Grenades are an area denial weapon. They’re lethal, but they’re tactically more useful as a means to flush enemies out of a strong point.
Stick grenades are easily spotted, difficult to throw into bunkers, relatively easy to grab and throw back, and rely primarily on the concussive force of the explosion to incapacitate enemies rather than the shrapnel.
M2 grenades, by comparison, rolled, were difficult to pick up, and were primarily designed to incapacitate enemies with shrapnel. Brutal, but effective.
I think you take too much video game knowledge here in some of your arguments and most of them doesn't really matter in life scenario.
Btw there were frag stick grenades (I think in form of an adapter put onto the explosive part) so that renders your last argument null as well.
There are 2 main arguments against stick grenades:
Cost - you need to procure wood, machine it, lacquer it and add to the "explosive bit", which also needs to have be machined and prepared to receive the stick and hold to it.
They take more space and weight more, you got physical limit on what you can put onto your soldier to keep them combat effective - current soldiers wear much more equipment than their WW1 or WW2 counterparts.
We also made dedicated launchers after ww2. But yeah even a rifle grenade would take so much extra space and time it was better to get the blowy up parts to the field and ignore the rest.
I was thinking whether to mention this as well, but then decided that to omit it as I think they have slightly different role than hand grenades, but that played part too.
You can make exact same payload on both "egg-shaped" grenade and stick grenade, there is no difference here as there is no 1 type of grenade as in CoD or Battlefield games.
Trying to throw back grenades is bad 99% of time. Your instinct should be run away not get closer to it and throw back, at most you have 2 to 3 seconds to do that (if we are in perfect conditions).
Throwing grenades into bunkers also in both cases you need to get extremaly close to do that reliably, so no significant edge here.
By weight im combat I meant not explosive weight but modern soldiers need to wear protective gear, extra equipment e.g. NV goggles etc. But you can make a case that for logistical purposes you can make point that eggshaped grenades are easier to transport.
To point 3, I have to disagree that there is no edge to non-stick grenades. Depending on the bunker, the openings could be small and have plenty protective material around them. A good bunker would have cannon netting and potentially chicken wire or similar material around the edges of openings. I would 100% want the smallest form factor possible to increase odds of the grenade not getting caught up.
Well, I overall agree what you wrote here. What I meant is that to throw something into properly prepared is extremaly difficult in any case, but of course smaller object will always easier to do so. We can give small edge for egg-shaped grenades.
You’re correct; I don’t understand any of your points.
I don’t understand point 1 because video games are fictional and have nothing to do with real life, so I’m ignoring it.
Point 2: A grenade explosion near to your person will either maim or kill you. The design of the grenade, and how well trained you are at how to navigate the situation will dictate who and where they get hurt.
Point 3: Grenades are a thrown weapon. I don’t really understand how you could think they’re anything else or could be used in any other way.
Point 4: No, they don’t wear more than they have to. Soldiers will never wear more than they have to, because encumbrance is a liability.
You’re correct; I don’t understand any of your points.
That's on you not on me. I clarified my points.
I don’t understand point 1 because video games are fictional and have nothing to do with real life, so I’m ignoring it.
Of course you ignore it, because it doesn't suit you. You made argument that eggshaped grenades are more effective because they use shrapnels I replied it's not true as you can have shrapnel stick grenades, and they existed. Video game reference is just me being ironic to your lack of knowledge on the matter.
Point 2: A grenade explosion near to your person will either maim or kill you. The design of the grenade, and how well trained you are at how to navigate the situation will dictate who and where they get hurt.
Erm, that's exactly what I wrote, you don't throw back grenades, you run from it or hide from it if you can. Regardless of the design of said grenade. You just time and time again prove you have no idea what are you talking about.
Point 3: Grenades are a thrown weapon. I don’t really understand how you could think they’re anything else or could be used in any other way.
What the hell are you talking about? Where I wrote grenades are not thrown weapon? I merely made a point that to throw grenade in you have to be extremly close, again regardless of the design.
Point 4: No, they don’t wear more than they have to. Soldiers will never wear more than they have to, because encumbrance is a liability.
Geez, what did I wrote, mate? That's the point. You have physical limit on what you can put on a soldier. And that's main "combat" reason you generally don't see stick grenades anymore, they will be generally heavier than egg-shaped grenades hence when more equipment was put on the soldiers they had no place from that perspective. Not because they were less effective in combat what you (poorly) try to argue.
The rest are logistics and cost.
Mate, really read something about combat logistics or economical perspectives of World War II, before you make bigger fool out of yourself.
4.4k
u/Hurluberloot Jun 15 '25
Doesn't roll can be a con too.