Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Grenade Question
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 12:15:58 -0600
Can someone tell me how much explosive material and how much
non-explosive material there is in a typical grenade, in RL?

If you happen to know the exact weights of all the components
(casing, explosive, detonator, pin, etc) I'd like those too.

-David
--
"Hold a true friend with both hands."
- Nigerian Proverb
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:17:22 +0100
David Buehrer said on 12:15/14 Apr 98...

> Can someone tell me how much explosive material and how much
> non-explosive material there is in a typical grenade, in RL?

Varies tremendously. Some grenades have a few dozen grams, others hold
several hundred grams, and most are inbetween somewhere.

> If you happen to know the exact weights of all the components
> (casing, explosive, detonator, pin, etc) I'd like those too.

Okay :)

The M67 fragmentation grenade with 4-5 second delay fuse, as used by the
US Army and others, weighs 390 g complete. Of this, 180 g is explosive
(Composition B, to be precise), and 71 g is the fuse/detonator. That
leaves 139 grams for parts like the steel outer shell and notched steel
wire that forms the fragments.

Another grenade I could find similar data for is the Belgian NR 423
handgrenade: total weight 230 g, fuse 50 g, explosive weight 50 g (again
Composition B), fragmentation sleeve 65 g. The grenade produces 900
fragments of .105 g each and 52 steel balls of 1 g each.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
with your feet on the air, and your head in the ground
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 3
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:05:19 EST
> > If you happen to know the exact weights of all the components
> > (casing, explosive, detonator, pin, etc) I'd like those too.
>
> Okay :)

<snip detailed grenade breakdown>

Gurth, buddy...you realize our discussion about legality is just an
intellectual exercise, right? We're buds, right? Everything's
cool, right?

-=SwiftOne=-
*Scared*

:)
Message no. 4
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:07:48 -0600
Gurth wrote:
/
/ > If you happen to know the exact weights of all the components
/ > (casing, explosive, detonator, pin, etc) I'd like those too.
/
/ Okay :)
/
/ The M67 fragmentation grenade with 4-5 second delay fuse, as used by the
/ US Army and others, weighs 390 g complete. Of this, 180 g is explosive
/ (Composition B, to be precise), and 71 g is the fuse/detonator. That
/ leaves 139 grams for parts like the steel outer shell and notched steel
/ wire that forms the fragments.
/
/ Another grenade I could find similar data for is the Belgian NR 423
/ handgrenade: total weight 230 g, fuse 50 g, explosive weight 50 g (again
/ Composition B), fragmentation sleeve 65 g. The grenade produces 900
/ fragments of .105 g each and 52 steel balls of 1 g each.

Outstanding! Thanks Gurth.

Now, does anyone know if Composition B is comparable to C-4?

-David
--
"The growth of true friendship may be a lifelong affair."
- Sarah Orne Jewett
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 5
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:27:05 -0600
Gurth wrote:
/
/ The M67 fragmentation grenade with 4-5 second delay fuse, as used by the
/ US Army and others, weighs 390 g complete. Of this, 180 g is explosive
/ (Composition B, to be precise), and 71 g is the fuse/detonator. That
/ leaves 139 grams for parts like the steel outer shell and notched steel
/ wire that forms the fragments.

The square root of .180 is .424, times 4 (C-4) is 1.696. 1.696
divided by .139 is approximately 12. So it's not unreasonable to say
that the above grenade would have a Power of 12 in SR.

/ Another grenade I could find similar data for is the Belgian NR 423
/ handgrenade: total weight 230 g, fuse 50 g, explosive weight 50 g (again
/ Composition B), fragmentation sleeve 65 g. The grenade produces 900
/ fragments of .105 g each and 52 steel balls of 1 g each.

The square root of .050 is .223, times 4 is .892, divided by .147 is 6.
Power 6 grenade.

So, if you want to make a fragmentary device use the following
equation as a base. W=Weight of Explosive in Kg. (Square Root of W
x Base Power)/Weight of Fragments = Power.

