ServiceRumDiluted Posted 7 October , 2016 Share Posted 7 October , 2016 If anyone can confirm or deny that these are Fleigerbombe then i'd be very interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 7 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 7 October , 2016 Balls ! bigger ones. It seems the Germans had a similar idea for a ball shaped aerial bomb/mine, and this photograph shows French and Serbian troops hauling off a heavy German ' Ball ' bomb/Aerial Mine, which looks somewhat similar to the smaller British Mills aerial version, recovered from amongst the wreckage of Zeppelin LZ.85 at the mouth of the River Vardar in May 1916. The airship LZ.85 was brought down by gunfire from HMS AGAMEMNON on 5 May 1916 during the Macedonian Campaign. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 7 October , 2016 Share Posted 7 October , 2016 SRD, I think what you have are the remains of two of the (inert) item shown in the photo below. Sorry to disappoint but they are marked W D 1915. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ServiceRumDiluted Posted 7 October , 2016 Share Posted 7 October , 2016 No disappointment, a positive ID is always good, now if you don't mind me asking, what are they then? British aerial bombs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 (edited) Balls - Even Bigger ones - Interesting LF. Mills was obviously a year ahead of the Germans BUT I'm not sure when we ceased to publish war patents. So it could be that Mills patent was picked up by some spy and sent to Germany. John Edited 8 October , 2016 by Gunner Bailey typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 12 hours ago, ServiceRumDiluted said: No disappointment, a positive ID is always good, now if you don't mind me asking, what are they then? British aerial bombs? SRD, Yes, in my opinion a British aerial bomb. However, I have no information. Many years ago (in 1984!) I wrote to the IWM asking for any information they might have. A very helpful Mike Hibberd replied saying that whereas the IWM had two examples in their collection they had been unable to identify the precise designation despite having made enquiries of other authorities. My own view is that they may have been used for training purposes which is perhaps supported by the fact that your two examples are not too badly damaged. Perhaps another Forum member has some information? Regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14276265 Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said: Balls - Even Bigger ones - Interesting LF. Mills was obviously a year ahead of the Germans BUT I'm not sure when we ceased to publish war patents. So it could be that Mills patent was picked up by some spy and sent to Germany. Different beasts to the Mills Linked Grenades, which were proposed to be dropped on Zeppelins. The German bombs were dropped from Zeppelins onto ground targets. Top image is a German 60kg spherical bomb, bottom image a 100kg. 265 Edited 8 October , 2016 by 14276265 Labelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ServiceRumDiluted Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 Thanks for your reply Michael, training bombs would make sense. They are not iron, only very weakly magnetic, and one is much lighter than the other, which I took to be a weight saving measure for aeronautical use. I can't find anything else on the source as they came from a friend who understood them to be souvenirs from an air raid but had no real evidence for this. If I find anything further on them I'll let you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14276265 Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, ServiceRumDiluted said: No disappointment, a positive ID is always good, now if you don't mind me asking, what are they then? British aerial bombs? Often identified - or misidentified - as 3-lb British practice bombs from the 1920s, although the weight is probably about right. (They do not appear in the WWI British Air Ministry inventory of 1918.) One of the most difficult British aerial bombs to positively identify. 265 Edited 8 October , 2016 by 14276265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 8 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 8 October , 2016 (edited) The issue has been raised as to the carrying of smaller amounts of hand grenades by Bombers, and to specifically deal with this, the British Army did in fact issue 2 types of ' bucket ' Grenade Carriers, there was the larger canvas bucket which held 20 or more grenades, and also a smaller capacity hessian Grenade Carrier for lesser quantities, which using a hook fitting, could be attached to the Bomber's belt for added support. Both the larger and smaller Grenade Carriers were authorised for Army issue via the same British Army's List of Changes No. 20298 dated 23rd March 1916. These Army List of Changes strictly controlled the issue of British War Material approved for use by the Army. So clearly, the British Army's Bombers had options for carrying 20 or more grenades, when the larger bucket would have been used, and for the carrying of smaller amounts of grenades the smaller Grenade Carrier was available for use. The Army's List of Changes No. 20298 also detailed the materials to be used for the Grenade Carriers, those being ' Hessian ' for the smaller capacity Grenade Carrier and ' Waterproof Canvas ' for the larger Grenade Carrier. If items were to be coloured, the LoC would typically stipulate the colour to be used, and as no colour is stipulated, it is safe to assume the colour of the buckets would have been either the natural colour of hessian or canvas, and they were not painted. Here is the official text for the Army's List of Changes No. 20298 for Land use dated 23rd March 1916 covering both the larger Grenade Carrier and the smaller capacity Grenade Carrier :- 20298 - Carrier, hand grenades L 23 Mar 1916 Waistbelt. ( Mark I ) Hessian with hook " Bucket Type " ( Mark I ) Waterproof Canvas Introduction The waistbelt carrier consists of a bag of hessian about 9 3/4 inches wide and 12 3/4 inches deep, stitched with machine thread. It is fitted with a steel hook for attaching to the belt, and a drawstring run through eyelet holes. The " Bucket " type of carrier consists of a bag made of waterproof canvas lined with dowlas and stitched with machine thread, it is 10 inches wide and 14 inches deep ; the top is turned and stitched over 3/4 inch rope. A length of khaki webbing is stitched to the sides and carried over the top to form a sling with a brass runner in it for altering. A similar band is stitched round the upper part of the bag with eyelets worked in it to take a drawstring. In addition to the larger and smaller Grenade Carrying ' buckets ', LoC No. 20298 also mandated a 3rd type of Grenade Carrier, the ' 10 pocket ' ( Mark I ), with the following description :- " The Carrier, with 10 pockets, consists of a belt for the waist with a double row of five pockets and a sling for the shoulders ; it is made of khaki drill stitched with machine thread. The pockets are 2 3/4 inches diameter and 4 1/8 inches deep, fitted with flaps fastened by a press button ; the pocket portion is prolonged into two belts 1 inch wide, fastened by tying " Attached is a photograph showing all 3 Grenade Carriers mandated by LoC 20298, the 20 Grenade Carrier and the smaller capacity Grenade Carrier ' buckets ' and the 10 pocket Grenade Carrier. LF Edited 8 October , 2016 by Lancashire Fusilier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14276265 Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 For interest a report attached comparing the three carriers, bucket, waistcoat and belt bag. 265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 8 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 8 October , 2016 1 hour ago, 14276265 said: For interest a report attached comparing the three carriers, bucket, waistcoat and belt bag. 265 265, Another important and very interesting WW1 document evaluating the actual field use of the 3 Grenade Carriers covered by the Army List of Changes No. 20298. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 8 hours ago, 14276265 said: Different beasts to the Mills Linked Grenades, which were proposed to be dropped on Zeppelins. The German bombs were dropped from Zeppelins onto ground targets. Top image is a German 60kg spherical bomb, bottom image a 100kg. 265 265 Clearly though the first photo shown displayed some similarity. More akin to a giant No 15. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 Regarding buckets whilst knowing the status quo is useful, knowing what actually happened in the trenches is essential to the historian. The nearest we have on that is in post #769. What we have seen in the table in #769 indicates 15 was the practical load on a trench raid (probably in the smaller bucket) and the Diary of Bomber Harry Stinton indicates a bucket of 20 for static defence points in the trench system (probably in the larger bucket). The image shown in #767 looks overfull and being used in static defence may have 20 + grenades in it. I think anyone with any sense would dismiss the senior officer's suggestion that 4 buckets of 20 be carried. That is over 120 pounds and that was about the average weight of the men in the trenches. Yesterday I was reading of an experienced Australian officer who was 8 stone that's 112 pounds. I'd like to see him carry four buckets of grenades. I will keep my eye out for clear reports in personal histories and biographies which may solve the riddle. Hopefully someone can come up with something concrete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 In the orders for a very successful raid on the Turkish held Beach Post at Gaza the bombers are instructed to each carry four grenades in a sandbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 8 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 8 October , 2016 1 hour ago, T8HANTS said: In the orders for a very successful raid on the Turkish held Beach Post at Gaza the bombers are instructed to each carry four grenades in a sandbag. That is interesting, and the lowest number as yet quoted. It would have been a right pig, if 3 in the bag had been duds ! Currently, we now have 4 to 40, and I guess everything in between, let's see if anyone comes up with less than 4 ! Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 8 October , 2016 Share Posted 8 October , 2016 There must have been a terrible shortage of buckets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 8 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 8 October , 2016 22 minutes ago, T8HANTS said: There must have been a terrible shortage of buckets! Your figure of 4 in a bag for the raid on the Gaza Beach Post is actually the correct figure for the bag/bucket with the hook fitting for attaching to the Carrier's waistbelt, as on page 54 of the 1916 ' Bomber's Manual ', it quotes as follows :- " (b) Belt bag carrier - A canvas bag with steel hook, to be carried on waistbelt and hold four Mills grenades. The bag is closed by a piece of string. " Alternatively, section ( a ) states - " Bucket carrier - This is a canvas bucket with double bottom. It is carried by a sling of adjustable length, and will hold 20 Mills grenades. It is closed by a cord. " So 4 is probably the lowest number we should see. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 10 October , 2016 Share Posted 10 October , 2016 Here's one where a few heads may be scratched.... It's a so far unknown ball grenade, possibly Serbian from the Great War. Any ID would be appreciated. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 11 October , 2016 Share Posted 11 October , 2016 Looks like # 819 has everyone stumped. Here's a rare one that's hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14276265 Posted 11 October , 2016 Share Posted 11 October , 2016 Nice to see one with just a rod rather than the Hay Pocket Howitzer (spigot mortar) finned tail. Good photo, thanks. 265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 11 October , 2016 Share Posted 11 October , 2016 Thanks 265. The top hat is dated 1916. No other markings. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assafx Posted 16 October , 2016 Share Posted 16 October , 2016 On 10.10.2016 at 11:01, Gunner Bailey said: Here's one where a few heads may be scratched.... It's a so far unknown ball grenade, possibly Serbian from the Great War. Any ID would be appreciated. John The only thing this Grenade reminds me of, is this Ottoman type: I won't be surprised if your example came from the Balkans and was influenced by the Ottoman example. Assaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 17 October , 2016 Share Posted 17 October , 2016 Assaf Yes I agree. I think I saw a similar grenade with the half moon top in a museum somewhere but can't place it. I vaguely remember it being a naval ball grenade. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assafx Posted 17 October , 2016 Share Posted 17 October , 2016 John, maybe in the IWM? http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30021478 The three i photographed were found in Israel. In this case, the Police EOD Team kept a few examples for training. Having a friend among them, i had his permission to photograph these and a few others. Assaf 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