Howitzer shell casing ?

[beestonboxer]

i had a bit of an impulsive buy today , just wanted to check out if im right in thinking it is a howitzer shell , height 405mm bottom 155mm top 120mm approx sizes .The base has RL ,II , 1901, T, C.F broad arrow , 15,10, 18 ,u15.

Has an interesting inscription on bottom as follows...... Fired by 116th Heavy Battery From MT Kemmel and silenced a German Battery May 1915.

Have to check out if details of inscription match up with movements of 116th Heavy Battery , any ideas about this also welcome.

[TonyE]

No, your find is not a 4.5 inch cartridge case (not "shell") for the howitzer. The case for the 4.5 inch was only 3.4 inches high.

What you do have is the case for the 4.7 inch QF Field gun which had a case 15.9 inches (405mm) long.

Originally developed as a naval and coast defence gun, it gave useful service in South Africa on improvised land carriages. A "proper" land Service carriage was developed for it and entered service in June 1900.

Range was 10,000 yards and MV was 2,150 fps (from Hogg & Thurston)

They were replaced on the Western Front by 6 inch weapons.

Regards

TonyE

[beestonboxer]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, have had a quick read up about the 4.7 inch QF Field Gun , sounds like it soon became evident that the gun was not suited for the then new modern warfare although like you said gave useful service in south Africa , sounds like pure volume of useage was an initial problem as well as accuracy, and caliber against trench warfare. It is amazing that it was still in use in 1917 but i expect it was a case of needs must.

if the casing was manufactured in 1901 and wasnt fired until 1915 , what kind of numbers of these shells were in stock prior to ww1 ? must have been a significant number.

[MikB]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, have had a quick read up about the 4.7 inch QF Field Gun , sounds like it soon became evident that the gun was not suited for the then new modern warfare although like you said gave useful service in south Africa , sounds like pure volume of useage was an initial problem as well as accuracy, and caliber against trench warfare. It is amazing that it was still in use in 1917 but i expect it was a case of needs must.

if the casing was manufactured in 1901 and wasnt fired until 1915 , what kind of numbers of these shells were in stock prior to ww1 ? must have been a significant number.

I'd think the main problem was relatively high velocity and flat trajectory, making it hard to reach dug-in targets behind hills and other obstructions at short and medium ranges. For counterbattery work at longer ranges, and especially from higher ground, they would have been more useful - hence the result commemorated by the inscription.

Regards,

MikB

[beestonboxer]

Yes an interesting point ,as having been fired from higher ground.

[DG65]

Can I claim a prize for knowing where you bought it?

[Chasemuseum]

The 4.7 inch guns were replaced in the field by the 60pr, a 5-inch gun. They both had a relatively flat trajectory but at greater ranges the shells were descending at relatively steep angles. The 4.7s were naval guns dismounted and used as field artillery during the Boer War. They were extremely successful. So much so Parliament forced the army to adopt them after the war in a formal field mounting rather than an improvised carriage. The army was re-engineering all of it’s artillery based on the South African experience adopting the more appropriate 60pr. This fitted the Army’s preferences for caseless ammunition for larger calibres, with the commensurate saving in brass and easing of the management of salvage.

The 4.7 had been a standard pre-dreadnaught gun for warships, so the Navy would have had a huge supply of ammunition tucked away. Even with the naval race and the dreadnaught battleships doing away with small guns, the 4.7 would have remained useful gun for destroyers (Naval gunnery is not my strength). A more problematic issue was shells. Pre-war Army stocks were very heavy on shrapnel and they took a long time to tool up and be able to supply sufficient quantities of HE shells of all calibres. Naval shells tend to be heavy on Armour Piercing HE, using base detonating fuses which are not very useful to the WWI armies as they tend to bury themselves too deep to achieve the desired effects.

The primary role of the “Heavy Field Artillery” – 4.7s and 60pr is counter battery fire. That is what this casing commemorates.

Regards

Ross T

[beestonboxer]

Thank you very much Ross T for that information very informative. Great to get detailed information like this.

Regards Tim

[beestonboxer]

As for the Norfolk member wishing to guess where i got it from please go ahead, although im sorry no prize available, as i have no money left spent it all on a shell.

It will be interesting to hear, i know where i got it from is a bit of a hotspot for dealing in anything anyone can get there hands on. If you get it 100% correct i will be fairly suprised but would imagine you will be close.

[nigelfe]

Yes, replaced by 60-pr. Actually 4.7 should never have entered land service post Boer war. 60-pr was being developed but for some reason Parliament got involved in detail and decreed that 4.7 shoud be purchased for the TF.

[DG65]

Was a guess really, Am pretty sure its the one, I had a look at in Norwich rd, Fakenham. On Fri and was told it was sold. If not there's another one similar about.

[beestonboxer]

Yes it is the same one you saw, was in the small antique shop on the corner.

I do a lot of work in and around the Fakenham area , went past the headstone you mentioned in croxton today , i was the same as you had been past it a 100 times but never realized there were two names on it so i stopped and had a look today. There is another memorial that stands out in my mind in that area its the one in Little Snoring , it was a great place to have put it as it sticks out over the top of the church wall must have been seen by tens of thousands of people over the years you just cant miss it as you drive up the road to great snoring , think there are two Norfolk Regiment names on that one and one from a London Regiment.

[beestonboxer]

Nigelfe

Sounds like someone had some contacts in high places that probably had investments in the production of the 4.7 , nothing changes there.

[DG65]

Must be this one.

Pte Arthur L Alcock. 14323 age 23. Tyne cot Memorial Belgium. panel 34 35 and 162A

Lived at Green Farm Snoring.

Herbert Harrison 6651 London regiment (Queen Victoria's Rifles)

Formerly 24555 Norfolk Regiment.

Pont-Du-Hem Military Cemetery, La Gorgue. 11. C. 3.

Pte Arthur Nobes 8178 H. 2. Kut war Cemetery Iraq.

[trenchtrotter]

Lovely item, nice aquisition. Dont you just love impulse buys!!

TT

[beestonboxer]

Yes i thought it was a nice item, even with my lack of knowledge on the 4.7 inch QF field gun, i thought it was just a little unusual.

I just love this site always someone out there willing to spread there knowledge without prejudice to someone like myself who is a relative novice. Thanks

[beestonboxer]

Thats the memorial stone i was talking about a nice one. Theres is also a nice plaque on the wall in Gt Snoring .

[beestonboxer]

The 4.7 inch guns were replaced in the field by the 60pr, a 5-inch gun. They both had a relatively flat trajectory but at greater ranges the shells were descending at relatively steep angles. The 4.7s were naval guns dismounted and used as field artillery during the Boer War. They were extremely successful. So much so Parliament forced the army to adopt them after the war in a formal field mounting rather than an improvised carriage. The army was re-engineering all of it’s artillery based on the South African experience adopting the more appropriate 60pr. This fitted the Army’s preferences for caseless ammunition for larger calibres, with the commensurate saving in brass and easing of the management of salvage.

The 4.7 had been a standard pre-dreadnaught gun for warships, so the Navy would have had a huge supply of ammunition tucked away. Even with the naval race and the dreadnaught battleships doing away with small guns, the 4.7 would have remained useful gun for destroyers (Naval gunnery is not my strength). A more problematic issue was shells. Pre-war Army stocks were very heavy on shrapnel and they took a long time to tool up and be able to supply sufficient quantities of HE shells of all calibres. Naval shells tend to be heavy on Armour Piercing HE, using base detonating fuses which are not very useful to the WWI armies as they tend to bury themselves too deep to achieve the desired effects.

The primary role of the “Heavy Field Artillery” – 4.7s and 60pr is counter battery fire. That is what this casing commemorates.

Regards

Ross T

just been reading a chapter in a book called From Boer War To World War , Tactical Reform Of The British Army 1902-1914 by spencer jones, has a very good chapter on the artillery with several references to the 4.7 inch gun. A very good book well worth a read.