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!

40mm Ammo For British 2 Pounder Anti Tank Gun

Tony Williams said:
Yet another bit of confusion. Hogg's book on British & American Artillery mentions a "Shell, HE Mk 2T" which was a pointed shell with a Base Percussion Fuze. I recall hearing about this one before: a very rare item from the late 1930s. If memory serves me right, there was a very similar late-war Australian shell used for bunker-busting in the Pacific war. These shells had much thicker bodies than the Pom pom HE, so could well have been both shorter and heavier.

To complicate matters further, the 40mm S Gun as fitted to Hurricane IID and IV ground attack planes (which of course used the 40x158R No.1 case) had its own HE shell, the HE Mk III.T which weighed 844 g - compared with c.750 g for the Pom pom HV shell, and 1,080 g quoted for the No.2 HE. My head is beginning to ache...

I think I may slowly be groping towards a conclusion here. There would seem to be two very different British 2 pdr HE shells used in the tank/AT No.2 case in WW2. The first was the base-fuzed shell which was short but heavy; the second was the nose-fuzed shell which was (probably) the same as the Pom Pom HV. The data for these two types seems to have become mixed up.
Click to expand...

I think its worth posting Hoggs description in full:

Shell, HE, Mk 2T. Contrary to many published statements, there was a high-explosive shell for the 2pdr gun, though it appears not to have been issued to tanks. It was a pointed shell with a small filling of TNT and a Base Percussion fuze No. 243. Its penetrative performance was zero, since it was intended for attacking soft vehicles and defended positions.


This is a bit of a confusing statement from Hogg, he seems to be describing two separate projectiles, a pointed shell but one that doesnt penetrate? The fuze 243 isnt a base fuze its the 2 PR AA nose fuse.


And under his description of the 2 PR anti aircraft gun:


Shell, 2pdr, HE, HV, Mk IT. This was the same shell as was used with the anti-tank gun, but filled with TNT and fitted with a percussion Fuze No. 243. A tracer No. 7 or No. 10 was screwed into the base, and gave self-destruction to the shell.


The above isnt mentioned under his description of 2 PR tank ammunition, is this what he was referring to in his description of the Shell, HE, Mk 2T.?

Just as an aside The '2 PR Shell. AP.T Mk I.' projectile, filled and fuzed weights 2 lb. 6 oz. Coincidence? (it must be said that none of the other data posted by Tony from the Ammunition Information Manual No.9 matches the details of 2 PR AP shell).

Has anybody got any primary evidence of the Australian Bunker buster APHE shell? I've read reference to it in books but Ive never seen one or seen it mentioned in any manuals. Did it exist? its not in the regulations for army ordnance services ammunition pamphlet covering the 2 PR Mk 9A, 10A and 10B guns. (the pamphlet includes both in service and obsolete rounds).
 
Last edited:
Considering how well known the 2 pdr AT gun and its ammo are, it is astonishing that there is so much confusion about the HE shells. The truth must be out there somewhere!
 
I am very confused. Hogg apparently said "Shell, 2pdr, HE, HV, Mk IT. This was the same shell as was used with the anti-tank gun, but filled with TNT and fitted with a percussion Fuze No. 243. A tracer No. 7 or No. 10 was screwed into the base, and gave self-destruction to the shell."

If this was the same shell used for AA AND for the AT gun, with a different projectile, then why was it not used in the AT guns?
 
I was wondering if Hogg is using the word "shell" for the actual projectile, and not the left over empty brass part when the projectile is fired?? If so, then this might be what is confusing me. I have always called the brass part left over then the round is fired the "shell", and the thing that is fired at a tank and hits it "the projectile". Maybe the terminology is getting me.
 
Fificat, please keep in mind that Hogg is well known for not being an expert in ammunition, unfortunately this did not keep him from commenting on it.
 
fificat said:
I am very confused. Hogg apparently said "Shell, 2pdr, HE, HV, Mk IT. This was the same shell as was used with the anti-tank gun, but filled with TNT and fitted with a percussion Fuze No. 243. A tracer No. 7 or No. 10 was screwed into the base, and gave self-destruction to the shell."

If this was the same shell used for AA AND for the AT gun, with a different projectile, then why was it not used in the AT guns?
Click to expand...

I think it was probably because the combination of the naval HE shell with the army case did not emerge until later in the war, after the AT gun was obsolete. By that time, the only users of the 2 pdr army gun were armoured cars, which did have the shell.

My conclusion is that only one nose-fuzed HE shell was used in the WW2 2 pdr ammunition, both naval and army (with some reservations over the RAF's 40mm S Gun HE shell). Which still leaves the base-fuzed rounds - the early British one and the later Australian one - to be clarified. Might there be some confusion over base-fuzed HE and an early APHE type?

I was wondering if Hogg is using the word "shell" for the actual projectile, and not the left over empty brass part when the projectile is fired?? If so, then this might be what is confusing me. I have always called the brass part left over then the round is fired the "shell", and the thing that is fired at a tank and hits it "the projectile". Maybe the terminology is getting me.
Click to expand...
This is a common confusion. "Shell" refers to a type of projectile which is hollow and contains something useful like HE, or incendiary, or a shrapnel mix, as opposed to "shot" which (in artillery terms - not in shotgunning!) means an armour-piercing projectile which does not contain any chemical substance (except possibly a tracer).

The brass (or steel, or very occasionally some other material) container which holds the propellant and primer and is left behind after firing is known as the "cartridge case" or simply the "case". Which is why ammunition which does not use such a container is known as "caseless".
 
Tony Williams said:
Curioser and curioser - my source is "Ammunition Information Manual No.9" which is an official publication going into great detail about ammunition for the "Ordnance QF 2-pr Gun" (including the Littlejohns) and this gives the following data on the Shell HE/T Mk 2:

Length of complete round: 17.577 in
Weight of complete round: 4 lb 2 oz
Length of projectile: 4.96 in
Weight of projectile: 2 lb 6 oz
Filling & Weight: RDW/BWX or TNT 2 oz 4.5 dr.
Click to expand...

I think I've sorted out the confusion, according to the 'ammunition bulletin No.32' the 2 PR Mk 9 and 10 gun ammunition using rounds comprising Shell, H.E. HV. Mk IT. had a complete round weight of 4 lb. 2 oz. 2 dr. those using Shell, H.E. HV. MK IIT had a complete round weight of 3 lb. 15 oz 3 dr.

Both rounds had a length of 17.577 in. This document is dated March 1943.

Both projectiles were the same as used with the 2 PR Naval gun.

The Shell, H.E. Mk 7T was a post war development.

Tony, what clarification do you need about the based fuzed rounds, the AP Shell is well documented and Ive never seen any official reference to the Australian based fuzed bunker buster, could this have just been the AP Shell as you suggest?
 
Quatermass said:
I think I've sorted out the confusion, according to the 'ammunition bulletin No.32' the 2 PR Mk 9 and 10 gun ammunition using rounds comprising Shell, H.E. HV. Mk IT. had a complete round weight of 4 lb. 2 oz. 2 dr. those using Shell, H.E. HV. MK IIT had a complete round weight of 3 lb. 15 oz 3 dr.

Both rounds had a length of 17.577 in. This document is dated March 1943.

Both projectiles were the same as used with the 2 PR Naval gun.

The Shell, H.E. Mk 7T was a post war development.

Tony, what clarification do you need about the based fuzed rounds, the AP Shell is well documented and I’ve never seen any official reference to the Australian based fuzed ‘bunker buster’, could this have just been the AP Shell as you suggest?
Click to expand...

Clearly the Information Manual I have contains errors, but I think that what you have posted raises more questions.

If the H.E. HV Mk IIT uses the same shell as the 2 pdr naval HE (as it seems to), then what did the H.E. Mk IT use, since it was clearly heavier? Was it the earlier and heavier naval 2 pdr Pom pom shell (non-HV), which was obsolete by WW2 and generally used with an AA time fuze anyway? That would seem rather odd.

In what way did the H.E. Mk 7T differ from the Mk IIT?

Does the data in the Information Manual (Length of projectile: 4.96 in, Weight of projectile: 2 lb 6 oz, Filling & Weight: RDW/BWX or TNT 2 oz 4.5 dr.) match up with the pre-WW2 base-fuzed APHE? If so, then that would seem to clear that up.

Which leaves only the legendary Australian base-fuzed round...it could have been the British APHE, but it would be surprising if any were left by then.
 
Mind if I make things more complicated?

An RAF Armament textbook lists:

40-mm SAP/HEI . . . a base-fuzed shell with medium armour piercing performance. Introduced as a general purpose shell. Introduced in 1943.
 
Brennan said:
Mind if I make things more complicated?

An RAF Armament textbook lists:

40-mm SAP/HEI . . . a base-fuzed shell with medium armour piercing performance. Introduced as a general purpose shell. Introduced in 1943.
Click to expand...

RAF armament - that's interesting, was it for the 40mm S Gun?
 
Been reading some old documents..

'Fighter Attacks on Locomotives - D. Arm. D. Trial Interim Report' which details trials of a Hurricane IV against a locomotive, 25 February 1943.

Paragraph 2 'Types of Ammunition Used' includes '40 m.m. S.A.P./G.E.I' which I assume is a typo for SAP/HEI

Under 'Conclusions' entry (iv) states '40 m.m. S.A.P./H.E.I., as will be seen from the hits obtained, compares favourably with the penetrative performance of 40 m.m. A.P., added to which it has sufficient delay action to ensure that a considerable amount of internal damage is caused on explosion.'

In correspondence discussing 40 mm ammunition (dated 29 November 1943):

' ... Our present stocks will be taken into consideration in calculating the quantities of ammunition we shall ask for. Assuming therefore that our requirements of SAP/HEI* for 1944 were say 40,000 rounds (we have taken an arbitrary figure) this would mean 30,000 rounds of HE with 243 and 10,000 SAP/HEI. The question then arises is what is to be the relative properties of HE with 243 and the SAP/HEI? We should like the fullest possible information on the point.

...

*Our requirement are for so many rounds of SAP/HEI but until SAP/HEI is available we are accepting HE.'

Tough to draw conclusions from the cables due to ambiguity and illegibility.
 
Very interesting! SAP/HE ammo was I believe used in the early naval Pom-pom guns when they were seen as useful against MTBs and the like (see photo below: 40x158), but I don't know what they would have used with the S-gun.

37-40mmWW1.jpg
 
Also, I know it's a bit of thread drift but I think I've figured out the S-gun HE situation:

Mk.I - (246 fuze) developed for air to air use
Mk.II - (249 fuze) higher sensitivity for better performance against light structure (motor transport/Sboots)
Mk.III - (249 fuze*) added self destroying igniter (no.2*)
Mk.IV - (249 fuze*) replaced igniter no.2 with plug, base, shell, no.24, mk.Is
Mk.V - (243 fuze) production of new fuzes held up so long that old, instantaneous, pom-pom fuze used as a compromise in order to fill contract

*not 100% sure about these specific fuzes/igniters
 
Think early naval was not SAP/HE in the true sense used in WWII but the term common pointed would have been used then. Filing was probably black powder in the early days, shell being black body with red and white bands. I fully expect to be corrected on this as the introduction of this round is very close to the introduction of HE into naval shell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top