>>64383837
>Picrel is the real penetration measured for PG-7VM
False. The RPG-7 warhead they list in Tradoc bulletin 3 has a caliber of 85mm so it is either the PG-7 or PG-7V. They even call it PG-7. PG-7VM has a caliber of 70.5mm

>The pH for both M72 and RPG-7 was about 50% at 200m in reasonable conditions, and in practice M72 actually turned out to have better pH at all ranges.
No. The effective range of the M72 is hands down lower then the RPG-7, the hit probabiltiy at 200 meters is lower. Only with good training (which also applies to the RPG-7 at longer ranges then 200m) and known range can the M72 have a 50% hit probability at 200 meters during field testing. The M72 really shines in a pair/ sequence firing and did better then estimated during field tests that way.

Using data from Tradoc bulletin 5, In a 2d round hit (1st round missed) probability on stationary exposed tank the M72 did at following ranges
>100 meters 100%
>200 meters 75%
>300 meters 38%

The RPG 7 however in a similar 2d round scenario in Tradoc bulletin 3 did about
>100 meters 90%
>200 meters 78%
>300 meters 57%
>400 meters 37%
>500 meters 23%

This does not mean however the RPG-7 is the superior weapon system and the US was dumb for using the M72.

Soviet ATGM at that time period had a minimum effective range of 500 meters. US ATGM have a minimum effective range of 65 meters and are not MCLOS but are SACLOS so a higher hit probability at all ranges even at 100 meters. In a sceario where Soviet infantry supported by ATGM's are forced to engage US tanks at a range of 500-300 meters they have to rely on the RPG-7.

US infantry however can blast the Soviet tanks with the M47 dragon from 65 to 1000 meters or with the TOW 65 to 3650 meters with a way better hit chance att all ranges in the same scenario with both weapon systems.

The Soviets also directly copied the M72 with the RPG-18 so it is quite telling the M72 is a good idea, a disposable anti tank rocket for the individual soldier.