Dorset1 Posted 3 December , 2015 Share Posted 3 December , 2015 Was this utilised during ww1 ? I have read that it was not introduced until the 1930's ? Did the mine play a big part in the first war ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 3 December , 2015 Share Posted 3 December , 2015 Well...no. Seeing as the S-Mine (aka the 'Bouncing Betty' ...a term coined by the GI's after first encountering them in 1943) wasn't developed until 1935 (as you, yourself, have read), it would have been impossible for it to have seen any use in WW1. As for AP mines in general during WW1... they saw some limited use (but were mainly in the form of booby-traps and/or altered munitions (I.E.D.'s in today's terminology)) but certainly didn't play a big part. Sea mines, land mines (the tunnelled variety) and, by 1918, the development of AT mines all played a far larger role than AP mines during WW1. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 4 December , 2015 Share Posted 4 December , 2015 There are reports of the utilisation of the improvised mines being employed in an almost identical way to modern mines. I have never seen a bounding mine and think that would be an improvisation too far! One thing that makes this possible is that Batteries were available and Detonator Demolition Electric was in service so the utilisation of simple circuits to manufacture devices for whatever reason was now viable. Not only were improvised devices used but the Germans used a fake GR Z fuze which was actually a variable time booby trap. This was a 'left behind' for the destruction of either gun positions or ammunition depots with one or more being left in the position in the ammunition supplies to act as a long delay charge. These are not common but I do know of one instance in the last ten years where one of these possibly killed several people. Unfortunately there was not enough left of anything in the area (as multiple shell functioned) for positive identification but the detail and scenario make this the most likely cause. A lesson for all of us, 100 years on, these still function as intended! An interesting improvisation documented by an Ordnance Officer is the use of a chemical shell used to slow release into a building. This is almost area or structure denial as opposed to just Anti-Personnel and shows the variation of tactics employed by the Germans later on in the war. Welcome to my world, and favourite subject. Any pictures of booby traps 'in-situ' would be gratefully recieved as I would like to use them for teaching. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ServiceRumDiluted Posted 4 December , 2015 Share Posted 4 December , 2015 There was also the Priest, Pineapple, Dove or Taube mortar, not sure of the official description,used by the Germans. This was a spigot mortar which fired a finned projectile. This had a variant which had a small cup with a charge on the nose designed, upon landing, to throw the projectile back up in the air a few feet before detonating. I MIGHT have dreamed this and can't remember where I saw it, but I expect passion-compassion has a reference. I doubt it was called a bouncing betty though. Knowing the Tommies prediction for naming nasties after food stuff it might well have been named after something which often came back up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 4 December , 2015 Share Posted 4 December , 2015 The 'Priester' spigot-mortar was so-called because it was designed by a Hungarian (I think) priest called Vecer. The model made under licence in Germany was also known as the 'Granatenwerfer 16'. I've never heard of a projectile for this weapon that 'bounced' back into the air, though. The standard projectile would only penetrate the softest ground, so most of the fragments were released above ground level anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ServiceRumDiluted Posted 4 December , 2015 Share Posted 4 December , 2015 I didn't dream it, there is a photo of the rebounding projectile on the passion-compassion website uder the German grenades section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14276265 Posted 4 December , 2015 Share Posted 4 December , 2015 In addition to the rebounding Wurfgranate, the Germans used the electrically fired Schrapnellmine-A in small numbers. Designed by the Danish engineer Neils Aasen, he patented in Norway in 1913, and in Britain in 1914 - British patent GB191412797. 265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_H Posted 5 December , 2015 Share Posted 5 December , 2015 Here is a French diagram of the bouncing Granatenwerfer bomb with is small expelling charge in the extra casing over the normal shaped bomb. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 5 December , 2015 Share Posted 5 December , 2015 Perhaps irrelevant, but am I correct in recalling that the U.S. Used an anti personal mine also called Bouncing Betty during the Vietnam War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 In addition to the rebounding Wurfgranate, the Germans used the electrically fired Schrapnellmine-A in small numbers. Designed by the Danish engineer Neils Aasen, he patented in Norway in 1913, and in Britain in 1914 - British patent GB191412797. 265 14276265, Can you give me a reference for that document please, or is it just the patent document? A new item I've never seen, (joy upon joy)! I shall email the Demineur and DOVO and see if they have the full technical detail, (and maybe a spare example of one)! I keep telling our guys that the day you think you know everything about ammunition and EOD then stop and retire, that's the day you'll kill yourself and this is another good example of that! I'd forgotten the bounding Granatenwurfer. I believe that was to get round the problem of projectiles burying themselves in the mud and reducing their effect. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14276265 Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 14276265, Can you give me a reference for that document please, or is it just the patent document? A new item I've never seen, (joy upon joy)! I shall email the Demineur and DOVO and see if they have the full technical detail, (and maybe a spare example of one)! 31543 Ogilwy, I don't have a reference for the German document from which the drawing is taken, but herewith a modern German note which I understand refers to it . The patent is a different document altogether but has some similar drawings. French EOD will no doubt have some record, as the French encountered examples in 1917 (and Vincennes holds some information apparently). 265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 I'd forgotten the bounding Granatenwurfer. I believe that was to get round the problem of projectiles burying themselves in the mud and reducing their effect. The Priester spigot-mortar projectile was only a little chap, Rod, and therefore unlikely to sink to any depth in semi-solid mud. But if it plopped into in deep porridge mud and water, would the rebounding charge be sufficient to extract it and propel it back into the air again? Indeed would any part of it detonate? A lot of these things were also fired on a low trajectory at breastworks, parapets, etc, where the 'bounce back before detonating' feature would actually defeat the object ... but perhaps the rebounding variant was not used on such targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 SG, Interesting theories! I've posed this one to the bretherin to get their opinions. The charge would I think extract it however the question 'would any of it detonate is a good one. The slowing effect of glutinous mud and effectiveness of basic DA fuzes is not a good mix. Even with a graze element I wonder how they might be affected. I shall look at the details in the records as my curiosity is now piqued and this might have a direct effect on other studies I am involved in. I think your point about low angle shots would be interesting. I would have thought that the penetration of the charge much more efficient, (EG SAP-HE) so your comment on the efficiency of a bounding version I think accurate in that it would lessen the effect not augment it. 265, Thanks for that, I've sent out a call to my fellow Operators in France and Belgium and will see what they come up with. An example would be nice but I am sure that horse trading will be required to secure one. Regards to all, Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislock Posted 12 December , 2015 Share Posted 12 December , 2015 A most enlightening thread and thank you for sharing with us. :-) 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