The void that the red arrow is pointing at (the CUP) is what sliped over the spigot attached to the rifle.Originally Posted by PaKfront
The void that the red arrow is pointing at (the CUP) is what sliped over the spigot attached to the rifle.
Last edited by KED; 12 Mar 12 at 17:23. Reason: CUP
Yes I see that now. Iam a little nuts so forgive me.
witchbottles,
After I re-read your post I saw my mistake about what the cup was. It just looked wrong when I first read it, sorry.
The Spingfield rifle with the M1 launcher was used right through to the end of WWII (There was also a M2 launcher that fit the US made Enfield rifle) The reasons for this were not that the M7 on the Garand did not work or was ineffective. Rather it was because it was a total PITA to opperate.
The Grenadier would fire 1 or 2 grenades and then in the heat of battle take the launcher off his rifle and leave it on the ground. This became such a problem that a shortage occured of the M7 type launcher forcing the return of the Springfield and the M1 launcher.
The M8 launcher on the carbine was easier to use but had a small chance to crack or break the stock.
All 3 rifles were fitted with the M15 rifle grenade sight. This sight was fitted to the right side of the stock. It looks very much like the one the Germans used on the Kar 98.
To get more range out of these launchers and extra charge was developed that fit into the muzzle of the spigot launchers M7 and M8. It was unoffically called "the vitamin pill". While it increased the range out to 300yds there was more of a chance that the rife would be damaged. It had a warning saying "for emergency use only". This was especially true if used with the carbine as it was almost sure to break with a single fireing.
Ammo was of varrious types. There was an adaptor made to fit the standard pineapple grenade for anti-personel use. The anti-tank grenade that was also effective as an anti-personel weapon because it did fragment well. There were others but I cant find my book on U.S. Infantry weapons!
Now for some entertainment..
M7 Launcher for M1 Garand.jpg
M7 launcher
Launcher M8 for M1 carbine.jpg
M8 launcher
I thought I had more pics.??? Ill get back to this later.
moving forward in the line of this item being represented in ASL.
My thoughts here are due to the numerous already outlined reasons for all of the various limitations of these weapons:
1. There is not any significant validation that they should be modeled as PF or MOL are modeled inthe ASL core rules. FOr this purpose, they certainly seem represented in the CCV mechanics, and the beneficial DRMs of Street Fighting.
2. They certainly do not appear to rate a counter in the ASL mix. There is no representation that they had anything close to the effectiveness of a bazooka.
3. If a scen designer wished to illustrate perhaps a unit action where their use was the most influential event of the action ( as in the previously cited street fighting vs a Tiger Tank), then the appropriate method would be via SSR, perhaps giving the 667 / 747 counters an ATMM check with the appropriate DRM for CCV of some type, given range and standardized usage.
my $.02
KRL, Jon H
"If you choose to not decide, you still have made a choice."
I sort of see why they were not put into the system. Unlike the German and the Japanese rifle grenade systems (These were almost identicle) The US and British systems had to be fired with the rifle but against anything but a soldiers sholder. Thus even at closer ranges hitting anything but a stationary target would be almost impossible. I do belive they could be represented in game but every Nation that had them would have to have different stats for their particular system.
A counter? No, that would just make clutter.
On your 3rd point, I still think rifle grenades could be represented in the game but then we would need to hit charts, Pen charts, and assign B#s and X#s for each different system. With all this SSR maybe the only answer. A bit more research would help too.
Counters are or are not created simply on the basis of "is the clutter worth it?".I sort of see why they were not put into the system. Unlike the German and the Japanese rifle grenade systems (These were almost identicle) The US and British systems had to be fired with the rifle but against anything but a soldiers sholder. Thus even at closer ranges hitting anything but a stationary target would be almost impossible. I do belive they could be represented in game but every Nation that had them would have to have different stats for their particular system.
A counter? No, that would just make clutter.
On your 3rd point, I still think rifle grenades could be represented in the game but then we would need to hit charts, Pen charts, and assign B#s and X#s for each different system. With all this SSR maybe the only answer. A bit more research would help too.
A counter to be represented in the ASL system means the unit / SW /vehicle / marker must meet some useful criteria that included, but are not limited to:
1. applicability over a range of scenarios. Not present in simply a single action.
2. Effectiveness overall. Why represent a Bedford 4x6 lorry circa 1940 when the already provided British counter system trucks accopmplish an accurate portrayal of this vehicle's effectiveness and usefulness overall? Unless there is some significant difference in the Bedford that would require its own inclusions.
3. Well documented research of the statistics and capabilities of the weapon. The Raketen PzB 43reflected in BFP's Op Cobra is a good example of all of the above. The bedford lorry is a good exsample of why NOT to include it.
From a design perspective, an SSR is the only really good way to approach this argument. Given that, in light of the general concepts and precepts of SSR designs, follow KISS. So it would perhaps read something like this:
" American 667 squads have ATMM capability (EXC: usage req dr of 1; DRM is -1 not -3 for these ATMM)."
simple, easy to understand, and still possible across the entire range of the given OoB.
The research would be case- specific, in this point, and applied to the the "EXC" line of the SSR as needed to protray the event(s) desired, and would affect the scenario in its design / devlopment phase.
KRL, Jon H
"If you choose to not decide, you still have made a choice."
Talk to Perry and see if he might incorporate this weapon in the new Yanks?
Kevin Kenneally
Charter member of the "OFF Squad"
Visiting your local Army Reserve & National Guard units to play ASL.
I think the last time we discussed US rifle grenades there was some agreement that the one thing they were good for that wasn't already in the game was representing a threat to German halftracks (and possibly other OT vehicles) at short range. I don't remember what "short" was on that go-round, but from posts earlier in this thread, 1-3 hexes seems about right.
John
Normal range 5 hex max with the extra charge 7 hexes. (late war only X5 tended to break rifle.)
Just one last thing on this subject. The US "Pineapple Grenade was considered on of the most powerfull and effective grenades at the time. The British "Mills Bomb" was a close second. While we have evidence that the US grenade had an adaptor to fit a rifle grenade launcher, I am not sure abour the "Mills Bomb" in British service. However, I am sure that the ammo for the 50mm Japaneese "Knee Mortar" was the standard Japaneese hand grenade. As a matter of fact most Japaneese hand grenades could be used in the knee mortar. All that was required was an addaptor that could be screwed onto most grenades. (Launch charge)
This is a complicated issue and I right now have no good answers. But I am hoping for some from the Forum.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks