Talk:Hand grenade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dirty tricks[edit]

I removed the Dirty tricks section, seen below. I don't see the point of having this section. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to be in the business of providing how-to's on explosive booby-traps. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 04:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well-prepared soldiers carry a roll of duct tape to repair equipment. With practice with dummy grenades, it is fairly easy to learn to construct simple booby traps from duct tape and a grenade.

Such an example of a booby trap is to trap a door frame. Place the grenade about half an arm-length above one's head (most people do not look up; they watch their feet or their hands). When the door is opened, the booby trap should release the grenade's handle. The grenade should stay in place up high, so that it cannot be kicked away.

Booby traps are also used on vehicle gas tanks, and in doing so, are triggered when the vehicle drives away.

I disagre I really dont see any conection between booby trapsa nd hand grenads

I disagree. Anybody with a grenade will not need Wikipedia, while many of those researching grenades may be doing so for purposes of writing literature, fiction, etc where this is useful information. I vote for it being kept, but perhaps leading to an off-site reference rather than going into too many details. -- 10:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. I do see your point, but on the other hand, most people doing this won't be looking it up in Wikipedia, most people who read it in Wikipedia won't want to run out and try it, and very few will probably be able to because you can't exactly just walk down to the store and buy a grenade -- in regions you can, I wouldn't exactly consider myself safe! --Furrykef 08:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In addition, perhaps this should be moved to "hand grenade"? It only discusses grenades operated by the hand, but what about grenade launchers and rocket propelled grenades? Clearly these are not hand grenades if not operated by the hand, but many of the principles apply. (I'll correct the article's incorrect implicit assertion that all grenades are hand-operated now.) --Furrykef 08:48, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since no one opposed User:Furrykef, I moved the article. This article doesn't mention anything about any other grenades than those that are thrown. I fixed almost all double-redirects but those that actually need to link to "grenade" instead of "hand grenade". I could also fix other articles that link to grenade when they actually mean hand grenades. We need a separate grenade article. For now it can just redirect to hand grenade. --ZeroOne 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that this could work well if you did an article about tripwires and other military traps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

safety feature[edit]

I remember reading something about some modern hand grenades having microcontroller/accelerometer controlled detonators, designed so they don't go off if you simply drop them at your feet (think in terms of measuring the duration of zero-g motion). Can anyone confirm/deny this? -- The Anome 09:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not in hand grenades but (some) rifle grandes etc..., yes. Its so you dont do somrthing dumb like fire your underbarrell grenade launcher at point blank range. On the M79 for example, it needs to travel a certain distance to arm itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

High explosive grenades[edit]

Under which category would high explosive (offensive) grenades, like the British No. 69 fit? Oberiko 02:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reckon that it belongs alongside the Mills bomb, Steilhandgranate, and the like. The problem is that 'fragmentation' is too restrictive, it ought to be renamed anti personnel grenades. Presumabley the flying bakelite did cause some injuries on top of the blast. Go on! You make the change. GraemeLeggett 16:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smoke grenades[edit]

Whoever keeps removing what I put up about where to buy smokes grenades needs to STOP. I don't see what is wrong with providing where to buy them. They are great for paintball. No matter how many times you remove it I will continue to post it. From: The angry Mr. Smokey

YOU need to stop putting that in.
1)because its against the no-advertising policy of wikipedia.
2) It's only useful to a small number of people - those who want to buy smoke grenades AND live in that geographical area. GraemeLeggett 16:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP toxicity[edit]

I qualified the statment slightly The quoted toxicity values for ingestion are between 1 and 16 mg per kilo body weight: 70 mg to 1120 mg for a medium adult.


"The hand sized Mills bomb with a cast iron casing is an example of a defensive grenade, the Stielhandgrenate with a tinplate canister around the explosive and a handle is a classic example of the latter."

This sentence should be two sentences (no comma). Also, is the Stiel really a defensive grenade?

Timeing mechanisms[edit]

Didn't early HGs use an acid timing mechanism? Rich Farmbrough 14:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some british antitank/incindary ones in WW2 did, you had to break a glass bulb to release the acid and strat the reaction (kind of like a glowstick) (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Throwing the pin[edit]

From the article: "A common mistake is grasping the grenade in the weak hand, pulling the pin and then throwing the pin." Now, I'm not in the military, but this doesn't really strike me as a particularly common mistake to make. -- 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I just noticed the same thing and came here to check if it had been discussed. It's got to be hooey. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In fact strikes me as the sort of mistake one makes only once......Rodney420 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As a US Soldier two things about this article struck me as off, but perhaps still correct:

(1) "US and other NATO soldiers (with the exception of the US Marines) are trained not to "burn off" or "cook off" grenades..."

I went threw basic training at Ft. Knox in 2000 and did train on cooking off grenades. Perhaps that isn't what they were suppose to train me in, but in my 6-year military career (including a deployment to Iraq) I have never been told not to cook-off my grenades.

(2) All US soldiers going through Basic Combat Training (BCT) for the US Army must throw a live grenade. So the caption on the picture of the soldier throwing a grenade that says throwing a dummy grenade is a part of Basic Training is misleading (though that might be what the soldier pictured is in fact doing).

Same. In the UK armed forces you use them in training (but only one or two, mainly its dummies) and you are told how to cook off, although you are advised not to use it unless you need to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NO! You do not wait[edit]

R. Lee Ermy (Hoped I spelled that right) is the marine sergeant famous for calling people Maggot and operating a show called "Mail Call" In one episode he explained better then I this fallacy.

In modern training a soldier DOES NOT hold onto a grenade after the pin is pulled. The reason for this is that grenades are mass produced and such are subject to flaws. While a grenade may be intended to go off in 5-7 seconds this does not always happen.

Ermy demonstrated this with a grenade instructor. The Instructor used dummy grenades which only ignited smoke. He threw five grenades, three exploded on time. One exploded late, the last exploded after two seconds. Had a soldier been holding onto this grenade and counting down he and anyone near him would have died had it been the real thing. A soldier who does not want a grenade thrown back throws the grenade so that it will bounce off of something, or roll around making it difficult for the enemy to grab it. Holding onto a grenade and counting down is a sure way to die.

This is a hundred percent wrong. The technique is called "cooking off," and it is taught, practiced, and used. Jrkarp 04:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah where did you get your information from? And for that matter how many grenades have you cooked off? And if you were military how long ago? And for that matter what is this bit in the article about holding the handle while cooking off, the thing doesn't arm until the spoon is released. If you are intentionally trying to shave time before you throw the weapon holding the spoon contradicts the whole process.

And for you personally Mister Karp I noticed your little comment. Just because I used a quotation from "Mail Call" does not mean I am citing him as my singular source of information. It is called quoting somebody. You see in our culture we often quote people who do an articulate job of describing or explaining something in order to convey a point.

Don't take things so personally. Geez. Plus, sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~); it puts your username and date of edit after the post. Now, onto your points:
  • I am not going to publicly discuss my military experience; if I wanted to it would be on my user profile along with the note about being a lawyer.
  • I did not add the part about holding the handle while cooking off. I'm going to do a rewrite of parts of this article, and that part will be changed.
  • I know why you used a quotation from "Mail Call," but you added information to the main page of this article, and your only justification for it was having seen the episode of Mail Call. See Wikipedia:Cite_sources.
  • I most definitly know what it means to quote someone, but you have to provide a reference, like an episode number or at least an air date, so it is verifiable.
If you want to disagree with U.S. Army publications and insist your point is right, we can post a RFC and ask others to weigh in. However, I think that a U.S. Army Field Manual is pretty dispositive on this point. Jrkarp 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if you are going to complain that the version is outdated, I found the 2005 revision of that FM in PDF format , but for some reason TRADOC documents can now only be accessed by people with an AKO account. However, Google's "View as HTML" function works for some reason and a cached HTML version can be read here (as of today anyway): The section about cooking off is unchanged from the earlier revision. If I can find a PDF version of the 2005 revision, I will post a link. Jrkarp 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found a download that does not require a password: These documents are not secret and have always been publicly available, so I have no idea why some of the Army sites require a login to access them. Jrkarp 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, maybe its just us guys in Air Force Secuirty who teach not to cook off, either way I'll accept the article as it is now. As I recall I did not add the Mail Call information to the article directly but kept it in the talk page, if I did add it to the article itself it was unintentional. Klauth 03:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That may be true. You guys don't generally have to deal with MOUT, bunker assaults, or the like.
The material you did add paralleled the Mail Call information, so you can see why I thought that was where you got it from. In any case, I am glad that we worked this out.
BTW, FM 3-23.30 does say that grenades are only to be cooked off in actual combat, so maybe that is part of where Ermy got it from. Maybe the Marines "officially" discourage the practice. In any case, I personally would not want to throw a frag into a room full of OPFOR without cooking it off a second or two. Jrkarp 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same. British army soldiers are discouraged from cooking off unless absolutely nececerrary in actual combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Hand Grenades?[edit]

I think the history can be expanded to include grenades from ancient times in asia...

Initial picture wrong[edit]

Gents, your initial picture of what you call "A WWII-era MkIIA1 "pineapple" fragmentation hand grenade" is actually a commercial reproduction of an M21 practice grenade body using an M228 practice grenade fuze (that is normally used with the M69 practice grenade). Just letting you know that I will be changing the picture to one that actually shows what you describe. --Eodtek 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Percussion? Grenades[edit]

No such thing. A grenade which detonates or activates on impact is referred to as, "impact fused". "percussion", in ordnance terminology, refers to a technique of activating a weapon system by impact of a striker or firing pin on a percussion cap. While some impact fusing methods use percussion systems, the Russian RGO/RGD for example, they are still simply impact fused grenades. In normal discussion, they're simply referred to as, "impact grenades."

Propaganda Grenades?[edit]

I read in an older book and another source that the German forces during the Second World War actually produced hand and rifle grenades containing propaganda leaflets. I can't imagine them being even vaguely effective, but wonder if something could or should be added to this wiki article.

They indeed did exist. I'll add some info. shortly.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sting Grenade[edit]

What is the level of risk of damage to the target individual? I would think such a device could put out an eye at the very least, and perhaps do serious soft-tissue damage. This could be lethal if the soft tissue in question were the throat. Anyone have any information on this?

Septegram 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They all have a risk. Nasty burns can be caused by the stun grenades the SAS used. In the iranian embassy siege they set the place on fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incendiary Grenades[edit]

The passage "Thermate and white phosphorus" was changed to "Thermite and white phosphorous." However, elsewhere in the article we do see references to thermate. (all italics mine) Which is correct in this context? Septegram 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TherMITE is what its called here in the UK armed forces. Dont know about in the US english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah its TherMITe here in the UK (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MILES Grenades[edit]

An example of a MILES (laser light stimulation) grenade, developed by Sandia labs for the US Gov't, is found here: . These grenades can be used in MILES training (training using blanks and laser light) Raylopez99 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MILHIST Assessment[edit]

Easily a B-class. I don't know if this is quite ready for GA or A-class nomination, but within my personal conception of the assessment system, it's at the top edge of B-class. Length and depth is great - you've discussed not only the basic grenade, but its history, the etymology of the word, and a good number of the most common types of grenades. Plus there's tons of pictures. Thank you for mentioning the Chinese origins and pre-modern history of the grenade concept. Far too many articles on modern militaries skip that part entirely. Good work. LordAmeth 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flashbang - 180 dB?[edit]

Is this correct? (I've been close to more than one flash powder detonation in my time, and the noise is truly mind-buggering). However, according to the Acoustic Weapons Page, anything over 160 dB, even at short exposure, can cause eardrum rupture and permanent hearing loss. (120 dB is the pain threshold). Can someone fact-check this?

Sound level depends on distance, and there's no standard measuring distance. A flashbang might measure 180 dB at six inches, but 160 dB at ten feet. --Carnildo 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

flashbangs CAN cause permanent hearing loss and/or eardrum rupture. They are nasty wee things, and can also cause fires.

Safety handle incorrectly called a spoon?[edit]

Under the heading "Characteristics" and the subheading "Using grenades," the article describes the safety handle as "sometimes incorrectly called a 'spoon.'" But I think this term is popular enough among actual members of the armed forces that it should be considered a nickname, not a mistake. It’s not like they don’t know the proper name, they just choose to call it a spoon.

yeah its a spoon to most soldiers

Yeah its a called both here in the UK (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


are they legal in the US?

Well, obviously if you're walking around downtown wearing a belt of frag grenades you're bound to raise some sort of suspicion, and I can't think of any scenarios where actually discharging one would be justified (impractical for hunting, too dangerous for self-defense), so my guess would be no. It's a hard subject to track down... Phort99 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're as legal as any other explosive weapon or ammunition round is in the United States - They're classified as a "Destructive Device" under Federal law, and you have to have either a Destructive Devices manufacturers, importers, or dealers Federal Firearms License, or BATF item-by-item approval, and a $200 transfer tax payment per item you purchase as an individual. There is no blanket prohibition (the Military buys its materiel from manfacturers licensed under these laws, and there are legal arms import/export dealers, and others who have permits for them). Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My friend claimed that grenades are not timed. He says this because he saw a video of a man holding a few people hostage with a grenade. The man pulled the pin and the grenade did not explode for the duration of the entire video. I thought it was possible to prevent the fuse from lighting by holding a safety switch down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The timer starts once the lever is released. It's so that you don't have to pull the pin and throw immediately (among other things). — SheeEttin {T/C} 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not entirely there are granades that detonate on impact.--Tresckow 23:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flashbang image[edit]

Anyone like the images [1] or [2]? The first is a model from the game America's Army, so it's PD-Government, I think. The second is a replica M84, probably copyrighted. — SheeEttin {T/C} 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Napoleonic Wars[edit]

In the "History" section, I find it odd that it skips from "ineffective" grenades in the English Civil War to the American Civil War two centuries later; in between, grenades were obviously used and improved as well. Reading through Tolstoy's War and Peace, I find that grenades are often mentionned; not only that, but, obviously, there are soldiers reffered to as "grenadiers". So it seems to me that, perhaps, there would be something worth mentionning with regards to eighteenth and early nineteenth century usage as well, no? 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were used extensively in war(s) between the english and the french, and also had a major role in naval ship boarding. (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were used extensively in formal siege warfare in the final stage of the assault on the covered way and defense of the ramparts. I have some references -including on to a stock of 36,000 grenades in store at one fortress- which I can hopefully addBenvenuto (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This fault is still there in the article, skipping two hundred years of history that included the development of grenadiers as specialist elite assault troops around the War of the Spanish Succession. "When e'er we are commanded To storm the palisades Our leaders march with fusees And we with hand-grenades..." Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello everybody, and sorry for my bad english.

It is right to warn you that I have just made this diagram, and I made an [[english version version. Here!

Cordially 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) WakléReply[reply]

That Chinese picture[edit]

No disrespect to the Chinese who almost certainly invented gun powder, but am I the only one who is sceptical about that picture of a "hand grenade"? It looks to me like a demon carrying a flaming orb.--MacRusgail 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pulling out the pin with your teeth![edit]

Hi guys, great article!

I heard somewhere that you need 5lbs of pressure to pull out a grenade pin (I have no way of verifying this, in fact I think my crusty old dad said it to me, and I have not idea what 5lbs of pressure equates to) and therefore it can't be done with your teeth.

Do we think this should be mentioned in the article somewhere, as most people seem to believe that it can be done. I've had a bit of trouble finding good sources but I have these;

Let me know what you think guys.

Also I know one of the presenters tried it and couldn't do it on Mythbusters Episode 81 - Grenades and Guts (Hand Grenade Hero). Ryan4314 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If your teeth can't stand five pounds of lateral force, you need to see a dentist. Key point is that you don't grip it between your incisors, you grip it between your molars. --Carnildo (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't think it was possible, I just can't find a decent source. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much as I love Mythbusters, that Adam couldn't pull a pin out of a modern grenade doesn't mean it couldn't be done with WWII American grenades, or foreign grenades, or antique grenades, or by someone who was really desperate. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It cant be done because the majority of troops bend the pin at the side away from the pullring as a safety feature - means it needs much more forse to pull the pin out (got to pull with enough force to deform the pin back to normal) its handy as you can do it with a hand but not if its caught on something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folks, Anyone pulling the pin from a WW2 Pineapple grenade with their teeth -- ie even in desperation -- is going to be minus teeth and the pin will still be in the grenade.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American Civil War and "Vasic"[edit]

I introduced the paragraph about grenade use in American Civil War and revised the text about "Vasic" granade, written in poor English (although the mine is also not perfect). The possible Serbian participation in the plot was subject of POV Dispute in the article on Assassination in Sarajevo, so I found better to drop "false accussation" and use "alleged participation". (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stun grenade nomenclature[edit]

The paragraph on stun grenades opens with this bit:

Invented by the SAS in the 60's, the term stun grenade, while in widespread use in games and the media, is actually a misnomer; the typical "flashbang" (or "bang") deployed by a civilian law enforcement tactical team in the US is technically not a grenade. There are numerous mechanical and end-use differences between an NFDD (noise flash diversionary device) and a stun grenade (or in fact a grenade of any type). Most professional organizations dealing in SWAT/police special operations take great pains to teach their officers to differentiate between an NFDD and a true grenade. This is largely due to frequently spurious lawsuits but also admittedly to avoid the negative connotation of the term "grenade".

But according to the "Characteristics" paragraph:

Hand grenades have four characteristics:

  • Their employment range is short
  • Their effective casualty radius is small
  • Their delay element permits safe throwing;
  • Their hard shell enables grenades to ricochet off hard surfaces, like walls, before detonating.

So even according to the article itself, the term 'stun grenade' is not a misnomer at all (to me, not calling it a grenade just seems like classic doublespeak - presumably for the reasons outlined in the second half of the first quote). I'm slapping a "citation needed" on this. Kolbasz (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The characteristics above are descriptive rather than defining... Also, the US Military grenades manual does in fact define stun grenades as grenades: [3]:
Stun hand grenades are used as diversionary or distraction devices during building and room clearing operations when the presence of noncombatants is likely or expected and the assaulting element is attempting to achieve surprise. The following is a description of the M84 diversionary/flash-bang stun hand grenade and its components (Figure 1-13).
So... I think we can probably dispose of that section safely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's missing in the article is that a grenade is defined in relation to other ordnance. It's not just something you can point at and say "Oh, that's a grenade." The comparative questions are those such as: Is shot from a gun barrel? Is it dropped from a plane? Is it placed by hand, or thrown? Or fired? Does it explode on contact, or after a period of time? (I.e., is it a bullet, or a bomb, or a mine, or a mortar, or...what?)
The four quoted points above have several problems, some related to the "modern-centric" view of grenades. But also, the wording is too specific in some ways, but too inexact in others. E.g.,, what is a "short" range? Why should being able to ricochet be an essential feature? Piano non troppo (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Is shot from a gun barrel? Is it dropped from a plane? Is it placed by hand, or thrown? Or fired?". You guys are thinking that all grenades are hand grenades. they are not. Some grenades are contact or time, or distance travelled (airburst). Grenades can fire from the end of a normal gun barrell, from a launcher, from a weapon mounted on a tank, by hand, by weapons mounted on a helicopter etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grenades explode if being sawn[edit]

There were several occasions in Vietnam in which people died when trying to saw grenades. They did that to sell the metals as recyclable materials or to get the explosives. Is there any possible way to saw a grenade without causing an explosion? I wonder if it's 100% sure that sawing a grenade will cause it to explode, no matter whether the safety pin is removed or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophisticate20 (talkcontribs) 08:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be nice to have a newspaper citation for your Vietnam statement, then we could add it to the article. Let us know what you find out on your other question. --CliffC (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, obviously, as in there is some explosives in it(i think most used CompB (RDX and TNT) ). In the last 20 years, most armies have stopped making grenades with these, as they arent very stable (read: likely to go off ig you try and bloody saw it in half) (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Sawing' links, in Vietnamese[edit]

People died when trying to saw grenades ( and saw 105-mm shells as well ( and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophisticate20 (talkcontribs) Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the effort, but unfortunately these links would not be of use in the English language Wikipedia. --CliffC (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you learn me.wich taype made by hand grenade —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incendiary grenades are not indended to be thrown.[edit]

Because they are not intended to be thrown, thermate incendiary grenades generally have a shorter delay fuse than other grenades (e.g. two seconds).

And if they're not thrown, they're used how? Teleportation? It would make sense to explain how it's supposed to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have wrote and researched defense articles since the early 1980s. The person is right. Thermite grenades, while they look like smoke grenades were never intended to be thrown. Their original use was for for destruction of tank cannons and artillery pieces if they could not be withdrawn or abandoned. The breach is opened, the Thermite grenade is put inside and the breach is closed. It will melt the breach and slide cover together. Thermite grenades will also, do a number on vehicle engines. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit Photo[edit]

Is there a reason why this photo is up-side-down? (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos moved and/or removed[edit]

I made a few edits to the article, and moved or removed pictures to reduce a lot of white space. Also seemed to be too many pictures (was ≈27 now ≈22), some of which were not referred to in the text. Here is what I have left out, 5 of the 6 photos that were towards the top of the page:

  • [[File:US Navy 080128-N-7415V-001 Petty Officer 2nd Class David Crabb, assigned to Navy Embedded Training Team 3-205th Garrison, throws a hand grenade during weapons familiarization training.jpg|thumb|[[M67 grenade]].]]
  • [[File:F1 grenade DoD.jpg|thumb|[[F1 grenade (Russia)|Russian F1 grenade]].]]
  • [[File:Grenade RGD-5 Navy.jpg|thumb|[[RGD-5|RGD-5 (Soviet)]]]]
  • [[File:M67b.jpg|thumb|An [[M67 grenade]], used primarily by the [[United States armed forces|U.S.]] and [[Canadian Forces|Canadian military]].]]
  • [[File:IDET2007-grenades-cutaway-detail.jpg|thumb|German Manufacture DM61A1 and DM78A1 grenades]]

- 220.101 talk\Contribs 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hand grenadeGrenade — The hand prefix is seldom used. Hand grenade gets 119,000 hits and a search for publications using the word grenade but omitting the phase "hand grenade" gets 904,000 hits. The article should be renamed per WP:Common name. Marcus Qwertyus 04:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • And multipurpose grenades that can either be thrown or fired. Marcus Qwertyus 20:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also Rocket propelled grenade, so I oppose this move, as the phrase "hand grenade" is the correct name and serves as a useful disambiguation. -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • This article covers all of those so that sounds more like an argument for moving it. Marcus Qwertyus 05:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, since grenade already redirects here Purplebackpack89 04:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose there are many types of grenades, hand grenades being only one type. A disambiguation page should sit at the primary name. (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The comments by by Anthony Appleyard and the editor from IP are correct, but not even a complete survey of the various sorts of grenade. The more precise title is necessary. Gavia immer (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Most people use the term "grenade" to cover a whole history and family of weapons. A move would confuse a lot of people and accomplish little. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. There should be an article at Grenade with this one providing more detail about Hand grenades just as there's one for Anti-tank grenade's. A temporary move of this one to Grenade then splitting out most of the voluminous detail about hand grenades into its own Hand grenade article might be a good idea, though. Jamesday (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two articles[edit]

Is anyone aware that there's a page called 'Grenade' Something makes me feel like that should be merged into this... Anyone want to look into it?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 04:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article is about all types of grenade. Marcus Qwertyus 04:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I missed the recent move request. Never mind.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grenade Fishing...[edit]

I've spoken to two vietnam vets who've told me stories of throwing concussion or frag grenades into rivers to stun/kill fish (and then cooked them on a C4 brick...) Never heard of them doing this to kill swimmers. It seems reasonable to me, just doesn't seem likely that the only reason they threw grenades in the river was to kill VC. I don't know if there should be something about this, but...the 'unofficial' story sounds slightly different to me. Khallus Maximus (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My dad was in Vietnam I remember him telling me about this I never heard about them cooking it on C4 bricks but the did float out in the rivers and use "fishing grenades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Schlarb (talkcontribs) 00:56, 17 April 2015

Anti-tank grenade and slat armour[edit]

Copied here from Sjö's talk page:

Hi Sjö,

I saw your revert of the edit on the page & you asked me to come to talk.

While Stars & Stripes is the "independent news and information to the U.S. military community" they're staffed by journalists who often do not have the depth of knowledge of munitions that serving soldiers do, this is the same for newspapers, military or otherwise, in most countries. I'm sure you've noticed this in Sweden too. The threat for which slat armour had been developed was the anti-armour RPG which, for the unitiated, may easily be confused with anti-armour RKG.

Further to that I've been in many MRAPs and seen far more but have yet to find any with overhead slat armour. I believe when Specialist Parrish of the 5th Eng Bn, 4th Maneuver Enhancement Bde was killed it was again a top attack. The RKG-3 is as you know a hand deployed anti-armour device of about one kilo in weight. and it is extremely difficult to obtain an effective side impact on a vehicle, moving or otherwise. Coupled with this the frag radius of the RPK-3 exceeds it's accurate range making anything but a top attack a questionable and dangerous operation.

The armed forces are also limited by budgetary constraints, and modifying a complete series of vehs from one single fatal incident is not something they'd usually consider.

I'd be interested in your comments.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredcleangate3 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Well, Wikipedia is very much about using reliable sources to support the statements in the article. Personal experience is valuable to vet and interpret the sources, but it's not really enough on its own. I'm going to put a "dubious" tag on the section to flag it as questionable, and I'll take the liberty of copying this section to Talk:Hand grenade so more editors can join the discussion. What you could do in the mean time is to find a reliable source that says that the slat armour on these lightly armoured vehicles s against RPGs. There are just a couple of things I'd like to say. First, I think the article could mention that anti-tank grenades have been used recently, even if they are rather obsolete. Second, I think that a reporter for Stars and Stripes is in a better position to get the facts right than a reporter from a common newspaper, due to contacts and experience. That makes that source more reliable than an article from, say, a small-town newspaper written by a reporter without special knowledge. Sjö (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tiredcleangate posted some links at my talk page. The show that anti-tank grenades aren't mentioned as a reason for fitting slat armour, so I'm removing that statement. . Sjö (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The French word for "pomegranate" is "grenade." The Old French name was "pome grenate," not "pomegranate."

Googling "etymology of pomegranate" gets this as the top answer:

pome·gran·ate Origin Middle English: from Old French pome grenate, from pome ‘apple’ + grenate ‘pomegranate’ (from Latin (malum) granatum ‘(apple) having many seeds,’ from granum ‘seed’).

Second, looking online, I don't find any evidence that "'grenade' derives from the French word for a 'small explosive shell.'" It seems more likely that they named "hand grenades" after "grenades" (pomegranates), and that the English copied that.

JMassengale (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]