Talk:Rocket-propelled grenade

Effectiveness

It says that theRPG is innefective against armour but on BBC news a damaged M1 abrams was shown. It had been hit by an rpg-7 and had a large hole in it

Distribution and cost

Anyone have data on distribution and/or typical costs. I think this info would give a good window into the users and what they might use it for. I'm thinking about 3rd world vs. 1st world combatants..... Dobbs 00:18 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

Launching

All RPG's DO use pressure to launch the round, just not high pressure. So I guess I'll re-write the part about being similar to a rifle to avoid confusion. The fact is, the front part of the warhead IS sealed in the front of the launcher. The rocket activates and pressurizes the warhead in the tube. This overpressure (both within the tube, and to the rear - the much higher temp of the exhaust gas provides a pressure differential to the rear as well), helps to push the rocket from the tube. Because of this overpressure - and resulting spurt of high speed not possible with such a short burn by the action of the rocket motors impulse alone - the rocket does not have to contiune burning past the forward lip of the launcher in order to gain enough speed to be stable at exit. This keeps the rocket from burning the user. Sorry for the confusion! Dobbs 16:01 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

I've edited the tactics section for South Africa to note that APCs drove in ever WIDENING circles, not narrowing, in order to defeat APC teams. So sayeth this well cited article we already link as a resource. Alereon 11:36, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Name

StonewallJack 8/16/05

I have updated the description for the acronym RPG-7. The mistaken translation of "Rocket Propelled Grenade" is VERY prevalent, even amongst soldiers. I removed references to the U.S. LAW as an RPG as this is not an English acronym to begin with and it is not used in any other context other than referring to the Russian RPG and those copied, or built under license. I can't speak for all western militaries, but the U.S. and I'm assuming U.K. (same language, almost:) do not use the acronym RPG when referring to their own weapons of similar design. The word grenade has a different usage in the American military lexicon then in other countries. As an example, in German, a anti-tank round is called panzer granate and mortars are granatenwerfer (grenade launcher), where in the English it’s a "mortar" firing "rounds". Although the English dictionary definition for grenade fits the general meaning, the word grenade is exclusively used to describe hand throw explosives, or launched, unguided explosives of equivalent tactical use. This would not include an anti-tank weapon, which is referred to as "rocket" or "missile". The word missile is more or less the English equivalent for other languages usage of the word grenade. Enough semantics. I also changed the description of the tandem warhead. The purpose of the tandem warhead is to detonate reactive armor prior to impact, making it waste its energy prior to the primary warheads impact. It has nothing to do with composite armor as this works under a different principle. In laymen’s terms its spreads the highly directed energy of the shaped charge and diffuses it over a wider area. This is discussed briefly in the Army Times if anyone wants to look it up (I don't remember the link now, but will add later). Lastly, The tactical usage was far too simplistic. The most important aspect in the tactical usage and countering of any platform, weapon, unit etc., is the terrain it is being used in. One cannot simply say, "Well equipped armies do this". Long ranged weapons are not an effective solution in restrictive terrain. Also, the rules of engagement of any given combatant can also largely affect the tactical options available. Read Patton's recommended tactics on urban warfare, in his book "War As I Knew It" and think if this would be politically appropriate in Iraq.

I was a Non-Commissioned Officer and gunner in M1A1 MBT's for five years ending about a year ago. I don't speak Russian but an Army friend who was Military Intelligence, specialized as a Russian linguist, did the translation. I was also trained in the correct translation of RPG anyway as well as most of the information added/changed. For these reasons, I cannot be more specific with tactics or on their application in Iraq. My changes are more consistent with the general tactical employment of the RPG and it's relative counters; at least enough for the casual reader coming here for a general description of the RPG.

StonewallJack 8/16/05

"where in the English it’s a "mortar" firing "rounds"

Yeah but the british army are very pedantic like that, e.g if soldiers call thier rifle a "gun" you will get a bollocking because according to the army a gun is defined as having a caliber of over 100mm or something like that.

86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Title?

If Rocket Propelled Grenade isn't the correct name for this, why is the article still there? If we're to stand by our words it seems we should move this to RPG, right? --Dvyost 06:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the issue a bit more in the introduction to both explain slightly better why it is an issue and why it still is a good term to use for this class of weapons (widespread layperson's term, if technically incorrect.)--Martin Wisse 20:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Then make a redirect. Call it RPG (weapon)

I agree. MMad 08:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We should get rid of the incorrect title (as the "primary" name of this page). Hiilidioksidi (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of "correct" or "incorrect". (We're not going to correct the name of Holy Roman Empire to be Schismatic German Association, even though that's far more accurate.) To move this page to RPG would require sources showing that term outweighing the current longer one. I think it would also take sources showing that all other uses of RPG (see DAB at RPG) are less significant than this use, or we risk confusing our readers, which trumps all other issues. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

handheld antitank grenade-launcher

Shouldn't this Page be turned into "handheld antitank grenade-launcher" or RPG (weapon/gun/something)? RPG does not stand for rocket propelled grenade.

Incorrect weapon name

A grenade is a type of time-bomb, so an RPG should just be called a missile, because the bomb explodes upon impact.

RPG

I cleaned up the initial description a little. The term Rocket Propelled Grenade is "never" correct. It's like saying APC stands for "Army People Car". As a former soldier this is a pet peeve of mine. I can't speak for all militaries that use the English language, but this does not follow U.S. military naming convention. Everything follows the standardized naming convention of 1) What it is, and 2) What it does. The correct Russian translation follows this convention, I.e.. Handheld (you can carry it, its not vehicle mounted or crew served), Anti-tank (what it is for), Grenade Launcher (what it is). This tells everyone that it is A) A weapon system. (Not a piece of ammo, like a rocket, but the launcher etc.) B)It's for killing tanks and tank like targets. C) What it does(Grenade, in English, without anything more descriptive, would indicate a weapon designed for antipersonnel). Rocket Propelled Grenade does not have any meaning. It does not describe this weapon at all. It sounds like it is describing a piece of ammunition for another weapon system, like a Rifle Grenade or something similar. Think of it like calling a tank (MBT) a Self-propelled Gun (SPG). You could say that this is technically correct, however anyone who knows anything about modern warfare, knows there is a HUGE difference between the two. This is such a common mistake, I see it in the news all the time. Please don't perpetuate it here. It's almost as bad as calling anything with tracks a tank (as a former tanker, I hate this one with a passion, as do (should) all tankers). I have edited this article before (StonewallJack. Changed email, lost password), but it has been changed again. This article needs to be renamed, but I don't have the privileges necessary right now. If someone else wants to do it until I can, please do so.

Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata ("Hand Anti-Tank Grenade")

Not all RPG's use the pressure of an expelling or propelling charge to propel the High-Explosive, Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead to the target. The World War II Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata ("R=Hand, P=Anti-Tank, G=Grenade") Model 43 or RPG-43 (External link here) and RPG-6 are two hand thrown grenades with HEAT heads. They are thrown, by hand, high into the air over a target and deploy streamers to orient the head of the grenade downward so that the shaped charge of the HEAT warhead strikes the, normally thinner armor, top of an armored vehicle. They work well in a MOUT setting when vehicles are moving on the streets and soldiers are throwing these hand grenades from the windows or the roof tops of buildings. Also there is not always a rocket motor involved with the more common RPG's seen on television news casts or in the movies. The PG-2 has no rocket motor whatsoever. Only the propelling charge, connected just behind the fins, drives the projectile to the target. The PG-7 does in fact have a rocket motor however it does not ignite when the trigger of the launcher is pulled. This would injure the firer. When the launchers trigger is pulled the expelling charge is ignited, the round leaves the tube, and then, only after it is a safe distance from the firer, the rocket motor ignites and propels the round to the target. The PG-2 and PG-7 only become RPG-2 or RPG-7 when the round is loaded in the "hand held" launcher.

The Russian designation for hand thrown HEAT grenades is now identified as Ruchnaya Kumulyativnaya Granata (R=Hand, K=Shaped Charge, G=Grenade). See the RKG-3. The "P" has been changed to "K" but the use and results are the same.

Addtitional information.--Eod1sg 01:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hand held, anti tank, grenade launcher 99.255.140.103 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Name and Scope

Thi article really needs sorting out. Firstly - as mentioned above - there is no such thing as a Rocket-propelled grenade, it exists only as a misconception.

Secondly the scope of the article seems continually confused. I feel that an article covering the RPG-series of weapons is noteworthy, and would be useful - but it should only cover RPGs, and not other similar weapons or generic information on those; the article Shoulder-launched missile weapon should be the one to cover these topics.

So I think the best course of action is:

Rename this article as RPG (weapon) Move any information that does not concern RPGs to shoulder-launched missile weapon Move most of the information about employment - generic information should probably belong in the above article, information relating to specific weapons should go in the article for the respective weapon Redirect Rocket-propelled grenade either to RPG (weapon) or to shoulder-launched missile weapon, I'm not sure which is most appropriate. Jellyfish dave (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Title is doubly incorrect

Even if it was translated as a grenade propelled by a rocket (which is apparently incorrect), one should still add a hyphen: "Rocket-propelled grenade" 169.237.6.178 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources

I came across this discussion when looking for information on a different RPG. It is interesting; I'm not a military guy, and never heard this before. As a Wikipedian, I would advise citing a reliable source. While it does have the ring of truth, individual statements and suppositions are not acceptable here. In particular, given that all but one of the existing sources in the "External Links" section use the term Rocket Propelled Grenade, and the other one simply gives the Russian expansion without contrdicting the English expansion, the introduction appears to contradict the article's existing sources. That's no good. --DragonHawk 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Effective tactic?

The "Tactics" section contains the following as the last paragraph:

In Iraq, U.S. anti-insurgent operations developed another effective tactic. In misty, dusty or night-time situations, advanced optics, such as infrared telescopes, permit helicopter gunships to surveil convoys from beyond human-visible range, and still attack insurgents with inexpensive anti-personnel fire. This approach is more economical than area-denial. Protecting as little as 20% of the convoys rapidly depletes an area of active insurgents.

There are a lot of absolutes in there that at best sound like estimates, if not propaganda. Moreover, terms like "depleting an area of active insurgents" are not neutral encyclopedic style, but rather euphemisms. Given that the Iraq "insurgency" shows no significant cool down, is there any evidence that the paragraph is more than propaganda and wish-fulfillment? --Stephan Schulz 12:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. This article was the first edit I've done and I didn't want to change everything. I personally thought most of the entries under tactics a little questionable.

StonewallJack 8/16/05

• The tactics section is indeed filled to some extent with trivial info that goes beyond RPG/light AT-warfare. Should be cleaned up. Scoo 11:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, also. The "Tactics" section should probably look something like this:

• Intended employment of RPGs as light antitank weapons, including ambush tactics
• Usefulness for antipersonnel and bunker-busting
• Adoption by guerillas and insurgents
• Notable information about tactics in particular wars: Israeli wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq

The extensive discussion of anti-insurgent warfare in Iraq should be pared down—perhaps it can be moved to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005#Iraqi insurgency, or one of the referred sub-articles there, and this article can refer to that. —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 16:58 Z

Last anonymous edit

I'ver taken out the text of the last anonymous edit and moved it here, as it did not fit the text at that point. I'm not knowledgable enough to see if the point made is correct, so could somebody who is please take a look at this? --Martin Wisse 20:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[EDIT: this explanation is quite incorrect. What you've described here is a recoilless rifle. With early anti-tank rocket systems, like the Bazooka or Panzerschreck, the rocket is burning as it leaves the tube, and the user often needs a shield or facemask and hood to avoid being burned. Modern systems usually have a small initial charge to blow the rocket out of the tube, and the main engine only ignites once it is a safe distance downrange. See RPG-7.]

реактивный противотанковый гранатомёт

I've changed the incorrect term: "Ручной противотанковый гранатомёт, Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot" to the correct one: Reaktivniy Protivotankniy Granatomyot (реактивный противотанковый гранатомёт), "rocket anti-tank launcher". I will change the other RPG sites as I have time. For those who would doubt this I include a link to a Russian language site that uses th correct term: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl02-r.htm. I'm not sure where the term "Ручной" or Hand(-held)(the "-held" aspect of the term is implied in Russian) came from, however, a quick review of the Russian RPG Wiki sites show them to also be inaccurate and with several different variations on the meaning of РПГ. I suspect "Ручной" has been transfered from term RPK/РПК "Ручной пулемёт Калашникова" which translated from Russian is "Hand(-held) machinegun of/by Kalashnikov". Nathan Arnold 25 APR 2007

Thanks for your help. I further corrected your translation. Recall: гранатомёт is grenade launcher, not just launcher (e.g. пулемёт - bullet launcher - machine gun, огнемёт - flame launcher - flame thrower)

when was the first one made

i come to find this and its not included 1939 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.196.101 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Myth that is not mentioned

Surprisingly, nobody has pointed out that rocket launchers have NO effect on weather, and about 40% of the public actually believes they do. Is this article assuming that anyone that believes this is completely moronic?

It probably assumes that they've never heard of it... Unless either someone asks or edits are made suggesting they do affect the weather, it's better not to mention it at all. Don't correct something that isn't wrong yet. Leushenko (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

British Challenger 2's did not use ERA in Iraq

The part where it says a rpg-29 penetrated th ERA of a british Challenger 2 is wrong. Challengers did not use ERA in Iraq. Ive never heard of them having ERA although it would not be hard to make some for it. Like the M1A2 with the TUSK package ERA is not difficult to produce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaja6009 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the source: The Challenger 2 is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world and those used in Iraq by the British Army are built with Dorchester armour, the composition of which is top secret. The tank is also fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull. The MoD has finally confirmed that the tank's armour was breached last August and has said that an investigation was conducted to discover why the ERA appears to have failed. However, the department refused to comment on its findings, citing security reasons.

In the August attack, which occurred during an operation to arrest a leading insurgent in the town of al-Amarah, in southern Iraq, the Challenger was damaged when a Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade, known as an RPG-29, defeated the ERA and penetrated the driver's cabin. --Sus scrofa 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard most tanks had the ERA removed so troops could follow them in cramped urban conditions without as much risk to themselves.86.16.153.191 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern battle tanks

It currently says that most modern tanks are "largely immune" to fire from anti-tank weapons. This seems wrong. Even the most advanced vehicles run on tracks, and all tracks are vulnerable (I know that sometimes tracks come undone in simple day-to-day exploitation). When a tank is hit in the track it is a mobility kill. I think the sentence should be removed or somehow changed.209.181.58.51 (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about what RPG "IS"

First the letters RPG, PG, & OG are really РПГ, ПГ, and ОГ respectively. They are acronyms for the words: РУЧНОЫ ПРОТИВОТАНКОВЫ ГРАНАТ or ГРАНАТОМЕТ (Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot). The word РУЧНОЫ translates to, Hand or Manual depending upon usage. The word ПРОТИВОТАНКОВЫ translates into Antimechanized which in the USA we would say Anti-tank. The word ГРАНАТ means fired; ГРАНАТОМЕТ translates into launched, projected or fired by shoulder depending on the translation source.

РПГ would then mean Hand Fired (or utilized) Antitank, ПГ Shoulder Fired Antitank.

The Soviet Character "O" when used on ordnance does mean High Explosive. So ОГ would translate to Shoulder launched High Explosive.

I think there is some confusion about what RPG "IS" The RPG-2 and RPG-7 are launchers. The PG-2(Chinese Type-56), PG-7 and OG-7 are the ammunition for their respective launcher. PG indicates anti-tank (HEAT) and OG indicates HE (fragmentation). So the RPG-7 is capable of firing the PG-7* and OG-7*. The PG-7* does have a rocket motor that ignites after it clears the launcher. The PG-2 and OG-7* do not have a rocket motor and are propelled solely by the expulsion charge within the launcher. There is an RPG equivalent to the U.S. M72 LAW, in the RPG-16 (which fires the PG-16 rocket) There are RPGs that are in fact hand grenades The PRG 43 is one example. I think this is where some of the confusion comes from. The RPG 43 is an anti-tank hand grenade however the base of the acronym RPG in this case are slightly different Russian words (Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata). The Term RKG is used on current Hand anti-tank grenades as the post above implies (as in the RKG-3)

Therefore:

RPG-2 = Hand anti-tank launcher/weapon PG-2 = Anti-tank projectile

RPG-7 = Hand anti-tank launcher/weapon PG-7 = Anti-tank rocket OG-7 = High explosive Projectile

RPG-43 = Hand Grenade anti-tank RKG-3 = Hand Grenade anti-tank RETEODSFC (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know the Russian language better and some little wrong things you said should be corrected. "Граната" in Russian means "Grenade", presumably the hand-held variety or the ammunition for its launcher. "Гранатомет" means "Grenade launcher," from the noun for grenade and the (sort of archaic) verb метать which means to throw. Literally, Grenade-thrower. So "граната" and "гранатомет" aren't interchangeable.

Also, while with some weapons the R (cyrillic Р) stands for "Ручной" or "Hand-held" (RPK), in this case "Реактивный," or "Jet-propelled / Jet-driven" (literally, "Reactive"), makes more sense.

The O (cyr. О) probably stands for "Осколочный," meaning "Fragmentary" in English. "High-exlposive" is called "Фугасный" in Russian. The P (cyr. П) in "PG" is "Противотанковый," "Anti-tank" like you said, but that means cumulative or shaped charge.

Anyway, I just think the way it's stated in the article is sufficient and doesn't require any super-confusing "clarification." :) This is a nice web-site if you want to find definitions of words from English to Russian, vice versa: http://www.multitran.ru/

Very handy tool. 70.59.150.74 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for the correction.

I incorrectly stated "O" as a marking on russian ammunition indicated Fragmentation.

Oф Is normally used on gun or cannon ammunition to indicate ordnance inteneded to produce fragmentation.

However when an RPG or other recoiless gun/rifle is used to fire the ammunition they are simply labeled as "ОГ" which would indicate a primary filler of High Explosives.

The rough translation in how ordnance is marked would be:

O = high explosive > U.S. ammunition would be marked "HE" (high Explosive)

Oф = High Explosive Fragmentation > U.S. ammunition would be labeled "APERS" or "HE"

My main intent however, was to say that an RPG was in fact the launcher and the PG or OG is the amminition used in the launcher, That they all do not have rocket motors, and the fact that not all are anti-tank as in the OG.

I am sorry if I caused any confusion.

I do not speak russian but I teach Ordnance Identification and understand what the markings mean and how they are applied. It may be incorrect but my books say Граната can translate to grenade or projectile/shell, Ракета is rocket and Ракетњій is a rocket warhead or "rocket projectile" is this incorrect?

RETEODSFC (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian transliteration note removed from lead - uncited

I removed this from line 2 of the article: RPG is a transliteration of РПГ, the Russian abbreviation of Reaktivnyy/Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot (реактивный/ручной противотанковый гранатомёт), "jet/hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher".

RPG stands for Rocket-Propelled Grenade. If you can prove me wrong with a reliable, citable WP:SOURCE that states that the RPG acronym actually comes from Russian, then please add the information back, but you must include an inline citation. Tempshill (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that "Rocket-Propelled Grenade" is a backronym (indeed, checking backronym, its even listed as an example of a false acronym). The Rusian RPG-2 and RPG-7 were extremely widely used and deployed, and thus the name became generalized. However, not all weapons generally called RPG's actually use a rockets, some use other recoilless propulsion systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

This article contradicts itself. The opening paragraph disagrees with the article itself. It says modern tanks are not vulnerable to rpg's. Yet in the article it states how rpg's can cause mobility kills. The article is missing 2 instances of modern tanks being penetrated by rpg-29's In 2004 a m1a2 abrams was penetrated by a "mystery" projectile that entered through the side and embedded in the oppisite wall. No casualties but still a penetration. I read in the edit section of a 2nd incident where a Challeger 2 had a rpg-29 go through ERA and the super tough frontal arc composite armor. This should be listed. The article states how hezbollah used rpg-29's and other atgms to take out 50 tanks. SO how can it be that modern tanks are not vulnerable. In the Chechnya section it fails to mention that up to 80 t-80 tanks were damaged by rpg team. The t-80 is a modern tank(although the armor under the era is weaker than western tanks and the t-90) it is still a modernt tank entering service around the time of the m1. My biggest probelm is that the opening paragraph contradicts what you read in the article regardless of my opinion. A better sentence would be modern tanks are only vulnerable to penetration from newer rpg's like the rpg-29 while older models can cause mobility kills and damage other systems on the tank. Tell the russians in chechnya that rpgs are no worry for tanks and he will laugh in your face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.198.79 (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon section: Israeli tank tangent

I removed the following para from the Lebanon section as none of it seems to be actually about RPGs. Ashmoo (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Two tanks were completely destroyed by powerful improvised explosive devices, although one was equipped with underside armour, which limited its casualties to 1 of the 7 soldiers inside. The Israeli military said that it was satisfied with the tank's performance, and linked problems to lack of proper training prior to the war.

References

contributing

Hey, im pretty new here, is it ok if I put down the countries that use the RPG? and if so, can I put down conflicts where it has been used? Bhatti53534 (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

couple things

• This article is using the russian translation of a handheld rocket launcher as it's justification for existing. This would be like having an article on "Machinegewehr" and then saying the same thing that's already in machine gun. Also, using the definition established in the first sentence of the article, wouldn't the bazooka be an RPG too?
• The article even admits itself "Rocket-propelled grenade" is a backronym. The only way I can see keeping this article is if an RPG was really a launcher that fired grenades that were rocket propelled. --Phil1988 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2009(UTC)

Actually, what you're suggesting would be like moving assault rifle to "Sturmgewehr," pointing out the correct translation is "storm rifle" and berating people in the opening paragraph for calling anything but the StG series of weapons an assault rifle even though that doesn't match the modern usage of the term. Meanings change, it's one of the perils of speaking a living language. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Some corrections needed

The RPG is NOT a weapon, it is an ammuntion type that rocket launchers fire.

No it isn't, the RPG is the weapons system for which there is ammunition with different warheads that can be fired. 99.255.140.103 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a weapon. You might have a point if rocket-propelled grenade were actually the correct translation. The original Russian, as shown in the article, explicitly terms the RPG a 'launcher'. TaintedMustard (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Focus

This article needs streamlining - it would seem appropriate to have an article about the Soviet/Russian weapon 'family' on wikipedia (although as discussed above the title should probably be RPG (Weapon) and not Rocket-propelled Grenade), but the information about other weapons would appear to be more suited to the Shoulder-launched missile weapon or ATGW articles. Jellyfish dave (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rocket=propelled grenade is a backronym

RPG stands for something like shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket in russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.159.220 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What RPG stands for

OK guys. I see you have a little confusion with abbreviation RPG. RPG stands for 3 different kinds of weapons, although all of them are designed to destroy tanks and other armored vehicles.

• 1.) For hand grenades RPG-40, RPG-41, RPG-43 and RPG-6, it means Ручная Противотанковая Граната - Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata - Hand Anti-tank Grenade.

http://mirknig.com/uploads/posts/2010-12/1291806168_0.jpg

• 2.) For reloadable launchers RPG-2, RPG-7, RPG-16 and RPG-29 in means Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт - Ruchnoy Protivotankovyi Granatomyot - Hand Anti-tank grenade Launcher.

http://img11.nnm.ru/b/9/5/a/c/aca5d78da672aa7d9b6e2699586.jpg

http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/004998/4998131.jpg

http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/005232/5232034.jpg

• 3) For one-shot disposable launchers RPG-18, RPG-22, RPG-26 and RPG-27 it means Реактивная Противотанковая Граната - Reaktivnaya Protivotankovaya Granata - Jet[engine] Anti-tank Grenade.

http://mirknig.com/uploads/posts/2011-12/thumbs/1323940335_rukovodstvo-po-reaktivnoy-protivotankovoy-granate-rpg-18.-1986.jpg

http://mirknig.com/uploads/posts/2010-08/thumbs/1281966994_a1.jpg

Историк2010 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know if there's any proof aside from "everyone says so" that the claimed Russian root of the term "RPG" is actually accurate. I recall reading a WW2-era popular sciece magazine, written before the RPG-7 even existed, which referred to bazooka rounds as both "rocket grenades" and "propelled hollow charges." While it would be OR to include that, it does suggest that the term RPG as rocket-propelled grenade may not be a backronym at all. Not that it matters, since it's what it means now that counts. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Found it. 1945, before even the RPG-2. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I don't understand your question. The official names for Russian grenades and launchers are exactly as I said. In all manuals and military textbooks it was named like this, and I gave links to proof it. If Bazooka on some stage was called "Rocket grenade" or "Rocked-propelled grenade", it is interesting, but we didn't use this words in Russian to decipher RPG. And plus, Bazooka as well as RPGs is NOT Rocket, but Jet propelled engine! --Историк2010 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you asking about who and when used the term "RPG" for the first time, the earliest weapon that I know is RPG-40, which appeared in Soviet Army in 1940 (officially adopted into service in 1941). --Историк2010 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying it's correct in Russian, I just find it questionable whether the widespread belief that RPG is derived from the Russian term is actually correct or can be sourced reliably. You constantly have people like the recent IP user who insist that RPG = Rocket Propelled Grenade is incorrect on the basis it's a backronym (as if that somehow renders common usage by military and defence industry sources and the like moot; even if it is a backronym it's as valid, as, say, the use of "flak" to describe fire from anti-aircraft guns even though it's an initialism that originally referred to the guns themselves) but I've never seen a decently researched article that actually describes how anyone knows that's where it came from. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list I found elsewhere of people who are "incorrectly" using the term RPG:

• Dictionaries say RPG is a term. Here's Merriam-Webster, Oxford English, and Thefreedictionary.com quoting Collins.

• Manufacturers use it. Here's the term on Israel Military Industries' site, here's a search for the term on Raytheon's, Rhinemetall and Boeing.

• Respectable publications use the term. Here's Defense-update, Jane's, Globalsecurity, the Army Times and FAS.

• Government agencies use it. Here's the US Department of Defense, British Ministry of Defence, PRC Ministry of Defence and the Bundeswehr (using the English abbreviation in German, no less).

• Airtronic USA actually manufacture the RPG-7 and advertise it as "RPG-7 (USA) 40mm rocket propelled grenade launcher" on their site.

It should be pretty clear from this that RPG does stand for "Rocket Propelled Grenade" in modern English, regardless of what it used to stand for. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Of cause in modern English "RPG" means "Rocket Propelled Grenade"! I don't think that anybody can disagree with this. From technical point of view it is incorrect, because none of these weapons have rocket engine - they powered by jet-engines, however language is not always scientifically perfect, so they are called Rocket Propelled Grenades. Историк2010 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And may be you right that English term "RPG" is not a backronym from the name of Russian weapon, but has it's own origin. Unfortunately I am not competent enough to say anything about this. You should find English-speaking military historian :) Историк2010 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that RPG is used as a acronym (initialism) for Rocket Propelled Grenade now, but if the original use of RPG stood for something else, that is the very definition of it being a backronym. We have sources that say RPG is a backronym. Finding early uses of the phrase "rocket propelled grenade" does not show that it led to the current common use of "RPG". Assuming it did is WP:SYNTH. We can only use sources that include both "RPG" and it's meaning.

Of course, the sources for backronym can be wrong. Maybe they all come from the same incorrectly used primary source. Maybe it was even Wikipedia itself; it's happened before. If you think some mistake has been made, it comes down to a battle of WP:RS, as it always does. If the battle is inconclusive, then we give both side's information and leave any decision needed to the reader.

Wikipedia doesn't exist to correct information, but to replicate it conveniently. That empowers our readers, and makes it a greater asset than any of the numerous self-proclaimed sources of "truth". --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is the sources in question just flatly state it's a backronym without explaining how anyone knows this. I don't really think howstuffworks or about.com really qualify as RS for etymology anyway, and I'd be interested to see if there's any decent sources that list the first known appearance of the term. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't require respected sources justify their reasoning. It's nice if they do, but we don't require it. Yes, you can say that "it's just an opinion" in those cases, but we definitely include opinions from respected sources. If we didn't, almost all etymology would have to be thrown out, as initial word adoption is usually grass-roots and undocumented. Besides, assuming their opinions are wrong is also just an opinion. Experts' opinions are respected; our own opinions are not. To say RPG not a backronym requires a source stating so, and that source has to outweigh the others. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Since when are two high school level science and technology websites "respected sources" for word etymology? Herr Gruber (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The only thing you have to do is find better sources for its etymology. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't we need at least a good source to declare the etymology with any degree of certainty? It's kind of hard to justify the claim "this is known to be a backronym" if nobody can explain who knows that or how they know it. And when you're dealing with a military term it should be easy to find out, since you'd expect to find bulletins issued to troops regarding this new term RPG and what it means when people say it, which would allow you to establish what weapon it was first attached to, when and by whom. That would help in determining if the term actually comes from backronymed Russian or extension of terms which were already being used to describe bazooka rounds (propelled hollow charge and rocket grenade). Since nobody seems to have ever actually done this, I'm not sure if there's any real justification for including the etymology section at all. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Certainty" is not a requirement in an encyclopedia; "commonly accepted" is. It doesn't matter if I agree with your reasoning, because that would just be my opinion, and I'm just another editor. Sources are all that matters. Right now, what we have says "backronym". Find sources that support a different etymology, and that will quickly override any opinions discussed here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What part of "these are not good sources" are you having trouble with? Herr Gruber (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently, they are the only sources we have. If poor, it should be easy to get better ones. Please do so. Really, there is nothing else to do. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A poorly sourced section is not better than no section. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying the current sources are wrong requires new sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Having a section requires good sources as proof of the information within it. If the sources do not carry any meaningful authority in the field they are speaking in, they should not be there at all, and neither should the section itself. Dubious sources do not need good sources to remove them, they need to be removed by default. Herr Gruber (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Dubious" is your opinion. You'll need to back that up, and that will still take sources. According to your stated reasoning, I would think it would be far easier to find better sources for this etymology than to find sources that discredit the existing sources for all purposes. But finding either type of source is progress. Continuing this talk without new sources is not. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, dubious simply means high-school grade science and tech sites are not a valid source for statements about linguistic history, in spite of the false dilemma you're working with that a source is either an authority on everything or nothing. If the current sources are not adequate, the section must be removed until adequate ones are found to justify a claim of some kind, not retained until some hypothetical better source can be unearthed. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling the current sources "high school" or "dubious" or "not adequate", however often repeated, is still just an opinion. The more you keep repeating this with nothing to back it up, the more it sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Until alternative sources are found, there's nothing left to discuss. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not " just an opinion," it is the nature of these sources and their content. It is what they are. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm going to have to stop responding to your restated opinions. Nothing will change without new sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"That's just your opinion" is not the brilliant debating tactic you seem to think it is. Neither is demanding I prove a negative: if you believe either source is sufficient in terms of expertise, the onus is on you to demonstrate such, not on me to demonstrate that it is not so. The fact that you are unable to even discern basic information about a source such as what it's intended purpose and audience are does not give me much hope for that, though. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no debate here. There is only Wikipedia policy, which cannot be debated here -- only on the talk for the policy pages themselves. Here, we have are some sources for RPG as backronym. I completely understand that you don't agree with them, but that's not relevant to our policy, so there's nothing to debate about that; that's why I'm not responding to any statements made about how RPG can't be a backronym, or that the sources must be wrong. Instead, the only thing we can do change the article is find new sources that state RPG is not a backronym, or some new sources or some other kind of independent information (not name-calling) that show all of the current sources don't meet policy. I'm not debating what RPG stands for; stating my opinions on that would mean nothing. I'm only (repeatedly) pointing out Wikipedia policy, which we all must adhere to. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So your interpretation of policy is that all sources should be considered to be valid for all purposes if they are valid for any purposes, unless they can be proven not to be? That's not what the policy means at all. These sources are not adequate to make this claim; they do not contain the relevant information to justify it, nor do they claim sufficient expertise to be treated as proofs in their own right. If you dispute that, then you must prove they are adequate. You might want to refresh yourself on the policy WP: EXCEPTIONAL which applies in a case like these where we would reasonably expect a claim to be extensively verifiable yet can only find the kind of handwavy support normally associated with urban legends.

I am not stating I don't agree with the sources, I am stating they are not adequate to make a categorical claim that a particular etymology for a word is correct without presenting any evidence whatsoever to support it. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've restored this fact to the article: this is reverse Randy-ism (whereby a cited fact is being removed from an article because an editor decides he doesn't agree with it). It is beyond stupid to suggest that we're better off misleading our readers by omission (and thus implying that the completely unnatural term "rocket-propelled grenade" is an original English formation) than citing evidence that it's derived from the Russian abbreviation. In the worst case, we need a better citation for the claim that the English expansion of the term is a backronym. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For your final line, congratulations on saying exactly what I was saying the whole time. The rest is an admirable parroting of the strawman the other guy so meticulously constructed. I'm not really sure what you mean by it being "unnatural" since self-propelled gun and screw-propelled vehicle are both perfectly valid English-sourced terms, and it can be shown the rounds were being called "propelled hollow charges" and "rocket grenades" before the RPG-series launchers actually existed. I removed the section not because of my misgivings about what appears to be an unsupported folk etymology based on two terms having the same abbreviation, but because A D Munroe's attempt to defend the existing sources convinced me they were not at all adequate to hang a subsection titled "etymology" on. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I get that you're only interested in ensuring that we don't spread misinformation, but there are now multiple sources which state that the English term stems from the Russian initialism. I agree that this is incidental enough not to require a section to itself, but an explanatory sentence in the lead doesn't seem overblown. If in time we come across more authoritative sources then I'd be happy for those to be swapped in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional cites added (including a published military history). There's also this, which specifically says the English term came from the Russian abbreviation, but we don't need tens of references for this. Ideally we'd have references first published before 2001 or so, to completely rule out that everybody in the world got this idea from Wikipedia as appears to be argued, but it's sufficiently referenced for now that removing it again would be plainly wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Wikipedia was the world's only source of urban legends. Learn something wrong every day, I guess. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately once something has been on Wikipedia for long enough it's near enough impossible to get it out again. I'm fully aware of this problem, which is why if I thought there were a genuine risk of this being an urban legend I'd have ensured it were kept out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Panzerfaust: were the German WWII Panzerfaust weapons rocket-propelled grenade launchers or not? [I'm confused]

The Panzerfaust article states: "The basic concept was that of a recoilless gun; neither the Faustpatrone, nor its successor the Panzerfaust were rockets." [for "rockets" presumably read "rocket launchers"?] However, this page http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzerfaust.htm says they were. I'm confused - can anyone clarify this? Notes: 1) There was a weapon used in WWII called the Panzerschreck which the article describes as an "anti-tank rocket launcher" (yet the Panzerschreck isn't mentioned in this article on rocket-propelled grenades) 2) There's a weapon called the Panzerfaust 3 which the article describes as either an "anti-tank rocket launcher" or a "rocket-propelled grenade" [are those terms totally synonymous or are there differences?] [I Googled, but couldn't find out if there ever was a Panzerfaust 2]

That article is wrong. The Panzerfaust was a recoiless gun that used a powder charge to launch a warhead which had no integral propulsion system; if you look at the article's own diagram of a Panzerfaust warhead, it is literally just a warhead, and it says the tube was full of gunpowder which would be pointless if the round was self-propelled. The Panzerschreck was a copy of the American bazooka which did launch rocket-assisted projectiles. The Panzerfaust 3 is a modern RPG system; all RPGs are anti-tank rocket launchers, but not all anti-tank rocket launchers are RPGs. Herr Gruber (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bazooka

Isn't the bazooka the first RPG? If so, shouldn't it get more than a passing mention? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rocket-propelled grenade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006174558/http://www.mrfa.org/ccbfund.htm to http://www.mrfa.org/ccbfund.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430184415/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rusav/rusav.htm to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rusav/rusav.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rocket-propelled grenade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140412063943/http://terrorism.about.com/od/tacticsandweapons/g/RPGs.htm to http://terrorism.about.com/od/tacticsandweapons/g/RPGs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The page "rocket launcher" already exists

Just merge it with that. It would solve the problem of having an entire page dedicated to an incorrect name for anti-tank rocket launchers 2A02:810B:4B3F:FF08:8143:EDB1:8F2D:3DB9 (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Seconding this suggestion, and I'm actually surprised that almost a whole year has passed without any discussion on it. MarqFJA87 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Shoulder-fired missile

If a shoulder-fired missile is a broader category, then which shoulder-fired missile is not a rocket-propelled grenade? Could you give me one example? You might say: "a recoilless rifle", but does it change anything when a projectile can be fired from one's shoulder? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RPG effectiveness infobox broken

in this tab of this page, the infobox for the challenger 2 is broken. - MountainKemono (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)