Although naturally there's been plenty of discussion about hand grenades on this board, a search didn't locate any mention of the following concept (hopefully I didn't miss it), and it's been in the news very recently.

According to the media, Iraqi insurgents are increasingly using easily-concealable, potent hand grenades containing shaped charges for attacks on vehicles. A small parachute is released when the grenade is thrown in order to cause the grenade to land with the charge directed appropriately.

Here's a story (be sure to watch the video):

http://cbs5.com/national/topstories_story_248193422.html

I believe I heard that the grenades are of Russian manufacture; however, the concept seems like it would lend itself fairly well to home manufacture. Here are the main obstacles in my opinion:

(1) Ensuring proper detonation from the rear of the charge without the use of fancy piezoelectric materials or other methods not readily available to the home manufacturer. This is hardly insurmountable, but it could be tricky to make it safe and reliable.

(2) Much less difficult would optimizing the parachute such that it allows for stable flight without slowing the grenade down too much. Also, rather than having the parachute deploy from within the grenade, it may be preferable to simply leave it outside of the grenade and allow it to deploy by "catching the wind" when thrown.

Perhaps the parachute could be dispensed with entirely by weighting down the front of the grenade casing (e.g., a thick ring of dense material surrounding the front end of the grenade). But that might increase the overall weight to unwanted levels.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps the "dense material" could be magnetic? Helpful, surely, on the sloping metal surfaces of an armoured vehicle. Some magnets get pretty heavy. (This is, of course, assuming a lack of costing issues)

These are the kind of grenades that the rags are using:

http://www.inert-ord.net/russ02i/rkg3_upg8/index.html

Video of them in action:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc1_1187151333
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=927_1180806294
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8a_1180675064

A good hi-res MPG with slow-motion showing the parachutes deploying:
http://www.fileflyer.com/view/n7mLKAx

This place is selling parts for a RKG-3:

http://www.big-ordnance.com/forsale/grenade_ammunition.htm


This is a handle from a Soviet UPG-8 grenade. The UPG-8 is the TP version of the RKG-3 HEAT grenade. The handle is complete with all parts including the parachute. Unfolded parachute not included.

Price: $25.00 Each


The site hasn't been updated for several years, though, so they may not still be in business. :confused:

A book I read a while back mentions a similar kind of grenade. Instead of a parachute it has three or four fins that stabilize it in flight, the fins fold together for ease of transport and handling.

Using fins rather than a parachute would make the grenade less sensitive to wind and also make it drop or fly somewhat faster, increasing accuracy.

Making simple shaped charges at home (much less ones that can cut through tank armor) is no easy task. Making them small enough to fit inside a hand grenade sounds to be bordering somewhere between impossible and extremely difficult.

That said, one's best bet would probably be a design somewhat larger than a conventional grenade, perhaps like a Nerf football shape. A streamer would probably do a better job than a full parachute.

Making simple shaped charges at home (much less ones that can cut through tank armor) is no easy task. Making them small enough to fit inside a hand grenade sounds to be bordering somewhere between impossible and extremely difficult.I think you might be overstating the difficulty. Several people on this board have already made such charges, some with considerable success (great penetration from surprisingly small charges). Check out this thread:

http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=4155

And here's a mere 200g charge with a glass cone easily penetrating 2" of steel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMf8DbZAD6Y

I understand that a simple funnel with the spout cut off can work as a liner, but a lot of people are trying to perfect methods of making liners from copper, since it seems to be the ideal liner material.

That said, one's best bet would probably be a design somewhat larger than a conventional grenade, perhaps like a Nerf football shape. A streamer would probably do a better job than a full parachute.

These grenades definitely don't have to be as small as ordinary hand grenades. In fact, the factory-made ones being used in Iraq are considerably larger. They can't be thrown as far as standard grenades for that reason, but they're meant to be thrown from behind solid cover anyway.

Personally, I'd go for dropping them onto the tops of the armoured vehicles (probably lightly armoured Humvees) from the roof tops. Always tricky, and the OpFor know not to get too close, but then, if you can hit them at throwing distance...

