12 inch shells at Chilwell

[RodB]

Below is a photograph from the IWM, captioned as 12-inch shells in a warehouse at the National Filling Factory, Chilwell, July 1917.

Are these necessarily shells for the Army, rather than the Navy i.e. did the Navy use separate munitions factories ? I understand the Navy refused to use Amatol because it absorbed moisture too easily, whereas Chilwell was specifically an Amatol facility, according to Wikipedia. Is this correct ?

Also : I understand the Army used its own lighter shells for its howitzers... would it have used standard Naval HE shells for its 12 inch railway guns and those it operated on the Flanders coast ?

If so, then I think these would be by definition shells for the Army's 12-inch howitzers.

[tipperary]

Would the naval shells have been hardened for penertrating steel decks or just fuzed differantly.john

[Old Tom]

Not much more than a guess! However Chilwell became, or was, a major RAOC depot and one of the figures is a corporal (possibly AOC). This indicates that the shells are for the army.

Old Tom

[MikB]

I would think they're army shells, too - they look a little bit shorter (maybe 6 to 8 inches) than the typical form I'd expect for a capital ship round. Naval 12" AP shells weighed 850 pounds - anyone know what the army ones weighed?

Munster, deck penetrations were only effected at very long ranges, and shallow angles, against armour that could therefore resist at comparatively low thicknesses. The angles of descent shown in TV documentaries and computer games I've seen have been invariably much exaggerated. The possibly prophetic 1920s drawing showing the potential penetration of HMS Hood's magazine by a round passing above the thickest portion of the belt armour was assuming an angle of descent of 20 degrees at a range of 19,500 yards.

Naval shells were expected to penetrate belt armour of thicknesses up to 12", and in some cases did so. Base fuses and hardened points were the norm - though in many cases, the rounds that penetrated failed to explode, and those that exploded failed to penetrate.

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

Would the naval shells have been hardened for penertrating steel decks or just fuzed differantly.john

Depends on the Naval shell. Yes if it was intended to be an armour piercing round, probably no if it were intended for shore bombardment I've seen examples of signals in the Med theatre requesting that capital ships go easy on using armour piercing rounds for shore bombardment as these were more expensive and in shorter supply.

[johnreed]

I would suggest that these are for Army use as the shell is marked C of G for the hoist to place the round on the loading tray.

John

[Rockdoc]

The thing that strikes me is that they have a lifting eye screwed into the tip, where the fuze would go on an Army round. If Naval shells of this calibre had base fuzes and some were hardened to pierce armour-plate wouldn't the lifting eye have been placed elsewhere?

Keith

[RodB]

The thing that strikes me is that they have a lifting eye screwed into the tip, where the fuze would go on an Army round. If Naval shells of this calibre had base fuzes and some were hardened to pierce armour-plate wouldn't the lifting eye have been placed elsewhere?

Keith

Didn't naval HE shells (I think in WWI they were called "Common Lyddite") also have nose fuses ? I haven't found a diagram or photograph..

Rod

[MikB]

Didn't naval HE shells (I think in WWI they were called "Common Lyddite") also have nose fuses ? I haven't found a diagram or photograph..

Rod

I'm not sure, but it seems unlikely they would have been handled differently in loading to ships' shell rooms, so the nose lifting eye looks improbable for the RN.

My understanding is that ships' ammunition outfits generally contained a great majority of AP rounds, except perhaps for specific operations such as the Dardanelles. In some writings I've seen, there was also a further distinction between Common Shell and HE, in terms of shell wall thickness and material quality, to provide a greater filling capacity in HE.

Lyddite - cast picric acid - may have been obsolescent by then for the navy, or at least non-preferred. Army shell consumption was far higher and likely storage life much shorter, so the tendency of this material to attack the casings would be less of a problem to the army than the navy.

Regards,

MikB

[RodB]

Are you making the point that the Navy did not use this type of nose lifting hook in shell handling ? I had assumed that the hooks seen here were purely for use in the manufacturing and storage facility, and would be replaced with a fuze before delivery, so I dunno if that would be relevant. Incorrect assumption ?

I am interested in learning to spot the distinguishing features of ammunition, as so many photographs I come across just say "big shells" and the like.

Followup question : is there a publication detailing the Navy's ammunition and its evolution during the War ? I found the Ministry of Munitions History really useful (great detail about development of Amatol pressing and pouring development etc) for the Army's munitions but the Navy appears to have run its own munitions operations, is that correct ?

thanks

Rod

[centurion]

Are you making the point that the Navy did not use this type of nose lifting hook in shell handling ? I had assumed that the hooks seen here were purely for use in the manufacturing and storage facility, and would be replaced with a fuze before delivery, so I dunno if that would be relevant. Incorrect assumption ?

I don't think the Army used them either (at least I can't think of any photos showing such in use). Possibly only an in factory/depot use.

[centurion]

My understanding is that ships' ammunition outfits generally contained a great majority of AP rounds, except perhaps for specific operations such as the Dardanelles. In some writings I've seen, there was also a further distinction between Common Shell and HE, in terms of shell wall thickness and material quality, to provide a greater filling capacity in HE.

I think it depended on the theatre. In the North Sea and Atlantic given that Germany had a Fleet in Being (and shore bombardment was not a major activity) AP would of necessity need to be available in quantity. In the Med where the KuK had far fewer dreadnoughts and these were effectively bottled up but action in support of army activity (and not only at Gallipoli) was greater then the mix in the magazine might well be different. As I said there were certainly signals restricting the use of AP in shore bombardment.

[TonyE]

Rod - The shells would have been shipped with a blanking plug in the nose thread and been fuzed at the gun. This was of course for safety reasons during shipment as you do not want to discover a faulty fuze the hard way in a dump of 12 inch shells!

Large shells were shipped in "Protectors, projectile" as this illustration shows from Treatise on Ammunition 1915. The exampls shows an A.P. shell but I think they wer all shipped in a similar way.

Although the treatise mainly covers Land Service equipments there is still quite a bit of information on Naval shells. (see next post)

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

The Treartise only shows the Shell, Common Lyddite, 12 inch B.L. (Heavy) as being for Naval Service. The Common Pointed Marks I to XII are also shown as Naval only.

The A.P. and A.P. Capped Marks I to VII are common to both services and the Marks VIII to XII as Naval.

Two further pictures of the 12in A.P. and A.P. capped from the Treatise.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

Thank you, TonyE - interesting drawings; I didn't know that ballistic-capped AP was in use so early. All the 15" naval shells I've seen from WW1 have been uncapped, whereas all the WW2 15" shells I've seen have either been capped or carried the machining for caps. This led me to think that capping had been adopted between the wars.

Regards,

MikB

[NCA]

Hi

Just a thought but have you seen the book 'Arming the Fleet' by David Evans? Its about the Royal Ordnance Yards 1770 - 1945 and has a good section on WW1. It was a joint publication between English Heritage and Explosion (the Museum of Naval Firepower) Mentions quite a few sites used for manufacture and storage. Only a thought, Nigel

Thank you, TonyE - interesting drawings; I didn't know that ballistic-capped AP was in use so early. All the 15" naval shells I've seen from WW1 have been uncapped, whereas all the WW2 15" shells I've seen have either been capped or carried the machining for caps. This led me to think that capping had been adopted between the wars.

Regards,

MikB