✅ SOLVED An odd naval artillery shell

[Force_of_Iron]

Sorry for the duplication the first attempt had some issues with the pics I had trouble correcting. I started over.

Anyways....

This shell has four wires coming out of the cone. It has been fired so my guess is that at one time they stuck straight out.

What were they for. Were they some sort of impact detonator?

They seem quite fixed in place but with damage from firing and 111 years passing I suppose that could be expected.

Has anyone ever seen one? I have not.

Thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[NOLA_Ken]

can you post a measurement of its diameter in mm? being able to narrow down what guns it may have been for will help a lot in trying to ID it

 

[Jason in Enid]

what makes you think its been fired? I dont see pics of rifling grooves, and if fired, the impact would have almost certainly deformed the nose. I also dont see any form of detonator, although it could be a timed fuse for AA.

 

[NOLA_Ken]

Just noticed it's marked ?8 inch on the bottom... I'm looking, but I've never seen one like it

 

[Retired Sarge]

I wonder if the protrusions on the nose, might have been an attempt to cause the projectile to spin.

 

[Force_of_Iron]

Not for rotation. The rifling assures that.

Someone suggested a prox fuze to me but that doesn't seems right.

 

[Molewacker]

My WAG after googling on the wires is that they are a safety feature used in Nose fused shells

 

[Force_of_Iron]

My WAG after googling on the wires is that they are a safety feature used in Nose fused shells

Really how does that work? If that was the case i'm guessing the shell can't detonate unless the wires get pushed in like a plunger is the only thing that make sense to me.

However, I believe that would lead to a lot of duds as the pic above demonstrates. With the rotation they are just as likely to fold over.

Anybody seconding that answer?

 

[Retired Sarge]

My WAG after googling on the wires is that they are a safety feature used in Nose fused shells

Really how does that work? If that was the case i'm guessing the shell can't detonate unless the wires get pushed in like a plunger is the only thing that make sense to me.

However, I believe that would lead to a lot of duds as the pic above demonstrates. With the rotation they are just as likely to fold over.

Anybody seconding that answer?

Maybe a safety in the sense that you can't fuse the projectile, unfired round, with the fuse holes blocked.

As it seems to be a semi permanent modification, you can remove them to use it, but would take too long to remove, might require heat to straighten to remove. Not something you'd do with operational munitions.

Maybe was once part of a display with a chain attached.

All my searches have turned up nothing like this, not saying there's nothing out there,. Just that my combination of search terms have come back with nothing. That and I've never seen something along these lines on operational munitions. I'm sure we'll all keep looking, but right now I'm at a loss.

Maybe PM Thecannonballguy and see if he has any ideals, suggestions or input.

Sent a copy of the one picture to my FIL, he's retired USAF ammo/weapons troop. Asked him if ever seen anything like it. He's just as lost as we are.

 

[NOLA_Ken]

can you remove the bottom plug? if so can you get a pic of it, and if the shell is hollow do the pins go into the hollow area?

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Ffuries wrote:
> Maybe PM Thecannonballguy and see if he has any ideals, suggestions or input.

No need for a PM. I've been watching this discussion for a while. As I've said previously, I do not know as much about post-1900 artillery projectiles as I do about pre-1900 ones. So I've just been listening here, to learn from what other readers might be able to tell us about this date-marked 1909 artillery shell.

But since you want my input, I'll speak up.

The "nose wires" purpose has nothing to do with fuzing or a "safety." This shell's fuze is in its base. The screw-in disc there, with two round holes for a spanner-wrench, is typical of late-1800s/very-early-1900s base fuzes.

The extensive markings on the shell are very much NOT typical. Being so extensive suggests this is an Experimental shell, specially marked for the purpose of record-keeping and "tracking" in the after-testing report about its performance.

The human hand in the first photos told me the marking with an "8" did not mean 8-inch caliber, but instead, something more like 3.8-inch caliber. In the very first reply in this discussion, NOLA_Ken requested measurement of this shell's diameter... and he and I are still waiting for that information.

The three-digit number (629) stamped into the side of this shell's nose is also completely un-typical for an "ordinary" projectile. I've seen a two- or three-digit number at the nose's side on many Museum specimens, such as those in the artillery projectile collection at West Point, USMA (United States Military Academy).

At first impression, the only purpose I could think of for the four kinda-thin wire-like prongs spaced at 12, 3, 6, and 9-o'clock around the tip of this shell's nose is that they were somewhat like the copper stud in a civil war Dahlgren Blind-Shell's nose... intended to transmit armor-impact heat to ignite the shell's bursting charge a fraction of a second after it penetrated the armor. But a second thought soon came. In the 40-or-so-years between the civil war and 1909, enormous progress had been made in armor-piercing fuzes. By then, it seems extremely unlikely that somebody would try reverting to that long-obsolete principle of armor-piercing shell fuzing.

So, all I can say about those 4 "wires/prongs" is that I notice they appear to be bent downward at slightly different angles. Therefore, I think they were pointing straight outward, or upward, before the shell was fired. Being bent downward at a side-slanting angle indicates they got bent when the spinning projectile struck the target.

NOLA_Ken asked:
> If the shell is hollow do the pins go into the hollow area?

I'm reasonably sure they do not go into the shell's powder-cavity, because they are very-very close to the tip of the nose, and the powder-cavity never goes up that close to the tip of the nose. (If it did, the "shellwall" of the nose-tip would be EXTREMELY thin, which makes it useless as an armor-piercer.)
​

 

[NOLA_Ken]

CannonballGuy, the reason I asked if the pins went into the shells bursting charge cavity was just to rule out that it was some experimental fuse, I couldn't imagine any way they could be though.

One thing I noticed is the date the last 9 in 1909 is stamped over an 8.... I can't think of any reason the manufacturer would have done that.

I also noticed it's stamped "LOT 1" which makes it reasonable to think it could be an experimental round

I wondered if it was intended to snag barbed wire, but 1909 is years before trench warfare and barbed wire became an issue, and the pins seem far to small to make catching wire anything other than an accident of chance so I have pretty much ruled that out.

If we could read the entire text that might help and I'm wondering about the number I've circled here, knowing the actual caliber of the shell could help a lot. I have to say though that it it's some odd experimental design, it may be the only one of its kind in any collection and without being able to find period references to it in test reports, or other documentation we may never know.

It's got my interest though and I'l keep looking

View attachment 1768115

 

[Force_of_Iron]

Good discussion so far. This is interesting thanks to everyone who's responded. Ill take the measurement in the morning and post it.

Its a naval shell so whatever it is experimental or practical it was designed to pierce armor or installations. It has the Washington Naval yard stamp.

The plug in the bottom cannot be removed as of yet. It is wedged pretty good. The threading of the shell body warped over it and I had to grind the overhang off. I've been soaking it in blaster for several weeks. My spanner wrenches only go up to one size before this one. I've got to get one to get a good grip on it to remove.

 

[Force_of_Iron]

Alright it is exactly 12 inches circ. with a cloth tape on the shell body.

12/3.14 = 3.81 inches. Had I measured at the band it would have been a bit wider.

 

[Retired Sarge]

My concern is since the holes in the nose are offset (two at one height, the second two lower). Would the addition of the prongs possibly make the projectile wobble once fire?

 

[Force_of_Iron]

I'm reasonably sure they do not go into the shell's powder-cavity, because they are very-very close to the tip of the nose, and the powder-cavity never goes up that close to the tip of the nose. (If it did, the "shellwall" of the nose-tip would be EXTREMELY thin, which makes it useless as an armor-piercer.)

I hadn't noticed this little gem at the bottom of the post because I was thinking about the other things in the text. This is very insightful

 

[Force_of_Iron]

bump

 

[NOLA_Ken]

Still haven't found anything that matches, I come back to this post occasionally and look a bit more. I've found mentions of "experimental' 3.8 inch shells around 1909, but none of them have a drawing or photo included so far

 

[Force_of_Iron]

Still haven't found anything that matches, I come back to this post occasionally and look a bit more. I've found mentions of "experimental' 3.8 inch shells around 1909, but none of them have a drawing or photo included so far

Well that is very nice that your looking. Thanks to anyone for taking the time.

I've never found anything but aside from official manuals there isn't much info on these modern forms of shell variations. I guess they are all similar enough that everyone lumps them as the same thing. Unlike civil war artillery shells which has a wide range of variety.

 

[DCMatt]

Interesting thread...

My WAG is anti-balloon projectile.

By 1909, observation balloons had been in use by armies around the world for half a century. In 1907, Britain flew it's first purpose-built military airship the Nulli Secundus (Second to None).