help ID'n a bomb

[ChadM]

Hi, I need help identifying a bomb I have. I think it is an American 100 lb MK1 from the intra war period, but it has been repainted at some point. Do you know what it is and what color it should be.

Thanks,
Chad

 

[DEADLINE222]

It is a 100 pound early MK series, high capacity demolition bomb.

I have several of these in my collection, and have yet to determine the answer of second question you have asked. There are several tech manual images that support original, untouched specimens I have seen. These specimens are painted an awful brown/olive drab color and have a black and white band around the center of gravity. Within this band it says something to the likes of "A.O. SMITH DROP BOMB CASING MK 1". A.O. Smith did produce a large number of these for World War 1, but they were not the sole manufacturer.

I have also seen examples painted the likes of the above with the addition of various nomenclature in other places, and sometimes without the center of gravity band.

I know that all high explosive ordnance durring World War 1 was painted yellow, yet I have never seen an example of such, with the example of a MK III, 50 pounder on display at the Nation Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton. But I would not place much trust in this example, for there are many aircraft and common ordnance painted improperly throughout the museum.

In short; if you are a perfectionist, welcome to the early MK series how to paint club.

 

[DEADLINE222]

I have been digging up some images. Here is a 50 pound MK III, made by Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company. It does have the black center of gravity stripe.

 

[DEADLINE222]

In my ongoing search for the perfect paint reference, I found these images. They show several sizes of the early MK series bombs, all of which are probably that ugly night-quite-olive-drab nor brown color. All of these examples clearly have the black, center of gravity band containing manufacturer informantion as well.

A keen eye could probably tell us the time period the left image was taken based on the uniforms, or maybe even the location of the right image.

 

[DEADLINE222]

Based on my research, I have painted one of my MK III, 50 pounders to apear as it would have looked durring the interwar period, shortly before the adaptation of the current olive drab and yellow system.

I may add more details as time goes on, such as a date of manufacure or filler loading date if I can find an image and/or reference to substantiate.

I have also included an image from the National Museum of the United States Air Foce; the sole sorce in which I have found a yellow painted early MK series bomb.

 

[DEADLINE222]

I am currently suffering from a lack of words.

So here is another one of my examples painted to reflect the majority.

It is labeled: Mfr. C. R. Wilson Body Company MK III.

 

[DEADLINE222]

Things are finally beginning to make sense, courtesy of "America's Munitions 1917-1918".

Based on my years of study, I am confident that I can answer ChadM's initial question.

Per "America's Munitions 1917-1918", A.O. Smith was the major, if not sole manufactuer of the 100 pound size, MARK 1 demolition bomb. I accept this as fact, as I have yet to find an image of any other MARK 1 bearing other manufactuer information.

Based on this untouched specimen, here is exactly how the MARK 1, 100 pound demolition bomb should be painted. If anyone can identify the color of the body, this information would be greatly appreciated. Not pictured, the letters "J.C.N" appear on the reverse side of the casing, just below the ceter of gravity stripe.



A.O. Smith, as I said before; was not the sole manufacturer of the MARK 3, 50 pounder. While A.O. Smith produced the greatest number, there were two other manufatures; the Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company, and Hale and Kilburn.

In this thread's #3 post, you can see how the Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company example would appear.

I have stated on another thread that one of my MARK 3, 50 pounders had the original paint under newer paint I chemically stripped, and made no effort to preserve in my earlier years as a collector. Here is how it appeared then:



Unsure of the original body paint color, here is how it appears today:




And finally, if anyone wishes to use it, here is my detailed copy of the original nomenclature for an A.O. Smith, MARK 3. (Can be changed to MARK 1)



Furthermore, MARK is not abbreviated as MK on these casings. Use "MARK".

My first two restorations and posts are in error.

 

[DEADLINE222]

If anyone is interested in the period letter font or stylization found on early MARK series bombs for lot or serial number variations, her is my copied rendition of the letters 1,2,4,7 and 9.

 

[US-Subs]

I've been building a handbook on early bombs for a short while now, and identification of specific models of the MK series bombs is a continuing problem. There are a number of references, but none are comprehensive and clearly written with an aim to identify the differences in models. I've only found one source so far that mentions changes between models, and it is limited to only what happened up to that point. Generally the differences in bombs were slight changes in case thickness etc, not many differences that can be identified by an external examination. The only major exception to this seems to be the fin support bars. For most models of demolition bomb they started with no support bars, as a MK I. Shortly after one of the first modifications was to add at least one set of supports to the fins (the heavy wires running from fin to fin near thebase). This was included on the MK I MI modification. This change can be seen continuing on further MK series further down the line, but is not consistent in all documents, and does not seem to be consistent for all types of bombs -such as the practice, demonstration, incendiary, etc. Most inconsistencies I have found can possibly be explained in that they were from non-technical documents, such as "America's Munitions". A good summarizing book, but not a technical document. In addition many of the inconsistencies I have noted were on repaints, museum and otherwise. I have discussed this with curators at both the National Museum of the Air Force and at the Smithsonian Air and Space, in both cases they acknowledge that there are likely many mistakes, as they are museum personnel working from what documents they have available, not trainined personnel with time and resources to do more than cursory research.

One valuable reference has been photos scanned at the US National Archive which were taken during testing and have dates and test data included. While they do not explain much they can confirm some data and are a much more reputable source of information that some I've been dealing with. Unfortunately whoever put them on the net saw fit to water mark them - a practice I find stupid and wasteful, especially considering that they are archive images to begin with, not private.

Here are some of the color ref. listed. Note that at least for incendiary bombs it states that the markings should be forward of the center of gravity.

 

[Taber10]

.... I have discussed this with curators at both the National Museum of the Air Force and at the Smithsonian Air and Space, in both cases they acknowledge that there are likely many mistakes, as they are museum personnel working from what documents they have available, not trainined personnel with time and resources to do more than cursory research....

I concur, based on visits to museums also. Slightly off topic from WWI/Interwar, but of museums and bombs.... I recently re-visited the USAF Armaments Museum outside of Eglin AFB, where a MOAB is on display. In the writeup of the MOAB, it is described as replacing the BLU-82/B, 15000 lb. bomb, which is described as the "Daisycutter" bomb. Well, those of us working in munitions in the Vietnam era referred to the 36inch fuze extender as the "daisycutter" which was most likely/commonly encountered on the Mk-82s loaded on A1-E aircraft of the time. When the BLU-82 came out, it was dubbed the "Cheeseburger Bomb" at least by munitions troops of the time. Unfortunately, these unofficial "nicknames" were poorly documented by Tech Orders, or other "official" publications. Years later, there remained only one use of the fuze extender, on the few remaining examples of the BLU-82, which were used by special operations during Gulf War I. Apparently, the BLU-82 became the "Daisycutter" as there were no other options for the fuze extender--or the name--left in the USAF inventory. Doesn't necessarily make the museum staff right, however.

 

[DEADLINE222]

US Subs, you mention fin support bars. I have two MK 1, 100 pounders in my collection. The first one I acquired had it's original fins with no support bars, while the second example had two support bars per fin.

Saddly, because none of my other MK series bombs had fin support bars, I removed them because I felt they were unoriginal.

As I have seen many variations, I would like to know more about nose accessories, plugs, etc. The left side of the image is the nose of my non-fin support bared, MK 1. I wonder if that welded in nut is original? I assume it may be, as the welds look exacly like the thick, deep welds on the body. I wonder if this casing is that of a practice, drill or dummy bomb?

To the right is a fuze I pictured in another thread, a few years back. Is this fuze inherent to the MK series?



The following is an excerpt from "American Aircraft Bombs 1917-1974", which is a simplified reference manual for modelers. Here is what it says about the MK series, and period painting.

 

[DEADLINE222]

Just for fun, here is a picture of some OD painted MK series bombs beside an early Boeing B-17B model, with a Douglas B-18 in the background. This image was taken prior to 1942 because the roundel on the side of the B-17B retains the red dot in the middle. This red dot was eliminated in 1942 because it could be confussed with the Japanese Hinomaru.

 

[HAZORD]

Deadline222,

Your fuze is a mystery. The bottom half looks like an artillery time fuze. It has all the timing marks and the lug to engage an automatic fuze setter. The top half looks like nothing I've seen before. What you fuze is missing is a method of arming, like arming vanes. Time fuzes are used on bombs if the bombs are dispensers, flares, etc. They aren't used on HE bombs. HE-GP bombs are set for impact or a slight delay to allow them to penetrate. I'm thinking your fuze does not properly go with your bomb.

 

[DEADLINE222]

The fuze is marked SCOVILL MODEL 1907 M, and screws into any MK 1 shrapnel shell.

I have always felt it does not belong, as I have never seen a MK series bomb with a nose fuze.

Interestingly, the fuze contains a part (second from the left) that is made of a non-metallic material; something I have yet to encounter in a SCOVILL fuze.

 

[US-Subs]

Deep in the archive section of the AF Museum there are 2-3 historic documents on bombs that, on a quick viewing, contain some pretty interesting historic info on early bombs, primarily US. I was able to scan one of them on my last visits (with 4 other later documents), but after about 1000 pages ran out of time. Plus my laptop was screaming the entire time about a hard drive fault detected, back up information immediately. I've been told that I am welcome back anytime, a difficult achievment to which I owe another of our members a large debt of gratitute. I hope to find the time to make it back in the next few months, one document in particular may have some answers - a large collection of pre-WWII historic pages and scraps, titled "the history of bombs" -

 

[JCB99]

Hi JO, hope you are good these days. There seems to be a similar inert bomb on gunbroker now. here is the link.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=296933043

Jim
JapaneseOrdnance(at)yahoo.com