"Question about RPG's" Topic

We played a Vietnam game yesterday and one guy fired an RPG into a gaggle of infantry. Then the debate began. "The Munroe effect creates a molten jet stream that is focused to penetrate armor. It won't have any effect on the infantry unless it detonates directly in front of them." Another said, "It's still an explosive with a chance for concussion so near to the blast." How would you see it?

Depends on the warhead…

"The HE (high explosive) warhead is a general-purpose explosive warhead for use against unarmoured targets such as infantry, unarmoured wheeled vehicles, and fixed positions. The HE warhead detonates upon impact. The warhead case and charge generate a moderate amount of fragmentation, which can pass through many obstacles without stopping."

What he said… I would think one would fire HE/frag for anti-personnel. Your question assumes they are firing HEAT. Nevertheless, it's an interesting question, what happens to personnel close to a HEAT warhead detonation? Probably depends on the size of the charge.

Based on George MacDonald Frasers experience of firing a PIAT at a Japanese bunker, a shaped charge HEAT warhead impacting in the open goes 'bang' and makes a hole around the size of a washing bowl in the ground. So not terribly dangerous, but depends how close it lands I guess.

yes its not as effective as an HE/frag round but it still has the blast that will kill and wound any one near by, its the blast in every direction but one that makes the HEAT effect work, but remember the first 2 letters in HEAT are HE as in High explosive anti tank.
also you need to remember that the RPGs rounds are designed as a multi-use weapon

IIRC the RPG has a fragmentation coil (notched wire to make shrapnel) around the warhead, so it really is a rocket propelled grenade. :)

Most NATO forces stopped carrying HE ammo in their tanks shortly after HEAT became prevalent. HEAT isn't as efficient in general explosive effect as a dedicated HE round, but there's still a significant blast effect.
-Kle.

We did some instrumented RPG warhead detonations a few years back (as well as some other shoulder fired SC weapons). The blast overpressures are quite capable of killing or seriously injuring personnel in the vicinity of the detonation.

In the '80s and '90s, we expended hundreds of RPG rounds in the FMT program, in order to let troops see what effect it had against various types of targets on the range. Of course that's not mentioning the hundreds (thousands?) of RPG engagements directly experienced by US troops in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq; by our allies in some of the same places; and by the British Army in NI.

Not much guesswork and analogy is required. Just ask a vet.

Allen

Thanks, David.

Allen

Sounds like Allen has been again taking more grumpy pills than the doctor prescribed.

That said, I would not like to be too close to a RPG HEAT round going off – still plenty of secondary blast and possible shrapnel going round. Never mind the possibility of the RPG crew actually having RPG rounds at hand.

Question to the original poster: what rules were you using and how did they address the situation?

Griefbringer

Griefbringer,
We used Final Combat. It is intended to track errant misses when fired against armored targets. There is a cone-template that simulates the forward blast effect of the HEAT round. So, anyone positioned in front of the blast is in trouble.

However, I agree with your point about being too close to the exploding warhead. It's sort of like baseball, you can't write a rule to cover everything. Still, logic should prevail, and if the thing detonates right beside you, even though you're not directly in front of it, you should be in jeopardy. But, in how much peril would one be?

Jurgen--although it is a jet/directional effect the power of the explosion is going to be quite high so I would have thought anyone within say a 6 foot radius(???) would be dead or nearly so--A soldier carries enough metal stuff on him to create a decent amount of shrapnel to hurt his mates nearby…
Also if you are talking about something like a Milan of even Karl Gustav then the concussive effect would be enough to kill you--During the Falklands British soldiers used Milan & KG to bombard Argie trenches…When they went to inspect the damage all the Argie soldiers were dead but without a mark on them…

archstanton73 wrote:

Also if you are talking about something like a Milan of even Karl Gustav then the concussive effect would be enough to kill you--During the Falklands British soldiers used Milan & KG to bombard Argie trenches…When they went to inspect the damage all the Argie soldiers were dead but without a mark on them

Can you quote a source for that, please?

One hears a lot of stories about people allegedly "killed by blast" being found "without a mark on them". Given the mechanisms of injury of air blast on the human frame, this seems vanishingly unlikely to me, quite apart from the extremely small radius over which the tiny quantity of HE in a PG-7 or similar rocket would produce dangerous overpressures. On the other hand, people tend not to be aware of the extremely small fragment size that can prove lethal, and which would inflict a very hard-to-spot wound.

All the best,

John.

Hi John, I think it was from "The Razors Edge…The Unofficial History of the Falklands War" But I'm not 100% sure…..It was a while ago I read it because they commented about using £160,000.00 GBP (in 1982!!) missiles to take out infantry…….
Remember these are Milans which are designed to take out MBTs so the blast effect would be quite powerful…

archstanton73 wrote:

Hi John, I think it was from "The Razors Edge…The Unofficial History of the Falklands War" But I'm not 100% sure…..

