Id. british gun

[Urmel]

I am just trying to think where a 6" gun would be placed in such a position (looks like the fo'c'sle, single gun housing, wooden deck), and could this be an Insect gun boat?

http://frankstaylorfamilyandroyalnavyhi ... boats.html

[Sturm78]

Hi Urmel,

According to my link the ship could be USN New Orleans (ex-Amazonas) or Albany (ex-Almirante Abreu) cruisers, ordered by Brazil and bought by US Navy

Sturm78

[gambadier]

The 4.5 inch Mk I was a relined 60pdr MkII, therefore impossible to tell apart. If the ammunition was next to the guns it might be possible to identify which was which. The 60 pdr had old fashioned non-streamlined shells. The 4.5 inch had more modern streamlined shells.

There were streamlined shells for 60-pr, introduced in WW1. http://nigelef.tripod.com/60pdrsheet.htm lists range tables for 60-pr, streamlined shells definitely available.

There are also slight differences in the barrels of 60-pr Mk 2 and 4.5 Mk 1. The former has a slightly more flared muzzle and the arrangements at the end of the sleeve are not quite as 'clean' as 4.5.

[Clive Mortimore]

The 4.5 inch Mk I was a relined 60pdr MkII, therefore impossible to tell apart. If the ammunition was next to the guns it might be possible to identify which was which. The 60 pdr had old fashioned non-streamlined shells. The 4.5 inch had more modern streamlined shells.

There were streamlined shells for 60-pr, introduced in WW1. http://nigelef.tripod.com/60pdrsheet.htm lists range tables for 60-pr, streamlined shells definitely available.

There are also slight differences in the barrels of 60-pr Mk 2 and 4.5 Mk 1. The former has a slightly more flared muzzle and the arrangements at the end of the sleeve are not quite as 'clean' as 4.5.

Hi Gambadier

There seems to be a bit of confusion Mk1D shell is not mentioned in Hogg's British and American Artillery of WW2. Nigel Evans site is excellent so I do not doubt his information on the Mk1D shell for the 60 pdr.

Clive

[gambadier]

It's possible that for 60-pr the D suffix wasn't used. IIRC the first streamlined shell was for 60-pr and issued in WW1.

[Clive Mortimore]

It's possible that for 60-pr the D suffix wasn't used. IIRC the first streamlined shell was for 60-pr and issued in WW1.

Hi Gambadier

But Mk9 C is used by Hogg in his book to describe the HE Shell. The non streamlined shell. The suffix D denoted that a shell was streamlined. See page 33 of Hogg's book. Its all in the terminology.

Clive

Time to mount up and get going.

[Sturm78]

Hi all,

I am not sure about this image: I think a 18/25pdr gun battery

Sturm78

[gambadier]

Note that http://nigelef.tripod.com/60pdrsheet.htm refers to the 1923 RT for a fractional CRH.

If you look at http://nigelef.tripod.com/ammo.htm PROJECTILES, it states the CRH of different MKs but also refers to the adoption of secant ogives and fractional CRH in the 1920s. From the dates stated its possible that C models that went up to 8 CRH included secant ogives and fractional CRH.

[Clive Mortimore]

Note that http://nigelef.tripod.com/60pdrsheet.htm refers to the 1923 RT for a fractional CRH.

If you look at http://nigelef.tripod.com/ammo.htm PROJECTILES, it states the CRH of different MKs but also refers to the adoption of secant ogives and fractional CRH in the 1920s. From the dates stated its possible that C models that went up to 8 CRH included secant ogives and fractional CRH.

Hi Gambadier

Hogg, writing aboiut the 4.5 inch gun Mk1, "It was first suggested in about 1933 as a modification of the 60pdr in order to fire a modern design of shell and obtain a better range."

Hogg, writing about the shell of the 60pdr, "Shell, HE, Mark9C. A nose fuzed non-streamlined shell containing 6lb of Amatol and adapted to the Percussion fuzes Nos. 101, 106, 119 or 231."

To identify a 4.5inch MkI or I* on carriage 60pdr MkIVP from a 60pdr MkII or II* on carriage 60pdr MkIVP is almost impossible. The above inforamtion from the Hogg book indicated that different design of ammuntion was used and from that should the ammunition be in the photo it might be possible to tell if it is a 4.5 inch or a 60pdr.

You have proved this potential means of indentification might not be possible as there was a D type shell for the 60pdr as well.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi all,

I am not sure about this image: I think a 18/25pdr gun battery

Sturm78

Hi Sturm

I agree, 18/25pdr guns.

edit for terminology reasons, Gun 25pdr MkI on carriage 18pdr MkIVP.

[gambadier]

'Streamlined' is a very vague term. However, in WW1 a new 60-pr shell was introduced that significantly increased its range, to identify it requires the relevant RT, but its reasonable to conclude it was 'streamlined'.

The 1935 HB for for 60-pr Mk II and Mk II*, with amdts up to 1938 lists the following projectiles:
HE
Mk VII**C l. 18.49 ins, fzd wt 58lbs 13 oz
Mk IXC 18.93 60lbs
Mk IX**C ditto ditto
Mk XIC 19.16 ditto
Mk ID 15.95 56lbs driving band id indicates an early shell design, approx 60% HE wt to others
Shrapnel
Mk I 15.28 60lbs
Mk II 15.07 ditto
Mk IIIA 14.64 ditto
Mk IIIC 16.33 ditto
Mk IVC 16.14 ditto
Mk IV*C ditto ditto
Mk ID 15.05 56lbs same driving band as Mk ID
Mk IID 14.99 ditto ditto
Mk IIID 14.86 ditto ditto
Mk VC 16.17 60lbs

[Sturm78]

Clive wrote
I agree, 18/25pdr guns.

edit for terminology reasons, Gun 25pdr MkI on carriage 18pdr MkIVP

Thank you for your answer, Clive

Regards Sturm78

[Clive Mortimore]

'Streamlined' is a very vague term. However, in WW1 a new 60-pr shell was introduced that significantly increased its range, to identify it requires the relevant RT, but its reasonable to conclude it was 'streamlined'.

The 1935 HB for for 60-pr Mk II and Mk II*, with amdts up to 1938 lists the following projectiles:
HE
Mk VII**C l. 18.49 ins, fzd wt 58lbs 13 oz
Mk IXC 18.93 60lbs
Mk IX**C ditto ditto
Mk XIC 19.16 ditto
Mk ID 15.95 56lbs driving band id indicates an early shell design, approx 60% HE wt to others
Shrapnel
Mk I 15.28 60lbs
Mk II 15.07 ditto
Mk IIIA 14.64 ditto
Mk IIIC 16.33 ditto
Mk IVC 16.14 ditto
Mk IV*C ditto ditto
Mk ID 15.05 56lbs same driving band as Mk ID
Mk IID 14.99 ditto ditto
Mk IIID 14.86 ditto ditto
Mk VC 16.17 60lbs

Hi Gambadier

Several post ago I agreed that there was a streamlined shell for the 60pdr from the link you gave to Nigel Evans site.

Now looking at the two images that Strum 78 provided 21 Oct and 2 Nov I cannot tell if they are 4.5 inch Mk1 or 60pdr MkII guns. Can you? They are possibly 4.5inch guns going form the little bit of information I was able to find on 7 Med Regt RA and 68 Med Regt RA swapping batteries for the Greek and Eritrea campaigns, as I agree with Urmel that images appear to have been taken in Greece not France or North Africa.

I do like the fact the photos include the limber as the only other photos I know show the limber with either wooden wheels or solid rubber tyred wheels. The John Church drawing of these guns show the limber with pneumatic tyres.

Clive

[verdenpark]

Hi verdenpark,

It seems un 6in gun but I think the shield is more like of the model 6in Mk.5 (Armstrong) in service with US Navy.
Are the soldiers of the image US sailors or british?

See http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-50_mk5.htm

Sturm78

The uniforms look wrong to be American. Just wondering if the gun is mounted on a late 'C', or 'D' class light cruiser.

[Urmel]

Good thinking. The C class had wooden decks.