More Confusion on OSS T13 Grenades


In my earlier post of a T-13 grenade (shown here), I mentioned in reply that there was also a variation that had double walls and BB-like balls in the void between the walls. After reviewing Google images of other T-13’s, I see that I am correct on the double-wall variant but am wrong as to the purpose. Given the small size of the bursting compartment and the large size of the fuze (as in photo), it becomes obvious that this double-wall variant is likely a chemical weapon and that the BB-like balls I remember hearing rattle in the sealed void between the walls were placed in there during assembly to identify the grenade as inert. Also interesting is the fact that most of the Google images of T-13’s appear to be of ones produced during trials of different fuzes. Note in last photo that fuzes on genuine production ones were not marked with either a fuze type or with EKC [Eastman Kodak Co…]


Thanks for the additional images and info!


Are you sure the EKC is Eastman Kodak?

There are some ca. 1953, 20x110 H.S. steel cases by EKCO. Which is not Eastman, but I can’t find my notes as to who exactly EKCO is, so sorry about that.

Eastman was / is basically a chemicals company, I was unaware that they fabricated fuze’s.


I’m not aware for fact that Eastman Kodak did develop the T12, T13. I was just browsing internet and that is what I read. Elsewhere I read that OSS developed it, and that would sound to me as being correct. Thank you for reminding me that I should NOT have assumed that EKC was Eastman Kodak based only on what I read.


The Kodak relation seems to be documented though not by primary sources which we sure all love. Wish I had the documents the article below was based on.


I saw the term “BEANO” and that’s confusing too. Was it an acronym? Everything I’ve read about the T13 is confusing, and the images even worse (e.g., lanyard fuzes, hinged fuzes, inconsistent stenciling.) On top of that, my father once identified yet another baseball grenade having serrated sheet metal that separated into minute pieces upon detonation. He said it was never used because it was too dangerous to the user and everyone around the user. So I’m holding a T13 asking myself if this is what he meant.


To what I saw the term “Beano” referrs to the fuze. Maybe the name of the designer?
Unfortunately I can not say more as most of my limited knowledge is from the web and what people have been posting there. And most of them should have remained silent I feel.

Eastman Kodak drawing of the T5E2 fuze for the Beano grenade

See also

MISCELLANEOUS WEAPONS, Vol. 1, National Defense Research Committee, 1946; Chapter 3 " Grenade, Hand, Fragmentation, T 13 (Beano)" and Chapter 4 “WP Beano (OD 176)”.


Well done Brian, thanks!


Ok. Looks like a lanyard connected to the cap pulls back a slide-hammer when the cap – which is to be held firmly in place while the pin is pulled – is released when thrown. And on impact the slide hammer strikes the primer. EOD also identified a more conventional 4-second time delay type that was being tested but was never pursued due to “lack of interest.” Without launchers and assorted firing devices for use in conjunction with trip wires and for use as mines, I think the Pentagon would have cut funding for the T13 altogether.


A BEANO, with a cutaway Beano, sold on Cottone Auctions back in January for $2,900

Here is a BEANO:

And another articel on the BEANO. Interesting that none go into where the name came from…
Kodak’s Grenade.pdf (44.3 KB)


A guy in Fla found one on the back shelf of a local gun shop back in 2010, And… check this out:

Interesting… especially considering thet ALL T12/T13 AND prototypes and samples were supposedly destroyed.


The “Beano” (name of the inventor of the fuze?) is showing up in relation to the fuze actually.
Knowing people I assume it is the usual generalization by the clueless.

Further the clue in the device is the fuze as the grenade itself is very unspectacular and has no engineer’s name attached. This could be the reason why the “Beano” made it’s way.


Not “spectacular” but interesting is that the fuze screws into a “dry well” within the grenade housing. Apparently the detonator cup does not contact the explosive composition. One thing nice about a genuine “INERT” is that all elements of the device are present. In this case, the void between the aluminum cup-insert and the steel housing is filled with sand(?) to simulate the explosive composition, and even the detonator cup has its brass liner with simulated lead azide (see photos.) Obviously I am not a collector and have limited knowledge on ordnance. My brother (executor of my mom’s will) asked me to look for the OSS T13 in my mom’s personal collection from when she worked as a typist for either ‘quality control’ or ‘production engineering’ at Picatinny Arsenal [PA] during WW2 (she was transferred there from ‘loading’ after the girl next to her was seriously injured by a lead azide detonator.) This PA “INERT” T13 belongs in a collection and I may offer the estate $2000 for it so I can direct it to an appropriate collection, otherwise it’ll go for auction at some point. I should mention that I made no attempt to get photos with the cap and pin removed, freshly made defacing scratches or tool marks are too unbecoming to take that chance just for a photo. I was going to unscrew the lower portion of the bakelite housing to grab a photo but felt slight resistance after a quarter-turn so I quit, fearing that the lanyard if present could be damaged.


Ok…so what you have is a bit of a mix master T13. It’s actually a blacked out version for trials. The fuze is an unmarked version from an earlier design as evident in the way the lugs continue all the way down to the fuze base. It should have a T5 E2 (the later part of E2 being melted into the Bakelite rather than embossed out) marking on one side and a numeral sequence on the other as a trial test piece near the EKC.
Yes, Eastman Kodak helped the OSS develop these grenades in upstate New York. There is an estimate of roughly 15,000 having been produced but I personally feel that number is probably incorrect.




I came across a patent of Kodak where a guy named “Wittel” was granted a patent for the fuze of the T13.
Issued in 1949 and filed in 1945.
Now I really wonder where the name “Beano” was taken from.

Beano.pdf (476.4 KB)


Could the name “Beano” have possibly been introduced during the T13E1 experiment with modifying the fuze and grenade to use the conventional ‘spoon’? And as for the dates, patent filings are always later than the inventions. My dad’s work at NARTS (Picatinny Arsenal) on variable thrust rocket engines was, as I recall off-hand, about 9 years before the patent was issued. The T13 Fuze patent would probably have originally been filed as a ‘Secret Patent too.’ Nothing really secret except for the dates.


Ok, I have checked on the CIA archive server with little hope but found something I did not expect.
No details there but they have listed several projects as for being CIA related and I think I found now that “Beano” is just a code name for the project.
Here listings from 2 documents in this regard and you can see other names which clearly do not referr to the developer or manufacturer and are clearly code names.
I am not 100% sure if this is the answer but for now (and for me) a hypothesis.
And as a bonus they do mention a WP Beano!