WWI Artillery Shell Markings

[CraigMac]

I found this inert shell, decades ago and finally got around to cleaning it up. I'm not really well versed in the various marks on it, but I've attached some pictures with the hope that someone on the forum could provide us with some information on it. It weighs 27.6 lbs and I think it might be WWI era. It is 13.25 inches tall and 4.5 inches in diameter. It also has stamped on the body SF4765U and above the U there is an arrow pointing up. Lower on the shell there is an STS under the T there is a line and then a W. A little lower there is CN. Any help would be much appreciated. I can provide more pics if necessary

[peregrinvs]

I think it’s a high explosive shell for a 4.5” howitzer:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.5-inch_howitzer
 

I believe the U and arrow mark denotes South African manufacture. It’s a relatively nice example and wouldn’t be difficult to complete iwith a fuze and cartridge case.

Edited 27 April , 2020 by peregrinvs

[MikB]

It's likely a 4.5" howitzer shell. The 'U' with the Broad Arrow may well be Union of South Africa.

 

Drat. Peregrinvs got there first. 

 

The driving band doesn't have the double flange shown in Len Trawin's 'Early British Quick Firing Artillery'

[14276265]

It is a 4.5-in HE shell made by Standard Engineering Co., Leicester.

 

 

Edited 27 April , 2020 by 14276265

[CraigMac]

Thank you everyone for youir input on this one.(as per the description it is inert by the way)

So am I to assume the date of manufacturer is June 6 1918? Any idea what the other markings denote?

Also would Standard Engineering have been manufacturing shells in South Africa?

If I was looking to make it a historical accurate piece what fuse should it be paired with?

Thanks again.

[14276265]

20 minutes ago, CraigMac said:

Thank you everyone for youir input on this one.(as per the description it is inert by the way)

So am I to assume the date of manufacturer is June 6 1918? Any idea what the other markings denote?

Also would Standard Engineering have been manufacturing shells in South Africa?

If I was looking to make it a historical accurate piece what fuse should it be paired with?

Thanks again.

Date of manufacture looks like 17 September 1918 (17.9?.18), which probably explains its survival in such good, pristine condition.

It was not made in South Africa, it was made in Evington Valley Road, Leicester, UK; Standard Engineering's last 4.5" contract ran till 30th September 1918.

A good choice of fuze would be a No.106E percussion fuze .

[CraigMac]

Thanks Captain,

It's actually a 6 making it June, but you're right that does explain it's great shape. Any idea what the other marks are? Can you confirm that it would have been an HE shell and do you have any ideas on where I could start looking for the fuze?

[14276265]

Where is this shell located? Is it the UK? Or Canada? The reason I ask is there seems to be a Canadian acceptance stamp (of a broad arrow within a C within an oval) on the body and the CN could be a Lot code. Although the British company Standard Engineering Co. Ltd made 4.5" HE shell, and used the SE monogram, it might be a coincidence and the shell might actually be of Canadian origin.

 

The Mark of the shell, IX, indicates HE, and I have no idea about finding a fuze. Any chance of a photo looking into the body?

 

 

Edited 27 April , 2020 by 14276265

[CraigMac]

I am in Canada, so you might be onto something.

[14276265]

It is a Canadian made HE shell. Forget about the UK Standard Engineering Co. - that was pure coincidence.

 

The code SE was used by the Steel Company of Canada, (Hamilton, Ontario and Montreal, Quebec), at that late stage of the war, and the company produced both shell steel and machined the billets. I cannot positively identify the S T/W S or CN marks, but can say the broad arrow over U is an inspector's mark (not Union of South Africa acceptance stamp). 

 

Attached shows that Steel Co. of Canada machined and assembled 4.5" HE, but so also did Sherbrooke Iron Works, Sherbrooke. The S T/W S might be S I/W S, as the machinist. The final contract for 2.6 million 4.5 HE from Canada was completed end of June 1918, which makes this shell one of the last of that contract.

 

 

 

Edited 28 April , 2020 by 14276265
Table added

[MikB]

Len Trawin's 'Early British Quick Firing Artillery' describes a number of fuzes for the 4.5" HE shell: 

 

No. 82 Mk.III

No. 17 Mk.III with cap

No. 44 with cap

No. 100

 

He doesn't list a Mk.IX shell.

 

Edited 28 April , 2020 by MikB

[14276265]

The attached image of a HE Mk XII (closest I can find to a Mk IX) shows what the shell would have looked like if it had made it into Service. It has a No.106 fuze, and the body is painted yellow ochre and has markings denoting the explosive loading (50-50 amatol with tetryl exploder). The included image is not a recommendation to get the paintbrush out.

[Gunner Bailey]

The size of the shell beneath the driving band in the photo looks different to the diagram in post #12. Were there two versions for QF and Howitzer? The howitzer version using bag charges and the short 4.5" shell case. Or was this only for the Howitzer?

[14276265]

42 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

The size of the shell beneath the driving band in the photo looks different to the diagram in post #12. Were there two versions for QF and Howitzer? The howitzer version using bag charges and the short 4.5" shell case. Or was this only for the Howitzer?

 

I only know of one piece of WWI British ordnance in 4.5 inch - QF 4.5" Howitzer firing separate ammunition.

 

The shell under discussion is a 4.5" HE howitzer shell, of which there are List of Changes paragraphs for the introduction of Marks I to XIV. Lengths and weights of the shell varied slightly according to density of explosive fillings and exploders used.

[MikB]

34 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

The size of the shell beneath the driving band in the photo looks different to the diagram in post #12. Were there two versions for QF and Howitzer? The howitzer version using bag charges and the short 4.5" shell case. Or was this only for the Howitzer?

 

I think there was only one basic design, although there were ballistite and cordite types.

The cartridge was a short brass case carrying a base charge ('core' charge plus 'No. 1 section') and charge sections 2 to 5 in doughnut shaped cambric bags. There was a 'range rule' that specified which charges were to be used at different ranges to provide a descent angle of 20 degrees minimum. Loading crew would remove the cartridge case lid and extract the charges not required, starting with no.5. The breech was sliding block, so shell and prepared cartridge with charge(s) could be loaded quickly. My guess is that satisfied the 'QF' definition even though the ammunition wasn't fixed.

[Gunner Bailey]

265 and Mike

 

Thanks for your responses. I only commented because the Mk IX (pictured) seems to have the same body diameter under the drive band as above. Whereas the drawing in post #12 gives the impression of a wider base than the main body. Is the drawing wrong (not unknown).

[14276265]

 

36 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

265 and Mike

 

Thanks for your responses. I only commented because the Mk IX (pictured) seems to have the same body diameter under the drive band as above. Whereas the drawing in post #12 gives the impression of a wider base than the main body. Is the drawing wrong (not unknown).

 

It is just a feature of the drawing, which is a period RL illustrative drawing more for showing the colour scheme and markings.

[CraigMac]

Does anyone know what the value of it would be? I want to keep it for myself, but just curious. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has offered to share their knowledge on this "anonymous shell".

[Rod Burgess]

Definition of QF (Quick Firing)

Whether or not a piece was described as QF, perversely, had almost nothing to do with whether you could load it quickly!

In British terminology, QF meant that the propellant charge was contained in a metal case (usually of brass). There are two different ways of obturation (sealing the breech of an artillery piece), whether gun, howitzer or mortar, against the escape of the incredibly high-pressure, incredibly hot gasses released by explosion of the propellant in the chamber:

• You can design the breech with a mushroom-shaped head. The "stalk" of the mushroom projects rearward through a hole in the centre of the the breech and communicates with the means of initiation, a "tube" of some sort such as a "tube, vent sealing" which looks like a rifle blank. The "head" of the mushroom fills the rear of the propellant chamber: when the propellant goes BANG, the head is pushed back by the pressure, squeezing an "obturator pad" (which is a bit like an O-ring) against the sides of the chamber, sealing it. If you have this kind of breech, your propellant is contained in fabric bags without any kind of rigid case. As this was the first method of obturation invented for "modern" artillery pieces (in the Victorian era) which were loaded from the back, rather than the front, the Brits termed such things "BREECH LOADING" (BL) artillery, to distinguish it from "MUZZLE LOADING" (ML) pieces. ("RML" is Rifled Muzzle Loading) and "BLC" is "Breech Loading Converted" from an older ML piece.)
• A later development used the same principle as a rifle round to seal the breech - a brass case containing the cartridge and with the initiator (called the "primer") fixed into its base. With these rounds, when the propellant exploded, the gas pressure forced the walls of the case outwards, hard against the sides of the chamber, sealing it. Because you no longer had to insert an initiator tube or primer into the "stalk of a mushroom" after the breech was closed, reducing loading to one or two operations instead of at least three, these pieces were quicker to load and were inevitably christened "QUICK-FIRING" (QF).

Note that the case of a QF round may either be rigidly attached to the projectile, producing a single assembly, loaded in one action like a giant rifle round - a round of so-called FIXED AMMUNITION; or separate from the projectile, in which case you load and ram the projectile then load the cartridge case with propellant - SEPARATE-LOADING AMMUNITION. In WW1, for example, the 13-Pdr 15-Pdr and 18-Pdr QF pieces all used fixed rounds, while the QF 4.5-inch howitzer use separate-loading rounds.

 

All of these systems are still in use today. Larger pieces are almost universally BL, using separately-loaded bagged charges. Smaller-calibre weapons are predominantly QF-type, whether using fixed or separate-loading ammunition. The Oto Melara 105mm Pack Howitzer, used by the RA into the 1970s, used a semi-fixed round where the case and projectile were delivered separately but mated at the gun position just before firing. The L118 Light Gun which replaced it used separate-loading with a case. The Centrion tank's 105mm used fixed rounds while the Chieftain and Challenger's 120mm used bagged-charge BL-type rounds, as do/did the M109 (155mm), the M107 (175mm) and the M110 (8-inch or 203mm).

 

So, what defines a piece as QF or BL is whether or not the ammunition incorporates a metal case.

[Rod Burgess]

What do you experts think about the driving band?

The Treatise on Ammunition,1915 says that 4.5-in How rounds used No 3 or No 4 driving bands with the HE shell having only No 4. Both of those are Broad Vavasseur types, but the driving band in CraigMac's photos looks a bit diferent - and very shiny. Is it orignal, do you reckon?

[14276265]

Mk IX HE shell used a narrow economy driving band to design RL25276 (WOLC paragraph 18666, January 1917). 

[Rod Burgess]

Aha! Of course the Treatise I'm looking at online is a 1915 one, which predates the Mk IX shell. So, does the one on Craigmac's shell look right?