From a rifle like from a mortar. American front-line amateur performance

23
From a rifle like from a mortar. American front-line amateur performance

During World War II, the weapon system of the American infantry used rifle grenade launchers as a means of destruction, intermediate between hand grenades and the company 60-mm M2 mortar. Fragmentation and cumulative anti-tank rounds were developed for grenade launchers, as well as a number of adapters that made it possible to use various hand grenades as grenade launchers; later chemical rounds appeared.

The problem was that the shots themselves had some features and the resulting restrictions and application features. The M17 fragmentation round was a tang-mounted and impact-fuzed MK2 hand-held fragmentation grenade. Later, the M1 adapter was developed, which allowed the grenade launcher to fire a regular MK2 fragmentation grenade, but there was still no difference between it and the special M17 fragmentation grenade launcher.



And it was the MK2 grenade on the adapter that became the most common fragmentation shot for American rifle grenade launchers. That is, in fact, the result was a hand grenade that could fly further than one thrown using the muscular strength of a fighter, and at the same time with all the features of a fuse with a moderator (in the case of the “pineapple” on the adapter). For example, when firing a fragmentation grenade up the slope of a hill, the grenade, having fallen, could roll back to the grenade launcher.

The infantrymen at the front wanted something more powerful than a conventional fragmentation grenade, and the fuse was an impact fuse.


M11 practice round, M17 fragmentation round, smoke grenade on M2 adapter and MK2 fragmentation grenade on M1 adapter for firing from a rifle grenade launcher. And a 60 mm M49A2 mortar shell next to the same M11 training round... Feel the difference, as they say.

The idea, one might say, was in the air... Who first came up with the idea of ​​trying to fire a 49-mm caliber M2A60 fragmentation mortar mine from a rifle grenade launcher? story is silent. But this was what was needed. Weight - 1,3 kg with 150 g of explosives inside.

For comparison: the MK2 grenade, which was actually the warhead of a standard fragmentation grenade launcher round, weighed a little more than half a kilogram and contained just over 50 grams of explosive. The increase in power was obvious.


One of the first, if not the first, known photo of a “rifle mortar”, Australia, 1943.

At first, mortar shells were attached to an M1 adapter for a fragmentation grenade, fortunately the “antennae” of the adapter bent perfectly with the tools at hand. Sometimes wire was used for reliability. But then they found a much simpler and more technologically advanced way of making shots. The M9A1 cumulative grenade launcher round was disassembled, and the mortar mine was screwed onto the shank.


M49A2 mortar mine on an adapter for M1 hand grenades, M1 rifle with M7 rifle grenade launcher, 1944–1945.

The resulting fragmentation shot also had a number of limitations and application features.

First and most importantly: you could forget about shooting with the rifle resting on the shoulder, which was possible with standard grenade launcher shots. It was possible to shoot safely for the shooter’s health only by resting the butt of the rifle on the ground, wall, etc.

Also, such a “grenade” could not be fired from the M8 rifle grenade launcher, developed for the M1 carbine...

The lightweight carbine was simply not designed for such loads. The firing range turned out to be simply ridiculous and fluctuated within 100 meters. This was less than a standard fragmentation shot, but still greater than the throwing range of a grenade, but at the same time a full-fledged fragmentation mine from a company mortar was flying at the enemy. Considering that such an improvised grenade launcher was most often used in urban battles and in the jungle, the short range did not bother anyone.


A couple of frames from a video using a “mortar mine - rifle grenade launcher” pair somewhere in Europe, 1945.

It is unknown who authored the first grenade launcher shot with a mortar mine. Most likely, such improvisations appeared absolutely autonomously in the Pacific and European theaters of combat.

But the first documentary mention of such “experiments” dates back to 1943, and these were carried out by soldiers who had fought on Guadalcanal and were sent on vacation to Australia. In 1944, mention of this kind of alterations was already repeatedly found in various army documents and reports.


The process of small-scale production of mortar and grenade launcher rounds. An expelling charge is being removed from an M49A2 mine; ready-made shanks from disassembled M9 anti-tank rounds stand nearby.

In January 1944, a mention of a grenade launcher shot from a mortar mine appears in an official document of the US War Department - a technical bulletin, in fact a periodical publication of the ministry, describing, among other things, various examples of useful “front-line amateur performance”. It said that this kind of homemade work was unofficial, should be considered only as an emergency measure and used only with the knowledge of the command.

In fact, this was a recognition of the fact that such amateur activity could be useful, and with the help of an official army document, information about yesterday's handicraft was brought to a wide range of army ranks.


A document that introduced front-line homemade products to wide circles of the army community at the beginning of 1944

A veteran of the battles of the Ardennes, the official historian of the US Army and the author of classic memoirs about World War II, Charles B. MacDonald, wrote in his book “Company Commander” that grenade rounds from mortar mines had only one drawback - they were always there few.

At the end of World War II, the development of fragmentation rounds for rifle grenade launchers was forgotten. The military budget has decreased by more than 10 times, and there is no time left.

In addition, already at the end of World War II, the American infantry had a new means of destroying enemy infantry - a recoilless rifle. By the time the conflict broke out on the Korean Peninsula, the American arsenal already had similar guns with a caliber of up to 75 millimeters. And after the end of the war in Korea, the development of a full-fledged 40 mm caliber hand grenade launcher began.

The age of rifle grenade launchers was coming to an end. But that's a completely different story.
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    9 November 2023 04: 58
    The M9A1 cumulative grenade launcher round was disassembled
    Logically, it was ineffective against German tanks, and the Japanese did not have many light tanks, so there was an excess of such shots.
  2. +2
    9 November 2023 05: 14

    The age of rifle grenade launchers was coming to an end

    Meanwhile, on the fields of Ukraine/Novorossiya
  3. IVZ
    +3
    9 November 2023 06: 49
    At the end of World War II, the development of fragmentation rounds for rifle grenade launchers was forgotten.
    T.N. rifle grenades or “trombones” are still in service with the armies of many countries, incl. NATO countries. Even the muzzle device of NATO rifles is standardized for their use - the front sight has been removed from the muzzle of the barrel and the diameter of the muzzle device is 22mm. Moreover, due to the increase in the security of armored vehicles, purely anti-tank grenades have largely lost their relevance and priority in development was given to fragmentation, cumulus-fragment. and special ammunition. In the USA and Belgium, grenades with additional jet engine (this direction has not been developed), small-sized telescopic fragmentation units. capable of firing both blank and live cartridges. Israel and France worked actively in this direction, and in the 90s and 2000s Russia (in the interests of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and without results). It’s true that lately there has been silence about new developments in this direction.
  4. -4
    9 November 2023 09: 15
    It is not clear why it is necessary to advertise the useless experience of Americans? In our country, such topics were considered unpromising even before the war. However, the Americans didn’t really fight, so they toiled around with bullshit until 1945.
    History of the issue. In 1928, by decision of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR dated February 8, 1928, a grenade launcher designed by Dyakonov was adopted into service with the Red Army.
    The rifle grenade launcher of the Dyakonov system was intended for firing fragmentation grenades from closed positions at enemy personnel located in equipped firing points and field fortifications, and inaccessible to small arms firing along a flat trajectory, anti-tank grenades at lightly armored targets, as well as firing other types of grenades for signaling, warning, lighting, as well as for educational purposes.
    Widely used in pre-war conflicts, during the Soviet-Finnish War and at the initial stage of the Great Patriotic War. According to the staff of the RKKA rifle regiment in 1939, each rifle squad was armed with a rifle grenade launcher of the Dyakonov system.
    In documents of that time it was called a hand-held mortar for throwing rifle grenades. The rifle fragmentation grenade had a mass of 360 g and a firing range of 150...850 m. In addition to it, the armament consisted of a day-action rifle signal grenade, a night-action rifle signal grenade, a night-action rifle signal grenade (illuminating), an imitation rifle grenade and a cumulative rifle grenade.
    The Dyakonov grenade and grenade launcher were quite modern in 1916, but in 1928 they were already a thing of the past, and by 1941 they were completely outdated. Anecdotal fact. Border troops were armed with Dyakonov's grenade launchers. The state of affairs on the border in the 1920-1930s was such that first they shot, if possible from a machine gun, and only then asked “Stop, who’s coming!?” The Basmachi in Central Asia gave us especially many problems. Given the desolation of the area, border troops often acted there autonomously. At the same time, there were numerous cases when such detachments met each other in an unclear tactical situation. To find out whether the detachment they encountered was one of their own, the sides fired at each other from Dyakonov’s grenade launchers. The Basmachi did not have such grenade launchers, so the sides immediately recognized their own by the oncoming explosion of grenades. It was almost impossible to hit the target with Dyakonov's grenade launcher. Therefore, no one was afraid of causing damage by friendly fire.
    1. +1
      9 November 2023 11: 49
      It would be simpler to write; under-barrel grenade launchers have been in service for a long time.
    2. +3
      9 November 2023 12: 41
      Of course, of course, the Americans’ experience is completely useless and completely undeserving of attention. Just like comparing a grenade weighing 360g with a mine weighing 1300g and concluding that the latter is completely useless. Thus, you can be given the technical characteristics of the VOG-25 and you will firmly and clearly issue a conclusion about the complete futility of this topic.
      1. -2
        9 November 2023 13: 15
        Sorry, but what difference does it make to place a projectile weighing 360 g or 1300 g far past the target? With an STP significantly exceeding the radius of destruction of a grenade, the effect will be exactly the same for any caliber of ammunition. Or will you say that the godlike Americans have radically solved the aiming issue?
        1. +1
          9 November 2023 13: 43
          The uselessness of Soviet rifle grenade launchers lies in the design of these grenade launchers and the grenades for them. Feathered, choke-mounted grenades provide reasonable accuracy.
          1. -3
            10 November 2023 12: 39
            The uselessness of Soviet rifle grenade launchers lies in the design of these grenade launchers and the grenades for them. Feathered, choke-mounted grenades provide acceptable accuracy.
            - Wow!!! Who would have thought! You opened my eyes.
            Look at the appearance of the grenade for the Dyakonov grenade launcher.

            The photo clearly shows all the signs of a projectile stabilized in flight by rotation. Especially for the stupid ones, the “leading lip of the pallet” is labeled. Those. The Dyakonov grenade launcher refers to systems in which the projectile is equipped with ready-made rifling. You, as I understand it, are an outstanding weapons expert. As an outstanding weapons expert, explain to us illiterate people why a projectile stabilized in flight by rotation has a stabilizer? To reduce accuracy? Speaking of birds. Projectiles stabilized by rotation have greater accuracy than those stabilized by fins. Therefore, for example, it is a very difficult task to ensure the accuracy of armor-piercing finned sabot shells. Nevertheless, kudos to you for your love of America.
            PS. Bathe me in the negatives.
            1. 0
              24 December 2023 02: 03
              Quote: Old electrician
              Those. Dyakonov's grenade launcher refers to systems in which the projectile is equipped with ready-made rifling

              I wrote to you about this, I’m glad that you were able to think of it yourself) You should have thought of the fact that rifle mortars with rifling, despite the fact that, in your opinion
              Quote: Old electrician
              Projectiles stabilized by rotation have greater accuracy than those stabilized by fins.
              they do not provide acceptable accuracy and are not used after WWII. But feathered grenades are quite sufficient (as are mortar mines, by the way) and are still in service today.
      2. +1
        9 November 2023 13: 49
        Initially, you undertook to compare two completely different systems and, based on the “futility” of one, concluded that the other was useless.
        1. 0
          9 November 2023 23: 17
          The Germans also had a similar trick. Only they fired not from a rifle, but from a rocket launcher. Well, there was an assortment of grenades - fragmentation, smoke and even cumulative for combating armored vehicles. The truth about the successes was not shared.
          1. 0
            11 November 2023 16: 35
            The Germans also had rifle mortars and were used until the end of the war; they were considered quite effective for urban battles.
        2. 0
          10 November 2023 12: 56
          Initially, you undertook to compare two completely different systems and, based on the “futility” of one, concluded that the other was useless.
          – name the signs of radical differences between these completely different systems?
          Personally, I noticed one radical difference. Dyakonov's grenade launcher had a sight (quadrant). See photo

          The American grenade launcher does not have any signs of an aiming device. Those. The accuracy of the American grenade launcher is even worse than that of the Dyakonov grenade launcher. However, from your point of view, any American junk is priceless.
          The author of the article writes about the prospects of such systems:
          At the end of World War II, the development of fragmentation rounds for rifle grenade launchers was forgotten.
          - how so? Such a promising system, and its sickle is in one place.
    3. Alf
      0
      9 November 2023 20: 00
      Quote: Old electrician
      In 1928, by decision of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR dated February 8, 1928, a grenade launcher designed by Dyakonov was adopted into service with the Red Army.

      1. 0
        11 November 2023 05: 30
        I call it: the weight of the thrown ammunition, and therefore its power. If this does not reach you, then I am powerless. And your arguments that any development was stopped due to conclusions about its uselessness have no evidence base. And the infantry always wants to have powerful anti-personnel weapons, but they are stuffed with anti-tank weapons) By the way, we did not develop disposable grenade launchers due to their uselessness, since the troops were saturated with anti-tank guns. But the soldiers gladly used captured Panzerfausts, which had no domestic analogues in the army. Disposable Soviet grenade launchers appeared much later, after the “god-like Americans” lost several M72 law))
  5. 0
    9 November 2023 13: 08
    A more effective grenade launcher, in my opinion, was the British PIAT, which was used both as an anti-tank weapon and as a weapon against enemy machine gun nests, it was not as easy to carry as a rifle grenade launcher. , but for some tasks it was more efficient.
  6. +2
    9 November 2023 20: 12
    An underbarrel grenade launcher is weight. This is not just extra weight in the hand, but also an imbalance of the weapon. Rifle grenades do not have this disadvantage. I think every 15-20 years we can return to the topic, trying to create something acceptable using technological progress.
    1. Alf
      0
      9 November 2023 21: 18
      Quote: garri-lin
      I think every 15-20 years we can return to the topic, trying to create something acceptable using technological progress.

      "Everything new is well forgotten old."
  7. 0
    11 November 2023 06: 01
    Quote: Old electrician
    Initially, you undertook to compare two completely different systems and, based on the “futility” of one, concluded that the other was useless.
    – name the signs of radical differences between these completely different systems?
    Personally, I noticed one radical difference. Dyakonov's grenade launcher had a sight (quadrant). See photo

    The American grenade launcher does not have any signs of an aiming device. Those. The accuracy of the American grenade launcher is even worse than that of the Dyakonov grenade launcher. However, from your point of view, any American junk is priceless.
    The author of the article writes about the prospects of such systems:
    At the end of World War II, the development of fragmentation rounds for rifle grenade launchers was forgotten.
    - how so?.

    I’m answering about the sight: M15, if that tells you anything.
    You can google about the cessation of development of rifle grenades after WWII, I’m too lazy to expand your horizons
  8. 0
    13 November 2023 11: 24
    Modern combined arms doctrine requires that each infantry unit have a certain percentage of soldiers equipped with a grenade launcher or rifle/grenade launcher combination. A criticism of this doctrine is that if the group's grenadiers become incapacitated or separated from the group, then the group loses the grenade launcher entirely as heavy fire support. With the addition of rifle grenades, each soldier will be equipped with a small number of rifle grenades, so that each individual soldier will be able to use some form of heavy firepower.
    Rifle grenades have advantages over grenade launchers, such as the M203, because they can have a warhead and payload of different sizes and shapes.
    They can be fired from any rifle equipped with a suitable muzzle base or hose fitting; in fact, every soldier armed with a rifle can be a grenadier.
    For area suppression, it can fire up to 10 grenades per minute, similar to a modern rifle decoy grenade.
    We are not talking about preference for one system or another; in my opinion, we are talking about complementary weapons systems. Rifle grenades could be carried in each squad, but unfortunately this would be detrimental to the ammunition available to the individual soldier. I would add that the development of rifle grenades has never stopped. They continue to be produced by Mecar, Instalaza and others.

    https://instalaza.com/producto/granada-ftv/?lang=en

    If you don't want to use a rifle grenade, you can use the cup launcher to launch regular grenades, although the range is certainly shorter.
    I have often seen this solution in the AK-47.
  9. 0
    14 November 2023 18: 16
    I heard out of the blue that Srelkov in Serbia was a “tramblon player”, i.e. I used this “crap” with a three-ruler.
    1. 0
      28 November 2023 01: 15
      Yeah... Santa Claus worked part-time in the summer as Chegevara for Fedya Kostrov and shot icicles from his staff in the Amazon jungle.