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!
Not another 2-Pr HE
- Thread starter Bonnex
- Start date
Norman will confirm, but I think holes are original on this HE squeezebore round. Maybe to facilitate crushing.
I think Richard probably knows that Seb although confirming details by comparing it with others offers a challenge since this is the only known example.
What date would this be from Norman?
It is likely to be 1945. All three services had an interest in ultra high velocity guns using coned bore construction or the 'Littlejohn' principle. There was an Air Service interest in using 2-pr Mk II Littlejohn shot which went as far as accuracy trials. The Navy dropped their requirement for modifying their 'obsolescent 2-pr' equipments (QF 2-Pr Mark VIII) but maintained an interest in the 'easy conversion of' 40mm Bofors. The HE shell was a requirement for Land and Naval Services Bofors in the AA role. I expect this example is from Ordnance Board Investigation No 1163.
So, in the absence of 'hands-on' inspection I expect this is 'Not another 2-Pr HE' but 'Another 40mm HE'.
[OB Proc Q 3957 dated December 1945, refers).
The shell is in the collection of George and Emma Geear in the fabulous Chapel Bay Fort, Angle, Pembrokeshire SA71 5BE (published at George's request). Well worth a visit.
So, in the absence of 'hands-on' inspection I expect this is 'Not another 2-Pr HE' but 'Another 40mm HE'.
[OB Proc Q 3957 dated December 1945, refers).
The shell is in the collection of George and Emma Geear in the fabulous Chapel Bay Fort, Angle, Pembrokeshire SA71 5BE (published at George's request). Well worth a visit.
Last edited:
In Col. Probert's "Notes on Deformable Projectiles. August 1948" He makes no mention of problems of trapped gas under the front flange. However, they had identified a problem with gas leakage past the rear flange, which was then trapped between the front and rear flanges - see attached. The holes may be an early attempt at venting this trapped gas prior to the introduction of drilling the muzzle swage. One presumes this is an early projectile as the flange is 'rear sliding' The British favoured a move to 'forward sliding' flanges as they were easier to manufacture and could be incorporated with the rear flange.
TimG
TimG