<< 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)
from IP address 75.120.252.199

 
"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)
24.91.235.5

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.Respond to this message   
Jim Broshot
(Login JimBroshot)
75.120.252.199

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.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

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.Respond to this message   
Jim Broshot
(Login JimBroshot)
75.120.252.199

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.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

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.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

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.Respond to this message   
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

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.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

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.Respond to this message   
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

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.Respond to this message   
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

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.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

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.Respond to this message   
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

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.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

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.Respond to this message   
Nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

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.Respond to this message   
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

Some more clues

No score for this post
September 4 2015, 3:07 PM 

Charlie C on the Landships forum contacted one of the owners of the surviving guns in OZ. These are the most interesting parts of the reply he received:

"The only other physical signs of them in Australia were a cartridge case ash tray found in Sydney and two full length cartridge cases made into vases with AIF hat badges soldered on ex Darwin NT. Also a nice steel spare parts chest found in Victoria as well. I cannot say which formations may have used the LGs in Australia or how many there were, but the evidence indicates the guns were actually fired in Australia and were spread widely.

(...)

There is a good photo of one at a US garrison in China, one in Panama, and limbered guns with shields removed (they were detachable with four locking pins) in the Mexico incursion.

(...)

The guns' wheels were made by Budd and dated (military style?) 8 41. This date is probably after they were removed from US service and may have been part of the Dutch order to have US procured surplus artillery upgrades by Martin Parry Corp.

(...)

When in Australia, they may have been issued to AMF or VDC as a training weapon. The possibility they were used in Darwin may point to use by AMF defensive positions."

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

Re: Some more clues

No score for this post
September 4 2015, 10:15 PM 

Nuyt,

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.

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Nelson
(no login)
24.91.235.5

Are there two or three U.S. Mark VII LGs in Oz? (Nuyt note)

No score for this post
September 7 2015, 5:08 PM 

Nuyt (et alia),

You have a presence on a number of military forums, and recently called the attention of this forum to a possible third U.S. Mark VII 3-inch marine landing gun in Australia, viz.

http://artilleryhistory.org/artillery_register/private_collection/gun_private_collection_019_us_3inch_mark_vii_landing_gun_sn1153.html

I wonder if there are in fact two such landing guns Down Under, and what first appeared to be a third such gun is actually the second, i.e., the one that sold within the past few to several years.

Some years back, a collector in Australia offered for sale one of his two U.S. Mark VII 3-inch landing guns, both of them high-speeded with Martin Parry kit. See

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

While the guns themselves are identical, displaying horizontal sliding wedge breech mechanisms (as had the Rheinische Metallwaaren guns built in the U.S. by American and British Manufacturing Company of Bridgeport, CT), the shields differ sufficiently to be significant. One such shield—on the gun sold—is of one piece and unhinged at the top; the other, remaining in the seller’s collection, is hinged at the top. In this description, I’m ignoring the hinged bottom part of both shields, well below the gun cradle. Here are the two guns before one of them sold.


[linked image]


If the viewer stands behind and between the guns, the one on the left sold. Note that it has the one-piece top shield, with long shield braces. Its near-sister on the right has the two-piece hinged top shield, with shorter braces extending to the top of the lower part of the shield.


[linked image]


If we look at the front of the gun that the seller kept in his collection, we can readily see the two parts of the hinged top shield.


[linked image]


Finally, if we look at the gun identified as U.S. Mark VII 3-inch landing gun, serial No. 1153 (again, the first gun of the second manufacturing run of 25 pieces, begun in 1911), we can see its top shield is not hinged.

I wonder if you know Charlie C. in the Landships forum, who in turn knows one of the men who own these Mark VII landing guns. Or at least know him well enough to ask a question. Is that purchased gun No. 1153? Can he or someone else in that circle of artillery owners in Australia ascertain the serial number of the gun that did not sell? To iterate this important question: Are there two OR three U.S. Mark VII 3-inch landing guns now residing in Australia?

Thanks,

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

Just two I reckon

No score for this post
September 8 2015, 1:40 PM 

Sorry for the delay, Nelson.

I reckon there are just two and this is also what the collector says. I assume the one for sale was bought by the collector.

The one with the hinged shield may have been adapted post war by another collector. I thought it was mentioned somewhere that this shield was not the original one?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
nuyt
(Login nuyt)
Owner
92.111.11.143

Quick reply

No score for this post
September 8 2015, 1:53 PM 

Just a quick reply, Nelson.

The Buquor adapter as used by KNIL was a small carriage that carried the whole gun when travelling, it was not a modification of the gun carriage. A unique picture can be found on this page:
http://overvalwagen.com/artillerytractors.html

It's possible that closer to the war some Krupp 75mm field guns were indeed adapted in a Martin Parry like fashion, but there is little info. I know only one vague picture of a 7,5cm Veld on Java in service with Dutch troops in 1947, but when the conversion was made is not clear.

The Dutch army at home had motorised just 16 7 Velds (these were slightly different ones from the KNIL version) of the Korps Rijdende Artillerie. Some pics can be found. I dont know if it is a Martin Parry conversion, you tell me:)
http://www.zuidfront-holland1940.nl/index.php?page=photo&pid=4339
and scroll a bit down
http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/thread/1126118477/4/HIH+and+HIH+Siderius-+Dutch+offshoots+of+Rheinmetall%2C+1923-1934

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement