I don't know, I just got stuck with the topic. I have to relate it to the principles of dynamics and show it's societal impact.
In a physics class?
I suppose you are talking about the Soviet-made Nato-reporting "RPG-7?"
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
It's a relatively simple and versatile weapon system with ammunition for anti-personnel, anti-tank, and incendiary purposes.
There are several different systems that perform similar functions - though few have invested in ammunition for roles other than anti-armor.
You must be registered for see links
- The RPG-7 wiki.
You must be registered for see links
- The M72 LAW
You must be registered for see links
- The Panzerfaust-3, obviously of German origin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4 - The AT-4
Of course - you can go with the more sophisticated American offerings that are technically man-portable surface-to-surface missile launchers (as opposed to simple rocket propelled grenades/recoil-less rifles):
You must be registered for see links
- the M-47 Dragon, later supplanted by;
You must be registered for see links
The FGM-148 Javelin.
These go well above and beyond the RPG and are met by systems like:
You must be registered for see links
- the Metis-M, a Russian MPSSM
Cost-effectiveness is, truthfully, all over the place.
For example - a single Javelin system could cover a very large area to provide both direct and indirect fire support to several infantry squads that can focus on carrying ammo for their rifles or standard grenades rather than having to equip each fire team with an RPG and ammunition.
Heavy weapons are, truthfully, a liability to a mobile force. This is why the U.S. has placed such a heavy focus on the JDAM. A single B-52 sits up in the stratosphere over a battle zone and receives fire support requests from teams on the ground who mark targets for bombs.
It's just as, if not more effective than having to try and figure out how many people to give a rocket launcher, what kind of ammunition to equip them with, and then the headache that occurs if you have one team that is encountering more armor/entrenchments than their ammunition can handle and now you have to maneuver another team in to provide support.
Even though the more fancy weapon systems may be far more expensive, they may allow you to spend far less to accomplish the same operation more quickly and with fewer C3 nightmares.
That said, defensively, RPGs can give you a very quick and cheap way to reinforce areas against a blitz by armor. They don't require training or designation equipment. Point, shoot, boom. No additional supply lines are necessary to keep it up and running - what you see is what you've got.
So, the cost/effectiveness picture is not quite as cut and dry as it would first appear.
War is not just about the monetary cost of supplies - but also the operational cost/burden, the supply cost/burden, the weight cost/burden, the challenge of distribution (a hundred RPGs 2 kilometers away is not going to stop a mechanized infantry column from tearing through a line that has already used up the 5 they had in range), the cost of adequate area coverage, etc.
Since all of that is heavily dependent upon the operation, the weapon system(s) that are the most ideal depend upon who is supposed to be doing what, where, and against what expected (and contingent) threat.
