Artillery shell identification

[Guest rox]

Hi guys!

I wonder if someone could help me intentificate some shells found in a local museum.

The first one has a weight of 6275 gr and it is probably still active.

On the base we can read the number 412 , diameter is approx 70mm , and length ~ 300mm

You can upload up to 100K of files (Max. single file size: 100K)

[Ogilwy]

It looks alot like a 75mm SAP HE but an exact diameter (to the mm) will give calibre. It's WWII in date and if as you say it's "still active" then you need to inform the authorities and get someone to come to the museum and collect or deal with it. as there is no driving band it is not possible to tell if it was fired and therefore not possible to determine how safe it is.

I've dealt with dozens in museums so this is not a new experience, and as long as it's reported it is not a crime. PM me if you would like to know how to report this item.

regards,

Rod

[SiegeGunner]

A pointy brute like that looks like an anti-tank penetrator round. I used to think that such things were solid, but I recently saw a WW1 example that was split open to reveal a cavity within. Could Rod perhaps elaborate on the design and evolution of such projectiles between WW1 and WW2?

[TonyE]

I think Rod (or anyone else) would need more than just a post to cover that topic!

Around the time of WWI there was little visually different externally between Armour Piercing with a bursting charge and Common Pointed shell, The principal differences were in the quality and hardness of the steel and the relative thickness of the shell wall. Rod or Nigel will correct me, but I don't think there was any Armour Piercing solid shot in WWI. Kinetic energy penetrators only became a requirement later when armoured vehicles became more common and more heavily armoured. By WW2 there were Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped (APCBC) and Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) which had solid penetrators and looked quite different. Also Common Pointed had passed from use in favour of nose fuzed HE.

These two drawings from the 1915 Treatise on Ammunition illustrate what I mean. They happen to both be for the 9.2 inch but it was similar for smaller calibres.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

I think Rod (or anyone else) would need more than just a post to cover that topic!

Around the time of WWI there was little visually different externally between Armour Piercing with a bursting charge and Common Pointed shell, The principal differences were in the quality and hardness of the steel and the relative thickness of the shell wall. Rod or Nigel will correct me, but I don't think there was any Armour Piercing solid shot in WWI.

A solid steel shot was made for the French 37mm Trench Gun. It was intended to be used against armoured loopholes. I believe that the US Army actually used this gun against tanks but the account I have seen doesn't say what kind of projectile they were using whether shell or shot.

[Old Tom]

Centurion makes an interesting point. While I do no have the necessary data to elaborate the issue, I would have thought the 37mm trench gun muzzle velocity was rather low for solid AP rounds. But perhaps penetration was not needed.

Old Tom

[centurion]

Centurion makes an interesting point. While I do no have the necessary data to elaborate the issue, I would have thought the 37mm trench gun muzzle velocity was rather low for solid AP rounds.

That was the problem! However it was intended (and was) to be used at very short range where MV would be highest. I think it was a case of better than nothing

[TonyE]

Fair enough, although I was talking about solid shot in British service in WWI. I should have made that clearer.

Regards

TonyE

[Ogilwy]

As Tony says the development of Anti Armour ammunition is both fascinating and on-going. WW1 had very little Land Service AP ammunition to my knowledge, with only AP for the Anti-Tank Rifles being available. It is between the wars when the big leaps in design with both developments in kinetic shot and chemical (explosive) defeat of armour. The rounds such as those that started this thread were designed to penetrate the armour to a degree (depth depends on armour hardness and thickness angle of shot ETC) and then the HE charge would function (hense the SAP HE (Semi Armour Piercing High Explosive). This had the effect of driving further the penatrator and also to burst the armour it's self using the armour driven inside the vehicle to cause the damage.

Other explosive rounds such as HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) were initially used by the Germans in their 150mm as a concrete defeating round, (we used to get loads turn up in Sennelager!). HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) or Munro effect required to be used in either un-rifled or slow spin weapons as the effect is dissapated by the rotation of the projectile. This makes them less accurate and therefore a much shorter range employed.

The German use of bundled Stick grenades if in close contact with the tank would have been very effective. The addition of chicken wire screens helped (well it gave them something to hang them on!).

I could wax lyrical for days on this subject but fear we are at risk of straying way off subject so shall close here.

I hope Rox has called the local authorities so that some of my colleagues can have a better look at the item.

Regards to all,

Rod

[Guest rox]

Thank you all, for your very interesting replies. Army authorities have been notified and they will take action soon.

Here are another 2 shells from the same museum. The first weights 13400gr , its lenght is approx. 416mm and its diameter 105 mm and markings are LOT 15 9. Is there any possibility that this shell has been fired by an armed liner which carried 4 Bethlem 10.5 cm guns?

The second one weights 2800gr. its diameter is 56mm and lenght is 145mm.

A sapper who was aboard the landing ships at 1912 wrote in his memos about the Bethlem guns of 105mm and some QF of 50 or 55mm on smaller torpedo boats. Could these guns have been 4-inch and 6-pounder naval guns of pre WWI era??

Ιt is confirmed that one of these Bethem guns score a hit at a monastery 9km inland at 700mm altimeter and that in order to achive this , the captain gave the order to move the coal to the opposite side of the ship in order for the gun to obtain the proper elevation. Ship's name was Macedonia (later Pinzio) and that action took place during the liberation of island of Chios on November 1912 during the first Balcan war.

Thank you all in advance.

[Gunner Bailey]

I've not checked any book but the shell has the look of a pre WW1 naval AP shell. I had a Boer War era shell a few years ago that was similar.I think it had a base fuze and black powder charge. Simply designed to puncture a normal ship's hull and make a mess inside.

John

[Ogilwy]

The first is a naval base fuzed shell (105mm if that's the one you mean). The second is a WWII A/Tk Shot. It looks about 6 Pdr in size and has the canneleur groove for it to be attached in a cartridge case. One other thing of note is that all have had their driving bands removed, probably post conflict for scrap value, although in the trenches you cannot rule out removal for use as trench art.

John,

I have to concur, the 105 (if that's what it is) is very basic. It does not seem to be APCBC althouigh there is a hint of a line just behind the ogive. If that's the case then it is firmly in the WWII period with APC being brought in to defeat face hardened armour and APCBC to enhance its aerodynamic shape.

Regards,

Rod