Bombs stuffed with sawdust.

[hazelclark]

i am at present giving my over taxed brain some light relaxation, by rereading my favourite war book. I know that many of you have given it bad press but Martin Gilbert's is by far the easiest and therefore most enjoyable WW1 History for my money. Anyway, in discussing Aubers Ridge, he says that a German regimental diary states that some of the bombs that were made in the U.S. were duds stuffed with sawdust. I knew that there were lots of duds in those days but Sawdust?

Anyone ever heard this before?

thanks,

Hazel

[roel22]

I'd love to read an eyewitness-account of Germans who were hit by sawdust...

Roel

[Steven Broomfield]

Indeed ... woodn't it be lovely?

[centurion]

Was this a reference to mortar bombs, grenades or aircraft bombs?

[KevinBattle]

.... ze bomben explodeder und I saw dust.....? hat, coat, exit left

[centurion]

Well i wondered - a dud shell would tend to bury itself - would anyone want to dig it out (risking a hang fire going off) and unscrew the fuse to find out what was in it?

[squirrel]

I'd love to read an eyewitness-account of Germans who were hit by sawdust...

Roel

If the shell hit you there would be no need to worry about the sawdust.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

They were probably referring to ' training/practice ' hand grenades, which sometimes, were filled with sawdust.

LF

[Khaki]

Ever get sawdust in your eye? really stings, possibly a weapon of mass 'construction'

khaki

[centurion]

They were probably referring to ' training/practice ' hand grenades, which sometimes, were filled with sawdust.

LF

And how come a German regiment was using American practice grenades? Or a British one throwing practice ones in action?

[Lancashire Fusilier]

And how come a German regiment was using American practice grenades? Or a British one throwing practice ones in action?

Ask Hazel, it was her question.

[centurion]

Ask Hazel, it was her question.

but your answer

[Lancashire Fusilier]

but your answer

In Hazel's book, there is an undated reference to American armaments " a German regimental diary states that some of the bombs that were made in the U.S. were duds stuffed with sawdust. " These American ' bombs ' were either purchased by the Germans from American armament companies prior to WW1, or were captured American armaments, and could have included supplies of training or practice hand grenades ' bombs '. Practice or training hand grenades were sometimes filled with sawdust, and it may be those sawdust filled practice or training grenades which are being referred to in Hazel's quote.

LF

[johnboy]

Another one bites the dust....

[hazelclark]

Sorry guys, the bombs in question were fired by the British at Auber's Ridge.

"Many of the shells were too light to do serious damageto the German earthworks. Others were defective. One German Regimental Diary reported that shells falling onit's front were duds, made in the United States and filled with sawdust instead of explosives".

I didn't make it up. honest! Page159 Martin Gilbert's "First World War"

Hazel

[centurion]

So shells then not grenades! Which takes care of post 8. But it does beg the question implicit in my post 6 how would they know they were sawdust filled? This has the air of the regimental diary repeating either something off the latrine telegraph or government propaganda (or possibly both).

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Sorry guys, the bombs in question were fired by the British at Auber's Ridge.

"Many of the shells were too light to do serious damageto the German earthworks. Others were defective. One German Regimental Diary reported that shells falling onit's front were duds, made in the United States and filled with sawdust instead of explosives".

I didn't make it up. honest! Page159 Martin Gilbert's "First World War"

Hazel

Hazel,

There were 2 shell scandals in 1915, one related to the British armament factories not being able to keep up with production, hence there was a dire shortage of shells for the guns on the Western Front, and secondly, there was another scandal relating to some unscrupulous American armament suppliers profiteering by shipping shells loaded with sawdust rather than explosives.

It is the results of second ' scandal ' which are being referred to in the book.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

So shells then not grenades! Which takes care of post 8. But it does beg the question implicit in my post 6 how would they know they were sawdust filled? This has the air of the regimental diary repeating either something off the latrine telegraph or government propaganda (or possibly both).

It also takes care of posts 4 - 6 - 10 - and 12

[centurion]

It also takes care of posts 4 - 6 - 10 - and 12

Explain please

[Terry_Reeves]

The problem is the context. It may well have been a tongue in cheek remark.

TR

[Lancashire Fusilier]

"Many of the shells were too light to do serious damageto the German earthworks. Others were defective. One German Regimental Diary reported that shells falling onit's front were duds, made in the United States and filled with sawdust instead of explosives".

Here is a report making reference to both ' scandals '.

Regards,

LF

" On 14 May Lt Col Langham, Commanding 5th Royal Sussex wrote:

"We had, therefore, to mop up on the front of the two assaulting Battalions and it means sending up a third Company to follow the KRRs and 'mop up' behind the Northants. After a bombardment of 40 minutes to break up the German barbed wire and smash up the parapet, the advance began. Three Companies of the 2nd Battalion and all the Northants went out over and got to from 40 to 80 yards from the German lines. "C" Company, less one platoon, "A" Company , less one platoon and the whole of "B" Company, went out in the second line, and two Companys of the KRRs. Then the most murderous rifle machine gun and shrapnel fire opened and no one could get on or get back. People say the fire at Mons and Ypres was nothing to it. No end of brave things were done, and our men were splendid but helpless. They simply had to wait to be killed. After some considerable time, we got - orders to retire, but this was easier said than done. Some men were 300 yards out from our parapet, many dead and some even on fire; and in two cases, men of ours who were burning alive, committed suicide, one by blowing out his brains, and another cut his own jugular vein with the point of his bayonet."

What went wrong? First - the bombardment failed to breach the German wire and demolish the parapets of their front line trenches. Why? Certainly because there were too few guns deployed and too little ammunition available. It was also claimed that many of the shells were duds and failed to explode - even perhaps that they were American shells filled with sawdust. "

[ServiceRumDiluted]

Between dud shells and his bread ration the german soldier must have seen more sawdust than the average lumberjack!

[centurion]

No one doubts that there were many duds but so far no one has shown any proof that any were American sawdust filled shells, perhaps it was a bit like saying of a fault ridden car "it must have been one off the Friday afternoon shift"

[hazelclark]

Thanks guys, it didn't sound very credible to me I have to say! Since I have read the book a couple of times I just wanted to know if it was even possible, because it bothered me!

H

[IanA]

My father was a joiner who used to work with various hardwoods. Some of them (mahogany substitutes) were quite lethal and the dust brought on acute respiratory symptoms. I reckon this was an early form of chemical warfare. I think we should be told - was the sawdust hardwood or softwood? Was it hazel??