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!

All steel 7.5cm Pak 40 hollow charge projectile

Burney Davis

Burney Davis

Moderator
Premium Member
I have attached a picture of a recently acquired 7.5cm pak 40 hollow charge projectile. It has a steel nose piece. I have seen and handled many HC projectiles over the years for different 7.5cm guns but never seen one that was all steel. Is there a specific designation for this and are there many others around? TIA.
 

Attachments

  • 1000047622.jpg
    1000047622.jpg
    964.4 KB · Views: 113
To my knowledge there was never any specific designation for the steel hood or any other type of material as there was for the driving bands (e.g. FES). At least I have never come across it. Personally I have only seen perhaps 2 or 3 of the all steel ones and only recognised them as such due to corrosion. I guess Zinc was also getting rare towards the end of 1944 and the manufacturing process for the drawn steel hood was reasonably faster and resource-saving.
 
high-value-target said:
To my knowledge there was never any specific designation for the steel hood or any other type of material as there was for the driving bands (e.g. FES). At least I have never come across it. Personally I have only seen perhaps 2 or 3 of the all steel ones and only recognised them as such due to corrosion. I guess Zinc was also getting rare towards the end of 1944 and the manufacturing process for the drawn steel hood was reasonably faster and resource-saving.
Click to expand...
I think you are most likely right in these being late war production. I've always thought they could have used steel rather than zinc alloy as standard.
 
That isn't normal - it should be full of stamps. Did you meassure the exact diameter? The steel nose piece isn't unusual.
 
The Czech nz40 fuze used with HEAT projectiles had 20x1 thread the AZ38 has 18x1 thread.
I do not recall seeing a Czech manufactured HEAT round in 75 mm. All post war manuals mention ex-German ammunition fitted with AZ38 fuze.

How about Hungarian, the 42M is quite a small fuze.

Bob.
 
It makes no sense to number the front ogival when there is no identical number on the cylindrical part.
In my opinion, it is a composite of several pieces...
Even the fuses diameter is larger compared to the diameter of the mouthpiece than it should be.
If I remember the piece I had in my hand, it is quite different..
Akon
 
AKON_ said:
It makes no sense to number the front ogival when there is no identical number on the cylindrical part.
In my opinion, it is a composite of several pieces...
Even the fuses diameter is larger compared to the diameter of the mouthpiece than it should be.
If I remember the piece I had in my hand, it is quite different..
Akon
Click to expand...
The fuze is a perfect fit for the top ogival piece (it simply isn't screwed down in the picture) and is an AZ38. I suspect that the round was originally rusty and removing the rust has perhaps reduced the surface by half a milimeter but not enough to remove markings if they were of the same type as the one that can be seen.

I have handled well over a dozen good condition HC projectiles in recent years and can confidently say that not all were marked with matching numbers (top and body) and some numbers were mismatched but definitely together from birth evidenced by original paint.

Anyway, my original question has been answered so thanks to all.
 
Burney Davis said:
The fuze is a perfect fit for the top ogival piece (it simply isn't screwed down in the picture) and is an AZ38. I suspect that the round was originally rusty and removing the rust has perhaps reduced the surface by half a milimeter but not enough to remove markings if they were of the same type as the one that can be seen.

I have handled well over a dozen good condition HC projectiles in recent years and can confidently say that not all were marked with matching numbers (top and body) and some numbers were mismatched but definitely together from birth evidenced by original paint.

Anyway, my original question has been answered so thanks to all.
Click to expand...
Hi Burney Davis
Can you post a photo where the numbering is only on the ogival piece +cylindrical part ? Or a photo cylindrical part are numbered (same or different number), all assuming the paint is intact, i.e. those that have been demonstrably not taken apart.
Thanks Akon.
 
The large diameter of the fuse for the AZ 38 type is definitely 24mm. I'm basing it on the documentation ...
Your sample on the left / Another sample.As you can certainly see, your front ogival (photo on the left) has a different diameter at the point of contact than the fuse diameter ... which logically implies to me that it is not adapted to the fuse diameter, which is definitely 24mm.
On the contrary, in the photo on the right you can see that the front ogival has the same diameter as the fuse diameter, i.e. 24mm.
Unfortunately, what I see cannot be unseen.
Akon
1752058686072.png1752059186371.png
 
Here is an example, sadly in crap (Infantry term) condition, at least as far as the zinc alloy nose cone is concerned, and the fuze as well, come to that, but I agree with Alpini that the body should be full of stamps, and possibly white paint markings as well. In addition, mine has a thin layer of protective varnish or lacquer, greenish in colour, extending over the body and base of the round and clearly original. I also agree with Akon_ from Enterprise, wherever that might be, that the AZ 38 fuze is precisely 24mm in diameter as measured. Not sure what Barney's fuze might be, unless there are significant variations that retain the same designation, and it certainly looks right. I have never heard or seen such, but others will know more than me.
Alan1DSCN1045[1].JPG
 
Hi Alan 1
I have one more supporting argument that tells me that it is assembled from multiple parts from other shell .i.e. deep corrosion is more or less absent on the cylindrical part - you can see how the material was removed with a knife during turning and these lines are not disturbed by deep corrosion. Unlike the front ogival where the corrosion is deep and surface (not local) and when I compare the body and the ogival it does not fit.
Then there was the idea whether it is not different with the AZ 38 St fuse and unfortunately it is not, it also has a 24mm body diameter.
So this direction also falls.
Akon
 
I thank Akon_ for his further explanation of thought processes.
Careful scrutiny of the picture bears out his view that this is a bitser, and I certainly believe that the body of the shell should be well marked with acceptance stamps and manufacturer's id codes etc. A quick check of a representative sample from my own collection attests to that.
I very much hope that Barney will continue with his enquiries and will come up with a positive id, or id's, as the case might be.
Alan1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top