Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60
  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 393 Times in 156 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Snufkin View Post
    Many aerial bombs, certainly the larger types, were only mated with their tails at the airfield prior to loading onto the aircraft. Simply ease of transport and storage.
    This is a well known general practice for bombs to fit tails separately, by screwing them or by clamping them. But I never heard of parachutes and their casing being fitted on the spot.

  2. #42
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    855
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 823 Times in 369 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamk View Post
    ...I never heard of parachutes and their casing being fitted on the spot.
    What other large parachute delivered mines were there that might be compared to the German ones?

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 393 Times in 156 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Snufkin View Post
    What other large parachute delivered mines were there that might be compared to the German ones?
    The British 2000lb HC MkI (early, chute version) , the British Mines A MkIV (chute version), MkV (chute version), MkVI, MkVII , MkIX, the Soviet AMD-500 and AMD-1000.
    It's true that the chute of the US mines Mk10, Mk13, Mk25, Mk36 was in fact defined as a "standard kit" and could be in theory fit on the spot, but I'm not aware it was the case.

  4. #44
    HONOURED MEMBER RIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,911
    Images
    6
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked 725 Times in 351 Posts
    The photographs showing the mines being transported is very interesting, in that most photos I have seen of these have been either when dropped and failure to detonate or being transported on the Luftwaffe airbases.
    I have no idea if the parachute was added just prior to use, but I suspect it could well be the case. Certainly despite their small size, the SD2's were loaded into containers onlyon the Luftwaffe bases and the transportation of filled containers was strictly limited to just a few km (probably within the confines of the base itself). However SD2's are not parachute mines and the comparison is simply to show another example of how munitions were loaded prior to use.

    Of course another factor in this could be that the outer casing of these parachute mines was very light and thin and I imagine when transporting them (as in the ship photos) they would be prone to damage - the size as shown does not make it possible to pack them into crates. Damage to the tail end where the parachute is located or release mechanism could well lead to the malfunction of the mine when dropped. The size of them limits the ammount that can be carried on aircraft and if you are going to risk mens lives and that of the aircraft itself then the weapon has to function as intended. Limiting the risk of damage would seem priority.

    yes, I agree interesting thread.

    Kev

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 393 Times in 156 Posts
    The appellation of these mines is quite a mess - teh British were of course unaware of the German denomination of the objects that "landed" on their soil and gave then a denimitaion GA, GB, GC etc. BUT corrected sometimes afterwards this denomination, when they understood that some mines having received different appellations were as a matter of fact versions of the same mine. The US afterwar documentation made the issue more messy by introducing their own denomination according to the influence system used to detonate the bomb (Bm1000 J, M etc...)...and making mistakes upon British denominations for these mines in some of the documents they published. If you add to that, that the German denomination is not always very clear by itself....
    I have a feeling that in the above quoted lines we have the solution (at least in part) to the issue. I went and gave a look at the German and Russian documentation on the subject and found this document written by Peter Voss: http://www.eeoda.de/fachberichten/FB-0511-2-LMDRWK2.pdf
    What he seems to imply (without saying it clearly) is that what we have been designating by LMB is in fact a different model of LMA, although with a double size and a double weight but with the same system of chute attachment to the chute compartment base plate and the same rear cap cover held by 4 points to the main case of the mine. It has a cylindrical elongated body (not a tapering one as the original LMA) and no position horns. This is the model most frequently seen on wartime photographs.
    The LMB proper, according to Voss is what is shown on the Russian drawings, and to complicate the matter has a number of variations in the shape and dimensions of the ribs, to accommodate the ignition device positioned just under the suspension lug - whether the parachute opening activate this ignition device or not is another issue. If pulling the lug activates the mine, this would explain why this lug is not used as a suspension lug.
    (My German is awful, and Google translate is not very adapted to understanding fine technical distinctions, so if someone can check and summarize the text in the linked document it would be a great help to our understanding of this mine)
    LMB tail ignition.gif Image1.gifLMB closed.gif LMB S.gif
    Problem - I did not found any wartime photograph of the "open" mine, nor of post war UXO in situ, at the opposite of the early war LMA and of what we called till now LMB (and may call according to this findings Late war LMB - I'm uneasy to use the term LMA-I as it is often used to designate a variation of the early LMA, without positioning horns, a less tapering body, and a moderately larger length).
    And I have a tendency to trust real-life photos rather than text and drawings, even by well known authors - and Voss is a without doubt a well recognized authority on German ordnance.
    How does this sounds to you?
    Last edited by Dreamk; 19th August 2015 at 11:08 AM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Dreamk For This Useful Post:

    skull181 (20th August 2015)

  7. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    456
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 124 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamk View Post
    The most used over Great Britain - The LMB
    This one was dropped over Glasgow on March 18th 1941
    Attachment 111154
    This one fell in Moreton (Wirral Peninsula, Merseyside) on April 27th 1941
    Attachment 111155
    and this one in Liverpool in 1940 (apparently without opening its chute as its rear part seem intact) - it seems that it is the every same mine that you have on your avatar - just different persons and a small angle of photography, but the other details in the background are identical). This one fell in the garden of a house in Score Lane, Childwall on the night of the 28th/29th November 1940.
    Attachment 111156 this one being used in your avatar: Attachment 111157
    According to Merseyside Police, This was one of eight such devices that failed to explode that night, on a total of 30 that were dropped. One mine that did explode that night killed 166 people in Durning Road – one of the worst civilian incidents of the war, when a land mine attached to a parachute hit the Junior Instruction Centre in Durning Road, Edge Hill, in the early hours of November 29, 1940. The explosion sent the three-storey college crashing down into the shelter on top of the 300 people hiding there.
    Yes, the pictures are in the same location, taken in Score Lane, I just wish I had a number.. it's ten minutes from where I live.
    I've always wanted to go to Bermuda Road, Moreton to do a comparison picture.
    My Grandfather was a ARP Warden and was at the horrific scenes at Durning Road, not long after the bomb went off.
    He struggled to talk about it, even many years later, he wouldn't comment on it, although he did mention that they had to leave some body parts in the shelter as they couldn't be sure it was safe enough to go deeper. The school boilers burst and sent scalding water into the shelter.
    They were literally boiled alive.
    The memorial today:
    http://liverpoolremembrance.weebly.c...g-shelter.html

  8. #47
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,669
    Thanks
    470
    Thanked 994 Times in 572 Posts
    I haven't had time to read all the information I have, but the attached may throw a bit more light on the matter.

    TimG

    tna 020.jpgtna 025.jpgtna 026.jpgtna 028.jpgtna 027.jpgtna 165.jpg

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TimG For This Useful Post:

    skull181 (20th August 2015), Snufkin (19th August 2015)

  10. #48
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    855
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 823 Times in 369 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamk View Post
    ... this document written by Peter Voss: http://www.eeoda.de/fachberichten/FB-0511-2-LMDRWK2.pdf
    The linked document says it all. It would have been useful to have seen it from the start. The mines LM (Luftmine) models A, B, C, etc were designed as parachute delivered sea mines dropped from aircraft.

    "Die Gruppe der fünf deutschen Luftminen (LM), die vom Flugzeug mit einem Fallschirm über See und Land ausgesetzt wurden, bestand aus seetüchtigen Großsprengkörpern der Typen LMA, LMB, LMC, LMD und LMF. Eine LME gab es nicht.

    The Group of five German air mines (LM), which were dropped from the aircraft with a parachute over sea and land, consisted of large seaworthy bombs of types of LMA, LMB, LMC, LMD and LMF. There was not an LME."


    The model LMB could be converted for launching from a ship LMB (S) - S for Schiff

    "Auch die Luftmine B konnte auf die gleiche einfache Weise wie die Luftmine A für die Ausbringung von der Rampe eines Schiffes umgebaut werden. Diese Variante bekam den Namen LMB (S).

    Also the air mine B could be rebuilt in the same simple way as the air mine A for launching from the ramp of a ship. This variant was given the name LMB (S)."


    There were four marks of LMB, I though IV:

    "LMB I, LMB II und LMB III waren funktionsgleich, die Unterschiede lagen hauptsächlich in der Herstellungsart, in einigen Änderungen zur Verstärkung der Hülle und an der Fallschirmaufhängung. LMB IV war eine Weiterentwicklung der LMB III...

    LMB I, LMB II and LMB III were functionally the same, the differences were primarily in the method of production, in some changes to the reinforcement of the hull and the parachute suspension. LMB IV was a development of the LMB III..."


    A quick web search revealed a photo of an unexploded mine in London. The parachute attachment is there and appears to be attached to what is termed in the British drawings the parachute lug.

    Photo courtesy of http://www.e7-nowandthen.org/2015/07...ing-blitz.html
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 393 Times in 156 Posts
    Snufkin, the photo you uploaded is identical to the ones I uploaded in various preceeding posts a shows what we called a LMB and must now be called, according to Voss, an "extended LMA mine" version. The parachute is attached to a central lug fixed to the center of the base plate of the parachute compartment.

    donauverminung_fehlwurf.jpgTony Boyle h.JPGTony Boyle j.JPGGC ( LMB) mine 1942 Germany 3.jpg

    It has no relation whatsoever with the "LMB" with its "tail ribs" as shown in the IWM, the Voss document and on the Russian drawings.

    strange 9275_1234963325_full.jpgNon-Contact, Parachute Ground (Land) Mine Type GC b.jpgLMB III DSCF8547.JPG

    The rear cover (green on the color drawing) being discarded to free the parachute and making the mine appear as shown on TimG document

    tna 025.jpg

    It's this very discrepancy that caused this discussion.

    However what TimG has uploaded may indeed explain why duds of "Tail ribbed" LMB are so uncommon - if the mine was made of bakelised cardboard, it chances to survive a crash must have been very poor.
    The documents uploaded by TimG are dated 1946 and this make them quite valuable.
    Last edited by Dreamk; 19th August 2015 at 11:28 PM.

  12. #50
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    855
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 823 Times in 369 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamk View Post
    Snufkin, the photo you uploaded is identical to the ones I uploaded in various preceeding posts a shows what we called a LMB and must now be called, according to Voss, an "extended LMA mine" version. The parachute is attached to a central lug fixed to the center of the base plate of the parachute compartment.

    It has no relation whatsoever with the "LMB" with its "tail ribs" as shown in the IWM, the Voss document and on the Russian drawings.


    The rear cover (green on the color drawing) being discarded to free the parachute and making the mine appear as shown on TimG document

    It's this very discrepancy that caused this discussion.

    However what TimG has uploaded may indeed explain why duds of "Tail ribbed" LMB are so uncommon - if the mine was made of bakelised cardboard, it chances to survive a crash must have been very poor. The documents uploaded by TimG are dated 1946 and this make them quite valuable.
    Dreamk,

    The discussion has come about because in post #10 you initially stated, "The above described mine was indeed a parachute air dropped mine, BUT without this tail - this tail was exclusive to the version dropped by boats of the Kriegsmarine (the presence of fins does not imply "air-dropped")." Thereafter a reluctant dawning of a "parachute hypothesis" rather than a transit lug - posts up to #31.

    If we accept that Peter Voss is indeed an authority on German air-dropped weapons, then his paper makes some important points, notwithstanding there may be some detail inaccuracies. He makes no mention of an "extended LMA mine" in the linked document. He describes the LMA having three models (models I, II and III):

    "Alle Modelle waren nahezu baugleich, ihre Unterschiede lagen hauptsächlich in der Art der Herstellung, in einigen geringen Verbesserungen zur Verstärkung der Hülle und in geringfügigen Änderungen an der Befestigung der Fallschirme. - All models were almost identical, their differences were primarily in the method of preparation, in some small improvements to the reinforcement of the hull and minor changes to the attachment of the parachutes."

    Voss states LMA were only used to a limited extent in the ground role because of the relatively small charge carried compared to the 700kg of the LMB.

    "Wegen des für Grundminen ziemlich kleinen Wirkungsträgers von 300 kg Sprengstoff war ihr Einsatz im Kriege begrenzt. - Due to the rather small - for ground mine effect - cargo of 300 kg explosives, their use in the war was limited."


    The tail of the LMA had ribs exactly like the LMB, which provided mechanical strength and fixing points for the tail shroud, and both the LMA and LMB had tail shrouds - see images in Voss' paper. The parachute was deployed by the end hood (Haube) detaching as a drogue and withdrawing the main parachute. The shroud (or cylinder - Zylinder) remained in place. It was bolted to the ribs by five bolts per rib as shown in the tail photo in post #35, and highlighted by Butterfly in post #27, third fig. In post #49 above the bolts are evident in your first photo. The IWM exhibit is an LMB - minus Zylinder.

    Most of the photos of unexploded mines show LMB variants. As for the late war bakelised cardboard model shown in the document provided by TimG, this is the Model IV. Again from Voss:

    "LMB IV war eine Weiterentwicklung der LMB III, doch bestand jetzt der zylindrische Teil der Hülle -ausgenommen das Zündergehäuse- aus Presspappe. Die halbkugelförmige Nase der Mine war aus einem verbesserten Bakelit gefertigt. Diese Entwicklung entstand zum einen aus der Forderung der Marine nach einer nichtmetallischen Minenhülle...
    LMB IV was a development of the LMB III, but the cylindrical portion of the shell - except the igniter housing - now consisted of pressed cardboard. The hemispherical nose of the mine was made of an improved Bakelite. This development was a Navy demand for a non-metallic mine shell, etc, etc."
    Last edited by Snufkin; 20th August 2015 at 02:18 AM. Reason: Duplicate photo removed

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snufkin For This Useful Post:

    LEI-13-HG (20th August 2015), skull181 (20th August 2015)

 

 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

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