Unknown 85mm Projectile

[EODGUY]

I have spent years trying to ID this projectile to no avail. Hopefully some member can shed some light on it. It is 3 3/8" (85mm) in diameter and 7.5" (190mm) long. The base is lead and designed to expand into rifling on firing. There is no rotating band. A large reverse threaded screw in the base holds it all together and tightens a moveable disc with one hole in it. Spaced around the inside of the lead obturator are the numbers 1 thru 5 embossed into the lead to denote firing delay times basaed on where the hole in the disc is aligned. A cavity in the projectile was filled with a bursting charge. You can see that the entire projectile comes apart to present 20 cavities where I assume 1/2" lead or steel balls were placed for fragmentation. The projectile is very heavy (9.6 pounds without the bursting charge or the 20 balls) and in my mind a very inefficient way to deliver a small fragmentation charge. The steel/cast iron projectile body is much to solid to fragment itself with the small explosive charge (no doubt black powder given the age) it contains.

 

[HAZORD]

Bob,

Quite the interesting projectile. It has similar qualities to the High Explosive Shrapnel designs used by the U.S. and French, with the layers of steel and lead balls, except those designs used less steel per layer and a nose fuze in a sealed powder chamber.

I see a real problem with this design, in that the high pressure hot propelling gasses could possibly get into the powder chamber from the projectile sidewall, between the layers of shrapnel. It would take time for the base to swage out into the rifling, and some gasses would get by the seal. You probably got the one example that they couldn't fire, when the preceeding round blew up the gun!

Thanks much for sharing! Very interesting!

John

 

[US-Subs]

The nose is different, but it looks similar in size and some aspects of design to the shrapnel projectile for the US 3.2-inch field gun. I'm on my way out the door right now for SLICS, but after I get back I can scan a copy of the page for you from the pub. If you cannot wait, its on page 56 from the 1914 Handbook of the 3.2-inch Field Battery.

 

[EODGUY]

I agree that the probability of functioning with any great success is not good. There would not be a problem with hot propellant gasses entering the explosive chamber of the projectile though. When properly assembled it is machined to a perfect fit externally and internally. The bursting charge is in a chamber in the middle of the projectile that is probaly a 1/4" thick and well protected from external heat. The nose is sold and I am pretty convinced that the small charge in such a solid heavy projectile would not do much to free the balls into much of a pattern. It certainly would not break up the nose section so if you were close enough to get hit by one of the small balls you no doubt were also introduced to some very large projectile pieces.

 

[2pounder]

odd shell

Cant identify it but suggest looking at patents around 1860 maybe a bit before to see who designed it. 2pr

 

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Spin Stabelized?

Bob,
Is this a spin stablelized shell? It is not from the Civil War period for sure. Base fuzed?
Regards,
Bart

 

[US-Subs]

The nose is different, but it looks similar in size and some aspects of design to the shrapnel projectile for the US 3.2-inch field gun. I'm on my way out the door right now for SLICS, but after I get back I can scan a copy of the page for you from the pub. If you cannot wait, its on page 56 from the 1914 Handbook of the 3.2-inch Field Battery.

As promised, here is some data on the 3.2-inch. I realize that the projectile shown is nowhere near a match, but with similarities in size, date of manufacture and some technical features (shrapnel separation plates, etc) it may be a step in the right direction.