late late nearly end of war...dunno if they even managed to get them to troops
too bad it did not came in 1942-43... then those fuckers in t-34 would have burned and europe wouldnt be a stupid liberal jewish state with slave people.
Any peasant kid can learn how to use it in an afternoon you load the rocket aim and fire... isn't that the same as most of the rifles the US fields as well.. you just load it point it and shoot it (with a little bit of training to know how the iron sights work) although most of them use Reflex or Acog anyway.
I would prefer the LAW (never variants of course) platform because they're easilly portable, a rifleman can carry 3 of them easily. Also unlike the rpg, it doesn't need cleaning, and after use you just throw the left over tube away. I'd say it's almost as effective as the rpg7, but easier & much lighter, because no separate heavy, wood and steel tube is needed.
@Kekkon3n The RPG is more cost effective, it costs 2000$ to make it and for anti-personel 500$ a shot and for anti tank 1000$ and that are state of the art rockets that are in use in the Russian military.
@keegamii RPG might be cheaper yes, but for a soldiers combat effectiveness I think LAW is a better weapon system for the reasons I stated previously.
guys, are you serious? You are discussing efficiency of 1961 year weapon. Are you really serious? That time it was the perfect weapon. And still its works, but of coz not the same as 50 years ago. RPG 7 has new rounds, that can pass modern tank armor.
Cmn, experts! 50 years ago many of you even were not planned by your mom and dad.
@ddioppp I understand what you mean. but the caliber of RPG is measured tube diameter, not the diameter of the head of the grenade, this is what I mean.
"icon of a-symmetric warfare" - did you use that word just because you knew 90% of the people won't understand? That thing is the reason a-symmetric warfare DOESN'T work!
So how useful is it in real combat? I'm sceptical it works at all against modern armor (as noted in the comments), so I guess it can only be used against infantry? Maybe versus helicopters if you get a lucky shot?
@Malangyar Against Modern Armour? It is woefully outdated but it is still an excellent portable weapon against trucks, light vehicles and infantry. Low flying helicopters are also vulnerable but as long as they're above 200m and moving....it would take a very lucky shot to hit even if the user is an excellent shot since the round itself is unstable in windy conditions.
@Bloodraven216 Did I say 15? I meant around 900, my dad was in SF and they had to get rid of captured enemy weapons, they had 3 RPG's, they got through about 500-600 before all the firing pins broke. They're a dime a dozen there
@topperheartramada Well the earlier Merkavas where destroyed quite easy by RPG-7 and Russia did have a system against missiles back in the 80s and already equipped on the latest T-72 and T-80 in 1989 and they where already making a rocket able to surpase that system. In 2000 Russia managed to do that with a new type of rocket that travels faster then the RPG-7 able to penetrate all the modern anti rocket systems on tanks. So sorry no Merkava will still die by newer RPG rounds
@SMGJohn RPG-7/29/32 and Metis-M shredded 50 Merkava Mk 4s were destroyed by Hezbolla...no Merkava will still die by newer RPG rounds ... yeah history showed diffrent.
@Talshet Those results are mixed. Not all of them were destroyed beyond repair. However, they were used incorrectly and lacked adequate infantry support and were used in unfavorable terrains such as valleys.
But, Hezbollah did have good defenses, good training, worked in AT teams, and used good weapons.
But even then, so did some Iraqi units in 2003 against the US and some Georgian units in 2008 and both Iraq and Georgia were still crushed with minor losses.
@Talshet Problem is that people seems to think RPG-7 can't do anything cause it's old but reality is that it's just a rocket 'luancher' it all depends heavily on the rocket. Russia has made many newer rockets for the RPG-7 meaning it's still effective can even take out Abrams frontal armor with one round though the rockets are bigger and heavier and gives a hell of a punch when fired
The strongest type of rocket that's being produced can't penetrate the Abrams from any side. So please, before you spew your shit onto the internet, check your facts.
The best part about your "argument", is that you say it can go straight through reactive armour.
@joost1120 Sorry little kid but reality is different from video games. Surely your just a dick who thinks Abrams is a moving fucking super fortress with 60000km armor and a nuke cannon and it has nuclear reactor. But let me break it up for you, the Abrams is the weakest tanks of it's generation. It's armor is a joke, the gun is outdated. Even the Chinese is getting a new tanks with double the armor of Abrams, and double the gun size. So please spare me your crap child
@SMGJohn Bitch please. I am the one that held page long discussions about how shit the Abrams is.
It is a bad tank, but it's armour is more than strong enough to survive multiple RPGs, because RPGs are not very good weapons. They're quite cheap, but the only effective rockets are rare, barely used and still not effective enough to reliably penetrate the Abrams. The rocket you think is effective, is the PG-7VR, which penetrates 600mm. The Abrams has almost double that.
@joost1120 I don't think you realize the PG7VR round takes out T-90 with ERA which can't be penetrated by the sabot round the Abrams uses. Tests have been done even the 125mm of T-90 has problems penetrating it's own frontal armor. The rocket is the key to everything and only a retard would aim at frontal armor. A smart soldier would aim for the side armors or back armor when possible. Who the fuck shoots frontal armor anyway!?
@SMGJohn You. You said it could penetrate the frontal armour of the Abrams.
And it's true the T-90 has more armour than the T-90, which is why I think it's the best modern tank. I even said the Abrams was a bad tank.
But the rocket is not the key to everything. If you want something else than the pure statistics I gave you in my last post, I have real friends that were in Afghanistan in a tank. They got hit by over 10 RPG-7s. None penetrated. I even have one friend that was in an APC.
@joost1120 I don't believe 40 year old ammunition can penetrate anything, yes a friend of mine in the army which drives a Swedish IFV in Afghanistan got hit once by 13 RPG-7 rounds all failing to penetrate because it is old ammunition, I don't really believe Taliban to possess the modern RPG-7 rounds cause Russia don't sell them to Taliban
@SMGJohn I bet. Either way, I never play video games. Are you even in the military? Any branch? If so, do tell.
Regardless, how is the Abrams a bad tank? It has actually taken light losses in combat. It is also the only tank to actually protect it's ammunition rather than killing everyone in the tank. But tell me, how is it bad?
@franknbeans4761 'Taken' light looses in combat? It barely has seen 'real' combat, it never has fought against a decent tank EVER it only has fought against poor Chinese copies of T-55 and monkey models of T-72 and T-64 with WW2 fire controls which means they had to manual aim with no infrared and no night vision with 30 year old ammunition. Abrams only blown up close to cities or inside cities and sometimes by mines cause tanks aren't best in urban areas
@SMGJohn Nope. It was just an example, I could've said Stryker, but then I'd stray from the subject, and most modern tanks have the capability to fight infantry.
At this point, you're just looking for retarded stuff to comment on, because you got beaten by both statistics and reality.
@SMGJohn I just said it isn't. You're just a little kid that can't spell and constantly whines about a single thing, even though I just said it was an example.
@joost1120 Can't spell? I spell all my languages quite perfect. Why do I need to make my English the perfect? Go dig a hole Nazi and suck your own toe cause in this world English isn't top priority
@SMGJohn Amazing spelling. That's why you say "your" instead of "You're".
It appears you're some kind of retarded brainwashed communist kid, thinking the RPG-7 is amazing, that English isn't the most important language at this point and thinking you're always right.
Let me tell you one thing. Grow up. I've done a study of Geography and spend over 3 months on a huge report about the Centre of the world, which included languages. If anything, chinese will be the next language, but it wont
@joost1120 *Yawn* You Americuns are laughable. I spell however I want kiddo, if you can't bear it go hang yourself in the toilet cause you just making yourself miserable going around bothering 'your' little head about how people spell.
RPG-7 is amazing whatever you think I don't really give a shit about but RPG-7 is amazing why you think they still use it? "Cause it's cheap and bad shit" Oh right that's 'your' replay but listen Capitalist, eat your burgers while you can
@SMGJohn First of all, I am not even American. Second of all, they use the RPG-7 because it's cheap and accessible. Why do you think no army uses the RPG-7? Because it's not good.
@joost1120 Sorry to break it up for you. But Russia and other eastern European armies uses RPG-7 and you stupid? No the RPG-7 is a fine weapon your just stupid not to know what the fuck you talking about
@joost1120 No let me correct myself. Only armies in this world uses RPG-7 The other who takes fire by RPG-7 are assasination squads or US Army as they call themself a para military assasination squad operated by Apple Co
@SMGJohn Russian cold war propaganda at it's finest. This discussion is over, I couldn't care any less anymore, because you refuse to be thought things.
@SMGJohn im from Poland and moved to America when I was 26 to start a family so i clearly did not school in the US, learned english in a british college and was not twisted with Western propaganda. I come across this arguement and all I can say is the RPG is a piece of tubing that fires oversized metal pickles. who am i kidding if i were to fire it at a M1 i would be lucky if it actually hit let alone punch a hole in it so please stop.
@PolishR8 I don't give a shit about your life story now do I? M1 what's that? You mean that fucking armor carriers from 1960s? Oh come on you fucking kidding me? You on drugs again? RPG-2 could punch a hole in those you idiot, don't get me fucking started what the RPG-7 does to it
@xxxWWFANxxx So was I, but then SMGJohn refused to believe anything, and it turned into a Russian fanboy shout by SMGJohn. I bet he thinks the WW2 T-34-85 can beat the M1 Abrams.
@joost1120 T-34-85 can beat the M1 Abrams in huge numbers it's 85mm can penetrate a weak spot on the abrams but it would require highly trained crew members and massive numbers of T-34-85, people like you tend to only relay on technology but there is no such thing as bad equipment only bad users. Now you probably will go all monkey and tell me the M1 Abrams is some kind of God of all tanks, am I right?
@SMGJohn The T-72's that Iraqi's were using had optics and capabilities comparable to M60A1's. And they had no T-64's. Regardless, it faced more combat than any other MBT in service. And when looking at the First Chechen War and what happened, I cannot really complain.
@franknbeans4761 Yes let's lie some more shall we? I meant T-62 sorry I spelled the 4 wrong it was suppose to be 2. And no the T-72M didn't have the capabilities of M60A1. It was a crippled tanks so poorly armed and with poorly trained crews it wouldn't stand a chance against Soviet T-44 at the time. Might I also mention the T-72M had half the armor of the T-72A? Cause it was export modes
@SMGJohn The T-72M had about 3/4 the armor of the T-72A. The T-72M1 had about half the armor. Also, the optics used in the T-72M were similar to the M60A1.
In 1991, the Iraqi's used very poor tactics. In 2003, they stayed within the cities, used ambushes, and attacked rear areas. Not that Iraq was a good enemy, but I am pointing out that it saw more combat than any other MBT of today.
@franknbeans4761 Iraq only had militia, it was in so poor condition it does not qualify to be called army. Even Iceland has better stuff then Iraq at the time
@SMGJohn I call total bullshit on that response. In 2003 before the invasion started, Iraq had 375,000 in the regular army, 50,000 in the Republican Guard, 44,000 paramilitary forces, and 650,000 man reserves. They still had hundreds of tanks dispersed in their cities, they even had RPG-29's and AT-14's in limited numbers. Don't preach to me in saying 1,000,000 men aren't a threat, even if they are poorly trained.
@franknbeans4761 Where did I ever say 1 million soldiers aren't a threat you imbecile? No where, and no not really. Poorly trained they could easily be whipped out by a modern military
@SMGJohn Which other military was capable of projecting enough power to defeat them? And even then, name a force that was more powerful than Iraq's that another country faced in the past 20 years.
@franknbeans4761 If you had a brain and common sense. You realize that the Iraq militar was pretty shitty and that American military itself isn't really the best shit on earth either
@SMGJohn You can't be serious. Iran would shred the US? They have a terrible, shitty air force, a terrible navy, no modern MBT's, terrible command structures, etc. etc. etc.
@franknbeans4761 Your American of course any American says that cause you only learn what the state feeds you, have a nice happy American fucking life kid
@SMGJohn Keep your own opinions to yourself. But tell me, was there another country that defeated a great threat than Iraq in the past 20 years? Maybe you should keep your stupidity to yourself. Pfft.
@franknbeans4761 It's my opinion your American? Listen kiddo, maybe your brain is damaged dunno probably is. But you failed at making any kind of logical sense...
@SMGJohn AN American police department, not THE American police department, we have separate ones for every city. USAF: United States Armed Forces, not the airforce. Get off your high horse and face the fact: Iran could be destroyed with the push of a button.
@asteroidrules Push of a button and the world is destroyed retard. Forgotten about Russia and China? I guess in your tiny head it's only "USA and Iran" on this chunk of rock orbiting in space. But I am sorry to ruin your tiny dream of ignorance. But there are more nation on this planet
@SMGJohn I'm sorry to ruin your dream: but nobody would care if Iran got destroyed. Also it wouldn't take a nuclear power to do it. Heck a country like Australia could take them out in a month at most.
@asteroidrules Sorry to ruin your fantasies but yes many would care if Iran got destroyed just not retards like you and Australia or Western idiots. But the rest of the world would care and I can say for sure that China will take it pretty hard. Cause their general already told us that they would interveen so you can look forward for WW3 cause I do I seriously hope the nukes burns away filth like you
@SMGJohn Hate to burst your bubble (not really) but no they wouldn't, the Iranian media has completely brainwashed you haven't they. Iran is a small patch of dirt and sand that fancies itself a global power, anyone who wanted to could destroy it, heck give me a Javelin and an M16 and I could do it myself.
@asteroidrules Okay *Gives M16 and Javelin* And now let's see what happens *asteroidrules managed to fall into a 5000 year old trap dug hole and killed by spikes, died very painfully* oh let's see you didn't even need those two fucking guns you died even the enemy didn't have to be present. Guess you failed like US Army does
@SMGJohn Im not even American, but come on, check military budgets of Iran and US. Even though I don't agree with war adventures of US, I can still say US has the best military on the face on earth.
@JohQx3 Yes problem is, half brain people like you sees military budget and thinks that means it is best military. Fail much? That doesn't mean the military has same quality as the East German military now does it? DDR Army was like an elite army the best of the best. What is American military? It relays on air power too much, it relays on heavy firepower. Without neither of these two it's really just a poor trained military with low moral
@SMGJohn I agree military budget isn't all that matter, not even close. But as US military budget isn't just 1,5 or 2 times bigger than the 2nd, but some 20 times bigger than the 2nd. Those budgets are from two different worlds. How ever, wars aren't fought with huge armies anymore, but with the high tech. Doesn't matter if your army has great morale, if the bullets and shells come from distance they can do nothing about.
@JohQx3 US army is just size nothing more the technology is mostly based on German WW2 tech and just minor upgrades. Did you know Germans had surface to air missiles in WW2? They also had infrared on their tanks and fire control too in 1945 most of modern weaponry are just rip off from German designs back in WW2
@SMGJohn Whole modern world is based on German research during Nazi-era. Computers, satellites etc... just like this RPG is based on Panzerfaust. Those Surface-to-Air missiles (like Wasserfall) never got fully operational though. I wouldn't say modern weaponry is rip off of old German tech, but a improved version of it. Only complete rip off would be MG-3, as it's nearly same as MG-42 with NATO caliber.
@SMGJohn your the half brained dumbass here bud, sorry. Coming from a soldier we don't rely on air support, but if we can why not use it. Your ass hurt self hasn't realized that we utilized massive amounts of air support in Occupational conflicts such as Afghanistan. Sometimes we don't know where the enemy is at, but if we know the general area why not send hell to the enemy? and LOW MORAL where the fuck you here that? LOL. Poor trained? LOL. Talking about shit you have no knowledge on. Quit it.
@82ndAirborneFTL Oh who are you? I can't remember replaying to you now do I? So your just jumping in here like a brainless Americun and spamming nonsense? Listen kiddo, keep 'your' opinion for yourself. Okay? Then we wont have problems, now going around YouTube acting like a faggot maggot wont get you far in life so I suggest you try go out of the house sometimes, stop watching gun videos and believe your somekind of Chuck Norris one man army. Reality is different grow up
@SMGJohn M1 abrams..... not a dumb boat.. stop spreading propaganda and an RPG-7 can barely even get past the back armor let alone go through the front and sides of the tank.
@PolishR8 When the fuck did an armor carrier become a boat? Wow your very educated. Do you know what an automobile is? It's time for you to stop using your brain cause you might explode. Damn I knew you where an idiot but when you say an Armor carrier is a boat well that's just beyond what I find stupid. Surely if you throw the RPG-7 I am not so sure it can go trough enything you retard, that's why we use something called rocket propelled grenades that pierces the armor instead
@xxxWWFANxxx my cousin is in the US marine core and he is in a tank crew that got hit 3 times with an rpg and the reactive armor stopped the first 2 but the 3rd one only dented the tanks side (according to him)
@xxxWWFANxxx Yes your right, RPG can't take out Abrams, clearly because it's from 1950s and extremely old and not in use anymore. I believe I said 'RPG-7' could take out an Abrams not RPG. Secondly kid M1A1 Abrams can be disabled by a high caliber machinegun. I guess your sex toy wasn't so 'bullet proof' as the manual said
Depends on warhead, mate.. newer PG-7VR have max penetration of 750mm RHA, so they cant penetrate front armor of M1, but it would have no problem penetrating his side or rear.
@SMGJohn Alright guys everyone quit talking to SMGfag. Just went through his channel and he's just a kid who likes gay computer games, anime porn and Japanese queer shit. Oh, he also commented on a Lego Vacuum video so he's lost all respect.
@82ndAirborneFTL Secondly stalking people just confirmed my suspicion against you. You truly need help beyond professionalism, not just that you seem to be into gay things too. Don't worry I don't have anything against gays because it's okay to be gay. You know what I mean kiddo, anyways you don't have to be in the army to know that the world is not flat kiddo but I guess they didn't teach you that yet at the elementary school... The world is not flat! okay??
Obviously you have no idea how they train and for how long. To even be accepted as a simple Recon Scout, you have to have passed the basic army training, Marksman training and the Recon training.
To pass the Recon training, you have to survive the camp for a couple months. You'll be awaken in the middle of the night and have to run and crawl 30 km with a backpack.
Then you have to crawl towards your trainers without being spotted in the daylight.
@joost1120 American army = trains by orders. Soviet Army and German army trained by following task. Seeing how US Military tactics never changes still extremely similar to WW2 tactics. US Army never changes. High orgenizing rate but low moral yes extremely low moral. They relay too much on firepower and air superiority. While conventional armies like Russian army and Chinese army does just fine without, US army would strugle big times against these two
that thing has non electronics in the war head or triggering system. so much for "sending electrical signal to the rocket motor.......and ignition system"
I USE THIS ON BATTLEFIELD 3!
562PARTYMAN 16 minutes ago
@ grvc44 very good, you want a fucken cookie now? Who the fuck cares where it was aired
MegaPAC85 14 hours ago
@Lachausis im writing you idiot...
22cibe 1 day ago
taipohh = nazi scum
22cibe 3 days ago
@22cibe Shut your mouth, infant!
Lachausis 1 day ago
great german design..
from the panzerfaust 250
late late nearly end of war...dunno if they even managed to get them to troops
too bad it did not came in 1942-43... then those fuckers in t-34 would have burned and europe wouldnt be a stupid liberal jewish state with slave people.
taipohh 3 days ago
@taipohh Clearly you would not like the ppsh-41
tehwin89 2 days ago
@tehwin89
for my self?? id love it :)
taipohh 2 days ago
Any peasant kid can learn how to use it in an afternoon you load the rocket aim and fire... isn't that the same as most of the rifles the US fields as well.. you just load it point it and shoot it (with a little bit of training to know how the iron sights work) although most of them use Reflex or Acog anyway.
Waystedtsg 3 days ago
American soldiers in tank was killed with RPG-7. From Russia with love
asparkam23 4 days ago
Russia!!
MrKriistian 4 days ago
the best thing is this was shown in an american TV show.
grvc44 4 days ago
the rpg is the best because it is cheap effective easy to use and is fairly accurate unlike how movies games and other sources portray it
MACEX1000 4 days ago
SMAW is better:)
livedarkness1 5 days ago
I heard RPG exhaust smells like ammonia and burnt rubber, is this true?
baron8107 5 days ago
The narrator sounds like the voice from MW3
feedleman 6 days ago
@feedleman Faggot.
ImChungalungas 6 days ago
@ 0:53 I thought, holy fuck! is he going to fire it!
ETonZan 1 week ago
Are these legal to own in the United States?
sidgar1 1 week ago
@sidgar1 No.
Naveenrae 1 week ago
@sidgar1 Fuck no.
XxpaintballingxX 5 days ago
I would prefer the LAW (never variants of course) platform because they're easilly portable, a rifleman can carry 3 of them easily. Also unlike the rpg, it doesn't need cleaning, and after use you just throw the left over tube away. I'd say it's almost as effective as the rpg7, but easier & much lighter, because no separate heavy, wood and steel tube is needed.
Kekkon3n 1 week ago
@Kekkon3n The RPG is more cost effective, it costs 2000$ to make it and for anti-personel 500$ a shot and for anti tank 1000$ and that are state of the art rockets that are in use in the Russian military.
keegamii 6 days ago
@keegamii RPG might be cheaper yes, but for a soldiers combat effectiveness I think LAW is a better weapon system for the reasons I stated previously.
Kekkon3n 6 days ago
@Kekkon3n
LAW is single use weapon, and it is not same class as RPG-7 versions.
Counterparts to LAW was RPG-18 and RPG-22.
GvardiyaBY 5 days ago
@Kekkon3n I like the law better than the at4
tfoshohoe 5 days ago
its old launcher after rpg-2
TATARSTAN59500 1 week ago
if rpg dont exist any guerilla exist its real fact !
TATARSTAN59500 1 week ago
@smgboy: listen little kid from fucken some desert somewhere. Dont watch American videos on YouTube anymore talking shit. Go die of thirst somewhere.
REGAification 1 week ago
guys, are you serious? You are discussing efficiency of 1961 year weapon. Are you really serious? That time it was the perfect weapon. And still its works, but of coz not the same as 50 years ago. RPG 7 has new rounds, that can pass modern tank armor.
Cmn, experts! 50 years ago many of you even were not planned by your mom and dad.
KeymoreNick 1 week ago
2:09 dosent he Look familiar????
MrDavidgrossman1312 1 week ago
Russian Armory are the Best
theus663 1 week ago
you will love russia for their iconic stuff
auvar100 1 week ago
RPG-7 is 40mm? HAHAHA! its 85 mm. The people making this shit dont know anything at all about weapons. this is bullshit!
ddioppp 2 weeks ago
@ddioppp The diameter of the bore is 40mm. The warhead is 85mm.
Friedstuffsable 2 weeks ago
@ddioppp RPG-7 is really the caliber of 40 mm
convergence of books read, before writing
RusMegaDrill 1 week ago
@RusMegaDrill it is 85mm :)
ddioppp 1 week ago
@ddioppp caliber - is the diameter of the barrel,
in the trunk of the RPG-7, you can not insert a 85 mm, simply does not fit, so use grenades, 40 mm.
and the caliber of the warhead can be from 40 to 105 mm, depending on the type of grenade
RusMegaDrill 1 week ago
@RusMegaDrill the caliver is the diameter of the rocket. NOT the tube. the standard rocket is 85mm.
ddioppp 1 week ago
@ddioppp I understand what you mean. but the caliber of RPG is measured tube diameter, not the diameter of the head of the grenade, this is what I mean.
RusMegaDrill 1 week ago
@RusMegaDrill you are wrong. the head of the grenade counts. not the tube diameter
ddioppp 1 week ago
@RusMegaDrill What makes the difference between it being a grenade and not a rocket?
xxxWWFANxxx 1 week ago
@xxxWWFANxxx In principle there is no difference, we can say that it is unguided missile. but the correct name for a grenade
RusMegaDrill 1 week ago
blah blah blah rpg THIS IS THE YEAR 2012 WHY DO WE NOT HAVE LASER GUNS YET
dejimmeistahmon4742 2 weeks ago
Dr William Fatwater xD hahahah
swbf2fan2510 2 weeks ago
"icon of a-symmetric warfare" - did you use that word just because you knew 90% of the people won't understand? That thing is the reason a-symmetric warfare DOESN'T work!
FireStorm81318 2 weeks ago
Loading and pulling a trigger with an RPG inside a building? This seems to violate gun safety rules XD
MrDaAsif 2 weeks ago
All i know is that rpgs and ak47s are the best.
Ricardo400911 2 weeks ago 13
@Ricardo400911 all i know is that i hate commercials on youtube
Ullbritt 2 weeks ago
@Ricardo400911 the simplest and cheapest. but not the best.
ddioppp 2 weeks ago
@Ricardo400911 FUCKING TERROISTS! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
DropDeadJscott 1 week ago
So how useful is it in real combat? I'm sceptical it works at all against modern armor (as noted in the comments), so I guess it can only be used against infantry? Maybe versus helicopters if you get a lucky shot?
Malangyar 2 weeks ago
@Malangyar Against Modern Armour? It is woefully outdated but it is still an excellent portable weapon against trucks, light vehicles and infantry. Low flying helicopters are also vulnerable but as long as they're above 200m and moving....it would take a very lucky shot to hit even if the user is an excellent shot since the round itself is unstable in windy conditions.
burningphoneix 2 weeks ago
The Viet- cong have never been rolled over... -.-*
mustachos1993 2 weeks ago
that's my infantry specialization. anti tanker with an RPG. I hope to get the chance to fire one on a turkish tank.
SPARTAN3071 2 weeks ago
classic anti-tank weapons
crunchymix 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
go to my page, i got my top 20 smg's
WiLLYJ96 3 weeks ago
those guys make no difference between RPG-7, chinese clone and RPG-2
SamuraiAkechi 3 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Well, they have this 'iron fist' system that intercepts incoming missiles.
topperheartramada 3 weeks ago
middle east is so damn dusty
popper504 3 weeks ago
Right. Correction; 'any jihadist kid'.
the82spartans 3 weeks ago
"Any peasant kid"..
The fuck is wrong with you
ThelNobbler 3 weeks ago
Пиндосы активно обсуждают нашу вундервафлю?
Gipnokot96 4 weeks ago
It doesn't have good accuracy, but it's damn cheap
InfernalSatan 4 weeks ago
@InfernalSatan Don't need accuracy if you have 15 rockets
MetalSights 3 weeks ago 5
@MetalSights you can miss 15 times
Bloodraven216 2 weeks ago
@Bloodraven216 Did I say 15? I meant around 900, my dad was in SF and they had to get rid of captured enemy weapons, they had 3 RPG's, they got through about 500-600 before all the firing pins broke. They're a dime a dozen there
MetalSights 2 weeks ago
@InfernalSatan The accuracy isnt any worse than of any other western systems similiar to RPG7
Vamutus 3 weeks ago
RPG-7 can disable M1A1 Abrams and M1A2 at good aim.
SMGJohn 4 weeks ago
@SMGJohn it can't do shit to the new israeli merkava, equipped with incoming missile automatic destriction system.
topperheartramada 3 weeks ago
@topperheartramada Well the earlier Merkavas where destroyed quite easy by RPG-7 and Russia did have a system against missiles back in the 80s and already equipped on the latest T-72 and T-80 in 1989 and they where already making a rocket able to surpase that system. In 2000 Russia managed to do that with a new type of rocket that travels faster then the RPG-7 able to penetrate all the modern anti rocket systems on tanks. So sorry no Merkava will still die by newer RPG rounds
SMGJohn 3 weeks ago
@SMGJohn RPG-7/29/32 and Metis-M shredded 50 Merkava Mk 4s were destroyed by Hezbolla...no Merkava will still die by newer RPG rounds ... yeah history showed diffrent.
Talshet 3 weeks ago
@Talshet Those results are mixed. Not all of them were destroyed beyond repair. However, they were used incorrectly and lacked adequate infantry support and were used in unfavorable terrains such as valleys.
But, Hezbollah did have good defenses, good training, worked in AT teams, and used good weapons.
But even then, so did some Iraqi units in 2003 against the US and some Georgian units in 2008 and both Iraq and Georgia were still crushed with minor losses.
franknbeans4761 3 weeks ago
@Talshet Problem is that people seems to think RPG-7 can't do anything cause it's old but reality is that it's just a rocket 'luancher' it all depends heavily on the rocket. Russia has made many newer rockets for the RPG-7 meaning it's still effective can even take out Abrams frontal armor with one round though the rockets are bigger and heavier and gives a hell of a punch when fired
SMGJohn 3 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Nope.
The strongest type of rocket that's being produced can't penetrate the Abrams from any side. So please, before you spew your shit onto the internet, check your facts.
The best part about your "argument", is that you say it can go straight through reactive armour.
joost1120 3 weeks ago
@joost1120 Sorry little kid but reality is different from video games. Surely your just a dick who thinks Abrams is a moving fucking super fortress with 60000km armor and a nuke cannon and it has nuclear reactor. But let me break it up for you, the Abrams is the weakest tanks of it's generation. It's armor is a joke, the gun is outdated. Even the Chinese is getting a new tanks with double the armor of Abrams, and double the gun size. So please spare me your crap child
SMGJohn 3 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Bitch please. I am the one that held page long discussions about how shit the Abrams is.
It is a bad tank, but it's armour is more than strong enough to survive multiple RPGs, because RPGs are not very good weapons. They're quite cheap, but the only effective rockets are rare, barely used and still not effective enough to reliably penetrate the Abrams. The rocket you think is effective, is the PG-7VR, which penetrates 600mm. The Abrams has almost double that.
joost1120 3 weeks ago
@joost1120 I don't think you realize the PG7VR round takes out T-90 with ERA which can't be penetrated by the sabot round the Abrams uses. Tests have been done even the 125mm of T-90 has problems penetrating it's own frontal armor. The rocket is the key to everything and only a retard would aim at frontal armor. A smart soldier would aim for the side armors or back armor when possible. Who the fuck shoots frontal armor anyway!?
SMGJohn 3 weeks ago
@SMGJohn You. You said it could penetrate the frontal armour of the Abrams.
And it's true the T-90 has more armour than the T-90, which is why I think it's the best modern tank. I even said the Abrams was a bad tank.
But the rocket is not the key to everything. If you want something else than the pure statistics I gave you in my last post, I have real friends that were in Afghanistan in a tank. They got hit by over 10 RPG-7s. None penetrated. I even have one friend that was in an APC.
joost1120 3 weeks ago
@joost1120 I don't believe 40 year old ammunition can penetrate anything, yes a friend of mine in the army which drives a Swedish IFV in Afghanistan got hit once by 13 RPG-7 rounds all failing to penetrate because it is old ammunition, I don't really believe Taliban to possess the modern RPG-7 rounds cause Russia don't sell them to Taliban
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn I don't even know where to begin.
Looks like you have been listening to idiots like BlacktailDefense, Mike Sparks, and watching too much Pentagon Wars.
You need to see the reality of things.
franknbeans4761 3 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 Sorry kid but I don't know what the fuck they are. Go back to CAWADOOTI
SMGJohn 3 weeks ago
@SMGJohn I bet. Either way, I never play video games. Are you even in the military? Any branch? If so, do tell.
Regardless, how is the Abrams a bad tank? It has actually taken light losses in combat. It is also the only tank to actually protect it's ammunition rather than killing everyone in the tank. But tell me, how is it bad?
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 'Taken' light looses in combat? It barely has seen 'real' combat, it never has fought against a decent tank EVER it only has fought against poor Chinese copies of T-55 and monkey models of T-72 and T-64 with WW2 fire controls which means they had to manual aim with no infrared and no night vision with 30 year old ammunition. Abrams only blown up close to cities or inside cities and sometimes by mines cause tanks aren't best in urban areas
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Abrams aren't made to fight other tanks...
By your logic infantry is bad, because a thirty year old tank can kill thousands without getting any damage.
joost1120 2 weeks ago
@joost1120 Oh I guess the Abrams is a big ass IFV then? Since your the expert
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Nope. It was just an example, I could've said Stryker, but then I'd stray from the subject, and most modern tanks have the capability to fight infantry.
At this point, you're just looking for retarded stuff to comment on, because you got beaten by both statistics and reality.
joost1120 2 weeks ago
@joost1120 Your just a little kid who thinks the fucking Abrams is an IFV. Oh fuck yeah now go outside and get fresh air into your rotten head
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn I just said it isn't. You're just a little kid that can't spell and constantly whines about a single thing, even though I just said it was an example.
joost1120 2 weeks ago
@joost1120 Can't spell? I spell all my languages quite perfect. Why do I need to make my English the perfect? Go dig a hole Nazi and suck your own toe cause in this world English isn't top priority
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Amazing spelling. That's why you say "your" instead of "You're".
It appears you're some kind of retarded brainwashed communist kid, thinking the RPG-7 is amazing, that English isn't the most important language at this point and thinking you're always right.
Let me tell you one thing. Grow up. I've done a study of Geography and spend over 3 months on a huge report about the Centre of the world, which included languages. If anything, chinese will be the next language, but it wont
joost1120 2 weeks ago
@joost1120 *Yawn* You Americuns are laughable. I spell however I want kiddo, if you can't bear it go hang yourself in the toilet cause you just making yourself miserable going around bothering 'your' little head about how people spell.
RPG-7 is amazing whatever you think I don't really give a shit about but RPG-7 is amazing why you think they still use it? "Cause it's cheap and bad shit" Oh right that's 'your' replay but listen Capitalist, eat your burgers while you can
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn First of all, I am not even American. Second of all, they use the RPG-7 because it's cheap and accessible. Why do you think no army uses the RPG-7? Because it's not good.
joost1120 2 weeks ago
@joost1120 Sorry to break it up for you. But Russia and other eastern European armies uses RPG-7 and you stupid? No the RPG-7 is a fine weapon your just stupid not to know what the fuck you talking about
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn So the RPG basically launches grenades?
xxxWWFANxxx 2 weeks ago
@xxxWWFANxxx RPG stands for Rocket Propelled Grenade. So yes it launches fucking Grenades
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Dude calm down,was just asking...
xxxWWFANxxx 1 week ago
@SMGJohn Oh, excuse me, let me correct myself.
No real army uses the RPG-7.
joost1120 2 weeks ago
@joost1120 No let me correct myself. Only armies in this world uses RPG-7 The other who takes fire by RPG-7 are assasination squads or US Army as they call themself a para military assasination squad operated by Apple Co
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Russian cold war propaganda at it's finest. This discussion is over, I couldn't care any less anymore, because you refuse to be thought things.
joost1120 2 weeks ago
@joost1120 Your the retard who started. Go blow your head sky high cause it's healthy for humanity
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@SMGJohn im from Poland and moved to America when I was 26 to start a family so i clearly did not school in the US, learned english in a british college and was not twisted with Western propaganda. I come across this arguement and all I can say is the RPG is a piece of tubing that fires oversized metal pickles. who am i kidding if i were to fire it at a M1 i would be lucky if it actually hit let alone punch a hole in it so please stop.
PolishR8 1 week ago
@PolishR8 I don't give a shit about your life story now do I? M1 what's that? You mean that fucking armor carriers from 1960s? Oh come on you fucking kidding me? You on drugs again? RPG-2 could punch a hole in those you idiot, don't get me fucking started what the RPG-7 does to it
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@joost1120 I am really enjoying these conversations, no sarcasm :)
xxxWWFANxxx 1 week ago
@xxxWWFANxxx So was I, but then SMGJohn refused to believe anything, and it turned into a Russian fanboy shout by SMGJohn. I bet he thinks the WW2 T-34-85 can beat the M1 Abrams.
joost1120 1 week ago
@joost1120 T-34-85 can beat the M1 Abrams in huge numbers it's 85mm can penetrate a weak spot on the abrams but it would require highly trained crew members and massive numbers of T-34-85, people like you tend to only relay on technology but there is no such thing as bad equipment only bad users. Now you probably will go all monkey and tell me the M1 Abrams is some kind of God of all tanks, am I right?
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@SMGJohn The 85 can't penetrate the M1. Not even in the rear. And yes, the M1 Abrams is some kind of crap of all tanks.
joost1120 1 week ago
@joost1120 Dude, he replied saying that the T-34-85 can beat the M1 Abrams rofl mao!!! hahahahah!
xxxWWFANxxx 1 week ago
@SMGJohn The T-72's that Iraqi's were using had optics and capabilities comparable to M60A1's. And they had no T-64's. Regardless, it faced more combat than any other MBT in service. And when looking at the First Chechen War and what happened, I cannot really complain.
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 Yes let's lie some more shall we? I meant T-62 sorry I spelled the 4 wrong it was suppose to be 2. And no the T-72M didn't have the capabilities of M60A1. It was a crippled tanks so poorly armed and with poorly trained crews it wouldn't stand a chance against Soviet T-44 at the time. Might I also mention the T-72M had half the armor of the T-72A? Cause it was export modes
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn The T-72M had about 3/4 the armor of the T-72A. The T-72M1 had about half the armor. Also, the optics used in the T-72M were similar to the M60A1.
In 1991, the Iraqi's used very poor tactics. In 2003, they stayed within the cities, used ambushes, and attacked rear areas. Not that Iraq was a good enemy, but I am pointing out that it saw more combat than any other MBT of today.
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 Iraq only had militia, it was in so poor condition it does not qualify to be called army. Even Iceland has better stuff then Iraq at the time
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn I call total bullshit on that response. In 2003 before the invasion started, Iraq had 375,000 in the regular army, 50,000 in the Republican Guard, 44,000 paramilitary forces, and 650,000 man reserves. They still had hundreds of tanks dispersed in their cities, they even had RPG-29's and AT-14's in limited numbers. Don't preach to me in saying 1,000,000 men aren't a threat, even if they are poorly trained.
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 Where did I ever say 1 million soldiers aren't a threat you imbecile? No where, and no not really. Poorly trained they could easily be whipped out by a modern military
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Which other military was capable of projecting enough power to defeat them? And even then, name a force that was more powerful than Iraq's that another country faced in the past 20 years.
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 If you had a brain and common sense. You realize that the Iraq militar was pretty shitty and that American military itself isn't really the best shit on earth either
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 Also Iran today would shred US military, it's a reason why they don't attack
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn You can't be serious. Iran would shred the US? They have a terrible, shitty air force, a terrible navy, no modern MBT's, terrible command structures, etc. etc. etc.
What a dumb statement.
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 Well that's your opinion, please keep it to yourself
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 Your American of course any American says that cause you only learn what the state feeds you, have a nice happy American fucking life kid
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Keep your own opinions to yourself. But tell me, was there another country that defeated a great threat than Iraq in the past 20 years? Maybe you should keep your stupidity to yourself. Pfft.
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761 It's my opinion your American? Listen kiddo, maybe your brain is damaged dunno probably is. But you failed at making any kind of logical sense...
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Uh no, about Iraq, the M1, and the American military in general you retard.
franknbeans4761 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Iran could not "shred" an American police department. Let alone the USAF.
asteroidrules 2 weeks ago
@asteroidrules Yes your right cause the American police department shreds itself and the USAF bombs themself
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn AN American police department, not THE American police department, we have separate ones for every city. USAF: United States Armed Forces, not the airforce. Get off your high horse and face the fact: Iran could be destroyed with the push of a button.
asteroidrules 2 weeks ago
@asteroidrules actually USAF is United States Air Force
S.S.: United States Selective Service
charkee167 2 weeks ago
@asteroidrules Push of a button and the world is destroyed retard. Forgotten about Russia and China? I guess in your tiny head it's only "USA and Iran" on this chunk of rock orbiting in space. But I am sorry to ruin your tiny dream of ignorance. But there are more nation on this planet
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn I'm sorry to ruin your dream: but nobody would care if Iran got destroyed. Also it wouldn't take a nuclear power to do it. Heck a country like Australia could take them out in a month at most.
asteroidrules 2 weeks ago
@asteroidrules Sorry to ruin your fantasies but yes many would care if Iran got destroyed just not retards like you and Australia or Western idiots. But the rest of the world would care and I can say for sure that China will take it pretty hard. Cause their general already told us that they would interveen so you can look forward for WW3 cause I do I seriously hope the nukes burns away filth like you
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn Hate to burst your bubble (not really) but no they wouldn't, the Iranian media has completely brainwashed you haven't they. Iran is a small patch of dirt and sand that fancies itself a global power, anyone who wanted to could destroy it, heck give me a Javelin and an M16 and I could do it myself.
asteroidrules 1 week ago
@asteroidrules Okay *Gives M16 and Javelin* And now let's see what happens *asteroidrules managed to fall into a 5000 year old trap dug hole and killed by spikes, died very painfully* oh let's see you didn't even need those two fucking guns you died even the enemy didn't have to be present. Guess you failed like US Army does
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@asteroidrules dang sorry repied to the wrong person sorry
PolishR8 1 week ago
@asteroidrules nvm
PolishR8 1 week ago
@asteroidrules am really enjoying these conversations, no sarcasm :), lol Australia vs Irran, interesting...
xxxWWFANxxx 1 week ago
@SMGJohn Im not even American, but come on, check military budgets of Iran and US. Even though I don't agree with war adventures of US, I can still say US has the best military on the face on earth.
JohQx3 1 week ago
@JohQx3 Yeah, we all know the US military is the best. No one even gets close.
ddioppp 1 week ago
@JohQx3 Yes problem is, half brain people like you sees military budget and thinks that means it is best military. Fail much? That doesn't mean the military has same quality as the East German military now does it? DDR Army was like an elite army the best of the best. What is American military? It relays on air power too much, it relays on heavy firepower. Without neither of these two it's really just a poor trained military with low moral
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@SMGJohn I agree military budget isn't all that matter, not even close. But as US military budget isn't just 1,5 or 2 times bigger than the 2nd, but some 20 times bigger than the 2nd. Those budgets are from two different worlds. How ever, wars aren't fought with huge armies anymore, but with the high tech. Doesn't matter if your army has great morale, if the bullets and shells come from distance they can do nothing about.
