Consider the British "sticky bomb" and similar bodges issued in WW2 before casting too many stones in our Allied glasshouses
Last edited:
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
At least the British hadn't intended for the 'sticky bomb' to be a suicide weapon.
In OTL, PoW and Repulse were attacked and sunk by land based Nells and Bettys, not Kates and Vals....
Last edited:
It was only upon testing that they found the sticky weapon wouldn't stick to the side of a tank if it was muddy or wet. It still apparently worked when dropped out of a window onto the top of the vehicle.
That must have been an IJN suggestion - "hey, do you think we could get those Army idiots to try spar torpedoes?"
We are talking about an army whose standard issue grenade had to be banged sharply on the ground to arm it, before it could be thrown.
The Brits weren't the only folks to discover that their clever sticky weapons didn't work as intended.
The Germans in late 1940 or early 1941 fielded a HEAT device called the HHL-1. It had a sticky pad intended to be adhesively strong enough that the device could be stuck to a vulnerable spot on the side of an enemy AFV.
Only after the weapon made it to the field was it discovered that tanks with their engines running are usually vibrating, and the adhesive wasn't strong enough to hold the device horizontally on a vibrating surface for the fuze delay period. Plus, tanks in the field often are dirty, or wet, or oily, or cold...all of which defeated the adhesive. Plus, new tanks had thicker armor, and the original HEAT design was now inadequate.
The HHL-2 version fixed some of these shortcomings, but not all. It wasn't until the HHL-3 in the latter part of 1942 that an effective weapon was achieved, with magnetic attachment. No more adhesive AT devices for the Germans.
The Type 89 grenade discharger (knee mortar) may see even more varied use than OTL. A HEAT round could be possible, though only 50mm in diameter, it might just be enough against the sides of Allied tanks.
That said my knowledge of Japanese HEAT research is less then zero.
The Allies seemed quite fond of it as well and in TTL since there the ones on the offensive, capturing some wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.
My Grandfather once told me how his unit captured quite a few crates of them during the Borneo Campaign and put them to use against Japanese bunkers and strong points. Apparently one of his mates became quite the dead shot with one, able to put rounds into windows and bunker slits.
I also remember reading a recommendation by a US Marine Officer that the Type 89 be copied and adopted by US forces.
That said my knowledge of Japanese HEAT research is less then zero.
The Allies seemed quite fond of it as well and in TTL since there the ones on the offensive, capturing some wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.
My Grandfather once told me how his unit captured quite a few crates of them during the Borneo Campaign and put them to use against Japanese bunkers and strong points. Apparently one of his mates became quite the dead shot with one, able to put rounds into windows and bunker slits.
I also remember reading a recommendation by a US Marine Officer that the Type 89 be copied and adopted by US forces.
Last edited:
It still requires getting into close contact with a tank.The Brits weren't the only folks to discover that their clever sticky weapons didn't work as intended.
The Germans in late 1940 or early 1941 fielded a HEAT device called the HHL-1. It had a sticky pad intended to be adhesively strong enough that the device could be stuck to a vulnerable spot on the side of an enemy AFV.
Only after the weapon made it to the field was it discovered that tanks with their engines running are usually vibrating, and the adhesive wasn't strong enough to hold the device horizontally on a vibrating surface for the fuze delay period. Plus, tanks in the field often are dirty, or wet, or oily, or cold...all of which defeated the adhesive. Plus, new tanks had thicker armor, and the original HEAT design was now inadequate.
The HHL-2 version fixed some of these shortcomings, but not all. It wasn't until the HHL-3 in the latter part of 1942 that an effective weapon was achieved, with magnetic attachment. No more adhesive AT devices for the Germans.
Yes, HHL-3 and all the similar weapons got a lot of soldaten killed. MANPATs were a much better idea.
With an HE round coupled with the very low launch signal the Piat would probably be one of the more practicable short range bunker busters available at the time, As others have suggested a WP warhead could well be effective as well.
why go for the sides? Aim for the top, bigger target with a mortar's angle of approach and even less armor!
And they were in theatre iotl. I recall reading an account by somebody (John Masters?) of being sent to attack river shipping in Burma with one
Without guided bombs you'd need to be a hell of a shot to hit the top of a moving tank with a mortar!
allanpcameron
Donor
Unfortunately the PIAT doesn't enter service until 1943, so yes, it would be a good bunker buster, but not yet.
Allan
Smoke rifle grenades were a staple of British infantry armament. They were broadly available in 1918, and there was no need for further evolution of the design and manufacturing capabilities. Likely stocks of them made in the interwar years had made it to major outposts of the far flung empire, where they could be stored due to conventional smoke mixture (as opposed to HE, or especially WP) being storage-stable and safe. Smoke RGs would be a time tested means of masking bunkers, as a first step in neutralizing them.
Last edited:
