How would the Type 89 grenade launcher fair in Europe?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knee_mortar
The Japanese 'Knee Mortar' a 50mm grenade launcher, was more mobile and simpler than any European 50mm mortar, all of which were ultimately discontinued because of their weakness and complexity making them more trouble than they were worth. What if someone came up with a version of the Japanese grenade launcher or just copied it for themselves for use in Europe? How would the simple little launcher have done as a platoon support weapon? It was cheaper, simple, and able to be used in urban battles thanks to the delayed trigger fuse. Was it more trouble than its worth?
 

trurle

Banned
During WWII, the Allied equivalent for Type 89 grenade discharger was the British 2-inch mortar. It evolved during the war to get the Japanese-style base plate though. Also, the Soviet 37mm Spade Mortar was the close analog.
The modern weapon class derived from these is Commando mortar.
 

Deleted member 1487

How did that perform? Would it be the equivalent of a golf ball grenade for mortars?
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Most effective portable system was this

fig057.jpg

replace the hand grenade with the 60mm Mortar bomb
1-PIC_0282_t.jpg

on the adapter with some wire

GI field mod.
 

trurle

Banned
wiking said:
What is that weapon?
Click to expand...

Seems to be an old United States M1/M2/M7 grenade launcher. With range only 260m, it is not competitive with Japanese Type 89 or British 2-inch mortar. Main problem is what sound of shot is reliably heard 300m away due to very light and short tube, so enemy soldiers will always receive a warning in advance of attack. Range is close to Soviet 37mm spade mortar, but 37mm was much quieter (larger expansion volume and thicker tube walls). The M1/M2/M7 was a great weapon against light tanks though.
 
Last edited:

BobTheBarbarian

Banned
I would say pretty well. Historically it was responsible for a high proportion of Allied casualties, and was a great way to increase the firepower of small units at a relatively cheap cost.
 

Deleted member 1487

BobTheBarbarian said:
I would say pretty well. Historically it was responsible for a high proportion of Allied casualties, and was a great way to increase the firepower of small units at a relatively cheap cost.
Click to expand...
So if the Germans adopted it for the Eastern Front and had it en masse from 1941 on what would it have done to the Soviets? I'm assuming 3 per platoon like they were supposed to have with their 50mm mortar, but dropped because it was too heavy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_cm_Granatwerfer_36
http://historywarsweapons.com/german-rifle-platoon/
 

BobTheBarbarian

Banned
wiking said:
So if the Germans adopted it for the Eastern Front and had it en masse from 1941 on what would it have done to the Soviets? I'm assuming 3 per platoon like they were supposed to have with their 50mm mortar, but dropped because it was too heavy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_cm_Granatwerfer_36
http://historywarsweapons.com/german-rifle-platoon/
Click to expand...

Soviet casualties would have gone up noticeably, since the "grenade launcher" (it only weighed a little over 10 lbs.) was really a personal mortar. A weapon like the Type 89 was perfect for urban environments like Stalingrad, where the use of conventional artillery was too dangerous.

However, I doubt it would have made a difference in the long run. The Germans still would have lost, the RKKA just would have bled a little bit more.
 

Deleted member 1487

BobTheBarbarian said:
Soviet casualties would have gone up noticeably, since the "grenade launcher" (it only weighed a little over 10 lbs.) was really a personal mortar. A weapon like the Type 89 was perfect for urban environments like Stalingrad, where the use of conventional artillery was too dangerous.

However, I doubt it would have made a difference in the long run. The Germans still would have lost, the RKKA just would have bled a little bit more.
Click to expand...

I wonder how it would have done against the 1941/42 human wave attacks. 10kg less weight (20 lbs) and ability to fire up to 25 rounds per minute would be pretty devastating against massed infantry....
 

BobTheBarbarian

Banned
wiking said:
I wonder how it would have done against the 1941/42 human wave attacks. 10kg less weight (20 lbs) and ability to fire up to 25 rounds per minute would be pretty devastating against massed infantry....
Click to expand...

Again, probably pretty well. A rain of light mortar fire would be disruptive to any attacking force, affecting unit cohesion, making them slow down, and creating easier targets for the machine-guns.
 

Deleted member 1487

How about the US adopting it for use against the Germans?
 

BobTheBarbarian

Banned
wiking said:
How about the US adopting it for use against the Germans?
Click to expand...

The US already had the 60mm mortar, which delivered a better performance than the Type 89. That, and whenever the US Army ran into trouble it could just call on its massive artillery and air support to drench any opposition in high explosives. It was one of the reasons why the Western Allies achieved a casualty (killed, wounded, captured, missing) ratio of 7 : 1 against the Wehrmacht from D-Day to V-E day.
 

Deleted member 1487

BobTheBarbarian said:
The US already had the 60mm mortar, which delivered a better performance than the Type 89. That, and whenever the US Army ran into trouble it could just call on its massive artillery and air support to drench any opposition in high explosives. It was one of the reasons why the Western Allies achieved a casualty (killed, wounded, captured, missing) ratio of 7 : 1 against the Wehrmacht from D-Day to V-E day.
Click to expand...
Sure, just as the German 50mm mortar did, but both were heavier, the German one 3x the US one 4x heavier.

The 7:1 casualty ratio is way off because it counts all of the PoWs that were taken at war's end and doesn't factor in the non-artillery factors like the Soviets fighting in the East, strategic bombing limiting German production and ability to get units to the front, and greater mobility due to more trucks and supplies, less overall divisions needing to be supplied, and air superiority making it possible to move in daylight.
 

BobTheBarbarian

Banned
wiking said:
The 7:1 casualty ratio is way off because it counts all of the PoWs that were taken at war's end and doesn't factor in the non-artillery factors like the Soviets fighting in the East, strategic bombing limiting German production and ability to get units to the front, and greater mobility due to more trucks and supplies, less overall divisions needing to be supplied, and air superiority making it possible to move in daylight.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the 7 : 1 ratio is grimly accurate.

According to Ellis,

Total German casualties between September 1939 to 31 December 1944, on the Western Front for both the army, Waffen SS, and foreign volunteers amounts to 128,030 killed, 399,860 wounded, and 7,614,790 captured (including 3,404,950 who were disarmed following the surrender of Germany). (pg. 256)
Click to expand...

That's a total of 4,737,730 combat casualties, most of which were inevitably incurred from 1944 onward. What's more, Ellis neglects to include the huge defeats suffered by Germany in the Rhineland and the Ruhr after the start of 1945, which must add about a million additional casualties to the German total. In contrast, Western Allied casualties from D-Day to Victory numbered, according to Charles B. MacDonald's "The Last Offensive" pg. 478, 766,294 (586,628 Americans). Thus, subtracting the casualties from Hitler's overrunning of France and the Low Countries (about 160,000), we arrive at totals of:

Western Allies:

766,294

Germany:

~5,580,000

Ratio:

7.3 : 1 in favor of the Western Allies.
 

Deleted member 1487

BobTheBarbarian said:
I'm afraid the 7 : 1 ratio is grimly accurate.

According to Ellis,
That's a total of 4,737,730 combat casualties, most of which were inevitably incurred from 1944 onward. What's more, Ellis neglects to include the huge defeats suffered by Germany in the Rhineland and the Ruhr after the start of 1945, which must add about a million additional casualties to the German total. In contrast, Western Allied casualties from D-Day to Victory numbered, according to Charles B. MacDonald's "The Last Offensive" pg. 478, 766,294 (586,628 Americans). Thus, subtracting the casualties from Hitler's overrunning of France and the Low Countries (about 160,000), we arrive at totals of:

Western Allies:

766,294

Germany:

~5,580,000

Ratio:

7.3 : 1 in favor of the Western Allies.
Click to expand...
Right, as I said from all the PoWs at wars end up when Germany surrendered; that's not exactly combat casualties, that's losing the war and surrendering en masse in the millions.
 

mlp

wiking said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knee_mortar
The Japanese 'Knee Mortar' a 50mm grenade launcher, was more mobile and simpler than any European 50mm mortar, all of which were ultimately discontinued because of their weakness and complexity making them more trouble than they were worth. What if someone came up with a version of the Japanese grenade launcher or just copied it for themselves for use in Europe? How would the simple little launcher have done as a platoon support weapon? It was cheaper, simple, and able to be used in urban battles thanks to the delayed trigger fuse. Was it more trouble than its worth?
Click to expand...

It only had effective range of 200m. Basically useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top