JohQx3 1 week ago
@JohQx3 US army is just size nothing more the technology is mostly based on German WW2 tech and just minor upgrades. Did you know Germans had surface to air missiles in WW2? They also had infrared on their tanks and fire control too in 1945 most of modern weaponry are just rip off from German designs back in WW2
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@SMGJohn Whole modern world is based on German research during Nazi-era. Computers, satellites etc... just like this RPG is based on Panzerfaust. Those Surface-to-Air missiles (like Wasserfall) never got fully operational though. I wouldn't say modern weaponry is rip off of old German tech, but a improved version of it. Only complete rip off would be MG-3, as it's nearly same as MG-42 with NATO caliber.
JohQx3 1 week ago
@SMGJohn your the half brained dumbass here bud, sorry. Coming from a soldier we don't rely on air support, but if we can why not use it. Your ass hurt self hasn't realized that we utilized massive amounts of air support in Occupational conflicts such as Afghanistan. Sometimes we don't know where the enemy is at, but if we know the general area why not send hell to the enemy? and LOW MORAL where the fuck you here that? LOL. Poor trained? LOL. Talking about shit you have no knowledge on. Quit it.
82ndAirborneFTL 1 week ago
@82ndAirborneFTL Oh who are you? I can't remember replaying to you now do I? So your just jumping in here like a brainless Americun and spamming nonsense? Listen kiddo, keep 'your' opinion for yourself. Okay? Then we wont have problems, now going around YouTube acting like a faggot maggot wont get you far in life so I suggest you try go out of the house sometimes, stop watching gun videos and believe your somekind of Chuck Norris one man army. Reality is different grow up
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@SMGJohn M1 abrams..... not a dumb boat.. stop spreading propaganda and an RPG-7 can barely even get past the back armor let alone go through the front and sides of the tank.
PolishR8 1 week ago
@PolishR8 When the fuck did an armor carrier become a boat? Wow your very educated. Do you know what an automobile is? It's time for you to stop using your brain cause you might explode. Damn I knew you where an idiot but when you say an Armor carrier is a boat well that's just beyond what I find stupid. Surely if you throw the RPG-7 I am not so sure it can go trough enything you retard, that's why we use something called rocket propelled grenades that pierces the armor instead
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@PolishR8 How do you know all this?
xxxWWFANxxx 1 week ago
@xxxWWFANxxx my cousin is in the US marine core and he is in a tank crew that got hit 3 times with an rpg and the reactive armor stopped the first 2 but the 3rd one only dented the tanks side (according to him)
PolishR8 1 week ago
@SMGJohn RPG 7 can't destroy an M1 Abram, sorry to disappoint you fanboy
xxxWWFANxxx 1 week ago
@xxxWWFANxxx Yes your right, RPG can't take out Abrams, clearly because it's from 1950s and extremely old and not in use anymore. I believe I said 'RPG-7' could take out an Abrams not RPG. Secondly kid M1A1 Abrams can be disabled by a high caliber machinegun. I guess your sex toy wasn't so 'bullet proof' as the manual said
SMGJohn 6 days ago
@SMGJohn Everyone here is saying you're an idiot fan boy so why should i believe anything you say?
xxxWWFANxxx 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SMGJohn Everyone here is saying you're an idiot fan boy so why should i believe anything you say?
xxxWWFANxxx 6 days ago
@xxxWWFANxxx
Depends on warhead, mate.. newer PG-7VR have max penetration of 750mm RHA, so they cant penetrate front armor of M1, but it would have no problem penetrating his side or rear.
GvardiyaBY 5 days ago
@SMGJohn HAHAHAHA YOU LIKE ANIME AND YOUR CHANNEL PROVES YOUR NOT EVEN A SOLDIER, BUT A FUCKING COMPUTER FAG. SERIOUSLY JUST STOP
82ndAirborneFTL 1 week ago
@SMGJohn Alright guys everyone quit talking to SMGfag. Just went through his channel and he's just a kid who likes gay computer games, anime porn and Japanese queer shit. Oh, he also commented on a Lego Vacuum video so he's lost all respect.
82ndAirborneFTL 1 week ago
@82ndAirborneFTL Secondly stalking people just confirmed my suspicion against you. You truly need help beyond professionalism, not just that you seem to be into gay things too. Don't worry I don't have anything against gays because it's okay to be gay. You know what I mean kiddo, anyways you don't have to be in the army to know that the world is not flat kiddo but I guess they didn't teach you that yet at the elementary school... The world is not flat! okay??
SMGJohn 1 week ago
@SMGJohn Poorly trained, right?
Obviously you have no idea how they train and for how long. To even be accepted as a simple Recon Scout, you have to have passed the basic army training, Marksman training and the Recon training.
To pass the Recon training, you have to survive the camp for a couple months. You'll be awaken in the middle of the night and have to run and crawl 30 km with a backpack.
Then you have to crawl towards your trainers without being spotted in the daylight.
joost1120 1 week ago
@joost1120 American army = trains by orders. Soviet Army and German army trained by following task. Seeing how US Military tactics never changes still extremely similar to WW2 tactics. US Army never changes. High orgenizing rate but low moral yes extremely low moral. They relay too much on firepower and air superiority. While conventional armies like Russian army and Chinese army does just fine without, US army would strugle big times against these two
SMGJohn 1 week ago
At 0:38 ,any peasant kid can use it?bull shit
newkid77100 4 weeks ago
@newkid77100 well unless hes like mentally retarded
saksari93 4 weeks ago
that thing has non electronics in the war head or triggering system. so much for "sending electrical signal to the rocket motor.......and ignition system"
wendysimmens 1 month ago
kid whit an RPG run..
rubberduck182 1 month ago
Weapons = train, learn, maintain, clean, use
Russian weapons = use
Ravensteinzh 1 month ago 96
@Ravensteinzh lol!
elearis1 3 weeks ago
For intrest RPG stands for Rocket Proplled Grenade
moshimaster123 1 month ago
@moshimaster123 Failed. Ruchnoy Protivotankovoy Granatomet : infantry antitank grenade launcher...
PATRONSKiii 1 month ago
@PATRONSKiii WELL I TRYED
moshimaster123 1 month ago
@PATRONSKiii They can mean both.
UnbreakableKGB 1 month ago
@moshimaster123 No. Exactly it's ручной противотанковый гранатомёт or hand held anti-tank grenade launcher in english.
ogi415 4 weeks ago
grenade 85 mm
lepricoun