British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Caught in time
- Thread starter Lou
- Start date
V40
Well-Known Member
Dirt Detective,
I probably did something wrong here. Thanks for showing me that Gspgge. But I'd bet that those pieces will not fit into one grenade either. No, it wasn't "sintered" Iron it was cast Iron, my fault. Again, it was cast Iron which was what most if not all were made from. The "Pineaple" grenades were very poor performers during WWII. They did produce allot of dust just like I stated, more so than dangerous fragmentation. Watch the old films with GI's and their grenades when they would throw them into foxholes, trenches, cave and bunkers. When they throw them then watch for the burst. They are not the ones you would find knocking people all over. They also produced smoke through the top of the fuze when ignited via the bouchon igniter. Grenades back then just weren't that powerful because of the type of explosive used in side of the grenade body. If any of these sintered iron grenades were to go off in an open field with allot of the WWII enemy within this circle, say within a 20 meter circle from the point of detonation. Very few would be killed at best the rest would be itching from the dust. I have a movie made by the Signal Corp back then in the USA of the weapons we used in WWII. It may help to understand explosive dynamics better.
So what can we conclude with all of these facts?:tinysmile_hmm_t::tinysmile_grin_t:
V-40
I probably did something wrong here. Thanks for showing me that Gspgge. But I'd bet that those pieces will not fit into one grenade either. No, it wasn't "sintered" Iron it was cast Iron, my fault. Again, it was cast Iron which was what most if not all were made from. The "Pineaple" grenades were very poor performers during WWII. They did produce allot of dust just like I stated, more so than dangerous fragmentation. Watch the old films with GI's and their grenades when they would throw them into foxholes, trenches, cave and bunkers. When they throw them then watch for the burst. They are not the ones you would find knocking people all over. They also produced smoke through the top of the fuze when ignited via the bouchon igniter. Grenades back then just weren't that powerful because of the type of explosive used in side of the grenade body. If any of these sintered iron grenades were to go off in an open field with allot of the WWII enemy within this circle, say within a 20 meter circle from the point of detonation. Very few would be killed at best the rest would be itching from the dust. I have a movie made by the Signal Corp back then in the USA of the weapons we used in WWII. It may help to understand explosive dynamics better.
So what can we conclude with all of these facts?:tinysmile_hmm_t::tinysmile_grin_t:
V-40
Last edited:
cdngunplumber
Well-Known Member
thats is pretty damn nice looking ....a very inventive way to display the bits and peices
Dirt Detective
Well-Known Member
I know it wasn't dust that punched holes in that truck body..and there were frag shrapnel pieces all around it...so I think the MKIIA1 worked good.
I would assume when they explode they produce smoke, and produce more dangerous fragments than dust. I think this from the evidence I have seen, but I could be wrong..it wouldnt be the first time
To add some pic's of fragments..here are a few pieces that are marked..
Attachments
Dirt Detective
Well-Known Member
I dont want to get Lou's post to far off topic (maybe we can start a thread on the effectivness of the US WWII Grenade) but here is a very graphic site that studied WWII wounds. http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/default.htm
Couple pics from the site.
Couple pics from the site.
Attachments
paul the grenade
Well-Known Member
I think i read somewhere that the US used "Malable Iron" instead of Cast Iron as it fragmented better.
I'll see if i can find the reference when i get home from work.
Cheers, Paul.
I'll see if i can find the reference when i get home from work.
Cheers, Paul.
Another reason for poor fragmentation of the Mk. 2 grenade, was that one of the fillers was EC blank powder. Granted, it was a fast burning powder, but it doesn't give the detonation wave approx. 25,000 ft. per second that TNT gives.
Manufacturing fragmentation bodies is an economic and scientific problem. Mk. 2 grenades were made by the millions, cast from iron or steel because the U.S. got rushed into the war. Money is always a consideration when selecting materials for warheads. Payback in the value of the item destroyed versus the cost of the warhead. We might pay a lot more for a specific Hi-Frag alloy for antiaircraft projectiles to destroy costly airplanes, but scrimp on price when it comes to a grenade to kill a single soldier, especially when we need to make millions of grenades versus 50,000 hi-frag projectiles. As technology and metalurgy improved, ordnance followed with more appropriate materials. The bodies of U.S. 81mm mortar shells were made from pearlitic malleable iron a few years ago, because it fragmented well. The current trend (APAM) is to go to a design using tungsten BBs suspended in a plastic matrix for mortar bodies. Initial testing was very impressive where a 60mm tungsten matrix mortar projo had the same or better affect as the older design 81mm iron projo. The problem with this round, is the high cost of the tungsten BBs.
Manufacturing fragmentation bodies is an economic and scientific problem. Mk. 2 grenades were made by the millions, cast from iron or steel because the U.S. got rushed into the war. Money is always a consideration when selecting materials for warheads. Payback in the value of the item destroyed versus the cost of the warhead. We might pay a lot more for a specific Hi-Frag alloy for antiaircraft projectiles to destroy costly airplanes, but scrimp on price when it comes to a grenade to kill a single soldier, especially when we need to make millions of grenades versus 50,000 hi-frag projectiles. As technology and metalurgy improved, ordnance followed with more appropriate materials. The bodies of U.S. 81mm mortar shells were made from pearlitic malleable iron a few years ago, because it fragmented well. The current trend (APAM) is to go to a design using tungsten BBs suspended in a plastic matrix for mortar bodies. Initial testing was very impressive where a 60mm tungsten matrix mortar projo had the same or better affect as the older design 81mm iron projo. The problem with this round, is the high cost of the tungsten BBs.
Lou
Well-Known Member
No problem,got the OK from Spotter to continue here if everyone so pleases.Some very very good information guys.
theres some more on fragmentation here as well http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/fragments-and-hit-t13482.html?highlight=fragmentation