I'd base the TN for designing the device on the final power of the
device just to balance it. TN = Power/2 or /3?

-David
--
"The growth of true friendship may be a lifelong affair."
- Sarah Orne Jewett
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 6
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:36:11 +0100
In article <199804142107.PAA02336@******.carl.org>, David Buehrer
<dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> writes
>Now, does anyone know if Composition B is comparable to C-4?

Slightly weaker in explosive force, but more stable and can be melted
and poured (C-4 is mostly RDX, which melts at over 200deg Celsius and
spontaneously detonates at only a few degrees above melting: so it's not
readily used as a filling for munitions).

If C-4 has a Power Index of 6, Composition B might be 4 or 5.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:05:24 +0100
Brett Borger said on 16:05/14 Apr 98...

> <snip detailed grenade breakdown>
>
> Gurth, buddy...you realize our discussion about legality is just an
> intellectual exercise, right? We're buds, right? Everything's
> cool, right?

*grin* Sure :)

Do you think I think I should have added you can find that info in any
copy of Jane's Infantry Weapons, which I happened to have on loan from the
library?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
with your feet on the air, and your head in the ground
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:05:24 +0100
David Buehrer said on 15:07/14 Apr 98...

> Outstanding! Thanks Gurth.

Not a problem :)

> Now, does anyone know if Composition B is comparable to C-4?

From one of five recent, large posts on explosives by Rob Matheson on the
Millennium's End list:

Composition B4
B4 is a composite explosive containing 60% RDX, 39.5% TNT, and 0.5%
calcium silicate. It is used as the main charge in newer model bangalore
torpedoes and shaped charges.

Note that I'm not 100% sure this is the same explosive as used in the M67
and NR 423, but it's the only one I could find that comes close. Here's
another one you might find interesting:

Composition C4
C4 is a composite explosive containing 91% RDX and 9% nonexplosive
plasticizers. The primary use of C4 is as a stand-alone explsoive. It
is highly brisant and is moldable over a wide range of temperatures (-70
to +170 degrees F). This is the famous "plastic explosive," looks,
feels, and acts like putty - a gray-white material you can easily form
and shape with your hands, in complete safety. Detonation requires heat
and pressure. You can run an electrical charge through it (no bang), hit
it with a hammer (no bang), burn it (no bang, but you will get a buzz
from short exposure, prolonged exposure can be very harmful), but hit a
burning chunk and BANG.

I could forward the full posts to you if you want more information.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
with your feet on the air, and your head in the ground
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:28:41 -0400
David Buehrer wrote:
>Gurth wrote:
>/ The M67 fragmentation grenade with 4-5 second delay fuse, as used by the
>/ US Army and others, weighs 390 g complete. Of this, 180 g is explosive
>/ (Composition B, to be precise), and 71 g is the fuse/detonator. That
>/ leaves 139 grams for parts like the steel outer shell and notched steel
>/ wire that forms the fragments.
>
>The square root of .180 is .424, times 4 (C-4) is 1.696. 1.696
>divided by .139 is approximately 12. So it's not unreasonable to say
>that the above grenade would have a Power of 12 in SR.

Why are you dividing by 0.139? The power of the explosive divided
by the mass of the steel bits? Even dividing by 0.180 wouldn't make
any sense. The Power of the grenade is 2 (we'll round up).
>
>/ Another grenade I could find similar data for is the Belgian NR 423
>/ handgrenade: total weight 230 g, fuse 50 g, explosive weight 50 g (again
>/ Composition B), fragmentation sleeve 65 g. The grenade produces 900
>/ fragments of .105 g each and 52 steel balls of 1 g each.
>
>The square root of .050 is .223, times 4 is .892, divided by .147 is 6.
>Power 6 grenade.

Again, why divide by the frag bits? I'll just build a grenade with
1 steel ball of 1g, which will reduce the mass and size, improve
the concealability, and (using the NR423 as a base) has a power of
892! Concussion grenades have an infinite power!?
>
>So, if you want to make a fragmentary device use the following
>equation as a base. W=Weight of Explosive in Kg. (Square Root of W
>x Base Power)/Weight of Fragments = Power.
>
>I'd base the TN for designing the device on the final power of the
>device just to balance it. TN = Power/2 or /3?

This is just a cop-out. Putting less stuff in a grenade should make
it easier to construct, not harder.

James Ojaste
Message no. 10
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:14:53 -0600
Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
/
/ David Buehrer wrote:
/ >Gurth wrote:
/ >/ The M67 fragmentation grenade with 4-5 second delay fuse, as used by the
/ >/ US Army and others, weighs 390 g complete. Of this, 180 g is explosive
/ >/ (Composition B, to be precise), and 71 g is the fuse/detonator. That
/ >/ leaves 139 grams for parts like the steel outer shell and notched steel
/ >/ wire that forms the fragments.
/ >
/ >The square root of .180 is .424, times 4 (C-4) is 1.696. 1.696
/ >divided by .139 is approximately 12. So it's not unreasonable to say
/ >that the above grenade would have a Power of 12 in SR.
/
/ Why are you dividing by 0.139? The power of the explosive divided
/ by the mass of the steel bits? Even dividing by 0.180 wouldn't make
/ any sense. The Power of the grenade is 2 (we'll round up).

I assume that the power of the explosion is being used to propel the
fragments.

Based on the discussion on explosions and knockback dividing the
power by the mass seemed like a good idea.

If the mass of an object is less than one, keeping the fraction
(139/1000) seems to work.

And, the answers are comparable with the stats in SR.

/ Again, why divide by the frag bits? I'll just build a grenade with
/ 1 steel ball of 1g, which will reduce the mass and size, improve
/ the concealability, and (using the NR423 as a base) has a power of
/ 892! Concussion grenades have an infinite power!?

Yep, that's a problem that I thought of on the home. I still don't
have a solution. Maybe, the power cannot exceed the mass of the
fragments times 10. And there should be a minimum mass for the
fragments. Hm...

/ >So, if you want to make a fragmentary device use the following
/ >equation as a base. W=Weight of Explosive in Kg. (Square Root of W
/ >x Base Power)/Weight of Fragments = Power.
/ >
/ >I'd base the TN for designing the device on the final power of the
/ >device just to balance it. TN = Power/2 or /3?
/
/ This is just a cop-out. Putting less stuff in a grenade should make
/ it easier to construct, not harder.

I don't know. IMO keeping the fragments from disintigrating all
together and/or making them go where you want when applying a lot of
force to a small mass (comparatively) shouldn't be easy.

The concept behind the nuclear bomb is fairly simple, implode
fissionable material. But creating an explosion which implodes the
material without squirting it through a gap in the explosion takes
quite a bit of math.

Ditto for applying significant force to a small object.

If you apply a lot of force to a small mass of fragments it will take
a lot of math and work to shape the explosive, shape the fragments,
and place the fragments, to get the fragments to go where you want.

-David
--
"The growth of true friendship may be a lifelong affair."
- Sarah Orne Jewett
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 11
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:16:25 -0600
Gurth wrote:
/
/ I could forward the full posts to you if you want more information.

That's okay. Between you and Paul (BTW, thanks Paul :) I have all
the information I need to figure out some rules for creating grenades
and such for SR.

Thanks again.

-David
--
"The growth of true friendship may be a lifelong affair."
- Sarah Orne Jewett
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 12
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:33:19 -0400
David Buehrer wrote:
>Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
>/
>/ David Buehrer wrote:
>/ >Gurth wrote:
>/ >/ The M67 fragmentation grenade with 4-5 second delay fuse, as used by the
>/ >/ US Army and others, weighs 390 g complete. Of this, 180 g is explosive
>/ >/ (Composition B, to be precise), and 71 g is the fuse/detonator. That
>/ >/ leaves 139 grams for parts like the steel outer shell and notched steel
>/ >/ wire that forms the fragments.
>/ >
>/ >The square root of .180 is .424, times 4 (C-4) is 1.696. 1.696
>/ >divided by .139 is approximately 12. So it's not unreasonable to say
>/ >that the above grenade would have a Power of 12 in SR.
>/
>/ Why are you dividing by 0.139? The power of the explosive divided
>/ by the mass of the steel bits? Even dividing by 0.180 wouldn't make
>/ any sense. The Power of the grenade is 2 (we'll round up).
>
>I assume that the power of the explosion is being used to propel the
>fragments.

