Earliest Possible Combat Effective Shoulder Fired Rocket Launcher

Federal Gas Gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Riot_Gun was available in early 1930's. I am amazed the USMC did not make use of this in Central America. Also, once rifle grenades were devised, I wonder why the leap to a large shotgun based grenade launcher was ignored.
37x122mmR weapons and flares date back to before 1914, some stocked but most pistol style. With a little imagination such launchers could have been used in WW1 for explosive and chemical rounds.

Gas rounds were available in 26.5x103mmR (the 1" flare round) before WW1 (by 1912 at the latest) and used by the French army (to little effect) in 1914. The principal filler was ethyl bromoacetate, replaced by chloroacetone. The rounds were too small to have much effect.

The Manville Machine Gas Projector was developed in 1935 first sold in 1938; this was a bulky, short-barrelled, revolver launcher in 26.5mm with an eighteen-round cylinder. A 12-gauge version (intended for muzzle blast tear gas and rubber pellets but entirely capable for firing shot and slug) was also sold. It held 24 rounds but saw even more limited use than the 1" version (for a start it was a SBS under the NFA). While some sources (e.g. Wiki) claim a twelve-shot version was manufactured in 37mm, I am personally very dubious about this; most sources don't mention it and they many be conflating such a weapon with the much later MM-1 (developed around 1970). Of course Manville may have developed a prototype in this calibre.
The projector saw very few sales, it was expensive, heavy and very slow to reload.

Also, Vickers 1 pounder and 1 inch automatic cannon, Fiat Revelli 25mm cannon, COWS and Davis guns, and Becker cannons all were able to fill the short to medium range direct fire role by WW1. No one thought to drag these into the trenches.
Both Britain and Germany used the 1.5" Maxim ("one-pounder") to a very limited extent. However the 37x94mmRround was considered ineffectively small by both sides and against British doctrine as an infantry weapon.
France and the USA used the French designed APX Mle 1916TRP[1] as a (relativity) portable infantry anti-fortification weapon. It fired the same 37x94mmR cartridge as the "pom pop" but was a far lighter (about 40kg[1] for the gun alone as against 200kg for the 1.5" Maxim) and was a single-shot. Standard crew was seven.

Hope this helps.


[1] Canon d’Infanterie Modèle 1916 Tir Rapide, Puteaux. Infantry gun model 1916, quick-fire, designed at Puteaux arsenal

[2] The tripod mount broke down into two parts, 40kg and 28kg. A 20kg gunshield was also available
 
Ah yes. Always fun when your assistant has inserted the grenade, lit the fuse and then you have a misfire........
One of the reasons for the short barrel, the fuse was accessible. Though gunners usually relied on the firing blast igniting the fuse anyway.
 
True, but against largely fixed targets in the open the shoulder-fired weapon would still be redundant with the regular tripod rocket launcher from OTL. After all, why would someone carry a shoulder-fired rocket to within 50 meters to engage a bunker/wall/pillbox in the open...

I don't know. Why is the 50 meter range the example here? Is there information anywhere on the range of shoulder fired rocket launchers for that era?
 

Deleted member 1487

What kind of accuracy are you after? "Accurate" has different meanings for different weapons and use.
You were talking about using it at point targets like bunkers and the like. Even hitting a slow moving or stationary AFV would work in this context. Given that even after WW2 RPGs could only be accurate out to about 150m max for those sorts of targets >200m RPGs in WW1 is very likely out of the question. Now for a salvo fired area target it would be an option, but then why not use mortars.
 
You were talking about using it at point targets like bunkers and the like. ....

I was also talking about area targets, throughout the discussion.

.... Given that even after WW2 RPGs could only be accurate out to about 150m max for those sorts of targets >200m RPGs in WW1 is very likely out of the question. ....

Why is it out of the question? Are you certain of this?

.... Now for a salvo fired area target it would be an option, but then why not use mortars.

If fire support were always that certain, or effective we'd not need infantry at all. Just scout observers and MPs rounding up prisoners. The ability to respond swift at the company to squad level is 'useful'. Beyond that mortars are a poor example to refer to as a alternative for attacking . Combined arms is not a theory, its a essential on the battlefield, all the way down to the squad.
 

Deleted member 1487

I was also talking about area targets, throughout the discussion.
Bunkers and other such targets, which you mentioned, aren't really area targets. A 50m shot with a Panzerfaust type weapon is certainly achievable, perhaps even a 100m shot with a larger version, but I'd not going to bank on anything over that for even a larger dug in target. At that point why not just use grenade launchers or mortars?

Why is it out of the question? Are you certain of this?
Given that there were engineers far more intelligent than either of us working on that problem, I'd say so. The RPG-7 has an effective range of about 200m (51% hit chance per the Soviets) against an AFV and that is after decades of development and refinement with manufacturing and design technologies that were not available during even the 1940s. I've seen anecdotal reports that anything over 100m is a crapshoot. Unless using something like a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle (with resulting internal injuries from use) with it's rifled barrel, accuracy is going to be difficult with a rocket weapon.

If fire support were always that certain, or effective we'd not need infantry at all. Just scout observers and MPs rounding up prisoners. The ability to respond swift at the company to squad level is 'useful'. Beyond that mortars are a poor example to refer to as a alternative for attacking . Combined arms is not a theory, its a essential on the battlefield, all the way down to the squad.
Because infantry do things that fire support cannot? That is why we have combined arms to exploit the strengths of each arm in conjunction with the other. Plus as I've heard it glibly put "an infantry company is just the escort of the FOO from hill to hill".
Of course the ability to respond swiftly is critical, which is why mortars were used at platoon and company level and rifle grenades and grenade launchers at squad level.
Also I never said mortars were an alternative for attacking with infantry, they are a supplement to suppress or destroy a target so the infantry can advance and take the ground.
 
The numbers are not surprising. The RPG development was simply continued to the point it would be comparable to rifle grenades. And then hurried to mass production.
As i remember, the biggest issue of earlier RPGs was the great sensitivity of trajectory to temperature and moisture, because RPG propellant burns at low pressures compared to propellants of rifle grenades, and atmospheric effects matters.
But I'm looking for actual 'X number of rifle grenades landed withing yy yards of the aim point' vs what the Warsaw Pact RPG-2/B-40/Type 56 could do.

If they were no different than Rifle grenades, why did General Gavin of the 82nd order that every possible Panzerfaust(that were not as good as the RPG-2) be taken into stock, and trained with them, with translated instructions?

He already had access to all the rifle grenades he wanted, and bazookas too.

For resistance to moisture, the VC/PAVN used the RPG-2 and its BP charge with little difficulty in South Vietnam.
 

Deleted member 1487

But I'm looking for actual 'X number of rifle grenades landed withing yy yards of the aim point' vs what the Warsaw Pact RPG-2/B-40/Type 56 could do.

If they were no different than Rifle grenades, why did General Gavin of the 82nd order that every possible Panzerfaust(that were not as good as the RPG-2) be taken into stock, and trained with them, with translated instructions?

He already had access to all the rifle grenades he wanted, and bazookas too.

For resistance to moisture, the VC/PAVN used the RPG-2 and its BP charge with little difficulty in South Vietnam.
Better penetration. Panzerfaust projectiles were a lot bigger and better penetrating against armor than the Bazooka or rifle grenade HEAT shells.
 
Better penetration. Panzerfaust projectiles were a lot bigger and better penetrating against armor than the Bazooka or rifle grenade HEAT shells.
But if the accuracy was far worse... You can't knock out a tank with a miss, even with a bigger warhead

Personally, I believe the accuracy was similar, but one had around a 5x bigger warhead, that besides creating a better mo;ten jet to drill a hole in armor, made a much more satisfying 'Bang' against softer targets
 
Nitpick. The jet is not molten.

From the wiki
A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. The warhead functions by having the explosive charge collapse a metal liner inside the warhead to form a high-velocity superplastic jet of liquid metal. This concentrated liquid metal jet is capable of penetrating armor steel to a depth of seven or more times the diameter of the charge (charge diameters, CD) but is usually used to immobilize or destroy tanks.

So OK, 'jet of liquid metal'
 
There is no reason to fixate upon HEAT rounds. They are an answer to a question that was not posed until 1916. The standard battle demolition charge of the 18th century was gunpowder in cloth bags laid against a defence such as a heavy door. More akin to HESH than HEAT. A projector that can throw it against the desired target and set it off on impact will do the job. Taking the PIAT as the model a thin wall case of tinned or lacquered sheet iron with a nose impact fuse only required a percussion cap at the front end as in period explosive bullets. You won't get any Monroe effect until you have something like guncotton as the charge and what would you need it for until heavy steel battlefield armour appears and even then an HE charge will do the job in the early days. HEAT was the answer to thick armour. Until then kinetic energy was the solution.

If the OP were earliest possible anti armour shoulder fired weapon then it would be early 20th century. If it is earliest possible HE shoulder fired weapon we can look much earlier and Chinese and Indian rockets have possibilities. They had tried gunpowder HE headed light rockets .
 
From the wiki
A high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead is a type of shaped charge explosive that uses the Munroe effect to penetrate thick tank armor. The warhead functions by having the explosive charge collapse a metal liner inside the warhead to form a high-velocity superplastic jet of liquid metal. This concentrated liquid metal jet is capable of penetrating armor steel to a depth of seven or more times the diameter of the charge (charge diameters, CD) but is usually used to immobilize or destroy tanks.

So OK, 'jet of liquid metal'
Wiki is wrong. The shaped charge forms the metal lining into a solid rod. Super plastic under the forces involved certainly, but still not molten. The lining material has to be one that will deform superplasticaly so copper was the early choice. The rod so formed is then punched through the armour by the pressure shock within the warhead from the explosion. The steel being punched through deforms and flows out from under the penetrating rod. The remains look like they have been subjected to an incredibly hot gas jet. The rod passes through the hole (if it fully penetrates) and some of the flowing steel armour all of which may be detrimental to your health if you are locked inside the small metal box which you are sharing with it.
 

Deleted member 1487

But if the accuracy was far worse... You can't knock out a tank with a miss, even with a bigger warhead

Personally, I believe the accuracy was similar, but one had around a 5x bigger warhead, that besides creating a better mo;ten jet to drill a hole in armor, made a much more satisfying 'Bang' against softer targets
I don't know what the accuracy was, but if you hit, but cannot kill the target then it doesn't matter either.
But yes I think accuracy wasn't appreciably worse and the bigger bang made it much more useful.
 

trurle

Banned
But I'm looking for actual 'X number of rifle grenades landed withing yy yards of the aim point' vs what the Warsaw Pact RPG-2/B-40/Type 56 could do.

If they were no different than Rifle grenades, why did General Gavin of the 82nd order that every possible Panzerfaust(that were not as good as the RPG-2) be taken into stock, and trained with them, with translated instructions?

He already had access to all the rifle grenades he wanted, and bazookas too.

For resistance to moisture, the VC/PAVN used the RPG-2 and its BP charge with little difficulty in South Vietnam.

I doubt the accuracy model of such sort exist. Rifle grenades tends to be more tolerant of environmental variables, while direct-fire RPG are more tolerant to personnel training defects (well, trajectory difference also plays a role). Whats why we still have both in army arsenals even in 21st century.
Regarding Panzerfaust procurement order, i have not hear about it, but can imagine it was mostly because of superior beyond-armor effect of larger Panzerfaust warhead. Early AT grenades and Bazooka M1 model often penetrated armor yet failed to disable the enemy tank in one hit, unlike Panzerfaust.
 
Last edited:
Top