US 4" Stokes mortar?????

[Jawasinger]

Picked these two mortars up a few months back thinking they were 4" stokes but acouple other opinions are they are early 4.2" mortars any help would be gratefully appreciated THANK YOU in advance.

 

[US-Subs]

Kind of looks like a cross-over piece. The Stokes did not have a threaded/grooved tail boom, but the "nut" at the top of the boom does not look typical of the 4.2. The base of the body also looks unusual in that I don't see a copper plater for obturation. One of your photos seems to show remains of an ignition cartridge, is there a headstamp on it? The fragmentation of the bodies is certainly typical of a liquid fill, but that would be normal for either 4-inch or 4.2-inch.

 

[Jawasinger]

no ignition carts were found in the booms. The range clearance produced everything from 3" stokes to old style 60, 81, and 4.2" mortars. There are still a few more acres to clear maybe well get lucky with some more clues.

 

[US-Subs]

Must be my old eyes, the top right photo on your first post looked plugged. Here is a comparison of the bases on my 4-inch (L) and an early 4.2-inch M2, hope it helps.

 

[Draoich]

Kind of looks like a cross-over piece. The Stokes did not have a threaded/grooved tail boom, but the "nut" at the top of the boom does not look typical of the 4.2. The base of the body also looks unusual in that I don't see a copper plater for obturation. One of your photos seems to show remains of an ignition cartridge, is there a headstamp on it? The fragmentation of the bodies is certainly typical of a liquid fill, but that would be normal for either 4-inch or 4.2-inch.

Hi,
I wonder are there any remains of internal vanes in these shells? According to the US 3-volume history of the Chemical WarfareService (published in 1959 by the US Army's Office of Military History), thedesign of shell for the 4.2 inch rifled mortar included internal vanes toprevent liquid fillings from surging as a result of firing forces. Here is a photo I have on file for a sectioned US 4.2 Inch chemical shell.

 

[Jawasinger]

nope no vanes remain in side and I haven't seen any scrap pieces of aluminum that would resemble a vane. What about the threads on the front or top end? Some threads are left I can get a pic tomorrow it seems like it would accept a large fuze adapter or plate like on a stokes, but we haven't found any whole pieces like that laying around either.

 

[HAZORD]

The internal baffles I've seen for 4.2 inch chemical rounds were steel, not aluminum.