Rifle Grenades?

In reality, unlike Hollywood, both the M9A1 HEAT rifle grenade and the 2.75" bazooka round penetrated about 100mm of armor. The only difference was the bazooka round could be fired to a theoretical maximum range of about 600 yards while the rifle grenade would only make about 100 yards. I doubt you could hit much of anything at more than 100 yards with either weapon so the difference is negiable.
As the side and rear armor of a Tiger II is in most places about 80mm it is possible to knock one out with either weapon but it is unlikely. First, the actual penetration is likely to vary from the theoretical and not in a positive way. Second, even if a penetration is made the effect is likely to be small as there will be little residual blast effect.
I would say that on a Tiger II the most vulnerable spots were just behind the turret on the hull, particularly between the tracks and the upper hull and the rear of the turret. The first location would strike a fuel tank and possibly set the tank on fire. The second location is into an unprotected ammunition rack and likely to set off the ammunition resulting in the destruction of the vehicle.
From the front the Tiger is invulnerable to either weapon although it might be possible to get a penetration if the hull machinegun ball is hit. Other than that aiming for and striking the gun barrel might be effective or aiming for the commander's cupola could work. Also at least with the rifle grenade it might be possible with a skilled firer to lob a rifle grenade such that it struck the top of the vehicle rather than the side. But, of course, all of these rely on a large degree of luck to work.

 

The Italian Benaglia Rifle Grenade. Not WWII, but the fins grabbed my attention...


Enjoy.

 

Hollywood was pretty accurate in portraying the ineffectiveness of both the rifle grenade and the bazooka against thicker armor in the movie "Battle of the Bulge".

The M9A1 launched from an M1 rifle had an initial velocity of 155 fps while the M6 bazooka rocket reached 265 fps. The lower velocity and higher trajectory of the rifle grenades meant that it had to be fired at an arc to reach more extended range. This made it more difficult to hit moving targets. This was portrayed accurately in the movie ... a lot of the rifle grenades were missing their mark.

The higher velocity and flatter trajectory of the bazooka made engaging moving targets at greater range easier. This clearly justifies the trouble of having the long tube. (THAT was needed to allow the rocket motor to burn out before exiting the front or else the gunner get burned - that, in turn. was needed to reach the higher velocity - what you needed in the first place).

A very good point was made about the penetration of both the M9A1 and the M6 bazooka rocket being roughly equal. That is a good illustration of the diameter having a dominant influence on the depth of penetration in these early shaped charge weapons. The M9 rifle grenade was a lighter version of the M10 rifle grenade which was too heavy (the M10 formed the basis of the rocket propelled projectile fired by the M1 bazooka).

The M9A1 only had 4 oz of explosive charge while the M6 bazooka rocket had half a pound. Yet, both penetrated about 4 inch of armor at ~normal incidence (around 0 deg from a line perpendicular to the plate or ~90 deg to the plate).

Another good point was made about the after armor effects. The heavier explosive charge of the M6 bazooka rocket would probably give a greater effect, e.g. more "spall" sprayed inside the tank following armor penetration.

The bazooka rocket was progressively improved and higher penetration figures have been quoted (~4.7 inch). Nevertheless, the base fuse on these early designs had trouble functioning at higher angles of incidence - e.g. when hitting sloped armor. That's where the high trajectory of the M9A1 may be an advantage. It could reduce the incidence angle on hitting a sloped plate. Or, as mentioned earlier, it could hit the thinner top armor.

During the "real" Battle of the Bulge, bazookas were used against King Tigers with mixed results. A King Tiger was hit in the front of the turret during night fighting in Stavelot. The shaped charge failed to penetrate but the driver was alarmed enough to start backing up - ending up running into a house and disabling the tank.

Another King Tiger was disabled by a bazooka shot from the rear near Stoumont. The tank was stopped at the time and the two volunteers sneaked up on it.

After the battle, there was an impromtu test of the bazooka and a captured Panzerschrek on an abandoned King Tiger in la Gleize. Neither weapon penetrated the 15cm glacis angled at 50 degree. However, the 8cm side of the turret with a much lower slope was penetrated.


http://www.oldhickory30th.com/La Gleize 82nd Airborne Tiger.jpg

 

Did the rifle-grenade need to be fired from the ground like a mortar because of its stiffer recoil? I have seen a soldier doing this with a caption stating to that effect, but that doesn't make sense if you are firing an anti-tank weapon.

 

I think T. A. Gardner's post is pretty accurate in so far as armor penetration figure are concerned. King Tiger and Panther's line of sight armor thickness well exceeded 100mm.

 

That's a nice photo. I have seen closeups on the armor, but never this photo of the firing tests.

 

The rifle grenade was always a flawed concept since it is one of those ideas that seems great at first but in reality maybe is not so great after all. Almost all armies used them during WW2, since there was nothing better and it seemed like a good idea to give the soldier a bit more firepower than his rifle and some hand grenades. Most armies nowadays have discarded the concept entirely (USA and Russia) since better add-on launchers are available (M-203 and its succesor the M-320). The French though are still highly enamored of the rifle grenade and their excellent FAMAS service rifle has provision for firing them. This is a bit odd since the drawbacks to the rifle grenade are well known, especially by anyone who's ever fired one.

In WW2 you can see why they were widely adopted since nothing comparable was available. It was thought that a weapon that could cover the effective range between a hand grenade and a mortar was needed and as such the rifle grenade was adopted and turned out to be an adequate stop gap or at least better than nothing. The problem is rifle grenades are heavy, bulky to carry, required special ammo to fire, hard to shoot with any accuracy without lots of practice, and a bit weak in explosive effect. There was no way around this since you couldn't issue a truly effective grenade with more explosive inside than they have, without breaking the gun and/or the soldier's shoulder upon firing.


about 15-20 years ago in Soldier of Fortune magazine they tried out an M-16 mounted grenade called the RAW that someone had invented and was trying to sell to the army. It was a round, black contraption and the whole thing looked like a large grapefruit mounted under the barrel. It was supposed to have had a powerful explosive effect when it hit something and was intended to blow holes in buildings and destroy and unarmored vehicles.

 

What was typical range compared to a thrown grenade?

 

Rifle grenades offer several areas of interest:
1. One should remember them for what they are....a method of achieving greater range than can be achieved by hand-throwing.
2. The tube-type (US) launcher is better than the cup-type (Ger) because the attachment does not interfere with normal sighting and operation of the weapon.
3. One type of US launcher literally held a standard hand grenade. The early antitank warhead was, indeed, put on a privately made rocket motor as a prototype of the Bazooka round.
4. My experience w the rifle grenade is rather limited, but, I think, rather interesting. Once when I was instructing platoon tactics at Ft Benning, an OCS type discovered a huge timber rattler. Now, orders were to avoid all contact and leave them alone, but the CG didn't have to run exercises in that area twice weekly. I instructed the kid w the signal grenade to shoot the sucker. He hit it dead center and created a magnificent sight w the warhead oozing red smoke out of one side of the snake and the fins sticking out the other side. Now it takes a snake's body a long time to realize it's dead....not this one! Nary a single twitch!
As an adviser to the RF in Vietnam, I got to see these little fellows use a rifle grenade launcher. The guy had taken an '03 Springfield, cut several inches off the stock, put a backpack full of grenades on his back. He would squat down, put the buttstock on the ground, eyeball his target and shoot, reloading by working the bolt and then reaching over his shoulder to get another grenade. Naturally, he had only grenade-launching rounds in the magazine of the '03. He was pretty good with it and added a lot of firepower to the RF company......especially since Vietnamese are too small to throw a grenade very far.
5. Rifle grenades were appreciably better than throwing by hand. Before you write them off, bear in mind that the bursting radius of a grenade is greater than your ability to throw one! If everyone in the squad carried only one grenade it added appreciably to the squads firepower and cost no one individual no serious additional weight to carry. They were a worthwhile weapon in an army's arsenal.
6. The development of reduced-power rifles caused the rifle grenade to go away.

 

Rifle grenades are a good weapon for fighting in heavy woods or in cities, the German cup dischargers could fire in direct or indirect mode, I have one and hitting people sized targets at 100m is not hard at all,the Germans issued one per squad. The spigot type launchers have an advantage as well, the only real dimension that's critical is the 22mm bore of the tail piece, again the use for street fighting is very good. Rifle grenades allow attacking strong points at safer distances. The throwaway AT8 bunker buster has the volume of about a dozen rifle grenades. The M10 antitank grenade of WW2 could destroy any tank with a top, side , or rear shot. The newest designs use a bullet trap so no special ammo is needed. Having a dedicated Grenadier has a disadvantage that he may not be in the best location to be effective. Israel has just developed a door busting grenade, fired from a muzzle spigot.

 

No. A firer can fire it from the shoulder just like a regular rifle round. It could also be fired from the ground at high angles of trajectory. I have seen photos of both methods employed both by the US and Germans. The high trajectory fire photos I've seen are in Normandy where the firer is launching a grenade over the hedgerow he is behind likely aiming into the next hedgerow.

 

The Germans even made a grenade round for there 26mm flare pistol They were more anti personnel than for armor.

 

and that round was used a lot in the late war from inside tanks as a close in protection against infantry, often fired through the roof mortars breech instead of the actual roof mortar round - sorry i've totally forgotten the designation of the mortar.

 

That would be the Nahverteidigungswaffe or NW 50. It was a close defense weapons system that replaced earlier smoke grenade dischargers on German tanks. Normally, it "fired" S-mines for close defense against infantry. It could also discharge smoke grenades as necessary. I guess you could have fired a signal flare up the tube at the fixed angle of the weapon but this would likely be less effective than simply cracking a hatch and firing the flare in a more vertical direction.

 

thanks for that - been racking my brains - I will try and find the source i remember from a while ago, but apparently it was much more common to use the flare pistol with the frag round through the NW 50 than the actual NW 50 rounds - perhaps a supply issue but i seem to remember it was considered a better system - the reason escapes me now. I'll hunt.

 

Found it i think -

2,6-cm-Sprenggranatpatrone 326 LP Pz (high explosive) for signal and combat pistol


Nahverteidigungswaffe (close-in defense weapon)

The 2,6-cm-Sprenggranatpatrone 326 LP Pz was in contrast to the 2,6-cm-Sprenggranatpatrone 326 LP not designed to be used by infantry or paratroopers, but to be fired out of armored vehicles. Whilst the 2,6-cm-Sprenggranatpatrone LP 326 was fitted out with a time fuse, the 2,6-cm-Sprenggranatpatrone 326 LP Pz was ignited using the burning fuse of the Eihandgranate 39 (egg hand grenade) which was connected to the cartridge base with an about 300 mm long steel wire. The firings happened with the signal pistol throughout the Nahverteidigungswaffe, but could also be made from the hatch.

Nahverteidigungswaffe@Everything2.com

The launcher itself only fired smoke rounds, but if the breech was opened, high explosive grenades and other munitions could be fired through it using a normal flare gun (Leuchtpistole, or Kampfpistole, a rifled flare gun). The grenades had a timed fuse that exploded them slightly over ground, making them lethal to infantry even in dead zones of the tank.

 

Incidentally, this site is perhaps not perfect but is a very good summary of most of the issues involved and many of the equipments used;

GRENADE LAUNCHER HISTORY