Magazine Spring 2017Published by the United States Army Ordnance Corps Association in support of the Army Ordnance Corps personnel worldwide

Badge of Honor

I’d like to take this opportunity to

provide you with an update on a

few of our annual Ordnance events.

In celebration of the 100th Anniversary

of Fort Lee, some of the 2017 Ordnance

birthday week events will be conducted as

part of the Fort Lee Centennial Celebration

and Sustainment Week on 10-13 July

2017. During the Centennial Celebration

and Sustainment Week, we will execute

the Ordnance Corps Association Golf

Tournament, Ordnance Corps Hall of

Fame Board and the Ordnance Corps

Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony. A tentative

timeline for all Centennial and Sustainment

Week events is included in this issue of

Ordnance Magazine.

Though we are excited for the Centennial

Week festivities, we couldn’t go without

planning some special events to celebrate the

205th Ordnance Corps birthday in May. On the

12th of May, we will have an Ordnance birthday

run, a birthday cake cutting and an investiture

ceremony for the Honorary Sergeant Major of

the Regiment. The ceremony will be in honor

of CSM(R) Steven A. McWilliams (outgoing)

and CSM(R) Daniel A. Eubanks (incoming).

The principal duties of the honorary positions

are to foster regimental esprit de corps, uphold

the traditions and perpetuate the history of

the regiment, act as informal advisors to the

regimental command team, and to participate

in regimental ceremonies. I’d like to thank

From the 40th Chief of OrdnanceBrigadier General David Wilson

ANSWERING THE CALL FOR OVER 200 YEARS!

CSM(R) McWilliams for his outstanding

support to the Ordnance Corps and welcome

CSM(R) Eubanks to the team.

I always look forward to occasions when

we can celebrate our proud history and

commemorate the achievements of Ordnance

Corps members, past and present. Our

annual birthday events provide an excellent

opportunity for the Ordnance Corps community

to reconnect. I want to remind you that there are

many ways to stay connected to the Ordnance

Corps. We recently expanded our quarterly

Ordnance Connect live broadcast in order to

facilitate broader participation. This broadcast

provides a venue to share trends and lessons

learned. It also gives me an opportunity to

update you on proponency issues that impact

the Total Force. I invite you to join this

growing network! Watch for Ordnance Connect

announcements on our website and Facebook.

If you can’t attend live, or if you want to

review a previously broadcasted topic, you can

access the video logs posted to the Ordnance

Sustainment Knowledge Network.

Lastly, I would like to thank CSM Edward

Morris for his outstanding service as the 12th

Regimental Command Sergeant Major and

for his dedication to Ordnance Soldiers as he

transitions to the next chapter of his Army career.

I offer a warm welcome to CSM Terry Burton

and his family and look forward to working

with him to champion Ordnance initiatives to

build and sustain Army READINESS.

— GO ORDNANCE!

Greetings from the Home of Ordnance!

ORDNANCE

CORPS

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE2 Spring 2017

CONTENTS PAGE

From the Chief of Ordnance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2by Brigadier GeneralDavid Wilson

From the Regimental Command Sergeant Major . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4by Command Sgt . Maj Terry Burton

From the Regimental Chief Warrant Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5by Chief Warrant Officer 5 Richard C . Myers, Jr .

From the President, Ordnance Corp Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6by Col . (Retired) Gregory A . Mason

The Ordnance Corps Memorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

WolfPack Supports Georgian Mechanical Maintenance Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 by CW3 Gustavo Lombera-Mendoza

Fort Lee Centennial and Sustainment Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Ordnance Hall of Fame Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Origins of the Army EOD Capability During World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16by CPT Andrew J . Sadowsky

Check Out These Hard-working Ordnance Soldiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Evolution of the Multicharge Gun – Timing is Everything . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19by Raoul Drapeau

U.S. Army Ordnance Corps Association (OCA)

P.O. Box 5251 Fort Lee, Va. 23801

OCA Business Phone (804) 733-5596

FAX (804) 733-5599

www.usaoca.org

E-Mail usaoca@usaocaweb.org

wurm.usaoca@usaocaweb.org

Gift Shop (804) 733-5596

President Col. (Retired) Greg Mason

Executive Director Lt. Col. Martin J. Hendrix

Association Director Chief Warrant Officer 4 (Retired) Chester Morris

ORDNANCE Magazine (ISSN 1091-8159) is published by the US Army Ordnance Corps Association, a private organization dedicated to the preservation of the heritage and traditions of the US Army Ordnance Corps. Articles appearing in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position of the US Army Ord-nance Corps, the Department of the Army, or the Department of Defense. Material submitted for publication is subject to edit. Articles may be sent to: Editor, ORDNANCE Magazine, P.O. Box 377, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. 21005-0377 or via e-mail ad-dresses. For more information contact Mr. Joe Wurm (Chief Warrant Officer 5, Retired) at 410-272-8540; FAX 804-733-5599.Subscription Rates: Membership in the US Army Ordnance Corps Association includes a subscription to the ORDNANCE Magazine. For non-member persons and organizations subscriptions are $16.00 a year in the USA and its possessions, $34.00 a year, foreign.

on the cover

Congratulations to SGT Craig Hudson (91B), Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Battalion, 3d United States Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) for being awarded the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Identification Badge, #647, making him one of the few Soldiers in the United States Army to be awarded this coveted badge in Ordnance history.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 3

Ordnance

From the Regimental Command Sergeant MajorCommand Sergeant Major Terry Burton

Greetings to the Ordnance Community! I would like to

the opportunity to introduce

myself as the newly assigned 13th

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

of the United States Army Ordnance

Corps. It is my absolute privilege and

honor to become the senior enlisted

face of such a prestigious, time-honored

Corps and School. In my short time, I

have quickly come to understand why

the United States Army Ordnance Corps

is the cornerstone of readiness and

one of the premiere branches of the Army. I

have witnessed firsthand how the US Army

Ordnance School system facilitates state-of-

the-art training, doctrine, and professional

development around the clock, producing

highly technical, proficient, and professional

Ordnance Soldiers with the knowledge and

skills to perform immediately for the total

force.

The Personnel Development Office (PDO)

is committed to work in partnership with the

total force concerning training, educating,

and developing Ordnance professionals. As

we make progress on key initiatives, we keep

all cohorts in mind: officers, warrant officers,

NCOs, enlisted, DA Civilians, and Family

members across the Regular Army, Army

National Guard, and Army Reserve. We must

continue to work as one Army that is indivisible

in order to make continuous progress toward

achieving our current and future goals.

I would like to congratulate all the Sergeants

First Class that were selected for promotion this

past April. The high percentage of selectees is

a direct reflection of our leaders and educators

— Go Ordnance! — Sustainment Starts Here! — Army Strong! — www.goordnance.army.mil/

c o n t i n u e s o n p a g e 8

promoting professional development through

mentorship throughout the Corp. I am excited

to report that (16) 89Bs, (33) 89Ds, (234) 91Xs,

(8) 91As, (10) 91Ms, (3) 91Ps, (16) 94Ws, and

(2) 94Ds were selected for promotion based on

their superior performance and potential for

increased responsibility. Our NCOs who served

in leadership positions, accepted broadening

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE4 Spring 2017

From the Regimental Chief Warrant OfficerChief Warrant Officer Richard C. Myers, Jr.

Greetings, friends and col-leagues! In keeping with my

recent trend of writing about

topics that help Ordnance warrant officers

establish themselves as the Army’s pre-

mier land force technical experts and sys-

tems integrators, I thought I would write

about the importance of warrant officer networking. Networking is an essential

capability that enables us to share infor-

mation and perspectives, exchange ideas,

solve problems, and ensure the Army is

prepared to fight and win tonight.

The art of warrant officer networking is

the creative and skillful cultivation of relation-

ships. As I have said numerous times, the true

essence of the Army is its people; therefore,

relationships matter. As leaders, we are taught

that shared understanding, unity of effort,

teamwork, trust, and collaboration are essential

to successful completion of critical objectives.

What many fail to realize is that their network

includes face-to-face relationships, social me-

dia acquaintances, peers, subordinates, supe-

riors, and even people you have never met.

Every person you communicate with is poten-

tially a new member of your network!

The warrant officer of today, and more im-

portantly, the warrant officer of the future must

be comfortable with ambiguity and possess the

ability to solve ill-structured problems. They

must understand that increased technologi-

cal gains and smaller sustainment footprints

require a greater network. Networks provide

so much more than an opportunity for you to

solve your problems - they provide a unique

opportunity for you to help others solve their

problems!

I still recall the time, as a newly appointed war-

rant officer, when a mechanic in my organization

received a ‘no-pay due’ for three months

straight. He approached me the morning of

‘Sergeant’s Time Training’ concerned about

the lack of attention his financial situation was

receiving. I took him to the local Personnel

Services Battalion and knocked on the door,

ignoring the sign that said: “Closed for Ser-

geants Time Training.” When the door opened,

I asked to speak to “Chief” who immediately

made time for us. Needless to say, the problem

was solved that morning because of a special

bond that exists among warrant officers.

Interestingly, I have found that the art of networking may actually be somewhat of a

lost art. There are a variety of reasons that we

have experienced a gradual disintegration of

something that the warrant officer community

has excelled at since its inception. One reason,

in particular, is a misguided perception that

warrant officers are competing with each other.

That cannot be further from the truth. Don’t get

me wrong, the nature of our business requires a

population of people with the competitiveness

and innate drive to win. However, we should

seek healthy competition that encourages max-

imum performance and motivates others to

become world-class performers of their craft.

If your competitiveness is stopping you from

helping a fellow Soldier, regardless of special-

ty, you should immediately reassess your po-

sition and remember that your assistance will

strengthen the Army team.

In October 2013, Major General Shapiro

wrote an article titled “The seven deadly sins

of sustainment,” which outlined our responsi-

bility to examine and review actions in terms

— Go Ordnance! Support Starts Here! Army Strong! — www.goordnance.army.mil/

c o n t i n u e s o n p a g e 8

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 5

Dear Friends and Members of our ORDNANCE CORPS ASSOCIATION

The Association continues to work very closely

with Ordnance School leadership to ensure that we

stay plugged into their efforts build and preserve

Army READINESS across our four Ordnance core

competencies: maintenance, ammunition, explosive

ordnance disposal, and explosives safety. Our

key objectives remain promoting the professional

educational development of our members and

growing our association in order to help more

Ordnance Soldiers and Families with scholarships,

awards, recognizing the fallen and providing

assistance to families in need.

BLUF, the Ordnance Corps Association remains

healthy! We still need your support yearly at our

OCA Annual Golf Tournament fundraiser which will

be held during Fort Lee Centennial and Sustainment

Week on 11 Jul 17 at Fort Lee, Virginia in order

expand our ability to support Ordnance Soldiers and

Families! We have made some changes to the Samuel

Sharpe form, but no change to the standard. This

was to ease the staffing process. As the President, I

ask that we preserve the honor and prestige by only

recommending our best and most deserving Soldiers,

Warrants, Officers and Civilians for this award. We

also changed our web link back to www.usaoca.org

and have made lots of improvements to the website.

Membership: As you all know, our association

provides a strategic means to help get the word out

to both new and corporate members we want to

recruit as part of the Chief of Ordnance’s Strategic

Communication. At 1,353 individual members and

35 corporate members, we have remained about

the same since 2015, with lots of room to grow.

Our membership committee is constantly reaching

previous members to see if they would like to rejoin.

The committee has also reinvigorated the OCA

Facebook page in order to share some of the great

things that we are doing. We are also exploring

new incentives for our members and to entice new

members by visiting other association sites, so

expect to see changes on the website very soon.

We are always looking for ways to give back to the

Corps, so if you have any ideas on incentives, please

contact us at 804-733-5596. The more members and

support for the Corps that we have will increase our

ability to provide more scholarships and support to

our Soldiers and Families. Please let us know how

we can support you better!

OCA Team: Since our last publication, we

have had a few changes on the team. We are fortunate

to have another great former battalion commander

as the Association Executive Director, LTC

Martin Hendrix; CW4(R) Chester Morris

has transitioned with CW5(R) Joseph Wurm

as the Association Director; Membership/

Incentive/Publicity Committee – vacant; and

the Investments/Finance/Budget Committee

– vacant. As you can see, we have two vacant

positions, so if you would like to serve the

Corps, please let me know. We will plan an

event this spring in order to recognize and

honor the Wurms for over 16 years of dedicated

service to the Association. We still need your

support/recommendations on how to make the

association better.

Where we need your HELP: We are working

diligently to solicit sponsorship for our OCA

Annual Golf Tournament which will be held on

Tuesday, 11 July 2017 during Fort Lee Centennial

and Sustainment Week, Fort Lee, Virginia. This is

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE6 Spring 2017

• HELP

• DO

NATE • HELP •

DO

NA

TE

•

gofundme.com/ordmemorialfundgofundme.com/usaocaftlee

Serving proudly,Gregory A. MasonColonel, U.S. Army (Retired)President, Ordnance Corps Association

• HELP

• DO

NATE • HELP •

DO

NA

TE

•

still have the “On Time” and “On the Line” prints

available.

The Ordnance Corp Association takes great pride

in supporting our Ordnance Corps, its Soldiers,

Civilians, and their Families. From awarding

scholarships, to helping Ordnance Families, to our

several recognition programs, we continue to keep

our heritage strong. Thank you for helping me

support our great Ordnance Great Americans.

— GO ORDNANCE!

our main fundraiser for the year. We will use the

proceeds from the golf tournament to again support

more scholarships, support Ordnance Soldiers

and Families during Thanksgiving and Christmas,

Ordnance Memorial Fund, awards and to continue

to operate the Association. Last year, we awarded

scholarships to seven superstars for over $8,000. We

would like to do the same this year or even more;

however, we can’t do it without your support. If

you would like to donate or apply for scholarship

fund, please go to www.usaoca.org and click on

scholarships.

Ordnance Print: We still have copies of the new

print to commemorate the New Home of Ordnance

here on Fort Lee available. We unveiled the print

during Ordnance Week 2016. The print honors our

past at Aberdeen Proving Ground and captures our

new beginning here at Fort Lee - “Ordnance, Striving

Forward by Honoring the Past”. Additionally, we

“Service On Time” by Don Stivers

“Service On The Line” by Don Stivers

“Ordnance, Striving Forward by Honoring the Past” by Henry Kidd

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 7

opportunities, and excelled at military schools were all

looked at favorably by board members. Additionally, Army

instructor experience was found to be a favorable broadening

assignment. If you would like a more detailed analysis of the

FY17 MSG Selection board, the Ordnance Corp Proponent

Office has it posted on the ACT website (actnow.army.mil)

in the Career Management Field (CMF) 89, CMF 91, and

CMF 94 communities respectively. Speaking of Army Career

Tracker, it is easier to use than ever before as a portal to access

your personal Professional Development Model, Individual

Development Plan, as well as your Career Management

Field’s community right from the Home Page.

Social Media is a powerful tool to get the word out about

current and future initiatives being produced by the Corp. For

example, our Facebook page shares the most current news

and topics of interest to Ordnance Corps. You can access our

of effectiveness and efficiency. In the ar-

ticle, Major General Shapiro attributed

the logistician’s reluctance to share as-

sets and information to… pride. Since

reading his article, I have seen evidence

of the narrow-mindedness he called into

question. It still exists across our forma-

tion in some regard - not at a level that

is alarming - but certainly at a level that

requires our attention. The opportunity

to share your standard operating pro-

cedure, provide technical assistance, or

give your last electro-mechanical fuel

system off shop stock to assist another

organization build and sustain readiness

should give you a feeling of accomplish-

ment. What success do you truly achieve

by hoarding information and assets?

In the past, we heard about the ‘war-

rant officer mafia.’ In spite of its some-

what negative connotation, the term un-

derscored the powerful relationship that

existed among warrant officers of all

branches. We must get past the obstacles

that are separating us and focus more en-

ergy on creating and nurturing the strong

relationships that increase our ability to

assist our commands in their effort to

accomplish the critical tasks associated

with Army operations.

I challenge each of you to build a

network of professionals who will-

ingly share information and per-

spectives, exchange ideas to

improve operations, and collaborate

to solve ill-structured problems. I ask

you these questions: Will you be the

warrant officer with tremendous tal-

ent who never capitalized on it? Will

you be the warrant officer who knew

their trade, but never mastered it? Or,

will you be the warrant officer who, in

uncertain and challenging times, with

little to no direction, used their intel-

lect, innovation, commitment and net-work to build and sustain our Army’s

readiness?

— GO ORDNANCE!

C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 5 — From the Regimental Chief Warrant Officer

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P A G E 4 — From the Regimental Command Sergeant Major

page by typing United States Army Ordnance Corps in the

search bar and clicking “like”. In addition, you can type 13th

Regimental Command Sgt. Maj. Terry D Burton in the search

bar to read the latest information that I push out to Ordnance

professionals across our diverse formations. Remember to

employ “Think, Type, Post” when engaging on social media

sites and always communicate what is in good standing and

consistent with the Army Values.

I am looking forward to traveling to all the installations

and locations around the globe where professional Ordnance

Soldiers - at the tip of the spear - are conducting mission

critical maintenance operations as a part of the corner stone

of readiness.

— GO ORDNANCE — It’s more than a motto; it’s an Attitude!

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE8 Spring 2017

Artist’s mock-up of Ordnance Corps Memorial (not final)

THE ORDNANCE CORPS

MEMORIAL

It was the vision of MG Clark LeMasters, while he was the

36th Chief of Ordnance, to erect an Ordnance Corps Memorial

in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Ordnance

Corps and in tribute to the Ordnance Soldiers who paid the ultimate

sacrifice in their service to the United States Army and the Nation.

His vision will one day become a reality through contributions to

the Memorial Fund. Since the Ordnance Corps Association receives

no government funds, volunteer funding raising efforts are neces-

sary to support this effort.

Using initial funds for the Memorial, the Ordnance Corps Asso-

ciation contracted with Rod Mench Studios, LLC, to design the Me-

morial based on BG LeMasters vision with input from other senior

leaders and the Historian. Mench Studios created the full size clay

mock up and base that one day with sufficient funding will be taken

to a foundry to be bronzed. Included in the funding raising efforts,

the Association will receive 100 marquettes (small versions of the

memorial) that will be available for sale with funds directed to the

Memorial. The Memorial will be positioned on Whittington Parade

Field and will stand over six feet six inches tall.

Assist in helping the Ordnance Corps Memorial

realize its dream by generously donating and sup-

porting this tribute to our Ordnance Soldiers.

To donate, visitgofundme.com/ordmemorialfund

Sculptor’s rendering of Ordnance Memorial

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 9

The Training was coordinated by the Army Section Chief, MAJ Wayne Dahl, from the U.S. Embassy and the Georgian Military and was scheduled to take place in a classroom environment. The Training consisted of 4 Soldiers from the 18th CSSB teaching Maintenance and Logistical Operations to 20 Georgian Soldiers from different units throughout the country of Georgia. This kind of train-ing will help enhance the knowledge of maintenance personnel from other coun-tries and help make improvements to their

WOLFPACK SUPPORTS GEORGIAN MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE TRAINING

By CW3 Gustavo Lombera-Mendoza, 317th SMC

Tbilisi, Georgia – Soldiers from the 317th Support Maintenance Company and 18th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion conduct classroom training on maintenance operations and procedures in order to support the Georgian Military in the Vaziani Training Area, Georgia.

maintenance programs while maintaining a high state or equipment readiness.

The training started on 19 September 2016 with a formal introduction of MAJ Lasha Chanchaleishvili, the Senior Officer of Logistic Operations Planning Division of J-4/8 Georgian Armed Forces and a walkthrough of the Brigade Support Battalion Motorpool. This training took place in the Vaziani Training Area (VTA) conference room; home of the 4th Brigade Mechanized Compound.

The classroom training started on 20

September 2016, 20 Georgian Soldiers and Non Commissioned Officers were in attendance. Although the language bridging caused a little confusion between their interpretation of Operators which are known as Mechanics in Georgia, and Mechanics which are termed as Techni-cians in Georgia; they quickly grasped the concept and began to understand the material that was being presented on Unit Maintenance Operations. Throughout the course of the training plan, the Georgian Soldiers remained attentive and continu-

SFC Vega, SGT Hickey, and Ta-muna the Georgian Translator are engaged in teaching about the Preventive Maintenance Program in the classroom. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 20 SEP 2016)

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE10 Spring 2017

Soldiers from the 18th CSSB engaged in a discussion with the Georgian Military Sol-diers about the difference of language bridging from both nations during the Mechani-cal Maintenance Training. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 21 SEP 2016)

Class picture of the Georgian Military Soldiers, 18th CSSB Soldiers, and Translator after the Depot tour concluded in front of an old T35 tank. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gus-tavo, 317th SMC. 27 SEP 2016)

ously engaged the trainers in more in depth conversations about the maintenance procedures that they follow versus the advantag-es that the U.S. military maintenance procedures provide. What made the training more effective and realistic was the ability of the two Georgian translators to stay actively engaged and com-municate in both languages while translating everything that was being said with no hesitation.

On Tuesday, the 27th of September MAJ Lasha scheduled a trip to the Georgian Military Depot for the whole class to be able to see their maintenance operations. This site is where maintenance is performed on the T72 tanks as they go through the RESET program; engine rebuilt and repair is also conducted if need it. With limited resources and budget constraints, Georgian military mainly rely on its Machinists and Allied Trades Person-

nel on this site to fabricate brackets, hose clamps, and different types of parts as well as all types of gaskets for immediate use and equipment repairs. This type of internal program provides a great advantage of fabricating and having parts on hand versus order-ing them and waiting for those parts to go through the budget analysis program and awaiting for them to be delivered; parts are always available. This site also has the capabilities of repairing body damage on their fleet of Toyota Hilux’s as well as a painting shop. The most impressive part of the site tour was the fact that the majority of improvements made to the facilities were made by the actual Soldiers that work there throughout the years. Vehicle inspection pits, roofs, and concrete floors were all done by the Soldiers.

On 29 September, MAJ Lasha coordinated for the whole

Soldiers from the Georgian Military and civilians are working on a T72 tank before removing the final drive during the walk through of the BSB’s motor-pool. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 29 SEP 2016)

SGT Hickey inspecting the front left wheel hub repair of a Ukranian 10 Ton vehicle in the BSB motorpool. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 29 SEP 2016)

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 11

class to go into the BSB’s Motorpool and walk through it while maintenance operations are taking place. In the Georgian military, mechanics do not perform maintenance operations or repairs on a daily basis; maintenance is only performed on the last working day of the week, this includes Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services. The only exception takes place when parts that ar-rive will have to get installed on the same day. There were various maintenance repairs being done on different types of vehicles

inside the motorpool. The final drive was being removed from a T72 tank to repair a Class III leak and the front left hub of a 10 ton Ukranian Truck was being serviced. It was very interesting to see how effective and proficient their mechanics were at perform-ing these tasks.

I believe that the training really helped the Georgian Soldiers and Non Commissioned Officers understand the importance of constantly making improvements to the maintenance program

CW3 Lombera presenting a Certificate of Participation to one of the Georgian Soldiers. All participants received a certificate. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 30 SEP 2016)

Battery recharge station and maintenance storage room in the BSB motorpool. With limited funding and resources, batteries continuously get recycled and re-used. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 29 SEP 2016)

Final class picture of all Georgian Military Soldiers that at-tended the training and the 18th CSSB MTT. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 30 SEP 2016)

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE12 Spring 2017

and procedures in order to improve equipment readiness while minimizing breakdowns and equipment repairs. Training op-portunities with other nations not only help build international relations but they also provide a great opportunity to interact and learn from other nations as well. The biggest takeaway that we learned from the Georgian Soldiers is that while they do have maintenance procedures in place and technical manuals on hand for all of their equipment and although they face the obstacle of those same manuals being written in Russian, their perseverance is what pushes them to be proficient and creative at their jobs. MAJ Lasha and MG Vakhtang Kapanadze, the Chief of General Staff were very satisfied with the training that they presented the team with a Certificate of Appreciation and thanked each one of

From left to right: CW3 Lombera, Tamara (Georgian Interpreter), SFC Vega, MAJ Lasha (Georgian Military), SFC Thompson, SGT Hickey. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gustavo, 317th SMC. 30 SEP 2016

CW3 Lombera receiving a Certificate of Appreciation from MG Vakhtang Kapanadze, the Chief of Georgian General Staff. All members of the 18th CSSB MTT received a certificate. (Photo by CW3 Lombera, Gus-tavo, 317th SMC. 29 SEP 2016)

team personally. The 20 Georgian Soldiers that participated in the training also received Certificates of Participation signed by the 18th CSSB MTT OIC and COL Zviad Shanava, the Chief J-4/8 Logistics and Resource Planning Department.

For future training events with the Georgian Military Forces or any other nations, here are a few recommendations to make the training more efficient and beneficial. Recommend to incorporate troubleshooting procedures into the training plan to see the dif-ferent methods that are being used in order to possibly make recommendations on how to improve them. If possible, would also recommend to use similar vehicles from both militaries to conduct Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services as well as other maintenance procedures and repairs.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 13

Fort L ee Centenn i a l & Su sta in m e n t Week

Fort Lee, Virginia will celebrate its centennial anniversary in 2017. To commemo-rate this centennial, CASCOM will host the “Fort Lee Centennial & Sustainment Week” from 10 July to 13 July. Our annual Ordnance Corps events will be incor-porated into the Centennial schedule of events and will therefore take place in July instead of May. The schedule will include events to commemorate the Fort Lee Centennial, regimental activities such as the Ordnance Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony and the Ordnance Corps Association Golf Tournament, as well as Sus-tainment Forums. There will not be an Ordnance Ball in 2017, but a consolidated Sustainment Ball during the Centennial Week in July. All are welcome to attend the Centennial and regimental events, and more information will be put out in the coming weeks.

Monday, 10 JUL (Centennial Day)

Tuesday, 11 JUL (Regimental Day 1)

Wednesday, 12 JUL (Regimental Day 2)

Thursday, 13 JUL (Sustainment Day)

• Centennial Celebration (1000-1700)

• Documentary Screening/Band Concert/Baton Passing (1900)

• OCA Golf Tournament (0800)

• QM Hall of Fame and Dist. Units Ceremony/Lunch (1100)

• QM Dedication Ceremony IHO MG(R) Beale (1400)

• QM BBQ (1800)• TC 2017 Dist.

Members of the Rgmt (0945)

• OD 2018 HOF Board (0900)

• QM Dist. Members of Rgmt (0900)

• WWI Exhibit Debut at QM Museum (1000)

• TC Hall of Fame Ceremony (1130)

• OD Training Support Groundbreaking Ceremony (1330)

• OD Hall of Fame Ceremony (1530)

• OD Hall of Fame Dinner (1800)

• Sustainment Ball (1800)

T entat i v e Sche du le of Ev e n ts ( S ub j ect to C ha n ge ) :

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE14 Spring 2017

2017 Ordnance Corps Hall of Fame Inductees

LTC Robert E. Leiendecker SGM Kenneth R. Foster Mr. Thomas G. Pownall

Historical Category

MG Kurt J. Stein COL Yolanda Dennis-Lowman COL Gregory A. Mason LTC William J. Sidebottom

CW5 Lawrence R. Blackwell CW5 Mark A. Fagin CW5 Robert C. Tadlock

CSM Anthony L. Boles CSM Clinton G. Hall CSM Sultan A. Muhammad SGM Edward Komac

Mr. Michael P. Devine Mr. Alan Beuster

Contemporary Category

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 15

The history of organizations within the mili-tary is often linked to technological advances which defined a requirement for them. Explo-sive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) is no excep-tion. Prior to advances in ordnance technol-ogy developed in the interwar years, there was generally no need for a specific military organization tasked with rendering safe enemy ordnance. These duties were often delegated to civilian organizations or tasked to already existing experts in the ordnance field. It was not until the first bombs began to fall over Great Britain in 1940 that the United States seriously considered the cre-ation of a specialized EOD field.

Though there were many individuals, events, and technologi-cal advances that led to the creation of the US Army EOD capa-bility, a man named Herbert Erich Ruehlmann created the need based on his invention of the first widely used clockwork fuzes. US Army Lt. Col. Thomas J Kane was responsible for defining and providing the initial capability. Many themes were prevalent in the creation of the EOD capability. All are still relevant and will be explained in the following pages. Civilian and military coop-

eration, the influence of the Chemical Corps, and a constant battle between the bomb maker and the Unexploded Bomb Technician helped to get us to the force that we belong to today.

In 1926, an aspiring German electrical engineer named Herbert Erich Ruehlmann began working for the manufacturing company Rheinmetall (Macklin p.99). Rheinmetall, like manufac-turers in the interwar years came under part ownership of the Nazi Party and conducted secret weapons research and development expressly banned by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1932, Ruehlmann patented an electronic fuzing system called the Electric Con-denser Fuze. (Leatherwood P.14) As this fuzing system became further developed, it would become the basis for the long delay, clockwork fuzes that resulted in the Unexploded Bombs (UXB) war in Great Britain.

1936 saw the opening of the Spanish Civil War. The war was fought between Socialist reformers who controlled the country, and Nationalist forces seeking to overthrow the government. The war saw a notable amount of foreign involvement, (Nazi Germany 2012) with supporting countries split across what would become the allied nations of World War II supporting the Socialists and the future Axis Powers supporting the Nationalists. Seeing the potential of a Second World War for which Germany was not fully prepared, Adolf Hitler provided Italy with weapons to fight in the Spanish Civil War and ensured that only a select, all volunteer German force, known as the Condor Legion (Nazi Ger-many 2012), would fight for Germany. Thus indirectly supporting the nationalists and providing the German forces the opportunity to test new weapons and tactics. One of the weapons the Nazi’s were particularly interested in was the delayed action bomb fuze.

During the Spanish Civil War, cities such as Madrid, Guernica, and Barcelona fell victim to many Luftwaffe bombing raids. Direct advisors to Herbert Ruehlmann served as military advisors in the Condor Legion. They noted a timing malfunction in the clockwork fuzes which led to an unintentional and longer delay in detonation. This malfunction was exploited and refined in order to cause maximum panic and uncertainty in the civilian population by littering cities with Unexploded Bombs (UXB). (Leatherwood

The Origins of the Army EOD Capability During

World War II

By CPT Andrew J. Sadowsky, 129th OD CO (EOD)

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE16 Spring 2017

P. 16) Herman Goring, head of the Luftwaffe and personal confidant of Adolf Hitler noticed this post – raid panic funding Rheinmetall to further develop this type of delayed fuzing. “By 1939 the delay action bomb fuze had become a significant part of German Air doctrine.” (Leatherwood P.16) While impact fuzes were generally more effective against live, active targets, the delay fuzes provided a deadlier effect against hard structures and harassed the enemy beyond the time of the attack. (Leatherwood P.16)

June 1940 saw the start of the Battle of Britain, beginning with a large scale strategic air bombardment. As mentioned above, German Air Force doctrine “stressed the intended effect on mo-rale, as well as the types of building construction” (Leatherwood P.19) when selecting types of ordnance to be used during air raids. As during the Spanish Civil War, long delay clockwork fuzes were utilized to destroy British civilian morale. These tactics resulted in civilians coming out of their air raid shelters only to be exposed to UXBs. After the first raids in 1939, Royal engineers were able to recover several UXBs and safely remove their fuzes. These fuzes resulted in the development tools such as the Crabtree Neutralizer, used to discharge timing circuitry within the fuzes, allowing engineers to safely disrupt the explosive train of the bomb. As German spies in the British Isles reported back on the Royal Engineers’ render safe procedures (RSPs), German fuze developers incorporated innovations to counters British efforts. Thus began the UXB war. Throughout World War II, Germany’s munitions factories produced over 30 different time delay fuzes, many incorporating anti – removal features designed to kill UXB technicians. (Leatherwood P.20) it was often stated that the life expectancy of a newly commissioned UXB technician was 10 weeks or less. (Leatherwood P.13)

As the Battle of Britain raged on, Americans watched intently from across the Atlantic. Even as late as 1939, up to 40 percent of Americans favored isolationism over war, even as the United States was on a clear path to war. While Franklin D. Roosevelt “fought a public battle to overcome his nation’s isolationism, his administration prepared for defense of its skies and coast”. (Leatherwood P.27) In May of 1940, Roosevelt created the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) by executive order, along with activating thousands of Army and Navy Reservists in the ordnance branch-es. The Roosevelt Administration also provided immense funding for ordnance research and development. Based on reports from US military observers in the UK reporting back on the UXB war, the Chief of Ordnance at the time, Maj. Gen. Charles M. Wesson “authorized the Army’s first program for a defensive war against unexploded German Bombs”. (Leatherwood P.27)

Already in existence at the time, the Ordnance Training Center (OTC) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, handled military and civilian instruction of all high explosive bombs and pro-jectiles. Chemical and incendiary ordnance safety were trained on at the Edgewood Arsenal Chemical Warfare School (CWS).

Chemical officers had realized almost a year before the ordnance branch, that “German bombs may one day be used against the US mainland” (Leatherwood P.28). As of 1941, the CWS had already trained many civilian police officers and firemen in basic UXB disposal with an emphasis on chemical and incendiary ordnance. In April 1941, the Chemical and Ordnance branch pooled their resources at the CWS. Shortly thereafter, senior ordnance officers began to realize that military UXB technicians would be better suited in dealing with high explosive ordnance, and a separate course was developed for military personnel. The chief training officer of the Ordnance Branch selected one of his best subordinate officers from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maj. Thomas J Kane, to develop the military explosive safety course at Edgewood MD.

Kane was chosen to lead the new UXB course primarily because of an extensive background in civilian engineering. Thomas Kane graduated from Carnegie Institute of Technology in 1924, and through ROTC commissioned, as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Reserve. He became a railway engineer and later commanded two Civilian Conservation Corps camps as a Captain during the depression years. With war on the horizon, Kane moved to Aberdeen Proving Ground and worked as an instruc-tor at the OTC. In April 1941, Kane began instructing at the explosives safety course at Edgewood Arsenal. He developed a syllabus based on prewar ordnance manuals, intelligence reports, and bomb data from London. (Leatherwood P30) Kane developed much for the explosives safety course, searching out the most cur-rent information on his own and adding it to the class. Throughout 1941 he was able to expand the course to hundreds of military personnel and civilian defense agents. A problem began to arise with the OCD, as they believed civilians were better suited to dealing with UXB Safety. The Chief of Ordnance believed that “Bomb disposal was dangerous, and required the utmost skill, and secrecy,” (Leatherwood P 31) further citing the examples of Ger-man spies effects on the UXB War in the UK. With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a War Department board resolved the jurisdic-tional arguments by ruling that complete authority of UXBs on land belonged to the Ordnance Branch. The OCD still retained the ability to send its agents to Aberdeen to train on incendiary devices in continental regions only. The board also endorsed the creation of two separate Bomb Disposal schools, for both the Army and the Navy. When the board asked Gen. Wesson for a suitable Commandant, he immediately recommend Maj. Thomas Kane for his work with the explosives safety course at Edgewood and Aberdeen.

With the creation of an Army Ordnance school imminent, the Ordnance Department was still woefully behind the power curve in the UXB war. It was decided that the best way exponentially improve the program was an exchange program with the British. Nine US soldiers led by Maj. Kane were sent to the UK to attend the British Bomb Disposal School, and four British officers were

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 17

sent to the United States to help establish and instruct the fledg-ling American school. The “Nine from Aberdeen” (Leatherwood P.36) left the United States on 04 Jan 1941, attending the British school at Harper Barracks throughout February. While at the school, they were trained in the latest bomb disposal techniques to include recon, excavation, render safe procedures, and fuze re-moval procedures. The final tests included “disarming a German UXB with two live fuzes. (Leatherwood P.45)

Upon graduation from the British school, eight of the soldiers returned to Aberdeen to begin instructing at the American Bomb Disposal School. Maj. Kane remained in Britain to conduct re-search in order to convince the American War Department of the long term benefits of Bomb Disposal Soldiers. He toured the Brit-ish Isles watching the Royal engineers work, assessing damage, and interviewing Soldiers and civilians. His final report to the War Department included best practices for Bomb disposal, suggested bomb disposal unit organization, a catalogue of bomb types, intel-ligence, Army/Navy cooperation, and recommendation on the implementation of bomb disposal units into tactical formations. On March 15 1942, Kane was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and given orders to return to Aberdeen Proving Grounds to take command of the New Bomb Disposal School.

The Army Bomb Disposal School began its first class on Feb-ruary 16th 1942. Initially, four British officers held the majority of instructor positions, but were moved to advisory roles as the nine American trainees returned from England. According to Lt. Col Kane the Army Bomb Disposal school had moved from “just an idea, into a full-fledged training facility responsible for anticipat-ing our enemies fiendish devices” (Leatherwood p56) over the course of a year.

In the 74 years since the inception of the US Army’s EOD pro-gram, thousands of Soldiers have been trained in bomb disposal. Without the destructive and fear producing capability of Herbert Ruelhmann’s clockwork fuze, and the hard work and diligence of Lt. Col. Thomas Kane, the United States would have had a vastly different bomb disposal program throughout the 1940s and today. Much like the earlier UXB technicians, and the German arms manufacturers, the war we fight today has many parallels. The enemy’s preferred weapon has changed from the aerial bomb to the Improvised Explosive Device (IED), but as in the UXB War Explosive Ordnance Disposal Soldiers must remain com-mitted to understanding and defeating evolving enemy explosive techniques.

References

Leatherwood, Jeffrey M. Nine From Aberdeen . Cam-bridge Scholars, 2012. Print.

Macklin, Robert. One False Move . Sydney: Hachette Australia, 2012. Print.

“Nazi Germany and the Spanish Civil War.” Nazi Germany . 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

“Battle of Britain.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

Check Out These Hard-working Ordnance Soldiers!

SPC Kevin Pope from 4th Battalion, 1st Field Artillery Regiment was presented with a coin for outstanding support to Kuwaiti operations.

SPC Andrew Coleman, SGT Argelis Robinson, and SPC Steven Walker from 1670th Transportation Company were presented with a coin for outstanding support to Kuwaiti operations.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE18 Spring 2017

A multicharge gun contains more than just a single charge in the breech. There are additional charges arrayed along the bar-rel, the purpose of which is to provide an additional boost and more constant acceleration to the projectile as it moves towards the muzzle. But getting those charges to work when they should, one after the other, turned out to be a major problem.

Middle AgesIn the Middle Ages, the weapon of choice for generations of

military engineers conducting sieges was the catapult or trebu-chet. However, the distance it could fling a boulder, flaming pot of oil or decaying animal carcass was only a few hundred yards, thereby exposing the attackers to counterfire. When metal came into use, the first real cannons emerged late in the Middle Ages, and consisted of a brass or later, a cast iron tube that was thicker

THE EVOLUTION OF THE MULTICHARGE GUN

at the breech, where the propellant charge and projectile were loaded.

Cannons were a major improvement over catapults because of their greater range which, depending on the design, had now increased to as much as a mile. This fact allowed a change in tactics. Whereas previously, because of their limited range, catapults could only be used close-up to pound an enemy fortifi-cation into submission, now the weapon could be moved much farther away from the target and with the right payload, be used against massed formations of soldiers, or even moving targets such as ships.

Given that improvement in weaponry, it was only natural for the designers to try to find a way to reach targets even farther away or to have an even greater destructive force at the same range. The first obvious approach to try is to use more gunpowder. But because of the tightly constrained space in the

By Raoul Drapeau © 2017 by R.E. Drapeau. All Rights Reserved

Timing is Everything

In the 10th century CE, the Chinese invented the fire lance, the first attempt at a weapon us-ing gunpowder. Most often it was used to project fire from a hollowed-out bamboo stalk to frighten opponents, but sometimes projectiles were added to make it a kind of short range gun or personal weapon. Ever since then, designers have been trying to increase the range and effectiveness of their weapon. This article describes an abortive attempt during World War II to reach that goal; the multicharge gun.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 19

breech, the propelling explosion creates the greatest force on the barrel before the projectile moves. So the breech must be the strongest, and hence thickest part of the cannon. Eventually, the resulting cannon became so heavy that it was impractical as a weapon because of its limited transportability.

Further, that approach only works up to the point where the barrel shatters from the stress on the cannon walls. With stiff cast iron, when the limit is exceeded, the result can be an explosive rain of shrapnel, wiping out the gun crew instead of the target. This limit was not overcome until stronger materials were developed. Using steel was one way to improve the strength of the barrel, but appropriate steels were too expensive and not readily available until modern times.

The practical limits to how much explosion the breech of a barrel can withstand, moved developers to seek a way to achieve greater range without using more explosive or stronger barrel construction. When an artillery designer wishes to achieve a gun with as long a range as possible, all other things being equal, the length of the barrel must also increase. This is to increase the time that the projectile is subject to the force of the propelling explosion and hence help it reach a greater velocity. The length has a practical limit though, because the longer the barrel, the more time for the frictional force between the projectile and the bore to act, and the more the projectile slows down. If the barrel were long enough, the projectile would eventually come to a stop. Also as a practical matter, the resulting weight of a long barrel reduces its attractiveness to artillery forces for which mobility is important. It wasn’t for many years until an American inventor realized that there was a way to provide increased range without requiring a very long barrel.

Azel LymanIn 1857, a prolific American inventor

named Azell Storrs Lyman previously

known for refrigeration cars and his machines to separate gelatin and meat from animal bones, entered a new discipline and in 1878 patented an improved gun (U.S. 16,568; Fig.1a) [modern usage employs the word gun instead of cannon, even for such heavy weapons]. Lyman’s invention promised to avoid the mechanical problems caused by trying to contain the ever-larger propelling explosion that ordnance engineers employed to increase range.

Normally, when the initial explosion in the breech of a gun causes the projectile to begin its travel down the barrel, the contained volume behind the projectile increases. As a result, the propulsive force and hence the acceleration from the initial explosion, decreases. Achieving the maximum velocity as the projectile leaves the barrel is the gold standard for a long-range weapon, not only because it results in a longer range, but also since the projectile’s destructive power arises from its kinetic energy that varies with the square of the velocity. Lyman’s innovation was to use secondary explosions in separate cavities that were oriented at an acute angle, and pointing in the same direc-tion as the movement of the projectile. The force from these additional charges farther down the barrel would maintain the acceleration and thus increase the velocity of the projectile as it leaves the barrel. As described in his patent, his original design consisted of two chambers, arranged in a balanced manner on either side of the barrel. They contained a powder that would be ignited by the flame from the original explosion. As the projectile passed the paired chambers, the force from the supplemental charge would act on the base of the projectile, giving it an additional boost. Lyman’s invention came to be called the multi-charge gun or as he called it, an “accelerating fire arm”. His objective was twofold; to increase the throw weight and range, and yet not succumb to the unwieldiness of the gun or its susceptibility to explode.

To overcome the inertia of a relatively large diameter projectile without creating ex-cessive pressures in the bore, Lyman employed slower-burning powder for the primary explosion. But he used faster-burning charges for the supplemental explosions, since the projectile was already under way and a rapid reaction to the flame from the passing projectile was necessary. The second innovation was to place a rubber cover over the end of the barrel and provide a partial evacuation of the air in the barrel’s interior. The principle was that by not having to push aside the air inside the barrel in front of the projectile, its acceleration would not be retarded. When the projectile reached the end of the barrel, it would push aside the disposable cover. Both of these aspects seemed sensible. However, Lyman gave no calculations to support the benefit of cutting the retarding force of the air in the bore. It might actually have been that the force of push-ing aside the cover was larger than the retarding force of the air in the bore. Or that the friction between the projectile and the bore was much greater than that due to the air pressure. In any case, the net effect of either the air or the cover is unlikely to have been important.

Initial experiments that Lyman conducted at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC were with a gun having a 2.5” bore, a little more than 10 ft. in length and with five supple-mental chambers. The results were encouraging because Lyman’s engineers calculated that the bullet’s velocity was 3,000 fps (feet/sec). They may have been overly opti-mistic. In 1870, a larger gun weighing in at 11,000 pounds, having a six-inch bore and

Figure 1a

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE20 Spring 2017

four supplementary chambers aligned with the bottom of the barrel was tested at the Reading Iron Works in Reading PA. However, the projectile’s velocity was only 1,093 fps, less than conventional guns of the time.

In 1883, Lyman tested a new cast iron, four-chamber gun at Sandy Hook, PA. It tipped the scales at 50,000 pounds, and had a steel lining for greater resistance to the internal forces (Figs. 1e and 2). Initial trials did not produce greater velocity than those in Reading, but upon boosting the main propellant charge from 12 to 96 pounds, the velocity increased to 2101 fps. However, because of the immense pressures of up to 31,550 psi, the barrel finally cracked on the 53rd round and was abandoned. Unfortunately for Lyman and the supporters of the multicharge principle, the U.S. Government correctly concluded that the state of the ordnance art at that time was not advanced enough to produce an effective gun of that design. They concluded that due to leakage of flame around the projectile as it moved up the barrel, the surprisingly high pressures and lower-than expected velocities were due to the supplemental explosions touching off the supplemental charges before the projectile had passed, not after. That

is, if the supplemental explosion occurred before the projectile passed, it acted as a retarding force, not an accelerating one. Even worse, would be the case when the supplemental explosion occurred just as the projectile was directly opposite the side chamber, thereby producing a huge localized, barrel-cracking pressure because of the greatly-reduced volume. Lyman was not able to devise a projectile that had a seal with the bore that was satisfactory enough to eliminate the leak-age of the flame around the projectile. In addition to that problem, the timing would always be difficult because even if there were no leakage, the projectile would already be moving very rapidly, and unless the supplemental charges fired quickly enough to provide a boost, the effect would be lost.

James HaskellHowever, there was further develop-

ment. In 1881, James R. Haskell patented some improvements on Lyman’s inven-tion (US 241,978). But he also had a later patent in 1892 (U.S. 484,011; Fig. 1b) arising from his work with Lyman that did have a potentially-important future effect. Its primary advancement in the art was using short sections of the main barrel that screwed together; thus not requiring the barrel to be cast in one piece. This im-provement would make construction and transportation easier and also would be a benefit to repair the gun if one section cracked. In addition, the supplemental charges were arranged at equal spacing on alternate sides along the barrel. In any case, this improvement did not avoid the timing problems. 50 years later though, this improvement would come into use by the Germans just before WWII.

Louis-Guillaume PerreauxAt about the same time, Louis-

Guillaume Perreaux, a French engineer and inventor, later known for his innova-tive work in designing a steam-powered bicycle, was developing a similar gun. In 1864, he obtained a French patent 65,571

Figure 1e

Figure 2. Lyman and Haskells' exper-imental multi-charge gun, built in 1883 for the U.S. Army. Source: Wikimedia Commons; Public domain.

Figure 1c

Figure 1b

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 21

on his design (Fig. 1c) and displayed it at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1878, where he won a prize medal. Because Perreaux and Lyman were contemporaries, they may have known about each others’ work.

Perreaux’ patent disclosed two unique and clever variations on the idea of a multich-arge gun. The first had multiple charges, all of which were located in the breech, one on top of the other, all separated by wads that allowed them to be detonated individually; in his design, electrically. The first charge was fired when the main circuit was closed. The second lay immediately behind the now-fired first charge, and was fired when the projectile broke a wire lying across the bore some distance down the barrel, thereby completing a circuit connected to that second powder charge. Three more supplemental charges were each fired by breaking wires across the bore at increasing distances along the barrel. Each of these supplemental charges were stronger than the ones before it in an attempt to maintain the projectile’s acceleration as it moved along the bore. And further, Perreaux disclosed the idea of using different kinds of explosive power for the different functions in the gun, slow-acting fine powder for the initial explosion to start the projectile moving, and faster-acting, coarser powder for the successive explosions.

Not stopping there, Perreaux also disclosed a variation (Fig. 1d) where there was only one charge in the breech, but there were additional chambers ar-rayed at increasing distances along the barrel, each of whose powder was ignited by the flame in the space just behind the projectile. Perreaux explained that design choice by referring to the distances gained by a falling object under the influence of gravity. Since the projectile was building up speed because of the acceleration, that made sense to him. This approach was adopted years later by the Germans during WWII. It is not clear whether Perreaux ever built a working model of his gun. In fact, he referred to it in his patent application as a “theoretical cannon”. If he had done so, he certainly would have encountered the same timing problems that Lyman did before him, and others after him.

Because of the shortcomings in all of these initial designs, the multicharge gun was not pursued by either the French or

Figure 1d

Figure 3. Hitler reviews the ‘Gustav’. At 800 mm caliber, and 43,000 yd. range, the Nazi’s largest rail gun. Source: Bundesarchiv

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE22 Spring 2017

U.S. military, and went into hibernation. The idea did surface in the WWI time pe-riod when the French briefly considered developing a long-range weapon based on those principles as a way to counter the Paris gun that the Germans used dur-ing 1918 to shell Paris. Like the Lyman gun, the Paris gun was a long-distance weapon, but of conventional design. It had a 112 foot long barrel, and could fire a 234 pound shell as far as 81 miles. But the armistice was declared before the French counter-weapon could be put to use. Which brings us to Germany in the years before WWII.

The RocketeersThe idea of a multicharge gun had

a bit of a resurgence in the early 1920s when German rocket pioneers Max Valier, Hermann Oberth and Willy Ley of the Verein für Raumschiffahrt (Space-flight club), were joined by Austrian Guido von Pirquet to design a gun whose 1.2 m diameter projectile could reach the moon. Their ambitious design called for a 900 meter long gun, evacuation of the barrel and numerous angled lateral cham-bers that were to be electrically-fired. However, the project, which was only a thought-experiment, possibly fueled by steins of beer, came to nothing.

Conventional Long GunsDuring WWII, the Nazi government

produced several large conventional guns that were outgrowths of the Paris gun. The largest of all was the Krupp Gustav which had a barrel 109 feet long, a caliber of 800mm, using 12 foot long shells, but having a range of less than 30 miles. Usually mounted on railroad carriages, these guns required huge crews, were unwieldy to move, had a low firing rate and ultimately, were impractical. Figure 3 shows Hitler inspecting the Gustav. Just like the Paris gun and Lyman’s multich-arge gun, these long guns suffered from leakage around the projectile that created excessive wear on the bore that required frequent replacements of the barrel. But

they had set the bar high for designers of long-range guns yet to come. The Nazi’s ultimate goal was to produce a weapon that could reach London from the French west coast, a distance of at least 90 miles. None of the large guns put into service were successful in meeting that objective, but some did succeed in harassing Allied shipping in the English Channel and reaching the Kent coast.

August CöndersAugust Cönders was a dedicated Nazi

and the chief engineer at the Röchling Eisen und Stahlwerk AG (Iron & Steel factory). Early during WWII, he drew on Perreaux’ multicharge gun work and built a 20mm (3/4”) bore, short evaluation ver-sion of a smooth-bore multicharge gun. He used barrels from anti-aircraft flak guns that were available at his Wetzlar plant. Tests of this relatively small caliber gun were encouraging, and so in August 1943, Cönders and Hermann Röchling, the President of the company, presented the results to Hitler and Reichsminister Albert Speer, the armanents minister, at Hitler’s Wolfsschanze (Wolf’s Lair) in northeast Poland. Even though there was no full-size prototype in existence at that time, much less tests from it, Hitler saw the potential and decided to immediately approve Cönders’ proposal for an ambitious project to create a mas-sive installation of full-size guns whose purpose was to bombard London with 50 guns, each firing shells having a 25kg (55 pound) explosive charge. While this was a far smaller warhead than either the V-1 or V-2 weapons (at 1,870 and 2,200 pounds, respectively), Hitler felt that because of the claimed rapid reload time of five minutes per gun, the barrage of guns would have the capability of firing a huge number of shots per day, and that would make up for the smaller payload.

To reach the intended range of 150km (93 miles), the distance from the clos-est part of the west coast of France to London), the planned gun projectile would need to have a velocity of 5,000 ft/sec (3,400 mph) and be aimed at a

somewhat greater elevation than the theoretical optimum of 45 degrees in a vacuum. This would result in the greatest range as the projectile passed through the stratosphere, where the retardation from air would be less.

Hillersleben, GermanyBy October 1943, Röchling had built

a full-caliber, but shortened prototype at the Wehrmacht’s Heeresversuchsanstalt (Artillery test range) in Hillersleben, just northwest of Magdeburg. After the war was over, American soldiers found two different versions of the multicharge gun at Hillersleben (Figs. 4-7). While Cönders was familiar with the principles and advantages of a multicharge gun, he also knew about the problems with barrel degradation due to the high pressures and the leakage of the flame from the primary propellant blast around the projectile that led to premature ignition of the supple-mental charges. His planned solutions were twofold; first, to use electrical firing of the supplemental charges, rather than relying on the flame behind the projectile and second, to use a different kind of projectile with better sealing that could be fired from a smooth bore barrel, thus also potentially eliminating the leakage problem due to rifling. He also used rocket boosters in the side chambers instead of powder charges because they were easier to handle.

Electrical FiringWhile seemingly useful, the idea of

using electrical firing proved impracti-cal because of the rapid motion of the projectile exceeded the ability of electronics and sensors at the time to be able to fire the supplemental charges at the right time. Since the projectile could easily be moving at 5,000 ft/sec at the end of its travel in the bore, to achieve a consistent firing within six inches of the ideal spot, meant the supplemental charge had to be fired precisely; within an unbelievably (and unachievably) short 100 microsecond interval. But knowing

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 23

where the projectile was in the barrel so that the electrical signal could be issued at just the correct time was in itself an unsolv-able problem at the time. Even more important was the fact that electrically-fired charges could not respond to the electrical command as fast as needed. As a result, electrical firing could not reliably produce a repeatable explosion that would occur as the projectile was passing, not considerably sooner or later, and so Cönders gave up on that firing method.

Because he used so many evenly-spaced supplemental explo-sion chambers along the prototype barrel, Cönders seemed not to have learned that there was a practical limit to the number of side chambers. As the projectile moved along the barrel and gained speed, even if the timing had been workable, the projec-tile was moving so fast that there would not have been enough time for the charges farther down the barrel to produce enough gas to provide a useful boost in speed. It is puzzling as to why Cönders and Röchling used a configuration of equally-spaced side chambers set at 90 degrees to the barrel, rather than those at increasing separations and 45 degrees as Perreaux had done nearly 80 years previously.

ProjectileTo eliminate the problem of flame leakage around the projec-

tile that had vexed Lyman, and the less-than-expected projectile velocity, Cönders would have to devise a better seal between the projectile and the bore. To this end, he designed a fin-stabilized projectile that would rely on fins for aerodynamic stabiliza-tion, rather than gyroscopic stabilization caused by rotation of the projectile from rifling in the bore. Cönders was a logical person to take on this task, since he had already developed a fin-stabilized concrete-busting shell for Röchling, and the prospect of a being able to fire a similar projectile at greater velocities for longer distances and hence greater destructive effect due to its higher energy, must have been appealing to him.

Midzyzdroje (Misdroy), PolandThe Allies were becoming effective in their bombing of

industrial targets on the continent, particularly anything having to do with long-range weapons, such as the V-1 and V-2. Even though there were significant problems with the Hillersleben

Figure 4. 150mm 45 degree side chamber V-3 test gun found at Hillersleben test range. Source: U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center.

Figure 5. Closeup of a side chamber of a 150mm, 45 degree side chamber V-3 gun found at Hillersleben test range. Source: U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center.Figure 4

Figure 5

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE24 Spring 2017

experimental gun, the Germans began to build a nearly full size version at Mis-droy on the Baltic, not too far from Peen-emuende and in current-day Poland. The gun was built in January 1944, and had at least 36 pairs of auxiliary chambers set at right angles to the barrel (Fig. 8)

It is a bit odd that Cönders chose a perpendicular orientation for the auxil-iary chambers. All the predecessors, as well as one of his own prototypes at Hill-ersleben, had oriented them facing down the bore at a 45 degree angle, so that the chamber explosions would be facing in the same direction as the projectile. Available records provide no explanation for this choice. In a seeming step back from the lessons learned by Perreaux, who used a few auxiliary chambers spaced at increasing distances from the breech along the barrel, Cönders design for Misdroy spaced them evenly every 10 feet or so along the six inch diameter,

150m (415-foot) long barrel. This change may have been a key factor in the continuing experience with excessive pressures and barrel rupture there.

Trials at Misdroy began in January of 1944. A few shots at lower-than-opera-tional powder charge, with lighter weight projectiles showed promise, achieving a range of as much as 58 miles. As a result, Cönders was presented with the Dr. Fritz Todt award from Reichsminister Speer in February. Soon enough though, in March 1944 when a contingent of Nazi generals visited, the usual problems of reduced range, instability of the projectile in flight, and excessive barrel wear returned. These showed that the same problems as in the shorter version had not been solved and in some ways were worse, because now there were catastrophic ruptures of two barrels in April 1944. In May, Professor Werner Osenberg, head of the Military Research

Figure 6. 150mm 90 degree side chamber V-3 test gun found at Hillersleben test range. Source: U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center.

Figure 7. 150mm 90 degree side chamber V-3 test gun at Hillersleben test range (1943). Source: Bundesarchiv.

Figure 6

Figure 7

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 25

Association, in a slam against the Röchling establishment and Cönders in particular, wrote a scathing letter to Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, saying that the project’s difficulties were because the designers had been “empirically trying all sorts of experiments, without any scientific methodology.” He went on the accuse the project directors of “utter incompetence.”

New Projectile DesignAs a result, believing that the original designers were in-

competent, the Heereswaffenamt (Army weapons office) took

control of the project. With the involvement of at least six expe-rienced firms, the Nazis eventually settled on a projectile design that relied on six fixed fins; this after 20,000 unusable projectiles had already been manufactured. The final projectiles weighed some 183 pounds and were about eight feet long as shown in this post-war photograph (Fig. 9). The projectile itself was eight cm (3.15”) in diameter; the rest of the space in the approxi-mately 150mm (6”) bore was taken up by a discarding sabot at the front that kept the projectile centered as it moved down the bore. There was also a discarding piston at the rear of the pro-jectile that provided the much-needed seal against leakage of the primary propellant flame, finally solving the premature ignition of the side chambers explosives.

Project WieseCooler heads in the Nazi leadership recognized that reducing

the explosive load in the projectile to help attain the desired range and reduce the chance of barrel rupture, would mean that the weapon would hardly justify the vast resources required to develop and install it. Nonetheless, even in face of all the multicharge gun problems, Hitler overruled his military and insisted on proceeding with the construction of a massive fixed

Figure 8. Test bed for 130m long, 150mm V-3 gun at Misdroy (Międzyzdroje) test range in Poland. Source: Bundesar-chiv/ Wikimedia Commons; Public domain.

Figure 9. V-3 projectile at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (post-war). Source: U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE26 Spring 2017

emplacement of 50 full-size guns, without waiting for the results of the firing tests. Along with the V-1 & V-2 programs, this weapon would help Hitler wreak vengeance against Britain for bombing Berlin. The construction project was to be called Wiese (meadow). The weapons itself now carried several formal and informal names, including Fleissiges Lieschen (Excitable Lisette, after the rapid planned firing rate), Hochdruckpumpe (high pressure pump) or HDP for short, the “England Cannon” for obvious reasons, and der Tausendfüßler (millipede) because of the many chambers that looked a bit like legs on a monster-sized insect. The Nazis more formally named it the V-3, the third in the series of vengeance weapons (Vergeltungswaffen) after the V-1 and V-2.

Mimoyèques, FranceThe installation was to hold 10 batteries of five guns each,

housed in two huge, separate underground facilities. Each bat-tery was to have five 127m (416 ft.) long guns, each with pairs of side chambers spaced 10 feet apart along the barrel. Each

facility would have five such batteries constructed in slanted shafts, each 492 feet long. The huge facility would be located at Mimoyèques in the pas-de-Calais Department, five miles from the west coast of France and just across the English Channel from Dover. It was to be hacked out of chalky limestone rock, and would require long concrete-lined tunnels (Fig. 10) and gal-leries for operation, supply, ammunition and living quarters as well as a railroad to supply materials and a dedicated electrical supply line leading up to the installation.

When finished, the whole installation would be hidden below ground, with only the muzzles showing when in operation (Fig. 11). The tunnels were covered by a concrete cover some 18 feet thick, with an eight inch thick sliding steel cover for the six-inch diameter muzzles. Necessarily, because of their unwieldy length, the guns had to be fixed in elevation at 55 degrees and direction. Because of these constraints and the 95 mile design range, there could be only one practical target; London, al-though a slight variation in range could be achieved by varying the amount of explosive power.

Figure 10. Tunnel at Mimoyecques V-3 installation (modern). Source: Wikimedia Commons; Public domain.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 27

The firing rate was projected to be five minutes per shot per gun. At that rate, all 50 guns could theoretically pour 600 shells per hour onto greater London. But that continued firing rate assumed that the barrels would have a longer life-time than the few shots experienced with the prototypes before they ruptured. To be sure, the amount of explosive in each shell would be much less than in either a V-1 or V-2, but if the installation had ever come into operation, since the target area of greater London was relatively small, the number of shells would have proved devastating. In any case, that firing rate seems impossible because in addition to the main charge in the breech, all the side chambers would have to be cleaned and reloaded for each shot. On January 6,

1944, German Commanding General Heinemann wrote that each barrel would require 80 cartridge bags per shot. This work would have required some 1,000 troops to man the guns. Further, the acoustic noise and air pressure spikes in the enclosed tunnels when the guns fired would have been intolerable for the gun crews.

It is unclear whether any of the guns were ever installed. A letter dated November 25, 1943 from the Herreswaffenamt claimed that five of the planned 10 batteries were completed. Yet the post-war investigation of Hillersleben states that only one of the 10 batteries was completed, and even that with fewer than the planned five barrels. It is also not known which version was or would have been installed; with the side cham-bers at 90 or 45 degrees to the barrel. It is likely that the 90 degree version would have been used, since that was the only full-length verison tested at Misdroy. The modern museum at the site has a replica that shows them at 45 degrees, but that may be incor-rect. In any event, no shots were ever fired from the installation.

BombingAt the same time as the HDP project was under construction at Mimoyèques, the

V-1 and V-2 weapons programs had been in effect since June 13 and September 8, 1944 respectively, before the V-3 was even scheduled to begin operation in September of 1944. The Nazis were installing V-1 launching sites at various locations in northern

Figure 11. Sectional view of Mimoyecques V-3 installation. Source: Wikimedia Commons; Public domain.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE28 Spring 2017

France and raining terror down on south-ern England. So when construction began at Mimoyèques, the Allies did not know its purpose and wouldn’t until the end of the war when the site was overrun. However, they reasoned that it should be attacked along with the other offensive weapon sites, and did so repeatedly in a bombing campaign called Operation Crossbow.

Construction proceeded apace, and was well underway when the final blow to the project occurred on July 6, 1944 when the 617 Squadron of the RAF bomber command (also known as the “Dambusters” for their raids on dams in the Ruhr valley), paid a visit with five 12,000 pound Tallboy “earthquake” bombs, one of which scored a direct hit and the others landed close enough to cause significant damage. These bombs, a creation of British inventor Barnes Wallis, took advantage of the fact that it wasn’t necessary to have a direct hit on a facility when causing a deep tremor might be as effective in collapsing struc-tures. This attack occurred two days after a trial run at Misdroy on July 4th 1944, where a projectile reached 58 miles (before the barrel burst). Even though Mimoyèques was now no longer avail-able for installing the weapons, further development and testing at Misdroy continued until finally halted by Hitler on July 18th 1944. The Mimoyèques site was captured by the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division on September 5, 1944. As the war wound down, the British were intent on destroying the installation at Mimoyèques in case it might be used against them in a future conflict, yet they knew that the free French might not agree. So after worrying about the consequences for some time, in a classic case of “it’s easier to apologize than get permission”, they used 35 tons of TNT almost a year later in May of 1945 to collapse the main tunnel and so render it inoperable forever. The result of this action can be seen today as a large crater at the site.

Post War AnalysisIt might seem that setting the side chambers at 45 degrees, so that the supplementary

explosions would be pointing down the barrel in the same direction as the projectile’s travel would be the logical arrangement. And at the Hillersleben test range, Allied troops found one 75m (246 ft) long gun with five pairs set that way. But they also found one with 10 pairs of side chambers set at right angles, which was the configura-tion used at Misdroy. While the theory behind the multicharge gun seemed to be a way to achieve greater velocities and hence ranges than possible in a single explosion in the breech, its promise was never fulfilled. The inability to reliably explode the supplemen-tary charges at the right time, just after the projectile had passed, proved to be a techni-cal challenge that could not be met. The resulting high pressures from explosions at the wrong time caused all too-frequent catastrophic rupture of the barrel and excessive wear. Just as important, since the barrel was so long, and by necessity it had to operate from a fixed location, it proved useless as a weapon.

Even if the gun had worked, being fixed in place, it would forever have been sus-ceptible to disruption from bombing of the required external supply railroad lines and electrical power, no matter how invulnerable its construction seemed to be. But success of the few bombing runs made showed that even the construction was vulnerable. Today, you can visit the site as a tourist attraction. As an economic matter, even if the V-3 had become operational, the potential damage wreaked on the British compared to the cost of development, construction and operation would have made it a poor choice. The V-1 flying bomb was a much more economical weapon, being cheaply made and capable of carrying a one ton warhead up to 200 miles. Hitler’s war machine could produce 300 V-1 bombs for the same cost as a single Lancaster bomber, fully loaded. A post-war analysis of the V-3 program showed that it consumed 25% of the Nazi’s overall weapons cost and produced no damage to Britain. And there the multicharge gun principle languished until recently.

Punkin’ Chunkin’The multicharge gun concept has evolved. The modern reincarnation isn’t for a mili-

tary use any more; it’s for pumpkins. Since 1986, there has been an annual “Punkin’ Chunkin” held every fall on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay near Washington, DC. This is a competitive event, where the only prizes are bragging rights. The field includes several categories of machines whose only function is to project a pumpkin as far as possible. The current world record is just under one mile, and is held by an air gun that uses compressed air to blast the pumpkin out of the barrel.

Now, that might not seem a particularly long range for a gun, but after all, unlike a metal projectile, a pumpkin is fragile by comparison. And so applying too much pressure can cause it to rupture in the barrel, giving what the pundits call a spray of “pumpkin pie.” Also, unlike a military gun where velocities for metal projectiles well in excess of the speed of sound are achieved, pumpkins wouldn’t do so well breaking the sound barrier, since they would likely be ripped apart by the shock wave’s forces. So as a practical matter, the maximum range is limited to less than the speed of sound. However, the real-world pumpkins never even come close to that speed, because if they did the winning range would be much more than one mile. But at the same time, many aspects of the gun’s design affect its performance, including compressed air release-valve speed, stored pressure, barrel length and diameter and even pumpkin selection.

So what does this have to do with the multicharge gun principles? As the photo-graph of The Great Emancipator shows (Fig. 12), this “air gun” has a secondary pipe that emerges from the primary compressed air storage tank and enters the main barrel about 1/3 of the way up the 100 foot long smooth-bore barrel. You can look at this design and conclude that it is performing the same function as the side chambers in the

ORDNANCE MAGAZINESpring 2017 29

V-3. And in a way it is. The designer and owner, John Buchele, describes the func-tion of the side channel as a way to dump even more air into the barrel faster than the main valve alone could do. It is also to move some of the air in the barrel out of the way in front of the pumpkin, creat-ing a partial vacuum, thereby providing a kind of pull rather than an additional push from behind. In that sense, it is similar to what Lyman designed where he applied a vacuum pump to the barrel to provide a partial vacuum to make passage of the shell easier. A further example of history repeating itself is the fact that the main blast of compressed air is delayed a little to give a smaller preliminary release of air to start the pumpkin moving, not unlike Lyman’s and Perreaux’ approach of using a slow burning charge in the breech to overcome

the projectile’s inertia. The problems of timing in multicharge guns that all the previous practitioners suffered are compounded in trying to optimize a gun designed to shoot such an irregular object as a pumpkin. Pumpkins vary in weight, size and shape, all of which parameters affect the range. Look for ever-improving performance of these extraordinary machines as technology is brought to bear. Lyman, Perreaux and von Pirquet would be proud.

SummaryThe multicharge gun, like so many weapons innovations, looked appealing on

paper, but in the eras of cut-and-try engineering, suffered a host of technical problems in its implementation and the technology at that time was not sufficient to overcome them. During WWII, in Hitler’s rush to wreak vengeance on England, he approved a major project that was doomed to fail from the start. He spent untold resources in men and material on a project that probably never could have worked, and in fact never even fired a shot at its intended target; London. While the technology in propellants, sensing and control has improved to the point where a long-range gun might work better now, advances in missiles and rockets and the fixed nature of a long-range gun make the whole concept obsolete. The modern implementation to chunk pumpkins is a lot less deadly for its operators and more fun for the spectators.

Figure 11. The Great Emancipator, a compressed-air gun for pumpkin projectiles at the annual Punkin’ Chunkin’ competition. Source: Author’s collection.

ORDNANCE MAGAZINE30 Spring 2017

WITH THE HOME OFStay Connected

Ordnance

#GoOrdnance

@ChiefofOrdnance Ask the Chief

GoOrdnance.army.mil

US Army Ordnance School

@USAODS USAODS

OrdnanceCorpSchool

CONNECT WITH THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE

The U.S. Ordnance Corps AssociationP.O. Box 377Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. 21005

NON-PROFITBULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBEL AIR, MD

PERMIT #4000