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.
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!
Luftwaffe Parachute Mine.
- Thread starter skull181
- Start date
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.
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.
butterfly
HONOURED MEMBER RIP
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
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
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)
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:
skull181
Well-Known Member
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.com/durning-shelter.html
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/forest-gate-during-blitz.html
Attachments
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.
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.
Last edited:
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:
Hi, this is indeed an indepth and interesting thread! But is anyone else struggling to understand all that has been said so far? What I would really like to know is the "tail fin" used on air dropped versions or not?? I have one of these "fins" in the collection but I do not believe they were really fins as the various fixing holes suggest it was shrouded in an outer casing. If it helps I also have an original lug with parachute cords still attached. It would seem to make sense that this "tail fin" was more of a device for supporting the forces of the parachute during deployment (having done a parachute jump myself I can tell you it is quite some jolt when the chute opens, when you think of the size of the chute from an air dropped mine and the weight of the mine itself it must have been huge jolting action). If this "fin" was used only on mines layed by the Navy then exactly what would the point of it have been?
Rockteer,
Fair comment, a summary is in order. It would be good to see a photo of your parachute attachment lug with cords...
You are quite right about the jolt when a parachute opens and the stresses that are imparted. The Luftmine "fins" are not fins, they are ribs that provide structural rigidity to the rear plate of the mine shell and parachute attachment lug, and also mounting points for the cylindrical shroud that houses the parachute cords and some of the canopy.
The mine shown in the very first post in the Liverpool Maritime Museum is a type LMB - Luftmine, Ausführung (Mark) B. There were several versions of this mark which involved mostly detail modifications and variations in methods and materials of construction. It had an explosive charge of 700kg.
An earlier type was the LMA - Luftmine, Ausführung A. Again several models of this mark with detail changes. It had a smaller explosive charge of 300kg.
Both LMA and LMB had similar back ends, although there were detail differences - apparently even in the same model production runs. Both LMA and LMB had the ribs surrounding a parachute attachment lug, with an encasing cylindrical shroud which was bolted to the ribs by several bolts. The shroud was securely fixed. At the very tail of the mine was a cap or hood that detached when the mine was released from the aircraft. This acted as a drogue 'chute to withdraw the main parachute, and fell away when the main had fully deployed.
As a sea mine the LMA was modified for use from a ship by simply removing the tail shroud, cap and parachute. The ribbed rear plate was retained but served no function other than to seal the rear of the mine, where the magnetic influence detector sat. In the LMB a simplified domed rear plate without any ribs was provided.
Rockteer I agree with you - there is a need to take all the info gathered, complete it and summarize it, as there as some apparent contradictions. It's what I have been doing for a couple of days - this included finding the report of the LMB found in Sevastopol (also in German!) and getting in touch with a German speaking friend who translated me the whole stuff line by line. Things are becoming clearer, one of the Russian drawings appear to have been a misconception, as is the showcase of the IWM. I'll try to summarize this with the help of a few drawings, as a drawing is worth thousands words.
In short:
the LMB can be looked at as an "extended LMA" longer and twice heavier.
(There are a few more minor differences with the early models of LMA such as the suppression of the positioning horns and a more cylindrical, less tapering, rear section.)
The LMB is made of 3 basic elements: 1) the mine itself 2) the Parachute housing 3) the Parachute housing cap.
The parachute housing cap (3) (Fallschirm gehause) holds to the parachute housing compartment by clips and a series of pins, and is also linked to the bomb rack by a release wire (Auslosedrhat fur den Fallschirm). This a relatively small conical piece, the rear tip of the LMB.
This is how it looks
Now the Parachute housing compartment (2) is a cylindrical piece, metallic, solidly fixed over the upper external circumference of the mine itself, and therefore of slightly larger diameter that the mien itself. This parachute compartment remain fixed permanently on the air dropped mine, from it uploading on the aircraft bombing mine, till its contact with the ground.
Now concerning the mine proper (1):
The upper part of the mine proper (the "fins" and lug") remains hidden inside this compartment
When air dropped, this upper part is therefore not visible.
The only circumstances when the mine part is visible with its "wings/ "ribs" and lug are:
1) during transport to the station were they are going to be attached to their parachute housing compartment
2) during their use by the Kriegsmarine - and this now make understandable of the statement I brought from an US source that this "shape" is only seen when used by the Kriegsmarine.
This also explains why there are no photos of such dud mines without parachute housing, the only photos being aboard boats or during transport.
Now we have solved the apparent contradiction between photographs and descriptions, and also the apparent contradiction between descriptions and between operational uses.
We can also add the following:
1) there was also another model of the mine designed ab initio for the Kriegmarine, and therefore devoided of suspension lug and tension sharing ribs - the LMB/S
2) One of the Russian drawings was erroneous and lead us to confusion
3) The showcase of the IWM, is a nice display but represents a configuration that cannot have been seen "in flight".
In short:
the LMB can be looked at as an "extended LMA" longer and twice heavier.
(There are a few more minor differences with the early models of LMA such as the suppression of the positioning horns and a more cylindrical, less tapering, rear section.)
The LMB is made of 3 basic elements: 1) the mine itself 2) the Parachute housing 3) the Parachute housing cap.
The parachute housing cap (3) (Fallschirm gehause) holds to the parachute housing compartment by clips and a series of pins, and is also linked to the bomb rack by a release wire (Auslosedrhat fur den Fallschirm). This a relatively small conical piece, the rear tip of the LMB.
This is how it looks
Now the Parachute housing compartment (2) is a cylindrical piece, metallic, solidly fixed over the upper external circumference of the mine itself, and therefore of slightly larger diameter that the mien itself. This parachute compartment remain fixed permanently on the air dropped mine, from it uploading on the aircraft bombing mine, till its contact with the ground.
Now concerning the mine proper (1):
The upper part of the mine proper (the "fins" and lug") remains hidden inside this compartment
When air dropped, this upper part is therefore not visible.
The only circumstances when the mine part is visible with its "wings/ "ribs" and lug are:
1) during transport to the station were they are going to be attached to their parachute housing compartment
2) during their use by the Kriegsmarine - and this now make understandable of the statement I brought from an US source that this "shape" is only seen when used by the Kriegsmarine.
This also explains why there are no photos of such dud mines without parachute housing, the only photos being aboard boats or during transport.
Now we have solved the apparent contradiction between photographs and descriptions, and also the apparent contradiction between descriptions and between operational uses.
We can also add the following:
1) there was also another model of the mine designed ab initio for the Kriegmarine, and therefore devoided of suspension lug and tension sharing ribs - the LMB/S
2) One of the Russian drawings was erroneous and lead us to confusion
3) The showcase of the IWM, is a nice display but represents a configuration that cannot have been seen "in flight".
Last edited:
skull181
Well-Known Member
That's a great summary Dreamk! Many thanks to every one for their help and explanations.
I'm sure other bits and pieces will be added to this thread, hopefully..
Has any one got one of these beasts in their personal collection, I wonder?
roud:
These beasts have "fascinated" me since I was a kid when my Nan told me the Germans were even dropping huge exploding "dustbins" on us... :laugh:
When she told me about the one she saw gliding over Wavertree, Liverpool all those years ago, I was hooked.
It glided over Wavertree play ground, across Wellington Road, over Picton Road, coming to rest in Heygreen Road.
But, with this thread, I've asking about the "Score Lane" Mine, and my Mum (who else) was also prying into old friends memories...
The one my Nan saw did not explode... it fell in Heygreen Road and was defused in situ..
So, as old memories fade, there's still a ton of new info' to be found.
I'm sure other bits and pieces will be added to this thread, hopefully..
Has any one got one of these beasts in their personal collection, I wonder?
roud:These beasts have "fascinated" me since I was a kid when my Nan told me the Germans were even dropping huge exploding "dustbins" on us... :laugh:
When she told me about the one she saw gliding over Wavertree, Liverpool all those years ago, I was hooked.
It glided over Wavertree play ground, across Wellington Road, over Picton Road, coming to rest in Heygreen Road.
But, with this thread, I've asking about the "Score Lane" Mine, and my Mum (who else) was also prying into old friends memories...
The one my Nan saw did not explode... it fell in Heygreen Road and was defused in situ..
So, as old memories fade, there's still a ton of new info' to be found.
Last edited:
My father was in the Royal Welsh Fusiliers in WW2 and they were posted to RAF Sealand in Cheshire for a short period on guard duty. One night he was playing cards in a hut with other NCOs and there was an occasional thump on the roof. There was a tall tree next to the hut so they assumed it was a branch swinging in the wind. After an hour of this someone went outside and came in white faced and shouted "Everyone out NOW!" A German mine (probably intended for the Mersey) was hanging in the tree and was bending the branches so as to allow the bottom of the mine to hit the roof of the hut. A naval team came and dealt with it. I'm not sure if the hut was on the airfield or nearby. A lucky escape.
John
John
One of these mines killed 6 civilians in my town in 1940. The blast blew all the glass from my Fathers bedroom window, onto his bed and he never even woke up! A local fisherman used to pull up the 'chute covers in his nets (often labelled as 'Aircraft Spinner' in Museums!), 3 of which I still have in my collection.
Great summary... I think I'm au fait with the various types now.
But, can anyone clear up this little mystery that I've wondered about for decades and no reference books seem to clarify:
a) The mines dropped on land were often said to be 'magnetic' - presumably, still containing their magnetic anti-shipping fuze, even though they were dropped inland on urban targets. (ARP instructions said not to go near them with steel helmets on!) Were they really magnetic fuzes, as from diagrams, I can only see a detonator pocket and larger initiator charge pocket?
b) Ive seen it said the fuzes ran for 17, 10 or 7 seconds - which is it?
c) How were the fuze(s) initiated? It was said at the time and I've heard it said since that the mine had to 'roll over' on landing to initiate the fuze ( - hence the reason for mines not exploding if they got caught in a tree etc). Is this true - and if so, why did the mines dropped against land targets not have an instaneous fuze?
Thanks - questions now over!
But, can anyone clear up this little mystery that I've wondered about for decades and no reference books seem to clarify:
a) The mines dropped on land were often said to be 'magnetic' - presumably, still containing their magnetic anti-shipping fuze, even though they were dropped inland on urban targets. (ARP instructions said not to go near them with steel helmets on!) Were they really magnetic fuzes, as from diagrams, I can only see a detonator pocket and larger initiator charge pocket?
b) Ive seen it said the fuzes ran for 17, 10 or 7 seconds - which is it?
c) How were the fuze(s) initiated? It was said at the time and I've heard it said since that the mine had to 'roll over' on landing to initiate the fuze ( - hence the reason for mines not exploding if they got caught in a tree etc). Is this true - and if so, why did the mines dropped against land targets not have an instaneous fuze?
Thanks - questions now over!
From the Australian War memorial Site:
German mine mechanical Impact fuze Vz Z 34 A (clockwork, self destructing) is used in C and D type parachute mines (Luftmine) (= LMA & LMB family of aerial mines).
This fuze is designed to activate 22 seconds after impact should the mine fall on land or in shallow water (less than 2.5 to 4.5 metres) so the weapon cannot be recovered by Bomb Disposal units. (17s according to US sources, thence the title of Ivan Southall's Seventeen Seconds, a fascinating book on EODs work with these mines in wartime, that strongly impressed me when I read it as a teenager)
If the mine fuzes hit on land they would activate the mines as bombs.
If the fuze fell in water, it stopped action as a delay bomb and started arming devices to make the munition into a magnetic acoustic mine [hydrostatic pressure and the disolution of a soluble plug actuated the magnetic device and the mine became operational against shipping]. .
The upper part of the VZZ 34fuze is the initiator and the black cylindrical fitting at the base of the fuze is the gain which contains the charge to detonate the mine.
Stamped into the face of the fuze is 'VZZ 34 A * / BR1941 6 B'. In the centre of the fuze face is a raised circular area with a threaded edge.
In the centre of this are three access points into the body of the initiator. These were attachment points for some of the inner workings of the initiator.
The body of the initiator is made up of an upper and lower section which are held together by six screws.
Three around the lower end of the body and three in the base surrounding the gain. The gain is threaded and can be removed from the body revealing the detonator priming area and the explosive charge area inside the gain.
more on it (but in German)http://www.skbgmbh.de/kdm_monate/2011/11_11.pdf
Joerg has posted more details on this fuze at w2kammo http://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?7341-Vz-Z-34-A
German mine mechanical Impact fuze Vz Z 34 A (clockwork, self destructing) is used in C and D type parachute mines (Luftmine) (= LMA & LMB family of aerial mines).
This fuze is designed to activate 22 seconds after impact should the mine fall on land or in shallow water (less than 2.5 to 4.5 metres) so the weapon cannot be recovered by Bomb Disposal units. (17s according to US sources, thence the title of Ivan Southall's Seventeen Seconds, a fascinating book on EODs work with these mines in wartime, that strongly impressed me when I read it as a teenager)
If the mine fuzes hit on land they would activate the mines as bombs.
If the fuze fell in water, it stopped action as a delay bomb and started arming devices to make the munition into a magnetic acoustic mine [hydrostatic pressure and the disolution of a soluble plug actuated the magnetic device and the mine became operational against shipping]. .
The upper part of the VZZ 34fuze is the initiator and the black cylindrical fitting at the base of the fuze is the gain which contains the charge to detonate the mine.
Stamped into the face of the fuze is 'VZZ 34 A * / BR1941 6 B'. In the centre of the fuze face is a raised circular area with a threaded edge.
In the centre of this are three access points into the body of the initiator. These were attachment points for some of the inner workings of the initiator.
The body of the initiator is made up of an upper and lower section which are held together by six screws.
Three around the lower end of the body and three in the base surrounding the gain. The gain is threaded and can be removed from the body revealing the detonator priming area and the explosive charge area inside the gain.
more on it (but in German)http://www.skbgmbh.de/kdm_monate/2011/11_11.pdf
Joerg has posted more details on this fuze at w2kammo http://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?7341-Vz-Z-34-A
Last edited: