US Troops generally refer to the entire weapon as an RPG. Nobody that I know distinguishes between an RPG and an RPG launcher in ordinary conversation. In fact, I'm not even sure if the launchers are reusable. Most hand-held anti-tank weapons are fire and throw away. At least, the American equivalents to the Soviet RPG are. I had the same training as these troops and I have zero familiarity with the operation of an RPG. I just know roughly what they are.

It should also go without saying that it is even less likely that a journalist would be precise in his use of military terminology. They have even less familiarity with the weapons. In this war I have lost track of the number of times I have seen Bradleys and Warriors called "tanks," British troops referred to as Americans. SKS and AKMS referred to as "AK-47s," Al-Samouds referred to as "Scuds" and so on.

Anyway, the bottom line is that there isn't enough information here to draw the conclusion you make. The article refers to an RPG, which could easily have been a ready-to-go weapon for all we know.


Note: this post responds only to the quoted portion above. I am not commenting on the entire thread.