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

[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

[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

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

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.

Ob = obronny
Za = zaczepny

and both of those are just as "valid" ( maybe more so ) to the average player than

Granat obronny
or
Granat zaczepny

so the names are are staying as they are but the "Ob" gets range 1 and I will review the HEK values


Don

[Pibwl]

As you wish. But "wz..." designations should be removed from both, since there were several marks used: wz.23, wz.33 and WWI-vintage. Generic "obronny" and "zaczepny" will be therefore better, although I wouldn't mind names in English.

To me, both offensive and defensive grenades could be unified, since other OOBs have only one type of (strong) grenades. Besides, their numbers are probably too high - Polish Wikipedia gives an information, without source, that a soldier had two defensive and two offensive grenades (which seems to be applied in OOB), but in a detailed new book on an infantry regiment I've found an information, that there were two offensive and one defensive grenade. So maybe each soldier should just receive three generic grenades...

[zastava128]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Besides, their numbers are probably too high - Polish Wikipedia gives an information, without source, that a soldier had two defensive and two offensive grenades (which seems to be applied in OOB), but in a detailed new book on an infantry regiment I've found an information, that there were two offensive and one defensive grenade. So maybe each soldier should just receive three generic grenades...

Just for reference, I believe grenade numbers are supposed to be standardized, as per this thread: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=48570

"Hand grenades have been standardized at 2 grenades per man for regular line infantry, 3 grenades per man for elite or specialist infantry like Paratroops and 1 grenade per man for second rate units like militia or partisans"