Bazookas in Burma and Indochina

This WW2 training film gives a better demonstration of direct fire with the rifle grenade. Note the use of the captured PzKpfw IV.

 

Okay a huge thanks (no other AFVs involved) to everyone. So embarrassing.lol.

It seems on the balance of probabilities that the passages refer to rifle grenade launchers with Rockity (I'm using that word at every opportunity now) looking warheads and not actual rockets from a tube.

I agree they are lighter and easier to manage than either the Bazooka or definitely a PIAT and seem pack a reasonable punch.

As to scale of issue probably one per Platoon ilo ATR or the aforementioned PIAT.

Do you think it would be most likely carried within a rifle section rather than Pl HQ. Unless at Coy HQ?

Cheers

Laochra

 

Confirming my memory, Thornton does indeed like the M9A1, though disparages the efforts made to adapt it into a dual-purpose anti-tank-and-personnel.

The PIAT is referenced on a couple of occasions but is not a subject, unlike the 2-in mortar, grenades and small arms. I can't see any mention of the bazooka, or any sort of comparison. Perhaps this reflects a [lack of] experience of these weapons that - as the Assistant Commandant and Chief Instructor 1943-46 of the Small Arms School, India - might indicate the limited availability of or interest in these weapons in India/Burma.

His write-up on the M9A1 also covers the sight developed by the Indian Army - a simple stamping that clipped into a couple of holes drilled in the barrel band that could be flipped-up when required. Sights on the same principle would later be incorporated into the launcher/discharger.

There's a brief statement that the No.36 grenade could be fired from a [cup] discharger, but no real consideration of the system. He believed the US-style spigot launcher/discharger was the way forward.

 

A total of 2,018 bazookas were delivered to the Chinese under Lend-Lease, and these would have had to pass through India to be delivered. I don't know for certain, but some might have been retained in India to equip the Chinese divisions Stillwell led into Burma. The bazooka was definitely issued to the 5307th Composite Regiment (Prov.), AKA GALAHAD. So, if the British had shown an interest in the weapon in that theater some were around for examination.

 

It was bugging me that I couldn't find anything on the use of rifle grenade launchers by units in the Far East. I had a look back and found a few paragraphs in Progress Bulletin (Infantry) No.13 of August 1944. It's quite involved but states that reports from India and Australia had highlighted that an efficient anti-tank grenade that could be fired by a rifle was a 'very definite requirement for jungle warfare'. The No.68 was deemed not up to this role due to 'inherent limitations of inaccuracy, instability and poor penetration'. Attention had then turned to the available US launcher, 'the British term is projector', which was more accurate and allowed the rifle to operate normally. As of August 1944 then, 'British projectors to match the Nos.1, 4 and 5 rifles and a British .303 Ballistite cartridge have reached the trial stage'. A trio of grenades were then under consideration, for anti-tank (No.85), anti-personnel (No.86) and smoke (No.87). These grenades were not likely 'to be in production until 1945'. The projectors, cartridges and sights were hoped to be available 'this year (1944) so that they can be used with existing varieties of US ammunition'.

Gary

 

That's very interesting, Gary. The timeline fits with this:

Westwood Works in World War 2

Your note suggests it might have been a mixed batch.

What it doesn't match is Indian Army usage. If the UK manufactured ones first appeared in June 1945, the ones in the Feb 1945 photo must have been of Indian manufacture or modification.

 

First off thanks, again

So a summary is that there was an adapter designed for US Grenade Launcher for all service rifles including No.1 rifle. That in (post 19) the corrected propellant and post #23 we have a locally made sight so.... I think it probable that we have a locally made adapter too.

It seems that the M9A1 in sources are pretty definitely Rifle grenades - but writers may, in common terms, use same nomenclature for the adapted rifle and do not differentiate between types of grenade (M9A1 or British 85/86/87). NOR possibly with use of M7 grenade launcher (Brit =projector) which the 86 and 87 used.

Gary could you direct me to this Establishment please - I think it may have informed the formation of several French units in 1945/46. Hope this is not rude to ask.

John

 

I'm starting to wonder if the No.85 was intended as a domestically-produced 'special' purely for use in the Far East, based on the Indian Army's recommendation. Once the Japanese had thrown in the towel, its raison d'etre was gone.

 

Just found a PDF lurking on my cloud.

No idea were from but has colour x-section of No.85 grenade and fuzes. Accompanying text states 'It was introduced in April 1945 and declared obsolete in September 1946. It had a very short life due to a decision by the General Staff to discontinue rifle launched grenades.'

So no more Rifle Grenades until Type 94 Energa was adopted in 1950's. Although I suspect a few EY's were knocking about, under the counter so's to speak.

Can add the pdf if wanted

 

Then there's this...

From WO 232-39 Infantry-Tank Co-operation (Far East), some information from the assaults on WRENCAT and TORTOISE in late January 1944:





I've left the grenade lessons on there as they could be interpreted as the inspiration for the No.70 grenade pictured alongside the M9A1 in The 1944 Pattern Web Equipment, 1946.

 

This is all very interesting. The British received some thousands of M1903 Springfield rifles. Some went to New Zealand and Singapore to arm local forces and others were issued to the South Pacific Scouts (Tonga, Fiji, and Solomon Islands defence forces). I did not know until now that British troops in SEAC also got some for grenade launching, yet so it appears. As to the M1 Garand, some commando units in both the Far East and the Med definitely had them. The organization of "local fire support squads" makes sense, and parallels developments in the US Marine Corps. By 1945, the USMC had organized infantry squads in rifle companies specifically to handle flamethrowers, bazookas, and demolitions, all of which had proved to be necessities when attacking Japanese positions. I am designing a notional WWII Allied army, and this force includes a support section in each rifle platoon equipped with a 2" mortar, anti-tank launcher, EY rifle and/or flamethrower, and LMG.

 

Quite how they got hold of the Springfields, launchers and grenades is a puzzle that's unlikely to be solved, I fear. Is something out of Stilwell's sphere likely, or the US air effort? I imagine it took a bit of foresight and effort on someone's part to find out what was available and to accumulate all the bits.

 

According to Hyperwar, Britain received a total of 64,007 Springfields of all variants under Lend-Lease, as well as 2,116 grenade launchers (M1,M2, M7, M8). China received over 11,000 of both (M1903 rifles and grenade launchers). The M9 does not appear in the Lend-Lease tables, so my guess is that it went to the British under so called theater transfer. If that is the case then Stillwell (or, later, Wedemeyer) would probably have had to approve it as the US commander in the theater.

 

Some clarification is also necessary on US grenade launchers. The M1, strictly speaking a grenade launching adapter, was used with the M1903 Springfield rifle, while the M2 adapter was used with the M1917 Enfield rifle. The M7 was the launcher for the M1 Garand, while the M8 was issued with the M1 carbine series. So, when Springfields were used to launch the M9A1 grenade, the launcher/adapter would have been the M1, and when the Garand was used to fire the M9A1 an M7 launcher would have been employed. [Oops--Gary Kennedy covered this in a previous post!]

 

This is from WO 203/2342 - a file of notes from the Chabua Conference, dealing with 36 British Infantry Division's move to American control:



36 Div was under Stilwell's command in North Burma and supplied entirely by US aircraft, but ALFSEA was quite insistent that it retained its 'British identity'. Oddly, despite being supplied with these M9A1s the Div doesn't seem to have been allowed to employ them and was instead lumbered with the PIAT with 425 fuzes. This is from a 36 Div A/Q Liaison Letter dated 20th Feb 1945:

 

I will be kicking myself later...

From Skennerton's The Lee-Enfield Story:

 

No idea why it's taken me so long to find these...

Indian GL No. 4 MkI rifle

The tapered socket can be made out on the Phoenix photo above soI don't think there's any doubt we're looking at the right bit of kit. Then there's the sight mentioned by Thornton.

This other thread by the same chap also shows a couple of variants for the SMLE:

Pictures of Indian grenade launching rifles and spigot...

 

That's interesting. So the Indian army used 'some' No.4 rifles for the GL A/T role, but kept the No.1 as principal infantry weapon. Some modified with Grenade Discharger cup for anti-infantry action?

I'm thinking that tactically the No 4 with No.9 AT Grenade was deployed vs strongpoints since there was a general lack of enemy armour targets. Issue, maybe one per Pl?
Additionally the discharger cup wasn't widely used by late 45 because it necessitated carrying two rifles.

Does that make sense?

John

 

On my last trip to Kew, I had time to pull WO 203/676, a file with the intriguing title: M9A1 Grenade Effect on MT. Dealing with the obvious bit first, it’s fair to say that the small size of the M9A1 tended to limit its effect on the average 3-tonner:


It was the background correspondence regarding the mounting of the trial that started to fill in a few blanks in the M9A1 story. First, from GHQ India dated 25 May 1944:


Other memos relate to the acquisition of three scrap 3-tonners as targets, and a detail from the King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry who would bring:



'Pads' being the slip-on rubber butt pads for the Springfield rifles. Maybe lots of battalions were issued American rifles and grenades without bothering to mention this in their histories?

The last item gives us an indication of one source of all these goodies: the gloriously-named Lt Knickerbocker of the American ‘Services of Supply’: