A defensive grenade?

[Expendable Grunt]

Explain to me how a grenade can be a "defensive" weapon.

I'm reading up on Soviet era grenades, and apparently the F1 is a "defensive" grenade.

A grenade is a friggin bomb. It's always offensive.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Defensive grenade is a term that relates to (generally) older fragmentation grenades where the injure/casulty radius is greater than the distance most people can throw the grenade.

This obviously causes a slight problem in that if you throw the grenade in an open area, you risk getting hit too.

So, you had to throw the grenade whilst behind cover; making it a "defensive" grenade that can only be used when behind a defensive position.

The "Mills Bomb" from WW2 is similar .

[Expendable Grunt]

Oh ok. Makes sense now, actually.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Yeah, makes you wonder whether or not we should badger the DEVs to get this effect added in PR. The F1 was a fearsome beast - damage radius of about 45m, according to most of the stuff I've picked up on it.

Would force people to use at least one of the grenades a little more sensibly...

[Expendable Grunt]

Yeah, I've got research to do on frags. I love them so

[Harrod200]

IIRC, the shrapnel range (furthest distance, not neccecarily still lethal/damaging) of most modern frag grenades when set off on a level concrete surface is somewhere in the 100-200 metre range. It would seem actual wounding ranges are around 15m for offensive grenades (so sayeth the omnipotent wiki man). 'Course that is wiki, so take it with a pinch of salt.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

*Grin* Have been having a disucssion with Nedlands1 over in the suggestions forum - we've worked out exactly what the settings are that need to be changed to get the F1 to wound people badly at 30m, and kill at about 10-15m. Just need to try and get it running on an offline server now, see how it plays

[Hardtman]

Also, some grenades, e.g. the potato masher from WW2, can be turned from offensive to defensive by putting rings of raw iron(don't know the correct term here) around them, thus increasing the amount of fragments.

Reminds me, am I right if I say that every grenade that does not produce fragments (excluding those of the hull of course) could be considered offensive, and every grenade that has extra fragments/material that produces fragments, could be considered defensive?

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Nope, the "defensive" tag arises for the quality of causing harm to the user at maxmium range thrown unless they're under cover.


i.e.: if you're not behind cover, an M67 will harm you if you throw it 10m, but not if you throw it 35-40m. The F1 will harm you no matter how hard you manage to throw it (assuming you're not superhuman).

The amount of fragmentation is secondary - the F1 was ridged and bumped to provide more metal for fragmentation, however there are also ridged/bumped offensive grenades.

[[R-CON]MrD]

In the early 90's, we (brits) were taught to 'post' nades. Never allowed to throw them because of friendly casualty issues. You'd crawl up to bunkers and trenches, 'post' the nade and roll away very fast.

The estimated safe distance on tarmac for a 6ft tall human stood up straight was estimated 195m. and then, due to metric/imperial confusion, they go and tell us same safe distance from arty is 550 yards. Guess it depended on how old the instructor was that was briefing us.


Amusingly (unless you've been there), the human body can withstand massive amounts of explosive pressure. If the shrapnel doesn't hit you and you keep your mouth open, then you suffer blown eardrums, damaged eyes, but survive close encounters with nades. When they land, you dive down on your belly, feet towards the nade and keep your arms under.