Hand grenades

[Pibwl]

I've noticed some inconsistency in a field of HE kill of hand grenades:

UK
87 Mills Bomb - HE kill 5

France:
87 Hand Grenade - 6

Soviet Union
87 F-1 Grenade - 3

Germany
87 Handgranate - 6

USA
87 Mk. II Grenade - 5

Poland
80 Granaty - 3
81 F-1 Grenade (Soviet) - 3
82 Grenade F1 M.15 (French) - 3
86 Granat wz.24 Ob - 8 (range 2!)
87 Granat wz.24 Za - 4

Italy
87 Bomba a Mano - 6


Information on grenades is usually scarce, but it seems, that Mills bomb, French and Soviet F1 and US Mk 2 were all similar fragmentation defensive grenades, weighting some 600 g, with some 60 g of explosive (possibly Mills bomb was somewhat heavier - I've found info on 69 g of explosive).
On the other hand, most common German Stielhandgranate was weak offensive grenade, with no fragmentation shell as a standard.

Therefore, it seems to me, that Mills should have kill=6, French, Soviet, US grenades - 6 or 5, and German - 3.
I have no info on Italian grenades, but I assume it's similar.

Only the Polish OOB makes a difference between defensive and offensive grenades - maybe a good idea, but I feel it is rather splitting a hair.
We have a defensive 86 Granat wz.24 Ob, which definitely should be similar to the ones above and have normal range 1, and an offensive 87 Granat wz.24 Za, which also has too much kill (4) for a thin shell.
There is also generic 80 Granaty with kill=3, used only by some bunkers. Weapon 82 Grenade F1 M.15 should be equal to French defensive grenades.

Anyway, I suggest to rename Polish 86 Granat wz.24 Ob to "Granat obronny" (=defensive) without detailed mark designation, especially, that basic Polish defensive grenades were wz.33, introduced in 1933 only. Similarly 87 Granat wz.24 Za could be renamed to "Granat zaczepny" (=offensive). "Ob" and "Za" are not valid abbreviations.

Edit: further suggestions as for Polish grenades are in a appropriate thread.

Michal

[Cross]

Here's the info I have on grenades:



I wouldn't pay too much attention to the effective radius (as it's from different sources) other than to note the already understood difference between offensive and defensive grenades, and that the Soviet F-1 was poor quality.

Defensive grenades should have a higher HEK with no PEN
Offensive grenades should have a lower HEK with 1 PEN

If the designers went with generic grenades, then perhaps they should all get something like HEK 5 PEN 1

Cross

[Mobhack]

NB - the 100yd danger distance from the Mills bomb is from the large and solid base plug that could be projected quite far from the explosion.

Andy

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Cross

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the effective radius (as it's from different sources) other than to note the already understood difference between offensive and defensive grenades, and that the Soviet F-1 was poor quality.

Defensive grenades should have a higher HEK with no PEN
Offensive grenades should have a lower HEK with 1 PEN

If the designers went with generic grenades, then perhaps they should all get something like HEK 5 PEN 1

Why assume "poor quality" of F-1? There can't be much philosophy in creating a pre-fragmented cast shell and 60 g of explosive inside, especially, that it was a copy of the French design I would suspect, that it would rather be prone to malfunctioning, instead of being less lethal.
Official manuals consider safe radius 200 m, on the Russian Wikipedia they quote examples of injuries at 70-80 m for own soldiers without good cover.

Michal

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Why assume "poor quality" of F-1? There can't be much philosophy in creating a pre-fragmented cast shell and 60 g of explosive inside, especially, that it was a copy of the French design I would suspect, that it would rather be prone to malfunctioning, instead of being less lethal.
Official manuals consider safe radius 200 m, on the Russian Wikipedia they quote examples of injuries at 70-80 m for own soldiers without good cover.

Michal

I have read about 'poor quality' Soviet grenades, and with a source claiming only a 14yd 'effective radius'...which is low for a defensive grenade.

The quality of the filler could be the main issue.

However, I only have primary sources for the German, US and British grenades, so your info may well be right that the F-1 was as effective as western frags.
The poor quality grenades could have been the tin can RG-42.

That said, to Andy's point, there's difference between 'effective radius' and 'deadly/safe radius'. I don't doubt that a F-1 could kill an unlucky man at 80m.


Cross

[Cross]

Here's a British War Office document that published grenade test results.

Of particular interest in the difference between the UK No.36 defensive grenade with baratol filler, and the US MkII defensive grenade with EC filler (more stable but less powerful than TNT).

Pity they didn't also test the F-1, but the F-1 did use TNT.

This document also makes you wonder what criteria various sources use for 'effective radius'.




Cross

[Pibwl]

Interesting. I'm not sure if I understand correctly all what they mean, but would it mean, that a German stick grenade has the same 45% chances of incapacitation at 9 feet, as Mills bomb at 10 feet? Only one feet more?

How much radius is 1550 and 350 sq.ft?

In a meantime, I've found an article in Russian on F-1
http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/granatarif.shtml
The author (clearly with some military experience) says, that 200 m safe radius from a manual must be a sure safe radius, multiplied by 2 for greater certainty. At 50-70 m there were found fragments, but only big ones, like 1/4 of shell.
A probable field of hitting fragments is 78-82 sq.m - some 5 m radius.

All in all, it seems to me, that grenades are not that efficient, as raw figures say, and probably it concerns most grenades, not only F1.

Michal

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Interesting. I'm not sure if I understand correctly all what they mean, but would it mean, that a German stick grenade has the same 45% chances of incapacitation at 9 feet, as Mills bomb at 10 feet? Only one feet more?

That sounds right. But I'm disappointed they didn't continue the stick grenade effectiveness further, as I suspect it would show the stick grenade effectiveness dropped more rapidly than the Mills. So under 10 feet the stick was more dangerous than the Mills, and over 10 feet the Mills more dangerous than the stick. Which is what you'd expect in a comparison of an offensive and defensive grenade.

Originally Posted by Pibwl

How much radius is 1550 and 350 sq.ft?

1550 SqFt = 22 ft (6.8m)
350 SqFt = 10.5 ft (3.2m)


Cross

[PPoS]

As an interesting side-note: the Norwegian army did not have any hand grenades during the war. But I guess you could treat them (being in game) as improvised grenades, or perhaps even British/French supplied ones.

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by PPoS

As an interesting side-note: the Norwegian army did not have any hand grenades during the war. But I guess you could treat them (being in game) as improvised grenades, or perhaps even British/French supplied ones.

That's very interesting, especially considering the kind of terrain large parts of the country has. Do you know if it was a budgetary issue or did someone high up just think that hand grenades are not that useful?

As for improvised grenades: the problem with improvised thrown explosives is that you need a reliable time detonator/fuze -- and in other armies it was quite often a hand grenade... Engineers might have separate time fuzes available, but not ordinary infantry units.