Steve,
buddy, did you read what I had posted?
Also, FYI, I find no references to shellac inside the bodies as of yet. Maybe like you stated Steve, that it could of been varnished?
Hi buddy Mark, yes I read your loooooooong post, :laugh: thanks for taking interest in all these "WW2 trainers" discussions........ and now................
The moment everyone has been waiting for.........are you ready?......... Here it is........I know this will make everyone very happy................... Another of my loooooooong babbling posts......this one could set the record
Mark...The "varnish or shellac", (I'm not sure which was used) I'm speaking about is not on the "inside of the bodies"....It's just a little bit brushed on over the cork on the outside bottom of the grenades.
After the small black powder charges and the corks were installed, the corks were sometimes brushed over with this shellac or varnish. They did this I guess to help seal from moisture. But why?.... if they were to be used immediately like it says in manual? This sealing of the cork seems more like something that would be done for longer term storage, or could be maybe when the grenades were to be used in a humid or wet environment? I've seen many orig blue WW2 bodies, and also have had a few that did not have this varnish/shellac on them.
OK, I got out my FM-23-30 manual like yours and read it again. And yes Mark, they do use the wording "cast iron" to describe grenade bodies, but I really think they are just generalizing about the actual material. When they say "cast iron" I don't think they are not talking about the type cast iron that looks like the type seen on the inside of Eodtek's RFX grenade with the borescope. That RFX type of cast iron is very brittle, and I'm almost certain 100% this type of "cast iron" was never used for real grenade bodies, practice or any others.
I think the metal that our grenades were cast from, was discussed here in the past at some length. And I might need a correction here, but I believe it was the consensus that our pineapples were cast from a special sintered iron or steel alloy if I remember correctly. I think it was a thread about the fragmentation properties of US grenades ??
Some pics for contribute to make more difficult the searching of Steve. Both grenades with original fuzes and still like I bought them long time ago from a good source.
HaHa, Thanks Miguel, you are very helpful. Seems like I've seen those 3 grenades about 100 times now. :flute:
I'm sure your source where you got them from was a very good one, There is no question about that.
But I would like to know, how does anyone know for sure that any blue practice grenade they have, or they have seen in pictures was not a grenade that was reused, and maybe even repainted a few times after WW2, and varnished then? Why are there what looks like to me original blue paint WW2 trainers, with no shellac-varnish?
The only way we could all know that our grenades are "completely original" and untouched since WW2, is to have them all come from "sealed" WW2 dated containers.
I also think the only way to know 100% for sure what the procedures were for preparation and use, and what was supposed to be done "during" WW2 with trainers, is to see this info in writing, the minutes reports or manuals, or maybe some very good photos or drawings.
My two M21's have no shellac/varnish on them, and I feel they are original paint. The containers were not sealed when I got them, but my friend said he opened them when he found them over 40 years ago in California. When opened... they had no fuzes, no corks or shellac/varnish, and no powder charge. But these two containers are different than the third M21 container shown, and mine says "Lot - None" So... were these grenades to be fuzed and readied for use as needed? Were all WW2 M21's shipped like this? There was no grenade inside the third M21 can that was shown, but I sure would liked to have seen what was inside that can.
You have a practice grenade Miguel I saw in one of your pics, that is exactly the same as the first M21 I found. It has the same darker blue color, and is also the exact same reused late WWI type very narrow base body. So I think you also have an "M21" or for sure that you can call it a M21 now, you just do not have a WW2 dated can that says M21 to confirm it 100%.
I personally tend to think the grenades without shellac/varnish are really the ones used during the war. This is just my opinion, and it would be great to see any documentation, some type of proof that the corks were supposed to be sealed with varnish during WW2. This info must be around somewhere. Maybe they did start using shellac/varnish in late war, that is what I'm trying to find out.
Why is there so little solid info known about procedures, usage and production of "blue trainers" in WW2? and especially the "M21"
Seems to me not everything is yet "cut and dried" or "Black & White" with training grenades "during" WWII
This subject in my opinion needs A LOT more research to say the least.
Steve when you get an idea in your mind... You are seeing MKII practice grenades in a lot of variations and always with M10 series fuzes with that varnish, I dont think that soldiers just open the crate, mount the grenades and start to practice with, the crate came in that way from factory, but I bet somebody, (an Ordnance Man), opened those crates and get ready the grenades for use and for a better sealing, just gave a fast coat of varnish to the cork. With a training period of some weeks or even months for soldiers I think is totally possible. I have seen blue trainers here in Europe, but due to condition I never paid much attention, but now when I find one I will look fast as light at the bottom. Anyway I still betting for a WWII varnish, as you already know from some time ago with our own discussions.
Yes Miguel, when I start to research things, I get on a one way track, and keep going until I hopefully find the answers. Sorry my friend if it makes your eyeballs hurt. :stoned: I know thinking can also hurt sometimes : )
You could be correct Miguel, and a instructor or Ord man removed the practice grenades from the wood crate, and prepared them for use, and then handed them out as needed. But from now reading again tonight the FM-23-30 June 15, 1942, Grenades, Basic Field manual" it says that only the amount of grenades to be used were to be readied for use, but does not mention if this only applied to explosive grenades.
The manual also mentions about how the TNT filled grenades came unfuzed, and needed to be readied before use. Do you think that there was always an Ordnance man around to do this fuzing in battle? I think the end users, the soldiers were expected to be able to install fuzes by themselves in the field. I think all the fighting troops would be well trained to install detonating fuzes, so putting a small bag of back powder in a hole and then putting a cork into that hole was something any soldier should be able to do.
It says that a "wrench" for tightening the M5 detonating fuzes after installation was supplied in each box of fuzes. It would be interesting to see what this wrench looked like, I've never seen a photo or drawing of these wrenches.
Also at this time, June '42, they say that the practice charge of black powder in a paper tube was in use. It says...."After the fuze is assembled in the grenade, this charge is inserted into the filling hole, which is closed with a cork", and no mention of shellac or varnish to be painted over corks, just "closed with a cork"
Maybe just in humid areas they applied varnish to seal the corks?
I've had some blue trainers, and know for sure that I've seen many other WW2 blue trainers "without" any traces of the shellac or varnish.
Here is another thing that would be interesting to find out.........
Could maybe the "revised 5-24-44" that is printed on that can of black powder charges and corks that Fragman showed.....maybe this could be the "revision date" when they changed from the "paper tube" black powder practice charge, to the "small cloth bags" with the black powder sewn inside?
Maybe this could this be what the 5-24-44 revision was.... the change from paper tubes.... to the small cloth bag black powder charges?
Also..... there is no mention of the M21 in June '42 manual, so I guess we will need the next manuals that were issued from approx. 6-42 to 6-44, or the 'minutes reports' or other documents from this time period, and this will maybe give some answers to all these unknown issues about practice grenades, and procedures & usage "during" WWII. These manuals or documents should also give an answer to exactly when we started using the nomenclature "practice hand grenade M21"
:dontknow: