Return to Index  

Re: Some more clues

September 4 2015 at 10:15 PM
No score for this post
Nelson  (no login)
from IP address

Response to Some more clues


Intended to respond to your previous, but family matters intruded and I’ve just recovered from a nasty virus, and thereafter I just plumb forgot. Perhaps the most interesting sentence in your previous post is

> None [Martin Parry high-speed kits sent to the British] were delivered to the Dutch, who by the way already used the Buquor adapter on their 75mm Krupp guns. >

For those not in the know, Adolph P. Buquor was the Martin Parry Corporation’s chief design engineer, who filed not a few patents (some on general automotive inventions, not necessarily of military application). In every case or virtually every case, Buquor assigned those patents to Martin Parry, whose manufacturing center lay in York, Pennsylvania. So call it a Martin Parry or a Buquor high-speed adaptor, ‘twas the same thing. My question at this juncture is: Can you tell us a deal more about the Dutch purchase of Buquor high-speed adaptors for their Krupp 75mm field guns? For example, did they go to both the NEI and the mother country?

Six days ago you provided a link to a site that specifies the existence in Oz of U.S. Mark VII 3-inch marine landing gun No. 1153, manufactured by the American & British Mfr. Co. of Bridgeport, CT. Perhaps significantly, serial No. 1153 is the first gun of the second 25-unit manufacturing run of the Mark VII landing gun. That run of 25 units extended from serial No. 1153 to serial No. 1177 (I think all 25 pieces were completed during 1912). With the 25 units of the first manufacturing run, that gave the U.S. Marine Corps, the ultimate beneficiary, fifty 3-inch guns to use in a normal field artillery role (though of course being smaller and lighter than the standard army field artillery piece, they were more mobile in the sense of where they could be readily deployed by direct strong-arm methods). My second question—and I intend to work on the answer from my end, too: Is No. 1153 actually the third Mark VII landing gun discovered in Oz, or simply one of the two long known there, and thus either the one recently sold or its near-sister kept in the seller’s collection?

All of that writ, it appears that the alluded-to Charlie C. and I pretty much see eye-to-eye in our conclusions on the load of Mark VII landing guns ending up in Australia.

As regards the Mark VIIs used during the Vera Cruz incursion of 1914, I have seen photos of different types of 3-inch landing guns in the hands of American sailors and marines, with the Mark VII of course restricted to marine gun crews. My only caution is to differentiate with care between the marine Mark VII sans shield and the naval Mark I mod 1, which did not have a shield but did possess a pair of racks for ammunition chests. Nota bene: having side-mounted ammunition racks or a shield was mutually exclusive: the gun carriage could have one or the other, but not both. So the Mark II carriage mounting the Mark I mod 1 landing gun had a pair of racks for ammunition chests, whereas the Mark V carriage for the Mark VII landing gun had provision for a shield, and in fact normally mounted it. Photos of the Mark VII landing gun on the Mark V carriage have already been posted with this thread, so here is the Mark I mod 1 landing gun on its Mark II carriage in Vera Cruz (or Veracruz), Mexico, in 1914. Note the pair of ammo chest racks, one of them being used as a convenient seat.

[linked image]

That the wheels for the high-speeded Mark VII landing guns were made by Budd, the American manufacturer of powered (self-propelled) railway cars, convinces me that the N-number of Mark VII landing guns shipped to the NEI were high-speeded—with Budd wheels and Martin Parry adaptor kits—before departing the shores of the U.S.

I have no qualms about the Mark VII landing guns diverted to Oz being assigned to the AMF for training and/or shore defense, but I’m dubious about the VDC (the Volunteer Defence Corps, Australia’s Home Guard), who likely did not have the expertise or provision within their establishment—to borrow the Yank term, TO&E—for wheeled artillery pieces of any size. I’ll bow to argument otherwise from Down Under.


Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement