Bazooka vs. RPG

[10fingers]

*

[This message has been edited by 10fingers (edited July 19, 2001).]

[DarkAngel]

I ones did a simulation shot of a
shoulder rocket.I don't know the name
but you need to point at the target with
the weapon till impact because it can control the rocket,it whas pretty cool

But i think it shoot's more comfortable
with a weapon without a heavy backblast.

------------------
ÐarkAngel

For explosives and stuff go to Section1 http://www.section1.f2s.com And http://run.to/section1 (http://www.run.to/section1)
sendtosection1@hotmail.com

[cutefix]

I have seen an actual firing of an RPG-7(test firing).I still see a backblast from it.But maybe not as extensive as the Bazooka.There has been a documented SAS report about IRA terrorist firing an RPG inside a vehicle,that happened to carry a lot of explosives inside.I think the target was a British officer in another car.What happened was that the backblast ignited the explosives blowing the van and the terrorist inside,but it failed to hit the intended target.

[SMAG 12B/E5]

The "Bazooka", 2.75 in and later the 3.5 in rockets, are OK. The RPG-7 is excellent also. The Bazooka rockets must be designed to burn all propellent before leaving th launcher. I am not really sure that you really want to attempt the RPG-7. It is a complecated combination of recoiless and rocket munition.
You might want to try the RPG-2 or PANZERFAUST varaition. It is much simplier, more reliable and less costly.

[dmitrieff]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 10fingers:
[B]*

Rocket Propulsion

The United States 2.36 inch Bazooka M9A1 was perhaps the most famous early rocket launcher; it was the forerunner of the 3.5 inch rocket launcher M20 (sometimes called the “Super Bazooka”) which was used in Western Block armies. The launcher tube has two main purposes. It guides the projectile on to the correct line and it protects the firer. A rocket must all be burnt before it emerges from its tube (All Burnt On Launch = ABOL); its efflux will burn the firer if it is not. This necessitates long, often unwieldy tubes. To improve their portability, they have been hinged or separated into two parts which could the be interlocked for use.

When a rocket is launched, the rocket and its casing must be accelerated away in addition to the warhead. If a high muzzle velocity were demanded then the launcher would be very long and the rocket would be large and heavy. On the whole, as a consequence, rocket launchers tend to have a low muzzle velocity and a restricted effective range. In the case of the 3.5 inch Super Bazooka, the effective fighting range was some 110 m. Modern systems such as the British LAW 80 have improved on this; battle ranges for rocket launched LAW will probably be 300 to 400 meters in the future, using a two stage rocket.

Fortunately a rocket in an open-ended tube does not build up such high pressure as a recoilless weapon. Consequently there is no need for it to be strong and heavy. The resultant lightweight tube has given birth to one shot disposable launchers.

Recoilless Propulsion

Increased range can be achieved by the use of a recoilless launcher. In case of the recoilless principle the propellant provides its trust in one short blast as a normal gun. There is no danger for the firer from the efflux at the muzzle and only the mass of the warhead need be accelerated away. There is a gain, not only of range, but also because the launcher can be shorter. A 3.5 inch rocket launcher has a length of 1549 mm (front tube; 768mm and rear tube 803 mm) and the Swedish 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless launcher a length of 1130 mm.

The modern Carl Gustav M3 has a weight of 9 kg compared with the 5.5 kg of the rocket launcher. Its effective range is 400 meters or more and this has been extended to 700 m by the incorporation of small rocket motors, which give extra in-flight trust. However, at such ranges the sighting becomes complicated for a shoulder launched weapon and guidance becomes desirable.

Adoption of Propulsive Methods

The Russian RPG-7v is an interesting approach to decrease the weight (7kg) and length (990mm) of the launcher whilst retaining lethality and range (300 to 500 meters). The propellant, which is composed of two parts fits into the launcher. An initial charge launches the rocket clear (11 m) of the launcher and firer before a rocket ignites and provides the remainder of the trust. This design results in a light launcher whilst maintaining a large and lethal warhead. On the other hand the accuracy is suspect because the rocket may well ignite whilst the projectile is yawing and will then be driven off line.


I hope that the above is helpfull.

[EP]

Do modern Bazookas/RPGs use the All Burnt (propellant) On Lauch method? I read that Stinger SAMs have a compressed nitrogen charge that launches it from the tube and the main propellant then ignites a safe distance from the firer. Could this also be true for modern bazookas/rpgs? It seems this would make a lot of sense for improving range and accuracy.

[10fingers]

This is interesting! I have a book titled "The Poor Mans RPG", written by George Dmitrieff. Good book.

[dmitrieff]

Although it looked like the ABOL type rocket launchers, like the M20 3.5 inch Rocket Launcher and the M-72 66 mm LAW, were becoming obsolete and would be replaced by recoilless launchers (AT-4 / M136) or recoilless launchers with rocket assisted grenades, a new trend in rocket launchers seemed to have emerged over the last 10 to 15 years.

While most Western Block countries replaced the old M-72 66 mm LAW, partly due its relative ineffectiveness against modern armor, the Russian copy of this weapon, the RPG-18, saw extensive use in both Afghanistan and Cheznia in recent years.

Modern LAWS design makes use of a launcher tube, on the rear of which fits the projectile in its container: It doubles as a disposable extension to the launcher. The container takes majority of the force of the propellant. The main tube takes only a little of it and, although it is lightweight, can withstand up to a hundred launchings. This system has the advantage of a good propulsive trust combined with a light launcher.

The United States, and many of its NATO allies, not only prefer self-contained rockets, they specify it. The idea is to keep the rocket ammunition factory-fresh until the moment it leaves the tube. Damage to unpackeged rockets is a consideration, and there are times when Soviet RPG rockets are bent, dented, or otherwise made unusable by field carry. If a rocket is shipped to the battlefield and fired from its own sealed tube, the cost of the disposable tube are justified by its dual role.

Examples of these systems are the French 89-mm LRAC anti-tank rocket launcher and SEP DARD 120 close anti-armor weapon. But also the Israeli B-300 light ant-armor weapon and the United States 83 mm SMAW (Shoulder-launched Multi-purpose Assault Weapon) and the South African XXXX. (forgot the name http://theforum.virtualave.net/ubb/smilies/redface.gif)

The use of a disposable container does however not have to mean that the weapon uses the ABOL system. The SEP DARD uses a double-based cordite propellant charge to launch the projectile. A splitting breach block of compressed plastic flakes is ejected to the rear to balance the recoil forces. The manufacturer claims that the recoil is at a minimum with a noise level less than 180 dB.

The Belgium firm Mecar produced a rocket with a separate booster rocket for the 3.5 rocket launcher. This two-stage system, together with the improved warhead, enhanced the performance of the 3.5 inch Rocket Launcher close to the standard of modern rocket systems and gave the old 3.5 inch Rocket Launcher a much-needed new lease of life. Due to the new round the launcher can also be shorter The length of the Mecar RL-83 Blincide Launcher (a mechanically firing copy of the 3.5 inch M20) was reduced from 1700 mm to 1200 mm. However the 3.5 inch Rocket Launcher is now only used by some third world countries.

I’m not sure if the Stinger SAM uses a compressed nitrogen charge to launch it from its tube. The manufacturer only states that the system uses a solid propellant dual-trust rocket motor with a separate boost motor. It is however very likely that it does. Since the rocket is shot upwards the back of the relative long launcher (1524 mm) is close to the ground. A recoilless system or ABOL system needs room for the emerging high-speed gases to escape; the danger zone of a M72 66mm launcher is 8 to 25 meters. In Afghanistan the mudjahideen fighters would clime up trees and tie themselves to the tree in order to fire their RPG-7 at Russian helicopters. Modern Anti Tank Guided Weapons (ATGW) use gas generators to launch the guided missiles and I do not know if they are used in shoulder fired LAWS. I guess that these systems use a very low muzzle velocity since the guidance system will correct the line of fire.

The Poor Man’s RPG is one of the best books on the subject of improvised rocket launchers. (No relation to the author) I dislike the “ just stick a model rocket in a tube” solution as provided by people like Robert Wells in his book “ The Anarchist Handbook” They totally ignore the interesting design aspects of this kind of weapon.

Other good how-to-books are; Improvised Home-Build Recoilless Launchers by F. DeMarco, Bazooka; How to Build Your Own by Anthony Lewis, LAW & Disorder Rearming the 66mm Light Anti-Tank Weapon by Fred Brown and Improvised Rifle Grenades by Powder Burns. All published by Paladin Press before the Hit Man case censorship.

I would be very interested to learn of other good titles on this subject or if anyone has a good idea for building an improvised version of the RPG-7v.

[BoB-]

If the homemade rocket were ignited after it left the barell, then this would add complexity, and therefore there would be an increased chance of failure.

Estes rocket motors lack the thrust nessacary for horizontal takeoff, if they are ignited inside an enclosed barell however, there is a pressure buildup that launches the rocket like a bullet.

A pictures worth a thousand words...
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/m1.jpg
The homemade rocket tube should obviously be DOM, or other seamless pipe if using steel, Aluminum would be much cheaper, and is seamless, PVC/ABS would maybe work for one shot, they're certainly cheaper than metal, but using it more than once is asking for trouble, I personally wouldnt risk using plastics.

Notice the electrical connections on the bottom of the rocket? This system is simple and could be improvised easilly, the battery pack/safety/fire switch-circuit could have a female electrical connector, and all the rockets could have Male electrical connectors, this would make loading alot simpler, and faster.

As already mentioned, the backblast from the exiting rocket had a tendency to melt off the shooters face.
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/m1a1.jpg
"...However the protective mesh wire did not prove very useful and therefore was rarely used by the troops. Instead, a solid metal funnel at the muzzle was to reduce the backblast."

This safety feature could be improvised by using a square sheet of heat-resistant plexi-glass (so you can still sight), or in a pinch, a metal funnel could be welded or strongly secured to the muzzle.

The M1, and M1A1 bazooka both use no breeches, or hatches, the rocket is simply loaded into the back of the weapon and fired, as mentioned before, Estes rocket motors are not capable of this, a hatch, or breech is needed for a pressure buildup, this breech could be a simple solid (metal!) rod that is secured with a removable bolt, like on this page:
http://www.geocities.com/spudguns_uk/drainpipe_cannon.htm

DO NOT attempt anyhing mentioned in this post! it is submitted for entertainment, and discussion purposes only! serious injury could result!



[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited August 18, 2001).]

[10fingers]

The reason I started this topic a while back was to discuss which type of shoulder fired rocket would be the easiest to improvise.
The device that I would like to build would have good range and accuracy, be relatively easy to build with commonly available materials. It would be used for battle reenactments and would not have an explosive warhead.
In the book "poor mans rpg" it does not give details on what type of propellant is used in the RPG. The bazooka uses a modified double based propellant. My guess is that the rpg propellant would be easier to fabricate than the bazooka propellant. In the bazooka where all the propellant burns very rapidly I would think that the composition is very critical. Also the dimensions for the rocket motor would need to be exact. An error in this area may cause the rocket motor to explode.
In the RPG where the propellant burn rate is much slower I think it would be a little more forgiving. There are probably several propellant formulas that could be used in this system. The downside is that the RPG uses a two stage system, ejection followed by the propulsion stage. The entire rocket seems to require more parts and is inherently less accurate than the bazooka.
A driveshaft from a vehicle may work for the launch tube of a bazooka system. I found one that is made of aluminum alloy, is 3 inches in diameter, it is quite strong and light.

[dmitrieff]

I guess that for a reenactment type of launcher the below-described method is worth considering.

I have read that the Estes D-12-0 model rocket engine can be modified by carefully drilling a hole through the propellant of the engine centrally from the nozzle opening to the other end with a 1/8 inch-diameter drill bit. This will give the engine a higher initial trust. (Note: do not use high-speed electrical drill!)

A number of these rocket engines can be glued together by removing the clay nozzle and cut them down so only the cardboard container with the propellant is left and then glue them together with wood-glue. If some of the paper of the cardboard casing is removed four or five of these engines can be stuck into a lightweight 1-inch plastic pipe. This seems quite an easy way to build a simple but powerful engine for lightweight rockets. The maximum lifting weight of a D-12-0 seems to be around 400 gram and I’m not sure if this method will increase the lifting power dramatically.

The two –stage problem could be solved by using the delay pellet of an emergency flare as shot from blank-firing pistols. These flares tend to be activated after aprox. 10m of flight. A commercially manufactured delay pellet seems the way to go because of safety concerns and shot by shot accuracy. A plug with the delay pellet can be inserted into the nozzle of the rocket engine and as soon as the rocket engine fires the plug will be pushed out of the nozzle. The plug would also protect the rocket and the rocket engine from the explosion of the propellant in the launcher. I’m not sure if it will be dangerous for the firer if the plug is shot backwards by the rocket motor. Probably depends on the weight and design of the plug.

DO NOT attempt anyhing mentioned in this post! it is submitted for entertainment, and discussion purposes only! serious injury could result!

[BoB-]

Estes info.


http://www.estesrockets.com/rocketry101/impulse.gif

http://www.estesrockets.com/rocketry101/howhigh.gif

Color code: Provides at a glance the specific application of the engine:

"Green – Single Stage
Purple – Upper Stage (on Multi-Staged Rockets)
Red – Booster Stage
Black – Plugged for special applications"

http://www.estesrockets.com/rocketry101/enginefacts.cfm
If for some reason you cant see the pics, I swiped them from this page.




[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited August 19, 2001).]

[Victim]

I can post some picture's of the Law90 Bazooka and the RPG 7 if anyone wants me too, also does anyone have any information on the RPG 22?
Remember a while ago when the MI6 got attacked by the supposed Real IRA, well at first the people investigating, thought that the attack was done with a RPG 22, but later found it out to be a 66mm "one shot pot" anti tank rocket. Well, getting to the point, does anyone have any picture's, spec's, or anything on the RPG 22, coz I can't find any decent information.

------------------
"Death, The End Of Hope, The Friend Of The Friendless..."

[dmitrieff]

RPG-22
A scaled-up version of the RPG-18, the RPG-22 has improved performance and was introduced in 1985. It is the current issue disposable Russian LAW. Usually issued one per squad. The RPG-22 has an 8-yard backblast (4d6 flame damage).

The RPG-22 is a short-range, tube-launched, disposable, infantry antitank rocket launcher, similar to the US LAW system. The lightweight, collapsible launch tube consists of two parts: the outer tube made of fiberglass and a sliding inner tube made of aluminum. The inner tube extends 10 centimeters to the front of the outer tube in firing position.

It fires a 73-mm fin-stabilized rocket with an effective range of 250 meters and a HEAT warhead capable of penetrating approximately 390 millimeters of armor. The trigger and the pop-up rear peep sight are in the middle of the extended tube. The pop-up front sight is at the forward end of the outer tube. The front sight is calibrated for ranges of 50, 150, and 250 meters.

[SawedOff8gaugeman]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dmitrieff:
RPG-22
A scaled-up version of the RPG-18, the RPG-22 has improved performance and was introduced in 1985. It is the current issue disposable Russian LAW. Usually issued one per squad. The RPG-22 has an 8-yard backblast (4d6 flame damage).

The RPG-22 is a short-range, tube-launched, disposable, infantry antitank rocket launcher, similar to the US LAW system. The lightweight, collapsible launch tube consists of two parts: the outer tube made of fiberglass and a sliding inner tube made of aluminum. The inner tube extends 10 centimeters to the front of the outer tube in firing position.

It fires a 73-mm fin-stabilized rocket with an effective range of 250 meters and a HEAT warhead capable of penetrating approximately 390 millimeters of armor. The trigger and the pop-up rear peep sight are in the middle of the extended tube. The pop-up front sight is at the forward end of the outer tube. The front sight is calibrated for ranges of 50, 150, and 250 meters. </font>

Ripped from some RPG(well, ...) rules?? Yep:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dmitrieff:
(4d6 flame damage)</font>

ROFLOL!!! http://theforum.virtualave.net/ubb/smilies/biggrin.gif

[nbk2000]

There is an RPG 26 (or 27) that's the russkie equivilant of the US LAWW.

Speaking of RPG, I found a video clip of one blowing up a stack of 55 gallon drums.

Go to http://www.rbs.ru/exhibition/UralExpoArms/2000/video/rpg.mpg

------------------
"The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

Go here (http://members.nbci.com/angelo_444/dload.html) to download the NBK2000 website PDF.

Go here (http://briefcase.yahoo.com/nbk2k) to download the NBK2000 videos.

[EP]

I have made a rocket launcher with Estes D engines. I have only tested it once, but here is what I used and have learned. The tube is a 5 foot lenght of ABS pipe with an electrical ignition system and a metal lid taped over the back end. The rocket was just a simple tube w/nosecone and the fins were made of cut playing cards and bent to make the rocket spiral. I did not put a payload in as it was the first test. When I launched it, I wore a full face sheild, but was surprised at how little smoke/flame/whatever was shot back, the tube took the worst of it before it shot out. Im not sure how far it went, but it went a good distance and fairly straight also, probably in part because of the spin. The tube had surprisingly little damage, but the wires to the igniter were a bit fried.