Jump to content
Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:17 am
Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:14 am
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:04 am
Posted 27 April 2012 - 07:32 am
Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:04 am
Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:19 am
Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:49 am
I believe so
Were similar designs in use in WW1, for example in AP naval shells?
Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:17 pm
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:26 pm
Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:01 pm
I am hoping some of the British experts out there can help me. I am trying to find out if the British used time delay fuzes on their trench mortar shells, mines and artillery shells. I would include Stokes mortar shells in this request. I am looking at the time period of September-October 1915. I have come across several references to the use of time delay fuzes during bombardments of the German trenches.
I would appreciate anyone who might have some knowledge on this subject to let me know when these might have been in use and any details on their operation. Thanks for taking the time to look this request over.
Posted 28 April 2012 - 01:22 am
Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:59 am
Presumably you are talking about anything other than a percussion fuze?
The majority were Time and Percussion so would explode when they hit the ground regardless of the time set (if it hit the ground before the time set), except in misfires I would guess.
Posted 28 April 2012 - 09:39 am
Thanks for all of the great replies. In the instances I am studying the author appears to indicate that the fuzes were designed to explode a short time after impact. One item was what the Germans called a mine, more than likely something along the lines of a Stokes mortar shell as it was small enough to pick up and toss outside the trench before detonating. I am aware of the use of time fuzes on shrapnel shells but I was not aware of any use in artillery shells in general as they were designed to explode on impact, or so I thought.
There was more than one reference to the delay in the fuze detonating and the reference to a large number of mortar rounds being fired as well as shells up to 38cm.
I do not know if trench mortar shells would have the need for a time fuze in the manner of a shrapnel shell or if it could have been something as simple as the shell hitting soft mud and failing to explode until tossed out to harder ground. If I come across any other references that could help I will pass them along.
Posted 28 April 2012 - 10:42 am
I think you'll find 'Percussion' was a portmanteau word that could mean Direct Action or Graze. AFAIK there were no UK DA fuzes with a Delay option until the L32 c.1965, in WW2 delay was achieved by firing No 117 or 119 with 'cap on'.
Of course 'most' fuzes were not T&P, HE was the most widely used ammo and percussion was the normal fuze. Time fuzes were introduced in limited number for HE to enable airburst ranging, but igniferous fuzes were nowhere near consistent enough to provide the low airburst needed for anti-personnel effects although there had been some optimistic early hopes that proved unfounded by reality. Of course Graze fuzes had the advantage that they could be used to get HE airburst by richochet fire, DA fuzes set to Delay are nowhere near as useful for this due to the need for DA from a steeper angle of descent.
The No 100 series of percussion fuzes were Graze whereas No 106 was DA. Shrapnel used Graze so that the shells penetrated a wall or gun shield before functioning - not much point in DA! Eventually it became normal UK practice not to include a percussion option for time fuzes used in cargo munitions such as star/illuminating - one mustn't wasted the British taxpayers' money.
Posted 29 April 2012 - 02:34 am
Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:35 pm
Posted 15 May 2012 - 12:45 am
Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:48 am
Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:23 am
Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:16 am
Posted 15 May 2012 - 11:08 am
Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:38 pm
Posted 16 May 2012 - 08:54 am
Posted 16 May 2012 - 08:57 am
I must beginning to suffer in old age. As I understood it a Direct Action fuze was designed to produce a surface burst. A inertia fuzed shell had a built in delay of a few microseconds as the 'hammer' ran forward onto the striker as the shell was slowed,overcoming the anti-creep spring, and initiating the explosive chain. This allowed the shell to penetrate earthworks but caused cratering. A direct action fuze operated where the striker was driven directly onto a percussion cap and commenced the explosive chain. This gave a burst (oval in shape) producing a surface blast and shrapnel effect. I am ignoring delay caused by the operation of safety devices. Obviously any type of percussion fuze had a problem on very soft going Am I now being told this is wrong? SW
Posted 16 May 2012 - 09:08 am