redbarchetta Posted 18 June , 2014 Share Posted 18 June , 2014 Just finalising captions for the Compton Verney exhibition, to find another oddity I hadn't noticed before... One large shell casing, made into a jug by Pvt John Thomas Hill, North Staffs, has had the markings erased. When I've come to compare it to other casings to confirm the size, I can't find one!! The width of the base (including the rim bit) is 5 and 5/8 of an inch wide. This compares to 5.25" for a 4.5 inch Howitzer casing. It has the same British-looking central fuse section, so assume it is a British shell... Any thoughts? Thanks James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John(txic) Posted 18 June , 2014 Share Posted 18 June , 2014 60pdr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 18 June , 2014 Share Posted 18 June , 2014 For what it's worth, I agree. 60 pdr was 5" Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 18 June , 2014 Share Posted 18 June , 2014 The 60 pounder has a slightly smaller calibre (longer shell) - more like the Territorial's 5 inch howitzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 18 June , 2014 Share Posted 18 June , 2014 60pdr? That was my first thought too. 60 pr.calibre was 5" IIRC, so the casemouth diameter should be close to that. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarchetta Posted 18 June , 2014 Author Share Posted 18 June , 2014 Cool. Thanks, guys... Think I should ask for an official credit for the GWF on the exhibition, do you think? Can't hurt to have a bit of publicity! James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 18 June , 2014 Share Posted 18 June , 2014 Are you talking about a shell or a cartridge case ? Completely different. This keeps coming up, seems to be a difference with US terms. In British ordnance there was the projectile (i.e. shell), and a cartridge which contained the propellant which fired the projectile. The cartridge contained the propellant in either a cloth bag or a brass case (called QF). Shells had fuzes, usually in the nose, cartridge cases had primers in the base. There was no cartridge case for 60-pounders, propellant was in cloth bags. QF 4.7 inch (120 mm) cartridge may be a candidate, not sure what the base dimension was. Next size up in brass cartridge cases for Britain was QF 5.25 inch in WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 19 June , 2014 Share Posted 19 June , 2014 Quite right Rob. I was about to post the same comment about the 60 Pr. being a BL and not a QF equipment. I agree that the QF 4.7 inch is the most likely candidate for this cartridge case. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 19 June , 2014 Share Posted 19 June , 2014 In UK terminology 'ordnance' means the barrel, breach ring and block, and firing mechanism, plus any other bits such as muzzle brake and fume extractor that were not used in WW1. Using 'ordnance' to mean munitions is a quaint American practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarchetta Posted 19 June , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 June , 2014 Thanks, Rod/Tony. Am well aware that the correct term is cartridge case, but shell case (as opposed to a shell) is increasingly accepted terminology amongst non-artillery buffs - using cartridge casing in my exhibition labels will cause more confusion than it avoids (and the items are there, so they can see exactly what it is!! The one shrapnel shell casing (i.e. the empty shell) I refer to as a shell (as opposed to a shell case). Anyway, what was the conclusion of the identification of this brass cartridge casing? 60 pounder, 4.7 inch or 5.25 inch?? If mine is 3/8" wider than a 4.5" that would suggest a 4.9", so too big for a 4.7" and far too small for a 5.25"... Did the 60 pounder not actually have brass cartridge casings? James (dazed and confused...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 19 June , 2014 Share Posted 19 June , 2014 No, as explained, the 60 Pr. was a Breech Loading (BL) weapon. That means it used charge bags without a cartridge case and had an obturator pad on the face of the breech block to seal the gases. Weapons using either fixed or semi fixed cartridge cases were referred to s Quick Firing (QF). Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 19 June , 2014 Share Posted 19 June , 2014 Apologies all round. On checking my notes, which are correct, I find I had remebered that the 60 pdr was 5" but had forgotten it was a BL. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 20 June , 2014 Share Posted 20 June , 2014 Calibre is the diameter of the bore. The chamber is always wider than this. The shell body is slightly less and the driving band slightly more. The diameter of the open end of the cartridge case would be a very snug fit on the shell body for a fixed round such as 18-pr, slightly less snug for semi-fixed such as 105mm M1 How, and less relation to the calibre or shell diameter, apart from being bigger when the ammunition is separate loading (ie the shell and the cartridge are loaded separately). Obviously all BL ammo (or as we should correctly say in the 21st Century 'BO' - breach obturation as opposed to AO) is separate loading. I would recommend that artillery buffs study the ammo page of my web site to get up to speed on the correct terminology, http://nigelef.tripod.com/ammo.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 20 June , 2014 Share Posted 20 June , 2014 circa 1880s-1890s diagram of early generation ammo for QF 4.7 inch shows cartridge case length = 15.8 inch, width at base = 6.05 inch. I would assume that dimensions remained very similar for its whole life both as naval and field gun, which continued until end of WWI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 20 June , 2014 Share Posted 20 June , 2014 In UK terminology 'ordnance' means the barrel, breach ring and block, and firing mechanism, plus any other bits such as muzzle brake and fume extractor that were not used in WW1. Using 'ordnance' to mean munitions is a quaint American practice. I stand corrected. I should have said "In ammunition for British ordnance...". cheers Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 20 June , 2014 Share Posted 20 June , 2014 Just finalising captions for the Compton Verney exhibition, to find another oddity I hadn't noticed before... One large shell casing, made into a jug by Pvt John Thomas Hill, North Staffs, has had the markings erased. When I've come to compare it to other casings to confirm the size, I can't find one!! The width of the base (including the rim bit) is 5 and 5/8 of an inch wide. This compares to 5.25" for a 4.5 inch Howitzer casing. It has the same British-looking central fuse section, so assume it is a British shell... Any thoughts? Thanks James We need photographs ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarchetta Posted 20 June , 2014 Author Share Posted 20 June , 2014 Photos attached... Rod's image of the 4.7" QF is good, but does confirm a base width of 6 inches, not my 5 5/8"... Like Rods image, though it does taper, so I imagine the 'size' is the size of the top, not the bottom (and the top on mine is compromised by being converted to a jug!). Any further thoughts welcomed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 21 June , 2014 Share Posted 21 June , 2014 Do you have firm evidence that this is of WWI vintage ? The primer is typical British WWI appearance, but also for many years afterwords too. And neither the French nor Germans had a gun in the 120-mm vicinity. And this is a gun not a howitzer cartridge case. I suspect reduction in diameter of the base rim from 6.05 inch (154 mm) in early cases to 5 5/8 (143 mm) in WWI (reduction of 11 mm) would not have been a big issue. Measure the length and circumference of the neck. I suspect length = approx 15.8 inches and neck circumference = approx 380 mm. See also this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 21 June , 2014 Share Posted 21 June , 2014 The cartridge case in your picture has a primer flush with the base of the case, whilst the 4.7 inch QF had either a primer or a Tube, vent sealing that protruded from the base of the case. That would appear to rule out the 4.7 inch as a candidate. Also it is odd that nothing survives of the markings on the base of the case. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 21 June , 2014 Share Posted 21 June , 2014 Inscription and badge appears to be of Prince of Wales (North Staffordshire) regiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 22 June , 2014 Share Posted 22 June , 2014 The cartridge case in your picture has a primer flush with the base of the case, whilst the 4.7 inch QF had either a primer or a Tube, vent sealing that protruded from the base of the case. That would appear to rule out the 4.7 inch as a candidate. Also it is odd that nothing survives of the markings on the base of the case. Regards TonyE It looks exactly like a scaled-up 18-poinder case. Did Britain modernise the 4.7-inch case to use standard flush percussion primers as the war went on ? I understand a fair number of guns were built specifically as field guns : would these have been optimised for standard percussion primers ? Re missing markings : has a thick layer of some gunk been applied and partly scraped off or are we seeing the original brass surface ? Doing some arithmetic on the dimensions : if the rim diameter = 143 mm as reported, I calculate the length at 325 mm (10 inch), far shorter than the 15.8 inches quoted in the manual. But this case may have been shortened and perspective in photograph is notoriously deceptive. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 22 June , 2014 Share Posted 22 June , 2014 Is the base one piece or has a section of a base from an 18pdr been soldered into the base of a German case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarchetta Posted 23 June , 2014 Author Share Posted 23 June , 2014 Is the base one piece or has a section of a base from an 18pdr been soldered into the base of a German case?This is all one piece. The markings have been gauged out, with a channel 2mm deep in a circle and then a few other single gauges for other info - the rest of the base is the original surface. On vintage, no there is nothing to prove it is WW1 but experience tells me this is not WW2 period - could be earlier, but never come across trench art like this from pre-WW1. Not researched Private Hill as yet - not the easiest name to investigate!! Sorry this is causing so much trouble - figured it would be another of the Forum's 'answer in 10 minutes' type questions when I asked it! Clearly not!!! James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 23 June , 2014 Share Posted 23 June , 2014 We still don't have the length. Or neck circumference. Does the neck show evidence of cutting ? A lot of forensics are needed to get beyond the 10-minute answers. Proper examination of this object and contextual information will indeed identify it. Eyeball and tapemeasure are the tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 23 June , 2014 Share Posted 23 June , 2014 Pvt John Thomas Hill, North Staffordshire Regiment should be traceable in UK if not here in Oz. This will provide background context for this object : where and when was he. 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