Quatermass
Well-Known Member
Yet another bit of confusion. Hogg's book on British & American Artillery mentions a "Shell, HE Mk 2T" which was a pointed shell with a Base Percussion Fuze. I recall hearing about this one before: a very rare item from the late 1930s. If memory serves me right, there was a very similar late-war Australian shell used for bunker-busting in the Pacific war. These shells had much thicker bodies than the Pom pom HE, so could well have been both shorter and heavier.
To complicate matters further, the 40mm S Gun as fitted to Hurricane IID and IV ground attack planes (which of course used the 40x158R No.1 case) had its own HE shell, the HE Mk III.T which weighed 844 g - compared with c.750 g for the Pom pom HV shell, and 1,080 g quoted for the No.2 HE. My head is beginning to ache...
I think I may slowly be groping towards a conclusion here. There would seem to be two very different British 2 pdr HE shells used in the tank/AT No.2 case in WW2. The first was the base-fuzed shell which was short but heavy; the second was the nose-fuzed shell which was (probably) the same as the Pom Pom HV. The data for these two types seems to have become mixed up.
I think its worth posting Hoggs description in full:
Shell, HE, Mk 2T. Contrary to many published statements, there was a high-explosive shell for the 2pdr gun, though it appears not to have been issued to tanks. It was a pointed shell with a small filling of TNT and a Base Percussion fuze No. 243. Its penetrative performance was zero, since it was intended for attacking soft vehicles and defended positions.
This is a bit of a confusing statement from Hogg, he seems to be describing two separate projectiles, a pointed shell but one that doesnt penetrate? The fuze 243 isnt a base fuze its the 2 PR AA nose fuse.
And under his description of the 2 PR anti aircraft gun:
Shell, 2pdr, HE, HV, Mk IT. This was the same shell as was used with the anti-tank gun, but filled with TNT and fitted with a percussion Fuze No. 243. A tracer No. 7 or No. 10 was screwed into the base, and gave self-destruction to the shell.
The above isnt mentioned under his description of 2 PR tank ammunition, is this what he was referring to in his description of the Shell, HE, Mk 2T.?
Just as an aside The '2 PR Shell. AP.T Mk I.' projectile, filled and fuzed weights 2 lb. 6 oz. Coincidence? (it must be said that none of the other data posted by Tony from the Ammunition Information Manual No.9 matches the details of 2 PR AP shell).
Has anybody got any primary evidence of the Australian Bunker buster APHE shell? I've read reference to it in books but Ive never seen one or seen it mentioned in any manuals. Did it exist? its not in the regulations for army ordnance services ammunition pamphlet covering the 2 PR Mk 9A, 10A and 10B guns. (the pamphlet includes both in service and obsolete rounds).
Last edited: