4.7 inch HOW no.65(?) fuse "CF" marking?

[DOODLE]

Need some help on this one guys,

I bought this one, beeing a British (navy?) 4,7 inch Howitzer.
The fuse shoud be an no.65?




But what does the CF on top and on the brass neck mean?


Timeline goes from 0-60 (T 60->0)
Bottom ring with data is as follow: 10/08 R/|\II 28 P


And why is it so hard to find some info on these early fuses?


Here in Belgium they call those (in Flemish) "Boutekoppen" or "Bolt-heads"
(Not to confuse with "lightning bolt" altough I need some "enlightenment" on this )


Thanks.

 

[Dronic69]

According to my limited records, No 65 fuses were more commonly used on 2.95" up to 4" shrapnel and both time rings had scale markings.

Further it states that either a No 62 or a No 64 were deployed with 4.7" up to 10" shrapnel.

From the first photo, it appears that the upper time ring is blank - has no time scale /markings, which was more commonly found on earlier double time rings introduced after the No 56 fuse - ie No 60, 60c & 62.

Could you post close ups of the fuse, including the markings?

"CF" has more meaning wrt to shell casings (Charge Full) rather than fuses and I have not seen this on these types of fuses before.

The "bolt-head" may refer to the nut shape top, which was tighten once the fuse had the time ring set.

Thanks
Cheers
Drew

 

[Fusse2004]

Wrong department !!!!!:thumpdown:

 

[DOODLE]

@Dronic69
More pics of the fuse. I can even disassemble it.



@Fusse2004: My main focus is on the fuse, that's why I opened a topic here. But
maybe it had a better place in "identification". If so, my apologies.

 

[spotter]

moved post from Bomb Fuzes,Pistols etc to correct forum FUZES (Non Airdropped)

 

[MINENAZ16]

Hello,

No65 is different, thinner and graduated to 44.

Your fuze looks like a No62 MkII.

Regards.

 

[Dronic69]

Yep I would have to agree with Minenaz16 that it is most likely a No 62, which replaced the No 54 and also had a characteristic "step" above the thread as shown below. It appears to be wider diameter (although not as wide as the No 54) and the double time ring examples I have of the No 65 etc only have a max of 44 secs markings, not 60 secs

Both the No 54 & No 62 were design for the larger calibers (4.7" to 10") which explains the longer burn time (further distance).

Unfortunately I'm unable to post a photo nor find a suitable diagram of the No 62.

Cheers
Drew

 

[MINENAZ16]

Diagram :

 

[DOODLE]

Thank you both for the info.
And I still hope to find out what that CF mark means.

'Till the next one.

cheers

 

[collector]

Could it not mean:
Component Factory
As during WWI every part came from a National Component Factory.

Or it might mean Filling factory: No. 10 or 21 NFF Coventry - Foleshill

Just thinking out loud.

Robert

 

[hangarman]

Might be slightly off track but CF on a 233 fuze stood for "Combined Filling" to designate dual function.
Cheers
Gary

 

[Bonnex]

There was some work done to improve the reliability of the timing and I think (refs not to hand right now) the 1917 and 1918 OB Annual Reports refer to trials with a 'Charcoal Free' powder but which one of the 'Clamping Fuzes' this was I will have look up when I can. Just to add to the list Royal Naval Depot Cardiff used CF as a monogram. Given this mark is not commonplace on fuzes I am inclined to think it is likely to do with a trial.

 

[DOODLE]

Thank you all so far for thinking along.
@Bonnex: I'll note this explanation of yours and I'll ask a friend
of mine about this.