auchonvillerssomme Posted 19 September , 2007 Author Share Posted 19 September , 2007 Re: The sticks. the sticks on mine and the 2 others I have access to are solid, I have seen many hollow metal tubes around the same length that are attributed to these bombs, what weapon would these tubes be used on? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 The ones I have Mick are hollow with one closed end obviously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 Walking around outside High Wood Last Sunday,near the Crater in the Wood,Chris Noble Discovered a Near Perfect Stokes Mortar Round,which still had the Pin in Situ.Like a fool i forgot to Photograph it I assume you mean a toffee apple which were never fired from Stokes mortars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBI Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 I assume you mean a toffee apple which were never fired from Stokes mortars! No I meant a Stokes Mortar Projectile,which was fired from a Stokes Mortar..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 No I meant a Stokes Mortar Projectile,which was fired from a Stokes Mortar..... You've lost me - whats the relevance then to the pin in a tofee apple stick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBI Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 ...D,Oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 Gentlefolk, all this has been of great interest, especially as whilst I dig in a metaphorical sense I’m not in a position to lay hands on the hardware itself. May I try and summarise the results of all the various postings on this thread and others to try and summarise what we know (and don’t know) so far? A] Characteristics 1] The toffee apple was initially introduced with a time fuse originally designed for naval guns and initiated by the shock of firing. Using a reduced firing charge could cause this to fail to be initiated. Subsequently a contact fuse was developed by Captain Pratt, this was based on a grenade fuse developed by Newton and may have been produced by workshops under Newton’s control. In 1918 a pressure fuse was produced to allow spare toffee apples to be used as anti tank mines. The degree to which Pratt’s fuse was used in action remains to be determined. I have also see a reference to toffee apples being fitted with a Newton fuse that might be the ‘any way’ fuse developed for the Stokes or might be merely an error for the Pratt fuse. 2] The toffee apple appears to have been fitted with either a solid stick or a hollow one. As the earliest references seem to refer to a solid stick possibly the hollow was a later development. As the initial fuse was a time fuse it would seem that the stick was primarily intended as a means of launching a large round from a small chamber rather than a stabilisation system to ensure a fuse first landing. 3] The stick was fastened by two types of pin, a simple split one or a threaded one. Whether one replaced the other or they were alternative fastenings remains to be determined. 4] The toffee apple could have three different types of load – HE, Gas and Chemical (smoke). Which fuse or fuses the gas and smoke rounds used remains to be determined , however as the first use of gas delivered by toffee apple I can find dates from the Somme before Pratt’s contact fuse was developed at least some were likely to have been initiated by the original time fuse (unless a special gas fuse was in existence. B] Use etc. 1] From late 1916 the toffee apples were used as ‘set piece’ weapons clearing wire and obstacles prior to a planned attack. They were fired from separate trenches or mortar pits. Photos suggest that the rear of the large wooden base was well bedded in which would had greatly improved accuracy. The toffee apples do not appear to have been used in ‘shoot and scoot’ operations nor to have accompanied the troops in an attack (as did the Stokes). The sheer size and weight of the rounds would have precluded the latter. 2] Toffee apples made up the medium trench mortar batteries of divisions until early 1918 when they were officially replaced by the Newton 6 inch. However some ORBATs suggest that some units retained some toffee apples right up to the end of the war. A division would have the same number of 2 inch toffee apple mortars in their hey day as they did Stokes 3 inch C] Oddities/puzzles 1] Falling sticks have been mentioned as a cause of injuries to British front line troops, dislike of trench mortars by the same and bombs falling short. From the postings these would all seem to come from one source or book. I find this puzzling as, based on Newtonian physics (from the natural philosopher not the fuse and mortar designer) the stick, even if detached, should have followed the same trajectory as the bomb except where affected by external factors such as air resistance. As the sticks were either solid or substantial metal tubes this should not have been a serious factor and the sticks should have gone almost as far as the bomb if not further. The French Van Duren mortar fired a stick round in which the stick was not actually fixed to the bomb, being loaded in the chamber prior to the finned bomb being slid over the barrel. These detached sticks seemed to have caused no blue on blue casualties. The same Newtonian physics show no reason why a detached stick would cause a round to fall short. A bent stick, still attached could possible cause some deviation and even a small diminution in range but not a detached one. I have seen a great many accounts of hostility by front line troops to trench mortars but this has always been on account of the retaliatory fire they could attract and were primarily directed at Stokes crews who might well have fired and departed before the inevitable strafe began Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 You've lost me - whats the relevance then to the pin in a tofee apple stick? It holds the warhead onto the stick. In my example the stick is solid steel and weighs about 15 lb. Here's a photo of the pin in relation to the stick and head. There is a hole in the collar and a corresponding one in the stick. Gunner Bailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 Thanks for the photo but my question taken in context of the post I was answering meant whats the relevance to a pin in a stokes round to the pin in a toffee apple - the answer of course being none Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 19 September , 2007 Share Posted 19 September , 2007 Thanks for the photo but my question taken in context of the post I was answering meant whats the relevance to a pin in a stokes round to the pin in a toffee apple - the answer of course being none Not quite true. There were some types of stokes detonators that had Mills Bomb like pins rings and levers, In fact some had two. So Stokes did have pins. I think Max has some good photos to illustrate this, but I don't have a Stokes in my collection, so can't help out. Gunner Bailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 20 September , 2007 Author Share Posted 20 September , 2007 Max has some excellent pics of a dismantled 3 inch Stokes Mortar detonator which are well worth including in here. Max i still have copies if you don't. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 20 September , 2007 Share Posted 20 September , 2007 Too long winded to dig out all the individual pics but there are a series of Stokes pics posted in this topic: Centurion - I think PBI was just posting the find of a Stokes out of interest - this topic being begun re' the find of a relic mortar round. Bet he wishes he hadn't bothered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 20 September , 2007 Author Share Posted 20 September , 2007 The reason i admire your pics is that I was to wary of taking mine apart in case i couldnt get it back together again! Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 20 September , 2007 Share Posted 20 September , 2007 Doh! Cannot believe I forgot I had the following info - this should confirm exactly which fuzes were used - lovely pic of Captain Newton's modified Pippin fuze here too: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 20 September , 2007 Share Posted 20 September , 2007 Continued (these three fuzes are not mine, I am afraid I cannot remember whose they are though...): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 September , 2007 Share Posted 20 September , 2007 Most interesting - three fuse types! (if we add the pressure fuse of 1918 that makes four). The workings of the 107 fuse matches Pratts description of his fuse so what is the 105 fuse for?. The workings of the time fuse match his description of the original fuse. I believe that the hand book was put out mid 1917 so this would suggest that all three types of fuse were still in use at that date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 20 September , 2007 Share Posted 20 September , 2007 Most interesting - three fuse types! (if we add the pressure fuse of 1918 that makes four). The workings of the 107 fuse matches Pratts description of his fuse so what is the 105 fuse for?. The workings of the time fuse match his description of the original fuse. I believe that the hand book was put out mid 1917 so this would suggest that all three types of fuse were still in use at that date. These manuals always seem to cover all types whether they are obsolete or not or even in limited use. Again, we will have to agree to disagree over Newton/Pratt but as the pic of the Pippin fuze in the link I gave earlier - pic repeated here shows it sure looks like Newton's baby to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 September , 2007 Share Posted 20 September , 2007 These manuals always seem to cover all types whether they are obsolete or not or even in limited use. Again, we will have to agree to disagree over Newton/Pratt but as the pic of the Pippin fuze in the link I gave earlier - pic repeated here shows it sure looks like Newton's baby to me! Well it would if as Pratt relates he used Newtonrs fuse as a starting point, especially if Newton's workshop subsequently manufactured them as he stated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59165 Posted 21 September , 2007 Share Posted 21 September , 2007 The reason I had a pop at toffe's on several threads for their unreliability was because of the amount I have found,fired & not exploded. I have never found one with a timer fuse on ,leading me to believe that they were altogether a better/more reliable fuse. Heres another Stokes photo & a nice little French 6 fin jobbie for frightening the kids at Halloween Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 21 September , 2007 Share Posted 21 September , 2007 59165 Your Halloween 'jobbie' appears to be a Van Deuren mortar round. These were a form of stick bomb with the finned tail fitting over the mortar barrel whilst the stick went inside. What is unusual is that, as far as I can ascertain, the stick was not fastened to the bomb (so it might be that your example was never fired and time and corrosion has welded the stick permentantly in place). By the accounts I have seen these 'hallowen toys' were deadly , used in some numbers and quite accurate I'd be interested to know the details of the fuse on the toffee apples you have found and how it is possible to tell that they have been fired. The fact that the end of the stick was seperated from the firing charge by three quarters of the lentgh of the barrel would suggest that there should be relatively little dammage on the end of the stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericwebb Posted 26 September , 2007 Share Posted 26 September , 2007 Does any of this I wonder shed any light on a quote I found in Philip Warner's Battle of Loos? A lieutenant in the 11th Essex describes going on a commanders' course at Camberley in the summer of 1915 where they were shown such wonders as the Lewis Gun, the Stokes Mortar and the Blacker Bombard 'just introduced a wire buster'. I looked up the Blacker Bombard and it was definitely a WW II weapon. Could warner's witness have been getting mixed up with the 'toffee-apple' device? Thanks all, Eric Webb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 26 September , 2007 Share Posted 26 September , 2007 Most odd Eric Summer 1915 is too early for both the 2 inch toffee apple which didn't enter service until the end of 1915 and possibly also for the Stokes which entered service at the end of August that year. Definitely not the Blacker Bombard spigot mortar. Possibly the Vickers 1.57 inch trench howitzer which also fired a toffee apple and the RML 4 inch mortar or (and I'd go for this) a case of misremembering a course in 1916. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericwebb Posted 26 September , 2007 Share Posted 26 September , 2007 Profuse thanks! Other internal evidence is overwhelming for this being a 1915 course so I expect he saw an early example of the Stokes shortly before they were rolled out generally. As for the 'Bombard' ???? !! Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 26 September , 2007 Share Posted 26 September , 2007 Eric Memories do get garbled and this officer was certainly mingling WW2 and WW1 so how far can one trust his recollections? One example from personal experience that illustrates the degree to which memory can fool us all At one time I had a great interst in WW2 fighters. I met a guy who had served in the RAF as a fitter in the late 1930s. He was absolutely adamant that his squadron had ben equiped with Boulton Defiant turret fighters and he had had a flight in one. Now the BP Defiant was a monoplane armed with a four gun perspex turret, the dates didn't fit but he continued to insist. Some easy research showed that his squadron had been equiped with Hawker Demon II turret fighters - these were biplane fighters with a single gun open powered turret but after thrity years his memory was confusing the two utterly different looking aircraft. A logical consistency check is always useful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now