Standing Well Back
1960-1970

Kinda Caracas

I came across this nugget of EOD history today while looking for something else. But it’s a good story on its own.  In 1968, the famous Cammel Laird shipyard in Birkenhead, Northern England won a contract to “refit” a Venezuelan naval vessel. The Venezuelan Navy delivered the vessel to the shipyard, “handed over the keys” and jumped on a plane back home.  The shipyard got to work refitting the ship. Some weeks later, in August 1968, the work package on this ship got to the main armament, a 102mm gun.  At some point the breech of the main gun on the ship was opened and a fitter happened to look down the barrel. Expecting to see a shiny barrel with the sunlit sight of Merseyside in the distance the mechanic was surprised to see nothing. Blackness.   So he had a think and the next day told his management.  A torch was acquired and shone down said barrel.  There was something down there. It was a shell.  The shell fitted so snugly down the 102mm barrel (4″?) that it was jammed tight.  Presumably the Venezuelan Navy had been carrying out some firing exercises in the past, and got the shell stuck, then, perhaps they had “forgotten” about it. Mañana.  There were some indications in some strange written records, translated from Spanish, that heavy weights had been dropped down the elevated barrels in an attempt to free the shell. (!)   At this point the local Army EOD team was called to Birkenhead to deal with the matter.

Messages were sent to London, translated, and sent through Diplomatic channels to the Venezuelan government seeking comprehensive technical background and details. These were provided, translated and sent back to London then on to the EOD team, stood on the deck of the ship.  The advice from Caracas was as follows (in full):

Message starts:

  1. If the shell’s front end is coloured RED, it is high explosive.
  2. If the shell’s front end is painted YELLOW , it is not high explosive.

Message Ends.

The EOD team metaphorically shrugged at this. They lowered a camera down the barrel and took a colour picture. The end of the shell was painted ORANGE.  There were other unidentified obstructions in the barrel too…. So what to do?  After some thought, they carried out a number of appropriate techniques to loosen the shell in the barrel, all to no avail. Eventually the breech was cut out of the gun completely, shell and all, and transported to a range for destruction. Here’s a pic of the EOD office (in service dress, no less) manoeuvring the shell in the breech at the range in Sennybridge.

 

 

 

 

 

1910-1920

Rediscovering the hand-howitzer

Some time last year I encountered this strange photo, which I assumed was a peculiar weapon of some sort developed in WW1.

At first I thought it was some form of captive bolt  “humane-killer” for horses, with the hook in front of the trigger designed to hook onto the bridle of a horse, perhaps for use under bombardment – the hand-guard protecting the veterinarians hand from snapping teeth. But I couldn’t explain other aspects of the complex system on the “top” of the weapon.  I put out a plea for help last summer on social media but got no useful answers at the time.  A couple of days ago I thought I’d try again and this time with success. So here is the story of this exotic weapon, named by the inventor as a “hand howitzer. I’d like to thank a number of folk who helped me find this – much appreciated.

The inventor was a Northern Irish engineer, by the name of Samuel Cleland Davidson. He did not have any great education, leaving school at the age of 15, but he clearly had an aptitude for engineering and he was an avid experimenter.  After some time in the tea trade, he invented a range of machinery to help with the processing of tea leaves. One of his inventions was particularly successful, a system using a centrifugal fan to blow hot air over drying tea leaves, and his engineering factory in Belfast was called Sirocco, presumably a reference to a “hot wind”. His company “Davidson and Co” went on to make a wide variety of fans and other related mechanical engineering equipment. His company made fans for the Titanic, built at the adjacent shipyard in Belfast, as well as for other ships around the world. Indeed during WWI it would appear that the entire German naval fleet were equipped with Sirocco fans.

Davidson was already 68 years old at the start of WW1, but his son James was an officer, who was killed on the Somme.

