Air bomb?

[Rafal1971]

Hallo,

What kind of air bomb is this?
Russian Cyrillic P suggests origin.

Best Rafal

[Gunner Bailey]

The central part with the rings is from a M1914 German rifle grenade.  It looks more like an improvised hand grenade.

[14276265]

On 19/07/2023 at 19:02, Rafal1971 said:

Hallo,

What kind of air bomb is this?
Russian Cyrillic P suggests origin.

Best Rafal

 

It is a 1 kg Carbonit Bombe (CB1), nicknamed the "Fliegermaus" and built around the body of the Gewehrgranate 1914.

Herewith a French plate:

 

[Rafal1971]

Thank you very much for the exhaustive answer

Best regards Rafal

[Gunner Bailey]

Certainly a rare item. I've not seen any examples in museums. I wonder if production numbers are known?

[Rafal1971]

No manufacturer markings or other factory features
 There are no production numbers on any of the parts.
Only on the wing there is something like a Russian letter P or two Roman ones joined together.

Best regards Rafal

[Gunner Bailey]

It's an interesting piece but does look like something knocked up in a squadron workshop. It's said the first bombs dropped in the war were simply German M1913 rifle grenades dropped on Paris. I don't know when the German Air Force had its first 'real' bombs.

[Rafal1971]

I'm not an expert on this type of military, but ...
Since there is a drawing in a French publication with drawings and measurements of all parts, the bomb has a name, a dedicated fuse - I don't think that such bombs are made by workshops at the airfield ...

Today's find that confirmed my opinion ....

 

[14276265]

1 hour ago, Rafal1971 said:

 I don't think that such bombs are made by workshops at the airfield ...

 

The bombs were production stores that first used an aerial percussion fuze, as shown.  Such bombs were reported as having been dropped on London in a Zeppelin raid of 31st May 1915, but were also dropped from aeroplanes.

A second type of fuze, using an allways mechanism (the usual affair of a steel ball acting within two coned surfaces) replaced the somewhat unreliable percussion fuze. The photo shows an example.

 

 

Edited 24 July , 2023 by 14276265

[Gunner Bailey]

Very interesting. I had read about the Zeppelin raids on London but never saw a mention of small bombs being used.

2 hours ago, Rafal1971 said:

I'm not an expert on this type of military, but ...
Since there is a drawing in a French publication with drawings and measurements of all parts, the bomb has a name, a dedicated fuse - I don't think that such bombs are made by workshops at the airfield ...

Today's find that confirmed my opinion ....

 

Re : 

I'm not an expert on this type of military, but ...
Since there is a drawing in a French publication with drawings and measurements of all parts, the bomb has a name, a dedicated fuse - I don't think that such bombs are made by workshops at the airfield ...

In the first years of the war many items were made in workshops or even in the field rather than factories. Jam tin bombs, Hairbrush type grenades, the British Battye being examples. Drawing exist for them but they were not made in their millions. 

[Chasemuseum]

With a mercury fulminate detonator in a melanite gaine, there can be no doubt that this was an engineered munition manufactured in a factory and filled in in a dedicated explosives filling factory. 

 

The "improvised" munitions feature taking pre-fabricated explosive components and assembling them in field workshops. Mercury fulminate is not a nice chemical. It is highly toxic, reacts with many chemicals (to become inert) and really likes to explode with little encouragement. Although very widely used in detonators and percussion caps in WW1, this is not a field workshop component.

[Gunner Bailey]

Well, fulminate of mercury was standard in pretty well all detonators, including those used in jam tins. I will admit that the internals of the fuze must have been factory made but the rest of the design is pure 'workshop' even down to using a cloth streamer in 1915. I suspect this idea started in a squadron workshop to fill a gap and the the Germans applied their engineering expertise to make a better and more expensive fuze. 

A good question is - Why didn't they use the standard fuze on the 1914 rifle grenade? It was much better than the first fuze used on the 1913 model.

[14276265]

14 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

A   question is - Why didn't they use the standard fuze on the 1914 rifle grenade?

Because it would not have armed and so would not have functioned.

[Gunner Bailey]

If they were manually thrown overboard I think they could be manually armed by pulling forward the top part of the fuze. Risky but so is war.

Reading the report of the raid on London it only states 'two hand grenades' were dropped so I'm not sure that confirms this weapon was actually used. They may have been discus grenades which would had detonated on impact. 

[Gunner Bailey]

Another point worth asking is why go to the expense of making a very complex fuze for a 'bomb' that only delivered a mere 75 grams (2.6 ounces) of HE which would have caused minimal damage on the ground? Hand grenade class device. 

At best I think this 'bomb' is a hang over from the time when two seat aircraft were the only vehicle for dropping bombs, as the airships could deliver larger bombs and more of them. From 1916 onwards it was obviously the Gothas that were the main bomber for Germany.

[14276265]

7 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

If they were manually thrown overboard I think they could be manually armed by pulling forward the top part of the fuze. Risky but so is war.

Reading the report of the raid on London it only states 'two hand grenades' were dropped so I'm not sure that confirms this weapon was actually used. They may have been discus grenades which would had detonated on impact. 

No doubt we are all tediously aware that war is risky, but it is not possible to manually arm an M1914 fuze by "pulling forward the top part of the fuze", as anyone acquainted with that fuze will know. To arm, the fuze requires the substantial kick of set back from a rifle launching. Hence the initial adoption of a vane armed percussion fuze.

As for the small bomb dropped on London in the raid of 31st May 1915, Intelligence Circular No.8, GHQ Home Forces refers. It includes a sketch and brief description, sketch included herewith. "The fuze is of the percussion type screwed into the nose of the bomb with a propeller safety appliance."

 

Edited 26 July , 2023 by 14276265

[14276265]

14 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

Another point worth asking is why go to the expense of making a very complex fuze for a 'bomb' that only delivered a mere 75 grams (2.6 ounces) of HE which would have caused minimal damage on the ground? Hand grenade class device. 

At best I think this 'bomb' is a hang over from the time when two seat aircraft were the only vehicle for dropping bombs, as the airships could deliver larger bombs and more of them. From 1916 onwards it was obviously the Gothas that were the main bomber for Germany.

 

Why as late as August 1918 did the British Air Ministry approach the Trade with a requirement for a bomb dropping apparatus for a large number of very small bombs? The design that was prototyped, and trialled off the Suffolk coast, used in excess of 30 tubes holding multiple Mills grenades (no doubt the details are well known to any Mills experts), so only 2oz of HE in each, but a useful area cluster munition nonetheless.

Without getting into speculation that the Germans had similar thoughts earlier in the war, they clearly tried Gewehrgranate 1914 bodies as aircraft-delivered bombs, as evidenced from bombs found in several French locations, in Lithuania, and London. Furthermore the Germans were motivated enough to move from a simple percussion fuze to an allways type, the design of which they had already adopted for some trench mortar rounds.

Edited 26 July , 2023 by 14276265

[Rafal1971]

I am not the owner of this item (fully safe of course). I was interested in the unusual form and size. And I don't know if this adds anything to the discussion, which is beyond my knowledge, but the item comes from.:

Battle of the Masurian Lakes 8-15 september 1914

Apparently, this is not a single element from this area

 

[14276265]

It is very useful to know whereabouts the bomblet was found, and that it was not alone.

Whether from the First Battle of the Masurian Lakes (September 1914) or the Second Battle (February 1915), it would suggest that such bomblets were used by the Germans quite early in the war.

[Rafal1971]

 

I do research work so I know it might be relevant but I just don't know. I only know the place of origin and it is not an item purchased in Kasel or Ciney at the flea market.

[Gunner Bailey]

15 hours ago, 14276265 said:

 

Why as late as August 1918 did the British Air Ministry approach the Trade with a requirement for a bomb dropping apparatus for a large number of very small bombs? The design that was prototyped, and trialled off the Suffolk coast, used in excess of 30 tubes holding multiple Mills grenades (no doubt the details are well known to any Mills experts), so only 2oz of HE in each, but a useful area cluster munition nonetheless.

Without getting into speculation that the Germans had similar thoughts earlier in the war, they clearly tried Gewehrgranate 1914 bodies as aircraft-delivered bombs, as evidenced from bombs found in several French locations, in Lithuania, and London. Furthermore the Germans were motivated enough to move from a simple percussion fuze to an allways type, the design of which they had already adopted for some trench mortar rounds.

Thanks for posting the Intelligence briefing. That wraps that up. 

Regarding the use of Mills Grenades,  they were mass dropped in the middle east as anti personnel bombs but of course an aircraft can deliver such a load from low level whereas a Zeppelin cannot. Those trials in September 1918 involved using a device designed to drop smoke bombs. 120 Mills were dropped in one go, but the point there is that the Mills grenades were unmodified and no extra cost was involved. With the German bombs the fuzes and additional manufacture  must have been costly.

[MikeMeech]

5 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

Thanks for posting the Intelligence briefing. That wraps that up. 

Regarding the use of Mills Grenades,  they were mass dropped in the middle east as anti personnel bombs but of course an aircraft can deliver such a load from low level whereas a Zeppelin cannot. Those trials in September 1918 involved using a device designed to drop smoke bombs. 120 Mills were dropped in one go, but the point there is that the Mills grenades were unmodified and no extra cost was involved. With the German bombs the fuzes and additional manufacture  must have been costly.

Hi

Geoffrey Salmond described this device in a letter back to the UK (he also sent details to his brother in France), extract below:

Although on the Western Front the RAF used 40 lb Phosphorous bombs to create air dropped smoke screens.  Also during weapon dropping trials in early 1918 it was recommended that an aeroplane could drop a shower of small bombs against tanks suggesting that 12 x 2 lb bombs with a slight cone of dispersion could be useful.  There was also the Baby bomb container used by the Independent Force near the end of the war (page from 'Bombs Gone' by MacBean and Hogben):

I dare say a system using a group of electrically operated 3.45 inch RL tubes (usually used to drop illumination and signal flares) could have been rigged for a similar purpose of dropping small explosive devices.

Mike

[14276265]

10 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

Those trials in September 1918 involved using a device designed to drop smoke bombs. 120 Mills were dropped in one go, but the point there is that the Mills grenades were unmodified and no extra cost was involved.

No, the late 1918 UK trials mentioned involved a custom design of carrier, containing in excess of 300 Mills bombs, to fit into the bomb bay of a DH9.

10 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

With the German bombs the fuzes and additional manufacture  must have been costly.

But no more so than the standard M1914 grenades.

Whether the bodies were from store (surplus to grenade requirements) or new-build as bomblets is not obviously apparent, but such castings were cheap. On the other hand the M1914 grenade fuze was a complicated item, requiring not insignificant raw material (brass bar) combined with machining skills to manufacture; therefore quite expensive. The vaned percussion fuze used on the first bomblets likely had a similar material cost, but the components are less complicated to machine and so should have been cheaper - certainly no more expensive - than the grenade fuzes. The allways fuze is difficult to comment on, not having anything other than a modern drawing of the internals, but given that it was related to the Lanz mortar bomb fuze there is no reason why it should have cost much more than the M1914 fuze.

Edited 27 July , 2023 by 14276265

[14276265]

4 hours ago, MikeMeech said:

Geoffrey Salmond described this device in a letter back to the UK (he also sent details to his brother in France), extract below:

 

I remember your post from 2016 regarding the use of a smoke bomb carrier as a Mills bomb carrier used on RE8 machines. I meant to ask then but clearly forgot, other than the quote from AIR 1/725/115/1 do you have any other references regarding whether the idea was developed further in the middle east, before the end of hostilities? Are there war diary comments as to its use in action?

 

Your post form 2016...

 

[MikeMeech]

20 hours ago, 14276265 said:

I remember your post from 2016 regarding the use of a smoke bomb carrier as a Mills bomb carrier used on RE8 machines. I meant to ask then but clearly forgot, other than the quote from AIR 1/725/115/1 do you have any other references regarding whether the idea was developed further in the middle east, before the end of hostilities? Are there war diary comments as to its use in action?

 

Your post form 2016...

 

Hi

Salmond mentions it in a lecture he gave to the RAF Staff Collage post war 'Work of the RAF in the Final Offensive in Palestine' (AIR 1/496/15/321/1), stating that the smoke screen was used three times, although the advance was so rapid to make it "not further required". It only mentions dropping the grenades on "the retreating columns on the Tul Karam".  There are odd quotes on use of the smoke screen in the OH 'War in the Air' Volume 6, and in 'From Biplane to Spitfire' by Anne Baker, which includes a quote from T E Lawrence about the RAF dropping "nine tons of small bombs and grenades" (which will be from one of his books, I will have to dig up my copies to check which one the quote is actually from) on the retreating Turkish Seventh Army columns.

I do not have the war diaries, the information I have I copied some years ago but my main interest is Contact/Counter Attack Patrols and ground to air and air to ground communications, which included the Message Pick-up Hook that was being used at the same time so appears in some of the same documents and files.

This theatre's war diaries have not been digitised (unlike the Mespot theatre), since lockdown and free downloads of many war diaries I have been searching through thousands of documents to find the relative few that relate to my main interest, this should result in potential articles at some point.

Mike