Artillery

[Khaki]

What was the process for artillery that was damaged or worn out, was it sent back to the manufacturers? were the carriage and wheels sent to separate

places and how was a worn barrel repaired?

khaki

[jay dubaya]

Somewhere at home I have a photo of 18 pounders arriving back at Vickers in Sheffield also a few notes regarding the repairs that were carried out at the works. Will have a look over the weekend

Jon

[nigelfe]

It depends on the extent of repairs needed. WW1 saw the development of different levels of repair, depending on the complexity and time needed for the work. In UK at least these were eventually formalised into 4 levels, from 'unit' to 'base', which could include the manufacturer. What happened at unit level could also depend on the nature of the equipment and how widespread it was, ie the advantages of centralised repair were not notably great if there wasn't much of a particular type of equipment to centralise.

[Rockdoc]

There were tradesmen in the lines that would do running repairs and workshops that could do more major stuff so something minor wouldn't mean an entire gun was sent back. I think major components may well have done but worn field-gun barrels could be replaced under field conditions, using an A-frame for lifting and muscle-power for the rest, so my guess is that most guns would finish the war like Dad's old brush - twelve new heads and fifteen stales but the same brush nonetheless.

Keith

[nigelfe]

The guns (as opposed to howitzers) were a barrel wear problem because they were always used with full charge, hence maximum barrel wear. RA had their cap-badge tradesmen and artificers, and they had the technical competence to repair or replace just about any part of a gun. However, were talking the days of horse power here which meant that transport capacity was limited, and I don't think the RA tiffies, etc, carried much more than their tools, the obvious exception being the farrier who needed all the equipment for shoeing horses. Actual gun spares were probably very limited, spare instruments, firing mechanisms and so on. Obviously not spare barrels, and if spare barrels or other major assemblies were not carried then there was little point in wasting transport capacity on 'handling equipment'. The issue then became was it easier to take the gun back to a divisional level facility to undertake barrel exchange or was it better to take the spare barrel and handling equipment forward and do it on the gun position? My guess would be 'it depends on the situation'. Doing it on the gun position meant the gun was out of action for less time, taking the gun back would be a better use of technical resources. The tactical situation would be the complication and whether doing such work on the gun position was acceptable, I'd say probably not, but it would depend on such things as the air situation, and the like. The compromise might have been to do it in the bty's wagon lines.

[kevinrowlinson]

Just a few photos held by the IWM of AOC doing their job, http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=ordnance%20workshop&items_per_page=10&f[0]=mediaType%3Aimage&f[1]=contentDate%3AFirst%20World%20War .

Apart from the one heavy workshop per Corps there were an increasing number during the war of medium and light workshops being established. If one searches the forum there has been a few previous threads about these workshops, and one in particular which shows how many different guns/hows were repaired in a given period.

Kevin