Are these actually firebombs or...?

Devadatta · 4th March 2012, 07:04 PM

Hello Gentlemen,

Recently I was interested in obtaining what is often being called as "islamic terracot (ceramic) grenade (firebomb)". For better understanding I place a picture, but it's just one of several kinds, there are also round shapes, etc:

However, during my search I collected several opinions: that they were bottles for mercury, for any liquid substanse or so. As an evidence for this point of view we can take, that many of them are decorated. What is the reason to decorate a bomb? - anyway it will blow up.

So what do you think, are those actually bombs or not?

Thank you

David · 4th March 2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devadatta

What is the reason to decorate a bomb? - anyway it will blow up.

Well, i cannot answer your question, but i do not think that it can be discounted as a bomb merely because it is decorated. It was common practice to decorate bombs in WWII AFAIK.

broadaxe · 4th March 2012, 10:08 PM

This has been a ong time debate and still is. To my own opinion they are bombs; were found in various historic battle grounds from about 8th century AD to the 15th century - the late Mameluke period. Same basic pattern was first use as a greek fire container/bomb and the later pattern like this one was possible a grenade, filled with black powder, hence they have thick walls.
Examples from Israel: during the excavation of the crusader citadel of Beth She'an (mid 13th century), tens of thousands of shards were found in the surrounding moat.
A large amount of unused clay bombs was found underwater, within cargo of pure military intent - helmets, cannons, on a wreck of a ~1450 Mameluke ship.
Much recently, wild boars uncovered one from the mud while sniffing for food in the bush (local nature reserve rangers found it), under the huge Ayyubic fortress remains of Qal'at Namrud.
They can be white, black, brown, reddish and even green-glazed, not to mention the glass type, plain and decorated.

Gavin Nugent · 4th March 2012, 10:20 PM

Can the decorations be considered not as decorations but as clear indicators of the type of explosion charge it carried??? I am sure there would have been differing charges for different applications.

Gav

Atlantia · 4th March 2012, 10:24 PM

As Gav suggests and perhaps just to aid in grip. You wouldn't want a smooth sided grenade

broadaxe · 5th March 2012, 07:55 AM

Since there are smooth surface 'bombs' the question of the decorations is good enough. I believe, that in the later, explosive ones it is to asist fragmentation.
I managed to find a photo of the 'bomb' uncovered by boars mentioned above.

Gavin Nugent · 5th March 2012, 08:20 AM

A good conclusion, thank you for your thoughts and the image/data.

Gavin

4th March 2012, 07:04 PM	#1
Devadatta Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 118	Are these actually firebombs or...? Hello Gentlemen, Recently I was interested in obtaining what is often being called as "islamic terracot (ceramic) grenade (firebomb)". For better understanding I place a picture, but it's just one of several kinds, there are also round shapes, etc: However, during my search I collected several opinions: that they were bottles for mercury, for any liquid substanse or so. As an evidence for this point of view we can take, that many of them are decorated. What is the reason to decorate a bomb? - anyway it will blow up. So what do you think, are those actually bombs or not? Thank you Attached Images

5th March 2012, 07:55 AM	#6
broadaxe Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 332	Since there are smooth surface 'bombs' the question of the decorations is good enough. I believe, that in the later, explosive ones it is to asist fragmentation. I managed to find a photo of the 'bomb' uncovered by boars mentioned above. Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

4th March 2012, 10:08 PM	#3
broadaxe Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 332	This has been a ong time debate and still is. To my own opinion they are bombs; were found in various historic battle grounds from about 8th century AD to the 15th century - the late Mameluke period. Same basic pattern was first use as a greek fire container/bomb and the later pattern like this one was possible a grenade, filled with black powder, hence they have thick walls. Examples from Israel: during the excavation of the crusader citadel of Beth She'an (mid 13th century), tens of thousands of shards were found in the surrounding moat. A large amount of unused clay bombs was found underwater, within cargo of pure military intent - helmets, cannons, on a wreck of a ~1450 Mameluke ship. Much recently, wild boars uncovered one from the mud while sniffing for food in the bush (local nature reserve rangers found it), under the huge Ayyubic fortress remains of Qal'at Namrud. They can be white, black, brown, reddish and even green-glazed, not to mention the glass type, plain and decorated.

4th March 2012, 10:20 PM	#4
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Can the decorations be considered not as decorations but as clear indicators of the type of explosion charge it carried??? I am sure there would have been differing charges for different applications. Gav

4th March 2012, 10:24 PM	#5
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	As Gav suggests and perhaps just to aid in grip. You wouldn't want a smooth sided grenade

5th March 2012, 08:20 AM	#7
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	A good conclusion, thank you for your thoughts and the image/data. Gavin