Type 89 grenade discharger effectiveness
Type 89 grenade discharger effectiveness
I've not found a lot of information about this weapon in combat, just its technicals and info about the knee mortar myth. Was it actually an effective weapon in combat, how was it used at the squad/platoon/company level, and if it were effective why did the Allies field their own version?
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: Type 89 grenade discharger effectiveness
The allies already had their own tactical equivalents, the British 2 inch mortar and the Us 60 MM M 1 mortar used without the bipod, base plate, and traverse mechanism. I have used the 60 mm in a handheld manner and it is quite accurate and effective.
Re: Type 89 grenade discharger effectiveness
AFAIK the modern equivalent is not what the US had in WW2. The handheld option wasn't one for the WW2 60mm mortar.ROLAND1369 wrote:The allies already had their own tactical equivalents, the British 2 inch mortar and the Us 60 MM M 1 mortar used without the bipod, base plate, and traverse mechanism. I have used the 60 mm in a handheld manner and it is quite accurate and effective.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 19:56
Re: Type 89 grenade discharger effectiveness
I'm not sure if I've seen a particular reference to the Type 89 in terms of effectiveness. From my own readings the usage was at Rifle Platoon level, with a distinct Grenade Discharger Squad operating three of four such weapons in direct support of the Rifle Squads, dependent upon the type of Battalion involved.
As such it was probably closer to the British 2-inch mortar than the US 60-mm mortar, which tended to be a Rifle Company level support item. There was, seemingly, a modification of the US 60-mm, discussed at length in a thread here;
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&t=169891
In a few USMC reports for 1945, possibly all Okinawa, there is a reference to a mortar, 60-mm (Garret), but couldn't find out if that's the same thimg. I also understand there was an airborne model of the 60-mm, the M19, which deleted the base plate and bipod to save weight (9-kg versus the 19-kg of the M2). I've no idea if the M19 made it to the Pacific.
Gary
As such it was probably closer to the British 2-inch mortar than the US 60-mm mortar, which tended to be a Rifle Company level support item. There was, seemingly, a modification of the US 60-mm, discussed at length in a thread here;
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&t=169891
In a few USMC reports for 1945, possibly all Okinawa, there is a reference to a mortar, 60-mm (Garret), but couldn't find out if that's the same thimg. I also understand there was an airborne model of the 60-mm, the M19, which deleted the base plate and bipod to save weight (9-kg versus the 19-kg of the M2). I've no idea if the M19 made it to the Pacific.
Gary
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: Type 89 grenade discharger effectiveness
re Post by stg 44 » Yesterday, 07:52. I was not refering to the modern US 60 MM morta, which I have also fired both handheld and conventionally, which I feel is over developed and looses the portibility of firepower needed by a small unit. The weapon I used was the original 60 MM M1 mortar tube. My Cambodians threw down their steel M1 Helmet as a baseplate and and adjusted by fall of sight. I doubt we were the first to use a handheld 60 MM so the handheld 60 was certainly an option in WW II. There was even a breechloading shoulder fired experimental version tested but not adopted.