Question about QF 13 Pdr & 3 Inch 20 cwt

[Fr Cdn AT]

Good day All,

Came across this piece yesterday and beside the obvious information that we can read on projo after a little cleaning, I still have questions and hopefully someone will be able to help.
Soo... through the thin layer of rust (pict 1) we can see a little bit of original black paint and a very tinny bit of red at the neck but can not see if there is only one or two red ring. Once the thin rust is removed we can read the obvious following info... (pict 2-3)
QF 13 Pr & 3 in 20 cwt
IV
F. S.
_ Ltd
24 8 16
P
Soo... Nomenclature, guessing Mark IV, Forged Steel, Some Manufacture Ltd, Manufacture date, 24 august 1916 and the letter "P".
My first question is about the "P" at the bottom... what is it standing for?? we find the letter "P" at the base as well... (pict 4) no other marking was found.

Next question is assuming that i'm right by saying it's a Mark IV... did it came only in Shrapnel or was there a HE version??

And finally, what kind of fuze? No marking on it except for "R" circled arrow and "R" again ?!?

So... any extra info would be appreciated.
Thank you in advance. Have a good day.

Luc.

 

[DICKAREN]

Hi Luc,
The fuze is a no.80. The 13pdr was produced in a HE version. The 3" 20cwt was the anti-aircraft version of the 13pdr.
Richard

 

[butterfly]

The RR marking is on the fuze adapter ring, the actual fuze markings will be on the base of the fuze, and as Richard has said its a no 80.

regards Kev

 

[Tony Williams]

Hi Luc,
The fuze is a no.80. The 13pdr was produced in a HE version. The 3" 20cwt was the anti-aircraft version of the 13pdr.
Richard

To avoid any risk of confusion:

The 13 pr 6 cwt was a horse-drawn field gun which used a cartridge case 313mm long with a 92mm rim.

The 13 pr 9 cwt was an AA gun which used a cartridge case (the 18 pr case necked-down) 295mm long with a 103mm rim.

The 3 inch 20 cwt was an AA gun which used a cartridge case 420mm long with a 116mm rim.

 

[Darkman]

What a fantastic shell in amazing original unfired condition! Great find.

Well this appears to be a No. 80, Mk VII (all brass) fuze usually associated with shrapnel shells.

Please excuse my ignorance, but if this shell is stamped "13 PR & 3 in 20 Cwt" can someone advise if this is a shrapnel or AA, (or both) and how can you tell, given that the paint and stencilling are long gone?
i.e. What type of fuze was used with the AA and what was the filling? Did they just use the shrapnel as AA or is the No.80 actually a No. 80/44 fitted with a gaine/exploder and the shell filled with HE?

Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Graeme

 

[2pounder]

Shrapnel was used in the AA role until effective HE was introduced so the fuze is a No. 80 if shrap. and 80/44 if HE. The 13pr were all 3in cal. so someone thought it a good idea to make shell that were 3ins dia and could be used in either. Very nice unfired shell and unused fuze...mmmm. Hope its empty.

 

[butterfly]

Shrapnel was used in the AA role until effective HE was introduced so the fuze is a No. 80 if shrap. and 80/44 if HE. The 13pr were all 3in cal. so someone thought it a good idea to make shell that were 3ins dia and could be used in either. Very nice unfired shell and unused fuze...mmmm. Hope its empty.

OK, so I'm not too knowledgable on these, is there any outward difference between the 80 and 80/44 fuzes, or are the markings on both only visible when the fuze is unscrewed??

I noticed that the original post was by Luc who is ordnance approved, and looking at that fuze it looks unfired as is the round. It would be easy to tell if it was HE or shrapnel if the fuze could be unscrewed would it not??

I may be missing the point, but I think the question was posed as to wether it could be determined if it was HE or Shrapnel from the outward appearance. IE a positive ID.

Very interesting thread and comments from everyone
regards Kev

 

[Fr Cdn AT]

Hello everyone and thank you for the interesting replies so far. Most appreciated.

Kev... you pretty much it the spot but it is recommended nor I cannot discuss any of the details of my our finding... sorry... let's just say that i'll be able to give a definite answer on what kind of fuze... or shell it was once we take care of it... in a proper manner... :tinysmile_twink_t2: and I'm hopping that I'm not crossing the line here??... if so... I do apoligize.

Anyhow... my original question was about the markings... I got pretty much most of it... any significance about the "P" under the date??? my knowledge also has its limits... and it's one of those little things that are just bugging me... until I know.

For the other answers that I was looking for... Thanks to all of you and to my personal findings... I kind of came with an ID but again... will be definite when... well, I'll leave it at that.

LOL... Cheers everyone.

 

[Darkman]

Luc,

I don't think the "P" has any significance. Standard nomenclature of these shells is:
Type
Mark
Material (e.g. F.S.)
Manufacturer monogram
Manufacture date

The P could just be an inspection mark.

Here is an image of a No. 80/44 fuze that would have been used on an HE shell. This one is shown in an actual HE shell projectile, but with the socket adapter could be fitted to a shrapnel projectile.

I believe yours is most likely a shrapnel shell as it is fitted with a fuze socket. The socket is required to fit the 2 inch fuze to the thin-walled shrapnel projectile. The socket is not required on an HE as the fuze will screw directly into the thicker HE shell.

Your fuze has been filled and is unfired (gas escape discs are still stabbed in position) so may well still contain powder, but in all probability I think unlikely.

Please show us the "after" photos if you are able to.

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[butterfly]

Graeme, the diagram is very interesting, however do you know if there was any way of distinguishing the type 80/44 fuze from the standard type 80 from external appearances when screwed into the shell?

Anyone know if the 80/44 fuze was marked on the outer surface, or was it stamped on the bottom as in the case of the 80?

I also note from the diagram that the top nose part appears to be aluminium/ white metal? was this standard in the 80/44 fuze and could this be another way to distinguish between this and the fuze that is attatched to the shell in the original post??

I also think the P could be an inspection mark especially as it appears on the base of the shell - though I too am interested to learn what others think about this. I recently posted a thread about a 13pdr projectile that I had come across, though this is an early example and is a shrapnel shell, it too has markings on the base and various logos, which I think are to do with inspection/ manufacturers logos.... link here for comparison...

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/83635-early-13-pounder-projectile-your-thoughts

kind regards kev

 

[Darkman]

Kev,

I do not have a No. 80/44 fuze, but I do have a lot of No. 80s of various marks. As far as I am aware there are no external distinguishing marks to tell if a fuze is a No. 80/44 or just a standard No. 80. Only the early all-aluminium Mark 1s had the details on the nose cap as per your 13 pdr in the other thread. (By the way - very nice shell you have there.) The reason the No. 80/44 fuze in the diagram has an aluminium nose cap is because it is a Mark IV fuze. The standard No.80 Mk IV shrapnel fuze also has the aluminium nose cap (as well as an aluminium deck - only the time rings were brass) so this cannot be used as a distinguishing feature.

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[butterfly]

Kev,

I do not have a No. 80/44 fuze, but I do have a lot of No. 80s of various marks. As far as I am aware there are no external distinguishing marks to tell if a fuze is a No. 80/44 or just a standard No. 80. Only the early all-aluminium Mark 1s had the details on the nose cap as per your 13 pdr in the other thread. (By the way - very nice shell you have there.) The reason the No. 80/44 fuze in the diagram has an aluminium nose cap is because it is a Mark IV fuze. The standard No.80 Mk IV shrapnel fuze also has the aluminium nose cap (as well as an aluminium deck - only the time rings were brass) so this cannot be used as a distinguishing feature.

Cheers,

Graeme

Thanks for your comments. The only reason I brought up the aluminium nose cone was that the fuze in the shell is all brass. If only aluminium was used for the no 80/44 then that would determine that the one in the projectile is an 80. Of course if the 80/44 was a simple adaptation of a standard no 80 then presumably any mark could be used including all brass???

Forgive me for being a little vague, I am simply looking at all posibilites, if indeed the two fuzes are identical from the outside then there would simply be no way of determining which one it is.

I would still edge towards it being shrapnel, being an anti-aircraft round it would make sense and of course there was mention of remnants of black paint and red band? that would also point toward it being shrapnel??

regards Kev

 

[Fr Cdn AT]

Again thank you for the supplement info... I came across the same diagram when I started my research at the beginning. But thank you very much for your thoughts though.

And no worries, I'll get back to this thread when done with the piece.

Cheers everyone... have a good week-end all... mine is about to start... LOL

 

[2pounder]

My 80/44 is marked as such but is aluminium, and I think it likely that any converted 80 would have it stamped on the outside. a brass fuze socket, black origonal paint and a red ring below the socket make it look like shrapnel. Weigh it, empty shrap are light, empty HE are heavey, both weigh about the same full. Its a bold assumption that the fuze is unfilled although I do have one empty but with all the gas escapes in place. It is very nice and it would be a pity to destroy it but even shrap was designed to kill and maim if it did not air burst.

 

[glevum]

The Drawing that Graeme posted states that the markings between 0 and 2 are omitted or blacked out on a 80/44.

So if you can see the markings between 0 and 2 and there are no traces of black paint then it would suggest it is a no. 80 fuze.

I can well understand why it is desireable to remove the percussion element from the 80 fuze when used in the AA role.

 

[butterfly]

The Drawing that Graeme posted states that the markings between 0 and 2 are omitted or blacked out on a 80/44.

So if you can see the markings between 0 and 2 and there are no traces of black paint then it would suggest it is a no. 80 fuze.

I can well understand why it is desireable to remove the percussion element from the 80 fuze when used in the AA role.

Excellent observation and looking back at the photos in the original post it would then appear to be a type 80 fuze, which then points to it being a shrapnel round........no doubt we will find out when it is 'dealt' with as appropriate.

I for one have learnt a lot in this thread, thankyou to everyone who has posted.

regards Kev

 

[Fr Cdn AT]

Well... evening everyone,

Earlier this week, we did a little bit of surgeries on few of our acquisitions... Here the result of this particular projectile.
It's was Shrapnel with a No. 80 Mk-VII fuze. Attach are pict of end results.

It's amazing what peoples can have in their basement or attic. By the way, sometime if a piece look to darn good... it might be real. So it was for the 3" mortar and 18 Pr. in the last pict. Moral of this is... make sure that your finding are FFE by proper authorities. Can you imagine what could happen in case of a fire??

Then again... it's allow to people like me to have fun with your stuff... :bigsmile: !!! It was a fun day...

Thank you again for everyone that posted on this thread. Knowledge is a key to succes.

Cheers to all.

Luc.

 

[EOD]

Moral of this is... make sure that your finding are FFE by proper authorities??

Discussed in length and to no avail.
Have seen such FFE from "proper authorities" being life. What is the moral of this?

BTW:
Why does the fourm server tell me that my message is too short when I try to post that bit above?

 

[spotter]

its not often when someone asks for an ID that we get to see the outcome,
thank you for showing it Luc...