US rifle grenades

[Paul M. Weir]

Probably just saw the latest prices for CH reprints.

Giving the grip he has on his gun, I think he looks more like the just came.

[Kevin Kenneally]

And Non-Elite Italians & Axis Minors, USMC BAR, Raider & Paramarine, 2nd line & conscript Japanese, Partisans, most Chinese, 2nd line & green USA, green Finns, 1st line SMG Soviets.

Now who have I forgotten? Oh, and a chunk of assault firers. Everyone else with an ATR. Come on people, help me out here!

Precision dice, house rules, mounted boards and starter kit style boards......

[KED]

The M-1 Garand required a Grenade Launching Cup to be affixed to the barrel, attached to the bayonet lug and front sight blade in order to support the rifle grenade. This is not a HEAT round at all, in fact.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...UBMAo&dur=4234

Rather this was a regular HE round offensive grenade, ( otherwise commonly known as the "pineapple".). The gunner was required to remove his regular ball ammunition clip ( most commonly done by simply firing it off, as was the common method for unloading a M-1 in any event), and load a en bloc clip of crimped genade firing blanks, which contained a small packed paper and wax soaked plug that would be caught in the "cup" at the base of the rifle grenade.
To fire required mounting the rifle to the ground, as illustrated in Hedgerow Hell, and using "kentucky windage" to get the round on target, as although specialized ladder sights for indirect fire were made for the M-1 Garand, they were most commonly removed long before combat by the troops issued these rifles , in order to facilitate using the standard sights of the Garand for anti - personnel gunning.( ie regular issue ball ammuniition.)

If you were going to illustrate this then, in ASL terms as a SSR, it mught be giving a 667 or 747 the PF check ability with a similar range, out to 3 hexes, of a 2 FP HE ( not HEAT) attack, and allowing even its use for a possible aerial AF hit on an AFV, at 37 mm HE vs the aerial AF of the tgt AFV, if you di. I'd probably agree that it would necessitate the use of the same to Hit table, and range, dropping off quickly at more than 30 meters, simply by dint of the need to aim via "Hit and miss" method.

These things had nowhere near the explosive capacity of a 60 mm HE round.

there are some examples of test firing on youtube if you want to see one go bang.

KRL, Jon H

Horse twattle. You are dead wrong. There were special fixtures provides to fire a standard Grenade. The US launcher was not a cup it was a spigot design. it also had available to it a variety of ammunition. HEAT round could pen up to 2in of armor. I have a Yugoslavian SKS fitted with the same device. Sights and all.. The German grenadiers had cups, the Russians and British had cups, but the Americans had a spigot launcher that could hit out to 200 yds.

[KED]

US Rifle Grenades

http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usarg/rg/index.html


The Garand, Springfield and even the M1 Carbine had Grenade launchers for them.

There is more then one site to prove my point but this one works.

[KED]

Probably just saw the latest prices for CH reprints.

That would upset me too!

[PaKfront]

He is talking about the "cup" in the rifle grenade itself ,That slides over the launcher

[KED]

And Non-Elite Italians & Axis Minors, USMC BAR, Raider & Paramarine, 2nd line & conscript Japanese, Partisans, most Chinese, 2nd line & green USA, green Finns, 1st line SMG Soviets.

Now who have I forgotten? Oh, and a chunk of assault firers. Everyone else with an ATR. Come on people, help me out here!

Paul you need no help. I see where this is going but still feel the US is being short changed. But your right about the larger RGs that American troops had. How many could they carry, and what range could they reach. I still think it should be a point of research. A US HEAT RG fired at close range in street fighting killed a Tiger I with a side turret hit. No penetration, but set off ammo in the turret. Just a thought.

[KED]

He is talking about the "cup" in the rifle grenade itself ,That slides over the launcher

There are both "cup" and "Spigot" Launchers. Only the American one is a "spigot".

[PaKfront]

He is talking about this. Not the Cup Launcher, not the Spigot launcher

470px-M31HEATcutaway.jpg

[witchbottles]

Horse twattle. You are dead wrong. There were special fixtures provides to fire a standard Grenade. The US launcher was not a cup it was a spigot design. it also had available to it a variety of ammunition. HEAT round could pen up to 2in of armor. I have a Yugoslavian SKS fitted with the same device. Sights and all.. The German grenadiers had cups, the Russians and British had cups, but the Americans had a spigot launcher that could hit out to 200 yds.

"
Historical Background:

One of the underrepresented items in the reenactment community is the M1 Rifle Grenade Launcher attachment for the 1903 Springfield Rifle. Prior to the introduction of the Bazooka, the US Army's primary infantry anti-armor weapon was the M9 High Explosive Anti Tank Rifle Grenade to be utilized with the 1903 Springfield Rifle. Each rifle squad in the infantry company was to have the assistant squad leader equipped with the 1903 Springfield Rifle and M1 Rifle Grenade Launcher for anti-tank defense. Additionally, early war TO&E (Tables of Organization and Equipment) had allowances for the M1 Rifle Grenade Launcher in Heavy Weapons companies and across the division in its entirety.


(Extracts from FM 7-10, 1942 Edition)
Not until 1944 did the Army develop and field in sizeable numbers the M7 Rifle Grenade Launcher for the M1 Garand rifle. The M7 launcher saw significant issue for the Normandy invasion and the breakout.

(Extract from FM 7-10, 1944 Edition)
The development and use of rifle grenades with the M1 Garand proved to be problematic due to the gas operated action of the Garand and attrition of launchers being lost. The M1 Garand required the user to attach the M7 launcher prior to using the rifle grenade, disabling the gas system and semi automatic fire, single load a rifle grenade blank, then remove the launcher after firing to restore semi automatic function. Early experiences in Normandy showed that many launchers were being removed after firing and left behind in the heat of combat. This constant removal of the launcher resulted in rapid depletion of stocks of the M7 launcher, in some cases forcing the M1 launcher back into service.
Due to the shortcomings of the M7 launcher for the M1 Garand and combat losses, the M1903 Springfield and M1 launcher continued to be highly utilized and popular among the troops. GI's favored the M1 launcher due to the ability of the user to fire the weapon normally without having to affix and remove the rifle grenade launcher as well as very quickly and easily single load rifle grenade blanks.


The M1 Launcher was declared substitute standard during the war and obsolete at the end of the war. Most of the launchers were sold to foreign governments or scrapped outright with very few hitting the surplus market
Historical Background:

One of the underrepresented items in the reenactment community is the M1 Rifle Grenade Launcher attachment for the 1903 Springfield Rifle. Prior to the introduction of the Bazooka, the US Army's primary infantry anti-armor weapon was the M9 High Explosive Anti Tank Rifle Grenade to be utilized with the 1903 Springfield Rifle. Each rifle squad in the infantry company was to have the assistant squad leader equipped with the 1903 Springfield Rifle and M1 Rifle Grenade Launcher for anti-tank defense. Additionally, early war TO&E (Tables of Organization and Equipment) had allowances for the M1 Rifle Grenade Launcher in Heavy Weapons companies and across the division in its entirety.


(Extracts from FM 7-10, 1942 Edition)
Not until 1944 did the Army develop and field in sizeable numbers the M7 Rifle Grenade Launcher for the M1 Garand rifle. The M7 launcher saw significant issue for the Normandy invasion and the breakout.

(Extract from FM 7-10, 1944 Edition)
The development and use of rifle grenades with the M1 Garand proved to be problematic due to the gas operated action of the Garand and attrition of launchers being lost. The M1 Garand required the user to attach the M7 launcher prior to using the rifle grenade, disabling the gas system and semi automatic fire, single load a rifle grenade blank, then remove the launcher after firing to restore semi automatic function. Early experiences in Normandy showed that many launchers were being removed after firing and left behind in the heat of combat. This constant removal of the launcher resulted in rapid depletion of stocks of the M7 launcher, in some cases forcing the M1 launcher back into service.
Due to the shortcomings of the M7 launcher for the M1 Garand and combat losses, the M1903 Springfield and M1 launcher continued to be highly utilized and popular among the troops. GI's favored the M1 launcher due to the ability of the user to fire the weapon normally without having to affix and remove the rifle grenade launcher as well as very quickly and easily single load rifle grenade blanks.


The M1 Launcher was declared substitute standard during the war and obsolete at the end of the war. Most of the launchers were sold to foreign governments or scrapped outright with very few hitting the surplus market
The most difficult portion of the launcher was the clamp assembly. Originally the clamp assembly was a multi-step stamping from drawing quality steel. The clamp body exhibits a stepped reduction in size with a radiused edge.
The clamp body was turned and profiled from 4130 tubing then milled, slotted and bent into its final shape"

http://www.90thidpg.us/Equipment/Pro...her/index.html

"Neither was effective against Japanese in bunkers, nor was the antitank grenade (M9) of any use against them. The Australians had rifle grenades that could be fired through the slit openings of the bunkers with devastating effect, but although the Americans requested rifle grenades from Australia early in the operation, they did not receive any at the front during the Papua Campaign"
http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww.../ChapterV.html

"The group, chaired by Maj. Anthony C. McAuliffe
from the Office of the Chief of Logistics, evaluated a broad array of
weapons capable of defeating enemy armored vehicles. The agenda
included identifying a man-portable antitank weapon that could be
procured quickly and in large numbers. The officers considered
the feasibility of employing antitank mines, flamethrowers, smoke
candles, armor-piercing rounds for heavy machine guns, and rifle
grenades, and for the most part discarded them as impractical or
ineffective.

An Ordnance
Department civilian, Gregory J. Kessenich, tipped off the rocket
section to the potential of a new type of explosives technology
perfected by Swiss engineer Henri H. Mohaupt. In late 1940
Mohaupt had offered the U.S. Army a shaped-charge projectile.
The hollow cone molded into the front of the explosive charge
focused much of the blast into a hot jet that could burn a hole
through armor. Unlike existing antitank rounds, which depended
on speed and mass to create the energy to penetrate, Mohaupt’s
shaped charge would work even when it made contact with the
target at a relatively slow speed.

The Ordnance Department had acquired and tested Mohaupt’s
30-mm. shaped-charge rifle grenade and found it capable of penetrating
2 inches of hardened steel. Work frantically began on a
60-mm. design after the Army received a report from the British
that the Germans were increasing the thickness of the armor plate
on their panzers to 4 inches.5 Standardized as the M10 grenade,
the 60-mm. version was up to the new challenge, but it had gained
a major flaw. The charge required to launch this heavier projectile
a sufficient distance produced a great deal more recoil. Because
the butt of the M1 Garand rifle had to be placed on the ground to
gain elevation and range, the wooden stock absorbed the shock
and often broke in the process

In a search for something capable of launching the M10, the
Army turned to a concept dubbed the spigot mortar. This notional
weapon was basically a solid rod with a trigger mechanism located
at the base. The projectile consisted of the shaped-charge grenade
attached to a length of hollow tube that fit down over the mortar’s
rod. Pressing the trigger activated a firing pin located at the tip
of the rod, which in turn ignited a propellant charge in the base
of the grenade. The expanding gasses from the burning propellant
thrust the projectile off the rod, with the tube imparting initial
guidance. Similar to a traditional mortar, the recoil would be
absorbed into the ground on which the weapon rested."

http://www.history.army.mil/html/boo...Innovation.pdf



hmmm what exactly is “horse twattle” ? Seems to me the following is well supported by official documentary evidence:

1.The M9 as designed was not well adapted to use in the M1 Garand rifle.
2.The M1 Garand Rifle was a standard issue weapon for the infantry squad member in 1944.
3.The M9 was originally designed as a “cup” style. The Spigot design was a later attempt to correct some of the failings in attempting to use the upgraded projectile M10 on M1 Garand Service Rifles. It was theoretically acceptable as a solution, AFTER the fact of original design as a “cup” type projectile. However:
4.The mass disposal / removal of the associated support devices / aiming equipment for the cup or spigot RG designated M 9 / M10 for the M1 Garand by its users was also well documentd and witnessed, and created a documented shortage . survivability of these devices.
5.With a maximum effective range of 75 yards per the US Army FM 7-10, it is also well documented that at Aberdeen they could penetrate 2 inches of case hardened armor plate, yet they proved in action incapable of penetrating coconut log bunkers.
6.The device, regardless of its inception / use / or firing rifle ( 1903A3 / A4 or M1 Garand) was clamped down around the barrel muzzle by attaching lugs that affix it to the bayonet lug and blad front sight.

Where’s the “horse Twattle”? Don’t see it. Unless you use Wikipedia for a reference, that is.