# Talk:Smith Gun

A young member of the Home Guard remembers witnessing a training incident with the Smith Gun:

We also received a smooth bore Smith gun. It arrived in boxes and required assembling. After it had been assembled as per instructions a small washer was found in one of the boxes. This item was ignored and the gun was taken onto the firing range for testing. It could fire mills bombs or phosphorus bottle bombs which burst into flames on impact. Our two corporals were to have the privilege of firing the first shots. The breach was opened and a phosphorus bomb inserted followed by the propelling charge. The two gunners crouched behind the shield and the order to fire was given. There was a bang followed by a huge burst of flame which enveloped gun and gunners. From out of this conflagration staggered our corporals, their eyebrows had gone and their tunics were smoldering. They had the appearance of having been on a good summer’s holiday. It was later discovered that the bomb had gone off in the barrel by striking the foresight screw which had protruded into the bore. The washer left in the box would have prevented this.
That's a good anecdote but it describes the Northover Projector not the Smith Gun.Sitalkes (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The Northover fired phosphorus bombs or grenades,  not the Smith gun. The Smith Gun fired a 6lb, 3in caliber, finned HEAT round, or an 8lb fragmented cast iron anti-personnel round.  The modification most obvious in the 2½ in Northover Projector Mk II is the tripod mount, but more important was the welded boss holding the foresight, which prevented the sight being screwed too far in, thus obstructing the barrel and causing the round to explode in the bore.  Perhaps this is some mish-mash of a memory as the Northover didn't have a shield or propelling charges.Sitalkes (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many contradictory statements made about the Smith Gun, but this (and the following prohibiting it from being towed) is the strangest.  Mounted on a simple two-wheeled trailer (‘trailer, artillery, No. 39’) which looked "like a two-wheeled baby carriage", it could be towed by any car of 10 hp or more.  Its unsprung wheels were not designed for this purpose though, and Home Guard units had to be prohibited from doing so, as it would damage them.  The gun and limber could also be towed by a single horse, or individually behind two motorcycles.   In the Wessex archives video you can see two men easily pushing the gun and limber by themselves (across flat ground admittedly).  I have also read that Its large wheels also enabled the crew to manhandle the gun into position over rubble or broken ground.  I think any statements about it being heavy (it weighed approximately 604 pounds or twice as much as the Blacker Bombard) have to be heavily qualified.Sitalkes (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between "Trianco" and "Triang".  Smith was a concrete machinery manufacturer based near Hampton Court not a toy manufacturer and "Triang" toys were produced by Lanes.  There may have been two "Trianco" companies as the current Trianco is a Sheffield company that makes heating equipment (boilers)  and lists a long history on their web site that goes back before 1940. http://www.trianco.co.uk/about/
I realise that because the following wasn't in a book it can't be included (and is too much detail anyway) but for those who are interested here's what I found on WW2Talk:
Trianco is often confused with Triang and described as a toy manufacturing company, but it never produced toys. It got involved in the relatively new technologies associated with Portland Cement following WW1, by buying redundant submarine netting and employing teams of workers to unravel it to make concrete reinforcing wire.  It  almost went completely bust in the 1930's. The firm, led by Smith who was a bundle of creative ideas, went on to develop several patents and registered designs amongst which were machines for making concrete blocks, of which the "breeze" blocks (clinker blocks) are the best known. The inter war years were a time of much suburban construction, which saw the adoption of the "cavity wall"; a way of building house walls using big cheap concrete blocks as the inner leaf and allowing cheaper less skilled bricklayers to create a damp proof wall; the better insulation was almost a side effect. Smith tried to build the whole wall out of triangular blocks so the inside face and the outside face could have different finishes.  This was not a great success, as British people like brick houses, not concrete or rendered houses Continental style.  Come the emergency of WW2, Smith managed to offer the engineering skills of his concrete machinery manufacturing business to the war effort.  
Sitalkes (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As a former employee/director of TRIANCO Ltd. I can confirm that Smith was indeed founder/owner/MD  of the original Trianco and that they manufactured solid fuel heating appliances. The company were later acquired by Redfyre (a Sheffield based boiler manufacturer and previously owned by Newton Chambers) and latterly became Trianco Redfyre.
The company has been through several changes and identities and the Trianco brand is still manufactured in Sheffield by TR Engineering...TR being a play on Trianco Redfyre.  Flyingbuzzers (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have done a little digging and it seems that, as Flyingbuzzers suggests, there is some confusion and it is likely that the idea that the Smith Gun was developed by a toy manufacturer is an error that has been perpetuated across the web. I cannot find any evidence that Trianco Toys has ever existed as a company and, on the other hand, all the patents attributed to Smith are related to civil engineering. patent search
So, I will remove the reference to Trianco Toys from the article.
This reference seems to be very useful: Clarke, Dale (19 September 2011). "Arming the British Home Guard, 1940-1944".
Gaius Cornelius (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)