Hello Everyone I would like to present to you what should hopefully be the most detailed and comprehensive look at the 8cm Navy Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher for Japan! 
The 8cm Navy Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher as I understand it, from looking over what documentation there is and considering the overall design and appearance of the weapon, was a somewhat improvised and hasty attempt to arm the IJN with a bazooka style AT weapon for landing missions and ground assaults.
It is believed to have been equipment of the Yoshikawa Rocket Launcher Unit that joined the Ito Landing Force in Manila. One of the other rare documented deployments of the weapon was during an operation by the Japanese Navy, of which was equipped with 21 launchers during the Battle of Leyte. Originally landing with the 21 launchers at Ormoc Bay; to which they then transfering to the aforementioned Ito landing force in Manila.
directly mentions the 8cm IJN AT Rocket Launcher
As for further specifications of the weapon quoting directly from PDF page Number 98 of the āRIKUGUN GUIDE TO JAPANESE GROUND FORCES 1937ā1945 Volume 2 Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces.ā āThe weapon was 1.5 meters long with a tube width of 170mm. The 5.9-kg rocket had a motor and warhead diameter of 8cm and was provided with six angled nozzles for spin stabilization. The motor burned for only 0.4 seconds, probably about the time it took to leave the tube. The shaped charge was made from 530 g of RDX-ā
Full view of the 8cm Navy Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher.
The remainder of the quote states that the penetrating power is ā58mm against Rolled Homogeneous armour (RHA)ā But! In saying that I believe this isnāt entirely true; I suspect this is pulling from the direct claim from Page 29 of the āJAPANESE PROJECTILES GENERAL TYPES āINTELLIGENCE TARGETS JAPANā (DNI) OF 4 SEPT. 1945 FASCICLE O-1, TARGET O-19 FEBRUARY 1946 U.S. NAVAL TECHNICAL MISSION TO JAPANā "The penetrating power of the shaped charge projectile against armor was claimed to be as follows: 20cm rocket projectile - 10 inches, 10cm rocket projectile - 2.3 inches, 8cm rocket projectile - 2.3 inches."
(2.3 inches is 58.42mm of penetration.)
0-19 Page 29 Report quote.
Whilst in actuality after testing by the US and as stated on Page 7 of the āJAPANESE NAVAL ROCKETS āINTELLIGENCE TARGETS JAPANā (DNI) OF 4 SEPT. 1945 FASCICLE O-1, TARGET O-09 DECEMBER 1945 U.S. NAVAL TECHNICAL MISSION TO JAPANā. The rocket was able to penetrate 7cm (70mm of RHA).
0-09 Report Page 7 with 8cm Navy Rocket highlighted.
Note that under primer it should say percussion, comparing to other data sources Iāll mention below under additional documentation.
Now to mention specifically and perhaps most notably, the amount of explosive filler and the use of RDX in the rocket at 530g, despite being a shaped charge projectile; This essentially allows the 8cm Navy Rockets to function similarly to HE or HEAT against infantry. In saying that and Consulting Volume 2 of the āJAPANESE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (ARMY AMMUNITION NAVY AMMUNITION) TM 9-1985-5|TO 39B-1A-12ā. Iāve found two HE shells of a similar composition and or weight in terms of explosive filler, as hidden below to assist in giving an analogue for anti infantry capabilityā
( additionally note that RDX has 1.5 times the energy per unit weight and 2 times the energy per unit volume, when compared to TNT )
Now to get into how this weapon should be implemented, what BR it should be placed and what the gameplay purpose the 8cm Navy AT launcher should serve I will go into as follows.
In consideration of how weak the Anti-armour capabilities are at 70mm of penetration, even in comparison to the in game Type 4 Rocket Launcher, of which has 80mm of penetration. But taking into consideration just how effective it could be used in clearing somewhat closely clustered infantry, considering how closely it mirrors some 70-75mm HE shells I think it would be reasonable to place it no higher than BR2.
When uptiered to BR3 it will only be able to penetrate a Sherman II front facing via the driver and machine gunner viewports, and it wonāt be able to penetrate the side of the chassis if the angle is <60ā° with an effective thickness at 71+mm.
So functionally in game it works as a dual purpose weapon, limited armour penetration abilities with a somewhat surprising level of affect against soft targets.
The best way I believe to hand out this weapon to players would be to delegate itās use to an Event Squad. My primary reasoning for such being that I wouldnāt want a weapon that could be spammed against BR 1 and BR 2 players in an excessive amount; if implemented in the tech tree it could be slapped across all low BR AT soldiers and used as HE spam, Iād make the argument you could make it an event weapon but the problem with that is the silver box that could hand them out, allowing whales or the lucky to spread them out across squads spamming them. So logically and taking into consideration the health of Enlistedās gameplay loop an event IJN squad seems most reasonable.
Rear view of the 8cm Navy AT Launcher
Diagram displaying the weapon in use and how it functions
0-19 Report with additional Rocket chart and 8cm Rocket diagram
note how the fuze type has been corrected to percussion in the later 0-19 report compared to 0-9 report. Though funnily enough the 0-19 chart showing the rocket components, is mislabeled as 5.58kg instead of 13lb (5.89kg) as youāll see below ā
EditĀ¹: More photos and details of Navy Rocket launcher uncovered!
So after skimming through some more of the US navy reports I managed to find more photos of the Launcher and the photos without the watermarks! Iām very happy with this find.
They were located in Report 0-56(N) pages 10,11,12
https://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0739-0816%20Report%20O-56%20N.pdf
References/Sources
- RIKUGUN GUIDE TO JAPANESE GROUND FORCES 1937ā1945
Volume 2 Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces by Leland Ness - https://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0344-0416%20Report%200-19.pdf
- https://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0035-0043%20Report%200-09.pdf
- https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/TM-9-1985-5.pdf
- https://assets.cengage.com/gale/psm/9500103C.pdf
- REPORTS OF THE U.S. NAVAL TECHNICAL MISSION TO JAPAN
- https://x.com/samurai_type96/status/619501106314383360?t=pPRqm9O2P9Z1N-BJt3EJ1A&s=19
- https://x.com/Taki2121/status/1437641986194894851?t=jeRXl_EX9OUNa7V52rKTIA&s=19
- https://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0739-0816%20Report%20O-56%20N.pdf
- Yes
- No
If No, do feel free to explain why you disagree, or what would make the suggestion better such as different implementation.
- Tech Tree
- Event Reward/Event Squad
- Premium Squad
- Battlepass Weapon
Thank you for reading and let me know your thoughts overall.
With much love from the Purple Samurai 
Special Naval Anti-Tank Infantry āBlue jacketsāā Event - Suggestions - Archive - Enlisted