Ah, so you're not calculating the power of the grenade, but the
power per kilogram of fragments. Of course, there isn't a kg of
fragments in a grenade, and most of those fragments won't hit
anything at all, and only a few will hit any particular character...

You see where I'm going with this? :-)
>
>Based on the discussion on explosions and knockback dividing the
>power by the mass seemed like a good idea.

Dividing the power by the number of fragments and dividing *that*
by the mass of that fragment will get you the power/fragment, and
then you have to figure out how many fragments hit etc.
>
>If the mass of an object is less than one, keeping the fraction
>(139/1000) seems to work.
>
>And, the answers are comparable with the stats in SR.

Well, although convenient, it doesn't cover up the mathematical
prestidigitation... :-)
>
>/ Again, why divide by the frag bits? I'll just build a grenade with
>/ 1 steel ball of 1g, which will reduce the mass and size, improve
>/ the concealability, and (using the NR423 as a base) has a power of
>/ 892! Concussion grenades have an infinite power!?
>
>Yep, that's a problem that I thought of on the home. I still don't
>have a solution. Maybe, the power cannot exceed the mass of the
>fragments times 10. And there should be a minimum mass for the
>fragments. Hm...

Yeah. Stop basing it on fragments - the explosive force of the
grenade is constant, no matter how many fragments there are. More
fragments will mean less power per fragment, but more fragments will
hit. It'll even out, more or less. Just have frag grenades do
physical damage resisted with ballistic, and everything works out.
>
>/ >So, if you want to make a fragmentary device use the following
>/ >equation as a base. W=Weight of Explosive in Kg. (Square Root of W
>/ >x Base Power)/Weight of Fragments = Power.
>/ >
>/ >I'd base the TN for designing the device on the final power of the
>/ >device just to balance it. TN = Power/2 or /3?
>/
>/ This is just a cop-out. Putting less stuff in a grenade should make
>/ it easier to construct, not harder.
>
>I don't know. IMO keeping the fragments from disintigrating all
>together and/or making them go where you want when applying a lot of
>force to a small mass (comparatively) shouldn't be easy.

It is - you want them more or less evenly distributed, so if you
put the explosive in the middle and the fragments around it you
might not get a perfect sphere, but it'll be close enough.
>
>The concept behind the nuclear bomb is fairly simple, implode
>fissionable material. But creating an explosion which implodes the
>material without squirting it through a gap in the explosion takes
>quite a bit of math.

That's something entirely different - and that's only for high-yield,
highly radioactive substances. With smaller bombs, you can get away
with a simple two-piece design. With the larger, more complex bombs,
the problem isn't so much "squirting it through a gap" as making sure
that everything comes together at a precise time - the same time.
If the bits come together in a staggered way, you'll lose yield.
>
>Ditto for applying significant force to a small object.

But for a frag grenade, you don't want controlled directional blasts.
You just want a general explosion, with lots of bits.
>
>If you apply a lot of force to a small mass of fragments it will take
>a lot of math and work to shape the explosive, shape the fragments,
>and place the fragments, to get the fragments to go where you want.

Generally, you just want the fragments to go *out*. You can either
build a spherical frag grenade (wasteful - the fragments thrown
up and down will probably be wasted), or weight the bottom of the
grenade, reinforce the top and bottom and put most of the fragments
at the sides.

A more difficult problem with frag grenades is getting the casing
to break evenly, allowing the frags to spread evenly - easily enough
solved with a bit of forethought.

James Ojaste
Message no. 13
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:52:49 +0000
> Generally, you just want the fragments to go *out*. You can either
> build a spherical frag grenade (wasteful - the fragments thrown
> up and down will probably be wasted), or weight the bottom of the
> grenade, reinforce the top and bottom and put most of the fragments
> at the sides.
>
> A more difficult problem with frag grenades is getting the casing
> to break evenly, allowing the frags to spread evenly - easily enough
> solved with a bit of forethought.

I was under the impression that it wasn't the casing that mattered in
a frag grenade anyway...it was the coil around the explosive core
that actually blew up correctly. (casings tended to just split
unevenly no matter what)

Geesh, I spend to much listening to Gurth.

-=SwiftOne=-

Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 14
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:15:41 -0400
Brett Borger wrote:
>> A more difficult problem with frag grenades is getting the casing
>> to break evenly, allowing the frags to spread evenly - easily enough
>> solved with a bit of forethought.
>
>I was under the impression that it wasn't the casing that mattered in
>a frag grenade anyway...it was the coil around the explosive core
>that actually blew up correctly. (casings tended to just split
>unevenly no matter what)

Early frag grenades used the casing as fragments. When they
cracked into a couple of large pieces and a few small pieces they
didn't work so well. Using ball bearings as fragments, or the
scored coil, allows for more even fragmentation but if the casing
doesn't split nicely (like if one side pops and the other doesn't),
those bits won't spread evenly.

James Ojaste
Message no. 15
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:14:57 -0600
Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
/
/ >I assume that the power of the explosion is being used to propel the
/ >fragments.
/
/ Ah, so you're not calculating the power of the grenade, but the
/ power per kilogram of fragments. Of course, there isn't a kg of
/ fragments in a grenade, and most of those fragments won't hit
/ anything at all, and only a few will hit any particular character...
/
/ You see where I'm going with this? :-)

Ya got me :)

I started to write a lengthy point by point response when I realized
that there are just to many factors to take into account with a
simple equation: the force of the explosion, the mass of the
fragments, the spread of the fragments, the weight of individual
fragments, the shape of individual fragments, etc.

Back to the drawing board.

-David
--
"The growth of true friendship may be a lifelong affair."
- Sarah Orne Jewett
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:37:19 +0100
Brett Borger said on 10:52/15 Apr 98...

> I was under the impression that it wasn't the casing that mattered in
> a frag grenade anyway...it was the coil around the explosive core
> that actually blew up correctly. (casings tended to just split
> unevenly no matter what)

For the historical perspective: the first modern handgrenades, like the
British No. 36 (AKA Mills Bomb), had the grooves on the outside because
it was thought the grenade would break up nice and even along those lines.
Turned out they didn't: Mills Bombs form several very large, very lethal
pieces by which you're not likely to get hit at a distance, plus a lot of
iron dust. There is no real reason I can think of for why later grenades
held onto the idea.

Putting grooves on the _inside_ of the casing apparently does help in the
forming of fragments, but modern grenades use pre-formed or semi-formed
fragments, usually steel ball bearings and/or notched steel wire, packed
around the explosive core. The outer shell of a modern grenade is usually
steel plate or plastic.

IMHO any grenade available in SR would be constructed in a manner similar
to modern grenades, if not an improvement on them, so there is no need to
bother taking into account poorly-designed grenades that only throw out a
few large chunks of cast iron. I think you can just concern yourself with
creating the base damage for the explosive inside, and modify it slightly
for the fragments, like applying flechette ammo rules.

> Geesh, I spend to much listening to Gurth.

From my point of view, I'd say that could be a good thing :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
going down thinking
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Grenade Question
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:34:57 +0100
In article <199804151936.VAA01597@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>For the historical perspective: the first modern handgrenades, like the
>British No. 36 (AKA Mills Bomb), had the grooves on the outside because
>it was thought the grenade would break up nice and even along those lines.
>Turned out they didn't: Mills Bombs form several very large, very lethal
>pieces by which you're not likely to get hit at a distance, plus a lot of
>iron dust. There is no real reason I can think of for why later grenades
>held onto the idea.

Makes them easier to grip when wet and muddy :)


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Grenade Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!