Mystery object finally identified.

[Doug504]

It’s took over a year, but thanks to the many people on Twitter and Facebook and particularly the staff of the Royal Ulster Rifles museum we have an answer to the mystery object. Apparently a hand held grenade launcher invented by Sir Samual Cleland Davidson who founded the Sirocco works in Belfast.

 

Twitter thread here,

https://mobile.twitter.com/Taff_Gillingham/status/1244180281201999873
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NigelS]

Took a bit of time, but got there in the end!  Still remains a rather futuristic looking design though.

 

NigelS

[Martin Bennitt]

Looks like something the Men in Black might use.

 

I don't do Twitter of Facebook. Any idea of its effectiveness?

 

Cheers Martin B

[MikB]

Gobsmacking.

 

Presumably the shells/grenades were shot from the larger bore? What was the smaller top bore used for? Was any ammunition made in either calibre, and does any documentation of that survive?

 

It's hard to imagine how a useful range with a useful weight of projectile could be achieved whilst keeping recoil within tolerable limits.

[NigelS]

Looking at this guy's patents, with over 200 & many in air handling (tea & tobacco processing & packing appears to be another of his specialities) he appears to have been the Dyson of his day. The full version of the patent given above (US Patent PROJECTION OF EXPLOSIVE SHELLS, BOMBS, OR GRENADES. ) 
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=1299136A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19190401&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP shows provision for a tripod mount. (Not really practical for hanging  from the belt & posing with though!)

 

He clearly gave some thought to doing his bit for the war effort, some of his others munitions related patents:

GB Patent Improvements relating to the Projection of Explosive Shells, Bombs or Grenades.  
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=191513510A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19190313&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

From  a cursory glance through the drawings, if not the same, similar to the one above, but a much more detailed document, running to 44 pages...

 

US Patent Explosive shell
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=1292390A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19190121&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

 

GB Patent Improvements in or relating to Explosive Shells
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=191517802A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19161220&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

GB Patent An Improved Apparatus for Throwing Bombs and the like.  
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=191514168A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19161006&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

GB Patent Improvements relating to Flare-light Shells.  
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=127605A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19190612&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

 

Not being an expert on armaments & munitions, did any of these get put into major production during the war?

 

NigelS

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

20 minutes ago, Martin Bennitt said:

 

I don't do Twitter of Facebook. Any idea of its effectiveness?

 

Twitter & Facebook?

Or the grenade launcher?

[onesearch]

I agree the recoil could have been a little offputting but I wonder if the hole  (labeled 'q' ?) in the cross sectional view would have accepted a spigot that could be braced on the ground?  As for effectiveness ..... if it was really really useful I would have thought that they would be better known. Maybe.

Since some of the distances between trenches wasn't that great then I suppose the range wouldn't necessarily need to be huge eithe. Perhaps the advantage of the dicharger was that a bomb could be fired off from the confines of the trench without exposing the firer.

[MikB]

Well, one document proposes a range of 500 yards. The slotted cleat for'ard of the trigger guard looks as if it's for the tripod attachment - the geometry still looks likely to topple on recoil. 

There are some parts of the description that seem to suggest an early version of the hi-lo pressure principle is being proposed, though I don't know whether this would be the first instance.

I'm wondering if the smaller bore is in fact the vent being proposed to lower pressure if a shorter range is required - but if so, why's it got its own hammer, if that's what that projection is?

 

One of the ammunition documents proposes a black powder filling in order to achieve a fragmentation effect, which high explosive would defeat by shattering casings to dust. But that would also reduce the explosive energy available in a projectile that must be considerably lighter than a hand grenade.

 

I have to admit to feeling intensely sceptical of the fighting value of the device, and don't know whether it's worth putting the study in to wade through the verbosity of the documents... . 

[Skipman]

Wow! Well done all.

 

Mike

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Patented April 1st 1919.

 

[MikB]

8 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Patented April 1st 1919.

 

Ah.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

2 minutes ago, MikB said:

Ah.

Although filed in June 1917.

I thought the April 1st date was appropriate somehow.

Edited 29 March , 2020 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[MikB]

1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Although filed in June 1917.

I thought the April 1st date was appropriate somehow.

 

I have to agree. 

 

[TullochArd]

Fascinating thread - many thanks for posting.

[Dave66]

At last an answer to the thread that ran here....

Dave.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

I suppose,owning an engineering company, and clearly being au-fait with the patenting process, it would not be hard for him to get a prototype device knocked up. It would be far easier to demonstrate the device to the War Office  for example, showing how it worked, which end you stuffed the grenade in etc., rather than do the rounds just with a set of plans.

[Skipman]

Amazingly futuristic design. There cannot be many of us who had any faith that this was real. Extraordinary. Do we know which materials were used?

 

Mike

[NigelS]

On 30/03/2020 at 10:51, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I suppose,owning an engineering company, and clearly being au-fait with the patenting process, it would not be hard for him to get a prototype device knocked up. It would be far easier to demonstrate the device to the War Office  for example, showing how it worked, which end you stuffed the grenade in etc., rather than do the rounds just with a set of plans.

It might even be a non functional mock up made of, say, mainly wood. Guess a working version, whether prototype or production version, would have to have been made of steel which would make it rather heavy to carry, even if hung from a Sam Browne type belt - imagine having that swinging around on your hip as well.

 

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cleland_Davidson
During World War I the Sirocco works supplied the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy. When the German fleet was scuttled at Scapa Flow in 1919, it was discovered that nearly every German ship was equipped with Sirocco fans manufactured before the war.[1] Desperate to use his inventing skills to aid the war effort in World War 1, he designed and made prototypes of a hand-held grenade-launching pistol or 'Hand Howitzer' for use in the trenches where his son Jim was fighting as a machine gun captain. The American military were close to placing a big order for these when the war ended.

 

The entry also gives  that Davidson's  son James (Jim)  served as a captain with the 13th Royal Irish Rifles and was killed, aged 39, by a German sniper on the first day of the Somme while, having been shot in the knee, he was being carried back to the British trenches. In the original thread (as given in link  in post #15 above) the regiment of the 'model' was identified as a member of the Royal Irish Rifles, could it be that  this is in fact James? To my eyes there is a facial resemblance  between the man in the grenade launcher image (who looks as if he could be in his late 30's) and  those shown of Davidson senior in the Wikipedia article. James may have been killed on 1st July '16 nearly a year before the US patent was filed, but the earlier GB one - the 2nd I listed in post # 5 above - was applied for  in  September 1915, so the concept would probably have been worked on sufficiently to allow James to model a prototype or mock up of the later US version before he was killed.  

 

There are some more images of James at various ages & further biographical details given on the  'Inst in the Great War:The Fallen of RBAI' (Royal Belfast Academical Institution) website http://www.instgreatwar.com/page8.htm but, unfortunately, none giving a similar profile to that of the launcher image

 

Although said to have been working with a machine gun section at the time of his death, might James have taken a prototype launcher to the front, would it have been allowed?

 

NigelS

 

 

Edited 31 March , 2020 by NigelS
typo correction

[MikB]

14 hours ago, Skipman said:

Amazingly futuristic design. There cannot be many of us who had any faith that this was real. Extraordinary. Do we know which materials were used?

 

Mike

 

I still can't believe it was. The designer may've been an excellent engineer in his field, but the concept of launching any worthwhile sort of bomb from such a device - handheld or on a spindly tripod suitable for a camera - seems to me to be away with the fairies as far as ballistic realities are concerned. Compare it with the practicality of the later 2-inch mortar. I'd be happy to stand corrected, but I doubt if it ever got beyond the drawing board and non-firing mockup stage - and if it did, its almost certain failure at any rational testing stage would most likely have resulted in a coverup and swift abandonment, possibly with a cover story such as a large order forestalled by Armistice...

 

These things did happen. TT&H proposed a Mk.V Signalling Telescope which turned out to be a serious design debacle and never got beyond prototype stage.