JMB1943 Posted 8 December , 2014 Share Posted 8 December , 2014 I came across a reference to these in a regimental history in the 1915 time-frame. They were described as useless (failure to explode) and were quickly replaced by German stick bombs, which were laying around in the captured trench. Can anyone provide further info. on these ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 8 December , 2014 Share Posted 8 December , 2014 JMB I suspect it was the Battye grenade, invented by a Major Battye R.E. when improvisation was the order of the day. There is a thread on it here: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139499 TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 8 December , 2014 Author Share Posted 8 December , 2014 TR, Thanks for that nice link. So, apparently, a poor man's Mills bomb. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobL Posted 8 December , 2014 Share Posted 8 December , 2014 Ball no doubt the No 15 Cricket Ball bomb. Battye is sometimes known as the Bethune bomb from where they were manufactured Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 I don't think the Battye gave too much trouble - certainly the French also used large numbers of them with the Nobel's igniter. The real problem with the No.15 Ball issued in large numbers for Loos was that the Brocks igniter was tipped with match composition. This was protected by a thin lead alloy cap to ward off damp and to prevent accidental ignition. To fire the grenade the user pulled on a tape and ripped off the cap exposing the match. He then rubbed it against a matchbox friction strip mounted on a wood block which was worn on the weak arm as a brassard. This was not protected from the weather and in damp conditions rapidly became useless. The No.15 was then relegated to catapult use and large numbers were also sent to the Russians. Curiously the No. 16 which was identical apart from its shape continued in service - it is said that it was considered superior to the Mills for raids having relatively silent ignition and a better shape for throwing. It also had internal segmentation of the body and threw more regular fragments. However this may be, it too faded away during 1916. Damp was always a problem with ordnance. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 Having launched a great many 'bombs' from my replica Leach catapult, I consider the No 15 grenade far more troublesome to launch than any cylindrical pattern, as there is much less surface area gripped by the holding pouch on a spherical object in comparison to a cylindrical one. Slippage at the moment of launch can result in the No15 hitting the body of the catapult, gaining a vicious back-spin and coming back at you. Jam tin types make excellent catapult munitions provided the weight remains fairly constant. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 SW Re your comment " Curiously the No. 16 which was identical apart from its shape continued in service - it is said that it was considered superior to the Mills for raids having relatively silent ignition and a better shape for throwing." Do you have a source for that? I'd never heard it before. I would have thought a fizzing external fuze would have caught the attention more than one burning internally with the Mills? Especially at night. Production lasted only a year but sensibly the No 16 had internal segmentation. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 Here is the Number15 ball grenade c/w it's Brock's igniter. The fuze length would indicate that this example was probably intended for launching from a catapult rather than hand use. I'm afraid I sold my library off years ago John but it was most likely in a regimental history - but tell me where did you hear safety fuze 'fizzing' ? I've used quite a lot and it always burned silently although admittedly I was usually retreating! Also on No.15 grenades intended for hand use the fuze (apart from the igniter) was concealed within the body. On the other hand the 'crack' of a Mills arming is quite unmistakeable, - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 10 December , 2014 Share Posted 10 December , 2014 I think fizzing is a over dramatisation, but I've seen enough fuzes burning in the media to understand that most give off smoke (as Bickford) and some noise. I've never personally used Bickford fuze. When I've been out with the EOD, it's all electric now. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 10 December , 2014 Share Posted 10 December , 2014 Sure - I use to use electrical detonators with an exploder condenser to fire charges, but we used 4lb incendaries to destroy stores which would burn and these we lit with safety fuze. Always tested a short length of the coil by timing it - should be 30 secs a foot, plus or minus 7 secs. - SW 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