Talk:RPG-29

Price Quote on RPG-29 launcher and round

Where does the pricing information come from?

I edited the part about how the container mates to the launcher, but did not edit, add or delete any part concerning the price. If the price quotes is correct it is one of the cheapest antiarmor weapons on the market. For example the USMC SMAW (based on the Israeli B-300) has an antiarmor round the HEAA which is quoted as costing $16,000 to $25,000 per round!!!! - Jack E. Hammond

I have a suspicion that the price quoted may be what the weapon actually fetches in a particular context, for example when being bought and sold on the black market in Iraq. The actual development/manufacturing cost is probably a lot higher, although no doubt still a lot less than the likes of the Javelin. :) Riddley 16:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, this is a Russian weapon, not American... they like cheap and simple, and don't pay $1000 for toilet seats. I can easily believe the prices listed on the page. Mark Grant 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the price, since nobody has come up with a source for it - and it has been tagged for some time - see WP:VERIFY. Megapixie 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I checked the links listed on the page and didn't find any information there, so it's probably worth removing. Mark Grant 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is the RPG 29 reloadable?

Yes, the rocket is breech loaded, i.e. slid into the launch tube from the rear. Riddley 02:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the altered reload mechanism affected the reloading time compared to the old RPG-7? Has anybody information about the rate of fire a trained user can achive? 84.166.249.88 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a different system. The rpg-7 is a rocket (carries it's own fuel) launcher and the rpg-29 is a grenade launcher. It's pretty much operated like the Carl Gustav grenade launcher, and with Carl Gustav an intermediate pair can get 6 accurate shots in one minute and an expert pair kan get 10 accurate shots in one minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.121 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

"The warhead is extremely powerful, and in tests conducted against T-80 and T-90 tanks it penetrated the tanks over their frontal arcs.[1] If these reports are true about frontal penetration, the Russian HEAT weapons engineers have made an astonishing advance because a 105 mm warhead is considered inadequate. The French with their ERYX short-range anti-tank weapon stated that a HEAT warhead had to be at least 135 mm in diameter to defeat the newer Russian main battle tanks frontally."

This paragraph is not encyclopedia material.

In the first sentence is a sourced statement. That's perfectly fine.

The rest of the paragraph is unsourced editorial. After making a sourced statement, the next sentence begins with "If these reports are true...". If it's not true it shouldn't be in the article. Since it is sourced, why is that line there? Is there some reason to doubt whether or not the statement is true? Unencyclopedic.

The remainder of the paragraph is unsourced editorial. Unencyclopedic.

Without first sourcing and then rewriting it, it's just speculation and should be deleted.

Jdkkp (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the "if these reports are true..." line. There seems to be a presumption in military arms circles that, in source country tests, performance will be overstated because the vast majority of customers won't bother to engage in intensive weapons system testing before purchase. Personally I wouldn't support removing that caveat even once a source for the subsequent line about ERYX is found (it sounds familiar but I just got off work and don't feel like finding one) unless you can either find confirmation from another (non-Russian) source as to RPG-29 warheard performance or find a source describing the test in detail complete with measurements. Zhivago533 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As the moment there is zero evidence that the RPG-29 is being built under license by the SDN, if someone has a proper source please list it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.50.164 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment there is zero evidence that the RPG-29 is being built under license by the SDN, if someone has a proper source please list it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.50.164 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The RPG-29 never penetrated the M1's turret check.

It only achieved partial penetration, but was halted before it could reach the crew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Usage of RPG-29 in Syrian Civil war

According to videos that can be found on Youtube rebels use RPG-29 successfull against T-72 tanks: Search for "T-72 tank being destroyed by RPG-29" So a section on usage in the Syrian Civil war should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.251.14.27 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The RPG-29 has been employed against Syrian state T-72s. The video in question here: cBnOi2-7QyI?t=28m39s

The timestamp that I have linked to is right when the operators are loading the weapon and it can be distinctly seen as an RPG-29.BandAid3030 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Add Hamas , please

Here is some collection of photos where Hamas terrorists shown with RPG-29

http://bukvoed.livejournal.com/285023.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.224.143 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

List of former operators

Czechoslovakia definitely never used RPG-29, that was completely sucked out from the finger, so I removed it from the list of former operators. I also seriously doubt east Germany ever had them. When the hell both of these countries should get them, if soviets themselves got them in 89? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.174.118 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the East German claim. Feel free to restore it if there's a source for this. It doesn't have to be by '89, '90 would be fine. Even later, although that would no longer be the GDR. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What's with the alt accounts spamming the same story that the source author has already admitted is unverified.

The author of the russianinfo webpage Vasily Fofanov has already stated the following

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18913&page=3#entry401721

"Re this trials report. Even after all these years, I couldn't independently verify these trials took place (and I could independently verify a great many things in this time...), nor verify that the person ever existed. This looked quite plausible back then but it increasingly looks this was just an elaborate hoax."

The tank-net consensus is that it was faked http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32870&page=2

The RPG-29 somehow outperforms the PG-7VR, which has the same warhead for no apparent reason cast even more doubts.

You getting nowhere with personal attacks and weak accusation, here, and on my talk page. Also, the rule for revert is clear, if you get reverted you looking for dialogue.

If it would be indeed faked, Mr. Fofanov would have it already removed back then, as the post was made in 2006. Instead, he just expressed his doubts and left it untouched. The new website was established in 2009 with the last edit on 2010. Also, there's no consensus at tank-net, other user clearly disagreeing.

However, Mr. Fofanov could have already gathered some further information, and even probably confirm its validity. I'm going to mail him, in the meantime, stop kicking and screaming and wait for a clear response. Thanks. Nenzza (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fofanov hasn't touched that website in almost decade while the article has seen 15 years without an update nor anything corroborating with it, use your real account if you serious about not being just another troll. Otherwise find an actual post by Fofanov saying your baseless assumptions or anything that isn't a circular reference to that article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeuCeaMia (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on RPG-29. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100915001508/http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130620012148/http://www.gunsandweapons.net/rpg-29/ to http://www.gunsandweapons.net/rpg-29/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hamas 2014 Section

The assertion that the RPG-29 had no effect in 2014 is not supported by either of the given sources.

The first correctly says that Hamas possessed RPG-29 at the time, but does not say anything about it being intercepted by trophy. The source also says that the IDF did not report any tank losses in Protective Edge. Problems with this are twofold. Firstly, IDF reporting no tank losses does not mean no tanks were lost. Secondly, even if no tanks were entirely destroyed, that does not equate to 'no effect'.

The second source shows two grainy Hamas videos, one of which does indeed appear to show Trophy intercepting what is most likely a Kornet missile, and the second is asserted to be Trophy intercepting an RPG-29. Unless the authors have far better eyes than I do, there is no way to ID that rocket as an RPG-29. Additionally, it is unclear in the video whether Trophy actually intercepts the rocket. Trophy interceptions are rather unlikely at such close range.

Despite the IDF not formally announcing any tank losses in the current conflict, the recent admission that 500 tanks have been damaged to the point of being either permanently or temporarilly decomissioned highlights the folly of using lack of IDF reports as an indicator of fact.

I plan to edit this myself to a more factual account, but I thought I'd make a topic about it to allow discussion first, since I am new to editing Wikipedia. NingNonger (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References