Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    373
    Thanked 235 Times in 128 Posts

    British no 211 fuze

    As I understand it, the no 211 is the naval version of the no 208, which itself was a modification of the no 207. I have not found any reference to it's use. My question is which gun would this have been used with? Would it have been the 3.7", 4.5" or 5.25" AA guns for instance? Also, did the 3.7" AA gun ever enter naval service?

    Thanks in advance.
    Always looking for projectiles, cases, fuzes and paperwork related to Burney and Davis guns.

  2. #2
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks
    499
    Thanked 1,076 Times in 608 Posts
    The 208 & 211 differed from the 207 in that they had an integral CE magazine, whereas the 207 used a separate gaine.

    The 211 was used in HE shells 4" - 8" and Target Smoke Shell 5.25" and below.

    There is no apparent record of the 3.7" AA Gun being used aboard vessels of the fleet (ignoring D. Day and kindred specials).

    TimG

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to TimG For This Useful Post:

    Depotman (21st July 2019)

  4. #3
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    291
    Thanks
    154
    Thanked 113 Times in 59 Posts
    I have slightly different info on the No. 211 from an unpublished Ian Hogg source:

    211 Fuze, Time, Mechanical, No 211
    Design NOD 4181. Krupp-Thiel mechanism, 43 seconds running time. The naval version of the Fuze No 208, used only with 525in AA guns in HM ships. Graduated 00-21. It was fitted with a direct action head in place of the nose cap in 1951 and then became the Fuze, T&P N3. See OB Proc Q6989.
    Mk 1 §B4561 of 12/6/1941
    No record of obsoletion

    Regards, Depotman

  5. #4
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks
    499
    Thanked 1,076 Times in 608 Posts
    The Navy may well have called it NOD 4181 in order to disguise its heritage, but it was/had been DD/L/9300C and the 208 was DD/L/9300B. It was probably the DD/L/ they didn't like.

    Following is an extract from BR 932 Handbook of Ammunition 1945 (Royal Navy)

    211.jpg

    TimG

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to TimG For This Useful Post:

    Rrickoshae (17th August 2019)

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top