[Pzt_Crackwise]

In GJS mod Allied infantry don't have rifle grenades. Is this realistic? I mean they should have had rifle grenades in reality, with americans having Garand grenade and germans Schiessbecher. Also i have another question in addition to this. Is American BAR stronger or weaker than the Bren? It appears to me as if the BAR is stronger in CC5 but i may be assuming it false.

[Pzt_Mac]

Yes, the English did have riflegrenades (a few of us just did a bunch of research on this ) Widely distributed, though not as much as the shceisbecker of course. It was basically a cup and plate mechanism attached to the tip of your Enfield which fired a standard grenade.

[sample]

i've read some stories about enfield rifle grenades and from these reports this weapon wasn't trusted to much by troops, mainly because the lack of accuracy

cheers,
M.

[Dima]

Brits had rifle grenades adapters for SMLE No.1.

By 1944 only No.4 was in use that was not compatible with SMLE adapters.

Brits used 2inch mortars in pretty same role .

[ANZAC_Lord4war]

bar is stronger than bren in hiting power.

here is a lil note from british commando command on the use of the lee enfield rifle grenade.
``AT rifle grenades were useful against enemy behind defenses, but the incendiary bullet was not a success. Its use invariably drew fire. HE hand grenades were useful, though it appears that the Germans can throw their stick grenades farther.``

key note of that paragraph `but the incendiary bullet was not a success. Its use invariably drew fire.

here is also a good section on the soldiers correctly using their 60 mm mortars,to take out dug in ATG...who said mortars cant blow up atgs?..lol
`A short time after the enemy had been engaged with small-arms fire, the 2-inch mortar arrived. The first bomb fell short, but the second hit one of the powder dumps behind the guns and a blinding flash resulted. The time was now 0607 hours and the battery never fired again. All efforts to extinguish the fire were prevented by accurate small-arms fire.
The fire travelled and other powder dumps exploded, severely burning the German gun crews. The 2-inch mortar continued to give accurate fire behind the gun emplacements. Small-arms fire and mortar fire (with smoke just before zero hour for the assault) continued until the assault signal went up about 0630 hours. A few minutes later a German 81-mm mortar, firing from east of the battery position, got the range just as the mortar crew was beginning to withdraw, and the first three casualties occurred. Hitherto, enemy fire (mortar, heavy MG, and horizontal flak) had been consistent but inaccurate, being, mostly too high. It is thought that when the 2-inch mortar position started to fire smoke, it was given away by the trails that these bombs leave while passing through the air.

[Pzt_Kami]

Hey Guys;

Many of us use this game (CCV) and its mods as a good source for study about WWII.But about British Rifle grenades ,Overlord shows somthing completely diffrent than GJS Which one is more realistic?

And How do you sort the powers of the War according the using of Rifle grenades?

Germany > USA > Britain > Russia

Regard
-Kambiz

[Dima]

[Pzt_Kami]

Hi Dima;
[quote=Dima"]1.Germany
2.USA.
3.USSR
4.UK [/quote]
Hmm ,I've never seen any Soviet "Rifle Grenade" in WWII.So probably ,Germany and USA were the only Armies which used Rifle Grenade actively till the end of the War.

Thank you
-Kambiz

[Dima]

[quote]Hmm ,I've never seen any Soviet "Rifle Grenade" in WWII.quote]
there was RGD - Rugeiniy Granatomet Diakonova (Diakonov Rifle Grenadelauncher).
It was available in TOE circa 1939, after June 1940 reform it was removed from TOE as they thought 50mm mortar could do same things better (brits thought pretty same about RGA and 2inch mortar).
But when the GPW started all the RGDs were taken from warehouses and issued to units. Grenades for it have been produced at least till mid 1943. And actually production number was pretty same as for Schiessbecher grenades so i guess alot of RGD were in use.

[RCAC_Sharpshooter]

[Dima]

hey,

[Blackstump]

The Enfield #4 Mk 1 was the standard rifle of the British Army during World war 2. It is an improved version of the Lee Enfield #1 Mk 3 of World war 1 but is modified to reduce the cost of production. The #4 Mk 1 remained in service into the 1960's. It can be reloaded from 5 round charger strips. A grenade launcher was developed for the #4 Mk 1 which allows it to fire rifle grenades.

Caliber ROF Damage Pen Blk Magazine Recoil Range Weight
.303 British BA 4 2-3-Nil 6 Box 10 4 65 4.4kg

[RCAC_Sharpshooter]

[ronson]

British and Commonwealth forces entered WW2 armed with the SMLE No1 MkIII, which was basically the same rifle used in WW1. This was in use throughout the North African campaign and also in Italy. There is no doubt that this rifle had a 'cup' type grenade launcher available for it, along with a variety of rifle grenades, ranging from the standard Mills bomb to some specialised AT grenades. The use of this device was found however to cause damage to the rifle, possibly this caused these weapons to be viewed with disfavour.

In late 1941, the first SMLE No4 MkI rifles were produced, these were not too different to the previous one, being as Stumpy stated easier to produce and using a much cheaper spike bayonet as opposed to the sword used on the SMLE No1.
By the end of 1943 most forces in Europe and the Med had been re-equipped with these. A rifle grenade system was developed for this rifle, which certainly saw use in Korea, however I'm unsure if this was actually available during the latter part of WW2.

In late 1944 the SMLE No5 (jungle carbine) was issued to troops fighting in SEAC, which featured a shortened barrel and flash guard.

The final developement of the SMLE was the No4 MkII, which came along in 1950 and was simply a higher quality peacetime rifle. This itself was phased out in the mid to late 50's when the SLR was adopted.

Cheers
Ronson

[ANZAC_Lord4war]

i brought this up with my grandfather a few years ago when he was alive.
the adapters could be fitted to any model lee enfield.
the troops didnt mind using the mills type frag No.36 as this had a timed fuse and was safe to operate.
the No.68 Heat grenade is what got it its bad rep with troops,as this was set off by impact,and many accidents happened.And was covered up by the british army.

[Blackstump]

BAR V BREN... Well "hitting" power is a very arguable point. The .30-06 round using the standard ww2 m2 ball 152 grain bullet at 2740 fps is significantly faster, and where "VELOCITY" is king this would suggest that the BAR is a better "killer". However the .303 Mark 7,174 grain bullet travelling at 2440 fps does have an advantage. It was designed with the front third of the bullet using jacketed aluminium on purpose. This made the bullet tail heavy and on impact it would swap ends causing it to tumble, greatly increasing the damage done. Compared to the "spitzer" designed .30-06 bullet the Mark 7 .303 bullet was a better "killer". As to the design of both the weapons. The BAR had a non interchangable barrel and suffered from heat exchange between barrel and cocking spring causing jams, and had a 20 round magazine. The BREN had a fast change barrel, didn't suffer from heat exchange, and used a 30 round magazine. If I had 21 men running at me from a hundred feet I know which one I'd prefer. The other factor is in a two man operation the BREN gunner could still "sight" the target as the loader swapped magazines. The BAR magazine is a bottom feed, so this ability would be impossible as the rear of the rifle would have to be raised slightly in bipod formation to access the magazine.

[ANZAC_Lord4war]

the original question was ``Is American BAR stronger or weaker than the Bren````It appears to me as if the BAR is stronger in CC5 but i may be assuming it false.``
Personally id pick the Bren too.

[Dima]

[AT_Stalky]

Ya


USA had the Garand as wide spread automatic rifle.
BAR M1918A2 had its semiauto select removed, and had only option to fire automatic fire in two rates, had bi-pod.
The BAR man had his assistant and an ammunition bearer (many men..)..
After Normandy, USA army saw the limitation of BAR, and was not satisfied with it:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/UnitedStates/Infantry/united_states_infantry_battalion%20mid%201943%20to%201945.htm

Quote:
""Summary

The US Infantry Battalion seems a very Spartan formation in some ways. Its great advantage was the fact that, snipers apart, every man had at least a semiautomatic weapon. This gave the Battalion an immense advantage over other formations who were still reliant on clunky bolt action rifles for the bulk of their weapons. But I cannot help but think this flattered to deceive. The Rifle Squads were terribly under armed, their Garands unable to deliver the kind of prolonged intensity of automatic fire they needed, while the BAR could offer only minimal support. The weapons they needed, the belt fed M1919's were up at Company level, too far away and too few in number.

Steps to increase firepower were taken during the months following D-Day. Firstly, each Battalion received an additional six M1919 belt fed light machine guns at HQ Company for issue to subunits as required. Each Rifle Company received a further six BARs. No new men were produced to man any of these weapons, and they were seemingly allocated to the existing units as deemed appropriate. It would certainly have aided matters, but it was probably left to Squads to find ways of increasing their own firepower sufficiently. ------ ""


Britt & Garand (and RG to Garand):
"The British No.6 Commando was issued Garands during Operation Torch. Following its conclusion, they declined to return them in favour of their Lee Enfields. High praise indeed. When the M1 received a rifle grenade adapter during 1943 three were issued to each Squad."

The 20 clip limits the BAR, even if they carrie 25 clips with some 500 rnds having an assistant and an ammunition bearer, the BAR would be to much for to little, the LMG belt feed was the way to go.
Stalk

[Dima]