Bangalore torpedoes

[bob lembke]

I would like to stay OT, but broaden it a bit, to an overview of a variety of explosive devices brought into the attack in WW I. (I wrote this post about a week ago, on my wife's note-book, and the long post flew into cyber-space black hole as I typed the last sentence.)

A great example of the use of pioneer-borne explosive devices was the attack on Fort Vaux at Verdun on 6/2/16 to 6/7/16. As I have previously posted, I have read of the use of Bangalore torpedos by German Pioniere, but cannot recall the source or details. However, they utilized a variety of explosive devices, and just about all of them were employed in the really nasty fighting at Fort Vaux.

The German infantry, stiffened with Pioniere, actually reached the fort itself on June 2, 1916. (An idea of the bitterness of the fighting was the fact that German infantry had fought their way to about 200 yards of the fort, or closer, a month before.) They were able to climb onto the roof of the fort, and the Pioniere attacked the MG casemates firing on approaching troops by hanging Brandrohre ("fire tubes") from cords and lowering them from the roof down to the MG-firing casemates, which were perhaps 10 feet below, igniting the devices and directing their flame into the loop-holes of the casemates. These devices were tubes, approximately 3-4 feet long and 5" in diameter, which would, when ignited, emit a stream of flame about six feet long, plus hot gases and smoke, out of one end of the device. This jet of flame and fumes could be directed into a fortification's firing slits or ventilation vents, making things very unpleasant inside, and certainly driving gunners away from any firing slip subjected to this treatment. There are reports that the Germans used flame throwers on this day (notably in Captaine Henry Bordeaux's book on the capture of Forts Douaumont and Vaux), but this is not true, and these devices, observed, must have created this impression.

Although driven away, the French MG gunners later came back to their weapons, and the Pioniere then hung bags or baskets of grenades from cords and lowered them down to the firing slits, then exploding the entire bundle of grenades.

Two entries into the interior of the fort were attempted. In one, German infantry shot their way into one of the two armored doorways on the north side of the fort. Additionally, Pioniere found a 42 cm crater on the roof of the fort that had blown a crater part way through the massive concrete roof deck of the fort, and they began digging their way down from the bottom of the crater, reportedly utilizing the old pioneer stand-by, the pick-axe, and additionally, dynamite.

These efforts were carried out while the roof of the fort was swept by French MG and artillery fire. Reportedly, some pioneers were blown up when hit bringing up bags of grenades for use in this attack.

The Germans broke into an internal corridor running from the north-west corner of the fort south by south-west toward the central rear area of the fort, where the casemates where the garrison lived, and the principal functions of the garrison took place. (I think they also got into the corridor from the N-E corner in the shoot-em-up incident.) In about four days of fighting the Germans were able to advance about 50 yards down this narrow corridor, mostly in darkness. The French would block the corridor with a barricade of sand-bags, and when the Germans would overcome this barricade, usually defended by some bombers and a machine gun, the French would fall back to another barricade built only a few yards further down the corridor. I know less about their progress down the corridor from the north-east corner.

On June 4th the first Flammenwerfer were brought to the fort. They were utilized in the fighting in this corridor, but they proved too dangerous for everyone involved. Even after a successful flame attack the crew was described as "half-dead". They may have been utilized in an alternative mode, being used to spray flame oil down the corridor without having an ignitor mounted on the flame tube. This would allow the flame thrower crew to retreat back down the corridor and take cover, and an incindenary grenade or other ignition source could be used to ignite the flame oil previously sprayed down the corridor.

The Germans blocked as many sources of fresh air for the fort as possible, stuffing air vents shut, building barriers of sand-bags where possible. Periodically one of these blockages would be opened up, and a flame thrower or Brandrohr would be fired into the interior, or some variety of gas injected into the dank interior, and then the barricade would be closed up again. Exploding grenades also supposedly fouled the air. Supposedly the air in the interior was so oxygen-starved that a kerosene lantern would not burn. These terrible conditions were made much worse because the French found that their huge water resevoirs were almost empty, possibly due to being fractured by prior 42 cm hits. The situation was made worse by many stragglers who had hid in the fort; they were eager to consume food and water, less so to participate in the defense.

One weapon utilized to blow through the successive barricades was the geballtne Ladnung ("concentrated charge"), usually six stick grenade warheads taped or wired about the warhead of a seventh complete grenade, used as the fuze; sometimes 12 warheads were attached, although this made a heavy, bulky device. I have an account of a Pionier Leutnant sprinting down the dark corridor to place one of these, with it's 6 1/2 second fuzing, against a barricade, and then running back down the corridor, and then being necessarily wounded when the large charge went off. I also have the first-person account of the French private soldier who was crouching behind the barricade, who was buried and injured when the charge blew the barricade over him. He was later dug out by other soldiers and carried off to the aid station.

Finally, on the morning of the 7th Commandante Reynal, the French fort commander, negotiated a surrender, and the Germans rendered military honors to the French as they marched out, but were startled when some of the French soldiers broke away from their captors and threw themselves down and licked some mud for moisture. Reynal was taken to Stenay-sur-Meuse and on the 8th he had a meeting with Kronprinz Wilhelm, who, speaking excellent French, flattered Reynal and returned "his" sword and, I believe, allowed him to go into captivity with the sword, his pistol, and a servant and dog, and later Reynal was sent to Switzerland. (Reynal, who had enough cake to feed it to his dog, complained bitterly as to his treatment. The sword is a hoot, as he did not have one in the fort, and the Crown Prince had someone at his HQ dig one up so he could "return" Reynal's sword.) Ahhh, the good old days, another victim of the Great War.

Bob Lembke

[Cnock]

Hello,

These drawings of Bangalore torpedos appeared in 1916 in French Magazine ' La Science et la Vie'

A:lyddite

B: primer

C: Brickford cord

D : sharp nose of the small cart and wheels

E : a second part that was used to push the cart.

The second drawing is a modified Russian Bangalore.

Regards,

Cnock

[bob lembke]

Hello,

These drawings of Bangalore torpedos appeared in 1916 in French Magazine ' La Science et la Vie'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Note that the top drawing of a Bangalore torpedo is entitled "used by the English combat engineers".

Bob Lembke

[Jacky Platteeuw]

Just found this thread and am particularly interested in following man who's commemorated on the Menin Gate (the only Navyman on the Gate)

SMITH, Lieutenant, CYRIL ALDIN, D S O, R.N. Div. Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve attd. H.Q. 6th Div. . 10th June 1916. Age 39. Son of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Smith, of Redington Rd., Hampstead, London; husband of Mrs. Madge Aldin-Smith. Commissioned R.M., 26th Sept., 1914, and 1st March, 1915; served at Antwerp; Commissioned R.N.V.R. 11th Sept., 1915, and lent to 6th Inf. Div. D.S.O. April, 1916, for work against enemy trenches; developed use of bullet-proof shields and Bangalore torpedoes; known as The Admiral.

The well known Admiral's Road in the Ypres salient was named after him. He disappeared on above date in strange circumstances.

Anything is welcome.

Jacky

[Eastindia]

I am looking for information on Major H L Brickford, D.S.O of the 56th Punjabi Rifles who killed in WWI.

Is he connected with the 'torpedo' with its Brickford Cord?

[Eastindia]

I too would like any info on H L Brickford, DSO of the Punjabi Rifles. His name appears as such on the Roll of Honour of the East India Club, London. There seems no reference to him at Commonwealth War Graves or elsewhere.

[JHideas]

Hello. 
 

I am trying to find more informations and pictures and dimensions about bangalore torpedo used in great war. 
 

I would like to make replica. 
 

Thanks. 
 

Jaroslav

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

In his memoir my grandfather describes the events of 10 May 1916, when he was with the 2/5^th LF in the 55^th (West Lancashire) Division, and was able to enjoy a rare day out away from the daily grind at the front. At that time the battalion was manning the front line opposite Blairville, but during one of its “rest” periods my grandfather was invited to witness a demonstration of a Bangalore Torpedo at Givenchy-le-Noble. He travelled on a “London Motor Omnibus”, clearly in holiday mood, and when he got there he, a lowly captain, found himself in very exalted company, naming a number of men from the higher echelons of army command who were also present at the demonstration. He describes the event, and the mechanics of how the device worked, in quite some detail, even drawing a small sketch plan to illustrate his narrative, though the diagram would probably not assist in any reconstruction.

When detonated the explosion witnessed by my grandfather was a total success, destroying the barbed wire entanglement so completely that there was “scarcely a piece larger than a foot remaining”, but my grandfather ends his account by saying “The idea was excellent, but its use was very limited and could only be applied in a loose sub-soil – in any place with chalk or flint it was useless”.

Also on the excursion with my GF was Major Potter from Bolton, who was in the 1/5^th LNL. Brian Morris has alerted me to the fact that the WD for the 1/5^th LNL for 10 May 1916 records succinctly "Major Potter attended Boring demonstration". As we learn from my GF’s memoir, the Boring demonstration was in fact anything but boring!

Meanwhile, @Moonraker has mentioned that Frank Richards has an account of a Bangalore Torpedo in Old Soldiers Never Die. It is in Chapter XI, and the account is very different to that of my GF. He begins by saying “This torpedo had been tried in some Back Area or other where there were no shells or bullets flying and also no enemy waiting to ram a foot of steel through a man’s chest. It was claimed that this torpedo would destroy more barbed wire than a battery of artillery would, firing for a week.” I wondered whether he was referring to the demonstration that my GF witnessed, but the position where he has placed the account chronologically suggests that his encounter with the Bangalore Torpedo was the autumn of 1915, so that wouldn’t work unless he has the sequence of events out of place. Anyway, in Frank Richard's account a small team goes out into No Man’s Land to set up the torpedo, at great risk to life and limb. They succeed, but the thing doesn’t go off, so the same team has to go out once more, again at great risk to life and limb, to retrieve it, which they do, but the Germans have already extracted the mechanism. He concludes: ”I expect they did a good grin over the Secret of that torpedo. It was the first and last Bangalore Torpedo I ever saw come up the line.”

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I was thinking about this again yesterday, and, although both my GF and Frank Richards refer to Bangalore Torpedoes, I am struggling to see, after all, how they can be referring to the same thing. My GF seems to be referring to a method of laying a charge under the enemy's barbed wire, and I can't envisage that what he describes could be, as Frank Richards says, "distinctly seen where [the small team] had put it on the enemy's wire", nor does it seem possible that what my GF describes could be said to "lay out on the wire all that day", nor that it could have been "unhooked" from the enemy's wire by the team sent to retrieve it. So possibly what my GF describes is, after all, not the same as what Frank Richards saw, despite them both using the same name.

[healdav]

I did see a photo of a WW1 Bangalore once (no idea where). To my amazement it wasn't the sort of thin 'gas pipe' lengths that was used in WW2, but an enormous water main size pipe with a head on it the size of a very large shell. It could never have been carried. Presumably, it was pushed out from a trench and under the opposing wire before being detonated somehow.

[MaureenE]

A chapter titled "Bangalore Torpedoes (Fonquevillers) April 1916 from the book My Sapper Venture by Lieut- Colonel V F Eberle, page 76

https://archive.org/details/mysapperventure0000eber/page/76/mode/2up Archive.org Books to Borrow

Maureen

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 28/08/2023 at 09:12, healdav said:

Presumably, it was pushed out from a trench and under the opposing wire before being detonated somehow.

Yes, the above is as my grandfather describes it. He doesn't say what the diameter of the pipes was, but I see and that Victor Fuller Eberle, the author of the piece which @MaureenE  has very kindly referenced says the diameter of the pipes used in his device was 3". Eberle refers to a number of competing designs. It seems that his design was supposed to be assembled at the front immediately before use and then carried out to the barbed wire to be deployed, so that seems much closer to what Frank Richards observed.

Edited 30 August , 2023 by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[healdav]

On 28/08/2023 at 22:43, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Yes, the above is as my grandfather describes it. He doesn't say what the diameter of the pipes was, but I see and that  Victor Fullor Eberle, the author of the piece which @MaureenE  has very kindly referenced says the diameter of the pipes used in his device was 3". Eberle refers to a number of competing designes. It seems that his design was supposed to be assembled at the front immediately before use and then carried out to the barbed wire to be deployed, so that seems much closer to what Frank Richards observed.

As I remember, the diameter of the pipe was quite a bit more than 3", but I may be wrong. I remember being astounded at the size of the 'front' of the thing. Whether that was the warhead or something to force a way through the wire, I don't know.

[JHideas]

Thank you all for the very interesting information.

 

I will keep looking.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

5 hours ago, healdav said:

As I remember, the diameter of the pipe was quite a bit more than 3", but I may be wrong. I remember being astounded at the size of the 'front' of the thing. Whether that was the warhead or something to force a way through the wire, I don't know.

My GF describes the front section as being a solid pipe rather than hollow, and having a cutting edge on it to force a passage through the soil, in fact he refers to it as a "knife" at one point. That doesn't rule out a different design with a warhead, and nor can the diameter of 3" be regarded as universal, as it is clear that a number of different ideas were being tried out. 

[FROGSMILE]

58 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

My GF describes the front section as being a solid pipe rather than hollow, and having a cutting edge on it to force a passage through the soil, in fact he refers to it as a "knife" at one point. That doesn't rule out a different design with a warhead, and nor can the diameter of 3" be regarded as universal, as it is clear that a number of different ideas were being tried out. 

The British Bangalore Torpedoes were apparently first invented in 1912, as a way to clear a path through old Boer War defences laced with mines/booby traps, so the idea of breaking a path through barbed wire entanglements seems to have been a subsequent development.  The design of the idea has changed very little since and it is still a common munition in modern warfare.  Here is a photo of the type used circa 1916 that gives a good idea of the dimensions when compared with the size of an average man.  The 3 inch diameter suggested looks about right to me, or perhaps a half inch less.  It’s very similar in the respect of a hand’s span comparison to the Stokes mortar of that calibre.

Edited 30 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Interesting photo.

The weapons are not as long as my GF describes, as he says that when all the sections were fitted together they measured about 20 feet - though even that would necessitate the operators being quite close to the target barbed wire.

[FROGSMILE]

14 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Interesting photo.

The weapons are not as long as my GF describes, as he says that when all the sections were fitted together they measured about 20 feet - though even that would necessitate the operators being quite close to the target barbed wire.

Each of the men is showing just one section I think (note length of fuze).  The subsequent sections were each designed to be added via a simple screw (probably something like a half turn) and the whole pushed forward from the rear.  In theory several sections would be added to push forward under the entire belt of wire.  The whole then of course detonated simultaneously all-being-well.

Edited 30 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

4 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Each of the men is showing just one section I think (note length of fuze).  The subsequent sections were each designed to be added via a simple screw (probably something like a half turn) and the whole pushed forward from the rear.  In theory several sections would be added to push forward under the entire belt of wire.  The whole then of course detonated simultaneously all-being-well.

I wondered whether it was just one section, but my GF says that each section was about 6 feet in length, which also agrees with what Eberle says about the length of each section. Eberle also, as I now observe, talks about a pointed wooden plug in the front of the leading section, which would tie in very closely with what is shown  in Frogsmile's photograph, but seems different to the knife described by my GF. 

If I have understood Eberle correctly, I think that the main sections were joined to each other by an overlapping sleeve projecting forward from the front of each section, into which another section would be fitted, after which the sleeve would be soldered into place, and the same applied to the  joining on of the pointed plug right at the front. It is very possible that in the photograph posted by Frogsmile one 6 foot section is shown, and a slightly shorter section with the pointed plug in it.

[FROGSMILE]

10 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I wondered whether it was just one section, but my GF says that each section was about 6 feet in length, which also agrees with what Eberle says about the length of each section. Eberle also, as I now observe, talks about a pointed wooden plug in the front of the leading section, which would tie in very closely with what is shown  in Frogsmile's photograph, but seems different to the knife described by my GF. 

If I have understood Eberle correctly, I think that the main sections were joined to each other by an overlapping sleeve projecting forward from the front of each section, into which another section would be fitted, after which the sleeve would be soldered into place, and the same applied to the  joining on of the pointed plug right at the front. It is very possible that in the photograph posted by Frogsmile one 6 foot section is shown, and a slightly shorter section with the pointed plug in it.

I know for sure that the sections were joined together on the spot to allow for individual circumstances, but also events evolving unexpectedly, the fog of war as it were.  Push forward, join, push forward, join, repeat, etc.  They were not mass produced in a factory back then so there were local variations according to what facilities and resources were available.  In the photo above all three men have a section with pointed end, one held pointing up and two held pointing down.

Edited 31 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[healdav]

17 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Interesting photo.

The weapons are not as long as my GF describes, as he says that when all the sections were fitted together they measured about 20 feet - though even that would necessitate the operators being quite close to the target barbed wire.

This is much, much smaller than the photo I saw. The 'warhead' was at least the size of a football, and the pipe much wider. I would guess that it would have taken two men to carry each section.

[PhilC]

The first article in the R.E. Journal for March 1913, The Destruction of Wire Entanglements - A Suggested Method, might be of interest. It was written by Maj R. L. McClintock, the man credited with inventing the Bangalore torpedo and includes the photograph given by FROGSMILE above as well as two others taken at the time he was conducting a series of tests.

Contrary to the many statements on the web, including dear old wiki, that he invented it as a means of clearing old barbed wire systems, he was actually looking at the problem of dealing with them under battlefield conditions, something which a number of countries had been looking at since the Russo-Japanese War as indicated by the opening paragraph:

"SINCE attention was drawn by the Siege of Port Arthur to the great difficulty which the attack experiences in coping with the wire obstacles of the deliberate defence, and to the very small effect produced on these by even a protracted bombardment with high explosive shell, a good deal has been written both at home and abroad on the best methods of dealing with such entanglements."

He refers to two basic ways of doing it; bridging over the wire and clearing a way through it. The latter is then split into three; dragging part of it away, using wire cutters and blowing a way through it. There had been three previously suggested methods for blowing a way through; Russian, French and English, which had appeared in different issues of the journal the previous year. None of these proved entirely satisfactory in his tests although the English method was reasonably successful and looking at the article, his contribution was twofold; the multi-part design of the 'torpedo' and the recognition that the most effective way of placing the explosive was in the centre of the wire entanglement rather than under it, as in the Russian and French methods, or above, as with the English one.

The dimensions of his design of tube was 6'6" x 2½". I've no idea whether that was later changed and haven't seen anything regarding the other types though. 

The March edition of the journal is available, courtesy of the Kiwis, at https://www.nzsappers.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1913-March.pdf.