This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Grooves and raised sections don't aid fragmentation?[edit]
The article states the grooves and raised sections don't aid fragmentation. This seems unintuitive and it isn't cited. Does anyone know if this is correct? It seems that the purpose of those components may well be to increase the ability to grip the device, but it seems like the presence of weaker sections of the grenade's shell would have to contribute to fragmentation. Is it possible that someone mixed up the purpose of the grooves or their neccesity for adequate fragmentation with their effect on fragmentation? I could imagine a source saying the prior two (not for fragmentation and not needed for fragmentation) but the later one sounds suspect (doesn't aid fragmentation). Wouldn't a shell without grooves have more structural integrity and therefore fragment into larger pieces, thereby rendering the statement in the article incorrect? Hopefully a source can be found.--Δζ (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've read that, whether intended or not, the external grooves of this sort were found not to aid significantly in the fragmentation of the grenade body while internal grooves were, thus you see a later designs like the M26. One source for this would be Ian Hogg's book on World War II infantry weapons. He mentions this, I believe, in the introduction to the grenades section of the book. The whole issue of the grooves being there to help soldiers grip the grenade does strike me as something of an ex post facto justification for them being there, as most modern defensive grenades seem to have no need for such grooves. So, to belabor my point even further, when designed I think people thought that the grooves would help the fragmentation of the grenade, but later studies revealed that they did not.--172.190.50.63 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to weapons expert Kevin Dockery: '...the pineapple grenade’s inventor, William Mills from the United Kingdom, picked the fruit shape for ease of gripping. “His intention for those serrations was so that it wouldn’t slip out your hand in a muddy trench.” '
[1]Cornell737 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article just now I noticed that sometimes the article used "Mk.2" and sometimes it was "Mk 2". About half and half, so I made the call and decided the whole article should be standardized to "Mk 2" (note space)Jonny Quick (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
