https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../PhhQwYB-1.jpg
A picture of one of these was shown in a copy of the Armourer about 12 to 15 years ago. Apparently it was found at Arnhem in relic condition. ANYONE have any info or an opinion on it
Printable View
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../PhhQwYB-1.jpg
A picture of one of these was shown in a copy of the Armourer about 12 to 15 years ago. Apparently it was found at Arnhem in relic condition. ANYONE have any info or an opinion on it
It looks like a barrel with a NATO grenade launcher on the end of it.
There doesn't seem much point having that 94 Grenade (Energa) launcher on it because the sight is missing. Additionally anyone who has fired a 94 Grenade off a No.4 (Step forward Beehunter, don't be shy.) can assure you that the last thing you need is LESS weight on the bloody rifle.
Frankly the whole thing has been built as someone's flight of fancy.
I agree with beery 101% plus some. Someone with a fertile imagination. You could just ask the simple question '...why bother?' when there was already an energa type grenade launcher available for the No4 and 5 (albeit rare for the No5.....) anyway....., and furthermore, it fitted onto the standard rifle. What Armies need is standardisation not a mish mash of kit.
I would like to see the barrel configuration UNDER that launcher to see whether the bubba re-machined the foresight block band and bayonet lugs on to the existing barrel, then measure their diameter. Because there ain't enough (?) meat on that part of the barrel to go out to the diameter of the block band and bayonet lugs. Without those lugs, I've a feeling that when the grenade is fired, the grenade would go first, followed by the launcher. It MUST be secure. That's why they have a hinge and clamp.......
Annanuvverfing...... That launcher looks to me like it's a body tube, probably with a damaged rear end that's had the hinge, clamp and sight axis block machined off. Just my opinion having seen a few! To sum up in few words Warren, and knowing how you'll understand where my personal opinion is coming from ........... 'a load of bollxxxx'
I think it might be real, but of Indian manufacture/conversion in 1960s.
Which begs the question of if it ain't got a sight, even the rudimentary lift-up leaf sight, then how do they aim. For horizontal and elevation?
Q warren.
is the barrel turned to that configaration or is it added to the barrel
Barrel can't be turned to that configuration as there's not enough meat on it. Or do you mean turned to that spec from new? If it was from new, then how did they get the block band foresight on? Just a thought
As a matter of interest Warren, can we assume that the top one is a Soviet equivalent of the pre-war tank 4" or so bombthrowers. We had a few of these in our store and nobody really knew what to do with them so I gave a cou7ple to the Tank Museum. I seem to recall that all the labels indicated that they were rifles converted by STOKES, presumably of Mortar fame on old DP and EY rifle bodies/barrels
Either or Peter as i dont have any thing to go on other than the photo. It is out side what you would and did say possible, is the block band reamed out to fit etc a non standard barrel dia. Just Qs for an idile mind. Having seen some one offs and special tools made by me and others i dont think the previous generation were any different if the need arose. The paper work or the ok may not have been there as long as the job got done. But then you would only do the job if the paper work was there .(:D yea right.)
Threaded and screwed does also come to mind
Top ones built on a Ross action
ooooops, sorry. Been looking at too much Soviet stuff in the past few years!
If you look closely at the No.5 forestock, you may see a tiny shiney spot. Is this an Ishapore Screw?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
However, more to the storyline, I would seriously question the "relic of Arnheim" provenance. Yes the Paras and Glider troops were uniquely equipped, but there are limits to their eccentricities. One former SF supporter I know will tell you that the special forces are more disciplined than casual observers might think. No room for cowboys or free-runners, despite whatever public persona they might try to cultivate. When something happens, it is for a clear and defensible reason.
Hey Maple Leaf. Don't be toooo harsh..... Maybe there's a tribal village called Arnhem near Ishapore!
But back to the 4" bomb thrower. On the Stokes conversions we had, they had a large diameter threaded section of barrel just behind the bomb cup thinggy with a lock-nut and star washer to lock the lock-nut. This would in effect lock the breech and cup to the bracket on the turret or hull of the tank. I can't see this on the top rifle so am bound to ask how the xxxx it was held against the turret. Definately not by hand as the recoil would be quite, er........., ferocious to put it mildly! I can imagine the flowery language the tank commander might be using to the gunner/bombardier should he accidently discharge that 4" bomb in or anywhere near to the tank while it's not fastened down securely.
Maybe we could have a competition to find the most fitting words.......
We're not supposed to use that kind of language, Peter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Warren I have handled a few grenade launching variants out of India, much like the one you show. Based on an Indian Ordnance magazine published late '44 or early '45 (memory?) India was very serious about developing a spigot grenade launcher in late WWII. Britain had gone to the 2inch mortar and phased out the grenade cups and spigots. They returned to the spigot post war with launchers for No.5/No.4 and the SLR. India developed a sheet metal rear sight that fit the stock band and folded up to give a sighting grid like the mecar launchers. I have a No.1 MkV set up this way. I can't tell from the photo if the handguard band has a hole in it for the folding sight. Any way I would not say no but would like to examine it first hand. One thing I did note was Indian spigots seem to have different rib widths and spacing. The other two appear to be right as well. I have the top shown cup from Springfield Sporters. They came in from Indian tanks with a stamped steel martini action. BATF made them destroy the martinis as they were considered destructive devices. Best, p.
Like this one, Warren?
Attachment 46880Attachment 46881Attachment 46882
Attachment 46883
This is what the barrel extension looked like when it was still in one piece. Note the sight.
Please excuse the spelling on the label.
We had to return all the No4 grenade launchers like the one shown above to Ordnance when the L1A1 rifle version came on stream. But the leather pouch part was retained for the L1A1 launcher. That's presumably the reason that the No4 launchers are quite common but the pouches are hard to find. There were zillions of the old redundant No4 type launchers in the Armourers shops and QM's for years as nobody ever seemed to return stuff! After all, if they were going to dispose of it, we might as well do it locally! I seem to remember that there were two types of launcher for the No4 and we could only get the spare folding sight part for one type.
In Malaya we had a No5 type......... What a complicated contraption it was. Double jointed clamp and....... and....... No tanks there and very little armour!
The top two I have no trouble with. Several early [1939] tanks had these on the outside for smoke discharge, as seen here on this Light Tank Mk.VIB in the desert.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-1.jpg
But the top one in the photos doesn't seem to have the standard locking mech to lock it to the quite substantial bracket we see on the turret. It has a U shaped yoke and it was substantial too - as would be the recoil! The welding looks a bit rough too. Not like those Stokes we had and gave away. Last time I was at the Tank Mus. I see that they'd fitted them to a couple of needy vehicles. I think that they were bomb throwers as opposed to smoke. Can someone enlighten us?
Top one looks like a Jawa arm.
And from the photos I've seen they used brand new rifles for the damn things too. I wonder if the loading of the cartridge used had anything to do with it, as the Ross MkIII is almost impossible to blow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
I'm rich!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Attachment 46920
Since there was no reply about the querie regarding whether the top photo was a 4" smoke discharger or a bomb thrower - well, I've been back through the relevant EMER's, EMER V-220 if you're interested and they are indeed DISCHARGER, smoke generator. And there's 4 variants
No2 Mk1 fitted to a No1 rifle body and breech with modified trigger guard, trigger and locking bolt (with half moon removed from axis shaft. Why, heaven only knows!). Fired from inside the turret.
No2 Mk2. Same as Mk1 except parts identical to standard rifle parts. Discharger is fired from inside the vehicle. The actual vehicle turret is the 'mount'.
No3 Mk1 Fabricated, folded skeleton type mechanism. Fired by cable or simple trigger. Fitted inside or outside of vehicle as No2 Mk1 or 2
No4 Mk1 Built on the Rifle No3 action.
There is no mention of any other type but on the basis that the No2 Mk2 type is fitted through the vehicle armour and is bolted against the vehicle between the breeching up ring and the discharger cup, then it would appear that the top weapon of the photo is based on the No2 Mk2 variant
There, another few bits of totally useless Lee Enfield information!
But before I go, does anyone actually own one of these strange Lee Enfield variants?
A little casual googling shows that cartridges headstamped "E" were for smoke discharger use which suggests a special loading, presumably more powerful than normal. The cup on the discharger built on the Ross action is obviously much larger than the infantry model cups
The smoke discharger from the 4" cup was propelled some 100 - 110 yards and started to smoke at 35 yards from the cup according to the EMER
In an uncanny quirk, I actually saw one of the 4" DISCHARGER smoke generator No2 Mk2 with someone the other day. He really didn't know what it was nor what to do with it. It was one of the STOKES made/converted ones that he THINKS came from an old Daimler Armoured car in the 50's when the hull was used as a prime-mover on a farm! I can only assume that 4" smoke generator cartridges are no longer available!
Are blimey your all sooks my Uncle fired an M-36 from the grenade launcher configuration from his as issued Lee Metford in WW II from the shoulder in his words sat him on his rectum as DADS he forgot the instructions invert the rifle and place the butt on the ground and gestamate the angle of the dangle........:rofl: