NEWS

A question of grenades and setting them off

  • 78 Replies
  • 11849 Views

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #15 on: (00:22:37/07-14-14) »
And I answered with a real world example, leaving the OP free to speculate based on my experience, something which he asked for.

You've changed your position a couple times, seconded information that quite frankly is blatantly incorrect (showing how much knowledge both posters actually have of modern explosives technology), and taken this discussion to a level at which I'm not willing to engage.

I'm out.


To the OP; I'd be more than happy to provide you with accurate information on modern day explosives if you're interested; I would encourage you to do some research for yourself regarding the claims made by myself and others in this thread to discover what is actually true about modern explosives.

JimmyCrisis

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
« Reply #16 on: (03:13:44/07-14-14) »
Well that escalated quickly.  I didn't mean to insult you, if you think that's the problem?

This sounds like you've got the wrong idea of me, so I'm just gonna drop it.

It would have been nice to learn something relevant about the Shadowrun rules and how they relate to modern explosives, but we would need to be discussing that, not arguing about it.  Still, anyone have a reference for what they pack in grenades?  SR3 or SR4 would be the best to look through.  Maybe Cannon Companion or Man & Machine has something.

LionofPerth

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
  • That's Mind Taking Baby!
« Reply #17 on: (07:22:57/07-14-14) »
To the OP; I'd be more than happy to provide you with accurate information on modern day explosives if you're interested; I would encourage you to do some research for yourself regarding the claims made by myself and others in this thread to discover what is actually true about modern explosives.

Indeed, perhaps another PM on the matter might be order martin.

I have seen the Mythbusters episode in question, as well as some reading on the matter myself. Hence the question to be honest. The information I can access suggests that while the explosive base for the grenade is highly stable, the detonating mechanism/blasting cap is much less stable. Enough that when I saw the Mythbusters episode in question, I did predict that the .308 round would set it off.

The way I see it is that if the detonator for the grenade in question is sufficiently sensitive, then any significant shock could trigger it. While you could hit it hard with a hammer, that shouldn't do it. A rifle round on the other hand, does have a significant amount of energy and could provide enough energy to do it.

I'd also point to a reply or comment from a previous post, whoever said it, please forgive me as I can't think of your username, that when a 40mm launched grenade is fine to drop, but if it rolled down hill, you called EOD to handle it. While the situation is different, it sounds like somewhere inside it, after the gyroscopic safeties have been deactivated, is in fact quite sensitive to impact, shock.

I've also heard a few stories relating to using .50cal to defuse IED's, some of them exploding. My guess in this last instance is that rather than the explosives going off, a sufficiently sensitive detonator, blasting cap, was triggered, causing the chain reaction required for the blast.

When in doubt, C4.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4905
« Reply #18 on: (09:01:22/07-14-14) »
In SR5 HTR would be using hand grenades or mini grenades that are triggered wireless. Have your decker either hack a mark on the owner and spoof detonation commands to the explosives or hack the explosive and remote control it to detonate.

As for cars that start to burn and explode the second they crash or are shot at (or even free fall towards the ground); That only happens in Hollywood. Same with people that don't fall straight down when being shot. But Hollywood realism is more fun. It look cooler. For this reason SR5 also use a lot of Hollywood realism whenever applicable. And for this reason, and this reason alone,  I think you should make some house rules for your gun bunny or sniper to let them set of explosives by shooting at them ;)

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #19 on: (09:28:05/07-14-14) »
Well said, Xenon. Though I vehemently disagree on bodies flying around when shot, but that's just a personal preference ;)

LionofPerth

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
  • That's Mind Taking Baby!
« Reply #20 on: (10:01:21/07-14-14) »
In SR5 HTR would be using hand grenades or mini grenades that are triggered wireless. Have your decker either hack a mark on the owner and spoof detonation commands to the explosives or hack the explosive and remote control it to detonate.

As for cars that start to burn and explode the second they crash or are shot at (or even free fall towards the ground); That only happens in Hollywood. Same with people that don't fall straight down when being shot. But Hollywood realism is more fun. It look cooler. For this reason SR5 also use a lot of Hollywood realism whenever applicable. And for this reason, and this reason alone,  I think you should make some house rules for your gun bunny or sniper to let them set of explosives by shooting at them ;)

I think my idea is on the hard side of Hollywood realism, but still, some boom and blasts, including hitting grenades at range to make them go off. Plus I figure it makes for a great story to tell about past characters.
When in doubt, C4.

Leevizer

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
« Reply #21 on: (22:53:50/07-14-14) »
I love it how in most cases when discussing weapons, someone comes in to tell about their extreme expertise on the subject. Not just here, but in general.

Anyway, I think that it depends on the campaign and how you want to play it. If you're going with the rule of cool, allow it. Even if you are going in the more realistic direction of a campaign, a player might give that as an idea to get out of a tough situation.

I'm not going to start discussing real-life grenades here since as someone pointed out, there's been 70 years or so of weapon development in the SR universe.

Though just a few days ago my group got mad at me when I told them that a car that was set aflame exploded because "that doesn't happen in real life". Handwaved it off by saying that there was a crate of grenades inside as well, which the players quickly agreed to as an explanation.

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #22 on: (00:45:21/07-15-14) »
Leevizer
You'll note that real world knowledge was specifically asked for by the person who started this thread...

And the fact that your players needed an explanation for why a car spontaneously blew up should be an indication to you.

Leevizer

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
« Reply #23 on: (00:56:40/07-15-14) »
Leevizer
You'll note that real world knowledge was specifically asked for by the person who started this thread...

And the fact that your players needed an explanation for why a car spontaneously blew up should be an indication to you.

And the real world knowledge turned into "my gun experience is better" kind of talk. Thankfully not too bad, though (the best example I can think of is when people talked about the Rainforest Carbine)

And I'm not entirely sure what you're hinting at with that last comment? And like I said, the car was set aflame and then exploded. To elaborate further, the front wheel of the car got hit by an explosive bolt from a heavy crossbow, blowing the wheel clean off after which I told the players that there was fire and smoke starting to rise from the car.

The reason why I thought I'd say it was because the campaign is full of stunts, hollywood-ish stuff and such so it came off to me as odd to have players call me out on having a vehicle explode since "that's not how it happens in real life".

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #24 on: (00:59:50/07-15-14) »
If the fact that an attempt to correct blatantly wrong information comes across to you as a pissing contest, we really have nothing more to discuss.

Have a good one.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4905
« Reply #25 on: (04:02:03/07-15-14) »
JimmyCrisis, Leevizer;
Why act surprised that someone with real life explosions training contribute to a thread where the OP specifically asked: "My questions, which I hope someone with some EOD/explosives training can answer..."?

Leevizer

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
« Reply #26 on: (04:27:19/07-15-14) »
I guess I exaggerated slightly. I've just seen a fair share of threads in which people start crusading about their weapons experience and start raging if someone dares question their knowledge as a weapons expert. Like I said in the first message, this wasn't a bad case as I have seen but had some of the same things they usually have.

So if you got offended by me having a laugh to myself over here, I apologize.

...And I guess I should mention I spent an year in the Finnish Defense Forces. I know something about weaponry as well, so I'm not trying to make fun of gun enthusiasts for being gun enthusiasts.

JimmyCrisis

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
« Reply #27 on: (06:07:12/07-15-14) »
JimmyCrisis, Leevizer;
Why act surprised that someone with real life explosions training contribute to a thread where the OP specifically asked: "My questions, which I hope someone with some EOD/explosives training can answer..."?

Why are you bringing me back into this?

I'm not surprised at all, except for the gruff attitude.

I understand that martinchaen is pissed, and I get it's because the first response he got started with "That's all hogwash", which is basically calling him a liar to his face.  Honestly, I skimmed that the first time, so the barb didn't sink in until I went back a reread it, AFTER I started getting a bunch of flak and high-and-mighties coming my way, which I really didn't appreciate but ultimately were intended for someone else. I get that.  No harm done, no hurt feelings.  For my part in making martinchaen feel undervalued, I sincerely apologize and thank you, Sir, for your service.

The unresolved issue I brought up concerned the idea that Shadowrun operates on future-tech, which while weaponry superficially resembles many things we use today, it's been mucked up, reworked and redesigned.  This means that it is very likely grenades do not work the same in SR as they do today.  Similar to how a 1911 today uses a firing pin whereas the SR analog uses electronic ignition with no moving parts.  Superficially they are similar, but fundamentally different.  My point is; if security personnel are going to carry grenades on-campus, the corporations will want those grenades to be as stable as possible.  From my perspective, that means that they would use the same analog to C4 that falls under 'military explosives' in the book.  I think it's more reasonable that they would use that instead of TNT, which may be a liability (either from small arms fire or actual fire).  If martinchaen could speak to the reliability and stability of modern grenade fuses & charges, that would a helpful addition to the conversation as it continues.

I also asked if there were any actual references in any edition about what explosive is used in grenades, to which I received disdain as my only response.

That tells me that the other side has either nothing to contribute or no valid refutation, which leaves us at an impasse.  Regardless, I am genuinely curious to know the answer to that question, so much so that I'll no doubt spend the next couple hours combing though my own collection of PDFs and old books, but that is not nearly a complete sample of the collected SR publications.

LionofPerth

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
  • That's Mind Taking Baby!
« Reply #28 on: (07:31:39/07-15-14) »
Jimmy, I'd have to disagree with you on that.

While the mechanism to trigger the detonator cap, that's generally a primary explosive. That primary explosive can actually be quite shock sensitive. Generally it's another explosive that triggers the main explosive, secondary explosive. All that would have changed is the fuse, which instead of being chemical based, is now electrical.

As for the argument, seventy years means a great deal of difference in technology, I would again, have to disagree. While the quality of current explosives is significantly greater than it was in WW1 and WW2, I would challenge the underlying principles and technology is not that different to modern devices. Again, there have been advances and those advances have made the devices on a whole, safer (more shock resistant units, modern artillery shells you can smack the tip with a sledge hammer, they need to be fired before they will arm) for the user and more lethal (more force released by the explosive, faster shards etc) for the target, the underlying principle of shrapnel, high velocity fragments of a hard outer casing, has not changed much.

As it turns out, it's older than I even I thought, General Shrapnel died in 1842. So it has been around a very long time.

I suppose the example I'd give here as well, is the progression from the M1 Garand to the M14, now to M14 EBR. It's fundamentally the same mechanism, just each iteration has been refined, gained new capabilities such as automatic fire, as well as degrees of precision. Much the same has happened here. While the end unit has always seemed different, more advanced, the same underlying principles are still the same, that is a controlled explosion to drive a mixed metal projectile down a barrel with a great deal of force when it strikes a target.

Again, thanks for the e-mail martin. Helped clear a few things up.
When in doubt, C4.

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #29 on: (08:15:09/07-15-14) »
My pleasure, LionofPerth.

As far a so can tell, the books contain no reference to which kind of explosives are used to form the charge of a grenade.

That being said, Arsenal does list a variety of common, real world explosives as being available (TNT and ANFO are good examples), while also expanding upon known variants )like C12).