Corrections: 9:15 it should be "Eihandgranate" below 84.2 Million, thanks to Volker (Patreon) for spotting this. Recently our 4th book was released, be aware this time it is only in German: » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de But our first 3 books are in English (the first two also contain the complete German original texts as well): » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
Great video and great narration. And I still love your accent. But A manuAl is a text proscribing a use. ManuEl is a person from a Spanish speaking country. 😉
Will you like to make a video about smoke grenades as well. I feel many people, gamers in particular, gets the wrong impression on how a smoke grenade is used.
One point I would like to add is that it is safer to throw a stick shaped handgrenade uphill. Egg and more so ball shaped types have a tendency to roll back down to you
Germans don't play cricket. If they had played cricket they would have been better chaps and not started two world wars. Then there would have been no need for the rotters to throw sticks with explosives at the end. Thankfully there were decent cricket playing fellows who bowled them a googly. Twice. The chaps playing the girls' rounders game and calling it baseball helped a touch. They dragged their heels a bit and helped with the last innings. Twice. The point I'm trying to make is- nations that play cricket have won far more wars than nations who don't, since cricket was invented. This may be a uncomfortable fact for non cricket playing nations but it is true. Practice in throwing balls is the finest preparation for war known to man. The exception to this rule are the Australians. A fine cricketing nation and in support of other proper countries they have a good track of winning wars. Until they declare war on the Emu, or very poor people in Vietnam.
The idea of separate offensive and defensive hand grenades came from World War 1 originally. Offensive grenades are things like these that have larger explosive charges but spread less fragments. These were intended to be used on the attack so they could be thrown ahead of charging troops with less chance of hurting themselves. The US had a similar grenade in the Mk. 3a2 which was basically half a stick of dynamite in a particle board shell. Defensive grenades were intended to be used on defense, so troops could throw them at attackers and then duck back into cover to protect themselves from the fragments. This distinction has pretty much gone away now. And as for the stick grenades being the stereotypical German grenade it makes sense. For one they used them in both world wars. And second they’re very visually distinctive. The smaller, more typical grenades all look very similar.
In the Ukraine Conflict, they still use a lot of the RGD 5 & 6 grenades as well as the different F1 Grenades and use them in those roles. I have also seen them use both versions of the RGO Impact grenades that also have a "defensive" and "offense" capability. The role of Grenades is changing back to this because of the heavy use of trench warfare and house to house urban combat.
Movies. I think one of the reasons the Shg 24 is sooo iconic in the West is due to the fact that, if there is a movie or TV show (or video game) featuring WW2 Germans, they have the Potato Masher.
I disagree. A big reason it was featured in all those movies and shows is because it was an iconic symbol of German soldiers even before the end of WWI. It likely got that iconic status because it was a very distinctive piece of kit. When you saw a soldier carrying a Stielhandgranate and you knew it was a German, even if he lost his stahlhelm and was so covered in mud (or black and white) that you can't tell it is feldgrau.
Unless I copied something down wrong while pausing the video, the Stielhandgranate 24 is labeled "VOR GEBRAUCH SPRENGKAPSEL EINSETZEN" which DeepL translates as "Insert detonator before use" although "Insert blasting cap before use" is given as another possible translation.
@@firstcynic92 Thats true: The first known baseball game on German soil took place at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. A record crowd of more than 100,000 spectators watched a demonstration game between two U.S. teams in Berlin's Olympic Stadium (nothing has even come close to this number to this day).
@@firstcynic92 I doubt that is it for two reasons: 1) You weren't supposed to throw a grenade like a baseball. The reference in the 1944 Field Manual I found was to throw it like a football. 2) The American Mk 2 grenade's shape was copied from the French F-1 (which the Soviet F-1 was copied from). I don't think baseball or football were particularly common in France in 1915. More likely the main factor was coincidence. The first popular and effective grenade Germany deployed in WWI was a stick grenade. In contrast the initial British stick grenade was a massive failure and the first effective grenades for the British and French were the Mills Bomb and F-1 which had a similar form.
@@88porpoise people confuse grenade types, there was a WW2 American grenade that was built to exactly match a baseball, the T13. Interestingly it was an impact grenade, so the idea was that they wanted soldiers to be able to be accurate with it and thus decided on the baseball as it was the most common thrown ball of the time. They ended up upping the weight and it had design flaws, so it isn't commonly known, but the story of American baseball grenades stuck. The MK2 was not based on a baseball, but the m67 grenade that is currently in service is quite close in dimension to a base ball. Although, it is unclear if that was intentional or if that is just a convenient size for a thrown object.
With all the reading and publications and museums I thought I knew a bunch but I just learned 2 days ago that the Germans even used a ball grenade. Not to mention veteran stories.
All grenades are shipped with the detonator packed seperately. It was and is common practise for grenades to have the detonator fitted behind the front line by armourers or suitably trained personnel before the weapons were brought to the frontline. The downside of these grenades is that they do not have the spoon/ flyoff handle of the American, British, Russian or French grenades so a soldier would only take the cap off when he was absolutely sure that he was going to throw the grenade. German soldiers were warned not to expose the cord to prevent the cord snagging and arming the detonator. The later model was also designed to be used as a booby trap or improvised mine.
Yeah, with about 300g of Trotyl against 165g in the German one 😂 And the possibility to screw more heads together, or use the splitters slave, or the infamous _grandma_ additional charge.
Interesting how a lot of European militaries have assault grenades with lower power. I never heard of anything similar in the USA. The USA's pineapple grenade also had limitations, so it was replaced. BTW, I hear the Ukrainians like the USA's baseball grenade (M67) due to its power. The USA also has one with an impact detonator, which seems like a good idea as long as someone does not get it confused.
First, they aren't lower power, they just don't have a case that provides significant fragmentation. Second, you may not see them but the US also used similar grenades. There was briefly a version of the Mk 2 grenade but it was quickly replaced with Mk 3 grenade that served through WWII. Even today the US has a non-fragmenting offensive grenade, the Mk 21, although I believe it is currently limited to special forces use. Finally it isn't a US vs Europe thing, similar to the US, the primary British and French grenades were defensive fragmentation grenades (the US grenades being a modified version of the French F-1). But they also had offensive grenades (for the British, the No 36 Mills Bomb was a defensive grenade and they had a few offensive grenades including the No 69). The Soviet RGD-33 was similar to the Germans in that it had a fragmentation a sleeve so it could be used as either offensive or defensive. But, as I understand it was the default to use the sleeve with the option to remove it as needed.
@@88porpoise I think he was more referencing the fact that European militaries still make general use of offensive and defensive grenades, at least to a higher extent than America. The standard grenade currently in use by the Bundeswehr, for instance, also utilises the sheath technique that the St.24 grenade uses. The french have dedicated fragmentation and explosive types as well.
@@88porpoise The USA used one type of fragmentation grenade and another concussion/ demolition grenade. The Mk2 was a concussion grenade meant to use against pill boxes and rooms... although vets mostly used the fragmentation type, because the frags were better than giving the enemy disorientation, then entering to shoot them. I was only writing of some militaries preference for having two type of fragmentation grenades: assault grenades with lower power and defensive with high power. The USA used the pineapple type from WW1 to Korean war. The design was probably based on the French or so other military. It was found to have problems due to its ununiform blast fragmentation pattern, so it was replaced with the "baseball grenade" (M67). The baseball grenade can also be thrown further, which is also a good idea.
