Mark I tank photo from IWM

[Tom W.]

There is a big difference between lobbing a multi headed grenade or a bag down into a trench and up on top of a tank. Do you have evidence in this case that they were multi headed anyway rather than a bag?. In WW2 such charges were always placed. If the British were aware of "the method used to destroy wire meshing" as you say why would they bother to use mesh at all?

We're talking about two different things. The concentrated charges-in-a-bag I described consisted of sand bags half- or three-quarters filled with hand grenade heads. You describe four full hand grenades in a bag, which you say the men threw.

The way the multi-headed concentrated charges were constructed was that detonators were jammed in the openings of the grenade heads with slivers of wood. Thus exposed, they could be made to explode simultaneously when the single lanyard of the full grenade was yanked. The same principle worked for the concentrated charges-in-a-bag that consisted of hand-grenade heads. Each head had a detonator jammed in the opening with a sliver of wood.

I don't know how you could make four full hand grenades explode simultaneously if the detonators in the heads were all inside wooden handles, sealed momentarily from the blast of the single lanyard you pulled.

I misspoke when I said that the British knew of the use of concentrated charges and the fishhooks at the same time. Clearly the British weren't aware of the fishhooks when they first devised the grenade screens. What I meant to say was they devised the screen and then abandoned it when it was clear that it wasn't effective.

This well-known photo shows a shock-troop officer posing with a concentrated charge in a throwing position. Anleitung für Kompagnieführer (K.F.U.) states clearly that the charge is thrown. The book Gustav Goes, Hartmannswillerkopf. French translation by P. Waechter (Paris: Payot, 1934), pp. 130-149, states clearly that the pioneer officer threw the five concentrated charges from inside the trench.

[Tom W.]

You keep quoting stuff years after the tanks were introduced and saying 'but it was done long before this' - this is not evidence of anything!

No, your premise that the multiheaded concentrated charges were not used before 1916 was based on your misconception that there were no timed-fuse stick grenades until 1916. You were wrong. I also quoted a description of a battle in which an officer threw five concentrated charges from inside a trench in 1915. I also quoted from a German manual that states that concentrated charges were thrown, not placed. I also provided a photo of an officer posing as if to throw a concentrated charge.

You're also wrong when you claim that the date of publication of a manual or captured document means that was the year the tactic was used. The first shock-troop tactics were used in May of 1915 by the Bavarian Ersatz Division, but Willy Rohr didn't write a manual for their use until mid 1916.

[centurion]

We're talking about two different things. The concentrated charges-in-a-bag I described consisted of sand bags half- or three-quarters filled with hand grenade heads. You describe four full hand grenades in a bag, which you say the men threw.

The way the multi-headed concentrated charges were constructed was that detonators were jammed in the openings of the grenade heads with slivers of wood. Thus exposed, they could be made to explode simultaneously when the single lanyard of the full grenade was yanked. The same principle worked for the concentrated charges-in-a-bag that consisted of hand-grenade heads. Each head had a detonator jammed in the opening with a sliver of wood.

I don't know how you could make four full hand grenades explode simultaneously if the detonators in the heads were all inside wooden handles, sealed momentarily from the blast of the single lanyard you pulled.

I misspoke when I said that the British knew of the use of concentrated charges and the fishhooks at the same time. Clearly the British weren't aware of the fishhooks when they first devised the grenade screens. What I meant to say was they devised the screen and then abandoned it when it was clear that it wasn't effective.

This well-known photo shows a shock-troop officer posing with a concentrated charge in a throwing position. Anleitung für Kompagnieführer (K.F.U.) states clearly that the charge is thrown. The book Gustav Goes, Hartmannswillerkopf. French translation by P. Waechter (Paris: Payot, 1934), pp. 130-149, states clearly that the pioneer officer threw the five concentrated charges from inside the trench.

Of couurse we are talking about two different things - you are stating that concentrated demolition charges were used against tanks with bomb roofs without a shred of evidence that this was so. I am quoting dated German documents showing how and when smaller concentrated charges were actually used against tanks at a much later date.

The bomb roofs were only in use for a very short time (possibly no more than a week at most) and there is no evidence of any of them being attacked with such demolition charges

Do you really know how explosives work? One grenade head exploding will detonate adjacent ones whether they have their own detonators or not. Thats what happens in munition dump explosions

One rather ridiculous posed photo proves absolutely nothing.

Come to think of it this whole conversation is getting ridiculous.

[Tom W.]

Come to think of it this whole conversation is getting ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as claiming that the German M.1915 stick grenade wasn't issued in a timed-fuse version. That's so basic I'm shocked that you didn't know it.

In addition, I never said that concentrated demolition charges consisting of sand bags half- or three-quarters filled with grenade heads were used on roofs of tanks. I disputed that notion. You've inverted the conversation here. You said grenades in bags were used, but you didn't make clear that you meant four full hand grenades in a bag. I misunderstood, and you went off on one of your patented hissy fits.

Business as usual.

[RodB]

Handgrenades at twenty paces. Seriously though, it must have taken balls to attack a tank with a couple of grenades, either in a sack or tied together. I wonder what the survival rate was in such an action.

[Ogilwy]

At least with the stick grenade bundles they are a light skinned, low fragmentation grenade. Imagine the flying metal that someting like Kugel grenades (or the British Mills type family) would create! Anywhere in the open throwing something like that is definate posthumous medal country!!

With stick grenades as there are no heavy fragments to penetrate the armour then they must have been trying to get the armour to 'scab' or fail completely (it becomming the fragmentation). You would be as well using a bundle of Guncotton slabs. Anywhere close to the armour and the chance of scabbing from the armour deforming would be equally as good (but with no fragmentation from the weapon).

[delta]

The defenders of Flesquieres used such devices to stop the tanks entering the village on 20 November 1917. I assumed that they were trying to break or damage the tracks.

But I could be wrong

[Ogilwy]

The defenders of Flesquieres used such devices to stop the tanks entering the village on 20 November 1917. I assumed that they were trying to break or damage the tracks.

But I could be wrong

A non-moving tank is called a TARGET!

Almost as much fun to shoot at as any aircraft!

[James H]

What strikes me in all this discussion is that the Mk I is shown fitted with the grenade netting before it has been in action. Whatever the Germans might have contrived later, why would they have prepared multiple charges at a time when they didn't know tanks existed? And why would the British think they would? AFAIK, the netting was designed with single grenades in mind. Even one could buckle plate and cause spall to be thrown off on the inside.

[centurion]

What strikes me in all this discussion is that the Mk I is shown fitted with the grenade netting before it has been in action. Whatever the Germans might have contrived later, why would they have prepared multiple charges at a time when they didn't know tanks existed? And why would the British think they would? AFAIK, the netting was designed with single grenades in mind. Even one could buckle plate and cause spall to be thrown off on the inside.

I agree wiyth you in general but have seen no evidence that a single grenade could cause the damage you suggest. German sources state that single grenades had been found to be ineffective against tanks (so they were tried), Spall (ie fragments of armour) was not thrown off in the rhomboid tanks, There were two problems 1] fragments of paint from the shock wave of bullets striking 2] molten lead squirting theough joints in the plates caused by the kinetic energy melting the bullet when it struck the plate.

[centurion]

The defenders of Flesquieres used such devices to stop the tanks entering the village on 20 November 1917. I assumed that they were trying to break or damage the tracks.

But I could be wrong

I'd already posted in this thread the account by the officer defending Flesquieres against the tanks so I won't repeat it but he makes it clear that they first tried single grenades under the tracks and this didn't work so he made up some combined charges using four grenade in a sand bag with one of the handles sticking out (so the fuse could be activated). These were lobbed under the tracks by two of his most burly men and this worked. His account clearly shows that this was improvised at the time