RGA Artillery pieces - reducing recoil?

[kildaremark]

A relative recently recounted to me that my grandfather (an RGA gunner) told him that they had Chinese labourers to shovel gravel at the back of their gun every time it was fired and galvanise backing put in place to hold the gravel. Can anyone suggest what type of guns were prepared like this. Could this be any type of howitzer or were there particular guns that suited this type of set-up. Thanks, Mark

[centurion]

Either a gun with a very slow rate of fire (or Chinese labourers with a very high rate of shovelling)! However the 9.2 Mk 1 howitzer had a steel "earth box" that was filled up whenever the weapon was emplaced (not every time it was fired) and emptied when it had to be moved which I suspect is what is being talked about albeit slightly garbled.

[centurion]

9.2 Mk 1 battery http://www.gommecourt.co.uk/Graphics/web%20pix/9how375.jpg

[ianjonesncl]

One of the issues that can arise when guns are fired in conditions with soft ground is they is they move position and dig into the earth and not move back into their position of lay. It is not only going backwards, but they can slew left or right.

One can imagine that providing a decent recoil path would mean that they would move back into the requisite position. The alternative is the gun needs digging out and moved back into its position of lay.

One though is it could be any wheeled gun or howitzer. Have a look at th

ese 8” howitzers firing; imagine if the trail dug into mud when it fired, I would think gravel would help in providing a good recoil path.

Or as Centurion points out they could have been filling recoil boxes on the 9.2 inch Howitzer and the story has been garbled over the years

[centurion]

If it is an RGA piece then it isn't " any wheeled gun or howitzer".If the ground is so soft that the gun has to be dug out after every firing then it would be very slow and ineffective. I have never seen any account of a gravel recoil path and the gun would still need relaying after every firing - like an old Napoleonic piece. The whole point of hydraulic recoil systems and soil boxes was that you didn't have to do this. On the 9.2 Mk 1 there was 9 tons in the box and on the Mk 2 12 tons.

[ianjonesncl]

Centurion

It may be slow and ineffective but unfortunately that is what happens and it is back breaking trying to sort it out.

[centurion]

Centurion

It may be slow and ineffective but unfortunately that is what happens and it is back breaking trying to sort it out.

So give us some examples of it being done with RGA equipment in WW1

[nigelfe]

Having to do construction work after every round would be highly unusual, and we're probably only talking about 60-pr, 6-in G, 6-in H or 8-in H. If the described situation did occur 6-in G would probably be the most likely candidate. It's notable that in WW2 the 7.2-in H (a lined down 8-in) was issued with large Quoins, a much better solution, but I'm not sure if they were used in WW1 although I see no reason why not, they're not exactly advanced technology.

All that said I agree that a confused/misunderstood/evolved over time story is more likely and it was really about filling the ballast boxes for 9.2-in or 12-in H.

[centurion]

Having to do construction work after every round would be highly unusual, and we're probably only talking about 60-pr, 6-in G, 6-in H or 8-in H. If the described situation did occur 6-in G would probably be the most likely candidate. It's notable that in WW2 the 7.2-in H (a lined down 8-in) was issued with large Quoins, a much better solution, but I'm not sure if they were used in WW1 although I see no reason why not, they're not exactly advanced technology.

And indeed large wooden ramps were indeed provided for the 6 inch gun in WW1

[kildaremark]

Thanks for your input. I don't disagree that the details could have become confused over time.Mark

[centurion]

I am intrigued by the mention of Chinese labour. The terms of service for the Chinese Labour Corps would exclude them from being in effect part of the gun crew which would be the case if they were dealing with a recoil track after each firing. They could prepare a gun position in advance of emplacement but AFAIK this would be restricted to pouring concrete for mounts, laying approach roads etc. but would filling the earth boxes on the guns themselves fall into this? In either case it would seem that the rules were being bent more than somewhat

[centurion]

Thinking more about this. If the bit of the story re Chinese labourers is correct it change matters as I don't think they would either fill the ballast boxes or maintain a gravel recoil strip whist the gun was in action. However there is one possible scenario that might fit if we allow for some distortion of the story. In WW2 the 7.2 howitzers sometimes used to recoil over the top of the wooden ramps (quoins). The late Harry Seacombe describes such an incident when a howitzer careered down a slope behind the battery and through the camp in which his tent was located followed afterwards by a Gunner Milligan in hot pursuit (its how the two first met). Now the same could happen with the 6 inch gun of WW1, not regularly but disconcerting when it did and it would seem sensible to construct a safety stop behind the gun position when it was initially prepared and before the gun came into action, a gravel bank retained by corrugated iron would do the job nicely. Building something like this would be well within the remit of the Chinese Labour Corps. It would not be something reshoveled every time the gun was fired as the hydraulic recoil plus the ramps would normally deal with the recoil and return the gun to its firing position. If this is the case then the gun in question is the 6inch (probably on the no 2 carriage)