Do you mean the Mk1 and Mk2 bracket Lynn?

Mk2 is fitted inside the gunners armour and a different shape to the Mk1. To my knowledge they were always made in steel. Ron.

I have a complete MKI discharger c/w original bracket and cable etc. available in the buy/sell section.

Thank you Ron. That's what I wondered about. My Canadian MkI* one is cast steel.

Larry indicated in earlier posts he has a 'MK-II' carrier.
The Canadian MK-I* smoke discharger bracket is not used on the C31UCW NO-2 MK-II* carriers. The brackets are dissimilar.

Good news: I had Clive scan the booklet from cover to cover and now have a PDF file that I can email. If you want a copy, simply

PM ME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS.

Feel free to share it with your friends, but not for redistribution for commercial means.

Thanks for making the manual available to us Rob :thup2:

No problem....that's what the site is all about.

for goes for me too. cheers

Rob,

Email received. Many thanks!

Cheers,

Likewise, much appreciated Rob.

To the man in black, Thank you for the info. as well as making it available to all.
Right on.

We were actually talking at work about possibly setting up a web page on our site where some of these PDFs could be held for download. The RCA museum webpage had not been updated in more than a few years, but our new director has undertaken the project himself. Having the PDFs may help bring more visitors to the site.

Received Rob. Thanks a million! Ron

Rob.

Also received my copy.

Excellent - many thanks for making the effort.

Cheers

Tim

Rob
Thank you for the copy. Very much appreciated.
Rick

Evolution of the 4-in Dischargers, Smoke
 

Based on the information I received from the Enfield Pattern Room, this piece of equipment evolved in the following way. No dates were available to form an actual timeline, but it is very likely some overlaps occurred.

No. 1 Mk 1: The action was based on the .303 Martini Enfield. No further information available.

No. 2 Mk 1: The action was based on the No. 1 SMLE rifle with mods for firing by a remote control Bowdenex Cable.

No. 2 Mk 2: The action was based on the No. 1 SMLE rifle with no modifications to the firing mechanism.

No. 3 Mk 1: The action was an original design specific to the discharger. Employed a dropping breech block similar to the Martini action. It could be fired by a pull chain or a remote Bowdenex Cable.

No. 4 Mk 1: The action was based on the No. 3 (Pattern 14) rifle. No further information available.

Canada produced a quantity of their own dischargers, based on the British No. 2 Mk 1, utilizing both the Ross Mk. III Rifle actions and No. 1 SMLE rifle actions. I do not know what, if any, numbering convention Canada used for this production. Some were built for cable operation and some had no modifications to the firing mechanism.

The Bowdenex type cable is essentially a bicycle brake lever and cable assembly. Different lengths were issued for different vehicle installations. For the No. 1 Mk 1 Dischargers, the available cable lengths were:

No. 1: 3 feet
No. 2: 5 feet
No. 3: 6 3/4 feet

For the No. 2 Mk 1 Dischargers, the available cable lengths were:

No. 1: 3 1/4 feet
No. 2: 5 feet
No. 3: 7 1/2 feet


David

David, is there a source document that speaks to: "utilizing both the Ross MK.III Rifle actions and No. 1 SMLE rifle actions" ?



I ask, as examples of the Canadian Ross actions have been observed, but as Canada did not manufacture the SMLE action, outside of a specific serial number or Dominion of Canada Proof stamps, in absence of official documents, how can we identify an SMLE discharger action as being Canadian produced, or should I correctly say, modified?

Ross rifles did not have factory applied serial numbers on the metal parts in a manner we would expect to see similar to other military rifles. The Ross actions used for the discharger conversions have serial numbers applied. Those numbers appear to follow a set sequence or identifiable pattern and location.

Ross discharger actions can be observed specfic to the Canadian Mark of Universal Carrier they were designed for. By example, the MK-I* series carrier used the cable release you identified. No such release cable was required for the MK-II* series carrier. As a result, the modified trigger guard and trigger designed to attach the release cable was redundant. I am thinking you may have some Ford factory images that show the MK-II* U.C. Ross actions in place?

I believe we will find both (original) Ross discharger actions had their safeties disabled by the removal of select parts.

If it isn't on the internet, or discoverable with Google, it didn't happen.

Michael.

Unfortunately, the documents I received from the EPR focused on design more so than production. The Ross Mk III design is well documented, the Canadian SMLE version is only mentioned. Perhaps a clone of the British SMLE design so no point in duplication of design references.

Hard to get a meaningful timeframe reference as well as any idea of production volumes. Going into WW2, it would stand to reason Canada still had a quantity of Ross rifles in storage somewhere, along with a large supply of SMLE equipment. Not sure when Long Branch production of the No.4 geared up, but it would seems possible when the decision was made to build Dischargers, the Ross would be the first consideration for conversion. If production demand exceeded the available supply of Ross Rifles, then SMLE's would likely have been called into play next.

Be interesting to find out if the Discharger was an active item throughout the war or perhaps went the way of the Boys Rifle at some point before the end of the war. From what I recall of Canadian vehicle production, only the Universal Carriers, Otter and Fox had provision for a Discharger, but there are a lot of photos out there, from all points in time during the war, where these particular vehicles have no Discharger installed at all. I think the Fox was even built for provision of two, one above the other.

The other bit of grey to the Discharger picture is the possibility two versions existed from another perspective: those built with residual wood furniture on the actions and those with all wood removed. It is possible wood furniture may only have been used on those Dischargers exposed to the elements. Metal only actions might have been intended for use in enclosed vehicles such as the Otter and Fox. Another unknown is if the mounting hardware was standard for all vehicles. The UC design suggests the discharger was a complete piece when fitted, but the Otter and Fox suggest the discharger had to be disassembled to be mounted.


David

Nothing documented thus far but along that same line of thought...

The U.S. built T-16 Universal Carrier first went into production during 1943 and it had fittings for the Boys A/T rifle and a 4-inch smoke discharger. The example I used to own was built in Mar '44 and by that stage they had abandoned the Boys fittings in favor of mounts for the PIAT but it retained the 4-inch smoke discharger. Sometime just after that time they began producing the vehicle with fittings for the 2-inch mortar which served as a smoke thrower. We've seen production vehicles from Jun '44 built this way but don't know when the actual transition occurred but it was sometime between March and June of 1944 in this vehicle's case.

Being built by Ford in the U.S.A., it probably took longer for a change request to be processed so I'd imagine the mortar was approved sometime in mid-1943 for UK and Commonwealth vehicles.

At the risk of venturing slightly off topic ... Nigel Watson published images of universal carriers under operational conditions c. 1945 NWE equipped with Boys rifles. "still in the system", ... but perhaps a modified role.

See "Universal Carriers, Volume II", page 48. Two MK-III carriers, the lead carrier mounting a Boys ATR through the upper folding door of the gunner's loop hole swinging plate. April, 1945.

The Windsor carrier was not equipped with the 4" smoke discharger bracket. The engine deck has a simple stowage bracket for an "Ordnance M.L. 2 in Mortar". The sample shown in the stowage diagrams indicates it was not designed to be mounted and fired from a purpose built bracket as we have seen on the MK-I U.C., production MK-II U.C., and T16 series. We are expecting to see details of the elusive welded hull MK-III* (Ford Canada) shortly.

In terms of my T-16 post, I was referring to new production vehicles and that they transitioned how they would leave the factory over time. No doubt my former carrier would have had the 4-inch until the end of the war and never been converted for a 2-inch mortar. The troops in the field would have kept and used whatever they had since obsolete didn't move to the obsolescent category until after hostilities were over.

And Nigel's three book series is an excellent photographic study of the carriers and kit :thup2:

Image attached in my live 4-inch which didn't go with the carrier since its an ATF registered short-barrel rifle here in the States.

Found this small clip from the movie The Red Berets. At the 1:15hr mark there is a scene where the paras are covering their withdrawl with smoke using these generators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwNsJ7BnfEM

More likely just down to inertia/bureaucracy. My father was at one point the wireless operator/gunner in a Morris LRC during the Italian campaign - they were issued with the Boys even though it was useless against anything armoured they were likely to encounter. As a result it was transferred to the unit's cook (who was extremely short and looked somewhat ridiculous on parade with it).

Chris.

smoke discharger continued question
 

Hi Folks,

Thanks for all the great info posted so far. Hopefully quick question here. Does anybody know what the original diameter is for the hole which transmits the ballasite (sp?) round's force from the breech, into the cup discharger?
I hope the wording that question made sense. Thanks - Chris

It's the same size as the rifle's bore so .303 on an Enfield or Ross rifle. With virtually no barrel they wouldn't want to restrict the cartridges gas emission on firing. Recoil would tear the device from its mounting.

Chris.

Nothing fancy as these dischargers were all based on some form of a .303 cal rifle from which the breech and small section of the rear end of the barrel were retained. There were no modifications done to the bore diameter. The Ballistite cartridges were designed with more than enough power to get the job done.

I suspect you might be thinking of blank firing adapters that are fitted to the muzzle of automatic weapons to permit a gas pressure buildup in the barrel of the weapon to enable the action to function properly. Trying that with a Ballistite cartridge would be outright dangerous.

David

Thanks guys. So if I'm reading this correctly, we're saying the original hole size through the adapter is about 5/16" which is close to .303? - Chris

I'll measure one of mine and get back to you.
I have one without the canister barrel on it right now.
Stay tuned.
cheers,
Warren

addendum: THIS IS FOR THE ROSS ACTION.
the barrel ID is .305 in. and a barrel length from the witness mark of 2.68 in.

Notable on some of the examples I have seen is that the bore is nowhere near centered on the stub barrel. It's almost like they cut the barrel, and chucked the receiver in a 4 jaw chuck and made the two levels of thread (smaller dia thread for the discharger cup, and larger diameter thread for the large retaining nut). Either that, or if they chucked the ross barrel, it was not straight in the chuck.

I had a machinist friend make up a bunch of the nuts for the dischargers. We found that there was actually variation in the larger diameter thread to the point we had to recall the first batch of nuts and have them re-worked. The threads on the barrel at that portion are actually a but tapered.

I still have nuts available to sell for those that need them, and still have the PDF that I can send out to those that want it.