Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
  • Login:
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Dunstable.
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    515
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
    US-Subs & pzgr40-I have just found that an engineering appraisal was made for this submunition-Engineering Evaluation of Wide Area Antipersonnel Mine, BLU-42/B & BLU-54(B) (U) -Eglin Air Force Base, Florida,Report ADTC TR-70-75 April 1970. Anybody got a copy or know where to get one? There was also Contractor Support Test for BLU-54/B Antipersonnel Mine, ADTC-TR-68-23-September 1968.Apparently they were supplied with Coulometers or Electrochemical Timers called E-Cells by Bisset-Berman for rendering safe. I think that a similar timer was used on the Russian equivalent.
    Martin.

  2. #22
    ORDNANCE APPROVED/Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan - US
    Posts
    3,999
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 4,029 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Haven't seen it. Does your reference mention proposed or adopted?
    All dug or live ordnance shown in my posts is under EOD control and has been or will be dealt with accordingly by EOD personnel

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to US-Subs For This Useful Post:

    Sprockets (26th January 2019)

  4. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Dunstable.
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    515
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
    Thanks, U.S Subs-Glad pay now going through! AMCP 706-205-31st December, 1975. It doesn't say Proposed or adopted, but in Chap 26 (Electrochemical Timers) it cites these two references. As they had been issued five years previously, it would seem that they do exist. If so,it might be very revealing. I have enquired elsewhere about an apparent shear pin on the Russian Ao2.5rt, shown in one of the firing weights but not mentioned in your English translation of the Russian, and also about Alpha Weights, mentioned in my enquiry about the M563 (Muzzle Action ) which is shown, but not explained very well, in TM 43-0001-28. Finally, now that worries about your billfold being left empty have abated, have you had any joy in seeing that the ADAM info is now released?

  5. #24
    ORDNANCE APPROVED/Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan - US
    Posts
    3,999
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 4,029 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Worries are never fully abated, not with the current administration. Latest is that they will try and rush some pay through, if it can be submitted and processed for everyone by tomorrow. Otherwise is will be another two weeks. Nothing has been submitted for the past 35 days because no admin people were kept on to process it.

    I've got a cut and paste for you, but the system doesn't want to let me attach either a word doc or pdf, so re-send me your email via PM and I'll get it off to you.
    All dug or live ordnance shown in my posts is under EOD control and has been or will be dealt with accordingly by EOD personnel

  6. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Dunstable.
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    515
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
    Hello, JO, I have tried, but told that you have gone Off-line! A wise move-not surprised that you have an overfull in-box!
    Martin.

  7. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Dunstable.
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    515
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
    Does anyone know if the triplines, when wound on the spools, were dipped in a light adhesive? This would cause movement of the munition, when the line was tugged, even if a deployment spool had not been fully unwound, due to obstruction by heavy undergrowrh, etc. Spring deployment could only be used with line, rather than explosively launched, as the line would break. Thus obstruction was more likely, which could account for test launchings revealing long lengths of wind snarled lines, without detonation. The wind would gently release the partially unwound thread, freeing it from the weak adhesive, without moving the sub. Illustrations sometimes show the deployment spool as having spring prongs, to prevent it being dragged along the ground by a tug. The usual drawings show no anchoring devices, perhaps because they were more likely to obstruct the spool when passing through dense grass. The Russians. on their similar version, used a spiked end plate attached to the thread, but then the dispensing spool was mounted in the munition, whereas the US device had the spool attached to the end cap, making it heavier, and less likely to be dragged. Any comments by the many experts?

    Thanks,Sprockets.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sprockets For This Useful Post:

    GTR003121 (27th May 2019), pzgr40 (27th May 2019)

  9. #27
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    2,148
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,217 Times in 652 Posts
    In my mine the origial spools of wire are still available and there is no adhesive on the wire that makes them sticky. I suppose the Anchors on the end of the wire will be sufficient to clamp behind objects. The wires are so thin that you hardly see -or feel- them, so exept for when the mine is laying in the open -clearly visable- you will have no idea you are entangled in a trip wire. Exept of cource when it's tensione to the point you move the ball, but than it's too late, even if the ball only moves slightly.
    Regards, DJH

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to pzgr40 For This Useful Post:

    GTR003121 (27th May 2019)

  11. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Dunstable.
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    515
    Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
    You raised a good point, DJH, inasmuch as these subs would not normally be deployed on a bare surface, so that one would not be aware of snagging a line, so allowing time for line to unwind fully from a partially unwound spool carrier. Also carrier would not slide easily in thick grass etc.

    Final questions concerning your wonderful section-Pic 2 shows the plastic thread emerging from inside a spring guide sleeve (Is sleeve a metal diecasting to give weight, and part of cap?) Your picture shows a short thread length near the guide sleeve-presumably the (plastic?) spool has thread end passed through a hole and knotted. Other thread end must be passed through hole in metal? disc held by crimping in bottom of well which houses spring. When assembling, perhaps the spool would be pushed onto a round projection on said metal disc, thread passed through disc and tied-the disc and spool inserted into the well, then well deformed from outside to secure disc. Finally the spring would be inserted, the cap used to compress spring and screw inserted in cap to secure the spool. The spring would be held compressed while screw was being inserted by the pair of metal tabs, temporarily bent over cap. The Russian POM-1S shows the thread tied through holes in sheet metal cap, so spool must be mounted in well, the opposite to the US version. (These details seem to be missing in most drawings!)

    Finally I understand that the timer was an electrochemical device,known as a Coulometer or Electrochemical Timer. Produced by Bisset-Berman, they were called E-Cells, and were cylindrical. Any part of the E-cell visible in the potting of your cutaway.The view of POM-1S shows a similar looking item, not named.

    My final query on this item!

    Thanks for answering so many of my queries with your clinical dissection, Doctor!,
    Sprockets.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top