Contemporary report on coast artillery in the defense of the Philippines

Contemporary report on coast artillery in the defense of the Philippines

Joined: December 27th, 2007, 10:57 pm

August 23rd, 2015, 2:22 am #1

"Report on performance of United States Army coast artillery personnel and equipment in the Manila – Bataan military campaign"


http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/ ... l8/id/4134
Quote
Like
Share

Nelson
Nelson

August 26th, 2015, 2:12 pm #2

Jim,

A pity that someone at some point had made so free with the DECLASSIFIED stamp. As the file description indicates, there is no author for the document other than the U.S. Army. Nonetheless, the title is remarkably similar in form to that of a report ostensibly authored postwar by Col. Albert C. Searle, captured on Java in March 1942. The latter document is titled “Official Report on combat efficiency of U.S. Army [field] artillery in Java”. The only citation I’ve read has “U.S. Army artillery”, but it occurs that “field” may have been unintentionally omitted from that citation. I believe you’re a regular user at CARL and if so, very likely you have a contact or two whom you find particularly reliable. Wonder if you would attempt to find the document I cite, with and without Searle as author, and with and without “field” preceding “artillery”.

I have tried assiduously to find the Searle document at the National Archives, the Center for Military History, and the Military History Institute, but just no trace. If such a report was made, the only obvious author would have been Colonel Searle, the sole American regular field artillery officer made a prisoner of war on Java.

Thanks,

Nelson
Quote
Share

Joined: December 27th, 2007, 10:57 pm

August 27th, 2015, 3:12 am #3

Nelson:

Sorry, I regularly log in at CARL but do not have any contacts there. In fact I have never been there physically. I can only claim to have once been second assistant briefcase carrier in a jury trial where Ike Skelton (the fellow for whom the CARL building is now named) was lead counsel.

I tried a search using 'Searle' and then 'Java' as terms but found nothing.
Quote
Like
Share

Nelson
Nelson

August 27th, 2015, 12:31 pm #4

Jim,

> I tried a search using ‘Searle’ and then ‘Java’ as terms but found nothing. >

Thanks for looking, and my apology for plumb forgetting I had made this same request 5 1/2 years ago, also coming up empty.

You near-flummoxed me with the Ike Skelton reference. Funniest thing, but a pal and I are making up a comprehensive list of locations where any of the three nearly identical models of the early 20th century U.S. Army 3-inch field gun are displayed—the first modern field guns designed after the embarrassments suffered from the antiques the army was forced to deploy in the Spanish-American War and the Peking Relief Expedition. One of those sites is the Museum for Missouri Military History at the Ike Skelton Training Center, not far east of Jefferson City, a site my friend and I discussed only earlier this week. Because the Training Center is strictly a Missouri Guard facility, your mention of that worthy in reference to CARL took me aback, until I learned that Skelton’s name now graces the research library at Fort Leavenworth and thereupon all was ‘splained.

> second assistant briefcase carrier in a jury trial >

Just so’z I’ll have this straight: This is a distinctly recognized position for which three years at a decent law school prepares one?

Nelson
Quote
Share

Joined: December 27th, 2007, 10:57 pm

August 28th, 2015, 3:14 am #5

Nelson:

Will keep monitoring CARL (and other sites) for your missing report. Would there have been anything published in postwar issues of THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL?

"Funniest thing, but a pal and I are making up a comprehensive list of locations where any of the three nearly identical models of the early 20th century U.S. Army 3-inch field gun are displayed—the first modern field guns designed after the embarrassments suffered from the antiques the army was forced to deploy in the Spanish-American War and the Peking Relief Expedition. One of those sites is the Museum for Missouri Military History at the Ike Skelton Training Center, not far east of Jefferson City, a site my friend and I discussed only earlier this week"

I went to Kansas City MO a few weekends ago and got to spend two hours in the NATIONAL WORLD WAR I MUSEUM (at the Liberty Memorial). Very impressive place and I wish I had more time to spend there that day.

They also have a U S Army 3-inch field gun. I took a photograph, the placard says "U. S. 3 in Field Gun, Model of 1895 and Carriage, Model of 1902"
And a whole lot more artillery also.

> second assistant briefcase carrier in a jury trial >
Just so’z I’ll have this straight: This is a distinctly recognized position for which three years at a decent law school prepares one?

When its a will contest involving an estate with property worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars (this is 1976) and a charitable trust, you have at counsel table: Ike Skelton and his associate, my employer (who hired Skelton to try the case for him). The two attorneys representing the proponents of the will, the two lawyers who wrote the will (who allowed to sit at counsel table even though they can't participate) and two assistant attorneys general (because of the charitable trust), there isnt any room left at the table for a neophyte barrister barely one year out of law school.
I did get to have dinner with Mr. (later Congresman) Skelton at his house.


Quote
Like
Share

Nelson
Nelson

August 28th, 2015, 7:53 am #6

Jim,

> Would there have been anything published in postwar issues of THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL? >

Hmmm, I dunno, but good thinking.

> I went to Kansas City MO a few weekends ago and got to spend two hours in the NATIONAL WORLD WAR I MUSEUM (at the Liberty Memorial). Very impressive place and I wish I had more time to spend there that day.

They also have a U S Army 3-inch field gun. I took a photograph, the placard says “U. S. 3 in Field Gun, Model of 1895 and Carriage, Model of 1902” And a whole lot more artillery also. >

Just for a MO', I thought that starter sentence was the west-of-the-Mississippi version of the jokes that begin, “Once went to Philadelphia....” More seriously—and with no intention of splitting hairs—there was NOT a Model 1895 U.S. Army 3-inch field gun. Brief history: the army used various models of the no-frills, no-on-carriage-recoil 3.2-inch breechloading field gun, whose use began in 1889 or 1890. After coming red-of-face out of two conflicts that involved either foreign observers (Span-Amer War) or outright foreign participation as duration-only allies (Peking Relief Exped), the army determined to equip itself with a modern field gun. A pilot piece was acquired from Ehrhardt (a.k.a. Rheinische Metallwaren; eventually a.k.a. Rheinmetall) in Germany, which at some point became designated the Model 1901. Many of the ideas in the Rheinische pilot gun were “lifted”, and as a consequence, after two large domestic orders, including one to Watervliet Arsenal, the third order for 50 units, complete—M1902 gun, M1902 carriage, M1902 limber, necessary accoutrements—went across the sea to Deutschland, in violation of the domestic-sales-only policy established by Congress (methinks the alternative would have involved barristers, both senior and junior, from both sides of the Pond). The subsequent Models 1904 and 1905 3-inch field guns also used the M1902 field carriage (but there are weight differences among the long progression of such carriages to fit the gun, so early carriage serials are not identical, other than visually, with later carriage serials). Hope that in-a-nutshell suffices.

So puleeze post the .jpg of the field gun-and-carriage combination you snapped at the KC museum. Could well be the placard is simply in error. Could equally be that some odd-couple combo is on the floor, and I would dearly love to eyeball it. Attached is an example of the standard American army 3-inch field gun of the pre-World War I period, on display at the First Division Museum in Cantigny, IL. Note the 16-spoked wheels, unique to U.S. gun carriages, limbers, caissons, heavy wagons, etc., from a pattern established by the Archibald Wheel Company of Lawrence, MA.



Thanx,

Nelson
Quote
Share

Nelson
Nelson

August 28th, 2015, 8:18 am #7

Jim,

Two minutes after I hit “Respond”, it occurred that in all likelihood the Kansas City museum has a Model 1905 3-inch field gun mounted on the ubiquitous Model 1902 field carriage, and the placard simply displays a typo. Again, at first glance, the three models of 3-inch field gun seem identical, as do their nearly common Model 1902 field carriages, but the weight ratios differ somewhat from the inception of construction not long after the turn of the century to its end around World War I. Although the 3-inch field guns never got Over There, they were routinely used in training. There was nothing wrong with this ordnance, but having French and American light fieldpieces firing common 75mm projectiles was of obvious logistical value. The story is far more complicated, but this brief version must suffice.

Nelson
Quote
Share

Joined: July 20th, 2004, 4:40 pm

August 28th, 2015, 10:44 am #8

Not sure if this link was ever shared on this forum, but landing guns have been discussed here before.

http://www.cannonsuperstore.com/1911mark7.html

Note this 3 inch US Navy landing gun of 1911 for sale in Austrlia a while ago, apparently from a load of such guns that had been acquired by KNIL or had been intended for them in 1942. The link suggests that the whole lot of US 1911 landing guns (how many were that?) was acquired by the Dutch (this must have gone through the Netherlands Purchasing Commission), but ended up in Australia after the fall of Java (like a lot of other stuff). It may have served in local forces in Australia?
Glad to hear your thoughts...
Quote
Like
Share

Nelson
Nelson

August 28th, 2015, 7:49 pm #9

Beginning not so arbitrarily in the late 1890s, the U.S. Navy and/or Marine Corps used in chronological succession—although their use overlapped—five standard models of 3-inch naval field and landing guns (the same thing, really, with the designation as one or the other based on muzzle velocity alone):

• Mark I 3-inch/21cal field gun on Mark I field carriage*
• Mark I mod 1 3-inch/21cal field gun on Mark II field carriage
• Mark IV 3-inch/23.5cal landing gun on Mark IV field carriage (Bethlehem Steel design)
• Mark VII 3-inch/23cal landing gun on Mark V field carriage (Rheinische Metallwaaren design; subcontracted to American & British Mfr. Co., Bridgeport, CT, because of the government requirement for domestic procurement only). Due to weight considerations, all 50 guns were transferred to the USMC and did not see Fleet service.
• Mark XI 3-inch/23.5cal landing gun on Mark VI field carriage

*Numerous and serious problems were encountered with the odd wrap-around-the-barrel recoil sleeve on the Mark I field gun. In the equally numerous and not totally successful efforts to rectify the problems, designations such as Mark I mod 1 and Mark I mod 2 crop up that may refer to the modified recoil cylinder only or to the modified gun carriage or both.

