Grenade No 36M with adaptor

[Bonnex]

Some of you might be interested in the attached image showing the No36M mounted on a tail tube for trials in Australia. The image is from the Australian Armament Technical Report No 11 of 1 November 1944. The trials were essentially about a comparison of Indian, UK and Australian launchers fitting the No 1 Rifle but the use of the No36M grenade on a tail tube is rarely seen in wartime documents.

 

[Millsman]

Norman

As the Indian Army produced large numbers of cup dischargers, do we know what prompted this development? John

 

[Bonnex]

John,

The motivation for the spigot launcher on the SMLE was essentially the availability of the US M9 anti-tank grenade. Adopting the launcher then either meant foregoing the use of the No 36 in its rifle role or fitting the grenade up with the tail tube. Interestingly the report mentions in a brief one-liner the idea of using rodded No 36 grenades (presumably for units issued with the launcher) but this seems to be quickly discounted.

You will know (but for the benefit of others) that the UK ordnance authorities did not like the fuzing on the M9 (despite having a hand in its development) and developed the No 85 Grenade and then a series of spigot launched Grenades including the No 86 which resembled the No 36 on a tail tube.

 

[Millsman]

Thanks Norman. Do you know if there were any advantages of range over the cup discharger?

Also was it the Indian Army or the Australians who developed the Tail Tube?

John

 

[Bonnex]

Thanks Norman. Do you know if there were any advantages of range over the cup discharger?

Also was it the Indian Army or the Australians who developed the Tail Tube?

John

John,
I think the M9 was better for range, accuracy and penetration over the No 68 Grenade but I will have to look out some chapter and verse. Another factor in India would have been the production of the No 68. As you know the production No 68s were mainly diecast mazak and I think the Indians had little capability in this field (hence the experimental all-steel No 68 which Paul showed on one occasion).

The tail tube was, I believe, one of the American tubes (of the early patterns with four 'fingers') used with the US Mk2. It may have been 'adjusted' to account for the profile and base differences. I have not read that either the Indians or Australians made tube adaptors from scratch for the No 36 Grenade but I do know that the Indians produced an illuminating signal (along the lines of the US signals) for spigot launching and I like to think that they experimented with smokes and coloured signals for spigot launching but I have no evidence of this.

The UK spigot launched grenades are an interesting historical research subject. Work continued after war on various types including rocket-assisted grenades but the War Office in their wisdom declared no further requirement for rifle launched grenades in about 1947 and the Armament Research Department promptly skipped all their work. Come the EM-2 experimental work a couple of years later the need for rifle grenades was reinstated but by this time ENERGA had stolen a march on development of anti-tank grenades.

 

[Millsman]

Norman

I was not thinking of the 68 though doubtless you made the anti tank link, I was thinking of the tubed Indian 36.

John

 

[Bonnex]

Norman

I was not thinking of the 68 though doubtless you made the anti tank link, I was thinking of the tubed Indian 36.

John

John,

Interesting point. I thought the version in your posting was a 1960s design (and probably still around) but I would be happy to hear it was a lot earlier. After all they must have had a fair number of launchers available after the war.

 

[Millsman]

Norman

I found an Indian Defense Industry website a couple of years ago that still had the tubed and standard Mills 36 as current!

John

 

[Bonnex]

Thanks John, I did the same, and also with the Pakistan OF web pages. I have seen several post-war POF No 36 grenades around but only one Indian grenade (and none of tube contraptions).