Rifle grenades

[Kapitein KAB]

In my current PBEM, Iam using my US infantry in the same manner that I tend to use German grenadiers; I try to flank enemy vehicles and kill them with handheld AT weapon.

The only thing is, I can hardly believe that the rifle grenades are capable of the things that I use them for in CM! Did these things really penetrate PzKfW III side turret armor from 35 meters?

In Cm they almost seem as potent as panzerfausts! Is this a compromise from the devs to sacrifice realism to give US troops better AT capability?

[John Kettler]

Kapitein,

I got a kill on a Tiger I's turret side in the CMBO Demo scenarios once. Really vexed my opponent! The U.S. M9A1 AT rifle grenade can, under the right conditions, completely ruin your opponent's day. What you want to do is position your troops so that they have the most perpendicular shot possible, to the thinnest armor. Elevation helps when dealing with sloped armor, not to mention exposing thinner top armor. I have no problem believing that the thing ought to be able to go through the turret side of a presumably unskirted Panzer III.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

From my opponent:

I still cannot figure out how that unit knocked out your Stug, I do not see any bazookas in his weapon "rack" (in fact, I was bringing up my bazooka team, but as you know, they are woefully out of shape). I wonder if it was a rifle grenade?

Ouch!!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

As opposed to Bazooka's where even in CMAK 1.01 3 bazooka full penetrations on both the side hull and front hull of a Stug III failed to knock it out or even a track hit cause an immobilisation. All in the space of one turn as well.

Perhaps I should have used rifle grenade armed infantry squads instead for greater chances of a kill?

Regards

Jim R.

[Meach]

Out of curiosity, where is the fuel stored in these tanks? I read somewhere that the fuel cells in some AFV's are at the sides of the vehicles and if so would this not make them really vulnerable especially slab-sided German tanks.

If this is the case then a penetrating round to the side is deadly even for a rifle grenade.

Anyone enlighten me as to the position of the gas tank in these beasts?

[Dinsdale]

The No.68 Grenade the British had in 1940 could penetrate 89 mm @ an effective range of 100m.

No admittedly it wasn't that effective. It had a very narrow margin to achive that penetration due to angles needed. The Mk2 version corrected this by 1941.

The M9A1 anti-tank rifle grenade should be capable of a similar performance which the following confirms. You need to realize that

these were the precursor to the PIAT,Bazooka and

used the Munroe principle. (HEAT)

US Rifle-mounted Grenade Launchers

The launcher, essentially an extension of the rifle, had six graduations for different ranges (for use in high-angle fire, as with signal and illumination rounds), and also a grenade retainer spring. In use, the launcher was inserted into the stabilizer assembly of the rifle grenade to the appropriate range graduation.

A special grenade cartridge, always hand-loaded, was the propellant for the grenade mounted on a rifle grenade launcher. The first widely used grenade launcher for the M1, the M7, attached to the bayonet lug by a hinged clamp, and had a stud that fitted into the gas cylinder valve screw to hold it open and vent the excess gas from firing this special cartridge. With the development of the M7A1, which permitted full semiautomatic fire when mounted, the M1 became very effective as a grenade launcher. Using the M3 grenade cartridge, an experienced rifleman could fire a MarkII fragmentation grenade with good accuracy almost 200 yards!

The M1 carbine's M8 grenade launcher used the M6 grenade launching cartridge. At about 65% the muzzle energy of the M1 rifle, the carbine could function in the fully semiautomatic mode with the launcher mounted. The M8 clamped on the end of the barrel and was held in place by a wing nut.

Another example of dedicated rifle grenades was the M9/M9A1 HEAT anti-tank grenade. The M9 weighed about 1.3 pounds, contained a shaped charge similar to the bazooka AT rocket, could penetrate 3 to 4 inches of armor, and had a maximum effective range of 250 yards (probable effectiveness about 100 yards).

Gases produced when the hand-loaded grenade cartridge is fired launch the grenade. For most of the designed rifle grenades, however, the thrust was not great enough to lift them to the desired altitude or propel them with enough force. Therefore, a propelling charge, ignited by flame from the fired cartridge, was assembled in the base of some of the rifle grenades to provide the additional boost. At the same time, the flame from the propelling charge would ignite the black powder of any time train for a time delay fuze, if needed. Fuzes were standard in signal and illumination pyrotechnic rifle grenades.

Because of the heavy recoil generated by the grenade cartridge, the rifle (or carbine) was fired by firmly planting the butt on the ground, turned sideways to avoid damaging the stock.

[ February 26, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]

[Denwad]

the M9 Rifle Grenade was developed from a french rifle grenade I believe

[MikeyD]

From my experience, if your PzIII/Stug were a later type with skirts your chance of a side rifle grenade kill would've dropped like a rock.

And in manuals on the use of anti-tank weapons there'd often be drawings showing fuel tank placement for particular vehicles (often pointed out to the reader by a cheery cartoon character!). So a PFC infantryman would probably know where a hit on a Stug might start a fire.

[ February 27, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[winkelried]

Originally posted by Kapitein KAB:

In Cm they almost seem as potent as panzerfausts! Is this a compromise from the devs to sacrifice realism to give US troops better AT capability?

They are not as potent as panzerfausts. In my 145+ games I played in the Blitz I killed only 1 Panther (Stoumont CMBO scenario) and 1 Tiger I (Herrlisheim CMBO Operation) with rifle grenades. All kills with low visibility (fog or night) on the flank of the tank. The action failed more than it succeeded. And I lost more tanks to fausts thank just the two.

[winkelried]

Originally posted by Kapitein KAB:

to give US troops better AT capability?

And don't forget the zooks. They give th US troops excellent AT capability. Just zapped my first Tiger I in CMAK

[Meach]

There is nothing quite like the taming of your first Kitty!

Good job, here's to many more subdued cats!

[mrpwase]

Hehehe...kitty. Tamed tiger. Yes.

I have the same problem with bazookas - they're the worst way to take on a tank IMO (except with rifles ), even at close range. I got 5 shots off on the rear and rear turret armour of a Tiger and it didn't do a thing. Eventually I brought a rifle squad (with rifle grenades) forward in desperation, and to my surprise they knocked it out!

[Meach]

What really annoys me is when a squad just sits there armed to the teeth with AT hand-held weaponry with a enemy AFV sitting with it's rear or side armour less than 20m away and the squad do nothing.

In a recent QB I had two immobilised Shermans turned away from a squad in a house, perfect LOS, Rifle grenades, grenade bundle but they just gawped. Regular troops as well.

So frustrating.

[coe]

Meach you have to remember that the squad sitting there to the rear or side is just an abstraction - in real life the squad is a bit more scattered - the dudes with the AT weaponry might be actually in the not quite at the rear or have to work to get to the rear of the tank. Plus the whole scared to the high heavens thing. I assume that "built in" to the AT hand held weaponry is the "hesitation" that one gets knowing that their stuff sometimes doesn't work. German grenades and grenade bundles aren't the best AT stuff. Now the wurfmines and teller ones - that's more like it!

[Meach]

Coe, well said. I take what you say and yeah, agreed. Easy for me to sit and scream at the monitor "throw the bloody thing, you potato!!"

Thank you for your point of view and I suppose the retribution dished out if your AT stuff fails is pretty much a dampner to heroic behaviour.

[coe]

on a humorous note, sometimes it's better to stay hidden and hope the beast(s) passes you by especially if you have only two panzerfausts and there are 3 tanks

I thought the part in Saving Private Ryan (aside from the whole German daylight attack not getting pounced on by allied airpower immediately and that the SS unit wasn't even in Normandy at D+6) where the American soldiers were prancing about the tiger like rabid squirrels (despite the presence of German infantry) was rather amusing. Of course the party got cut short by a supporting 20mm which decided that it could fire at its big kitty friend without hurting it to prevent any acorns from being shoved inside the tank.

[winkelried]

Originally posted by mrpwase:

I have the same problem with bazookas - they're the worst way to take on a tank IMO (except with rifles ), even at close range.

zooks usually do well with me. I try to use them in pairs for flank attacks. Avoid hulldown situations and use a team or a squad to distract the tank.

and I love TD's ... cheap and big punch