@@willw8011 The Mk 2 was primarily a fragmentation grenade. There were small numbers of Mk 2 concussion grenades before the Mk 3 took that role. And the basic design was unquestionably taken directly from the French F-1 grenade (the primary French grenade of WWI, which the US used extensively). France and the UK both used primarily defensive grenades, with offensive ones in limited usage, like the US. Germany seems pretty unique in preference for offensive grenades among major powers. And gain, lower vs higher power isn't really the differentiation, it is fragmentation vs not. An Stielhandgranate or RGD-33 has the save power with or without its fragmentation sleeve, but the sleeve increases the lethal radius.
I think people like the potato masher is that it's different. It looks cool. That's about it. You don't hear anything about the soviet grenades, or the Japanese grenades, just the pineapple grenade and the potato masher because they were 'cool.'
I think that is far more than you just don't hear nearly as much about Soviet or Japanese equipment outside of a few specific items of interest (Zero, T-34, "Knee Mortar", etc) than US or German. In particular for grenades, you also have them generally lumped into the two categories of the pineapples and sticks with little differentiation. At a glance an RGD-33 looks like a Stielhandgranate so it isn't very interesting. Similarly the various Japanese grenades and the Soviet F-1 look enough like the American they aren't interesting (the Soviet F-1 and American Mk 2 both being developments of the French F-1). And the RG-42 just looks bland and ugly. Add in that the Stielhandgranate was an iconic German weapon from WWI and anything that looks like it will be seen in terms of it. And similar for the Mills Bomb and F-1/Mk1 for the British and French/Americans.
@@b.thomas8926 It's funny you say that because I have seen some "grunts and crafts" by Ukrainians where to get extra distance they've been rigging up DIY stick grenades for extra distance when assaulting sometimes. They are being inundated with so many different types they are just experimenting on the fly.
I think the most frightening grenades are those WWI French models with impact fuses. I'm sure they were impossible to throw back, but I'd take a bag of Stick Grenades over those every day of the week.
The one advantage that the German stick grenades or potato Mashers had was throwing distance. You could actually throw them quite a ways with accuracy. Beyond that it is much too complex to use In the heat of battle. This of course is my perspective. Based on what my dad told me with his experience in the war, it would take the Germans several seconds to ready a grenade and throw it. In those several seconds a lot of ugly things can happen to you. The Germans stick grenade with its reduced shrapnel effect and reliance on blast effect was more of an offensive weapon. The same can be said of Japanese grenades. I love that you have to thump them on your helmet to prime the grenade for the Japanese. Both are concussion weapons and are designed for the person's throwing them to follow up a close range to either kill or capture the enemy that was stunned by the grenade. The American grenades and the English grenades were more dependent on the shrapnel effect to disable or kill the enemy either in an offensive movement or a defensive movement. They also had their blast effect for those that don't get hit by the shrapnel. I always wondered why they didn't use clear glass for the shrapnel. It would be very difficult to remove glass from a casualty. It requires dye and a blacklight actually to remove glass.
@@stepanokhrimenko9189 replace the metal container of the explosives with glass would be one. If you have any doubts about how effective that is, look at the land mines used during World War II some of which were glass to avoid detection.
You do know that glass easily brakes and metal doesnt especially considering the logistics and circumstances on the battlefield. On top of that I do not believe they had industrial scale glas blowing machines back then, and the best glass is still being hand blown by professional today. Sheet metal is easy to stamp. Iron is easy to cast. Cheers. Considering the experience with End of Year Night's fireworks I consider stick grenades to be more dangerous to yourselfs and not as easy and far to throw compared to something spherical. Especially since everyone was familiar with all types of ball games in Germany and Europe. Stick throwing is a not a sport even if dog owners say the opposite, atleast its not a sport for the human, only for the dog fetching it.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I thought German glass mines were mainly made of glass to not use deficit metals, plus those were very difficult to defuse, which isn't ideal when you have to say, regain lost ground. I suppose they could've also made glass grenades as Germans did make grenades out of cardboard and concrete by the end of the war. Perhaps they didn't use glass for explosive grenades (not counting Bledkörper as that was more of a chemical/smoke munition that relied on breakage of the body) a safety concern? After all, even though you can make glass quite sturdy, it would still be quite unsafe to keep them in the active warzone as there would be many instances where it could theoretically be bumped with big force.
I love the idea of a larger charge of high explosives so the soldier can smash vehicles and really stun the enemy. The small charge frag grenades will kill perhaps better but do very little damage to machines and structures.
did trow quite some of the swiss version of these. worked every time, nice to trow and handle. plain fun! the later non stick version did often not explode and was unsafe.
The Russian potato masher grenade can be compared to this one, which is the RGD-33 while eiergranate 17 can be Compared to its Russian equivalent if they have one
09:25 The short answer to this question: It is known as the "German grenade" because of the frequent portrayal of German soldiers using it in movies and TV programs for the most part.
So one question unanswered, which as maybe answered in another video, atleast for me, is why have the handle / stick at all? What is advantage, disadvantage from having to store, carry, and throw an egg shaped object compared to a stick, including flight characteristics. Id imagine a stick to tumble more and get stuck somewhere, and an egg to fly similar to a ball and bounce around a lot. Greetings. :)
I'd imagine that it's because it's easier to aim and throw "sticks" in a straight line, unlike "ball" types which are more likely to be thrown "wide" by soldiers who haven't been perfecting their throw since childhood, so they don't instinctively know the right time to let go of the "ball" when they're throwing it.
The stick handle is much easier to throw in a specific direction from my experience. Personally I feel like the soviet RGD-33 has the best of both worlds, as they still have the stick handle, so it's much easier to throw, but it's not too long, so it does not get caught in foliage quite as easily.
Out of curiosity: why not showing Internet pictures of the fragmentation rings of the two kinds, even if you didn't have examples at hand, for illustration purposes? The porcelain part is the part at the end of the cord, what is grabbed when one pulls, not at the top of the cord close to the detonator (that top part is lead indeed).
Die Betätigung der Eihandgranate 39 und Stielhandgranate 43 kommt mir aber sehr bekannt vor. Kann es sein, dass das heute noch so gebaut wird als "Anzündschnuranzünder" für die Pioniere?
Variations in the fuse timing. Hmm brings about visions of a Monty Pythonesque Holy Hand-grenade sequence, but in German with knights wearing Stehlhelms. Eins! Zwie! Vier! Nein, Sir, vier Vier! Renn weg! Renn weg This is my best Google translate German.
Although I am English I am a fan of the stick grenade and it is so iconic shape, there is however some obvious drawbacks the size and the amount that can be carried and some advantages throwing being one another that as been mentioned is it's in ability to roll down hill properly. I am bashing my brain for the perfect grenade, I am sure one will be made eventually.
@@ernesthill4017 being ex British army I would know of these and there draw backs, yes plenty can be carried these have many nicknames frag, pineapple etc tends to roll down slopes. Some have short fuse others longer, if you get these mixed-up there's a big problem they do have identifiers but a absent mind is deadly.
Whats up with having so shitty instructions.. if i have to use it pronto, i want to know at which step the fuse is engaged (the countdown has started)... afterall it blows up after anywhere from 4 to 7 secs..
Those instructions are to ready the grenade before combat. You get the crate, you insert the fuse, you go into battle, then you use it. In battle, you unscrew the end cap, pull the string (the fuse is now active), and throw.
Those arming and preparation instructions are pretty complex for something that's probably going to be used in close quarters. Why didn't the germans adopt a design that was a little more straightforward like other major powers?
> Why didn't the germans adopt a design that was a little more straightforward like other major powers? so you know the arming instructions for all the grenades of the other major powers then? Ok, please let me know in which way the exactly differ.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Well a good starting point would be not requiring a string rigging to prepare when you're in a panic trying to not get killed.
The stick grenade had a slightly smaller fragmentation area and less fragments, the MK2 had less blast effect, overall the effect was broadly similar. Damage is subjective, both did the exploding part of their job to roughly the same capability.
I’ve often wondered if American troops had an advantage throwing grenades accurately in WW2 because of the ubiquity of baseball in the culture, especially in the 1940’s.
The MK2 pineapple grenade wasn't supposed to be thrown like a baseball, but I'm sure some did. The T13 impact grenade, however, was explicitly designed to be as a close to a baseball as possible so that the average yank could use his assumed passing baseball skill to throw it more accurately. They were fairly rare and we're rumoured to have production defects though.
I may have missed it, although I went back a couple of times...can anyone tell me what the point of those two little top spikes are on the 43? A fuse protection...then why only two, not four?
It's a shorter cord than the long M24. When the soldier twists and pulls the ball on the egg grenade, it pulls out a short distance and uses a friction igniter inside to set off the fuse, which burns for 4 seconds and then sets off the booster detonator. The two little wings are for tying the grenades to gether to form a combined charge.
Almost every well known photo of a German soldier with a hand grenade shows stick grenades, easier to see the grenades most likely, makes a better picture.
So, does that mean the stick grenade was an offensive rather than defensive grena - oh yes you just said that why do I even bother writing comments early?
Since I held them in my hands, I assume very few, they don't have enough weight to them, of course probably better than bare hands, but generally soldiers had a knife / bayonet, also rifle butt, etc.
hence the Mark 21 stackable hand grenade the us marines trial'd. follows the idea of "geballte ladung". now screw a stick in it and you can stomp potatos. wound not wonder if those show up in this configuration on a future battlefield. i bet if the stielhandgranate 43 would have been developed further it would probably have ended in a similar fashion.
Not really much point in sticks anymore. Why have something large and bulky take up space when you can just have a grenade launcher that can fire the grenade far further and more accurately than any throw could. You keep smaller and handier grenades for close in work like building clearing and for popping over walls.
OK, is it just me or, in movies, do you both never see them pull the string _and_ appear to see soldiers _twist_ the handle to arm? Is that my imagination, poor memory or some common mistaken movie trope nobody's mentioned?
Ah , my worse enemies in CoH2 I know a friend who would spam Potato Mashers all the time in the game His tactic got destroyed when another friend just brought out an IS flamethrower tank , good times
It's been a while since you covered historical divisions in HOI4, and now with the new Tank and Air plane designer would you consider making a mini series on designing historically accurate tanks or planes?
No plans for now. It would be great to make this as part of a collaboration with the developers but as far as I know they never picked up on my first videos doing this.
**fun fact** *the reason why the WWII German _”Stielhandgranate”_ was referred to as a _“potato masher”_ by Allied troops is because it reminded them of a potato masher. 😇
Egg grenade? Anyone else also imagining hanz and fritz explaining their sargeant they were throwing eggs at each other to practice hand grenade throwing?
Seeing how useful that fragmentation grenades in the attack (throwing into buildings or machine gun nests you're assaulting), I do not understand why they are described as "defensive weapons".
Because you ideally throw a defensive grenade from very good cover like a trench, since you are protected. If you miss the machine gun nest, the chances are that you or your comrades assaulting the nest get hit by fragmentation but the nest is not.
The difference between German and American views on production is interesting. The hole drilled through the handle would not have been considered labor intensive in the US as the process would undoubtedly be done by a machine with little to no human involvement. It would simply be considered an unnecessary (avoidable through redesign) process. Germany put too much labor into most of its equipment.
Unfortunately, the video does not address at all the reasons that speak for (or against) a stick grenade in comparison to the egg grenade. Disadvantages: The wooden handle means additional "dead" weight that has to be thrown and carried, which has a negative effect on the size of the explosive landing or on the throwing distance. The stick grenade was cumbersome for the soldier to carry and could hardly be put in a pocket of the uniform or trousers, unlike the egg hand grenade. When carried in boxes, it also took up much more space than the same number of egg hand grenades. The size was a particular problem when throwing in wooded terrain, as the stick grenade could more easily get caught in branches. The air resistance during throwing was also greater than that of an egg hand grenade. Often it is assumed that the hand-held grenade had a longer throwing range because the mass of the warhead was/can be accelerated more by the handle due to a leverage effect. I cannot fully understand this argumentation, since a grenade without a handle can certainly - due to its lower weight - be thrown further and further. The real reason in favour of the stick grenade is therefore, in my opinion, that it is easier to aim. That is, with a little practice, a rotating stick grenade can be thrown more accurately at a target than an egg grenade, which would outweigh all the disadvantages mentioned above. P.S.: Since a stick grenade contained 160 grams of explosive, they were much "louder" than an egg grenade (US hand grenade Mk2 approx. 60 grams), which should increase the psychological effect of an offensive hand grenade considerably (see stun grenade). Das Video geht leider überhaupt nicht auf die Gründe ein, die überhaupt für (oder gegen) eine Stielhandgranate im Vergleich zur Eierhandgranate sprechen. Nachteile: Der Holzstiel bedeutet zusätzliches, „totes“ Gewicht, das geworfen und getragen werden muss, was sich negativ auf die Größe der Sprenglandung bzw. auf die Wurfweite auswirkt. Die Stielhandgranate war für den Soldaten umständlich zu tragen und ließ sich kaum in eine Tasche der Uniform oder Hose stecken, im Gegensatz zur Eierhandgranate. Beim Transport in Kisten verbrauchte sie obendrein wesentlich mehr Platz, als die gleiche Anzahl von Eierhandgranaten. Die Größe war ein besonderes Problem bei Würfen im bewaldeten Terrain, da die Stielhandgranate sich leichter im Geäst verfangen konnte. Der Luftwiderstand beim Wurf war ebenfalls größer als der einer Eierhandgranate. Oft wird eine größere Wurfweite der Stielhandgranate vermutet, weil durch den Stiel, die Masse des Sprengtopfes - aufgrund einer Hebelwirkung - höher beschleunigt wird/werden kann. Ich kann diese Argumentation nicht völlig nachvollziehen, da eine Granate ohne Stiel sich - aufgrund des geringeren Gewichtes - sicherlich immer weiter werfen läßt. Der eigentliche Grund, der für die Stielhandgranate spricht, ist deshalb meiner Ansicht nach, daß sich mit ihr leichter zielen läßt. D.h. mit etwas Übung kann eine in Rotation versetzte Stielhandgranate genauer auf ein Ziel geworfen werden als eine Eierhandgranate, was eben alle vorgenannten Nachteile aufwiegen würde. P.S.: Da eine Stielhandgranate 160gr Sprengstoff enthielt, waren diese wesentlich "lauter" als eine Eierhandgranate(US-Handgranate Mk2 ca. 60 Gramm), was die psychologische Wirkung einer offensiven Handgranate deutlich erhöhen dürfte(siehe Blendschockgranate).
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized In your video, you do not address the possible different throwing ballistics of the stick grenade and the egg grenade. Again: Since the stick grenade has a number of clear disadvantages compared to the egg grenade in terms of practicality, I think there must be other reasons if they are to be used in the military or even preferred to an alternative concept. This advantage could lie in a higher hit accuracy on the target or in easier aiming for an average launcher, which would surpass even a longer throwing range. Assuming hand grenades of the same weight, it might be easier to aim a stick grenade if it is thrown overhead or over the shoulder - on an axis to the target. The explosive head of the stick grenade must always be above the launcher's line of sight to the target, otherwise the grenade may be thrown to the ground directly in front of the launcher, which in practice is one of the most frequent causes of accidents when handling hand grenades. In the case of a stick grenade, which is grasped at the lower end, the main weight of the grenade is always above the throwing hand, which is probably the reason why faulty throws "below the horizon of vision into the ground" are less frequent. Further, when throwing the stick grenade over the shoulder onto the target, the thrower inevitably sets it in rotation around its centre of gravity when releasing it, which stabilises the trajectory. I have tested this throwing technique extensively with friends using empty beer bottles, and we came to the conclusion that the bottles - even when drunk - could be thrown more accurately. Both effects, that of the higher centre of gravity above the throwing hand and the easier stabilisation of the trajectory through rotation, speak in favour of the stick grenade in my opinion, whereas its poorer handling may have been one of the reasons why egg grenades were preferred in the course of the war. Auf eine eventuell unterschiedliche Wurfballistik von Stielhand- und Eierhandgranate gehen sie in ihrem Video nicht ein. Nochmal: Da die Stielhandgranate z.B. in puncto Praktikabilität eine Reihe von deutlichen Nachteilen gegenüber der Eierhandgranate besitzt, müssen meiner Ansicht andere Gründe vorliegen, wenn sie in den militärischen Gebrauch kommen oder gar einem Alternativkonzept vorgezogen werden. Dieser Vorteil könnte eben in einer höheren Treffergenauigkeit am Ziel bzw. in einem einfacherem Zielen für einen durchschnittlichen Werfern liegen, die selbst eine größeren Wurfweite übertreffen würde. Geht man von gleich schweren Handgranaten aus, lässt sich mit einer Stielhandgranate womöglich besser zielen, wenn diese über Kopf bzw. über die Schulter - in einer Achse zum Ziel - geworfen wird. Der Sprengtopf der Stielhandgranate muss sich dabei immer oberhalb der Blickachse des Werfers zum Ziel befinden, weil sonst die Granate gegebenenfalls direkt vor dem Werfer auf den Boden geworfen wird, was in der Praxis einer der häufigsten Unfallursachen beim Umgang mit Handgranaten ist. Bei einer Stielhandgranate, die man am unteren Ende (an)fasst, liegt das Hauptgewicht der Handgranate immer oberhalb der Wurfhand, weswegen vermutlich Fehlwürfe „unterhalb des Blickhorizontes in den Boden“ weniger häufig vorkommen. Weiter versetzt der Werfer die Stielhandgranate beim Wurf über die Schulter auf das Ziel, wobei beim Loslassen zwangsläufig in Rotation um ihren Schwerpunkt, was die Flugbahn stabilisiert. Ich habe mit Freunden diese Wurftechnik mit leeren Bierflaschen ausgiebig erprobt, und wir kamen zum Schluss, dass sich die Flaschen - selbst im betrunkenem Zustand - zielgerichteter werfen ließen. Beide Effekte, den des höheren Schwerpunkt über der Wurfhand und die leichtere Stabilisierung der Flugbahn durch Rotation sprechen meiner Ansicht nach für die Stielhandgranate, wohingegen ihre schlechtere Handhabung unter anderem dafür gesorgt haben dürfte, dass im Laufe des Krieges Eierhandgranaten doch bevorzugt wurden.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Corrections: 9:15 it should be "Eihandgranate" below 84.2 Million, thanks to Volker (Patreon) for spotting this.
Recently our 4th book was released, be aware this time it is only in German:
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
But our first 3 books are in English (the first two also contain the complete German original texts as well):
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
The Romans wished they had this grenade when the Huns were invading
Great video and great narration. And I still love your accent. But
A manuAl is a text proscribing a use.
ManuEl is a person from a Spanish speaking country. 😉
Will you like to make a video about smoke grenades as well. I feel many people, gamers in particular, gets the wrong impression on how a smoke grenade is used.
@@madhurawat155
Xcom has smoke grenades if I remember right. Reduce enemy accuracy I think
@@madhurawat155 Not planned currently, also I did not come across any information so far.
One point I would like to add is that it is safer to throw a stick shaped handgrenade uphill. Egg and more so ball shaped types have a tendency to roll back down to you
Downside, when you're trying to bounce a grenade into a foxhole/firing pit, you'll want that to go downhill most of the time.
@@SlavicCelery
Sounds like its good to have both models, then.
@@artificialintelligence8328 Depends on how often you plan to throw grenades up hill.
@@artificialintelligence8328 Thus the upgraded design with the removable stick.
Germans don't play cricket. If they had played cricket they would have been better chaps and not started two world wars.
Then there would have been no need for the rotters to throw sticks with explosives at the end.
Thankfully there were decent cricket playing fellows who bowled them a googly. Twice.
The chaps playing the girls' rounders game and calling it baseball helped a touch. They dragged their heels a bit and helped with the last innings. Twice.
The point I'm trying to make is- nations that play cricket have won far more wars than nations who don't, since cricket was invented. This may be a uncomfortable fact for non cricket playing nations but it is true.
Practice in throwing balls is the finest preparation for war known to man. The exception to this rule are the Australians. A fine cricketing nation and in support of other proper countries they have a good track of winning wars. Until they declare war on the Emu, or very poor people in Vietnam.
The idea of separate offensive and defensive hand grenades came from World War 1 originally. Offensive grenades are things like these that have larger explosive charges but spread less fragments. These were intended to be used on the attack so they could be thrown ahead of charging troops with less chance of hurting themselves. The US had a similar grenade in the Mk. 3a2 which was basically half a stick of dynamite in a particle board shell. Defensive grenades were intended to be used on defense, so troops could throw them at attackers and then duck back into cover to protect themselves from the fragments. This distinction has pretty much gone away now.
And as for the stick grenades being the stereotypical German grenade it makes sense. For one they used them in both world wars. And second they’re very visually distinctive. The smaller, more typical grenades all look very similar.
Great comment. Never realised there were two types in this WW1 era.
In the Ukraine Conflict, they still use a lot of the RGD 5 & 6 grenades as well as the different F1 Grenades and use them in those roles. I have also seen them use both versions of the RGO Impact grenades that also have a "defensive" and "offense" capability. The role of Grenades is changing back to this because of the heavy use of trench warfare and house to house urban combat.
Movies.
I think one of the reasons the Shg 24 is sooo iconic in the West is due to the fact that, if there is a movie or TV show (or video game) featuring WW2 Germans, they have the Potato Masher.
Yeah, it looks unique(ish) and for the scenes where you fumble to throw them back, a prop with a big stick is much easier for actors to find too.
I disagree. A big reason it was featured in all those movies and shows is because it was an iconic symbol of German soldiers even before the end of WWI.
It likely got that iconic status because it was a very distinctive piece of kit. When you saw a soldier carrying a Stielhandgranate and you knew it was a German, even if he lost his stahlhelm and was so covered in mud (or black and white) that you can't tell it is feldgrau.
5:31 Topf = pot
Pfanne = pan
Yes, there are local deviations, especially in the southern German-speaking area.
Bei Essen, Gemüse und Küchengerät versagen meine sprachlichen Fähigkeiten meist.
So "Topf" isn't so far removed from "Kopf"? 🤔
Curious.
@@sevenproxies4255 Rock and Dock are rather similar to each other. Very curious indeed.
@@snaek2594 yeah, same goes for puck and fu…. I mean, pun and fun. I too am very curious
Unless I copied something down wrong while pausing the video, the Stielhandgranate 24 is labeled "VOR GEBRAUCH SPRENGKAPSEL EINSETZEN" which DeepL translates as "Insert detonator before use" although "Insert blasting cap before use" is given as another possible translation.
That is correct.
It's very cool how Germans name things
"Mommy why is the stielhandgranate 24 yelling at me?'
@@m.streicher8286 "To stop you hurting yourself, dear. It's a very thoughtful Stielhandgranate 24!"
@@matheusimon7316 pragmatic only numbers and abbreviations
Sgh 34 will always be in my heart! Most beautiful version, sacrificing productivity for engineering
I never had a good throwing arm. So I always liked the design of stick grenades since it's so much easier to throw.
aye lmao same here
Germany wasn't known for its baseball players, so that likely had an influence in the design.
@@firstcynic92 Thats true: The first known baseball game on German soil took place at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. A record crowd of more than 100,000 spectators watched a demonstration game between two U.S. teams in Berlin's Olympic Stadium (nothing has even come close to this number to this day).
@@firstcynic92 I doubt that is it for two reasons:
1) You weren't supposed to throw a grenade like a baseball. The reference in the 1944 Field Manual I found was to throw it like a football.
2) The American Mk 2 grenade's shape was copied from the French F-1 (which the Soviet F-1 was copied from). I don't think baseball or football were particularly common in France in 1915.
More likely the main factor was coincidence. The first popular and effective grenade Germany deployed in WWI was a stick grenade. In contrast the initial British stick grenade was a massive failure and the first effective grenades for the British and French were the Mills Bomb and F-1 which had a similar form.
@@88porpoise people confuse grenade types, there was a WW2 American grenade that was built to exactly match a baseball, the T13. Interestingly it was an impact grenade, so the idea was that they wanted soldiers to be able to be accurate with it and thus decided on the baseball as it was the most common thrown ball of the time. They ended up upping the weight and it had design flaws, so it isn't commonly known, but the story of American baseball grenades stuck.
The MK2 was not based on a baseball, but the m67 grenade that is currently in service is quite close in dimension to a base ball. Although, it is unclear if that was intentional or if that is just a convenient size for a thrown object.
With all the reading and publications and museums I thought I knew a bunch but I just learned 2 days ago that the Germans even used a ball grenade. Not to mention veteran stories.
I think Bernard has a video about that ball grenade
All grenades are shipped with the detonator packed seperately. It was and is common practise for grenades to have the detonator fitted behind the front line by armourers or suitably trained personnel before the weapons were brought to the frontline. The downside of these grenades is that they do not have the spoon/ flyoff handle of the American, British, Russian or French grenades so a soldier would only take the cap off when he was absolutely sure that he was going to throw the grenade. German soldiers were warned not to expose the cord to prevent the cord snagging and arming the detonator. The later model was also designed to be used as a booby trap or improvised mine.
Yes, my favourite instrument percussion maracas!
Dos tequilas por favor, and an empty glass.
The Swiss Army used a ‘potato masher’ hand grenade until about 1990. Known as the HG43.
Yeah, with about 300g of Trotyl against 165g in the German one 😂 And the possibility to screw more heads together, or use the splitters slave, or the infamous _grandma_ additional charge.
Thank you for the information I always wanted to know about those granades
Outstanding video and presentation.
Thank you. I did learn something new.
I just rewatched the other video on the grenades with the egg grenade
The term "Topf" can mean vessel (hollow container) but most people will associate the term with a "pot". For exampel: Auspufftopf" (exhaust muffler).
Interesting how a lot of European militaries have assault grenades with lower power. I never heard of anything similar in the USA.
The USA's pineapple grenade also had limitations, so it was replaced.
BTW, I hear the Ukrainians like the USA's baseball grenade (M67) due to its power. The USA also has one with an impact detonator, which seems like a good idea as long as someone does not get it confused.
First, they aren't lower power, they just don't have a case that provides significant fragmentation.
Second, you may not see them but the US also used similar grenades. There was briefly a version of the Mk 2 grenade but it was quickly replaced with Mk 3 grenade that served through WWII. Even today the US has a non-fragmenting offensive grenade, the Mk 21, although I believe it is currently limited to special forces use.
Finally it isn't a US vs Europe thing, similar to the US, the primary British and French grenades were defensive fragmentation grenades (the US grenades being a modified version of the French F-1). But they also had offensive grenades (for the British, the No 36 Mills Bomb was a defensive grenade and they had a few offensive grenades including the No 69).
The Soviet RGD-33 was similar to the Germans in that it had a fragmentation a sleeve so it could be used as either offensive or defensive. But, as I understand it was the default to use the sleeve with the option to remove it as needed.
@@88porpoise I think he was more referencing the fact that European militaries still make general use of offensive and defensive grenades, at least to a higher extent than America. The standard grenade currently in use by the Bundeswehr, for instance, also utilises the sheath technique that the St.24 grenade uses. The french have dedicated fragmentation and explosive types as well.
@@pluemas Correct.
@@88porpoise The USA used one type of fragmentation grenade and another concussion/ demolition grenade. The Mk2 was a concussion grenade meant to use against pill boxes and rooms... although vets mostly used the fragmentation type, because the frags were better than giving the enemy disorientation, then entering to shoot them.
I was only writing of some militaries preference for having two type of fragmentation grenades: assault grenades with lower power and defensive with high power.
The USA used the pineapple type from WW1 to Korean war. The design was probably based on the French or so other military. It was found to have problems due to its ununiform blast fragmentation pattern, so it was replaced with the "baseball grenade" (M67). The baseball grenade can also be thrown further, which is also a good idea.
@@willw8011 The Mk 2 was primarily a fragmentation grenade. There were small numbers of Mk 2 concussion grenades before the Mk 3 took that role.
And the basic design was unquestionably taken directly from the French F-1 grenade (the primary French grenade of WWI, which the US used extensively). France and the UK both used primarily defensive grenades, with offensive ones in limited usage, like the US. Germany seems pretty unique in preference for offensive grenades among major powers.
And gain, lower vs higher power isn't really the differentiation, it is fragmentation vs not. An Stielhandgranate or RGD-33 has the save power with or without its fragmentation sleeve, but the sleeve increases the lethal radius.
I think people like the potato masher is that it's different. It looks cool. That's about it. You don't hear anything about the soviet grenades, or the Japanese grenades, just the pineapple grenade and the potato masher because they were 'cool.'
It may also be thrown more accurately because of the spin on it when thrown.
@@Hongobogologomo I think its about distance. Leverage allows for a farther throw.
Its look is really iconic. Your average person can tells it's from Germany. Whereas othere grenade types were more generic(?).
I think that is far more than you just don't hear nearly as much about Soviet or Japanese equipment outside of a few specific items of interest (Zero, T-34, "Knee Mortar", etc) than US or German.
In particular for grenades, you also have them generally lumped into the two categories of the pineapples and sticks with little differentiation. At a glance an RGD-33 looks like a Stielhandgranate so it isn't very interesting. Similarly the various Japanese grenades and the Soviet F-1 look enough like the American they aren't interesting (the Soviet F-1 and American Mk 2 both being developments of the French F-1). And the RG-42 just looks bland and ugly.
Add in that the Stielhandgranate was an iconic German weapon from WWI and anything that looks like it will be seen in terms of it. And similar for the Mills Bomb and F-1/Mk1 for the British and French/Americans.
@@b.thomas8926
It's funny you say that because I have seen some "grunts and crafts" by Ukrainians where to get extra distance they've been rigging up DIY stick grenades for extra distance when assaulting sometimes. They are being inundated with so many different types they are just experimenting on the fly.
i love this channel thank you for makeing this content
I think the most frightening grenades are those WWI French models with impact fuses. I'm sure they were impossible to throw back, but I'd take a bag of Stick Grenades over those every day of the week.
8:41 LOL German over-engineering at its finest. For a freakin' GRENADE
The one advantage that the German stick grenades or potato Mashers had was throwing distance. You could actually throw them quite a ways with accuracy. Beyond that it is much too complex to use In the heat of battle. This of course is my perspective. Based on what my dad told me with his experience in the war, it would take the Germans several seconds to ready a grenade and throw it. In those several seconds a lot of ugly things can happen to you. The Germans stick grenade with its reduced shrapnel effect and reliance on blast effect was more of an offensive weapon. The same can be said of Japanese grenades. I love that you have to thump them on your helmet to prime the grenade for the Japanese. Both are concussion weapons and are designed for the person's throwing them to follow up a close range to either kill or capture the enemy that was stunned by the grenade. The American grenades and the English grenades were more dependent on the shrapnel effect to disable or kill the enemy either in an offensive movement or a defensive movement. They also had their blast effect for those that don't get hit by the shrapnel. I always wondered why they didn't use clear glass for the shrapnel. It would be very difficult to remove glass from a casualty. It requires dye and a blacklight actually to remove glass.
I don't really get how you would make glass shrapnel on the grenade
@@stepanokhrimenko9189 replace the metal container of the explosives with glass would be one. If you have any doubts about how effective that is, look at the land mines used during World War II some of which were glass to avoid detection.
You do know that glass easily brakes and metal doesnt especially considering the logistics and circumstances on the battlefield. On top of that I do not believe they had industrial scale glas blowing machines back then, and the best glass is still being hand blown by professional today. Sheet metal is easy to stamp. Iron is easy to cast. Cheers.
Considering the experience with End of Year Night's fireworks I consider stick grenades to be more dangerous to yourselfs and not as easy and far to throw compared to something spherical. Especially since everyone was familiar with all types of ball games in Germany and Europe. Stick throwing is a not a sport even if dog owners say the opposite, atleast its not a sport for the human, only for the dog fetching it.
@@kleinerprinz99 it actually depends how the glass is made. Gosh how do you suppose glass land mines were made?!?!
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I thought German glass mines were mainly made of glass to not use deficit metals, plus those were very difficult to defuse, which isn't ideal when you have to say, regain lost ground. I suppose they could've also made glass grenades as Germans did make grenades out of cardboard and concrete by the end of the war. Perhaps they didn't use glass for explosive grenades (not counting Bledkörper as that was more of a chemical/smoke munition that relied on breakage of the body) a safety concern? After all, even though you can make glass quite sturdy, it would still be quite unsafe to keep them in the active warzone as there would be many instances where it could theoretically be bumped with big force.
Interesting Video. Nice Illustrations :)
I love the idea of a larger charge of high explosives so the soldier can smash vehicles and really stun the enemy. The small charge frag grenades will kill perhaps better but do very little damage to machines and structures.
thanks for reviewing video
Great video!
did trow quite some of the swiss version of these. worked every time, nice to trow and handle. plain fun! the later non stick version did often not explode and was unsafe.
Excellent, thanks!
Very interesting video. Thanks.
Very informative. Thank you.
The Russian potato masher grenade can be compared to this one, which is the RGD-33 while eiergranate 17 can be Compared to its Russian equivalent if they have one
09:25
The short answer to this question:
It is known as the "German grenade" because of the frequent portrayal of German soldiers using it in movies and TV programs for the most part.
Great video, thank you.
Glad you liked it!
So one question unanswered, which as maybe answered in another video, atleast for me, is why have the handle / stick at all? What is advantage, disadvantage from having to store, carry, and throw an egg shaped object compared to a stick, including flight characteristics. Id imagine a stick to tumble more and get stuck somewhere, and an egg to fly similar to a ball and bounce around a lot. Greetings. :)
Apparently the handle gives better leverage so you can throw it further. And they don't get tangled up on ones gear as easily also.
The other video compares them. The original one is from WW1, I would have to research the why for the original design.
I'd imagine that it's because it's easier to aim and throw "sticks" in a straight line, unlike "ball" types which are more likely to be thrown "wide" by soldiers who haven't been perfecting their throw since childhood, so they don't instinctively know the right time to let go of the "ball" when they're throwing it.
The stick handle is much easier to throw in a specific direction from my experience.
Personally I feel like the soviet RGD-33 has the best of both worlds, as they still have the stick handle, so it's much easier to throw, but it's not too long, so it does not get caught in foliage quite as easily.
Out of curiosity: why not showing Internet pictures of the fragmentation rings of the two kinds, even if you didn't have examples at hand, for illustration purposes?
The porcelain part is the part at the end of the cord, what is grabbed when one pulls, not at the top of the cord close to the detonator (that top part is lead indeed).
Copyright
Great channel! Prima 👌
Die Betätigung der Eihandgranate 39 und Stielhandgranate 43 kommt mir aber sehr bekannt vor. Kann es sein, dass das heute noch so gebaut wird als "Anzündschnuranzünder" für die Pioniere?
Variations in the fuse timing. Hmm brings about visions of a Monty Pythonesque Holy Hand-grenade sequence, but in German with knights wearing Stehlhelms.
Eins!
Zwie!
Vier!
Nein, Sir, vier
Vier!
Renn weg! Renn weg
This is my best Google translate German.
Although I am English I am a fan of the stick grenade and it is so iconic shape, there is however some obvious drawbacks the size and the amount that can be carried and some advantages throwing being one another that as been mentioned is it's in ability to roll down hill properly. I am bashing my brain for the perfect grenade, I am sure one will be made eventually.
How do you like the Mills Bomb?
@@ernesthill4017 being ex British army I would know of these and there draw backs, yes plenty can be carried these have many nicknames frag, pineapple etc tends to roll down slopes. Some have short fuse others longer, if you get these mixed-up there's a big problem they do have identifiers but a absent mind is deadly.
Whats up with having so shitty instructions.. if i have to use it pronto, i want to know at which step the fuse is engaged (the countdown has started)... afterall it blows up after anywhere from 4 to 7 secs..
Those instructions are to ready the grenade before combat. You get the crate, you insert the fuse, you go into battle, then you use it.
In battle, you unscrew the end cap, pull the string (the fuse is now active), and throw.
Those arming and preparation instructions are pretty complex for something that's probably going to be used in close quarters. Why didn't the germans adopt a design that was a little more straightforward like other major powers?
> Why didn't the germans adopt a design that was a little more straightforward like other major powers?
so you know the arming instructions for all the grenades of the other major powers then?
Ok, please let me know in which way the exactly differ.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Well a good starting point would be not requiring a string rigging to prepare when you're in a panic trying to not get killed.
@@Grandtank1999 in other words, you have no idea.
I was trained with the Swiss HG43, it's not complicated at all. After 6 days in boot camp, we were throwing _live_ grenades (300g of Trotyl).
It’s ok you don’t have a frag ring but it Would have been nice to at least see a picture of the rings
You can see a picture of my ring, big boi.
How readyily was a German soldier able to make a defensive grade an offensive one?
Did the potato masher ever get used to mash potatoes?
Considering the numbers and what soldiers generally do, I am pretty sure.
There exists a photograph of a finnish soldier using one to crush coffee beans at least.
Every American WW2 movie features potato mashers, I have never seen one with the egg grenade.
If that's inaccurate imagine what else is.
So, how did the stick grenades stack up to the pineapple grenades as far as damage dealt?
The stick grenade had a slightly smaller fragmentation area and less fragments, the MK2 had less blast effect, overall the effect was broadly similar. Damage is subjective, both did the exploding part of their job to roughly the same capability.
I’ve often wondered if American troops had an advantage throwing grenades accurately in WW2 because of the ubiquity of baseball in the culture, especially in the 1940’s.
The MK2 pineapple grenade wasn't supposed to be thrown like a baseball, but I'm sure some did. The T13 impact grenade, however, was explicitly designed to be as a close to a baseball as possible so that the average yank could use his assumed passing baseball skill to throw it more accurately. They were fairly rare and we're rumoured to have production defects though.
I may have missed it, although I went back a couple of times...can anyone tell me what the point of those two little top spikes are on the 43? A fuse protection...then why only two, not four?
Sadly no idea, I suspect it was not for protection but for screwing/handling it.
Maybe I'm dense but how do the later German grenades activate?
It's a shorter cord than the long M24. When the soldier twists and pulls the ball on the egg grenade, it pulls out a short distance and uses a friction igniter inside to set off the fuse, which burns for 4 seconds and then sets off the booster detonator. The two little wings are for tying the grenades to gether to form a combined charge.
Almost every well known photo of a German soldier with a hand grenade shows stick grenades, easier to see the grenades most likely, makes a better picture.
So, does that mean the stick grenade was an offensive rather than defensive grena - oh yes you just said that why do I even bother writing comments early?
😆
watched the video, changed my soup into eintopf
why is the stick grenade thought of as the German hand grenade?
because you can't carry egg grenades in your jackboots.
Why not a impact detonator?
There were trials etc. but I can't remember that in the sources it was specifically mentioned why not, only that not.
I always wonder how many soldiers were clubbed to death with this grenade in WW2.
Since I held them in my hands, I assume very few, they don't have enough weight to them, of course probably better than bare hands, but generally soldiers had a knife / bayonet, also rifle butt, etc.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized right enough, didn’t consider the weight of these things- of course they’d be light. Cheers
hence the Mark 21 stackable hand grenade the us marines trial'd. follows the idea of "geballte ladung". now screw a stick in it and you can stomp potatos. wound not wonder if those show up in this configuration on a future battlefield. i bet if the stielhandgranate 43 would have been developed further it would probably have ended in a similar fashion.
Not really much point in sticks anymore. Why have something large and bulky take up space when you can just have a grenade launcher that can fire the grenade far further and more accurately than any throw could. You keep smaller and handier grenades for close in work like building clearing and for popping over walls.
@@pluemas read my comment again. it is about stackable grenades. if you put 3 of them together good luck throwing.
OK, is it just me or, in movies, do you both never see them pull the string _and_ appear to see soldiers _twist_ the handle to arm?
Is that my imagination, poor memory or some common mistaken movie trope nobody's mentioned?
If you watch series like "Downfall", you will see M24s being used correctly.
themz good stikkbomms boss!
Ah , my worse enemies in CoH2
I know a friend who would spam Potato Mashers all the time in the game
His tactic got destroyed when another friend just brought out an IS flamethrower tank , good times
Good stuff as usual . Thank you . Please explain the fuse arming procedure on the egg and type 43 was armed . After all no string !
✌️
the stick ads to the tossing distance. so basic
Achtung!! Excellent video, excellent grenade.
It's been a while since you covered historical divisions in HOI4, and now with the new Tank and Air plane designer would you consider making a mini series on designing historically accurate tanks or planes?
No plans for now. It would be great to make this as part of a collaboration with the developers but as far as I know they never picked up on my first videos doing this.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized that is a real shame, because using those infantry divisions in single player was really fun
Topf means pot, not pan.
Cook more!
I laugh because the name just rolls off your tongue so easily .
I wonder if they used to mash potatoes.
**fun fact**
*the reason why the WWII German
_”Stielhandgranate”_ was referred to as a _“potato masher”_ by Allied troops is because it reminded them of a potato masher. 😇
I know the ww1 stick grenades are supposed to have a porcelain ball at the end of the pull cord could it be a mix up with those?
HANS HOLST ICH DIE STIElHAND GRANATE!
the stick seems like just more crap to carry .
Egg grenade? Anyone else also imagining hanz and fritz explaining their sargeant they were throwing eggs at each other to practice hand grenade throwing?
algorithm
Thank you ☺️
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized You're welcome.
In Hollywood film 🎥, the soldier always carries a stick grenade
The sleeve with pre-cut squares was made for the Heer and the sleeve with a split was made for the Waffen-SS.
You have a source for that?
Seeing how useful that fragmentation grenades in the attack (throwing into buildings or machine gun nests you're assaulting), I do not understand why they are described as "defensive weapons".
Because you ideally throw a defensive grenade from very good cover like a trench, since you are protected.
If you miss the machine gun nest, the chances are that you or your comrades assaulting the nest get hit by fragmentation but the nest is not.
Potato mashers D: )
I would be so scared to touch one of those things!
The difference between German and American views on production is interesting. The hole drilled through the handle would not have been considered labor intensive in the US as the process would undoubtedly be done by a machine with little to no human involvement. It would simply be considered an unnecessary (avoidable through redesign) process. Germany put too much labor into most of its equipment.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized >>> Great vid...👍👍
German talking about WW2 weapon and polish flag something is wrong lol
Unfortunately, the video does not address at all the reasons that speak for (or against) a stick grenade in comparison to the egg grenade.
Disadvantages:
The wooden handle means additional "dead" weight that has to be thrown and carried, which has a negative effect on the size of the explosive landing or on the throwing distance. The stick grenade was cumbersome for the soldier to carry and could hardly be put in a pocket of the uniform or trousers, unlike the egg hand grenade. When carried in boxes, it also took up much more space than the same number of egg hand grenades. The size was a particular problem when throwing in wooded terrain, as the stick grenade could more easily get caught in branches. The air resistance during throwing was also greater than that of an egg hand grenade.
Often it is assumed that the hand-held grenade had a longer throwing range because the mass of the warhead was/can be accelerated more by the handle due to a leverage effect. I cannot fully understand this argumentation, since a grenade without a handle can certainly - due to its lower weight - be thrown further and further.
The real reason in favour of the stick grenade is therefore, in my opinion, that it is easier to aim. That is, with a little practice, a rotating stick grenade can be thrown more accurately at a target than an egg grenade, which would outweigh all the disadvantages mentioned above.
P.S.: Since a stick grenade contained 160 grams of explosive, they were much "louder" than an egg grenade (US hand grenade Mk2 approx. 60 grams), which should increase the psychological effect of an offensive hand grenade considerably (see stun grenade).
Das Video geht leider überhaupt nicht auf die Gründe ein, die überhaupt für (oder gegen) eine Stielhandgranate im Vergleich zur Eierhandgranate sprechen.
Nachteile:
Der Holzstiel bedeutet zusätzliches, „totes“ Gewicht, das geworfen und getragen werden muss, was sich negativ auf die Größe der Sprenglandung bzw. auf die Wurfweite auswirkt. Die Stielhandgranate war für den Soldaten umständlich zu tragen und ließ sich kaum in eine Tasche der Uniform oder Hose stecken, im Gegensatz zur Eierhandgranate. Beim Transport in Kisten verbrauchte sie obendrein wesentlich mehr Platz, als die gleiche Anzahl von Eierhandgranaten. Die Größe war ein besonderes Problem bei Würfen im bewaldeten Terrain, da die Stielhandgranate sich leichter im Geäst verfangen konnte. Der Luftwiderstand beim Wurf war ebenfalls größer als der einer Eierhandgranate.
Oft wird eine größere Wurfweite der Stielhandgranate vermutet, weil durch den Stiel, die Masse des Sprengtopfes - aufgrund einer Hebelwirkung - höher beschleunigt wird/werden kann. Ich kann diese Argumentation nicht völlig nachvollziehen, da eine Granate ohne Stiel sich - aufgrund des geringeren Gewichtes - sicherlich immer weiter werfen läßt.
Der eigentliche Grund, der für die Stielhandgranate spricht, ist deshalb meiner Ansicht nach, daß sich mit ihr leichter zielen läßt. D.h. mit etwas Übung kann eine in Rotation versetzte Stielhandgranate genauer auf ein Ziel geworfen werden als eine Eierhandgranate, was eben alle vorgenannten Nachteile aufwiegen würde.
P.S.: Da eine Stielhandgranate 160gr Sprengstoff enthielt, waren diese wesentlich "lauter" als eine Eierhandgranate(US-Handgranate Mk2 ca. 60 Gramm), was die psychologische Wirkung einer offensiven Handgranate deutlich erhöhen dürfte(siehe Blendschockgranate).
Wird im anderen Video behandelt
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized In your video, you do not address the possible different throwing ballistics of the stick grenade and the egg grenade.
Again: Since the stick grenade has a number of clear disadvantages compared to the egg grenade in terms of practicality, I think there must be other reasons if they are to be used in the military or even preferred to an alternative concept. This advantage could lie in a higher hit accuracy on the target or in easier aiming for an average launcher, which would surpass even a longer throwing range. Assuming hand grenades of the same weight, it might be easier to aim a stick grenade if it is thrown overhead or over the shoulder - on an axis to the target. The explosive head of the stick grenade must always be above the launcher's line of sight to the target, otherwise the grenade may be thrown to the ground directly in front of the launcher, which in practice is one of the most frequent causes of accidents when handling hand grenades. In the case of a stick grenade, which is grasped at the lower end, the main weight of the grenade is always above the throwing hand, which is probably the reason why faulty throws "below the horizon of vision into the ground" are less frequent. Further, when throwing the stick grenade over the shoulder onto the target, the thrower inevitably sets it in rotation around its centre of gravity when releasing it, which stabilises the trajectory. I have tested this throwing technique extensively with friends using empty beer bottles, and we came to the conclusion that the bottles - even when drunk - could be thrown more accurately. Both effects, that of the higher centre of gravity above the throwing hand and the easier stabilisation of the trajectory through rotation, speak in favour of the stick grenade in my opinion, whereas its poorer handling may have been one of the reasons why egg grenades were preferred in the course of the war.
Auf eine eventuell unterschiedliche Wurfballistik von Stielhand- und Eierhandgranate gehen sie in ihrem Video nicht ein.
Nochmal: Da die Stielhandgranate z.B. in puncto Praktikabilität eine Reihe von deutlichen Nachteilen gegenüber der Eierhandgranate besitzt, müssen meiner Ansicht andere Gründe vorliegen, wenn sie in den militärischen Gebrauch kommen oder gar einem Alternativkonzept vorgezogen werden. Dieser Vorteil könnte eben in einer höheren Treffergenauigkeit am Ziel bzw. in einem einfacherem Zielen für einen durchschnittlichen Werfern liegen, die selbst eine größeren Wurfweite übertreffen würde. Geht man von gleich schweren Handgranaten aus, lässt sich mit einer Stielhandgranate womöglich besser zielen, wenn diese über Kopf bzw. über die Schulter - in einer Achse zum Ziel - geworfen wird. Der Sprengtopf der Stielhandgranate muss sich dabei immer oberhalb der Blickachse des Werfers zum Ziel befinden, weil sonst die Granate gegebenenfalls direkt vor dem Werfer auf den Boden geworfen wird, was in der Praxis einer der häufigsten Unfallursachen beim Umgang mit Handgranaten ist. Bei einer Stielhandgranate, die man am unteren Ende (an)fasst, liegt das Hauptgewicht der Handgranate immer oberhalb der Wurfhand, weswegen vermutlich Fehlwürfe „unterhalb des Blickhorizontes in den Boden“ weniger häufig vorkommen. Weiter versetzt der Werfer die Stielhandgranate beim Wurf über die Schulter auf das Ziel, wobei beim Loslassen zwangsläufig in Rotation um ihren Schwerpunkt, was die Flugbahn stabilisiert. Ich habe mit Freunden diese Wurftechnik mit leeren Bierflaschen ausgiebig erprobt, und wir kamen zum Schluss, dass sich die Flaschen - selbst im betrunkenem Zustand - zielgerichteter werfen ließen. Beide Effekte, den des höheren Schwerpunkt über der Wurfhand und die leichtere Stabilisierung der Flugbahn durch Rotation sprechen meiner Ansicht nach für die Stielhandgranate, wohingegen ihre schlechtere Handhabung unter anderem dafür gesorgt haben dürfte, dass im Laufe des Krieges Eierhandgranaten doch bevorzugt wurden.
Schon mal aufgefallen, dass ich für alles Quellen bringe, idealerweise welche aus dem 2. WK oder davor?
Back from the front: a British volunteer in Ukraine Lindbiege ruclips.net/video/TCbD4WBqPg4/видео.html
iconic / ikonisch find ich unpassend als Beschreibung für eine Waffe
considering its use in the media it actually is but used in this fashion far and wide
Perhaps not in German, but in English "iconic" is appropriate, even for military weapons.
First and thank you for this video
You're welcome 😊
Outstanding video and presentation.