Nelson
Nelson

3:10 PM - Sep 18, 2015 #41

Before I respond, at the beginning of the third paragraph in my previous post, I wrote “Far East” when Middle East was of course intended. I’ve asked Jan to correct it, but if he hasn’t done so by the time you read this, perhaps you can substitute the correct Middle East.

Taking your prompt, I went to

http://www.network54.com/Forum/282066/m ... +Field+Gun

In the top frame, the scratchbuilder has some black & white photos laid out on his bench as guides, the lower two taken in Syria during the late 1940s. The very top photo is one the forum has seen before, but in color: the M1916A1 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, part of the large artillery collection there. In the middle distance may be seen the single surviving U.S. Model 1918 240mm howitzer, based on the earlier and somewhat larger Schneider Mortier de 280 modèle 1914 siege howitzer.

I’ve read every post—twice in fact—in the thread at

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=158277

I concede that the thrust of the discussion is on the Breda M35 47mm AT gun, captured from the Italian army variously in North and East Africa, and used in turn to arm British and Australian antitank units. The U.S. 75mm gun also serving in that role is mentioned but twice, with “Fatboy Coxy” specifying that 24 such guns made it to Singapore. What strikes me is the absolute lack of curiosity about the 75mm guns provided. I assume the writers know—or do they?—that several different American models of 75mm guns existed at the time, but don’t they wonder which one saw use in Singapore-Malaya and how extensively? After all, it was there and very likely fought.

Nelson
Quote
Share

Joined: 10:57 PM - Dec 27, 2007

6:33 AM - Sep 19, 2015 #42

"The U.S. 75mm gun also serving in that role is mentioned but twice, with “Fatboy Coxy” specifying that 24 such guns made it to Singapore. What strikes me is the absolute lack of curiosity about the 75mm guns provided. I assume the writers know—or do they?—that several different American models of 75mm guns existed at the time, but don’t they wonder which one saw use in Singapore-Malaya and how extensively? After all, it was there and very likely fought."

I am assuming "Fatboy Coxy" is relying on information in HISTORY OF THE ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY THE FAR EAST THEATRE 1941-46, by General Sir Martin Farndale, for this information

BUT in Annex A "Royal Artillery Order of Battle - The Far East - 1941/42", the entry for '137th Field Rgt RA' says the unit had '24 x 25-pounders but by 30 Jan it had only 8 x 75mm HOWITZERS [my emphasis]." I can find no reference to any American 75mm GUNS being used by British/Indian forces in Malalya in this book.

FWIW, Farndale gets a bit confused about the 137th Field Regiment. He has it in Malaya as of 7 Dec 1941 as part of 11th Indian Infantry Division, but later shows it arriving with 18th Infantry Division on 8 Feb 1942. I suspect the latter may be a misprint, as 18th Infantry Division had 135th, 148th and 118th Field Regiments (according to Joslen).

So I would submit that there are no American 75mm GUNS in Malaya in 1941/1942. The nationality of the 75mm HOWITZERS actually referred to by Farndale is a mystery (?)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:40 PM - Jul 20, 2004

10:39 AM - Sep 19, 2015 #43

Before I respond, at the beginning of the third paragraph in my previous post, I wrote “Far East” when Middle East was of course intended. I’ve asked Jan to correct it, but if he hasn’t done so by the time you read this, perhaps you can substitute the correct Middle East.

Taking your prompt, I went to

http://www.network54.com/Forum/282066/m ... +Field+Gun

In the top frame, the scratchbuilder has some black & white photos laid out on his bench as guides, the lower two taken in Syria during the late 1940s. The very top photo is one the forum has seen before, but in color: the M1916A1 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, part of the large artillery collection there. In the middle distance may be seen the single surviving U.S. Model 1918 240mm howitzer, based on the earlier and somewhat larger Schneider Mortier de 280 modèle 1914 siege howitzer.

I’ve read every post—twice in fact—in the thread at

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=158277

I concede that the thrust of the discussion is on the Breda M35 47mm AT gun, captured from the Italian army variously in North and East Africa, and used in turn to arm British and Australian antitank units. The U.S. 75mm gun also serving in that role is mentioned but twice, with “Fatboy Coxy” specifying that 24 such guns made it to Singapore. What strikes me is the absolute lack of curiosity about the 75mm guns provided. I assume the writers know—or do they?—that several different American models of 75mm guns existed at the time, but don’t they wonder which one saw use in Singapore-Malaya and how extensively? After all, it was there and very likely fought.

Nelson
according to this document

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19328204/Repo ... ava#scribd

were 75mm guns with split trail, 31 caliber, firing a 5,9 kilo projectile, with a muzzle velocity of 518 m/s and a range of 7950 meters (table on page 47). On the next page they mention a total of 18 pieces found. The number of 11 is mentioned earlier on in the report on page 7 and a bit further down on page 16 the number of 7 x 75mm field gun "for general use in the fortress" are mentioned.

Hope this helps identifying the guns?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:40 PM - Jul 20, 2004

10:43 AM - Sep 19, 2015 #44

Before I respond, at the beginning of the third paragraph in my previous post, I wrote “Far East” when Middle East was of course intended. I’ve asked Jan to correct it, but if he hasn’t done so by the time you read this, perhaps you can substitute the correct Middle East.

Taking your prompt, I went to

http://www.network54.com/Forum/282066/m ... +Field+Gun

In the top frame, the scratchbuilder has some black & white photos laid out on his bench as guides, the lower two taken in Syria during the late 1940s. The very top photo is one the forum has seen before, but in color: the M1916A1 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, part of the large artillery collection there. In the middle distance may be seen the single surviving U.S. Model 1918 240mm howitzer, based on the earlier and somewhat larger Schneider Mortier de 280 modèle 1914 siege howitzer.

I’ve read every post—twice in fact—in the thread at

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=158277

I concede that the thrust of the discussion is on the Breda M35 47mm AT gun, captured from the Italian army variously in North and East Africa, and used in turn to arm British and Australian antitank units. The U.S. 75mm gun also serving in that role is mentioned but twice, with “Fatboy Coxy” specifying that 24 such guns made it to Singapore. What strikes me is the absolute lack of curiosity about the 75mm guns provided. I assume the writers know—or do they?—that several different American models of 75mm guns existed at the time, but don’t they wonder which one saw use in Singapore-Malaya and how extensively? After all, it was there and very likely fought.

Nelson
shows the Haiti guns, at least two together with a coupe of US 105mms.
For some reason I cant post pictures at the moment.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 10:57 PM - Dec 27, 2007

6:06 PM - Sep 19, 2015 #45

according to this document

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19328204/Repo ... ava#scribd

were 75mm guns with split trail, 31 caliber, firing a 5,9 kilo projectile, with a muzzle velocity of 518 m/s and a range of 7950 meters (table on page 47). On the next page they mention a total of 18 pieces found. The number of 11 is mentioned earlier on in the report on page 7 and a bit further down on page 16 the number of 7 x 75mm field gun "for general use in the fortress" are mentioned.

Hope this helps identifying the guns?
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/Monos ... /JM-68.pdf
Quote
Like
Share

Nelson
Nelson

6:36 PM - Sep 19, 2015 #46

"The U.S. 75mm gun also serving in that role is mentioned but twice, with “Fatboy Coxy” specifying that 24 such guns made it to Singapore. What strikes me is the absolute lack of curiosity about the 75mm guns provided. I assume the writers know—or do they?—that several different American models of 75mm guns existed at the time, but don’t they wonder which one saw use in Singapore-Malaya and how extensively? After all, it was there and very likely fought."

I am assuming "Fatboy Coxy" is relying on information in HISTORY OF THE ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY THE FAR EAST THEATRE 1941-46, by General Sir Martin Farndale, for this information

BUT in Annex A "Royal Artillery Order of Battle - The Far East - 1941/42", the entry for '137th Field Rgt RA' says the unit had '24 x 25-pounders but by 30 Jan it had only 8 x 75mm HOWITZERS [my emphasis]." I can find no reference to any American 75mm GUNS being used by British/Indian forces in Malalya in this book.

FWIW, Farndale gets a bit confused about the 137th Field Regiment. He has it in Malaya as of 7 Dec 1941 as part of 11th Indian Infantry Division, but later shows it arriving with 18th Infantry Division on 8 Feb 1942. I suspect the latter may be a misprint, as 18th Infantry Division had 135th, 148th and 118th Field Regiments (according to Joslen).

So I would submit that there are no American 75mm GUNS in Malaya in 1941/1942. The nationality of the 75mm HOWITZERS actually referred to by Farndale is a mystery (?)
> So I would submit that there are no American 75mm GUNS in Malaya in 1941/1942. The nationality of the 75mm HOWITZERS actually referred to by Farndale is a mystery (?) >

Well, you would be entirely wrong, and frankly how you reached this conclusion from reading but a single history—namely Farndale’s, in which you’ve poked holes on more than one occasion—is beyond me. For starters, I specified the American 75mm guns were in Australian hands, focusing on 4th Anti Tank Regiment. Given not only the normal rearmings—for example, 2/15th Field Regiment, RAA, began the campaign armed with 3-inch mortars, then was rearmed in whole or in part with 25-pounders—but also the frequent shifting around of formations, units, and ordnance during the Malaya campaign, particularly during the late stages, who was armed with what on a given week can be difficult to determine. Thus I won’t rule out a transfer of an undetermined number of the U.S. 75mm guns to a British formation at some point.

Also, the average military historian, even an American one, is pretty much unaware of U.S. 75mm GUNS going to the Far East, including the surrender of an entire battalion (2/131st Field Artillery) armed with such pieces in Java. Okay, so when one reads 75mm in WWII, it just has to be HOWITZERS, but you know as well as I that is patently wrong. For starters, there were NO American howitzers of any caliber in Malaya-Singapore in 1941-42. Seeing action in that campaign were some old 4.5-inch howitzers in British Army hands, and the rather more useful 3.7-inch mountain howitzers brought in by the Indian Army. So when Farndale writes “8 x 75mm HOWITZERS”, read GUNS (assuming that the basic arming datum for 137th Field Regiment, RA, is correct). Let’s move on to the American 75mm guns that did see action, at the very least on Singapore island, and maybe farther north.

The two references of immediate interest are specifically histories of 4th Anti Tank Regiment, both written during the 20th century, when more than one veteran of this artillery regiment was still alive and available to be interviewed. They are Stephen N. Gower, Guns of the Regiment (Canberra: Australian War Memorial, 1981), and Neil C. Smith, Tid-Apa: The History of the 4th Anti Tank Regiment 1940–1945 (Melbourne: Mostly Unsung Military History Research and Publications, 1992). Both books mention the U.S. 75mm GUN arming, in part, this AT formation during the campaign. And both books wisely cast doubt on what specific type of gun saw use there, conceding that information was at the time difficult to come by. I suggest strongly that you hold further predictions in abeyance until you can lay hands on one or both works.

Smith’s Tid-Apa has an appendix near the end providing the specifications and provenance of each gun type deployed by the regiment during the campaign. Alas, the section on the Yankee gun is titled “FRENCH 75 MM GUN”, but at the end it gets better, with Smith casting doubt on what exact model the Aussie gunners were assigned: “Comments: Technical detail on this gun is scant. Available sketches do not accord with the recollection of 4th Anti Tank Regiment veterans like Don Moore, who maintain that these guns received by the Regiment in Malaya were originally consigned to Yugoslavia by the United States.” [Both my own research at the National Archives and a volume or two of the U.S. Army Green Book series specify 75 Model 1916A1 75mm field guns shipped, unsuccessfully, to Yugoslav forces before the American entry into the war. All or most of these guns ended up in British hands on Crete and in the Middle East. Various British sources document the forwarding of U.S. 75mm field guns, model(s) unspecified, to Singapore or at least to the Far East.]

Gower’s Guns of the Regiment includes some very nice drawings by W. D. Thomas of the sundry guns arming 4th Anti Tank Regiment during the Malaya-Singapore campaign. The author’s best guess for the American 75mm piece is the most modern of the bunch, the M1897A4 mounted on the M2A3 field carriage (as I’ve already mentioned, this model was jealously guarded from Roosevelt’s prying fingers until the superior 105mm howitzer became generally available, and—need we repeat it here for the gazillionth time?—four battalions of field artillery armed with such 75mm guns went to the SW Pacific on the Pensacola convoy). On page 86 Gower writes, “The exact specifications of these 75-mm guns has proved elusive to determine.” He goes on to discuss the alternatives, including the Model 1917 (a.k.a. British 75), but dismisses that option: “However, the recollections of one battery member were that these guns had split trails, and this therefore rules out the 18-pr possibility.” He then makes a good case for the Model 1916, but for no compelling reason decides finally on the French 75mm M1897. In the Data Sheets on pp. 204-05 Thomas’s drawing is of the M1897A2 or -A4 on the high-speed M2A3 field carriage. But in the end, Gower too casts doubt on this identification: “Comments: As mentioned in the text (Chapter 5), there is some doubt as to whether this was the actual type of 75-mm gun used by the 2/4th Anti Tank Regiment in Malaya. However, it did have anti-tank rounds and its use as an anti-tank gun would have been quite feasible, especially in the situation that prevailed at the time.” [In 1940, American antitank doctrine specifically used the modernized M1897 75mm gun because its wide train on the M2A3 split-trail carriage allowed it to follow fast-moving tanks, and as such was provided AT rounds.] All I can add is that Gower’s instincts were good, but he should have quit while he was ahead.

As well, Robert Goodwin, Mates and Memories: Recollections of the 2/10th Field Regiment R.A.A. (Rochedale, Queensland: Boolarong Press, 1995), describes the disposition of the guns in place along the Johore Strait to fire on Japanese landing boats and assaulting infantry, and it makes reference to the 75mm guns as part of those defenses. Whether such guns were specifically assigned to 10th Field Regiment or just alluded to in passing, I do not now remember. I made notes or photocopies but at present cannot find them. I do promise to post same if ever located.

Finally, archives residing in the Australian War Memorial are reported to corroborate the use of American 75mm field guns by RAA units during the Malaya-Singapore campaign of 1941-1942, although I have not personally perused them.

Nelson
Quote
Share

Nelson
Nelson

7:53 PM - Sep 19, 2015 #47

according to this document

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19328204/Repo ... ava#scribd

were 75mm guns with split trail, 31 caliber, firing a 5,9 kilo projectile, with a muzzle velocity of 518 m/s and a range of 7950 meters (table on page 47). On the next page they mention a total of 18 pieces found. The number of 11 is mentioned earlier on in the report on page 7 and a bit further down on page 16 the number of 7 x 75mm field gun "for general use in the fortress" are mentioned.

Hope this helps identifying the guns?
> On the next page [p. 48] they mention a total of 18 pieces found. The number of 11 is mentioned earlier on in the report on page 7 and a bit further down on page 16 the number of 7 x 75mm field gun "for general use in the fortress" are mentioned. >

After perusing my own copy, I think there are two ways of interpreting these data in the table enumerating the artillery pieces captured in Singapore: (1) Taking the title of the table at its face value, such that eleven 75mm guns were taken in action positions or along the withdrawal routes, and another seven in reserve, perhaps in an artillery park or godown. If so, the IJA captured all eighteen 75mm guns on the island. (2) Taking Singapore as a generic—as is all too commonly done to describe the campaign, and as is Malaya, too—such that eleven were captured hither and yon, perhaps including Johore and even other parts of Malaya, with seven taken on the island. I don't believe we can conclude thus far from these data that the American M1916A1 field guns were restricted only to Singapore island. For one thing, the total of 18 is less than previously understood to have been present. IF indeed 18 such guns were on Singapore island, where were the remainder?

Nelson
Quote
Share

Joined: 10:57 PM - Dec 27, 2007

9:15 PM - Sep 19, 2015 #48

> So I would submit that there are no American 75mm GUNS in Malaya in 1941/1942. The nationality of the 75mm HOWITZERS actually referred to by Farndale is a mystery (?) >

Well, you would be entirely wrong, and frankly how you reached this conclusion from reading but a single history—namely Farndale’s, in which you’ve poked holes on more than one occasion—is beyond me. For starters, I specified the American 75mm guns were in Australian hands, focusing on 4th Anti Tank Regiment. Given not only the normal rearmings—for example, 2/15th Field Regiment, RAA, began the campaign armed with 3-inch mortars, then was rearmed in whole or in part with 25-pounders—but also the frequent shifting around of formations, units, and ordnance during the Malaya campaign, particularly during the late stages, who was armed with what on a given week can be difficult to determine. Thus I won’t rule out a transfer of an undetermined number of the U.S. 75mm guns to a British formation at some point.

Also, the average military historian, even an American one, is pretty much unaware of U.S. 75mm GUNS going to the Far East, including the surrender of an entire battalion (2/131st Field Artillery) armed with such pieces in Java. Okay, so when one reads 75mm in WWII, it just has to be HOWITZERS, but you know as well as I that is patently wrong. For starters, there were NO American howitzers of any caliber in Malaya-Singapore in 1941-42. Seeing action in that campaign were some old 4.5-inch howitzers in British Army hands, and the rather more useful 3.7-inch mountain howitzers brought in by the Indian Army. So when Farndale writes “8 x 75mm HOWITZERS”, read GUNS (assuming that the basic arming datum for 137th Field Regiment, RA, is correct). Let’s move on to the American 75mm guns that did see action, at the very least on Singapore island, and maybe farther north.

The two references of immediate interest are specifically histories of 4th Anti Tank Regiment, both written during the 20th century, when more than one veteran of this artillery regiment was still alive and available to be interviewed. They are Stephen N. Gower, Guns of the Regiment (Canberra: Australian War Memorial, 1981), and Neil C. Smith, Tid-Apa: The History of the 4th Anti Tank Regiment 1940–1945 (Melbourne: Mostly Unsung Military History Research and Publications, 1992). Both books mention the U.S. 75mm GUN arming, in part, this AT formation during the campaign. And both books wisely cast doubt on what specific type of gun saw use there, conceding that information was at the time difficult to come by. I suggest strongly that you hold further predictions in abeyance until you can lay hands on one or both works.

Smith’s Tid-Apa has an appendix near the end providing the specifications and provenance of each gun type deployed by the regiment during the campaign. Alas, the section on the Yankee gun is titled “FRENCH 75 MM GUN”, but at the end it gets better, with Smith casting doubt on what exact model the Aussie gunners were assigned: “Comments: Technical detail on this gun is scant. Available sketches do not accord with the recollection of 4th Anti Tank Regiment veterans like Don Moore, who maintain that these guns received by the Regiment in Malaya were originally consigned to Yugoslavia by the United States.” [Both my own research at the National Archives and a volume or two of the U.S. Army Green Book series specify 75 Model 1916A1 75mm field guns shipped, unsuccessfully, to Yugoslav forces before the American entry into the war. All or most of these guns ended up in British hands on Crete and in the Middle East. Various British sources document the forwarding of U.S. 75mm field guns, model(s) unspecified, to Singapore or at least to the Far East.]

Gower’s Guns of the Regiment includes some very nice drawings by W. D. Thomas of the sundry guns arming 4th Anti Tank Regiment during the Malaya-Singapore campaign. The author’s best guess for the American 75mm piece is the most modern of the bunch, the M1897A4 mounted on the M2A3 field carriage (as I’ve already mentioned, this model was jealously guarded from Roosevelt’s prying fingers until the superior 105mm howitzer became generally available, and—need we repeat it here for the gazillionth time?—four battalions of field artillery armed with such 75mm guns went to the SW Pacific on the Pensacola convoy). On page 86 Gower writes, “The exact specifications of these 75-mm guns has proved elusive to determine.” He goes on to discuss the alternatives, including the Model 1917 (a.k.a. British 75), but dismisses that option: “However, the recollections of one battery member were that these guns had split trails, and this therefore rules out the 18-pr possibility.” He then makes a good case for the Model 1916, but for no compelling reason decides finally on the French 75mm M1897. In the Data Sheets on pp. 204-05 Thomas’s drawing is of the M1897A2 or -A4 on the high-speed M2A3 field carriage. But in the end, Gower too casts doubt on this identification: “Comments: As mentioned in the text (Chapter 5), there is some doubt as to whether this was the actual type of 75-mm gun used by the 2/4th Anti Tank Regiment in Malaya. However, it did have anti-tank rounds and its use as an anti-tank gun would have been quite feasible, especially in the situation that prevailed at the time.” [In 1940, American antitank doctrine specifically used the modernized M1897 75mm gun because its wide train on the M2A3 split-trail carriage allowed it to follow fast-moving tanks, and as such was provided AT rounds.] All I can add is that Gower’s instincts were good, but he should have quit while he was ahead.

As well, Robert Goodwin, Mates and Memories: Recollections of the 2/10th Field Regiment R.A.A. (Rochedale, Queensland: Boolarong Press, 1995), describes the disposition of the guns in place along the Johore Strait to fire on Japanese landing boats and assaulting infantry, and it makes reference to the 75mm guns as part of those defenses. Whether such guns were specifically assigned to 10th Field Regiment or just alluded to in passing, I do not now remember. I made notes or photocopies but at present cannot find them. I do promise to post same if ever located.

Finally, archives residing in the Australian War Memorial are reported to corroborate the use of American 75mm field guns by RAA units during the Malaya-Singapore campaign of 1941-1942, although I have not personally perused them.

Nelson
Well I certainly could be wrong and of course you are always right.

I was focusing on the 137th Field Regiment and not considering any Australian units and knew about Japanese Monograph No. 68 and did not look at it again.

I still question whether 137th Field Regiment ended up with 75mm GUNs, unless Farndale again is confused and is calling these weapons howitzers and not guns.
Quote
Like
Share

Nelson
Nelson

6:29 AM - Sep 20, 2015 #49

> ....and of course you are always right. >

Hey, would you mind passing on such notion to my wife, as she continually refutes that characterization of me. Better yet, maybe you could.....aw shoot! Shame on me, you’re delivering up a little sarcasm here!

Isn’t it rather that I have brought a compelling body of evidence—a number of reliable secondary sources published in Australia and at least for one aspect, primary source documents found at the U.S. National Archives—to bear on this question. It occurs that such a compelling body of evidence is routinely essential to those practicing certain professions. Just to snatch three out of the air, to trial lawyers, to those undertaking historical research, and to those studying the natural sciences. For those individuals, is not learning the truth the end goal? Otherwise, what’s the point? It remains my belief that getting to the bottom of things and then disseminating that information to those who find such matters of interest are two of the most essential reasons we take part in this forum. Why keep score how often any of us is right?

Nelson
Quote
Share

Joined: 4:40 PM - Jul 20, 2004

3:01 PM - Sep 20, 2015 #50

Nuyt,

> Thanks, so a grand total of 36-40 of these guns may have been purchased by the NPC, that’s interesting....I guess the former US Marines’ guns came with their stockpile of ammo as well... It must have been a substantial order (especially if highspeeded) and no doubt documented...I’ll check if I can find any leads in my files. >

From what I conclude, you wrote the above before going into your files. Important: What is the basis of your prelim estimate of 36 to 40 Mark VII marine landing guns moving into Dutch hands c1940? In fact, the USN had purchased a total of 50 of these landing guns designed by Rheinische and built by American & British Mfr. Co., in two contracts specifying 25 units each, during the years 1909–1912, give or take. The third surviving Mark VII you located in Oz, serial No. 1153, is definitely part of the second lot ordered.

I have since checked my own files to ascertain more precisely how many Mark VII 3-inch (76mm) landing guns were available in American outposts in the Far East as war clouds gathered. The answer is 10: six stored at Cavite Navy Yard in Manila Bay, and the final four actually in marine service in Peking (likely moved later to Shanghai). It may well be that the Mark VII landing guns purchased by the Dutch did not even include those ten, but the lot sold moved directly from the States. I’ve been giving a deal of thought to WHO high-speeded the “Dutch” guns, and WHEN, and my money is on the Americans as part of the conditions set by the purchaser. It would make sense that the Dutch in the NEI would have required high-speeded artillery pieces, and their conversion was more readily done back in the U.S. of A. By the time these pieces were diverted to Australia, the Diggers had enough on their minds, and the plethora of different types of guns arriving at dockside would have been mind-boggling. Would the Aussies have asked, “By the by, the Dutchies just gifted us N-number of American naval landing guns. You got some of those conversion kits so’z we can modernize them? And ammo, too. Lotsa ammo.” Well, maybe, and could my guess be stone-cold wrong? Absolutely.

> Wasn’t there another type of US landing gun with the recuperator mounted on top of the barrel (a De Bange invention if I recall?). That was a very modern looking gun for the time and preceding Rheinmetall designs of the 1920s. >

Well, yes, no, yes, and uncertain. Starting with your first and third points, the U.S. Navy finally got the modern landing gun it wanted, the Mark XI, in 1916, virtually too late for it to see any real use. Its design was a collaboration between the navy, which laid out its needs, and the gun’s manufacturer, Bethlehem Steel. Which is to write that this piece was not bought off the shelf from Bethlehem, as were the woefully inadequate Mark IV landing gun and the later Mark XII mountain gun, the latter seeing rather little use by the marines. The Mark XI design included such niceties as a vertical sliding wedge breech mechanism, a better panoramic sight than on the Mark VII, and a split-trail field carriage (Mark VI). The no part is the recuperator was hung under the barrel; ‘twas the recoil cylinder atop the barrel. Not sure of your point about Rheinmetall, unless you mean the German company’s general ordnance designs of the 1920s, which did come after the design and adoption of the Mark XI landing gun in 1916, even before the U.S. had become a belligerent in World War I. See Gene Slover’s website on the Mark XI landing gun, which provides graphics and will answer most of your questions.

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/NAVAL-LANDING-GUN.html

Want to correct partially one of my previous statements. I wrote that the U.S. Navy differentiated between a field gun and a landing gun on the basis of muzzle velocity alone. Not correct sensu stricto, because those different muzzle velocities were generated by different 3-inch rounds: the Mark I and Mark I mod 1 used smaller rounds than the later Marks IV, VII, and XI, i.e., such ammunition was not interchangeable.

Nelson
I am puzzled by this post by "RichT090" on the AHF: "In no sense were any of the units "fully equipped"...especially the Philippine Army ones. USA Field Artillery comprised 24 M1916 75mm and possibly 12 M1897 75mm, Philippine and PS field artillery comprised 24 155mm M1917 "GPF" guns shipped without sighting equipment, 124 M1916 and M1917 75mm Guns, 52 ex-Indian Army 2,95" mountain guns, and 36 "3-inch" weapons that otherwise remain unidentified, but which may have been M1902, M1905, or M1906 Guns."
From:http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5&start=60

Could those 36 unspecified 3 inch guns have been our landing guns?

Quote
Like
Share