Standing Well Back

19th Century

When EOD Innovation Goes Wrong

Here’s the interesting tale, from 1879 about a the disposal of explosives that went tragically wrong, despite the method being developed by one of the top explosive scientists in the country.  At some point during the year, 12,000 detonators were imported illegally into England.  They had been labeled “percussion caps”. For a while they were put in storage and after some discussion were sent for disposal, the procedure to be used being an innovative one that perhaps had not been tried fully and limits set.

Here’s an extract from a report on the matter:

Useful lesson here – what might work theoretically as a scientific, chemical disposal method for one detonator doesn’t necessarily apply to a larger quantity. Having said that I’d say the method was a bit weird at the most perfect of times.  The report above was extracted from the annual report (1879) of the Chief Inspector of Explosives, Major Majendie – an absolute treasure trove of information about the management of explosives, and the investigation of explosive incidents at this time in history. The reports, by Major Majendie and his co-inspector Major Ford, assisted by Dr DuPre are professional, technically sound and beautifully written.   It also shows that the UK MOD were assisting the police in the recovery and disposal of explosives all the way back then – something 11 EOD Regiment are involved in today – modern Ammunition Technicians being direct descendants of the Woolwich Royal Laboratory staff.

19th Century

Update – Majendie and the “Crime of the Century” bomb

A few years ago I wrote a blog post about an IED that exploded prematurely at Bremerhaven docks on 11 December 1875. That post is at this link here – Crime of the Century.  Please re-read that report before reading on here.   At the time I had somewhat incomplete information but now I have found more material including a report, written soon after the incident by Col (then Major) Majendie that has come into my hands and adds some fascinating detail.  This is good Weapons Technical Intelligence from our esteemed Colonel Majendie. Majendie was the lead explosive expert in the Home Office and the father of modern British EOD and IED incident investigation. He had access to German police reports suggesting the following:

  1. The explosive used was a Nitro-glycerine based dynamite, called “Lithofracteur” – nitro-glycerine mixed into kieselguhr, sawdust, charcoal and bran . This, Thomas (aka, Keith, aka Garcie) had purchased in March 1875 .
  2. Keith had actually attempted to blow up cargo ships on one or two previous translatlantic crossings, but the initiation mechanism had failed. It seems likely that the Bremerhaven incident was the second or third attempt.
  3. The large crate that the device was hidden in was dropped but it probably wasn’t the impact of the drop on the sensitive dynamite to explode that caused the explosion.
  4. The complex timing and initiation contraption, designed by Keith but manufactured by German clock engineers , was not quite manufactured as per the instructions – because Keith’s “cover story” to the manufacturers provided a set of circumstances that didn’t quite make sense. Part of the contraption had levers which caused the action on the detonator at the right time.  These levers were held in place with springs.  The design included a spring detent to hold the levers in place but because Keith had told the  manufacturers that the levers were to cut silk threads while fitted to a bench in a factory, the manufacturers saw no need for this detent and left the spring out.
  5. Thus, the levers were able to move under external force on the whole mechanism. The force of the crate dropping on the stone dockside was not enough to cause the explosive to function – this form of dynamite is not that sensitive in most cases. But the assessment is that the force was enough to overcome the striker springs in the timed initiation mechanism even though it wasn’t  technically  “armed” at that point.
  6. So the premature explosion of the IED occurred because the perpetrator was so secretive about the use of the mechanism that the efficient German engineers manufacturing it thought it was a redundant part so omitted it without telling Keith.

Majendie also reports on the complex insurance negotiations that Keith engaged in with the insurers Baring Brothers and others regarding the insurance of the box, which was his ultimate purpose to defraud.  The report by Majendie then suggests a deeper engagement in the investigation. Separate from the German police reports furnished by the British consul in Bremherhaven, it appears that Majendie and his scientific adviser Dr Dupre obtained a diagram based on a drawing by the clockwork engineer Fuchs of the timing and initiation mechanism.   I think this was a copy of the diagram shown in this excellent report. This report even includes a picture of replica of the mechanism made by the original maker.  Fuchs, the clock engineer made a bit of hay after the explosion and made duplicates of his clockwork mechanism and sold them to a number of museums. There is a vagueness about the source of this diagram in Majendie’s report which I find suspicious and deliberate.   Furthermore it is clear that there was some form of very rapid international investigation which Majendie refers to obliquely. Although Majendie doesn’t mention it, I think this will have been an international investigation undertaken by the famous Pinkerton’s agency, probably at the behest of the insurance companies involved.  Majendie’s report also suggests to me that Dr Dupre, the scientist, was working perhaps secretly on a mission Germany to gather more intelligence on the operation. It certainly appears he met Fuchs, the clockmaker. A secret IED intelligence operation, no less. Certainly Majendie seems to have full details of negotiations the perpetrator had with insurers so I suspect he was provided with a copy of the Pinkerton report on their investigation.

It is suggested that Thomas/Keith may have had a role in other curious incidents and missing ships, perhaps in a series of insurance frauds.  This appears to have worried Majendie who undertook investigations of other cargoes that may have been sent by “Keith” including the investigation of the cargo on the ship “Salier” docked in Southampton.  Majendie also conducted quite a range of experiments on the sensitivity of lithofracteur – but also complains of the salacious reports in the press which exaggerate the threats from explosives- comments from public figures who should know better, exacerbating his challenges in an unwanted manner and misunderstanding, misrepresenting or having no bearing on the technical issues. Plus ca change as Dr Dupre would say.

Here’s a pic of the bodies being removed from the dockside in Bremerhaven after the explosion:

The lessons from this incident, still today, after over 150 years are:

a. International cooperation on IED investigation is not new, and pays dividends.
b. The implicit secrecy of planning and preparing IEDs leads to unexpected pressures. These pressures often cause the operation to fail, or provide the perpetrator with unwanted or unexpected changes to the operation. A careful WTI investigator will consider these pressures in his analysis.
c. The obvious cause of an explosion isn’t always the case. Only careful examination of the components, or in this case the component diagram revealed the full nature of why it occurred when it occurred.
d. Close partnership between lead investigators and scientific advisers is essential as is the ability to carry out experiments to test theories.
e. IED incident investigations were pretty good 150 years ago.

Accidental Explosions

Echoes of the Past – Beirut Explosion and Erith, 1864

I am fortunate to have “inherited” an archive of historical material from “IJ” which I am slowly cataloguing. I can’t help but to dive in on some of the historical documents which although perhaps not connected with IEDs and EOD have a broader historical interest in those interested in explosives.  One particular set of documents relate to the latter part of the 1800s when the UK was undergoing a period of regulatory development of controls on the production and storage of explosives. Until then it appears that safety and good practice were unregulated and the industrial expansion of the explosives industry  was little constrained, and as a result a number of accidents occurred.  This led to investigations by military officers (first Lt Col Boxer RE in 1864, and later by 1874, Major (later Colonel) Majendie RA.  I have often mentioned Colonel Majendie in earlier posts as he was really the first “formal” practitioner of both Improvised Explosive Device Disposal and what is now called Weapons Technical intelligence in relation to IEDs.

As I looked at the early reports by Col Boxer and Maj Majendie I was struck by some similarities in a major explosion that occurred in Erith and the recent explosion in Beirut.  I propose no particular comment here on the Beirut explosion other to say that I was disappointed at the volume of technically illiterate comments in the news media.  But it is interesting to see how two events in 1864 caused the establishment of suitable regulatory control. The two events, which I’ll discuss below, and a number of other explosions in the latter part of the 1800s heightened public and government awareness of the safety issues in the manufacture and storage of explosives, and the appointment of Majendie as the lead government authority on the matter of explosives also provided him, inadvertently but happily, with the powers to investigate IEDs.

The first incident in 1864 was the explosion of the “Lottie Sleigh” a sailing barque carrying 11 tonnes of gunpowder on the River Mersey on 15 January 1864. A sailor aboard knocked over a lamp causing a fire. All the crew “baled out” and were picked up by a ferry. Shortly afterwards the unmanned vessel exploded. No-one was killed but the damage on both sides of the Mersey was significant. Thousands of windows were broken and doors were blown open in both Birkenhead and Liverpool and most of the gas lamps in the streets of Liverpool were “blown out”.  The explosion was heard 40 miles away.  Subsequently insurance companies were involved in complex process to assess liability.  Here’s a pic of the vessel exploding:

Later that year, on October 1st two storage warehouses containing a total of 50 tonnes of gunpowder exploded at Erith on the Southern Bank of the Thames, not far from Woolwich. No cause of the explosion has ever been established.  The explosion was felt 50 miles away. The store was adjacent, like in Beirut, to some docks,

This quote helps us understand the significant devastation:

Everything within its reach was annihilated. Man and matter perished together, shivered into a thousand fragments and whirled into space. People know there used to be a magazine in the Erith marshes, but there is now only a yawning crater there. The very ruins are lost. A visitor to the spot went to look for a cottage which he
remembered ; it had been ” swept entirely away, as with a broom.” Every witness whose evidence could have thrown light on the catastrophe has been hurried out of the world by that tremendous thunder- clap. Those immediately concerned can hardly be returned as killed-they are “missing”-that is to say, their very bodies have disappeared.

Property was damaged 20 miles away but only 10 people died.

These two explosions caught the imagination of the public and communities adjunct to “powder stores” up and down the country. There seems to have been a campaign by many of them to write to the Home Secretary to request oversight of the storage of explosives, and so Lt Col Boxer RE was tasked with inspecting many of these sites up and down the country. In effect this became the first Report of the Chief Inspector of Explosives, a report which became annual under Major Majendie 10 years later and which provide today a treasure trove of historical research. I have copies now from 1864 and then from 1874 till recent reports.

The Erith explosion has a number parallels with the Beirut explosion. Lessons can still be learned 150 years later.  Alas, this was not the last explosion in this vicinity. There was an explosion at Woolwich in 1883, and another in 1907. In World War One (1917) there was a massive explosion of 50 tons of TNT in Silvertown docks on the North bank of the Thames nearby.  Weirdly there was another explosion at a factory in Erith 4 months ago.

I have somewhere a catalogue of such accidental explosions in history, a remarkable number, which perhaps I’ll pull together in blog post – going back hundreds of years.  Bottom line – every explosive store should be sited and managed on the presumption that it will explode.  Major Majendie’s report of 1874 is a fantastic “tour de force” of the explosives industry of the time and the needs of detailed explosive regulations – I’d recommend it to anyone with an interest in explosive storage.

 

20th Century

Starinov, Krushchev and the radio-controlled explosive device

In my last post I promised a little more on Ilya Starinov, the Russian explosives expert and the godfather/grandfather of sabotage explosive attacks.  In the blog post on the F-10 explosive device I recounted how Starinov himself was directly involved in planting the F-10 radio controlled device that killed German General Braun in Kharkov in 1941, and this story relates to that incident directly.

The Russian retreat from Kharkhov was carefully planned. Hundreds of “stay-behind” explosive devices were left and Starinov was directly involved. Some of the explosive devices were on timers, some of them with victim-operated switches, and a good handful of F-10 radio controlled devices, these usually with very large charges associated with them. Furthermore there were large numbers of deliberate indications  left behind that the Russians created to give the impression of yet more devices to further slow the German progress into the region – holes in the ground, disturbed earth, and hoax devices where no device was actually planted, and sometimes devices laid on top of other hidden devices.  According to Soviet sources, 30,000 anti-tank mines were laid in and around Kharkov, about 1000 victim operated devices, and 2000 timed devices.

This anecdote relates to Starinov’s role in this and I cannot be certain it is true, but it is a story worth telling anyway.  A key individual in the Soviet forces in the region was Nikita Khrushchev, who apparently worked closely with Starinov. It is clear, with our view of history, that the Russians expected a significant German EOD effort – by November 1941 the pattern of “stay-behind” devices had been set, including the use of F-10 devices hidden in likely headquarter buildings to be occupied by advancing German forces  in Odessa and Kiev in previous months.

Here’s a pic of an F-10 device being removed from the Opera House in Kiev in October 1941, by a German EOD team. The distinctive construct of the F10 receiver is clear.

-and below is a fascinating Nazi propaganda film showing towards the end the explosive charges and German EOD team’s removal and inspection of the F-10 device itself recovered from the Kiev Opera House. Quite remarkable footage.

So Starinov was instrumental in the dummy devices, and the efforts to overwhelm, fool, distract and out-think the Wehrmacht engineers.   In the run up to the German advance, Krushchev’s headquarters was in a building in Dzerzhinskiy Street on Kharkov, in a building identified by Starinov as likely to be soon used as a German headquarters. Learning the lessons from Kiev, according to this story, two F-10 devices were planted, one hidden carefully below the other in the basement.  Interestingly Krushchev did not move out from the headquarters immediately, as he felt this might give an indication to the advancing Germans that the building was prepared with F-10 devices.  So clearly Krushchev and Starinov met and there was a degree of trust between the two. But remember, the political atmosphere within Soviet forces was febrile and senior officers were frequently “purged”, accused by Beria’s secret police. In some ways Starinov had been lucky to escape, but here we see perhaps a clue giving one reason he had evaded the purges.

As the Germans entered Kharkov, they did indeed , as Starinov expected, have some success at finding and rendering safe quite a number of explosive devices. Nazi propaganda was quick to trumpet these successes and their success against the “dastardly Bolshevik devices”. This apparent success was noticed by Beria’s secret police, who saw, perhaps, that the devices were being found too easily, giving the German’s success and suggested that something had been so planned by Starinov. The Nazi propaganda from the previous month of the device being found in Kiev would perhaps have added to their suspicions. Then General Braun’s staff made an announcement that they had “easily cleared the major part of the mines”.  The secret police prepared a case against Starinov, but Krushchev got to hear of it. He advised Starinov to detonate the two devices in the Dzerzinskiy Street Headquarters now, as predicted, occupied by General Braun.

According to the source I have found the “top” F-10 explosive device planted in the cellar had, as expected, been found, made safe and the initiation mechanism presented to General Braun, showing the headquarters was made safe. The now safe initiator sat on a desk in a main room. Accordingly Starinov, warned of the expected investigation by the secret police, ordered the first device initiated – and in the main hall of the German headquarters the receiver “clicked”, to the delight of the Wehrmacht.  Five minutes later the second device, still hidden deep under the building and with a massive charge attached to it received the necessary transmission… and General Braun and many of his staff perished in the explosion. Thus , Starinov’s investigation was dropped by the secret police, and he continued his career.

I should state that other sources slightly contradict this story – saying the “top device” designed to be found was a time delay device. But perhaps the story as detailed above makes a better story – I found it in a 1963 edition of Izvestiya, and it too may well be propaganda. The best stories often are. I do note that the Izvestiya report gets the wrong date attributing it to 1942 and not November 1941.

Here’s a picture of Starinov I have found. I’m not sure when this was taken but I suspect it was some years after the war. Starinov is the older man in civilian clothes pictured with serving Russian soldiers, perhaps those he was training in the late 1960s or 1970s.

Here’s another picture of Starinov taken, I think in the late 1980s.

 

And here, as young man being introduced to Marshal Klim Voroshilov.

The efforts of the German Wehrmacht EOD/Engineer units in dealing with the significant explosive threat in places like Kiev and Kharkov in 1941 probably deserve some attention.

 

 

1940-1950

The Russian IED connection

Last year I wrote two important blog pieces. The first was about the Russian IED expert Ilya Starinov – certainly the most important person in the history of explosive sabotage.  The second post was about the Russian F-10 radio controlled demolition device, used successfully by Starinov in WW2.

Since than I have been digging to find more details of Starinov’s devices, which I have finally successfully done, and there are some very interesting findings.    I’ve also uncovered other anecdotal stuff about Starinov and indeed about the broader history of IEDs which I’ll post in coming days and weeks.  I also have more technical detail on the F-10 to discuss in future posts.

Now, firstly, a caution. Some of the material I have found regarding the construction and design of certain IEDs could be abused by people with ill-intent. All the material I am going to post is unclassified, but I’m going to obscure parts of it and discuss things in some vague terms  to make it much less useful to those with criminal intent.  If you want to know the source and you know me or can prove you have a legitimate need to see the sources I am using, then get in touch. Otherwise I make no apology for being deliberately non-specific about some of this material. Now, I found the source of this material on line, and others may be able too, but I am going to limit my helpfulness towards those who shouldn’t have this detail.  If you want to challenge my assessments and why I draw the conclusions I reach below, I’m very happy to do this off-line.  This means, perhaps, you are going to have to trust me on some of my assessments. Or not!  Finally I should also point out, sadly, that there is no shortage of detailed technical instructions for miscreants to find how to make bigger and better IEDs then these here discussed in an openly available 70-year-old document, discussing devices from the Eastern Front in 1942.  The horse of IED knowledge bolted a long time ago.  Close the stable door if you can – I can’t.

The document I found was developed not from Russian sources, but from US sources, who clearly in the immediate post-war period of 1945-1950 had access to German Wehrmacht engineers reports. These engineers had conducted thousands of successful EOD operations. By gleaning reports of Soviet demolition activity, dealt with by the German engineers in WW2, the US military tried to gain a greater understanding of Soviet capabilities in the 1950s. So this was real technical intelligence on Soviet explosive technology, and explosive sabotage tactics, as the Cold War span up.  So here we have, in 2020, the opportunity to examine 1950s US military technical intelligence, derived from Nazi German technical intelligence from the period 1940-1945, about Russian explosive devices.  So this isn’t exactly a primary source.  But some of the detail I’m going to show you makes me convinced this is worthwhile, valuable historical material, and there are certain aspects which surprised me.

Firstly to remind you of the context. It is apparent that the Soviet soldier of WW2 was pretty familiar with improvising explosives charges, either using his own munitions or captured German munitions. The Germans state that the Russian soldier is “particularly ingenious in installing improvised mines and booby traps“. During the latter part of WW2, the Russian use of sabotage explosive devices went way beyond anything seen before or since. Furthermore partisans in Eastern European countries were trained to improvise yet further. Thousands of railway lines, trains and vehicles were attacked explosively by Russians or Russian sponsored partisans in eastern Europe. Much of this was coordinated by Ilya Starinov, who also designed explosive devices , trained the perpetrators and on many occasions planted key devices himself. Starinov survived numerous purges, and went on to develop spetzntaz units and tactics, and taught revolutionaries around the world in the 1950s and 1960s.

In this first post, I’m going to highlight some very interesting similarities between Soviet sabotage devices from WW2 and (get this) IRA devices of the 1970’s, 1980’s and even 1990’s.  These similarities go beyond just application of general explosive/sabitage principles – there are significant design similarities in aspects of the devices.  Here’s some examples, and a final, highly technical device that I won’t comment on too deeply.

  1. Firstly there is the use of specific component items.  In the 1970s and into the 1990s, many PIRA devices encountered in the UK had firing or arming switches as part of the circuitry. In the vast majority of cases, in what was termed “Time and Power Units” (TPUs) this switch consisted of an adapted wooden springed clothes peg help open with a wooden dowel. Here’s a demonstration circuit showing the “IRA technique”.
  2. The clothes peg was wired so that a switch closed when an insulator was removed from the jaws of the peg, arming this device. In the 1950 document I have found. German engineers describe this exact concept being found in Russian devices in the early 1940s. Here’s a pic:  

3. In the late 1980s, PIRA developed the “Mk 12” mortar as British Forces called it. This was followed in 1993 by the smaller “Mk16” Mortar. These were missiles that had a shaped charge in its front end, a hollow pipe behind it containing a fuze and tail fins to stabilise in flight.  This wasn’t really a mortar but a horizontally fired missile typically fired at vehicles. It had a shaped charge warhead and a fuze set in the hollow tube behind, with simple fns to stabilise  it in its short flight.  Here’s  a picture of a PIRA Mk 12 Mortar. disassembled:

4. In WW2 Russian partisans developed a device that is remarkably similar. Not tube-launched but built for a similar purpose and with almost identical design principles. Here’s the pic from the 1950 report:

5.  The Russians also concentrated significantly on additional circuits or mechanisms to booby trap charges. By introducing anti-handling and anti-lift charges, several of the devices used by the Soviets appear remarkably similar to what the British EOD community of the 1970’s refer to as “Castlerobin” devices. I’m not going to discuss this further here. But clearly there is a thought-process going on to prevent the render safe of devices, and target the EOD operator. The parallels in design are clear.

6. The creation of devices which target EOD activities went a step further with the introduction of a RF sensitive switch designed to initiate an explosive device when certain mine detection equipment was used. This was fielded in December 1943.  Some of this equipment was captured by the Wehrmacht in January 1944, and rapidly exploited.  70 years later , technology which is triggered by the RF signature of certain EOD equipments would be regarded as a very high threat indeed – yet, here the Russians were in the early 1940s developing such technology. The device responded to a frequency of 800-2000Hz at short range, emitted by German EOD equipment. What is more, the Germans recognised the importance of such an advance, examined the Russian technology, identified some flaws, and developed their own version of the equipment. They also developed technical solutions to the threat.   I find that remarkable, and some of you will share my surprise for reasons we won’t go into. Here’s an excerpt from the report showing the circuit to prove it is what I say it is – (I have obscured part of it for reasons explained earlier).

To be clear in my assessments: I’m not saying that the IRA devices of the late twentieth century were designed by the Russians – just that there are some odd parallels, that may be coincidences. Direct influence is possible but so, theoretically, is the potential for the IRA to have got hold of the American report written in the 1950s. It’s not secret.  But we shouldn’t underestimate the fact that Starinov was training revolutionaries from around the world. I do think that these parallels once again highlight the importance of understanding the history of IEDs.  The fact that Russian devices were so focused on countering EOD action is interesting and significant and deserves wider understanding.  The general under-appreciation of the extensive, WW2 Russian sabotage campaigns using improvised explosive devices is barely recognised and deserves a much greater level of attention. Frankly it makes the efforts of the British SOE or American OSS look very paltry in comparison.

In future blogs related to all this I will address the following:

  1. Some Russian devices designed specifically for targeting railways – further to my series in the subject. Some were designed by Starinov himself.
  2. More technical details of the Russian F-10 radio controlled device.
  3. Some more details and photographs of Ilya Starinov, and an interesting story about the F-10 radio-controlled devices he deployed to assassinate German General General Braun in Kharkov in November 1941, and the role of a young commissar called Krushchev (yes, that one) in the operation, protecting Starinov from being arrested by Beria’s agents and “purged” before the device was detonated.
  4. An odd and fascinating series of parallels between this 1950s American report and another American report written in 1865 showing almost identical devices. History repeating itself again. Some of the Russian devices of WW2 are identical to Russian devices of the 1850s, and some other Russian devices of WW2 are very similar to American revolutionary devices of 1778.

All in all, this document is a bit of a treasure trove when put within the larger context of the history of IEDs over several centuries.

 

Close Me
Looking for Something?
Search:
Post Categories: