4.5" How. Counter Battery or AP?

[new3.2]

I recently purchased a heavily painted black projectile.  Upon removing this heavy paint job, it became a grey 4.5" M17 howitzer round. the bottom of the projectile is marked as follows: 4.5 in. HOW,  R,  [triangle], H [in a shield], 5 16, M17.  It has a threaded blunt nose piece, that when unscrewed is 3.75" long and is 2.25" wide, and solid.  Would this be for counter battery or armor piercing?  The shell body has a broad- arrow stamp with L  l below.

new3.2

 

[ianjonesncl]

As far as I am aware the 4.5 inch howitzer did not have an armour piercing round.

The equipment was commonly to target trenches, emplacements and strongpoints as part of Divisional Artilleries. The function of Counter Battery was normally the role of Heavy Artillery.

 

[Dave66]

4 hours ago, new3.2 said:

  The shell body has a broad- arrow stamp with L  l below

Could this possibly be a poorly stamped U…South African??

[new3.2]

Dave- No as it is marked several on several places with the same mark.

new3.2

[4thGordons]

Here are some pics of Ken’s shell;

[14276265]

Shell, HE, 4.5-inch, Howitzer, Mark V - assuming the triangle marking is actually a V. British 4.5-inch howitzer shells appeared as Marks I through XIV, and certain marks were converted for Smoke and Chemical charging.

It is made of forged steel (FS) by the Harrisburg Pipe Co., USA.

 

 

265

Edited 4 January by 14276265

[new3.2]

Hello 14276265- I have never seen a 4.5 projectile in the states.  That makes sense if it was made here and sent to the UK.  Also, l don't imagine that howitzer would have a role in counter battery or AP use.  But I don't think a shipping plug would be that heavy?  Thank you Chris for posting my photos.

new3.2  

[14276265]

18 hours ago, new3.2 said:

Hello 14276265- I have never seen a 4.5 projectile in the states.  That makes sense if it was made here and sent to the UK.  Also, l don't imagine that howitzer would have a role in counter battery or AP use.  But I don't think a shipping plug would be that heavy? 

The US produced several natures of shell for the British Government - the attached table excerpt shows numbers for light and medium produced up to end of 1916 (figures in thousands). Apparently 974,900 4.5-inch HE were made April-June 1916 in the US.

The M17 does not refer to type of ordnance; it is a steel batch code or supplier code, but I do not have the decodes for US suppliers. The transit plug is of the right size, although is of a pattern that does not match the British types, and I am not acquainted with it.

As to use of shell, the 4.5-in. howitzers were used by the Royal Field Artillery for laying down Shrapnel and HE (and later smoke, incendiary and chemical), at relatively short ranges up to around 5,000 yds, to hit enemy troops from anywhere in their front line line through support and reserve trenches to the rear areas. If enemy 77mm field guns were found to be firing then no doubt the 4.5s could be one tool to counter them, so by that token counter battery. However, howitzers - being low velocity weapons - were not equipped with base-fuzed AP rounds, and in any event tanks were yet to appear on the battlefield when your shell was made in May 1916.

 

 

265

Edited 6 January by 14276265

[MikB]

I can't imagine the 4.5 how being much use as an anti-armour weapon - it was low-velocity, probably used more for indirect fire, and the accuracy needed to engage individual tanks would have been hard to obtain from a howitzer-angle trajectory.  Direct hits on WW1 tanks - mostly armoured only against smallarms and splinters - would have been effective with almost any ammunition. By WW2, with the 4.5 still in use, solid shot with tracer AP(T) was the most common British anti-armour round, but I'm not aware of any such being made for the 4.5.

[new3.2]

Thanks for the info 14276265.  Many millionaires were made in the US, before and after we had to pay our own butcher's bill.

new3.2