7.2" artillery shell, how heavy is it?

[PR19_Kit]

OK, now I understand, thanks. 

[kitnut617]

Now that drawing is very revealing Guy, nice find    It's about the right length too.  I didn't imagine that the walls would be so thick though, but you could lose some serious weight just by removing a few inches. Now we know what the 7.2" weighed, what did this 8" weigh (with explosives in it) ?

From what I read about the 7.2" howitzer, they were sleeved down 8" Navy guns. After Dunkirk, the Army had left behind vast quantities of equipment and needed some new stuff and there were 8" guns in abundance apparently.

Considering this 8" is about the length the Triplex warhead looks like, do you think these shell were machined down to match the resleeved barrels ? I mean, if they had all these 8" guns, there also must have been a huge quantity of ammunition for them.

[perttime]

When shooting a howitzer, do you always use the same charge of powder, or can you add more, to get more distance, like with mortars?

[PR19_Kit]

When shooting a howitzer, do you always use the same charge of powder, or can you add more, to get more distance, like with mortars?

You could do that with the Brit 25 pdr, which was classed as a gun/howitzer. It had three levels of charge, plus a supercharge when used directly against armour.

[Old Wombat]

When shooting a howitzer, do you always use the same charge of powder, or can you add more, to get more distance, like with mortars?

Howitzers utilise different charges for different range brackets (elevation, obviously, also plays a part in the range). The 7.2" had, generally, up to 4 charges but the final mark (Mk.6) could use a 5th (which had, I think, been available from the Mk.IV or 5) without too much danger of splitting the barrel.

[rickshaw]

The Mk6 gun was very different to the previous 5 marks.  The earlier marks looked like traditional British artillery mountings.  Indeed, they even used recoil blocks to return the gun to battery after firing.  The Mk.6 was mounted instead of the same mounting as the US 155mm "Long Tom".  It allowed higher elevations and longer range.

Interesting the name "Long Tom" comes from the 2nd Boer War, where the Royal Navy employed several guns also nicknamed "Long Tom", after a comic strip character. 

[NARSES2]

Thanks for that Chris, I remeasured the shell in that model photo, the length is 5 times the diameter = 36". But what is your opinion that the warhead of the Triplex has been shortened. I'm looking at it from where the casings starts to curve towards the tip, back to the end where the rocket motors are attached.

This is all way to technical for me, but it looks to me as though the triplex warhead has been shortened by removing the casing below the driving band.

[NARSES2]

The Mk6 gun was very different to the previous 5 marks.  The earlier marks looked like traditional British artillery mountings.  Indeed, they even used recoil blocks to return the gun to battery after firing.  The Mk.6 was mounted instead of the same mounting as the US 155mm "Long Tom".  It allowed higher elevations and longer range.

Indeed the Mk I to V was an old fashioned howitzer and wouldn't have looked out of place in WWI or even earlier. The Mk VI was a thoroughly modern looking piece. Although it was tested I don't think the Mk V ever saw combat, or even production, as the chance of getting the US carriage came along and the Mk VI was born.

[kitnut617]

Thanks everyone for your input on this, I think we can safely say a Triplex RP weighed at least 300lb.