WW2 M10 Rocket Tube launchers

[Shay]

Hi I was wondering if anyone knew where, if any, M10 Rocket Tube launchers existed? It would be nice to try and get a closer look at this weapon system setup. I can't seem to recall seeing any on display, only in vintage WW2 photo. So I figured I'd ask the WIX brain-trust. Does anyone recall seeing them on a museum display aircraft, flying warbirds or a private collection? I believe they were made of plastic, making them light weight and basically made to fire the M8 4.5 inch projectiles. Thanks

(photos borrowed from WorldWarPhotos.info)

Last edited by Shay on Wed Aug 23, 2023 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[p51]

I believe they were made of plastic, making them light weight and basically made to fire the 2.36 inch bazooka projectiles.

There's no way in heck they were made of plastic. The M1 and M9 series man-portable tubes were all made from thin steel (I have an M1A1 bazooka sitting against a corner less than five feet from me as I type this). I'm quite sure these larger tubes were steel as well.
Keep in mind, plastics weren't nearly as common in the 1940s as they are today/ And even if plastics were common then, a lit rocket motor going through them would cause serious damage. And, imagine a slight change in angle of attack on a wing and the wind suddenly pressing against a long plastic tube. That'd snap off right away.
Steel pipe as thin as the wall of a bazooka tube isn't all that heavy, even that length, compared to what a fighter could normally carry otherwise.

[Shay]

I believe they were made of plastic, making them light weight and basically made to fire the 2.36 inch bazooka projectiles.

There's no way in heck they were made of plastic.

I'm just basing my comment of this source here of U.S. Army Rocket Launchers which lists the weapon system as "M10 rocket launcher, 4.5 inch, 3 plastic tube, aircraft mount." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Army_rocket_launchers

I agree, I was surprised to see it listed as being made of plastic. But to be fair I don't think it's seeing the same expanding forces that say a gun barrel may see. The tube is just providing a directional channel for the rocket to slide along. WW2 was the playground of a lot of out of the box Industry thinking....i.e paper based drop tanks and nutrient rich ration chocolate bars that won't melt in the tropic heat. To name a couple.

Shay

[Cvairwerks]

Shay: MAPS has a set hanging on a wall display.
https://mapsairmuseum.org/wp-content/up ... 963732.jpg

[Shay]

Shay: MAPS has a set hanging on a wall display.
https://mapsairmuseum.org/wp-content/up ... 963732.jpg

Thanks! Funny I was just recently up there for a militaria event hosted by the museum. Wish I had noticed it when I was there. Just another excuse to go back.

Shay

[Randy Wilson]

I'm away from my library but found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_(rocket)

which talks about the M8 rocket and M10 aircraft three-barrel launcher of "plastic or alloy". For what it is worth.

Randy

[Shay]

I'm away from my library but found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_(rocket)

which talks about the M8 rocket and M10 aircraft three-barrel launcher of "plastic or alloy". For what it is worth.

Randy

Thanks Randy, that is helpful. Didn't quite make sense why a 4.5"tube was needed for a 2.36" projectile. It also begins to illuminate another question I had which was how did the M10 launchers compare and relate to the HVAR 5 in rockets. And by the sound of that article and the the HVAR Wiki article, the M10 system was a much more involved field modification to aircraft when compared to the HVAR. Also the M8 was more abundant initially leading up to the HVAR's debut just after D-Day.

[wendovertom]

My uneducated .02 - maybe whoever wrote that they were firing a 2.36 inch projectile somehow got it wrong - unless the projectile had BIG fins on it which I suppose is a possibility.

EDIT - HA - I see Randy's post and link - so nevermind my dribble.

Tom P.

[Shay]

My uneducated .02 - maybe whoever wrote that they were firing a 2.36 inch projectile somehow got it wrong - unless the projectile had BIG fins on it which I suppose is a possibility.

EDIT - HA - I see Randy's post and link - so nevermind my dribble.

Tom P.

It's all good Tom, the information is incorrect in that Wiki page table. Here is a better photo showing the Launcher with the rockets on the ground for a size comparison...

[Taigh Ramey]

I think that these tubes are a lot bigger than standard bazooka rounds. They look every bit like the 4.5 inch ones mentioned above.

[p51]

Yeah, the standard M6-series 2.35-inch (60MM) bazooka rocket the infantry carried was not used on P-47s. The rocket type used on these photos in this thread was much larger and bigger diameter and of a totally different type.
And there's just no way those tubes had plastic in them.

[Cvairwerks]

Per TM 9-395, the M10 launcher tubes are plastic. The M14 launcher is identical, but steel tubes and does not have a couple of the guards and deflectors the M10 needed for positive jettison from the aircraft.

[Richard W.]

The one in the MAPS museum collection has some spots where the paint is worn off, and the texture there looks like what you see with resin impregnated cloth construction. Like an M1 helmet liner.

[Shay]

Before we get too far down the "2.36 inch" path ...again the wiki U.S. Army Rocket Launcher chart is wrong. The M10 4.5 launcher fires the similarly sized M8 4.5 series of rockets.

Here's a closer look of said launcher and rockets:



Richard W. - thanks for the confirmation. That was a interesting factoid about the M10 to learn. I reached out the NMUSAF (the nearest aviation museum to me) to see if they had a M10 in their collection and if so was it viewable to the public. I've not heard back yet.

[Marauderman26]

The 4.5in Tubes where came in "Plastic material." (M10) Steel (M14) and Magnesium (M15)