What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

105 x 770 Experimental case

SG500

SG500

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Attached are some photographs of a 105 x 770 shell case.
I have shown close up photographs of the headstamp, clearly an experimental piece.
Also is a photograph of it next to a better known King Tiger round to give an idea of scale.
Does anyone have any more information on this case? What sort of 105mm gun was it for? Anti tank? Anti aircraft?
All INERT etc.
Dave.
105 x 770 001.jpg105 x 770 002.jpg105 x 770 003.jpg105 x 770 005.jpg105 x 770 007.jpg105 x 770 004.jpg105 x 770 006.jpg
 
Dave,

Can you take a few more measurments, like rim diameter, diameter just above the rim, rim thickness? The reason I ask, is that I have an experimental case, same shape as the U.S. 105mm antiaircraft case, except it has a rim like yours. The U.S. AAA case has a stepped rim. My case is U.S. made, but maybe the gun was a joint effort.
 
Last edited:
HAZORD said:
Dave,

Can you take a few more measurments, like rim diameter, diameter just above the rim, rim thickness? The reason I ask, is that I have an experimental case, same shape as the U.S. 105mm antiaircraft case, except it has a rim like yours. The U.S. AAA case has a stepped rim. My case is U.S. made, but maybe the gun was a joint effort.
Click to expand...

Hi John, the measurements are as follows (measured with a ruler so a bit rough):
Rim diameter 160mm
Rim thickness 12mm
Diameter of case above rim 150mm
Primer pocket diameter 30mm at widest point
Hope this helps with the ID.
Dave.
 
That seems to match the 105x772x159R case of the US 105mm AA Mk 6, Gun Mk 1, of the 1930s.

As far as I'm aware, there was no cooperation between the US and UK over weapons development at that time.
 
Tony Williams said:
That seems to match the 105x772x159R case of the US 105mm AA Mk 6, Gun Mk 1, of the 1930s.

As far as I'm aware, there was no cooperation between the US and UK over weapons development at that time.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tony.
I wonder if we just pinched the idea and did some more work on it in the 1950's................
Does anyone have one of the shells that Tony describes?
Dave.
 
SG500 said:
Thanks Tony.
I wonder if we just pinched the idea and did some more work on it in the 1950's................
Does anyone have one of the shells that Tony describes?
Dave.
Click to expand...

Dave,

I don't know if this goes anywhere near it but there is an OB interest in the QF 105mm Tank Gun (T.140 series) [Q Proc special 7523 dated Nov 52] and CEAD designed a Proof Shot D.2/L/8789 "This proof shot represents the US designed AP shot which is the heaviest projectile which will normally be fired by this weapon". Unfortunately the cart case design number is not given.
 
Bonnex said:
Dave,

I don't know if this goes anywhere near it but there is an OB interest in the QF 105mm Tank Gun (T.140 series) [Q Proc special 7523 dated Nov 52] and CEAD designed a Proof Shot D.2/L/8789 "This proof shot represents the US designed AP shot which is the heaviest projectile which will normally be fired by this weapon". Unfortunately the cart case design number is not given.
Click to expand...

Thanks Norman, the plot thickens!! I've got a experimental 120mm Conqueror case from the 1950's and I had wondered if we had perhaps experimented with a 105mm at around the same time, it would have made sense.
Dave.
 
Dave,

That is why I asked, because my case has the same rim as yours. I have one of the 105mm AA cases, as does Randall. The rim is thinner and stepped, but other than that looks exactly the same shape as my mystery case, except my case is U.S. made. I'm thinking experimental tank, since the AA gun was phased out. I will check your measurements against mine over the weekend.

John
 
Could it be a stepping stone in the approach to the British L7 105mm that we adopted for the M60? From what I have read, the U.S. 105mm AA was only fielded at the Panama Canal and without the advent of guided missiles about that time (early to mid 50's), it could have been surplussed to the British for their development. Cheers, Bruce.
 
Hello Dave,

Regarding a photograph of the 105mm AA shell that Tony was describing, see my thread under projectiles entitled "U.S. 105MM AA M38 SHELL & M2 M/T FUZE".

Best regards,

Randall
 
Thanks for the feedback guys, appreciated.
John, thanks, yes the rim does look completely different.
Bruce, its a much larger case than the L7 105. I'd think whatever it fired really moved!
Randall, thanks for reminding me of that post, I even replied to it when you posted the photo and didn't notice the case was so similar! A very nice round. Link as follows for anyone who hasn't seen it.
http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/70958-U.S.-105mm-AA-M38-shell-amp-M2-M-T-fuze
Dave.
 
Dave, I agree that the L7 casing would be a little light compared to the 105mm AA, just trying to follow a logical progression. I dont know if there was any development of any AAA for the US past the 75mm Sky Sweeper, but up gunning to the 105mm would have been the logical course, though AAA was becoming obsolescent with the advent of guided missiles. There was also a 105mm Anti Tank gun developed right at the end of WWII by the US (T7?) and I think that the rounds would have been the same as the AAA. Bonnex also mentioned the T140 105mm gun, which I found was developed for the US T54, T54E1 and T54E2 tanks. The first two used auto loaders to deliver a higher cyclic rate while the last of the series used a manual feed, all on the Patton chassis. Now, going on that logic chain, I would presume that Britain and the US were developing tank guns to go with a NATO standard, and the 1954 date on the casing would bear that out. Further developments, such as the 1956 Soviet Intervention into Hungary and the subsequent delivery of a Soviet T54/55 to the British embassy, would have thrown a slight panic into NATO and giving them an impetus to up gun existing armor as fast as possible. I also read that the L7 was specifically developed to do just that, replacing the 20 pdrs in the Chieftain using the same mounts, hence the Chieftain Mk 5. Politically, since we pretty much forced the 7.62X51 as the NATO standard round, a little give might have been in order and the L7 gun becoming NATO Standard as well. Oddly enough, I have compared the rim diameters of my M118 casings and the Soviet 100mm and they are almost identical, though the 105mm is about 3.1275 (80mm) shorter and lacks the powder volume. Another thought comes to mind. Could it be that the L7 used the Soviet 100mm as a basis? Now that Ive nearly lost myself, Ill post this while its still intelligible. Cheers, Bruce.
 
bacarnal said:
Dave, I agree that the L7 casing would be a little light compared to the 105mm AA, just trying to follow a logical progression. I don’t know if there was any development of any AAA for the US past the 75mm Sky Sweeper, but up gunning to the 105mm would have been the logical course, though AAA was becoming obsolescent with the advent of guided missiles. There was also a 105mm Anti Tank gun developed right at the end of WWII by the US (T7?) and I think that the rounds would have been the same as the AAA. Bonnex also mentioned the T140 105mm gun, which I found was developed for the US T54, T54E1 and T54E2 tanks. The first two used auto loaders to deliver a higher cyclic rate while the last of the series used a manual feed, all on the Patton chassis. Now, going on that logic chain, I would presume that Britain and the US were developing tank guns to go with a NATO standard, and the 1954 date on the casing would bear that out. Further developments, such as the 1956 Soviet “Intervention” into Hungary and the subsequent delivery of a Soviet T54/55 to the British embassy, would have thrown a slight panic into NATO and giving them an impetus to up gun existing armor as fast as possible. I also read that the L7 was specifically developed to do just that, replacing the 20 pdrs in the Chieftain using the same mounts, hence the Chieftain Mk 5. Politically, since we pretty much forced the 7.62X51 as the NATO standard round, a little give might have been in order and the L7 gun becoming NATO Standard as well. Oddly enough, I have compared the rim diameters of my M118 casings and the Soviet 100mm and they are almost identical, though the 105mm is about 3.1275” (80mm) shorter and lacks the powder volume. Another thought comes to mind. Could it be that the L7 used the Soviet 100mm as a basis? Now that I’ve nearly lost myself, I’ll post this while it’s still intelligible. Cheers, Bruce.
Click to expand...

Hi, yes all good theories, thanks. Interestingly the original 105mm L7 tank gun was first made in 1954 by boring out a 20 pounder barrel from 83.8mm to 105mm...................the mystery case is dated 1954!!

Dave.
 
Just bumping another old thread here.
I don't suppose anyone has managed to track down a design drawing for this one?
Lots of theories and ideas but still not sure about it.
Thanks for everyone's input so far.
Dave.
 
whelm said:
Looks somewhat like the T43 case the T182 round used.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=468465324

In development of the T182 round they were using the T4E1 case I suppose the T43 was a replacement for that. The T5 105-mm guns were also able to fire the T140 rounds.

View attachment 105344
Click to expand...

Thanks whelm I agree very similar.
Interesting how late the case on auction is (1969) compared to the one I have (1954).
I wonder if the US picked up on the development where the Brits stopped (pure guesswork here).
Dave.
 
Found out they still use the T182 round for tests of armor plate, at least up till the mid 90's.

I doubt they are still using the T43 case and the T5/T140 guns for these, probably modded to fire from an L7. the tests are done at 3000 f/s while the T5 fired it at 3500 f/s.
 
Did some research into the US 105-mm guns.

U.S. 105mm Family.

The 105mm gun T4 came into being when the 90mm M1A1 gun was mounted on the 4-wheeled carriage as for the 120mm AA gun. This made the equipment look all carriage and "very little gun" Thus it was decided to make a bigger piece for the carriage, hence the 105mm.

T4 AA 65 calibers
T4E1 65 calibers
T4E2 65 calibers
T4E3 65 calibers Strengthened breech block, rolling sear type

T5 48 calibers Cut down T4 gun for tank use
T5E1 65 calibers Full sized T4 for improved performance in tank use
T5E2 65 calibers Recoil cylinders repositioned
T5E2* 65 calibers Bore evac. mod on barrel
T5E3 65 calibers

http://imgur.com/a/hfRYE
T5E2 Bore mod drawings, and T5E3 drawings.


T8 65 calibers T5E1 gun on towed carriage

Muzzle brakes
2 double baffle types, 2 single baffle types

T10
T10E1 T8 gun tipping point found to be muzzle heavy, so a lightened and reduced size brake was designed.
T10E2?
T10E3?


Development of T5 series of guns stops 1949, T5E3 last design made 1949. Ammo development program for T5 series guns combined with T140 series.


Original T140 gun tubes autofrettaged, 110,000 PSI yield steel. One model autofrettaged with highest possible strength steel, considerably higher then 110,000 PSI

T140 65 calibers
T140E1 65 calibers
T140E2 65 calibers Chromium plated
T140E3 65 calibers
T140E4 65 calibers Lightweight version of T140E3

Following tubes will be of maximum lightweight jacketed construction (3 members) using high strength alloy steel of 160,000 PSI minium Y.S. for use with existing T140E2 and T140E3 breeches, recoil mechanisims and mounts. February 28 1957 REV. A

T140E5 65 calibers Chromium plated, Standard rifling form, 1 in 25 twist, Mid tube evac.
T140E6 65 calibers Unplated, Standard rifling form, 1" free gun 5" straight run variable twist, Mid tube evac.
T140E7 65 calibers Unplated, Wide groove-- Narrow land, 1" free gun 5" straight run variable twist, Muzzle evac.
T140E8 65 calibers Chromium plated, Standard rifling form, 1" free gun 5" straight run variable twist, Muzzle evac.
T140E9 65 calibers Chromium plated, Wide groove-- narrow land, 1" free gun 5" straight run variable twist, Muzzle evac.
T140E10 65 calibers Muzzle evac. Held at watervliet for inclusion of best design features decided by tests done on above gun tubes.



T4 gun ammo

H.E.

Weight Velocity

T11 35 lb 3120 ft/sec
T12 38 lb 3000 ft/sec
3.28 lb explosive filler

APCBC HE

Weight Velocity

T13 41 lb 2950 ft/sec
T13E1
T13E2 WD-9465 steel, thinner cap, superior performance against face hardened plate compared to E1
T13E3 WD-4370 steel, red. exp. charge. single radius on projectile body
T13E4

HVAP

T29 series

T5/T8 gun ammo (all T4 ammo able to fire in T5/T8 guns)

H.E.

Weight Velocity

T30 3100 ft/sec
T30E1 34-35 lb 3150 ft/sec* M1 powder, T8 propellant
T30E1 red. vel. 2500 ft/sec* T20 propellant (reduced)
T30E2
T30E3 34.62 lb Comb-B

W.P. Smoke

Weight Velocity

T46 2500 ft/sec *T20 propellant (reduced)
Ballistically identical to H.E. T30


APBC

Weight Velocity

T37 39 lb 3000 ft/sec

APCBC

Weight Velocity

T32 39 lb 3000 ft/sec* M1 powder, T8 propellant
T32E1 39 lb 3000 ft/sec* M1 powder, T8 propellant
4.25 lb AP cap, steel ballistic cap.

T32E2

HVAP

Weight Velocity

T29 26 lb 8lb core 3850 ft/sec* M2 powder
T29E1 27.6 lb 10 lb core
T29E2 12 lb core
T29E3 24.6 10-12 lb core 3720 ft/sec* estimated, M1 powder T9 propellant
T29E4 24.6 lb 10 lb core 4200 ft/sec* estimated T12 propellant

HEAT-FS

Weight Velocity

T? Based on T131 ?


HEP

Weight Velocity

T? Based on T81 ?


Training/Test rounds

T39 Proof projectile simulating T32
T40 Proof projectile simulating T29
T52 Test round (intended for T5 guns, but never used. immediately adapted for use in a fixed round in gun T140)
T52E1 Test round (intended for T5 guns, but never used. immediately adapted for use in a fixed round in gun T140)


T140 gun ammo (T5/T8 guns could fire some if not all types)

HE, WP, AP, and TP rounds based on projectiles designed for T5 and T8 105mm tank guns.


H.E.

Weight Velocity

T246 26.8 lbs 2400 ft/sec

Comb-B filling Fuze PD, T177E3, New thin wall design to increase the amount of lethal fragmentation



W.P. Smoke

Weight Velocity

T247


APBC

Weight Velocity

T182 35 lb 3500 ft/sec
T182E1
T182E2
T182E3


HVAP

Weight Velocity
T29 series 4200 ft/sec* estimated T12 propellant

Canceled development September 1952 when T182 round was found to offer the same performance at extended ranges against sloped targets.


HVAPDS

Weight Velocity

T279 13.6 lbs 7.5 lb core 5100 ft/sec


HEAT-FS

Weight Velocity

T298 22.5 lb Based T131E31 3700 ft/sec * M6 propellant, 3.02 lb Comp-B charge

40,000 PSI at 3700 ft/sec, two rounds fired at 44,000 and 48,000 PSI which indicated spike design was inadequate for T298 design.

T298E1 Improved spike design ?


HEP

Weight Velocity

T297 Based on T81E41 2700 ft/sec ?


Canister

?


Training rounds

Weight Velocity

T79 ? ? M17 propellant 17.38 lbs to give a MV of 3500 in T5E1 gun.
T79E1
T79E2
T52 Test round (intended for T5 guns, but never used. immediately adapted for use in a fixed round in gun T140)
T52E1 Test round (intended for T5 guns, but never used. immediately adapted for use in a fixed round in gun T140)


T4 unsure what case/cartridge it used, the T5 used the T4/T4E1 at first it was to fire fixed rounds but due to space issues they switched to separated. the T140 guns used the T43.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top