No. 80 fuze manufacturer "GK"?

[Darkman]

Over the years I have collected a number of unfired and unfilled No. 80 fuzes. ( I am mad about 18 pdr shells - particularly shrapnel.)

I noticed recently that I have 3 x No.80 MK VII unfilled fuzes all made by the same manufacturer "GK" in 1917 and 1918.

These were all acquired from different sources and years apart. Seems strange that so many unfilled fuzes should survive by the one manufacturer.

Could someone please tell me firstly who the maker with monogram "GK" was, and also offer any theories or suggestions why their unfilled fuzes in particular should survive in greater numbers than others? I presume it may be along the lines that at war's end they had unused stock and these were sold off as surplus - but other than scrap brass, who would have a need or use for artillery fuzes?

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[2pounder]

GK was George Kent of Luton, who were still in existance recently and may still be. I have a copy of some of their wartime historyon fuze making but its copywrited so cant post it.

 

[Darkman]

Thanks 2Pounder,

At least I know who the maker was now. Googling up "George Kent, Luton" gives me a large amount of background info on the company (water meters, instruments, valves & telemetry) and indicates a number of mergers and associations with other companies, so yes, they are still in existence in some form or other.

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[Dronic69]

Hi Graeme,

Interesting enough, most of Australia's sewerage and water flow meters were supplied by GK.

They also had a large number of Wartime patents - have a look at this previous thread:

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threa...arhead-Can-Any-One-Help?highlight=george+kent

Cheers
Drew

BTW - I checked my Drill No 80 (powder channels were never drilled out) made by RMC was also a Mk VII - just a coincidence - end of war surplus stock, new later MKs introduced for service? considering that the 18 pdr was in use for a number of decades after 1918, I wonder if there was a specific issue with this Mk VII if a larger than average are still around compared to other Mks? Perhaps just not GK related...........

 

[Darkman]

Can anyone confirm Drew's theory that there was an issue with the No. 80 Mk VII fuse that lead to it being replaced, and this may account for why so many unfilled MkVIIs survive?

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[glevum]

I also have an unfilled No80 made by GK dated /18.

The guy I got it from had several.

 

[Darkman]

Given the law of averages, there must have been a lot of these about a surplus at some stage.
I wonder if it was something specific to George Kent Ltd, or the Mk VII fuze.

 

[Dronic69]

Hi Graeme,

While you have been busy picking up GK made No 80 Mk VII fuses, I seem to have collected over the years a couple of RMC made ones!

Apart form the Drill one, here's an actual fired MK VII - noticed the unusual lead around the base lip - better seal?..........I can't remember seeing this on other No 80s???

Also, in the 1940 18pdr h/book, it covers in details the operation of the No 80 Mk XI. Following this is a small paragraph discussing the differences between the Mk VII & the Mk XI, and further indicates that the Mk VII will be no longer manufactured (~ 1940). So there goes my design flaw theory and the h/b seems to implies that the Mk XI was the next service Mk after the VII.

{The only other copy of the 18pdr H/B I could referenced was the 1915, which is too early for the Mk VII - curious what a later edition (after 1918) one would have on the No 80 fuses)

Cheers
Drew

 

[ben2000]

here's an actual fired MK VII - noticed the unusual lead around the base lip - better seal?..........I can't remember seeing this on other No 80s???

Hi Drew, The lead is left over from the strip that attached the brass cover to fuze (it was like opening a tin of corned beef )

 

[Darkman]

Funny thing Drew, I picked up another unfired No. 80 Mk VII yesterday (from the UK - hope it arrives OK!) and it is marked BMC same as the one in your second photo. Another coincidence is that I also have copies of the 1940 and 1915 18 pdr handbooks. Away from home at the moment, but I will have a read of the 1940 HB where it mentions the Mk VII just being obsolete. This does appear to indicate that the Mk VII was still in service for some time after WW1. Must just be that the Mk VII was being manufactured at the end of the war and some sold off as surplus. (But I have 2 x GKs marked /17 long before the end of the war.)

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[Dronic69]

Hi Ben,

Yep, I just knew someone was gonna "slap" me for that remark!!! :tinysmile_shutup_t2

Thanks for the clarification!!!

Actually I have never come across them with the covers fixed to the fuse- probably because they would have been "live"......do you know when this practice continued to?

Would I be correct in assuming therefore that this was only done once the fuse was actually filled and ready to be used?

Reason I asked is that I have a British No 400 fuse + cover (1943), but no signs that it was attached /sealed by lead. Having stated that, the fuse appears never to have been filled (mint condition) but not a reject /drill one...........

Cheers
Drew

 

[2pounder]

The lead is in fact solder used to hold the protective cover on via a pull strip a bit like a corned beef can strip.

 

[Dronic69]

Does anyone have a photo of one with the protective cover intact?

Thanks
Cheers
Drew

 

[ben2000]

I have a cap still with the strip on, But not attached to a fuze though :/

 

[2pounder]

found the reply I got from G Kent back in 1991 about their production, as I said copywrite but they were in 1916 making 60 000 no. 80s a week and just before the war ended were making between 130 000 and 140 000 fuzes of various types. If it took a week for a fuze to be made from start to finish there would be a lot part done ie 7 x 60 000 if production was suddenly stopped not run down carefully.

 

[Dronic69]

That's some amazing production numbers!!!! Thks 2 pdr



Here's a No 400 Mk II (1943) which has an external screw thread on the flange for the fuze cover to screw onto. There's also a rubber ring to seal the cap once it has been attached - this would have provided the same "sealing effect" as the No 80 soldered caps, and provided a more consistent production process (I'm assuming the No 80s caps were manually soldered on back then? - examination of my No 80 MkVII (fired), clearly indicates the soldering is not consistent round the fuse)

Interesting enough this fuze according to my "sketchy" data was based on the No 198 which was introduced in 1925 (?) with the external flange thread (used on naval star shells) - therefore since the No 80 was still in use up to at least 1940+, one may have thought that a later No 80 MK may have also adapted this method?

{Perhaps they did with an in between MK as there is a jump between the Mk VII (1917) and the Mk XI (1938)???}

On the other hand, there may have been ample surplus MK VIIs leftover from WW1, not cost effective to 're-gear" and combined with 18pdrs becoming more obsolete with the later 25 pdrs etc???

Just some thoughts..............

Cheers
Drew

 

[Bonnex]

Drew,

A few notes on the marks of No 80 fuze that might be of interest (then there are the No80B and No80C marks etc):

Mark List of Changes Para Introduction

1 12800 of 4/5/1909 First 2-inch gauge fuze to enter British service.
1* 14670 of 19/4/1909 Mk 1 waterproofed to approximate to Mk 3
2 13879 of 9/1/1907 Interior of stem bevelled all round instead of having two slots.
2* 14670 of 19/4/1909 Mk 2 waterproofed to approximate to Mk 3
3 14317 of 21/1/1908 Interstices waterproofed by filling with a mixture of beeswax and mineral jelly.
3A 19065 of 18/5/1917 Both time rings of brass instead of aluminium
4 19065 of 18/5/1917 Brass ring screwed into body flange to allow the cover to be soldered in place.
4A 17200 of 31/3/1914 Mk 4 with brass time rings. Only a few issued.
5 17200 of 31 /3/1914 As for 4A but the powder channels in the body are lined with brass.
6 18239 of 31/12/1915 Cap and body of brass, time rings of aluminium. Thicker base plug. 500,000 made by Elswick Ordnance Co load aluminium caps as a wartime manufacturing concession - see OC Min 29638 of 26/6/1918.
7 18643 of 9/9/1916 To RL 21860. Differs from 6 in not having a percussion holder, the cavity for the percussion arrangement being formed in the body. The lip on the body is shorter and the screwed portion of the body is lengthened to accommodate a thicker base plug.
8 20572 of 25/4/1918 Made of Malleable cast iron to VSM design 56116G. Approved by OC in OC Min 17143 of 29/5/1917. None made - OC Minute 34507 of 20/12/1918 refers. Design cancelled by 22626 of 28/7/1919
9 20572 of 25/4/1918 As Mk 5 but of steel. Design cancelled by 22626.
10 20572 of 25/4/1918 As Mk 7 but of steel. Design cancelled by 22626.
11 20571 of 25/4/1918 Metal body. Stud for fixing tool instead of slot.
12 20571 of 25/4/1918 As 11 but of steel. Approved, but none made. Design cancelled by 22626 of 28/7/1919
Marks 1 - 2* Obsolete 23599 of 5/7/1920
Marks 3 - 7 Obsolete B9707 of 13/10/1943
Mark 11 Obsolete C2455 of 22/12/1945.


From some work mainly done by Hogg and a couple of Ammo Techs.

 

[Dronic69]

Hi Bonnex,

Great info on the No 80 Mk variations as I don't have any documents that cover these -thank you!

(I do have some data on the 80B, 80/44, 80B/44 and the 80C/44 variations)

Would you have any for the No 400 fuze as to its usage? (Naval issue, star burst shells?)

Thanks
cheers
Drew

 

[Bonnex]

Notes are a bit sketchy on Naval stuff. I have been working to correct and update them but I have not got to No 400 yet. Here is how it stands:

400 Fuze, Time, No 400
Naval Service. Similar to Fuze No 198 but filled with a different composition so as to burn 9.4 to 10 seconds. Top ring empty, bottom ring filled SR304 and coloured blue. For AA guns firing HE and shrapnel, and later for high angle practice.
1 A8073 31/1/1934 NOD3371 Introduction (new manufacture) for NS
1C A8073 25/7/1933 NOD3371 sealed to govern conversion of No 198 Mk 2 Fuze for Naval Service
2 No details
3 B8793 of 24/5/1943 As 1 but the top time ting has no bridge, and the arming spring is
weaker.
3C -------- do---------- Conversion of Fuze No 198 Mk 2 to approximate to 400 Mk 3
No further record
400C Fuze, Time, No 400C
Land and Naval service. Authorised for use in coast artillery 4in to 8in practice projectiles. No further details; no record discovered in LofCs.

 

[FNG61]

Hello. Nice to find out what GK stands for. B.M.Co is the British Munitions Company of Verdun Quebec. Here in S.W. Ontario R.M.C.Co fuzes in unfinished condition are commonly found which made me suspicious that they were a localy produced item. Always wondered what those initials stood for. Last summer I was able to buy a book by the Russell Motor Car Company that documented their production of No.80, 100 and 101 fuzes as well as 9.5 shells. The book is dated Dec 31 1917 and they mention how their contracts have expired.