No 3 Hale Grenade Pic

[orcutteod]

Enclosed is a picture from a book showing a British rifle grenade and they are calling it a No 3 Hales. Also enclosed is a picture of my British rifle grenade which looks the same as the book picture. I know the one I have is a bit different than a standard No 3. So what do we have here? Also included is a drawing of a No3 Hale which I believe is correct.

 

[Millsman]

What you have is actually a much rarer No 11 rifle grenade. It was designed without the muzzel clip for use with the Magazine Lee Enfield. In the No 3 the base has two holes drilled to accept the clip. Yours is un-drilled so is a No 11.

It looks like you have a very good example. Great find.

John

 

[orcutteod]

Thanks for the info so it looks like the book was in error calling it a No 3 if it is a No 10 like mine. The book also was in error calling a period picture of a German rifle grenade a 1914 when in fact it was a 1916/1917 with a screw on cup to reduce the distance.

 

[siegfreid]

Beautiful grenade you have . The book is correct as the picture is No3 Mk1 .

 

[siegfreid]

John . Did you mean the No 11 ?

 

[Millsman]

DOH ! Yes going too fast tonight! Will correct it. John

 

[Millsman]

I've corrected my post. It is of course a No 11. I'm doing research into WW1 rifle grenades and I think my head is buzzing with too much stuff!

The No 10 was the MLE without clip version of the No 4 Grenade.

John

 

[Millsman]

Here's a diagram of a No 11 - John

 

[Bonnex]

Sorry to have seen this rather late. There is a possibiility that it is a No 3 Mk III which was manufactured without the spring-clip in place so there are no holes in the base-plug to attach the spring clip to. The base-piece of a No 3 Mk III would have a Mk II profile and I believe that the No 11 would have the same base-piece profile as the No 3 Mk I. Including the Conversions to No 20 there must be close on a dozen variants of the No 3 and No 3A rifle grenades.

 

[siegfreid]

Sorry to have seen this rather late. There is a possibiility that it is a No 3 Mk III which was manufactured without the spring-clip in place so there are no holes in the base-plug to attach the spring clip to. The base-piece of a No 3 Mk III would have a Mk II profile and I believe that the No 11 would have the same base-piece profile as the No 3 Mk I. Including the Conversions to No 20 there must be close on a dozen variants of the No 3 and No 3A rifle grenades.

Norman. Does that mean the diagram John has shown is wrong ? That one would appear to show the No 11 with a 3/2 profile .

 

[Snufkin]

... There is a possibiility that it is a No 3 Mk III which was manufactured without the spring-clip in place so there are no holes in the base-plug to attach the spring clip to. The base-piece of a No 3 Mk III would have a Mk II profile and I believe that the No 11 would have the same base-piece profile as the No 3 Mk I ...QUOTE]

Thanks, Norman. That explains the detail of no clip holes.



Tom.

 

[Bonnex]

Mike,
It would be rude to say wrong. The drawings and other information in the set are outstanding. The drawing in that set for the No 3 Mk I uses the same 'generic' body with a Mk II style base piece.

The No 11 is a bit of slippery customer regarding giving up its secrets. I cannot see a particular reason for allocating the nomenclature. The only difference between the No 11 and the No 3 Mk I* (the star converts the Mk I by the removal of the clip) is the longer rod for the No 11 which could have been incorporated descriptively in the nomenclature (eg "with rod 15-inch"). I have never seen a Hales marked No 11 as new manufacture (or as a conversion). Interestingly the No 11 is not mentioned in the Addendum to the Treatise on Ammunition 1917.

As an aside the Addendum does have a note regarding the No 3 Grenade:-

"It sometimes happens that the releasing-socket rebounds after its initial set-back [...] To avoid this drawback and to render the action of the grenade more certain, instructions have been issued that the releasing-socket is to be pulled back by hand."

There was some discussion on this topic last year.

 

[Bonnex]

... There is a possibiility that it is a No 3 Mk III which was manufactured without the spring-clip in place so there are no holes in the base-plug to attach the spring clip to. The base-piece of a No 3 Mk III would have a Mk II profile and I believe that the No 11 would have the same base-piece profile as the No 3 Mk I ...QUOTE]

Thanks, Norman. That explains the detail of no clip holes.



Tom.

Thanks Tom but of course as you know only too well the interchange of bits like the base-plug over the years adds uncertainty to the archeology of it all.

 

[siegfreid]

Thanks Norman . As you say , there seems little reason in the No 11 designation to be used at all unless it was supposed to make the No3 Mk1* designation a tad less clumsy ! Mike

 

[Bonnex]

Thanks Norman . As you say , there seems little reason in the No 11 designation to be used at all unless it was supposed to make the No3 Mk1* designation a tad less clumsy ! Mike

Theoretically the No 11 rod length represents a significant operational difference and from an ammunition technical point of view it is right to allocate a new number but they were not consistent on this point. I think Nos 24, 35 and 39 all had alternative rod lengths available.

 

[Snufkin]

As an aside the Addendum does have a note regarding the No 3 Grenade:-

"It sometimes happens that the releasing-socket rebounds after its initial set-back [...] To avoid this drawback and to render the action of the grenade more certain, instructions have been issued that the releasing-socket is to be pulled back by hand."

There was some discussion on this topic last year.

This instruction for the No.3 was also included in the pamphlet, "The Training and Employment of Bombers", March 1916:

"Immediately before firing withdraw the safety pin, and pull back the sliding collar as far as it will go, and give it a half turn to lock it, and so prevent it moving forward again on shock of discharge. Unscrew wind vane one quarter turn only to see that it is free to move, and then screw it just home again. Make sure that the retaining bolts are still in place."

No such instructions to pull back the releasing socket and check movement of the wind vane were given in the earlier version of the pamphlet, "The Training and Employment of Grenadiers", October 1915.




Tom.

 

[Millsman]

This instruction for the No.3 was also included in the pamphlet, "The Training and Employment of Bombers", March 1916:

"Immediately before firing withdraw the safety pin, and pull back the sliding collar as far as it will go, and give it a half turn to lock it, and so prevent it moving forward again on shock of discharge. Unscrew wind vane one quarter turn only to see that it is free to move, and then screw it just home again. Make sure that the retaining bolts are still in place."

No such instructions to pull back the releasing socket and check movement of the wind vane were given in the earlier version of the pamphlet, "The Training and Employment of Grenadiers", October 1915.




Tom.

Which contrasts with the instructions not to unscrew the vane or to remove set back bolts! Isn't history complex!

John

 

[orcutteod]

Theoretically the No 11 rod length represents a significant operational difference and from an ammunition technical point of view it is right to allocate a new number but they were not consistent on this point. I think Nos 24, 35 and 39 all had alternative rod lengths available.[/QUOTE
What is the length of the No 11 rod? I have one that came with the rifle grenade.

 

[Bonnex]

15-inches.

 

[Millsman]

Mike,

The No 11 is a bit of slippery customer regarding giving up its secrets. I cannot see a particular reason for allocating the nomenclature. The only difference between the No 11 and the No 3 Mk I* (the star converts the Mk I by the removal of the clip) is the longer rod for the No 11 which could have been incorporated descriptively in the nomenclature (eg "with rod 15-inch"). I have never seen a Hales marked No 11 as new manufacture (or as a conversion). Interestingly the No 11 is not mentioned in the Addendum to the Treatise on Ammunition 1917.

Norman

I think the No 10 an No 11 were given their place in the numbered series because it was probably thought that production would continue for some time. However by the time they were issued very few front line units were using the Magazine Lee Enfield and I suspect manufacture was for small orders at best and they probably died out in early 1917. Also we had the situation where vane-less grenades were emerging fast, the No 20 and the No 24 alongside the in-service No 22. So why continue making a complex and expensive rifle grenade when there were cheaper alternatives (22 and 24) around?

John