18 pdr shell.

[ydnum303]

Hi All,

I have recently acquired what appears to be an 18-pdr HE shell body, as shown in the photo.
The only markings on the body are the letters Z S, L19, and the "broad arrow in oval", plus two inspectors marks at top and bottom.
There is no calibre designation, type or Mark number, date, or "BS" or "FS".

I am assuming that the "L 1 9" is a Lot number, and that the "Z S" is a maker's mark, but if so, who are they?

The length of the body is 9.4", the diameter 3.29", and the diameter over the driving band is 3.37". The internal cavity is about 2" in diameter, and approximately 8.62" deep from the mouth of the shell.

I think that this is probably a Mk.II or Mk.III shell.

Why only half the markings it should have? Are they not all stamped on at the same time? (Not the inspector's marks, obviously.)

It came with the transit plug shown, which the vendor swore was original to the shell, but I suspect is later, as it is a No.8 Mk.III.

Can anyone give me any further information on this shell, please?

Thanks in advance,

Roger.

 

[Darkman]

Hi All,

I have recently acquired what appears to be an 18-pdr HE shell body, as shown in the photo.View attachment 195324
The only markings on the body are the letters Z S, L19, and the "broad arrow in oval", plus two inspectors marks at top and bottom.
There is no calibre designation, type or Mark number, date, or "BS" or "FS".

I am assuming that the "L 1 9" is a Lot number, and that the "Z S" is a maker's mark, but if so, who are they?

The length of the body is 9.4", the diameter 3.29", and the diameter over the driving band is 3.37". The internal cavity is about 2" in diameter, and approximately 8.62" deep from the mouth of the shell.

I think that this is probably a Mk.II or Mk.III shell.

Why only half the markings it should have? Are they not all stamped on at the same time? (Not the inspector's marks, obviously.)

It came with the transit plug shown, which the vendor swore was original to the shell, but I suspect is later, as it is a No.8 Mk.III.

Can anyone give me any further information on this shell, please?

Thanks in advance,

Roger.

Yes, 18 Pr HE. Unstamped because it was possibly rejected near to final completion stage.

 

[Gspragge]

Very interesting plug, I've never seen one like that before. I would suspect for a larger projectile perhaps ?

 

[ydnum303]

Very interesting plug, I've never seen one like that before. I would suspect for a larger projectile perhaps ?

Yes, as all the transit plugs I have seen on 18-Pdr shells have been without the lifting ring. AFAIK, these are used on heavier shells. The maker's mark is F B & S. Can anyone tell me who this is, and when this No.8 plug was introduced?

If the "Z S" on the shell is the maker's mark, who are they? Someone must know! (TimG, perhaps?).

Roger.

 

[Darkman]

ZS is more likely the steel supplier with Lot 19. The broad arrow in a circle is associated with steel transfer/acceptance

 

[ydnum303]

ZS is more likely the steel supplier with Lot 19. The broad arrow in a circle is associated with steel transfer/acceptance

Are you sure about the steel-supplier mark? None of the 18-Pdr projectiles I have seen (all in the UK) have had such a mark. The various Treatises on ammunition do not mention such a stamp, but do say that the maker's mark should be on there. The style of the stampings on this one are not similar to others I have seen, and are far fewer than I would expect. Are your Australian ones like mine?

Roger.