Miscellaneous desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 18

hand grenades

Will an exploding fragmentation grenade start a fire in dry grass?65.78.183.48 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every grenade range I've been on has been free of vegetation (wonder why?), but It is very common in dry conditions for fires to erupt in the impact area of ranges using everything from small arms to mortar and arty. On a range, it will usually burn itself out due to the sparsity of vegetation. By the way, don't play with frag's. If you have found one, call the base range control/EOD or your local police. 173.124.206.41 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that your standard military hand grenade was just a pressure system with chemicals that caused a shrapnel explosion without fire. It is not the explosion that kills it is the balls that fire off in all directions. Use matches to start a fire not a hand grenade.

Ivtv (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? A hand grenade is a metal (steel?) case around a lump of explosive, with a fuse (that burns) down the middle. There's a mechanical device to ignite the fuse at the top end (at one time percussive; not sure if they still are) and at the bottom end a I presume a detonator would be needed to initiate the main charge (I'm guessing it's high rather than low-order explosive). As you can see from my various caveats and assumptions, I'm not an expert in the field, but I can tell you that there is no "pressure system", "chemicals" (apart from the explosives), or "balls that fire off". The means of doing damage is the fragments (hence the name) of the steel case as it is blown apart by the explosion. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

We have an article on hand grenades, of course, that describe how they work. Some fragmentation grenades do have ball bearings or fletchettes in them to provide shrapnel damage; others get all of their shrapnel from the casing. It's true though that the system that disperses them is indeed explosive. It's true though that the explosion need not be very large or killing in and of itself—it depends on the kind of grenade it is. (Hence "sting grenades", where the ball bearings are replaced by plastic balls, and are meant to be less-lethal.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The section on fragmentation grenades explains what's inside them. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at grenade explosions (eg on YouTube) you see stuff like this: [1] - which is a real grenade explosion - and has no sign of flame, just a big cloud of dust and smoke. It's not at all like a video-game or movie grenade eg: [2]. I wouldn't say it was impossible to set grass on fire that way - but it's not likely. SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you mean it's not likely to start a fire. Just think that the explosion is throwing stones against each other. That could result in the spark needed to start a fire on dry grass.--Quest09 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was impossible - I said it was unlikely. Despite what you suggest, I stand by that statement. SteveBaker (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, if we suppose that dry grass starts to burn at the same temperature of dry paper, 451°F (232.8°C), do you still think it is unlikely to set dry grass on fire? For example, if the hand grenade is a smoke grenade you can almost be sure that it will set dry grass on fire. According to the article: "The reaction is exothermic and grenade casings will remain scalding hot for some time even after the grenade is no longer emitting smoke." And if the OP means a common fragmentation grenade, I also deem it pretty probable that it will set a fire on dry grass, since the explosion has to fragment the casing of the grenade to produce shrapnel, which will certainly be very hot.Quest09 (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 451, first paragraph after opening sentence. Yes, it is unlikely. 86.140.149.215 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tactically it's easy to imagine why you wouldn't want grenades to set fire, like if they are thrown into a building, you wouldn't necessarily want to start a fire, if you did want to start a fire then you'd use an incendiary grenade. Vespine (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Control over the effects of weaponry is a vital aspect of the design of things like grenades. SteveBaker (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a dumb blonde throws a pin at you, take cover. She's holding a grenade. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP, yes it will. Almost any kind of grenade will set dry grass, wooden buildings, etc. alight. That includes CS canisters. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks Going Through Walls

In the 1977 film Cross of Iron, there is one scene where a Russian T-34 is about to burst through the wall of a factory, and before doing so, it fires a round at the wall so there is a hole at the exact point where the main gun would go through, thus, presumably, saving it from extensive damage when the rest of the tank follows. Is this normally what would have happened? In order to burst through a wall, would the crew have to take a precaution such as this so as not to damage the gun? If so, what would be the usual round for this type of work? A HE round (possibly creating a larger hole) or an AP round (creating a hole big enough for the gun)? What would happen to hull-mounted or coaxial weapons? I presume a turret mounted outside machine gun would be damaged by falling bricks. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more typical to rotate the turret to face backwards prior to gently nudging the wall into collapse - then driving over the resulting rubble - but it's pretty rare to want to drive a tank through a building - there are all sorts of external antennae, tools and other stuff that you wouldn't want to wreck. It's dramatic for a movie - but has little tactical value. SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention strapped on rucksacks and duffel. A brick hung up in in the track has a high chance of "blowing track", causing it to roll off the sprockets. If the building has a basement, a tank would probably break through. You don't want debris hung up in the main gun. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add the fact that any upper wall or roof would probably collapse on top of the tank and you've got a suicide mission.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie "Tank" (1984) James Garner removed the machine gun from the turret of his pet Sherman tank and reversed the turret so the gun trailed before ramming the tank through the wall of a jail to free his son. Building materials falling on a gunbarrel could bend it or break the elevating mechanism, rendering it useless. Treads are easily broken or jammed. Edison (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reminded me of the opening scene of Richard III by Ian McKellen where a tank penetrates a wall but suffers no problems. --Blue387 (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, given the amount of evidence and common sense to the contrary, it is shocking to have to acknowledge that this type of scene appears quite often in war films. Thanks, everyone. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're shocked. Movie makers do this kind of thing all the time. When is the last time you saw a car drive off a cliff-side road in a movie, rolling over and over and then exploding? Why would it explode? How many people have you seen who avoid being shot by ducking down below the level of the windows in a car? Almost any bullet will go through a twentieth of an inch of steel, a thin sheet of plastic and some padding and kill the person on the other side. How many cars have you seen exploding after someone put a bullet through the gas tank? The Mythbusters fired hundreds of rounds from dozens of weapons at the gas tanks of cars without getting so much as a flame. A spaceship out in the vacuum of space making a noise? How is the sound being transmitted?! Lasers travelling so slowly that people can dodge them? What exactly is the speed of light? I could go on and on. There are vast numbers of things they show time after time in movies that are quite utterly bogus. So tank-driving-through-a-wall - it's just another one of those spectacular things that movie makers love. At least in this case, it's plausible that a sizeable tank at full speed could demolish a house - it's just not plausible that a tank driver would generally choose to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the lasers, it all depends on what they are travelling through - you need some slow light. Warofdreams talk 14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There _is_ a well-known wartime German film showing a (real) Tiger II (I think) driving through a (real) house - not as spectacular as the movies, but it's still technically possible (with a big tank and a house that's about to fall down anyway). Tevildo (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - it's absolutely possible. I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's just not a wise thing to do in battle - it has little or no tactical value and it can do bad things to your tank. But for publicity, movies, bravado, winning a bet, advertising - whatever - it can certainly be done. Most (if not all) tanks have the power to do that - and are strong enough that nobody's going to get harmed. I knew a tank commander in the British army back in the 1970's and he said that one time when they were on manouvers in Germany, they drove through a farmyard and the farmer asked them if they would please 'nudge' the corner of his barn so it would collapse and he could claim compensation and get a new barn out of it. He said that they basically drove along close and parallel to the barn until the back of the tank was almost level with one end - then did a quick 90 degree turn on the spot - causing the back end of the tank to "accidentally" knock the corner post - resulting in the collapse of more or less the entire structure. Aparrently this is a common mistake for novice tank drivers to make because they expect the tank to turn in an arc like a car. SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tanks are a lot more fragile than people realize, except for things like bullets and shells. as mentioned above, the treads are pretty vulnerable. on the other hand, the average house around here at least could probably be taken down by a runaway Buick without doing much more than cosmetic damage to it. Gzuckier (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarianism and absolutism

My sister is a vegetarian and a woman I know is an absolutist. But how common is it to be both at the same time? Is this more common among men or women? JIP | Talk 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia article absolutism, it doesn't appear that my intended meaning of "absolutist" is clear. It means one who abstains from alcohol. JIP | Talk 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't called such a person an "absolutist" but rather a teetotaler -- 41.136.72.103 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutist seems to be a Swedish term for a person dedicated to sobriety. Maybe a subtle advertisement for this Swedish based producer of vegetarian refreshments? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume quite a few people with strong religions regions for being vegetarian, e.g. Buddhist vegetarianism or Christian vegetarianism among monks/brothers/nuns would also likely refrain from drinking alcohol if their religious beliefs prohibit or discourage it, e.g. Buddhism#Buddhist ethics [3] [4]. This obviously doesn't directly answer how common it is. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I absolutely refuse to drink non-vegetarian alcohol.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking yesterday that, at the very least, you can rule out any meat-based wines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can forget traditional scrumpy then. Mikenorton (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, yuck.

Second, one of the things I've learned from WP is that some vegetarians have scruples about drinking beer that has been clarified with isinglass, a product made from fish ~~scales~~ swimbladders. I wonder what fraction of vegetarians, or even vegans, really manage to avoid all byproducts of the meat industry. It would be fairly difficult. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the question of what those vegetables were fertilized with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using animal excrement as fertilizer still allows the animal to live comfortably until natural death. Wearing leather shoes or a leather watchstrap do not. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some wines are also clarified with animal products.Sjö (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World-wide, I don't think most teetotalers are vegetarian, since the major religions that prohibit alcohol (Islam and some Protestant sects) don't particularly encourage vegetarianism. And I don't think most vegetarians are teetotalers, since the main religions that promote vegetarianism (Jainism and Hinduism) don't have admonitions against alcohol. If there is a positive correlation between vegetarianism and teetotalism, I don't believe it's a strong one.

Two cultural groups I can think of in which it would be very common to find people who are both a teetotaler and a vegetarian are the straight edge culture, and the Seventh Day Adventists. Red Act (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism may not formally ban alcohol, but as I understand it there is little tradition of alcoholic drink in India. I'm not exactly sure why. But if I'm correct about that, there may be an enormous number of combined vegetarians and non-alcohol-drinkers (perhaps not "teetotalers" formally, just that the issue never comes up). --Trovatore (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're right. Doing a little further research, I see that Alcoholic beverage#Alcohol and religion says that some sects of Hinduism are anti-alcohol. And the Gujarat article says that the sale of alcohol is banned there. The Indian state of Gujarat has 50 million people, of which 89% are Hindu. Red Act (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would guess a priori that there's a correlation between health-based vegetarianism and health-based aversion to alcohol as well as tobacco, caffeine, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, lactose, gluten, vaccines, and whatever other realistic or fringe fads ricochet through society. on another note, i would have guessed absolutism meant a dedication to Swedish vodka. Gzuckier (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What religious basis would there be for vegetarianism? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto "Che Guevara" - a legend - a myth - or a fact?

OK - I have just been moved to tears by the movie, "Motorcycle Diaries" in which the pre-medical graduate Ernesto Guevara and his friend travelled around South America in 1952. I have also studied many references to Guevara, including Wikipedia. I have read books about his completion of his medical studies and his degree. But yet again, I have now learned this was a hoax. He may have begun a medical degree course at The University in Argentina, but there is no record of him having graduated from there as a medical doctor. So once again, at the age of 62, it seems I have been led up the garden path by emotional blackmail. Please help me here. Did he actually graduate as a doctor? And please.....no responses about whether that matters given his other "spurious and heroic achievements". Thanks. 92.23.23.50 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Che Guevara notes he attended medical school from 1948-1952 (with a year off for the noted Motorcycle Journey), but in 1953 could not find placement in an internship. See the section titled "Guatemala, Arbenz and United Fruit". Later, apparently, he worked as an allergist in a Mexico city hospital (See section titled "Mexico City and preparation") so he was at least for a time in 1954, a working physician. By 1955, he started out as a combat medic for the Cuban revolutionary forces, but quickly abandoned that track for military training, and he soon abandoned his medical career and took up a military leadership role. --Jayron32 00:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron - but doesn't that result conflict with the following extract taken from the Che Guevara Wiki article viz. Upon returning to Argentina, he completed his studies and received his medical degree in June 1953, making him officially "Dr. Ernesto GuevaraItalic text? 92.22.19.48 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume -1952 was a typo as our article says he graduated in 1953. Otherwise Jayron's summation appears to be accurate Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Argentina follow the practice of English-speaking countries of referring to medical graduates as "doctor"? In any case, it's not "official", merely a custom. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's official in many places in that there are laws over who can and cannot call themselves a doctor. According to Doctor (title), it's largely a matter of convention in the UK and USA (although in the UK there are certain restrictions e.g. if you're offering medical services), but there are legal restrictions or requirements to use the title in other countries including Germany and Spain. There is however no mention of Latin America. --Lesleyhood (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shinnecock Indian Nation

I am trying to find out the status of my family with the Shinnecock Indian Nation could you please refer me to the correct person i can correspond with I have some documentation on my family background and being part of that tribe from Long Island,New York. I would like to go over these documents and be able to register with the International Bureau of Affairs. But i dont know how to go about doing that and theres other questions I have .Thank you for your time.66.243.202.141 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.23.50 (talk) [reply]

Try the tribe's website for starters. It even lists some cell phone numbers of individuals you can call. By the way, our Shinnecock Indian Nation article (which needs expansion) says the tribe is recognized by the state of New York, but the tribe's website implies that it isn't recognized by the federal government, so the Bureau of Indian Affairs may not care about your "registering" with them. Tempshill (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop dogg

I have noticed that in most of his songs Snoop Dogg really just talks. I wonder if he actually has a good singing voice. Does anyone know of a song or recording that I can look up where he is actually singing?--98.240.70.102 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On several of his songs he sings, for example on the Dr. Dre song Nuthin' but a "G" Thang, Snoop definately imparts a melody when he sings the chorus "Ain't nothing but a G thang baby/two loked out g's going crazy/Death row is the label that pays me." --Jayron32 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This should be on the Entertainment Desk.) He "sings" a bit on The Chronic... Nuthin' but a G Thang; Deeez Nuuuts; Bitches Ain't Shit. It's nothing special. He's better as a straight rapper. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]