AT contact mine fuze No3 MK...

[MINENAZ16]

Hello,
I'm lookimg for the Mk of this No3 fuze (marking on top "3DM" + broad arrow)
Same top diameter as MkII but different shape.
Same shape as MkI but with a smaller diameter on top (45mm) (MkII : 56mm)




MkI and MkII :

 

[spotter]

Used to find these when i was working, have this photo both have the same markings No3 I AS&CO but both different sizes

 

[MINENAZ16]

Thank you.
So same Mk (MKI) with 2 different sizes (uncommon for British ordnance).
Mine was found in Normandy (ww2 area).

 

[spotter]

Just had a look on Lex's site , he has a photo of a smaller mkII clearly marked II
https://www.lexpev.nl/fuzesandigniters/unitedkingdom/contactminefuzeno3.html

 

[MINENAZ16]

Yes, pictures above come from lex's site. I thought mine was a MkII but on this website I noticed a different shape of the top.

 

[TimG]

Fuze, Mine, Contact, A.Tk., No. 3

Mark I - Die cast alloy body.
Mark II - Differs principally from the Mk. I fuze in having a cast iron body.
Mark III - Differs principally from the Mk. II fuze in having a zinc base alloy body of slightly different internal form.
Mark IV & V - Alloted to India
Mark VI - Differs from the Mk. IIIB fuze in having a solid top plate of zinc base alloy.

Letter 'B' after the mark denotes that the fuze has been modified by fitting a watertight rubber sealing ring at the joint between the striker and the body. The striker stem is reduced in diameter to prevent the ring restricting the movement of the striker.

Your fuze was manufactured in 1943 - '3DM' It would appear from the photo's in RAOS Vol. 4, Pam 15 Mks I, II & III were all being produced in 1943. The photo's are not sufficiently detailed to show any body size. The Mk VI is shown as being 1.80" in diameter.

TimG

 

[MINENAZ16]

Thank you TimG.

And this one, is it a No3 ? (not a MkI (big and small), not a MkII)

 

[TimG]

Mark IIIB missing, amongst other items, the steel cup that surrounds the head of the striker. The main body of the Mk III(B) and Mk VI, unlike the Mk I & II were hollow and had six radial diaphragms supporting the striker well. Presumably this was done in the interests of material economy.

TimG