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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

I think Bernard has a video about that ball grenade

Dos tequilas por favor, and an empty glass.

It may also be thrown more accurately because of the spin on it when thrown.

@@hongo3870 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.

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.

Glad you liked it!

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.

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.

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.

Copyright

Sadly no idea, I suspect it was not for protection but for screwing/handling it.

> 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You can see a picture of my ring, big boi.

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.

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.

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

If that's inaccurate imagine what else is.

There were trials etc. but I can't remember that in the sources it was specifically mentioned why not, only that not.

You're welcome 😊

😆

If you watch series like "Downfall", you will see M24s being used correctly.

You have a source for that?

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.

Thank you ☺️

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized You're welcome.

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?

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.