Help to Id. US artillery

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#706

Post by Richard Anderson » 30 Apr 2016, 16:55

Sturm78 wrote:Thanks for your help, Richard and ROLAND1369... :wink:

Here, another image (from Ebay) of a very rare (for me) US Army AA gun. According to photocaption, 26mm caliber weapon... 8O :?
Any idea ???

Sturm78
The only thing I can think of is one of the .90 caliber AA projects. Possibly the T1 or T2 (the T3 and T4 were Colt designs and looked like oversized .50 BMG). T1 was based on the Colt 37mm AA design, so probably fits. The "26mm" caption could be a simple conversion error - us 'Muricans have trouble with that metric dohicky. Otherwise, I can find no evidence of a US Army Ordnance 1" Gun or of a 1" or 25mm/26mm cartridge developed by Ordnance except for the 19th Century Nordenfelt 1" Gun.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10058
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#707

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 02 May 2016, 04:55

Sturm78 wrote:Thanks for your help, Richard and ROLAND1369... :wink:

Here, another image (from Ebay) of a very rare (for me) US Army AA gun. According to photocaption, 26mm caliber weapon... 8O :?
Any idea ???

Sturm78
I wonder if it might be from a evaluation of the USN 1.1" AA gun. The pics are tough to judge. I cant say if the bulges on the navy guns are sleeves or gun barrel. Also 1.1" converts to 28mm ...
Picture 1.png
Picture 1.png (94.62 KiB) Viewed 2008 times


Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#708

Post by Richard Anderson » 02 May 2016, 06:17

Carl Schwamberger wrote:I wonder if it might be from a evaluation of the USN 1.1" AA gun. The pics are tough to judge. I cant say if the bulges on the navy guns are sleeves or gun barrel. Also 1.1" converts to 28mm ...
Picture 1.png
It was what first occurred to me Carl, until I remembered what the "sleeves" were. :D That is the jacket for the water cooling. You can't see the tubing feeding in from the bottom of the jacket from this angle in the photo. Somehow, I doubt the Army would want to haul a water trailer around with each gun.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#709

Post by LineDoggie » 02 May 2016, 23:15

Richard Anderson wrote:
Carl Schwamberger wrote:I wonder if it might be from a evaluation of the USN 1.1" AA gun. The pics are tough to judge. I cant say if the bulges on the navy guns are sleeves or gun barrel. Also 1.1" converts to 28mm ...
Picture 1.png
It was what first occurred to me Carl, until I remembered what the "sleeves" were. :D That is the jacket for the water cooling. You can't see the tubing feeding in from the bottom of the jacket from this angle in the photo. Somehow, I doubt the Army would want to haul a water trailer around with each gun.
Yet they did with the Watercooled .50 AA Guns in Burma, PTO, MTO, ETO .

Also the Hudson had a very Low ROF as individual guns (150 RPM)
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#710

Post by Richard Anderson » 03 May 2016, 18:46

LineDoggie wrote:Yet they did with the Watercooled .50 AA Guns in Burma, PTO, MTO, ETO .
Sure, except they didn't use 750-gallon water trailers, they used 5-gallon condenser cans for the .50 caliber and, at least according to my Dad, weren't always fussy about the water source. The 1.1" was plumbed into the ships water system, which on a battleship meant access to as much as 239,000 gallons of water. Refreshed by a number of 12,000 gallons-per-day evaporators.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#711

Post by LineDoggie » 04 May 2016, 03:30

Richard Anderson wrote:
LineDoggie wrote:Yet they did with the Watercooled .50 AA Guns in Burma, PTO, MTO, ETO .
Sure, except they didn't use 750-gallon water trailers, they used 5-gallon condenser cans for the .50 caliber and, at least according to my Dad, weren't always fussy about the water source. The 1.1" was plumbed into the ships water system, which on a battleship meant access to as much as 239,000 gallons of water. Refreshed by a number of 12,000 gallons-per-day evaporators.
And the Chicago Piano was grouped into 4 guns as a single mount. This is a single gun with a rate of fire of 150 RPM. Who says they would need 750 gallons except you? 150 RPM is an extremely low rate of fire (IF it is the Hudson made for ground use) and the amount of water needed would be considerably less.
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#712

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 May 2016, 04:57

LineDoggie wrote:And the Chicago Piano was grouped into 4 guns as a single mount. This is a single gun with a rate of fire of 150 RPM. Who says they would need 750 gallons except you? 150 RPM is an extremely low rate of fire (IF it is the Hudson made for ground use) and the amount of water needed would be considerably less.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am saying that the 1.1" was plumbed into the vessels water lines and so had an effectively unlimited supply of cooling water. Not something the Army could plan on. And when the Army did go withe the .50 caliber M2 HB in the quad mounting as its preferred light AA gun, it did not go with a water-cooled mounting. Instead, they gave it a variable trigger system allowing barrels to be cooled in succession as needed. Yes, the 1.1" had a cyclic rate of 150 RPM, but its sustained ROF was only 100 RPM, which is why it was designed as a quad-mount, since BuOrd was trying to replicate the cyclic ROF of the .50 M2 water-cooled, which was 500-650 cyclic. I would be surprised if Army Ordnance elected to go with such a low ROF either, in such a small caliber. BTW, I miss-remembered, the water-chest held 10 quarts, nit five gallons.

Anyway, a post from Tony Williams may help clarify things.

"As a result of this question I have been doing some more digging in my memory - and my files.

I have found a copy of an undated draft report on the .90 inch gun project, unfortunately it is very short and omits a lot of detail (especially about the ammo). This is a summary of the highlights:

The project commenced in 1937 to develop a .90 inch machine cannon for aircraft use. The initial target was a muzzle velocity of 2,850 fps, a RoF of 150 rpm and a gun weight of 125 lbs. Although the report does not give details, it seems the required RoF was soon increased considerably (one of the Lenselink/De Hek cartridge books states 400 rpm). As a result, the MV was reduced to 2,700 fps to enable a shorter cartridge to be used. A blowback mechanism was selected for T1, the first design, but the gun was never built - it was just "a hypothetical model from which other designs were elaborated".

Design studies for T2 and T3 were submitted simultaneously by the Artillery Division, Manufacturing Service in January 1938. In T2, the cartridge was fired when the it was still 0.6 inch from its "home" position in the chamber. This is referred to as the "differential recoil" principle but today we would call it Advanced Primer Ignition Blowback (i.e., Becker type). Presumably the cartridge case would have had a rebated rim - either that or a massive base construction to take the pressure when unsupported by the chamber.

T3 was a variation on T2 in which the round was fired 0.125 inches from its "home" position, and used counter-recoiling buffers (exactly how is not clearly explained).

T2 and T3 were developed at the Watervliet Arsenal up to 1942, with a new lightweight gun being mentioned in July 1941 (whether of T2 or T3 is not stated)." http://www.iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9030 (While he later notes the T4 was the only pilot completed and fired that information does not appear to be correct.)

Again, there is no Army Ordnance documentation for an adaptation of the 1.1" Navy gun, but they did use a version of the cartridge in .90 caliber, which is probably the subject of the photo. I suspect it is the T1.

{EDIT} Bugger...the specifications for the .90 T1, T2, and T3 were for aircraft machine guns, not antiaircraft machine guns. Back to square one.
Last edited by Richard Anderson on 04 May 2016, 05:06, edited 1 time in total.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10058
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#713

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 04 May 2016, 04:59

This pic shows the hoses for the water supply under the guns. I wonder how many liters per minute they were pumping that hoses that size were needed?
1.1 AA Gun Hoses.png
1.1 AA Gun Hoses.png (289.9 KiB) Viewed 1946 times

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#714

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 May 2016, 16:56

The more I look at the original photo the more it looks like a scaled down version of the Browning/Colt 37mm. It certainly doesn't look like any of the photos of the .90 T, T2, or T3, although the mounting obscures the breech details. If anything else, it actually looks almost like a 1.1" without the cooling jacket, but still I can find no mention at all of any 1" or 1.1" projects by Ordnance. Even more curious, the American Brick Company building behind it was in Medfield, Massachusetts, 90 miles from the Springfield Armory. I wonder if a query to them may answer the question?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10058
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#715

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 04 May 2016, 18:42

US Army might be the wrong tree to bark into. Could be it is a USN project, or something someone was exporting/importing.

Instead of the Atlantic Brick Co the adjacent area could be checked for some ones machine & tool shop, automotive shop, gun makers shop. Might even be a rented space for someones pilot project.

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 17927
Joined: 02 Oct 2008, 18:18
Location: Spain

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#716

Post by Sturm78 » 21 May 2016, 20:52

Hi all,

Fake gun ??

Sturm78
Attachments
anti-aircraft-gun-loc-DW571C.jpg

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 17927
Joined: 02 Oct 2008, 18:18
Location: Spain

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#717

Post by Sturm78 » 24 May 2016, 12:02

Hi all,

I found some images of the rare 203mm 8in M1 US gun on Ebay.
I think these images were taken in Germany on the inmediate postwar (1945-1946):

Sturm78
Attachments
h9ojhczt.jpg
Deutschalnd 1945.jpg
awxzizgv.jpg
a4cq3c2p.jpg
2a44lvxa.jpg

EPOCH3
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 30 Jul 2006, 23:22
Location: RI USA

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#718

Post by EPOCH3 » 26 May 2016, 00:48

Wrt Sturm78s Fake gun ??

Hi there - probably not a fake gun but a utility "test" gun. I have several photos from APG during the 1920s and 1930s showing test guns that look very similar to the one in the photo.
Greg

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 17927
Joined: 02 Oct 2008, 18:18
Location: Spain

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#719

Post by Sturm78 » 27 May 2016, 23:34

Thanks for your answer, Greg

Sturm78

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 17927
Joined: 02 Oct 2008, 18:18
Location: Spain

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#720

Post by Sturm78 » 25 Jul 2016, 23:33

Hi all,

I am not sure about these images : WW2 or postwar ??

Images from Ebay
Sturm78
Attachments
155mm M1 US howitzer in Fort Sill, Oklahoma.jpg
203mm M1 US howitzers in Fort Sill, Oklahoma.jpg
105mm US howitzer in Fort Sill, Oklahoma.jpg

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”