Printable View
Hi all. I obtained this ordinance and am having a hard time identifying it. It measures 6" across and is 23.75 inches long not including the tip. (Which I don't have. I have the loop that screws in for lifting.) It weighs 75 pounds. There is no hole in the bottom for a tracer function. It's flat and solid. Could it be from a Howitzer?
It is 152.4mm and is hollowed out for explosives I presume.
Sounds about right...152 or 155...hard for me to tell without having it in hand. Looks about right.
If you convert this size to an imperial dimension it works out at 6" exactly. I wonder if it could be naval because I believe it was a common calibre for cruisers of the Royal Navy during the WW2 period and beyond?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggunsarebetter
I would say it is a 155mm M101 just looking at the driving band set up on the web one and the OP's.
My thoughts too, I had one for a spell, found out in the firing area and an obvious base ejecting projectile that was obviously empty...it was in my collection for a couple years until it's sheer size demanded it move out. I'd love to have it now though...that I'm done moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
That empty shell is quite likely from an illumination round. They make a funny whoop whoop sound as they tumble after the flare is ejected. An M48A3 tank turret rings like a freaking church bell when hit by one!!! A 155 battery was providing flares for some fire base and our company was in "area C" where the empties came down. 105 Howitzer and 4.2 mortar flares do much the same. Our battalion mortar guys, at least, had the courtesy to call and let us know to button up first if the flare canisters were likely to hit around us.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Yes, it even still had the VT fuze attached, ruined of course. I was infantry for 35 years and saw lots. Just not the 155mm. I was 81 mm mortar pl for a while so we fired lots of Illum...Quote:
Originally Posted by old tanker
Cinders, are you able to explain how the shell can be for a 155mm gun when it only measures up as 152.4mm in diameter? To quote a precise dimension such as this (152.4mm) I assume that Biggunsarebetter has measured the shell accurately with vernier callipers or a micrometer, unless he has extremely good eyesight. I recognised the figure of 152.4mm as equating to 6" as soon as I read it but it is easy to check/convert by dividing 152.4 by 25.4 which gives 6 in this example.
The reason that I suggested naval is because it was a commonly used calibre of gun used on cruisers of the Royal Navy and Commonwealth navies during WW2 and beyond. A good example of this is HMS Belfast, now a museum ship, which was originally part of the "Town class" of cruisers and their main armaments consisted of 12X 6" guns mounted in 4 triple turrets. After hitting a magnetic mine in 1939 and nearly being lost, HMS Belfast was substantially rebuilt into a class of her own (improved), featuring many alterations and improvements but still retaining her main armament of 12X 6" guns that she has to this day.
I'm wondering...there should actually be stampings on it to disclose what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Does anyone know anything about US Naval artillery? I believe that they use/used shells of 6" or roundabout 6" for the main armament on some of their warships too which could be another possibility?
I looked at the BL 6" on the British Naval Cruisers and they looked nothing like the G profile of that particular projectile, a further point is the OP does not state where the 152.4mm measurement was taken the body or the driving band I found these but again the profile is wrong I have not tried the Russian side of things besides we have not got a YOM of it.
Thank you for your reply. I did measure it with calipers. There are no markings nor stamping so on the shell. I'm going to study the HMS Belfast now. I love this stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Yes, the CL (light cruisers) used 6" guns, mostly in triple turrets that resembled battleship configuration.
One of her sister ships, HMS Edinburgh, was sunk during WW2 while transporting Russian gold which was later salvaged in more recent times. I have personally seen the ship's bell from HMS Edinburgh which now resides in the Scottish War museum, Edinburgh Castle. The bell shows some signs of "battle damage" which I assume was caused during the loss of the ship and while looking at it, it made me think of the losses at sea on the Russian convoys; a reality of war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggunsarebetter
Link to photo of the bell: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....179#post413179
If the shell accurately measures up as 6" or 152.4mm, if you prefer, then surely it has to be a 6" shell. I don't see how it can somehow morph into something larger such as a 155mm shell. A 6" British naval shell is just a suggestion because it was commonly used but it could equally well be a U.S. naval shell or it could be a shell for field artillery.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
If someone is able to explain why a shell that measures 6"/152.4mm in diameter is in reality something bigger, please, would they give an explanation here.
Nope, we were still working out had it been measured and with what...but I don't think it's metric, it would be inch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Here is an excerpt from TM9-1000-202-14 "Evaluation of Cannon Tubes" A new 155 mm howitzer tube measures 6.100 inches.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g1zoom3h-1.jpg
If you have need to inspect 120 mm, 155 mm and 8 inch gun tubes, you're in luck...
Ebay: Cannon Tube Pullover Gage
So if we take the 6.1" diameter dimension and convert it back into a metric size by multiplying by 25.4, this time, (6.1 X 25.4) it gives 154.94mm diameter.
An ordinance is a U.S. law. What you have is ordnance.
"...6" across..." Indicates a 6" gun.
"...how the shell can be for a 155mm gun when..." A 155mm gun's diameter is 6.1". Like rifle cartridges, projectile diameter doesn't always have to do with nomenclature. A 6" naval gun's diameter is 152mm. And the projectile weighs over 100 pounds. Whereas a 155mm howitzer's projectile weighs 90 to 100 pounds. The filler(may or may not be explosives) runs less than 20 pounds.
It sure looks like the 155mm I had...
Are you sure the "152mm" hasn't been rounded down to the nearest whole figure from the actual metric equivalent of 152.4mm (6"), a common practice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
Are you both saying that a 155mm shell needs 2.6mm/3mm clearance between it an the barrel? It seems a lot of clearance. Yes there are the drive bands but don't forget about the gaps in the rifling to fill/seal.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I am quite sure once they have rammed the projectile home either by pole or in Naval craft a hydraulic rammer and they set the charges off the bands will obturate quite well as they are in the lede of the rifling not the rifling proper if they tried that lark of no lede it would probably burst the barrel due to a huge pressure spike trying to force the projectile to start the engraving process by the rifling.
Besides the clearances we are talking about is only 1.3mm each side a minuscule amount considering the size of the projectile the driving bands will easily take that slack up when it obturates, same as our rifles but on a bigger grander scale. anyway besides there is always blow-by in every weapon except maybe an air rifle where it would be counter productive for velocity.
The weight of 75lbs empty fits with certain types 155's having @25lb of H.E in them
No, I said it sure looks like the 155mm I had. A boat tailed projectile with that drive band and ogive...whether it is or not remains to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Does someone not have a shell that is known to be 155mm that can be accurately measured with vernier callipers or a micrometer, please?
I think those use charge bags and don't have a casing. Imagine manhandling an already 100 lb projectile with a case and charges...all measuring a meter in length...trying to hand ram. Here's a link so you can better see. https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthrea...rtillery/page5Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Or do you mean the projectile?
I don't have any big calibre projectiles but have definately measured some BIG bores of anti-tank guns, 3", 76mm, 81mm, 3", 2":, 51mm 20 pounder, (learned on 25 pounder) 105mm and 120mm ordnance and in reality, as told by several here who have/might have actually done the same bore gauging with the old rods and vernier plates or electronic I/C's, the bore size is not relative to the actual designation. Yep....., quarters of EFC life and all that palava............
Depends if you quote to the nearest whole figure when you list the metric or imperial conversion, not everybody does, and if you do to how many decimal places you quote the conversion to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
F-10...... Been there, done it, measured and calibrated plenty of them........ Mortars and tanks mostly
PL.,.......Been there, done it, with regard to imperial measurement, to metric conversion and vice versa, being doing it for years and years and years. Seen errors occur when people take it upon themselves to round up or down the figures in the conversion, without telling anyone. The classic example is when U.S. technical/engineering drawings come to the U.K., they tend to be dimensioned imperially, or the last example I saw was, a few years ago. As the U.K. tends to work to metric sizes mostly nowadays, in industry, you sometimes see people doing their own, unofficial metric, version of the drawing. You have to watch how the metric figure has been expressed to be sure that it hasn't been rounded up or down, either to a whole figure, or just to one decimal place, when accuracy demands that the figure should have been expressed to two decimal places.
I think the point here is the Army or Ordenence section will call it 155mm not 154.94" imagine a FOP calling in "20 rounds H.E 154.94mm, Fire for effect." 155mm rolls of the tongue allot better besides rounding up & down has been with us for eons and unless some Arty types can conclusively identify the projectile we could go on for ever and a day trying to surmise this one out.
Allot of the stuff used is heavilly stencilled denoting it designation they would never put unidentified ordnence out to the troops which could lead to a calamity surely!
Found this on Wiki; which I think pretty much settles it I'm out........................
The M107 155mm projectile was the standard 155mm high explosive (HE) projectile for ... (12.7 lb); Length (excluding fuze): 605.3 mm (23.83064 inches); Body diameter: 154.71 mm (6.09027 inches); Driving band diameter: 157.98 mm (6.219666 inches);
O P's measurememnts they took match this bang on I would say at 6" and 23.75" base to tip (minus fuze) I took it to the nth degree with decimal places so there would be no quibiling about "Well its not quite.........!" God forbid that the body diameter is under 155mm and driving bands take it to over 155mm in diameter.................................:yikes:
Except that there is a 90 thousandths of an inch difference between the two dimensions that you quote for the body diameter, CINDERS, or for the younger forum members 2.286mm, precisely. Anyone who thinks that 6.09027" and 6.000" are pretty much bang on the same size is clearly not an engineer.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
According to the book, for 155 cannon tubes, (TM 9-1000-202-14, table 3-6) the bore measurement 47.75 inches forward of breech face is 6.100 inches a for a new tube. The gun has reached its service life when the pullover gage measures 6.210 or .110 inches of wear. With .090 wear the gun is still good for about 200 more full charge rounds.
Does not matter what the damn measurement is the cold hard facts if that round lands near you or on you either the shrapnel will tear you to bits or the shear concussion will mush every soft organ in your body or just vaporise you...... who gives a toss if it is 90 thou out wont matter you'll be toasted.
To the young/new forumers the caliber of a weapon may not directly correlate to the stated size given by its description the above case proves this as stated Actual body dimension 154.71mm = 155mm as declared by the Armed services of the United States Army who is the end user of this long range artillery which I may add can fire the "Copper Head" to hit lasered targets.
I have no idea what wave length the laser designator is perhaps those with the engineering degrees would be so kind to get their tape measure out and give us the data.
Here is the data on that round incase you have never heard of it and how it works just to prove it exists = The M712 Copperhead is a 155 mm (sorry is it 154.71mm or was it 157.98mm!) caliber cannon-launched, fin-stabilized, terminally laser guided, explosive shell intended to engage hard point targets such as tanks, self-propelled howitzers or other high-value targets. It may be fired from different artillery pieces, such as the M114, M109, M198, ... The projectile has a minimum range of 3 km and a maximum range of 16 km.
I just wish I could examine the projectile with my glasses on...
You are trying to use these facts to prove that a 155mm shell is what has been posted in post 1. The sizes that you have quoted for the body diameters don't match because they are out by 90 thou. Of course it matters what the diameter of the shell is in relation to the barrel; it needs to compatible.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
You will need to do better than this CINDERS.
No offence F10 why don't you contact the armaments supplier and get the cold hard facts from them on shell body diameter and driving band diameter verses bore size instead of being a right PITA with interjections and palava that degenerates the thread which should be informative and courteous to all involved.
Why do you think they put driving bands of a softer metal onto the bodies of the projectiles so it can take up any inconsistencies of that body so it can obturate get the engraving done to impart the spin for gyroscpopic stabilty so the shell can go and kill the baddies.
So with that forumers Im done with this thread I have endevoured my best to assist with the O P's ID of the shell but sadly I have fallen short because I tried to hard if you have any queries on life or ordnence I suggest you contact those members whom obviously know more about the whole universe than Stephen Hawkins............................
CINDERS out.....
OP hasn't been here for a week about...I think he just wanted to ask about this one was all and is gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
I'm exhausted ... :surrender: :lol:
Thread Closed.... :cheers: