WW1 Grenades both British and Enemy.

[Ogilwy]

On 29/04/2017 at 19:29, Shiny said:

Shiny, 

A quick question, is this an Inert item?

Rod

 

 

 

[Gunner Bailey]

Here's a photo of two official drill dets for reference.

 

John

[Shiny]

Rod,

 

I hope so, it was sold on eBay about 2 weeks ago. I had a bid on it but it went for more than I wanted to pay.

 

John,

 

Thanks a lot for the photos, I don't suppose you could take one next to a ruler for me so I can give him an idea of the sizes?

 

Do you happen to know the name of the seller on eBay?

 

Michael

[Gunner Bailey]

Michael. It's Rick Stevens. I'll do the photo tomorrow, my camera battery needs recharge.

 

John

[Shiny]

That's great, thank you.

No hurry.

[Gunner Bailey]

Here you are Michael.

 

 

 

Edited 12 May , 2017 by Gunner Bailey

[Shiny]

Morning John, thanks a lot for that, I will still have a look on eBay as well though.

 

Michael 

[Ogilwy]

My only problem is that without being marked or obviously inert my colleagues will have to treat them as live.  Are they easily discernable as an inert replica?

 

 

[Gunner Bailey]

Some of the early replica dets just have a solid piece of copper as the det so are easily spotted. Later ones have drawn copper dets but are empty and sound empty if tapped.

Edited 15 May , 2017 by Gunner Bailey

[Shiny]

20 hours ago, Ogilwy said:

My only problem is that without being marked or obviously inert my colleagues will have to treat them as live.  Are they easily discernable as an inert replica?

 

 

 

Understood. If I manage to get one made would engraving inert on it be enough or should it be marked in some other way?

 

Michael 

[Gunner Bailey]

The replica Mills dets made by 'Dug Up' have inert engraved on the sides, as do the replica Kugel fuzes I had made a couple of years ago.

 

See photo.

 

John

Edited 16 May , 2017 by Gunner Bailey

[Ogilwy]

Yes the simple addition of INERT helps tremendously.  It's not us but the person 30 years from now that has to deal with it.

Rod

[Shiny]

I tried to contact Dug Up sometime ago when I saw their website but they didn't reply to the email. Pity because they have exactly what I was after.

 

Michael 

[Gunner Bailey]

Anyone know if a Biddulph grenade is in a museum somewhere?

[Gunner Bailey]

I'd only seen the diagram in the Lander's book and wondered if there was a museum example.

[Mike 39]

On 06/12/2016 at 08:57, venceremos said:

Bulgarians and marking on zynk one. I have one more for sale, it has the same marking.

These are basically identical to ones I have in my collection and that were New Zealand veteran souvenirs bought back from the Gallipoli campaign, 76mm cricket ball bombs. Certainly very scarce items in Southern Hemisphere collections. I have noted 4 variations in those found in NZ, largely based on different methods of mounting the ring ( some without a ring) to the grenades and catapult grenades which are larger in diameter and have a wooden plug as opposed to the brass plug in which to mount the fuse. Various ignition devices on the fuses as well, including a brass cap friction igniter ( which was tucked under the brass fuse retainer tongue) which when pulled, would strike a small flint creating enough spark to light the fuse. There is usually a maker stamp on the top side of the brass fuse retainer tongue.

Its difficult to know the origin of these grenades given their medieval design and lack of information about them, but I imagine that  given the huge demand on these ball grenades during the Dardanelles campaign, they would have been largely manufactured in Turkish foundries, with support supplies possibly coming from Bulgaria. I have read that an estimated 1/2million of these grenades were produced on a weekly basis during the Gallipoli campaign and given their prolific use, this is quite likely. The ANZACs went there with no grenades and then had to improvise by making jam tin bombs at an average rate of 250 a day. A request from the ANZACs needing 10,000 manufactured grenades per week fell on Hamilton's deaf ears. Once production of the Mills bomb was at a level of regular supply, evacuation plans from the peninsula were already under way.

[14276265]

23 hours ago, Mike 39 said:

A request from the ANZACs needing 10,000 manufactured grenades per week fell on Hamilton's deaf ears.

 

Whatever Sir Ian Hamilton's failings during the campaign, that comment is not a true reflection of his response to the issue of grenade supply.

 

ANZAC oversaw the production of spherical cricket ball type grenades in Malta and Egypt, which were shipped to Gallipoli within a few weeks of the landings. Both types were found to have unreliable fuzes and detonators, and were too heavy for use as hand grenades; with new fuzes cut they were ultimately used as catapult ammunition.

 

Hamilton was made aware of grenade shortcomings and reacted accordingly. On July 7, 1915 he sent a telegram to the War Office stating: "... I shall be very thankful for as many bombs of this and any other kind as you can spare. Anything made of iron and containing high explosive and detonator will be useful. ... The Turks have an unlimited supply of bombs and our deficiencies place our troops at a disadvantage both physically and morally and increase our difficulties in holding captured trenches. Could you arrange for a weekly consignment of 10,000 to be sent to us regularly."

 

This set in motion a series of urgent meetings with those responsible for grenade supply and on July 9, Trench Warfare Supply Department engineers met with a number of manufacturers in the north of England and thrashed out the design of the British Ball grenade, what was to become the No.15 hand grenade. Within seven days, 25,000 Ball grenades were made with friction igniters, and loaded, inspected, packed and despatched to a steamer which was bound for the Dardenelles. In addition,10,000 pitcher (Nos 13 and 14 grenades), 5,000 phosphorus grenades, and 330 catapults were provided in the same consignment.

 

By July 31, 65,000 Ball grenades had been shipped to the Dardenelles, and throughout August 145,000, September 260,000, October 230,000. While the No.15 grenade performed miserably in the wet conditions of the Battle of Loos on the Western front in October 1915, it performed well at Gallipoli. Memos generated within ANZAC report that it was a satisfactory grenade, far superior to the disliked Malta and Egypt grenades. As an extemporised grenade, the No.15 was designed for the troops at Gallipoli, was supplied very quickly, and proved its worth until Mills grenades began to arrive in small numbers at the end of August.

 

Sir Ian Hamilton can be credited with playing his part in getting the ball rolling.

 

 

[Gunner Bailey]

6 hours ago, 14276265 said:

Sir Ian Hamilton can be credited with playing his part in getting the ball rolling.

 

 

 

I like that.

 

The first Mills Grenades arrived in August, but the rate of supply was very slow, as it was in France. They were at first only used for training and it was only in December that a decent supply rate was achieved - just in time for the evacuation! So the main grenade in Gallipoli was the No 15.

 

[GWF1967]

3 X relic No.5 grenades. 

 Middle one is marked L. and 4. 

The third is marked  with an H. 

Opinions welcome on the base plug please - real/repro.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gunner Bailey]

Yes the base plug is real. It's a Lead antimony plug produced during the brass shortage in 1916. They were made for a few months before the No 5 was fully replaced by the No 23 Mk II in January 1917. The 23 Mk II had the cast iron plug.

 

The letters / numbers on the bodies are cast marks. All makers made their own casts which got worn and were replaced.

[GWF1967]

35 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

Yes the base plug is real. It's a Lead antimony plug produced during the brass shortage in 1916. They were made for a few months before the No 5 was fully replaced by the No 23 Mk II in January 1917. The 23 Mk II had the cast iron plug.

 

The letters / numbers on the bodies are cast marks. All makers made their own casts which got worn and were replaced.

Many thanks for your help G.B, it is always appreciated.  

  Guy. 

[calibre792x57.y]

Re the lead alloy base plug shown by Guy.  I have a No.5 Mk1 which has such a plug; it is dated March 1916 and the maker's name is embossed in the centre between the 'lugs' - 'Roneo' which suggests that the material may be Printer's Type alloy.  The centre piece is made from the same metal but with an assembled copper tube for the detonator housing.  The filling plug is brass and it has a solid head striker and the early 'U' section safety lever.   The grenade body is unremarkable. -  Some years ago when walking the fields near Pozieres I found an identical but live specimen.  -  Somme Walker

Edited 19 October , 2017 by calibre792x57.y
Add info.

[14276265]

An interesting point, Somme Walker. The proportions of lead-antimony-tin alloy specified for base plugs and centre pieces were approximately 79:16:5, which were very close to a standard type metal, so it is not inconceivable that Roneo used type metal supplies to hand. 

 

 

 

265

[Gunner Bailey]

From my experience of using 'lead' type in typesetting the lead antimony used in the base plugs is softer than that used in type. The base plugs are easily damaged whereas type was hard and could be dropped. Sometimes it actually broke in half if dropped on concrete. So I would not expect Roneo to use exactly the same mixture from base plugs as for type.

[Gunner Bailey]

If anyone has not seen one, here are some Lead based centre-pieces from Mills 23 Mk III and No 36 grenades up to 1918. The metal is soft like the base plugs and of course would have been subject to less wear being internal.

 

John

 

 

Edited 25 October , 2017 by Gunner Bailey