Prussia Posted 29 September , 2006 Share Posted 29 September , 2006 I was recently shown a brass shell casing for a 4.5 howitzer that was stamped 1916 on the circumfrence of the base but 1917 on the centre. I was told that this was becuase the shell casing had been re-filled and used again. Do any members know if this is correct as i thought that the casings were salvaged to be melted down and re-cast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willywombat Posted 29 September , 2006 Share Posted 29 September , 2006 I'm no expert on this, but are the stampings on the same bit of metal, or is one on the main base and the other on the inserted round central section where the percussion cap is? If they're on different bits it could mean that these were manufactured separately, and at different times, and the whole thing later put together at a filling factory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 29 September , 2006 Share Posted 29 September , 2006 Yes, the casings were salvaged and re-used wherever possible. A brass case was very expensive and complicated to manufacture. The percussion cap that fits in the centre will of course be renewed each time. This is why it is quite common to find for example a 1916 dated cartridge case with a 1917 or 1918 central percussion cap. If you look on the base of a British 18 pdr case you will see CF (for Cordite Filled) and maybe another F or two - each one is a re-fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prussia Posted 30 September , 2006 Author Share Posted 30 September , 2006 The later dates apper in the centre of the casing which ties inperfectly Excellent response and thanks very much for clearing up the mystery for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 30 September , 2006 Share Posted 30 September , 2006 Here is a nice example of a 1916 case with a 1917 primer and the CFF marking. Conversely here is a 1917 case with an older 1915 primer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prussia Posted 30 September , 2006 Author Share Posted 30 September , 2006 Thanks Max That's it! Exactly as per the example shown to me. I presume that wear and tear were were checked for in the filling factory? Just on the off chance, do you know if if these types of re-used casings were more prone to prematures or not? Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnreed Posted 30 September , 2006 Share Posted 30 September , 2006 The salvaged cartridge cases are put through stringent examination before being refilled, you will not get a premature in a cartridge you perhaps will get a hangfire from damp propellant. There are three types of premature, 1. Bore, self explanatory (with the bore of the piece) 2. Muzzle, within 100 mtrs of the muzzle. 3, In Flight, within the line of the trajectory. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 1 October , 2006 Share Posted 1 October , 2006 The Canadian Salvage Corps return for April / May 1917 following Vimy Ridge includes the following recoveries: Cartridge cases 4.5 in, Howitzer, 10,706, worth £2,477 Cartridge Cases 18 Pdr, 98,098, worth £32,870 Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prussia Posted 1 October , 2006 Author Share Posted 1 October , 2006 Thanks very much for the interesting replies. I've certainly learnt a lot from the postings as this is a subject on which I know very little. One last one on this topic, which I hope does not appear too daft but is in response to the reply regarding premature detonations from John. Are are the explosions in the bore refered to in the previous reply due to faulty ammunition or faulty manufacture of the barrel primarily? Were there any british artillery pieces or ammunition that were particulary prone to this event. I have a recollection of reading somewhere that the "graze fuse" had a particularly bad reputation in this respect? Were there any artillery pieces that had a similarly bad reputation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon R Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Nice photos - but who are BSC and KUZ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Poilu Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 BSC is more commonly found on fuzes where it refers to the Bethlehem Steel Company (USA). I have no reference for the maker KUZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 I cannot help either with KUZ. They must have been a new case producer in 1917 as they are not shown in the Ministry of Munitions 1916 edition if the "List of Firms, giving Trade Marks and Initials". I would be very interested to know who they were. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon R Posted 2 October , 2006 Share Posted 2 October , 2006 Tony, 'List of Firms giving Trade Marks and Initials'??? I have been looking for that for some time. Could you give me a reference for it? Where did you find it? I have completely overlooked this document and am very interested in a copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 3 October , 2006 Share Posted 3 October , 2006 Simon I have had my photocopy for over twenty five years. I originally got it from the Canadian War Museum along with other Min of Mun contract listings. I am not sure if there is a copy in the PRO since I have never searched, already having one. There certainly ought to be. Email me off board at aoe.303@tesco.net Regards TonyE 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