Now as readers of the blog will know, there was a lot of innovation encouraged in WW1 to address the particular challenges of trench warfare. Quite a number of grenade and trench mortar systems were developed with varying degrees of success and sophistication and I’ve covered some of these such as the Garland trench mortar in earlier blog posts.  The British Army and the Australian army set up “Munitions Inventions Departments” and these developed and tested such innovations. At some stage, perhaps driven by his son’s experiences. Davidson designed a grenade launcher. Unlike some of the cruder systems that abounded, the “hand howitzer” was somewhat more sophisticated, giving the ability to adjust the rage of the grenade mechanically.  He achieved this by having a system that vented the breech to a lesser of greater degree. If the vent was fully closed the range of the grande would consequently be maximised and the range was shortened incrementally by adjusting the vent.  By implication the system,  had some sort of mechanism to check the level or the angle of launch.  The full US patent for the system is here and open can see some sort of inclinometer on the side not shown in the photo above. The hook allows the system to be held firm while checking the inclinometer.  There were two versions, one hand held, and one fired from a tripod.

Here’s an extract from one of the diagrams in the patent. Note that there diligent engineer that Davidson was, has included a built in oil bottle into the bottom of the system (“u”).

Davidson’s son, James, was serving with 36 (Ulster) Division and was killed on 1 July 1916, the first day of the Somme. He was a Captain in the Machine Gun Corps. Some personal details of James Davidson are here.  Other details are here.  Although it has perhaps little bearing on his father’s invention, which brought me to this subject, one cannot but be moved by the story of his death. After eight o’clock on the morning of 1 July 1916, in response to a request for a Vickers Gun, the official battalion War Diary for the 13th Royal Irish Rifles reported that “Captain Davidson whose guns were in reserve was then sent out.”   At 10.20 am, the War Diary notes, Davidson reported:

“Am in B line & have got up two Vickers Guns, am consolidating both. Cannot say how many infantry are in line … We cannot possible advance & reinforcements, ammn [sic] & bombs most urgently needed.”

At 12.40 pm he sent a further message:

“I am holding the end of a communication trench in A Line with a few bombers & a Lewis gun. We cannot hold much longer. We are being pressed on all sides and ammunition almost finished.”

His family received a number of letters from his fellow soldiers. One was from Lieutenant WW Ashcroft written on July 3rd, 1916. He too was a member of the Machine Gun Company of the 108th Brigade, and noted of James Davidson that “It was through him that I came to the 13th [Royal Irish Rifles]…” He went on to describe to Davidson’s father the events around his son’s death:

“When things went badly, and he no doubt felt his obvious duty was to take up reinforcements, off he went, and for a long time he held up more or less single handed a dangerous position; although shot through the knee, he refused to be carried back; alternately he fired his Gun, and threw bombs until he had to retire to bind up his wound; he returned, and did what he could, and finally he started back to try and find reinforcements. He was shortly after shot through the head.”

Another, Gunner Thomas Pinkerton wrote in August 1916 to Samuel Davidson that he had been with his son when, having held out in the trenches despite being shot through the knee, Davidson had decided to try to get back to the British lines:

“We got to the German front line trench and went down the trench about 200 yards to get as much dead ground as possible. I topped the parapet, and helped the Captain up, and had just got through the wire when I noticed about a dozen men on my left, a few yards up, retiring. Just then the Germans opened a deadly Machine Gun and Rifle fire on us – we just got 20 yards from the wire when the Captain got shot through the head – he just fell, and never spoke nor moved. He died instantly – there was no hope.”

James Davidson’s body was lost in the confusion of the Somme. Twelve years later his body was found on the south side of the Ancre Valley, and identified from an engraved compass found in his pocket. He is now buried in the Serre Road Cemetery, No2, but his name also appears on the Theipval Memorial to the missing.

Samuel Davidson’s invention was registered and patented in 1917, the following year.  It is said he was negotiating a significant order for the hand howitzer with the US army but the end of the war came first and the design was shelved.  He was knighted in 1921.

