|
Ensign Expendable posted:A better 76 mm gun was available since 1941 (ZiS-5 with 3K ballistics since lol @ using non-confusing indices), it just wasn't deemed necessary. By the time it was necessary, it turned out you could stuff an 85 mm AA gun in the same turret as a 76 mm AA gun, so why not. Wait, wasn't the ZiS-5 the modified version of the F-34 used on later KV-1 tanks? 
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Wait, wasn't the ZiS-5 the modified version of the F-34 used on later KV-1 tanks? It was, but this ZiS-5 is very different. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Broadly speaking, fragmentation grenades are more deadly because they have a far larger lethal radius. Within the lethal radius of an explosive grenade it is probably a toss-up as to which one would be more deadly - perhaps the explosives would have more of an effect on an armored target - but they'd both probably kill you.Arquinsiel posted:Well... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2445513/Royal-Marine-who-jumped-on-grenade-awarded-George-Cross.html Fair point, though the American Medal of Honor recipient roll is absolutely filled with stories of guys who made that same choice and met St. Peter as a result. That Royal Marine had balls of steel and he was lucky as hell. http://www.history.army.mil/moh/iraq.html Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Wait so how is an anti tank grenade even meant to work?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
There's one thing I've always wondered about grenades, historically. I've never seen or read about anyone but the Germans opting for the "potato masher" design, and I'm wondering why that is - both why the Germans used it, and why seemingly no one else did. As far as I can tell, most everyone else went from ball-with-fuse to a spherical or ovoid shape to now a soda can type of design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It was, but this ZiS-5 is very different. That's the one where they came up with the idea of throwing an AAA variant of the 76.2mm gun on a tank and seeing how it went? Cythereal posted:There's one thing I've always wondered about grenades, historically. I've never seen or read about anyone but the Germans opting for the "potato masher" design, and I'm wondering why that is - both why the Germans used it, and why seemingly no one else did. Probably that it was more cumbersome and labor-intensive to produce, they had screw caps on the end to safe the fuse and lathe-turned wood handles, aka the same problem they had with practically everything they produced. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:There's one thing I've always wondered about grenades, historically. I've never seen or read about anyone but the Germans opting for the "potato masher" design, and I'm wondering why that is - both why the Germans used it, and why seemingly no one else did. The soviets used a potato masher design at one stage didn't they? The handle makes it easier to throw further.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wait so how is an anti tank grenade even meant to work? Good anti-tank grenades had a coating to allow the grenade to stick to the tank, and later designs being more thrown shaped-charges that had the same effect as HEAT rounds. Also, since it didn't rely on a fragmentation effect, they had a higher volume of explosive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gammon_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerwurfmine Cythereal posted:There's one thing I've always wondered about grenades, historically. I've never seen or read about anyone but the Germans opting for the "potato masher" design, and I'm wondering why that is - both why the Germans used it, and why seemingly no one else did. If I recall correctly, it was because it was easier to throw. As for the sphere/ovoid shape, Germany had a lesser known grenade that fit that bill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_39_grenade Slavvy posted:The soviets used a potato masher design at one stage didn't they? The handle makes it easier to throw further. Yes and no, it had the handle similar to the M24 Hand Grenade but it wasn't as long. I believe it also had a bigger explosive charge on top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGD-33_grenade Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's the one where they came up with the idea of throwing an AAA variant of the 76.2mm gun on a tank and seeing how it went? That's the one. Slavvy posted:Wait so how is an anti tank grenade even meant to work? The HE kind works by being a fuckload of HE. Here's an RPG-40:  If you throw it well enough, the result looks something like this.  Now, this design is nice and simple, but it can only penetrate maybe 20 mm of armour, and the only way to increase penetration is to put more explosives into the grenade, which makes it heavier and harder to throw. A solution is to use a HEAT grenade, like an RPG-43:  Instead of going every which way, the force of the explosion is focused inward on the metal cone, penetrating armour with a jet of superheated metal. Obviously the jet is most effective at an optimal angle and distance, but it can make a pretty good hole even if it didn't go off as well as it could have. Whereas the previous grenade was limited to the roof of light tanks, this one could punch through the side of a Tiger.   Naturally, if the grenade was perhaps rocket propelled then it would be a lot more effective, but the word "rocket" made GAU demand that it be accurate out to a kilometer and also usable against bunkers, so WWII era attemps in this direction didn't make it out to the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wait so how is an anti tank grenade even meant to work? Bunch of explosives you throw at a vulnerable part of the tank. E.g. Tracks, or engines, or upper armour for the lighter tanks. Edit: Potato mashers had a longer throwing range, but were obviously heavier and more cumbersome. The Chinese and Finns also used them in WWII, and some of the Japanese forces used them also. Fangz fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wait so how is an anti tank grenade even meant to work? The early ones just had a lot of HE packed into one grenade. You threw it at lightly armored targets or the roofs of heavier tanks. These could usually get through ~20mm of armour, or damage something important like the treads or turret mechanism. You can see Nazi paranoia seep through design docs because the Tiger and Panther both have 25+mm of top armour doesn't counter anything else. The Tiger II has 40mm of deck armour, which is a steel plate two fingers thick. The Russians made HEAT grenades, but in practice they just carried on business as usual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:That's the one. Was that HEAT grenade designed to reliably hit tanks head-on (aka properly) or were the soldiers throwing them just really loving good at chucking them just right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Was that HEAT grenade designed to reliably hit tanks head-on (aka properly) or were the soldiers throwing them just really loving good at chucking them just right? Nope, the grenades weren't really stabilized in any way, you just have to get good at throwing them. Trials showed that they made pretty decent dents in the Tiger even at an angle of as much as 40 degrees. If you like reading about tanks getting pounded by infantry, you can read some trials here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Was that HEAT grenade designed to reliably hit tanks head-on (aka properly) or were the soldiers throwing them just really loving good at chucking them just right? It has a mini parachute in the handle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Oh derp I was stuck on fins for stabilization and forgot about parachutes. Yeah, this cone thing flies off to guide it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Oh derp I was stuck on fins for stabilization and forgot about parachutes. Yeah, you could stick this thing on it. Is that so someone could arc it over and down onto, say, the turret or engine deck?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is that so someone could arc it over and down onto, say, the turret or engine deck? It's so that the shaped charge strikes head first, improving the odds of penetration/damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:It's so that the shaped charge strikes head first, improving the odds of penetration/damage. Well yeah, I was just wondering if that was specifically designed to facilitate an over-the-top approach and it worked well for flat throws since drag works horizontally too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wait so how is an anti tank grenade even meant to work? These other guys are doing a good job of explaining the mechanics, but in short the answer is: High-quantities of explosive at point-blank range. Generally speaking an anti-tank grenade hits the target and explodes. An anti-personnel grenade gets tossed into the general vicinity of the target and explodes. The casualty-producing radius of a fragmentation grenade is 15 meters*, and the kill-radius is 5 meters. If you dropped a frag grenade in the middle of a basketball court, you'd probably kill or injure every person who wasn't standing under a basket. In fact the width of a basketball court is exactly 15 meters, and the length is just shy of double that, to give some more perspective. If you missed a tank by 15 meters, an AT grenade wouldn't do poo poo. *And that's a modern frag, the old ones were twice as powerful because baseball used to be America's pastime or some poo poo. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Fragmentation grenades make hot metal shrapnel whereas HEAT make a god drat plasma lance. One works well against people out in the open and the other works well against people in a vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Well yeah, I was just wondering if that was specifically designed to facilitate an over-the-top approach and it worked well for flat throws since drag works horizontally too. It worked horizontally too. Those photos of hits on a Tiger were all from the side. Edit: speaking of the HEAT effect, here's a good video showing off how it works. First, an untargeted explosion, then the same amount of explosives with an impression in it, then an impression with a metal cone, and finally the cone on a standoff. It's interesting to see how the damage to the plate increases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os_-ocF6GfY
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It worked horizontally too. Those photos of hits on a Tiger were all from the side. Right - I guess the best way to put it is wondering which purpose came first - did they design the parachute for lobbed throws and it turned out to work just as well horizontally or did they design it to make horizontal throws more effective? I can see either being the case since you might prefer to land a HEAT round through the engine deck since it would certainly stop that tank in its tracks (  ) but since it can punch through the side armor easily enough when landing perpendicularly, they may have designed it to make that happen more. Either way, hot drat that's a mean grenade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
I can't tell you that, grenades aren't exactly my thing and I've never seen development documents for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
A potato masher is easier to throw if you didn't grow up playing baseball, so the Americans favoured more baseball-shaped grenades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Chamale posted:A potato masher is easier to throw if you didn't grow up playing baseball, so the Americans favoured more baseball-shaped grenades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:Isn't this a myth? I'm pretty sure I've heard it debunked before. Well I know that the US military did develop a grenade that was specifically modeled off of a baseball, but it was too light and the design constraints made it overly complex. Too many accidental detonations meant the design got canceled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T13_Beano_Grenade For the most part, the US based their grenade designs off of standard European grenades. The old German stick grenades are actually somewhat unique in having a fairly independent design track, and so they have all sorts of unusual features. In the end, while the excellent flight characteristics of stick grenades were appealing, the design never really took off. You can't carry as many, they're not that great for room clearing (which is where grenades excel), and in many ways their design competes with rifle and tube grenades. Modern Germany now also uses canister grenades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Well I know that the US military did develop a grenade that was specifically modeled off of a baseball, but it was too light and the design constraints made it overly complex. Too many accidental detonations meant the design got canceled. Beano before, silence after 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
I particularly like the high-octane  that went to the design concept: "a spherical grenade the size and weight of a common baseball would be effective in the hands of American troops. The designers believed that by emulating a baseball, any American young man should be able to properly throw the grenade with both accuracy and distance."Reminds me of that lovely Cold War movie where evil Commie infiltrators were rumbled by asking them about the Chicago Cubs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Reminds me of that lovely Cold War movie where evil Commie infiltrators were rumbled by asking them about the Chicago Cubs. Invasion U.S.A. (1952 film)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I particularly like the high-octane wasn't there some pro-baseball player in the pacific who kept throwing back grenades thrown at him by the japs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Invasion U.S.A. (1952 film)? Yep, that was it. That was a funny MST3K episode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yeah. I must admit, I'm not sure how effective they are against fixed winged aircraft - you hear more of them being used vs helicopters. I guess the quality of the weapon, the training of the operator, and the countermeasures available all make a difference. In Vietnam, viet troops were actually trained in this, that is, getting AK-47 riflemen together, and spraying in front of the helicopter on full auto. While the actual number of hueys brought down like this is a matter of hot debate, it certainly put a lot of pressure on airmobile troops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Broadly speaking, fragmentation grenades are more deadly because they have a far larger lethal radius. Within the lethal radius of an explosive grenade it is probably a toss-up as to which one would be more deadly - perhaps the explosives would have more of an effect on an armored target - but they'd both probably kill you. Stairmaster posted:wasn't there some pro-baseball player in the pacific who kept throwing back grenades thrown at him by the japs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Yeah but he British lad was clever enough to use his backpack to soak most of the frags. That remains me of my great uncle! He coulda played professional baseball! If he survived d-day. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
The original British Mills Bomb from WWI were intended to be bowled like a cricket ball, which is how all bombardiers (not grenadiers, this is  ) were trained to throw the things. I don't know if they were designed that way because they were supposed to be thrown like that or if the design came first and people decided the bowling action was best afterwards though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Yesterday: The artillery barrage begins for that long-awaited offensive on the Western Front. (Incidentally, it was so big that it was the first offensive to be referred to widely in the BEF as "The Big Push". There'll be a couple more of those.) Louis Barthas spends the day travelling and is too tired to complain; Kenneth Best spends the day making GBS threads blood and still manages to conduct two funerals. In the Ypres salient, men due to launch a diversionary attack get some words from Lord Kitchener, but an extremely worrying noticeboard has appeared on the Germans' barbed wire. Today: The Bulgarian Army mobilises. It deploys a terrible excuse as cover, but that's all right because the Entente powers aren't in a position to attack with anything other than colourful language. The barrage on the Western Front continues with French and British gunners commenting; the Indian Corps is going to have to go into battle near Loos without its boss; the gas cylinders are now being installed; and Kenneth Best's campaign ends with something other than a bang. MikeCrotch posted:The original British Mills Bomb from WWI were intended to be bowled like a cricket ball, which is how all bombardiers (not grenadiers, this is On a point of pedantry, you mean "bomber", one who throws bombs; a "bombardier" bombards things and is a corporal in the artillery. The bowling action was designed for throwing the No. 15 Grenade (due to be the main grenade at the Battle of Loos in a few days time, where it will prove to be shite and fail miserably), which literally looks like a cartoon bomb with a big wire trailing out the top (and was nicknamed "cricket ball"), because what they were after was a high-angle looping throw to increase the chance of it dropping into a trench. The action was then transferred over to the Mills because that was still the primary concern. (Fun fact; newly-trained bombers were expected to be able to bowl the things 22 yards, the wicket-to-wicket length of a cricket pitch, although many could and did bowl them much further.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Is trench warfare the origin of the grenade throw method as constantly shown in popular culture? I.e. pin in hand pointing up and out front, grenade outstretched behind, then throw in an arc?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is trench warfare the origin of the grenade throw method as constantly shown in popular culture? I.e. pin in hand pointing up and out front, grenade outstretched behind, then throw in an arc? I'd have thought that was just the best way to throw a vaguely ball shaped object
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
A grenade story from my grandfather, who fought in the Canadian army in WWI:quote:During his basic training at Niagara-On-The-Lake they were taught how to use hand grenades. They were shaped like a small pineapple with a pair of handles that you could squeeze together. The handles were held in place by a pin that penetrated both parts. When the handles came apart, a five-second fuse was activated. In practice you held the handles together with one hand and pulled the pin with the other. When you tossed the grenade, you released the handles and the grenade scattered shrapnel five seconds later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
 Who the hell lets recruits train with live grenades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 16:17
|
|