Military Review

What is easier to produce: F-1 or WP-42

256
In the comments under the previous article "Hand-held high explosive incendiary grenade" there was a curious discussion about what is easier to produce: F-1 or WP-42? I did not particularly intervene in this discussion, since I considered that the topic was worth a separate analysis. It is on this example that one can see the whole ambiguity of military-economic decisions.


What is easier to produce: F-1 or WP-42

These grenades, of course, need no introduction. But still...

General technology overview

At first glance, a tin can with a trotyl type, such as WP-42 and its predecessor WP-41, looks simpler to produce than the F-1. Work with sheet material does not require particularly complex equipment. Cutting the body blank, cutting or stamping blanks for the bottom and the lid, connecting them with a folding seam on a fairly simple rolling machine (such are widely used in the manufacture of cans), making a flange for the fuse and fixing it by soldering or welding. Indeed, the corps for the RG-42 during the war were made in very many factories, including canning, in various workshops. Shells were sent to the equipment factory.


A sealing machine connecting the folding seam to the wall of the can with a bottom and a lid. With a similar technology made body grenades RG-42

The case of the F-1 is manufactured by casting from iron or steel cast iron, which requires at least a minimally equipped foundry with a furnace for smelting iron and a section for the production of flasks and cores. During the casting, the hollow core formed the internal cavity of the housing; it was made from chamotte, kaolin or sand-clay mixture. I did not manage to find descriptions of the casting technology for the F-1 casings, but apparently, the molds were made immediately to the batch: six, eight, ten pieces, which depended on the performance of the iron-smelting furnace and available casting equipment.


Casting iron looks like this: assembled forms into which molten iron is poured from the ladle

After the casting was cooled, the mold was broken, the rods were knocked out of the garnet, and the mold mixture was cleaned. Shells were machined (point bore and threading) and sent to a special factory for equipment. Sometimes the equipment factory received untreated hulls and completed their processing.

The main thing in casting is to properly prepare the mold. This required specialists, model makers and molders, without whom not a single foundry could cast anything. The rest of the work did not require skilled labor. In addition, the foundry required fuel for the smelting of iron and therefore had to be supplied with coke or charcoal. WG-42 did not require furnaces, coke, skilled foundry workers. Enough was enough to simply equipped a mechanical workshop and hastily trained workers. If there is a workshop with equipment and a master, then you can train the necessary operations for a day or two. Moulder need to learn longer.

So everything is obvious? Do not hurry.

How much metal and explosives do you need?

The other side of the issue is metal consumption for a grenade. WP-42 consumes much less metal than F-1. It is not so difficult to determine if the weight of the charge and the weight of the UZRG (55 grams) are subtracted from the weight of the grenade. The F-1 weighs 600 grams, and minus the 60 grams of charge and fuse, it turns out 485 grams is the weight of the case. WP-42 weighs 440 grams, and minus 150 grams of charge and fuse it turns out 235 grams.

The housing of the WP-42 is almost exactly twice as light as the F-1. It should be borne in mind that the weight of the body also includes a fragmentation element. Without it, the grenade body will be even lighter. This is a very significant point. The conditional million WP-42 grenades will require 235 tons of metal, and the conditional million F-1 - 485 tons. Of course, in a big war, when the metal is consumed on the scale of millions of tons, it is not that much. But still, in a warring economy, metal is a deficit, and from this point of view, WG-42 looks more preferable.


The lack of metal in the war can go to the extreme. This photo is, of course, staged, but in the UK really beautiful lattices were cut into scrap metal

However, WG-42 has a much larger charge weight, 2,5 times more than F-1. The conditional million WP-42 will require 150 tons of trotyl, whereas F-1 will require only 60 tons. This is where the first ambiguous situation arises in deciding what kind of grenades to produce. What to choose? Increased metal consumption or increased explosive consumption? Within the framework of a warring economy, this issue is already being solved on the basis of the balance sheets of income and expenditure of both. According to the experience of the Second World War, it can be judged that explosive was the bottleneck. Specialized enterprises, special equipment, trained personnel and a whole range of raw materials and chemicals were needed for its production. The production of the same TNT was limited not only by the capacities of the special plants, but also by the capacities for the production of toluene, nitric and sulfuric acids. In general, if there is not enough trotyl, then it is more expedient to use a grenade with a smaller charge, that is, F-1.

And there is again an ambiguous moment. If the decision is made to equip hand grenades with ersatz-explosives such as ammonium nitrate, it is more expedient to use WG-42. The TNT equivalent of saltpeter is 0,35, that is, 150 grams of charge will be equivalent to 52,5 grams of TNT, and WP-42 with such a charge will be roughly equivalent to F-1 in TNT equipment. Mixed explosives based on ammonium nitrate are more powerful (igdanite, say, has the TNT equivalent of TNN), but in this case a larger capacity case, like the WP-0,8, is an advantage.

Thus, already in this difficult situations arise with non-obvious choice. In general, it can be said that the type of grenade and its equipment by one or another type of explosive are determined primarily by available capacities for the production of explosives and the general development of the chemical industry. For example, in Germany during the World Wars there was little oil and, consequently, little toluene, but there were good capacities for the production of synthetic ammonia and ammonium nitrate. Because the Germans were to use saltpeter in hand grenades, and therefore used a sheet metal housing.

What kind of metal?

Metal is also different. F-1 is made of cast iron, and WP-42 is made of sheet steel. The technological difference is quite large. Cast iron is the first product obtained from iron ore by smelting in blast furnaces. Although nowadays the technology of nondomain production of iron is developing quite rapidly, nevertheless, the blast furnace process still dominates in the world metallurgy.

Sheet metal, by contrast, is the final product. It requires to smelt cast iron, then convert it into steel in steelmaking furnaces. According to the technology of the first half of the twentieth century, steel ingots were first rolled on blooming mills, then on several rolling mills, to produce a slab - steel plate with thickness from 75 to 600 mm. Then this billet was rolled several times on sheet mills to produce a steel sheet of the required thickness (in our case 1-2 mm). More often produced hot-rolled sheet products, which had more use than cold-rolled ones. Ready rolled sheets or rolls sent to consumers. In the second half of the twentieth century, technology has changed somewhat. The emergence of continuous casting of steel allowed to go to the cast slabs, from which a higher-quality flat products were obtained.


Here, for example, sheet rolling shop 3000 OJSC "Mariupol Iron and Steel Works named after Ilyich". Mill-3000 rolls sheet steel with thickness from 6 to 50 mm. You can see how this grand building - a large sheet rolling mill

Receiving a semi-finished product for F-1 requires only one blast furnace, and for WP-42 - a whole full-cycle steel plant, producing all types of products, from iron to finished steel. The production of steel sheet requires many operations, special equipment and qualified specialists. Therefore, it is wrong to compare only the manufacture of cases for F-1 and WP-42 grenades. The technology must be considered entirely, together with the manufacture of semi-finished products. And then the production technology F-1 is much easier.

Even more than that, the F-1 grenade can be produced at a very primitive metallurgical plant, smelting iron in a blast furnace of the 18th century sample from marsh ore and on charcoal. Casting cases can be organized immediately, pouring metal from the blast furnace directly into the form.


Blast furnace built at the Seversky plant in the Urals in 1860 year. It is quite possible to melt cast iron on such a blast furnace and immediately cast grenades

It is also interesting to note a couple of moments based on the data of Novovyatsky Mechanical Plant No. 608, which during and after the war produced the equipment of F-1 and WP-42 grenades, and also made cases for the latter. First, receiving cases from suppliers, the plant part of them was defective. For F-1, the average reject rate was 16% (out of 2,7 million cases, 451 thousand pieces were rejected), and on WP-42 - 31% (out of 3,5 million cases, 1,1 million pieces were rejected). That is, the apparent simplicity of manufacturing cases for WP-42 turned into a high reject rate and the useless consumption of valuable sheet metal. Marriage could be melted down, but it was obviously more profitable to start up the defective F-1 hulls in the smelter. Secondly, although there is no way to compare the cost of the cases of these types of grenades, yet in the materials of Plant No. 608 there is an interesting indication that WP-42 became cheap only with mass, continuous production. When the plant was just beginning to master the production of WG-42 cases, they cost 18,9 rubles apiece, and with the development of in-line production, the cost price fell to 5,5 rubles. Thus, WG-42, produced in small workshops and non-core factories, was an expensive grenade. If we assume that the F-1 case cost about 6 rubles, then for the price of a semi-hand-made WG-42, at least three cases for the F-1 could be made. This is not surprising, since the sheet metal is much more expensive than cast iron, and the machining of the WG-42 casing blanks is more.

From here one more important conclusion. The mass production of the RG-42 can be decided only if there is a developed metallurgy, which has sufficient capacity for the production of sheet metal, as well as in the presence of advanced engineering. WP-42 is a by-product of automotive development that needs a lot of sheet metal. Therefore, the countries with a developed automobile industry (in the Second World War — the USA and Germany, as well as the USSR) made sheet metal grenades.

The F-1 prototype, the French F-1 grenade, did not come from a good life. The Germans seized two-thirds of the main French coal deposits in the Pas-de-Calais area. One third remained with the French, but there the mines were located almost immediately behind the trenches. There were mines that the Germans fired with machine guns, and special armored shelters were built for the miners. Coal mining has been halved. In 1915, France mined 20 million tons of coal, 20 million tons received from the UK, although 1913 consumed million tons of coal in 64. Also, the French lost almost all of the iron ore production, production fell from 21,9 million tons in the 1913 year to 0,6 million tons in the 1915 year. Requirements were covered by the remelting of scrap metal, the supply of allies, but even so the consumption of iron fell by half compared with pre-war time. It was at this time that a new grenade appeared. In France, there were many small deposits of iron, known since the Middle Ages, in which it was possible to extract ores for smelting several tens of thousands of tons of pig iron in the simplest blast furnaces and on charcoal. Let's say 1000 tons of pig iron is enough for 2 million grenades like F-1. One blast furnace with a capacity of 50 tons per day (this is a very small furnace) could produce 15 thousands of tons of pig iron per year, which would be enough to make 30 million grenades.

So the F-1 grenade is such a garnet that can be produced even with extreme depletion of the economy, using the lowest grade iron ore, charcoal and the very minimum of qualified engineers and workers. Even if large metallurgical plants turned into radioactive ruins, there are still opportunities for the production of F-1.

And what is the verdict? If we consider the issue comprehensively, it turns out that F-1 is simpler and cheaper to manufacture than WP-42. So in the third world world, the lemon will still be in the ranks and will occupy an honorable place in the infantry armament.
Author:
256 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 2329 Carpenter
    2329 Carpenter 7 January 2019 05: 32
    +40
    Thoughtfully, competently, intelligibly, informatively!
    Dmitry, bravo for the article!
    1. svp67
      svp67 7 January 2019 08: 42
      +30
      Quote: Carpenter 2329
      Thoughtfully

      And here is the question, but nothing about the grenades are different in purpose? F-1 is defensive, and WG-42 is offensive. If we compare, then RG-42 and RGD-5
      1. 2329 Carpenter
        2329 Carpenter 7 January 2019 09: 05
        +23
        Well ... There was a conversation over technology, not about the effect of weapons.
        And everything was very competently and logically laid out on the shelves.
        1. svp67
          svp67 7 January 2019 09: 18
          -1
          Quote: Carpenter 2329
          Well ... Then the conversation went for technology,

          Yes? Why then didn’t they compare the production of nuclear charge with the RG-42? This is where you can compare different technologies.
          But a comparison of how two grenades with the same properties are made would give more in understanding what is more technologically advanced and what is the weapon of total war
          1. 2329 Carpenter
            2329 Carpenter 7 January 2019 09: 26
            +13
            Mb
            But technological methods of hand weapons are compared, which is interesting in itself. And indeed, because of my nearness, I thought that the RG-42 is more technologically advanced, simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the F-1.
            But not everything is what it seems.
            what
            1. svp67
              svp67 7 January 2019 09: 30
              +13
              Quote: Carpenter 2329
              And indeed, because of my nearness, I thought that the RG-42 is more technologically advanced, simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the F-1.

              Everything in the world is relative. Cast iron casting, which is industrially established, is still a very energy-intensive process; in small workshops it is easier to set up sheet metal production.
              That is, there must be both options, so as not to lose the ability to produce such weapons at all.
              1. 2329 Carpenter
                2329 Carpenter 7 January 2019 09: 39
                +3
                I’m conformist with it laughing I agree.
                And offensive grenades are needed, important, and defensive. Situations are completely different.
                But my personal preference, of course, is "efka".
                But this is "taste / color".
              2. tlauicol
                tlauicol 7 January 2019 11: 24
                +7
                yeah, just for that you need sheet metal yes re-read the article and collate the debit with credit
                1. svp67
                  svp67 7 January 2019 11: 32
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  yeah, just for that you need sheet metal

                  Everything has its drawbacks. But the fact is that these sheets can be pre-made for the production of the same cars, cars, the production of which will certainly not be carried out in the war, and how many grenades can be produced from one such un-produced car?
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 7 January 2019 11: 40
                    +3
                    this metal will go to the production of cars for the front
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 7 January 2019 11: 43
                      +2
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      0
                      this metal will go to the production of cars for the front

                      What a strange idea you have, the industrial production of grenades will be destroyed, but the production of cars will not ... Yes, it will be destroyed in the very first days. So the metal will remain unclaimed
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 11: 48
                        +1
                        why destroyed? grenades will be poured, not spent on rolling sheets - the economy must be economical! They donated gold to the defense fund, but no one rolled or stamped grenades from it, although it is easy to do this even in the school workshop - gold is plastic
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 7 January 2019 11: 52
                        -1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        why destroyed?

                        Weird question. Do you think that our opponents will mercifully leave him untouched? No, all these enterprises will be under attack from the first minutes of the conflict.
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        grenades will be poured, not spent on rolling sheets - the economy must be economical!

                        They will be poured exactly as much as there is enough energy to do this and how much the integrity of the production itself will allow. Destroying one steelmaking giant is much easier than hundreds of small workshops scattered over a large territory
                      3. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 12: 02
                        +5
                        ok, roll it all to dust am
                        and then cast-iron grenades will be poured on small blast furnaces scattered over a large territory, and precious sheet metal should be spent on aircraft repairs for car repairs, rather than cans for grenades, for which explosives are also needed
                      4. svp67
                        svp67 7 January 2019 12: 05
                        -2
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and then cast-iron grenades will be poured on small blast furnaces scattered over a large territory

                        What time? What will they pour them into? Have you ever thought? Where so many forms come from? Making them alone is not the easiest process.
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and not cans for pomegranates, for which more explosives are needed

                        And in a total war, its own arithmetic, especially since industrial explosives are used there
                      5. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 12: 16
                        +7
                        cast iron molds are 4 technology century AD yes
                        and sheet metal rental? electricity ?
                        I understand that you like РГ42 more, but it’s an economy, and it says that Ф1 is simpler and cheaper
                      6. svp67
                        svp67 7 January 2019 12: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        cast iron molds are 4 technology century AD

                        especially taking into account the internal cavity and precisely suitable thread for the fuse ... And it is easier, and most importantly, in larger numbers, you can prepare specialists for "twisting cans" than to prepare a specialist for "casting". And the energy consumption is less
                      7. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 12: 38
                        +3
                        stop your main mistake is that you consider the cost of sheets of iron (car bodies, roofing iron, etc. what do you want to cut there for patches?) initially equal to 0 (zero) rubles. And this is a jewel in a total thief.
                        at the same time, the article clearly states that the cost of handicraft will increase three times (this does not take into account fragmentation ribbons and scraps that you can’t roll or melt)
                      8. svp67
                        svp67 7 January 2019 12: 58
                        -1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        And this is a jewel in a total thief.

                        You would think that cast iron would then be waste. In this war, everything will be all gold, except for human lives.
                      9. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 13: 04
                        +4
                        Well, you won't make a car or plane out of cast-iron concrete glass, you won’t even repair it - but please a grenade.
                        therefore, the rolling sheet will be worth its weight in gold, and pig iron and glass will be mined in the sand and swamp even after the Apocalypse.
                        Won in the article the plant that equipped the grenades, could not master stamping (not even rolling) until the end of the war request
                      10. svp67
                        svp67 7 January 2019 13: 08
                        -2
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Well, you won't make a car or plane out of cast-iron concrete glass, you won’t even repair it - but please a grenade.

                        Well, how to repair them and can be made of wood
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Won in the article the plant that equipped the grenades, could not master stamping (not even rolling) until the end of the war

                        FACTORY, but banks could wind up in hundreds of SCHOOL workshops
                      11. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 13: 27
                        +5
                        and taught to hammer nails, yeah. only now the schools could not produce nails, nor cans, let alone rolling sheets, and, as it turned out, not all specialized plants had even mastered it.
                        with the same success, you can teach students to make grenades using ball bearings or nuts, and then fall asleep with the production of these nuts
                      12. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 7 January 2019 15: 12
                        +3
                        Quote: svp67
                        You might think that cast iron will then be waste

                        May it not be "wasteful"! There, recently, a story surfaced: why a certain production did not establish the manufacture of marine diesel engines "for import substitution!) .... It turned out .... iron casting turned out to be bad! And in other industries ... the same! Because, iron casting is cost-effective ( with the previous technologies ...) in a certain "scale" ... but otherwise, no! The scale we have now is not Soviet ... so it turned out "embarrassment" .... "in your liver"!
                      13. marshes
                        marshes 7 January 2019 15: 36
                        +5
                        Quote: Nikolaevich I
                        May it not be "wasteful"! There, recently, a story surfaced: why a certain production did not establish the manufacture of marine diesel engines "for import substitution!) .... It turned out .... iron casting turned out to be bad! And in other industries ... the same! Because, iron casting is cost-effective ( with the previous technologies ...) in a certain "scale" ... but otherwise, no! The scale we have now is not Soviet ... so it turned out "embarrassment" .... "in your liver"!

                        Cast iron can be different, white, gray and malleable. So for the pomegranates will go the lowest grade that can be obtained from recipe.
                      14. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 8 January 2019 04: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: marshes
                        Cast iron can be different, white, gray and malleable. So for the pomegranates will go the lowest grade that can be obtained from recipe.

                        The main classification of cast iron: pig iron and cast iron foundry ... "Cast" .... it can and can be .... what not to cast, if there is a need? Duc after all ... to process a cast iron semi-finished product then nadot! So it is not necessary to say that "any" and "any" cast iron is suitable for casting!
                      15. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 16: 03
                        +9
                        to cast the aircraft engine from cast iron - is it comparable to casting a shirt for a grenade? belay fifteen hundred years technological gap
                      16. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 8 January 2019 04: 42
                        -1
                        Quote: Tlauicol

                        to cast the aircraft engine from cast iron - is it comparable to casting a shirt for a grenade? fifteen hundred years technological gap

                        Fir-trees! Yes, no matter what is there: "shirt" or "engine", and how long the "technological gap", if the iron foundry is lost with the word "vobche"!
                      17. Eule
                        Eule 14 January 2022 22: 09
                        0
                        They forgot about the adjuster of the automatic line for the production of cans. This is a high-class mechanic, and even a mechanical engineer. Most likely, he will be called to a more important production. In general, on the line for the production of cans, they must be made in order to supply the troops with canned food.
                        Another minus of the line is that it can only work continuously. If it stands up, all the loaded tin goes into the trash, since the motors cannot accelerate the rollers with tin in them - first the line is turned on, then the tape is fed into it.
                        You can cut sheet trash, but you can’t stick it into an automatic line - it will break. Only tinplate in rolls or strips (narrow strip of tinplate). A roll is a heavy thing and transportable only by railway.
                        But cast iron for the hulls, if it’s safe, can be assembled on the ruins of radiators, and smelted from swamp ore and scrap metal.
                      18. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 7 January 2019 15: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol


                        I understand that you like РГ42 more, but it’s an economy, and it says that Ф1 is simpler and cheaper

                        And turn on the "mind"? Ok .... F-1 is better! Why, then, in the "difficult war years" they did not "invent", albeit simplified, "surrogate" grenades, but "efka" such grenades? But the "can type" RG-42 and ROG-43 were created! Casting F-1 buildings from cast iron is probably interesting ... but these "small blast furnaces" must first be built! (time, materials, labor. resources ...) And that's half the battle! You need equipment where you can mold the body! Grenades of the "tin can" type can be riveted (in principle!) Into a roll knows what workshop, even "by hand"! In Port Arthur, during the Russo-Japanese War, hand grenades were "made" from "small-caliber" spent cartridges (cuttings of shells), from cuttings of water pipes

                        The designs ranged from primitive "wick" to "intellectual" Lishin's grenades ...

                        Tin can pomegranates were very popular "at all times and peoples" of the 20th century! And in WW1 ... and in WW2 ("partisan") ... there are also in the 21st century. (Syria). What prevents them from riveting in any workshop, in any country and "now"? Moreover, you can use not only cutting metal pipes, but also cutting plastic ones! (I modestly keep silent about canned "natural" cans repeat "Fragment elements" can be made from nails, from wire wound with a notch, from cut pieces of reinforcement ... etc. ,etc. Moreover, these "products" can have an "attractive" appearance! (after all, the "culture of production" (and opportunities ...) in the shops ...
                      19. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 15: 38
                        +3
                        Even as the Germans invented ... when they needed defensive grenades, they began to use a surrogate. The Japanese too. The USSR has not slid to this - the Urals, Magnitogorsk, Kuzbass are safe and pour millions of F-ki. But German and Japanese plants are in ruins - aluminum and steel grenades, UPS, we can’t request Why ? Well they are cheap and simple as a tin can, no?
                        I already wrote about where ball bearings and pipes with sleeves come from - you won’t get them from the swamp and you won’t melt them from the sand - this is valuable material. Of course, you can also drown with parquet, but it is better with wood, and do not beat the crystal to cover the fence with crumbs from the thieves. The baby certainly does not cost anything, but they do it by breaking the vase - why the hell?
                      20. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 8 January 2019 04: 59
                        -1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        I already wrote about where ball bearings and pipes with sleeves come from - you won’t get them from the swamp and you won’t melt them from the sand - this is valuable material.

                        Do not "get them out of the swamp and sprinkle them with sand"! When there is no time for this ... and swamps! When something is being mined, something is being built, in order to smelt it, it means "to fatten"! And when “I’m not up to fat, I’d live,” they use everything that comes to hand! There are always available tools (materials) such as wire, nails, nuts, bolts on the farm! This I declare from personal experience, without taking into account the shops, markets, warehouses, bases, storages ....! For some war (victorious, or lost ...) enough!
                      21. Sergey M. Karasev
                        Sergey M. Karasev 10 January 2019 12: 28
                        0
                        There are always available tools (materials) such as wire, nails, nuts, bolts in the household!

                        Why not use stone crusher, fine gravel as a surrogate for the damaging element for grenades?
                      22. svd-xnumx
                        svd-xnumx 7 January 2019 16: 20
                        +1
                        In Port Arthur, during the Russo-Japanese War, hand grenades were "created" from "small-caliber" spent cartridges (cuttings of shells), from cuttings of water pipes
                        This is all handicraft, almost "blinded" it in the trench and immediately threw it to the Japanese. You can set up the production of "cans" for grenades in any workshop, but the question arises, what will happen to them during transportation to the equipment plant?
                        It is also interesting to note a couple of points based on data from the Novovyatsky Mechanical Plant No. 608, which during the war and after it produced equipment for the F-1 and RG-42 grenades, and for the latter also manufactured hulls. Firstly, receiving cases from suppliers, the factory rejected some of them. For F-1, the average reject percentage was 16% (out of 2,7 million cases, 451 thousand units were rejected), and for RG-42 - 31% (out of 3,5 million cases, 1,1 million units were rejected).
                      23. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 8 January 2019 05: 02
                        -1
                        Quote: svd-xnumx
                        This is all handicraft,

                        Well yes .... handicraft ... and sho? There would be a result at the right time and in the right amount! At least for a while ... until it settles down!
                      24. Eule
                        Eule 14 January 2022 22: 03
                        0
                        Mold for casting iron is defective cement or dried clay mixed with mining, oil, oil ...
                        The criterion for the quality of the mold mixture is to roll a finger-thick "sausage" with your palms and screw it onto your thumb. If it cracks - add oil, if it "snots or flows" - add powder.
                        Molding boxes - made from any boards, simply by hammering together with nails. The model is wooden, or the case is from a grenade.
                        In a total war, you can not give a damn about safety, and not do boring points and cutting, but turn the fuse on tow and fill it with something sticky waterproof. Yes, they will be dangerous.. but cheap. I strongly suspect that the marriage of the hulls went exactly along the threads - cutting it in cast iron requires skills.
                        The most physically demanding operation in a foundry is the handling of the casting crucible. Moulders, rod-makers - if there may be teenagers or commissioned workers for injury.
                        The tool - the most simple - hammers, shovels, saws. Casting crucible with two-handed tongs made of fittings.
                      25. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 7 January 2019 14: 16
                        -1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and then cast-iron grenades will be poured on small blast furnaces scattered over a large territory,

                        Have you ever remembered the "Chinese brothers" with their "Great Leap Forward"? But it is necessary to cough up the tady and the fact that ent "products" were not useful anywhere! It turned out to be a lot, like Kiev, but that can be applied, but how to apply "metal slag"?
                      26. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 7 January 2019 14: 51
                        +4
                        Quote: Nikolaevich I
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and then cast-iron grenades will be poured on small blast furnaces scattered over a large territory,

                        Have you ever remembered the "Chinese brothers" with their "Great Leap Forward"? But it is necessary to cough up the tady and the fact that ent "products" were not useful anywhere! It turned out to be a lot, like Kiev, but that can be applied, but how to apply "metal slag"?

