Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

Thread: US rifle grenades

  1. #21
    Forum Guru Paul M. Weir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,827

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho View Post
    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.
    The more you know, the more you know how little you know.

  2. #22
    Hoarding ASL items....... Kevin Kenneally's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Central Texas USA.
    Posts
    20,056
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul M. Weir View Post
    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......
    Kevin Kenneally
    Charter member of the "OFF Squad"
    Visiting your local Army Reserve & National Guard units to play ASL.

  3. #23
    Forum Guardian
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,469

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by witchbottles View Post
    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.
    Last edited by KED; 11 Mar 12 at 19:50.

  4. #24
    Forum Guardian
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,469

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by PaKfront View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Forum Guardian
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,469

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho View Post
    Probably just saw the latest prices for CH reprints.


    That would upset me too!

  6. #26
    Forum Regular PaKfront's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Crofton, NE
    Posts
    206

    Re: US rifle grenades

    He is talking about the "cup" in the rifle grenade itself ,That slides over the launcher
    Brian Ogstad
    VASL ID PaKFront
    Skype ID Ogstadb

  7. #27
    Forum Guardian
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,469

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul M. Weir View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Forum Guardian
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,469

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by PaKfront View Post
    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".

  9. #29
    Forum Regular PaKfront's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Crofton, NE
    Posts
    206

    Re: US rifle grenades

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

    470px-M31HEATcutaway.jpg
    Brian Ogstad
    VASL ID PaKFront
    Skype ID Ogstadb

  10. #30
    Forum Guru witchbottles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rio Vista, CA
    Posts
    4,089

    Re: US rifle grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by KED View Post
    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.
    "If you choose to not decide, you still have made a choice."

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. How do grenades work?
    By Vinnie in forum Off-Topic Discussions and ASL Community Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 25 Feb 11, 18:20
  2. WP smoke grenades
    By Bortass in forum Advanced Squad Leader
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14 Jan 08, 03:33
  3. WP Grenades Across Crestline
    By Mr Incredible in forum ASL Rules & Errata
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27 Mar 07, 06:58
  4. Grenades
    By MadDog_CDN in forum Advanced Squad Leader
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09 Mar 06, 11:47
  5. Heavy Rifle Squad vs. Rifle Squad vs. Light Rifle Squad
    By Helfrich in forum TOAW Scenario Design
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 Feb 05, 18:01

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •