British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
French Bomb Fuze
- Thread starter jvollenberg
- Start date
Fuze type O
The fuze was mounted on projectiles used for very low level bombing "Vol Rasant" (the wonder tactic of the Armee de l'Air HQ in the late 1930s...an illusion that became a tragic and costly failure in front of the Flak units accompanying the German column in May 40) - these projectiles included bodies without tails of regular 50kg, 100kg and 200kg bombs and something that has always fascinated me: packs of 2, 3 or 4 "double shells" (the number of double shells in the package depending of the caliber 95mm, 90mm, 75mm - i.e. the weight and size of each double shell):
(the drawings are by Henry Belot from Deminest)
The fuze was mounted on projectiles used for very low level bombing "Vol Rasant" (the wonder tactic of the Armee de l'Air HQ in the late 1930s...an illusion that became a tragic and costly failure in front of the Flak units accompanying the German column in May 40) - these projectiles included bodies without tails of regular 50kg, 100kg and 200kg bombs and something that has always fascinated me: packs of 2, 3 or 4 "double shells" (the number of double shells in the package depending of the caliber 95mm, 90mm, 75mm - i.e. the weight and size of each double shell):
(the drawings are by Henry Belot from Deminest)
Hi Dreamk
The concept of combining two bombs into one unit is not only in the French Air Force. In the 1940s, when development was taking place, Škodovy závody (Skoda) came up with a solution to the army's request to combine two fragmentation bombs into one unit for hanging in vertical bomb bays. So, for example, by combining two 50 kg bombs, 100 kg could be calculated - the same with 20 kg bombs, in addition, both had a fuze. No tools or special preparations were needed for the connection, it was done by the technic on site.
Akon
The concept of combining two bombs into one unit is not only in the French Air Force. In the 1940s, when development was taking place, Škodovy závody (Skoda) came up with a solution to the army's request to combine two fragmentation bombs into one unit for hanging in vertical bomb bays. So, for example, by combining two 50 kg bombs, 100 kg could be calculated - the same with 20 kg bombs, in addition, both had a fuze. No tools or special preparations were needed for the connection, it was done by the technic on site.
Akon
Akon Hi!
Combining a number of bombs in single bundle package was not an exceptional thing - The French and the German did it routinely with their 10kg bombs from the late thirties onwards, then the Americans.
Ctibor (not Bohdan) Pantoflicek deposed a patent in 1935 (Spis c 51677) for a similar device enabling to release a package of 2 or 4 Skoda bombs from the bomb bay of a plane.
What is unique here is the soldering of 2 shells back to back to form a new "bomb" and the adapting of all-ways fuze to each end of this new projectile. BTW the nose and tail fuze were different (C1 or C2 for the nose and O for the tail)
BTW this is a package of 2 Skoda 10kg found in Lower Saxony some years ago - the arrangement here appears to be a field modification much simpler than the regular original bundle system.
Combining a number of bombs in single bundle package was not an exceptional thing - The French and the German did it routinely with their 10kg bombs from the late thirties onwards, then the Americans.
Ctibor (not Bohdan) Pantoflicek deposed a patent in 1935 (Spis c 51677) for a similar device enabling to release a package of 2 or 4 Skoda bombs from the bomb bay of a plane.
What is unique here is the soldering of 2 shells back to back to form a new "bomb" and the adapting of all-ways fuze to each end of this new projectile. BTW the nose and tail fuze were different (C1 or C2 for the nose and O for the tail)
BTW this is a package of 2 Skoda 10kg found in Lower Saxony some years ago - the arrangement here appears to be a field modification much simpler than the regular original bundle system.
Hi Dreamk
Patent file No. 51677 was an only idea.
It was never used on real ammunition.
For serial ammunition, the solution was different ... which I described (the bottoms of the air bombs had a special lock that held the bomb together with the bomb)
The new solution was to combine ammunition without those expensive and complex devices or irreversible solutions, and the elegant solution was mass-produced.
To the last picture.. The Air Force did not use such a wire or rope solution.
Engineers have charges that they tie with rope to keep them together
I also see a non-standard fuze.
As I wrote elsewhere, part of the Czechoslovak bomb was converted into German el. fuze (66). But this is not the example in the photo...
Akon
Patent file No. 51677 was an only idea.
It was never used on real ammunition.
For serial ammunition, the solution was different ... which I described (the bottoms of the air bombs had a special lock that held the bomb together with the bomb)
The new solution was to combine ammunition without those expensive and complex devices or irreversible solutions, and the elegant solution was mass-produced.
To the last picture.. The Air Force did not use such a wire or rope solution.
Engineers have charges that they tie with rope to keep them together
I also see a non-standard fuze.
As I wrote elsewhere, part of the Czechoslovak bomb was converted into German el. fuze (66). But this is not the example in the photo...
Akon
Can someone post pictures of the No 7 and No 8 fuzes? I don't have any real images of those items.
Thank you,
Joe
Thank you,
Joe
The denomination No 7 and No 8 fuzes was given by the American author of the compilation Op 1668 in 1946 and re-used by the author of TM 1985-6 in 1953 (which is in practice a copy of OP1668, made for the Army - the OP document being for the Navy).
These fuses were designed in French documents in function of their destination:
"Fusée AR pour bombes d'aviation G2, I2, K, L et M " etc...
There were in fact 3 fuzes and not 2, as the "bombe de rupture type M Ml e 1940 had a new fuze without detonator.
Here is a drawing from Deminest as well as a a (bad quality) photograph. these fuzes are extremely rare as the bombs themselves.
These fuses were designed in French documents in function of their destination:
"Fusée AR pour bombes d'aviation G2, I2, K, L et M " etc...
There were in fact 3 fuzes and not 2, as the "bombe de rupture type M Ml e 1940 had a new fuze without detonator.
Here is a drawing from Deminest as well as a a (bad quality) photograph. these fuzes are extremely rare as the bombs themselves.
Last edited:
So from what I understand, the only difference between the No 7 and No 8 is the No 8 doesn't have a detonator and it is used on different bombs?
Are there any other differences in measurements or externally?
Joe
Are there any other differences in measurements or externally?
Joe
Forget the fictious appellation 7 and 8. To make simple you have:
1) A base fuze for Navy Demolition bombs, with detonator
2) a base fuze for Navy SAP/AP bombs with detonator
3) a base fuze for navy AP/SAP bombs without detonator
Dimensions are on the drawings (by Henry Bellot)
1) A base fuze for Navy Demolition bombs, with detonator
2) a base fuze for Navy SAP/AP bombs with detonator
3) a base fuze for navy AP/SAP bombs without detonator
Dimensions are on the drawings (by Henry Bellot)