15 replies to this topic

[matt1992]

Hi Everyone,




I have had this shell in my collection for a number of years now and have never been sure what type it actually is or where it is from. At a guess I would say that it is british with the war department arrow on it and also it is of navy use with the anchor stamped into the bottom. I would appreciate any help. Finally I would like someone to advise me what the White fuzz might be around the plug at the base of the shell (you can see it in the picture). Im hoping that it is nothing but am slightly worried that this may be something serious. I'll just add that it has definitely been fired as there is rifling on the driving band. All help and preferably good news would be greatly received.



Regards

Matthew

Attached Files

•  6 Pdr a.jpg   9.63K   0 downloads
•  6 Pdr b.jpg   16.42K   0 downloads
•  6 Pdr c.jpg   22.21K   0 downloads
•  6 Pdr d.jpg   5.24K   0 downloads
•  6 Pdr e.jpg   7.47K   0 downloads

[Gunner Bailey]

It looks like a six pounder to me. The six pounder was used by the Navy and or course the first tanks (land ships). Have you taken the base fuze out of the shell? It looks like someone has tried in the past. Although this has been fired there could still be some explosive in it or the fuze could be leaking something. It obviously didn't explode when it was fired. A quick check would be to weigh it. If it weighs six pounds it may still be filled. If it weighs say 4.5 pounds then its most likely empty and safe. If you have any doubts ask the Police to contact the EOD to come and check. Safety first. The white fuzz could be an interaction between the brass fuze and the steel shell.

John

[matt1992]

Gunner Bailey, on 16 April 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:

It looks like a six pounder to me. The six pounder was used by the Navy and or course the first tanks (land ships). Have you taken the base fuze out of the shell? It looks like someone has tried in the past. Although this has been fired there could still be some explosive in it or the fuze could be leaking something. It obviously didn't explode when it was fired. A quick check would be to weigh it. If it weighs six pounds it may still be filled. If it weighs say 4.5 pounds then its most likely empty and safe. If you have any doubts ask the Police to contact the EOD to come and check. Safety first. The white fuzz could be an interaction between the brass fuze and the steel shell.

John

Ok so I've weighed it and it is 5lb 12oz so pretty close to full weight. I did try when I first got it to remove the fuze but it was seized solid however the marks showing that someone has removed or has tried to remove were there when I bought it (from a military surplus store). How do the EOD check without blowing the thing up? also, probably won't try but if I did try a bit harder to remove the fuze is it likely to go boom?

[Gunner Bailey]

Regarding the weight it may be worth checking the 1915 Treatise on Ordnance for weights filled un filled etc. You can download this document from the internet.

Then consider the way forward.

John

[matt1992]

Hi John,

Well if i'm looking at the right part on the dead weight table it says High 6lbs 0oz 1 1/2drs and Low 5lbs 15oz 14 1/2drs. I feel that the difference in weight between mine and a full one isn't enough so I am more than a little worried about having sat in the corner of the room. Does it look to you as though the fuze is not seated properly which I imagine means it must have been removed and i'm sure it wouldn't get put back in without being emptied. Perhaps I should look in to getting it checked out although I don't want the bomb disposal squad being called out.

Gunner Bailey, on 16 April 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

Regarding the weight it may be worth checking the 1915 Treatise on Ordnance for weights filled un filled etc. You can download this document from the internet.

Then consider the way forward.

John

[centurion]

matt1992, on 16 April 2011 - 08:54 PM, said:

Does it look to you as though the fuze is not seated properly which I imagine means it must have been removed and i'm sure it wouldn't get put back in without being emptied. Perhaps I should look in to getting it checked out although I don't want the bomb disposal squad being called out.

It could mean that someone tried to remove the fuse but the thread was crossed so it all locked up after a fraction of a turn.

[matt1992]

centurion, on 16 April 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

It could mean that someone tried to remove the fuse but the thread was crossed so it all locked up after a fraction of a turn.

I'm not sure, the thread would have had to of been crossed on the way in so it would have locked up then. That my have even been the case but I would imagine the workers would have taken a bit more care. Thanks for your input.

Regards
Matthew

[centurion]

matt1992, on 16 April 2011 - 09:46 PM, said:

I'm not sure, the thread would have had to of been crossed on the way in so it would have locked up then. That my have even been the case but I would imagine the workers would have taken a bit more care. Thanks for your input.

Regards
Matthew

There were quality control problems in the munitions factories in 1916 (that old old problem of one set of targets conflicting with others). The head stamp on the brass case of course doesn't tell you when the shell was made as, as the shell has been fired, the case will not be the original one it came with when new.

[Sommewalker]

Your shell is a Hotchkiss six-pounder for Naval or tank use.  The filling of these shells was not H.E. but black powder, a low explosive. The nominal filling weight was four ounces - it would be most unlikely that a six pound common shell would be able to hold a 1.5 lb filling. The fuse used was also a Hotchkiss design, and held a flash capsule designed to ignite powder.  It was known as the Hotchkiss MkIV to the British.  As for your white substance, it looks like metallic corrosion to me, I can't think of anything in the usual components of this shell that would cause this.  I would wonder if this is inflammable at all.  Hope this helps you to decide.  One further point - if you try to remove the fuze allow me to point out that this was a left hand thread -ignorance of this is what probably caused the fuze to be chewed up! Looking at the base turn it clockwise to unscrew!! -  S.W.

[matt1992]

Sommewalker, on 17 April 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

Your shell is a Hotchkiss six-pounder for Naval or tank use.  The filling of these shells was not H.E. but black powder, a low explosive. The nominal filling weight was four ounces - it would be most unlikely that a six pound common shell would be able to hold a 1.5 lb filling. The fuse used was also a Hotchkiss design, and held a flash capsule designed to ignite powder.  It was known as the Hotchkiss MkIV to the British.  As for your white substance, it looks like metallic corrosion to me, I can't think of anything in the usual components of this shell that would cause this.  I would wonder if this is inflammable at all.  Hope this helps you to decide.  One further point - if you try to remove the fuze allow me to point out that this was a left hand thread -ignorance of this is what probably caused the fuze to be chewed up! Looking at the base turn it clockwise to unscrew!! -  S.W.

Hi S.W.

Thanks for your help, this makes me feel a bit easier if what you say is right the weight is normal for an empty shell. With the white fuzz, I will scrape a bit off and check it, to see if it is flammable or not (keeping a distance from the shell). I may go ahead and try the fuze at some point and will let everyone know the outcome if I do......Hopefully

[Gunner Bailey]

Sommewalker, on 17 April 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

Your shell is a Hotchkiss six-pounder for Naval or tank use.  The filling of these shells was not H.E. but black powder, a low explosive. The nominal filling weight was four ounces - it would be most unlikely that a six pound common shell would be able to hold a 1.5 lb filling.

That's a surprise to me. Almost seems no point in putting such a small charge into a shell. That would have about the same effect as a German Kugal Grenade.

John

[RobL]

I'd have thought that comes from it's Naval origin, being more used to punch a whole in the side of ships/boats. Aside from the 'normal' 6 pdr shell I understood there was at least one other type used by the Tanks - one was grape shot which is described in at least one memoir of a British tank crewman, can anyone confirm this and even better show a photo of one?

[Gunner Bailey]

RobL, on 17 April 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

I'd have thought that comes from it's Naval origin, being more used to punch a whole in the side of ships/boats. Aside from the 'normal' 6 pdr shell I understood there was at least one other type used by the Tanks - one was grape shot which is described in at least one memoir of a British tank crewman, can anyone confirm this and even better show a photo of one?

It seems odd in an era of high explosive that black powder was used and in a small quantity. I only looked up the Treatise this evening to confirm it.

However in this context it mean that Matt's shell is almost certainly empty and safe.

John

[Pete1052]

centurion, on 17 April 2011 - 09:33 AM, said:

There were quality control problems in the munitions factories in 1916 ...

You don't say, there were?  From some of the threads here you'd get the impression that only American manufacturers were guilty of that.

[centurion]

RobL, on 17 April 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

I'd have thought that comes from it's Naval origin, being more used to punch a whole in the side of ships/boats. Aside from the 'normal' 6 pdr shell I understood there was at least one other type used by the Tanks - one was grape shot which is described in at least one memoir of a British tank crewman, can anyone confirm this and even better show a photo of one?

Grape as used in tanks was a misnomer as it was  a form of chain shot consisting of balls linked with steel wire which, when the shell burst, span scything down almost anything in its way. Very effective against anti tank gun crews and infantry in the open.

[Rob Connolly]

Pete1052, on 17 April 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

You don't say, there were?  From some of the threads here you'd get the impression that only American manufacturers were guilty of that.

Oooh no not at all!  From my reading of the Official History for 1916, the quality of BEF weapons, let alone ammunition, in 1916 was far below the standards of 1915.  On 1/7/16 a particular German MG fortification had been allocated to a pair of 9.2" howitzers for suppression.  One howitzer blew up when firing it's first shot, killing the entire crew and that of the howitzer next door, thus ensuring the British infantry had a miserable time of it.