What's new
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!

no.69 - 'non-lethal'??

batonroundcollector

batonroundcollector

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
another question about the no.69... I have seen it described as being 'non-lethal'; in the context of the no.69 does this mean that it was not necessarily lethal when used in combat (if you didn't get in the way of the ball that is!), compared to a cast grenade (i.e. Mills 36/M2 Pineapple etc), or was it actually indicated in the 'non-lethal' role where the aim is to to incapacitate rather than maim or kill the enemy?

the only grenades I can think of up until to the post-War era that were actually 'non-lethal'/incapacitating would be tear gas ones, and so I guess by labelling the no.69 as non-lethal it just means that the explosion of its bakelite casing would not produce deadly large high-velocity fragments...
 
They were basically early blast / stun grenades designed to disorientate . When I was a cadet in the 1950's certain NCO's with a poor sense of humour used to throw them into trenches near us when on combat exercise . I don't recommend this procedure..............
 
I am not sure that "non lethal" is the right term here. Perhaps we should consider the terms "offensive" and "defensive" grenades. Offensive grenades have a blast and minor fragmentation effect whilst defensive grenades have a larger and more lethal effective fragmentation range.
 
exat808 said:
...Perhaps we should consider the terms "offensive" and "defensive" grenades...
Click to expand...

yes of course i know this distinction but assume that among offensive grenades the no.69's bakelite body would not be so dangerous as it exploded and broke apart, when compared to the sheet-steel body that other contemporary offensive grenades had...
 
batonroundcollector said:
yes of course i know this distinction but assume that among offensive grenades the no.69's bakelite body would not be so dangerous as it exploded and broke apart, when compared to the sheet-steel body that other contemporary offensive grenades had...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasnt making the assumption that you werent aware of the distinction between offensive and defensive. I wonder if any of the more distinguished grenade experts can shed a light on the intended operational role of the No69?
Ordnance items are usually developed as part of an "operational requirement" either for an article to introduce new technology or as a replacement for an obsolete/obsolescent item.
 
My personal opinion is that it was initially developed to test the operational efficacy of the No247 "Allways" percussion fuze with the side issue it was also an effective blast grenade in confined spaces . The 247 type had been used on several WW1 grenades from various countries including the British No 30 Humphries [not adopted] & during the inter war years the No 54 , also not adopted in significant quantities . It was employed later on [after the 69] on the No 70 . That was probably designed to replace the No36 but did n't prove as reliable . Just a thought & there may have been other explanations . However , as per my earlier post , when they explode near you it's not a pleasant experience !
 
ive picked up a few bits of 69 shrapnel on an old training range and some of the pieces are quite large. complete and near complete fuzes are not uncommon. im sure they would have done a lot of damage if they hit you. i'll post a picture of them tomorrow.
cheers, paul.
 
paul the grenade said:
ive picked up a few bits of 69 shrapnel on an old training range and some of the pieces are quite large. complete and near complete fuzes are not uncommon. im sure they would have done a lot of damage if they hit you. i'll post a picture of them tomorrow.
cheers, paul.
Click to expand...

I would certainly not like within 15 yards of a No 69 going off. The Bakelite fragments could I'm sure kill if you were unlucky enough to be close enough.

John
 
heres a selection of frags from the 69 grenade. im sure most would do a lot of damage up close.
paul.
 

Attachments

  • 69 FRAGS.jpg
    69 FRAGS.jpg
    83.5 KB · Views: 32
The No 69 as we know it came out of the Humphris stable (as Mike mentioned) and initial designs were for an offensive grenade using a tinplate body. In fact the papers on the grenade relating to original production give the grenade the working title of "Grenade, Hand, No 54 (Case to be made in Bakelite (294/G/4986 refers)". The No 54 Grenade was a Defensive grenade of course so this adds to confusion.

Basically you can bet that any grenade that evolved in 1939-40 (No 67, No 68, No 69, No 70, No 71, No 72, No 73, No 74) was a bit of a rushed affair but they make for interesting research. The cast-iron sleeves for the No 69 were a late-in-the-war experiment. The No 71 was the 'full-size' cast-iron version of the No 69 but at 2lbs it was too heavy. The 1 pounder, the No 70, was designed at the same time as the No 69 but effectively shelved for a couple years until a Far-East requirement came up. So there were Defensive options using the No 247 Allways Fuze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top