Talk:Type 89 grenade discharger

"Had the Japanese been able to overcome deficiencies in their explosives design and manufacturing process, and produced an effective anti-tank shell for the Type 89, the resulting weapon could have greatly slowed the Allies' advance in the Pacific and China-Burma-India theaters." Where's a citation saying that a 50mm indirect fire weapon loaded with a hypothetical anti-tank warhead would have 'greatly slowed' the allies? If hitler had laser beam eyes that would have greatly slowed down the allied advance, but i don't see anything about that in the 'Hitler' article.

Rather stupid original 'research'. A 50mm light mortar shell couldn't possibly contain a useful AT warhead(compare the type 89 projectile to a PIAT bomb, or panzerfaust projectile(approx 150mm). Assuming, however for the sake of argument that it could, good luck hitting a moving vehicle with a handheld indirect fire weapon. You know, lets take it a step further. A. Assuming a 50mm mortar shell could hold an AT round capable of penetrating a tank. B. That this hypothetical 50mm AT round upon penetration would actually cause any damage whatsoever C. That soldiers would actually be able to reliably hit moving vehicles with an indirect fire weapon, or somehow use it in a direct fire fashion without getting killed a thousand times over, how much would this have slowed down the allied advance? Lets be retardedly,insanely generous and say it'd have taken out 500 tanks. That'd be what, like 4 days of tank losses on the western front?

I'm deleting this amateur-hour shit. 99.14.234.248 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, even the "The Japanese never designed a shaped-charge or anti-tank warhead for the Type 89 50 mm shell, in retrospect a serious deficiency for an army lacking effective hand-carried infantry anti-tank weapons..." part is complete nonsense. A HEAT shell would have been possible, but at 50mm it also would have been useless. Any other type of "anti-tank warhead" would be rendered even more useless by the fact that the actual weapon created would have imparted such a low velocity to the shell that only a tank's paint job would be imperiled. Whoever keeps insinuating this crap into the article also seems to vastly overrate the role of armor in the Pacific. Why not propose an anti-aircraft shell for combating wave after wave of B-29s burning every major Japanese city to the ground? What about some sort of ASW shell for fighting off all the American submarines that had created a virtual blockade of the home islands? Those would make about as much sense.--172.190.132.195 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Type 89 grenade discharger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wlhoward.com/museum/id577.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050228182143/http://www.inert-ord.net/jap02h/t91gren/index.html to http://www.inert-ord.net/jap02h/t91gren/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050313174055/http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/kneem.html to http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/kneem.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)