"Using grenades outside of highly specific circumstances as a general issue weapon is impractical and quite dangerous, which is why the Russians trained soldiers to do just that."
@@SusCalvin Acording to the video - mainly during sieges. However he also stated that they could be useful in an open battle *if* the battlefield was realatively featureless (as in a flat plain with no trees, rocks, etc.)
That happens in every european army I've looked into. Units sometimes keep archaic designations earned much earlier. The longer history a unit has, the more lore it accumulates. Mech. infantry units could sometimes have "cavalry" designations.
French grenadiers of the early part of the 18th century didnt even look hugely identifiable as Grenadiers. No bearskins or mitres but rather coats and cuffs with extra embroidery
@@MediumRareOpinions i think partly a nod to history and partly psychological warfare etc..some armies formed in WW2 were done as bluffs..the Germans really do seem to have been terrible at intel work outside territory they controlled - given their touching faith in Enigma and poor record with putting agents into hostile countries - nothing anywhere near the Rote Kapelle that the Soviets ran for example.
Nah, the French definitely knew about grenades. Prior to the Bourbons bankrupting the country, and Napoleon then ruining the navy - the French had a reputation for being nasty fighters in boarding actions. The French took great pride in the 'accoutrements', often carrying a fine quality sailor's knife. French corsairs and boucaniers also had a predilection for pistols. The result was that boarding or be boarded by the French, was the fastest way to get shot, stabbed, and pistol-whipped this side of Oakland.
The inaccuracy of muskets is definitely overstated. I'm not even a good shot, but I can reliably hit what I'm aiming at with a Charleville from longer distances than most people give it credit for.
Yes, but, you forget a piece of important context here. Most soldiers at the time were not trained to fire at individuals, indeed most were not even trained to aim. In the standard firing drill of most armies the words take aim are not present, it is usually something along the lines of present arms. In other words they were trained to fire at entire units, not to aim at the soldier opposite them. Hell, many muskets of the period had at best rudimentary iron sights, and often they had none at all. Of course, this is not the case with the skirmishers, the Rifles and Jagers for example, as well as the Light Company of a Line Regiment, but it holds true for the vast majority of the Line Infantry. As a modern shooter of blackpowder weapons you take aim, the soldiers of the period in discussion, for the most part, did not. It was all about an application of massed firepower, individual accuracy was not as important as a certain level of unit accuracy and of course rate of fire.
1. The fatigue and stress of combat brings the rate down. Presumably you don't travel back in time to the Spanish War of Succession to shoot muskets, yes? Lol. 2. The goal isn't to hit an individual (unless you're in a colonial conflict or something, but this rests on the assumption we're talking about Europe), it's to hit a mass of people, muskets are far more effective in that regard. If they weren't they wouldn't have been used that way for so long. And also, you have practice doing this which automatically puts you a leg up from a lot of soldiers.
@@alganhar1 Your points and statement is quite accurate. I do agree with the OP though, in general, just blaming the tool (musket, fowler, etc) is intellectually lazy at best. I hear it FAR too often without any explanation at historical re-enactments and from misinformed people constantly. I’d be quite happy with you giving a live fire musket demonstration in front of crowds with the knowledgeable explanation you just have. God speed! 🏴 🇬🇧
Yeah, the glacis - the earth banks of a fort. Chuck that shit into a confined space packed full of enemies and you'll have utter carnage. Grenadiers in a siege most certainly DID use grenades, much like how in WW1 and WW2, they were used to clear trenches and bunkers.
"Here lies in earth a Hampshire grenadier, Who caught his death of drinking cold small beer. Reader, be warned by his untimely fall, And when ye drink, drink strong, or none at all." -- old epitaph
A reenactor playing a British Grenadier (bearskin and all) once visited my school when I was a child and explained that the British Army had discontinued the use of grenades by the Revolution because the fuses burned too quickly. According to him, when the workers assembling the grenades started getting paid on the number of grenades they could make rather than the by the simple hours they worked, they started getting sloppy with how they wound the fuses to make more grenades sooner, causing the fuses to burn far too quickly when ignited, and that these grenades would blow up in the soldiers' own ranks before they could be thrown. Is there any truth to this?
I doubt it, those 18th Century grenades wouldn't be fused until they were going to be used, kind of like exploding artillery shells. Now there MAY have been quality control issues with the manufacture of the fuses themselves, there were certainly quality control and standardization problems with the burning time fuses used in artillery shells depending on the arsenal or contractor producing them, even as late as the American Civil War. There can even be problems with hand grenade fuses today, although very rarely. Ever watched a war movie where a guy about to throw a grenade pulls the pin, releases the spoon (safety), counts "One-Two-Three!" and then throws it? We were taught NEVER to do that, because you just never know whether the fuze will burn as intended or "flash-through."
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Also, by what I understand, pulling the pin is only the first step in actually arming the grenade. The grenade isn't armed until the spring loaded handle that the pin holds in place comes off, which you're supposed to keep in place while you throw it, ensuring that the grenade doesn't actually arm until it leaves your hand.
@@screamingcactus1753 Right, you've pretty much got it. The whole sequence works like this: The pin, a cotter pin with a ring attached, is a safety that holds what you called "the handle" in place. The handle's called the "spoon." Once the pin is pulled (and you really have to PULL it, no pulling with the teeth nonsense) the spoon (the second safety) is held in place by the throwers hand. When the grenade is thrown the spoon flys off and a small spring-driven hammer under the spoon pivots and smacks a percussion cap in the neck of the grenade igniting a five to seven second fuse. The fuse burns down to a blasting cap which detonates the main charge in the grenade body. (In some WW2 combat footage you can see the smoke from the burning fuse.) This is an old system that dates to WW1 and the British "Mills Bomb" and it's still in use today on hand grenades. Originally grenades of both world wars were filled with black powder, today they use a much more powerful explosive called Composition B, at least they did in my time.
@@allenatkins2263 Well, some are as honest as the day is long, others not so. There's nothing new in this. During the Napoleonic Wars there were 40 line-of-battle ships built for the Royal Navy that were so shoddily built they were called "The Forty Thieves!" When the war was over they went straight to the breaker's yard, the RN didn't even bother to mothball them.
Thanks! It's always fun when Andy asks me to do a bit of voiceover or somesuch to see what kind of content it will be paired with...he always surprises...
@@BrandonF Hi Brandon why not have a small detachment of grenadiers per a unit of regular infantry. Surely then the Grenades could of been useful as a supporting weapon. Amazing video and I do believe you answered the question very well.
@@studentaviator3756 Probably again because of logistical and economic concerns that would be disproportionate to the actual effect of using them. If you're close in to the enemy, you're probably pushing them. It's not very common to see two sides just standing and exchanging fire back and forth. The grenades are a risky thing to have in your line, and only applicable in very specific circumstances.
Brandon needs a content disclaimer Warning watching this man may cause the following conditions. A desire to learn more about history A desire to start reenacting A desire to reenact the glorious men of King George in particular And a loss of all of one's spending money as obtaining the required gear for His Majestys army, can be rather costly.
Been doing this here in Oz for more than twenty years. And I'm about to spend money obtaining kit for "Die kaiserliche und königliche Armee Seiner Kaiserlichen und Apostolischen Majestät!" At least it's going to be for a fairly static unit!
To be fair, depending on the year the Luftwaffe didn't really have a waffe in the Luft. And, disappointingly, navy seals don't actually exist half the time
So this video made me think "Why didn't they invent a grenade launcher if they can't throw them fast or far enough", turns out they did invent them and from what i can tell. they looks expensive and barely better then throwing the things in terms of range. Looks like the OG Grenade launcher only saw limited action in ship to ship or private use by those who could afford one. Also i think even if their governments got the grenadier these weapons. i imagine they wouldn't want to carry them on top of what they already had on the march. let alone to battle and slings one big longarm to pull out another while being are shot at is not an easy thing to do unless your in cover. *2nd watch edit* so at the end that Russian grenadier model 16:16 has one slung over his back. just learned they were known as "Hand mortars." learned alot today.
@@BrandonF Hand mortars were seriously scary for both the user AND the target.... approximately a 50% chance for either and a bad day for *both* on a natural 20!
@@clothar23 I think a chain bomb did exist at one point. but i'd think it would like a sling or bow. takes time to get it right and armies needed men within the month to keep numbers up. also you still have to shoulder the main weapon and lit the damn thing, also the swinging may mess with the fuse or set it off prematurely.
If I may play Devil’s advocate for a second, cup dischargers absolutely existed at the time and would have increased the useful range. Just being the Devil’s advocate.
Yes, hand mortars. BUT they also added another factor: the gun had to go off at the right time AND the grenade, AND the grenade had to not go off during reloading or launching, and a misfire would mean the grenade is about to blow up while still in the weapon. What were used instead were...well...mortars. Van Coehoorn invented two-man mortars, a good way to get massive hails of grenades from the sky during a siege. So grenade launchers did exist, but they were mortars. Indeed, the first infantry mortar was invented by the Turks in the 15th century, called the Abus, and it fired solid shot.
They did exist. Nobody on either end of it liked it, so their use was rare, since a musket or cannon at least has a right end and a wrong end. No such luck for those things. That, and hand mortars tended to be used for launching signals or fireworks.
alternatively they could use something similar to those hand held ball launcher's people use to throw balls for their dogs or something to increase the throwing range of the grenade. the technology definitely existed at the period.
@@nick3xtremegaming212 a grenade of the period (18-19th century) per Wessex archaeology in the UK had a mass equivalent to a four pound cannonball. There’s a few questions about such an implement that I’d want answered before issuing it.
@@CAP198462 4 pounds isn't that heavy. besides muskets weigh 20 pounds and soldiers carry that around constantly so a 4 pound metal ball shouldn't be an issue, especially with a device similar to a ball launcher.
I wonder if the Russian grenade cavalry tactic was inspired by the Mongols: Polish and Japanese records say that the Mongol cavalry would toss grenades into archer formations.
@@MisterJunichi This is probably why their use seems to have been only in a few battles. Indeed, the Ming army restricted them to sieges by infantry: gunpowder was better used for firearms and rockets.
I remember watching your videos and I was shocked they averaged about ~200 views. Your production quality has gone up and I'm glad you're getting the viewership you deserve!
It’s the same scenario with me being a maintenance supervisor in the civilian world explaining to people the complexities of a project they think is simple. You would be amazed at how hard it is to make people understand how complex something can be.
Another thing. Even if everything went perfect and the grenades went flying towards the enemy, there is always the chance that the enemy manages too throw at least a few of them back.
@@mapleflag6518 They would still need to get in throwing distance and horses are big targets. So they would suffer considerable loses. Much easier and safer to put your explosives in a mortar and just shoot them towards the enemy from a distance.
I barely even recruit them if at all, in rare instances that I do recruit them, they usually just serve as an elite reserve that even then I barely use.
I never bothered recruiting them in NTW. They were more expensive, had 20 percent fewer men and didn't have many advantages over regular line infantry. Plus you had elite infantry such as the French Old Guard or Foot Guards to fill the role anyway.
So we have a weapon system that works well, IN THEORY, but did not survive the move from theory to PRACTICE. Happens all the time throughout all of history.
Thanks for clearing this out, it is a common misconception that the Grenadiers use Grenades... well, personally I had the Honor of being part of the Guard of Honor of my country "Granaderos de General San Martín" (Granadiers of General San Martín) and the reason why he chose the Grenadier as his personal combat unit is not only because of the success of the Grenadiers in the Napoleonic Wars, but also, the Grenadiers were considered Elite in the 1816. San Martin formed an elite regiment of well disciplined horsemen called Granadiers and he liked to used the analogy of the Grenade, his Cavalry would charge and demolish any resistance between the enemy lines, just like a Grenade blows up a foundation, the same power of that explosion had his horsemen, thats why the whole "Grenade" gimmick, also on our uniform the Granade is almost everywhere but just as a sign of "Elite Cavalry" the Granadiers of San Martín were mostly a shock cavalry unit of lance and saber, some of them used gunpowder but their biggest asset was the fearless charge. I would love to speak more about this prestigious unit, the Grenadiers of San Martín, that not only secured the freedom of my country but also the freedom of Chile, Perú, Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia, they fought on every liberation scenario in South america, from South to North they steamrolled the Spaniards. When they came back, none recognized them, some people speculated that those soldiers were the same ones that left 12 years before but they were not sure, the Granadiers represent everything that is related to a Hero, the sacrifice to a greater good without any reward, when the wars ended the Grenadiers banished, only to be restored decades later as the Guard of Honor, being the personal guard of the president.
Simple solution really, *grenade launchers.* But in all seriousness, I wonder why this wasn't thought up, just an oversized blunderbuss/hand mortar type thing that one could drop a grenade down the tube, and with even a very light powder charge would be able to lob the thing potentially a few hundred yards. like a firework mortar. And before one dismisses this as accident prone, R&D could definitely sort out proper musketry to use them safely and effectively. To take safety a step further, though it would be expensive, there could be pre-made grenades with captive exposed black powder fuses on the tail end facing the main charge, that way it would eliminate the step of lighting the fuse manually and should there be a misfire, since the fuse is ignited by the main charge, the grenade is only armed when it is launched, removing the chance a user has a misfire/dies while the fuse continues to burn. The technology was all there, but perhaps the idea just wasn't, or maybe it was seen as too expensive.
French Dragoons was a cavalry regiment you dummy and they did have horses, unless you are talking about 1815 when the British horribly killed all horses in French villages running away from Napoleon when he retook power so he couldn't chase his enemy down after his victory at Quatre-Bras against the British and Prussians.
@@tommyfortress7515 Napoleon's Dragoons were notoriously short on horses since all the other "real" cavalry types got dibs on the proper mounts. Means they rode everything you could barely call a horse and were expected to switch those for captured animals asap. For example in 1805 of the 30 dragoon regiments there were 4 regiments of "walkers" because they were no horses left at all...
Panzergrenadiers : "People make fun of us because we have grenadier in the name but don't necessarily carry more grenades than your average infantryman." British grenadiers : "First time ?"
US Infantrymen: "Sir, we catched a Panzergrenadier." US Officer: "Good, let me see him." (Interrogation area) US Officer: "Where is your Panzer?" Panzergrenadier: "Nein, we don't have any panzer. It's in the other division." US Officer: "Pathetic."
@@fsdds1488 They didn't "have" panzers, but they were 'panzert'. "Panzer" doesn't mean tank, it means "armour[ed]", and the Panzergrenadier were armoured mechanised infantry units - literally "armoured grenadiers". EDIT: I should have said it DIDN'T mean tank, not that it DOESN'T. "Panzer" has become so tied to the German tank that the once separate words have come to mean the same thing, kind of like how we call all adhesive bandages "Band-Aids", even thought that's really just the name of a specific brand. To someone in 1930's Germany, "kampfwagen" ("fighting vehicle") was equivalent to "tank", and meant technology like the A7V, an unarmoured (but thick-hulled) gun platform developed during the Great War. When they started adding armour to the Kampfwagen, it became the Panzerkampfwagen ("armoured fighting vehicle"), which later got shortened to just Panzer so they wouldn't have to say a five-syllable word every time they wanted to refer to a tank or tank unit.
@@trianglemoebius You are too entitled to your pseudo knowledge, most panzergrenadier division were not mechanised but simply infantry or partially motorised infantry division with a honorary panzergrenadier designation. Second, you basically try to "correct" me on the basis of reverting etymological development and convention of vocabulary, so are you going to tell everyone that there are no "basic" for epistemological fundamentalities but it merely originates as a chemical term in 1832 to refer for solutions that display alkalinity in ph tests?
I'd like to add that even today grenades aren't very common. My experience from army was that we had mock grenades very rarely, and they were only ever used when storming buildings. Very good video ol' chap! Like always!
Some Grenadiers had cigars to have an easy lighting . But they were more for defending than attacking. Maybe for attacking enemy trench works. Messes up the men attacking a wall with ladders and such. Where you have some cover. Just the fact that they were all tall and strong men made them useful in open fields, in bayonet charges. Using the grenades' in the field was crazy. Video games are seldom good for learning actual tactics.
Oh I disagree... playing empire total war makes me better than anyone at any military operation past present and future. Sir... do you know how many times I have thwarted an AI charge directly at my front lines? Over and over and over and over again? And some times they do make me come after them! And I move my army or whatever 2,000ish men group thing would really be... a brigade really... to flank the bastards!>?? I know my shit. I'm the next General Napoleon top notch and several battles under my belt. So there. By the way, I can fus ro dah pretty good too any dragon that comes my way.
People claim that being pedantic is somehow a bad thing. I prefer to think of it as being as accurate as possible given the obvious limitations on what we can realistically know.
I tend to see being pedantic as insisting on exacting accuracy where it isn't necessary or wanted, and often also making some kind of judgement from small inaccuracies that don't ultimately matter. Details are important, but if you spend all of your time obsessing over the minutia, it can be easy to miss much broader, more important aspects of the topic. Missing the forest for the trees, as it were.
The constantly lit match is very interesting to me. It seems like a detail easily dismissed but the technology had been existence for so long. I have read of that method being used as far back as early humans. When people would travel, they would "carry their fire" with them in various methods so they always had a way to start a fire in any environment or situation. Something we no longer need to do but interesting how humans did it for thousands of years and then the lighter is invented, and we never do it again
Hey Brandon i’m with ColonialWilliamsburg Fifes and drums and I just wanna say this video is really nice and cool and I’m happy this educates people on how Grenadier work plus I really like the music that you used the beginning since well we play that same Version of British Grenadiers keep up the good work❤
I never understood the idea of making a line unit dedicated to throwing grenades in the first place. It seems like it would be a role better suited to skirmishers or specialists who could slip in or around once the chaos of the battle has started and find opportunities to throw onesies and twosies of grenades where appropriate, especially where there's walls or fortifications involved on one side or the other.
Great video! Loved the animation, superbly done and with a great sense of humor. One thing I noticed, the "training" illustrations for grenade throwing all seem to be from the Seven Years War or possibly earlier, so I'd guess the tactic of grenade throwing was abandoned by the 1770's, unless you were in a shipboard fight or defending a fort or fortress. By the way, have any of you folks thrown a grenade? I have, once, and once was enough! Trust me kids, they ain't cherry bombs! In modern infantry combat grenades tend to gravitate toward the guys in the platoon most capable of throwing them, they don't go to the guys that never made the ball team, if you get my meaning.
Yep. I can chuck one some distance, but cant hit the broad side of a barn with it. You dont want a grenade flying 50 yard to the left of your target. So its better to hand them off to the guy who can get distance and accuracy, and focus on your rifle work.
It was mostly with pikemen becoming rarer and rarer. In the 17th and early 18th century when pikemen were still common grenades had their place. As they became less common grenades became largely useless in land battles but the grenadier name stuck.
10:50 well you just shut down my argument before I could even make it. Love when someone does their research and actually covers any and all "what ifs" in a specific topic. Good on you dude.
Great video! I have never seen any of your work before, but youtube recommended has blessed you this day sir! Never really considered this before but all your points make a lot of sense and the editing is fun! Subscribed :D
Think about it like this. The US Army still has Cavalry units, and they still wear a lot of the accoutrements of a horse soldier, at least in garrison or in dress uniform (riding boots, spurs, cowboy style hat, etc.) When was the last time you saw a horse on the battlefield?
Brandon, will you ever make a video about artillery during the american revolutionary war, explaining tactics, building and transport of heavy weaponry, maybe saying something also about it on ships?
Even in video games as you said, like Napoleon Total War, I’ve come to realise grenades are a very bad idea. Most you’ll amount to from using them is getting half your grenadier unit killed. Really only good if the enemy is out of ammunition and not paying attention.
When I was in the army, I threw a live grenade, on the grenade range. The max you could really throw a 1-1.5 kg grenade is about 17 yards. The blast radius was 20 yards or more. You could really only throw them from cover. I imagine grenades like you are talking about would be even heavier. Probably could not throw them far at all.
17 yds?? Dude WTF are you talking about you can easily throw a grenade 30m or better, you must just be a bitch. Grenades are better suited for room clearing anyways,
I loved seeing this so late in my short time subscribed to you after your video on Musket accuracy which you mentioned possibly making here. I was like “wait a moment; isn’t that the brain child that got me to subscribe?” Ahhhhh yes; the pillars of creation. Great video as always man! Appreciate the new knowledge!
the reason for multiple loading is the muscle memory from training to be able to load well, they would practice loading 100x moar than firing, at least, so to repeat some other mistake like that, you would have to ingrane it by making that mistake thru rote training and endless repition, I understand using it as an example for how people react poorly to the chaos of battle, but I don't find it an especially great example
Reloading or, if in close enough range, charging with bayonets and sabers. Either tactic is both faster and more effective in an open field than trying to lob a heavy explosive ball designed for sieges
It is painfully shocking after watching video as a first viewer that you do not have enough subscribers for the next Uluru of your content! I simply can’t stand for them. SUBSCRIBE ！
Weren't grenadiers equiped with swords? That would eliminate some of the danger of a counter charge. Also, first and second rank could keep firing, while the third rank prepares the grenades.
Fine quality video as usual, great editing as well! (as someone who also applied for the editing competition you set out earlier this year, I gladly take off my hat in admiration both for the script and editing on this work of yours) many cheers Brandon!
As the man behind the editing for this video, thank you so much! It means a lot coming from someone who may very well have been editing this video in an alternate timeline. Best of luck in your future editing endeavors, and I am glad you enjoyed it :)
Very interesting as I was previously think it more of just a cost and weight issue. However is there any evidence of skirmishers using them for 18th century field battles or ambushes? As for them the potential for friendly fire would be lower and reaching minimum distance would be less costly when compared to a solid block.
Ahh I keep finding myself rewatching your videos. It’s genuinely absurd how much you know. I’m with it. I’m hooked. Keep being you, keep uploading. I love your channel. I’ve shared it a ton. You deserve all the cookies.
I have a way this could be practical Place the gunners in front of the grenadiers to give them time to light their grenades and be ready to throw Have the grenadiers throw as soon as the rankers fire, having both ranks kneel to reload so the grenadiers can get a better throw in Have the rankers advance up with the grenadiers, covering them and being at the ready in the event that the enemy would charge; if the enemy would charge, have the grenadiers instead switch to their muskets (they would have time to do so) and attack the occupied enemy either from the side or front, supporting the engaged rankers in numbers
Does anyone know if there were any particular battles in the 18th century where the use of grenades were specifically documented? If so, I'd like to research those battles!
Turns out from what I read, they were more extensively used in the 17th century when pikemen were still used and muskets took longer to reload. This allowed grenadiers to get close enough to use them and retreat. The advancement of flintlocks and faster reloads, in addition to every soldier being armed with a musket made their use much less practical by the 18th century
I'd be all for that video on the accuracy at muskets. My general perception is that, while they can be accurate, it either takes an enormous amount of skill and experience with the same specific gun, or a lot of luck. Though, given the main problem, as I understand it, is the musket ball bouncing against the inside of the barrel, a more tightly fitted ball would help, and if you've had the same gun for a while, you might be able to better shape them (or is the idea of soldiers typically making (or at least re-making) their own bullets a myth?) to fit their musket.
Soldiers in a regular army wouldn't be making their own rounds- they would be mass produced and assembled into cartridges before being issued to the men.
@@BrandonF I... was unaware that proper full rounds actually existed by this point. I remembered watching Revolutionary War movies (including, sadly, the Patriot, but I think some more accurate ones too) and the soldiers in those making their bullets (though granted, given how perpetually short on supplies the Continental Army was, I suppose I wouldn't be surprised that their situation wasn't typical), and my dad and grandpa making their own bullets for Civil War reenacting when I was a kid, both at home and sometimes at camp. The Civil War was nearly a century later, so I kinda assumed...
@@Great_Olaf5 When I say "rounds" I am referring to cartridges- so, the musket ball wrapped in paper alongside a charge of black powder. Regular soldiers wouldn't be loading with things like powder horns back in the day.
@@BrandonF I knew what you meant by cartridges, I just didn't know they were a thing yet. I suppose I probably should have, but my focus in history is Medieval and earlier, the things between about 1500 and 1800 are pretty foggy outside of the things taught in classes and generalities, or some fairly specific regional events like the colonization of the Americas and a few wars. That's why I come to places like your channel, you fill in gaps like that in areas I'm not interested enough in to tolerate reading academic papers or primary sources on, but still find fascinating to learn about.
The problem with muskets of that era was the fouling of the barrel with burnt powder residues, that gradually built up with each shot fired until a point where the ball could no longer be forced down the barrel. That is why musket balls were made loose fitting - if they had been tight fitting (and they certainly could have been made so if desired) then the soldier would have been much more limited in the number of rounds he could get off in battle. Black powder fouling is easily dissolved by pouring hot water down the barrel, but for obvious reasons this was not possible in the heat of battle. The problem of barrel fouling was never really solved until the invention of carbon-free smokeless propellant in the late 19th Century.
I recall reading some time ago about period hand mortars. They more or less looked like a musket with the barrel cut down to a nub and significantly widened. If I'm remembering correctly, they were primarily used as firework launchers during military parades. I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons they were rare in pitched battle, but I can't help but wonder what could've been given the right innovations and logistics.
It's pretty interesting: I see them in museums but there's very little on who used them, when, and where. The loading and priming time alone would make it really hard to use on a field battle, but I can see the use in naval fights, sieges and urban warfare.
This makes me think of the song the British Grenadiers. It’s evident the grenades are being used in a siege context: “we’ll throw them from the Glacis (parapet) about the enemy’s ears” Awesome work Brandon
For one interesting if a bit tangential use of grenades, you can read about the attack on the _Serapis_ by the _Bonhomme Richard,_ in which members of the crew of the American ship dropped grenades from the rigging of their ship, through a hatch, and into the powder magazine of the _Serapis._ The results were predictable. Edit: I initially typed that as if Brandon should have referred to it, instead of as a neat event you, the reader, could look into. I have corrected that oversight.
They were pretty useless on the field, but really critical for naval and siege combat. The grenade was invented for sieges in the 10th century, and ships are actually very similar to siege situations
I really feel like its a pretty good reason why grenadiers don't carry grenades. Although they were named because they were chosen to be trained to use grenades, not to mention these grenades could have potential errors like the fuse becoming wet and potential to deal more harm to a grenadier company but also, what is the difference if they are going to close in and engage in melee combat to interrupt your grenade phases. It was stated that Grenadiers are trained more to act as shock troops specialising in close combat. And yeah Muskets are kind of inaccurate but chances are the more close you are to the enemy, the more likely you become shot, should the leader of a grenadier company or regiment die, it can shake the soldiers' morale and will be more likely to route should another officer or soldier fail to take command to reorganise the line.
In Toronto's High Park we have a pond called Grenadier Pond. This is so named because supposedly Grenadiers used to use the pond in the winter to practice drills. The story is they fell through the ice and drowned. This drowning story has been rejected but there are the typical ghost stories as well. Anyway come and visit Fort York in Toronto if you haven't before.
There's a pond in upstate New York, WAY upstate, called "Bloody Pond." Supposedly during the French and Indian War some Frenchmen or Indians or British or Colonials (take your pick) were forced into the pond and shot down to a man. The story's not true, so who knows how it got the name?
Brandon F. failed to quote the premier source for the premier use of hand grenades, the lyrics of 'The British Grenadiers'! Whene'er we are commanded to storm the palisades, Our leaders march with fusees, and we with hand grenades. We throw them from the glacis, about the enemies' ears. With a tow, row, row, row, row, row, for the British Grenadiers. And when the siege is over, we to the town repair.🍴🍴
A question: what kind of blast and shrapnel radius could one expect from these grenades? As it is not brought up in the video I'm assuming that it is significant less than the throwing range, as the weapon would not be feasible in all that many situation if it was, but that would also mean be another reason not to use them in open battle, as you would have to be fairly precise with them to a point where a significant amount of thrown grenades could miss the target by simply being over or under thrown.
This is a very good explanation of the limited us of grenades, but this still brings to mind why no kind of light artillery or "grenade launcher" of the time was developed in the form factor of a blunderbuss.
There were some, I even got to handle one once. It was British-made, an oversized blunderbuss is the best way I can describe it. A big, heavy, clumsy thing I can see why they weren't too common. You'd be better off having another musket man in the ranks. Like the Nock volley gun more trouble (and expense) than it was worth.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 makes sense, if you had capable gunsmiths, crafting a piece of light artillery that can be drawn by a man takes time away from muskets, and anything shoulder launched is cumbersome.
Grenadiers: *dont use grenadiers, not even the famous like the Imperial guards* Some peasant in Mexico with not even uniform: "Hey bro, I carry a bag full of bombs and I'll use it against spanish, french, gringos or corrupt goverments, actually I didnt have a rifle I just hurl grenades"
"As a disclaimer, grenadiers DID in fact use grenades; in fact, they preferred it!" Title: The British Grenadiers didn't actually use grenades. Talk about clickbait...
Chad Grenadier
>Calls himself “Grenadier”
>Doesn’t carry grenades
>Refuses to elaborate
>Leaves
heh
lol
The Chad fusilier-
>Names himself in another language
>name means flintlock, the standard weapon
>Is forgotten by history
>always called grenadier
Chad Grenadier doesn't use grenades most of the time. But he still does. Every now and then.
Based chad Grenadier vs Virgin Rifleman
The grenadiers should've been supported by artillerymen who ran up and threw their canon balls too.
big brain time
Weak.Why throw your cannon balls when you can just throw your cannons?
"They should have just like...invented the machine gun"-A big Brainlet
@@otakunthevegan4206 why didn't every musket man have a Gatling gun? Just stupid
Guys, here me out. What if every soldier just carried
tactical nukes.
"Using grenades outside of highly specific circumstances as a general issue weapon is impractical and quite dangerous, which is why the Russians trained soldiers to do just that."
Oh yes. The Russian were blowing Nazis with grenades in stalingrad
isn't russia flat in a lot of places?
@@autumnchan9225 Good point - that might be why they used grenades more frequently.
What was the circumstances where a grenade would be used in the early modern period or up into the napoleonic era?
@@SusCalvin Acording to the video - mainly during sieges. However he also stated that they could be useful in an open battle *if* the battlefield was realatively featureless (as in a flat plain with no trees, rocks, etc.)
All war is deception: "We're called Grenadiers, but we're not really Grenadiers. That'll confuse the French"
Reminds me of how the Germans in WW2 named their smallest tank Goliath and the largest one Mouse ^^
That happens in every european army I've looked into. Units sometimes keep archaic designations earned much earlier. The longer history a unit has, the more lore it accumulates.
Mech. infantry units could sometimes have "cavalry" designations.
French grenadiers of the early part of the 18th century didnt even look hugely identifiable as Grenadiers. No bearskins or mitres but rather coats and cuffs with extra embroidery
Here comes the 8th Army, why is it the 8th? Nobody knows, we don't actually have 8 of them but that's what it's called.
@@MediumRareOpinions i think partly a nod to history and partly psychological warfare etc..some armies formed in WW2 were done as bluffs..the Germans really do seem to have been terrible at intel work outside territory they controlled - given their touching faith in Enigma and poor record with putting agents into hostile countries - nothing anywhere near the Rote Kapelle that the Soviets ran for example.
And of course 18th century grenadiers didn't have a mini-map to exploit the grenade range glitch.
Prove it🤔😉
19th century you mean?
@@yellostarr the 19th century is when they started using that glitch
@@greenbrickbox3392 ah yes
@@yellostarr They were around in the 1700s too, i.e. 18th century
God just imagine being the poor french sailor when your ship gets boarded by a bunch of British men with weird metal apples,
Just imagine being French...
@@MakeItWithJim 🤮
@@MakeItWithJim sacre bleeeeggghhhh
More like "pomme de TEAR", if you know what I mean!
Nah, the French definitely knew about grenades. Prior to the Bourbons bankrupting the country, and Napoleon then ruining the navy - the French had a reputation for being nasty fighters in boarding actions. The French took great pride in the 'accoutrements', often carrying a fine quality sailor's knife. French corsairs and boucaniers also had a predilection for pistols. The result was that boarding or be boarded by the French, was the fastest way to get shot, stabbed, and pistol-whipped this side of Oakland.
The inaccuracy of muskets is definitely overstated. I'm not even a good shot, but I can reliably hit what I'm aiming at with a Charleville from longer distances than most people give it credit for.
Yes, but, you forget a piece of important context here. Most soldiers at the time were not trained to fire at individuals, indeed most were not even trained to aim. In the standard firing drill of most armies the words take aim are not present, it is usually something along the lines of present arms. In other words they were trained to fire at entire units, not to aim at the soldier opposite them. Hell, many muskets of the period had at best rudimentary iron sights, and often they had none at all.
Of course, this is not the case with the skirmishers, the Rifles and Jagers for example, as well as the Light Company of a Line Regiment, but it holds true for the vast majority of the Line Infantry. As a modern shooter of blackpowder weapons you take aim, the soldiers of the period in discussion, for the most part, did not. It was all about an application of massed firepower, individual accuracy was not as important as a certain level of unit accuracy and of course rate of fire.
Now try to hit something with your target and everything around it obscured in thick smoke.
is the charlesville build with the outdated techniques though?
1. The fatigue and stress of combat brings the rate down. Presumably you don't travel back in time to the Spanish War of Succession to shoot muskets, yes? Lol.
2. The goal isn't to hit an individual (unless you're in a colonial conflict or something, but this rests on the assumption we're talking about Europe), it's to hit a mass of people, muskets are far more effective in that regard. If they weren't they wouldn't have been used that way for so long.
And also, you have practice doing this which automatically puts you a leg up from a lot of soldiers.
@@alganhar1 Your points and statement is quite accurate. I do agree with the OP though, in general, just blaming the tool (musket, fowler, etc) is intellectually lazy at best. I hear it FAR too often without any explanation at historical re-enactments and from misinformed people constantly. I’d be quite happy with you giving a live fire musket demonstration in front of crowds with the knowledgeable explanation you just have. God speed! 🏴 🇬🇧
The other side also has Grenadiers, and guess what they're going to do when your formation gets within throwing distance?
they pick up your grenades and throw them back, right?
@@tartaruga42 If the bomb doesn't blow up before they do then.
Getting bayonetted a few seconds afterwards, I would think.
@@tartaruga42So THAT’S what dodgeball trains you for, I get it now
Soviet riflemen didn't actually have any rifles.
true *battle of stalingrad intensifies*
They had turnip. Frozen turnip. Da.
Stalingrad flashbacks
@@carrisasteveinnes1596 blyat
They had rifles, just not ammunition... Lol
Grenadier Moment
This was made by Light Infantry Gang
SailorWhoGotForcedOutOfHisBoatToFightOnLandWithNothingButAnAxe moment.
This is made by army conscription gang.
Army conscription moment
This was made by artillery gang
@@Anonymous-dx5eo army conscription moment
This was made by the Calvary gang
I’m glad my kids’ generation is still able to learn things I did in military school, but via vid-ja games.
Boomer tier comment
They wasted time on this?
vid-ja games.....
(cringes inside)
Boomer
@@recklesflam1ngo968 Quiet, Zoomer
13:22
It's over Grenadier, I have the high ground
You underestimate my throwing distance
Don't try it
If only Star Wars Episode III was released in the 18th century. So many hypothetical grenadier deaths could have been avoided.
I can literally hear the voices of Hayden and Ewan reading this.
But… but they throw them from the glacis, about the enemies' ears!
Yeah, like... With a tow row row row row row
Exactly, they throw them from the glacis about the enemies' ears, not in an open field.
Yeah, the glacis - the earth banks of a fort. Chuck that shit into a confined space packed full of enemies and you'll have utter carnage. Grenadiers in a siege most certainly DID use grenades, much like how in WW1 and WW2, they were used to clear trenches and bunkers.
@@sirfox950 the British Grenadiers
"Who goes there?"
"A grenadier."
"And wot do ye want?"
"A pint of beer!"
"Here lies in earth a Hampshire grenadier,
Who caught his death of drinking cold small beer.
Reader, be warned by his untimely fall,
And when ye drink, drink strong, or none at all."
-- old epitaph
A reenactor playing a British Grenadier (bearskin and all) once visited my school when I was a child and explained that the British Army had discontinued the use of grenades by the Revolution because the fuses burned too quickly. According to him, when the workers assembling the grenades started getting paid on the number of grenades they could make rather than the by the simple hours they worked, they started getting sloppy with how they wound the fuses to make more grenades sooner, causing the fuses to burn far too quickly when ignited, and that these grenades would blow up in the soldiers' own ranks before they could be thrown. Is there any truth to this?
I doubt it, those 18th Century grenades wouldn't be fused until they were going to be used, kind of like exploding artillery shells. Now there MAY have been quality control issues with the manufacture of the fuses themselves, there were certainly quality control and standardization problems with the burning time fuses used in artillery shells depending on the arsenal or contractor producing them, even as late as the American Civil War.
There can even be problems with hand grenade fuses today, although very rarely. Ever watched a war movie where a guy about to throw a grenade pulls the pin, releases the spoon (safety), counts "One-Two-Three!" and then throws it? We were taught NEVER to do that, because you just never know whether the fuze will burn as intended or "flash-through."
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Also, by what I understand, pulling the pin is only the first step in actually arming the grenade. The grenade isn't armed until the spring loaded handle that the pin holds in place comes off, which you're supposed to keep in place while you throw it, ensuring that the grenade doesn't actually arm until it leaves your hand.
@@screamingcactus1753 Right, you've pretty much got it. The whole sequence works like this:
The pin, a cotter pin with a ring attached, is a safety that holds what you called "the handle" in place. The handle's called the "spoon." Once the pin is pulled (and you really have to PULL it, no pulling with the teeth nonsense) the spoon (the second safety) is held in place by the throwers hand. When the grenade is thrown the spoon flys off and a small spring-driven hammer under the spoon pivots and smacks a percussion cap in the neck of the grenade igniting a five to seven second fuse. The fuse burns down to a blasting cap which detonates the main charge in the grenade body.
(In some WW2 combat footage you can see the smoke from the burning fuse.)
This is an old system that dates to WW1 and the British "Mills Bomb" and it's still in use today on hand grenades. Originally grenades of both world wars were filled with black powder, today they use a much more powerful explosive called Composition B, at least they did in my time.
Military contractors never change.
@@allenatkins2263 Well, some are as honest as the day is long, others not so. There's nothing new in this. During the Napoleonic Wars there were 40 line-of-battle ships built for the Royal Navy that were so shoddily built they were called "The Forty Thieves!" When the war was over they went straight to the breaker's yard, the RN didn't even bother to mothball them.
Also, the editing is lovely! Well done in the Atun Shei Films documentary as well!
Thanks! It's always fun when Andy asks me to do a bit of voiceover or somesuch to see what kind of content it will be paired with...he always surprises...
@@BrandonF Hi Brandon why not have a small detachment of grenadiers per a unit of regular infantry.
Surely then the Grenades could of been useful as a supporting weapon.
Amazing video and I do believe you answered the question very well.
@@studentaviator3756 Probably again because of logistical and economic concerns that would be disproportionate to the actual effect of using them. If you're close in to the enemy, you're probably pushing them. It's not very common to see two sides just standing and exchanging fire back and forth. The grenades are a risky thing to have in your line, and only applicable in very specific circumstances.
@@BrandonF Ahhh well that explains why hand grenades feel out of service
@@BrandonF have a look at grenadier marching song from 1705 ish, very catchy and outlined the formation and prestige of the grenadiers.
It's basically like throwing a shot put without getting the momentum to get any kind of distance
Brandon needs a content disclaimer
Warning watching this man may cause the following conditions.
A desire to learn more about history
A desire to start reenacting
A desire to reenact the glorious men of King George in particular
And a loss of all of one's spending money as obtaining the required gear for His Majestys army, can be rather costly.
Been doing this here in Oz for more than twenty years. And I'm about to spend money obtaining kit for "Die kaiserliche und königliche Armee Seiner Kaiserlichen und Apostolischen Majestät!" At least it's going to be for a fairly static unit!
Please Brandon, have mercy. Alas, I cannot afford another reenacting hobby!
And a desire to vote Trump 2024.
Very ture
I don't see a problem with any of those things...
To be fair, depending on the year the Luftwaffe didn't really have a waffe in the Luft.
And, disappointingly, navy seals don't actually exist half the time
Lift waffle
luftwaffle
Navy seals aren't actually seals, they are just humans, what a dissapointment
Underrated comment.
Or are a real seals.
So this video made me think "Why didn't they invent a grenade launcher if they can't throw them fast or far enough", turns out they did invent them and from what i can tell. they looks expensive and barely better then throwing the things in terms of range. Looks like the OG Grenade launcher only saw limited action in ship to ship or private use by those who could afford one. Also i think even if their governments got the grenadier these weapons. i imagine they wouldn't want to carry them on top of what they already had on the march. let alone to battle and slings one big longarm to pull out another while being are shot at is not an easy thing to do unless your in cover. *2nd watch edit* so at the end that Russian grenadier model 16:16 has one slung over his back. just learned they were known as "Hand mortars." learned alot today.
Precisely right! Just because they *could* have used a weapon doesn't mean they *ought* to have used it!
That was the "pup" cannon aka mountain guns. And they were often considered artillery.
@@BrandonF Hand mortars were seriously scary for both the user AND the target.... approximately a 50% chance for either and a bad day for *both* on a natural 20!
Makes me wonder if you couldn't just attach a bit of rope to one. Sort of hammer toss the things ya know.
@@clothar23 I think a chain bomb did exist at one point. but i'd think it would like a sling or bow. takes time to get it right and armies needed men within the month to keep numbers up. also you still have to shoulder the main weapon and lit the damn thing, also the swinging may mess with the fuse or set it off prematurely.
If I may play Devil’s advocate for a second, cup dischargers absolutely existed at the time and would have increased the useful range. Just being the Devil’s advocate.
Yes, hand mortars. BUT they also added another factor: the gun had to go off at the right time AND the grenade, AND the grenade had to not go off during reloading or launching, and a misfire would mean the grenade is about to blow up while still in the weapon.
What were used instead were...well...mortars.
Van Coehoorn invented two-man mortars, a good way to get massive hails of grenades from the sky during a siege. So grenade launchers did exist, but they were mortars. Indeed, the first infantry mortar was invented by the Turks in the 15th century, called the Abus, and it fired solid shot.
They did exist.
Nobody on either end of it liked it, so their use was rare, since a musket or cannon at least has a right end and a wrong end.
No such luck for those things. That, and hand mortars tended to be used for launching signals or fireworks.
alternatively they could use something similar to those hand held ball launcher's people use to throw balls for their dogs or something to increase the throwing range of the grenade. the technology definitely existed at the period.
@@nick3xtremegaming212 a grenade of the period (18-19th century) per Wessex archaeology in the UK had a mass equivalent to a four pound cannonball. There’s a few questions about such an implement that I’d want answered before issuing it.
@@CAP198462 4 pounds isn't that heavy. besides muskets weigh 20 pounds and soldiers carry that around constantly so a 4 pound metal ball shouldn't be an issue, especially with a device similar to a ball launcher.
“There’s usually an exception to the rule” and it’s usually the Russians.
Or the Mongolians.
@@ProfesserLuigi same thing really
I wonder if the Russian grenade cavalry tactic was inspired by the Mongols: Polish and Japanese records say that the Mongol cavalry would toss grenades into archer formations.
how difficult is it to keep a lit grenade on you while riding? could the wind also blow out the light?
@@MisterJunichi This is probably why their use seems to have been only in a few battles. Indeed, the Ming army restricted them to sieges by infantry: gunpowder was better used for firearms and rockets.
@@MisterJunichi maybe....if you are already riding into the wind...or it could be that the fuse would burn faster with more air feeding it
I remember watching your videos and I was shocked they averaged about ~200 views. Your production quality has gone up and I'm glad you're getting the viewership you deserve!
It’s the same scenario with me being a maintenance supervisor in the civilian world explaining to people the complexities of a project they think is simple. You would be amazed at how hard it is to make people understand how complex something can be.
Another thing. Even if everything went perfect and the grenades went flying towards the enemy, there is always the chance that the enemy manages too throw at least a few of them back.
I’m surprised they didn’t get men on horseback to throw the grenades than quickly get the hell out of there.
@@mapleflag6518 They would still need to get in throwing distance and horses are big targets. So they would suffer considerable loses. Much easier and safer to put your explosives in a mortar and just shoot them towards the enemy from a distance.
@@fastenbauer Fair enough
@@fastenbauer
From a distance
I just cannot comprehend
What all this fighting's for
@@fastenbauer Pause on 17:07 the Russians did it or kind of did it.
Just like the way I used Grenades in ETW and NTW then: I didn't
I barely even recruit them if at all, in rare instances that I do recruit them, they usually just serve as an elite reserve that even then I barely use.
@@joevenespineli6389 same dude, and I totally cringed when the soldiers started throwing the grenades instead of charging
I never bothered recruiting them in NTW. They were more expensive, had 20 percent fewer men and didn't have many advantages over regular line infantry.
Plus you had elite infantry such as the French Old Guard or Foot Guards to fill the role anyway.
So we have a weapon system that works well, IN THEORY, but did not survive the move from theory to PRACTICE.
Happens all the time throughout all of history.
It absolutely did survive in practice, just not often on the open field. Siege and Navy engagements used them copiously.
They did, every army uses grenades today.
Thanks for clearing this out, it is a common misconception that the Grenadiers use Grenades... well, personally I had the Honor of being part of the Guard of Honor of my country "Granaderos de General San Martín" (Granadiers of General San Martín) and the reason why he chose the Grenadier as his personal combat unit is not only because of the success of the Grenadiers in the Napoleonic Wars, but also, the Grenadiers were considered Elite in the 1816. San Martin formed an elite regiment of well disciplined horsemen called Granadiers and he liked to used the analogy of the Grenade, his Cavalry would charge and demolish any resistance between the enemy lines, just like a Grenade blows up a foundation, the same power of that explosion had his horsemen, thats why the whole "Grenade" gimmick, also on our uniform the Granade is almost everywhere but just as a sign of "Elite Cavalry" the Granadiers of San Martín were mostly a shock cavalry unit of lance and saber, some of them used gunpowder but their biggest asset was the fearless charge.
I would love to speak more about this prestigious unit, the Grenadiers of San Martín, that not only secured the freedom of my country but also the freedom of Chile, Perú, Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia, they fought on every liberation scenario in South america, from South to North they steamrolled the Spaniards. When they came back, none recognized them, some people speculated that those soldiers were the same ones that left 12 years before but they were not sure, the Granadiers represent everything that is related to a Hero, the sacrifice to a greater good without any reward, when the wars ended the Grenadiers banished, only to be restored decades later as the Guard of Honor, being the personal guard of the president.
interesting..lived in Colombia for a number of years and have great interest in the militaries of all of Spanish speaking Latin America
You always do a great job at helping contextualising just how complicated battle is with the noise, chaos and movement of it all
Simple solution really, *grenade launchers.* But in all seriousness, I wonder why this wasn't thought up, just an oversized blunderbuss/hand mortar type thing that one could drop a grenade down the tube, and with even a very light powder charge would be able to lob the thing potentially a few hundred yards. like a firework mortar. And before one dismisses this as accident prone, R&D could definitely sort out proper musketry to use them safely and effectively. To take safety a step further, though it would be expensive, there could be pre-made grenades with captive exposed black powder fuses on the tail end facing the main charge, that way it would eliminate the step of lighting the fuse manually and should there be a misfire, since the fuse is ignited by the main charge, the grenade is only armed when it is launched, removing the chance a user has a misfire/dies while the fuse continues to burn. The technology was all there, but perhaps the idea just wasn't, or maybe it was seen as too expensive.
there were grenade launchers
Alternatively you could use a sling
you just invented 15th century bombards with explosive canon balls
@@DMDonahue you are right, turns out they had them; hand mortars.
I mean they already had cannons bro
The British:
So you're a Grenadier?
Aye.
Where's your grenade then?
Shut up!
The French:
So you're a Dragoon?
Oui.
Where's your horse then?
Tais-toi!
everyone: I'm a dragoon
Where's your dragon?
...
Wait the french dragoon/cavalry didnt have/use horses?
French Dragoons was a cavalry regiment you dummy and they did have horses, unless you are talking about 1815 when the British horribly killed all horses in French villages running away from Napoleon when he retook power so he couldn't chase his enemy down after his victory at Quatre-Bras against the British and Prussians.
@@tommyfortress7515 Napoleon's Dragoons were notoriously short on horses since all the other "real" cavalry types got dibs on the proper mounts. Means they rode everything you could barely call a horse and were expected to switch those for captured animals asap. For example in 1805 of the 30 dragoon regiments there were 4 regiments of "walkers" because they were no horses left at all...
@@mnk9073 wow thats nice to know
Panzergrenadiers : "People make fun of us because we have grenadier in the name but don't necessarily carry more grenades than your average infantryman."
British grenadiers : "First time ?"
Panzergrenadiers: Neither have enough grenades nor panzer.
US Infantrymen: "Sir, we catched a Panzergrenadier."
US Officer: "Good, let me see him."
(Interrogation area)
US Officer: "Where is your Panzer?"
Panzergrenadier: "Nein, we don't have any panzer. It's in the other division."
US Officer: "Pathetic."
@@bayurukmanajati1224 "It's with the other division this week"...
@@fsdds1488 They didn't "have" panzers, but they were 'panzert'. "Panzer" doesn't mean tank, it means "armour[ed]", and the Panzergrenadier were armoured mechanised infantry units - literally "armoured grenadiers".
EDIT: I should have said it DIDN'T mean tank, not that it DOESN'T. "Panzer" has become so tied to the German tank that the once separate words have come to mean the same thing, kind of like how we call all adhesive bandages "Band-Aids", even thought that's really just the name of a specific brand.
To someone in 1930's Germany, "kampfwagen" ("fighting vehicle") was equivalent to "tank", and meant technology like the A7V, an unarmoured (but thick-hulled) gun platform developed during the Great War. When they started adding armour to the Kampfwagen, it became the Panzerkampfwagen ("armoured fighting vehicle"), which later got shortened to just Panzer so they wouldn't have to say a five-syllable word every time they wanted to refer to a tank or tank unit.
@@trianglemoebius You are too entitled to your pseudo knowledge, most panzergrenadier division were not mechanised but simply infantry or partially motorised infantry division with a honorary panzergrenadier designation. Second, you basically try to "correct" me on the basis of reverting etymological development and convention of vocabulary, so are you going to tell everyone that there are no "basic" for epistemological fundamentalities but it merely originates as a chemical term in 1832 to refer for solutions that display alkalinity in ph tests?
Um, actually... this was great, as always.
Brandon really just wants to explain his total war failings
Great Video Brandon. Nice to meet you at Fort Niagara last weekend. Hope you got some good pictures.
As an Iowan I can confirm, this is the ideal place for 18th century grenade throwing.
No idea what part of this damned corn field you live in, but in my northwest corner theres too many hills and streams to make it practical!
> *lights fuse on grenade*
> *gets shot*
> *own grenade decimates our formation*
All in a good days work!
Think this is the best place to put this.
A friend of mine in ROTC yelled "TENNO HEIKA, BANZAI!" at marines. It was funny as hell.
Oh boy
... This is awesome. Sounds like the kind of things my ROTC squadron would have done.
I’m British and served in the army. And if someone in the OTC said something like that to us we would have filled him in.
NROTC?
Tenno heika bruhzai
I'd like to add that even today grenades aren't very common. My experience from army was that we had mock grenades very rarely, and they were only ever used when storming buildings.
Very good video ol' chap! Like always!
Some Grenadiers had cigars to have an easy lighting . But they were more for defending than attacking. Maybe for attacking enemy trench works. Messes up the men attacking a wall with ladders and such. Where you have some cover. Just the fact that they were all tall and strong men made them useful in open fields, in bayonet charges. Using the grenades' in the field was crazy. Video games are seldom good for learning actual tactics.
Oh I disagree... playing empire total war makes me better than anyone at any military operation past present and future.
Sir... do you know how many times I have thwarted an AI charge directly at my front lines?
Over and over and over and over again?
And some times they do make me come after them! And I move my army or whatever 2,000ish men group thing would really be... a brigade really... to flank the bastards!>??
I know my shit.
I'm the next General Napoleon top notch and several battles under my belt.
So there.
By the way, I can fus ro dah pretty good too any dragon that comes my way.
your channel is super informative and interesting, and your narration voice is easy on the ears
Good video and great channel Brandon!
That's very kind, thank you!
People claim that being pedantic is somehow a bad thing. I prefer to think of it as being as accurate as possible given the obvious limitations on what we can realistically know.
It depends on the circumstances. Use the appropriate degree of precision for the circumstances.
I tend to see being pedantic as insisting on exacting accuracy where it isn't necessary or wanted, and often also making some kind of judgement from small inaccuracies that don't ultimately matter. Details are important, but if you spend all of your time obsessing over the minutia, it can be easy to miss much broader, more important aspects of the topic. Missing the forest for the trees, as it were.
From my company of heroes experience, I kind of just assumed that grenadeir was just a facy name for infantry
The constantly lit match is very interesting to me. It seems like a detail easily dismissed but the technology had been existence for so long. I have read of that method being used as far back as early humans. When people would travel, they would "carry their fire" with them in various methods so they always had a way to start a fire in any environment or situation. Something we no longer need to do but interesting how humans did it for thousands of years and then the lighter is invented, and we never do it again
Honestly it’s really surprisingly that the lighter wasn’t invented earlier
They used a type of mycelium for long burning fuses
Hey Brandon i’m with ColonialWilliamsburg Fifes and drums and I just wanna say this video is really nice and cool and I’m happy this educates people on how Grenadier work plus I really like the music that you used the beginning since well we play that same Version of British Grenadiers keep up the good work❤
great video very informative
Indeed
The production value is great. Thank you again for the awsome content
I never understood the idea of making a line unit dedicated to throwing grenades in the first place. It seems like it would be a role better suited to skirmishers or specialists who could slip in or around once the chaos of the battle has started and find opportunities to throw onesies and twosies of grenades where appropriate, especially where there's walls or fortifications involved on one side or the other.
The song definitely indicates that they're using their grenades in assaults on forts.
this editing is very very impressive, congratulations
As the guy who edited this, thank you!
Great video! Loved the animation, superbly done and with a great sense of humor.
One thing I noticed, the "training" illustrations for grenade throwing all seem to be from the Seven Years War or possibly earlier, so I'd guess the tactic of grenade throwing was abandoned by the 1770's, unless you were in a shipboard fight or defending a fort or fortress.
By the way, have any of you folks thrown a grenade? I have, once, and once was enough! Trust me kids, they ain't cherry bombs! In modern infantry combat grenades tend to gravitate toward the guys in the platoon most capable of throwing them, they don't go to the guys that never made the ball team, if you get my meaning.
Yep. I can chuck one some distance, but cant hit the broad side of a barn with it. You dont want a grenade flying 50 yard to the left of your target. So its better to hand them off to the guy who can get distance and accuracy, and focus on your rifle work.
It was mostly with pikemen becoming rarer and rarer. In the 17th and early 18th century when pikemen were still common grenades had their place. As they became less common grenades became largely useless in land battles but the grenadier name stuck.
10:50 well you just shut down my argument before I could even make it. Love when someone does their research and actually covers any and all "what ifs" in a specific topic. Good on you dude.
They also wore bearskin hats but weren't actually bears.
Beavers
Great video! I have never seen any of your work before, but youtube recommended has blessed you this day sir! Never really considered this before but all your points make a lot of sense and the editing is fun! Subscribed :D
Think about it like this. The US Army still has Cavalry units, and they still wear a lot of the accoutrements of a horse soldier, at least in garrison or in dress uniform (riding boots, spurs, cowboy style hat, etc.) When was the last time you saw a horse on the battlefield?
I subscribed just because of the way this guy talks.
17:25 I'm beginning to suspect that Brandon isn't a communist.
Of course he isnt, he's a royalist
Ironically that is how communist parties work irl
@@oz_jones And maybe he'd make a good King of America as the picture implies. :)
The editing's looking really good. Props to you Brandon!
Brandon's narration makes my job so much easier.
Brandon, will you ever make a video about artillery during the american revolutionary war, explaining tactics, building and transport of heavy weaponry, maybe saying something also about it on ships?
Artillery Only when?
The line above starts when we are commanded to storm the palisades
Even in video games as you said, like Napoleon Total War, I’ve come to realise grenades are a very bad idea. Most you’ll amount to from using them is getting half your grenadier unit killed. Really only good if the enemy is out of ammunition and not paying attention.
Alternative universe: Line infantry didn't actually used lines.
When I was in the army, I threw a live grenade, on the grenade range. The max you could really throw a 1-1.5 kg grenade is about 17 yards. The blast radius was 20 yards or more. You could really only throw them from cover. I imagine grenades like you are talking about would be even heavier. Probably could not throw them far at all.
17 yds?? Dude WTF are you talking about you can easily throw a grenade 30m or better, you must just be a bitch.
Grenades are better suited for room clearing anyways,
I loved seeing this so late in my short time subscribed to you after your video on Musket accuracy which you mentioned possibly making here. I was like “wait a moment; isn’t that the brain child that got me to subscribe?”
Ahhhhh yes; the pillars of creation.
Great video as always man! Appreciate the new knowledge!
the reason for multiple loading is the muscle memory from training to be able to load well, they would practice loading 100x moar than firing, at least, so to repeat some other mistake like that, you would have to ingrane it by making that mistake thru rote training and endless repition, I understand using it as an example for how people react poorly to the chaos of battle, but I don't find it an especially great example
Good to see that you too play empire total war. One of my favorite total war games. :)
Long story short, reloading was just more practical.
Even today the best use of a grenade is against fortified or enclosed positions.
Reloading or, if in close enough range, charging with bayonets and sabers. Either tactic is both faster and more effective in an open field than trying to lob a heavy explosive ball designed for sieges
It is painfully shocking after watching video as a first viewer that you do not have enough subscribers for the next Uluru of your content! I simply can’t stand for them. SUBSCRIBE ！
Weren't grenadiers equiped with swords? That would eliminate some of the danger of a counter charge. Also, first and second rank could keep firing, while the third rank prepares the grenades.
Short sabers were present in Most infantry Units During the 18th century. But they cant Stop cavalary.
Fine quality video as usual, great editing as well! (as someone who also applied for the editing competition you set out earlier this year, I gladly take off my hat in admiration both for the script and editing on this work of yours) many cheers Brandon!
As the man behind the editing for this video, thank you so much! It means a lot coming from someone who may very well have been editing this video in an alternate timeline. Best of luck in your future editing endeavors, and I am glad you enjoyed it :)
Don't care about the grenades as long as I get to wear that badass hat.
Grenades seemed like an extraordinarily risky choice of weapon tbh
Very interesting as I was previously think it more of just a cost and weight issue.
However is there any evidence of skirmishers using them for 18th century field battles or ambushes?
As for them the potential for friendly fire would be lower and reaching minimum distance would be less costly when compared to a solid block.
Ahh I keep finding myself rewatching your videos. It’s genuinely absurd how much you know. I’m with it. I’m hooked. Keep being you, keep uploading. I love your channel. I’ve shared it a ton. You deserve all the cookies.
what are you gonna tell me next? The engineers weren't carrying any engines????
This is even worse than the time I found out that Apaches didn't use helicopters and that Tomahawks aren't missiles.
Nice clickbait title
I have a way this could be practical
Place the gunners in front of the grenadiers to give them time to light their grenades and be ready to throw
Have the grenadiers throw as soon as the rankers fire, having both ranks kneel to reload so the grenadiers can get a better throw in
Have the rankers advance up with the grenadiers, covering them and being at the ready in the event that the enemy would charge; if the enemy would charge, have the grenadiers instead switch to their muskets (they would have time to do so) and attack the occupied enemy either from the side or front, supporting the engaged rankers in numbers
Make sure to have the grenadiers keep distance or to have them spread a bit out as to not blow themselves up in the event that 1 or so men are shot.
When e'er we are commanded to storm the barricades
We actually don't carry fuses or grenades
tra la la tra la la
why are we called grenadiers
I had Alex Burns as a professor for a Modern Military History class I took in college, he’s probably one of the top 3 professors I’ve had
Does anyone know if there were any particular battles in the 18th century where the use of grenades were specifically documented? If so, I'd like to research those battles!
Turns out from what I read, they were more extensively used in the 17th century when pikemen were still used and muskets took longer to reload. This allowed grenadiers to get close enough to use them and retreat. The advancement of flintlocks and faster reloads, in addition to every soldier being armed with a musket made their use much less practical by the 18th century
@@frank574748 They were regularly used in sieges
The graphic of the flattened bloody grenadiers was funnier than it should have been.
In a similar vain, I had way more fun making it than I should've.
I'd be all for that video on the accuracy at muskets. My general perception is that, while they can be accurate, it either takes an enormous amount of skill and experience with the same specific gun, or a lot of luck. Though, given the main problem, as I understand it, is the musket ball bouncing against the inside of the barrel, a more tightly fitted ball would help, and if you've had the same gun for a while, you might be able to better shape them (or is the idea of soldiers typically making (or at least re-making) their own bullets a myth?) to fit their musket.
Soldiers in a regular army wouldn't be making their own rounds- they would be mass produced and assembled into cartridges before being issued to the men.
@@BrandonF I... was unaware that proper full rounds actually existed by this point. I remembered watching Revolutionary War movies (including, sadly, the Patriot, but I think some more accurate ones too) and the soldiers in those making their bullets (though granted, given how perpetually short on supplies the Continental Army was, I suppose I wouldn't be surprised that their situation wasn't typical), and my dad and grandpa making their own bullets for Civil War reenacting when I was a kid, both at home and sometimes at camp. The Civil War was nearly a century later, so I kinda assumed...
@@Great_Olaf5 When I say "rounds" I am referring to cartridges- so, the musket ball wrapped in paper alongside a charge of black powder. Regular soldiers wouldn't be loading with things like powder horns back in the day.
@@BrandonF I knew what you meant by cartridges, I just didn't know they were a thing yet. I suppose I probably should have, but my focus in history is Medieval and earlier, the things between about 1500 and 1800 are pretty foggy outside of the things taught in classes and generalities, or some fairly specific regional events like the colonization of the Americas and a few wars. That's why I come to places like your channel, you fill in gaps like that in areas I'm not interested enough in to tolerate reading academic papers or primary sources on, but still find fascinating to learn about.
The problem with muskets of that era was the fouling of the barrel with burnt powder residues, that gradually built up with each shot fired until a point where the ball could no longer be forced down the barrel. That is why musket balls were made loose fitting - if they had been tight fitting (and they certainly could have been made so if desired) then the soldier would have been much more limited in the number of rounds he could get off in battle. Black powder fouling is easily dissolved by pouring hot water down the barrel, but for obvious reasons this was not possible in the heat of battle. The problem of barrel fouling was never really solved until the invention of carbon-free smokeless propellant in the late 19th Century.
I mean, in that same verse of "The British Greandiers", it says: "We throw them from the glacis", not "We throw them on the open field".
I recall reading some time ago about period hand mortars. They more or less looked like a musket with the barrel cut down to a nub and significantly widened. If I'm remembering correctly, they were primarily used as firework launchers during military parades. I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons they were rare in pitched battle, but I can't help but wonder what could've been given the right innovations and logistics.
It's pretty interesting: I see them in museums but there's very little on who used them, when, and where. The loading and priming time alone would make it really hard to use on a field battle, but I can see the use in naval fights, sieges and urban warfare.
This vid answered soooo many of my questions, thank you!
5:58 Spanish infantry trained to fire at distances of up to 400m (450 yards).
With muskets or rifles?
This makes me think of the song the British Grenadiers. It’s evident the grenades are being used in a siege context: “we’ll throw them from the Glacis (parapet) about the enemy’s ears”
Awesome work Brandon
For one interesting if a bit tangential use of grenades, you can read about the attack on the _Serapis_ by the _Bonhomme Richard,_ in which members of the crew of the American ship dropped grenades from the rigging of their ship, through a hatch, and into the powder magazine of the _Serapis._ The results were predictable.
Edit: I initially typed that as if Brandon should have referred to it, instead of as a neat event you, the reader, could look into. I have corrected that oversight.
The British won and were home in time for tea and medals? 😉
They were pretty useless on the field, but really critical for naval and siege combat. The grenade was invented for sieges in the 10th century, and ships are actually very similar to siege situations
@@becauseimbatman5702 Home, yes. Tea, maybe. Medals for losing a frigate to a barely armed merchantman, no.
@@jamesharding3459 Right, that's why I started with it with the British won.
@@becauseimbatman5702 I genuinely cannot tell if you don't know how the battle went or are taking the piss.
I really feel like its a pretty good reason why grenadiers don't carry grenades. Although they were named because they were chosen to be trained to use grenades, not to mention these grenades could have potential errors like the fuse becoming wet and potential to deal more harm to a grenadier company but also, what is the difference if they are going to close in and engage in melee combat to interrupt your grenade phases. It was stated that Grenadiers are trained more to act as shock troops specialising in close combat. And yeah Muskets are kind of inaccurate but chances are the more close you are to the enemy, the more likely you become shot, should the leader of a grenadier company or regiment die, it can shake the soldiers' morale and will be more likely to route should another officer or soldier fail to take command to reorganise the line.
I love watching Brandon learn to speak meme
In Toronto's High Park we have a pond called Grenadier Pond. This is so named because supposedly Grenadiers used to use the pond in the winter to practice drills. The story is they fell through the ice and drowned. This drowning story has been rejected but there are the typical ghost stories as well. Anyway come and visit Fort York in Toronto if you haven't before.
There's a pond in upstate New York, WAY upstate, called "Bloody Pond." Supposedly during the French and Indian War some Frenchmen or Indians or British or Colonials (take your pick) were forced into the pond and shot down to a man. The story's not true, so who knows how it got the name?
I refuse to watch the video first.
With that grenades good!
Brandon F. failed to quote the premier source for the premier use of hand grenades, the lyrics of 'The British Grenadiers'!
Whene'er we are commanded to storm the palisades,
Our leaders march with fusees, and we with hand grenades.
We throw them from the glacis, about the enemies' ears.
With a tow, row, row, row, row, row, for the British Grenadiers.
And when the siege is over, we to the town repair.🍴🍴
not really a source tho
A question: what kind of blast and shrapnel radius could one expect from these grenades?
As it is not brought up in the video I'm assuming that it is significant less than the throwing range, as the weapon would not be feasible in all that many situation if it was, but that would also mean be another reason not to use them in open battle, as you would have to be fairly precise with them to a point where a significant amount of thrown grenades could miss the target by simply being over or under thrown.
@SWEATYGEAR? Thank you for the in depth answer
This is a very good explanation of the limited us of grenades, but this still brings to mind why no kind of light artillery or "grenade launcher" of the time was developed in the form factor of a blunderbuss.
There were some, I even got to handle one once. It was British-made, an oversized blunderbuss is the best way I can describe it. A big, heavy, clumsy thing I can see why they weren't too common. You'd be better off having another musket man in the ranks. Like the Nock volley gun more trouble (and expense) than it was worth.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 makes sense, if you had capable gunsmiths, crafting a piece of light artillery that can be drawn by a man takes time away from muskets, and anything shoulder launched is cumbersome.
Grenadiers: *dont use grenadiers, not even the famous like the Imperial guards*
Some peasant in Mexico with not even uniform: "Hey bro, I carry a bag full of bombs and I'll use it against spanish, french, gringos or corrupt goverments, actually I didnt have a rifle I just hurl grenades"
Feliz dia de la independencia I suppose
My first assumption would have been just fragmentation flying from the target back at you since there's no cover to stop the shrapnel.
"As a disclaimer, grenadiers DID in fact use grenades; in fact, they preferred it!"
Title: The British Grenadiers didn't actually use grenades.
Talk about clickbait...
Love that you showed that game. It shows a pixture inside my head how ut looks