Artillery Shell Found in Toronto Yard- June 17 2020

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
102
Points
780
It wasn't from my CP..... :whistle:




https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/multiple-homes-evacuated-after-an-artillery-shell-is-found-in-a-toronto-yard-1.4988052
https://www.cp24.com/news/multiple-homes-evacuated-in-newtonbrook-after-artillery-shell-found-buried-in-yard-1.4988029


Last Updated Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:13PM EDT
Multiple homes in Toronto’s Newtonbrook neighbourhood were evacuated after a two-foot long artillery shell was found buried in the yard of a residence in the area.
Police say they were called to the area of Steeles Avenue and Whitman Street, near Bayview Avenue, shortly before 11 a.m. after a man who was digging in his yard found an artillery shell that was two-feet long, six-inches wide.


The Toronto Police Service’s chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive unit (CBRNE) is now responding to the scene.
Police say some homes in the area were evacuated as a precaution.
The bomb is believed to have been on the property for at least 40 years.
According to police, the shell may belong to the Canadian military. Experts from Canadian Forces Base Borden headed to the scene and removed it from the property.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3
Points
380
SeaKingTacco said:
6 inch 26cwt shell?

Could be nasty if it was filled with phosgene.

Dunno! The shape, especially the lack of a boat tail base suggests a carrier shell, but the resolution on my device does not let me determine if the round has a time fuze.*

* Abbreviated gunner lesson No 1. If the contents of the round were designed to be expelled from the base of the round, the shell would not have a tapered base. Also the fuze would have a timing device to expel the contents at s pre-determined point along the trajectory based on the time of flight to that point.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
68
Points
530
I agree with you about the carrier shell aspect.

The nose looks weird, however.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3
Points
380
From the little that I remember from our ammunition and equipment phase on our IG Course way back in 1967, aerodynamics often was a bit of an afterthought. Take a look at a few pictures of period heavy and siege artillery back then, and you may note some blunt-nosed rounds.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
133
Points
680
I'm thinking back to when I was doing landscaping and if we hit a rock you would use a big, 6' long steel bar with a chisel tip to rind the outline and break it up. That would be a bit of a shock to pull up an arty shell instead of a boulder. Hopefully will have forgotten about this by the time I have to redo my patio so I'm not nervous.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
390
Points
880
SeaKingTacco said:
6 inch 26cwt shell?

Could be nasty if it was filled with phosgene.

Did they use gas shells for training in Canada? That would be so cool on exercise...

"Gents, the next stand will remind you why it's important to be able to mask in time". :) 
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
87
Points
530
Without scale it's hard to guess what it is. the nose is an odd shape, maybe a 199 fuze, but normally you can make out a definite ridge where the dissimilar metals of the fuze and adapter meet. Almost looks like a solid shot round.   
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
87
Points
530
quadrapiper said:
Would that make sense as a training round in that era?

For sure. In lots of old time impact areas we dug up metric assloads of 6 pdr shot (flat nose) and AP shot (pointy nose). The AP shot has almost but not quite identical flight characteristics to the HE, and cost a lot less to produce so more economical to train with. I couldn't begin to guess the calibre of this thing though, tough to tell with it sitting in the open and nothing to scale it against.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
150
Points
680
Little hard to tell from the pictures but based on the measurement given of 6 inch (if accurate) this round is more likely from the 6" 26 CWT ordnance which Canada fielded in WW1, through the interwar years and a few years into WW2 as both medium and siege artillery. After 1941 we basically went to the 5.5" as the medium gun. (There was also 6" naval ordinance but that's way outside my expertise and wouldn't know how it got into Toronto)

Note that the absence of a fuze in the nose (or a boattail for that matter) doesn't mean it was a carrier shell. Shells designed to pierce fortifications, especially concrete, frequently had a solid nose and be base fuzed to increase penetration before detonation.

I'm not generally aware of any solid shot round at a 6" calibre. Can't see why you would have it. Old Sweat or Petard would know a lot better than I would.

:cheers:
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
68
Points
530
The only reason you do solid shoot at the 6 inch calibre is to pierce armour. Which could imply it is a naval round.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
269
Points
830
I'm just assuming it's from a 2006 mess dinner at 7 Toronto that went terribly wrong.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
87
Points
530
FJAG said:
Little hard to tell from the pictures but based on the measurement given of 6 inch (if accurate) this round is more likely from the 6" 26 CWT ordnance which Canada fielded in WW1, through the interwar years and a few years into WW2 as both medium and siege artillery. After 1941 we basically went to the 5.5" as the medium gun. (There was also 6" naval ordinance but that's way outside my expertise and wouldn't know how it got into Toronto)

Note that the absence of a fuze in the nose (or a boattail for that matter) doesn't mean it was a carrier shell. Shells designed to pierce fortifications, especially concrete, frequently had a solid nose and be base fuzed to increase penetration before detonation.

I'm not generally aware of any solid shot round at a 6" calibre. Can't see why you would have it. Old Sweat or Petard would know a lot better than I would.

:cheers:

I may or may not have a 60pdr flat nose shot round that would make an amazing anvil. If I had one. Or not...
Also, did it say in the article this was a 6" round or was that someones guess?
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
150
Points
680
Target Up said:
I may or may not have a 60pdr flat nose shot round that would make an amazing anvil. If I had one. Or not...
Also, did it say in the article this was a 6" round or was that someones guess?

It said something about being two and one half feet by 6 inches. Not sure how accurately that was measured.

:cheers:
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
87
Points
530
FJAG said:
It said something about being two and one half feet by 6 inches. Not sure how accurately that was measured.

:cheers:

Ordnance from time to time pops up in Kal Park in Vernon. RCMP phoned up our boss to go look at the grenade that surfaced before they called DND to get rid of it. The grenade was a 3" mortar.  FDU still came and got it regardless, but still.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3
Points
380
My guesstimate was  a six-inch howitzer, but that is just that - a guess. Agreed lack of a boat tail, etc does not make it a base ejection round, and projectile design was pretty basic back then, like what came first, the fire hydrant or the artillery projectile?
 

Kilted

Member
Reaction score
32
Points
280
dapaterson said:
I'm just assuming it's from a 2006 mess dinner at 7 Toronto that went terribly wrong.

That was already a bad year for social functions out of Moss Park.
 
Top