Unknown Submunition

[US-Subs]

I was recently allowed access to an unknown recovered bomblet that has me temporarily stumped. I'm posting it in hopes that someone has seen something close or may know of a historic reference that could assist me in it's identification.

The item is shown in the first three photos. As found it measures 370mm long, 103mm in diameter. These measurements could be off slightly due to the condition of the item or the manner in which the measurements were taken.

It is of welded steel construction, with four fins connected by a ring on a short tail section, and with what initially appeared to be a large fuze adapter for a small diameter fuze in the nose. The rear of the munition is unitary with the body, fins are welded to the rear section.

Due to circumstance of recovery which I will not discuss, the origin of the submunition is considered most likely to be either Soviet, Chinese or Japanese. The bomblet is similar in size and shape to various generations of the Soviet AO-10, with stong similarities in the forward sections to the early AO-10 designs (4th photo) though the tail section is more similar to the later versions of the AO-10 (5th photo). It is similar in size to the AO-10s, but about 10mm larger in diameter.

This item was initially reported as empty, weighing only 4.5kg. Upon closer inspection this was found to be correct, but for the wrong reasons.

I've got to go out right now, I'll continue later with another photo.

 

[US-Subs]

On closer examinition it was discovered that the initial examination of the munition, done under difficult conditions, was flawed. The bomblet was not actually empty, what was thought to be void beyond the fuze well was in fact a full length burster tube that was over twice the diameter of the fuze well. The item was x-rayed and this was confirmed. Of particular interest in the x-ray is the collapsed portion of the burster tube. This is very typical of munitions with a thin-walled burster that are incinerated - with no means of escape the liquid fill is vaporised and crushes the burster as it expands, until it forces a pin-hole opening and escapes the munition body.

This could also potentially be the result of freezing, or in certain cases involving chemical agents the agent produces gases and hi-pressure as it deteriorates, someimes shearing threads and forcing thick-walled bursters from munition bodies.

As it is unidentified, the intended fill of this submunition is unknown, but could have potentially been liquid chemical agent, incendiary or smoke. While some features tend toward an identification as smoke or chemical, the much heavier nose could be either for an attempt at stabilisation without sacrificing space (longer tail) or could be seen as typical for roof penetration as an incendiary.

Any information toward the identification of this item would be appreciated.

 

[HAZORD]

Was the thread size and pitch of the fuzewell measured, and does it match any known sizes among the nations mentioned?

 

[US-Subs]

Size and pitch were not measured, with the amount of corrosion it wouldn't have been easy regardless. I wasn't give the freedom to take measurements and play with the piece as I would have wished, but the diameter of the opening didn't match anything I know of for Japanese.

Likewise for Soviet it was larger than most of the small AM-A type fuzes, but smaller than the normal sized nose fuzes. Of course the Soviets had a large number of fuze sizes and variations in this period (1940-1960?). Chinese - I've probably seen about as many Chinese fuzes as anyone I know, and that's damned few. No way to tell unless it was a copy of something Soviet, which might cover 50% or so of the possibilities for the time period.

At the same time, as this (threaded portion) is the burster well, an additional fuze adapter is another possibility, which would make all of this irrelevant - We went through a similar discussion on site, it looks like there is no easy way on this one, you either know it or you don't. So far I don't.

I've gone through Piriev/Resnichenko's book on Soviet 1912-1945 Aviation Ordnance, with nothing close. Found nothing in my submunition or small bomb files, and nothing in the old Foreign Science and Technology Center (FSTC) or DIA ID docs either. I'm hoping someone out East has something buried in an old desk drawer at work. If its a Chinese hybrid copy of Soviet designs however.....

I would love to hope for a new Japanese piece, but the details of this are not consistent with anything I've seen or documented in my last six years of research on Japanese, and the features are not typical of the way the Japanese normally did things. Anyone?

 

[Madbomber31]

From the Construction i think its Russian WW 2 (Body tail and nose).

 

[US-Subs]

OK, which?

 

[BOMBSaway1980]

With a burster it might be some kind of a ZAB or a copy of one

 

[US-Subs]

I thought about that, but most ZABs I've seen and all documents that I have (for WWII and earlier) show bursters less than half length. I've found no diagrams of full length tubes. The 1912-1945 Soviet bomb book has hundreds of diagrams that are 1/4 cut-away, including many experimentals - none with full length, just a single one at around 3/4 and that is a dispenser of small incendiary subminitions.

As with the thread from a month or so ago on the Chinese AF Museum, the Chinese copied a number of Soviet bomb designs, modifying them as they saw fit. I'm leaning in this direction, as if it were Soviet we should be able to pin it down a little better. Had it been found near a test area it might be different, but it was not, so the impression is that it was standardised equipment. If it was standardised then they made more than 1, and it should have made it further west and been seen, either during the war or within the Warsaw Pact following the war. I agree it looks Soviet, but if it is we whould be able to link it to something.

 

[Ranger Jim]

US-Subs,

If you'll PM me, I'll give you my email addy so that you can send me the photos zipped with the synopsis you've posted and I'll post it to the Identification forum on FragWeb.

Jim

 

[US-Subs]

Jim,
thanks for the offer, I've been on Fragweb in the past, but as an active member of the community, several years ago I got burnt out on the constant bitching and whining by so many of the members on that site - which school you went to, how many years you had, which service you were in - and how much pay you deserved in the private sector. Very few seemed interested in actual technical issues and technical progress as a field. Until a number of their members either grow up or die off I'll pass and use other assets. But thanks again for the offer. JO

 

[Ranger Jim]

Jim,
thanks for the offer, I've been on Fragweb in the past, but as an active member of the community, several years ago I got burnt out on the constant bitching and whining by so many of the members on that site - which school you went to, how many years you had, which service you were in - and how much pay you deserved in the private sector. Very few seemed interested in actual technical issues and technical progress as a field. Until a number of their members either grow up or die off I'll pass and use other assets. But thanks again for the offer. JO

Roger that! Got a lot of that on the Ranger forum on SOCNET.com too - They won't let me call myself "Ranger Jim" because I'm not scrolled (that is, I was never a member of the 75th Ranger Regt). But they'll never dis my avatar!

The only Fragweb forums I subscribe to are the Identification and the Jobs forum.Actually, that's pretty much why I signed up here - to help ID ordnance that others have found (mostly UXO and Police types).

But the offer still stands.

Stay Safe,
Jim