Talk:PG-7VR

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Check the M1A1 tank page. NO RPGS HAVE DESTROYED ANY M1S IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. "DISABLED" TANKS MEANT THAT THE TANKS IN QUESTION NEEDED TO BE HAULED TO BASE FOR REPAIRS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.72.242 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 January 2006

- An RPG-7VR is incapable of penetrating the armor of the M1, much less the M1-A2, without 4 or more shots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.57.165 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 28 April 2006

The lower side armour, not protected by Chobham, is vulnerable.--MWAK 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, even four shots at exactly the same spot only would get you through the side turret Chobham itself; two more would be needed to overcome the uranium.--MWAK 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would it take for you to consider a tank to be destroyed? Most tanks that get hit in battle can be repaired and re-enter service. Just because the tank wasn't completely burned up and the entire crew killed doesn't mean the the enemy didn't get a kill. In my opinion, if the RPG hits the tank, wounds some of the crew, and the tank is no longer able to fight, that should count as a kill. DarthJesus 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would count destroyed as out of action for at least a week. Disabled would mean about 24-48 hours. In this case, if the tank is unable to fight, then it is "disabled". Remember, in the Israeli-Syrian War in th 60s-70s, many Syrian missiles knocked out Israeli tanks for less than 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.46.248 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 5 June 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:PG-7VR-ammo.gif[edit]

Image:PG-7VR-ammo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I have a credible source for the PG-7VR scoring a kill against an M1A1 Abrams[edit]

This article at the Army Times seems to be about the incident in question. No idea if the source is good enough to meet Wikipedia's requirements, I'll let someone else be the judge. –Xoid 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]