Malice Aforethought: A History of Booby Traps from the First World War to Vietnam

By Ian Jones

An examination of the uses of explosive traps in a military context and the measures that have been taken to negate their effects and to neutralize them.

War has always provided a stimulus to technological development, and throughout the twentieth century this new technology was harnessed to produce increasingly deadly and malicious types of explosives in the form of booby traps, mines, delayed-action devices and mobile charges.

Designed, constructed or adopted to kill or injure, these lethal mechanisms function when a person disturbs or approaches a seemingly harmless object or performs an apparently safe act. In other instances they are set off by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.

Fully illustrated with diagrams and photographs, Malice Aforethought traces the design, deployment and effectiveness of these deadly devices throughout both world wars to the Vietnam War.

Expertly and compellingly written, this unique study is a tribute to the brave men who risked their lives daily to neutralize the booby traps laid in the dimly lit dugouts of the Western Front, on the beaches of Normandy, or in the dark and dangerous tunnels of Chu Chi.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Aug 31, 2016
• ISBN: 9781848329799

Ian Jones

Ian Jones lives in London with his family and has a passion for motorbikes and music. This is his second novel.

Book preview

Malice Aforethought: The History of Booby Traps from

World War One to Vietnam

A Greenhill Book

First published in 2004 by Greenhill Books, Lionel Leventhal Limited

www.greenhillbooks.com

This edition published in 2016 by

Frontline Books

an imprint of Pen & Sword Books Ltd,

47 Church Street, Barnsley, S. Yorkshire, S70 2AS

For more information on our books, please visit

www.frontline-books.com, email [e-mail]

or write to us at the above address.

Copyright © Ian Jones, 2004

ISBN: 978-1-84832-977-5

PDF ISBN: 978-1-84832-980-5

EPUB ISBN: 978-1-84832-979-9

PRC ISBN: 978-1-84832-978-2

The right of Ian Jones to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

CIP data records for this title are available from the British Library

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Contents

Illustrations

PLATES

Delayed-action mine outside Baupame Town Hall, March 1917

A German 1917 Pattern Long Delay Action Fuze (Lgz Z 17)

A mantrap set in the German wire at Perousse, 21 July 1918

A mine crater in the middle of the village of Athies, 9 April 1917

A German Automatic Detonating Device

Grave of driver Kenneth Arthur King

British time-delays

British Switch No 8, Anti-Personnel Mk I

A booby trap in a pear tree

A booby-trapped wine bottle left in ruins of the village of Faella, 21 August 1944

A booby-trapped doll in the same village

A J Feder 504 long-delay igniter

A McAlpine fuze

Schematic of a booby-trapped house

The German EZ 44 anti-lift igniter

The Type 6 Limpet Mk II with a booby-trap anti-disturbance device

A booby-trapped Junker 88 night fighter, abandoned by the Germans in 1944

A booby-trapped German mess tin

Booby-trapped telegraph pole

Diagrams from the German sabotage school

A booby trap found on Tarawa

A building demolished in the David Quarter of Jerusalem on 9 November 1946

Korean cartoons designed to get the booby trap message through

Booby-trapped pipe bomb in Cyprus

Aden: A nail bomb incorporating a British time pencil

Aden: The results of an explosion of a booby trap on a motorcycle

A selection of non-explosive traps in Vietnam

A Viet Cong tunnel complex located during operation Cedar Falls, 1967

TEXT FIGURES

German village, mined and booby-trapped

A ferret bomb

A trip igniter

A box trap

Diagram of an incendiary pencil

A trench-board trap

German Automatic Detonating Device

The Venner time-switch

Methods of setting booby traps

Tellermine 35 anti-tank mine

German S mine

German pull igniter, the Zugzünder 35

British Switch No. 2, Pressure Mk I

British Switch No. 1, Pull Mk I

British Switch No. 3, Release Mk I

British Switch No. 9, L Delay Mk I

British Switch No. 8, Anti-Personnel

The thermos bomb

Booby-trapped water bottle

The Brennzünder igniter

Schematic of a roadblock using felled trees and a booby trap

Booby-trapped Speedwell tin

A railway line prepared for demolition

The Clam

SOE explosive pump

Explosive torch

The tyre burster

The explosive rat

Altimeter switch

Diagram of an Italian pneumatic mine

A contact switch

Japanese trip grenade in its case

Bird-trap device

Booby-trapped lighter

Booby-trapped device left at the Mount Carmel Radar Station

A 55-gallon rolling mine

Acknowledgements

In the writing of this book I have relied on a large number of people for help, advice and information. I am particularly indebted to the following:

The staff of The Royal Engineers Library at Chatham, The Imperial War Museum Library, The MoD Library and the National Archive at Kew.

Mike Pugh and Sandy Sanderson of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technical Information Centre for their in-depth knowledge and their assistance with tracking down details of devices and people.

Lieutenant Colonel J McLennan, Controller of the Royal Engineers’ Association, who put me in touch with many ex-Sappers, in particular Ron Harris and Reg Journet of the bomb disposal branch. They both provided much needed information and Reg also showed me his pictures of booby traps in Italy - some of which are reproduced in this book.

Sid Leader from 18 Bomb Disposal Company RZ for his wealth of firsthand information about operations in North Africa. He defused his first bomb with a clasp knife and subsequently undertook many more hazardous operations until the end of the war.

David List, whom I met via a seat number at Kew, explained the workings of the files at the Public Record Office to me, and in particular he suggested that a good place to get details of booby traps was from enemy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) reports of recovered devices.

Lieutenant Colonel (retd) Philip Robinson both for information and for pointing out documents at the Public Record Office for me to read.

Andy Hoad, Mark Seaman, Peter Chamberlain, Mark Khan, Jamie Adam, Hugh Furse and John Harding for their time and expertise.

Liz Labbett for translating German documents. Tony Debski for drawing the pictures of the Viet Cong non-explosive traps from poor-quality photographs and sketches.

Cliff Cadman and the staff at the Metropolitan Police Explosives Office for their patience, and Tony Ashforth for preventing my lap-top computer from being thrown out of the window on more than one occasion.

Bob Leienedecker in the USA, who knows more about Explosive Ordnance than anyone I know as a result of his operational work in Vietnam and his years providing EOD intelligence for the US armed forces. When I had all but despaired of tracing a 1970s American report on mines and booby traps from the Second World War to the end of the Vietnam War, Bob turned up in my office one day bearing a small package containing some useful US documents but more importantly a microfiche of the mine warfare report I needed. For that I am eternally grateful.

Mike Hibberd, who recently retired from the Imperial War Museum, for his much needed direction and assistance, particularly in the early days of the project.

Norman Bonney for his invaluable input regarding the SOE and for his detailed knowledge of devices and munitions. Without his help I would still be researching now.

As always any errors or omissions remain my responsibility. Finally I must thank Catherine, my wife, for editing the manuscript; without her, all my efforts would have come to nothing.

Ian Jones

INTRODUCTION

A Savage Practical Joke

Booby – A name applied to those species of bird, genus Sula. They owe their common name to their seemingly stupid behaviour in allowing themselves to be caught by hand.

The Hamsworth Encyclopaedia, volume II, 1906

It has proved impossible to establish exactly how and when the behaviour of an innocent but stupid bird became synonymous with the deployment and use of explosive traps. In most, but not all, cases stupidity has nothing to do with the success of such a device. It is the cunningly conceived and carefully laid trap that catches out and kills the unwary soldier. In Italy in 1943 British troops came upon a highly desirable billet abandoned by the retreating Germans, its front door invitingly half open. Entering cautiously through a window, to avoid the likely booby trap, the troops approached the front door from inside and found attached to it the expected explosive charge apparently designed to function when the door was moved. They left the house and attached a line to the doorknob of the front door. They retreated across the road to a conveniently sited slit trench and pulled the line. A second trap hidden in the trench and connected to the door exploded and killed them all.¹ This fiendish and lethal attack illustrates the effectiveness of booby traps and the ingenuity with which they can be laid.

Both non-explosive and explosive traps have been around for a long time and some people seem to derive a perverse pleasure from their use. Booby traps were developed not long after the invention of the wheellock mechanism for small arms early in the 16th century. The new system opened the possibility of firing charges at a distance by a spring operating a lock, or a lock-operated clockwork device, the second mechanism giving birth to the time bomb or ‘infernal machine’. This use was mentioned in a work written by Samuel Zimmermann of Augsburg in 1573 which, although it mainly dealt with fireworks, included the mischievous use of explosives. He made several contraptions operated by concealed springs or hidden string. It was recorded that:

The device can be applied to such pleasing purposes as to make a stool or a chair with such a spring fire-work inside it, so that anyone sitting on it will be shot or else terribly burnt. Similarly, one can lay in the street what looks like a purse of gold, upon taking up which anyone is at once shot.²

Further devices were recorded in the 16th century: there were packets, boxes and chests, which were filled with gunpowder but were supposed to contain valuables, and which exploded on opening. One booby-trapped chest was used in the siege of Psków in 1581. This was sent as a gift to the Russian defender Ivan Petrovich Shuiskii and when opened by a few of his companions it exploded and killed them.

In Britain flintlock trap-guns were used for the protection of land and property. They were designed to shoot automatically at men and animals that came into their line of fire. The system used a double flintlock initiation system and a short-barrelled gun, which was mounted on a pivot allowing it to swivel. Several lines were spread out from the gun to cover a large area and fixed close to the ground. When a line was caught and drawn taut, it swivelled the gun towards the unsuspecting victim and fired. Spring guns of a similar kind were used to deter poachers. They were outlawed in the 1820s but some estates displayed notices warning of such devices long after they were declared illegal.

A definition which catches the evil nature of a booby trap is:

A booby trap is a cunning contrivance, usually of an explosive and lethal nature, designed to catch the unwary enemy; a savage practical joke. The essence of a good booby trap is low cunning spiced with variety.³

Psychologically, there is something very emotive about the use of these devices. They can have a profound effect on soldiers’ behaviour. They evoke feelings of fear, anger, resentment and revulsion; similar emotions in many respects to those felt about snipers who target the unwary or unlucky. It is the new or inexperienced soldier who exposes himself too long, lingers in the wrong place, or goes to help a dying colleague who becomes the sniper’s prey. One almost always feels sorry for the victim because he is an individual who has been selected from the masses and killed. In most armies snipers are elite hunters, carefully selected and trained and expert marksmen. That the ordinary soldier resents them is without question. Surrendering snipers often forfeit their lives. The same emotions can be evoked by booby traps where the unsuspecting victim, who may have just survived a gruelling battle or is resting out of the front line, is suddenly killed or maimed as a result of his own action when he disturbs an unseen device. Worse still, those that go to his assistance may also be targeted and finish up as victims of other devices. The indiscriminate use of mines and booby traps is another facet of war, which devalues or debases human feelings. It is irrefutable that maintaining morale is a vital factor in war and anything which chips away at this is bound to have an adverse effect on operational effectiveness. Booby traps however are not decisive weapons of war, like an armoured thrust or infantry assault, and this should be borne in mind when reading this text.

There has always been unease about the use of certain types of weapons or ammunition in warfare. The use of dumdum expanding bullets designed to cause massive injury was notably banned at the beginning of the 20th century. More recently concern has been raised over munitions that are designed to be deployed but are not immediately activated. These may remain buried or hidden but still be able to function long after a conflict has finished. Many of these, although not banned outright, are subject to international law, which aims to prevent the use of those that indiscriminately affect both combatants and non-combatants.

The Inhumane Weapons Convention of 1981 aimed to prohibit or restrict the use of certain conventional weapons. Included in these were anti-personnel mines, booby traps and other devices. Booby traps were defined as ‘any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.’ It further defined other devices as ‘manually emplaced munitions or devices designed to kill or injure which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.’

Despite the attempted ban, booby traps will almost certainly appear in future conflicts. Sadly in war necessity (perceived or genuine), not humanity, prevails. What is clear is that once a war starts all means will be used to destroy the opposition. Cobden observed in 1862 after the outbreak of the American Civil War that, once started, conflicts inevitably degenerate into gruesome killing matches from which the combatants fight until exhaustion. Succinctly he wrote:

From the moment the first shot is fired, or the first blow struck in a dispute then farewell to all reason and argument; you might as well attempt to reason with mad dogs as with men when they have begun to spill each others blood in mortal combat.⁴

It must be expected therefore that in any major war or prolonged guerrilla campaign booby traps will be deployed. Many of the switches designed for booby traps are also well suited for use in sabotage operations and vice versa. For example, the daring and highly successful SAS raids on the airfields in North Africa in the 1940s used delayed-action devices to destroy aircraft on the ground. They used specially designed, locally produced bombs; these and some other sabotage devices will be described in the book. The operations themselves however have already been extensively written about and will only be briefly discussed where relevant.

Next it is necessary to address the issue of land mines. Mines are traps, most of which are victim- or target-operated. They rely on their concealment for their effectiveness and tactically are designed to delay, deter, and demoralise enemy troops. However there are a number of features that distinguish mines from booby traps and it is important to understand the differences between the two.

Military land mines are mass-produced, often laid in large numbers, and are by design comparatively safe, simple and easy to deploy. They are purpose-built, normally contained in wood, metal or, more recently, plastic containers and have an in-built initiating system that causes them to function. The most common types of mine are anti-tank mines which will destroy or disable armoured and other vehicles, and anti-personnel mines designed to kill wound or otherwise incapacitate people and animals. There are also some mines which are command-initiated. These are often used in defensive positions or ambushes and are designed to de detonated by a remote observer when the enemy enters the mine s lethal area.

Mines are usually deployed en masse to form minefields that provide artificial barriers or obstacles to men or vehicles or both. Minefields, like other obstacles, are not impassable barriers, but unless they are breached will cause casualties and inhibit the movement of troops. Minefields are laid according to the needs of a strategic or tactical position. This book is not concerned with the use of mines in this main role.

Mines can also be used individually or in small numbers and this form of deployment is known as nuisance or harassing mining. This is the act of placing mines in the verges of roads, or among the rubble of demolished bridges or farmyards that must or could be used by the advancing enemy. It requires some premeditated thought on behalf of the layer; clearly it would be pointless sowing nuisance mines in an area the enemy was unlikely to use. The Germans mastered these tactics during the Second World War. The value of this type of mining within the total concept of battle is the same as booby-trapping, that is, to promote caution in the minds of the enemy. It makes them think twice before advancing into new and unknown territory and adds an additional stress to those already strained by the impact of war. When mines are deployed in this fashion they are sometimes laid in conjunction with booby traps where they complement each other. When mines are used in this manner it is difficult to differentiate them from booby traps and vice versa.

German village, mined and booby-trapped, showing; A anti-personnel mines, B anti-tank mines, C booby traps

Finally, mines themselves can be booby-trapped; the main reason for this is to prevent them being easily lifted and cleared. The Germans in particular in the Second World War employed this tactic as an effective deterrent to the rapid clearance of their minefields, particularly those that could not be covered by fire.

I intend to examine some of the many novel or unconventional uses of explosive for specific and unusual tasks. This covers original, experimental or improvised applications that do not easily sit in any other category. These range from an ill-conceived, locally planned scheme in Italy to load a sled with explosives and send it down a hill, guided by string, towards German positions, to items like the Giant Panjandrum, a massive rocket-propelled demolition charge.

Excluded from the book are the booby-trap switches that were fitted into conventional aircraft-dropped bombs and sea mines to prevent them being easily defuzed. During the Second World War, the Germans used a number of anti-handling fuzes and fuze attachments. The ZUS 40 anti-withdrawal device for example was added to the base of some normal German bomb fuzes. Any attempt to remove the fuze would result in a secondary detonator initiating the bomb. Details of all these and other similar anti-handling systems are well documented in other works.

Also excluded are the victim-operated switches developed and used in the most recent terrorist campaigns. In Northern Ireland the Provisional IRA made very effective use of improvised booby traps and in some areas, such as South Armagh, caused many casualties. These irregular devices used in terrorist or counter-insurgency campaigns were deployed with skill, cunning and deadly effect. For obvious reasons these latest devices are beyond the scope of this book. It is, however, intended to cover some of the early post-war terrorist campaigns which saw the transition from the use of military booby traps to improvised traps.

Consequently I have decided to limit the scope of the book from the First World War to Vietnam. The starting point reflects the fact that the First World War was the first time that the devices were developed and used in significant numbers. There are two reasons for stopping at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. Firstly, up until the end of the Vietnam War, most booby-trap switches and igniters were fairly simple mechanical or electromechanical devices. However, in the last three decades a new breed of sophisticated multi-purpose, multi-sensor electronic switches for use in booby traps has appeared. These have been used in recent conflicts around the world, for example, in the bloody and brutal Balkan wars. These more modern devices will not be described. Secondly, the post-Vietnam world has been dominated by terrorism and the use of improvised explosive devices. These, although fascinating, are beyond the scope of the book which as already stated aims to investigate military booby traps, sabotage devices and the unconventional use of explosives in war.

For those new to this field, a short description of the different types of explosive and their basic methods of operation is necessary. This is important because it limits what can and cannot be done when laying a booby trap.

Everyone is familiar with gunpowder, a low explosive used in fireworks, that simply needs a flame or a spark to get it to explode. Gunpowders main disadvantage is that it is hygroscopic: if not protected by a waterproof barrier, it rapidly absorbs moisture and becomes impossible to initiate and therefore is rendered ineffective. Cromwell s comment ‘Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry’ is a testament to its susceptibility to the damp. The need to keep gunpowder dry limited its use as the main charge, which might be buried in the ground or exposed to the elements. Some were used as fougasses in Malta in the 18th century and they were encountered in the American Civil War, but it was not really until the advent of high explosives that effective mines and traps could be made.

Most high explosives were discovered in the early to mid 18th century, but were not developed as safe and serviceable stores until the beginning of the 1900s. Military high explosives, for example gun-cotton, need a detonator to get them to function because they are fairly insensitive to shock and heat stimuli. Other explosives, such as TNT, are even less sensitive and need small gun-cotton primers to get them to detonate. Detonators themselves use much more sensitive explosives and come in two varieties known as electrical or plain. Clearly the former require an electrical current to get them to function. The latter, plain detonators, can be set off using a small flash of flame from a low explosive like gunpowder. Plain detonators are almost invariably initiated by a burning fuse. Two basic types of burning fuse are available: safety fuse, which burns at a relatively slow rate, in the order of a metre per 100 seconds, and an instantaneous fuse which, as used in British service, burnt at 30 metres per second. In booby traps, fuse instantaneous was often used to allow an explosive charge to be located some distance from the trap mechanism itself. Finally, the French developed cordeau detonant in 1907. This was a lead pipe filled with high explosive which would allow a detonating wave to pass down it. Travelling at some 4,900 metres per second it made fuse instantaneous look slow. This rigid tube was replaced in the mid 1930s with an improved variant of detonating cord, often called Cordtex or Prima Cord. This looks like plastic washing line and is a flexible high-explosive line, which not only allows a detonating wave to pass down it, but it can also be bent round corners or obstructions. As with fuse instantaneous, it can be used to site a charge away from a firing device.

It was only after the development of all these explosives, which were safe, stable and could be deployed in all weather conditions and remain viable, that effective use could be made of mines and booby traps. These traps need some form of firing switch and igniter, a detonator, a main charge, sometimes a small booster charge, and if the firing switch and igniter are separate from the main charge then these must be linked by a quick-burning fuse or detonating cord.

When reading the text it is important that the reader understands some of the mythology that surrounds the use of explosives. Historically when reading about the First World War it must be remembered that most of the soldiers that fought the war did not enter it with same understanding of explosives that we have today. Clearly they would quickly become familiar with the terrifying effects of high explosive as a result of artillery bombardment. But booby traps and mines were novel devices. Conversely all the readers of this book will have grown up with television images of conventional and terrorist bombs. Pictures of explosions and their effects no longer shock and are widely available. Although no less terrifying they are not the new or bewildering devices that they once were. On the contrary, the current generation, used to spectacular special effects of the film industry, often over-rate the power of explosives, which has been exaggerated out of all proportion. With their clever techniques, the special effects practitioners do the most amazing stunts which distort the truth. Cars do not explode when set on fire and hand grenades do not demolish buildings.

Finally I am clear that this is not the full story. I know that both the Germans and the Russians, in the bitter war on the Eastern Front, used booby traps extensively. These are touched upon but not dealt with in detail. Equally there is no reference to the many other wars, for example the French in Algeria. The reason is simply access to and availability of information. I also recognise that a book could be devoted to each of the chapters, or to any of the many brave men who dealt with booby traps, be it in the dimly lit dugouts on the Western Front, on the beaches of Normandy or the dark and dangerous tunnels in Vietnam. While undertaking my research I also discovered a great deal of intriguing information about sabotage and other clandestine activities and could have written much more on the subject. My main aim, however, was always to look at the design, development, deployment and effectiveness of booby traps in a military context and the measures that have been taken to negate their effects and to neutralise them.

Notes

1 Regan, Geoffry, The Guinness Book of Military Anecdotes, Guinness Publishing, London, 1992.

2 Partington, JR, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, W Heffer and Sons, Cambridge, 1960.

3 Field Engineering and Mine Warfare, pamphlet no. 7: Booby Traps, The War Office, October 1952, WO code 8741.

4 Cobden, Richard, Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, volume II, page 324.

PART ONE

World War One

CHAPTER ONE

Motivation and Methods

Kill the enemy without scruple and by any means.

Ernst Jünger

The First World War was an outstanding example of technology bringing new and murderous weapons to the battlefield. Industrialisation ensured that the weapons – modern rifles, machine-guns, quick-firing and heavy artillery pieces, poison gas, mortars, tanks and aircraft – were delivered to the armies in large numbers. The conflict also saw the development and use of explosives in the form of booby traps, mines, delayed-action devices and mobile charges in significant numbers. However, amid the orgy of destruction, the sheer scale of the fighting and horrendous casualties, the impact of these devices was diminished.

Although they were of no strategic importance, tactically these devices proved to be effective and the seeds were