Jump to content

CMAK: A Puzzle for the Commonwealth Grogs


Recommended Posts

I’ve recently been reading up a bit on the Desert Campaign and have come across a few baffling references to weapons, and in particular, a ‘Spiggot Mortar.’ It is found in references* to the battle at Minqar Qaim (~27 June 1942) and again at Ruweisat Ridge (14/15 July 1942).

From the references is seems to have been a fairly large (at MQ there is reference to it being difficult to dig in), held at company level, and intended for anti-tank work.

A few things it isn’t: it’s not the 2-in or 3-in mortar. There is plenty of references to these elsewhere, and they are always called such. It’s not the PIAT either – they weren’t issued until about a year later.

A few things it could be: a Northover Projector or a Blacker Bombard (or are they the same thing?). But I had thought that they were only issued to the Home Guard.

Does anyone have any ideas what this thing actually is?

Here is an extract from the 21st NZ Bn Operation Order for the attack on Ruweisat Ridge on 14/15 July 1942:

13. A/Tk Tps: All A/Tk guns will be under command OC A/Tk Bty. Att tps and own tps will move out of present posn on orders Bty Comd.

15. R.E.’S: A det of one offr and two OR with detector will be located with Bn HQ.

18. Arms: Bandolier of 50 rds, normal weapons, 2” mor, EY rifle, 68 grenades, two 36 grenades per man.

A/tk Rifle will be on pl 15 cwt.

22. Spiggot Mortars: These will be placed on coy vehicles carrying cooks and will remain with A Ech.

Regards

JonS

* Cody, J.F. (1953). Official history of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939-45 – 21 Battalion. War History Branch, Dept of Internal Affairs, Wellington, NZ.

* Henderson, J. (1958). Official history of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939-45 – 22 Battalion. War History Branch, Dept of Internal Affairs, Wellington, NZ.

[ August 13, 2003, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not exactly sure what this Spiggot Mortar is, but it doesn't appear to be a piece of equipment that would be commonplace.

I do have a totally unrelated question that you might be able to answer for me though. :rolleyes:

You were quoting from the NZ Official Histories and I was wondering if you might have any info on the regimental insignia worn by NZ troops in the Mediterranean? :confused:

[ August 14, 2003, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Darknight_Canuck ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

hehe - no, it's not. All the support weapons were in the A Ech for that operation. It was a night advance over 6½ miles, so there was no need/use for the heavy weapons until dawn.

As it turns out, there was a bit of a balls up. The support weapons couldn't get through, the British armour didn't move as arranged, and most of 22 Bn (also involved in the operation) mooched off into captivity in columns of three, taking Capt Upham with them.

Anyway, the point? No it wasn't the kitchen sink smile.gif But I do agree that the cooks truck is an odd place to have it. Maybe it idicates a lack of faith in the weapon, or perhaps they figured that the cooks wagon was the one most likely to get through :D

Expect an related email on that project soon. Some of good stuff smile.gif

Regards

JonS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darknight,

the answer is 'not much'.

WH2Mao50a.jpg

WH2Mao49b.jpg

WH2Mao47b.jpg

WH2Mao48a.jpg

WH2Mao44a.jpg

WH2Mao42a.jpg

WH2Mao01a.jpg

In theory there was a "NEW ZEALAND" flash, with white text on a black background worn on each shoulder, either as a arched strip sewn onto the upper sleeve or as a loop around the epalettes.

The beret (seen on the guys in the carrier) was khaki, with a black diamond (a square rotated 45°) sewn on over the left eyebrown, and the "ONWARD" badge for infantry units on top of that.

1502476_full.jpg

The smaller pair would have been worn as collar dogs on dress uniforms.

Other corps used their own beret badge instead.

Regards

JonS

[ August 14, 2003, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JonS:

Mike,

hehe - no, it's not. All the support weapons were in the A Ech for that operation. It was a night advance over 6½ miles, so there was no need/use for the heavy weapons until dawn.

Interesting; maybe they listed the cooks thinking that would make them easier to find the next day.

"The spigot mortar? Sure, see those trucks over there - the one with the fat greasy guy in the white shirt - you can see him from here - that's the truck with the spigot mortar.

Go fetch!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on Stalin's Organ's info I was able to do a refined search that quickly came up with this (check out the url :eek: ). In part, it relates ...

[Col Blacker develops the Blacker Bombard] ... He next moved on to looking at a man portable version this weapon, it was soon dubbed the ’Baby Bombard’. The ’Baby Bombard’ was tested and found unsatisfactory due to the poor performance of its anti-tank round. In February 1942 a more effective warhead had been developed, the ’Baby Bombard’ was revisited and became the PIAT. It was put into production in August 1942. ...
... which ties in nicely with what Stalin's Organ reported. I would expect, in the wide open spaces of Minqar Qaim and the line at El Alamein, an infantry anti-tank weapon with a range of 100 yards wouldn't have been wildly popular. Even with an improved warhead.

The puzzle has been resolved to my satisfaction smile.gif

However, will we see PIATs integral to CW Bns from mid-1942 in CMAK? ;)

BTW, there are a number of other interesting articles at that site.

Regards

JonS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JonS:

(check out the url :eek: ).

This is how I came to find out about CM. I have been tabletop wargaming for many years, and often visited that site to purchase 15mm models for my forces. One day, on a computer without my bookmarks, I typed .com rather than .co.nz, and the rest is history.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember reading somewhere about Blacker Bombards being issued in North Africa. Some even apparently reached Tobruk during the siege. It wasn't popular, not because of the lack of penetration but because the weapon was unreliable. Apparently the charge either wasn't large enough apparently to project the round or it had a tendancy to fail to fire, with the result that the round often skidded for some distance along the ground before exploding when it hit a rock or some other form of impediment, usually well before the intended target. Didn't someone win a decoration for firing one during a battle in North Africa? Might have been the one at Tobruk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...