German Incendiary B2.2E-Z ?

[ASD]

I don't believe this particular model was a film prop. It makes no sense to make something like this more complicated than it needs to be. The steel insert on the nose is removable and looks less like an original than the one in your other post.

The one I have is marked 'CAR 420', I know not why.

Morning Burney - you may be right but I'm not picking up on the same differences you see. What I do see are B1 near-copies fabricated in steel that have near similar characteristics. (The fin construction, for example, is identical.) I don't know why some are stamped and others aren't but a credible option is that after the film some found their way to EOD - and attracted the normal audit protocols. I've attached an image of a submunition so marked (but in pen!)
The BoB link is interesting - particularly given the confidence of Propstore. The detachable nose piece fits in with the story that the re-usable steel body was made to contain a pyrotechnic which, when initiated, gave a cinematic impression of a incendiary functioning. Difficult to know for certain but might the dark area on the nose insert indicate discolouration through heat? If this is correct it would go a long way to explaining why the item was made in steel and why the nose detached as it does. It think Occams' razor applies - but I'm happy to hear more!
All the best. A

 

[Burney Davis]

Morning Burney - you may be right but I'm not picking up on the same differences you see. What I do see are B1 near-copies fabricated in steel that have near similar characteristics. (The fin construction, for example, is identical.) I don't know why some are stamped and others aren't but a credible option is that after the film some found their way to EOD - and attracted the normal audit protocols. I've attached an image of a submunition so marked (but in pen!)
The BoB link is interesting - particularly given the confidence of Propstore. The detachable nose piece fits in with the story that the re-usable steel body was made to contain a pyrotechnic which, when initiated, gave a cinematic impression of a incendiary functioning. Difficult to know for certain but might the dark area on the nose insert indicate discolouration through heat? If this is correct it would go a long way to explaining why the item was made in steel and why the nose detached as it does. It think Occams' razor applies - but I'm happy to hear more!
All the best. A

I've taken a closer look at the example on Propstore and you are correct, that one is the same just missing the fixing screws or that are fully screwed in. I have seen, but never owned, a completely solid example which I thought that one was. I hadn't considered that the prop would have been reused so that function sounds reasonable. If that is the case I wonder how the charge would have been initiated.

 

[ASD]

I've taken a closer look at the example on Propstore and you are correct, that one is the same just missing the fixing screws or that are fully screwed in. I have seen, but never owned, a completely solid example which I thought that one was. I hadn't considered that the prop would have been reused so that function sounds reasonable. If that is the case I wonder how the charge would have been initiated.

Afternoon Burney. Well, and there is a lot of assumption here, I suspect from a cinematography perspective, they were willing to take liberties with the B1 and the reality of igniting the thermite and thence the magnesium alloy body. Given the case is steel, the best they could hope for was a decent shower of sparks and smoke issuing through the holes. If it was a long shot, then a concealed command wire would have been my choice. If it was a closer shot, then a short length of safety fuse would have done it. I've seen a similar effect achieved with a mix of coarse black powder (lots of smoke), magnesium powder (good strong white light) and iron fillings (for sparkles!). I imagine, if filming with the B1 copy orientated fins-first, the nose plug could have been left off, giving a more dramatic pyrotechnic effect? Such a shame the intended scene was never shown. (I wonder if it still exists?) All the best. A

 

[LEI-13-HG]

I don't believe this particular model was a film prop. It makes no sense to make something like this more complicated than it needs to be. The steel insert on the nose is removable and looks less like an original than the one in your other post.

The one I have is marked 'CAR 420', I know not why.

I believe they were to hold a burning compound for the scene in the film where incendiaries land in a street - this is why the end could have been removable. The EOD markings - which, as stated, EOD only came in 1969/(definitely not wartime) and the film's release in 1969 - seem too much of a coincidence for me.

 

[arthur g]

‘CAR ‘ is RAF Cardington I believe, where at one time an RAF bomb disposal unit existed.

 

[ASD]

‘CAR ‘ is RAF Cardington I believe, where at one time an RAF bomb disposal unit existed.

Thanks Arthur. That makes sense to me - especially given the RAF Waddington (WAD) example. It would be interesting to know how the steel-bodied props found their way to CAR. I wonder if elements of it were used as a filming location? <https://www.rafcardington.org.uk/19602000>

 

[ASD]

Thanks Arthur. That makes sense to me - especially given the RAF Waddington (WAD) example. It would be interesting to know how the steel-bodied props found their way to CAR. I wonder if elements of it were used as a filming location? <https://www.rafcardington.org.uk/19602000>

So, the views of Wiki are shown below (a source I consider iffy). IMDB does not seem to list Cardington. Does anyone know for certain?