Standing Well Back
1840-1850

Pull Primers

In my chronology of initiation systems, a couple of posts down, I omitted the evolution of the “pull primer” as a means of initiating charges, including artillery pieces.  I think it’s worth a look at, especially since they were clearly used to initiate the IED used to sink the USS Cairo, below.

  • Originally in cannon, bags of gunpowder were stuffed in the muzzle and pushed to the far end of the cannon.
  • The bag was then pricked so the priming fire could reach the main charge, by inserting needle like device through the vent hole into the bag charge. The vent is a small hole drilled at the rear of the cannon that led to the inside of the barrel where the bag of gunpowder sat.
  • Then loose gunpowder was poured in to the vent.  That loose gunpowder was then ignited with a slow burning fuse, red hot iron, or other flame like a portfire to the touch hole, or top of the vent. At one stage a paper tube was inserted that held a preloaded quantity of powder to allow a pre-loaded quantity of powder.
  • That method was a little crude, and in 1765 an improvement was developed, which was to insert a tin tube containing blackpowder into the vent.  This ensured that the end of the powder train in the tube was in the right physical position to ignite the main charge, increasing reliability.
  • Later the tin tube was replaced with a goose quill.
  • In the late 1700s a flintlock mechanism began to be used to initiate the vent powder.
  • In 1846 a Hanoverarian artillery officer invented the pull primer. This consisted of a tube (usually copper) which contained blackpowder as before, but also a friction sensitive match compound. Inserted into the tube was length of flattened, serrated wire, which when pulled through the match compound created enough heat from friction to cause the match compound and then the powder to ignite.  This became a reliable, weatherproof, initiator for artillery pieces, and the post on the sinking of the USS Cairo below demonstrates how such a mechanism can be used for IEDs as a command initiation system from a distance, or as a component of a booby trap pull switch.

 

In typical pull primers the base of the tube is closed by varnished paper, and the top by shellac putty and varnished paper. A ring is attached to the top of the wire that protrudes through the shellac putty.  The operator used his “lanyard” to clip onto the ring and pull from the side – lanyards now are an archaic part of a lot of military uniforms.   The match composition was usually a mix of potassium chlorate and another compound.

Friction primers were eventually replaced by percussion primers, which essentially were a percussion cap fitted to the top of the tube, which a mechanism on the gun struck.

19th Century

Siemens Tangents – Command Wire IEDs of 1848

Following the post below about micro IEDs in Siemens equipment I’m going to go off on a wild tangent here. Hold on.

I’m reminded by the mention of Siemens about much earlier IEDs associated with the Siemens founder, Werner von Siemens in the 1840s.  For context, in the US Samuel Colt developed a number of sea mines, and in Russia, Alfred Nobel’s father Emmanuel Nobel worked for the Russians developing a contact fuze for sea mines used in the Crimean war against British naval vessels in the Baltic.  (A similar contact fuze, named the Jacobi fuze, but actually designed by Nobel was also used in improvised land mines in the Crimea).

Werner von Siemens was a German electrical engineer and inventor who developed electrically initiated command detonated water borne IEDs which protected the waters off Kiel and prevented Danish naval bombardment of the city during the Schleswig-Holstein war in 1848.   I’m amused that Siemens was placed under “honorary arrest” for being a second in a duel, and used his time in gaol to conduct chemistry experiments.

Siemens’s sister lived in Kiel where her husband was a chemistry professor. They lived close to the harbour in Kiel and were potentially vulnerable to Danish attack.   As Siemens says in his autobiography:

This led me to the then entirely novel idea of defending the harbour by submarine mines fired by electricity. My wires insulated with gutta-percha offered a means of exploding such mines at the right moment in safety from the shore. I communicated this plan to my brother-in-law, who took it up warmly and immediately submitted it to the provisional government for the defence of the country. The latter approved of it and despatched a special emissary to the Prussian Government, with the request to grant me permission to execute the plan. My authorized employment or even mere leave of absence for this warlike purpose was however opposed on the ground that peace still reigned between Prussia and Denmark. But it was intimated to me that I should receive the desired permission if circumstances changed, as was expected. 

I employed this waiting time in making preparations. Large and particularly strong canvas – bags rendered watertight by caoutchouc (rubber) were got ready, each capable of holding about five hundred- weight of powder. Further, wires insulated in all haste and exploding contrivances were prepared, and the necessary galvanic batteries procured for firing. When the departmental chief in the war-office. General von Reyher, in whose ante-room I daily waited for the decision, at last made the communication, that he had just been appointed minister and war having been resolved against Denmark, that he granted me the desired furlough as the first act of hostilities against Denmark, my preparations were almost completed, and on the same evening I left for Kiel. 

My brother-in-law in Kiel had meanwhile made all the preparations in order to proceed quickly with the laying of the mines, as the appearance of the Danish fleet was daily expected. A ship-load of powder had already arrived from Rendsburg, and a number of large casks stood ready well calked and pitched, in order to be provisionally used instead of the still unfinished caoutchouc-bags. These casks were as quickly as possible filled with powder, provided with fuses, and anchored in the rather narrow channel in front of the bathing establishment in such a way that they were buoyed twenty feet under the surface of the water. The firing-wires were carried to two covered points on the shore, and the course of the current so disposed that a mine must explode if at both points simultaneously contact was made.  At both places of observation upright rods were set up and the instruction given, that contact must be made, if a hostile ship took up a position in the direct line of the rods, and remain made until the ship had again completely removed from the right line. If contact of both right lines were at any moment simultaneously made the ship would be exactly over the mines. By experiments with small mines and boats it was ascertained that this exploding arrangement acted with perfect certainty. 

Later in the war the casks were replaced with “caoutchouc” india rubber bags and Siemens used the casks as command initiated land based IEDs to protect the fortifications around Kiel. One of these detonated prematurely, as follows:

The rest of the men I had collected in the fortress-yard to distribute them and exhort them to bravery, when suddenly before the fort-gate rose a vast fire -sheaf. I felt a violent compression succeeded by a violent expansion of the chest: the first sensation was accompanied by the clatter of broken window-panes, and the second by the elevation of the tiles of all the roofs to the height of a foot and their subsequent fall with a dreadful din. Of course it could only be the mine, whose explosion had produced the mischief. I thought at once of my poor brother Fritz. I ran to the gate to look after him, but before I reached it he met me uninjured.

He had prepared the mine, set up the battery on the terre-plein, connected the one igniting wire with the one pole of the battery and fastened the other to the branch of a tree to have it ready to hand, and was about to announce this when the explosion occurred, and the atmospheric pressure hurled him down from the rampart into the interior of the fort. The rather violent wind had shaken the second firing-wire from the tree, causing it to fall just on the other pole of the battery and so producing the explosion.

Incidentally the same technique for sighting of targets was subsequently used in the US Civil war.

As an aside the scientific genes ran strong in the Siemens family. Werner’s younger brother was a remarkable engineer who emigrated to England, adopted British citizenship and became knighted as Sir William Siemens for his contributions to science. Another brother, Carl, an entrepreneur,  worked in Russia developing the Russian telegraph system.  He was ennobled for this by Tsar Nichlas II.

So a number of industrial dynasties, (Colt, Nobel and Siemens) all had beginnings based on the development of IEDs….

 

 

Update on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at 1:50PM by Roger Davies

Just to clarify in terms of the relative dates of inventions:

Samuel Colt demonstrated  a working electrically initiated water borne mine in 1841.

Werner Siemens’s Kiel devices seem to have been independently invented in 1848.

Immanuel Nobel seems to have taken Siemens’s idea and created contact fuzing in 1853.

…or thereabouts….

Colt’s IED’s were not brought into service in the US because it was objected to by then Congressman John Quincy Adams who scuttled the project as “not fair and honest warfare” and called the Colt mine an “unchristian contraption”  But such mines were later used extensively in the Civil war.

Update on Friday, September 28, 2012 at 6:15PM by Roger Davies

Ok, there’s another man in the mix for earliest electrically initiated sea mines. Engineer in Chief Schilder of the Russian Navy in the 1830s.

 

 

Update on Friday, November 2, 2012 at 10:52PM by Roger Davies

And another  even earlier Baron von Schilling was making electrically initiated command sea mines and land mines for the Russians in 1812.

Command IED

Early history of command wire electrically initiated IEDs

In some of my previous blogs I wrote about the first command wire IEDs occurring in the US Civil War, then had to correct myself as I found earlier examples in the Crimean war and then again earlier incidences by both Immanuel Nobel and Samuel Colt.

Well, I keep finding other perhaps earlier references as I dig into this and follow this “historical alley” and it’s really quite interesting and clearly things go back further in time than I had appreciated.  Here’s some extracts from what I’ve been digging up.

It starts with some further exploration into the efforts of Samuel Colt, the American industrialist and arms inventor. Separate from his efforts developing small arms, Colt for many years attempted to get the US government interested in a system for defending the US coastline which he referred to as his “Submarine Battery” which were essentially water-borne command initiated sea mines.  I attempted to try and find the inspiration for Colt’s efforts and the science on which he based his submarine munition technology.

I have in earlier blogs discussed the parallel work of Immanuel Nobel (father of Alfred Nobel) who developed command initiated sea mines for the Russian Navy at about the same time. It would appear that another 19th century military industrialist, this time the German Werner von Siemens was also developing very similar technologies perhaps a few years later in 1848, compared to Colt and Nobel who worked on their versions in the early part of the same decade. What is unclear is if these three entrepreneurial military technology developers were aware of each other’s developments.  Siemens’s devices were used to protect Kiel from Danish naval attacks in 1848.

But pertinent to the subject of electrical initiation of IEDs is a letter written by Benjamin Franklin in 1751 to Mr Peter Collinson of the Royal Academy in England which states

I have not hear’d, that any of your European Electricians have hitherto been able to fire gunpowder by the Electric Flame. We do it here in this Manner.

A small Cartridge is filled with Dry powder, hard rammed, so as to bruise some of the Grains. Two pointed Wires are then thrust In, one at Each End, the points approaching each other in the Middle of the Cartridge, till within the distance of  half an Inch: Then the Cartridge being placed in the Circle (circuit), when the Four Jars (galvanic cells) are discharged the electric Flame leaping from the point of one Wire to the point of the other, within the Cartridge, among the powder, fires It, and the explosion of the powder is at the same Instant with the crack of the Discharge

I wonder if we can call this the first electrically initiated IED? Albeit manufactured with pure science in mind rather than as a weapon.

Inspired directly by Franklin, the Italian Allessandro Volta wrote to a colleague in 1777 describing how he had fired muskets, pistols and an under-water mine by means of his electrical piles. I suspect this was the first electrically initiated IED actually intended as a weapon.

Volta’s Italian compatriot, working on a telegraph, Tiberius Cavallo then took a step further in 1782 in the following manner

The attempts recently made to convey intelligence from one place to another at a great distance, with the utmost quickness, have induced me to publish the following experiments, which I made some years ago. The object for which those experiments were performed, was to fire gun-powder, or other combustible matter, from a great distance, by means of electricity. At first I made a circuit with a very long brass wire, the two ends of which returned to the same place, whilst the middle of the wire stood at a great distance. In this middle an interruption was made, in which a cartridge of gunpowder mixed with steel filings was placed. Then, by applying a charged Leyden phial to the two extremities of the wire, (viz. by touching one wire with the knob of the phial, whilst the other was connected with the outside coating) the cartridge was fired. In this manner I could fire gunpowder from the distance of three hundred feet and upwards.

I think this may effectively be the first command wire initiated IED.

The next issue to be dealt with was waterproofing electrical cable and a variety of attempts were made using a range of substances including india rubber, varnish and tarred hemp. The Russians appear on the scene. Baron Schilling Von Canstadt was a Russian diplomat in Bavaria who took great interest in scientific developments. On his return to St Petersburg in 1812 and driven by war with France, Schilling Von Canstadt developed electrically initiated charges that could be fired across a river, the cable running through the water, with a carbon arc initiator. These were demonstrated in 1812 but do not appear to have been adopted by the Russian Army. Later after the Russians entered Paris after Napoleon’s defeat he undertook a number of similar experiments crossing the Seine.   Here’s a description of him demonstrating a command wire IED to Tsar Alexander I

Once Baron Schilling had the honor to present a wire to the Emperor in his tent. He begged his Majesty to touch it with another wire, whilst looking through the door of the tent in the direction of a very far distant mine. A cloud of smoke rose from this exploding mine at the moment the Emperor, with his hands, made the contact. This caused great surprise, and provoked expressions of satisfaction and applause.

His successor, Tsar Nicholas I was fortunate to escape serious injury in 1837 when an electrically initiated charge was used on a demonstration to destroy a bridge but the demonstration went wrong and the charge detonated prematurely or with larger effect than expected.

The next on the scene were the British. Colonel Pasley of the Royal Engineers was inspired by a newspaper report of the accident in Russia and working with the electrical scientist Wheatstone developed insulated cables and platinum filament exploding detonators around 1839.

Also in the 1830s, American scientist Robert Hare developed “galvanic techniques” for quarry blasting.

Enough for now – some time in the future I’ll return to Colt’s submarine battery, but will state here that as a 15 year old boy in 1829 it appears he had his first success in initiating an explosive charge under water.

19th Century

IEDs in the American Civil War

I’m enjoying a fascinating book about improvised munitions from the American Civil War. The book is a new edition of two period documents, firstly the “Rains Torpedo Book” written by an innovative Confederate officer , General Gabriel Rains and describing a significant number of ingenous IEDs that he designed and deployed.  At the time both land mines and sea/river mines were all known as “torpedoes”.  The second document, included in the book, is from the Federal perspective  “Notes Explaining Rebel Torpedoes and Ordnance” by Captain Peter S Michie. I’d recommend the book to anyone interested in Counter-IED for the unusual perspective it gives. Here’s a link to Amazon: Confederate Torpedoes

As an example there is a description of a triple IED attack mounted by Rains in  the aftermath of the Battle of Williamsburg in 1862.

Title – Sub –Terra Shell “ 115,000 men turned by 4 of these”

The day after the Battle of Willamsburg, Va, my brigade formed the rearguard of Genl. Johnston’s army, and we were employed at very hard work, in getting over a mud slosh in about 3 miles from that city toward Richmond our own artillery, and that taken from the enemy. Afterward I discovered that such was the nature of the place , from woods and the tortuous road, we could not bring a single piece of artillery to bear, and the enemy were coming on pursuing and shelling the road as they came. Not knowing how to protect our good soldiers, the sick and disabled, , which usually bring up the rear of an army in retreat, I involuntarily fell back and found in the road, in a mud hole a broken down caisson. On opening this, nothing was within except 5 shells of this size and shape., which I put in the hands of 5 soldiers, and proceeded with them to the rear , where our Confederate cavalry guard was stationed and under their supervision, the colonel being present we planted 4 of the shells in the road a little beyond a fallen tree, the first obstacle the enemy would find on their route. I put the three together about a yard part in a triangular form, and one a little to the left in a basket and with some sensitive primers, which I happened to have, after they were buried to their tops, I primed them, covering lightly with soil out of view, and then withdrew.  As the enemy approached the cavalry retired also.

There were twp explosions as the enemy’s cavalry came upon them, so the 3 shells planted near each other must have exploded as one , and the other separately.

 Lawyer’s A ‘s statement – “I was in Williamsburg at the time in the possession of the enemy, and such was the demoralizing effect, that for 3 days and nights they stopped and never moved a peg after hearing the reports” So these 4 shells checkmated the advance of 115,000 men under Gen McClellan and turned them from their line of march, for they never used the road afterward, supposing it thus armed though they advanced by the York River road finally.

 Other devices used are fascinating including the first electrical command wire initiated IEDs I have found – more to follow in future blogs.

1580-1590

Complex IED attack circa 1584

At readers’ request, another example of an IED attack from the 1500s. I showed this to then Col Joe Votel when he set up the IED TF (the predecessor to JIEDDO) a few years ago.  This image below shows a complex IED attack from the early 1580s, I believe from the Spanish war against the Dutch rebels. Here we have a foreign Army  (the Spaniards) invading a country and the locals (with a different religion) objecting. The locals (the Dutch) have secret help from a neighbouring country (England) with similar religious beliefs who also regard the Spaniards as enemies, but don’t yet want to engage directly, so they provided explosive expertise to the local rebels.  (Get my drift?)

The image is clearer in its original form but this is the best I can do on this blog page. This is a complex IED attack of three command initiated IEDs against a military convoy.  The attacks is well planned and carefully constructed with IEDs functioning at the front of the convoy  (upper right), rear (upper left) and centre.  Note that the firing point for all three is across the river preventing the convoy’s soldiers from counterattacking. The enemy convoy are marching on foot from left to right.

From reading the WIT report on CIDNE (!) I can see that each IED consisted of a barrel of gunpowder buried under the road. In each barrel is embedded a wheel-lock mechanism, triggered by the terrorist across the river pulling a string.  You can see the string in the image if you look carefully.

The effect of the explosions is interesting, if you look carefully. There is a large explosion in each case and rocks and soldiers are thrown in the air and the river, with smoke billowing from each location.  Only two of the “terrorists” at the firing points are pictured, one on the left hand edge half way up, the other on the bottom right corner. (the third is out of the picture to the right). Each firing point is concealed in bushes with a good view of the road, and safe from counter-attack.

There are then cannons set up to subsequently engage the survivors, four in total.  So a good example of a complex attack on a convoy/foot patrol.  Despite the primitive technology I venture to suggest not much has changed and indeed the technology in theaters at the moment isn’t all that much further forward.

Comments welcome.

Close Me
Looking for Something?
Search:
Post Categories: