Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1150145
All of the above is true, but there's one "but". The smokescreen effect will occur, of course, but combined with the target being struck by phospho- rus, which also exudes toxic smoke. It's a highly effective weapon against targets in buildings or bunkers – especially against living force highly prone to being struck by burning white phosphorus scattered during pro- jectile explosion. RGW 90WBR (Wall Breaching) is an interesting example of a weapon intended for urban combat and designed with creating 'entries' in walls by means of explosion in mind. This variant weighs as much as 13 kg and offers an effective range of only 100 m, but its 174 mm shaped charge warhead is able to make a very large hole (of a diameter of over 80 cm) in a brick wall or – by means of two hits – in an 80 cm concrete wall. The most technically advanced is the RGW90 LRMP (Long Range Multipurpose). It was developed as a response to the demands of Bunde- swehr looking for a weapon able to combat pinpoint targets (snipers, ma- chine guns, etc.) at a distance of 1,200 m and not much more expensive than ATGMs at the same time. This led to combining the reusable Dyn- ahawk module (known from the Panzerfaust 3IT600) with the RGW90 disposable launcher which featured a new HE programmable round. The dimensions of the kill zone are 16 x 8 m (at least 3 fragments per m2), and the dimensions of the impact zone are 45 x 30 m. This variant of the weapon weighs 8.9 kg (without the sight), and it offers a range of 20 m (contact fuse) to 1,200 m (programmable fuse). The latest member of the family is the RGW110 – a 'heir' to the Pan- zerfaust-3IT600. It may come in the form of a simple disposable RWG90 grenade launcher with a range of up to 400 m against static targets or with a Dynahawk module that will make it perform like its predecessor. Without the additional sight, the weight of the weapon should not exceed 10 kg, and its length in transport position is 1000 mm. The warhead will be an improved version of the Panzerfaust 3IT600. At present, DND have the technology that makes it possible to achieve a penetration value equal to 10–11 diameters of the shaped charge liner with the lifespand limited to about 10–15 years. The result may be an impressive value of 1,100 mm of RHA of penetration by a warhead... of a disposable anti-tank grenade launcher. As a comparison – this is the penetration potential reached half a decade ago by Russian Kornet ATGMs. The RGW110 will thus follow in the footsteps of the PzF-3IT600, becoming a solution that will be cheaper but still effective against the front armor of majority of tanks. The RGW90 comes with a range of sights too. The simplest of them is the one known from the earliest version, the optical sight with a fixed magnification of 1.5x It also features markers for engaging moving tar- gets. It comes as a standard feature of the launcher equipment. The next two are advanced aiming modules that let the shooter fire the weapon at a distance of up to 1,200 m. They are reusable, quick attached and offer a magnification of 4.4 or 5x, come with a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and are able to calculate the dynamic prediction for moving targets with adjustments displayed on the grid. There also two types of night sights, including an uncooled thermal camera. It's also important to mention the advanced training system, which in- cludes not only laser solutions to be used in field conditions and simula- tors to be taken advantage of indoors with display units but also 7.62 and 18 mm barrel inserts. These barrel inserts make it possible to organize a low-cost real firing training session. As said already, Polish army needs 1,500+ reusable (or hybrid) grenade launchers or 10,000+ disposable grenade launchers. Bearing in mind the training resources and reserves, the number of the necessary "disposables" may be well over 15,000. The demand may seem high, but this is because of the outdated structures of infantrysquads and platoons, and the pathetic condition of anti-tank defenses at the company – and even battalion – level. The solution is, as suggested in the previous issue of "FRAG OUT!", to intro- duce specialized support weapons at the platoon level and to purchase ded- icated modern top-attack anti-tank grenade launchers in the quantity of, say, four per platoon. The case may be considered taking another – equally good – scenario into account. It would involve ditching idea o support weapons, like a recoilless gun, that need to be handled by at least two soldiers, and from expensive top-attack quasi-ATGMs, and opting for providing platoons with disposable grenade launchers taken from vehicles as necessary. The solution has some significant advantages. First, it eliminates the problem of two men carrying support weapons at the platoon level and the problem of two men carrying ATGM in a squad. The additional men, released from their assistant roles, will prove invaluable in the event of a reform of low-tier struc- tures. The disposable launchers are also more flexible in use – especially in the case of unavoidable losses on the battlefield. Lastly, we should bear in mind the already mentioned stratification in the protection measures found on armored vehicles, which will become a fact in their extreme form, accompanied by a massive spread of hard-kill APS. Right now, this concerns Israel and the US, but will be soon relevant to Russia and Germany as well. As a result, the rules adopted in combating armored vehicles at the company-platoon level as we know them will change because light ATGMs and grenade launchers won't be effective anymore. Will the in- troduction and adoption of such type of systems mean the end of ATGMs and hand-held grenade launchers as weapons of choice to fight armored ve- hicles? Certainly not, but we need to be aware of the serious implications be- hind the mass implementation of "active armors" to protect various vehicles in the near future. Implementing refined and multi-channel APSs will make it possible for the "shield" to gain the upper hand over the "sword" – perhaps for even longer than a decade. To put it differently – fighting vehicles protected by means of APSs will become really difficult and costly, and actually only highly advanced and specialized systems will be capable of it. It's almost 100% certain that it will be impossible to use measures suitable to deal with "active protection" solutions with hand-held armor-piercing grenade launch- ers. Given the costs of hard-kill APSs, however, only tanks and IFVs will be equipped with such systems. And not all of them – just those used by "elite" or "staff" units. All other vehicles will not be feature "active armor", and they are targets that can be fought without turning to powerful shaped charge warheads or top-attack weapons. A grenade launcher able to pierce through approx. 450–550 mm of steel will be enough. In addition to that, it is a fact that the combat moves into urban environments, where vehicle maneuver- ability is limited and relies on main communication lines, and where soldiers need to have effective and – can't stress that enough – numerous means enabling them to destroy bunkers, form entries in walls or setting smoke- screens. It may turn out that the refined family of "disposables" is, in fact, ev- erything a infantry platoon needs, and that the dedicated "serious" anti-tank weapons will be used at a higher tier anyway. In such circumstances, the RGW90 should be the perfect solution to go for as it is a really well-designed support weapon, well thought out in terms of ergonomics and user-friendly, and the effectiveness of its warheads is unquestionable. LAND FORCES