Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1150145
to be protected against the "German fist". It appears that the Ger- man infantry has some highly effective weapons at its disposal, al- though the situation where a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher is able to combat tanks effectively by targeting their front, where the armor is the thickest, is quite puzzling. But still – if the attack takes place at an angle, the "conventional" PzF-3IT600 with its pow- erful warhead is able to fight over 95% of Russian tanks. Apart from the highly effective warhead, another major advantage is the fea- ture of a Dynarange optical-electronic sight. The Dutch have used it in Afghanistan and learned that it is effective against static targets at a distance of up to 1,000 m, and against moving targets – from 300 to 600 m. This is a truly outstanding performance. How to describe the Panzerfaust 3IT600 in one sentence? It's the "last of the Mohicans" of the almost extinct family of "special-pur- pose" anti-tank grenade launchers which are not top-attack weap- ons. In the 2000s and in the present decade, many manufacturers of lowest-tier hand-held anti-tank weapons assumed that in order to neutralize a tank it was necessary to strike it from above be- cause the chances of piercing through the frontal plating were really low. And this was the principle governing the design of the Predator SRAW from the US, the NLAW from Sweden/UK or the new Spike SR from Israel. In fact, they are quasi-ATGMs, so to speak, and they cost much more than standard grenade launchers. On the other hand, there was still a range of existing solutions like the Russian RPG-29s and RPG-28s, which are not effective against modern MBT front armor, but can be categorized as "conventional" heavy hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. Their ability to com- bat targets effectively depends therefore on the tactical situation, meaning they need to be aimed at the sides and the rear of the at- tacked tanks to be effective. Yet, the latest "heavy" ERAs protecting the sides of tanks in their "asymmetrical" upgrades may offer real- ly good protection against such weapons. The Pzf-3T and IT600 would be similarly effective if not for the continued improvements and tests of the solution – and the implementation of highly ad- vanced technologies in the process of manufacturing of warheads and precursors. However, the future doesn't look too bright for this grenade launcher. And there are several reasons for this. The main of them is the appearance and gradually growing popularity of hard-kill active protection systems. They reduce the effectiveness of light anti-tank weapons used by infantry to almost nothing. An- other thing is the said evolution of tank armors – the latest west- ern vehicles have their hull and turret fronts well protected against weapons like the PzF-3IT600. Also, the new types of reactive ar- mors or combination armors – e.g. reactive-ceramic armors (like the German CLARA) – make it possible to protect hull sides against such powerful weapons really effectively. Russians are catching up with the West quite quickly as well. At the same time, not many vehicles on the battlefield will feature active protection systems and heavy ERAs. This means an even greater stratification in the defenses of armored vehicles. There will be two classes of armored targets on the battlefield: One will include vehicles featuring APSs and effective heavy armor, occurring in small numbers (because of their cost), extremely difficult to combat, and calling for new combat measures. The other will encompass everything else, i.e. everything not valuable enough to be fitted with APSs or impossible to be equipped with "active protection" solutions because of the economic reasons. Most likely, as it is right now, the group will be composed of light armored vehicles, and a great majority of IFVs and APCs. These are targets that can be fought without turning to powerful shaped charge warheads or top-attack weapons. A gre- nade launcher able to pierce through approx. 450–550 mm of steel will be enough. Germans might be well aware of this trend – hence the gradual departure from the development of the Panzerfaust-3 family and a shift towards other grenade launchers from the DND portfolio. RGW family is based on the concept of an inexpensive disposable recoilless grenade launcher. It features a mechanism of count- er-mass (ceramic powder) ejected from the launcher's tube, which reduces the recoil and makes it possible to fire the weapon from enclosed spaces. The earliest member of the family was the 60 mm RGW 60, weigh- ing 5.8 kg and measuring 850 mm in length. It featured a simple optical sight with a 1.5x magnification. The rocket-propelled grenade reached a range of 300 m. What made the weapon stand out was its ergonomics. Unlike in the case of other solutions, the pragmatic Germans went for ergonomics and user-friendliness – even at the expense of a greater weight and larger size. That's why the RGW came with a carrying strap, a folding front grip, a convenient rest, and a grip with a fuse and a trigger mechanism. The RGW 60 ability to pierce armor was not too impressive, but the warhead was quite effective against other targets. The weap- on alone turned out to be good enough that it was quickly joined by a "bigger brother" – the RGW 90. The RGW 90 was developed in 1999 to meet the requirements of Singapore as part of a MAT- ADOR program, evolving soon into an extensive family of grenade launchers, including as many as eight different variants: Ä RGW 90HH (HEAT/HESH), Ä RGW 90HH-T (HEAT/HESH Tandem), Ä RGW 90ASM (Anti Structure Munition), Ä RGW 90 ILLUM (Illumination), Ä RGW90 SMOKE, Ä RGW 90WBR (Wall Breaching), Ä RGW 90 LRMP (Long Range Multipurpose), Ä RGW 110. All of them share common features. First, they can be fired from confined spaces of the capacity of 15m3, and the business-end of the launcher tube may be positioned 2 m away from the wall. Second, although they are all "disposables", highly ergonomic and user-friendly, not differing much in this aspect from reusable solu- tions. As a result, it's much easier for a tired, stressed out soldier to use these weapons, and the risk of making a mistake is lower too. LAND FORCES