anti armour grenades from AQ

#2
It doesn't look that difficult to produce. Contact initiation?
 
#3
Lets hope that there are a few 'own goals' in training for the terrorists. The backblast looks mean.

fastmedic
 
#4
Just another reason why jumpy lads are going to shoot "Innocents" whilst on Top Cover. We had several bottles and molatovs thrown out our Wagons on Telic. Not to mention stones etc. However nothing like this ever came of it.

However seeing them things getting launched at the Septics makes me think that ducking down might not be the best course of action ref this type of incident. So more and more lads are going to end up shooting Teenagers who were stupid enough to throw something at passing troops.
 
#5
Mr_Deputy said:
Well ok Cheap its not a cruise missile granted. Drag parachute to land nose down to ensure maximum contact. Quite clever and not exactly a molotov cocktail job. You think they are being made in people's front rooms then?
No but likely in the shed round the back as long as you have the ability to cut and shape metal. The only thing that may require specialised manufacture is the fuze.
 
#8

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#10
Looking at that piece of motorised scaffolding I have to say that it would probably be safer... Less flat surfaces to get a good initiation off...

The US article says there's no defence against it, there is of course (i) decent top cover (ii) foot patrols supporting armour not just armour (iii) vehicles moving together providing decent all-round-protection and my personal favourite (iv) get the contractors to do it.
 
#12
I think you're right about the vehicle above surviving better - at least there's no armour plate to contain the blast.

Like Mr Happy says, good drills can reduce the threat of this weapon.

ISTR PIRA using a similar weapon a few years back IAAG or PRIG rings a bell.
 
#13
Nothing new under the sun. Thought this looked familiar. a little digging and:

Because of the problems to stabilize the dedicated anti-tank grenades for flight - the shaped charge needed to be pointed straight at the armor to work efficiently - the Panzerwurfmine ("tank throw mine") or PWM (L) (L for "lang" = "long") was developed by the Luftwaffe weapon's bureau (the Luftwaffe also contained ground forces in the form of it's field units and the paratroopers).

The weapon weighed 1.36kg, had a length of 53.3cm and used a stabilizing assembly of four fins made of canvas at it's rear. It was introduced into service in May of 1943 but proved rather impractical. Still, 203,800 were produced in 1943.


It's successor model was the Panzerwurfmine Kz (Kz = kurz ("short")) that weighed only 1 kg. Flight stabilization now was achieved by a long canvas strip that rolled out when the weapon was thrown and extended from it's rear. The warhead had a diameter of 11.4 cm and carried a shaped charge of 500g that had an armor penetration of 150mm.
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust9.htm

I think there was a similar British device.

Incidentally, the video refers to them as being of Russian manufacture rather than home made.
Probably this, the RKG-3

More information here:
http://www.inert-ord.net/russ02i/rkg3_upg8/index.html

And here:
http://maic.jmu.edu/ordata/srdetaildesc.asp?ordid=1020
 
#14
Yes, nothing new about them, we dealt with a lot of these type of grenades over the years, known also as the M79 in Bosnia, nasty things! one of our lads was very sadly killed by one during an Op Harvest...
 
#16
I suppose you could fit a couple of claymores to the side of your vehicle as a kind of ´reactive armour´,wouldn´t affect your survival rates but you´d sieve the bombers,see how many are still chucking them when all their mates are being scraped off the floor :twisted:
 
#18
EX-STAB, you constantly amaze me at what you pull out! (Not a wah, I mean it!) :D
 
#19
Mongoose said:
Why on earth aren't they contacting those chumps running up in clear view and throwing them?!
Because until it goes bang you don't know if they've got a grenade or just a stone.
 

Similar threads

Top