Bug #17423

RPG7 Accuracy

Added by joedamage over 6 years ago. Updated over 4 years ago.

Status:Duplicate Start date:02/06/2011
Priority:Normal Due date:
Assignee:- % Done:


Target version:-
Component: Affected Version:
Close Reason:


According to Wikipedia (who have it from other sources) the RPG is a lot less accurate than Arma portrays. Perhaps you guys could decrease it a bit. Its not a AI skill level issue, because no matter how skilled you are, hitting with pin point accuracy over 500m is just practically impossible.

I have done some testing, and the AI is consistently accurate over long distances, with the RPG. Wikipedia:

RPG7 Accuracy:
50 m 100%
100 m 96 %
200 m 51 %
300 m 22 %
400 m 9 %
500 m 4 %

Perhaps you could look at this.

test_RPG.utes.pbo (2.2 kB) joedamage, 02/11/2011 19:02

rpg-7.pdf (1.7 MB) joedamage, 02/12/2011 14:23

rpg_hit_probabilies.jpg (125.2 kB) joedamage, 02/12/2011 14:23

Related issues

duplicates A.C.E. for OA - Bug #16850: Hit probability for AI using non guided ATs is too high. Rejected 01/20/2011


Updated by Zach over 6 years ago

Is that with or with out the sight? What round is that accuracy taken from? A RU gunner with a sight using new rounds could hit out to 300-400 easy i think. But yes, if its a 30+ year old rpg with a untrained gunner and no sight it should be lowered.

Updated by joedamage over 6 years ago

Zach wrote:

Is that with or with out the sight? What round is that accuracy taken from? A RU gunner with a sight using new rounds could hit out to 300-400 easy i think. But yes, if its a 30+ year old rpg with a untrained gunner and no sight it should be lowered.

Well, I don't know if the AI use the sight, but the rounds are both OG7 and PG7. (Frag and HEAT). The round type doesn't seem to make a difference.

There are a number of references to the accuracy of the RPG7, including here, here" and here. Although it is possible to hit at ranges in excess of 500m, its surely going to take even an expert a few shots to get it right.

Updated by rocko over 6 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Duplicate
  • Close Reason deleted (BIS / Engine problem)

Your report lacks of proof, same with this: #16850 which is a duplicate.

Updated by Harrumph over 6 years ago

I fail to see how this lacks proof - he's subsequently included three separate sources detailing the accuracy of RPGs in real life circumstances.

If you require in-game "proof" of it not reflecting real life sources in accuracy, it's as simple as creating a mission with the following:

Place a vehicle 500M away from the player who spawns with an RPG and fires at the vehicle.
You will reliably be able to hit it after compensating for elevation.

Updated by Ragerh over 6 years ago

Proof? There is 2 people that made reports about it. Plus allot that voted for it. There's no reason you need any more proof. If you'd like to see it, play the game. The AI with or without sights are way too accurate. A Rpg is not a accurate weapon. Do you know how far 500m really is? To hit a target that far away with pinpoint accuracy every time is unrealistic. Like Zach said : "But yes, if its a 30+ year old rpg with a untrained gunner and no sight it should be lowered." Even with sights it should be lowered. Here's a link if you'd like to see what a rpg is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7 . Try and have a look at it again and i think you'll find that they are a bit too accurate.

Updated by Sickboy over 6 years ago

Proof means:
  • Sources - that means links, book references, etc
  • Repro mission and steps

Both are necessary for authentic settings, as well as points of reference and reducing the time we have to spend, leaving more time for actual development.


Updated by Ragerh over 6 years ago

Ok cool, We have A US Army evaluation on how accurate it should be and links for it. Would a clip or video convince you that its too accurate in game. If for instance, theres a AI guy firing a rpg aat different distances etc? Now that we know what proof means.

Updated by Iron_Wardog over 6 years ago

I actually have been wanting to do a deep research on how accurately the RPG-7 is depicted in game because i have the feeling it is way off, but i've never had enough time to do it and alas i'm currently ill.

The reasons i think the RPG-7 (with the original PG-7V grenade) is not accurately depicted regard the fact that as a player you seem you have very good 1st shot accuracy at 300m and the excessive damage it seems to do. Also the fact that the RPG-7 doesn't seem to be affected by wind has a big impact.

Now for the facts, i think the best place to start is this document (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf) USTRADOC's evaluation of the RPG-7. It has a number of charts with range/accuracy within different parameters and a good explanation of what happens to an RPG grenade when fired with crosswinds.

Another interesting fact that can be found in the book "Vietnam Tracks" by Simon Dunstan (http://books.google.com/books?id=Qf0484HM4vcC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=%22vietnam+tracks%22+BOOK&source=bl&ots=gjCNqMenOE&sig=MEO_ao3DdMqarmREwjm3V0YYOtA&hl=en&ei=mU5QTbGbPMmr8QOAvJ2EAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22vietnam%20tracks%22%20BOOK&f=false) is that they were found to be terribly ineffective vs the M113. Dunstan makes the point that only 1 of 8~10 rounds ever found its mark and that on average of those that hit, only 1 out of 7 ever penetrated the armour of a M113, as the PG-7V seems to need a near 0ยบ incidence angle to be effective (i've tried to research the superplasticity properties of the PG-7V but have been mostly unsuccessful in my findings). More, on average each penetration cause one casualty within the vehicle's occupants.

