Artillery casing question

fresyes · March 11, 2011, 04:34 PM

Wasn't quite sure where to post this...
My neighbor was a missionary in central Africa in the mid 1950's. She
bought several artillery shell casings. The pics are of the largest
one. It supposedly came from northern Africa. It is about 30 inches tall.
Any ideas what kind of artillery fired it or anything else?

dahermit · March 11, 2011, 05:00 PM

It should be noted that the primer looks intact (unfired).
Other than that, it is simalar to tank shells as lined the walkways at Fort Knox when I took basic there in 1962, except the ones at Fort Knox were 90mm and were straight not bottle necked.

Avenger · March 11, 2011, 06:23 PM

"16 & 21 GUNS"....huh, wonder if this is a saluting shell? Those crimps around the neck look weird to me. Be one HECK of a salute from something that size!

James K · March 11, 2011, 07:13 PM

It is British, made in 1952 by NM (National Metals?) and reloaded in 1953. The primer bushing was made in Dec 1942 and reloaded in June 1943.

Now that 16 and 21 is really puzzling. In British service such designations usually mean "pounder" as in "18 PDR" the most common field piece of WWI. But I can't find any 16 or 21 pounders so there is something I am missing. Perhaps someone else has better information.

Jim

**Mike Irwin** · March 11, 2011, 10:29 PM

No, it's not a saluting shell.

That's also a standard British artillery crimp.

I'm about 95% certain that that's a British 17-pound-gun shell casing.

It's definitely not a shell for the 18 pound QF gun, the casing shape is all wrong.

**44 AMP** · March 12, 2011, 12:12 PM

The overall shape is the same as the US 105mm tank main gun round. However, without a scale, all I can say is the shape is the same, not the size.

You should have the mouth of the case measured, that will narrow it down a lot. The approximate size in mm or inches, along with the markings will help.

The bottleneck shape indicates a high velocity round, the kind used for tank and anti-tank cannons. Generally, artillery uses straight cases, but there are exceptions.

And, while I'm far from expert, it is also remotely possible that the shell in question could be a naval shell. Coming out of Africa, nearly any possible combination of historical circumstances is not beyond reason. All kinds of pre and post WW II guns and military equipment are still in use in Africa, from all nations.

My best guess (and totally without any basis) maybe a round from a Centurion tank. Originally introduced at the very end of WWII with an 85mm main gun, and later marks armed with a 105mm gun, the Centurion served in British & Commonwealth forces through the 1970s. Quite possible some of those wound up in Africa, or some other vehicle/ground mount using the same gun.

I don't have the resources for a better ID, sorry, but its easily possible someone else on the forum does, and will be along eventually.

**Mike Irwin** · March 12, 2011, 05:24 PM

"And, while I'm far from expert, it is also remotely possible that the shell in question could be a naval shell."

Don't think that's the case. I can't identify a single British naval gun of the right time frame that used a bottle necked case.

I'm sticking with my early answer, it's a 17 pounder.

**44 AMP** · March 13, 2011, 11:49 AM

Mike, you're probably right. A 17 pounder should have a 77mm (approx) case mouth, right?

The pic looks bigger, but scale is tough to judge.

"about 30 inches tall"....that puts it about the size of the 105mm shell I have on my back patio, which it resembles in shape. Sure wish we could get a measurement of the mouth...

Was the 17 pounder case that long? Might be, I just don't know.

**Mike Irwin** · March 13, 2011, 01:25 PM

Unfortunately it is VERY difficult to find information on cases.

But, I've found a few pictures of 17pounder complete rounds, and this may not be one of them.

The 17 pounder has an odd two stepped rim, almost like a belt on top of the rim. This case obviously does not.

It's also not for a 25 pound quick fire gun, either. Those had straight cases.

You know, I wonder if it might be for a British anti-aircraft gun? British AA guns often had necked cases because they required a large powder charge to get the shells up to altitude.

Here we go... a picture of a guy holding the 3.7" AA shell. This is from Wikicommons, so there shouldn't be a copyright issue.

Problem is, I'm again having problems finding case dimensions or close up pictures.

fresyes · March 13, 2011, 05:24 PM

One of the other two shellcases looks like the small one the guy
on the left is holding.
I'll measure the width tomorrow with possibly some more pics of
the other shells.
Thanks for all the info.

**Mike Irwin** · March 13, 2011, 11:36 PM

"One of the other two shellcases looks like the small one the guy
on the left is holding."

Hum... That's interesting. All of the rounds in that photograph are anti-aircraft rounds.

**44 AMP** · March 14, 2011, 11:50 PM

Apparently the British had 3", 3.7", 4", 4.7", 5" and 5.52" AA guns through WWII and for some time after. The 3.7" seems to have come along after the others, and primarily a land mount where the others were naval mounts, mostly.

3.7" would be about 94mm, so if the case mouth measures about 90mm +/- Z(given how the shells get "dinged") I think we can call it a 3.7" AA round.

A 17 pounder AT (tank gun) would be about 77mm (or so my armor books say)

egor20 · March 15, 2011, 12:23 AM

I asked my FIL (he's English) to look at it, he said it looked like it might be from a QF (??) 3 inch 20 anti-aircraft gun like his grandfather had a battery of in WWI. I'm sorry he doesn't have pics of them.

I know the 1952 mark is new, but hey, who puts away they're toys when they still work.

**Mike Irwin** · March 15, 2011, 05:09 AM

It's pretty clear to me that it's not a shell from a 3" 20 cwt gun. The case form is all wrong.

The 3" shell had a short short neck and shoulder. It also had significantly more body taper than what is being shown.

Here's a picture.... http://members.home.nl/p.geltink/pics/tankuk2.jpg

The 76x583R is the 17 pounder case as used in British anti-tank guns (and also tank guns).

The 76x420R case beside it is actually the shell used by the late-war Comet tank, but the case is the same as used by the 3" 20 cwt gun.

I really think the correct culprit is the 3.7" AA shell.

**Mike Irwin** · March 15, 2011, 05:15 AM

Oh, look at this. This might shed some light on the markings on the case head...

http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/arms...ages/stamp.jpg

BlueTrain · March 15, 2011, 05:52 AM

Oh, this is getting more interesting all the time, whether or not the identify of the mystery shell is ever established. I had no idea ordnance was so colorful, for one thing. But what do you expect when all the textbooks are in black and white. And the British repaired fired casings?

mapsjanhere · March 15, 2011, 07:26 AM

The markings read 4 in M(rk) 16&21 guns

Voila: British naval AA, and they even have a picture of the shell

**Mike Irwin** · March 15, 2011, 08:54 AM

DAMN IT!

Stupid British!

I never thought to convert the 16 & 21 into frigging Roman numeral marks!

Sweet. You get the cookie, Maps!

You know, I said earlier that I didn't think it was a naval shell because of the bottlenecked case. Once we broached the possibility of it being antiaircraft in nature, I should have revisited the naval aspect.

egor20 · March 15, 2011, 09:25 AM

Well done, and I get to tell my FIL he's wrong, that doesn't happen often

Thanks

Winchester_73 · March 15, 2011, 09:57 AM

Since we identified it, we can now come up with some reloading data (hopefully) for this cartridge and hopefully see how well the gun groups in the near future.

mapsjanhere · March 15, 2011, 11:32 AM

COAL 45.13 in
Propellant Charge 9.0 lbs. SC or 10.5 lbs. NF/S (4.09 or 4.8 kg)
Muzzle Velocity 2,660 fps

My range is limiting us right now to .499 or smaller, so you'll have to wait for the grouping data until my next London visit (you take care of the paperwork to borrow the HMS Belfast).

James K · March 15, 2011, 12:09 PM

OK, that makes sense. I read "41NM" instead of "4 IN M", and the N below the primer probably stands for "Naval" as it does in other British ordnance contexts.

Note for shooters - the barrel life is only 600 rounds, so you should buy a few spare barrels.

Jim

**44 AMP** · March 16, 2011, 02:29 PM

So I was actually on the money suggesting it might be a naval shell! Imagaine that!

March 11, 2011, 04:34 PM	#1
fresyes Junior Member Join Date: March 11, 2011 Posts: 2	Artillery casing question Wasn't quite sure where to post this... My neighbor was a missionary in central Africa in the mid 1950's. She bought several artillery shell casings. The pics are of the largest one. It supposedly came from northern Africa. It is about 30 inches tall. Any ideas what kind of artillery fired it or anything else?

March 11, 2011, 10:29 PM	#5
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	No, it's not a saluting shell. That's also a standard British artillery crimp. I'm about 95% certain that that's a British 17-pound-gun shell casing. It's definitely not a shell for the 18 pound QF gun, the casing shape is all wrong. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 12, 2011, 12:12 PM	#6
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,824	The overall shape is the same as the US 105mm tank main gun round. However, without a scale, all I can say is the shape is the same, not the size. You should have the mouth of the case measured, that will narrow it down a lot. The approximate size in mm or inches, along with the markings will help. The bottleneck shape indicates a high velocity round, the kind used for tank and anti-tank cannons. Generally, artillery uses straight cases, but there are exceptions. And, while I'm far from expert, it is also remotely possible that the shell in question could be a naval shell. Coming out of Africa, nearly any possible combination of historical circumstances is not beyond reason. All kinds of pre and post WW II guns and military equipment are still in use in Africa, from all nations. My best guess (and totally without any basis) maybe a round from a Centurion tank. Originally introduced at the very end of WWII with an 85mm main gun, and later marks armed with a 105mm gun, the Centurion served in British & Commonwealth forces through the 1970s. Quite possible some of those wound up in Africa, or some other vehicle/ground mount using the same gun. I don't have the resources for a better ID, sorry, but its easily possible someone else on the forum does, and will be along eventually. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

March 12, 2011, 05:24 PM	#7
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	"And, while I'm far from expert, it is also remotely possible that the shell in question could be a naval shell." Don't think that's the case. I can't identify a single British naval gun of the right time frame that used a bottle necked case. I'm sticking with my early answer, it's a 17 pounder. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 13, 2011, 11:49 AM	#8
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,824	Mike, you're probably right. A 17 pounder should have a 77mm (approx) case mouth, right? The pic looks bigger, but scale is tough to judge. "about 30 inches tall"....that puts it about the size of the 105mm shell I have on my back patio, which it resembles in shape. Sure wish we could get a measurement of the mouth... Was the 17 pounder case that long? Might be, I just don't know. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

March 11, 2011, 05:00 PM	#2
dahermit Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 2006 Location: South Central Michigan...near Posts: 6,501	It should be noted that the primer looks intact (unfired). Other than that, it is simalar to tank shells as lined the walkways at Fort Knox when I took basic there in 1962, except the ones at Fort Knox were 90mm and were straight not bottle necked.

March 11, 2011, 06:23 PM	#3
Avenger Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Posts: 274	"16 & 21 GUNS"....huh, wonder if this is a saluting shell? Those crimps around the neck look weird to me. Be one HECK of a salute from something that size!

March 11, 2011, 07:13 PM	#4
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	It is British, made in 1952 by NM (National Metals?) and reloaded in 1953. The primer bushing was made in Dec 1942 and reloaded in June 1943. Now that 16 and 21 is really puzzling. In British service such designations usually mean "pounder" as in "18 PDR" the most common field piece of WWI. But I can't find any 16 or 21 pounders so there is something I am missing. Perhaps someone else has better information. Jim

March 13, 2011, 01:25 PM	#9
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	Unfortunately it is VERY difficult to find information on cases. But, I've found a few pictures of 17pounder complete rounds, and this may not be one of them. The 17 pounder has an odd two stepped rim, almost like a belt on top of the rim. This case obviously does not. It's also not for a 25 pound quick fire gun, either. Those had straight cases. You know, I wonder if it might be for a British anti-aircraft gun? British AA guns often had necked cases because they required a large powder charge to get the shells up to altitude. Here we go... a picture of a guy holding the 3.7" AA shell. This is from Wikicommons, so there shouldn't be a copyright issue. Problem is, I'm again having problems finding case dimensions or close up pictures. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 13, 2011, 05:24 PM	#10
fresyes Junior Member Join Date: March 11, 2011 Posts: 2	That's an interesting pic One of the other two shellcases looks like the small one the guy on the left is holding. I'll measure the width tomorrow with possibly some more pics of the other shells. Thanks for all the info.

March 13, 2011, 11:36 PM	#11
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	"One of the other two shellcases looks like the small one the guy on the left is holding." Hum... That's interesting. All of the rounds in that photograph are anti-aircraft rounds. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 14, 2011, 11:50 PM	#12
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,824	Apparently the British had 3", 3.7", 4", 4.7", 5" and 5.52" AA guns through WWII and for some time after. The 3.7" seems to have come along after the others, and primarily a land mount where the others were naval mounts, mostly. 3.7" would be about 94mm, so if the case mouth measures about 90mm +/- Z(given how the shells get "dinged") I think we can call it a 3.7" AA round. A 17 pounder AT (tank gun) would be about 77mm (or so my armor books say) __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

March 15, 2011, 12:23 AM	#13
egor20 Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2010 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,824	I asked my FIL (he's English) to look at it, he said it looked like it might be from a QF (??) 3 inch 20 anti-aircraft gun like his grandfather had a battery of in WWI. I'm sorry he doesn't have pics of them. I know the 1952 mark is new, but hey, who puts away they're toys when they still work. __________________ Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand

March 15, 2011, 05:09 AM	#14
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	It's pretty clear to me that it's not a shell from a 3" 20 cwt gun. The case form is all wrong. The 3" shell had a short short neck and shoulder. It also had significantly more body taper than what is being shown. Here's a picture.... http://members.home.nl/p.geltink/pics/tankuk2.jpg The 76x583R is the 17 pounder case as used in British anti-tank guns (and also tank guns). The 76x420R case beside it is actually the shell used by the late-war Comet tank, but the case is the same as used by the 3" 20 cwt gun. I really think the correct culprit is the 3.7" AA shell. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 15, 2011, 05:15 AM	#15
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	Oh, look at this. This might shed some light on the markings on the case head... http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/arms...ages/stamp.jpg __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 15, 2011, 05:52 AM	#16
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Oh, this is getting more interesting all the time, whether or not the identify of the mystery shell is ever established. I had no idea ordnance was so colorful, for one thing. But what do you expect when all the textbooks are in black and white. And the British repaired fired casings? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

March 15, 2011, 07:26 AM	#17
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	The markings read 4 in M(rk) 16&21 guns Voila: British naval AA, and they even have a picture of the shell __________________ I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.

March 15, 2011, 08:54 AM	#18
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	DAMN IT! Stupid British! I never thought to convert the 16 & 21 into frigging Roman numeral marks! Sweet. You get the cookie, Maps! You know, I said earlier that I didn't think it was a naval shell because of the bottlenecked case. Once we broached the possibility of it being antiaircraft in nature, I should have revisited the naval aspect. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 15, 2011, 09:25 AM	#19
egor20 Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2010 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,824	mapsjanhere Well done, and I get to tell my FIL he's wrong, that doesn't happen often Thanks __________________ Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand

March 15, 2011, 09:57 AM	#20
Winchester_73 Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2008 Location: Pittsburgh PA Posts: 2,863	Since we identified it, we can now come up with some reloading data (hopefully) for this cartridge and hopefully see how well the gun groups in the near future. __________________ Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west

March 15, 2011, 11:32 AM	#21
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	COAL 45.13 in Propellant Charge 9.0 lbs. SC or 10.5 lbs. NF/S (4.09 or 4.8 kg) Muzzle Velocity 2,660 fps My range is limiting us right now to .499 or smaller, so you'll have to wait for the grouping data until my next London visit (you take care of the paperwork to borrow the HMS Belfast). __________________ I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.

March 15, 2011, 12:09 PM	#22
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	OK, that makes sense. I read "41NM" instead of "4 IN M", and the N below the primer probably stands for "Naval" as it does in other British ordnance contexts. Note for shooters - the barrel life is only 600 rounds, so you should buy a few spare barrels. Jim

March 16, 2011, 02:29 PM	#23
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,824	So I was actually on the money suggesting it might be a naval shell! Imagaine that! __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.