for MILLS BOMB grenade EXPERTS

[bkristof]

Hi,

recently we found a Mills bomb during exclavation works.

We made the MOD or DOVO disarm it.

They returned it to us.

The strange thing about the Mills bomb is that it is painted completely in desert sand colour. ORIGINAL !!!

No red, green or pink stripe on it????

Does this has a special reason??

many thanks,

Kristof

[Max Poilu]

Kristof,

Certain British Great War grenades were finished in a yellow or buff colour but I have never come across any reference to a sand coloured Great War Mills, either No's 5, 23 or 36. It is possible it is a practise model in original white that has discoloured. Standard live Mills grenades differed in finish but generally it was a brownish shellac varnish (sometimes more black) or an alternative anti-rusting process.

Apart from white (or a white band) practise grenades were also finished in red, black or even un-painted.

[SteveB]

On this subject, can someone tell me what the different coloured stripes would stand for?

Cheers

Steve

[zephyr4]

Have a look at the link below for information on grenades.

http://www.millsgrenades.co.uk/

[Max Poilu]

Standard body colour as in my first post. As with most British grenades the bands followed a standard pattern:

A red band indicates the grenade is live (i.e. filled).

A green band indicates the explosive Amatol.

A pink band for Ammonal, Alumatol or Bellite.

Other explosives were used but these are the most common.

The 'M' series of grenades as prepared for tropical use had a series of red crosses instead of a red ring as well as utilising different (less hygroscopic) fillings - generally Trotyl or Baratol with a green band - no pink band on 'M' Mills.

[Max Poilu]

Bit more on fillings/markings in this previous topic:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...8898&hl=ammonal

And another previous informative topic on explosives:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...l=ammonal&st=20

[bkristof]

Kristof,

Certain British Great War grenades were finished in a yellow or buff colour but I have never come across any reference to a sand coloured Great War Mills, either No's 5, 23 or 36.  It is possible it is a practise model in original white that has discoloured.  Standard live Mills grenades differed in finish but generally it was a brownish shellac varnish (sometimes more black) or an alternative anti-rusting process.

Apart from white (or a white band) practise grenades were also finished in red, black or even un-painted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't believe it is a practice grenade as it was found only max. 2 miles from the frontline!

And it really doesn't look white, but desert colour.

I attached a picture:

[bkristof]

Have a look at the link below for information on grenades.

http://www.millsgrenades.co.uk/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know that one and i searched on it before posting my question.

[Max Poilu]

Kristof,

Sorry, but I can only tell you what I know! From your picture it does not look sand colour to me - it looks to have traces of paint which were probably white mixed in with rust coloured staining...

White paint does also tend to yellow sometimes with age.

The fact it was found two miles from the frontline is irrelevant. You should know that anything can and does turn up anywhere!

[Simon Jones]

If it was a practice grenade wouldn't the demineurs have spotted this?

Regards

Simon

[Max Poilu]

A standard practise Mills grenade was made exactly the same way as a normal grenade except it is weighted with sand and equipped with a dummy detonator. Without a full set of markings the demineurs would not be sure. Regardless of all this, they would treat any piece of ordanance as live anyway until they had proven otherwise.

Certain Mills were made for throwing practise only and these can be found as simple un-finished castings that are immediately identifiable from a standard model. Again though the demineurs like to have a long life so treat everything as live.

[Guest albrown]

This is a practice mills i had .if you zoom in you can see traces in the grooves of white paint which has turned a creamy sandy colour after years of corrosion in the ground.This was found with others in various states of decay..some with base plugs some with internal det tubes one even had remains of a fired detonator...but all were practice and had traces of discoloured white paint.....

[Simon Jones]

... they would treat any piece of ordanance as live anyway until they had proven otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So my question is, did they prove otherwise?

I assume the demineurs don't dismantle live Mills bombs on request so how come they returned this one to Kristof?

Regards

Simon

[Guest albrown]

another thought on why it was there.the no5 was introduced in May 1915 .so possibly used to instruct troops who had not trained with them and were already overseas ..

[Max Poilu]

I assume the demineurs don't dismantle live Mills bombs on request  so how come they returned this one to Kristof?

A good question! I should not expect they do this for anyone but Kristof obviously knows some of these guys...

[bkristof]

It is not for my private collectio nor something like that....

It is for the Museum of zonnebeke. AND i can tell there was black brownish powder in it + they showed ous the detonator ( a little copper tube) + the fuse.

They disarmed it in preparation for a future exhibition about the exclavations we do.

We have gouvernement support. Thats why...

[Guest]

Standard body colour as in my first post.  As with most British grenades the bands followed a standard pattern:

A red band indicates the grenade is live (i.e. filled).

A green band indicates the explosive Amatol.

A pink band for Ammonal, Alumatol or Bellite.

Other explosives were used but these are the most common.

The 'M' series of grenades as prepared for tropical use had a series of red crosses instead of a red ring as well as utilising different (less hygroscopic) fillings - generally Trotyl or Baratol with a green band - no pink band on 'M' Mills.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 36M grenade continued in service into the 1970s and these markings were not in use on any stocks held at that time, some of which were WWII vintage. All stocks then in service were filled with Baratol, an HE which includes barium nitrate and TNT. The grenades were generally unpainted, but provided with a coat of varnish.

The "M" denotes "modified for Mesapotamia" and the modification mainly consisted of wax sealant to keep out sand

[Guest]

So my question is, did they prove otherwise?

I assume the demineurs don't dismantle live Mills bombs on request   so how come they returned this one to Kristof?

Regards

Simon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be one thing to unscrew the base and remove any fuze found to be present, although I would not care to try it with a grenade which has been in the ground for 80 years.

Another thing entirely to remove the main filling and render it free from explosive.

I don't know what the normal practice is in Belgium, but if I was given it to make safe I would do it by blowing it up.

[Max Poilu]

The 36M grenade continued in service into the 1970s and these markings were not in use on any stocks held at that time, some of which were WWII vintage. All stocks then in service were filled with Baratol, an HE which includes barium nitrate. The grenades were generally unpainted, but provided with a coat of varnish.

Indeed, but we are referring to Great War production Mills grenades which had markings as noted.

Besides which, Kristof's Mills is not a No.36!

The primary purpose of sealing 'M' series No.23 and No.36 grenades with a beeswax/rubber/lanolin solution was to keep out moisture in tropical warzones. The open striker hole also required sealing with a waterproof compound.

Icidentally, I believe the No.36 is still produced in Pakistan and in use today.

[Guest]

Indeed, but we are referring to Great War production Mills grenades which had markings as noted.

Besides which, Kristof's Mills is not a No.36! 

The primary purpose of sealing 'M' series No.23 and No.36 grenades with a beeswax/rubber/lanolin solution was to keep out moisture in tropical warzones.  The open striker hole also required sealing with a waterproof compound.

Icidentally, I believe the No.36 is still produced in Pakistan and in use today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I accept that we are talking about WWI grenades. I didn't put it well, but I was commenting that the marking system does not apply to later production.

I disagree about the origin of the sealant on the "M" series. It had the effect of keeping out moisture in the wet bits of the tropics, but the modification was introduced to deal with sand problems in the Middle East.

At least, that is what they taught at the British Army's School of Ammunition in the 1970s.

[Max Poilu]

Angie,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree!

All my references in this matter agree that the 'M' series (or more correctly grenades issued for tropical war-zones) were waterproofed - hence the special sealing and non-hydroscopic filling. As with many terms of reference that continued in use, the 'M' for the Mesopotamia campaign was a little misleading as Mesopotamia itself is not a very tropical place I believe! All my sources make reference to 'tropical use', 'non-hydroscopic', 'waterproof compound' etc and a filling that if it did get wet would not react with the metal of the grenade. There is no mention of sand protection anywhere. According to War Office List of Changes the first 'tropical' Mills, the No.23M MkI was officially introduced 20th Novemebr 1917. Obviously many pieces of equipment are modified for protection against sand but grenades?

[Guest]

Angie,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I can say is what the British Army instructors told the course I was a member of.

Actually, if you roughly equate Mesopotaimia with modern Iraq, the southern and western part of the country is either desert or marshes and in the recent conflict we saw TV images of US troops operating in severe sandstorms. The northern part of the country is more temporate and much greener.

However, none of the active British theatres in WWI contained significant areas subject to significant tropical rainfall, withthe possible exception of parts of East Africa, which was a minor theatre. I would have thought that the conditions in Flanders were about as wet as they got anywhere at times.

Sand clogging the striker mechanism could be a problem.

Incidentally, baratol is certainly much more non-hygroscopic than a filling such as as amatol, which when it absorbs moisture can produce highly sensitive ammonium nitrate crystals. One of the important inspection points with 3" mortar bombs was to check the fuze threads for these crystals, but of course I am not referring to Stokes mortar bombs of WWI vintage.

[Max Poilu]

However, none of the active British theatres in WWI contained significant areas subject to significant tropical rainfall, withthe possible exception of parts of East Africa, which was a minor theatre. I would have thought that the conditions in Flanders were about as wet as they got anywhere at times.

Flanders is wet enough but it is the humidity of tropical climates that causes the problem not really the rainfall or wet ground. Famously of course there is the problem with match-head fuses (most noted on the No.15s at Loos) in the Somme and Flanders but this is different to moisture in the air permeating the high-explosive.