<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Contemporary report on coast artillery in the defense of the Philippines

August 23 2015 at 4:22 AM
No score for this post
Jim Broshot  (Login JimBroshot)

 
"Report on performance of United States Army coast artillery personnel and equipment in the Manila – Bataan military campaign"


http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll8/id/4134

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Nelson
(no login)

and another one....maybe

No score for this post
August 26 2015, 4:12 PM 

Jim,

A pity that someone at some point had made so free with the DECLASSIFIED stamp. As the file description indicates, there is no author for the document other than the U.S. Army. Nonetheless, the title is remarkably similar in form to that of a report ostensibly authored postwar by Col. Albert C. Searle, captured on Java in March 1942. The latter document is titled “Official Report on combat efficiency of U.S. Army [field] artillery in Java”. The only citation I’ve read has “U.S. Army artillery”, but it occurs that “field” may have been unintentionally omitted from that citation. I believe you’re a regular user at CARL and if so, very likely you have a contact or two whom you find particularly reliable. Wonder if you would attempt to find the document I cite, with and without Searle as author, and with and without “field” preceding “artillery”.

I have tried assiduously to find the Searle document at the National Archives, the Center for Military History, and the Military History Institute, but just no trace. If such a report was made, the only obvious author would have been Colonel Searle, the sole American regular field artillery officer made a prisoner of war on Java.

Thanks,

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Jim Broshot
(Login JimBroshot)

Re: and another one....maybe

No score for this post
August 27 2015, 5:12 AM 

Nelson:

Sorry, I regularly log in at CARL but do not have any contacts there. In fact I have never been there physically. I can only claim to have once been second assistant briefcase carrier in a jury trial where Ike Skelton (the fellow for whom the CARL building is now named) was lead counsel.

I tried a search using 'Searle' and then 'Java' as terms but found nothing.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

the second time around

No score for this post
August 27 2015, 2:31 PM 

Jim,

> I tried a search using ‘Searle’ and then ‘Java’ as terms but found nothing. >

Thanks for looking, and my apology for plumb forgetting I had made this same request 5 1/2 years ago, also coming up empty.

You near-flummoxed me with the Ike Skelton reference. Funniest thing, but a pal and I are making up a comprehensive list of locations where any of the three nearly identical models of the early 20th century U.S. Army 3-inch field gun are displayed—the first modern field guns designed after the embarrassments suffered from the antiques the army was forced to deploy in the Spanish-American War and the Peking Relief Expedition. One of those sites is the Museum for Missouri Military History at the Ike Skelton Training Center, not far east of Jefferson City, a site my friend and I discussed only earlier this week. Because the Training Center is strictly a Missouri Guard facility, your mention of that worthy in reference to CARL took me aback, until I learned that Skelton’s name now graces the research library at Fort Leavenworth and thereupon all was ‘splained.

> second assistant briefcase carrier in a jury trial >

Just so’z I’ll have this straight: This is a distinctly recognized position for which three years at a decent law school prepares one?

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Jim Broshot
(Login JimBroshot)

Of CARL, 3inch guns AND OT - Junior Barristers

No score for this post
August 28 2015, 5:14 AM 

Nelson:

Will keep monitoring CARL (and other sites) for your missing report. Would there have been anything published in postwar issues of THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL?

"Funniest thing, but a pal and I are making up a comprehensive list of locations where any of the three nearly identical models of the early 20th century U.S. Army 3-inch field gun are displayed—the first modern field guns designed after the embarrassments suffered from the antiques the army was forced to deploy in the Spanish-American War and the Peking Relief Expedition. One of those sites is the Museum for Missouri Military History at the Ike Skelton Training Center, not far east of Jefferson City, a site my friend and I discussed only earlier this week"

I went to Kansas City MO a few weekends ago and got to spend two hours in the NATIONAL WORLD WAR I MUSEUM (at the Liberty Memorial). Very impressive place and I wish I had more time to spend there that day.

They also have a U S Army 3-inch field gun. I took a photograph, the placard says "U. S. 3 in Field Gun, Model of 1895 and Carriage, Model of 1902"
And a whole lot more artillery also.

> second assistant briefcase carrier in a jury trial >
Just so’z I’ll have this straight: This is a distinctly recognized position for which three years at a decent law school prepares one?

When its a will contest involving an estate with property worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars (this is 1976) and a charitable trust, you have at counsel table: Ike Skelton and his associate, my employer (who hired Skelton to try the case for him). The two attorneys representing the proponents of the will, the two lawyers who wrote the will (who allowed to sit at counsel table even though they can't participate) and two assistant attorneys general (because of the charitable trust), there isnt any room left at the table for a neophyte barrister barely one year out of law school.
I did get to have dinner with Mr. (later Congresman) Skelton at his house.



 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

Re: Of CARL, 3inch guns, &c.

No score for this post
August 28 2015, 9:53 AM 

Jim,

> Would there have been anything published in postwar issues of THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL? >

Hmmm, I dunno, but good thinking.

> I went to Kansas City MO a few weekends ago and got to spend two hours in the NATIONAL WORLD WAR I MUSEUM (at the Liberty Memorial). Very impressive place and I wish I had more time to spend there that day.

They also have a U S Army 3-inch field gun. I took a photograph, the placard says “U. S. 3 in Field Gun, Model of 1895 and Carriage, Model of 1902” And a whole lot more artillery also. >

Just for a MO', I thought that starter sentence was the west-of-the-Mississippi version of the jokes that begin, “Once went to Philadelphia....” More seriously—and with no intention of splitting hairs—there was NOT a Model 1895 U.S. Army 3-inch field gun. Brief history: the army used various models of the no-frills, no-on-carriage-recoil 3.2-inch breechloading field gun, whose use began in 1889 or 1890. After coming red-of-face out of two conflicts that involved either foreign observers (Span-Amer War) or outright foreign participation as duration-only allies (Peking Relief Exped), the army determined to equip itself with a modern field gun. A pilot piece was acquired from Ehrhardt (a.k.a. Rheinische Metallwaren; eventually a.k.a. Rheinmetall) in Germany, which at some point became designated the Model 1901. Many of the ideas in the Rheinische pilot gun were “lifted”, and as a consequence, after two large domestic orders, including one to Watervliet Arsenal, the third order for 50 units, complete—M1902 gun, M1902 carriage, M1902 limber, necessary accoutrements—went across the sea to Deutschland, in violation of the domestic-sales-only policy established by Congress (methinks the alternative would have involved barristers, both senior and junior, from both sides of the Pond). The subsequent Models 1904 and 1905 3-inch field guns also used the M1902 field carriage (but there are weight differences among the long progression of such carriages to fit the gun, so early carriage serials are not identical, other than visually, with later carriage serials). Hope that in-a-nutshell suffices.

So puleeze post the .jpg of the field gun-and-carriage combination you snapped at the KC museum. Could well be the placard is simply in error. Could equally be that some odd-couple combo is on the floor, and I would dearly love to eyeball it. Attached is an example of the standard American army 3-inch field gun of the pre-World War I period, on display at the First Division Museum in Cantigny, IL. Note the 16-spoked wheels, unique to U.S. gun carriages, limbers, caissons, heavy wagons, etc., from a pattern established by the Archibald Wheel Company of Lawrence, MA.

[linked image]

Thanx,

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

afterthought

No score for this post
August 28 2015, 10:18 AM 

Jim,

Two minutes after I hit “Respond”, it occurred that in all likelihood the Kansas City museum has a Model 1905 3-inch field gun mounted on the ubiquitous Model 1902 field carriage, and the placard simply displays a typo. Again, at first glance, the three models of 3-inch field gun seem identical, as do their nearly common Model 1902 field carriages, but the weight ratios differ somewhat from the inception of construction not long after the turn of the century to its end around World War I. Although the 3-inch field guns never got Over There, they were routinely used in training. There was nothing wrong with this ordnance, but having French and American light fieldpieces firing common 75mm projectiles was of obvious logistical value. The story is far more complicated, but this brief version must suffice.

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner

Talking bout 3 inch guns

No score for this post
August 28 2015, 12:44 PM 

Not sure if this link was ever shared on this forum, but landing guns have been discussed here before.

http://www.cannonsuperstore.com/1911mark7.html

Note this 3 inch US Navy landing gun of 1911 for sale in Austrlia a while ago, apparently from a load of such guns that had been acquired by KNIL or had been intended for them in 1942. The link suggests that the whole lot of US 1911 landing guns (how many were that?) was acquired by the Dutch (this must have gone through the Netherlands Purchasing Commission), but ended up in Australia after the fall of Java (like a lot of other stuff). It may have served in local forces in Australia?
Glad to hear your thoughts...

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

Re: Talking bout 3-inch [landing] guns

No score for this post
August 28 2015, 9:49 PM 

Beginning not so arbitrarily in the late 1890s, the U.S. Navy and/or Marine Corps used in chronological succession—although their use overlapped—five standard models of 3-inch naval field and landing guns (the same thing, really, with the designation as one or the other based on muzzle velocity alone):

• Mark I 3-inch/21cal field gun on Mark I field carriage*
• Mark I mod 1 3-inch/21cal field gun on Mark II field carriage
• Mark IV 3-inch/23.5cal landing gun on Mark IV field carriage (Bethlehem Steel design)
• Mark VII 3-inch/23cal landing gun on Mark V field carriage (Rheinische Metallwaaren design; subcontracted to American & British Mfr. Co., Bridgeport, CT, because of the government requirement for domestic procurement only). Due to weight considerations, all 50 guns were transferred to the USMC and did not see Fleet service.
• Mark XI 3-inch/23.5cal landing gun on Mark VI field carriage

*Numerous and serious problems were encountered with the odd wrap-around-the-barrel recoil sleeve on the Mark I field gun. In the equally numerous and not totally successful efforts to rectify the problems, designations such as Mark I mod 1 and Mark I mod 2 crop up that may refer to the modified recoil cylinder only or to the modified gun carriage or both.

NOT included in the preceding list of USN/USMC 3-inch field and landing guns: (i) Guns of other calibers, such as 1-pounders (37mm), that not infrequently were landed in support of bluejackets ashore. (ii) Nearly three dozen heavy carriages designed to mount various 3-inch/50cal shipboard guns; these carriages were concentrated at two places, Norfolk Navy Yard on the east coast and the Philippines in the Pacific. After dismounting the shipboard guns, getting them ashore, and coupling them with their field carriages, such heavy pieces required horse drayage, were anathema to the quick in-and-out of landing parties, and thus saw little to no use. (iii) Mark XII 3-inch/15cal mountain gun on Mark VII mountain carriage (Bethlehem Steel design): four were purchased and saw experimental use by the marines in the mountains of Central America.

[linked image]

Above is a photo of one of several Mark VII 3-inch landing guns remaining in the hands of the marine garrison in Peking (these were the final such guns in use by the marines; stateside the USMC had converted to superior field artillery pieces). Unlike those arriving in Australia in early WWII, such guns are seen to be still configured as landing guns, with wooden spoked wheels, a steel trail wheel, etc. Between Peking or Shanghai and the Philippines, until late in the game there were ten to a dozen Mk VII 3-inch landing guns in Asiatic outposts. What became their fate?

The questions remain precisely WHO high-speeded the Mark VII landing guns now in Australia with the Martin Parry gear and WHEN. Done by the Americans as a condition set by the Dutch purchasers in the NEI? If so, when diverted to Australia, the pieces had already been high-speeded by the Yanks. If not, the Aussies could have purchased conversion kits from Martin Parry in the States (the company made such high-speed kits for a variety of guns, domestic and foreign). Although a representative was frequently provided to ensure proper conversion, an experienced and intuitive ordnanceman could have readily done the conversions with the tools provided. In matériel-poor Oz, such pieces would have been useful in training, not to mention valuable as beach defense guns, so the third question of HOW MANY arises. Surely someone Down Under must know more of their history there.

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Jim Broshot
(Login JimBroshot)

3inch gun

No score for this post
August 29 2015, 4:52 AM 

Nelson:

Here you are


Upon further review, the placard may read Model of "1905" and not "1895". Any for your perusal.

[linked image]

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

Re: 3inch gun

No score for this post
August 29 2015, 6:56 AM 

Jim,

> Upon further review, the placard may read Model of "1905" and not "1895". >

I suspicion that is precisely what happened, because your photo shows a typical U.S. Army 3-inch field gun of the first decade of the 20th century. If you made additional images of this gun, look at any taken atop the breech. Stamped in large letters is this standard array:

3 INCH FIELD
U.S.
MODEL OF 190–


The greatest number made and thus the most common survivor today is the Model of 1905 (but the predecessor Models of 1902 and 1904 are also out there). The finisher of the gun, e.g., Watervliet Arsenal, Bethlehem Steel, or a couple of others, is stamped on the muzzle, along with the fabrication year date and the gun serial number. The carriage serial number shows on the bronze builder’s plate on the carriage just under the breech. Often, however, that builder’s plate has been torn off or otherwise removed.

A special feature shows in both your photo and the one from the First Division Museum. When the battery was on the move, two gunners sat in front of the shield of each piece, one on either side of the barrel. Note the seat and the perforated steel foot plate on each side of the gun. Now carefully note the pair of tubular elements just behind each foot plate and under each gunner’s seat, with another pair on the opposite side; they correspond with nice little covers or hatches on the rear side of the shield. These tubes stored a total of four reserve rounds, very likely shrapnel, that were forbidden to be used in normal firing. They were there IF the need arose in a last-ditch, backs-against-the-wall defense. I know of no contemporary European light field gun that had such provision for the stashing of emergency rounds.

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Jim Broshot
(Login JimBroshot)

3inch gun and SOT Spanish American War and Philippine Insurrection

No score for this post
August 29 2015, 9:04 AM 

Nelson

Unfortunately I had only a limited amount of time to devote to the museum, and I am not sure that the 3inch gun was located where I would have had full access and could conduct a detailed examination to ferret out the exact model number and other details.

I did find the Spanish American War Memorial, which faces the Liberty Memorial, so I sort know how my grandfather Harry Doster Thompson, late 71st New York Infantry and 27th United States Volunteer Infantry, looked like back in the day

[linked image]


Of which I have a photograph, Grandfather Thompson is the fellow sprawled in the front with his hand on his rifle.

[linked image]

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner

Interesting

No score for this post
August 29 2015, 11:23 AM 

Thanks, so a grand total of 36-40 of these guns may have been purchased by the NPC, that's interesting. There are several documents about Dutch purchasers looking for 75mm field guns, but these landing guns I reckon were 76,2 mm. The KNIL arsenal in Bandoeng produced ammo for the 75mm Krupp guns. I guess the former US Marines' guns came with their stockpile of ammo as well... It must have been a substantial order (especially if highspeeded) and no doubt documented...I'll check if I can find any leads in my files.

Another question. Wasnt there another type of US landing gun with the recuperator mounted on top of the barrel (a De Bange invention if I recall?). That was a very modern looking gun for the time and preceding Rheinmetall designs of the 1920s.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner

Another one in OZ

No score for this post
August 29 2015, 11:38 AM 


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

Re: Interesting

No score for this post
August 29 2015, 4:07 PM 

Nuyt,

> Thanks, so a grand total of 36-40 of these guns may have been purchased by the NPC, that’s interesting....I guess the former US Marines’ guns came with their stockpile of ammo as well... It must have been a substantial order (especially if highspeeded) and no doubt documented...I’ll check if I can find any leads in my files. >

From what I conclude, you wrote the above before going into your files. Important: What is the basis of your prelim estimate of 36 to 40 Mark VII marine landing guns moving into Dutch hands c1940? In fact, the USN had purchased a total of 50 of these landing guns designed by Rheinische and built by American & British Mfr. Co., in two contracts specifying 25 units each, during the years 1909–1912, give or take. The third surviving Mark VII you located in Oz, serial No. 1153, is definitely part of the second lot ordered.

I have since checked my own files to ascertain more precisely how many Mark VII 3-inch (76mm) landing guns were available in American outposts in the Far East as war clouds gathered. The answer is 10: six stored at Cavite Navy Yard in Manila Bay, and the final four actually in marine service in Peking (likely moved later to Shanghai). It may well be that the Mark VII landing guns purchased by the Dutch did not even include those ten, but the lot sold moved directly from the States. I’ve been giving a deal of thought to WHO high-speeded the “Dutch” guns, and WHEN, and my money is on the Americans as part of the conditions set by the purchaser. It would make sense that the Dutch in the NEI would have required high-speeded artillery pieces, and their conversion was more readily done back in the U.S. of A. By the time these pieces were diverted to Australia, the Diggers had enough on their minds, and the plethora of different types of guns arriving at dockside would have been mind-boggling. Would the Aussies have asked, “By the by, the Dutchies just gifted us N-number of American naval landing guns. You got some of those conversion kits so’z we can modernize them? And ammo, too. Lotsa ammo.” Well, maybe, and could my guess be stone-cold wrong? Absolutely.

> Wasn’t there another type of US landing gun with the recuperator mounted on top of the barrel (a De Bange invention if I recall?). That was a very modern looking gun for the time and preceding Rheinmetall designs of the 1920s. >

Well, yes, no, yes, and uncertain. Starting with your first and third points, the U.S. Navy finally got the modern landing gun it wanted, the Mark XI, in 1916, virtually too late for it to see any real use. Its design was a collaboration between the navy, which laid out its needs, and the gun’s manufacturer, Bethlehem Steel. Which is to write that this piece was not bought off the shelf from Bethlehem, as were the woefully inadequate Mark IV landing gun and the later Mark XII mountain gun, the latter seeing rather little use by the marines. The Mark XI design included such niceties as a vertical sliding wedge breech mechanism, a better panoramic sight than on the Mark VII, and a split-trail field carriage (Mark VI). The no part is the recuperator was hung under the barrel; ‘twas the recoil cylinder atop the barrel. Not sure of your point about Rheinmetall, unless you mean the German company’s general ordnance designs of the 1920s, which did come after the design and adoption of the Mark XI landing gun in 1916, even before the U.S. had become a belligerent in World War I. See Gene Slover’s website on the Mark XI landing gun, which provides graphics and will answer most of your questions.

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/NAVAL-LANDING-GUN.html

Want to correct partially one of my previous statements. I wrote that the U.S. Navy differentiated between a field gun and a landing gun on the basis of muzzle velocity alone. Not correct sensu stricto, because those different muzzle velocities were generated by different 3-inch rounds: the Mark I and Mark I mod 1 used smaller rounds than the later Marks IV, VII, and XI, i.e., such ammunition was not interchangeable.

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner

Lead found

No score for this post
August 30 2015, 9:47 AM 

Yes, that's the one, the Mark XI...so it was not a Rheinmetall design then?

About the estimate of 36-40 landing guns possibly bought by the Dutch: I noted the Aussie link (the writer of which having done some homework) mentions "the whole lot"possibly been bought by the NL. Since the original lot was 50 and you counted 10-12 in the Far East garrisons (later narrowed down to 10) that left almost 40 in US depots (give and take a few lost in accidents in the preceding 20 years or so). So possibly a substantial order together with ammo....

Meanwhile I found one reference to these guns (well, possibly). In a document of mid 1940 (Summary of Material to be purchased by the Netherlands East Indies Government in the USA, which was attached to a letter from the NPC to the procurement division of the US Treasury Dept. seeking permission for or release of various armaments) the following is listed under point "K":

"15 - 3 inch guns with 15 limbers, 36.000 high explosive shells and 6.000 shrapnels."

This reference cannot be found in later summaries of the same nature, where the need for KNIL artillery is now specified as 32 pieces 105mm howitzers.

Assuming point K indeed refers to the US Marines' landing guns it took a long time to "receive" them, in fact two years. These weapons do not feature on a list of Dutch weapons en route to the NEI and diverted to Australian or US forces in the Pacific after March 1942. It maybe that as things were heating up the weapons were released after all to KNIL and sent asap to Java, like a lot of other stuff. They could have been 15 pieces or more, if the emergency situation caused the US govt to raise the numbers...

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

Re: Lead found

No score for this post
August 30 2015, 3:26 PM 

Continuing with the Mark VII 3-inch landing gun, I wanted to know what you know about the numbers putatively sent, because so far neither American, Australian, nor Dutch sources have revealed a definitive answer. We’re aware that at least three modernized (i.e., high-speeded) Mark VII landing guns have turned up in Australia—about the only reason at all we know about these old landing guns Down Under—and we understand indirectly or from hearsay that they had been purchased by the Dutch, but got diverted to Oz. “The whole lot” could have been a minimum of 15, or even more IF some larger number had been freed up by the United States. We know that a limber was part of the standard issue: Mark VII gun, field carriage, limber, and accoutrements. We know that at some point someone high-speeded this uncertain number of Mark VII landing guns with Martin Parry kit (the someones had to be either the Yanks or the Aussies, because the Dutchies likely never laid hands on them). IF limbers accompanied the guns, they would have been high-speeded, too, because otherwise what would have been the point of including them? Finally, we know that a load of Mark VII landing guns were NOT aboard the Pensacola convoy that arrived at Brisbane in late December 1941. Thass about all we do know about these guns, but my feeling is that a paper trail must exist out there somewhere. Just maybe lurking out there is the odd photo of such guns in wartime Oz....or even a handful at dockside in Surabaya.

As regards the much better Mark XI 3-inch landing gun/Mark VI split-trail field carriage, no, decidedly NOT an Ehrhardt/Rheinische/Rheinmetall design. There is still uncertainty to what degree the army Model 1916 3-inch (later 75mm) field gun influenced the Mark XI, or even more likely vice versa. I did not want to confuse the numbers issue with the Mark VII landing guns, previously stablemates at Cavite, but as a matter revealed more than once in this forum, do recall that 14 Mark XI 3-inch landing guns were transferred from the 16th Naval District, Manila Bay, to the U.S. Army in the Philippines. These Mark XI landing guns were as originally configured and not high-speeded, included a quantity of ammunition (if memory serves, both HE and shrapnel), and did see minimal service as beach defense guns and the like.

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner

Limbers

No score for this post
August 31 2015, 2:30 PM 

Nelson,
You triggered a quick dive in to the lend-lease documents I have with your remark on high speeding the limbers.

Of course there may have been other sources of obtaining the MP kits, but the only recipient of MP high speed kits through lend-lease was the British Empire with 233 complete Martin Parry adapters delivered. The lend-lease list specifically also mentions the delivery of 16 "Martin Parry adapters for 75mm trailers"...getting closer? We dont know of course which part of the Empire was the beneficiary...and no 3 inch guns are mentioned... but the number is at odds with the amount of trailers and 75mm guns delivered to the Empire.
None were delivered to the Dutch, who by the way already used the Buquor adapter on their 75mm Krupp guns.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nelson
(no login)

more info on the 3-inch field gun in the KC museum

No score for this post
August 31 2015, 3:32 PM 

Jim,

As you likely know, the b&w photo you attached shows the volunteers armed with the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen bolt-action rifle (from which the expression “Civilize ‘em with a Krag” arose). The stodgy old reactionaries in the U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. continued to believe the newly enlisted young lads would blaze away in an undisciplined manner and exhaust their ammo muy pronto. To offset that promiscuous tendency, they insisted the army needed single-shot shoulder weapons. On the other hand, the beloved trapdoor Springfield .45-70 was getting a bit long in the tooth, the rest of the world had moved on to bolt-action pieces firing .30cal rounds, etc.* Thus a compromise was reached wherein the bolt-action piece fired normally as a single-shot weapon, but had a five-round reserve magazine on the side if’n the need arose...um...when in combat does that need not predictably arise? From the photo, your granddad and his fellows were the lucky ones, perhaps because the unit shown is U.S. volunteer infantry, and not strictly state militia. In far too many cases, the latter units did land in Cuba carrying their trapdoor antiques, firing black powder cartridges that emitted great clouds of smoke, thereupon obscuring their field of fire, but nicely providing targets for the Spanish, armed with Mausers and Remingtons firing smokeless powder. Perhaps the state boys could only thank their lucky stars they had not been sent to a foreign war equipped with muzzleloaders.

*One must concede the superior take-down capability of the old .45-caliber bullet, handy when facing fanatical warriors fired by religious zeal, but the advantages of the new shoulder arm far outweighed that deficiency: ease of operation, smokeless powder, ability to carry more ammunition, etc. And anyway, the smaller caliber bullet was hardly the major objection by the hoary reactionaries to the adoption of a magazine-fed repeating rifle.

Four days ago I mentioned a colleague with whom I’m preparing the comprehensive list of early 20th century army field guns. Like you a Midwesterner, he has also been to the World Wark I museum in KC, and he provides these additional data for your files:

Model 1905 3-inch field gun serial No. 249
forged by American & British Mfr. Co.†, Bridgeport, CT
finished by Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, NY, 1914
Model 1902 3-inch field carriage serial No. 423
fabricated by Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, IL, 1912

†And where have we run across this firm before??

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Jim Broshot
(Login JimBroshot)

Re: more info on the 3-inch field gun in the KC museum

No score for this post
September 1 2015, 6:06 AM 

Thanks for the explanations, although I was aware of most of the Spanish-American war information already.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement