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

#886

Post by Sturm78 » 26 Apr 2020, 21:12

Thank you very much for your answer, Charlie

Better late than never.... :)

Regards
Sturm78

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#887

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 26 Apr 2020, 21:33

CharlieC wrote:
26 Apr 2020, 10:09
...
The Christie SPG was set to go into production but the Field Artillery Board had a fit of conservatism and thought that horse
drawn artillery was better.

Regards,

Charlie
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.


CharlieC
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 06:47
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#888

Post by CharlieC » 26 Apr 2020, 22:38

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.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#889

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 27 Apr 2020, 02:54

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.

CharlieC
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 06:47
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#890

Post by CharlieC » 27 Apr 2020, 05:22

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
Attachments
Westervelt_Board_Program.pdf
(192.42 KiB) Downloaded 36 times

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#891

Post by Sturm78 » 30 Apr 2020, 17:27

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
Attachments
Crewman manning 7 gun aboard USS Pennsylvania-.jpg

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#892

Post by ROLAND1369 » 01 May 2020, 17:54

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.
Attachments
01DCTTR.JPG
M1901 DC CARRIAGE
01DCTTR.JPG (43.37 KiB) Viewed 877 times
12DC97TR.JPG
M1897 DC CARRIAGE
01BARLTR.JPG
M1900 BARREL
97BARLT.JPG
M1895 BARREL

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#893

Post by Sturm78 » 02 May 2020, 16:19

Thanks for your help, ROLAND1369 ... :)

However, I must admit that I am unable to see the difference in the trunnion of the elevating arms... :roll:

Any idea about my image posted on 30 Apr 2020 ?

Regards
Sturm78

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#894

Post by ROLAND1369 » 03 May 2020, 17:27

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.

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#895

Post by Sturm78 » 04 May 2020, 15:13

Thanks, ROLAND1369.... :wink:

Sturm78

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#896

Post by Sturm78 » 05 May 2020, 17:54

Hi all,

Is this a prototype of the 16in Mk.2 naval gun ?

Image from Getty archive
Sturm78
Attachments
hells being loaded into 16-inch naval guns during testing-.jpg

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#897

Post by Sturm78 » 09 May 2020, 20:13

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
Attachments
US naval gun. 1919-.jpg
gettyimages-.jpg

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#898

Post by LineDoggie » 10 May 2020, 02:44

Sturm78 wrote:
09 May 2020, 20:13
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
They look like 6" mark6, mark 8 according to this
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-50_mk8.php
"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

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#899

Post by Sturm78 » 10 May 2020, 21:22

LineDoggie wrote
They look like 6" mark6, mark 8 according to this
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-50_mk8.php
Umhhh...I don`t think....In any case I am not sure that both guns are of the same model either.
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

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

Re: Help to Id. US artillery

#900

Post by ROLAND1369 » 11 May 2020, 17:59

You are correct. The first appears to be a 5 inch Mark 6 on a Mark 9 mounting.
Attachments
550 (12.7 cm) Mark 6 on a Mark 9 mounting trans.jpg
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

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”