Grenade Depth Charge

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. But is the paper strong enough to hold the spoon in, once the pin is pulled?

And could it block the striking area of the fuze?

Would the fuze even ignite, or would the water cool it below ignition temperature?

I remember an account where such a tactic was used circa WW2 where an escort vessel had ran out of depth charges and to keep a U-Boat submerged used this tactic to cover the convoys retreat it was protecting escape. But i cannot remember if it was fiction or fact.

They probably weren't interested in getting the EXACT depth right, just delaying the detonation a little. I can certinly see how wraping the thing in TP could acomplish that.

Yes, what activates the grenade is "the spoon". You hold the grenade pressing the spoon to the grenades body. When you take out "the pin", the spoon is free to move but you still hold it in your hand. The moment the grenade leaves your hand, the spoon is free, moves away from the body of the grenade by a spring and ignites the fuse. 2…4 seconds later it explodes. If you wrap toilet paper around the grenade, it will fail holding the spoon after a while when soaked up.
So yes, it would work in general, but there is no way to control the depth since The force of the spoon and the strength of the paper and the time it needs to soak is variable. Also there is no handbook X wrappings of toilet paper equals Y feet of depth. That's impossible!

Of course, they are sealed, need to be reliable when used in rain and mud or after a swim.

Not at all!


What had really happened is that they dropped their training ammo. They train dropping depth charges with sand filled charges but a real the primer which is about as strong as a hand grenade. Not really dangerous to a sub but makes a lot of noise required to have a good exercise tracking the explosions on sonar.
What prevented WW3 in this "game" was the captain of the Soviet Sub violating his orders to open fire when forced to surface or threatened by the US in any way.

I've read a few accounts (this morning) of the surfacing of Soviet subs during the Cuban missile crisis. All accounts state that Practice Depth Charges or Underwater Signal Bombs were used to harass the subs until they surfaced.

Soviet accounts state they surfaced, fearing that the charges may have been lethal depth charges. (I find it hard to believe a grenade was mistaken for a potentially lethal (to a sub) depth charge)

Mention of the "toilet paper grenade depth charges" can only be found in discussion forums that mention the book and "backed up" by unsubstantiated "I was there", kind of statements like, "Oh it wasn't wrapped 'in' toilet paper, the grenades were stuffed into the cardboard toilet paper roll, which held together long enough to reach the depth of the sub..." Riiight....because a grenade will totally fit inside the cardboard roll from toilet paper....Not!

Seeming "substantiation" can also be found on sites such as Lokifan posted, but they all literally reek with the stench of BS. (Commonly called "War Stories" in the military)

In the Fred Berry link, the first two sentences are very telling..."Bob Simler FTG2, told me this story that occurred before I came aboard the Fred T. Berry. I’ve never the less retold it many times, embellishing it every time...." Embellished every time....Need I say more?

Looking into the development of depth charges through the course of the morning, I found that to make depth charges more effective and to get to submarine depth quicker, a combination of adding weight and streamlining was done to depth charges, to increase their rate of descent, to get them to submarine depth faster.

Adding sodden TP to a grenade would certainly add weight, not much, but some, but adding sodden TP in the amount required to allow the grenade to sink further, while still holding the Arming Lever (spoon), which is holding down the spring loaded striker, is certainly going to add so much bulk as to increase drag drastically, thus making the depth it got to before the sodden TP failed, probably less (IMO) than if the grenade were simply chucked over the fantail.

You got to remember, government TP ain't top quality Charmin or Angel Soft, it is single ply, very thin and goes to pieces very quickly when wet.


The one thing this "myth" does have going for it is, that the burn time on the fuse wouldn't start until the paper deteriorated and allowed the "spoon" to release the striker as opposed to the time starting when the spoon is released above the surface.

Another thing going against it is, folks with good sense don't play with live grenades and wrapping TP around one, pulling the pin and chucking it over the side cannot be seen as a good idea by any reasonable person.

On the fantail of a ship underway, how easy is it going to be to wrap TP around a grenade tight enough to keep the spoon down?

How do you"know" how much TP allows the grenade to go to the "current" depth of the sub?

All that said, this could easily be tested by the MB using legally obtained practice grenades with live practice grenade fuses. (their LEO connections could easily get these)

Small scale testing could be done in a bucket, tank or pool, but should be full size size tested with actual seawater (due to difference in buoyancy) and tossed from a platform of the appropriate height of as destroyer fantail.

I don't see any way possible for live grenades to be used off the deck of a boat/ship traveling at 15-18 knots could be done, to get the most accurate testing. Though movement as though thrown from a ship may be important to the effects on the TP and thus the results of the "myth".

Possibly use appropriately sized/weighted "electronic" grenades that would "function like a real grenade, having a timer activated when the striker is released and transmitting a signal when the timer has reached the end and "detonated", allowing instruments to know at what depth they "went off".

Correct single ply government issue TP would be required.