"Rifle Grenade Launchers" Topic

We started a conversation about rifle grenades and I had done some research for them for my game. Here are some videos to compare the rifle grenades used by different nations:

American Rifle Grenade Launcher:
YouTube link

SMLE Rifle Grenade Launcher:
YouTube link

German Anti-Tank Rifle Grenade Launcher:
YouTube link

KAR 98 Rifle Grenade Launcher:
YouTube link

Wolfhag

Great finds, Wolfhag.
Interesting 'approaches'!

German for 98… highly engineered and complex. Amazing that they actually had huge surplus stocks.

German modified AT rifle… armaments producer desiring to continue sales of product in a different form?

US Garand… simple and effective.

Brits reuse an old weapon and modify existing Grenade. So,firer would have to pull pin on Modified Mills Bomb, drop into cup,'aim' and fire… with Grenade 7s fuse on the go? Even if in heavy use, cannot imagine that it would have been a 'popular' job…and mates would give a wide berth if possible!

I quite like anti-tank rifles, I have to admit. Individually, they're not useful against tanks much after about 1935, but as a heavy sniper rifle for wrecking softskins by firing into the engine block, they're quite handy.

The focus for the British rifle grenade launcher shifted from the No.36 grenade to the No.68 anti-tank rifle grenade, which was introduced during 1941. This required the firer to engage the target a little above the normal line of sight for firing a rifle, while still needing to find some means to brace the stock. The instructions (and wording) of the manual say everything on the matter…

PDF link

The Germans had an incredible range of rifle grenades, mostly anti-tank but also HE, which replaced the old 5-cm mortar as the Platoon means of throwing HE rounds.

There was also an interesting thread on another forum re the use of the M9 rifle grenade (not the M9 'Bazooka' launcher) in the Indian Army in the Far East.

link

Gary

"…it is essential to place the butt of the rifle against a sandbag or similar object…Whatever position is used the principle is that there must be a sandbag behind the butt to take the recoil of the rifle…The possible sacrifice of the rifle must be accepted in order to disable the A.F.V."

Blimey, I did not know that.

Neat !

The possible sacrifice of the rifle must be accepted in order to disable the A.F.V.

Try explaining that to the company quartermaster sergeant once your SMLE has been ruined…

But Q, I got the bloody Tiger, did'na?

Jim

'To err is human lad. To forgive is not the CQMS' policy…. even if you did get a ruddy tank!'

Anti-tank rifle grenade Serdyuk VGPS-41

I will add information on Russian rifle grenades (automatic translation):

link

And the most "Russian" weapon! Bottle thrower)))
With this nozzle it was possible to throw a Molotov cocktail. Sighting range – 40 meters, maximum – 130.

link

I was aware of the Soviet weapon Ampulomets (spelling?) that fired incendiary liquid in glass containers, but this is the first time I see a rifle adaptor for firing incendiary bottles (Molotov cocktail being a term better left to decadent western bourgeois imperialists…). Did this use ordinary glass bottles for ammunition, or where they made stronger than usual to better withstand the pressures on launch?

This remind me that Brits managed to come up with the Northover Projector, a sort of grenade launcher on a tripod that also fired bottles of a flammable liquid. However, this weapon was restricted to Home Guard issue and thus did not see real action against Germans.

Speaking of Germans, at some point in war the managed to effectively convert the 37 mm anti-tank gun (PaK 36) into a giant grenade launcher. As far as I know, this did not involve any special adaptor at the muzzle. Instead, big HEAT shells were manufactured with a rod in the end, which could be inserted into the muzzle (so called stick bomb). A blank 37 mm cartridge was then inserted into the breech to propel the bomb at a target. Presumably the armour penetration capacity of the HEAT round was pretty decent, but the range was rather limited (no idea about accuracy), and the rate of fire would be affected by the need to load the stick bombs from the muzzle end.

For shooting, ordinary drink bottles were used. In the USSR, standardized bottles of several types were produced, so the selection of ammunition was not difficult. There were no reports of problems with the strength of the glass when firing.
However, this weapon was produced only in small series (there were two types). It was used not so much for shooting at tanks (it is difficult to hit a moving target), as for shooting at buildings and defensive structures.

I read about the German "wunderwaffe". Confidently pierced the armor of Soviet tanks at a distance of about 300 meters. But getting into the tank was a big problem. Usually the gunners only had one shot before the tank would crush the gun.

I don't think that hollow charge for the pak 36 was ever intended as a wonder weapon. More of a reaction to the t34 and kv1. The main atg seemed useless so whilst a bigger gun was being rolled out, come up with an interim.
It wasn't very accurate but could definitely penetrate just about anything and added a fairly useful anti personnel capability. It had a base fuse as well as nose fuse so even a glancing hit would set it off.

I can't imagine climbing out on the front of a sdkfz 251 to load another big heat bomb would be very practical whilst in combat. One shot is better than none though.

I interviewed a german anti tank gunner who manned a pak 36 right through into late 1944 when he surrendered to the americans. He said it was still effective once you got used to the idea of targetting specific weak points. Drive wheels or tracks, for example. They mostly used regular ap, only ever had a few of the hollow charge rounds.

This is true. The Soviets also used their 45mm cannon until the end of the war, and they could also hit German heavy tanks by firing at various vulnerabilities. But this was not an easy thing to do.

Great photos and charts. But as far as I can see. The Rifle Grenade albeit could have some effect. It has been replaced by much higher, better, more effective tech, e.g. Grenade Launchers.

I think the most telling item is the WW1 discussion about the ratio of rifle to hand grenades changing in favor of rifle grenades. Does antbody know if this was the case for WW2 and even beyond?

Ww1 usage was due to trench warfare afaik.
My impression is that ww2 rifle grenade usage was uncommon.
There's an incident in one memoir I read. He made a point of it being unusual when they were under attack by german rifle grenades.
If you set aside some rather odd early war orgs like the french. And also strange circumstances like spending weeks fighting through rubble heaps.
I see no reason to think one nation's rifle grenades were so much better than others that their infantry would use them loads more.

I know they used a lot of hand grenades in ww1 when assaulting a trench. But ww1 isn't really my thing.

Have read of WW1 'trench raid' forces having designated 'Grenadiers'. I had thought of blokes with sacks of Mills Bombs… but if rifle grenadiers, it makes more sense.

The video on the American rifle grenades was really well done. I have a Garand and a rifle grenade launcher and the sight and the field manual for their use and everything they presented was spot on.

I started to like rifle grenades when they used them in The Battle of the Bulge, always in my mind a Christmas film (why hasn't it been remade properly?).

In reality, a lot more flash than bang, I suspect.

The French were the biggest users of rifle grenades, with at least one dedicated grenadier in each squad. These were anti-personnel grenades, however.

I haven't found any information about their effectiveness, but I'll ask on the France 1940 list.

I watched a history programme last week about trench fighting in ww1. They had an expert explaining the techniques used rolling a trench up. Same for trench "raids" afaik.

They had 2 bayonet men who were armed with bayonets on rifles. Two bombers, who had a sack or two of mills bombs each. And two guys carried sacks of more grenades. And i think pistols.
The trenches were dug as a series of sort of flat U shapes. First one way than the opposite.
The procedure was the two bombers threw grenades over into the next bit of trench. After they went off they sdvanced with the bayonet guys finishing off anyone still moving. They repeated down the trench.
That's a lot of mills bombs just for say 100 m of trench.

They mentioned a unit taking 5000 grenades for an attack. This was a full blown attack rather than raid.

Maybe rifle grenades were fired on a daily basis and full out assaults unusual. I dunno but it seems strange if more were used than regular grenades.

Rifle grenades have much more range and a much higher angle. If you're trying to get one into a trench, that can be a big advantage.

Being fired on by high-angle rifle grenades would have to be a real pain if you were sheltering behind a wall …

They are great for shooting through windows and firing ports too.

The video on the American rifle grenades was really well done. I have a Garand and a rifle grenade launcher and the sight and the field manual for their use and everything they presented was spot on.

I want to get an old beat up Springfield for a grenade launcher this year. I won't use my WWII Garand for that.

Wolfhag

Trench Raiding in WW1 or 2, a VERY nasty thing.
Guidance would be subject to' ad hoc' change.
ANY weapon used… SGs, spiked clubs, sharpened spades… as many Grenades as possible… esp for Dug Outs. Kill… but take some prisoners… the main point of raiding.
As success depended on getting up close for 'Surprise' and 'Shock'… I think Rifle Grenades might have been a deterrence to counter attack, covering fire, rather than initial assault.
But, I was not there… and most of those who were… did not want to recount.

Have read of WW1 'trench raid' forces having designated 'Grenadiers'. I had thought of blokes with sacks of Mills Bombs… but if rifle grenadiers, it makes more sense.

Slight difference in terminology and roles. In April 1917 the British platoon was restructured to four sections (squads in US terminology). The Lewis section handled one (later two) Lewis LMG. The rifle grenadiers formed another section and with the Lewis section formed the platoon base of fire. The manoeuvre elements were the rifle section and the ‘bombers' section. The latter being men with bags of mills bombs. The Lewis and rifle grenadiers would suppress while the bombers and riflemen (relying on bayonet more than rifle) made the assault.

The rifles were not ‘useless' their key role was to fire their weapons once the objective was secured and they faced the inevitable German counterattack, so a defensive weapon rather than offensive.

So bombers with hand grenades and grenadiers with rifle grenades.

Makes sense. Shock 'assault' troops and cover from MGs and rifle grenadiers.
Raids primarily for Intel from a few prisoners and to cause 'disquiet'. Obviously, on troop level, main priority was to get back… so covering fire.

Video showing training of AEF in use of VB rifle grenades to help cover an advance over open ground during WW1. Relevant footage starts about half way through the video.

YouTube link

Robert

Makes sense. Shock 'assault' troops and cover from MGs and rifle grenadiers.
Raids primarily for Intel from a few prisoners and to cause 'disquiet'. Obviously, on troop level, main priority was to get back… so covering fire.

Trench raids were conducted differently. The main reason for the restructure of the platoon was the advent of the Lewis LMG. For the first time the platoon had its own integral firepower weapon. It was also a response to a change in German tactics where they were no longer using linear trench systems but a defence in depth built around strongpoints, particularly bunkers and pillboxes.

The restructured platoon was technically now capable of assaulting a bunker on its own using suppressive fire and manoeuvre. Extensive training was carried out in these methods and there is much evidence of their successful application.

Once the war moved to the highly mobile phase of 1918 the same tactics were in use whenever the platoon was on the attack. Given the almost continuous run of successful attacks during August and September the British demonstrated that together with sophisticated use of artillery and air power, the new tanks and infantry tactics they had the ability to maintain a great deal of forward offensive momentum, often bouncing the retreating Germans out of defensive positions before they could consolidate. One reason for the success was that the infantry company was no longer a body of riflemen as it had been in 1914, but a dynamic group of platoons with teams of specialists and a higher degree of inherent firepower.

Where as the infantry platoon barely changed over the course of the Second World War the First World War offers a period of enormous evolution in unit structure and tactics. Essentially it was the laboratory for nearly all of the tactical changes we see implemented in the later war.

The concept of trench raids covered a multitude of one-off hit-and-return actions. They varied hugely in terms of aims, numbers involved, etc. The type of raid dictated whether large numbers of grenades were carried or whether, for example, enough were carried to provide some anti-personnel effects in the trench system and/or phosphorus grenades for deep dugouts.

The bolt action rifle was a powerful firepower weapon system when used to mass effect by multiple riflemen. Musketry was integral to the platoon. The concept of fire and manoeuvre down to and even within the squad/section level was known and taught before the war began. There are many examples from the first weeks of the war.

The automatic rifles (now more commonly referred to as light machine guns) enabled a single shooter to put out roughly the equivalent firepower of a section when supported by colleagues carrying ammunition. This provided some advantages compared to the same number of men coordinating their rifle fire, especially on attack. Rifle grenades provided a significant step-up, with the ability to provide suppressive indirect fire and smoke screens. During the Battle of the Somme for example, infantry platoons with Lewis guns had to rely on Stokes mortar teams to get forward and support them once an advance had penetrated into the German lines and the artillery barrage had moved on. Jack Sheldon's accounts of the German army in the Arras battles reveals a very different situation, often describing the difficulties imposed by more widespread use of rifle grenades by British and Dominion assault troops.

Robert

British Infantry 1914 were very good… just not enough and in the wrong place.
Massive influx of 'called up' troops were still good 1915 / 16… but wire created am impossible situation.
The 'popular' concept of inept leadership is entirely wrong… certainly mistakes on the 'learning curve'… tragically…but equipment and tactics evolving.

The 1914 fighting showed Brits much better than German reservists… the horrendous German casualties at Mons largely ignored… but Germans quickly adapted tactics.

By 15 / 16, both sides were banging their heads against a Wire Wall. Faith in Tech… Arty, proved false hope. Tanks made some difference… but were all too easily knocked out

Late 1917 was the 'sea change'. Russia out but USA in… and Germans realising that they were losing… but still tenacious.

Both Brit and German Tactics had evolved into forms that would continue into WW2 and beyond. Effective Combined Ops and Defense in Depth meant 1918 was vastly different to earlier years. Equipment such as LMGs and portable fire support such as rifle grenades will have assisted. But, basically, Germans knew that they had Lost.