soldiers have Thompsons.

Your example of sneaking up behind an unsuspecting enemy for a no-deflection shot is all very well, but it sounds like a yawn-fest of a movie. BoB is about dogfighting. Not sneaking up on people.

True. With today's CG technology, a team making a Battle of Britain film could create CG Spitfires and Hurricanes and add in tracer to show where a fighter's fire is going. With an exterior "chase plane" shot, a kill scored in the middle of a gut-wrenching turn could be made clear to the audience.

I gagged in "Thin Red Line" when the howitzers didn't recoil, though I accept that most folk won't have noticed (or even be able to recall the scene).

I say, just because most folks won't notice something is no reason to leave it out. But how many times have we seen tank cannon not recoil in movies? Countless times. If for no other reason, it's just easier to put a flashpot in the muzzle and call it a day.

I also gagged in "Pearl Harbor" when the backdrop was a bunch of Ticonderogas (or Arleigh Burkes, or some other uber-modern class of ship). OTOH, I was pretty fvks0ring annoyed by PH by then anyway, so my tolerance level had dropped way down.

And didn't Ben Affleck get shot down and nose-dive into the English Channel? To my understanding, that could only result in him being killed: if he had his harness straps fastened, the impact into the water would have snapped his neck; if he didn't have his harness straps fastened, he would have split open his skull on the mount of the gunsight. Of course, if he had belly-landed on the water, he would have survived being shot down but might have died of exposure and hypothermia before he could be rescued.