What's new
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!

3.7in APCBC

It should, but in all my 35 years of collecting I haven't seen one APCBC or even an AP for the 3,7".
 
I have an AP for the 3.7", unfired but very rusty. It's in my 'to do' pile!

I'm also still looking for a No.199 fuze for it's HE stablemate!
 
Last edited:
Yes, but Mk1 was not introduced until about 1948/9 and was packed in the waterproofed Cylinder Steel C333 universal package, which was produced because the waterproofed temporary jungle pack, Cylinder Steel C268 Mk 1, was not long enough to accommodate the increased shot length of the APCBC. Most of this info comes from User Handbook Anti-Aircraft Ammunition 1949 (I believe someone on this site has a later edition which may contain more). Only Mk 1 appears in this publication.

There are also Marks 2 and 3 packed in C333. This universal package held all shell and shot 3.7" AA cartridge types. A steel spacer was dropped down inside the cylinder to keep the APCBC shot from impacting the end of the cylinder and less packing pieces were used at the cartridge case end. This info came from early 1950s technical publications, which by this time declared the Mk 1 obsolete.

Primer Clips Nos 31 and 37.
 
AE501 said:
...Most of this info comes from User Handbook Anti-Aircraft Ammunition 1949 (I believe someone on this site has a later edition which may contain more). Only Mk 1 appears in this publication.[...]
.
Click to expand...

Ditto, just the Mark 1 mentioned in the much poorer 1960 edition and the 1951 Equipment Handbook does not mention ammunition at all. No mention of the APCBC shot in Indian Regulations (like our RAOS).
 
I think they were introduced due our relatively feeble tank and anti-tank guns at that time which were likely to have to engage vast numbers of Russian T 34/85s and T34/100s.
 
AE501 said:
I think they were introduced due our relatively feeble tank and anti-tank guns at that time which were likely to have to engage vast numbers of Russian T 34/85s and T34/100s.
Click to expand...

Bill,
Is it the same projectile as the 32 Pdr?
 
Yes. All three marks were used, but the case was different because it was a separate cartridge.
I should have said T54/100 in my comment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top