quote: Of the 27 Marines who similarly threw themselves on grenades to save the lives of their fellow Marines during WWII, Sorenson was one of only four who survived.[1] Fellow Medal of Honor recipients Richard E. Bush, Jacklyn H. Lucas and Carlton R. Rouh were the other three survivors.
posted
In the OP, the soldier didn't throw himself on the grenade. He threw the grenade back and away from himself.
With a standard definition of amazing as being something that causes great surprise or wonder, I don't think that applies when that was so common with both German and Japanese soldiers to the extent that American soldiers were expecting it as an everyday occurrence.
posted
I wonder how hard it would be to have grenades that have a sort of tiny wireless triggering device that you could synch to your gun, or to be connected to a device on your person, before pulling the pin. Then you could throw the grenade and hit the detonator command when you wanted the grenade to explode thus removing the risk of it being thrown back at you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the large majority of people who attempt to throw them back fail, causing worse injuries to themselves and their fellow soldiers, I'd still call it amazing. I know this because the army actually teaches you NOT to do it, because modern grenades have a much better fuse system with a lot less time between pulling the pin and detonation.
I was aware he did not fall on the grenade, as I did read the actual article, but I thought the links I provided were relevant because of the similar situations.
You have 3 choices when one comes in at you. Dive to cover, try to throw it back and possibly kill not just yourself but also your fellow soldiers, or cover it to try and save your fellow solders.
As far as wireless grenades, I'd pass, I don't want anyone to get the code while I am carrying one. Hackers would be worse than a sniper. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cooking off is a term referring to intentionally holding onto an armed grenade after the pin has been pulled and the handle released; allowing the fuse to burn partially to decrease the time to detonation after throwing. This technique is used to reduce the ability of the enemy to take cover or throw the grenade back. It is also used to allow the grenade to burst in the air over defensive positions.[13] This technique is inherently dangerous, since fuses may vary from grenade to grenade.
Even with modern manufacturing methods, you never know how much time you have before one explodes. It was even worse during WWI and WWII.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
But doesn't that actually make tossing back grenades less amazing rather than more?
As indicated, both soldiers in the WW1 and WW2 theatres counted to three and four respectively to deny the enemy the chance of throwing it back. If you're correct, they were willing to take the chance of it blowing up in their hand over versus the greater chance of it being thrown back. That seems to make throwing it back seem pretty unremarkable.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
