20-30mm automatic grenade launcher used in WW2

[Deleted member 1487]

Starting in the 1960s the militaries of the world began adopting some sort of automatic grenade launcher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_grenade_launcher

Ones of these in particular reminded me of a WW2 weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGS-30

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon

The Luftwaffe weapon above was a heavier, much higher velocity version of the Soviet 30mm automatic grenade launcher, which seems like it would be pretty easy to develop a ground version for.

So what if in WW2 someone, probably but not necessarily exclusively the Germans, adopted an automatic grenade launcher as a standard weapon for infantry units and vehicles with performance like the Soviet AGS-30? Or even an adapted MG FF with 20mm 'mine shells'? Both the MK108 and MG FF were made of stamped metal parts and were ridiculously easy to make with very powerful ammo and would have been even cheaper and lighter with lower velocity ammo.

MG FF in AA ground configuration for reference:
https://axis-militaria.com/product/...sory-part-20mm-mgff-aa-ground-variant-v-rare/

Of course the Soviets also experimented a 40mm weapon that they dropped in the 1930s:
http://sovietguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/taubins-grenade-launcher.html

What sort of impact would these weapons have had on infantry combat?
They have far greater range than a light mortar, better direct fire accuracy, and can bring down a high volume of fire on charging infantry or a fixed position that a .50 caliber MG would envy.

 

[Driftless]

What about using the old WWI French37mm Puteaux SA 16 gun as the basis for your launcher. That's almost what it was anyway. Come up with a marine or belt feed

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What about using the old WWI French37mm Puteaux SA 16 gun as the basis for your launcher. That's almost what it was anyway. Come up with a marine or belt feed

Not really, it was more of a infantry gun/artillery piece due to how heavy and how fast the shell it was firing was. Plus it was twice as heavy as the MK108 without being an automatic weapon. So while very interesting it was too heavy for the role.

 

[DrakonFin]

Of course the Soviets also experimented a 40mm weapon that they dropped in the 1930s:
http://sovietguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/taubins-grenade-launcher.html

What sort of impact would these weapons have had on infantry combat?
They have far greater range than a light mortar, better direct fire accuracy, and can bring down a high volume of fire on charging infantry or a fixed position that a .50 caliber MG would envy.

According to wiki, the only practical casualty caused by Taubin's grenade launcher might have been its inventor:

The actual impetus for Taubin's arrest and execution was probably Kulik's strong opposition to the AG-2 automatic grenade launcher, and consequent hostility toward Taubin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Taubin#The_Taubina_AG-2_grenade_launcher

 

[Deleted member 1487]

According to to wiki, the only practical casualty caused by Taubin's grenade launcher might have been its inventor:

More evidence that the Soviets were their own worst enemy.

 

[tomo pauk]

Starting in the 1960s the militaries of the world began adopting some sort of automatic grenade launcher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_grenade_launcher

Ones of these in particular reminded me of a WW2 weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGS-30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon
The Luftwaffe weapon above was a heavier, much higher velocity version of the Soviet 30mm automatic grenade launcher, which seems like it would be pretty easy to develop a ground version for.

So what if in WW2 someone, probably but not necessarily exclusively the Germans, adopted an automatic grenade launcher as a standard weapon for infantry units and vehicles with performance like the Soviet AGS-30? Or even an adapted MG FF with 20mm 'mine shells'? Both the MK108 and MG FF were made of stamped metal parts and were ridiculously easy to make with very powerful ammo and would have been even cheaper and lighter with lower velocity ammo.

MG FF in AA ground configuration for reference:
https://axis-militaria.com/product/...sory-part-20mm-mgff-aa-ground-variant-v-rare/

Of course the Soviets also experimented a 40mm weapon that they dropped in the 1930s:
http://sovietguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/taubins-grenade-launcher.html
What sort of impact would these weapons have had on infantry combat?
They have far greater range than a light mortar, better direct fire accuracy, and can bring down a high volume of fire on charging infantry or a fixed position that a .50 caliber MG would envy.

As always, the 'lower' we go, there is a lower impact on strategic scale. Infantry gear being 'lower' in the 'food chain' than artillery and tanks that were 'lower' than aircraft and (later) ships.
With that said - we'd might see earlier introduction of APCs with roofs? Also greater emphasis on sipers to take out crews of the automatic launchers?
As for feasibility, yes, the API blowback weapons (Oerlikon cannons and their spin-offs, like the MG FF(M) and MK 108) make plenty of sense due to their lower peak recoil, though I'd be using plain vanilla HE shells due to shrapnels they produce, vs. what the Mine shells do. The 30mm version with HEAT to harm thinly armored vehicles? For the MG FF-based aluncher, I'd propose a heavier HE shell (200 g, give or take) with less propellant for better terminal effect; 30mm HE of German production was already pretty heavy & dangerous at 440 g. I'd also propose reduction of firing rate to maybe 300 rpm cyclic, plus installation of muzzle brake.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

As always, the 'lower' we go, there is a lower impact on strategic scale. Infantry gear being 'lower' in the 'food chain' than artillery and tanks that were 'lower' than aircraft and (later) ships.

There are such things as cumulative effects as well, with enough 'lower level' improvements adding up to operational and strategic benefits.

With that said - we'd might see earlier introduction of APCs with roofs? Also greater emphasis on sipers to take out crews of the automatic launchers?
As for feasibility, yes, the API blowback weapons (Oerlikon cannons and their spin-offs, like the MG FF(M) and MK 108) make plenty of sense due to their lower peak recoil, though I'd be using plain vanilla HE shells due to shrapnels they produce, vs. what the Mine shells do. The 30mm version with HEAT to harm thinly armored vehicles? For the MG FF-based aluncher, I'd propose a heavier HE shell (200 g, give or take) with less propellant for better terminal effect; 30mm HE of German production was already pretty heavy & dangerous at 440 g. I'd also propose reduction of firing rate to maybe 300 rpm cyclic, plus installation of muzzle brake.

All good ideas, but I think fully enclosed APCs were probably too expensive for WW2 mass production and I think snipers were pretty much already focusing on gunners of any sort already. The other benefit of low velocity shells is the ability to lob them and fire indirectly.

 

[DrakonFin]

A potential POD: have the Finns capture Taubin's grenade launcher in January 1940. By way of luck, the prototype finds its way into the hands of the gunsmith Aimo Lahti, who then creates his own version for the Finnish army - let's call it "40 AKH VKT 42" ("40 mm Automatic Grenade Launcher Model 1942 by the State Rifle Factory"). The weapon goes into production and a limited series (let's say 100 of them) find their way into frontline use during 1942-44.

The 1942 version is moderately successful, but suffers from problems with reliability. After the war, a joint project between Valmet and Tampella looks into the matter and the definitive version of the Finnish automatic grenade launcher is born: the 40 mm Tampella Model 1953, or "40 AKH 53" in Finnish service, from 1955 to 1990.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A potential POD: have the Finns capture Taubin's grenade launcher in January 1940. By way of luck, the prototype finds its way into the hands of the gunsmith Aimo Lahti, who then creates his own version for the Finnish army - let's call it "40 AKH VKT 42" ("40 mm Automatic Grenade Launcher Model 1942 by the State Rifle Factory"). The weapon goes into production and a limited series (let's say 100 of them) find their way into frontline use during 1942-44.

That certainly works for the Finns. Any idea how much a weapon would impact the Continuation War?

 

[DrakonFin]

That certainly works for the Finns. Any idea how much a weapon would impact the Continuation War?

I can't see it having a major impact, being produced in small numbers as it necessarily would be. It might help the battles of the summer of 1944 somewhat if some of the weapons are used by units in the Karelian isthmus.

 

[tomo pauk]

There are such things as cumulative effects as well, with enough 'lower level' improvements adding up to operational and strategic benefits.

Be it as it is, IIRC there was no single major battle, let alone campaign of ww2 where the improved infantry gear would've altered the outcome.

All good ideas, but I think fully enclosed APCs were probably too expensive for WW2 mass production and I think snipers were pretty much already focusing on gunners of any sort already. The other benefit of low velocity shells is the ability to lob them and fire indirectly.

Fully enclosed APCs were well within the budgets of USA, UK and Canada, while it would've been probably a good idea for the Germans to curb down some megalomanic projects and produce a tousand or two of proper APCs. Please note that Soviets experimented with enclosed APCs before the war, nothing came out of it due to vehicles being too heavy because of aiming for too many soldiers to be carried (15-20+ on the modified T-26 base).
Lobbing the shells work with indirect artillery sights usualy found on mortars and howitzers, vast majority of automatic grenade launchers are used with line-of-sight sights.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Be it as it is, IIRC there was no single major battle, let alone campaign of ww2 where the improved infantry gear would've altered the outcome.

That could be debateable, but even if we accept it for the sake of argument the ability to either win faster and/or inflict more casualties repeatedly above and beyond OTL could well have cumulative effects. Say for example if they helped liquidated pockets of Soviet armies in 1941 more quickly and spared the Germans casualties, speeding up their advance throughout the campaign, while having it be less damaging to their manpower. That has cumulative impact.

Fully enclosed APCs were well within the budgets of USA, UK and Canada, while it would've been probably a good idea for the Germans to curb down some megalomanic projects and produce a tousand or two of proper APCs. Please note that Soviets experimented with enclosed APCs before the war, nothing came out of it due to vehicles being too heavy because of aiming for too many soldiers to be carried (15-20+ on the modified T-26 base).
Lobbing the shells work with indirect artillery sights usualy found on mortars and howitzers, vast majority of automatic grenade launchers are used with line-of-sight sights.

If so why did they not have them IOTL in WW2?
This suggests that they weighed too much, which led to the aluminum armored M113:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M75_armored_personnel_carrier
It's replacement was smaller, but had too little armor all around to keep the weight down to reasonable levels.

The Soviet experiment doesn't look like a great idea (though it was meant for 14 soldiers):
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/10/31/soviet-apcs-on-t-26-chassis/

The Swedes might have had a reasonable design based on the Pz38(t):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarbandvagn_301

 

[eltf177]

The problem is the money is not there, thus the interest is not there...

 

[Lord Wyclif]

The Royal Marines and LRDG used truck mounted single barrelled pom-poms in an AA & fire suppressant role

 

[Tangles up aubergine]

Following on from development of the enclosed APC, how long would it take before someone glued a launcher to the top of one and made an infantry combat vehicle? Personally, I have a new dream of seeing a Kangaroo APC with a launcher supporting an infantry assault on a pillbox in Normandy.

Of course, an automatic grenade launcher would be useful in action, but on the grander scale would only be seen to reduce casualties rather than be a war winner in it's own right. If it were invented for world war 1, then I can certainly see such a thing being widely lauded, given the nature of the combat at the time. If the launcher were to have an impact on the wars outcome, it would have to be invented early on and be fairly available, or put into place on a large scale immediately before an important campaign such as Barbarossa, Overlord or Compass.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Following on from development of the enclosed APC, how long would it take before someone glued a launcher to the top of one and made an infantry combat vehicle? Personally, I have a new dream of seeing a Kangaroo APC with a launcher supporting an infantry assault on a pillbox in Normandy.

Of course, an automatic grenade launcher would be useful in action, but on the grander scale would only be seen to reduce casualties rather than be a war winner in it's own right. If it were invented for world war 1, then I can certainly see such a thing being widely lauded, given the nature of the combat at the time. If the launcher were to have an impact on the wars outcome, it would have to be invented early on and be fairly available, or put into place on a large scale immediately before an important campaign such as Barbarossa, Overlord or Compass.

Not necessarily given the attitudes of the time; the assault rifle was basically invented pre-WW1, but no one wanted to mass produce it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cei-Rigotti

If not that, then plenty of others in the 1920s-30s.

Same with the Soviet automatic grenade launcher in the 1930s I already mentioned. Someone even came up with an automatic 82mm mortar in the 1940s too, but was rebuffed by Stalin...and 30 years later it was made by the Soviets and is being extensively used now:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2Б9

 

[Driftless]

The Royal Marines and LRDG used truck mounted single barrelled pom-poms in an AA & fire suppressant role

Some of the SAS raids on airfields in North Africa might have usefully employed such a weapon. In those cases, range and projectile velocity weren't an issue - something with sufficient "bang" to wreck an aircraft or trucks would have been dandy.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

 

[Blue cat]

Starting in the 1960s the militaries of the world began adopting some sort of automatic grenade launcher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_grenade_launcher

Ones of these in particular reminded me of a WW2 weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGS-30

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon

The Luftwaffe weapon above was a heavier, much higher velocity version of the Soviet 30mm automatic grenade launcher, which seems like it would be pretty easy to develop a ground version for.

So what if in WW2 someone, probably but not necessarily exclusively the Germans, adopted an automatic grenade launcher as a standard weapon for infantry units and vehicles with performance like the Soviet AGS-30? Or even an adapted MG FF with 20mm 'mine shells'? Both the MK108 and MG FF were made of stamped metal parts and were ridiculously easy to make with very powerful ammo and would have been even cheaper and lighter with lower velocity ammo.

MG FF in AA ground configuration for reference:
https://axis-militaria.com/product/...sory-part-20mm-mgff-aa-ground-variant-v-rare/

Of course the Soviets also experimented a 40mm weapon that they dropped in the 1930s:
http://sovietguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/taubins-grenade-launcher.html

What sort of impact would these weapons have had on infantry combat?
They have far greater range than a light mortar, better direct fire accuracy, and can bring down a high volume of fire on charging infantry or a fixed position that a .50 caliber MG would envy.

I have doubts about how often the range advantage over a light mortar would have been useful. I suspect if there had been a widespread need for dedicated ground based auto cannon / automatic grenade launchers designed for use against ground targets that they would have been produced in WW2.

If they were provided I suspect they would have been useful on occasion but I doubt they would have made much difference overall.

 

[marathag]

Fully enclosed APCs were well within the budgets of USA, UK and Canada, while it would've been probably a good idea for the Germans to curb down some megalomanic projects and produce a tousand or two of proper APCs.

Postwar APC in Czechoslovakia till 1962

So it's not a hard thing to do.