Modified American hand grenades ?

[WWII]

While I despise the muslims and their terrorist tactics.

I came across this video clip which was a real eye-opener on what the muslims are doing to the israelis.

I thought the part where they are modifying American grenades to be more powerful.

I thought it would be good to turn the tables against the muslims with these modified hand grenades.

Only problem I see, these grenades are so powerful that they could shatter both the arabic terrorist and the American throwing the hand grenade so how strong can a grenade be built before it becomes too dangerous to throw at close range ?

This video clip is alittle long so please forgive me, this is the concise version but it is still too long so if you have approximately 20 minutes. You can watch this video clip, keep watching for the part where American grenades are made.

The video clip is also a real eye opener into the mind, the mentality of an islamic muslim terrorist. :eek:

Memri Video Clip #1188 Broadcast: July 4, 2006

Title of Video: Hamas 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades - Training and Ideology (Concise Version)

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1188.htm

[LibertyOrDeath]

Fascinating video. The Palestinian freedom fighters seem to have made enviable progress in the art and science of improvised munitions. Those hand grenades looked downright professional, though I imagine reliability suffers when manufacturing under oppressive guerrilla conditions. In any event, I wish those so-called "terrorists" all the best in their struggle against Jewish-supremacist tyranny and the savage brutality (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0%2C%2C2196019%2C00.html) that marks the occupation of their land.

Only problem I see, these grenades are so powerful that they could shatter both the arabic terrorist and the American throwing the hand grenade so how strong can a grenade be built before it becomes too dangerous to throw at close range?Of course there's such a thing as a grenade that's too powerful and too heavy, but exactly what that means depends on the circumstances in which the grenade is used. For example, a frag grenade is obviously much more dangerous to the thrower when not thrown from behind good cover.

For a grenade that relies primarily (or completely) on blast overpressure to cause casualties, it's a bit easier to answer the question (this has been briefly discussed elsewhere).

As I was once informed by NBK on another thread, a 10-fold increase in the weight of an explosive charge doubles the effective casualty-producing radius. To get a reference point, we can note that the US-issued MK3A2 concussion grenade contains a charge of 8 ounces of TNT. It relies solely on blast overpressure to produce casualties, and its effective radius is 2 m.

Thus, even 80 ounces (5 lbs) of TNT would have a casualty-producing radius of only 4 m (13 ft). While that radius seems rather low to me, the effective radius of 2 m that we're using as a reference may only refer to that within which significant casualties are essentially guaranteed. There's certainly going to be a non-negligible probability of casualties out to a considerably larger radius.

[WWII]

Well, here is the full version of that video clip:

Title of Video: Hamas 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades - Training and Ideology (Full Version)

Clip #1191 Broadcast: July 4, 2006

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1191.htm

[WWII]

This video clip is a real eye-opener. :eek:

Watch for the part with the hand grenade.

This video was created for the Marine Corps' Project Metropolis, to help illustrate the effects of various USMC weapons against the kind of ... all » all urban structures one can expect to find on the modern MOUT battlefield.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6464268208010199091&q=us+army+rifle+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=46&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[WWII]

Here are a couple videos I thought you guys would enjoy:

Basic Grenade Training

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsib3V6GO6M

Here is what a proper explosives factory looks like:

Pakistan Ordnance Factory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wy8i8EXuPM

[Zait]

I thought the part where they are modifying American grenades to be more powerful.

Those aren't modified American hand grenades. The grenade that it is modeled off of is the M26/M61 Fragmentation grenade which is made of sheet metal with a pre-formed internal frag sleeve.

The grenade shown appears to be an aluminum machined body with a steel ball fragmentation matrix inside.

Here is a decent page that explains the difference between the American Frag and Practice grenades. http://www.inertord.com/grenhelem.html

These grenades are referred to as "Defensive" grenades because to use them safely you need to be in a defensive position (under and behind cover) to keep from becoming a casualty.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

The use of blast (offensive) as opposed to fragmentation (defensive) is not necessarily new. While it takes a significant amount of energetic material to make the former effective - it's use would be confined to enclosed areas (bunkers) while the later would be utilized in an aggressive forward movement. The Dutch had a "mini-grenade" on the world arms market that utilized as little as 1/2 ounce of HE in a golf ball sized fragmentation device.

The miniaturization of the fragments was determined to maintain much less velocity out past 50 yrs and present less potential casualties to friendly elements. The old MKII with it's cast iron large fragments maintained fragmentation up to 250 yrds and posed a serious threat to friendly forces, etc. This effect can be seen in plastic and even the old "glass-mine" of WWII.

[Alexires]

That's strange Liberty. See, I always thought that (ideally) the energy from an explosion is distributed in a sphere around the charge, and the energy per unit space falls according to the equation of the surface area of a sphere (4πr2) Hence, the energy 1 metre from the centre of an explosion is 1/4π than at the centre of the explosion.

Using these assumptions, then to double the blast radius (have the same energy per unit space twice as far out) only 32 ounces would be needed, instead of the 8. Eg. If 8 ounces gives a blast kill radius of 2 metres, then 32 ounces gives a blast kill radius of 4 metres. Of course, this doesn't take into account reflection of blast waves etc, but 80 ounces is a little high it seems to me.

I could be totally wrong, and I'm damn sure NBK knows more than me, but it's always good to verify (RTPB).

[WWII]

Interesting discussion here ....

Liberty, It has always bothered me when I see people saying that they support the Palestinian cause.

How is it that the Palestinians bomb Israeli civilian city bus driver and the innocent passengers ? Yet, you will never see Israeli soldiers bombing the Palestinian bus service if they have one or drive into the Palestinian areas with a bomb laden taxi-cab ?

I would understand if the Palestinians were targeting only the Israeli military convoy passing by or the Israeli military operates their own bus service, separate from the Israeli civilian city bus service.

That still does not make it right for the Palestinians to be attacking an Israeli military convoy. I think it is about time that the Palestinians leave Israel alone. The Wall is there to protect not just the Israelis but both of them on each side so that peace can co-exist.

In church I was told that the land rightfully belongs to Israel and it makes sense. The U.N. gave the land to Israel in one day, prophetically just like it was told in the Bible, in one day, Israel was founded as God had said in the Bible.

Now another one is, how is strapping on explosives and walking into an Israeli restaurant exactly a military strategy ? It is not even a military strategy. It is terrorism, pure and simple.

Do you see any Israelis walking into a Palestinian internet cafe and bombing themselves, obviously you will never see that happen.

I mean the list goes on, and for this reason I am with the Israelis on this one. I realize there are a few bad apples in the Israeli military, just like we have here with the U.S. Military, we have some bad apples, I can't remember if it was the US Army or the US Marine that raped a 12 yr. old islamic girl then set her on fire. That was sick, that was a bad apple right there. Most of the U.S. Military serving overseas are serving our country with honor, pride and dignity, just like the Israeli military is serving their country with honor, pride and dignity.

I think alots of the news media is very anti-semitic today and I always go to www.honestreporting.com anytime the arabs or the news media like the British BBC are saying things about Israel then I just check to see what the real story is on that.

Now, for the hand grenades, I figure if the Palestinians are building the grenades more powerfully, that can only mean one thing, they are suicidal so it does not matter to them if they have a suicide vest on or just throwing the grenade and he still gets hurt or killed by his own grenade even from a far distance, the blast still blew him away.

I was wondering if the American grenades we have could be made alittle more powerful without injury to ourselves, while killing the muslim hordes, in American national self defense.

I mean the U.S Military should re-evaluate their grenades then build small range grenades for close quarter combat ( smallest grenade, only causes injury or death to the enemy ) then medium range grenades and long range grenades. Maybe build a grenade based off the model of the claymore with the pineapple hand grenade saying " front towards the enemy "

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m18-claymore.htm

and it has to be thrown in that particlur direction to prevent injuries for the U.S. Troops. One side panel has nothing then another side has the pineapple pattern. That was my question.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Alexires:

I think your reasoning about the inverse square law is a good starting point. We can also think of what you described there in terms of gas flow rather than energy: if we have a flow of matter (gas) radially outward from a central point, the flux density of the gas molecules will taper off with an inverse-square relationship, just like you said. (It's kind of like the flux of a point charge in Gauss' law from electrostatics.)

However, as we move farther away from the center of the explosion, the average velocity of the blast wave is going to be decreasing at some rate, and the shape of the wave will also presumably be evolving (due to differing velocities within the wave itself). This is where things probably get pretty complicated -- especially when it comes to analyzing how the shape of a blast wave determines its effects on a living thing. Heck, even the position of a person's body with respect to a blast can have an effect on any injuries sustained, so we're dealing with an awful lot of variables here.

I know Cooper's Explosives Engineering covers a lot of this stuff, so if I get some time, I'll try to study up on it and report back. (If anyone else also wants to do this, a nice PDF of that book is available on the FTP in /UPLOAD/Diabolique/Explosives/Theory/ .) Also, maybe NBK will get a chance to chime in here and shed some light on this.

WWII: I didn't want to sidetrack this thread with too much political discussion, so I started a new thread in Issues & Opinions that has my reply to your last post in it.

[Man Down Under]

Maybe it's the volume of the sphere, and not the surface area, that's relevant.

[Alexires]

Liberty - I wholly agree with you. The amount of variables are staggering. I was merely making reference to the fact that from your statement, over a 2 fold increase in explosive is required to achieve what the (very basic) theoretical approach hypothesised.

I haven't read that book yet. I just kind of imagined it in my head. I'll have to give it a read too.

[Zait]

Using these assumptions, then to double the blast radius (have the same energy per unit space twice as far out) only 32 ounces would be needed, instead of the 8. Eg. If 8 ounces gives a blast kill radius of 2 metres, then 32 ounces gives a blast kill radius of 4 metres. Of course, this doesn't take into account reflection of blast waves etc, but 80 ounces is a little high it seems to me.



I'm not sure if the inverse square law would really fit into that realm.

The military uses what is called the "Relative Effectiveness" factor for explosives which gives a quick reference point for the interchangability of explosives for a given job. The RE scale revolves around TNT which is expressed as the baseline of 1. Find the RE factor for an explosive and in theory you can replace explosive A with an equivelent ammount of explosive B and accomplish the same thing. There are a few problems with that though.

The MK II hand grenade is a good example. Originally filled with EC Blank Powder (RE being around .6) the filler was replaced with granular TNT (RE of 1) and eventually finalized with Cast TNT (again RE of 1). One might think that the granular TNT and cast would give fragments of the same size, weight and that they would travel the same distance. Unfortunately this is not the case and the cast TNT far out performed the granular.

What I'm trying to get at here is that there are far more variables that have to be calculated than just the weight of the explosive to increase the effectiveness of a hand grenade.