I will have more on WW1 Munitions Inventions Departments activity in future posts.

 

 

 

 

Railway IEDs

Strategic IED campaign on railways 1899-1902

I continue to uncover remarkable details of the Boer IED campaign against the British in South Africa.  I have detailed some of these in previous posts and railway attacks here in particular.  What I hadn’t quite realised was the scale of the campaign, which is huge, and indeed provides a template not only for the Russian partisan campaign against Nazi railways of WW2, but also in a sense the insurgent campaign in Iraq in 2003/2004.  Also see my other posts on railway attacks by clicking on the link of subjects in the right hand column – quite a few over history, including Lawrence of Arabia, the German East African campaign of WW1 and others.

The details I’m going to show you highlight that this was very much a strategic campaign targeting the British Military’s ability to move around South Africa. It also goes to demonstrate a comprehensive range of operations by the British military to respond to these IED attacks, by repairing the railway system, maintaining it, and implementing a range of C-IED security measures, not least being the “blockhouse” concept where small detachments of soldiers established patrol bases at frequent intervals along the railway.

I think it’s important to mention that the Boers were particularly effective at targeting the railway in a number of ways:

  1. By taking out key bridges. The number of bridges destroyed and then either repaired or replaced by the British Army is staggering. The Boers had significant numbers of personnel familiar with using explosives, and no lack of explosives.
  2. By blowing numerous culverts were the railway line crossed them.
  3. By damaging rails.
  4. By attacking trains and rolling stock either moving on the line or in sidings. sometimes by explosives and sometimes by simple sabotage such as removing key components, or by fire.
  5. By attacking supporting infrastructure such as watering points and water supplies. Coal supplies were set alight in depots.

There were of course plenty of Boers from the mining community with the experience to set and lay simple charges, and the IED technology evolved over time. My guess is that with no great shortage of explosives, a knowledge of what explosive placement and quality to use evolved rapidly over time – certainly the images below suggest sufficient expertise (or sufficient quantities of explosive) to blow large structures.

A variety of devices initiation methods were used:

  1. Simple burning-fuze time detonation for bridges, and track where no enemy was present.
  2. Command wire attack in an ambush situation on a train coming down the line, so the Boer’s were in sight of, but a tactical bound away from the site of the explosion.
  3. Victim operated devices placed under rails which were initiated by the train (as discussed here)

I’ve obtained a copy of the report written by the British Army Royal Engineer responsible for running and repairing the railway, where he details a lot of the repair work undertaken – from these I can derive details of the successful IED attacks over quite a period. To be clear, this account doesn’t focus on the IED attacks themselves in particular but the running of the railway as a system, and with the repair process as a part of that but we can draw useful analysis of the IED campaign against the railways from it.  So here’s some summaries and exemplar detail. I should mention that the name of this Engineer officer is Édouard Percy Cranvill Girouard. (!) Or rather Lieutenant Colonel EPV Girouard KCMG, DSO, RE, to give him his full title.

  • Largely because of the distances involved, the British Army, relied extensively on the railway system for strategic movement and routine logistics. There were 4600 miles of track in the system in a series of interconnected networks.
  • The British Military took over the operation of the railways completely in 1899, retaining local staff were possible. There were, of course, challenges were railway works were Boer sympathisers. This was a managerial challenge. A huge “lesson-learned” for the Royal Engineers was the need to develop competency in complex railway systems management.
  • Repairs to the railways were often carried out under fire, or at least in the presence of the enemy
  • Water is a crucial component of running a steam railway and the Boers realised this and disrupted water supplies too. The British on occasions resorted to running “water trains” to supply water for other trains. At one point the entire water supply for the railways around Bloemfontein was cut by the Boers from April 1900.
  • The number of bridges damaged by explosions is significant. here’s a summary of bridges reconstructed following an attack – divided into two lists depending on whether they were built originally in imperial dimensions or metric:

So that’s a total of 278 railway bridges requiring reconstruction following attack by the Boers with explosives.  After these were repaired, military posts were set up to guard every span over 30ft – leaving only smaller bridges,  culverts and regular track as the target for Boer IEDs. As you can see, that’s quite a manpower bill in itself in terms of a counter-IED strategy. Later, blockhouses were set up providing a blockhouse protected against rifle fire and surrounded by barbed wire every 2000 yards along the railway lines, each manned by a small number of troops (about ten each) – quite an investment in resources, but crucial to keep logistics functioning.

Here’s just a few of the bridges damaged by Boer IEDs, and subsequently repaired:

The Modder River Bridge:

The Vaal River Bridge:

The Colenso Bridge over the Thukela river with two parallel Royal Engineer replacement bridges being built (often under enemy fire)

The Orange River bridge, with replacement bridge alongside

The Norvalspont Bridge: This bridge was repaired in 14 days, or at least a secondary Laine installed (see the rails at the base)..

The Bridge at Fourteen Streams

I could post many more pictures of IED damaged bridges, but I hope I’ve got my point over that this was a strategic IED campaign, and required a strategic repose from he British Army.  The files I have obtained detail the amazingly short periods of time it took the Sappers to temporarily rebuild many of these significant bridges.  Here’s an excerpt of just one page of dozens more, note the speed of the engineer operation:

 

As well as these major bridges, many smaller bridges were also blown along with probably hundreds of culverts. Lines and points were damaged either by pulling them up or damaging them too with explosives. To give an idea of intensity of IED attacks, this is an excerpt listing just one month of attacks on just one part of the network:

With the adoption of the pressure sensitive IEDs used by the Boers, train engines were armoured to protect the crew and then trucks were pushed ahead of the engine on every “first train of the day” as sacrificial elements to initiate any IEDs ahead of the train.

One particular counter-measure against IEDs that I have discovered fascinates me and returns to the theme of Remotely Operated Vehicles. An “inventor” in England suggested deploying a carriage powered by a heavy electric motor some distance ahead of the engine, to which it was connected by long electric leads. So a wire controlled ROV on rails, in effect. This was trialed in theatre (like sometimes such ideas still are!) but found to be impractical, for the following reasons:

  • It was sacrificial and was expensive in itself to be replaced.
  • It was difficult to control, keeping the wires sufficiently taut so the train didn’t run over them or have the leads pulled from the controller.
  • The wires caught in any trackside object (including trees, blockhouses, telegraph poles etc.
  • It couldn’t cope with curves without causing more problems.
  • The Boers had already started using electrically initiated command wire IEDs anyway, so could ignore the ROV.

Nonetheless this demonstrates, that even in 1901 that innovative ideas were being sought to deal with IED threats. And .. it’s another early ROV.

With regards to other innovations, this next one is a bit peculiar too. Over time the “blockhouses” placed 200 yards apart were added to so there was even less distance between them. The gaps between were under observation (in some cases at night with the use of searchlights) to prevent insurgents placing IEDs on the rails and patrolled frequently. Do this was a strategic effort to observe all of the communication routes used by there British.  Another innovative concept implemented, I kid you not, was the use of specialised bicycles.  These “war cycles” consisted, at first, of two bicycles, fastened on a common frame with wheels adapted so that the cycles ran on opposite rails.  two sliders would pedal between blockhouses providing route coverage. The adapted wheels enabled the cyclists to use both hands to fire weapons , and progress was relatively stealthy.  Later, a larger “8 man” war-cycle was built proving more firepower. a lot of these machines were made in Cape Town and used by the Royal Australian Cycle Corps.

Other innovative responses to attacks included this fabulous add-on armour to a train (admittedly not necessary against IEDs). British soldiers, almost inevitably, came up with the nickname:

The conflict also prompted innovative use of other battlefield technologies such as armoured vehicles, and use (by both sides) of wireless radio communications – perhaps a first in a conflict.

To summarise, I think we can see in this conflict:

  • A strategic and extensive IED campaign by the Boers as a part of an insurgency campaign. The patterns of similar strategies with later campaigns up to the modern day are clear, and in particular the Russian inspired partisan campaign against the Nazi rail system in WW2.
  • A coherent response of sorts from the British Army, in terms of resourcing appropriate management control of the crucial national rail network
  • A component of that response included resourcing repair teams and military engineering capabilities of sufficient size and flexibility to respond to the intensity of IED attacks
  • A manpower intensive (but ultimately successful) security operation to protect the exposed logistic capability
  • A search for innovative counter IED methodologies and ideas, some of them implemented successfully but time wasted on others. Sounds familiar.

 

 

VBIED

Two-Ton Boer Train VBIED 1902

I wrote recently about  trains or carriages on railways full of explosives sent towards each other by both sides (the British and the Boers) at the Siege of Mafeking in South Africa in 1899/1901, and I’ve just uncovered another from the following year.

In 1902 a small British Garrison at Okiep in the Northern Cape region was surrounded by Boer forces. On 1 May 1902, the Boer commandos launched a VBIED attack on Okiep, using the commandeered locomotive “Pioneer” of Concordia’s Namaqua United Copper Company to propel a an IED in the form of a wagon-load of dynamite into the besieged town.

Two tons of dynamite were loaded onto carriages behind the “Pioneer”. The train driver was Field Cornet Jan van Brummelen, and he was to be accompanied by two “Irish explosive experts”.  The men were to leap off the train before it arrived at the target. I’m pretty certain the device would be initiated by a timed burning fuze.

What followed is a little uncertain, as is often the case. Some reports suggest the protective defences at Okiep consisted of a barbed wire fence, which was erected across the railway line at Braakpits Junction, just north of the town. The points at the junction were rigged in some way to the fence, with the result that when the dynamite laden wagon breached the fence, it derailed at the points and spilled its load of dynamite on the ground, where it “burned out harmlessly without exploding”.  Other reports suggest that the local station master, Albert Gyngell, heroically turned the points to direct the train away from the town centre, and it subsequently derailed.  Here’s a pic of the train after the dynamite had burned away:

So, yet another in the long list of vehicle-borne IEDs that occurred (or in this case attempted) in history. The “remote delivery” mechanism for this vehicle-borne IED failed but the intent was clear.

I am uncovering many more IED attacks in this conflict than I had realised (thousands!) and will be blogging more about the comprehensive attacks the Boers made on the strategically crucial railways over a couple of years. There’s a fascinating story to be told – and it also involves the British Royal Engineers undertaken some remarkable bridging and other “counter-terrorist” or “counter-insurgent” responses to this comprehensive IED campaign against the key transport system in Such Africa. In some ways its presages there Russian sabotage campaign against the Nazi railway system in WW2 and the Iraqi insurgent campaign against US and UK road traffic in the early part of this century. Same techniques…

Radio Controlled IED

German WW2 use of ROVs to deliver explosives

In recent years various terrorist groups and others have used land, sea or air ROVs to deliver explosive payloads to targets.  As usual, people view these things as new and innovative threats. But as readers of this blog site will know,  that usually isn’t the case and I have more details here of some interesting early use of such devices from WW2, although they go much further back.  Some of these may be classed as “improvised” but others are clearly formally developed systems – but let’s not get hung up on definitions, because the concept is what is interesting   There are several aspects to this – one is the technology that is used, and another is the tactical employment. Many of the implementations of this concept were unsuccessful but the reasons for this are also interesting and indeed are being repeated in modern terrorist use of ROV technology.  I won’t go into that aspect in too much detail for obvious reasons.   So here goes with a few interesting  German “land based” example ROVs from WW2.

I’ve written before about the WW2 German “Goliath” remote controlled mine, a small tracked vehicle not too different in scale from modern EOD ROVs.   Following the fall of France in WW2, the Germans captured  a prototype French ROVs used for explosive charge delivery which seemed to inspire the development of the Goliath. This vehicle had been “hidden” in the River Seine, but the Germans got to hear of it and salvaged it for technical exploitation and reverse engineering. (Readers may recall a similar reverse engineering operation from a “purchased” French speed boat just before WW1, that I discussed in an earlier post).

 

Captured German Goliath ROVs after D-Day

While there has been some attention on the Goliath tracked vehicle, used to deliver demolition charges to targets, perhaps just as significant for us looking at history was the German Borgward B remote tracked vehicle. A contract was let by the Wehrmacht to the Carl Borgward engineering company in Bremen for 50 tracked vehicles in 1939. It’s not quite clear if the Borgward B was developed originally to deliver demolition charges or for other purposes such as towing mine clearance tools or as an ammunition carriers.  One suggestion is that during the German invasion of France, German engineers found an operational need and had been converting, in an improvised way, standard German tanks to operate remotely for certain tasks. The theory goes that as a result of after-action reports from this campaign the Borgward B was converted to fulfil this role. But it’s war and it’s a little confusing as to which came first, the chicken or the egg.    In any event,  Blaupunkt, the radio manufacturer developed a radio controlled system for the vehicle. These vehicles and their sub-systems were gradually improved in following years resulting in several “versions” as both their use and requirements changed.  A variety of vehicles were used as “control” vehicles as the war progressed. The radio control unit was very “modern” in appearance, using a joystick control and shared many of the features of the Linsen boats control systems.  The key features of the Borgward B was firstly that it could deliver a large charge, (typically 45o – 550kg), and secondly it could drop off the charge and retreat, thus in principle being a re-usable vehicle, unlike the smaller and disposable Goliath.

Here’s a pic of the Borgward B. The driver would drive the vehicle “normally” until it was a “tactical bound” away from the target, then he would get out and the vehicle would then be controlled by radio remotely. It looks like a fun  drive, (unless you are told to drive it to the Eastern Front).

 

The Borgward B wasn’t a huge success. it was unreliable and quite vulnerable to enemy fire.  Some reports suggest that some versions were equipped with smoke units to lay smoke screens or just to hide its own approach, but I’m not sure how it would then be controlled if surrounded by its own smoke screen. Perhaps this version was simply used to lay smoke screen and move laterally across the battlefield.  I have found a report that a single Borgward B was fitted with a TV camera as an observation vehicle during the fall of Berlin, perhaps a prototype but in the main the later use of these vehicles, in theory was to deliver and drop demolition charges.  The explosive charge, when dropped, had a timer initiation system that after a short period caused the charge to detonate.   The charge was released with the help of gravity after explosive retaining bolts were fired by the operator. I’m cautious about this and think it could have been a lever actuator.   It appears that there was an adjustable safety mechanism that armed the charge only after a certain distance (not time) had been covered, so for instance an operator would set the safety distance to 100m as he exited the vehicle, and the charge would only become “armed” after the vehicle had covered that distance. That’s logical, but I’m not sure how it was achieved.  These vehicles were less suited, of course, to defensive operations than offensive, where their utilisation against defended structures was optimised. I’m led to believe that over a thousand Borgward Bs were produced (compared to many thousand Goliath vehicles).

Here’s a great pic of the explosive charge after being “dropped off” by the vehicle. You can see it slides off the front plate where it is held in a “shoe”.

I think it’s worth thinking about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Borgward B and the Goliath.  The Borgward B could be moved into its tactical launch position by one man, but the Goliath needed a small team of men.  Perhaps that’s why the Goliath was used in defensive positions like the beaches of Normandy, where it was prepositioned in shrapnel proof hides, (but it wasn’t particularly effective). The Borgward B was larger and therefore more vulnerable, but delivered a much bigger charge than the Goliath more suitable to taking on defensive positions. The Borgward B was more expensive but in theory was reusable. In the main the Borgward B was radio controlled and this offered some flexibility but also posed some reliability problems with the technology of the day. The cable system principally used by the Goliath was more reliable but vulnerable to shrapnel damage.

There was an attempt at a “middle ground” the NSU “Springer” ROV developed in 1943/1944. This was smaller than the Borgward B, bigger than the Goliath, but was driven into launch position by a driver. About 50 were made, I think. Here’s a picture showing its scale and size. They seem to have limited operational use. I don’t have a handle on their control system.

 

I think it’s fascinating that the Germans also used vehicles captured  from the British and French and convert to ROVs. It seems that the German engineers saw potential in particular from the British Bren Gun carrier and the Belgian “utility tractor” (a British built tracked vehicle made by Vickers, who also made a proportion of the British Bren carriers).

Here’s a pic of both in “normal use”

A Belgian Vickers Utility tractor

Bren Carrier

A number of both these vehicles were converted to be cable-controlled demolition vehicles, each with a 1.2 km cable.  That’s quite a distance, and one imagines that control of vehicle at such range was tricky, based on distant observation.  A total of 60 were sent to the Crimea in 1941.  The German Crimean campaign of 1941 is interesting because I think it was used as a testing ground for range of innovative German technologies.  I’m currently exploring the use of an advanced prototype German fuel air explosive weapon in this campaign, to clear bunkers and defence structures, and it appears that these converted Belgian and British ROVs were used against the same targets to deliver relatively large explosive charges. I have also seen reports of Borgward B vehicles used in the Crimea at this time.  It appears that the majority of the 60 vehicles were deployed with mixed results – some destroyed by mines before they reached the targets, some destroyed by enemy fire, some failed and some functioned as intended destroying Russian defensive positions.  I can find no specifics over the amount of explosives carried by either vehicle, nor any specifics on the control mechanisms fitted.   It appears that the ROVs were “controlled” from a “mother” command tank.  The Germans complained that there were no spare parts for the captured ROVs and recommended development of indigenous vehicles accordingly.  Other feedback included the suggestion that they would be better employed in flatter, desert conditions, such as North Africa, rather than the complex urban defence environments of Sebastopol, and indeed at least one Bren carrier, captured at El Alamein was so converted.   While this effort to convert enemy tracked vehicles to wire guided demolition use wasn’t really repeated , it’s clear it had some success and more importantly allowed the Germans to develop tactics and concepts of operation. . I think too, given the large amounts of “enemy” vehicles abandoned in Europe at Dunkirk and elsewhere, it made economic sense to utilise them, and the Germans had no qualms about recovering, and using, where possible, quite a range of enemy equipment.

This picture is, it is claimed, a captured Bren carrier (complete with German Cross) fitted with explosives being deployed on the Eastern front. The vehicle in the distance is Borgward B, I think, so it seems very likely.

I think it’s fair to say that the Goliath and the Borgward B ROVs were less effective than the Germans had hoped in normal operations on the Eastern and Western fronts. But it’s worth looking more closely at their deployment in the tight urban environments of cities. There are notable reports of Goliaths being deployed into the Warsaw Ghetto in responding to the Warsaw uprising in 1943.  If ever there was a historic precedent to the urban destruction seen in modern day Syria, the destruction of the ghetto by the German in 1943 is it.    Goliath were used to target buildings, and of course with only small arms the defenders had little defence against these ROVs, unlike formal military units.  I also see parallels with modern anti-tank missiles being used against defensive positions in Syria, of which we are seeing many. Yes these aren’t as fast as those missiles but the targets and tactics are quite similar.

Here’s the remains of a burnt out Borgward B vehicle, I think destroyed by fire after it had dropped off its charge in Kilińskiego Street in Warsaw in August 1944. The explosion reportedly killed 200 residents. The story of this attack is dramatic and a desperately sad tragedy. Essentially the vehicle had been captured by Polish troops as the Germans attempted to deploy it towards a road block and was being paraded around Warsaw by cheering locals. Someone pulled a lever which caused the deployable explosive charge to slide off, and as we know there was a timer started by this activation which the crowds did not understand.  The charge detonated shortly after.  There is more detail here if you are interested. It is possible of course that this was a “Trojan horse” attack, and a number of sources claim this but I suspect that it was just accidental.

Here’s some pics of the Goliath systems being deployed in Warsaw.

This is the effect of a Goliath on a building in Warsaw

I think the German forces of WW2 had, in their ROVs, some interesting tools for offensive operations, and for the built up environments of  Warsaw and heavily prepared defensive environments off Sebastopol they were of some use.  But for German defensive operations, they were less suited. Fundamental unreliability was a major issue, it seems, with all the systems they used, and that’s both in terms of motive power and in terms of the control systems. Modern technology perhaps allows for more reliance on the systems used by terrorists and others. In a battle there is perhaps more of an issue of unit cost – whereas modern ROVs are cheaper, and not being deployed, in general, in battle conditions are doubly attractive. Modern ROVs have more precise controls including reliable and usable video components that makes control easier and more attractive. More accurate control also leads to the potential to reduce charge size and so allow the vehicle to be smaller. I think this aspect of modern ROV weapons is not yet widely understood.  Improved batteries for electric vehicles also increases range.  The issue of logistic support is somewhat useful in understanding use of ROVs for delivering explosives and again modern terrorist use changes the impact of that logistic support and is maybe less crucial in terms of systems.  What is inescapable now and in the past is that ROVs offer an aggressor a safe way of delivering explosives, with the size of the explosive charge required having, of course, an impact on the vehicles that might be suitable.  The key difference today is that technology has improved reliability of control systems, and also that technology is broadly available.  However it is susceptible to technical counter-measures.  In particular radio control systems are now consumer items and not limited to government enterprises.  There are also some other parallels in terms of utilisation of captured weapons systems – and here I’m thinking of the way some Syrian jihadists have adapted captured armoured vehicles for suicide VBIEDS.

I recommend thinking in terms of tactical design – the systems outlined above all approached the target to a “control” point. From there the mode of control switches – and remote control takes over.  It’s worth, as with any attack system, particularly terrorist attack using radio or other command systems, having a hard think about what defines that “control point”.  What are the characteristics of that change over point that are needed, are chosen and utilised? Understanding those will help you develop some counter-measures. Modern day control points are perhaps less clearly defined than these WW2 examples, but the principle remains. Another thought that comes to mind is the importance of Technical Intelligence to the EOD operator. Put yourself on the shoes of an EOD tech 75 years ago – what would you want to know about the command and initiation system before you dealt with such an object? It may have no relevance today but as a “process” it’s useful to think through how you, a modern EOD operator, would deal with such things in a variety of situations – it’ll get your brain thinking, and that’s the best use for a brain.

Most of you will be aware of the command driven vehicles used by modern terrorist groups – various Jihadi ones, ETA, FARC and the IRA have all use such systems and others too are in the back pages of this blog site. But most importantly don’t be then thinking remotely driven vehicles delivering explosives are anything new – they are more than a century old and there are lessons to be learned still. From a historical perspective I’m intrigued by the German campaign in Crimea and the manner in which they used innovative weapons systems there – I’ll be digging further as it’s not a part of WW2 that I’m all that familiar with and instinct is telling there’s some interesting history. I have one wild reference to an ROV being used underground there which I’m trying to track down, and of course Russian defence of Sebastopol in the century before has been a subject of previous blogs. It’s strange how the patterns of explosive use over the centuries return to the same places. Sebastopol, Antwerp, London…

 

Close Me
Looking for Something?
Search:
Post Categories: