What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hales Patent Incendiary Aircraft Bomb

wichitaslumlord

wichitaslumlord

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I believe this to be a Hales Patent Incendiary Bomb. It it marked "E & S" "SMALL 11" "1915" between the fins on the steel body band. The fuze is marked 11 C. B. & Co Ltd. Feb 1916. The bomb is 19 1/4" long not including the fuze and 5" in diameter where the front cap meets the tapered body. The body and fins are steel sheet metal and the nose cap and suspension lugs are some other non ferrous metal. It's interesting to note that the fins are not 90 degrees apart from each other, possibly so more bombs could be carried in a limited space.
I was told by the person I got it from that it was a gasoline filled incendiary which would explain why all the seams and penetrations are sealed with solder. The hole in the front was probably the filling port and would have been sealed with a plug once filled.
The front chamber extends back to the steel fin band and is fully sealed once the filling plug was installed. What is the purpose of the rear tail boom with the 8 holes drilled in it and how would the fuze booster ignite the liquid fuel in the forward chamber since it is several inches away?
I would greatly appreciate any information or drawings of this bomb. THANKS! Pat
Hales Bomb 1.jpgHales Bomb 2.jpgHales Bomb 3.jpgHales Bomb 4.jpgHales Bomb 5.jpgHales Bomb 11.jpgHales Bomb 7.jpgHales Bomb 8.jpgHales Bomb 9.jpgHales Bomb 10.jpg
 
Last edited:
I found this Bomb in the Book "Bombs gone. The development and use of British air-dropped weapons from 1912 to the present say" on page 29.
She is described as "Bomb petrol small 3/4 gall."
 
Thanks to rigby and MINENAZ16,

The thread you referenced is spot on! It appears the one pictured is a very close relative to this one. Mark1 vs. this one being a Mark11. I will need to find a copy of the "bombs gone..." book.

Thanks so much to Norman Bonney for providing the information in that thread! It explains the item in great detail.
 
Trialed at Eastchurch Isle of Sheepy kent... still being found in the fields to this day around former airfield as this was hales testing grounds
 
Pat . The makers mark of E&S is interesting as it's one of the marks that was used by more than one maker . Edison & swan and also Ewart & Sons both of whom made grenades amongst other things in WW1 . Edison & Swan were prolific makers of the No1 & No 3's & Ewart made the No 7 heavy friction grenades . It would be interesting to know which of them made your bomb . Nice example & thanks for showing it . Mike
 
Mike,

I have

Edison & Swan, United Electric Light Co., London as "E.S./L" or M/Contract No./L.
Ewart & Sons Ltd, London as "E & S"

Whether they adhered to those marks is not known. I very much suspect Snufkin will have some or all of the contract details for them.

TimG
 
The E&S on the bomb is far more likely to be Ewart and Sons, as amongst other things their wartime output included, "Sheet metal work. Stampings and welded parts, tanks, cowls, gauges." The casing of a petrol bomb is perhaps not dissimilar to a petrol tank.

As Tim says Edison and Swan did use a monogram of E.S./L (the/L for London munitions area), but on the No.3 body plugs and No.19 fuze tops used simply E&S. They had contracts for Nos 3 and 19 grenades, whereas Ewart and Sons did not. On grenade components in particular, monograms from one manufacturer did sometimes vary from batch to batch.




Tom.
 
TimG said:
Mike,

I have

Edison & Swan, United Electric Light Co., London as "E.S./L" or M/Contract No./L.
Ewart & Sons Ltd, London as "E & S"

Whether they adhered to those marks is not known. I very much suspect Snufkin will have some or all of the contract details for them.

TimG
Click to expand...


Tim. I have examples of all the grenades made by both makers & the marks are identical E&S . I've not seen the E.S./L mark as yet but look forward to getting an example one day ! Mike.
 
MINENAZ16 said:
Hello,

More info of similar bomb here : http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/89667-WW1-Bomb-ID?highlight=PETROL+BOMB
(different holes on tail)

Could you post pictures of markings on the fuze. Thank you.

Regards
Click to expand...

Here are some pictures of the fuze markings. The brass gaine has an internally and externally threaded bushing inside which will not come out. A small inerting hole has been drilled in the bottom center of the gaine and the contents removed.

Again, thanks to all for your help and information! Pat
Hales Bomb 11.jpgHales Bomb 12.jpgHales Bomb 13.jpgHales Bomb 14.jpgHales Bomb 15.jpg
 
wichitaslumlord said:
Thanks to rigby and MINENAZ16,

The thread you referenced is spot on! It appears the one pictured is a very close relative to this one. Mark1 vs. this one being a Mark11. I will need to find a copy of the "bombs gone..." book.

Thanks so much to Norman Bonney for providing the information in that thread! It explains the item in great detail.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that nice remark. I have just got in and seen this thread. Absolutely fabulous acquisition but I am slightly embarrassed to say that it is a Royal Laboratory design rather than a Hales Patent (although I am fairly convinced he would have patented it if he could!). This lovely example is much rarer than the Hales 20lb which survive in reasonable numbers, but then they are HE with a heavy body rather than a light cased Petrol bomb. The Pistol Mark II is nice to see and this didn't need any magazine because it struck the cap of a Very Cartridge. I am not aware of a version that uses a magazine in lieu of the Very Cartridge but it is a possibilty. The brass 'gaine' might be a sleeve and the hole would allow penetration of the striker to fire the cap of the Very.


Edit:


Pat,

I have just looked up the List of Changes entry for the Petrol Bomb and it confirms that the Mark II has four fins and is generally stronger than the Mark I. It is also fitted with suspension lugs which are absent on the Mark I. It does not mention any change to the method of ignition but looking again at your picture of the brass tube it looks awfully important just to be a sleeve. I guess you can probably tell if the sleeve was fitted internally with a percussion cap etc.
 
Last edited:
Thanks are again due to MINENAZ16 and Norman Bonney for the additional information.

The fuze drawing appears to be identical to mine with the exception that the center core (stem) actually threads into the outer brass cylinder as opposed to being sweated in place. It is retained with a grub screw threaded through both the cylinder and the stem which locks both of them to the fuze body when tightened.

Pat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top