# Talk:Sticky bomb

Article says 2.5 million were made then later says 250,000 were made... 72.79.212.31 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Because this is the famous one? GraemeLeggett 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
And its not an improvised one. It was actually issued to soldiers by the government. All others that you refer to are basically made in the field, and we can't exactly say how they were made, as the explosives or bonding element of the bomb are different among them. AllStarZ 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

. . . Than fiction!
I mean, who would dare to suggest that the Brits (infamous for the safety of their weapons during WW2, often to the point where they would compromise the effectiveness of the weapon!) would not only sanction such an idiotic weapon, but actually PUT THE THING IN PRODUCTION!
It actually makes sense when you discover that this was actually an unusual case - the inventor of this bomb was given the opportunity to bypass the normal review by the Ordnance board.Johno 05:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The design does seem a little mad and many resisted its introduction. Churchill himself made sure it went through. The great advantage of the sticky bomb was that it made use of materials that did not affect the production of regular weapons: glass, wool, resin, bakerlite etc and the cheap nitoglycerin. And it could, just about, be effective against German tanks of 1940. Gaius Cornelius 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You sure about that?  My source is "German and Allied Secret Weapons of WW2", by Hogg, King and Batchelor, and they say that it was brought to MD1 "By means not entirely clear to this day".  Now, 30-year rule documents could have changed that, but I'd be interested to know if you can verify that.  Thanks! :)

My source is the National Archive "WO 185/1 Anti-tank measures Sticky Bomb adoption and production" and "CAB 120/372 - sticky bomb etc". I cannot post any of this material on the web, but I can share some material by private e-mail for research purposes only. Gaius Cornelius 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I can't be sure I have a feeling that the grenades were actually intended for use by the Auxiliary Units in case of invasion and hence the normal safety standards were considered less important. Ian Dunster 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The original order for the sticky bomb was for one million (though rather fewer were actually produced) far more than the auxiliary units needed. Anyway, in general, the Auxiliary units got the best of everything. It is not really clear just how dangerous it really was to the user, the main problem would be staying alive long enough to get sufficiently close to an armoured vehicle. Gaius Cornelius 22:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Rather them than me - I seem to remember that the adhesive used was based on bird lime and was very powerful, i.e., sticky. Ian Dunster 12:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The adhesive was resin based. It certainly seems to have enjoyed a reputation for sticking to clothes and I have read a couple of stories like that quoted in the main article. The bomb only weighed 1-2 kg and if required a man can easily provide 100 kg of force and probably much more: just how sticky could it really have been? I do wonder if the stories are apocryphal; or that the stated events occured because those involved had an exagerated sense of just how sticky the adhesive was and simply did not try to pull it off; or that, given the overall fragility of the weapon, men were told that applying sufficient force to remove it from clothing would be very dangerous. Government reports reveal that it was poor at sticking to vertical surfaces of a vehicle. Gaius Cornelius 21:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone formally confirm that these things used nitroglycerine ?? This seems extremely unlikely, and is certainly not referenced in Stuart McCrae's book - which has to be a prime source of material
Steveastrouk 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that from the abovementioned Hogg, King and Batchelor.  They comment that this was one of the reasons for the initial rejection of the weapon by the Ordnance board - "When all is said and done, nitroglycerine is not the sort of liquid to be carried around freely."  They also comment that the Ordnance board was not at all impressed to discover that MD1 had authorised the weapon's production!
So Gaius Cornelius, I'd say that the stickyness would be the least of this bomb's problems with safety - have you ever seen someone detonating a drop of Nitroglycerine with a sledgehammer? [shudder] Johno 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Most, possibly all, secondary sources give the filling as nitroglycerine as do many primary sources such as the training manual. (See here for Home Guard pocket manual page 47.) Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the filling was nitroglycerine-based as is clear when looking into National Archive records. Are Hogg, King and Batchelor actually quoting the Ordnance board? If I remember rightly, Stuart MacRae does mention concerns over nitroglycerine, but that the formulation proved to be very safe. Gaius Cornelius 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty smart to me, though magnets are smarter. What's dumb is that apparently Tom Hanks' character in a movie thought -grease- would make a good adhesive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

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

Is there any proof whatsoever that the completely fictional things in Saving Private Ryan ever existed in reality? If there is no evidence of that, why are they mentioned here in this encyclopedia entry? 139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The following text was deleted from the main article. I am conserving it here in case it proves useful in the future.

The novel The Otterbury Incident by Cecil Day-Lewis features schoolboys playing a war game in which one objective is to disable a wooden "tank" by means of sticky bombs. The bombs, produced by one of the boys using his "chemical set", are as ferociously adhesive as the real thing, but do not actually explode.

I have conducted a complete rewrite of this article, which can be viewed at this sandbox. Would anyone oppose me replacing the current article with the version in the sandbox? I welcome any comments on the matter. Skinny87 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your version is good. Do you have required permissions for the photograph? I't like to keep the quoted story: it is funny and typical of the "mythology" that surrounded the sticky bomb. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If you mean the current photo, then no - it's copyrighted and fair-use, and must be replaced by a public domian one - the one in the sandbox is public domain. I'll try and find a way to incorporate that story into the 'operational history' section. Skinny87 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it be awful if the story isn't retained? I can't figure out how to add it into the article, as it's quite long and its description of the bomb doesn't really conform to what the other sources describe the bomb as being like. Perhaps it could be put in as a link in the 'External Links' section? Skinny87 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, take a look now; I had to abbreviate it some more, but I think I managed to retain the humour of it in the quotation box. I'll give it a bit more work later, but how does that look? Skinny87 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that version works rather well. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit, I'd like more than one editor looking the sandbox version over, but this isn't a high-traffic article. And it can be reverted if anyone strongly disagrees, which I hope they won't. Unless you have any objections, I'll transfer the sandbox article to here. Skinny87 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I gave the sanbox a look and it looks fine to me. Maybe keep some of the external links that are in the article now?--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, of course, I always like to keep external links if I can. I'm watching The Apprentice now, but I'll move the article in a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This section gives undue and perhaps confusing prominence to Blacker. Whereas, I think the author merely intended that the Blacker Bombard as an example of the kind of weapons being produced. Blacker joined MD1 late - when the sticky bomb design was essentialy complete and he did not have anything to do with it. The man who should be prominently mentioned is Stuart Macrae - his article contains some useful links. I am not sure that Blacker and Jefferis were ever friends exactly and if I remember rightly Macrae hints at some tension between the two and they had a major squabble over credit for the PIAT which was, briefly and quite unfairly, known as the Jefferis Gun. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of my sources have mentioned Macrae. Do you have any sources you could suggest I look at? Skinny87 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh joy. Yes, I can see there are sources on Macrae's page. I'll take a look at them after I've finished my dissertation, and try and rewrite the development section. I only ever meant Blacker as a way of introducing the weapons being produced. Skinny87 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe Blacker was only mentioned as a "here is another example of the bonkers stopgap weapons they produced", not to give undue weight to his role in the development. Indeed, the articles makes no link between Blacker and the SB development, except to note he worked for the same department as Jefferis. Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Righto, I've added one of the newspaper citations (properly formatted) to this article from Macrae's article, and also hopefully clarified that Blacker's appearance is only to show that (A stopgap weapons were being made, and B) as a lead into MD1, Jeffris and Macrae. I don't think it would warrant anymore details than that, although if I can find a copy of Churchill's Toyshop I'll certainly see if there's anything else to add. Skinny87 (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You do need Churchill's Toyshop to get a better flavour of the activities of MIR(c)/MD1 and the development of the Sticky bomb. As it happened my local library service had a copy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just added a new article for No 74 ST grenade redirecting here, as I could not find any with the proper heading. For the future recommend that No 74 ST grenade gets its own article, and is then referenced in the main article on sticky bombs. (Of which there are several other than the 74 ST.)
Vola31 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying? I thought this was the article for the No. 74, as it says at the beginning of the article. I only ever used 'Sticky bomb' as a title as that's what it generally seems to have been known as, rather than its official title. Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, wonderful article BTW. I believe the article should be titled No 74 ST, since there are other sticky bombs, including a number of improvised once. Certainly the HL-Handgranate, and arguably the Hafthohlladung, could be considered sticky bombs. Today, "sticky bombs" or "sticky IEDs" are use in Iraq by insurgents.  The most important thing however, is that No 74 ST Grenade is searchable and possible to reference under it's technical name, the redirect takes care of this. (I think the best solution would be to retitle the current article to No 74, and let "Sticky Bomb" nick name redirect here in stead. This would be similar to other articles.  For instance, "Ma Duece" correctly redirects to M2 Browning. This is absolutely no criticism of the content in the article, which holds a very high standard.
Vola31 (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the praise! I hadn't thought about it like that, and of course you're right. I'll change the title immediately to the bomb's specific name. The only problem is - what should it be? In the literature I've had to use fragments of to put this together, it seems to have had about half a dozen 'official' names, from No. 74 ST grenade, to Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank No. 74, AT Grenade No. 74 and so forth. Any ideas on what it should be put under? Skinny87 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I would oppose a move, the article is at a reasonable name given it meets naming conventions for common name. (think also Mills bomb, Gammon grenade and Jam Tin Grenade, Boyes antitank rifle etc)) It's official name is rather less well known. Hafthohlladung has its own article, the SS-HL-Handgranate doesn't so far as I can see - but in each case sticky bomb is as much a description rather than a nickname.  Sticky IEDs are a variant of IED and not production items so a proper article would not be forthcoming. Bottom line, if sticky bomb was to redirect to here than why change it. The No. 74 grenade redirect works. What might be needed to give direction towards these other weapons is a sticky bomb (disambiguation) article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The disambiguation hatnote and the page itself looks like a good compromise. Can't see any problems with it myself. Any thoughts? Skinny87 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! I just wanted to ensure that the 74 could be referenced and linked from other articles. Since "Sticky Bomb" covers both improvised and several production items, in addition to being a widely used name on the 74, the disambiguation article is a perfect solution. Vola31 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)