Grenades aren’t intended to be kill or breach devices like you see in movies. While they do explode, they do so in such a way as to shred the outer casing making it such that it creates lots of tiny, sharp fragments (hence the name, “fragmentation grenade”) which then injure and disable people.
The explosive power of a grenade is rather minimal in the grand scheme of things and unless you are right on top of it or just take an unlucky hit from a piece of shrapnel, you will survive but be injured. The intent, then, is that other people will now have to help you, so injuring one person disables two to three people from the fight.
Logistic cost, soldier hit probability, and sustained suppression during firefights drove that decision more than wounding instead of killing. More bullets = more suppression = more time to flank/flee/hold for backup/etc
It’s easier for a soldier to take a shot and actively observe the puff of dust, disturbed bushes, etc and correct their aim with lower recoil guns. Old school ‘full power’ cartridges recoiled too hard; you see the target, shoot, recoil rises the gun, sights rise way off target, and you need to completely require the target to shoot again. A 5.56 or the like is very flat in recoil, but has decent terminal effect
There’s a new theory being trialed leveraging modern optics to focus on precision rifle fire to psychologically suppress (I.e. “Dave popped his head out for a look and got sniped, I’m not doing the same”) versus the OG storm of metal in the air. The former encourages suppression regardless of sustained gunfire. The latter mo’ dakka method only work DURING gunfire.
Grenades aren’t intended to be kill or breach devices like you see in movies. While they do explode, they do so in such a way as to shred the outer casing making it such that it creates lots of tiny, sharp fragments (hence the name, “fragmentation grenade”) which then injure and disable people.
The explosive power of a grenade is rather minimal in the grand scheme of things and unless you are right on top of it or just take an unlucky hit from a piece of shrapnel, you will survive but be injured. The intent, then, is that other people will now have to help you, so injuring one person disables two to three people from the fight.
Interesting thins this is why our armies are using smaller calibers offen.
Especially more then in passed large wars. The point isn’t to kill its to injure
Logistic cost, soldier hit probability, and sustained suppression during firefights drove that decision more than wounding instead of killing. More bullets = more suppression = more time to flank/flee/hold for backup/etc
It’s easier for a soldier to take a shot and actively observe the puff of dust, disturbed bushes, etc and correct their aim with lower recoil guns. Old school ‘full power’ cartridges recoiled too hard; you see the target, shoot, recoil rises the gun, sights rise way off target, and you need to completely require the target to shoot again. A 5.56 or the like is very flat in recoil, but has decent terminal effect
There’s a new theory being trialed leveraging modern optics to focus on precision rifle fire to psychologically suppress (I.e. “Dave popped his head out for a look and got sniped, I’m not doing the same”) versus the OG storm of metal in the air. The former encourages suppression regardless of sustained gunfire. The latter mo’ dakka method only work DURING gunfire.