“Since a regulation-size football weighs 14 ounces, it was considered feasible to make a shaped charge grenade within this weight limitation. In addition, most US troops are familiar with throwing footballs,” according to the Army’s test report for the weapon.
…
Footballs fly through the air because there is an even distribution of weight surrounding the hollow inside of the ball. But 14 ounces of explosives tended to make the trajectory of the Nerf grenade “unpredictable,” according to the test report.
[Soviet tanks roll through the Fulda Gap]
“PUT ME IN, COACH”
^ Fellow Cold War survivor right here.
It’s Nerf, then nothing.
This is the picture that will flash in my mind every time I hear the word “American” from now on.
“Sports.”
“Okay. I like it, I like it.”
“PLUS… big boom.”
“My God. Give this man a promotion and the Medal of Congress!”
“packed” and “inside” are doing some absolutely insane heavy lifting here…
Is there a link source to the body text?
I am curious how far this idea went in testing, and what if any scenario was conceived for this. I know the U.S. was staring down the idea of a tank rush in Europe at the time, but even as a last ditch weapon, this seems far fetched.
Most anti-tank grenades come with cute little parachutes with the most ideal deployment being tossed from above, from a building or bridge.
https://www.military.com/history/armys-anti-armor-football-grenade-did-not-work-envisioned.html
You might be able to find more about it elsewhere, though, this is just the short article I got it from.
Ok, I will read more thanks. I already found a loosely sourced article here..
I suppose I had overlooked what should have been obvious, especially since I already mentioned MPIM (Multi-Purpose Individual Munition program, a program in the 1980s looking for ways to launch munitions without backblast), but the football grenade appears to have been spawned from looking for a way for soldiers in urban areas to attack armor from inside buildings and to reduce how visible they were during attack. I’d still rather have a way to launch it though (PIAT gang 4 life).
Looks like possibly only one was made, so I guess not a super successful program, but I’m genuinely interested to see if there’s any more deep lore on it.
Want to see me throw this bomb over them hills?
Yeah… Ford woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would’ve won Vietnam. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.
Wrapping the explosive around the inside like a thicker skin would distribute the weight.
Unfortunately, not compatible with a shaped charge.
Squashhead, maybe, but squashheads need a lot of rotation to work well and I don’t think even a two time touchdown in one game high school quarterback has enough of a throwing arm for them.
It would but harder to make a shaped directional armor penetrating charge that way.
So what’s the average distance a 20-something man could accurately throw a football thats, let’s guess, 10x heavier? And throw it accurately up to +/- 5 ft? And then let’s ask what the lethal or shrapnel radius is of this anti-armor grenade. Also what the lethal radius of exploding armored vehicles is?
I leave the comparing as an exercise for the reader.
Well, this football thing is terrible for a lot of reasons, but the fragmentation radius of a shaped charge munition that is not designed to make secondary frag is actually very low. (Many munitions will intentionally tack some frag on because usually there’s no reason not to, but it’s easy to design a munition excluding extra frag) At that point the blast radius becomes the main factor, which again is relatively low.
Throwing this thing at a tank or armored vehicle is unlikely to make it instantly catastrophically explode. Even the later MPIM munitions, which were almost certainly better explosively designed were only really expected to score mobility kills consistently.
The bigger question is: Do you feel comfortable getting within throwing distance of a vehicle with at least one machinegun on it to toss this thing that will probably just make the crew angry at you?
Do you feel comfortable getting within throwing distance of a vehicle with at least one machinegun
Too be fair, troops likely had the misfortune of being that close once. At which point having a possible tool for survival is better than none.
