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!
Soviet 9N210 and 9N235 bomblets
- Thread starter weberoed
- Start date
9Н235 can jump. 9H210 can`t.
I really not sure that you have seen anywhere 9N235
9N210 isn`t difficult, but 9N235 I haven`t ever seen on any russian language web-site!thanks Jeff, from what I have been able to find they are the same measurements, and appear very very similiar, the functioning info I get is limited but both appear to be straight impact. I was thinking someone just made a mistake and they were one in the same, photos would be great.
If to be honest, I`m not sure that it`s 9N235. I don`t see any scale, first of all. Second - I haven`t ever seen in Russian Internet any photos or pictures 9N235 and belive, that few people on West have it...hm, I think you understood my opinion
9N210 they can have, but 9N235...
And manual for 9N210 much more interesting as some materials from English Internet
If to be honest, I`m not sure that it`s 9N235. I don`t see any scale, first of all. Second - I haven`t ever seen in Russian Internet any photos or pictures 9N235 and belive, that few people on West have it...hm, I think you understood my opinion
9N210 they can have, but 9N235...
And manual for 9N210 much more interesting as some materials from English Internet
Not sure what you mean by scale - the background is missing because I removed it in Photoshop, I took the photo myself of an item held in a European EOD collection. I am quite certain that the EOD unit did no remark the item, and it was clearly not a fake munition. As I mentioned earlier, I have no technical information on this piece, nor do I know anything about the different designation. I could show you correspondence where I have questioned the meaning of the designation to other technicians many times over the past 10 years.
The understanding that WeberEOD has also independently located information on this item would seem to indicate that other have been seen. Regardless, you now have a photograph where before you said you had seen none. I've said it before and will doubtless say it again, reliance on the internet for identification will leave you with a small and doubious reference library. The internet is a research tool, but not the only one and not the best one.
You can ay anything about those devices. But I have my own opinion. First of all I belive manuals and information on my own language and from country, which were produced those devices! And I belive manuals for 9N210 too
Of cource Internet is not the best place for information, but it ue millions people! If you have very well sources - show it! I see you have many information about devices, which weren`t produced in West Europe.
I`m speaking on good russian military web-sites, where people know what they are saying
Very interesting to see, when people from different countries talking that they know much more about their own country!
But no offense!
How do you think - who and in what I belive more? Original manual (I added characteristiks from manual) and that what in my hand or to some west collections?
The main technical characteristics submunition 9Н210:
Caliber – 65 mm
Mass of the combat element – 1,85 kg
Mass of the explosive – 0,3 kg
The number of fragmentation – 350
Time for self-destruction (only with fuze 9Э246М) – 110 sec
No offense taken. I am not trying to say anything about the item, other than I have seen an item with this marking. I examined the item, I photographed the item. You stated that you had never seen such a thing, so I provided the photo. You further state that you have never seen it on the Russian internet, I simply pointed out that it is not good practice to rely only on the internet.
I have no doubts on what you say in regard to the manual on the 210. But having a manual on the 210 is not evidence that a 235 does not exist, just good information on the 210. And it is not necessary for you to continue to continue to focus on "West collections". While this item was photographed in Europe, some of us have not limited our travels to our own backyards.
I have already stated that I do not have any documents on this item and for many years have asked others about it. I have not pretended to know anything more than this. At the same time, I have been doing this for a long time, and to an extent perhaps greater than some of our members. What I have learned from my years of study is that I am still learning, and that just because I or others that I talk to have not seen something, does not mean that it does not exist.
Good hunting.
On ny photo - 9N210. And characteristiks about 9N210. 9N235 can jump and this is talking in different articles which were prented by persons, who has worked on plant, where were made MLRS Uraga.
Jeff thanks for the info and comments, I agree that alot of what is on the web can not be held as fact, so I asked those on this site to help tell me the difference. You had photos of both, I had some tech info that i had collected from other sources but everything I could get told me both bomblets were the same size and shape, and appeared to function the same - fire on impact, there also appeared to be a self destruct but I could not find anything on the time.The folowing came froma Brit EOD tech, he is going to send me more info later
Model 9N210 is the U.S. transliteration of the Cyrillic
(Soviet) designation 9210
272 grams RDX/wax
Model 9N235 is the U.S. transliteration of the Cyrillic (Soviet) designation of 9235
316 grams RDX/AL
Model 9N210 is the U.S. transliteration of the Cyrillic
(Soviet) designation 9210
272 grams RDX/wax
Model 9N235 is the U.S. transliteration of the Cyrillic (Soviet) designation of 9235
316 grams RDX/AL
Ivashkin,
I think we are all in agreement about the identification and characteristics of the 9N210. I am interested more in your information on the 9N235. When you say it can jump I understand this to be what we call "bounding", the same as with some landmines, etc where after impact part of the body is ejected, to exploded in the air. This seems perfectly understandable and acceptable to me, though it is new information. The obvious question then is, are we talking about the same munition? It is always the chance that with language differences, lack of information and so forth that we can be mis-communicating or misunderstanding each other.
Mike was asking about the 235 vs the 210, I had a photo of each, but you have expressed doubts about the 235. The 9N235 that your contacts have worked on and have information about, is it a similar design to the 9N210, the same body with different internals, or a completely different munition? If it is completely different in appearance I would be very interested in seeing a photo or diagram of it - even if it is similar, if you can find something about the bounding aspect it would be good information amd new for me.
I am not doubting your information on the 235, but if it is not the one in my photo then it is something completely new to me and I would be very grateful for any further assistance. Thanks, JO
Yes, we`re talking about the same devices. Official military index - 9H235.
9N210 for 9K57, 9N235 for 9K58.
How exactly 9N235 jump I don`t know.
Some more details
Mass od the 9N235 — 1,75 kg
Quantity of fragments: 96 by 4,5 g, 360 by 0,75 g. diametr 65 mm, lenght 263 mm
Last edited: