Stuart212 Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 Can someone please help me. When a shell is quoted in weight, for example 13 pdr, 18 pdr , or 60 pdr did its weight include the filling and cartridge or was it just the weight of the actual shell casing, also would the weight of a shell differ depending on its filling ? Many thanks. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart212 Posted 18 June , 2011 Author Share Posted 18 June , 2011 Oops, sorry I,m new to this forum and have no idea how I've managed to post this question twice. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 Originally the "x lb-er" designation indicated the actual weight of a solid metal cannon ball and, as cast iron has a consistent density, the "x lb-er" also implied a specific calibre. Later on, with the development of conical and filled shells, the designation appears to have become simply an approximation of the weight of a "standard" HE shell for that weapon system - clearly different "fills" had different weights. The inter-war period saw developments such as AT ammunition and other types with potentially great variety of shell weights for one weapon system, and so it made sense to move to a calibre dimension as designation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 The inter-war period saw developments such as AT ammunition and other types with potentially great variety of shell weights for one weapon system, and so it made sense to move to a calibre dimension as designation. Even so, Britain continued to use the Pounder designation till long after WW2 - Centurion tanks were still proudly carrying a 20-pounder (about 84mm or 3.3" cal.) around 1960. But it's true that the Pounder designation for WW1 pieces, as later, referred to the weight of the standard projectile, not of a round ball of the same calibre. Taking a well-known example (admittedly from WW2 but the principle was the same), the 25-pounder fieldpiece had a calibre of 3.45", whereas a 24-pounder round ball cannon of Nelson's time had a 5.8" calibre. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay dubaya Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 A couuple of 18pdr examples: 18pdr shrapnel - 18.5lb which contained approx 375 balls (41 balls = 1lb) so just over 9lb of filling and 1lb 6.9oz of cordite charge 18pdr HE - 18.5lb which contained 13oz of Amatol and 1lb 8.8oz of nitro-cellulose charge Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnreed Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 All the same type of projectile for the same gun are filled to the dead weight to within a limit of plus or minus 0.1% of the nominal weight for example 18 Pr + or - 5 drams of 18lbs 8 oz this includes the fuze. I have tables for other equipments. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart212 Posted 18 June , 2011 Author Share Posted 18 June , 2011 Many thanks to you all for your replies. I am however a little confused . Am I to understand that the total weight of say an 18pdr shell would have weighed 18.5 pds including fuse plus the weight of the filling and the propellent charge in the cartridge or would 18.5pds be the total filled ready to be fired weight. Thanks. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnreed Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 Don't get confused The actual Shell weight complete with fuze is 18.5 pounds plus or minus 5 drams. but because the 18pr is fixed ammunition the all up weight with propelling charge and cartridge case is 22lbs 13 15/16 oz. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 A side issue, I have never understood why guns were designated by weight of shell while howitzers were designated by calibre. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart212 Posted 18 June , 2011 Author Share Posted 18 June , 2011 John, thanks for clarifying that. Believe me, its not that difficult for me to get confused Cheers. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 18 June , 2011 Share Posted 18 June , 2011 A side issue, I have never understood why guns were designated by weight of shell while howitzers were designated by calibre. Old Tom I'll have to check, but I've an idea John Muller was complainin' about that in his Treatise of Artillery in 1791... Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 19 June , 2011 Share Posted 19 June , 2011 Many thanks to you all for your replies. I am however a little confused . Am I to understand that the total weight of say an 18pdr shell would have weighed 18.5 pds including fuse plus the weight of the filling and the propellent charge in the cartridge or would 18.5pds be the total filled ready to be fired weight. You've picked up one of the bad habits on this site. Thinking the shell is the complete round or confusing the cartridge case with the shell. A complete artillery round normally comprises four main components, fuze, shell, cartridge and primer. The first two constitute the projectile that is fired and usually have a standard combined weight. That said projectile weights can vary, either slightly due to manufacturing tolerances (although weight variation markings on each shell weren't routinely used in UK service until long after WW1) and different fuze body material (eg aluminium vs brass), or quite significantly eg while most 60-pr shells were 60 lbs, HE Mk VII was only 58 lbs 13 oz and post WW1 HE and shrapnel were all 56 lbs. In QF equipments the cartrige is in a metal case with the primer fitted into its base. In equipments such as QF 18-pr the projectile is fixed into the cart case. For WW1 howitzers it was separate and the case contained several charge bags. For BL equipments there is no metal cartridge case and primers are loaded into the breach block while the charge bags go into the breach chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 19 June , 2011 Share Posted 19 June , 2011 Thanks Mike, I wonder what system Napoleon used. If I recall correctly he was a gunner. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 19 June , 2011 Share Posted 19 June , 2011 Thanks Mike, I wonder what system Napoleon used. If I recall correctly he was a gunner. Old Tom I've dug out my copy of Muller (3rd edition - 1780, not '91 as I thought, so pre-Boney, with English weights and measures compared to those of pre-Revolutionary France, not Metric ) and I think the reason for different ways of expressing size is simply that guns fired iron roundshot of a reasonably consistent weight. But mortars and howitzes as they were then called, fired the new-fangled hollow shells for which a number of different designs with varying weights already existed. So the only consistent expression for their size was calibre. It is noticeable in the book that he refers more or less throughout to cannon by poundage and mortar and howitz by bore size. Looks like the habit stuck from that period . Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart212 Posted 19 June , 2011 Author Share Posted 19 June , 2011 Many thanks to you all for your replies, I have just posted another question for you ammo experts. Cheers. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now