Talk:RPG-7

Recoil
The article says "...the end is flared to assist in blast shielding and recoil reduction". This is doubtful as the RPG-7 is basically a recoilless rifle launching a rocket projectile. Neither a recoilless rifle or a tube lunched rocket (which is functionally a recoilless rifle until it leaves the tube) recoil. This is because instead of the body of the "gun" recoiling a large amount of gas recoils. The flaring is most likely to reduce the velocity of the back blast by increasing its volume. This would reducing the chance of operator injury from debris being kicked up from the large amount of hot propellent gases. Flaring at the back end is a common design feature of recoilless rifles and tube launched rocket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.12.138 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I heard it described several times as a Venturi nozzle. Other multi-use recoilless guns also generally have it. If it's a "Venturi", it does serve to decrease the velocity of backblast. 46.254.217.142 (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

By definition if the velocity is reduced, as you both correctly suggest, then (with everything else constant) pressure must increase. However, everyting else is not constant, the exhaust gas will cool rapidly. Could thermal signature reduction be the design driver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.239.158 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The back half of a venturi tube (see wiki page for venturi effect - Aircraft_venturi_1.JPG) essentially reduces aerodynamic drag by 'recovering' some pressure thrust. So there will be some recoil reduction effect. Maybe this balances out the rocket exhaust drag on the inside of the tube to eliminate felt recoil.

A flared shape reduces the impedance of pressurized gas exiting the tube--it is the same principle as an acoustic horn on a trumpet or loudspeaker. If the flare was not present then it is likely the gun would experience increased recoil. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_(acoustic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.142.5 (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The person at the beginning makes the amateur assumption that recoilless rifles are actually recoilless. This is not true in the slightest, similar to how a "bulletproof" vest isn't actually bulletproof, merely bullet resistant. The design reduces recoil significantly, but it is still there. It's just reduced to the point that it can be mounted on a much lighter platform than a traditional cannon, both increasing the mobility of the weapon and also allowing it to be used in roles that have weight restrictions, such as with airborne troops. 2605:6000:F243:7800:F007:2B39:1F7E:EA25 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Cost
I think the public would like to know how much RPG-7 warhaeds cost.
 * Production cost is a secret. Sales cost is undefined just because this weapon is not free for sale. --jno 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have heard hearsay that claims the RPG-7 launcher costs about $500 to produce, and warheads are just under $100. I can't find proof for that though. --Junky 23:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Airburst
"The timed detonation has been used to create rough proximity airbursts against helicopters once they have passed the preferred 100 m head-on attack zone."

This is a common urban legend and utterly impractical to actually employ as a tactic. Citation needed if it's going to be claimed here. --Junky 12:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I ain't sure about "rough proximity airbursts", but the tactics was in use by dushmans in Afganistan against soviet helos and by chechen criminals agains fereral helos in Chechnya. I can provide you with quotes from local russian press, if needed. I don't know the exact settings for different RPG-7 grenades, but self-terminating (english term?) grenades reported to be quite effective air defense tool, not talking about the direct hit. --jno 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, give some sources. --Junky 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For instance, series of articles by Viktor Markovski under the title of "Aviation of Commandos" in "Technics and Munition" (ISSN 1682-7597, subscribtion index 71186) magazine (журнал "Техника и вооружение" ISSN 1682-7597, статьи "Авиация спецназа", Виктор Марковский) starting with December 2005. Exactly: "Tech&amp;Mun" 3.06, page 17:
 * Russian:Кроме автоматов и пулеметов душманы били из нескольких РПГ, используя их в качестве зенитного оружия. Гранатометчики стреляли по фронту вертолетов так, что гранаты рвались в воздухе на самоликвидации, выплескивая кумулятивную струю и тучу осколков.
 * English:Except for assoult rifles and machine guns dushmans beat from several RPG, using them as the antiaircraft weapon. RPG-operators shot on front of helicopters so, that grenades were torn in air to self-liquidations, splashing out a cumulative jet and a cloud of splinters.
 * I've used an automated translation tool --jno 13:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but does this article cite a source for this claim? I've seen this claim in print in US newspapers a couple of times, and often repeated by armchair generals, but there is no documented case of an airburst RPG damaging a US aircraft (only direct fire incidents), and I've never been able to find a quote from officers in Afghanistan/Iraq/etc. where they claim to employ this tactic.  Granted I haven't browsed Soviet military recortds, but I'd like to see some harder evidence before this claim is repeated as fact. --Junky 23:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is mostly memories of the author and his army mates. Nobody talk about a helo shot down by an in-air burst of an RPG grenade (teoretically OG-7 or termobaric warhead can do), but fencing (screening?) fire of RPG was reported multiply just to not allow the helos to get close enought to land the troops. Of course, direct hit of a HEAT grenade often (depends on the exact point of damage) takes a helo down. --jno 13:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bit late to this discussion, and I'm no expert, but in the book Black Hawk Down, the author says that the Black Hawks were shot down by the HEAT hitting them directly, he doesn't mention any air bursts at all, but apparently the pilots described the air as "filled" with the warheads, so it was sheer volume of fire that hit the helicopters. I know that the author states one of the helicopters being hit just ahead of the tail rotor and the HEAT burned through pretty much everything in the tail, which, as you'd guess, caused the helicopter to spin out of control. I'm just guessing, and I can't really cite anything, but if the airbursts weren't used in Mogadishu, then, going by the volume of fire and number of RPG-7s used, I'd assume they don't exist.


 * The airburst claim is not about a valid tactic that's been taught anywhere, or an actual feature of the weapon. What's described is the improvised use of a weapon by insurgents in Afghanistan. Presumably, they exploited the approximate, roughly 900 m (IIRC) self-destruct distance to pre-position themselves at known distances, tried to range and time their shots in advance, and then screened helicopters with bursts trying to get a lucky hit. 46.254.217.142 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am curious about something, though. What is a "rocket propelled grenade launcher", anyway? The RPG-7 is a HEAT launcher, (albeit with anti-personnel warheads), I don't believe the Panzerfaust, Bazooka or Panzershrek were ever called Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers, but they had the same primary purpose: fire a HEAT round, and the Bazooka was just as often used against pillboxes, bunkers and foxholes as tanks, especially in the Pacific. It's apparently used as a correct military term, but I don't see how the RPG-7 is a "grenade launcher", because I've yet to hear a HEAT round actually called a grenade, same goes for a mortar round, and yet essentially that's what the RPG-7 fires. Just curious.


 * Airburst do exist if you speak about PG-7 HEAT grenades. They do so if they didn't meet target (timed self termination).
 * RPG-7 is not a "HEAT launcher", it is a "rocket propelled grenade launcher". But it have HEAT grenades as well as fragmentation and thermobaric ones.
 * PLZ, read the article carefully. --jno 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

TBG-7
The specs show "armor penetration" for the grenade, while it is anti-personnel.. --jno 11:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

RPG-7 operator manual
Anybody have an user/operator manual for this baby? If yes, please contact me. Ak70g2


 * Check this link. Plus, you may try to find the book Наставление по стрелковому делу. Ручной противотанковый гранатомет РПГ-7. Под ред. В.Чайка М. 1982 г. --jno 09:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Penetration
I dont think the armour penetration levels are right,the PG-7V's penetration is listed as 12.9. 12.9 inches is more armour than on most tanks. Combat history has shown that the PG-7V is unable to go through the frontal armour on most main battle tanks. Dudtz 7/17/06 3:10 PM EST
 * Read carefully: 330mm of RHA. Ever have you seen RHA installed on a real MBT? --jno 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Modern or Cold War? I did not give Chobham much thought,but main battle tanks are usually made with Rolled Homogeneous Armour(RHA) and/or Cast Homogeneous Armour(CHA). RHA alone is not the most effective agianst HEAT,but im sure it has resistance HEAT. Dudtz 6/31/06 10:07 PM EST
 * I meant "bare RHA", without screens, active/dynamic armour, etc... Well, I can give you a PDF monography "40 years of RPG" (in russian, 5Mb here) - you may check for types, years, etc. --jno 11:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
Is the Rpg a disposable rocket launcher, like the American M72 or is it reloadable, i.e can you use the same launcher more than once?
 * It is reloadable. --jno 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RPG-7 as an US hunting rifle
Folks, I've just heared that RPG-7 can be bought in the States as hunting rifle with one pre-requisitive: no explosive warheads. All the other features (rounds in cartrige, hand held, no auto fire, etc) seem to be ok. Is it true? --jno 13:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any specific law reguarding rocket launced explosives? Besides large fireworks laws,I don't know of any. It is not a rifle if it is not rifled. Dudtz 10/5/06 6:50 PM EST


 * The term "Destructive Device" under US laws comes to mind. Perhaps others might have a better handle on the term. --TGC55 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TGC55 is right. Any functional firearm with a caliber of more than .5 in (12.7mm) is considered a DD, except for shotguns and muzzle-loading rifles. --Staos 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The RPG-7 has a sub-calibre insert for training purposes. It fires the 7.62x39mm round. As such, it could theoretically be used to hunt deer (the round is sufficiently powerful for deer)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.85.138 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Price
The general pricing for the weapon is not mentioned; given that the AK47 only costs around 100$ (see the wikipedia's article references), this rifle too should be cheap (I suppose). This as it too was mass produced and is used all around the world and in the developing world. Perhaps a general price can be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.181.73 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kill Radius
I have trouble believing that the OG-7V fragmentation warhead has a kill radius of 150m (492ft). Compare this to the TBG-7V single-stage thermobaric warhead, which only has a kill radius of 10m (33ft).

If the entire warhead weight (2kg (4lb.)) is converted into 7.62x51mm NATO fragments (a rough requirement to allow for the penetration of body armour, as claimed), we'd have around 200 ~10g projectiles. A sphere with radius 150m has a surface area of ~280000 square metres, which equates to roughly 1 projectile for every 1400 square metres. That just doesn't sound like a kill zone to me.

Am I missing something?

-K3773R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.130.7 (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense.htm (14 Nov 2007) lists a number of fragmentation warheads similar to the OG-7V. Of particular interest is the OG-7VE and OFG-7V, which have 1000 and 360 projectiles respectively. Also, the OFG-7V has a listed effective burst radius of 45m, with no mention being made of body armour penetration.

Given that both of these warheads 'appear' to be more advanced than the OG-7V (they have more advanced name codes), I find it truly unbelievable that the OG-7V has a kill radius of 150m.

-K3773R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.130.7 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a typo, and the real radius is 15 meters? Someone should certainlty fix it, 150 meter kill radius is a little insane considering the MK-82 500-lb bomb has a blast radius of about 40 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.33.50 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this page, it is 150 m^2 (square meters), not a radius of 150 m. By my calculation, that's roughly a 7 meter kill radius.  I've updated the table, but there is the question of the lethality radius versus unarmored personnel. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying to myself, there is also a "Russian Arms Catalog" that details the 150 m^2 area is versus flak vests. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Kill radius (in my experience) can be defined in two ways:
 * The radius within which a man sized target has a 50% probability of being struck by a fragment / projectile with enough energy (usually 58 foot pounds) to inflict a life threatening wound.
 * The maximum radius at which fragments have enough energy (usually 58 foot pounds) to inflict a lethal wound.
 * I imagine that the 150 m radius is the later of the two. Megapixie (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the article before the table was added. The "150 m radius" was an error introduced when forming the table. (Though the original article screwed up the units as well.)  There's an article snippet at Jane's that gives that blast area as "240m2" or 240 m^2  (I assume).
 * The OG-7V may not produce a conventional radius, thus requiring an expression in area, but that's pure speculation on my part. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the Panzerfaust article it says that the Russian RPG-2 and RPG-7, as well as the Panzerfaust from which they were derived, were NOT rocket-propelled grenade weapons but recoilless rifles or guns. --Cancun771 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Panzerfaust was indeed a recoilless gun, because all of its propellant was expended in a burst at the point of firing. Both the RPG-2 and RPG-7 are NOT recoilless guns, because their flight is sustained by a rocket engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.33.50 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. Only the PG-7 is powered by a rocket motor, some of the other projectiles capable of being fired from the RPG-7 only use the initial power of the projecting charge. This is according to the Small Arms Review Article on the RPG-7 series. You would not call the SPG-9 a rocket launcher, as the PG-9 projectile has rocket-assisted variants. RPG does not actually stand for Rocket Propelled Grenade (in Russian that is), according to this article. Unfortunantly, I do not have this article with me right now, and I won't be able to get back to where I have it stored for another week and a half, but I hope that someone else might have it. Technically, the RPG-7 is a recoilless projectile launcher that uses rocket-assisted projectiles.SAWGunner89 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

License-Production
I was wondering if anyone knew anything about which of the Warsaw Pact member states manufactured these under license. I thought at one point that Romania did at least, based on something I saw on a Romanian Arms manufacturers site, but I can not find it currently. It says in a Guns and Ammo Combat Arms 2006 annual that Bulgaria, Georgia and Romania all produced either licensed copies of the RPG-7 system or variants there of. Iraq, Eygpt Iran, and Paksitan are also said to produce either copies or variants. The DIO website shows a picture of two variants. There is realyl no mention of this in the article. I will not include it as of yet, but if I can find further sources, perhaps even more primary sources, I would like to include it. Does anyone else have any information that may help me with this? Thank you in advance.SAWGunner89 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Treaties?
What treaties does the article refer to in regards to the OG-7V? I don't know of any that apply to RPG rounds. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea specifically - but I guess the idea is that AP fragmentation rounds larger than 40mm in diameter start to look like rocket artillery (rather than grenades) - and they may be classified differently under various arms limitation/export treaties (like Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe). Megapixie (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rambo?
Why is the name Rambo included as the users of the RPG? I mean, this looks like vandalism to me Curriegrad2004 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A genius' work
The article doesn't tells who invented this weapon.Beyond doubt, RPG-7 is a genius' work: Cheap, reliable, versatile, safe, powerfull,etc.Agre22 (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)agre22


 * I think the best you're likely to get is "faceless Soviet design bureau." There wasn't really much that would be credited to an individual anyway, given it was mainly a refinement of the RPG-2. Also, anyone who's familiar with the weird behaviour of the rocket in crosswinds would have some issue with the claim that it's reliable. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you don't know these people doesn't really merit calling them "faceless", or give you a right to do it. Well, maybe you're confusing reality with some dystopian movie? Here's a list for you:


 * «[Гранатомёт РПГ-7] разработан Красноармейским подразделением ГСКБ-47 (ныне - ГНПП "Базальт"), главный конструктор - В.К.Фирулин. Разработка начата в 1958 г. В создании гранатомета принимали участие Тульское ЦКИБ СОО, Ковровский механический завод (непосредственно работы по гранатомету в ковровском ОКБ-575 вел В.В.Дегтярев), Высокогорский механический завод, Нижне-Тагильский завод «Планта» и др., главный конструктор ОКБ-575 А.Никифоренко, главный инженер ОКБ-575 И.Потапов, начальник 5-го отдела ОКБ-575 А.Сорокин, а также ведущий конструктор РПГ-7 В.Дегтярев, конструкторы А.Алымов, М.Горбунов, А.Ивашутич, А.Севастьянова и др. Выстрел ПГ-7В к гранатомёту РПГ-7 сконструирован В.К.Фирулиным (Государственная премия 1964 г.).»


 * In all, five organisations (almost all extant) and 10 people are mentioned, with "et al." at the end. The driving force behind RPG-7 was Valentin Konstantinovich Firulin (couldn't find his photo), he was both the lead for the launcher and the author of fisrt PG-7V round. And it's a little weird saying that the weapon's design couldn't be credited to an individual, because it was a continuation of another, somewhat similar design (that, um, also was designed by actual people, right?) AyeBraine (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The crosswind effect will ensure a homing rocket to any helo being targeted. Yosri (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Information being removed
I have added certain information that was being removed. I believe the information is relevant to show that RPG 7 is still a threat even to the most modern tanks.

The passage as follow:-

RPG-7 is less effective against modern Main Battle Tank. However, the mujahedeen (in Afghanistan) have adopting tactics that included forming armor-vehicle hunter-killer teams. This teams will work together by knocking out the tank track to achieve mobility killed before hitting the immobile tank multiple times. Each armor-vehicle hunter-killer teams can have as high as 15 RPG. Friendly infantry team, moving alongside with the tank can prevent this type of attack.

Tactical usage
The RPG antitank round has a lethal bursting radius of some four meters, killing with blast and shrapnel. The Mujaheddin (in Afghanistan) is using the RPG antitank grenades against both vehicles and personnel. The Mujaheddin is using a technique to engage armored vehical with two or three RPGs simultaneously from a range of 20-50 meters. The chances of hitting the target with a lethal shot are greatly increased by firing a number of shots at close range. Further, the vehicle under attack has less of a chance to react to the attack.

Against reactive armor, the rebels in Tadjikistan in 1992 applied this same technique. Since they lacked the anti-reactive armor PG-7VR tandem warhead, the first gunner would hit the tank to blow a hole in the reactive armor and the second and third gunner would fire the multiple round for a kill shots at the exposed area. This "double-teaming" also usually took out the tank's vision blocks, so if the tank survived, it was blind allowing the RPG gunners time to reposition, reload and reengage. Another "trick of the trade" was to throw a fragmentation grenade on the T-72's front deck to take out the driver's vision block before the massed RPGs opened up on the tank. ,

Can someone help to include the relevant informations since all the citation is given in ggod faith.

Thanks Yosri (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. I believe that you added this in good faith however there are other objections. To me, it looks like you are presenting a how-to which is something we don't do. ==> WP:NOTHOWTO Also, this fails WP:Firearms.


 * We don't normally add tactical usage to weapons articles. I don't think we should go there. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, how do I add that RPG 7 have the capability to disable and destroyed a modern tank, since simply saying it can destroyed modern tank without explanation seems ridiculous. But to explain it, is deems as tactical? It's wasn't as if it is a big secret since it is wildly discuss in magazine (in Malaysia). Also the information is available in MS Wiki. Yosri (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Yosri (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistranslation
I wasn't logged in when making the edit, and I forgot to describe it, so I am providing an explanation here. I modified the wording of the last sentence in the first paragraph, as it doesn't seem proper to call the term "RPG" wrong. I adjusted the wording hoping to express the same point (it doesn't match the meaning of the original Russian name) while avoiding the implication that this weapon is not, in fact, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. --Sahjiarah (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

RPG-7 in IDF use
The Israeli army widely used the RPG-7 in the 70s and 80s, and I.M.I made their own locally modified and designed warhead for it. There are several pictures of IDF infantry squads deploying the RPG-7 in the excellent Osprey men at arms series. I think it should be added to users. Irondome (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry everyone. This is my first ever attempt to add a citation to an article. It isnt working out. But it is a totally solid source. Just having issues with the mechanics of adding it properly. Will fix as soon as I have figured it out. Irondome (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I fixed the citation for you. ROG5728 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Irondome (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

PUS-7 (RPG-7 7.62mm subcaliber training device) [Originally posted over on the National Guard of Ukraine talk page]
Quick question; were all the PUS-7 (Pribor Utchebnoj Strelby-7) units Czech made? Thanks in advance. 83.70.241.151 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:ANA soldier with RPG-7 in 2013-cropped.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:ANA soldier with RPG-7 in 2013-cropped.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 22, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-10-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

History of use
As it now is, to somebody not acquainted, it may appear that it was used only in the mentioned conflicts, so it would be maybe wise to reiterate the paragraph from the beginning of the page that says:

"The ruggedness, simplicity, low cost, and effectiveness of the RPG-7 has made it the most widely used anti-armor weapon in the world. Currently around 40 countries use the weapon, and it is manufactured in several variants by nine countries. It is popular with irregular and guerrilla forces. The RPG has been used in almost all conflicts across all continents since the mid-1960s from the Vietnam War to the early 2010s War in Afghanistan."

Or something in that fashion. Besides why would only these conflicts (that were mentioned there) be relevant or significant? Or much more significant than let's say Yomm Kippur war of 73' where Egyptians anihilated around 800 Israeli tanks with RPG 7 (in addition with Sagger)?

Granted it is a page on US English language and in all fairness it may stay that way (mentioning only conflicts in which US forces faced with the enemies armed with the RPG 7), but if the wider context is to be considered other, especially guerilla warfare or conventional conflicts of the third world countries should be included as well.

Plus there's other conflicts that saw much more action and examples of RPG 7 uses than were those in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia or Northern Ireland (Though Afghanistan, and Somalia indeed are an interesting example of it's use, since it faced contemporary means of armoured - and air [Black Hawk] warfare) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.227.89 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on RPG-7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140116082850/http://www.janes.com/article/32297/philippines-acquires-rpg-7-usa-for-anti-armour-operations to http://www.janes.com/article/32297/philippines-acquires-rpg-7-usa-for-anti-armour-operations
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070827142902/http://www.carfil.ro:80/html/armament_.html to http://www.carfil.ro/html/armament_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on RPG-7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130514191855/http://www.marinir.mil.id/berita.php?id=20120319132829 to http://www.marinir.mil.id/berita.php?id=20120319132829

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on RPG-7. 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/20100821051000/http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/ATGL-L.htm to http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/ATGL-L.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414014043/http://www.kateholt.com/galleries/editorial/somalia-ii to http://www.kateholt.com/galleries/editorial/somalia-ii
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsabahtimes.com.my/nstweb/fullstory/15952
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=117879
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401152410/http://mic.sd/images/products/wepons/en/SINARgzf.html to http://mic.sd/images/products/wepons/en/SINARgzf.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on RPG-7. 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/20100310224455/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/Default.aspx to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222140020/http://delta.gov.ge/en/product/hand-anti-tank-grenade-launcher-rpg-7g/ to http://delta.gov.ge/en/product/hand-anti-tank-grenade-launcher-rpg-7g/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026105230/http://tbilaviamsheni.ge/gallery/rpg%20stc%20delta.pdf to http://tbilaviamsheni.ge/gallery/rpg%20stc%20delta.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex (canarino canarino)
il RPG7 è un lanciarazzi a " carica contrapposta " o piu comunemente chiamata RECOILESS cioè senza rinculo , il " CONO POSTERIORE " è stato aggiunto dopo la versione 2 per ridurre o piu correttamente disperdere il prima possibile il LETALE GETTO POSTERIORE  che ha la medesima potenza del getto spinta anteriore  cosicché l'operatore non è soggetto alle "SPINTE" di rinculo perché con il suddetto sistema NoN esistono. Per ulteriori informazioni o chiarimenti (Cipofly@gmail.com) Ale6morto (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Tube pressure???
What is the max PSI inside the tube when firing? 2600:6C55:4600:82D:F8CA:57A8:85C8:E5C1 (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)