British No 13 Light Pitcher Grenade

[ron3350]

Photos of the British No 13 Light Pitcher hand grenade and the internal tin cylinder and bayonet lock cap.

 

[Millsman]

What's the weight?

 

[millsbomber]

Hi Every one, here is my example, the pitch is still stuck in frag body and bottom of can, i re soldered the fuse holder to can as when i got this it was in kit form, i hope some one can say if its Heavy or Light, I'm thinking it was a training example as just traces of white paint can still be seen.

Dave

 

[ron3350]

Millsman
I knew I should have included the empty weight in my info. I went through the books before I made an ID.
Light Pitcher is 1lb 2oz filled, 4oz filling so 14oz weight empty by the books.
My example is 475grams empty or 1lb 1/2 oz .
Heavy pitcher is 1lb 8oz filled, 1lb 4oz empty. I think mine is a light pitcher grenade?? What is your ID?
Nice example millsbomber. You posted while I was thinking.

 

[millsbomber]

John, my ones 1 Lbs 1 1/4 oz

 

[Millsman]

Thanks Ron and Dave.

I posted the question because light pitchers are sometimes machined metal and the heavy seemingly are always cast. Weight seems to be the only arbiter.

 

[Snufkin]

From a late-war listing of grenades, long after the pitcher had been consigned to history, the Nos 13 and 14 are described thus:

Grenade, hand, No.13 Mark I |L| - This grenade consists of a cylindrical and segmented steel body with shrunk-on base, and enclosing a tin cylinder containing the bursting charge of ammonal, the space between the two cylinders being packed with pitch or lead wool.

Grenade, hand, No.14 Mark I |L| - This grenade consists of a segmented malleable cast-iron body, with an inner tin cylinder containing the bursting charge of ammonal, the space between the two cylinders being packed with pitch.

It puts a question mark over whether any pitcher grenade with a single piece body is a No.13, as the above description is of a two-piece - as per attached drawing. The only contract documentation referring to separate light and heavy pitchers is for the first War Office contracts for 10,000 of each from Roburite and Ammonal Ltd and Decimals Ltd respectively, in April 1915. From July all Ministry contracts simply refer to pitchers, without differentiation as to their being light or heavy.

The implication is that any surviving single piece pitcher is a No.14, whatever its weight; the empty weights seem to come in at around 1lb 1oz, give or take.

The pitcher with original service markings shown below weighs 1lb, 1 1/2oz. Also shown is a brass shell, which is likely a pattern maker's model, made prior to committing to casting in iron.

 

[Millsman]

Thanks Tom.

I think you are spot on with this. I had missed the bit about the separate steel base, so I'm not sure if a No 13 still exists. I've only ever seen complete cast bodies. The Official Nomenclature has a good drawing (attached), but confusingly gives a filled weight of 1 lb 2 oz with the charge at 4oz.

Again, confusingly Sangster's original patent (No. 5900) of April 1915 does not show a separate base in the drawings, so the cylindrical body plus base may have been a production decision.

John

 

[ron3350]

Very interesting info. Weights seem to vary so I possibly agree it is a heavy pitcher?? I am lucky to even have an example.
It is a one piece cast body. How many are plain and how many have stampings on them? All rare now and lucky to have survived destruction.

 

[Snufkin]

The terminology - light or heavy - seems to be somewhat ambiguous and does not match the measured weights, so maybe better off just calling it a pitcher - or a No.14.

The pitcher, of whichever variety (and the Light Pitcher appears in memoranda sent between ANZAC and 2nd Australian Division at Gallipoli - see excerpt below) saw fairly limited service with the BEF in France and with the MEF at the Dardanelles, as it proved quite dangerous to use, even more so than the early Mills grenades. Only around 220,000 were made, and most were scrapped and recycled for the brass bits and the ammonal. Survivors do seem to be scarce.

As for markings I have no idea what proportion had impressed instructions on the fuzes; the example I showed above is so-impressed, as per attached.

 

[Millsman]

I've currently got a drill version, which may have an unmarked cap. Nothing seems to be showing through the paint, anyway.

 

[paul the grenade]

Here's my minty drill No14.

 

[king ratgre]

Steel body with pressed on steel cap ... Elusive No 13 light Pitcher body? What do you guys think??

 

[king ratgre]

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C222035


Please see attached link:

 

[Millsman]

It looks like a locally produced light pitcher - possibly made in Egypt rather than the UK. Possible theory?

 

[king ratgre]

Why not UK manufacturer?

 

[Millsman]

It looks like a locally produced light pitcher - possibly made in Egypt rather than the UK. Possible theory?

Yes a theory. It's not to the original design. Some grenades were locally made in Egypt, so this one is also a possible contender. There was always a shortage of grenades in Gallipoli and Egypt was the nearest place to make them.

As an aside, the IRA also made a very similar grenade to that(Below), so easy to turn up on a lathe.

 

[king ratgre]

This grenade body was originally listed by seller as an improvised IRA device,but when I got it, I tried to google similar looking images. However, the only reference points I could find are the AWM image & the description & drawing on Snufkin's reply to original post.With a machine finished steel body and shrunk on steel base.....do you think my assertion that this is a No13 light body is correct regardless of country of manufacture ??

 

[Snufkin]

...do you think my assertion that this is a No13 light body is correct?

It is not unreasonable.

Some dimensions would help - internal diameter, maximum external diameter and length of tube to bottom of cap. The dimensions will help to confirm that the common inner explosive container used on both the light and heavy pitchers will fit well, or not.

The body of the No.13 was not cast steel but machined drawn seamless steel tube, and could not - without a hugely unjustified effort - be machined to have the pyramidal shaped segments of the cast No.14 (which was the whole point of Sangster's patent No.5900 of 20 April 1915). The contract for 10,000 No.13 was placed with Roburite and Ammonal Ltd on 13 April 1915, and machining seamless tube and steel plate for grenades bodies was well within the company's experience - they made No.3 rifle grenades and No.12 box grenades. The company also had pressed steel plate experience of making No.8 dual cylinder grenades.

With the caveat that dimensions are not yet given, the two examples (post #13 and the AWM Gallipoli find) seem to match the sectional drawing and description quoted in post #7. It might have been expected that there would be four annular series of eight segments like the No.14, rather than four of six segments, but fewer has the benefit of less machining and still matches the drawing. (The Battye only had four rings of six segments, and even Sangster in his patent No.5900 for a cast body suggested four rings of six in the first drawing shown in the document.)

 

[king ratgre]

internal depth= 10cm
internal dia =4,2 cm
external dia =4.8 cm