Of course, if that were the way forward, I'd be dropping half a ton of bricks on them. Once stuck from that, then you can open up with the expensive shaped charged stuff.

I've noticed that these guys are very close to the exploding grenades, and seem able to run away just fine.

Of course, they could have died from fragmentation/blast injuries later, but that'd be just fine with them, having died in Jihad against the Great Satan.

I also noticed that the vehicles don't really seem to be damaged. Yeah, there's a big explosion, but if a guy (who's standing right next to the explosion) can get up and run away, what damage was done to the vehicle?

You're looking for one of two things in my opinion. Either you must destroy the vehicle (simply for the sake of destroying equipment or for the sake of killing the occupants later) or you must kill at least some of the occupants of the vehicle outright.

We don't know if anyone inside was killed. (I hope everybody's fine, except for the ragheads.) The vehicle doesn't seem to be severely damaged. It could coast to a stop off camera, but I find that unlikely.

Lookup 'spall'.

That means little hole outside, big hole with a shotgun blast of fragments and flame inside.

I also noticed that the vehicles don't really seem to be damaged. Yeah, there's a big explosion, but if a guy (who's standing right next to the explosion) can get up and run away, what damage was done to the vehicle?
I'm sure the throwers feel a tremendous blast and probably get bits of shrapnel, but they don't get the brunt of the effects, due to the directional nature of the explosion.

You're looking for one of two things in my opinion. Either you must destroy the vehicle (simply for the sake of destroying equipment or for the sake of killing the occupants later) or you must kill at least some of the occupants of the vehicle outright.But even RPGs don't destroy a tank outright -- unless, I suppose, they cause the secondary explosion of stored ammo. They just punch a hole through the armor.

If you can punch a 1 cm diameter cylindrical hole through armor, all that dense steel that was previously located in the volume of the hole is turned into a high-velocity "shotgun" spray of hot metal inside the vehicle. And even if there isn't complete penetration, there's the spalling that NBK mentioned. (Heavily-armored vehicles generally have spall liners inside, but I don't know about the Humvees.)

We don't know if anyone inside was killed. (I hope everybody's fine, except for the ragheads.) The vehicle doesn't seem to be severely damaged. It could coast to a stop off camera, but I find that unlikely.Well, I look at it this way. While I have no love for ragheads, they have a right to defend against an occupation of their land. We invaded their country, not the reverse. A lot of these insurgents might be taking revenge for loved ones who were killed during "Shock & Awe." They're just doing the same thing I'd do if I were them. (I definitely don't condone this tit-for-tat, Shiite vs. Sunni killing of civilians over there, though. It's pretty senseless.)

Still, I don't blame US soldiers for being over there so much as the Jewish and "Christian Zionist" neocons who suckered the US into war on behalf of Israel. That's what neoconservatism is really all about -- getting the US to fight for Jewish interests in the Middle East at US expense. It's Bush, Cheney, Jew Wolfowitz, Jew Perle, Jew Feith, Jew Shulsky, Jew Abrams, and many others who are really responsible for all the deaths over there, US and Iraqi alike. But that's another thread.

Anyway, I have heard of US troops being killed by these devices while in vehicles. But my own interest in them isn't just for potential future use against vehicles (armored or not), but perhaps against heavily-armored pigs on foot as well.

Soldiers in HUMVEE's and STRYKER's have been killed by these grenades, as they are inteded to defeat light armored vehicles and to disable tanks (engine hits).

Anyway, I have heard of US troops being killed by these devices while in vehicles.

Soldiers in HUMVEE's and STRYKER's have been killed by these grenades, as they are inteded to defeat light armored vehicles and to disable tanks (engine hits).

Now, I've not done extensive research on this grenade, but show me the proof that this grenade has been the cause of extensive casualties. Duh, I'm sure there's been a few kills. Show me the proof.

you must destroy the vehicle

Destroy = disable, as defined by the rest of the post. Obviously, you're not going to be able to OBLITERATE a hummer with a grenade. LoL. :rolleyes:

Allow me to rephrase my previous post.

"Does that thingamerbobber with the 'chute work well, or are the ragheads using it for kool points?"

If the grenade doesn't land properly, it's not going to do much damage, is it? (As noted by the fact that the ragheads get up and run away.) If the truck is moving rapidly, what are the chances that the shaped charge is going to be effectively deployed?

Is this thing effective on a regular basis or only when the stars line up properly?

I'm not going to take the time to explain every minute detail of the idea I'm trying to convey. If you can't get it, you can't get it.

---

Well, I look at it this way. While I have no love for ragheads, they have a right to defend against an occupation of their land.

Don't EVER come even close to saying that the ragheads are justified in killing American servicemen or that you're happy the raghead have succeeded in killing any servicemen, even in defense of their country. They are our boys; I've got a lot of friends who are in Iraq.

You can debate the morality of the 'occupation' all you want, but the fact is that those men over there are Americans. If you EVER say that you are OK with our servicemen being killed for any fucked-up, elitist, 'I'll take the logical highground' reasons, I'll give you shit through this board every way I know how.

In summary, Shut the Fuck Up.

Now, I've not done extensive research on this grenade, but show me the proof that this grenade has been the cause of extensive casualties. Duh, I'm sure there's been a few kills. Show me the proof.I don't know the statistics. Since they were featured in the news recently as a growing threat, I assume the military considers them a threat as well.

Also, Wikipedia and other sites I've seen claim a penetration capability of around 125 mm of RHA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade


If the grenade doesn't land properly, it's not going to do much damage, is it? (As noted by the fact that the ragheads get up and run away.) If the truck is moving rapidly, what are the chances that the shaped charge is going to be effectively deployed?

Is this thing effective on a regular basis or only when the stars line up properly?

I'm not going to take the time to explain every minute detail of the idea I'm trying to convey. If you can't get it, you can't get it.I'm sure the successes are hit-or-miss with rapidly moving vehicles -- probably "miss," more often than not. That's probably why the rags appear to always attack with these in twos or threes.


Don't EVER come even close to saying that the ragheads are justified in killing American servicemen or that you're happy the raghead have succeeded in killing any servicemen, even in defense of their country. They are our boys; I've got a lot of friends who are in Iraq. And don't YOU tell me what to say. As long as I'm in the good graces of the admins here, I'll speak the truth as I see it, and too bad if it's too much for you to take.

The Iraqis most definitely DO have the right to resist the occupation of THEIR country. Anyone who is invaded has the same right. Just because America (or, more truthfully, the American government) is doing something, that doesn't make it right.

Anyway, I already said that I put the blame for the war on the plutocrats that your friends are unwittingly risking their lives for, not on the soldiers themselves.

You can debate the morality of the 'occupation' all you want, but the fact is that those men over there are Americans.I don't give a fuck who they are. You think I owe concern to someone just because he was born in the same country as me?! That's pseudo-patriotic, herd-thinking bullshit. It's evident everywhere in the form of forced piety toward "our men and women in uniform." I respect the Constitution and those who are prepared to defend it (including many ex-military), not someone just because he puts on a spiffy uniform and agrees to do whatever Big Brother tells him.

What's going to happen when the military gets used for confiscating American citizens' guns, or when some of those in Iraq now come back and join the pigs to do the same? Are you going to cheer them on then, just because they're Americans? Or are you going to resist, much like the Iraqis are doing now?

And don't tell me "that can't happen." The National Guard already cooperated with the pigs in a gun confiscation in New Orleans after Katrina. So much for the oath to protect the Constitution, huh? The WORST enemies of the Constitution are the same people from whom the US military takes orders!

If you EVER say that you are OK with our servicemen being killed for any fucked-up, elitist, 'I'll take the logical highground' reasons, I'll give you shit through this board every way I know how.Do your worst -- I'll likely ignore you and continue to contribute to the board's mission as best I can. I'm not here to bicker with anyone.

In summary, Shut the Fuck Up.After you.

Guys, keep it civil or HED's will be rolling.

Speaking of heads, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) is a serious problem for many ex-soldiers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_he_me/coming_home_wounded_brain_injuries

They survive the immediate effects of a nearby RPG or IED hit, but their brains get beat up inside their skull, leaving them less-than-functional.

So an RKG-3 grenade may not kill everyone in the HUMVEE, but it could very well scramble their brains, leaving them functional idiots upon returning to the US.

I'd say the ragheads throwing them would be affected too, but there has to be a brain in there for anything to be damaged. :)

Iraq is a whole different kind of war then we've ever fought and we are taking a beating like we've never gotten before. In WWI we took almost 4:1 casualties, in WWII we took almost 3:1, in Vietnam we took 2:1. Notice the wounded rates are steadily going down with better Medical and Air Evacuation that started in late WWII and really got going in Korea. In Vietnam our men started wearing body armor.

In Iraq we are taking 10:1 casualties rates IE: For every man killed there are 10 wounded. Advances in Body Armor and Light Armored vehicles aren't keeping up with 4th Generation Warfare and the advances with IEDs.

There is much to be learned from the Iraq war that we may need someday. here.

Here's a good story illustrating the need for anti-armor weapons in civilian hands:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

http://media.phoenixnewtimes.com/29376.0.gif

Just another day in the North American Union.

In Iraq we are taking 10:1 casualties rates IE: For every man killed there are 10 wounded. Advances in Body Armor and Light Armored vehicles aren't keeping up with 4th Generation Warfare and the advances with IEDs.

Is that an accurate depiction of what is happening? I have heard the new body armor is doing a wonderful job of keeping the troops alive. I guess a source will be needed to verify the statistics. We might have to wait until the war is actually over... whenever that will be.

President Giuliani will end the war with a US victory!

President Obama will end the war with a draw.

President Hillary will end the war with a US surrender :(

I think the 10:1 injury/fatality ratio is actually an improvement.

It may be that in Vietnam that for every guy who died, you had one injury (?), but that could simply be because the guy's who are now living (thanks to armor and improved medical care) would have died in 'Nam.

Of course, better armor is also a mixed blessing, because a lot of guys are now living (minus two or more limbs), who would have died in battles past.

Here's a good story illustrating the need for anti-armor weapons in civilian hands

What a disgusting story. :mad: "A candle on the bed knocked over and started the fire" -- yeah, right. Didn't the federal pigs at Waco use a similar excuse?

Yes, that's an excellent example of what citizens need to be able to fight against. And the more the pigs get away with that sort of thing, the more they'll do it just because they can.

If they surround you while you're in your home, though, then you probably won't get a chance to throw a grenade at their vehicle (which in that story didn't even serve a purpose except to show how bumbling the turds were when they crashed it into a parked car).

On the other hand, if they bust into your home because their gas isn't working due to your gas mask, one of those grenades would make a fine last-ditch anti-personnel weapon thrown from the top of the stairs -- dangerous to use, but perhaps worth it if there are no other good options.


Regarding blast effects from the RKG-3 (or similar grenade) suffered by the thrower, I looked up the casualty-producing radius of a concussion grenade, the MK3A2, which like all concussion grenades relies solely on blast overpressure to produce casualties:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk3a2.htm

Its 8 ounces of TNT in a fairly thin-walled casing are stated to have a casualty-producing radius of 2 m in open areas. Pretty small. I'm not sure how much it would increase in confined areas.

The RKG has 567 grams (20 ounces) of TNT and RDX according to the Wikipedia article linked earlier -- obviously a much larger charge, and with RDX in there to boot. But the blast is going to be more directional, so that makes it tough to say what's a safe distance behind the RKG (or similar copy) when it goes off. Clearly blast pressure falls off quite rapidly with distance, though -- don't quote me on this, but I read somewhere that it's an inverse-square law.


Mega: No, no, say it ain't so! Please tell me you don't support Giuliani! :eek: :)

Seriously, any of the candidates you mentioned will take the US further toward a police state. All are very pro-gun-control, anti-Constitution, and anti-freedom, and all are slaves to the Israeli lobby (AIPAC and others), which wants to keep the US bogged down in the Middle East to fight as many countries on behalf of Israel as possible.

Meanwhile, any real terrorists out there can just waltz across our borders while the Glorious Imperial Legions (Vietnam vet Thomas Chittum's term) are chasing around the world.

Honestly, I think the US lost the Iraq war by invading in the first place. I think leaving wouldn't be surrender, it would be simply admitting that our government was wrong.

We're fighting a proxy war for Israel, wasting lives, limbs, and hundreds of billions of dollars for our precious little nuclear-armed pet. From an Israeli think tank, prior to the invasion:

To democratize Islam it will be necessary for the United States to conquer Iraq and other Islamic regimes and maintain an occupation force for two or three decades, as was done in post-war Japan and Germany.
http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html

Also worth reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

All the mainstream Republican candidates -- everyone except Ron Paul -- just want to extend the madness to Iran and Israel's other enemies and "out-Bush Bush." I'd like to see a true freedom-lover like Ron Paul get the nomination myself, but that won't happen. And the Democrats...uggghhh. All the establishment candidates on both sides are a disaster.

Okay, sorry for getting OT again. I hope I didn't anger you, just offering my perspective.

10x the charge weight doubles the effective radius.

My "stats" were old ones from a report some 6 months ago. After doing some current checking they've dropped a bit. As of September 5, 2007 the rate is closer to 7.5:1 with 3,741 KIA to 27,767 WIA with 20% of that with serious brain or spinal injuries.

Either way the rate is 3 to 4 times the rate compared to WWII, Korea or Vietnam which ran 2-3:1 which I'm sure relates to the medical care available now as compared to then. Given the same medical as Vietnam I'm sure the KIA rate would be higher and the WIA rate lower as fewer would survive.

The overall rate has stayed pretty much the same in percentage of men fielded throughout the same wars or about 20%-25% KIA/WIA.

I hate getting back on topic when people are having an interesting conversation on the new topic, but speaking of these "new threats in Iraq" they have been in use since WW2.

Russians Just did what they do best, took a German idea and put their own spin on it.

The Panzerwurfmine (Which I think is the one that A.C.E mentioned reading about in a book.)

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/panzerwurfmine/index.html


Mentioned this `grenade`because it would probably be an easier one to construct than the whole deploying parachute idea.
Too bad they stopped selling Lawndarts...

NBK,

That's an interesting relationship. There's less return in blast radius per mass increase than I would have expected.

I did a quick calculation that I'll omit the details of unless someone wants to see them. But based on that relationship, and unless I goofed with the math, if 8 ounces of TNT gives a 2 m blast-casualty radius, then 20 ounces of TNT gives about 2.635 m (all other factors being equal).

If we knew how much RDX was in the RKG, then perhaps we could get a better estimate based on its TNT equivalence. But maybe RDX is just a booster in there rather than a significant component of the main charge.

Anyway, all this gives me the opinion that blast danger from these hand grenades is minimal as long as they're thrown reasonably far. Shrapnel is another matter.

tiac,

Thanks for posting that very informative article. I do like that design better than the parachute.

Regarding impact detonation, I was thinking of a basic electrical system. How about a floating (e.g., on springs) metal plate at the front of the grenade that's electrically isolated from one or more metal contacts behind it until impact causes them to touch? A battery stored in the handle of the grenade would provide power to the detonator when the circuit was closed. A simple safety switch might also be put in series with the circuit.

One possible problem with the above is that the contacts may not stay shut long enough after the grenade hits the target to allow the detonator's bridgewire to heat up enough. That depends on the sensitivity of the primary, the battery voltage, the bridgewire resistance, etc. So you might have the grenade just bounce off the target, with the contacts closing only for a split second. Maybe this concern isn't valid, though -- I'm not familiar enough with this stuff yet to know first-hand.

A flash circuit from a disposable camera would work just fine for an impact switch.

The briefest of circuit closure is enough to instantly dump the charge through the flash (or det, in this case), with plenty of time to spare for the SC to fire before it skids off into a useless angle.

These journal articles might be of interest.

Interaction of a Metallic Jet with a Moving Target
H. S. Yadav

Study of interaction of a high velocity jet with a moving target has
been carried out on the basis of simplifying assumptions of constant
velocity of the jet and the target plate. The theoretical model meets
the boundary conditions of the problem and predicts satisfactorily the
main features of the phenomenon and the trend in variation of parameters
like depth of penetration. surface cut and total distance travelled
by target during the time of interaction of complete length of the jet.
Unlike jet penetration in a stationary target, the penetration in a
target, accelerated by thin layer of explosive, has been found independent
of density of the target. The penetration, however, has been
found strongly dependent on the angle of impact and the ratio of jet
and target velocities.


Shaped Charge Jet Against a Transverse Moving Target
Manfred Held

This test, originally conducted to check the possibilities for
an active defense system(6) with small shaped charges against
HEAT rounds has given also a clear demonstration that the
individual jet particles are hitting one after the other a
transversely moving target. It can be also used without any
sophisticated diagnostic technique to determine the individual
particle velocities and their individual penetration or
perforation capabilities.


And of less relevance...

Shaped Charge Optimization against ERA Targets
Manfred Held

Shaped charges with different angles or/and different liner wall
thicknesses have been tested against an explosive reactive armor
sandwich. The reason was to find out if more robust shaped
charges give more residual penetration against an ERA sandwich,
compared to shaped charges with more penetration performance
in RHA targets. It was thought, that the latter ones are more
sensitive against disturbances. But the shaped charges with the
higher perforation capability have typically higher jet tip velocities
and this gives more residual penetration also against ERA
targets. In other words the so-called more robust charges gave less
performance against the ERA sandwiches than the shaped
charges which have higher performance in RHA targets.

Another video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ada_1189106198

A flash circuit from a disposable camera would work just fine for an impact switch.
There's a good idea. Although it requires waiting for the capacitor to charge up, that doesn't take too long, and that can serve as a kind of safety/arming mechanism. And the device is pretty much ready-made. :)

I wasn't familiar with those circuits, so I did a search and found a lot of sites like this one on how to use them for electrical ignition:

http://www.angelfire.com/80s/sixmhz/camera.html

Another possibility I was considering was a circuit incorporating a thyristor. This may not be as convenient or workable as the flash circuit.

When a safety switch is turned on, a forward bias is applied across the thyristor by a battery. But current isn't able to flow through it until a small current (from the same battery) is applied to the gate, which happens as soon as the impact switch is closed. Once the gate has current flowing through it, even for a moment, the thyristor is latched on and continues to conduct even if gate current is removed due to release of the contacts after impact.

An issue here is that a typical thyristor might not have a fast enough switching speed. But it's food for thought, anyway. A search turned up some related discussion, so others have done similar things in other contexts.

black mamba,

Excellent articles! Thanks for posting them.

I was looking through "Weapons of WW2" the other night, and by dumb luck I fell across a grenade that seemed just like what we are talking about with shaped charges. And yes I know this was briefly mentioned above, but here is more info. This is what the article was:

Germany- Panzerwurfmine (L)
The Panzerwurfmine (L) was developed by the German army for us by special tank-killer infantry squads to provide them with a powerful standoff weapon that could be carried and used by one man. It was a specialized form of anti-tank grenade that used a hollow-charge warhead to defeat the target tank armor. To ensure that the warhead was actually facing the target armour when it struck the tank, the grenade was fitted with a finned tail for stabilization and guidance.

The Panzerwurfmine was thrown at its target in a special manner. The grenade warhead had behind it a steel body attached to a wooden handle. The user gripped this handle and held it behind his back with the warhead pointing vertically upwards. When ready the user swung his arm forward and released the handle. As soon as the grenade was in flight four canvas fins unfolded from the handle for guidance and stabilization, and the drogue effect of these fins maintained the warhead in its correct forward position ready to have maximum effect as it struck. This sounds simple enough, but in practice the Panzerwurfmine was not an easy weapon to use effectively. For a start the maximum possible range was limited by the strength and ability of the thrower, and was usually no more than 30m (32.8yds) at best, and was frequently less. Accuracy could only be ensured by practice with special inert training versions.

But despite these disadvantages some of the special German anti-tank personnel greatly favored the Panzerwurfmine. Compared with other close-in anti-tank weapons used by the Germans the Panzerwurfmine was relatively small, light, and handy. It was also potent, for the warhead was made up of RDX and TNT in equal measures and weighed .52kg (1.146lbs). Combined with the hollow charge principle, this usually ensured penetration of even the thickest armor of all Allied tanks. It also had the advantage of not requiring the user to approach the tank to place the grenade on the target, with all the attendant risks of such a tactic. Further safety was provided by the fact that the warhead was not fully fused until the grenade was in flight, for the act of throwing also armed the fuse.

Despite its success in German hands, the Panzerwurfmine was not copied by any of the Allies. Captured examples were used when they fell into Allied hands, especially by the Red Army, but the Americans often misused them for they at first thought they were meant to be thrown in the same manner as an over-sized dart; once the mistake had been discovered special intelligence bulletins were soon issued to correct this practice. After 1945 the principle was used for a while by various Warsaw Pact nations, and in recent years the Egyptians have seen fit to copy the Panzerwurfmine almost exactly as part of the output of their new indigenous armaments industry. They have discovered that this type of anti-tank weapon is exactly suited to their infantry anti-tank tactics, and their version is quite capable of 'killing' most modern tanks.

Specification
Panzerwurfmine (L)
Body Diameter: 114.3mm (4.5in)
Lengths: Overall 533mm (21in); body 228.6mm (9in); fins 279.4mm (11in)
Weights: Overall 1.35kg (2.98lbs); warhead .52kg (1.146lbs)

Ah, the beauties of having a broken scanner. :rolleyes:

The following is a link with more detail and photos of the grenades:
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust9.htm
^The pictures are essentially the same as in my book.

Google "Panzerwurfmine" and you will find a wealth of information on this. :)
http://www.google.com/search?q=panzerwurfmine

If you look at the video NBK posted (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ada_1189106198), at 3:08 to 3:12 you can see that, of the two grenades thrown, the left thrower aims too low, and, although he hits the target, the grenade has little effect when it goes bang, as it is spiralling wildly, and the eplosion is big and flashy, but probably had little effect (though it probably ruined the drivers view of the road, as it hit just in front of the windscreen).

The right thrower gets it right, and you can see the parachute as it controls the decent perfectly, into the top of the target Humvee, and a far more muffled flash as it puts its energy into doing damage. The Humvee then loses power, and rolls to a halt - it doesn't look like it is braking hard.

Regarding casualty rates, the issue now is that the trauma teams are so fast and so good, that people who should be dead are living on. There are soldiers with no arms, legs, one lung and no brain, but they have "saved his life" to be a vegetable forever. There's a British soldier (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2343929.ece) lost both his legs and suffered serious head injuries when a landmine exploded in Helmand province last September. Other injuries include a broken elbow, lost his spleen, lost his voice, had shattered ribs, a fractured cheekbone, nose, jaw, pelvis and vertebrae. He is believed to be one of the worst-wounded (UK) servicemen ever to survive.

It's almost ironic that the body armour is the cause of this. The torso is incredibly well protected now, and so is the top and back of the head, so the insurgent freedom fighters aim for the face, and blow off the arms and legs. Blast causes spinal damage, too. However, these are the lethal effects that aren't so lethal any more. Lost two legs and an arm? No matter, they will pump you full of drugs and stabilise you, and airlift you to hospital in a few minutes. 20 years ago, blood loss would have been a killer, as would internal injuries. Now, they chop you open, and fix you up. No matter that you really, really should be dead.

So, the effect of this is the attackers get more dangerous, and start using big-ass bombs instead of small ones, and really powerful guns instead of lower powered ones. Then we up-armour again, and so on.

As regards spall, it is true that most armoured vehicles have anti-spall liners. However, the regulations say that you must wear your full protective gear inside even the biggest tank, as this will provide yet more protection, especially since the spall acts, essentially, like a bullet or, perhaps, a shotgun blast, so it just might save you.

As regards the whole occupation thing, it's definitely a pooch-screw.