Page Content Last Updated: 21 May 2024

[Site Map]       [RANAD Index]

Ammunition Repair and Maintenance

Introduction

This is a simplified, generic account of the work undertaken by a typical RAN Armament Depot of the mid-20th century. Some depots were concerned only with ammunition and explosives (Magazine Stores); others also managed guns, gun mountings, gunnery equipment, small arms and accoutrements (Gunwharf & Gunnery Equipment Stores)

Broadly speaking, the roles of an armament depot in respect of ammunition and explosives were to:

• store the ammunition landed by ships undergoing dockyard maintenance, ammunition for practice, and reserve, or "war" stocks, both for warships and defensively armed merchant ships;
• issue and receive these stocks;
• inspect, maintain, modify, repair and assemble ammunition; and
• dispose of unserviceable or obsolete ammunition.

Ammunition received from an explosives factory, having been inspected there, and provided there were no broken package seals or transit damage, would be brought "on charge" as "Serviceable" condition and would remain in that condition unless something happened to change it, for example, expiry of its shelf life.

Ammunition returned by ships would be checked for broken package seals, which, if found, would show that the package had been opened rendering its contents suspect. If broken seals were found, the ammunition would be taken into a laboratory for examination for safety in transport and storage. At this point, depending on workload, the ammunition could either be subject to a full examination and repair or just re-packed, re-sealed and returned to store to be worked on at a later date.

Laboratory Work

The term "laboratory" used in relation to ammunition dates back to at least 1695, when the Royal Laboratory was constructed at what later became the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. More recently (1950s onward), the replacement terms "explosives workshop" or "ammunition repair workshop" have come into use. Below is a definition from 1873:

A typical work assignment for a laboratory would be to "examine and repair". By way of explanation, ammunition could be held as one of 3 conditions: serviceable, repairable and unserviceable. To these could be added the qualifier of restricted, indicating that there was an entry in the Restriction List. The Restriction List recorded specific manufacturing lots of ammunition where there was some question about the safety or reliability. For example, increased usage of ammunition during the Vietnam War resulted in a number of "in bore" or "close aboard prematures" during firing of 40/60 Bofors and 5-inch/54 calibre guns, i.e. the projectile exploded either in the barrel or shortly after exiting the barrel.

In the case of Bofors ammunition, this was caused by an interaction in the presence of moisture between the copper shell of the detonator and the lead azide filling, resulting in formation of very shock sensitive copper azide. The lots involved, identifiable from the empty packages, were restricted from issue. If the restriction was subsequently lifted, then the ammunition reverted to its original condition.

In the case of the 5-inch/54 calibre ammunition, the in-bore premature resulted from adiabatic heating of air in voids in the projectiles' A-3 filling. The Australian Navy experienced one in-bore detonation out of approximately 38,000 HC-PD MK-41 Mod 0 projectiles fired. Between 1965 and 1969 the U.S. Navy fired about 2,891,000 rounds and had 6 in-bore prematures.

Fred (Frederick James) Jeanes was born in Poole, Dorset, UK on 12 March 1900 and died on 13 May 1979. Fred served in the Royal Navy before being loaned to the Royal Australian Navy from 1 January 1918. At this time he was serving on HMAS Australia. His service record is a little unclear, but it seems that he was discharged as a Petty Officer in either 1927 or 1930. In 6 April 1936 he commenced employment as an Assistant (Armament). Promoted to Laboratoryman in 1942, he progressed rapidly during wartime through the 3 grades of Laboratory Foreman to reach Grade A (temporary) by 1950. He had not yet been permanently appointed as a Laboratoryman. On 14 March 1952, he was promoted to Superintending Foreman of Laboratories, a position he occupied until his retirement in 1965, when he was awarded the Imperial Service Medal. In the recommendation for this honour it is said that "in a relatively short period from 1936 - 1952 advanced by merit and ability from the lowest to the highest position in the Laboratory field and he has rendered highly valuable service to the Department." Read an article from Navy News describing Fred's career.

Examination and repair could typically involve any of the following:

• Unpacking;
• Visual examination for damage, unclear markings etc;
• Check against Restriction List;
• Checking of components (e.g. removal of fuzes, gaines and exploders from shell, visual examination of the cavity and re-assembly);
• Gauging or electrical testing;
• Touch up of paint work;
• Re-stencilling of markings; and
• Repacking and remarking and sealing of the package.

Laboratory work was conducted in accordance with Technical Instructions for Armament Depots (TIADs). The TIADs comprised individual worksheets for each combination of ammunition and task. These worksheets specified the tools and equipment needed, any special safety precautions, and the individual process steps.

A TIAD worksheet for the assembly and fitting of Mk 8 torpedo pistols and primers is available to read or download.

Harry (Herbert Joseph) Creighton was born on 21 September 1921 and died on 8 October 2005. He started work as a Junior Assistant (Armament) at Spectacle Island on 3 May 1938. He was then aged 16 years, and had been sponsored by the Repatriation Commission as the son of a deceased soldier. On reaching the minimum age for employment on explosives work he transferred to the Explosives Laboratories at the Newington sub-depot. He was promoted as Foreman of Laboratories Grade C in 1951; in 1960 he transferred to the Kingswood sub-depot, where new laboratory facilities had recently been constructed. Further promotions in 1970 and 1974 were followed by promotion to the highest position available to him, that of Senior Foreman (Armament Supply Explosives Workshops) in 1976. Harry was always an inspiration to both management and fellow workers. Despite the handicaps of limited education and the amputation of his right leg in 1945, Harry's service was marked by sustained achievement both technically and administratively. Good natured, and good company, his competence and positive outlook made Officers-in-charge sleep easily at night. To mention just one highlight - with the introduction of American ammunition in the 1960s it became necessary to produce relevant maintenance instructions (Technical Instructions for Armament Depots(TIADs)). The RAN had previously been reliant on the Royal Navy for these instructions, and had no experience or training in their preparation. In 1969 Harry was sent to the United States on a familiarisation visit. Within 3 months of his return, he had produced a set of TIADs covering those US origin items then in service.

In later years, most ammunition was supplied from the factory fully assembled. However in earlier times it was common for components to be supplied, with the armament depot carrying out the task of assembly. Typical assembly tasks were:

• Assembly of bag cordite charges (cartridges) for large calibre breech-loading guns; and
• Fuzing of plugged shell.

Disposal Work

Disposal of unserviceable or obsolete ammunition was also part of the role of depot laboratories.

Common methods included:

• Demolition (using high explosives to counter-mine the item)
• Destruction (heating in a destructor furnace).
• Burning (e.g. cordite, small arms ammunition, pyrotechnics)
• Initiation under controlled conditions
• Breaking down (disassembly)
• Dumping at sea
• Recycling (e.g. TNT could be recovered from large items such as torpedo warheads by steaming out; copper driving bands could be recovered from large calibre projectiles)
• Training (e.g. training of clearance divers)

Not all depots had access to a demolition range, and disposal was often "contracted out" to explosives factories, other depots or services.

Inspection Work

What we now refer to as "quality control" and "quality assurance" was referred to in earlier times as Inspection; within Navy, this was the role of the Naval Ordnance Inspection & Design Branch (NOIDB). This branch had a staff comprising naval officers (Inspectors of Naval Ordnance) and civilian technical and inspecting staff. They performed, amongst other things, a checking role in relation to laboratory operations, and were responsible for parts of the Annual Inspection process. In common with other areas of the ADF, from the 1980s onward, more modern approaches to quality assurance, based on international standards were adopted and the term Inspection fell into disfavour.

An Annual Inspection was a joint activity of the Depot and Inspection staff. A program was drawn up each year showing when each type of ammunition was to be reported and inspected. Using this program, storehouse foremen took stock and compiled a form which recorded their stockholding as of a specified date. Each specific ammunition lot, or unique combination of manufacturer/filler lot was separately recorded.

From the Annual Inspection form, the depot Inspection staff selected representative samples that were to be subject to examination. Examination was undertaken in the depot laboratories, and may have involved:

• Unpacking;
• Visual examination for damage, unclear markings etc;
• Check against Restriction List;
• Removal of components (e.g. fuzes and exploders from shell, visual examination of the cavity and re-assembly);
• Taking of samples (e.g. cordite for testing);
• Gauging or electrical testing; and
• Repacking and remarking and sealing of the package.

Inspection staff would also select smaller samples of certain items to be subject to proof firings. Some of these proof firings could be conducted within a depot, others were conducted at one or other of the Proof and Experimental Establishments elsewhere in Australia. A failure at proof would likely result in the withdrawal of all stocks of the particular lot affected.

Material on this page may be copied for personal use. If you intend to republish any substantial part of the page in any manner, please acknowledge the source and provide the URL of the page.

Back to RANAD Index

Back to Rob's Shed