As a side node, some time ago i made a small mission(only ACE mods) which had a convoy of 3 vehicles go the length of Chernarus' main airstrip on route 300m from the woods which were spotted with RPG riflemen. I tried with Stryker, Bradley and M113s convoys and all vehicles had a pretty high destruction on first hit, though the AI seemed to use fuze times for the grenades as some seemed to burst without hitting. I still have much of the footage fragmented in a lot of files though.

Updated by rye over 6 years ago

That book must be talking about the uparmoured variant because other variants have had 7.62 AP rounds penetrate the hull. 50 cal rounds could with some variants. Aluminium armour depth from 0.47 to 1.5 inch, that isn't much for certain RPG warheads and with more direct hits you're talking of spallation as well(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation) and dinting in the armour.

And then you're talking what type of launcher and rocket. It might not of been an anti-tank or any kind of real penetrator. Plus you're talking a lot of years ago - if they missed 1 out of 7 times then they've most likely wasted all their Anti-Tank Tandem rounds in the engagements. :P

If you look at penetration specs on any other source it will tell you different:

It's made for penetrating that kind of armour. Good research though, keep it up.

Updated by Iron_Wardog over 6 years ago

Like i mentioned, i only focused on the PG-7V grenade for the RPG-7 (which if i recall correctly was the only available to the NVA) and i make no judgement on the other warheads being or not accurate but the PG-7V seems to be off the wall.
The numbers in "Vietnam Tracks" are for both the standard M113 and ACAV. And from the average each penetration cause one casualty within the vehicle's occupants, it leads me to speculate that spalling wasn't particularly effective (spall flakes too small from aluminium armour?).

The PG-7V IS made to penetrate armour, but remember the book implies that the warhead loses much of its effectiveness if not at a perfect incidence angle.

Updated by Sickboy over 6 years ago

Thanks for the sources, if you could please provide a repro mission which we can use as point of reference, we'll see what we can do.

Updated by rye over 6 years ago

Nah spallation would only injure, but it would allow for multiple shots to be more damaging/penetrable. You have the average casualty rating which is very good. I would think there would be more injured and more deaths due to it being so small (in terms of interior space for the amount of people that could be inside) and penetrability with certain ammunition.

Yeah the PG-7V here is rated at the lowest for penetrating armour. Good information, have you got any more resources? Most sources, especially from books or websites (not military owned or run by ex-military or other industry professionals) obscure the truth quite a lot. The PDF's were good.

Though RPG-7 accuracy - 100% at 50m? I'd have to say nothing is 100%, though it may be close to that, maybe under their testing conditions it could be but combat is completely different - especially for a poorly trained insurgent. That was against the 5m high, 2.5m long object too - that's huge hehe, that's why it's uncomfortable sitting in a bushmaster. Other than that, good work.

Updated by joedamage over 6 years ago


Sorry it took so long, been a bit busy.

Heres a little test mission:
1. Set the sight to 600m
2. load the RPG
3. Sit one of the technicals on the top of the vertical sight, and fire...

I have tried this over and over, and out of 12 shots I hit 11. But with a bit more concentration, I'm sure I'd get 100%.

This is the ideal situation in which to test this. Players will vary very little in their ability. If you can consistently hit the targets, the RPG is too accurate. (I have removed the AI variable completely).

Updated by Trips over 6 years ago

How accurate should it be in this situation? Are you aware that the figures you quoted are against a moving target? According to rye's article hitting a target at 500m consistently should be possible for 'skilled' operators.

Updated by joedamage over 6 years ago

@Trips - The document mentioned above (and I've attached it here too) gives a fairly comprehensive account of how accurate RPG7s are over different ranges. According to one table, if I'm not reading this incorrectly, the probability of hitting a stationary target the size of a tank, with no wind, at 500m, with an above average ability to estimate range, sits at about 20%. 2nd round accuracy obviously improves the chances. Now, as you might notice, I'm not saying its impossible.

The issue isn't, in fact, the ability of the gunner. With the mission I have supplied, I am mitigating the effect of AI skill level, by putting the weapon into a players hands. With my probably average capabilities I am able to hit almost 100% at 600m. (Thats 100m more than the 500m mentioned).

The document describes in detail the findings of an investigation into the effectiveness of the RPG7. I think it stands on its own in terms of evidence that the weapon is too accurate in the game.

Updated by Trips over 6 years ago

You were firing at a known range. Put yourself on top of the tank and give it a spawn radius, that'll be a little fairer.

Also available in: Atom PDF