Help to Id. US artillery
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Thank you very much for your answer, Charlie
Better late than never....
Regards
Sturm78
Better late than never....
Regards
Sturm78
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10055
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Congressional fiscal conservatism may have had a hand in this as well. & with half the nations population still involved in agriculture in the 1920s the horse breeders still had some presence among the lobbyists.
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Certainly fiscal constraints played a major role in the hibernation of US ordnance between the wars.
I hadn't thought of lobbying by horse breeders. I'd guess with the time it takes for a horse to mature to the point where
it can be used to pull artillery pieces the horse breeders found themselves with lots of stock at the end of WW1. At this
point some senior ordnance officers were proposing to do away with horses...
The proximate cause of the demise of SPGs was a disgraceful "trial" held at the start of 1923 to show that worn out prototype
light SPGs and artillery tractors were inferior to horses. The Field Artillery Board used the results of this fiasco to justify ending work on SPGs.
"Horses, Tractors and Self-Propelled Mounts", The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. XIII, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1923 p.472-492. - http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives
Gen Westervelt (*) resigned shortly after this. There must have been enough support for mechanisation to wait until the arch
conservatives retired in the 1930s and the progressives were of high enough rank to get studies going again.
Regards,
Charlie
* - The Westervelt Board in 1919 set the direction of US Army artillery for over 20 years. The M1 155mm Long Tom was a direct
response to the board's recommendations.
I hadn't thought of lobbying by horse breeders. I'd guess with the time it takes for a horse to mature to the point where
it can be used to pull artillery pieces the horse breeders found themselves with lots of stock at the end of WW1. At this
point some senior ordnance officers were proposing to do away with horses...
The proximate cause of the demise of SPGs was a disgraceful "trial" held at the start of 1923 to show that worn out prototype
light SPGs and artillery tractors were inferior to horses. The Field Artillery Board used the results of this fiasco to justify ending work on SPGs.
"Horses, Tractors and Self-Propelled Mounts", The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. XIII, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1923 p.472-492. - http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives
Gen Westervelt (*) resigned shortly after this. There must have been enough support for mechanisation to wait until the arch
conservatives retired in the 1930s and the progressives were of high enough rank to get studies going again.
Regards,
Charlie
* - The Westervelt Board in 1919 set the direction of US Army artillery for over 20 years. The M1 155mm Long Tom was a direct
response to the board's recommendations.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10055
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Theres a gold mine of clues, hints, and solid evidence on this in the Field Artillery Journal of the 1920s. The many articles about developing artillery from the 1920s volumes showed that 1. There was a clear desire for both motorization and mechanization. 2. Congress forestalled every effort of the Army to develop and field the weapons designed and tested in the 1920s. Nothing went beyond a few prototypes and small test batches.
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
The evidence is much more solid than references in FAJ - there were a whole raft of recommendations which came out of the Westervelt
Board. The Ordnance Dept turned these into a program (attached) and was working through the items in the program when Congress
effectively defunded further work and the conservative faction within the Army Field Artillery managed to gain enough ascendancy
on the Field Artillery Board to limit further work on mechanisation.
It's a pity that more volumes of the Army Ordnance journal haven't been scanned and put on line. I believe that the whole story of the
1920s rise and fall of ordnance development in the US is documented in that journal. FAJ is useful but has its limitations because of
the factions within the Field Artillery and the division between Ordnance and Practice.
Sorry about the quality of the Westervelt Board program - it's from a scan on the Hathi Trust website - they are often pretty crappy scans.
Regards,
Charlie
Board. The Ordnance Dept turned these into a program (attached) and was working through the items in the program when Congress
effectively defunded further work and the conservative faction within the Army Field Artillery managed to gain enough ascendancy
on the Field Artillery Board to limit further work on mechanisation.
It's a pity that more volumes of the Army Ordnance journal haven't been scanned and put on line. I believe that the whole story of the
1920s rise and fall of ordnance development in the US is documented in that journal. FAJ is useful but has its limitations because of
the factions within the Field Artillery and the division between Ordnance and Practice.
Sorry about the quality of the Westervelt Board program - it's from a scan on the Hathi Trust website - they are often pretty crappy scans.
Regards,
Charlie
- Attachments
-
- Westervelt_Board_Program.pdf
- (192.42 KiB) Downloaded 36 times
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Nobody for the images posted on 19 Apr 2020 ??
Well, here an image from Getty archive. According to photo caption an 7in 178mm gun on USS Pennsylvania but this battleship had 5in 127mm guns as secondary armament...
What is wrong ?
It seems that the 7in guns were used only on Connecticut-class battleships
Sturm78
Well, here an image from Getty archive. According to photo caption an 7in 178mm gun on USS Pennsylvania but this battleship had 5in 127mm guns as secondary armament...
What is wrong ?
It seems that the 7in guns were used only on Connecticut-class battleships
Sturm78
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Re post:#883 19 Apr 2020, 15:39 The differences between the Disappearing Carriage Models of 1897 and 1901 are minor. The best and usually visible identification point is the trunnion of the elevating arms. On the M 1901 the trunnion on the M1901 is longer and projects to the edge of the recoil cylinder(pic 1), while that of the M1897 is shorter and only projects halfway out on the recoil cylinder(pic 2). The M1900 gun has a bulging portion on the rear over the chamber(pic 3) while the M1895 gun has a smooth rear all the way to the lifting arms(pic 4). The M1901 carriage was originally equipped with the M1900 gun but this weapon was both more expensive and was considered a failure after a short time. As the M1900 guns wore out and on most of the later produced carriages they were replaced with M1895 guns so it is possible to find M1901 carriages with both M1900 and M1895 guns. The reverse is not true however and the M1897 carriage did not mount a 1900 gun. The gun in your picture is a 12 inch gun M1900 on Carriage Dissappearing LF M1901. If on Fort Monroe it is BTY Parrott which retained its m1900 guns untill scrapped in 1943.
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Thanks for your help, ROLAND1369 ...
However, I must admit that I am unable to see the difference in the trunnion of the elevating arms...
Any idea about my image posted on 30 Apr 2020 ?
Regards
Sturm78
However, I must admit that I am unable to see the difference in the trunnion of the elevating arms...
Any idea about my image posted on 30 Apr 2020 ?
Regards
Sturm78
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
You are correct. It is a 5 inch 51 gun not a 7 inch. Two further ships of the Mississippi class of pre dreadnought carried 7 inch Mark II guns. they were sold to Greece and the guns ended up in coastal batteries first Greek, later German.
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Thanks, ROLAND1369....
Sturm78
Sturm78
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Hi all,
Is this a prototype of the 16in Mk.2 naval gun ?
Image from Getty archive
Sturm78
Is this a prototype of the 16in Mk.2 naval gun ?
Image from Getty archive
Sturm78
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Nobody for my last question ?
Well. here another two US naval guns. I think the images were taken in the same place.
Somebody?
Images from Getty and NARA
Sturm78
Well. here another two US naval guns. I think the images were taken in the same place.
Somebody?
Images from Getty and NARA
Sturm78
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
"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
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
Umhhh...I don`t think....In any case I am not sure that both guns are of the same model either.LineDoggie wrote
They look like 6" mark6, mark 8 according to this
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-50_mk8.php
The mount is very similar but not identical but the barrel gun looks different....
Now, I think that the second image is an 102mm 4in gun. The image is dated in WW1, so I think could be an Mk1, 2,3,4 5 or 6
About the first image, I think probably an 127mm 5in gun. Perhaps a Mk 5 or Mk.6
Sturm78
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: Help to Id. US artillery
You are correct. The first appears to be a 5 inch Mark 6 on a Mark 9 mounting.
- Attachments
-
- 5 inch mk 6 mk 9 mount.
- 550 (12.7 cm) Mark 6 on a Mark 9 mounting trans.jpg (27.11 KiB) Viewed 753 times