By Paul Newhouse

Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, most everyone have heard or seen news reports about the employment of RPGs by anti-Coalition forces; or what are referred to as “Rocket Propelled Grenades” by the news media. While the weapon shown is almost invariably the RPG-7, with perhaps an odd RPG-2 thrown in, there’s a lot more to the RPG story than those one or two familiar systems.

Perhaps we should start with a bit of etymology. While “RPG” has had three different meanings in the past 65 years, the acronym has never stood for “rocket propelled grenade.” Indeed, all the early RPGs had no rockets of any kind incorporated into their design, and the ubiquitous RPG-7 fires grenades both with and without rocket assist.

The first RPGs were simply shaped charge hand grenades. “RPG” in their case stood for Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata – Hand Antitank Grenade. (The author wishes to apologize in advance for any improper transliterations of Russian, though his spellings are more or less phonetically correct.) The two best known examples were the RPG-43 and RPG-6. While resembling stick grenades or “potato mashers” with large heads, their method of operation was rather more complex. Upon pulling a safety pin and throwing, a safety lever on the handle separated, allowing a stabilizing drogue chute to deploy, ensuring that the grenade impacted top down. A later version produced by the Russians was designated RKG-3, with the “K” standing for Kumulativnaya – shaped charge – to preclude confusion with the later kinds of RPGs. This design was copied by Yugoslavia as the M79. These grenades remain effective against all but the most modern armored vehicles. In fact, the US Army in the 1980s reverse-engineered an East German design. Their fatal flaw is their short effective range, approximately 30 meters.

The first of the weapon systems to resemble today’s RPGs was the RPG-1, development of which started at the end of World War 2. In this case, “RPG” stands for Ruchnoi Protivotankoviyi Granatomyot – Hand Antitank Grenade Launcher. Despite Russian protestations that it was developed independently, the RPG-1 clearly owes much to both the German Panzerschreck rocket launcher (for the design of the warhead) and the Panzerfaust recoilless launcher; particularly the late-war reusable versions. The RPG-1 utilized the Panzerfaust’s simple launch tube, and as a result had to employ a black powder propelling charge that produced a very low muzzle velocity. The RPG-1 was not produced in large numbers.

The first widely produced RPG was the RPG-2, introduced in the late 1940s or early 1950s, coincidentally at the same time the AK-47 was beginning to enter service. This again utilized the Panzerfaust-type straight tube recoilless launch system, but now the PG-2 (Protivotankovaya Granata – Antitank Grenade) grenade bore a very obvious resemblance to that of the Panzerfaust 150, with a conical nose, cylindrical mid-body, and tail boom with wraparound fins. As the RPG-2 was thoroughly described in a previous issue of SAR (Vol. 10, No. 3), no further description is offered here.

Both the RPG-1 and RPG-2 were tactically comparable to the US “Bazooka” and British PIAT, being different systems capable of operation by a single man, but normally served by a two man crew. At about the same time as the RPG-2 was introduced, a heavier anti-armor weapon system also came into service. This was the 82mm SPG-82 (“SPG” stood for Stankovoi Protivotankoviyi Granatomyot – Mounted Antitank Grenade Launcher), development of which also began late in World War 2. Unlike the RPG-1 or RPG-2, this was a rocket system comparable to the US M20 3.5in “Super Bazooka.” Despite the smaller caliber, the SPG-82 was heavier and longer than the M20, with a large shield with wheels provided for the two man crew. The SPG-82 may be considered almost a general purpose infantry support weapon, akin to the early US recoilless rifles, as it had both PG-82 antitank grenades and OG-82 (Oskolochnaya Granata) fragmentation grenades. Both of these “grenades” were of course rockets.

At this point it may be wise to digress a moment and differentiate between infantry antitank weapon systems that are rockets, and those that are recoilless guns. Most frequently the majority of such weapons are described as rocket launchers, but this is glaringly inaccurate. The well-known M136/AT4 single-shot weapon in widespread use by the US Army is in fact a disposable recoilless launcher. The infamous RPG-7, despite firing rocket-assisted projectiles, is a reusable recoilless launcher.

One supposes the key distinguishing feature is where the pressure, built up by propellant combustion, occurs, and where the pressure drop which produces the propulsive force occurs. In a rocket system, the propellant combusts entirely within the rocket itself, and the pressure drop which produces the propulsive force occurs across the body of the munition. This may best be illustrated by considering the case of a rocket like that from an M72 LAW being ignited outside its launch tube. The rocket would travel just as far as if it were fired normally; the tube only provides for initial aiming, and does not contribute to the propulsive process.

In a recoilless weapon, the launch tube is an integral part of the propulsive process, and incorporates a chamber for the propellant to burn at a relatively high pressure, and a nozzle to create a constriction that vents the high pressure gases rearwards, usually at an accelerated velocity, whose momentum is then used to balance exactly the momentum of the projectile leaving the muzzle. If one were to ignite the propelling charge of a PG-2 or a PG-7 in the open, it would simply burn. The grenade would not go anywhere. Without a chamber to allow burning at a high pressure, no propulsive force is generated.

It’s also worthwhile to take a brief look at the physics of recoilless weapons. Simply put, recoilless guns work by expelling a projectile from the front in the usual manner, and a countermass out the back of the gun. The earliest recoilless guns were the Davis Guns of WW1. These used a central propelling charge to fire a projectile out of a forward-pointing barrel, and a solid countermass of equal weight out a rearward pointing barrel of identical length. While solid countermass recoilless guns have been in use since then, and a few still are, in most applications a solid countermass is a nuisance at best and a danger to one’s own troops at worst. Between the wars it was found that it was only necessary to match the momentum (mass times velocity) of the countermass to that of the projectile. Thus, a very light countermass, such as propellant gas moving at a very high velocity, can have a momentum equal to a heavy projectile discharged at a lower velocity.

Most recoilless guns using a propellant gas countermass feature a prominent nozzle or nozzles at the back of the weapon. These are sometimes called venturis (acceptable) or “blast cones” (incorrect); more on these below. But one can’t help but note that the Panzerfausts and the RPG-2 had simple straight-tube launchers with neither constricting orifices nor conical venturis. So how did these weapons function, without simply venting the propellant gases out the back at low pressure? The answer lies in the fluid mechanics of compressible fluids. Most of us are aware that passing a fluid through a constriction will raise the velocity of the fluid. (Simply take your garden hose and constrict the water stream with your thumb, and watch how the water speeds up.) The higher the upstream pressure the greater the downstream velocity. But in gas systems, this only happens until a condition called choked flow is reached. At that point further increases in upstream pressure do not cause further increases in downstream velocity. The result in a recoilless weapon is a rise in pressure sufficient to launch a projectile. While this principle is the basis for most recoilless weapons, in straight tube launchers it has substantial performance limitations.

The outlet velocity of the propellant gases in a straight tube launcher remains subsonic. And to achieve a choked flow situation quickly, very fast burning propellant is required; in the RPG-2 fine granular black powder is used. But this fast propellant in turn causes a rapid pressure rise in the area of the propelling charge. The maximum pressure must be limited to remain within the strength limits of the tube. So there’s a limit to the weight of propellant that can be used, which in turn limits the mass of propellant gas available to form a countermass. As already mentioned, the gas velocity is limited in this system as well, the result is a relatively low available counterrecoil momentum. The final result of all these limiting factors is a very low muzzle velocity for a projectile of useful size. This was readily apparent in the early Panzerfausts, whose effective range was severely limited, at first to only 30 meters, by their low velocity and resultant highly curved trajectory.

Since gas velocity and tube strength impose limits on available counterrecoil momentum, the only way to really improve this system’s performance was to add additional propellant (and thus additional gas for the countermass), and since increasing the charge attached to the projectile would only increase the local pressure to unacceptable levels, the only solution available was to apply the maximum operating pressure over a greater length of the launch tube by distributing the propelling charge. In the later, longer-range Panzerfausts this was achieved by adding a secondary propelling charge approximately in the middle of the launch tube. The charge at the base of the projectile was initiated in the usual way, and this in turn ignited the secondary charge, boosting muzzle velocity and thus range, up to 100 meters and more.

The RPG-2 uses a rather more ingenious solution, with the black powder propelling charge subdivided into 6 increments by means of cardboard tubes and discs, the latter with flash holes to foster ignition. The primer in the base of the PG-2 grenade ignited the first increment, which burns rapidly, creating pressure and pushing the remaining four increments back down the tube. After a few inches of travel, the second increment is fully ignited, then the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. The result is high pressure over a greater length of the tube, rather than merely at the base of the projectile, and a greater volume of propellant gases for both propulsion and countermass.

But even with this technique, there were limits to the performance of a simple straight tube launcher. One attempt at improvement was the Yugoslav M57 launcher, which incorporated a partial solid countermass in the form of a quantity of sand. However, this represented at best an incremental improvement over the simple straight tube launchers.

But back to the RPG story! While the PG-2 grenade performed well enough in terms of armor penetration (and remains a threat to all but the most modern armored fighting vehicles), the weapon’s fatal flaw was its very primitive recoilless launcher. While its simple cylindrical tube was easy and cheap to fabricate, its lack of a chamber and nozzle, and resultant low pressure combustion, as described above, severely limited the velocity of the PG-2. This made range estimation very important at all but the shortest ranges. Additionally, the low velocity meant a longer time of flight. Both factors limited hit probability against both stationary and moving targets. An interim solution was found in the RPG-4. While this fired purely ballistic grenades, which resembled PG-2s albeit with increased standoff for the shaped charge, the 45mm diameter launch tube incorporated a larger diameter chamber and a venturi, or nozzle, at its rear end, causing it to greatly resemble its successor the RPG-7. The RPG-4, developed in the late 1950s, was not produced in quantity.

A brief description of the physics of the RPG-4 and RPG-7 is in order. These weapons incorporate the features seen in other, larger recoilless systems: a chamber of larger size than the propelling charge, and a convergent-divergent nozzle incorporating a constriction and a divergent (outlet diameter larger than inlet diameter) conical section. The constriction sets up the choked flow condition described above, albeit without the need to use a very fast propellant. The conical divergent nozzle in turn accelerates the propellant gases to supersonic speeds. Thus, in this type of system, there is much more counterrecoil momentum produced, both from burning more propellant over a longer time and from expelling the gas countermass at a much higher velocity. In the case of the RPG-7, this allowed the launching of projectiles heavier than PG-2s at velocities in some cases approaching double those of the older system.

The RPG-7 recoilless launcher, introduced in 1961, reverted to the 40mm tube diameter of the RPG-2 while retaining the chamber and nozzle design of its precursor the RPG-4. As the RPG-7 and its ammunition have already received a thorough treatment in the pages of SAR (Vol. 10, No. 3), no further description of the system will be given here. A brief observation on the function of its ammunition will be made in the hope of finally putting to rest the absurd “rocket propelled grenade” name. The RPG-7’s principal munition is one of a series of PG-7 antitank grenades. All of these incorporate a rocket motor. As the RPG-7 is a recoilless launcher, the PG-7 may be considered a rocket-assisted projectile; calling it a rocket would be incorrect. The reason for adoption of a recoilless-launched, rocket-assisted antitank munition of greater-than-average complexity is simple: it increases the munition’s velocity and thus reduces its trajectory and time of flight, without imposing any additional penalties on either the launcher or its user. The result is greatly improved hit probability against both moving and stationary targets. In a 1970s study the US Army deemed the RPG-7 the best solution to hitting armored vehicles out to 300m. Better than pure rocket systems and better than pure recoilless systems. But what would happen if the rocket motor in a typical PG-7 failed to ignite 10-15 meters from the launcher like it’s supposed to? All that would happen is that the grenade would follow a purely ballistic trajectory to the target, take longer to get there, and impact below the desired aimpoint. The shaped charge in its warhead would function just as well as if the rocket motor had fired, since the VP-7 fuze is independent of the rocket motor.

Another heavier system was introduced just after the RPG-7, the 73mm SPG-9 smoothbore recoilless gun. Though it filled a similar tactical role as the earlier 82mm B-10 and 107mm B-11 recoilless guns, it is a significantly lighter and handier weapon, which may explain its “SPG” nomenclature. Like the SPG-82, the SPG-9 fires two natures of ammunition: the PG-9 antitank grenade (which is rocket assisted for the same reasons the PG-7 is), and the OG-9 fragmentation grenade (which is an unassisted, purely ballistic munition).

A less-well-known weapon system, whose intended employment is also not as well known, is the RPG-16. Although its nomenclature may lead one to believe it was a replacement for the RPG-7, it really isn’t. The RPG-16 has a bore size of 58mm, and as it does not use an overcaliber warhead, its antiarmor performance is significantly less than more modern versions of the PG-7. At the same time the RPG-16 is significantly heavier than the RPG-7. So rather than looking at the RPG-16 as a successor to the RPG-7, it may be more appropriate to consider it as a subcompact derivative of the SPG-9, for use in those situations where the larger and heavier SPG-9 may be unsuitable. One Russian source mentions that the RPG-16 was developed primarily for airborne troops; its two piece takedown design, similar to that of the RPG-7D, seems to bear this out.

The third meaning of “RPG” is Reaktivnaya Protivotankovaya Granata, applied to a number of disposable pure rocket systems similar to, and likely inspired by, the US M72 LAW. “Reaktivnaya” is awkward to translate; some sources say jet, others rocket, and others “propulsive.” (Perhaps the best way to think of it is as “reactive propulsion,” in other words, a rocket). Also note that the whole system together is not a Granatomyot (grenade launcher), but a Granata (grenade).

The earliest such Russian system was the 64mm RPG-15, which was produced in only limited numbers. This was followed by the very widely produced 64mm RPG-18, also previously covered in the pages of SAR. The RPG-18 was augmented, but not really supplanted, by the 72.5mm RPG-22. Both of these systems employ rocket motors and folding fins inspired by the M72 coupled to warheads essentially identical to those used in PG-7s.

There are newer RPGs which have been designed and produced by the Russians: the RPG-26, 27, 28, and 29. The first three are single-shot weapons, while the last is a long and somewhat unwieldy reusable launcher. All feature larger diameters for improved armor penetration, and some feature tandem warheads for improved effectiveness against reactive armor. But as these systems have not been produced or fielded in large numbers, they will not be considered further.

Finally, there are two additional systems called “RPGs,” produced in Warsaw Pact countries, which have nothing in common with any of the RPGs previously mentioned, but which are so novel that they must be mentioned, if only in passing. While the grenade of the single-shot Polish RPG-76 Komar (Mosquito) resembles a small PG-7, in fact the RPG-76 is a pure rocket system; the rocket motor ignites upon firing, and its PG-7-like nozzles direct the exhaust gases away from the firer. Even so, it must be quite disconcerting to fire this weapon. The launcher is simplicity itself, consisting of a short tube with a folding shoulder stock and crude sights and trigger mechanism.

The single-shot Czech RPG-75 is as finely finished as the Polish weapon is crude. While its light launch tube may lead one to believe that it’s a rocket system, in fact it’s a smoothbore recoilless high-low pressure launcher, the only such weapon ever fielded, successfully combining the two novel gun propulsion technologies pioneered by the Germans and others in WW2. Because the RPG-75 has a separate high pressure chamber, the launch tube does not need to be as heavy as in a conventional recoilless launcher. Finally, the RPG-75’s projectile is neither fin nor spin stabilized, but uses a rear spoiler for stabilization. The only other application of this stabilization technique the author is aware of is in the 120mm M831A1 practice cartridge fired by the M1A1/A2 Abrams tank.

Now that you know the history of the RPG family of weapons and munitions, try not to cringe as the author does upon hearing or seeing the term “rocket propelled grenade!”

The key to the effectiveness of the RPG-7 and similar weapon systems is the employment of a shaped charge warhead. Unfortunately, while the basic configuration of a shaped charge is well known to many, its actual function is misunderstood by equally many. Indeed, a prominent researcher in the field, Donald R. Kennedy, once quipped that nine out of ten descriptions of a shaped charges are inaccurate! This brief article will attempt to set things straight.

First, nomenclature. The author prefers the term shaped charge, but the term hollow charge is equally acceptable. The Russians use the term kumulativnaya, which translates as “cumulative.” For this reason, translations of Russian material by those unfamiliar with munitions can be confusing. In the US and many Western nations, munitions employing shaped charges are designated High Explosive Antitank (HEAT).

Briefly, a shaped charge consists of a mass of explosive, typically cylindrical or approximately so, with a cavity at its front end. The cavity is usually conical; variations include hemispherical, tulip (cup shaped), or trumpet (self-explanatory). The cavity incorporates a liner of a ductile metal. Note that the liner is not necessary for the shaped charge effect to function, and indeed the effect was discovered while using unlined charges, but military shaped charges invariably use a metallic liner. The charge is initiated by a base fuze of several different types.

Upon functioning of the base fuze, the detonation of the main charge progresses directionally, and the shock wave impinges upon the liner, causing it to collapse. The collapse of the liner results in a jet of metal moving at extremely high velocity, on the order of 30,000 feet per second at its tip. It’s important to note that the velocity of the jet varies throughout its length, with the tip moving faster than the base. This phenomenon is what causes shaped charges to be ineffective at long standoff distances from the target: the jet continues to elongate until it literally breaks up, and the resulting jet segments have greatly diminished penetrative power. At the base of the jet is a larger diameter section called the slug, also composed of liner material, but moving at much lower velocity, and contributing little to penetration. Depending on the design, the slug may pass through the hole made by the jet, or may simply lodge in the opening of the hole.

So how does a shaped charge defeat armor? Many descriptions talk of a jet of molten metal, or even a plasma, “burning” its way through armor. In fact, the jet penetrates by means of kinetic energy, and the penetrative process isn’t that different from a high velocity armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot long rod penetrator. Both rely on the principle of concentrating a heavy, high speed mass of metal onto a small area of the target. The jet’s mass and velocity result in a pressure that exceeds the yield strength of the material of the target, and thus the jet pushes its way through. The jet is consumed in the process of penetration, with the result that the diameter of the hole decreases with depth in the target. The jet, by the way, is neither a molten liquid nor a plasma. While the temperature of the jet is higher than the melting point of its material, the pressures it is subjected to leave it in a solid state, often described as a “warm solid.” The jet does, however, behave in many respects as though it were a liquid when it’s under these pressure and temperature conditions, which has aided in computer modeling of shaped charge warheads.

As previously stated, the liner is made of a ductile metal. Copper has turned out to be the best choice, as it offers a combination of density and ductility that make it ideal. Steel has been a common substitute, often for reasons of economy, but its lesser ductility means that a steel liner will penetrate less than an otherwise identical copper liner. Another material of choice is aluminum, as used in the M136/AT4 antiarmor weapon. Its performance is markedly less than with copper or steel, but the resultant hole is larger, causing greater behind-armor effects. In the case of the AT4, the designers deliberately accepted the fact that their round would not be capable of killing the most modern tanks, but would instead be much more effective against the more numerous lighter armored vehicles found on the battlefield.

The explosive fillers used in shaped charge munitions should have as high a detonation velocity as possible. The PG-2 used a mixture of 50% RDX and 50% TNT, similar to the Composition B (60/40) used in early US HEAT munitions. This offers the advantage of being a castable filler, but did not provide maximum performance. The PG-7 uses a filler designated A-IX-1, being 94% RDX and 6% wax, again similar to a US filler, in this case the Composition A series. More recent PG-7 munitions use OKFOL, derived from the European term for HMX, octogen, chemically related to but more powerful than RDX; OKFOL is 96% HMX and 4% wax.

Shaped charges are sensitive to a number of factors. The liner must be of very pure and uniform material. Its uniformity of thickness is critical, such that a distinction is made between more or less “standard” shaped charges and “precision” shaped charges. The contact between the filler and the liner is also crucial. When the early cast fillers were used, the normal shrinkage of the explosive as it solidified would occasionally cause it to pull away from the liner. The result would be that instead of piercing a foot of steel, it would make a hole an inch deep.

There should also be as little between the liner and the target as possible, as this can degrade formation of the shaped charge jet. One notorious early counterexample was the British PIAT, which in effect used a wooden pushrod to initiate the base element of the fuze, right down the middle of the charge. On the subject of fuzes, while all shaped charge munitions are base detonating, the method of initiation may vary. The PG-2 used an inertia-type base fuze, wherein target impact caused a weighted element to slam into a firing pin. The PG-7, as described previously, uses a piezoelectric point initiating base detonating fuze, wherein impact crushes a piezoelectric crystal in the nose of the fuze, sending an electrical impulse to the base element. Another type, used in many early Russian tank and artillery HEAT munitions, was of the “spitback” type, wherein impact set off a small charge in the nose that propelled a small slug through a passageway in the center of the liner, detonating the booster at the base of the main charge.

One crucial feature of shaped charge munitions is called standoff. Basically, upon detonation of the filler, the shaped charge jet needs space in which to properly form. This standoff is expressed as charge diameters, a unitless quantity which the author hopes is self-explanatory. For non precision shaped charges, the standoff should be around 3 charge diameters, while for precision charges it is somewhat more. As stated previously, excessive standoff will result in the breakup of the jet and a reduction in penetration.

Spin is a major factor in reducing the performance of shaped charges. This is intuitively obvious, since while the detonation of the charge is forcing the liner inwards to form a jet, the centrifugal force from spin is trying to spread it out. It’s for this reason that the early US 57mm and 75mm recoilless rifle HEAT projectiles performed so poorly. Today, the problem is commonly solved by using fin stabilized projectiles. But one earlier technique involved what’s known as a fluted liner; the flutes result in a rotational component of jet collapse opposite in direction to that of the spin. This technique is used in the 30mm M789 HEDP projectiles fired from the AH-64 Apache’s M230 Chain Gun, and also in many 40mm HEDP grenade cartridges.

So assuming everything is put together properly, what kind of performance can be expected from a HEAT munition? The earliest shaped charge munitions achieved no better than 2-3 charge diameters penetration, with some, such as the PIAT and US recoilless rifle rounds previously mentioned, getting even less due to poor design. A good, modern, non-precision shaped charge should be able to defeat 5-6 charge diameters of steel armor, while the best precision shaped charges can penetrate 10 or more charge diameters.

Finally, in light of the timing of this publication, let’s look at the special case of hemispherical or shallow cone liners. While they may resemble Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), they are in fact true shaped charges: they form a jet whose tip is moving faster than its base, though the jet is both shorter and wider than in a conventional shaped charge. The US Marine Corps has just adopted a weapon with such a warhead, in the form of the M72A7, a modern version of the ubiquitous 66mm M72 LAW. In this case, the warhead isn’t going to make much impression on a tank, but will make usefully large holes in bunkers, buildings, and other such structures encountered in today’s fighting, and its higher explosive content gives it a better multipurpose effect than earlier versions of the M72.

The author hopes that those who made it through to the end of this article have shed their misconceptions about shaped charges, and now have a better understanding of this type of munition.

“The one down there with the pistol grip, that was the one I carried in Vietnam; the early version. Andy Grandy of Frankford Arsenal designed that. He called me and I went up there and shot it. He put the loader extension on it so it held eight rounds. With that duckbill at roughly thirty meters you hadda two foot high, twelve foot wide pattern using Number Four buckshot.” Retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer James “Patches” Watson, Curator Emeritus, UDT-SEAL Museum

(Editor’s note: It’s one thing to visit a military museum, but another thing entirely to get one-on-one guided tours by the museum’s Curator Emeritus, as well as its Executive Director. In this report by Military Affairs Editor Robert Bruce, SAR is pleased to provide our readers with what might be considered the next best thing. Small Arms Review is known and apparently respected by influential members of the UDT-SEAL Museum’s board and staff. As a result, our customary request for special access – including a close look at important artifacts currently on display and others in the holding safes – was enthusiastically supported. Special thanks to Association President Willard Snyder, Executive Director Mike Howard, Curator Emeritus James Watson, and Curator Ruth McSween, for taking the extra time and trouble. – Robert G. Segel)

The Chief was standing in front of the museum’s Vietnam War diorama, reminiscing in his distinctively husky and New Jersey-accented voice about three combat tours there, pointing out and describing to this correspondent a particularly important one of the many interesting weapons on display.

While a casual observer might consider the crudely chopped scattergun with only passing curiosity, the bearlike, 69 year old retired SEAL calls it his “Sweetheart.” Watson spoke with great affection about how this beautiful example of deceptively simple form and decidedly lethal function came to be and how it performed in the ultimate arena of combat.

Such a moment is of inestimable value to those who appreciate the presentation of military history through actual artifacts with a direct link to men who carried them in war. This is “provenance” at its finest, a ten dollar word in the museum culture that simply translates to “origin.”

The story of this stubby shotgun first caught our imagination in reading the books Point Man and Walking Point, Watson’s gripping narratives recounting his experiences as a “plank owner” (original member) and combat veteran of SEAL Team Two, written in collaboration with frequent SAR contributor Kevin Dockery.

My duckbill-modified, pistol-grip Ithaca became my “Sweetheart” during my second and third tours in Vietnam. The lack of a stock never bothered me because I would normally carry a shotgun only when I expected to be in close quarters. Close up, I could point my shotgun from the waist and blow away any target I had in front of me out to twenty or thirty yards without any trouble. (Excerpted from the book Walking Point, Copyright 1997, Bill Fawcett & Assoc. Used by permission.)

Now, SAR was privileged to see, and later to handle and photograph, this very weapon in the presence of its near-legendary SEAL owner. Also, to make an audio tape recording that captured for future generations “Sweetheart’s” story and much more in Watson’s own words. This interview, we’re told, will join many other recordings in the museum’s archives, preserving oral history of US Navy special warriors from WWII to the present.

But that’s getting ahead of the main story, a tour of a uniquely fascinating modern military museum.

Birthplace of the Navy Frogmen

Anchored on the very beach where the largely unknown NCDUs – Naval Combat Demolition Units – of WWII began a heroic saga that continues even today, the small but superb UDT-SEAL Museum in Fort Pierce, Florida, opened in November 1985 with Watson at the helm. Now, after twenty plus years of improvements and additions – as well as repairs and restorations following numerous savage storms – visitors enjoy an extraordinary feast of hardware and history.

The museum itself, its original structure a visually striking, brilliant white cylinder with a spiral ramp to a rooftop observation deck, is surrounded by a large fenced compound protecting an exciting assortment of historic vehicles used in naval operations on land, sea, air, and beyond. A pedestal mounted Huey helicopter, icon of the Vietnam War, seems to have just taken off, straining for altitude above mini subs, riverine and oceangoing craft, dune buggies, and – seemingly out of place to those who don’t know why – a pair of space capsules.

The eye sweeps along its virtual flight path toward the nearby Atlantic Ocean, close enough to hear waves breaking and to catch the strong and evocative scent of seawater, carried inland on the steady Tradewinds.

It is from this dazzling white sand beach and clear blue waters that silent sentinels in concrete and rusting steel were recovered from the surf zone. More than a dozen original beach obstacles from WWII, used in demolition training to prepare for the epic invasion of France known as D-Day, now line up alongside the museum.

Wide pathways lead the visitor from one display to another, bordered with hundreds of emotionally powerful memorial bricks. Look closely and find the names of heroes of Naval Special Warfare like Roy Boehm, “The First SEAL.” Additional bricks display other names, and are available to all who support the museum’s mission.

We walked the verdant and well-kept grounds with current Executive Director Michael Howard, a friendly, energetic and wiry 50 year old retired Navy Captain with over 26 years of service including SEAL Team One and command of several Naval Special Warfare units. Howard appreciates this historic location but also notes the daunting environmental challenges that come with it including high temperatures, salt air with humidity, extreme winds, and frequent torrential rains.

Most recently, he said, “Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne hammered us and the whole place was almost destroyed. Boats actually got up and floated. All these are in different positions now than before the hurricanes.”

The Huey was particularly hard hit, he said, with the tail boom breaking off and other extensive structural damage. “New Piper Aircraft, up in Vero Beach, took on the repair project at no cost. They restored it and, with the help of Kauff’s Transportation and Recovery, we got it remounted on the pedestal.”

Pointing to the museum’s two Vietnam War era PBRs (Patrol Boat, Riverine) and a pair of current issue DPVs (Desert Patrol Vehicles), the Captain spoke of plans to improve on these already impressive displays. “One of the projects we’re working on is getting weapons on these boats and vehicles,” he said, hastily adding, “fake weapons.”

“We think that’s important to make the displays a little more dynamic, realistic looking, with more punch,” he said. “That’s what SEALs and boat guys and helicopters supporting them are all about – firepower.”

Since then, we’re told that highly realistic replica .50 caliber M2s have been bought and installed. Wisely, these are made with durable polymer resin that won’t corrode in the harsh salt air and, in this day and times, have the essential advantage of being completely inert.

A Proud Beginning

The Executive Director’s tour moved inside where walls of the main hallway are covered with impressive plaques listing units and personnel from the first NCDU in 1943 to the Plank Owners of SEAL Teams One and Two. These frame the entranceway to the World War Two gallery, heralded by an imposing wall-sized photo enlargement showing men of NCDU 200 during training at Fort Pierce in 1944.

Stepping a few feet inside, Howard paused in an area flanked by illuminated display cases containing individual mannequins representing the rapid evolution in WWII from NCDUs and Scouts and Raiders to UDTs (Underwater Demolition Teams). Each is authentically uniformed, equipped and armed, he said, often with items donated to the museum by actual veterans of the period or their families.

The Hagensen (sic) Demolition Pack is common to all, a generic name given to variations based on a clever field expedient explosive charge with two pounds of pre-rigged C2 packed in a canvas haversack for land or underwater use. The original is credited in official Navy D-Day documentation to Lieutenant (j.g.) C. P. Hagenson (note “son” with an “o”).

Also notable in this section is a tribute to Lieutenant Commander Draper Kauffman, “The Father of Naval Combat Demolition,” who set up NCDU training at Fort Pierce in June of 1943.

Moving around the gallery, Howard acknowledged SAR’s obvious bias by pointing out numerous examples of American and enemy weaponry. All of the standard Navy and Marine Corps small arms have honored places, from the M1911 .45 auto pistol through ’03 and M1 rifles, the M1 carbine, Thompson submachine gun, as well as John Browning’s famous BAR and his unstoppable M1917A1 machine gun.

As counterpoint to standard US firearms, we were pleased to find nice examples of German P38 and Luger pistols, as well as an MG34 machine gun, prominent in the D-Day case.

Japanese weaponry is similarly in evidence, including a representative Nambu pistol and Arisaka rifle. Most impressive to many visitors is the large, radiator-finned Type 92 heavy machine gun, dramatically posed beneath a Japanese battle flag. UDT 24 autographed this flag while occupying Japan, post surrender.

Also prominently displayed is a Samurai sword, formally surrendered by General Tomoyuki Yamashita after losing the battle for the Philippine Islands in 1945. While it was believed for many years that this was the general’s own priceless family heirloom sword, recent expert examination showed otherwise. Howard speculates that, anticipating the inevitable, the canny general sent his home, appropriating one from a junior officer to hand over to the Americans. Both the original surrender document and Samurai sword were presented to the Museum by Draper Kauffman’s family.

North Gallery

Moving ahead in time from victory in WWII and the Occupation of Japan, SAR’s VIP tour continued in the North Gallery with Chief Watson taking over duties at the Korean Conflict wall, fronted by a tripod-mounted .50 caliber Browning M2HB machine gun. This awesome example of John M. Browning’s genius was fielded in the 1930’s, then served with distinction in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Remarkably, it is still going strong today on Naval Special Warfare Combatant Craft.

The large and menacing machine gun is intentionally set on a boxlike riser at knee height. This, the Chief says, encourages visitors to reach out and touch the gun, a significant departure from the rules at most museums and a particularly memorable experience for many in the school groups and others that regularly visit.

Watson told us that Korea was where UDTs started doing many of the things that would later become SEAL missions, “Going behind enemy lines and attacking fuel depots, bridges and railroad yards.”

The North Gallery’s tightly packed displays of photos, equipment and weapons from Korea to the present Global War on Terror are strongly enhanced by a video presentation on Basic Underwater Demolition School. BUDS is the hellish entry ordeal that all aspiring SEALs must successfully complete. Repeating automatically at regular intervals on a wall-mounted monitor, its sounds of pounding surf, straining men, screaming instructors, throaty cadence chants, gunfire, and explosions fill the gallery, bringing to life the harsh world in which these silent artifacts have served.

The evolution of diving gear for waterborne combat operations is well represented and the museum is particularly proud to have a fine example of the Lambertson Amphibious Rebreather. A “closed-circuit rig” that doesn’t release telltale bubbles, it was introduced in the latter part of WWII for OSS Maritime Units and UDTs.

Walls of Weapons

Noting our quick glances over his shoulder during the introduction to Aqua Lungs and such, the Chief – who definitely shares SAR’s intense appreciation for weapons of all kinds – quickly moved on to the primary focus of our visit. Guns are what we want, and the museum has got plenty of ‘em.

Several large Plexiglas-faced displays are filled with 20th Century military firearms, enticing the visitor to move up close for an intimate encounter. The tall, shallow cases allow examination literally inches from exotic and unusual pistols, submachine guns, rifles, grenade launchers, and more. Read serial numbers, see selector markings, note mechanical details, almost smell the gun oil….

Standing in front of the first case, containing a variety of allied and enemy weapons from the Vietnam War era, Watson recalled his time in preparation for SEAL Team Two’s deployments when, at the prophetic insistence of Team Chief Bob “The Eagle” Gallagher, “We trained with these because you never know if you’re gonna hafta pick one up and use it because you ran outta ammo or something happened to yours.”

The two weapons at the top were ChiCom copies of the RPG-2 (NVA B-40) launcher and generic AK-47 with underfolding spike bayonet. Four submachine guns lined up underneath; an M45b “Swedish K”, French MAT-49, and a Russian PPSh-41, nicely paired with the North Vietnamese K-50M that’s made from it by chopping the barrel and cooling shroud then replacing the fixed wooden stock with a telescoping wire version.

The Chief doesn’t hold the K-50 in high regard, citing at least one he fired with an apparent sear problem. “Hang on ‘cause it wasn’t gonna stop ‘till it was empty,” he said. “Definitely a piece of junk.”

But a big smile appeared when we stepped in front of the next case and he pointed out several of the US weapons his team and others used in ‘Nam. In addition to an early version M72 LAW (Light Antitank Weapon), there were three grenade launchers on display that he heartily approved of. A 40mm M79 “Thumper” often accompanied the Chief as a STAB (SEAL Team Assault Boat) coxswain on riverine missions, and his team got some of the first underbarrel-mounted CGL-4/XM148 launchers off Colt’s assembly lines.

The last of the trio is the exceedingly rare “China Lake Pump,” serial number 4 of a total run said to be only sixteen guns. This is an imposing cross between an M79 and a pump shotgun that allowed the grenadier four quick rounds when things got really hairy.

Of course the Chief has a story to go with the weapon. “When I went back to Vietnam in 1996, serial number 13 was hangin’ on the wall in their war museum,” then added with a knowing look, “I tried to find out who lost that but was unsuccessful.”

The enthusiasm level kept rising as we moved to behold yet another weapons case, this one filled with belt-fed machine guns. The topmost weapon is an HK 23, a sturdy but heavy West German-made 5.56mm that the Chief notes was combat tested by a Team Two buddy, the late John “Fly” Fallon.

But, he says, it didn’t stack up to Gene Stoner’s lighter, compact and modular guns. “Stoner designed a system – a rifle and machine gun combination,” he said, putting emphasis on the word system.

“When I went into Cambodia … I’d take the stock off it and use the short barrel. You wanted to make everything as light and small as you could.” The system aspect of Stoner’s guns is well presented in the three variants on display, showing how a basic receiver group can be reconfigured with various barrels and feed mechanisms. A 63A assault carbine version with folding wire stock and 30-round magazine is sandwiched between two belt-feds. Above is a Mark 23 Mod 0 with a generous 150-round drum and below is a 63A1 with a 100-round box.

(SAR notes that at least one of the Stoners and a good number of the other weapons on display are on long-term loan from the Naval Historical Society’s fabulous holdings. See Robert Bruce’s NHS feature in Volume 7 Number 1.)

Silencers vs. Suppressors

A bit incongruously sharing this machine gun case is an M16A1 with one mounted suppressor and another below, teamed with its cutaway version to reveal the engineering secrets inside. These prompted a quick lesson from the Chief, enlightening those handicapped by Hollywood-generated ignorance. “There’s no such thing as a silencer,” he declared, “every weapon makes some noise in functioning – even a bow and arrow.”

Pointing to the Mark II suppressor and its cutaway on display, he added, “When you use this one without subsonic ammo you’d hear the crack of the bullet when it broke the sound barrier. But it creates deception in locating the direction somebody’s shooting from. If we’re standing here and (points left) a guy’s out there shooting with a suppressed M16, you’d think he was over there (points right) ‘cause what you’d mostly hear is the bullet breaking the sound barrier.”

Shotguns, Shorties and Starlight

Then, turning to his left, Watson paused in front of the Vietnam diorama, figuratively traveling back in time nearly forty years to a nighttime raid on a bamboo hut on the other side of the world. Dramatic life sized figures of three men with green camo face paint and exotic armament are checking out a Viet Cong guerrilla weapons cache, a variety of weapons of communist bloc and other origin.

“The SEALs here just discovered it,” the Chief says, “the guy on the left is carrying a standard Model 37 (Ithaca shotgun) with a ‘duckbill’ – the later version with the ring around it.”

And there, sitting on a wooden ammo crate in front of the SEAL, was Watson’s own “Sweetheart,” described at the beginning of this feature. But he isn’t pleased that this makes it look like his gun had been captured. “That didn’t happen,” he declared, “we’re gonna get some stuff moved around.”

The SEAL on the right carries another interesting combo, a chopped M16 dwarfed by a big, strange apparatus attached to its topside carrying handle. The Chief shakes his head as he recalls his own brief experience with this ungainly rig.

“Here’s one of the first ‘Starlight Scopes,’ but it was too heavy and cumbersome,” he said. “I used it once mounted on a CAR Fifteen (submachine gun version of the Colt AR-15 rifle)…. Too heavy and when you put it up to your eye to use it there’s a green glow. Take it away and you’re blind; night vision’s gone in that eye for thirty minutes.”

Post-Vietnam to GWOT

The North Gallery continues with exhibits showing activities and operations since Vietnam, overseen by an eerie life-sized hologram with the spectral three dimensional presence of a SEAL armed with an MP5 submachine gun. He tirelessly guards displays showing Naval Special Warfare units in action in Grenada, Panama, Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Noteworthy among the photos and artifacts is another tall case packed with examples of Navy edged weapons from the Mark I KA-Bar of WWII thru the new Gerber Silver Trident, the Chief’s own design in collaboration with Bill Harsey, Jr.

Across the way, visitors can walk right up and touch a battle-damaged 12.7mm ChiCom Type 54 heavy machine gun, a clone of the Soviet DShKM, captured by SEAL Team Two’s Fourth Platoon during a still-politically sensitive operation in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s. Roughly equivalent to Browning’s M2HB, the exotically configured and impressively large weapon should spark recognition of how lethal is the arsenal of our current enemies.

Operation Desert Storm, the 1st Gulf War, is the final major exhibit, shown in display cases full of captured Iraqi gear dominated by a mannequin in “chocolate chip camo” uniform, representing a SEAL operating far behind enemy lines. Then, the last bit of wall space available in the museum holds a meaningful tribute to the eleven SEALs killed on a combat rescue mission in Afghanistan on 28 June 2005.

Safekeeping

Few museums have everything in the collection on display and this one has packed a small storage room literally from floor to ceiling with rare, unusual and truly exotic artifacts. Stepping up close we encountered vintage tactical radios, diving gear, uniforms, and other interesting items from decades of NSW operations. How about an example of the distinctive XM257 shotgun ammo that goes with the “Duckbills” on display? Got it. “Bazooka” rockets used against beach bunkers? Yep.

Also, three large safes line one wall of the room, jammed with weapons and other high-value artifacts. Their massive doors swing open to reveal an eclectic mix ranging from Great War vintage machine guns to GWOT RPGs. Chief Watson pulled a few out for us to handle (wearing the necessary white cotton gloves, of course) and graciously gave us the opportunity to shoot detailed photos. In addition to a 1917-made Lewis Gun that served in WWII protecting UDT craft, there’s Robert Marshall’s M1 Carbine (UDT 3 and 5) and a ‘Nam era S&W Model 39 auto pistol with suppressor.

But our props really started turning when the Chief set a trio of crude handguns down on the white background paper of our makeshift studio. “These are homemade VC pistols,” he said, “captured by Team Two’s ‘Fly’ Fallon and his PRU (Provisional Reconnaissance Unit) on a Phoenix operation.”

There, right in front of us, were jungle workshop weapons; surprisingly well made by resourceful guerrillas, captured by a real SEAL on a CIA-directed mission, brought back home by him, then personally donated to the museum. This is powerful provenance and future visitors can look forward to the time when space is available to put them and their story on display.

Artifacts Sought

Curator Ruth McSween has recently come on board. With a Masters Degree in Museum Studies, she brings a high degree of professionalism to the demanding tasks of cataloging, preservation, presentation, and much more.

McSween encourages the continued contribution of letters, photographs, uniforms, oral and written histories, weapons, and other memorabilia, relating to the history of Naval Special Warfare of all eras. Like most museums, they have a need for certain historical items to fill important gaps in the collection: OSS Maritime Units, the history and evolution of Special Warfare Combatant Craft, and photographs of UDT platoons executing hydrographic reconnaissance survey work.

Additionally, she says, “We would like to increase the number of artifacts that date to more recent operations including both wars in Iraq as well as the war in Afghanistan.”

Bigger and Better

Available space for major exhibits ends after the first Gulf War. So museum leaders are aggressively pursuing funding for expansion to showcase recent and ongoing NSW operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other battlegrounds of the Global War on Terror.

Howard explained that there are existing architectural plans for a dramatic new addition but day to day operational costs have to take priority. “Right now we’re only making ends meet,” he said.

Association President Willard Snyder, interestingly a retired Army Colonel (Infantry) with service in 12th Special Forces Group (USAR), told us the Board of Directors is working to “get one focus and move ahead financially.” Both Snyder and Howard see corporate donors – such as major defense contractors – as natural sources of funding and other support.

Howard, Snyder and the Chief all emphasize the essential contributions of rank and file members whose dues, volunteer work, donations of artifacts, personal and professional networking connections, are the museum’s firmest foundation. Increasing membership – open to all who wish to support preservation and presentation of the history of Naval Special Warfare – is a top priority.

Find Out More

Membership details and a printable application form may be found on the Museum’s excellent website at www.navysealmuseum.com. Additionally, the site offers a stunning “virtual museum” tour as well as a wealth of information on history, heritage, and links for those interested in SEALs and other current Naval Special Warfare units. Go on-line shopping at The Ship’s Store for an interesting assortment of UDT and SEAL memorabilia including shirts, caps, pens, mugs, patches, stickers, videos, and plenty of books such as Chief Watson’s Point Man.

See For Yourself

No trip to Florida by a modern military history buff or small arms enthusiast would be complete without a side visit to tropical Fort Pierce and its UDT-SEAL Museum on beautiful North Hutchinson Island. Most anytime is fine, but particularly during Muster, the yearly gathering of past and present SEALs and other NSW members. The 21st Annual Muster, featuring spectacular combat demonstrations and other exciting activities, is scheduled for November 10 through 12, 2006. There’s detailed info on the museum website.

UDT-SEAL Museum
3300 North Highway A1A
Fort Pierce, FL 34949-8520
Telephone (772) 595-5845
www.navysealmuseum.com
Other Useful Websites
www.nswfoundation.org
www.navysealteams.com
www.navyseals.com
www.seal.navy.mil
www.realseal.org