Artillery Shell Identification?!
-
- G-Sergeant
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:44 pm
- Location:
Artillery Shell Identification?!
Hi all! I picked up this Artillery OR Navy shell? at the local antique store thinking it was a 105Howitzer shell since that's what it was labeled but after some image searching the profile of the shell didn't match any 105 shells shape so I then measured it and it came up to being 4.7in OD or 120mm so it could be the WWII AA 120mm gun but it once again looks nothing like that shell either?! And it looks nothing like the 4.7 M1906 from WWI, does anyone have a idea what this is from?
- Attachments
-
- IMG_5598.JPG (86.81 KiB) Viewed 1830 times
-
- Screen Shot 2017-06-08 at 3.42.51 PM.png (184.31 KiB) Viewed 1831 times
-
- IMG_5601.JPG (76.68 KiB) Viewed 1832 times
Last edited by Corman2011 on Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1945 Willy's MB
-
- G-Captain
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 6:48 pm
- Location:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Looks like it's upside down. Missing the fuse assembly
-
- G-Sergeant
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:44 pm
- Location:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Yes it is oriented upside down and missing the fuse but I cant figure out what shot this size round, its very odd but does have ordinance markings on it.. this is the closes looking round i have found that looks similar
- Attachments
-
- Mk33.jpg (35.69 KiB) Viewed 1792 times
1945 Willy's MB
-
- G-Lieutenant General
- Posts: 6806
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:05 pm
- Location: Patagonia, AZ EIEIO
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
I'm seeing numbers stamped into the body? What are they? The wavy grooves under the (missing) rotating band don't look "U.S." to me. Possibly a foreign 120MM round?
Jeff Q.
AZ
Jeff Q.
AZ
-
- G-Sergeant
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:44 pm
- Location:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Yes here are closer photos of the US Ordinance bomb marking, So i do think it is US made, but maybe transitional between wwi & wwii? and ah yes those squiggly lines are visible because the Driving band / Rotating band (which would be over that section) was removed at some point or lost during firing. The driving band would smash down into the lines when it engages the rifling
- Attachments
-
- IMG_5603.JPG (33.91 KiB) Viewed 1774 times
-
- IMG_5607.JPG.jpeg (69.91 KiB) Viewed 1774 times
Last edited by Corman2011 on Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
1945 Willy's MB
- W. Winget
- LTC, U.S. Army
- Posts: 4445
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 10:37 am
- Location: USA, Virginia, Carrollton
- Contact:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
How about a 120mm Japanese Naval round (missing the driving band ....and fuse) Note the bottom section length to 1st ring and not a boatail design. would appear to be a fixed round (missing the shell casing)
V/R W. Winget
http://ww2data.blogspot.com/2015/11/imp ... mm_16.html
V/R W. Winget
http://ww2data.blogspot.com/2015/11/imp ... mm_16.html
Looking for 1918 Standard B 'Liberty' truck parts
-
- G-Sergeant
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:44 pm
- Location:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Very similar indeed! The shell In my pictures has two groves under the rotating band though and slopes after the second ring..so that's one difference! and also it having the US Ordinance bomb stamp would disqualify it from being Japanese unfortunately, I would think. but has a similar profile! The base of my shell does look more like the bottom of 4.7 WWI shells but a top that's more modern like that of a 105 howitzer.. which maybe it went to the 4.7 inch Gun M1920, the 4.7 inch Gun M1922E or the 4.7 inch Gun T3 (1940)...still cant find any pictures of this shell anywhere... thanks for all the help so far!
**UPDATE**
Shell in Question H:16in W:4.7in
I believe the 120mm shell was a Howitzer Round Used in the 1920's during the development of the 4.7inch m1920/m1922E Gun..
Case point #1: The bottom section looks very close in similarity and proportion to the 4.7 M1906 Shell. The rotation band and two grooves below it base look to be in the same position minus the last larger groove.
Case Point #2: The shell is more elongated then the m1906 and has more updated forward section that does look like WWII artillery shells, with updated fuze threads that fit howitzer fuzes
Case Point #3: The shell had remnants of red paint on it before I cleaned/ repainted it (now instantly regretting)..Red was the color of training/practice rounds (for grenades at least) in the 1920-30s which puts it in the right in the sweet spot for the m1922E... With red paint I can hypothesize that it was a practice shell being red and is why it still exists in one piece and not many small ones.. and is why the rotation band is gone.
Case point #4: It doesn't have the longer taper often seen on the rear section of the WWII 105 & 155 howitzer shells or the 4.5in gun (the child to the 4.7) shells also have the taper on the tail..
Case point #4.5: It also doesn't match the profile of the AA Shell of 1944 4.7in Flak Gun which also sports a long tapered end on the Shell.
Case Point #5: It is United States made since it has the ordinance marking stamped into it.
Overall I believe It belonged to the 1920's trial 4.7's hence why records of this shell are scares since it would not have been mass produced just like the gun was not. Tell me if you agree or Am I totally off point on my observations? Thanks for reading if you made it this far!
“the Ordnance department designed the 4.7in Gun m1920 on Carriage m1920, which evolved into the 4.7in Gun m1922E on Carriage M1921E. the carriage could also be adapted to a new 155mm howitzer. Although the Field Artillery board recommended that the m1922E be standardized, a lack of funding continued to pose a major problem. The 10 year ordnance plan recommended 24 more be manufactured to equip a regiment but this never took place.. The 4.7in Gun requirement was revived in 1939alongside the program to develop a new 155 Howitzer for the T2 split trail carriage. the 4.7in Gun T3 was a resurrection of the m1922E and ordinance recommended its standardization in Jan 1940. How ever with danger looming in Europe the raised the issue of weather it might be better to change the caliber to 4.5in to insure commonality with the British. This was accepted and the modified weapon was standardized in April 1941"
**UPDATE**
Shell in Question H:16in W:4.7in
I believe the 120mm shell was a Howitzer Round Used in the 1920's during the development of the 4.7inch m1920/m1922E Gun..
Case point #1: The bottom section looks very close in similarity and proportion to the 4.7 M1906 Shell. The rotation band and two grooves below it base look to be in the same position minus the last larger groove.
Case Point #2: The shell is more elongated then the m1906 and has more updated forward section that does look like WWII artillery shells, with updated fuze threads that fit howitzer fuzes
Case Point #3: The shell had remnants of red paint on it before I cleaned/ repainted it (now instantly regretting)..Red was the color of training/practice rounds (for grenades at least) in the 1920-30s which puts it in the right in the sweet spot for the m1922E... With red paint I can hypothesize that it was a practice shell being red and is why it still exists in one piece and not many small ones.. and is why the rotation band is gone.
Case point #4: It doesn't have the longer taper often seen on the rear section of the WWII 105 & 155 howitzer shells or the 4.5in gun (the child to the 4.7) shells also have the taper on the tail..
Case point #4.5: It also doesn't match the profile of the AA Shell of 1944 4.7in Flak Gun which also sports a long tapered end on the Shell.
Case Point #5: It is United States made since it has the ordinance marking stamped into it.
Overall I believe It belonged to the 1920's trial 4.7's hence why records of this shell are scares since it would not have been mass produced just like the gun was not. Tell me if you agree or Am I totally off point on my observations? Thanks for reading if you made it this far!
“the Ordnance department designed the 4.7in Gun m1920 on Carriage m1920, which evolved into the 4.7in Gun m1922E on Carriage M1921E. the carriage could also be adapted to a new 155mm howitzer. Although the Field Artillery board recommended that the m1922E be standardized, a lack of funding continued to pose a major problem. The 10 year ordnance plan recommended 24 more be manufactured to equip a regiment but this never took place.. The 4.7in Gun requirement was revived in 1939alongside the program to develop a new 155 Howitzer for the T2 split trail carriage. the 4.7in Gun T3 was a resurrection of the m1922E and ordinance recommended its standardization in Jan 1940. How ever with danger looming in Europe the raised the issue of weather it might be better to change the caliber to 4.5in to insure commonality with the British. This was accepted and the modified weapon was standardized in April 1941"
- Attachments
-
- Screen Shot 2017-06-09 at 12.58.41 AM.png (253.28 KiB) Viewed 1744 times
1945 Willy's MB
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
The Rotating/Obturating band is gone because it was copper and had scrap value. Obturating bands are non-metallic. Rotating bands are fixed solid and don't come off with firing. They bear grooves from the rifling like the 75mm shell on the left side of your picture. BTW, the patina'd shell and the OD green shell in your photo are not the same.
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
- Chuck Lutz
- Gee Addict
- Posts: 26829
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: Jeep Heaven
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Dummy round?
Chuck Lutz
GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947
GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947
-
- G-Sergeant
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:44 pm
- Location:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Yes i do realize the shells are not the same shell.. as i states above I was comparing the the rear sections on both for their similarities in profile... saying the 120mm was closer looking to a wwi shell on the rear then a tapered wwii shell..
And i believe it was a practice round since it was originally red in color ...
And i believe it was a practice round since it was originally red in color ...
1945 Willy's MB
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
I can only imagine the number of rounds which have been painted red and flanked office doors. The colors of Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery are Red and Gold. I'd put no stock in paint color. Unit commander says "paint that and get it to my office today" it goes from rusty or green or whatever to red...Corman2011 wrote:Yes i do realize the shells are not the same shell.. as i states above I was comparing the the rear sections on both for their similarities in profile... saying the 120mm was closer looking to a wwi shell on the rear then a tapered wwii shell..
And i believe it was a practice round since it was originally red in color ...
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
The boattail on most modern projos is not 100% present even on today's rounds. If a projo has a base-eject feature, then the boattail feature limits the size of the internal payload, decreasing the effectiveness of the round. Not poo-pooing your conclusion, as It probably IS an earlier projo.
The boattail serves to keep the air gap from "slamming shut" as the projo goes through the air, decreasing drag. It effects velocity, in turn range, and the ballistics math for a bullet with one is different than for a bullet without one.
The boattail serves to keep the air gap from "slamming shut" as the projo goes through the air, decreasing drag. It effects velocity, in turn range, and the ballistics math for a bullet with one is different than for a bullet without one.
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
-
- G-Sergeant
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:44 pm
- Location:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
No worries at all, any insight is helpful, Red was training rounds in the 20-30s and grey was Live ordnance (going off of grenades) and black was the completely inert dummy grenades... iv seen a 1900s shell also painted red, so that's was made me think this was a practice shell since it only had that layer of paint. but yes it's all an assumption its a shell from the M1922E since looking for a reference of this shell is looking for a needle in the haystack and any more modern rounds like the 4.7 AA from 1944 have completely different looking shells..120MM is such an odd ball size and was limited in use since WWI so it can only fall in to so many places I assume...still hoping someone finds it in a old 30's manual with it in it!
1945 Willy's MB
-
- G-Sergeant
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:44 pm
- Location:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Even though it wouldn't have been painted green if it is a early shell as I suspect it is, I figured I'd go with what I had already to make it displayable going off pictures of early coastal artillery shells. The Mortar shell there is for size reference. It's the most correct I can get it till i find more info about it...cheers!
- Attachments
-
- IMG_0241.jpg (129.26 KiB) Viewed 1637 times
-
- IMG_0240.jpg (159.69 KiB) Viewed 1637 times
1945 Willy's MB
- lt.luke
- G-General
- Posts: 9899
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:56 am
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Re: Artillery Shell Identification?!
Looks good!
Luke Sparks
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
MAJ (R), USA
GPW 12078 http://g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=102532
https://www.homesteadersfinest.com/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: poof and 42 guests