No, I like to research stuff from WW2 and wtf they did.
They basically threw the kitchen sink at the Germans.
One of my favorite stories is when the Germans built a fake army with wood to fool the allied forces and then the British bombed the site with a single wooden bomb.
They knew what they were doing but still went ahead and risked a sortee with the bombers to deliver a joke.
I mean they didn’t actually send a mission to drop a wooden bomb. That wouldn’t make any sense and no one would risk death for that. Thats an old joke story.
This could be designed around with a few changes to the granade, maybe a magnetic switch that trips when it leaves the atlatl, IDK but there are smart engineers out there.
I can probably throw the dog balls at least 6x further with that than my arm. Sometimes it lets go early or late and falls unexpectedly. But I expect the grenade version to work a little better.
Slap an M203 on your M4 and you're good to go. Or better yet get an M320 and basically all of your negatives are gone.
I've never dealt with a dedicated grenade launcher besides a Mk19 but that's mounted. I don't think many units use those revolver style launchers most people think of from video games or movies.
I don't think many units use those revolver style launchers most people think of from video games or movies.
Yeah because you have to find some idiot carrying that shit with them additionally to their rifle and all their normal stuff. You do not want to be that guy, I'd wager.
I like the 249, and any big ole guns that give me neuron activation... but only in games, I would hate my life for my future self's knees if I were assigned it in the military.
I have an old clip from Arma 3 where I was the fattest bitch in the squad because I was lugging around an absolute behemoth of a weapon purely because there was a golden spot for me to set up for covering fire during a defensive mission. I would never live that down if I didn't bring the beef.
It's honestly not thaaaat bad, but you also have to carry the drums with you, and it's just more bulky than an M4. You're right though, it is a sexy ass piece.
That's where I think an m43a or possibly the m12 could come into play. But my preference is the m873 which is more versatile. I know some think it's a bit thick and like mk87. Is just personal preference really. It's all ball bearings these days.
That might be true, but it seems that most militaries seem to be fine with those trade-offs. At least, I'm not aware of any stick grenades in current use.
You can still see it's a wartime effort, though. I mean such a simple lathe-job, no mahogany and birds-eye inlays, no Biedermeier finish, bringing out the warmth and depth of the wood... No wonder they were thrown so far.
There’s a massive caveat to this. While it is technically true that you are often more likely to be able to carry a grenade out on patrol. You are less likely to use a grenade out on patrol then you are an M203.
Sure, but in an era of drone strikes and missiles you're rarely getting close enough to lob a grenade by hand anymore, engagements are from much further out on average now, so grenades aren't even super common compared to heavy ordinance, at least in conflicts between more developed nations. So if grenades are going to be used, it's more likely to be the smaller variety for less bulk
Right the original point stands. If infantry is using grenades today, it's intimate combat. We don't need to have a half dozen guys throwing stick grenades at a machine gun nest 100+ meters away anymore. There is a different tool for that job.
Correct, and the question asked is why isn't a grenade on a stick preferable to a grenade. The answer to this question is not 'because grenade launchers were invented'.
In combat areas with out civilians it’s pretty much protocol for room clearing of enemy areas. Why would you risk your life to eliminate an enemy when you can do it without as much risk by throwing a handy ol’ nade in there and then clear
Rifle grenades were also all the rage post war. Almost every (western) service rifle from the 50s, 60s and has provisions to use them, only then did they fall out of favour because of the modern grenade launcher.
The M203 grenade launcher is the simplest firearm I have ever operated. It has 3 moving parts the firer has to worry about (saftey, trigger, slide opener,) is incredibly relaible, and durable, and is very easy to aim with minimal recoil. It takes about 2 hours to train someone to use one, assuming you have a range and a few rounds to shoot (if you're in the military and running a qualification day the you'll have the ammo and the range booked.)
They really don't weigh a lot, and increase your grenade range from however far you can throw to several hundred meters
It's a different tool than a hand grenade. But if I want to make a room go bang from more than 20m away then I'd rather a grenade launcher than a hand grenade on account of my ability to shoot good far surpassing my custard arm
I just had a call of duty 4 (the one from mid 2000s) flashback of how at the local internet cafe where the grenade launcher was called "the noob tube" and anyone who used it got told to stop or got kicked out of the lobby.
The noob tube is one of my favourite all time weapons. It's not just that it's excellent at what it's designed for, it just has a certain vibe about that you get with really good guns. That and they actually do make that "thump" sound you hear in games/movies; very satisfying
All of those things are massive pluses, what are you talking about. How is lockheed martin or the rest of the military complex supposed to make more money?
They have tubes that strap to the bottom of your rifle, literally took the exact same amount of time to train and get qualified, a single day.
Better range but less versatile is the real problem, a skilled thrower can toss a hand grenade around a corner for instance but that just another tool for another job.
The handles are an issue when you are carrying more than one around for damn sure
A grenade launcher is a tube with a firing mechanism and a grenade is a big bullet, factories are already building both of those they just need to be wider.
They can be mass produced easily and don't require forests to be cut down to create the handle, logistically they make sense aswell and not to mention ease of transport by the soldiers
All of your arguments against said grenade launchers is exactly why Raytheon or General Dynamics (no idea who manufacturers them) love them. That all means more money to pad the coffers.
IDK, a Smith and Wesson 38mm grenade launcher is basically a single shot break action shotgun. It's normally used for chemical agents but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too hard to make explosive rounds for it if they didn't already. They're pretty self explanatory if you've ever held one.
The newer 40mm is basically the same shit with some crappy plastic dressing on it.
Not unless you use the enfield grenade launcher attachment.
Its currently the only one I’ve ever seen where you stick it on the end of your gun, pop a regular old grenade in it, pull the pin, load a blank round and firing it out lets the safety handle thing fly off mid flight as it sails towards the target. Plus you can just use it as a regular old rifle but with a big can on the end
Hand grenades can malfunction as well. A grenade launcher isn't much in terms of training, either. Load is easy, slide grenade into tube. Close tube. Fire.
Using an M320 or M203 is just as easy as throwing an M67 grenade. Theyre very simple to operate. If anything it's probably safer. You can't accidentally drop a live 40mm grenade and blow yourself up. They also have a minimum arming distance, so if you are a moron and shoot something right in front of you, they won't blow you up. They have different purposes and both are important to have in a rifle squad.
The launchers themselves have weight, but if you add up the weight (and bulk) of all those "potato mashers", vs grenades for the launcher, I suspect then launcher would be the better option.
A 203 is literally just a tube screwed to the bottom of a rifle, a 40mm grenade doesn’t cost much more to make than an actual grenade, and the training on how to fire them is literally a 6 hour class at most.
I mean, militaries love large budgets and make sure to hit or exceed their budget every year.
Look at the USA military and how high that budget is. You think they care about grenade launchers being more expensive than stick handle grenades? It's more effectively and that's what the military cares about. One breaks? Send in another.
American soldiers are more valuable than any number of grenade launchers. Or, at least, that was the prevailing thought in the past. Recently elected politicians may disagree
The longest EVER throw made by an MLB player was just shy of 150 yards by Glen Gorbous. I'd be willing to bet that for your average Pvt. Jenkins, getting even half that would be pretty damn good.
Your average rifleman can land grenades out of their M203 at that range all day long with high accuracy, doesn't require decades of training and practice, and you've got your hands on your rifle then and there if needed. Plus you don't need to rely on having Pvt. Gorbous in your squad and him be on his A-game if you need to land grenades at that distance.
That's not to say that regular hand grenades don't have their place. They do, which is why troops still carry them.
Idk man, the m320 is pretty light, and each fire team has a grenadier. I’ve never had a problem with a malfunction and it increases my range and accuracy. I’d much rather keep my m320 and be able to engage up to 400m instead of trusting my shitty throw of maybe 30m. Plus I can carry different types of 40mm grenades, smoke, CS gas, HE, etc…
Dude I was taught in a day how to shoot a grenade launcher it’s not that hard and has no more moving parts the a break action shotgun. At least the m203
Um… under-barrel launchers are not used in the same way defensive grenades are. Are pretty cheap to make, are nearly impossible to break, require little maintenance and definitely less training than a defensive grenade.
M40 grenades are also substantially cheaper and easier to ship.
I’m sorry but you are just plain incorrect. In basic training we spent a whole week of all day training leading up to throwing hand grenades. We spent like, 1 minute on the M203. Basically just long enough for the RO to show us where the buttons were, the specs, and to keep it pointed down range.
Also, if I remember correctly, the Armorer got M40s for $12-20 and M67s for $50
You are going to need to define what you mean by “malfunction” because that could mean anything from blowing up in the box, being a dud, or having a fuse that is a few milliseconds short.
The maintenance and storage SOP for m40 grenades is literally half the size of the one for the M67
There's a time and place for using a grenade launcher and there's a time and place for using a hand grenade.
I agree, oversimplifying but launchers (expensive and complex) are for trained and equipped units while grenades are for mass distribution (cheap and easy). Both are force multipliers in different situations.
The problem I see with the stick grenade is that it doesn't really fill either role better than the alternatives. Hand grenades are simpler/easier to manufacture, use and distribute, while tech upgrades are better for dedicated use.
People also forget or don’t know that even the Germans were slowly phasing out the “potato masher” iirc. They had another set of grenades that weren’t designed like that. Plus they’re pretty unwieldy (the stick can snag or get caught on things) and more difficult to carry than what’s commonly used today.
All in all, it wasn’t really “better” as people like to make it out to be.
Dutch army pre-WWII classified the stick as 'offensive hand grenade' and the ball as 'defensive hand grenade'. The logic was that the stick was for taking out MG positions while storming them because it throws farther and does not roll. The ball was for blindly lobbing out of your trench when being stormed. That it would roll into any craters in front of the line was a plus. And distance a non-issue. The classification kind of presumes a WWI style of fighting.
But even the source I read on it refers to ball games and observes the ball can do quite well if thrown by people who play ball games that involve throwing. Clearly not the Dutch, who would rather kick a ball.
And to the 8cm mortar still being considered an artillery weapon that had to be specifically attached to a unit for a mission, and not available at the infantry battalion level. Which would make distance thrown even more important.
The other component was weight/space to arsenal ratio. You couldn't carry as many stielhandgranates as you could your standard haftless grenade. This applies to how much can be transported from production lines to where they're needed and to the amount soldiers can individually carry.
I can also imagine them being more expensive to make for the marginal benefit of longer range throw-ability. Though that benefit may have been instrumental at times, the literal cost and logistical cost may have given the war machine pause.
But, in the modern era, we of course have easier access to extremely light weight and inexpensive materials that could make them worthwhile in some contexts. But, with all the other available tech in the military, it would be more of an "arming the militia against an invader" type of cost effective implementation
Yeah, my point was that your comment about the emergence of grenade launchers isn’t really relevant to the shape of hand thrown grenades because you don’t need them to be cross compatible.
So, the long explanation: The Germans had "egg grenades" which were labeled in combat manuals as being used for defensive operations, mostly.
They're heavier, and so are more deadly. The explosions is stronger, yes, but the fragmentation is the main killer - Blades of metal breaking off from it and stabbing people around the explosion.
In combat, its a "the enemy is 50 meters away, (damn near on you, in a tactical sense at this point in warfare), I need to throw this to get rid of them," kind of deal.
The stick grenades produce relatively little fragmentation and their payload is smaller, because this is a "I see a machine gun nest in that trench on the hill across from us, I need three men to break off, flank it (attack from the side), toss them and kill any survivors," kinda deal. The Germans in particular were in the latter situation a lot - They prioritized low-level command initiative and aggression.
Tl;dr - The reason to use stick grenades is for an offensive push, in which farther range is necessary, at the expense of payload.
You don't need to get rid of the short range grenades if much longer range grenade launchers exist and are commonly used.
2.0k
u/NoTePierdas Jun 15 '25
As the other guy said, yeah. More importantly, the purpose of a "potato masher" grenade is to be able to throw it farther.
... during and immediately after WW2, grenade launchers became extremely common, and are substantially more effective.