Thanks for that -- that book has been on my "must read sometime" list for a while now -- a mate has recommended it, and it got a very good review in the BAR. Dammit, more expense. Serves me right for asking for a reference.

It was a while ago I read it because they commented about using £160,000 GBP (in 1982!!) missiles to take out infantry…….

I was in Exeter University OTC from 1981 to 1983. We once did a TEWT in which I was given a ferocious wigging by a dyspeptic training Major for

1. Starting my "O" group with the words "Good afternoon, gentlemen".

2. Giving instructions for an interrogation prisoner to be brought to me to find out if any of his mates were in a nearby town (the training Major said "How are you going to interrogate them? In Russian?", and was less than pleased when I pointed out that it was one of my degree subjects).

3. Giving orders to fire 66s and 84s at the enemy slit trenches, this being an unconscionable waste of expensive weaponry, and likely to leave my platoon without anti-tank capability (he was less pleased still when I pointed out that I'd rather have a platoon without anti-tank capability than an anti-tank capability without a platoon).

A year later, after the Falklands war had happened and been pretty well reported, we did a similar TEWT. The same Training Major made enthusiastic recommendations about using 66s and 84s to destroy enemy slit trenches, as so successfully done in the Falklands; he seemed to think it was a brilliant and novel idea. As he seemed to be in a better mood that day, I thought it best not to jog his memory.

Remember these are Milans which are designed to take out MBTs so the blast effect would be quite powerful…

It's still only (if my memory fails me correctly) 103mm in calibre, and the shaped charge, though doubtless a bit more brisant than something like 60/40 Amatol, will I think be less massive than the filling in a similar-sized shell. You need to get up to air-dropped bomb sort of sizes before blast is going to be much of a worry compared to fragmentation.

All the best,

John.

I did research on helmets and body armour awhile back. Generally blast injuries are multi-organ, especially hollow organs like lungs and ears, and a 5+ Atmosphere blast wave can be considered potentially lethal. Basically, blast shreds your lungs.

Blast is also very nasty next to hard surfaces, which reflect it (which is why the Argies were dead without a mark – the missiles may have hit 20m away yet the blast was channelled to them). However small fragments could have also done the job. I doubt RPG-7s generate much lethal blast, however it may create some injury.

Brain injuries result from a complex interplay of factors resulting from multi-organ injury and can go undetected for a long time (shell shock).

I meant £16,000--sorry too many zeros!!
Lampy--also remember the shrapnel effect of equipment--if your mate is blasted I'm sure he will give off a large cloud of nasty pointy bits of bone and metal!

Lampyridaie wrote:

I did research on helmets and body armour awhile back. Generally blast injuries are multi-organ, especially hollow organs like lungs and ears, and a 5+ Atmosphere blast wave can be considered potentially lethal. Basically, blast shreds your lungs.

It's true that the hollow organs suffer most, but I know of no principle that says that blast injuries are "generally multi-organ". The most vulnerable organ by far is the ear, and ruptured eardrums will occur at quite low overpressures, below 1 bar.

The lungs are next, but according to the source I happen to have open at the moment (Kizer's "Dysbarism", quoted in Colvos' "Blast Injuries", in "Emergency Medicine", McGraw-Hill, 2000) possible fatalities start at more like 7 than 5 bar (although the rapidity of onset of the blast changes the amount of damage expected for a given overpressure). People are really quite resistant to air blast; concrete shatters at overpressures of only about 3 bar, so it should be fairly obvious why fragmentation (both primary and secondary) completely dominates blast as a casualty mechanism in most situations.

Blast is also very nasty next to hard surfaces, which reflect it (which is why the Argies were dead without a mark – the missiles may have hit 20m away yet the blast was channelled to them). However small fragments could have also done the job. I doubt RPG-7s generate much lethal blast, however it may create some injury.

As for "shredding your lungs", I believe that current understanding is that death from blast typically results from emboli formed in the lungs. Post-mortem examination may well show lung damage insufficient to cause death in itself.

Brain injuries result from a complex interplay of factors resulting from multi-organ injury and can go undetected for a long time (shell shock).

Again, I believe that brain damage from blast is typically due to the formation of air emboli.

I can't find any threshhold overpressure for blast-induced concussion, but I expect that this must be quite low, as I have twice suffered explosive concussion myself and not had any ear injury. Neither time did it do me any permanent harm, and if you don't believe me you can ask my friend Peensmith the talking lamppost.

All the best,

John.

John I understand that due to the excellent helmets of US troops that many GI's are surviving blasts that would have normally killed them, but are suffering from brain damage

I understand that due to the excellent helmets of US troops that many GI's are surviving blasts that would have normally killed them, but are suffering from brain damage

I don't think it is so much about the helmets, but more about body armour in general, combined with fast evacuation of the wounded and excellent medical facilities in the field hospitals, that result in US troops in Iraq surviving attacks that would have proven fatal to less-armoured troops in more primitive situation.

Griefbringer