37mm 1-Pdr Projectile

[ydnum303]

Hi all,

I recently acquired the 1-Pdr projectile shown. It has all the usual British military stamps on it, and was made by VSM in January 1915. It was in a blank case; I assume that was not the original case, but only for show.


Other than a brief mention in an article in the "Armourer" magazine by John Carlin some years ago, I can find no reference to this projectile at all. It is not referrred to in the 1915 ammunition textbook. In his article, John C seems to imply that this projectile was loaded into the shorter Mk.III Gun case. Can anyone confirm this, please, or indicate whether it was used in the ordinary 37x94R case? Any information at all would be welcome. The proj seems to have been painted black, but this has all been polished off except at the nose, where there is the remains of a white ring. Hopefully our experts (Gordon? Norman?) can help. Thanks in advance
Roger.

 

[Gspragge]

It looks like you have a MKl or is the mark above 1Pr unclear, it looks like just 1 though ?

Other examples of this have been thought to be a tracer and maybe, depending on what is screwed into it
that is possible, though you certainly have a fuze. Your projectile has a recessed fuze well like the 1 1/2pr MKlll. The 1 Pr MK1 & MKll don't.

We know what the MK1 AP is and the MK1 Day Tracer, so if yours and the others are a MKl 1 then MK1 What ?

I show the MK1 day tracer in the drawing, (the MKll seems to be a copy of the German tracer, with a screw in base plate and flat tip from an image I have been sent also dated 1915.) So maybe these are strictly Day Tracers.

Though there is a series of H.E. / D.T. Marks 1,2 & 3 thought these are noted as being for the MKlll gun and are the short type of 1 pr.

So I hope some one else can add some clarity to this ! It is confusing indeed.

images, left to right, drawing MKl Day Tracer, MKll Penetrating (AP), MKl Penetrating (AP).

 

[Bonnex]

Roger,

I have a close match with almost identical markings although dated 4.3.15 and it is missing the base 'fuze' but it did arrive in a short case which, incidently, is marked VSM II (but I am fairly sure they did not start life togther). I have never satisfactorily concluded its affiliation. There is an entry in the Ordnance Board Annual Report for 1915 which reads:

"
1-pr. Q.F. C.P. Shells for Auto-gun; Vickers' Design 41,264G

Messrs Vickers, 4.11.14, forwarded to CIW design 41,264G of CP to which they would manufacture 14,000 shells on order for their 1-pr, automatic gun.

CIW, 24.11.14, stated that the design differed considerably from approved Service designs, the radius head being 2 calibres and there being no front steadying band.

Messrs Vickers, 30.11.14, forwarded designs 42,927G, showing details of 1-pr CP shell and 42,643G, showing filling.

...

CIW, 19.1.15, proposed limits of weight for 1-pr empty shells should be + or - 1 1/2 drs.,...

D of A, 11.2 15, approved. "

I have looked this OB entry wondering whether or not the shell I have is that referred to but I have not weighed the shell (it is sectioned anyway), nor have I worked out the 2 calibre stuff. The date of yours, predating the approval, might scupper the idea anyway now.

Sorry this is not particularly helpful.

 

[Gspragge]

I think the problem is

That these projectiles seem to be marked as a MKl and we have no gaps for it to fit into as a MKl ?

 

[Bonnex]

That these projectiles seem to be marked as a MKl and we have no gaps for it to fit into as a MKl ?

Heartily agreed with. One day we will work it out... (perhaps).

 

[ydnum303]

Gordon and Norman,

Thanks to both of you for this helpful info.

This proj is clearly marked with an "I" over the "I PR", so obviously a Mk.1 something. The rear side has a plethora of broad arrows and Inspector's stamps, so it was presumably accepted for service, despite its much shallower head radius and lack of centring band.

Norman, which "1-Pdr Automatic Gun" is the O.B. Annual Report referring to, the "ordinary" type, or the Mk.III version for the short case?

For information, my example weighs 455 grams on the kitchen scales!

Roger.

 

[Bonnex]

Gordon and Norman,

Thanks to both of you for this helpful info.

This proj is clearly marked with an "I" over the "I PR", so obviously a Mk.1 something. The rear side has a plethora of broad arrows and Inspector's stamps, so it was presumably accepted for service, despite its much shallower head radius and lack of centring band.

Norman, which "1-Pdr Automatic Gun" is the O.B. Annual Report referring to, the "ordinary" type, or the Mk.III version for the short case?

For information, my example weighs 455 grams on the kitchen scales!

Roger.

Roger,

The filling design mentioned in the OB extract called for 520 grains of cordite. I think this is too much for the Mark III gun which weighed in at just 150 pounds. The other 1 Pr guns (Mark I, I*, I**, I*** & II) were heavier at about 410 pounds. I dont know the charge weight for the Mk III cartridges but I expect it was around 300 grains.

Having said that the shell could have been mated up with the short case, it is just that the OB entry I referred to is unlikely to be for the Mark III gun (unfortunately).

 

[Gspragge]

If you put it in a short case and the over all length is longer than the known shorter projectiles in the short case it would then be unlikely for the MKlll gun. The Maxim feed does not have much wiggle room because if the round has any room to position forward, the breech won't pick it up and 1/8" - 1/4" would be enough to misfeed. So it is most likely a longer round than the short one would not fit into the feed at all.

 

[Bonnex]

I accept that Gordon. Mine is sitting in a short case (it came that way) and is overall 5 1/2 inches which is much the same as the 131 fuzed cartridge/round next to it. I have to say however that the projectile is rather generously forced into the case, probably by an extra 1/4 inch, which is why I suspect it was not the original pairing.

 

[ydnum303]

Thank you again Gordon and Norman, for this additional information, which I found very useful.

The 2 rounds for the Mk.III gun that I have been able to measure are each about 136mm long overall. If this new proj was put in the short case it would have an OAL of about 142mm. So it would be nearly 1/4" longer, which from what Gordon says would be sufficient to cause a mis-feed in that gun. So it looks like it should be in the longer (94mm) case. Now, if only I can find a 1915-dated specimen to put it in...

Roger.

 

[2pounder]

To me, bearing in mind the date concerned, even if the aircraft gun was used in the ground attack role which is highly unlikely, there was no need for a penetrating type projectile. Against aircraft they went to great lengths to make a fuze that would work against a very thin aircraft constuction, a pointed shell would come out the other side before it went off so to me not likely. I would think its for ground use or naval against thin armour ie artillery shields or pill boxes.