So how dangerous are grenades, really? The Army told me they will kill anything out to 15 meters from where it explodes.

So how dangerous are grenades, really? The Army told me they will kill anything out to 15 meters from where it explodes. But then I hear stories how Haji managed to toss a grenade through a Humvee window but everybody inside survived (albeit in very bad shape). Logic tells me there is only so much explosive force you can pack into a device that fits in your pocket, and the shrapnel let loose probably won't be going as fast as a bullet from a gun.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >could it be that shrapnel distribution is inherently RNG no matter how much pre-scoring is applied?
    >no, it must be insufficient velocity for whatever fricking reason
    apply yourself homosexual

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Luck of the draw I guess. Look at those nades dropped from Drones. Theres a lot of vids showing how deady or undeady they are.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends on the kind.
      Some grenades throw fewer larger chunks that are deadlier if they hit.
      Others throw many smaller ones increasing the likelihood of a hit but reducing the likely lethality.
      In drone footage you usually can’t see the fragmentation and so you’ll see people walk away from a grenade that went off meters from them but they lightly have multiple holes in them.
      This has led to idiots like assuming that grenades are often not lethal even in close proximity which is factually incorrect.
      Ordinance lab has multiple videos showing fragmentation patterns of different hulls

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are plenty of drones drops videos that don't show people dying in 2 days from shrapnel wounds what of it moron.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >and the shrapnel let loose probably won't be going as fast as a bullet from a gun.
    Grenade shrapnel usually moves much faster than than a bullet from a gun because it's being propelled by a literal explosive, not gunpowder. But where that shrapnel goes is a crapshoot. Grenades don't break cleanly along the score lines in the castings and it's pretty random where the various chunks go.

    What's going on here is misunderstandings and the good 'ol "telephone game" where facts change each time someone repeats them. In this case "this specific grenade has a 15m casualty rating on paper" has been misunderstood to mean "Any grenade kills everything 100% of the time within 15 meters". No, that's not what casualty radius means.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Medgays have LD50, bombgays should get LR50.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >bombgays should get LR50
        That's exactly what they do use, it just got changed somewhere between the official documentation and OP's question.

        >Fragmentation grenades like the M67 have a 5 meter kill radius and a 15 meter wounding radius. But the way that's calculated is at 5 meters 50 percent of people. At 15 meters 50 percent of people standing will be wounded. That number drops drastically with any sort of terrain.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wouldn't the LR50 just be the radius where you reach the LD50 for shrapnel?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fellow XKCD enjoyer.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I actually don't enjoy XKCD, I just keep reading it for some reason. Probably because it's in my RSS feed and it's not annoying, it just doesn't do anything for me, so I don't remove it.

            >bombgays should get LR50
            That's exactly what they do use, it just got changed somewhere between the official documentation and OP's question.

            >Fragmentation grenades like the M67 have a 5 meter kill radius and a 15 meter wounding radius. But the way that's calculated is at 5 meters 50 percent of people. At 15 meters 50 percent of people standing will be wounded. That number drops drastically with any sort of terrain.

            how do you even test that, aside from the obvious Imperial Japan method?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >how do you even test that
              Put up wooden silhouette targets in a circle and observe the amounts of hits. Use the average size of shrapnel to conclude how many hits results in a certain percentage to hit a vital organ.
              Do it a bunch of times until you can conclude that at X meters you have Y chance of getting lethally hit.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Blast overpressure can be calculated reliably for a given weight of a specific explosive, lethal/injurious ranges have been well known for decades(largely animal testing IIRC), for fragment range you just need a bunch of silhouette targets and a few grenades

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >how do you even test that,
              Put mannequins into test site and count holes.
              https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reassessing-the-Representative-Heuristic-of-the-in-Kaufman-Moss/26427a9c90b346a9c04a01846cc338e059556b49

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >how do you even test that
              Mannequins and lab rats

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Shrapnel is weird. Sometimes you get a grain sized piece shoot right through your brain stem ad sometimes a chunk the size of your thumb punches through your left arm, miraculously missing all the nerves and blood vessels.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Black person, pretty much only tungsten could produce supersonic shrapnel.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >claymore mines don't work
        Holy frick, someone had better call up the army, fast.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lmao how the frick did you even come to that full on moron conclusion? I'm genuinely curious

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do not talk about things you don't even understand, doubleBlack person.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't post.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Akthually, tungsten would travel slower because pieces with the same surface area would require more energy to move. Aluminum shrapnel would move faster since it's the same surface area but less mass. Aluminum shrapnel just wouldn't stay supersonic for very long.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Akthually

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Old designs have small explosive charge, 1 - 2 oz (<100kj of kinetic energy in total, and irregular fragments with velocity similar to pistol bullets), modern grenades have 5-10 oz of explosive, the fragments are more uniform, smaller but faster, ~1000 m/s.

    >the shrapnel let loose probably won't be going as fast as a bullet from a gun.
    Shrapnel can be faster than bullets, up to 1-2 km/s. They have worse ballistic coefficient so they lose energy faster.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >midwit logic
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

    Most grenade shrapnel is going about 6000fps at the beginning.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The shrapnel travels about 15m on average so you can count on everyone within 15 meters getting hit. However, there's a crap ton of exceptions and several cases where someone jumped on a grenade with a backpack and survived.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Practically speaking you consider grenades to be more of a wounding weapon than a killing one. It is of course true that they can and routinely do kill but most people in frag range will be alive for at least quite some time, most people in the over pressure range will be incapacitated but not actually dead. This is ignoring terrain/structural concerns which can massively reduce grenade effectiveness. Use P for plenty, give them plenty of time to bleed out/surrender, if you're under a time constraints like assaulting a position or clearing a structure quickly then treat anyone fragged like they've been flash banged.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've been wondering lately if a grenade filled with pressurized plasma that is insulated with aerogels would have more energy than a regular chemical explosive based grenade. I don't know enough about physics to figure that out, but it seems like a neat idea for a potential way of increasing the uniformity of a grenade's lethality.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, it would have basically zero mass and be impossible to throw. If you could generate a massive frickton of plasma on detonation that was tens of millions of degrees sure but at that point you're probably throwing infantry portable nuclear grenades.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    61529750
    schizobabble

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      do you not know how quotes work on this site or what? Also why do you think that's schizobabble? Do you think that aerogels and plasma don't exist?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        go take a physics class, moron

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    »»61529763

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    61529763
    I'm pretty sure is just anon telling you your question was so stupid it didn't deserve a (you).
    Aerogels and plasma exist. The real question is why you think they'd behave anything like how you implied they might. But then again, as you said, you don't know enough about physics to figure it out. In fact, you know so little that you don't even realize just how moronic the question even is. You might as well be talking about re-configuring the main deflector dish to collect tachyon particles.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1. I know aerogels are able to insulate extremely well
      2. high temperature plasma has a lot of energy in it
      what part of thinking that you could keep plasma at a high temperature by putting it inside of a shell with an aerogel lining is particularly stupid?
      >You might as well be talking about re-configuring the main deflector dish to collect tachyon particles.
      no, those things don't actually exist (well probably don't exist in the case of tachyons), so they don't have properties that can be talked about. What I'm asking is like "could you make bullets out of DU" in terms of questions asked out of ignorance.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what part of thinking that you could keep plasma at a high temperature by putting it inside of a shell with an aerogel lining is particularly stupid?
        the fact that aerogels are incredibly weaksauce and couldn't contain a fart let alone high energy plasma. you omitted the all-important magnets, because you know frick all about plasma.
        and also the part where you think "compressed plasma" would liberate anywhere near the amount of energy as HE would.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          As the other anons have said your ignorance drastically exceeds your own comprehension. You think that you are asking a question similar to "Could you make bullets out of DU?" when what you are actually asking is "Can I use a strainer to hold water?".

          No, it would have basically zero mass and be impossible to throw. If you could generate a massive frickton of plasma on detonation that was tens of millions of degrees sure but at that point you're probably throwing infantry portable nuclear grenades.

          go take a physics class, moron

          man, you are one butthurt samehomosexual. I said I didn't know enough and hence why I wondered if it would work. Your strainer analogy is hardly apt because strainers and water are both in common use and their properties relative to one another are well known. You seem to think that if you know something, everyone else knows it, which is how toddlers think, so you might be a literal moron, while I am merely ignorant. You are right that I don't know much about plasma, so fricking magnets, why are they needed? I thought the aerogel would help insulate for a pressure containing vessel, does aerogel not perform well as a thermal insulator under pressure?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >am I moronic for spouting science buzzwords with zero understanding of what they actually mean
            >no, it must be everyone else who called me moronic

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Aerogel is incredibly brittle and would crumble if you were to breathe too hard in its direction, this is not hidden knowledge either.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As the other anons have said your ignorance drastically exceeds your own comprehension. You think that you are asking a question similar to "Could you make bullets out of DU?" when what you are actually asking is "Can I use a strainer to hold water?".

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Plasma can't be contained like that, anon. It would just react with the container. To hold any serious amount of plasma you need magnetic confinement, which is energy-intensive and difficult to do.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    shrapnel is unreliable and sucks and a marketing ad
    pure HE is the way

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shrapnel casings can be very inconsistent, sometimes you will have grenades that just split in half like a clamshell.
    Density of shrapnel also depends on the orientation of the grenade and any obstacles at ground level that might absorb it.

    It's not as funky as cannon shells though, the shrapnel from cannon shells or missiles will not only be affected by the shape of the shell, they also gain the velocity of the projectile, so they can often have strange and counterintuitive patterns depending on shell, velocity and the angle of fire.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    german nades also have bearing balls in the frag sleeve.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Source?

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Type of grenade is a key factor. Offensive grenades are much more common and intentionally weaker than they could be at their size. That's why you see so many underwhelming hits with grenades in the current publicized military testing that is Ukraine.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Less lethal than the ”sphere of instant death” that people who have never really spent time thinking about weapons tend to assume, yet far more lethal and dangerous than you might assume from drone vids.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    15 meters? that must assume being hit with shrapnel

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >So how dangerous are grenades, really?
    Well like everything that depends, different models and makes. what terrify me are ceramic sleeves as that shit does not show up well on xrays

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not the type to cry warcrime but this should unironically be a warcrime, it doesn't increase combat effectiveness and just makes you more likely to die 2 weeks later in a field hospital.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you are the type of Black person that would cry during WWI that a sniper picked off your commander while you were shelling gays with mustard gas

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean, I think it is? I know it is with bullets, don't recall off the top of my head if that applies to anti personnel explosives though.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It is, convention on certain conventional weapons "banned" them

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ceramics would show up on xrays. Xray machines measure density, not metal and the fuze would still be metal.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe but once you're full of ceramic shrapnel surgeons will have a much harder time finding that shit in your body.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          True, it would make it harder to stick you in an MRI machine to magnetically rip the shrapnel out of your flesh.

          /s

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>>/s
            GO THE FRICK BACK Black person.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >go back to /s/
              please no, that place already has enough boomers posting their fugly wife in every thread.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >twittergay tone indicator
          Kys YWNBAK

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm going to get into the defense industry so that I can design a cheap to shit out ceramic frag grenade just to spite you

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm going to get into the defense industry so that I can design a cheap to shit out ceramic frag grenade just to spite you
        Original WWII Soviet Russian Experimental Ceramic F1 Hand Grenade - Inert

        https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-wwii-soviet-russian-experimental-ceramic-f1-hand-grenade-inert?variant=19619506585669

        japs had ceramic grenades in ww2 as well

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Offensive grenades are trash because to limit the range of frag you have to use tiny frag with poor penetration so you end up with something weaker than birdshot. It'll fricking suck being filled with frag but you have to get pretty unlucky to get killed more than 3m away.
    Defensive grenades are more like people expect of a grenade but they are near extinct because few militaries want to give their stupidest infantryman a defensive grenade.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i was unaware there was a distinction can you explain what a defensive and offensive grenade is? waht kind is the US armys m67?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what a defensive and offensive grenade is?
        Defensive grenade is one that is can't be thrown further than dangerous area of its fragments.
        M67 is defensive grenade.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what do you mean it cant be thrown further? literally who cant chuck an m67 baseball 50 yards???

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >literally who cant chuck an m67 baseball 50 yards???
            You.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A defensive grenade has a greater radius of effect and is meant to be used from cover because it might throw fragments further than a human can throw it, thus potentially endangering the user; you throw it and then duck into cover, preferably a trench. Hence it would most commonly be used from defensive emplacements.

        An offensive grenade has smaller radius so it can be chucked more safely at the e enemy.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the model of grenade, no fricking surprise there. If it was an RGD-5, which knowing haji it probably was, the grenade isn't even good at killing shit. RGD-5s are basically stingball grenades but metal fragments that don't go in too far.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >So how dangerous are grenades, really?
    Depends on how moronic is the person using it.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excellent video, this should be reposted every time some moron asks about grenades

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Logic tells me [...] the shrapnel let loose probably won't be going as fast as a bullet from a gun.
    You're too dumb even for the marines, how the frick did you make it into the Army?

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Grenades are perfectly safe, stop being a pussy

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not all grenades are made equal. Conditions in which they're stored and factory defects alike can cause them to act with less than optimal fragmentation.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >But then I hear stories how Haji managed to toss a grenade through a Humvee window but everybody inside survived (albeit in very bad shape)

    Probably using Russian grenades that concuss more than injure. I've read the same thing in a few books.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I hope the guy that reacted was okay.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you hit the deck flat, head further away from it you'll survive surprisingly close

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      where should you put your arms? should yoru hands cover your ears?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        clasp them over the back of your head but likely you won't have time to worry about it

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    moron detected
    Common grenade fillings are straight TNT or Composition B.
    >TNT det velocity 6,900 m/s or ~22,000 ft/s
    >Comp B det velocity 8,000 m/s or 26,000 ft/s
    Even the most batshit overbore varminting wildcat calibers aren't even hitting a quarter of that velocity with very light bullets. It is an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's worse to be left alive in agony than instantly killed. They at minimum neutralize, but should kill. People have this idea what none fatality is ineffective, because of the cases of attackers under the influence of something.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've always wondered to myself how anyone managed to survive THREE grenades inside a small, enclosed room.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the frick was the context for this?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine is winning the war so hard that disgruntled soldier took it upon himself to punish corrupt local administrators.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It was done in Russia you Indian slime.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think the guy tossing the grenades is a Ukrainian official who got incredibly pissed off at the other officials in the room for some reason, when crazy, somehow got his hands on the grenades, and decided to suicide bomb himself. That said, what I have been led to believe could very well be disinformation from either side of the conflict. Google "Ukraine grenade attack" or something like that and make up your own mind.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I heard it was from some Russian Conscription meeting.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Holy frick you morons should update your shill-bots>61552396

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keretsky_grenade_incident

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      are women moronic? how can you be in a literal warzone, see a guy literally interrupt the room and start autistically screeching about grenades when hes holdling some alrady, then just stay sitting calmly for another 4 seconds after he tosses one in your lap

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If one of them doesn't panic, no one panics. Regardless sex.
        Crowd psychology is that absurd but that's how it works...

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What are the tactical implications of operators abusing steroids?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Losing their gains whenever they are put into a situation where they can't get their regular injections for extended periods of time. Which is exactly the kind of situations Operators are expected to go into.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't they cause heart problems if you take them for a long time?

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the grenade. Explosives degrade over time if they're not manufactured or stored properly so it's possible the Haji's grenade was just a dud.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *