1 KRRC 27th Feb. 1918.

[Simon Birch]

The text below came from 1 KRRC war diary, 27 Feb. 1918, from the National Archives Ref: WO 95/1371/2 p.154.

 

Has anyone heard of a case like it, or know of any details of the manufacturer. It would also be interesting to know if the army had taken any steps to recover the defective ordnance before it reached the frontline. It makes interesting reading.

 

Simon

 

[Colin W Taylor]

Simon,

 

If you can look up an officer file for the officer in question it might give details of the court of enquiry. Likewise, if service records survive for the two soldiers this might give further information. The trench mortar battery diary may also enlighten you if it exists.

 

Cases of premature explosions or accidents were not uncommon with the mass production of ammunition and a desire to manufacture in bulk with possible compromises in quality. However, trench mortars were not designed for anti-aircraft fire nor were they safe weapons.  It is not impossible that an error by the gun crew may have resulted in the explosion; without knowing the exact mortar type and fuze used it is impossible to know. Though many components would be batched and numbered I'm not sure how easily such information about the source of the bomb could be found out with the number of contractors and sub-contractors involved in the manufacture of ammunition. 

 

Good luck in your research.

 

Colin

Edited 19 October , 2020 by Colin W Taylor

[Colin W Taylor]

The two men killed were Sgt/CSM Matthew Birkett MM (1st KRRC attached 99th Trench Mortar Battery) and Pte/LCpl George William Bond (23rd RF attached 99th TMB). They were two victims of the 'Suicide Club'.

 

No obvious information in 99 Brigade HQ, Div Admin or CRA diaries. No diary survives for 99th LTMB for Feb 1918.

 

Regards

 

Colin

Edited 19 October , 2020 by Colin W Taylor

[Alan24]

Apparently a very common problem with this weapon.

 

Details of a similar incident are contained in the service file of 41077 FJT Hutchinson RFA. HERE

 

No Court of Enquiry was held but the files contain witness statements.

[Simon Birch]

Gents thanks for your input.

 

I believe that this was the trial mentioned (From: Diss Express - Friday 30 November 1917, British ~Newspaper archive)

 

[Colin W Taylor]

Simon,

 

Quite probably, the timings would fit.

 

To be fair to Brown at his appeal William Stokes, the inventor of the Stokes Mortar, presumably the mortar in question, stated that he would be happy to fire the bombs in question and that they would not raise any safety concerns. However, despite this, Brown had deviated from the required specification and the appeal failed; his punishment stood. This was published on 15 February so it was close to the event above: https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl%2f0000322%2f19180215%2f048&stringtohighlight=arthur edward brown munitions. It still does not necessarily follow that the bomb in the incident above was one manufactured by Brown. 

 

Regards

 

Colin

[PRC]

If anyone is interested in a bit more detail in the case that led to this munition supplier being jailed, heres how the Times reported it.

 

On Monday 5th November 1917 there is a report of charges being made in the police court the previous Saturday, (3rd), that Arthur Edward Brown had acted to knowingly mislead and deceive the Government examiner as to quality of the Stokes Bombs supplied, that they were manufactured contrary to the official specification, to "the inevitable result of which, if they had been fired, would have been premature explosions causing death, not to the enemy, but to our own soldiers." The background was the defendant was the managing director of a brickmaker which since 1915 had completed satisfactorily three contracts for the manufacure of bombs. For a contract starting July 1916, a considerable quantitiy of bombs were delivered to the government warehouse in May 1917 - it was then that the defects were discovered. The defendant the prosecution said had made various excuses, including that the variation from specification had been agreed with the inspectors. The Ministry of Munitions had debated whether this should be heard before a Court Martial rather than a Criminal Court, but there appeared to be no treacherous motive or design to assist the enemy. Defence asked for an adjournment as this was the first they had been made aware of the full nature of the charges.

 

 

On Thursday 15th November 1917 the case resumed, (reported the next day in The Times).

 

Defendant gave evidence as to past satisfactory delivery on the three contracts, bar 600 bombs rejected and corrected, and the firm looked to take out a fourth contract in June 1916 for Stokes bombs, but while negotiating decided to push on with production. However while the contract was being negotiated the specifications, including the diameter of the base of the bomb, changed. There was a nationwide shortage of materials, and so the company looked to re-purpose some of the parts already manufactured. Defendant designed a way to do so, instructed a foreman to prepare a sample and agree it with the Examiner. Defendant was subsequently told this was done, but in other matters the foreman proved unreliable and was later dismissed. The defendant believed of the 13,000 supplied only 300 were of the repuposed kind.

 

 

A more expanded version of the verdict appeared in The Times on Thursday, November 22nd, 1917. Defendant was to appeal - see article cited by Colin.

 

 

(All images courtesy of The Times Digital Archive).

 

It's not clear from the report whether any of the bombs made it past the Ministry of Munitions and into the Army supply chain.

 

Hope that is of interest,

Peter

Edited 20 October , 2020 by PRC
Typo

[Guest]

  "Discovery" at TNA shows a number of files relating to defective munitions, if searched for on those 2 words.  The No.100 Fuse seems to have been a particular problem.  Files relate not just to a Brentwood brickmaker,as above, but to such illustrious names as the Great Western Railway (as manufacturer of shells)  and Bethlehem Steel (ditto). 

    In addition, it was not quite true that Stokes Bombs could not be used for AA purposes- or nearly so. There is a file on the use of Stokes Bombs for shooting at kite balloons:

 

 

    I have  2 local casualties who were known to be killed by defective munitions- both Mills Bombs. The first was killed on the Somme 1916 during an attack- pulled the pin on a grenade and it exploded prematurely. The second was behind the lines with a squad waiting for a trench raid. An NCO demonstrated how to cut extra slits in a jerkin to store bombs and pull them out more quickly- rather than carry them in webbing kit. When the NCO demonstrated, the pin fell out of the grenade,exploded and killed the NCO and my local man. The NCO, bizarrely, was posthumously awarded the Albert Medal in Gold (predecessor of the George Cross) but the Court of Inquiry recommended various matters relating to bombs and their storage.  Given the sensitivity of the subject-the more so after the shell scandal of 1915 that brought down Asquith- I would not expect the paperwork to have been  kept for the archives-too touchy a subject.

[Colin W Taylor]

GUEST,

 

I stand corrected; although I'm not sure I'd advise the use of a Stokes Mortar to hit low flying aircraft.

 

Regards

 

Colin

[Guest]

On 22/10/2020 at 21:03, Colin W Taylor said:

GUEST,

I stand corrected; although I'm not sure I'd advise the use of a Stokes Mortar to hit low flying aircraft.

 

Regards

 

Colin

 

     Hi Colin- I suspect the results were not good-and that the pilot/crew of any aircraft fired at by a Stokes Mortar would be statistically much safer than the mortar crew that fired it.