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!

No 11 Rifle Grenade

Millsman

Millsman

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm posting these pictures because Siegfreid told me that this example has some odd aspects about it.

I bought the grenade about 5 years ago in France. It is what I would call semi relic in that the body and rod bears some pitting. All parts of it are bonded together and are original. I've tried to get it apart but internal corrosion and the odd ding seem to make it impossible.

DSCN0117.JPGDSCN0118.JPGDSCN0119.JPGDSCN0120.JPG

Odd bits :

- 10 inch rod (without thread) It has not been cut and the end is clean.
- No screw fitting for the muzzle clip (not fitted on the No 11 but most have the holes)
- Top cap is a No 20

Otherwise it is a No 3a Mk II.

It is dated 7/1916 with the maker being W.E. Co Ltd. I know that at the time they were mixing and matching No 3, No 11 and No 20 builds but this seems an odd one.

Has anyone else got a variant like this?

John
 
John,
As you know at one time I had very comprehensive collection of British grenades. I had a fair number of No 3s and 3As in all marks but I only had one No 11. It had a plain base piece and a 15-inch rod and was styled on the No 3 Mk I, but it had a plain top cap. I never did see a Hales with a top cap marked No 11 despite much searching. Although my example came from a reliable source I was always a bit sheepish about saying it was definitely a No 11.
 
Norman

I can understand there being no No 11 top caps, but the spec for the No 11 was for a 15 inch rod not a 10-11 inch rod. I suspect the plain base piece is the key identification item. By mid 1916 the number of Magazine Lee Enfields (as opposed the SMLEs) must have been limited, so production must also have been quite limited in relation to other rifle grenades, and at that time the No 22 and 24 must have been the main rifle grenades produced.

John
 
Tony,

Its helpful in that it does show in my opinion that the No 11 was actually a real item in the inventory. From recollection it is one of the few official documents showing the No 11; the Addendum* to the 1915 Treatise does not mention it if memory serves me.

Your diagram is from a particularly useful set of drawings giving, as they do, Drawing Refs, Spec Refs and approvals. I have the 'original'
blueprints, maybe I should scan them and put them in downloads. Would that steal anyones' thunder?


* Updating the Treatise - mainly on grenades.
 
Thanks Norman.

I would love to see a full copy of the original of this document, mine is a photo copy of a photocopy, and has quite a bit missing I suspect.
In any case it only goes up the No 44, I would imagine there are more than that in it ?

Tony.
 
I sometimes think we are too puritanical about rod lengths.

The first rods were described as short. I contend (although Norman may have a view) that the grenades did not reach the enemy trenches, at the high firing angles required due to the height of the front wall, relative to the width of the trench, so they made the rods longer.

The reverse of this is that in places, where the trenches were much closer, the long rods on elevations above 45 degrees and possibly nearer 80 degrees, gave far too large a Circle of Error Probable (of Probability) CEP, due to going much higher than is desirable, so very few landed in the enemies trench.

Taking the variables: the rifle; the weight of the grenade in use; the cartridge. These are fixed variables. The only possible random variable is the rod length.
I believe that these were cut down or even parted off, by your friendly local workshop, if they have a lathe in their relatively static position.
A bit of trial and error could produce a suitable length.

A point was made that the end did not appear to be cut off, presumably with a hacksaw. Even if the desired length was found, by trial, it would be desirable to have the rod end ground off square for ballistic matching, which would mean going to your local workshop where they would have a grindstone.

Another point is that when you get to the firing stage of your rodded direct impact grenade, you would remove one of the two little brass safety pegs, before firing to maximise the possibility that the grenade might go bang in the enemies trench (or possibly someone removed the pin, slid back the arming sleeve, saw the peg, turned the grenade over to tip it out only to find that the one round the other side is now somewhere in the mud/long grass?).

Time spent in proof is seldom wasted.
 
A few comments, not necessarily mutually supporting:

1.Recoil when firing the grenade from the shoulder was a determining point for the selection of 10-inch rods for the Hales varieties
2.The early RL experimental grenades (1912) used up to 18-inch rods
3. A ranging stick was available for the 22, 27, 35 and 30 which involved pulling out the rod from the barrel a certain distance before firing at shorter ranges
4. The MID grenade launcher for aircraft used a ball cartridge, no rod, with the grenade touching the bullet tip.
 
Thanks for that Norman.
If a hand thrown direct impact grenade is accepted with a 1 yard long cane handle, which allows the grenade to hit the back wall when thrown, thereby functioning in your trench, is accepted into service, might the trial with a ranging stick have been conducted below 45 degrees so that it did stop where you wanted it to rather than slide further down the barrel? Much above 45 degrees and it would, unless you have some kind of stop.
Do you have trial data?
 
AE501 said:
I sometimes think we are too puritanical about rod lengths.

The first rods were described as short. I contend (although Norman may have a view) that the grenades did not reach the enemy trenches, at the high firing angles required due to the height of the front wall, relative to the width of the trench, so they made the rods longer.

The reverse of this is that in places, where the trenches were much closer, the long rods on elevations above 45 degrees and possibly nearer 80 degrees, gave far too large a Circle of Error Probable (of Probability) CEP, due to going much higher than is desirable, so very few landed in the enemies trench.

Taking the variables: the rifle; the weight of the grenade in use; the cartridge. These are fixed variables. The only possible random variable is the rod length.
I believe that these were cut down or even parted off, by your friendly local workshop, if they have a lathe in their relatively static position.
A bit of trial and error could produce a suitable length.

A point was made that the end did not appear to be cut off, presumably with a hacksaw. Even if the desired length was found, by trial, it would be desirable to have the rod end ground off square for ballistic matching, which would mean going to your local workshop where they would have a grindstone.

Another point is that when you get to the firing stage of your rodded direct impact grenade, you would remove one of the two little brass safety pegs, before firing to maximise the possibility that the grenade might go bang in the enemies trench (or possibly someone removed the pin, slid back the arming sleeve, saw the peg, turned the grenade over to tip it out only to find that the one round the other side is now somewhere in the mud/long grass?).

Time spent in proof is seldom wasted.
Click to expand...

Do you mean retaining bolts when you talk about "little brass pegs" ? On the No 3's & 11 these were usually steel . I find the theory that anyone would remove one of the bolts on a No 3 fitted with a vane prior to firing frankly incredible . Do you have any evidence for this practice ? Thank you . Mike.
 
AE501 said:
Thanks for that Norman.
If a hand thrown direct impact grenade is accepted with a 1 yard long cane handle, which allows the grenade to hit the back wall when thrown, thereby functioning in your trench, is accepted into service, might the trial with a ranging stick have been conducted below 45 degrees so that it did stop where you wanted it to rather than slide further down the barrel? Much above 45 degrees and it would, unless you have some kind of stop.
Do you have trial data?
Click to expand...

Fortunately in respect of the grenade sliding back into the barrel some bright spark invented the Ring, Ranging, .303-inch Rifle Grenades, Mark I /L/ : Rubber - probably the rarest grenade accessory. The ring was positioned on the rod etc.

Rings Ranging Rubber for declination firing were worn in the underpants.
 
AE501 said:
Thanks for that Norman.
If a hand thrown direct impact grenade is accepted with a 1 yard long cane handle, which allows the grenade to hit the back wall when thrown, thereby functioning in your trench, is accepted into service, might the trial with a ranging stick have been conducted below 45 degrees so that it did stop where you wanted it to rather than slide further down the barrel? Much above 45 degrees and it would, unless you have some kind of stop.
Do you have trial data?
Click to expand...

Some Trial Data is in the Proceedings of the Trench Warfare Department (TWD). The earliest reference in the TWD Procs [No 1923 15/4/18) introduces the idea that grenades are more stable in flight with long rods and that adjusting the penetration of the rod in the barrel is a solution to short and intermediate rangling allowing the firing apparatus to be left at 45 degrees.

A trial results summary of the No 39 fired at Richmond Park 5/6/18 is in TWD Proc 2344 (7/6/18):

30 grenades were fired with 6 inches of rod in the barrel giving an average range of 130.83 yards

ditto 9 inches giving 201.63 yards

ditto 12 inches giving 265.7 yards

ditto 15 inches giving 315.77 yards

The purpose of the trial was to gather data to calibrate the Ranging Rod.

Regarding the long handle on the Grenade Hand Mark I (later No 1 Mark I) it has to be remembered that the grenade was approved in 1908 and was effectively an engineer store. Despite the observations that came out of the Russo-Japanese War the British High Command did not consider Trench Warfare a likely possibility - "I didn't happen at Omdurman so why should it happen in Oldham?"
 
Thanks for all that excellent information Norman. Although this is 1918, I would think that they did this sort of thing much earlier. If you plot that out it is almost a straight line progression of 3" per 70 yards.
I recently saw a picture of a rodded rifle grenade wooden stand in which to fit the rifle to fire the grenades.
The one I saw appeared to be non adjustable, but there may be others which are.
I personally, would remove anything likely to reduce the possibility of a blind at the other end and so would plenty of soldiers, provided the sleeve is in position. One of those would fall out in the same place as two, whereas two increases the chance of a blind. It would be up to the individual. From the number of blinds being dug up, even today, the failure rate must have been high.
As to the bolts, I could not remember what they were called and if I had gone to find out, I would have lost what I had already written.
 
Last edited:
In my experience with "dug" R/G's over the years , not all are blinds . The majority that haven't been interfered with still have the safety pins in place & no fuze . These are ones that have been covered up in the first place by secondary explosions such as artillery hits on stores or trench cave ins etc . I still find it difficult to accept that a soldier in an often muddy & hostile environment would go to the trouble of removing the safety pin , unwinding the vane to release the set back collar & then remove one bolt , screw the vane back up , relocate the collar & replace the safety pin before screwing the fuze in & preparing the grenade for firing .
 
roller63 said:
Thanks Norman.

I would love to see a full copy of the original of this document, mine is a photo copy of a photocopy, and has quite a bit missing I suspect.
In any case it only goes up the No 44, I would imagine there are more than that in it ?

Tony.
Click to expand...

Tony,

44 is the last serial. I think these were done 'For Record' by Woolwich at the end of the war. I will copy them when I get the chance.
 
I had not noticed that you had been selective in picking a grenade with a vane which required a complex operation to remove one of the bolts. I was thinking more of a grenade where you pulled out a pin, slid back the sleeve, dropped out a bolt, slid back the sleeve, replaced the pin and put it in a ready use position. As regards the weather, there is usually somewhere where you can go to be out of the mud and rain and where there is a tiny amount of light to see what you are doing.
You do not wait until the enemy is attacking to do this.

Having seen the bi-annual Ammunition Accidents and Defects pamphlets for many years I know what soldiers do with ammunition and a lot of it is not in any manual.
Take the humble Thunderflash Mk 8. A cardboard tube containing a small amount of gunpowder, the end of which is glued into another hollow cardboard tube. This gives you something to hold onto and gives a little bit of standoff in the unlikely event of a flash through in the 7 seconds of delay after striking. Some will not be happy with this for over there is the enemy. So he scouts around to find something to pack the hollow handle with for a) It will go further and b) they are the enemy on this exercise, so that is how someone loses an eye.
 
AE501

"
A point was made that the end did not appear to be cut off, presumably with a hacksaw."

On mine the end is clean and shows no sign of sawing through. It looks like the short (11") rod was factory fitted.

John
 
siegfreid said:
In my experience with "dug" R/G's over the years , not all are blinds . The majority that haven't been interfered with still have the safety pins in place & no fuze . These are ones that have been covered up in the first place by secondary explosions such as artillery hits on stores or trench cave ins etc . I still find it difficult to accept that a soldier in an often muddy & hostile environment would go to the trouble of removing the safety pin , unwinding the vane to release the set back collar & then remove one bolt , screw the vane back up , relocate the collar & replace the safety pin before screwing the fuze in & preparing the grenade for firing .
Click to expand...

Agree 100% Siegfried. How many soldiers would have had the appropriate tools / vice to do this? Most soldiers just had a pocket knife at best.

I've also got some No 35s at present that were dug up but are all unfired. They still have their transit plugs in (bodies are empty!).

John
 
Last edited:
Bonnex said:
Some Trial Data is in the Proceedings of the Trench Warfare Department (TWD). The earliest reference in the TWD Procs [No 1923 15/4/18) introduces the idea that grenades are more stable in flight with long rods and that adjusting the penetration of the rod in the barrel is a solution to short and intermediate rangling allowing the firing apparatus to be left at 45 degrees.
"
Click to expand...

Norman

I have seen some notes from a May 1916 bombing course where the officers were taught that even with the No 5 Rifle Grenade (as it was then) the range could be altered by exposing more of the rod.

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