                        from metal slag just F1 can be made, but RG42 not request The problem with Chinas is that they wanted to cook (and also have to roll) steel at small enterprises, but they got cast iron - that’s why they managed it liquid yes For this, we argue with SW Sergiy
                      27. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 8 January 2019 05: 33
                        -1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        from metal slag just F1 can be made, but RG42 not

                        Often nothing was "cast" from that "metal slag" ... not even a bust of Mao! (except that the shapeless "obelisks" in the peasant yards ...) It is not enough to build some kind of "metallurgical furnace"! We need forms ... we need to know how to make them ... and materials are needed for this! .. even, not just some sand, but prepared ... You need skill, experience of "workers"!
                        I repeat again: time, materials, labor. Resources .... if there are the required "parameters" for this, then "bullshit is war .... if there is time to" fatten ". Much faster, easier, cheaper to establish in some kind of" handicraft "workshop production of hand grenades from scraps of pipes: metal, plastic ... even from cans, if you feel like it. To arrange the production of" ammonite "explosives, gunpowder, grating fuses ...
                      28. Bratkov Oleg
                        Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 01: 28
                        +1
                        The cultural revolution of China was not that.
                        China did not need the cast iron that the peasants would melt.
                        China needed stupid peasants to start thinking.
                        Here try, get at least 10 grams of cast iron INDEPENDENTLY,
                        from ore? Weak? So you tremble with your slippery tongue against Great China,
                        First World Economy?
                        Do not eat propaganda, eat real facts!
                      29. Bratkov Oleg
                        Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 01: 25
                        0
                        You are very stupid compared to China, and the Chinese in particular.
                        Very soon, China will not only smear the USA in shit, but Rosskosmos will also drown in its own shit.
                        The USA has never been on the moon, they were even able to fly into space, for the first time, TEN YEARS AFTER GAGARIN'S FLIGHT !!!!!!
                        BUT neither the USSR nor Russia were able to see the American lie. And China will be able, China has already begun to poke both Russia and the USA into their own shit! Look at the photos, turn on your brain, if it is available, appreciate the greatness of the Middle Kingdom!
                        http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758823/index.html
                      30. Bratkov Oleg
                        Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 01: 20
                        +1
                        There was a Great Leap Forward in China, and now China is the No. 1 ECONOMY in the world.
                        For those who are not in the know, I’ll explain. The government obliged the peasants to melt a pound of pig iron. Not alloy steel, but just cast iron. But! At the same time, there was a commission that examined how cast iron was smelted. And here the main thing! Two yards could not unite, and smelted together two pounds of cast iron, each yard had to melt a pound of cast iron. It was not a matter of cast iron at all, but of an approach to production. The great Mao made the Chinese to be creators. And already on the moon there is a Chinese lunar rover, which transmitted the first color photographs of the moon. And the moon is not gray, like the American Amstrong, who had never been in outer space, was lying, the moon is brown ... http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758823/index.html
                        This is a link to the state website of the Chinese space agency.
                      31. Bull Terrier
                        Bull Terrier 8 January 2019 04: 46
                        +1
                        in the post-war years, my grandfather told the corps of grenades did not know where to put it and instead of rubble they were thrown into roads. somewhere in Syzran, probably such a road has also been preserved.
                    2. lis-ik
                      lis-ik 7 January 2019 22: 28
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      this metal will go to the production of cars for the front

                      It will not go in that quantity in war conditions, but casting is still cheaper.
              3. ism_ek
                ism_ek 8 January 2019 09: 36
                +1
                Grenades during the war were produced mainly by the artels of the disabled and other auxiliary industries.
          2. Mr Credo
            Mr Credo 7 January 2019 09: 58
            +3
            Do you think RGD-5 is easier to manufacture? These halves are stamped. Stamp production is expensive. One mold enters the other extruding a hemisphere. It is necessary to have a good machine park. Remember the dissatisfaction with the gaps of the VAZ.
            1. svp67
              svp67 7 January 2019 10: 01
              +4
              Quote: Mister Creed
              Think RGD-5 easier to manufacture?

              High-tech, doesn’t mean easier. But their production really became mass and most importantly ensured the same fighting qualities, which, in fact, when assembling the RG-42 manually was not possible
              1. Mr Credo
                Mr Credo 7 January 2019 10: 27
                +1
                I will not argue about the same fighting qualities. To organize such a production in peacetime is not a question! And in the military? This is clearly seen in the Donbass, Afghanistan, Syria. What kind of high-tech production is there in the bathhouse?
                1. svp67
                  svp67 7 January 2019 10: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Mister Creed
                  And in the military

                  While the enterprises will work, they will produce RGD-5 and the like, and during this time they will again establish production of the RG-42 in small workshops
                  1. Mr Credo
                    Mr Credo 7 January 2019 10: 37
                    +1
                    The result is clear. There will be a movement towards cheaper products.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 7 January 2019 10: 42
                      +4
                      Quote: Mister Creed
                      There will be a movement towards cheaper products.

                      Cheap? Everything in the world is relative. Manual labor is the most expensive, but in war its value can be limited by the cost of food rations
                      1. Mr Credo
                        Mr Credo 7 January 2019 11: 07
                        +2
                        No rations will increase productivity up to production line productivity. Dig a trench with an excavator or shovels? Discovery TV has already conducted an experiment with diggers and an excavator. Excavators lost.
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 7 January 2019 11: 17
                        +3
                        Quote: Mister Creed
                        0
                        No rations will increase productivity to production line productivity

                        I agree. It's silly to argue
                        Quote: Mister Creed
                        Discovery TV has already conducted an experiment with diggers and an excavator. Excavators lost.

                        But I would complicate the task and deprive the excavator of fuel, well, consider TK crashed the bomb and would conduct such an experiment again. Who do you think would win?
                      3. Mr Credo
                        Mr Credo 7 January 2019 19: 20
                        0
                        Well then, if you take into account all the factors, you have to lose all possible situations. On the issue of slaves there is security, some kind of food, transportation to and from work. I think it’s not worthwhile to delve into the study of situations.
                      4. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 January 2019 01: 07
                        +3
                        Quote: svp67
                        But I would complicate the task and deprive the excavator of fuel, well, consider TK crashed the bomb and would conduct such an experiment again.
                        Similarly boнthe ba can end up in a hut with kopachami. Moreover, it’s easier to get into the hut (efficiency ratio of about 1: 200 by area). You need to feed everyone.
                      5. svp67
                        svp67 8 January 2019 03: 46
                        +2
                        Quote: Simargl
                        In the same way, a bonba can end up in a hut with kopachami. Moreover, it’s easier to get into the hut (efficiency ratio of approximately 1: 200 by area)

                        And as luck would have it, this bomb will kill the only excavator there ...
                      6. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 January 2019 08: 23
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        And as luck would have it, this bomb will kill the only excavator there ...
                        Is an excavator driver, like, a foreman?
                      7. svp67
                        svp67 8 January 2019 08: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Simargl
                        Is an excavator driver, like, a foreman?

                        This is the only person who knew how to drive an excavator
                      8. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 8 January 2019 10: 42
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        Quote: Simargl
                        In the same way, a bonba can end up in a hut with kopachami. Moreover, it’s easier to get into the hut (efficiency ratio of approximately 1: 200 by area)

                        And as luck would have it, this bomb will kill the only excavator there ...

                        With a probability of 1: 1000 yes
                      9. svp67
                        svp67 8 January 2019 10: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        With a probability of 1: 1000

                        Enough for him ...
                      10. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 8 January 2019 12: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        With a probability of 1: 1000

                        Enough for him ...

                        Actually, he was the target of the raid.
                      11. svp67
                        svp67 8 January 2019 12: 10
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Actually, he was the target of the raid.

                        As always. They target one, but thousands "arrive"
                      12. Bratkov Oleg
                        Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 01: 34
                        0
                        And if a bomb, and then "Caliber", falls into the dormitory / barracks of the pilots, then several hundred rotary excavators to drain trenches will dig, including anti-tank ones ........
                      13. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 9 January 2019 19: 11
                        0
                        Something analogous in history was, I remember 3 torpedoes to dozens of submarines multiplied by zero.
                      14. Bratkov Oleg
                        Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 01: 32
                        0
                        The bomb will break the runway, and a dozen F-15s will be damaged by the shock wave, and no one will bomb a dozen rotary excavators.
                      15. Bratkov Oleg
                        Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 01: 31
                        0
                        Is the plane more complicated than a bucket wheel excavator?
                        And if there are no airfields left, then what?
                      16. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 January 2019 01: 04
                        +2
                        Quote: Mister Creed
                        Discovery TV has already conducted an experiment with diggers and an excavator.
                        You can use pure mathematics: a person under a whip will give out a maximum of 150 watts for a long time, an excavator is about 150 кWatt useful power.
                        This к how BE hints ...
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 7 January 2019 12: 45
              +1
              Do you think making a mold for casting grenades is a lot easier?
              1. KVIRTU
                KVIRTU 7 January 2019 15: 18
                +5
                Let me share with you the experience in manufacturing similar molds for educational purposes. Actually the form is a box, detachable into two halves. Model, let grenades, made of wood, divided along the axis. The drawer halves are filled with the molding mixture, forming as a result two cavities from both parts of the model, the gate is formed, the spout, the halves are connected, the form is ready (of course, it is one-time). For an experienced molder, it’s a matter of minutes.
                The question raised in the article is more likely in technological mode. At 30-40, the caster is the most popular specialty that we have, what they have. In the future, with the development and massiveness of the machine park, this specialty became quite rare. Repeat the situation - there will be a shortage of casting, including and pomegranate.
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 16: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: KVIRTU
                  Model, let grenades, made of wood, divided along the axis. The drawer halves are filled with the molding mixture, forming as a result two cavities from both parts of the model, the gate is formed, the spout, the halves are connected, the form is ready (of course, it is one-time). For an experienced molder, it’s a matter of minutes.

                  This is all primitive. But how to make the inner cavity?
                  1. wehr
                    7 January 2019 16: 47
                    +4
                    To form a cavity, a special ceramic rod is made, which is inserted into the mold. The metal is poured into the space between the form and the core, and a hollow billet is obtained.
                    Casters still can not laughing
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 16: 58
                      0
                      Quote: wehr
                      To form the cavity, a special ceramic rod is made, which is inserted into the mold.

                      And when removing the rod, we get a smooth hole. laughing Will you tell me how in F1 an egg-shaped cavity was made? They made an egg-shaped rod, and then picked it, broke it, through the ignition hole?
                      1. wehr
                        7 January 2019 18: 28
                        +8
                        Yes, that's exactly what they did. The core of fine sand on the binder (for example, resin) is their many varieties. It holds the form, but when heated from the cooling metal in the form of a binder fade. Sand then easily shake out of the casting and clean with an iron brush inside. laughing
                        Casters can cast a thin-walled pot of iron, more than the girth, or a hollow statue of a horse. Grenade for them is not particularly difficult.
                      2. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 18: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: wehr
                        Grenade for them is not particularly difficult.

                        The meaning of my comment is that for each grenade body it was necessary to produce a disposable molding blank, and this complicates the production, which is not written in your article. To cast a hollow thing like Ф1 go there a ring, not the same thing - than to cast a whole blank in the form of a ribbed Ф1, or there a dumbbell, for example.
                      3. wehr
                        7 January 2019 18: 52
                        +5
                        Molding sand is used many times. The mold is broken, the mixture is ground and again into the mold. As for the blanks, the models are made for mass production: solid models of garnet for making a mold, and molds for making rods. A workshop is created during casting, which does all this in the required quantities.
                        All this is improvised material. Models most often wooden. Sand and clay for molds and cores are mined nearby. All this is obviously cheaper than sheet metal from the factory.
                        By the way, the foundry iron itself is also inexpensive. In the prices of the end of 1920-s, a ton of factory iron cost about 45-55 rubles. The iron ton is the 2061 grenade body. There is a metal on 2,5 pennies.
                      4. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 19: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: wehr
                        It all costs less than sheet metal from a factory.

                        And I don’t argue with that. I just wrote that the egg-shaped blank is not just a ceramic reusable core.
                      5. wehr
                        7 January 2019 19: 15
                        +6
                        The cast-iron radiator is just a casting with an internal core. laughing
                        You just have a very vague idea about the foundry.
                      6. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 19: 24
                        +2
                        Quote: wehr
                        You just have a very vague idea about the foundry.

                        We had a foundry at the enterprise, I went there sometimes. The dumbbell is still at home. tongue Somehow, for the sake of fun, in 90, pewter was cast five rubles. So do not. wink
                      7. marshes
                        marshes 7 January 2019 19: 27
                        +2
                        Quote: wehr
                        Cast iron radiator

                        By the way, the Chinese used to start supplying cast iron batteries to our market, from gray, which goes to cylinder blocks, with a powder coating, like enamel than Russia. The quality is almost the same but the price is clear who wins. 4 workers hold, plus 8 critical atmosphere.
                        Also the earliest wondered how internal hollowing is done.
                      8. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 January 2019 01: 10
                        +2
                        Quote: wehr
                        Foundry workers can cast iron
                        Couldwhether!
                        Here's the thing: there are fewer technologists than office hamsters who can’t cope with a shovel, not like casting.
                      9. Partisan Kramaha
                        Partisan Kramaha 7 January 2019 19: 19
                        +4
                        Exactly so. Now it’s doing the same thing itself. And pump housings are much more complicated in internal cavities.
                      10. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 19: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Partizan Kramaha
                        That is how

                        Quote: wehr
                        ceramic rod

                        But not like that.
                      11. Partisan Kramaha
                        Partisan Kramaha 7 January 2019 20: 36
                        +4
                        A rod is just a name. Its configuration can be different, even egg-shaped, even curved, with many protrusions, with one fixing sign, with two, without them. With f-1, the rod will be egg-shaped with a transition to the cylinder where then the thread for the fuse will be cut and the transition of this cylinder in one sign for fixation.
                      12. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 21: 01
                        0
                        There is no ceramics in the generally accepted sense of the word.
                      13. Partisan Kramaha
                        Partisan Kramaha 7 January 2019 21: 04
                        +1
                        Sand-clay mixture, as my foundry teacher said, dried, you can kill a dog laughing
                2. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 7 January 2019 17: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: KVIRTU
                  For an experienced molder, it’s a matter of minutes.

                  Yeah. That is, for an experienced molder, a mold for casting one grenade is a matter of minutes, did I understand you correctly? 8)))))))
                  1. Mr Credo
                    Mr Credo 7 January 2019 19: 40
                    0
                    Here the question is more about technology. The body is hollow. Integral casting is a combination of two flasks. Here you need to insert the rods. Metal is poured, the rod creates a void.
                  2. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 7 January 2019 23: 11
                    +3
                    Teenager will master the stupid in a couple of days. If the teacher is right. And the proportions of the mixture will show. In fact, the manufacture of the mold is the level of the circle in the House of Pioneers.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 8 January 2019 08: 25
                      0
                      Here, upstream, they discussed extensively that an excavator is better than a group of excavators.
                      However, all of a sudden it turned out the other way round, and the manual labor of a freshly trained teenager is better?
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 12: 15
                        +1
                        In a critical situation, yes. That’s how they won the Second World War. We were able to establish a mass production of necessary weapons with a minimum of equipment and with low-skilled workers. With the presence of industry, it is possible to produce everything that allows the level of development of this industry. If the industry is destroyed, then with a high degree of probability reserves will be depleted, including sheet metal. The grenade f 1 can be elementarily produced on the ruins of the plant using the rest of the equipment (cast iron machine stands for example) as a raw material. Thanks to the more robust housing, primitive explosives with a slow increase in pressure can be used. The sheet metal case will simply go apart at the seam and the fragmentation shirt will simply unfold if the grenade contains not explosives but gunpowder. And F 1 fully explodes. The handicraft produced by F1 in the presence of a factory / high-quality fuse will not differ much from the factory one. According to its combat qualities, the F1 suits the military.
                        Now about casting the case. The technology is available to anyone whose hands do not grow out of fillets. Any housewife capable of sculpting dumplings, molding cutlets and baking cakes can make a mold for casting. The compounding of the mixture is important, how much sand and how much clay. And cast iron is not difficult to melt. Only fuel is needed.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 14: 19
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        In a critical situation, yes. That’s how they won the Second World War. We were able to establish a mass production of necessary weapons with a minimum of equipment and with poorly skilled workers

                        Tin ...
                        In what year did the RG-42 begin to be produced ????
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 14: 48
                        0
                        There is just the name indicated. But it was a necessary measure. Two different purpose grenades. Two different production technologies. F
                        1 cannot replace rg 42. For all its poles. The purely psychological effect of fearing narvat on your own shard limits the use of these grenades without shelter. Therefore, they bother with several species. But this does not negate the simplicity, accessibility and ease of mass production of F1 grenades. In this regard, rg 42 loses.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 14: 55
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        There is just the name indicated

                        That's it!
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But this does not negate the simplicity, accessibility and ease of mass production of F1 grenades. In this regard, rg 42 loses.

                        I apologize, but this is an absolutely unfounded statement
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 15: 43
                        +1
                        You have written an entire article. Just on this topic. And this is not enough for you?
                        We speculate. Let's say there is a room, a supply of fuses and an electricity of 380 volts. What is needed for the production of WP 42? And then I will list what is needed for F1
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 15: 52
                        -1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You have written an entire article.

                        Which absolutely affirms that manual labor is more productive and cheaper than the conveyor?
                        Let me not believe it


                        Quote: garri-lin
                        We speculate. Let's say there is a room

                        No. Let's say there is a foundry and there is a workshop for the production of cans. Which is better, to tear the foundry from the production of mine-shells or the workshop from idleness?
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 18: 37
                        +1
                        You see, you have everything. And a foundry and a cannery. And the supply of absolutely everything necessary for 3 years of war. War of Attrition. What will you do for 4 years of war? And on the fifth? The bomb was bombed. The cannery became embarrassed by the work of 3 shifts, the lack of spare parts, and the repairs made by blue tape, aluminum wire and wooden caps. But grenades are needed.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 18: 50
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        What will you do for 4 years of war? And on the fifth? The bomb was bombed. The cannery became embarrassed by the work of 3 shifts, the lack of spare parts, and the repairs made by blue tape, aluminum wire and wooden caps.

                        Paper, glass, ceramics ... I do not observe a particular problem here. Including to repair can production lines
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But grenades are needed.

                        Shells and mortar mines are needed much, much more. Do not roll them out of ceramic or paper
                      9. svp67
                        svp67 8 January 2019 18: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Paper, glass, ceramics ...

                        Yes, plastic bottles filled with a mixture of explosives and balls, hardware ...
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 19: 26
                        +1
                        We are about the times of the Second World War.
                        Now there are plenty of opportunities in general.
                      11. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 19: 20
                        +1
                        And in the same way sheet metal will be very necessary. Pack the same stew for fighters. And much more. Only it is difficult to produce sheet metal. This is a huge production that is very vulnerable and demanding on personnel.
                        And so as not to stoop to the glass ersatz, which with modern bronchiki is just like firecrackers, Her Majesty remains good old, simple as a bast shoe, reliable as a club, absolutely combat-ready F1.
                      12. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 19: 35
                        -1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And in the same way sheet metal will be very necessary. Pack the same stew for fighters.

                        Non-existent stew can be packaged in non-existent tin.
                        But sheet metal will still have to be produced. At least for the production of cartridges. Well, or for the same grenade fuses

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Only it is difficult to produce sheet metal.

                        ??
                        Much easier than pouring grenades from cast iron into disposable forms.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And so as not to stoop to the glass ersatz, which with modern bronchiki is just like firecrackers

                        The offensive grenade strikes first of all with its shock wave.
                      13. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 19: 46
                        +1
                        Ammo and fuses are good. How many shells can be produced from the metal needed for 1 grenade? By producing F1 we ​​save valuable raw materials for cartridges and fuses.
                        2. The time to produce one mold for 5_6 buildings is calculated in minutes. Elementary mini-stations for the production of building blocks at home will stamp them like hot cakes. Just have time to melt and pour cast iron. But the sheet to roll, and even so that with the necessary parameters this whole thing turned out. Here shed 10 to 20 meters can not do.
                      14. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 20: 15
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        By producing F1 we ​​save valuable raw materials for cartridges and fuses.

                        Once again, producing F-1 you take away power and material from art. shells and mortar mines. And they are much, much more important than hand grenades.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The time to produce one mold for 5_6 buildings is calculated in minutes. Elementary mini-stations for the production of building blocks at home will stamp them like hot cakes.

                        Who cares? This is still manual work, requiring more time and costing more than fully mechanized production. Our ancestors were not fools at all, producing the RG-42, which, by the way, was quite capable of replacing the F-1, if we used the stock of fragmentation shirts from the RGD-33

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But the sheet to roll, and even so that with the necessary parameters this whole thing turned out. Here shed 10 to 20 meters can not do.

                        You might think that the foundry will have such dimensions 8))))
                      15. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 21: 02
                        +1
                        1. Semi-artisan artel production, remelting the lowest-grade scrap metal to the F1 hulls will not take anything from the production of shells and mines. For bodies, you can use the lowest grade cast iron for shells is definitely not suitable.
                        2. If there is mechanized production, in the required amount, then you are right. But to create from scratch is exactly the opposite. Manual labor is heavy and ineffective. Nobody argues with this. But when the result is needed tomorrow and not after a year, manual labor is optimal.
                        3. In a small room equipped with primitive means of production, buildings can be produced in thousands per day. Scrap metal, coal, sand, clay, a little electricity for blowing the furnace, lighting, and the most primitive machines.
                      16. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 22: 42
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        remelting the lowest grade scrap metal on the F1 case

                        I apologize, but for normal spallation for F-1, a strictly defined cast iron is needed, and not something from scrap metal.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        if there is mechanized production, in the required amount, then you are right.

                        Here I am about that ... And they are.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        In a small room equipped with primitive means of production, buildings can be produced in thousands per day.

                        I would like to see 8)))))
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        some electricity for blowing the stove

                        ?????
                        You did not confuse a foundry with a village forge? Do not heat for forging, but melt.
                        Therefore, not a little, but a lot of electricity. The arc stove eats it very, very. Well, do not forget the substation.
                      17. wehr
                        8 January 2019 23: 38
                        0
                        Stubbornness does not do you honor. This time.
                        The article did not say a word about the arc furnace, but blast furnaces on charcoal were mentioned everywhere. These are two.
                        It is better for you to acknowledge the weakness of your arguments than to sink to a direct distortion.
                      18. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 23: 55
                        +1
                        1. For F1, ordinary cast iron, which is higher than the roof, is quite suitable. And who will not go to shells, will hardly go to mines but also like an ersatz. On F1 you can let metal production fail, not on shells.
                        2. Production is now. Peacetime plants. And what will happen if they are destroyed, or deprived of raw materials, or deprived of energy. What will happen if it is urgently needed to double production? How long will the construction of a new plant take? What to build it from? Where can I get milking machines? Where to get the staff? Will there be enough energy in the country?
                        3. I personally saw such foundries. Fences in the cemetery poured, grates for sewers, hatches. About 15 people worked if I remember correctly.
                        4. For smelting cast iron, ordinary coal is sufficient.
                      19. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 January 2019 21: 05
                        +1
                        By the way, RGD 33 was just unique. To simplify her production and fuse less sophisticated.
                      20. hohol95
                        hohol95 8 January 2019 22: 05
                        -1
                        Why waste clay and paper - press in high-explosive thermite balls like TSh-300 and "sleep" peacefully! Pressed explosive and fuse!
                        What else is needed to save?
                        And from clay, you can make bullets, as in the time of Ivan IV and Peter I.
                        Instead of steel shells - kernels from a mixture of sawdust and wood resin!
                      21. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 22: 44
                        0
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Why waste clay and paper - press in high-explosive thermite balls like TSh-300 and "sleep" peacefully! Pressed explosive and fuse!

                        An expensive option, so extrude.
                      22. hohol95
                        hohol95 8 January 2019 22: 46
                        0
                        What is he expensive? Pressed into briquettes for furnaces manually ...
                      23. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 22: 55
                        0
                        Pressed ...
                        But you need to make a shellless explosive device, resistant to moisture and "mechanics" - ie. to blows, etc. Moreover, its strength should ensure the normal detonation of a grenade ...
                        In short, it's easier to find a pity for the case. 8)))
                      24. hohol95
                        hohol95 8 January 2019 23: 01
                        0
                        Perhaps easier! In wartime. If there were no such developments in peace ...
                        The Germans have a proverb or saying - THE HAT IS STILL ON THE HEAD, BUT THE HEAD IS ALREADY BURNING!
                        If it becomes absolutely "tight" - then no "ersatz" will help! They did not help either the Germans with their allies or the Japanese (bamboo lances instead of rifles)!
                      25. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 8 January 2019 23: 26
                        0
                        Quote: hohol95
                        If it becomes absolutely "tight" - then no "ersatz" will help!

                        They helped us ...
                      26. hohol95
                        hohol95 9 January 2019 22: 57
                        0
                        What is an obvious example of a Soviet weapon "ersatz"?
                        Single-shot rifles did not, like the Germans at the end of the war.
                        Bamboo or steel peaks were not distributed to the population or soldiers of airfield service battalions, as the Japanese did in 1945, and the British in 1940!
              2. Mr Credo
                Mr Credo 7 January 2019 19: 30
                +2
                The accuracy requirements are less. And this is also a matter of cost and time. In Soviet times, there were automatic lines (German Gisag), and technology from the time of Peter. There was a wood model workshop, a mold manufacturing workshop. It seems expensive !? But cheaper.
            3. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 7 January 2019 15: 18
              +1
              Quote: Mister Creed
              Think RGD-5 easier to manufacture? These halves are stamped. Stamp production is expensive. One mold enters the other extruding a hemisphere.

              What does the RGD-5 have to do with it? The author touched upon wartime technology! With an eye to "possible military and economic difficulties in the future"! RGD-5 was put into service in the 50s of the last century!
        2. puskarinkis
          puskarinkis 8 January 2019 22: 20
          -2
          It is not correct to compare different types of grenades: offensive and defensive! In addition to the manufacturing technology itself, there are also problems solved by these grenades. The F-1 mass is larger, but this also allows heavier fragments to fly to a greater distance and cause more damage. Light fragments of offensive grenades have a small radius of destruction, which is convenient when attacking. Both grenades are needed! Therefore, I see no reason in comparing technologies and production costs. In addition, I would like to draw the attention of the author to the longitudinal seams of the F-1 grenades, which suggests that they were not cast entirely. And if you go down to artisanal production in a war, then artisanal grenades will be made from improvised means and not at all, on the equipment listed
          1. wehr
            8 January 2019 22: 39
            +2
            These are sprue stitches, formed where the halves of the form meet.
            1. puskarinkis
              puskarinkis 8 January 2019 22: 55
              0
              Explains ...
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 8 January 2019 22: 51
            +1
            Quote: puskarinkis
            It is not correct to compare different types of grenades: offensive and defensive!

            Strictly speaking, the RG-42, like its predecessor in peacetime, is universal, in the presence of a fragmentation shirt, defensive, in the absence, offensive. Well, F-1 - there yes, a narrow specialization.
            1. puskarinkis
              puskarinkis 8 January 2019 22: 59
              +1
              If formally, then yes! But if strictly, then the effectiveness of the RG with a shirt cannot be compared with F.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 8 January 2019 23: 10
                0
                Quote: puskarinkis
                If formally, then yes! But if strictly, then the effectiveness of the RG with a shirt cannot be compared with F.

                You know ... this is not a fact at all.
                Nevertheless, a shirt with semi-finished fragments in terms of fragmentation is a much more predictable thing than F-1 cast iron grenades
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 9 January 2019 01: 19
                  0
                  Here you are mistaken. Fragmentation of semi-finished striking elements is absolutely random, as is the case of F1. Either ready-made items or how lucky.
                2. puskarinkis
                  puskarinkis 9 January 2019 03: 29
                  0
                  It is not a matter of the number of fragments, but rather, the weight, which allows you to maintain stopping power at a distance and gives a large radius of destruction.
    2. another RUSICH
      another RUSICH 7 January 2019 10: 09
      +4
      Yes, the article is good. But still does not answer the main question: which is cheaper. Yes, and can not answer, like the dispute itself
      It correctly pointed out that grenades are a secondary production. But no one will start from scratch plants of a continuous cycle. Especially for making grenades. Therefore, tape grenades in certain conditions can be more technologically advanced and cheaper, and massively
      If, for example, I need to weld two pieces of iron, and buy a welding machine for this, then the cost of this weld will be equal to the cost of the welding machine.
      Therefore, it all depends on the initial conditions of production and raw material capabilities.
      By the way, about concrete. We also used concrete. They made bombs out of it
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 7 January 2019 13: 45
        +1
        And the Germans made bombs of concrete, the father told, and even used captured, 100 kg.
        1. polpot
          polpot 7 January 2019 18: 29
          +2
          Ours produced reinforced concrete FAB-100 NG and FAB-250 NG.
      2. Bratkov Oleg
        Bratkov Oleg 19 January 2019 12: 59
        0
        A poor article, illiterate, and the presence of such articles casts a black shadow on the professionalism of everything else that is published on the site. And in confirmation of this, the moderator banned me for a week or more so that I would not interfere here with the flag of stupidity. Grenades for various purposes, one offensive, another defensive. The offensive WG, at a throwing distance, can only scratch its cheek. The F-1 is defensive, it kills at a distance of 200 meters, and although some expressed their opinion that at such a distance it is one in a million, that it will fall into someone with a fragment, I remind them that at a throwing distance, where the density of the fragments is greater, and even other fighters in the open, the F-1 splinter pierces its head with a helmet. Therefore, any grenade can be thrown from the trench, but the F-1 will be mowed out by more people, and when the F-1 is thrown, a command will be sent through the trench so that everyone bends. And in the trench you need to throw an offensive grenade, there will be no answer from it. And the author of the article stupidly does not understand this, and is supported by the moderators. Weak level was at the site.
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 7 January 2019 12: 43
      +6
      Quote: Carpenter 2329
      Thoughtfully, competently, intelligibly, informatively!

      8))))))))) and so it is necessary to hang noodles on the ears .....
      In fact, the cost of one and the other grenade is almost the same, because its lion's share is the cost of producing a fuse 8))))))))))
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 7 January 2019 16: 10
        0
        the lion's share is 100%? especially when it comes to the release of tens of millions of grenades. And yes, stew is more expensive than cans
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 7 January 2019 17: 13
          -3
          8)))))
          No, the article actually compares the cost of two cans of stew, exactly the same, except for one: on one paper label, on the other information is applied directly
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 7 January 2019 17: 52
            +2
            Chermet of different categories is compared. Cast iron was cheaper and easier. And there’s less stew in it
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 January 2019 08: 40
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Cast iron was cheaper and easier.

              Yeah ....
              Manual work turned out to be "cheaper and easier" than a conveyor belt. Sorry Ford died, if he'd died he would have laughed
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 8 January 2019 10: 33
                +1
                But he cried, comparing the cost of cast iron and steel crying
      2. Mr Credo
        Mr Credo 7 January 2019 19: 53
        +2
        How can the cost be the same? Let the fuse be standard. Extraction of iron ore, its enrichment, smelting of cast iron, smelting of cast iron and steel output. Steel must be rolled to the desired thickness, rolled up, then chopped or molded. Then connect the molded parts. Are there many operations after casting iron on a grenade body?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 January 2019 08: 35
          -1
          Almost the same
          Now suppose that one grenade is twice as expensive as another. Is it a lot? Highly. But if we take into account the cost of the fuse, and one grenade will cost one hundred rubles, and the other one hundred and one ruble, does the difference no longer look so large?
          1. Mr Credo
            Mr Credo 8 January 2019 08: 46
            +2
            The cast iron grenade chain is shorter, which means production is cheaper.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 January 2019 08: 59
              -1
              Quote: Mister Creed
              The technological chain ........... is shorter, which means production is cheaper.

              Nonsense. Often, the technological chain is lengthened precisely to reduce the cost of production, for example, by splitting one complex operation into several simple ones
              In addition, on the one hand the conveyor, on the other hand-made
              1. Mr Credo
                Mr Credo 8 January 2019 09: 19
                +3
                Well yes! It is quite cheap to melt cast iron into steel and roll it into thin sheets! It is clear that the cylindrical body of a grenade is the same as canned food. And in the presence of a huge number of canneries, organizing the production of pomegranate cases is not a question. And in case of war? Cheaper and faster casting in a cast iron foundry! Will not produce canned food? Will be. But the issue will be the production of thin-rolled steel. As the sheet is produced, they will probably also produce cases. But with the growing deficit, the question is. In the Union, a pasta factory could produce not only pasta, but also gunpowder. And cigarettes for good reason were 7,62 caliber.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 8 January 2019 09: 33
                  -2
                  Quote: Mister Creed
                  It is quite cheap to melt cast iron into steel and roll it into thin sheets!

                  Firstly, it is not necessary to re-melt anything, there is scrap metal. Secondly, rolling iron into tin followed by in-line turning into a jar is not a much more expensive operation, an operation than the manual manufacturing of disposable molds followed by casting ....

                  But this is again a penny against the background of the complexity and cost of manufacturing a fuse for these two grenades
                  1. Mr Credo
                    Mr Credo 8 January 2019 09: 57
                    +1
                    If you raise the question of the pure manufacture of the can body, then yes. The question is cheap and fast. But I’m afraid that in the war metal will be worth its weight in gold and all the wrecked equipment will go either for spare parts or for remelting. The military economy will clearly show process optimization. I suggest everyone to remain unconvinced and stop this butt. hi
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 9 January 2019 19: 45
                    +2
                    You will not believe it, but the production of molds can also be mechanized. And the equipment that you need for this is much simpler than the rolling mill, and the output is huge.
                2. your1970
                  your1970 10 January 2019 17: 58
                  0
                  Quote: Mister Creed
                  And cigarettes for good reason were caliber 7,62.
                  -and? what exactly was this - "not casual" expressed? what could be made at a cigarette factory on machines designed for twisting paper (!!!)such - that was related to 7,62?
                  Old soviet bike fool
                  1. Mr Credo
                    Mr Credo 10 January 2019 19: 33
                    0
                    Dosage and stuffing of tobacco and gunpowder are probably very similar operations. Given the stuffing in one caliber. There are dual-use production. With minimal alterations and readjustments, production switches to the production of military products.
                    1. your1970
                      your1970 10 January 2019 22: 09
                      +1
                      Quote: Mister Creed
                      Dosage and stuffing of tobacco and gunpowder are probably very similar operations.
                      - you saw gunpowder generally automatic ????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, even hunting ???


                      poke your finger at something similar to tobacco (by weight, shape, flowability) at least from afar !!!
                      you still remember that the cans of the USSR type in caliber coincided with the shells of the artillery shells of the tank, yeah-yeah ....
                      As a child, you heard a lot of tales ...
                      1. Mr Credo
                        Mr Credo 11 January 2019 20: 46
                        -1
                        A liter of tobacco and a liter of gunpowder have a different volume? The dispenser is the dispenser and no matter what.
                      2. your1970
                        your1970 11 January 2019 22: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Mr Credo
                        A liter of tobacco and a liter of gunpowder have a different volume? The dispenser is the dispenser and no matter what.
                        - and a liter of cast iron and a liter of tobacco have the same volume? Try ramming a liter of cast iron into cigarettes ....

                        However, if you want to believe in the magic of coincidence of calibers / canned / cigarettes during the Soviet era - believe me, in general, your beliefs on the drum ....

                        Z. the diameter of the cigarette at Nicolae 2 also was equal to 7,62 mm ... this is such an intrigue ....... Kolyan also evidently prepared the economy for mobilization ......
              2. garri-lin
                garri-lin 9 January 2019 19: 28
                +2
                You won’t believe it, but people also work on the conveyor, so they still need to be taught so that the conveyor is not broken.
          2. garri-lin
            garri-lin 9 January 2019 19: 27
            0
            Multiply by the number of grenades needed for the war and get the astronomical amount.
      3. garri-lin
        garri-lin 7 January 2019 23: 15
        +1
        Here I completely agree. Here, the complexity of preparation is many times higher and the requirements for the result are incommensurably higher. God forbid an abnormal operation.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 9 January 2019 19: 46
          0
          Sori but the site has posted comments pda horrible.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 7 January 2019 05: 34
    +15
    And what is the verdict?? If we consider the issue comprehensively, it turns out that the F-1 is simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the RG-42. So in the third world lemon will still be in service and take pride of place in the armament of the infantry.
    the verdict should be like this: both grenades are needed, for one is offensive, the other is defensive, and that it’s easier or cheaper ...
    1. Mikhail m
      Mikhail m 7 January 2019 06: 42
      +4
      I completely agree with this. F-1 in the offensive can only be used by a suicide who has chosen a less technological method of suicide.
    2. Snail N9
      Snail N9 7 January 2019 06: 56
      +22
      This is true - it all depends on the capabilities of the country and the economic situation. For example, Germany, finding itself at the end of WWII in a difficult economic situation and limited in everything necessary, began to switch to various types of "ersatz" materials, widely using them in the production of weapons. For example, began to produce hand grenades from concrete, the so-called "Stielhandgranate Beton":


      And also "concrete" "Volkshandgranate 45":

      Many types of hand grenades in glass cases were also produced, for example "Glashandgranate":

      The Japanese were also engaged in all kinds of inventions in the field of "ersatz" because of their economic poverty, for example, they made ceramic hand grenades of the "Ture-4" type:

      And they even produced cumulative anti-tank grenades in .... bags with a stabilizing hemp "tail" "Ture 3".
      1. Snail N9
        Snail N9 7 January 2019 06: 57
        +19
        Here is this Ture 3 grenade:
      2. vladcub
        vladcub 7 January 2019 11: 48
        +2
        I know about "glass" grenades. Concrete b / m, but from the bag I can not imagine. Why throw bags on a tank or sit in a tree and wait for a tank to arrive under you?
        1. Snail N9
          Snail N9 7 January 2019 13: 42
          +2
          And what is there to "represent"? You take it and throw it as far as you can ... The Germans even had Velcro grenades in special containers so that they would not stick to everything (the container was removed before the throw) ... and magnetic mines that had to be stuck on the tank by running up to him ... And nothing, there is evidence that this exoticism was used quite successfully when the case turned up ...
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 7 January 2019 07: 28
      +3
      Quote: Aerodrome
      And what is the verdict?? If we consider the issue comprehensively, it turns out that the F-1 is simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the RG-42. So in the third world lemon will still be in service and take pride of place in the armament of the infantry.
      the verdict should be like this: both grenades are needed, for one is offensive, the other is defensive, and that it’s easier or cheaper ...

      an offensive grenade can also be prepared by casting iron - a thinner body, more often notches for small fragments, smaller dimensions
      1. Vikxnumx
        Vikxnumx 7 January 2019 09: 56
        -1
        In the 40s in the USSR?
        What equipment?
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 7 January 2019 11: 28
          +4
          Quote: VIK1711
          In the 40s in the USSR?
          What equipment?

          casting iron in the mold for a small grenade with small notches. what equipment? but with sheet metal this number will not work
          1. Vikxnumx
            Vikxnumx 7 January 2019 20: 22
            +3
            Do you still think that the F-1 is split into fragments along the notches on the case ???
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 8 January 2019 05: 53
              +1
              Quote: VIK1711
              Do you still think that the F-1 is split into fragments along the notches on the case ???

              Do you think the RG42 tape is divided into fragments exactly according to the notches? (I generally keep quiet about the tin case). The cost of producing tape has not yet been considered
    4. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 02: 09
      -1
      I agree to all 146! F-1, and the like, defensive grenades!
      There are also guided minefields, where, like the F-1 case made of cast iron, with a 70-gram thick barrels, on a half-meter peg, is installed. With an electric fuse. In the guardroom, you need to press the desired button, and the mine grenade will explode in the right place. This is about protected objects.
  3. Amurets
    Amurets 7 January 2019 06: 37
    +14
    So the F-1 grenade is such a grenade that can be produced even with an extreme depletion of the economy, using the lowest grade iron ore, charcoal and the very minimum of qualified engineers and workers.
    Thanks, very interesting. I want to add, not only in metallurgical plants, but also in engineering, where there was a foundry, it was possible to cast cases and cases of F-1 grenades were cast. Cast iron was melted in cupola furnaces; pig iron and cast iron, which can be collected by recycled steel, served as raw materials. This was done not only in our city, but also in other places where opportunities allowed.
    Cupolas are the most common furnaces in iron foundries - about 95% of all cast iron is smelted in them. This is due to the fact that cupolas are simple in design, have a high efficiency and are convenient in operation. In turn, cupolas are divided by type of fuel used into coke, coke oven and gas.
    1. wehr
      7 January 2019 18: 33
      +2
      Yes, the cupola is a wonderful thing.
      I remembered the old-fashioned blast furnaces because they can be built entirely from the improvised material, and with some mechanization (blowers, cooling of the tuyeres and filling of the charge) they will be quite functional.
      And I really like the German Niedrigschachtofen, made to melt the ores of Salzgitter, on 25% iron. In fact, it is a gas generator with the possibility of smelting iron and slag.
  4. Sirocco
    Sirocco 7 January 2019 06: 37
    +7
    Thank you for the article, an interesting topic, from the inside out, I read about German grenades, and found a photo, so the Germans poured Volkshandgranate 45 from concrete.
    Cheap and cheerful, so to speak, made on the knee.
  5. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 7 January 2019 06: 41
    +7
    The verdict is incorrect. RG-42 was adopted in 1942, during the most desperate and critical period of the war. As you know, during the war in the USSR they were very reluctant to switch to a new type of weaponry, preferring to mass-produce already established products instead of cheaper or more efficient weapons. As an example, PPSh and PPS, T-34-85 and T-44. PPS was several times more technologically advanced and two times cheaper than PPSh, but all the same, PPSh were mass-produced throughout the war, and PPS was issued 12 times less. The T-44 was a revolutionary new machine, without the T-34 sores in the form of a candle suspension, an engine along the sides, a mechanical drive hatch on the forehead, and had twice as much thickness of the frontal armor. But despite this, in order not to disrupt the established production of tanks, the T-34s continued to produce the entire war. Practice is the criterion of truth. And if in 1942 they adopted a new grenade, then it was radically cheaper and better than the old grenade.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 7 January 2019 07: 40
      +6
      F1 long slowed down the lack of a reliable fuse. While URG did not appear. The author’s reference to the number of defects in F1 and RG42 also describes how the equipment factory is trying to establish independent production of RG42 hulls and ... cannot do this until the end of the war! there you have it!
      so that the author’s conclusion is correct
    2. kvs207
      kvs207 7 January 2019 08: 09
      +3
      The author wrote that in RG-42 it was possible to use a simpler explosive, in contrast to the F-1, which required more powerful explosives.
      What about heavy tanks? Aircraft?
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 7 January 2019 08: 42
        +1
        IS-2 appeared as a response to the Tiger. There would be no Tigers, there would be no IS-2. As for airplanes, the fundamentally new aircraft adopted during the war was La-5; it arose due to the presence of a ready-made glider from LaGG-3 and a ready-made ASh-82 engine, well mastered in 1942.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 8 January 2019 02: 55
          +1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          EC-2 appeared as an answer to Tiger. There would be no Tigers, there would be no EC-2.

          Sorry, but the EC-2 was created as a means of breaking through the fortified areas. Its 122-mm with a separate-sleeve loading for anti-tank combat, to put it mildly, is not optimal. But perfect for the destruction of pillboxes.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 8 January 2019 04: 37
            +2
            The 85-mm gun pierced the Tiger's forehead only at a right angle and at a distance of less than 500 m. Therefore, after creating the IS-1 with an 85-mm gun, they began to experiment with the gun more powerful. The 152 mm howitzer did not fit due to the low initial speed and, as a result of this low accuracy, when firing at a distance of 500 m at a target of 2 * 2 m, not one of the 15 shells hit the target. The choice was between 100-mm and 122-mm guns. As experimental studies with shooting showed, it turned out that in reality the rate of fire from a 100 mm gun does not exceed the rate of fire of a 122 mm gun, since it is very inconvenient to control a tight tank with a long unitary projectile, separate charges of a 122 mm gun turned out to be much more convenient. Therefore, a 2-mm gun was installed on the IS-122.
            1. svp67
              svp67 8 January 2019 04: 52
              0
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              As experimental studies with shooting showed, it turned out that in reality the rate of fire from the 100-mm gun is not much higher than the rate of fire of the 122-mm gun

              Just FOUR times, 6 rounds per minute, against three in two minutes .... Indeed, the excess is not big ... wassat
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Therefore, on the IS-2 installed 122-mm gun.

              Since at the time of the installation of the last, the 100-mm tank gun did not exist, and when it appeared and was tested, they did not alter anything, saying that the 100-mm OFS was weaker than the 122-mm OFS, who would have thought such a thing ...
            2. Bongo
              Bongo 8 January 2019 08: 02
              0
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              As shown by experimental studies with shooting, it turned out that in reality the rate of fire of the 100-mm gun slightly exceeds the rate of fire of the 122-mm gun, since it was much more convenient to control a close tank with a long unitary projectile.

              Did I understand you correctly that the tower of T-54 and T-55 tanks is much more spacious than that of the EC-2? This is not the case, the EC-2 was created as a breakthrough tank, and the 122-mm gun was preferable for him. In addition, even for specialized PTs SAU Su-100, during the war years there were not enough 100-mm guns D-10, and part of the self-propelled guns had to be equipped with 85-mm guns. The 122-mm D-25T guns, which was a modification of the 1931 / 1937 model cannon gun. The A-19, on the contrary, was in abundance. If possible, to fight with heavy armored vehicles, it was inferior to the German tank guns and our 100-mm D-10.
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 7 January 2019 12: 11
        +4
        If I’m not mistaken in ersatz variants, f 1 was equipped even with gunpowder. And smoky and pyroxylin. So the BB is not so simple.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 7 January 2019 22: 49
      0
      Not indicated RG-41.
    4. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 02: 16
      0
      Less to you. The author of the article? The author of the article does not understand his fiction, does not understand that grenades are divided into Defensive and Offensive. And these grenades have a different method of application. F-1 has a killer radius, that is, at what distance from the explosion it kills, 200 meters. And to throw a grenade to a fighter, no matter how much he trains, you can do it 25-35 meters. I personally knew the cadet when I was studying, he threw a grenade type F-1 at 50-70 meters. But he was one of 140 people, and in reality, the advancing unit, using the F-1 with a cast body, would kill itself.
  6. Bad thing
    Bad thing 7 January 2019 06: 45
    +6
    Where did 42 grams come from in RG-150, like 110 there was always why RG-42 and not RGD-5 are considered, and by the way, the author and you are not aware, by chance, the production lines for the production of these types of grenades were left somewhere, or destroyed in Gaidar reforms?
    1. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 7 January 2019 09: 43
      +1
      And when the RGD-5 was adopted?
      Can already compare with the Russian Geographical Society?
  7. riwas
    riwas 7 January 2019 07: 13
    +1
    F-1 was often revealed as a "rosette", without inflicting damage on the enemy with shrapnel.
    One of the reasons for the removal of the F-1 from armament.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 7 January 2019 07: 42
      +8
      Quote: riwas
      F-1 was often revealed as a "rosette", without inflicting damage on the enemy with shrapnel.
      One of the reasons for the removal of the F-1 from armament.

      RG42 also opened and the bottom was knocked out and the tape was not crushed into fragments request Yes, and in service less stayed. By the way, this is not about making tape yet.
    2. Fotoceva62
      Fotoceva62 7 January 2019 10: 00
      +5
      In Sevastopol, fragments of F_1 are still found ranging in size from half to 1/4 of the building. About shrapnel impact, especially if the fragments and scattered 100 m. Silent.
      Only a very modest high-explosive action and psychological effect.
      1. puskarinkis
        puskarinkis 8 January 2019 22: 45
        0
        Large fragments of F-1, rather, are associated with the quality of the explosives in them. By the way, for a long time I, as an interesting exhibit, kept the RG-42 dug up near Novgorod ... After removing it from the ground and trying to check for the presence of a fuse, the plate covering the fuse came off in a riveted place to form a hole ... It turned out that there is not only a fuse, but also a trawl bomb inside ... The life of a soldier and, possibly, a child who has collected a grenade, is on your scales.
    3. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 7 January 2019 10: 02
      +2
      One of the reasons for the removal of the F-1 from armament.

      This is when the F-1 was removed from service?
    4. The comment was deleted.
  8. free
    free 7 January 2019 07: 52
    +3
    "Oh grenade, my grenade. After all, you and I will not be lost. You and I are my grenade, we will go into battle for the Motherland."
  9. LeonidL
    LeonidL 7 January 2019 07: 57
    -6
    "... in the third world lemon will still be in service and will take pride of place in the armament of the infantry." - Dear author, didn't you get enough of the previous two? Why scare the people? Moreover, the propaganda of war is prohibited by law. Pay close attention to words.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 7 January 2019 09: 55
      +4
      And I also drew attention to this!
      Sometimes you pull for a check-
      The grenade explosion explodes!
      And I hold her hands on her -
      And nothing is missing from her!
    2. wehr
      7 January 2019 15: 13
      +2
      This is not propaganda, but a forecast. The Americans will start a new world turmoil to cancel their huge national debt.
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL 7 January 2019 18: 49
        +1
        You have confused the Americans with the kamikaze - after the mess, there will be no "debtors" or "creditors" left. So don't get your hopes up.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  10. wooja
    wooja 7 January 2019 08: 09
    +7
    a really interesting article, although not indisputable, but what is surprisingly everything is written in the case, an infrequent phenomenon in the VO, comments are also in the case, but here is one of the comments that needs to be covered in more detail, how this article came out of the comments, it would be nice to think about and why all the same, many projects were put an end to during the years of the Second World War ... and the green light was given to what should be sent to the scrap ....,
    1. 2329 Carpenter
      2329 Carpenter 7 January 2019 09: 16
      +1
      It is interesting in this regard to read the history of I-185. There a lot of thoughts come to mind.
      1. wooja
        wooja 7 January 2019 09: 21
        0
        I agree that thoughts on this matter do not come up correctly and cause other very wrong ones, and not only in the technical sphere ....
    2. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 7 January 2019 10: 08
      +1
      Nevertheless, military products during the war were produced in considerable quantities. Let by simplified technology. There is no war today, but the pace of military output is lame.
      1. wooja
        wooja 7 January 2019 10: 11
        +1
        it was a war ... and now there is no demand, it is unprofitable to fill up warehouses ..., however, the economy
        1. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 7 January 2019 10: 30
          +2
          Strongly disagree with the answer. The war is going on now. But in a different way. And the production of tanks, planes and ships, we can not fill up warehouses!
          1. wooja
            wooja 7 January 2019 10: 36
            +4
            there is a reason in your statements .... but unfortunately there is no USSR,
            1. Mr Credo
              Mr Credo 7 January 2019 10: 39
              +1
              I agree. recourse There are no more questions and objections.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  11. Decimam
    Decimam 7 January 2019 09: 15
    +8
    Hand-held fragmentation grenades are designed to destroy enemy manpower fragments in close combat (in open areas, in trenches or communications, when fighting in a village, forest or mountains). Depending on the range of the fragments, the grenades are divided into offensive (RGD-5, RGN) and defensive (F-1, RGO).
    In hand-held grenades of the offensive type, the zone of guaranteed destruction is a circle with a radius of 3-5 m, and in defensive ones - up to 25.
    The size of the affected area is determined by the number and weight of fragments formed during the explosion of a grenade. It is taken into account that the minimum weight of fragments capable of defeating a person without individual protective equipment is from 2 to 5 grams. Therefore, defensive grenades always have a greater body weight against offensive ones. It is quite difficult to make such a case from sheet steel, so almost all defensive grenades of the old models have a molded case.
    In the production of modern garnets, casting is no longer used.
    Studies have shown that the destruction of the grenade’s hull is completely arbitrary, according to the law of random variables and up to 40% of the mass of the hull is spent on the formation of slaughter fragments.
    The mass of the body of the F-1 grenade is 540 gr., Therefore, we will get 200-220 grams per damaging fragments.
    Suppose the ideal option - all the fragments will be 2 grams each, therefore we have 100-110 fragments.
    The mass of the body of the RG-42 grenade is 280 grams, for "lethal" fragments we have 112 grams of metal and, in the same ideal case, two-gram fragments - 60 pieces.
    Roughly speaking, the F-1 grenade is almost twice as effective as the RG-42 grenade, but it can only be used because of cover.
    So the production of pomegranates is determined not by simplicity and cheapness, but by the need for pomegranates for various purposes. Like, in general, other types of weapons. Otherwise, they would fight with clubs. Evil and cheap.
    By the way, to the attention of the author. In the production of sheet steel, blooming is not used. This is a blanking mill for rolling blanks of square section - blooms and for further rolling of shaped profiles - channel, double tee, corner, etc.
    And slabbing produces a blank of rectangular cross section - a slab is an intermediate product for further processing into a sheet.
    1. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 02: 28
      -1
      The F-1 has a lethal range of 200 meters.
      And you are probably considering the radii of solid defeat
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 9 January 2019 08: 55
        +1
        The F-1 does not have a "lethal range" of 200 m, it is theoretically possible for it to form fragments that retain kinetic energy sufficient to destroy manpower at a distance of 200 m. The theoretical probability of such a defeat is 7 cases per 100 explosions.
        1. Bratkov Oleg
          Bratkov Oleg April 19 2019 21: 17
          0
          You do not understand the issue, and not versed in this topic. The RGD fragment at a distance of 30 meters will only scratch your cheek, and the F-1 fragment at this distance will pass through your head through the helmet. And not for your hypothetical million cases, but for every real grenade throw.
  12. alex-cn
    alex-cn 7 January 2019 09: 19
    +6
    Only hull grenades are considered in the article, and after all the Americans also considered open shells ... The body block into which the defective balls were poured from the bearings during manufacture and all this was hidden in waxed cardboard. I don’t remember just offhand how the fuse was attached. It seems that even in the Korean War, the last reserves were used.
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 7 January 2019 10: 13
      0
      Today, I think it’s easier to produce such grenades. BB with balls in a plastic case. Soft plastic is flammable and burns are possible, hard will fly apart.
  13. Wilderness
    Wilderness 7 January 2019 09: 38
    -1
    The article does not cover a subtle point with fuel. How much is required for a casting? There is enough manual labor in the production of "tin" cans.
    Second moment. Sheet rolling equipment is generally not necessary, sheet metal around us dofig. And even more so, metal pipes are almost blanks of finished products.
    And the third point. The number of explosives inside, I think it was selected based on the required parameters of the explosion, and not just wanted to fill the case. And the mass inside can always be supplemented with ready-made elements (compensating for the thin metal of the shell).
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 7 January 2019 10: 14
      +2
      The issue of fuel is considered and an example is given with France.
      1. Wilderness
        Wilderness 7 January 2019 10: 47
        +2
        There is an example with the economy on a national scale. I meant practice, i.e. do "here and now". Cutting finished pipes, riveting and threaded connections as opposed to metal melting.
        1. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 7 January 2019 11: 09
          0
          This is more like solving issues as they become available than organizing production.
  14. phakic
    phakic 7 January 2019 10: 01
    +6
    I don’t know how things are with the production, but in practice for 4 years I refused to use F-1, preferring RGD-5. Less weight when carrying, more explosive charge, in maneuverable combat the most. Even if you consider a trench battle, or a battle in the village, then in an explosion in a trench / basement 110 grams of TNT will give a much larger income than 60 grams. Well, in the field the application of F-1 is akin to roulette. Will arrive / will not arrive ...
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 7 January 2019 18: 53
      +2
      Quote: phake
      I don’t know how things are with the production, but in practice for 4 years I refused to use F-1, preferring RGD-5. Less weight when carrying, more explosive charge, in maneuverable combat the most. Even if you consider a trench battle, or a battle in the village, then in an explosion in a trench / basement 110 grams of TNT will give a much larger income than 60 grams. Well, in the field the application of F-1 is akin to roulette. Will arrive / will not arrive ...

      Again: I caught fragments of RGD-5 a couple of times in the field, even the winter jacket was not punched. And if from F-1 flew?
      1. phakic
        phakic 8 January 2019 16: 25
        0
        VOG-17, VOG-25 the fragments are even smaller, But they are enough when hit within a radius of 2-3 meters from the target. It was the same with the RGD-5, it didn’t fly too well, since the fragments had not pierced. F-1 is less likely to hit fragments, although they are more dangerous.
    2. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 9 January 2019 02: 30
      -3
      Quote: phake

      I don’t know how things are with the production, but in practice for 4 years I refused to use

      Gee, you finally can not topic! F-1 - slaughter range of 200 meters. And it doesn’t depend on the amount of TNT!
      1. phakic
        phakic 9 January 2019 19: 26
        0
        Of course) Absolutely not in the subject) With a slaughter of 200m, what is the aiming range?)))))))))))
  15. AB
    AB 7 January 2019 11: 30
    +3
    Well, again, everything turned into technology and the cost of production. The article is interesting, but it makes sense to compare different-purpose grenades. This is how to compare the production of the RPK machine gun and the Vladimirov machine gun - KPV. Both that and that machine gun, but the price and technologies are different.
  16. Sasha75
    Sasha75 7 January 2019 11: 36
    +7
    In the partisan detachments poured and now
  17. garri-lin
    garri-lin 7 January 2019 12: 33
    +4
    As a participant in the original dispute, I want to say thank you so much for the article. Capaciously, clearly, informatively. I want to add two things. F 1 can be equipped not only with explosives but also with gunpowder, the effectiveness drops, of course, but as a completely "ersatz" for the 4th world or for the partisan movement it will be quite useful. And the second nuance, the effectiveness of the fragmentation action in the near zone can be increased by reducing the amount of explosives. There will be more debris as a smaller percentage of the case will fly into dust. But the speed of the fragments and their efficiency are falling.
  18. nnz226
    nnz226 7 January 2019 13: 51
    +5
    Generally, the aforementioned grenades for different purposes: F-1 - "defensive", RG-42 - "offensive. And in a war, both are needed ... And F-1 - by definition of adversaries -" harakiri "(knife for the seppuku ritual How can one fight without it? And if the enemies are surrounded? Show them the "lemon" with the check pulled out - you just have to!
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 7 January 2019 16: 24
      +4
      Quote: nnz226
      Generally, the aforementioned grenades for different purposes: F-1 - "defensive", RG-42 - "offensive. And in a war, both are needed ..

      Well, that was also the universal RGD-33 with its unreliable mercury fuse. In production, it’s much more complicated than the first two.
      Decided in favor of WG-42
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 7 January 2019 22: 48
        +3
        RG-42 replaced the production of MORE and RG-41!
  19. Horse, people and soul
    Horse, people and soul 7 January 2019 14: 16
    +2
    IMHO, it’s somewhat naive to talk about what kind of weapons in the country we will produce in the 3rd World War. Not only grenades, but in general everything.

    Since the 3rd World War will inevitably and quickly slide into an exchange of nuclear strikes, there will be no factories to produce anything, nor electricity for this.

    What remains in the surviving warehouses will have to fight against the NATO occupiers. And this is if they will have forces and desires at all in Radioactive Russia. Europe and the United States will also be radioactive.

    And so, Einstein said that the 4th World War will be with sticks and stones.
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 7 January 2019 23: 00
      0
      And the old buildings from f 1 as a shock-crushing weapons of remote action. smile hi
  20. SerB60
    SerB60 7 January 2019 15: 39
    0
    Very interesting, thanks.
  21. screw cutter
    screw cutter 7 January 2019 16: 00
    +1
    The cheapest is casting, ask any machine builder (I myself am a mechanical engineer specializing in "material pressure processing and casting". But there is one more "BUT". Nobody even thought about the production of an EXPLOSER with a slowdown ...
    1. marshes
      marshes 7 January 2019 16: 18
      +1
      Quote: screw cutter
      .But there is one more "BUT". Nobody even thought about the production of a FUSE with a slowdown ...

      They seem to be produced in machine-gun factories by machine. According to the idea of ​​them as cartridges there should be a lot.
  22. Leiba Bronstein
    Leiba Bronstein 7 January 2019 17: 04
    +5
    Strange choice offered: metal / explosive. Probably the designer was guided not only by these factors, and for some reason the grenade designs were chosen just like that. It is possible for F1 to make thinner walls when casting, etc. It's just that these grenades are different in design, and the most important thing is in "specialization".
  23. Yarhann
    Yarhann 7 January 2019 17: 51
    +3
    F1 is much more technologically advanced and cheaper to manufacture, while mass production is also cheaper. Destructive power is provided by fewer explosives but heavier fragments.
    RGD - much less technological, requires more explosives - but an analogue of such ammunition can be made in any workshop.
    If we are talking about the war, then of course F1 is economy and manufacturability with the highest combat effectiveness.
  24. marshes
    marshes 7 January 2019 18: 08
    -2
    In general, I became interested in how the internal cavity is made during casting, I came to the conclusion that the billet is made of wood, coated with wax or paraffin. If the wax or paraffin in the casting process evaporates, the tree does not have time to just burn out, just then burn it out.
    1. Decimam
      Decimam 7 January 2019 20: 14
      +6
      Where did you get such fiction? Imagine how many bees are needed to provide all the foundry with wax. Download any tutorial. At least Titov N. D., Stepanov Yu. A. Foundry technology. M., "Engineering", 1974. Everything is described there.
      1. marshes
        marshes 7 January 2019 20: 26
        +1
        Quote: Decimam
        Where did you get such fiction? Imagine how many bees are needed to provide all the foundry with wax. Download any tutorial. At least Titov N. D., Stepanov Yu. A. Foundry technology. M., "Engineering", 1974. Everything is described there.

        I wasn’t interested in it, although I’ve been doing a four-hour activity for half a year, life has forced me. What and how the riddle is poured for me, although there is some idea. A private courtyard, made castings from bronze, copper, aluminum and lead, poured shots and jacques, an alloy lead and antimony, printed type, was not bad for brass knuckles.
        And I’m looking for books for general development., Thanks for prompting me.
    2. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 7 January 2019 20: 33
      +2
      Generally interested in how to make an internal cavity when casting

      Well, if on the fingers ... Inside the mold, a core of sintered sand is inserted before pouring.
      Cast iron is poured. The metal has hardened - the sand form breaks and sand rods are beaten out from the cast bodies. This is a very old technology, but available even in the garage.
      There are tons of other casting methods, and for lost wax casting too ...
      1. marshes
        marshes 7 January 2019 20: 42
        0
        Quote: VIK1711
        Before filling, a core of sintered sand is inserted inside the mold.

        And what is sand added? What would you like to bake?
        1. Decimam
          Decimam 7 January 2019 21: 28
          +5
          No sintering, no drying. The simplest binder option is liquid glass. But if you take it seriously, you need to consider the casting material, the configuration of the molded part and the weight.
          In general, now you can buy ready-made molding sand for different castings.
          1. marshes
            marshes 7 January 2019 21: 41
            +1
            Quote: Decimam
            The simplest binder option is liquid glass.

            By the way, I forgot about it, it’s a simple clerical glue. The trees are sticks, but I forgot selicates, I haven’t cooked anything for a long time laughing
            I have turned the Russian stove from the old masters into a mini blast furnace, melted all the garbage and forged it until it took the true path laughing Clever, as knowledge laughing
  25. APASUS
    APASUS 7 January 2019 20: 50
    +3
    I think all the same, the F-1 will benefit. The fact is that cast iron primary raw materials and the production of such grenades can be set up on a stool, and an increasingly less technological production will be completely and completely transferred to production for the front. In this, the PPSh machine is worth mentioning , it was thanks to cheap stamping that its production operated even in besieged Leningrad.
    Well, a little from the topic.
    Metal during the war, strategic raw materials and was often scarce. For this reason, bombs and even ship hulls made of concrete were fired during the war.
    1. marshes
      marshes 7 January 2019 21: 14
      +4
      Quote: APASUS
      .In this, it is worth mentioning the PPSh submachine gun, it was thanks to the cheap stamping that its production operated even in besieged Leningrad.

      Probably the PPP, Sudayev. Oddly enough, even his "allies" recognized his best PPP.
      Quote: APASUS
      Metal during the war, strategic raw materials and was often scarce. For this reason, bombs and even ship hulls made of concrete were fired during the war.

      I read memoirs of one who flew on the Pe-8 and bombed Kenisberg, 5-ton air bombs were made of concrete, just when 80% of the fragments were bombed, they remained in the funnel.
      DOGS, my cousin’s grandfather collected memoirs and a bibliography about Aviation. In any case, I flew 42 and 46 as a shooter on Pe 2 and A-20. I thought that I hadn’t captured the whole war. Like my own grandfather, the infantry. He saw the severity of the war.
      1. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 7 January 2019 22: 23
        +1
        5 ton bomb, why shrapnel?
        1. marshes
          marshes 7 January 2019 22: 33
          +2
          Quote: cat Rusich
          5 ton bomb, why shrapnel?

          Yes, when they tested it in the year 43, they just paid attention, the first iron cast bomb was. Everything becomes clearer over time.
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 8 January 2019 11: 50
        0
        Quote: marshes
        Probably PPS, Sudaeva.

        It’s a bit wrong
  26. acetophenone
    acetophenone 7 January 2019 22: 02
    -3
    And here's another important question: when you enter the house, how to start wiping your feet on the mat: from the left, al from the right?
    Or with money, for example: it used to be 3 rubles, but 2 was not, but now it's the other way around. What is more profitable?
    The topic of boobs is not disclosed, again!
  27. lis-ik
    lis-ik 7 January 2019 22: 25
    0
    An excellent and balanced article, very pleased with the feasibility study, accessible and easy to read.
  28. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 7 January 2019 22: 38
    0
    What are we arguing about - which is cheaper? The body - can be made of paper, glass, clay, concrete - has already been made. What will be at hand is then put into production. BB is the simplest, weakest - you need a large amount. Fuse, as with king peas - a wick.
  29. hohol95
    hohol95 7 January 2019 22: 53
    +1
    Dear author! And why did you take the RG-42, but missed the RG-41 and RGD-33?
    The RG-41 grenade was widely used by the soldiers of the Red Army in the initial period of World War II.
    Although the RG-41 was much more compact than the well-known Soviet grenade RGD-33, it was more convenient and easier to use and hardly less powerful, but the RGD-33 survived the war due to its versatility, and the RG-41 disappeared from circulation already in 1942 being replaced by RG-42.

    RGD 33 grenade was produced from 1933 to 1941. However, it proved to be quite difficult to manufacture and use. Before its use on the battlefield, it was necessary to do a lot of manipulations, which is not so simple even for an experienced fighter. In addition, the disadvantage of RGD 33 was that it exploded only after a strong throw, and sometimes it was necessary to detonate a grenade without a throw, for example, throw it into the embrasure of a bunker or a tank hatch. In the production of grenade, the RGD 33 was also quite complicated and required highly skilled workers and sophisticated equipment.
    For all the time of production, Soviet industry produced more than 50 million grenades rgd 33.
    1. wehr
      7 January 2019 23: 29
      0
      What for? WP-41 in the technological sense is a complete analogy of WP-42. RGD-33 was also made from sheet metal. They had all the same features as WP-42.
      If you wish, then so. If the "tin can with TNT" RG-42 turns out to be more expensive and more difficult to manufacture than the F-1, then the RG-41 (tin can with a lid), and even more so RGD-33 - and even more so.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 7 January 2019 23: 53
        0
        Could just mention these two grenades!
        The Germans did not produce anything like the F-1 at all, but copied a fragmentation shirt with RGD-33 for their Stielhandgranate M24.
  30. Note 2
    Note 2 8 January 2019 14: 42
    0
    WG 42 was withdrawn from service twenty years ago and F 1 is still present in spite of no comparisons, although there was information that the Fen’s equipped with non-TNT were also attributed.
  31. Foxnova
    Foxnova 8 January 2019 14: 48
    0
    Now would compare defensive and offensive grenades

    I would see how an expert in attack f1 uses
  32. Forever so
    Forever so 8 January 2019 15: 36
    0
    In connection with the destruction of Soviet mobilization capacities, together with factories and million-ton polygons of garbage from polymers, it is worth considering the question of casting grenades on the knee of hulls of a mixture of PE, PP, and other polymers with the fusion of ready-made striking elements into the body)))
    1. wehr
      8 January 2019 16: 05
      0
      There was already a whole article "To replace the legendary F-1"
    2. Note 2
      Note 2 9 January 2019 08: 58
      0
      No need to watch the Americans and their other friends have already released such trash in power and the expansion of the fragments inferior to our grenades.
  33. Brigadier
    Brigadier 8 January 2019 18: 15
    0
    "Lemon" - even in spirit truly ours defensive grenade.
    Russia too all the time defends itself from the grasping paws of "Western democracy" ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  34. mvbmvbmvb
    mvbmvbmvb 8 January 2019 20: 23
    +1
    Commentary is not military and not an economist. Reasoning ...
    1. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 12 January 2019 22: 33
      -1
      I agree with you, and also an article with a strange topic, both Nranat productions have their pros and cons, but the main thing is in the effectiveness of the weapon .. Both grenades are not successful, the F-1 is only for self-detonation, because there are too few fragments and only large ones up to 25 , which is clearly not enough for a guaranteed defeat further than 2 meters. RG-42 is inconvenient for long-range throw, there is no defensive option. Why did they not copy, with their minor amendments, a very successful simple German M-24 grenade before the war, during the "friendship" with the Germans. Created on the experience of WWII, cheap and effective, - a very simple grater igniter and fuse, a long handle for long-range throw, and it was not for nothing that it became the favorite melee weapon of the Wehrmacht soldiers .. Even the Romans always adopted a good weapon from everyone, especially enemies. ....
  35. RuslanD36
    RuslanD36 10 January 2019 12: 43
    0
    The article is excellent and balanced. Thank.
    But, I think, the topic ersatz VV is poorly disclosed. Is there any information on what percentage of grenades than what was equipped?
  36. Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 10 January 2019 15: 19
    0
    igdanite, say, has a TNT equivalent of 0,8

    It happens and 1,1. It all depends on the ratio of components, the composition and quality of the combustible component and the quality of mixing.
    But for hand grenades igdanit is not suitable, because due to its low sensitivity to detonation, it requires the presence of a secondary detonator in the grenade design (usually TNT-bombs of 100-250g are used for this). The secondary detonator will take up the entire place for igdanite, and it will not be needed anymore.
  37. akunin
    akunin 11 January 2019 16: 58
    0

    I completely agree with my colleagues about the comparison of "offensive with defensive" (it is impossible without one or the other) pr - 42 can be made cheaper. to a dynamite stick, skoch, tie nails, stumps of wire, etc. laughing
  38. lopvlad
    lopvlad 10 March 2019 20: 22
    0
    "Which is easier to produce: F-1 or RG-42"

    RG-42 is simpler and cheaper than F-1. An incorrectly asked question by the author has generated the same incorrect answer.
  39. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 10 March 2019 20: 45
    0
    I immediately began to be interested in the question. But to melt steel, roll it into sheets, then chop from these sheets, bend, etc. the body of grenade efforts is not required?!. Rolling again ...
    And a comparison of the offensive and defensive grenades ...