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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1006

Post by Sturm78 » 02 Mar 2022, 23:27

LineDoggie wrote
fake guns mocked to look like the M3 A/T gun
Thanks, LineDoggie....and which could be the purpose of these fake guns ?

Sturm78

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1007

Post by Richard Anderson » 03 Mar 2022, 01:05

Sturm78 wrote:
02 Mar 2022, 23:27
LineDoggie wrote
fake guns mocked to look like the M3 A/T gun
Thanks, LineDoggie....and which could be the purpose of these fake guns ?

Sturm78
Training and maneuvers, probably during the Carolina Maneuvers of fall 1941. Looks like they were intended as a motorized light antitank company, which was supposed to have 12 37mm towed AT guns. The problem was there were relatively few of those then and the only such unit in 1940 and early 1941 that was fully organized with real weapons was the 4th Antitank Battalion (by mid-1941 redesignated the 94th Antitank Battalion and then the 894th Tank Destroyer Battalion). There were doing extensive experimentation with large antitank units, called then "Tank Attacker" or TA, formed with various provisional antitank units organized in 1940 and 1941, which eventually became the Tank Destroyers in 1942.
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

#1008

Post by LineDoggie » 03 Mar 2022, 02:51

Sturm78 wrote:
02 Mar 2022, 23:27
LineDoggie wrote
fake guns mocked to look like the M3 A/T gun
Thanks, LineDoggie....and which could be the purpose of these fake guns ?

Sturm78
Crew drill (very important)FM 23-70 37-mm Gun, Antitank, M3 1942 & officers learning how to employ during field training
"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

CaID
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 07 May 2022, 19:34
Location: Canada

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1009

Post by CaID » 07 May 2022, 19:42

I am looking to identify the armament used on the T1E3 and T1E4 light tank.

those 2 tanks built in the late 20s and early 30s was armed with 2 different 37mm which appear to be related to the Browning semi-automatic aircraft gun. but that is unclear. they are identified as 5 clip feed semi-automatic gun.

the T1E3 used the same gun as the T1E2 and was simply identified as Browning Semi-Automatic

The T1E4 was using a gun identified as 37mm M1924 Semi-Automatic gun.

both said to be feed with 5-rounds clip, which suggest they might be related.
those tanks are very interesting tank for the American history. but there is so little known about them. i was hoping to find more information about them around here. as far i found, there was just a bunch of encyclopedia who simply name the gun without describing them or their performance.

Image
here is the T1E3

Image
here is the T1E4

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1010

Post by Richard Anderson » 08 May 2022, 20:08

The subject of the Browning 37mm guns is pretty complex. In December 1920, John Browning offered to design a 37mm automatic aircraft gun to fulfill the requirements of the Chief of Ordnance, Major General Clarence C. Williams, for any fee designated by the government. Williams immediately accepted the generous offer and Browning began work in January 1921. In just two months Browning designed an enlarged version of the .50 caliber machine gun and built an initial pilot that fired the antiquated Hotchkiss 37mm round. The gun was tested first near Browning’s Ogden, Utah home and then later in the same year at Aberdeen Proving Ground. While Ordnance was enthusiastic, they also now wanted an aircraft gun with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 F.P.S., much greater than the 1,400 F.P.S. capability of the Hotchkiss-based guns, as well as an antiaircraft gun with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 to 3,000 F.P.S. Browning designed a more powerful 37 x 120R cartridge and a second gun in an attempt to meet the new requirement. However, tests at Aberdeen from January to May 1924 with gradually more powerful cartridge loads did not exceed 1,350 F.P.S. muzzle velocity. Undeterred, Browning completed a third gun in early 1925 with a new 37 x 123B cartridge and demonstrated it and the earlier gun at Aberdeen in June. It achieved the 2,000 F.P.S. muzzle velocity goal set by Ordnance and outperformed its only competition, an Ordnance design.

Considerable confusion exists identifying these three Browning guns, some sources identify both the first two as the M1924, but they were different guns. The third gun, also known as the M1925, initially used the same 37 x 123B cartridge as the M1924, but then was modified and rebuilt in 1926 to fire a much larger 37 x 224R cartridge in order to reach the 3,000 F.P.S. goal. Even more confusingly, in fiscal year 1926 (i.e. after 30 June 1926) Ordnance instituted the 'T' number system for Test items and various earlier test items considered legitimate "pilot" models were given numbers retroactively. However, Ordnance did not assign them systematically – or chronologically – and so the last built of the three Browning guns, the 3,000 F.P.S. M1925 became the T2, the second 1,350 F.P.S. M1924 gun became the T3, while the first prototype M1921 gun apparently never received a T number.

Despite the typical Browning qualities of simplicity and reliability, he developed the guns in a period of growing fiscal austerity, which restricted further work on them. Browning’s death in November 1926 also left a considerable void. Testing of the guns continued in 1926 and 1927. The tests demonstrated the high muzzle velocity of the T2 caused excessive wear at the muzzle, while Ordnance considered the long, thin barrel too weak. Stoppages from failure to eject spent cases were also a frequent problem. The Colt Firearms Company continued work on solving the problems of the T2 after Browning’s death and Ordnance authorized manufacturer of a second pilot, designated T2E1, with a heavier muzzle and water-jacket for cooling. It utilized a slightly modified 37 x 223R cartridge, which became standard. Finally, in May 1927 Ordnance accepted the T2E1 as the 37mm Antiaircraft Gun M1927, then changed it almost immediately to the M1, but none were authorized for production except for two production pilots. In December 1928, the Chief of Coast Artillery, Major General Andrew Hero plaintively reported the 37mm Antiaircraft Gun M1 was still “in the hope stage”. Tests of various carriages continued into the 1930s, using the same three completed M1 guns. In 1937, the existing guns were modified to fire at a lower muzzle velocity of 2,800 F.P.S. in order to improve accuracy and decrease barrel erosion. The modified guns were designated M1E1 and after the water jacket was removed as well they were standardized in October 1938 as the M1A1. Unfortunately the guns were still inaccurate, so the rifling was changed and the muzzle velocity decreased again to 2,600 F.P.S., resulting in the M1A2. In February 1939, nearly fourteen years after the first demonstration of the T2 by Browning at Aberdeen, General Marshall testified there was only a single complete gun M1A2 Gun and Carriage ready. By 1 May 1940 there were still only 15 of a planned 1,423 guns on hand with the Coast Artillery Corps.

Similar desultory work continued on the 37mm T2 by the Air Corps, which began renewed development of a 37mm aircraft cannon in 1935. In December 1939, the final development type, the T9, was standardized as the 37mm Aircraft Cannon M4. However, despite all the effort expended on antiaircraft and aircraft cannon, Ordnance never developed a purpose-designed tank gun from Browning’s work, although the M1924 (T3) was used as an ad hoc tank gun in the Cunningham light tank series. Finally, in 1934-1935 Ordnance tested the T2 as a tank gun with cartridges loaded to both 2,000 and 3,000 F.P.S., but it was not accepted.

As best I have been able to tell from the available records, Light Tank T1 and T1E1 armament was a M1916 37mm Gun. Light Tank T1E2 and T1E3 armament was the Browning-designed hi-velocity 37mm M1924 gun. The Light Tank T1E4 used the low-velocity Browning M1924 T3.
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

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1011

Post by Sturm78 » 01 Jun 2022, 00:02

Hi all,

Could these naval guns be 4in (102mm) Mk.7-8-9 or 10 or perhaps 5in (127mm) guns ?? :?

Image from Ebay
Sturm78
Attachments
s-l1600 (10).jpg

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1012

Post by T. A. Gardner » 01 Jun 2022, 03:09

Unfortunately, an answer from me will have to wait until I unpack several thousand books and can look at my naval ordinance manuals for an answer as I just moved (for the first time in 30 years...).

jbroshot
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 18 May 2009, 02:33

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1013

Post by jbroshot » 01 Jun 2022, 04:54

Based on the entry and photo in Friedman's NAVAL WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR ONE, I'd say they are 4in/50 Mark 9s. The sight set up is the same.
The 4in/50 Mark 10, according to Friedman, was a prototype AA gun

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1014

Post by Sturm78 » 01 Jun 2022, 22:34

Thank you, jbroshot

Regards
Sturm78

User avatar
Hoplophile
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 11:44
Location: Quantico, VA
Contact:

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1015

Post by Hoplophile » 04 Jul 2022, 04:47

karlik wrote:
11 Mar 2010, 21:31
Hi The Edge!

Drawing of 3,8 inch howitzer from manual of 1917, perhaps 3,8 and 6 inch howitzers made by one person?
Here, from the pages of the (US) Field Artillery Journal (Jan-March 1915) is a photo of the US 3.8-inch howitzer Model 1913.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... &skin=2021


3.8-inch howitzer Model 1913 FAJ Vol 5 No. 1 Jan-Feb 1915 copy.jpg

karlik
Member
Posts: 642
Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 10:04
Location: Russia

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1016

Post by karlik » 10 Jul 2022, 15:24

Hoplophile wrote:
04 Jul 2022, 04:47
Here, from the pages of the (US) Field Artillery Journal (Jan-March 1915) is a photo of the US 3.8-inch howitzer Model 1913.
Thank you!

User avatar
Hoplophile
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 11:44
Location: Quantico, VA
Contact:

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1017

Post by Hoplophile » 15 Jul 2022, 14:46

Here is a drawing of the field gun that fired the same family of ammunition as the 3.8-inch howitzer, the 3.8-inch gun, Model 1907.
3.8-inch gun Page 26_page_1_1.jpg

Here are links to handbooks that describe, in loving detail, both of the field pieces built to fire 3.8-inch shells.

https://books.google.com/books?vid=PRNC:32101015112236

https://books.google.com/books?vid=UCAL:$B74096

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1018

Post by Sturm78 » 14 Jan 2023, 18:58

Hi all,

I am not sure if an 6in M1 gun on Carriage Barbette M3-M4 or un older gun on Carriage Barbette M1 or M2 ?
According to Ebay photo caption, Puerto Rico. There were these type of guns in Puerto Rico ?

Somebody ??

Sturm78
Attachments
Negative CAMO COAST DEFENSE GUN ARTILLERY PUERTO RICo2.jpg

ROLAND1369
Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1019

Post by ROLAND1369 » 15 Jan 2023, 18:38

First of all wherever this battery is located it is unlikely to have an M 1 6-inch gun as very few were produced. The vast majority of the WW II 6-inch batteries were armed with recycled 6 inch m 1903A2 or 1905A2 guns formally mounted in the early 1900s on disappearing carriages they were modified for a naval style air washout system and mounted on the M 1 and M2 Barbette carriages. The M 1 gun was a new production gun, was used on the M 3 and M 4 Barbette mounts. It was ballistically identical to and using the same ammunition as the older gun. The primarily difference being slightly lighter and using the same ammunition as the older weapons. It used a more modern breech mechanism of the type used by the 155 MM M 1 field gun. The differences were that the M 1 and M3 mounts were manually aimed by the gunners using a" match the pointer" data transmission system, while the M 2 and M 4 were equipped with a full remote system which could be aimed automatically from the plotting room.
having said that the shape of the gun indicates an M 1903 or 1905 so the mount is an M1 or M 2 and as few M 2s were produced the odd favor an M 1.
During WW II the following Batteries of 6 inch Barbettes were constructed on Puerto Rico:
Battery 256 Isla Pineros M 1 Barbette 6 inch M1903a2
Battery 268 Puenta Lima M 1 Barbette 6 inch M1903a2
Battery Buckley #261 Salinas island M 4 Barbette NOT ARMED
Battery Pence # 262 East Salinas island M 1 Barbette 6 inch M1903a2
Short answer nothing on the picture would preclude Puerto Rico from being the location and if so, this would be a 6 inch M1903a2 or 1905 a2 on an M 1 Seacoast Barbette Carriage.

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#1020

Post by Sturm78 » 15 Jan 2023, 22:46

Thank you very much for your very informative answer, ROLAND1369 ... :wink:

Regards
Sturm78

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”