NOT included in the preceding list of USN/USMC 3-inch field and landing guns: (i) Guns of other calibers, such as 1-pounders (37mm), that not infrequently were landed in support of bluejackets ashore. (ii) Nearly three dozen heavy carriages designed to mount various 3-inch/50cal shipboard guns; these carriages were concentrated at two places, Norfolk Navy Yard on the east coast and the Philippines in the Pacific. After dismounting the shipboard guns, getting them ashore, and coupling them with their field carriages, such heavy pieces required horse drayage, were anathema to the quick in-and-out of landing parties, and thus saw little to no use. (iii) Mark XII 3-inch/15cal mountain gun on Mark VII mountain carriage (Bethlehem Steel design): four were purchased and saw experimental use by the marines in the mountains of Central America.



Above is a photo of one of several Mark VII 3-inch landing guns remaining in the hands of the marine garrison in Peking (these were the final such guns in use by the marines; stateside the USMC had converted to superior field artillery pieces). Unlike those arriving in Australia in early WWII, such guns are seen to be still configured as landing guns, with wooden spoked wheels, a steel trail wheel, etc. Between Peking or Shanghai and the Philippines, until late in the game there were ten to a dozen Mk VII 3-inch landing guns in Asiatic outposts. What became their fate?

The questions remain precisely WHO high-speeded the Mark VII landing guns now in Australia with the Martin Parry gear and WHEN. Done by the Americans as a condition set by the Dutch purchasers in the NEI? If so, when diverted to Australia, the pieces had already been high-speeded by the Yanks. If not, the Aussies could have purchased conversion kits from Martin Parry in the States (the company made such high-speed kits for a variety of guns, domestic and foreign). Although a representative was frequently provided to ensure proper conversion, an experienced and intuitive ordnanceman could have readily done the conversions with the tools provided. In matériel-poor Oz, such pieces would have been useful in training, not to mention valuable as beach defense guns, so the third question of HOW MANY arises. Surely someone Down Under must know more of their history there.

Nelson
Quote
Share

Joined: December 27th, 2007, 10:57 pm

August 29th, 2015, 2:52 am #10

Jim,

> Would there have been anything published in postwar issues of THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL? >

Hmmm, I dunno, but good thinking.

> I went to Kansas City MO a few weekends ago and got to spend two hours in the NATIONAL WORLD WAR I MUSEUM (at the Liberty Memorial). Very impressive place and I wish I had more time to spend there that day.

They also have a U S Army 3-inch field gun. I took a photograph, the placard says “U. S. 3 in Field Gun, Model of 1895 and Carriage, Model of 1902” And a whole lot more artillery also. >

Just for a MO', I thought that starter sentence was the west-of-the-Mississippi version of the jokes that begin, “Once went to Philadelphia....” More seriously—and with no intention of splitting hairs—there was NOT a Model 1895 U.S. Army 3-inch field gun. Brief history: the army used various models of the no-frills, no-on-carriage-recoil 3.2-inch breechloading field gun, whose use began in 1889 or 1890. After coming red-of-face out of two conflicts that involved either foreign observers (Span-Amer War) or outright foreign participation as duration-only allies (Peking Relief Exped), the army determined to equip itself with a modern field gun. A pilot piece was acquired from Ehrhardt (a.k.a. Rheinische Metallwaren; eventually a.k.a. Rheinmetall) in Germany, which at some point became designated the Model 1901. Many of the ideas in the Rheinische pilot gun were “lifted”, and as a consequence, after two large domestic orders, including one to Watervliet Arsenal, the third order for 50 units, complete—M1902 gun, M1902 carriage, M1902 limber, necessary accoutrements—went across the sea to Deutschland, in violation of the domestic-sales-only policy established by Congress (methinks the alternative would have involved barristers, both senior and junior, from both sides of the Pond). The subsequent Models 1904 and 1905 3-inch field guns also used the M1902 field carriage (but there are weight differences among the long progression of such carriages to fit the gun, so early carriage serials are not identical, other than visually, with later carriage serials). Hope that in-a-nutshell suffices.

So puleeze post the .jpg of the field gun-and-carriage combination you snapped at the KC museum. Could well be the placard is simply in error. Could equally be that some odd-couple combo is on the floor, and I would dearly love to eyeball it. Attached is an example of the standard American army 3-inch field gun of the pre-World War I period, on display at the First Division Museum in Cantigny, IL. Note the 16-spoked wheels, unique to U.S. gun carriages, limbers, caissons, heavy wagons, etc., from a pattern established by the Archibald Wheel Company of Lawrence, MA.



Thanx,

Nelson
Nelson:

Here you are


Upon further review, the placard may read Model of "1905" and not "1895". Any for your perusal.

Quote
Like
Share