Talk:Sticky bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Other Sticky Bombs

Similar bombs were also used by American and Russian armies during the war, a la Saving Private Ryan and Call of Duty 2. Why does it direct to this British weapon but nothing else? Captain Jackson 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Because this is the famous one? GraemeLeggett 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And its not an improvised one. It was actually issued to soldiers by the government. All others that you refer to are basically made in the field, and we can't exactly say how they were made, as the explosives or bonding element of the bomb are different among them. AllStarZ 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth can be stranger . . .

. . . Than fiction!

I mean, who would dare to suggest that the Brits (infamous for the safety of their weapons during WW2, often to the point where they would compromise the effectiveness of the weapon!) would not only sanction such an idiotic weapon, but actually PUT THE THING IN PRODUCTION!

It actually makes sense when you discover that this was actually an unusual case - the inventor of this bomb was given the opportunity to bypass the normal review by the Ordnance board.Johno 05:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The design does seem a little mad and many resisted its introduction. Churchill himself made sure it went through. The great advantage of the sticky bomb was that it made use of materials that did not affect the production of regular weapons: glass, wool, resin, bakerlite etc and the cheap nitoglycerin. And it could, just about, be effective against German tanks of 1940. Gaius Cornelius 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that? My source is "German and Allied Secret Weapons of WW2", by Hogg, King and Batchelor, and they say that it was brought to MD1 "By means not entirely clear to this day". Now, 30-year rule documents could have changed that, but I'd be interested to know if you can verify that. Thanks! :)

My source is the National Archive "WO 185/1 Anti-tank measures Sticky Bomb adoption and production" and "CAB 120/372 - sticky bomb etc". I cannot post any of this material on the web, but I can share some material by private e-mail for research purposes only. Gaius Cornelius 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I can't be sure I have a feeling that the grenades were actually intended for use by the Auxiliary Units in case of invasion and hence the normal safety standards were considered less important. Ian Dunster 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The original order for the sticky bomb was for one million (though rather fewer were actually produced) far more than the auxiliary units needed. Anyway, in general, the Auxiliary units got the best of everything. It is not really clear just how dangerous it really was to the user, the main problem would be staying alive long enough to get sufficiently close to an armoured vehicle. Gaius Cornelius 22:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather them than me - I seem to remember that the adhesive used was based on bird lime and was very powerful, i.e., sticky. Ian Dunster 12:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The adhesive was resin based. It certainly seems to have enjoyed a reputation for sticking to clothes and I have read a couple of stories like that quoted in the main article. The bomb only weighed 1-2 kg and if required a man can easily provide 100 kg of force and probably much more: just how sticky could it really have been? I do wonder if the stories are apocryphal; or that the stated events occured because those involved had an exagerated sense of just how sticky the adhesive was and simply did not try to pull it off; or that, given the overall fragility of the weapon, men were told that applying sufficient force to remove it from clothing would be very dangerous. Government reports reveal that it was poor at sticking to vertical surfaces of a vehicle. Gaius Cornelius 21:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone formally confirm that these things used nitroglycerine ?? This seems extremely unlikely, and is certainly not referenced in Stuart McCrae's book - which has to be a prime source of material Steveastrouk 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that from the abovementioned Hogg, King and Batchelor. They comment that this was one of the reasons for the initial rejection of the weapon by the Ordnance board - "When all is said and done, nitroglycerine is not the sort of liquid to be carried around freely." They also comment that the Ordnance board was not at all impressed to discover that MD1 had authorised the weapon's production!

So Gaius Cornelius, I'd say that the stickyness would be the least of this bomb's problems with safety - have you ever seen someone detonating a drop of Nitroglycerine with a sledgehammer? [shudder] Johno 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Most, possibly all, secondary sources give the filling as nitroglycerine as do many primary sources such as the training manual. (See here for Home Guard pocket manual page 47.) Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the filling was nitroglycerine-based as is clear when looking into National Archive records. Are Hogg, King and Batchelor actually quoting the Ordnance board? If I remember rightly, Stuart MacRae does mention concerns over nitroglycerine, but that the formulation proved to be very safe. Gaius Cornelius 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty smart to me, though magnets are smarter. What's dumb is that apparently Tom Hanks' character in a movie thought -grease- would make a good adhesive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

A magnetic version was described as "Reliable, efficient and useless." It was effective in that it stuck to the tank and detonated correctly, but it simply didn't have the moxie to damage a tank. :) Incidentally, all the information I have read says otherwise but I'd guess that the filling would have to be based on nitroglycerin rather than nitroglycerin itself; it just seems to sound more likely. That said, stupider things have been done!Johno 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)