Grenade Range

[Bastables]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

I thought the funnelator principle could be used by enterprising troops needing to distribute grenades further than an arm could, but without the inconvenience of a mortar tube.

I think it could work. Anyone have a live grenade I could borrow?

Oh yeah, *ahem* where did the name 'grenade' come from in the first place? Who thought the damned things up?

Grenade is derived from the French word Pomegranate.

The Cess and the French have touched you again. Do not ask a second time or I shall have to touch you again.

[rleete]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

I thought the funnelator principle could be used by enterprising troops needing to distribute grenades further than an arm could, but without the inconvenience of a mortar tube.

But this kinda misses the point of a grenade being a single soldier weapon. Now you have to have three guys to launch. Makes it more of a crew served system. If you are going to have three guys tied up launching grenades, might as well just give them a small mortar, with it's larger blast, longer range, etc.

[The ol one eye.]

OK,Ok, I know, but what a blast!

{ chuckles at clever pun }

{ realizes its not funny }

[JonS]

Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Standard ammo loadout for German and British troops was 50-60 rifle rounds per man, IIRC.

Anyone have any sources detailing that info? Not that I'm questioning it; I'm just curious to find more hard data. Also, anyone know the standard ammo loadouts for Soviet WWII infantry troops, insofar as such a thing was standardized?

What was the standard issue grenade count for German and Soviet troops?

</font>

[Simon Elwen]

Ok the research results are in

Venue : The park

Time : This morning

Target: A tree 30 metres away (effects of bounceback can then be monitored as well

Witnesses: My girlfriend Heather (not a rounder)

My Dog Dave (Jack Russel for retrieval duties)

Equipment:Note, Some alternatives had to be used

1 Baseball

2 Cricket ball

3 Tennis ball

4 Potato

5 Pineapple

6 Egg

Results:

1 2 and 3 all scored hits,but significant bounceback with the tennis ball, dave preferred the tennis ball.

4 The potato a hit but suffered damage, probably would not survive repeated test throws.

5 The Pinapple fell well short 18m but rolled a further 2 m.

6 The egg, a close miss but destroyed on impact.

Conclusions. Balls and grocers sundries will rarely cause fatal results, but the morale effect of being bombarded with a hail of fruit and root veg should be looked into. Possibly should have used a hard boiled egg

Suggestions: Brain and Gyrene throw things at each other and then go to Croda's bar.

[Stacheldraht]

Sorry it took a while to answer this one, but it took a while to dig out the relevant sources. The British Soldier by Jean Bouchery had the most complete listing of it:

JonS, thank you very much That's exactly the sort of info I was looking for. Does anyone have similar data for German and Soviet troops?

[Simon Elwen]

Stacheldraht, there's a long out for print book called "Russian Infantry Weapons of ww2" by Baker and Walter 1971 Arco Books, I'm sure that will have some of the answers you are looking for. I would think that someone on this forum has a copy, or a dealer could get one for you.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JonS:

[Giant snips]

This is the 'standard' loadout, so numbers and types could and did change. As an extreme example, 18 Pn, D Coy, 4th SLI made use of 8 X MG42s in mid-Feb '45 during the Rhineland Campaign :eek:

...and anyone who can't give the name of the platoon commander of 18 Pl is not worthy of full grogdom.

Thanks for returning the thread to topics of some CM:BO relevance. I thought for one terrible moment that someone was going to try to explain the rules of cricket to Gyrene. :eek:

All the best,

John.

[Stacheldraht]

Stacheldraht, there's a long out for print book called "Russian Infantry Weapons of ww2" by Baker and Walter 1971 Arco Books

Cool, thanks. Anyone know of any good, detailed references to WWII infantry weapons in general, with technical specs and clear photos or diagrams?

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Bastables:

It's not exactly a false cause argument. O'Rourke never claims that all Panamanians who riot play baseball. Instead, he has made the empirical observation that Panamanian rioters (in general) can throw farther than rioters from Beirut and Korea. In an attempt to come up with a hypothesis to explain the difference, he observed that baseball is a popular sport in Panama, but not in the other two places, leading to the not farfetched theory that the prevalence of a game that emphasizes throwing might cause rioters in that country to throw better than rioters in countries where the most popular sports don't involve throwing.

Of course, to prove a hypothesis like this one, you really need facts, which would mean interviewing and testing various rioters from various nations. But as a hypothesis, it's not unsound on its face, even if it's unproven.

To change the hypothetical: what if O'Rourke observed that rioters in Holland (where ice skating is very popular) skated much better than rioters in Lebanon (where the sport is rarely practiced). It would not be at all unreasonable to hypothesize that the fact that the dutch rioters skated better than the lebanese had something to do with the popularity of skating in their various countries.

But I think the main point is that O'Rourke is not making an argument from logic (if A, then , but is making an argument from facts (given the facts I know, theory A offers the best explanation). Those are two different ways of reasoning.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

It's not exactly a false cause argument. O'Rourke never claims that all Panamanians who riot play baseball. Instead, he has made the empirical observation that Panamanian rioters (in general) can throw farther than rioters from Beirut and Korea. In an attempt to come up with a hypothesis to explain the difference, he observed that baseball is a popular sport in Panama, but not in the other two places, leading to the not farfetched theory that the prevalence of a game that emphasizes throwing might cause rioters in that country to throw better than rioters in countries where the most popular sports don't involve throwing.

Of course, to prove a hypothesis like this one, you really need facts, which would mean interviewing and testing various rioters from various nations. But as a hypothesis, it's not unsound on its face, even if it's unproven.

To change the hypothetical: what if O'Rourke observed that rioters in Holland (where ice skating is very popular) skated much better than rioters in Lebanon (where the sport is rarely practiced). It would not be at all unreasonable to hypothesize that the fact that the dutch rioters skated better than the lebanese had something to do with the popularity of skating in their various countries.

But I think the main point is that O'Rourke is not making an argument from logic (if A, then , but is making an argument from facts (given the facts I know, theory A offers the best explanation). Those are two different ways of reasoning.</font>

Don't suppose you could clarify the 'logic' vs 'observed facts' arguments. Because as I understand it inductive and deductive reasoning can both create a false cause argument.

(Ok it looks and sounds snide but it's not meant to be!)

[ March 03, 2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[John Kettler]

Stacheldraht,

I suggest you start with Ian Hogg's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFANTRY WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II. This covers not only small arms, but much else. This book has been reprinted several times. I also recommend the out of print Ballantine's books INFANTRY WEAPONS by John Weeks and GRENADES & MORTARS by Ian Hogg. If you want to get really technical, try older editions of Edward Ezell's authoritative SMALL ARMS OF THE WORLD. The 12 Edition (1983) has considerable information on WW II rifles, SMGs and MGs.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 03, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Stacheldraht]

Stacheldraht,

I suggest you start with

Thanks, John. I'll try to search those out. I already have a number of books by Hogg on artillery that I've gotten a lot of use out of.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by HVAP:

This has been the most intersting post I have ever read. Grenades national sport disputes and now water and compressed air arms.

B. Americans do not like to dress up for their sports, I don't care how hard you throw if you wear a sweater you will not be taken seriously over here do you play with an oar or soemthing?

????? QUOTE:Americans do not like to dress up for their sports!!!!

You've got to be kidding. How about all that bleedin' padding, helmets, grilles etc. those gridiron players wear to try & make themselves look 3 times bigger than they really are? Talk about dressing up when there's no real need for it, especially if you play a "mans" version of footbal such as Aussie Rules.

Regards

Jim R.

[wbs]

Posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

????? QUOTE:Americans do not like to dress up for their sports!!!!

You've got to be kidding. How about all that bleedin' padding, helmets, grilles etc. those gridiron players wear to try & make themselves look 3 times bigger than they really are? Talk about dressing up when there's no real need for it, especially if you play a "mans" version of footbal such as Aussie Rules.

Hmmm....You might have a point, there :cool:

[HVAP]

I meant in sweaters and other fancy stuff I would wear to some kind of fancy event. As for Aussie Rules you guys have no argument from me as that being a tuogh mans sport, I played lacrosse which has a few pads and got plenty of bruises and knock arounds, so I know contact sports, and Aussie rules takes some tough folks - but thats what you Aussies are know for here toughness, fosters (which i understand isnt really Australian), Crocadile Dundee and the subaru commercials and of course Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. All in good fun folks, you Commonwealthers keep us yanks honest

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HVAP:

This has been the most intersting post I have ever read. Grenades national sport disputes and now water and compressed air arms.

B. Americans do not like to dress up for their sports, I don't care how hard you throw if you wear a sweater you will not be taken seriously over here do you play with an oar or soemthing?

????? QUOTE:Americans do not like to dress up for their sports!!!!

You've got to be kidding. How about all that bleedin' padding, helmets, grilles etc. those gridiron players wear to try & make themselves look 3 times bigger than they really are? Talk about dressing up when there's no real need for it, especially if you play a "mans" version of footbal such as Aussie Rules.

Regards

Jim R.</font>

[PawBroon]

Aww come on with your baseball and cricket!

You really must learn to fear the Basque!

Invented in 1857, the Chistera or Cesta Punta was very often used by Basque in our multiple wars.

Here comes:

Its first military use was in the trench war of 14-18 by Chiquito de Cambo.

Those of you who have been lucky enough to catch a game of Jai Alai would know what kind of thrust and accuracy can ge gained by using a chistera.

Some Basque commandos of the Vandengergh Hunt Commando were routinely using the Chistera to hurl grenades from far off in our Indochina war.

BTW, this thread is turning as a pissing contest.

Hi Mom!