Yeah in indirect fire with proper cover shooting the rifle with the stock in the leg was the way to go.
That’s also stated on German side that soldiers got used to the angle of the grenades /trajectory and the sights were less and less used… There are videos from ww2 with said grenades bn used.
So indirect - shoulder, direct - knee?
I also found that. But for game purposes we can (and should) have it.
In the worst case scenario noobs will use it and pros will be skillful enough to not use it.
Here
After 8 min shooting with the stock on the ground without sights.
End of the movie shooting with sights on shoulder.
I advice to see all the movie…
Direct fire was shoulder
Indirect on the ground.
Guy says that it’s better to fire indirect, but we already have super soldiers that can snipe you, while being on fire so it’s not a big deal.
True, doing something with AT rifles should be first when considering unrealistic shooting stances.
Anyway this post turned out to be pointless.
If any moderator see this, please close or delete it.
If they improve the weapon mounting system that would be a start. ADS times for heavy weapons are still too fast imo
IMO there’s no need to change them and make them somehow harder to use. They are already very slow to equip/put on rifles/reload. Just let them be.
IMO we already screw up team served weapons - no reason rifle grenades should be treated any better!
But on to some evidence:
All rifle grenades came with sights - and the sights would give you massive elevations if you were shooting at any range.
Eg see this guy demoing a German one - showing how it is used at 8:20
See also this video quoting regulations:
Soviet:
And see it in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEwstAUS58 (Russian language - doens’t show it actually being used but has some footage of using teh sight)
Big thanks for the materials, I will watch it all later.
I hope they will be reworked one day. It would be really big shame if they won’t do that.
I wouldn’t mind an alternative firing mode for added range but as others have said the recoil forces for a rifle grenade did not preclude direct fire methods. This wasn’t like the Japanese knee mortar.
I have owned an M1 Carbine with grenade launcher sights. Now, granted, I never actually got to use it with a rifle grenade of any sort, but I recall the actual sight being useable when standing. In fact I think the only way you could use the rifle grenade sight with the butt on the ground would be to be prone behind it. I can’t speak whatsoever in regards to full-sized rifles firing rifle grenades, which includes the degree of recoil that would be experienced from shoulder-firing one (which, even if the recoil is intense, it might be more of a gradual push rather than one violent WHACK; different self-loading firearms have different recoil impulses after all).
The grenade launcher sights are indeed present for the M1 Carbine w/ Grenade Launcher, which I was delighted to see. A shame it can’t actually be used. I should hope that the kar98k rifle grenade, because it has the far more potent 8mm blank to propel it, either has a larger explosive payload and/or can be launched with further distance/better accuracy.
The Japanese ‘knee mortar’ to my understanding was not designed to be shot from the knee. Ian McCollum at Forgotten Weapons have done videos on it, and I’m pretty sure I recall him mentioning that if you actually tried to use it on your knee, that it would not go well. Don’t know where the ‘knee mortar’ nickname came from, but to my understanding it’s an inaccurate nickname.
You are correct. It was never intended to be fired braced from the knee and it could break bones/dislocate your knee if doing so.
Rifle grenades work off blanks or shoot through designs with real cartridges. Not enough energy to prohibit firing from the shoulder (As far as I recall).
The M203/320 40mm grenade launcher works in the same fashion, it can be fired like a mortar for indirect fire or laid in from the shoulder.
Well put. I hold no Military or Police training, but this seems accurate.
apparently supposed to be braced on the ground too -
(from 90th IDPG: The M8 Grenade Launcher)
They certainly COULD be used from the shoulder - here’s an interesting video and shows both ground and shoulder bracing - explaining why you would use one or other…
Special Forces used to use the M203 for expedient indirect fire via ground bracing.
The M203 uses a hi-low pressure system that gives much softer recoil than the large cartridges used to launch WW2 era grenades - and fires a much smaller projectile so it is not really comparable.
Anything can fire indirect - it is just a matter of ballistics.
I see, that’s interesting, but I’m pretty sure the grenade launcher sights on the M1 Carbine are meant to be used while standing. I also believe that the much smaller propellant charge of a .30 Carbine blank would deliver much softer recoil than that of a .30-06 or 8mm. So, if it occurs that the Kar98k and perhaps also the M91/30 grenade launchers require crouching, I think the M1 Carbine should still be serviceable from the shoulder even while standing. Then, to make it a bit more fair, the full-sized rifles given rifle grenades should be able to deliver their payload farther and more accurately. That just seems realistic. That, or the rifle grenades are launched basically the same but the payload for the full-sized rifles is greater, meaning a bigger boom, but the actual rifle grenades and charges used should be researched and that should be the basis of how they perform. Seems only realistic though that the recoil for the M1 Carbine would be lesser, and that the full-sized rifles either can push their rifle grenades farther or if not then they surely have bigger/heavier grenades that would produce a bigger bang.