The US Army in Europe circa 2000 and the RPG-16

[schnickelfritz]

All-
It seems like a wise idea for an infantry unit of the US Army in Europe to pick up RPG-16's as 1998 arrives and supply shortages worsen. I would think that units that find themselves beyond the German-Polish border by the time the year 2000 hits would pick up and use whatever RPG-16's that they could lay their hands on as a matter of regular practice.

After all, you have a limited number of US standard AT-4's and such, but every Soviet/Pact infantry unit you whack has RPG-16's, so why not use an otherwise useful/effective weapon against it's former owners and save the US issue stuff for a later day.

Does this make sense?

I have read of US troops making use of Panzerfausts during the war in Europe in '44-'45, and cannot think why we wouldn't do it in WW3.

Thanks,
Dave

[Raellus]

Absolutely. I'm not sure about the 16, though. From what I understand, the RPG-16 was not as widely issued as the 7. The RPG-7 would have been much more common in the Red Army c. 96 and would certainly have been encountered in greater numbers in non-Soviet Pact units. I believe that the RPG-7 was manufactured in several Warsaw Pact nations. I'm sure that the former East Germany would maintain some capacity to produce basic RPG-7 rockets (and simplified launchers) even after the TDM.

The Israelis captured so many RPG-7s in the '73 war that they were practically standard-issue in the IDF during the '82 Lebanon campaign. IIRC, Israel manufactured them for a while. In fact, the Israelis produced a rocket-carrying pack that could hold six rockets for their captured launchers.

In more recent times, at least one American based armaments company has manufactured a product-improved launcher for the RPG-7 rocket. I believe they are being marketed to U.S. Allies that still operate large quantities of Soviet/Russian weaponry.

I see the RPG-7 as being at least as common as the M-72 LAW, and even more common than the M136/AT-4, in the U.S. armed forces c. 2000.

If you're interested in RPGs, I recommend that you take a look at the Osprey weapons title on the subject. I thumbed through it at the local booksellers and its loaded with useful info on the topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Propell...8080543&sr=8-1

[pmulcahy11b]

You're right, the RPG-16 was not issued in anything like the numbers of the RPG-7. And while the RPG-7 continues to be manufactured in Russia, RPG-16 production stopped in the mid-1990s. The RPG-16 was designed to be a sort of light recoilless rifle for the Airborne and Air Assault units (it is basically a much smaller version of the B-10), but the troops themselves were apparently not impressed by the RPG-16 and it has fallen out of favor and service.

In T2K, I would replace most references to the RPG-16 in encounters and OOBs with the RPG-7.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

If you're interested in RPGs, I recommend that you take a look at the Osprey weapons title on the subject. I thumbed through it at the local booksellers and its loaded with useful info on the topic.

I have that book and its a good one. There was also a very informative article in Small Arms Review October 2010 -- lots of good information in that one, and I recommend picking up that issue if you can find it.

[schnickelfritz]

Sorry....I was going with the original V1 data...I mean the RPG-7. Is there an explanation why RPG-16 was used in V1, other than it may have seemed to be the next big thing?
Thanks,
Dave

[HorseSoldier]

I think that was all there was to it -- it was new kit they projected into the future as replacing the RPG-7.

[Mohoender]

As it was developped in 1970, it was far from being the future. The only thing is that, at the time, little information had been released. The future would have been RPG-18, RPG-22 (developped in the mid-1985) or RPG-29 (1989).

I agree that it was their idea of the future but, more important to keep in mind, they had to do with what was available. We are talking of it 25 years laters with tons of information that became easily available only by the late 1990's.

I have always been amazed by the amount of information (and corresponding research) that must have been needed for both v1 and v2.