British Shrapnel Projectile

[Eggburt1969]

Hi, can anyone ID this (presumed) British shrapnel shell found in the Falkland Islands.



From the first image its base diameter is approximately 110 mm. The fuze fitted seems to be a No. 80 series, so a 2 inch fuze well.

I've had a look and the closest I could find was the 4.5 Inch Mark I shrapnel, a diagram below.


The one found seems to have a the later shorter 'Plain' driving band with a serrated edge, which is like a No 10, and not the Vavasseur No. 3 its supposed to have. It may be that on firing the grooves have on the No. 3 band have closed up, but I'd expect to at least see some evidence of they prior format. Anyway, images of various driving bands below and their source.



Treatise on Ammunition (1915)



O.U. 5267 - Ammunition Pocket Book (1924)

Also, the 4.5-inch model should have been fitted with a No. 82 series fuze and this would seem to have an aforementioned No. 80 series.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

PS: does anyone know if the books on British Artillery Ammunition and Fuzes by David J Ibbetson are still purchasable?

 

[MINENAZ16]

Hello,
Looking at the proportions with the fuze, this shrapnel shell seems smaller than 4.5in and more streamlined.
British made a 4.5in shrap with small (economic) driving band but fitted higher.
The general shape (+ band + fuze NO80) makes me think to a 3.7in mountain howitzer shell.
Pictures and diagrams of early 3.7 shrapnel models I have does not match exactly (less streamlined).
Maybe I'm wrong but this the first idea I had, the general shape is very close to the 3.7 HE I know.

HE



Maybe they made a longer streamlined shrapnel model.
Herewith the short shrapnel (different from the shell to Id) :

 

[Darkman]

Well needless to say, although it's been fired, the shell appears to be still filled with shrapnel balls and presumably still live. You know what needs to be done.
Fuze may have failed to ignite as the gas escape holes are still closed. it's a No. 80 Mk VI, VII or XI, so about 1917 onwards. As you say, No. 80 fuzes not usually fitted to 4.5" shells, but functionally similar, so anything's possible.

Was there an inter-war/WW2 streamlined 4.5" How shrapnel? No. 80 Mk XI fuze used during WW2.

 

[Vasco Da Gama]

If the projectile was found in the Falkland Islands don’t forget about the 4in Naval guns which where mounted around Port Stanley harbour. They were Naval weapons, but mounted on concrete bases to defend the harbour entrance. I think they dated from the First World War after the Battle of the Falklands. They were still in place in the 1980s when I stood next to one!
I think there was a shrapnel shell approved for at least some of these guns, Mk5, and a No80 fuze is mentioned. It would be logical to provide these guns with shrapnel shell to defend against any landing of marines to destroy the harbour installations, coal stores etc.

 

[Eggburt1969]

Don't worry about its UXO status Darkman as it was found during clearance of the Falklands by EOD personnel some (4-5 years) ago. I'm purely trying to ID images of it that are marked up as a '13-pr', which is most certainly doesn't seem to be.

Yes MINENAZ16, the shrapnel shell for the 3.7 inch Mountain Howitzer looks very similar, but the nose construction and nose taper (ogive) seem to be wrong unfortunately. The normal fuzing is wrong too, being the standard being the No 82 series.

View attachment 170679


Yes Vasco Da Gama, I did look at 4 inch shells too. There's 4 inch Mk I and a Mk II shrapnel shell listed in the Treatise on Ammunition (1915), but no images unfortunately. These shells were listed in the aforementioned treatise for following guns: 4-inch B.L. Marks VII and VIII*; 4-inch Q.F. Heavy Marks IV and V. The shells are stated to be like the 2.75 Inch B.L. Shrapnel Mark I in construction, but not exactly the same. An image of the aforementioned shell below.

View attachment 170680


Differences between the 2.75 inch and the 4 inch shells are stated to be that the latter has: a separate wood-lined head with a felt washer, which is attached to the body by rivets and twisted pins. It doesn’t say if it's a mostly straight-walled projectile, or that it has a more aerodynamic ogival nose, nor does it mentioned if it has a base plug.

The 4-inch shrapnel shells are also stated to have a 2 inch fuze well, but the aforementioned treatise only lists the No.80 series fuzes with shrapnel shells for the 4-inch Q.F. Heavy Mark IV. It doesn't mention the 4-inch Q.F. Heavy Mark V in the fuzing area, but I guess we can presume its shrapnel shells can also use the No. 80 series too.

 

[Eggburt1969]

Seems those images didn't work for some reason (though they showed fine before)? Anyway, here they are again.



2.75 Inch B.L. Shrapnel Mark I Sectional Diagram



3.7-inch Mountain Howitzer Shrapnel Diagram