BobKatIt seems that I am ploughing a lonely furrow on this one. I have carried out some more research looking for more evidence given that the dimensions of the bomb base are not given in OP1665. The piece found did not seem quite to fit the diagram for the 1,000 lb GP bomb. The diagram for the 1,000 lb MC equivalent looked to be a closer match.
On 20 July 1944 the site was bombed by 582 Sqn using 500lb and 1,000 lb GP bombs. However, the earlier attack on 6 July by 550 Sqn used 1,000 lb MC bombs. An aerial reconnaissance photo taken on 17 July shows the results of bombing by 550 Sqn and the piece found is within a short distance of the craters from four bombs dropped by 550 Sqn which exploded short of the target at the edge of the western part of the forest. Almost certainly, piece 116 must have come from one of these.
Further evidence is provided by a photograph published by Die Welt showing the defusing of what is said to be a British 1,000 lb MC bomb in 1945 or 1946 (see attached picture below). The base plate looks to match our piece.
So, I am now convinced that we must have the base plate, with a fractured tail pistol attached, from a British 1,000 lb MC (not a GP) bomb.
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatReverting to Laurent’s latest pictures of the bomb base plate, I have carried out some more research and came across the photos attached below of the disposal of an unexploded British 1,000lb GP bomb. The base plate measures the same as our piece, about 23cm, or 9 inches, and is clearly of a smaller diameter than the main body of the bomb (which is 16.15 inches with a wall thickness of 0.77 inches), partly because of the tapering towards the tail, but also because space seems to have been left around the circumference of the base plate for the fitting of the tail cone.
The central piece of the base plate has circular edges at its ends and straight edges on both sides. Presumably the shape of the central piece is because the bomb has not been armed with its tail pistol (which would be circular) and is fitted with a plug instead? Can anyone throw any light on this, please? The base plate has two holes to receive the transit base bolts as described in OP1665 and as seen in our piece.
Whatever the answer, it does appear that the latest item is the base plate from a British General Purpose 1,000 lb bomb with part of the tail pistol attached.
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatI can’t see any obvious sign of a part number, Peter, but I will ask Laurent to check if he is currently able to do so. The elliptical shape to the inside edge ought to give us a clue, but at present I can’t see where it could fit. Might it be an internal part of the wing structure near the engine, I wonder?
BobKatThanks Peter. We seem to be at cross-purposes about the item needing identification! The piece you appear to be looking at was thought to be the supercharger clutch bearing (see picture 40.6A in the photo gallery). The piece I am still trying to identify is the aluminium piece with side flanges and traces of black paint along the edge with rivet holes (as pictured from both sides attached below). Sorry for the confusion!
Its appearance is not unlike the external look of the magneto but, having seen the pictures, it appears not to be related to this. It was found with other engine parts and so seems likely to be one of the ancillary fittings to the engine or perhaps part of the cowling. Where would traces of black paint be expected?
Any thoughts?
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatThanks Peter. I’ll look forward to hearing if you can come up with anything.
It was in December 2012 (pages 4, 5 and 6 of this thread) that Air Ministry and I had a dialogue which culminated in the identification of a supposed bomb casing as a Target Indicator casing. This has reminded me of a publication illustrating British Explosive Ordnance, OP1665.
I attach two illustrations to compare with the latest find which appears to be a bomb base plate with a diameter of approximately 10 inches.
It appears not to be from a Target Indicator which is cylindrical with a 12-inch diameter.
The two possible candidates are a base plate from either a 250lb or 500lb General Purpose bomb. The problem with identification is that the body diameters are given in OP1665 as 10.2 inches and 12.9 inches respectively, but both taper towards the tail, the measurement of which is not given. Attacks on the site seem to have been carried out with combinations of 500lb and 1,000lb bombs, so the greater probability is that this is the base plate from a 500lb bomb, as 250lb bombs would not have been the likely choice for attacking a V1 site.
The description states that the ‘male’ base plate threads into the after end of the body and that it has two threaded holes to receive the transit base plate. Our piece has two holes, but they do not appear to be exactly as illustrated for the Mk.IV version of the 500lb bomb. Nevertheless, this seems the most likely identification for our piece, perhaps from a different version of the bomb.
Air Ministry, if you are reading, this, do you have any thoughts, please?
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatWell, it seems no-one can help with the old mysteries.
I have just been in touch with Laurent in France. Like many of us, he is currently confined to his home. However, he has sent me some photos of something found in the forest near Torcy Le Petit a little while ago by a friend of his. This is where a number of bombs fell short on the first attack on the site.
This appears to be part of the tail end of a British bomb (or Target Indicator?). The diameter of the piece is 10 inches. Can anyone confirm what sized bomb this would have come from or provide any other information, please?
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatThanks Peter.
Item 40: I attach a picture of a damaged magneto which shows the same type of aluminium with black paint marks as our piece. I can’t work out where the magneto bracket would be. Do you have a picture or diagram or anything which would give me a better understanding, please?
Item 57: This piece confuses me. It was found near parts from the port wing tip. It appears to have camouflage brown paint on one side with black paint on the edge, and red paint over the black on the other, but why would it be painted like this on both sides? Maybe the tan/brown colour isn’t camouflage paint but is from the interior side? In any event we appear to be be looking for something with red painted over black (or blue?), such as the roundel, maybe? Or maybe it is from an area covered by one of the red markings on the underside of the wing? The fact that the metal is thicker than normal is also curious.
Item 73: I had always assumed that the circular metal pieces were likely to be part of the hand cranking mechanism since they were found together with the casting, but I haven’t managed to find any diagrams to confirm this. Do you have anything which would help?
Item 80: The pictures I have of the picketing points on the underside of the wing show much more rounded shackles, but maybe there are other picketing points with different configurations?
Does anyone else have any ideas, please?
BobKatHi Peter – good to hear from you.
I don’t have a specific link to unidentified items, although they are all included in the photo-gallery.
The more significant ones are listed below with photos attached. In the absence of post reference numbers, I show the page and date of the original postings on the thread from which subsequent discussion follows.
Item 15: equipment mounting bracket? – for what? [page 1, 23 Nov 12 / page 4, 12 Dec 12]
Item 40: shaped piece with black paint found with engine parts [page 23, 20 Jan 14]
Item 45: panel with screw fasteners and two rivet holes (for identification label?) [page 26, 31 Jan 14]
Item 57: 2.3mm thick panel with black, red and tan paint [page 29, 16 Feb 14]
Item 73: circular metal pieces found with crank handle casing [page 37, 14 Jul 14]
Item 80: black painted handle? [page 42, 3 Dec 14]
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatSame problem for me. I have two conversations, the last message in one of which has been read by me. The last message in the other is outward to jamesm. The ‘flag’ shows that I have two unread messages which is clearly not right. I have had no reply from jamesm, but have no means of being certain whether the message has been read or not.
It seems the counter is simply displaying the number of conversations.
BobKatWet-Dog, the Mk.X Lancasters which were used by the RCAF after the end of WW2 were Canadian-built. Their cockpit instrumentation was North American and would have been subject to modification during the 1950s. There is a Parts List EO 05-25A-4, and I have a copy. If there is anything specific you want to know, please ask and I can have a look in the list. The Altimeter is simply described as ‘GFP’ (Government Furnished Property) in the list.
BobKatThanks Trolley Aux. I have passed your suggestion on to Laurent.
BobKatYes, you are right, Peter!! Laurent tells me that he has everything in storage.
This is a new subject to me and I can’t find any previous discussion on the forum, so I have relied entirely on internet searches for information.
The armour-piercing rounds appear to use cordite filament as the propellant – some of this can be seen in the photos of the fragmented cartridge cases. The tracer seems to be the same. However, the ‘Z’ suffix on the incendiary cartridge headstamps means that the propellant is nitrocellulose flake. I have no idea of the relative stability of these propellants after 70 years under or on the ground exposed to all weathers, and then for 5 years or thereabouts in storage. Might the drying out process have an impact?
It appears that the tracer headstamped GIV (G Mark IV) in 1941 was short-range (400 yards) red flame tracer. The range was later increased to 550 yards by the G Mark VI (headstamped GVI). Both types have been found. The propellant was either cordite or nitro-cellulose. Ours, without the ‘Z’ suffix, appears to be cordite.
This is probably not a subject familiar to forum members, but if anyone has any thoughts to share, I should be glad to hear.
Such information as I have gleaned includes diagrams of the cross-sections of the projectiles and I have attached below an annotated diagram with examples of some cartridge headstamps to compare with what has been found. The specifications of the different types will have changed with the introduction of later versions to those illustrated.
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatAfter a long gap, Laurent has some more news. The weather has been bad recently and the forest undergrowth has apparently become impenetrable. He wants to continue searching in the area around location 1 when he is able to do so.
In the meantime, some while ago I had suggested to Laurent that it might be of interest if he had a look at the ammunition he had found scattered around the crash site to see if he could read the identification headstamps. It has proved to be an interesting exercise.
The most recent finds at location 115 included one complete round and three which had exploded in the heat (presumably under the ground) separating the projectile from the cartridge case. Those rounds found earlier were largely intact but there were a number where only the cartridge case survived and some of these showed the cordite filaments exposed where the casing had fractured.
Photographs are attached below numbered 115 and 303.
The headstamp markings found were as follows. Numbers found are in square brackets.
At location 115 (probably from the front turret):
CP 1942 WI (Crompton Parkinson – armour piercing) [1]
DAC 1943 WI (Dominion Arsenal, Canada – armour piercing) [1]
?? 1943 WI (unidentified armour piercing) [1]
K4 1943 GVI (Imperial Chemical Industries Kynock factory, Yeading – tracer) [1]
Scattered (probably from mid-upper and/or rear turrets):
DAC 1942 WI (Dominion Arsenal, Canada – armour piercing) [1]
DAC 1943 WI (Dominion Arsenal, Canada – armour piercing) [26]
SR 43 BVIIZ (Royal Ordnance Factory, Spennymoor – blue tipped incendiary) [4]
?? 43 BVIIZ (unidentified blue tipped incendiary) [5]
K4 1941 GIV (Imperial Chemical Industries Kynock factory, Yeading – white tipped tracer) [3]
Pictures of examples of the markings from these factories are attached below.
The standard Bomber Command ammunition belt from January 1942 to May 1944 comprised 70% armour piercing rounds, 20% incendiary and 10% tracer. It was varied in May 1944 to allow a greater proportion (25% or 30%) of incendiary round as required.
Out of the 43 rounds identified, 30 were armour piercing (70%), 9 were incendiary (21%) and 4 were tracer (9%), almost exactly the proportions of the standard ammunition belt.
Photo-gallery:
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
BobKatYes, glad to hear from you James. These will be welcome changes.
BobKatAs of now, a little after midday UK time, my PM yesterday to jamesm remains unread. Not a good sign. I have sent a personal email to Peter, our moderator, in the hope that he is still with us and might be able to help, but I see Bruce has replied and is as much in the dark as the rest of us.
Like Trolley Aux, I expect that I will stick with this forum as I, too, don’t want to see it disappear.
In my working days it was often said that more kudos was sometimes obtained by the actions taken to put something right that had gone wrong, than from getting it right in the first place. Whether this is true or not, it first requires an acknowledgement that something has gone wrong to be followed by a willingness to put it right. Sadly, there is, as yet, little evidence from Key of either of these things.
In a nautical context, the ship is floundering. Where is the salvage crew? If you can introduce yourself, we will welcome you and we can hopefully work together to get this put right.
Sign In
