Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
  • Login:
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Ordnance Approved
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illinois USA
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 331 Times in 171 Posts
    The following was provided to me by a retired Brit EOD tech, I have been told all other information about these items is still classified so I can’t get additional info.

    US: 9N235.
    UR: Cyrillic 9235 Cyrillic (Soviet). (this designation as shown came from a Brit EOD book)
    Main charge: RDX/aluminum, 315 grams
    Complete bomb with fuze: 1.75 kilograms (3.86 pounds).
    Not known which system is deployed from, is impact fired and has a 2 minute SD

    US: 9N210
    UR: Cyrillic 9H210 (Soviet) (this designation came from a Brit EOD book)
    Deployed from 220mm MRL, impact fired with 2 minute SD
    Main charge 272 grams (9.6 ounces) of an RDX/wax
    The bomb weighs approximately 1.8 kilograms (4.0 pounds).

    Interesting that the Cyrillic designations appear to be different, but when translated both come out as a “N”. This maybe an error either when the items were first found, the letter was misread, etc. It is also possible that when the document was written then saved as a pdf file the symbol was read wrong and same goes when copying from pdf to word the symbol can be misread. All I know is the info I was provided gave the designations as listed.

    In closing, I think we can all agree these are two different subs, that they are identical in shape and size but do differ in explosive type and weight. So for me the only question that remains is the designation for the 9N235 is it correct. I do not fully understand the following, but then that does back to how the designations were read or translated (I think)

    Official military index - 9H235.
    9N210 for 9K57, 9N235 for 9K58.9N210.jpg9N235.jpgUSSR bomblet HE-Frag 9N235 & 9N210.jpg
    any live or dug ordnance shown in my posts was dealt with by EOD personell

  2. #22
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    661
    Thanks
    346
    Thanked 379 Times in 177 Posts
    By the way. How do you think why 9N235 calls "Poprigunja" (on English - Grasshopper)?

  3. #23
    Ordnance Approved
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illinois USA
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 331 Times in 171 Posts
    I have not seen that word or term used in any documents/information I have collected. Where do you see it - if you have a document on it please post or send me acopy, thank you
    any live or dug ordnance shown in my posts was dealt with by EOD personell

  4. #24
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    661
    Thanks
    346
    Thanked 379 Times in 177 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by weberoed View Post
    I have not seen that word or term used in any documents/information I have collected. Where do you see it - if you have a document on it please post or send me acopy, thank you
    This name use in Internet. In most situatuion any "names" of arms don`t use in manuals or documents - only short index and that`s all!

  5. #25
    ORDNANCE APPROVED/Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan - US
    Posts
    3,998
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 4,029 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by weberoed View Post
    I have not seen that word or term used in any documents/information I have collected. Where do you see it - if you have a document on it please post or send me acopy, thank you
    A bounding variation makes sense - a minor change in explosives could give you a new modification number, but a complete new designation generally means something major. The basic 9N210 design would lend itself to a bounding variation, and it would be a modification that would considerably enhance the capability of the munition. It is disappointing that there is no documentation, but that will come eventually. I've probably got a dozen US submunitions that I have no documents for yet, but some interesting stories. One I posted a while back took me 20 years to find a document. It's what keeps it all interesting.
    All dug or live ordnance shown in my posts is under EOD control and has been or will be dealt with accordingly by EOD personnel

  6. #26
    Ordnance Approved
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illinois USA
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 331 Times in 171 Posts
    Agree Jeff, I had photos of a number of items that I had ID'd based on what I was told then out of now wherre comes a better photo and full ID info.

    I wish Ivashkin would post the links or where he is reading his info, I have reached out to a number of our old military friends (couple still on active duty) of course they can't release the classifeid info, but everyone who has access to a pub that has replied back to me says same thing - both are same size, different explosives, impact with SD and no mention of bounding. A number did say they thought for the 9N235 that there may be a problem with the translation of the N.

    some day more info will come out, but I got other projects now that need time and this one is just going in circles.
    any live or dug ordnance shown in my posts was dealt with by EOD personell

  7. #27
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    661
    Thanks
    346
    Thanked 379 Times in 177 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by weberoed View Post
    I wish Ivashkin would post the links or where he is reading his info, I have reached out to a number of our old military friends (couple still on active duty) of course they can't release the classifeid info, but everyone who has access to a pub that has replied back to me says same thing - both are same size, different explosives, impact with SD and no mention of bounding. A number did say they thought for the 9N235 that there may be a problem with the translation of the N.

    some day more info will come out, but I got other projects now that need time and this one is just going in circles.
    Unfortunatly I can`t give any official link, because all "names" gives somebody on plant wheere it produce. But this name not once and not two used in internet. Maybe not on plant, maybe in Army. All "names" for military devices not official. Yes, they`re useing in Internet and generals are talking them, but you can`t see any of this name in manuals! Only index!
    For example. On web-site plant, where produce or produced projectiles and with 9N210 and 9N235 in description of rockets only small pictures and without any names of submunition which they put in projectiles!

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top