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!

No. 68 British HEAT Rifle Grenades

jvollenberg

jvollenberg

Well-Known Member
Ordnance approved
I am looking for images of all the different varients of this grenade. I have seen the ones on Lex's page and I have some of the MK III and the I/L. I am specifically looking to look at the external differences, including the markings for all the different models. Also, whether any of the versions have a shapre charge cone instead of the hollow charge type cone internally.

Thanks,

Joe
 
If you enter No68* in the search box there are several threads regarding the no68
 
No68Thorpe.jpgNo 68 Experimental Design by Thorpe (Plastic components)
 
That accounts for a fair few of the 12,365,000 that were made...
 
Last edited:
The cache of 68's that Bonnex has explains why there aren't any on this side of pond.

Very nice collection!
 
The green cone on the second picture ... is that a shape charge cone, or a blastic windshield? The reason I ask is I saw one years ago on Ebay that was red, but he had it screwed on like a windshield. I didn't think they had versions with windshields, but I haven't seen everything.

Joe
 
jvollenberg said:
The green cone on the second picture ... is that a shape charge cone, or a blastic windshield? The reason I ask is I saw one years ago on Ebay that was red, but he had it screwed on like a windshield. I didn't think they had versions with windshields, but I haven't seen everything.

Joe
Click to expand...

The green cone is the shaped charge liner, made of steel. The green is a varnish protecting the metal from the HE charge; lyddite (cast picric acid) was one filling option. There was no windshield on this grenade. It was the first British Neumann principle anti-armour grenade and there was no stand-off distance which was one reason for its limited performance. (If a windshield had been tried, it would have provided some stand-off and may have improved penetration. Trials in May 1940 gave a maximum penetration of only 30mm on armour at 30 degrees to normal. Filling 91:9 RDX:beeswax.)



Tom.
 
Last edited:
I can confirm that 'windshields' to give greater stand-off were tried on the No 68, as we're extendable tails. A rodded version was designed for use where cup-dischargers were not readily available. Experiments using the No 68 as a clustered aerial bomb for anti-tank purposes were carried out. Motley was one of the names associated with this work.

3-inch diameter (for the Smith gun) and 4-inch diameter versions were designed.
 
Bonnex said:
I can confirm that 'windshields' to give greater stand-off were tried on the No 68, as we're extendable tails. A rodded version was designed for use where cup-dischargers were not readily available. Experiments using the No 68 as a clustered aerial bomb for anti-tank purposes were carried out. Motley was one of the names associated with this work.

3-inch diameter (for the Smith gun) and 4-inch diameter versions were designed.
Click to expand...


Norman,

Thanks for that. Do you have any trials results for the use of "windshields" or stand-off caps - did it appear to make any difference to armour penetration? And were the tests as far as it went, or did any make it into limited service use/troop trials?

I believe 12", 18" and 24" rods were experimented with. Do you have anything more on the rod tests, as that would appear a throwback to WWI techniques.

Over 12,000,000 No.68 were produced but reports of their use in combat seem to be scarce. It might be expected that they were deployed at least in North Africa. Has anyone encountered reports of anecdotes of their use in action there or elsewhere?




Tom.
 
Last edited:
Snufkin said:
...I believe 12", 18" and 24" rods were experimented with. Do you have anything more on the rod tests, as that would appear a throwback to WWI techniques.

... Tom.
Click to expand...

Tom,
Maybe so but using a rodded grenade against a Tiger Tank has the distinct advantage of loosing just 3 pence for the rod as against 2 2 shillings and sixpence for the cup discharger as the tank main armament vaporises the offending Home Guardian!
Norman
 
DD(L)SK4277-aC.jpg
Snufkin said:
Norman,

Thanks for that. Do you have any trials results for the use of "windshields" or stand-off caps - did it appear to make any difference to armour penetration? And were the tests as far as it went, or did any make it into limited service use/troop trials?

[...]Tom.
Click to expand...

Tom, I do have some information on the trials of the ballistic caps. The 1942 trials of the 'Briscoe' design (this was the all-steel grenade that Paul showed in his photograph) included tests with the cap on a regular No 68 body with Briscoe tails. I will look out some data but I think the upshot was less than satisfactory in respect of the ballistic caps. I include a diagram of a typical cap.

Norman

PS I should have said earlier that I will see what I can find on the rodded grenades (and the proposals to use a cross-bow or catapult to launch 68 grenades).
 
Last edited:
Bonnex said:
Tom, I do have some information on the trials of the ballistic caps. The 1942 trials of the 'Briscoe' design (this was the all-steel grenade that Paul showed in his photograph) included tests with the cap on a regular No 68 body with Briscoe tails. I will look out some data but I think the upshot was less than satisfactory in respect of the ballistic caps. I include a diagram of a typical cap.

Norman

PS I should have said earlier that I will see what I can find on the rodded grenades (and the proposals to use a cross-bow or catapult to launch 68 grenades).
Click to expand...


Many thanks for the info, Norman. The cap does give a stand-off approximately equal to the cone depth, which I believe was the understanding of optimal hollow charge design at the time, so there ought to have been some improvement in performance.

When you say cross-bow for launching the 68s, does that mean a development of the WWI Gamage (or something more akin to a Roman ballista)?




Tom.
 
Here is another No 68 Prac gren and a sectioned gren.
Steel is not good as a liner.
 

Attachments

  • No 68 Gren - 1.jpg
    No 68 Gren - 1.jpg
    298.9 KB · Views: 28
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top