|
Sunshine Mix posted:If we're going by aesthetics the Italians managed to be royal cock-ups thats surprising considering all of the great victories and generals that have come from italy
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Based on how it looks I'm going to guess that it doesn't function that well. quote:The mechanism worked as in the following, in the top of the O.T.O was a lead ball that was designed to push the striker into the primer, but it was hindered by a safety bar. While the grenade was being thrown, it is supposed that this safety bar would be removed while in the air because it is connected to the safety lever which is supposed to fall out with the force of the throw, allowing the striker to hit the primer when the lead ball hit the striker itself.[2] This would occur during impact. That's a lot of "supposeds". Also, the grenade had no timing fuze, but it would detonate on impact. So, if you screw up a throw and hit an obstacle in front of you or pulled the pin and dropped it, arrivederci.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Well here's another thought. If potato masher grenades were so great how come no modern army uses them? We drat sure stole everything else we thought was awesome: jet designs, rockets, Stg44, the m60 heavily borrows from the mg42, I think there's a European army LMG that looks exactly like a mg42. But nobody took the potato masher grenade? modern armies don't need hand grenades that you can throw farther when they have various types of grenade launchers and rocket launchers this is also why no one uses rifle grenades anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Could they have at least painted the drat thing green to help with camouflage? I feel sorry for whoever has to carry that red thing with shiny bits of metal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
its not shiny its got tactical rust
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Could they have at least painted the drat thing green to help with camouflage? I feel sorry for whoever has to carry that red thing with shiny bits of metal. i think id rather have the loving impact explosives painted bright red, preferably also with some reflective tape and way the hell away from me
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:thats surprising considering all of the great victories and generals that have come from italy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Based on how it looks I'm going to guess that it doesn't function that well. the same could be said about your cock
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:the same could be said about your cock Just like my cock it will explode at any time and cause splash damage to anybody in the vicinity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Just like my cock it will explode at any time and cause splash damage to anybody in the vicinity. And yet, small enough to be concealed in the palm!?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Griz posted:modern armies don't need hand grenades that you can throw farther when they have various types of grenade launchers and rocket launchers There's a few. Japan supposedly never adopted grenade launchers so they continue to use rifle grenades. France as well never adopted them, as well, with the FA-MAS famously having a grenade launcher sight built in. And even though they have dedicated grenade launchers, Israel uses them for urban terrain fighting since grenade launchers have a high trajectory and rocket launchers have limitations like range and backblast. The SIMON breaching rifle grenade, which actually got adopted in limited numbers in the United States, is particularly useful, since it can blow holes in walls and blow open doors. There's been talk about bringing back rifle grenades, since most everything around is still built for them: pretty much all NATO-issued assault rifles are built around the 21mm diameter and have sufficient lengths of exposed barrel to slip a rifle grenade on and attack targets in urban terrain, give riflemen close-in anti-armor support without having to be issued a bulky, disposable rocket launcher, and give them an explosive area effect option that they don't have to be skilled in grenade launchers to use. There was a similar idea called the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, which was a rifle-mounted rocket. It fired in a straight trajectory up to 300m, similar to the M16 rifle so you didn't have to use ladder sights to aim it or be a specialist grenadier to use it. It was primarily an anti-armor weapon, using a photoelectric sensor to determine the appropriate distance to target to detonate from the target. It could be used to blow man-sized holes in a structure's wall for soldiers to enter through. It would basically be as if you gave everyone an RPG shell that could be fired from a rifle and not a dedicated launcher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:There's a few. Japan supposedly never adopted grenade launchers so they continue to use rifle grenades. France as well never adopted them, as well, with the FA-MAS famously having a grenade launcher sight built in. And even though they have dedicated grenade launchers, Israel uses them for urban terrain fighting since grenade launchers have a high trajectory and rocket launchers have limitations like range and backblast. The SIMON breaching rifle grenade, which actually got adopted in limited numbers in the United States, is particularly useful, since it can blow holes in walls and blow open doors. French infantry squad (groupe) composition is bonkers. A 3 man maneuver element wearing two AT4s? A 3 man support element with a knee mortar?. Hey now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Griz posted:modern armies don't need hand grenades that you can throw farther when they have various types of grenade launchers and rocket launchers That's not true at all. M203 Grenade Launcher 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:That's not true at all. There is actually a difference between rifle grenades and grenade launchers. Similar to how rocket launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, recoilless rifles etc are all different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
I understand that but rifle grenades compared to the M203 are almost identical in terms of purpose. They just function differently since technology has gotten better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
lmao what you expect when have recruits who didn't grow up playing baseball and football
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
etalian posted:potato masher had longer range but on the flip side was less lethal than pineapple grenade since it didn't have a fragmentation effect. Blast effect is more important in a grenade than fragmentation effect. numberoneposter posted:dont bother with this one unless your enemy is already half damaged you can pretty much just take one to the dome and be ok Look at this loving giant who can barely get two fingers around a fist-sized grenade. And a Bad-rear end too, who can hold a grenade with such a weak grip and the spoon in the soft meaty part of the hand, instead of under the thumb. My Q-Face fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:I think the german grenade is better for tossing because of how you take advantage of angular momentum. I guess that can make it more accurate. However the american grenade is uh smaller I guess and easier to prime? I don't know, I think german grenades got primed by twisting off the bottom, which sounds more annoying to do that just pull a pin. tbf, who doesnt get primed that way
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Pound_Coin posted:nah, the bottom was just a screw off cap, they were armed by pulling a bead on a string that was protected by the cap or this way
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
etalian posted:lmao what you expect when have recruits who didn't grow up playing baseball and football Those instructors are on point though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Hobohemian posted:Those instructors are on point though. It's probably because they have lots of practice saving recruits who never played baseball.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:I understand that but rifle grenades compared to the M203 are almost identical in terms of purpose. They just function differently since technology has gotten better. Somewhat. I know that the APAV40 rifle grenade used by the French have more than double the explosive filler of the 40mm high-explosive grenades used in the M203. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
satanic splash-back posted:And yet, small enough to be concealed in the palm!? In the napalm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Yes, because I can't throw for poo poo and throwing sticks is easier to me than throwing rocks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Italian WW2 combat uniforms had ties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Also, the grenade had no timing fuze, but it would detonate on impact. So, if you screw up a throw and hit an obstacle in front of you or pulled the pin and dropped it, arrivederci. I read somewhere that the UK tried out a prototype impact-triggered grenade in WW2. It worked okay on the testing range until someone gave one to a US soldier to throw. First thing he did was absentmindedly toss it up and catch it, like you'd do with a baseball. So they decided it was probably a bad idea. Sticky bombs caused a lot of regret in both combat and loving-around-with situations as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:That's not true at all. Even in that picture you can see that the M203 uses a ladder sight, due to the aforementioned high trajectory of grenade launchers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
im going to hit you with a ladder
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
If you want to get into the real nitty-gritty of explosives modelling, here's some science. There's an equation called the Sadovsky equation, which allows you to determine the peak overpressure caused by various forms of explosives at a certain distance. This is why fragmentation is more important than blast effects, since the area for lethal blast effects tend to be very minor. The equation for an open air explosion at standard 1 atmosphere air pressure looks like this. The constants can change if at earth surface but open air is good enough for now.  delta-P1 is the change in pressure in atm, this will be important later when we start comparing terminal effects. k is the relative effectiveness factor or TNT equivalent of the explosive. TNT is the baseline constant here at 1, but more modern explosives tend to be a mixture. For example, Composition B, which is used in a lot of explosives such as the M67 grenade in used by American armed forces, is 60% hexogen and 40% TNT, the combination being a third more powerful than TNT. m is the mass of the explosive in kilograms. Since I'm using the M67 as an example, the Comp B filler is about 0.155kg. r is the radius in meters. Since I can't divide by zero, I'll go ahead and figure the base figure for contact at 0.33m which is about a foot distance. For the M67 grenade, the explosion will generate a peak overpressure change of about +50atm. At about 0.66m (or around 2 feet), the change drops to about +7.93atm. At 1m, the overpressure change is at +2.88atm. At 2m, the overpressure change is +0.66atm, and at 3m, the overpressure change is +0.32atm. Now, what does this all mean? Well, here's a handy chart for what these overpressure changes can do to the human body... quote:You can also use the following general observations on action of blastwave on overage human (1 kg/cm2 ~ 1 atm): So, at from contact to about 2/3 of a meter, it will blow off something completely, yet at 1 meter, you could be pretty banged up and survive. At 2 meters, you probably have burst eardrums and have permanent loss of hearing and at 3 meters, the only thing wrong with you is that your ears are probably ringing for a bit. But that drop off in overpressure in that first meter is why you get stuff like this... ...where the grenade went off in his hand and he survived. It's also why you've heard of guys throwing themselves on grenades with their buddies nearby and getting killed or blown in half while the rest of the squad is okay. What's even more interesting is that there's a separate chart for determining building damage... quote:
Yeah, you read that right. You can easily survive an explosion that would knock down a reinforced concrete wall. Now, I've been saying that fragmentation is why grenades get their lethality from. That's a whole other few sets of equations called the Gurney equations, which allows someone to model how fast the fragments are going when the liner is broken up by the explosion. Typically, these speeds are measured in kilometers per second. However, I'm not as well-versed with this as I am with the Sadovsky formulas and can not get an accurate reading, so I'll just end this here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
im concerned about her posture
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
im concerned about that dog
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
ive heard of navies using concussion grenades as point defense against underwater threats, ie frogmans, and poo poo. does the denser medium make that equation differ in any way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Even in that picture you can see that the M203 uses a ladder sight, due to the aforementioned high trajectory of grenade launchers. Uh.... yes. You made a correct observation there. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:ive heard of navies using concussion grenades as point defense against underwater threats, ie frogmans, and poo poo. does the denser medium make that equation differ in any way? underwater explosions are actually more dangerous because of how the blast waves travel
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:ive heard of navies using concussion grenades as point defense against underwater threats, ie frogmans, and poo poo. does the denser medium make that equation differ in any way? Likely, although there may actually be another equation used all together. Sadly, I can't continue on this since I need sleep and have work tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:underwater explosions are actually more dangerous because of how the blast waves travel i literally thought this but my physics is outdated as poo poo lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:45
|
|