No. 106 Fuze

[RodB]

I've finally got around to cobbling together a Wikipedia article on the No. 106 fuze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._106_Fuze). As usual, the research was a useful self-education exercise and so far has raised the following questions, which others here may be interested in :

1. I was surprised to find this did not appear to be a graze fuze, but really a super-sensitive D.A. (direct action) fuze. I.e. the only way to action the fuze was to push in the hammer projecting from the nose. There did not appear to be any internal inertia plunger or weights, balls, gizmos etc. typical of graze fuzes, which could activate the fuze merely on rapid deceleration or change of direction. This means that in theory the fuze would not detonate at all if it landed flat or tail-first for some reason, without the hammer coming into contact with anything, or just struck side-on. No. 100 and 101 were apparently true graze fuzes and would detonate no matter how they landed - but apparently the by-product of inertial activation was unavoidable slight delay, which No. 106 avoided.

Question : why didn't No. 106 retain some inertia activation (i.e. graze) capability in addition to the D.A. capability ? Would this have been too complex/expensive/heavy ? Or wasn't that really not necessary for its chosen mission, which appears to have been wire-cutting. Logically to me, if it was believed that the shell would always land nose-first, and hence always detonate, then No 101 was no longer needed as No. 106 would do everything, including demolition with simple addition of short delay. This was obviously not the case, and other graze fuzes continued to be used for demolition and general destruction.

Conclusion : D.A. was not a sure way of shell activation, and No. 106 would have been more potent with added graze capability. Why wasn't it given that ?

2.Ministry of Munitions History of 1922 mentions the development timeline and implementation of No. 106 Fuze, as approving its use from August 1916... and mentions all natures of artillery for which it could be used except 18 pounders. What I've found so far indicates that in fact the main users of this fuze were 18-pounders, together with 4.5 inch howitzers for short-medium range wire cutting, and 6-inch guns for long-range wire cutting. No 101 appears to have remained the main HE fuze for other uses.

Question : seems odd that the Ministry of Munitions history omits any reference to 18 pounders here. ??

3. This appears to have been a knock-off of a French fuze - does anybody know the background ?

4.The whole idea of having a feeler sticking out the front of a fuze waiting to come into contact with something is not rocket science. British troops were already getting slaughtered in front of barbed wire early in 1915 - why did it take until Jan 1917 to get a field gun/howitzer fuze (effectively just a No. 17 D.A. fuze with the needle on the end of a spindle sticking out an inch in front) into the field that could to some extent defeat barbed wire ?

[Cnock]

Hi

The fore-runner of the Fuze 106 was the French Fusée Instantanée Allongée mod.1915

and as the 106 it avoided cratering

Cnock

[59165]

as the 106 it avoided cratering

It is a mightily intelligent fuse that could avoid craters on a battlefield!

Sorry.Couldn't be helped.

Good luck with it,Rob.Be nice to see something well researched for once on Wiki.

[Cnock]

The French fuze

Cnock

[Cnock]

'It is a mightily intelligent fuse that could avoid craters on a battlefield!

minimize cratering (OK ? 59615)

Cnock

[RodB]

The French fuze

Cnock

Looks more like a dead echidna than a mightily intelligent French fuze to me.

Seriously, thanks for the info about Fusée Instantanée Allongée mod.1915, I'll folow that up.

Rod

[truthergw]

I know very little about artillery and considerably less than that about fuzes. I have had a quick look at the wiki page and will be back soon to read it properly. I am sure it will fill in a hole or two for me. Quite the reverse of the intended use for a fuze

An answer to your question as to why it took so long might be that, first the need had to be recognised. I believe It was a year or more before Shrapnel started to give way to HE? Once the need was established the fuze had to be designed and this one seems to have been the culmination of several attempts. Lastly, once the need was established and the best design was actually down on paper with materials lists etc. etc. precision machinery would have to be made or adapted for production and skilled machinists would need to learn how to produce this piece of fine work, in bulk with the required reliability. No magic wands in engineering works, unfortunately. Presumably, once it was available in some quantity, there would be field trials while gunners found out how to use it and then how to train other gunners how to use it.

[truthergw]

The French fuze

Cnock

If that is not a Kentucky Fried Hamster, I have never seen one.

[JimSmithson]

Rod

I am very pleased to see someone working on this topic. I put a question out on the Forum quite some time ago now and nobody seemed to know. It all revolves around how much of the fuse was available in April1917. The performance of the artillery along the different parts of the front seems so different, especially in the cutting of wire that I am left with the feeling that many units had limited or no supplies of the fuse. Did you see any information in your research that might point towards a scarcity at this time, you do mention delays in production? The experiences of 21st, 30th and 56th Divisions at the wire on April 9th differ considerably from those of their neighbours to the north.

Any additional information would be of great value to me.

Thanks

Jim

[RodB]

Rod

I am very pleased to see someone working on this topic. I put a question out on the Forum quite some time ago now and nobody seemed to know. It all revolves around how much of the fuse was available in April1917. The performance of the artillery along the different parts of the front seems so different, especially in the cutting of wire that I am left with the feeling that many units had limited or no supplies of the fuse. Did you see any information in your research that might point towards a scarcity at this time, you do mention delays in production? The experiences of 21st, 30th and 56th Divisions at the wire on April 9th differ considerably from those of their neighbours to the north.

Any additional information would be of great value to me.

Thanks

Jim

Farndale comments : "...where wire cutting was attempted at short range it too was successful, but at ranges of over 2,000 yards it was unreliable... On the right of VII Corps, the bombardment had failed to cut the wire because it was attempted at long ranges - indeed at this point no-man's land itself was up to 2,000 yards across".

Farndale merely mentions that Fuze 106 was available at this time, but the only specific refrence he makes to it is that wire-cutting at Vimy Ridge was done by 4.5 inch howitzers with Fuze 106.

Apparently 50% of the 18-pounder ammo fired in the initial barrage at Arras was HE but he doesn't mention with what fuze - possible 106, likewise possibly 106 with 6-inch guns used for long-range wire cutting. I think you would need to obtain the war diaries of the relevant RA batteries for fuze details.

[JimSmithson]

I think you would need to obtain the war diaries of the relevant RA batteries for fuze details.

Ah if only they would name the fuse they are using - unfortunately they don't!

Thanks for the extra info. Most of the complaints over wire cutting was to do with range but (I ask this as an artillery novice) if they had fuse 106 surely the range would not have been such a problem. My understanding is that range for the 18 pounder was an issue due to the trajectory of the shell but I am very unsure of myself in this area. Help!

Jim

[RodB]

Ah if only they would name the fuse they are using - unfortunately they don't!

Thanks for the extra info. Most of the complaints over wire cutting was to do with range but (I ask this as an artillery novice) if they had fuse 106 surely the range would not have been such a problem. My understanding is that range for the 18 pounder was an issue due to the trajectory of the shell but I am very unsure of myself in this area. Help!

Jim

No 106 would have been used with HE. If they were in fact still using timed shrapnel there to cut wire, the fatal flaw of shrapnel bursting at long range is that it has to burst virtually right up against a target like wire for the individual bullets to have enough energy top do damage. The small powder charge in the shell only accelerates them slightly out of the case, after which their inherently poor ballistic property causes them to decelerate rapidly. Hence in this case the shell would already have travelled at least 3000 yards (remember it's fired from behind the lines), already greatly diminished in velocity, and if it doesn't burst within about 50 yards of the wire I would estimate the balls would by then be travelling too slowly to reliably cut wire, though still lethal against troops. Hence it was a catch-22 : long range shrapnel had to be more accurately timed to be effective... even if the shell actually lands in the wire, if the fuze timing isn't perfect it has little effect, whereas a similarly accurate HE shell with 106 fuze would cut the wire. This would probably not have been a problem with the original Regular gunners it was intended for but beyond the ability of the gunners of 1917 and their tired guns. And the Germans would have known all this in choosing how & where to put the wire - they knew the RA were obsessed with shrapnel.

[johnreed]

With regards to the fuze setting of Fuze No 80 or 85 the fuze setting was obtained using a Key Fuze No 18 and is set by using the MK 1 eyeball, also you have not mentioned the PER (Probable Error Range) or commonly know as the zone of the gun which is worked out by using the 50% zone from the Range Tables for a range of 2,000 yards the 50% zone for an 18 Pdr is 22 yards in length on a new gun therefore the 50% would be 22 x 4 = 88yards, without taking into account for non-standard conditions. The same PER would be for the HE round. I think you could have rephrased the statement "This would probably not have been a problem with the original Regular gunners it was intended for but beyond the ability of the gunners of 1917 and their tired guns".

[JimSmithson]

O.K. I have had a pretty tough day in school but now my brain really hurts!

I think from what you say Rod that because they had to fire from long range in the southern sector and therefore wire cutting was inefficient gives me the feeling that they were using shrapnel and not the 106 fuse.

John - I think (?) you are saying the same thing - all to do with the difficulty of using shrapnel at long range. The extra is that you feel it was inherently difficult and not due to lack of experience or the quality of the guns.

I will gladly stand corrected if I have interpreted that wrongly.

Jim

[johnreed]

Jim

You have interpreted correctly, the gun drill was a tried and tested method, with every member of the gun crew able to do anothers task in action and would have been tested on it.

John

[Rockdoc]

On AA guns, if a certain number was unable to perform then another was specified to do both his own duties and those of the unavailable number. Using this process, my Grandfather's notes say they were expected to come down from the normal detachment of 11 men to 7 before the rate of fire was seriously affected. I would expect that field gunnery had similar arrangements.

Keith

[chris mccarthy]

I wonder if any one has ever found a dud shell with a 106 fuze? I have been going over to France for over thirty years and never seen one yet.

C

[nigelfe]

1. HE was available for everthing except 18 and 13-pr in Aug 1914 (although it was a low percentage holding for 60-pr).

2. HE was first used with 18-pr in late Sep/early Oct 1914 (I'd have to check the dates), in consequence Mk2 Shrapnel was introduced to maintain ballistic compatibility (particularly to ensure that the relationship between ranges and elevation angles was identical for both shells).

3. Pre No 106 UK percussion fuzes were a graze action, this meant there was a very slight delay before they functioned, problem was, particularly in the soft ground of Flanders, they penetrated deeper than acceptable and caused cratering.

4 Properly conducted wire cutting trials were conducted on the beach (near Calais IIRC - I haven't checked) against representative German wire. Shrapnel was effective. However, the angle of descent needed to be within quite a narrow band, and since 18-pr had only a single propelling charge this limited the effective range bracket.

4a Best ranges was 1800 to 2400 yards but witre could be effectively cut up to 3600 yards (GHQ Arty Notes No 5 Wire-cutting Jun 1916).

4b. As long as you could deploy 18-pr at its optimum range bracket to the target wire no problems, 7.5 rds per yard of front + 5% HE did the trick providing the depth of wire did not exceed the 50% zone of the gun (GHQ Arty Notes No 4 Arty in Offensive Ops Feb 1917 Appx IV).

4e. The reason for the optimum angle of descent was entirely obvious when you stop to think about it, to save you the mental effort, it was to maximise the number of bullets paths in a shrapnel cone of fire through the wire, hence increasing the probability of hits on the wire strands.

5 Pre-106 the available iumpact fuzes for 18-pr were all time fuzes with a graze action. They were (GHQ Arty Notes No 2 Field Arty Ammo, Jan 1916):

No 80/44 with gaine (44 refers to a modified fuze setting and safety arrangement nothing to do with No 44 fze), emergency use only.

No 80/44 with No 44/80, No 44/80 fitted into the fuze well below No 80/44 in place of the gaine.

No 85 with No 1 gaine

No 85 with No 2 gaine

No 100 with No 1 gaine

No 100 with No 2 gaine

The gaine was required to convert the powder burning into a detonation to initiate HE.

No 44 was an impact fuse used with 4.5 in How.

[johnreed]

Niglefe

What equipment used the 102 fuze used with.

John

[nigelfe]

Sorry, can't help with 101, 102 Percussion was widely used after the war but I'm not sure when it was introduced. I can't find any ref to 101, but haven't looked at any RTs only post WW1 HBs.

[johnreed]

Nigelfe

I have a 102Mk 11B sitting on my desk with a date on it of with a date on it of 7 16, here is a picture.

John

[nigelfe]

I'm back to front, Percussion 101E with No 2 Gaine used with 4.5 How, 9.2 How, 60 pr G, No 101B and No 2 gaine with 8 in How all in inter-war HBs. The gaine means the fze had a powder (low explosive) burning element, which suggests a graze action.

[wmfinch]

Hello All,

 

I have a No. 106 Fuze with markings which read No 106 II S & S1917.

 

I understand that there were many Fuze manufacturers in the UK and abroad and I'm assuming the 'S & S' is the manufacturer' s mark.

 

Does anyone know who that was please?

 

I believe the £80 I paid for it reflects it's rarity value...i.e. they actually worked!

 

V/R

 

Wayne

[14276265]

S&S - Sykes and Sugden Ltd, Spring Place Works, Springwood Street, Huddersfield.

 

A good find, to get one with the intact arming tape. Is the safety cap present and if so any markings on it?

 

 

 

 

265

[wmfinch]

Ah thank you '265 ', very much appreciated.  I have a safety cap, but I believe it was one that had been discarded in the field, as it is pot marked and is heavily painted in protective paint.  Cannot make out any markings, unfortunately.

 

Thank you once again,

 

With best wishes,

 

Wayne