Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Anti Aircraft Gun


ypresman

Recommended Posts

I am sure that I have read somewhere that although at the start of the war the 13pdr was the gun of the RHA batteries, it soon became clear that the lighter payload and shorter range of the 13pdr made it inferior to the 18pdr in the type of warfare that developed on the Western Front. Furthermore, whilst the RHA were originally formed in order to support the cavalry in swift dashing shock action, with a lack of this going on they did not need the lighter but less effective 13pdr. As a result thy were re-equipped with 18pdrs and the resultant surplus of 13pdrs went to become AA guns such as the one shown in the photos.

Can anyone verify this?

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate,

Thats what I understand happened to the guns of the RHA batteries attach to the Anzac LH/Mounted Brigades in Egypt and Palestine.

But when this happened I am unsure.

As for the HK&S Mountain Battery of the Camel Corps it had either 60 pdr or 90 pdr Mountain guns, these could be broken down to be placed and transported on the camels then reassembled to fire once in position.

There are many accounts of there being used in the AA role as the guns were to light to pound the Turkish defences in the post 1916 battles and so were used as AA guns to either suport the Camel Bde or others.

As I mentioned I am yet to see how they did this with a mountain gun mount as there were no AA mounts in the battery. I mean how did they get the elevation to engage these targets and then track them in the sky I am at a loss with out a AA mount like the one on the truck.

Cheers

S.B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Hi

Is that a 'staged photo' and if so where do you reckon it was taken?

Do you know of the country of origin of the Peerless truck?

.

The Peerless trucks were made in Cleveland Ohio and an extaordinary large number were purchased, (well over 10,000) by the WD.

I very much hope that is a staged photo, otherwise that building is going to be very well ventilated.

Tim Gosling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recent AA gun research appears to indicate that the Duxford picture is of a 13 pdr 9 cwt gun, i.e. an 18 pounder sleeved to 3 inch, on a Mk 3 mounting, on a Thornycroft Type J lorry. The barrel of the 13 pdr RHA gun was not much longer than the recuperator. The 13 pdr 9 cwt became the main AA gun in all theatres except Britain, where the 3 inch 20 cwt was better suited to home defence.

cheers

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with that.

The J was returned to the Thornycroft factory at the end of the war for their own museum. During WW2 it was wheeled outside and used to ward of German raiders and was left there after the war had ended. This photo was taken around 1967 just before it was rescued for restoration. It changed hands several times before it went to the IWM

Thornycroft4.jpg

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum, Tim, and thanks for posting that splendid photo of the J pre-restoration. Remarkable how well preserved it was then, after 50 or so years and service in two world wars.

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the effectiveness of AA guns

If they hit they were effective! I read years ago somewhere that AA guns became more effective when the proximity fuze was developed. Their efficiency was again improved with radar direction, but didn't become truely effective until the introduction of computer control.

the use of mobile AA guns in the ground support role.

The Germans took this lesson to heart in WW2 and used their 88s as an anti tank and then tank gun. The British and Americans ignored it and had less effective anti tank guns as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Germans took this lesson to heart in WW2 and used their 88s as an anti tank and then tank gun. The British and Americans ignored it and had less effective anti tank guns as a result."

Sad to say we have Bofors of Sweden to thank for that.

We had the 3.7" which was far superior but produced in smaller numbers for anti-aircraft. The 17 pounder had the muzzle velocity to do the job with the tanks, even taking out the King Tiger.

As always the Allied effort was to small to late, even though the technology was there.

Regards Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"we have Bofors of Sweden to thank for that." Nope we have the people who placed the orders and also the blinkered vision that refused to see the potential in the other role, especially with this WWI precident. Contrast with the Oerlikon: bought in by the Navy, but the potential seen by the RAF.

The 3.7" was available pre war and could have been fitted to the Matilda pre war or in the Phony War, instead it was as if they were still thinking in terms of the 6-pdr! I didn't realise that the 17-pdr was an anti aircraft gun, but in any case they took 5 years to put it into a tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The initial anti-aircraft defence of Britain was shouldered by the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Anti Aicraft Corps, theur mobile element was provided by 1-pdr pompoms mounted on Austin lorries.They later upgraded, getting French 75mms with high angle mounts on Dion-Bouton chassis and 3" 20cwts on Daimler lorries.

Samson and his RNAS contingent in Belgium 1914 do not apear to have developed a high angle mount, but did use Maxims. The Royal Marine Artillery AA contingent arrived in France 23 April 1915 with 2-pdr pompoms on Pierce-Arrows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The 3.7" was available pre war and could have been fitted to the Matilda pre war or in the Phony War, instead it was as if they were still thinking in terms of the 6-pdr! I didn't realise that the 17-pdr was an anti aircraft gun, but in any case they took 5 years to put it into a tank."

Two different weapons the 17 pounder was a 3 inch weapon and the 3.7 inch was a 20 pounder both used for anti-aircraft and anti tank.

Regards Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

For those interested, a full write-up on the Thrornycroft's restoration can be found in 'The Automobile' magazine, February 1989. It is said to be chassis number 3817, which was delivered to the War Department on July 26, 1916. In 1920 the authorities donated the vehicle to the newly-established Imperial War Museum at Crystal Palace. However, the IWM moved to Imperial College in 1921, a venue incapable of housing larger exhibits. Fortunately, unlike other exhibits that were cut up on site (including a German tank), Thornycroft were interested in it for their own collection and so it went to their factory in Basingstoke in return for a scale model (which can still be seen on display at IWM, London). The vehicle then moved outside during WW2, where it stayed becoming more and more delapidated. In 1962, Thornycroft offered it free (!) to anyone who would take it away. Enthusiast Tom Redburn rescued it (minus its engine, which had been sold by this time) who moved it to Enfield installing an incorrect but similar vintage engine, and in whose hands it apparantly appeared in a couple of films. It then moved to Hardwicks of Ewell who acquired an installed a correct engine. Finally, in 1982, it changed hands again back to the IWM who commissioned a full restoration. It now resides at IWM, Duxford.

Regarding the ordanance, the article says that, "owing to shortages in 1914/15 of the then newly introduced 3in 20cwt AA gun, a number of 18-pounder field guns were relined to use the 13-pounder ammunition, whilst still retaining the heavier 18-pounder propellant charge. This hybrid proved highly successful, and remained in service for the duration of the war."

Malcolm, sorry to disappoint, but by the style of bonnet and door your relative is clearly sitting in a Leyland, not a Crossley. The WW1 Crossleys were much lighter, essentially car based trucks, with wire wheels. Both Leylands and Crossleys were highly regarded vehicles in their weight class and found much favour with the RFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to hijack the thread slightly - but was the German tank cut up in the 20's an A7V? Such a shame, what a sight one of those would make alongside (or opposite) the Mk V in the large exhibits hall at the IWM today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian Hogg's "Allied Artillery of World War One" has a section on AA guns, and deals with the 13 pdr. Essentially it confirms what others above have posted, except that IIRC, the recuperator was installed in order to bring the gun back on station when firing at acute angles, a problem not normally encountered by a field gun. I have the book out on loan at home - I'll look at it later today to see what else it says.

Veering wildly OT, the British 3.7 weighed in at 10 tons, i.e. four times the weight of an 88. Nor did it have optical sights, instead relying on radar for ranging. They were used occasionally in extremis in the Western Desert in an AT role, and the Axis treated them with a healthy respect.

I doubt a tank as small as a Matilda could have mounted a 6pdr, let alone the 3.7. The 17 pdr wasn't invented until late 1942, not in service until 1943 and was mounted in AFV's by 1944.

From Mr Hogg's book: "Ordnance, QF, 13pr 9cwt Mk I on Mounting, Motor Lorry Mk III or MkIV

Calibre: 3 in

Weight of gun: 1,008 lb

Length of gun: 96.96in

Length of gore: 30.9 calibres

Rifling grooves: 18

Rifling twist: RH. 1/30

Breech: Screw, percussion

Total Weight: 16,800lb

Recoil: 35in

Elevation: 0 to +80 degrees

Traverse: 360 degrees

Shell weight: 13lb

Muzzle velocity: 2,150ft/sec

Max Ceiling: 19,000ft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...