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

Remembered Today:

Royal Marine Artillery "Special Gun"


sotonmate

Recommended Posts

Well, blow me down! This must be the ignominious return journey of the 15" COW howitzer that someone, in their wisdom, thought it would be a good idea to send out to Gallipoli. Various sources say that it was sent, but was not used, and one says that it was not used because it could not be landed. What is not clear, however, is at what stage it was realised that the means did not exist to transfer this behemoth and its tractors etc from a transport ship to the shore.

It would be interesting to discover whose idea it was and what job was envisaged for the gun, given its short range and the ready availability of long-range heavy naval guns offshore. 'Granny goes to Gallipoli' !

Mick,

the following may provide answers to some of your questions

After the set-back of 18th March 1915, not all was despair. Planning for the landing of a military force was proceeding, and de Robeck was already setting about his preparations for the Navy's part in this joint effort, and the Navy's entry into the Marmara. De Robeck's telegram of 8th April was quite optimistic; so much so that Churchill passed it's news on to the PM, who in turn informed the King.

Based upon this positive wave ...

quote:

Both he (the First Lord) and Fisher hoped to take advantage of the first military success at Gallipoli to land a 15-inch howitzer which could then bombard the forts at Chanak from a fixed and stable point on the Peninsula. Sir John French was reluctant to see such an important weapon removed from his control. On April 8 Churchill approached Kitchener for support:

8 April 1915 - Admiralty

Secret

My dear Kitchener,

If the military attack is checked at the Killid Bahr position, sites can be found for the 15-inch howitzer which will enable the forts at the Narrows to be bombarded with all the accuracy of fire attainable only in a shore gun. We think therefore it is a necessary precaution at this stage to get the gun on the way, and one which if we are checked may materially assist the Fleet passing the Narrows. All the arrangements have been made for ship and train. Admiral Bacon anticipates no difficulty whatever in getting the gun ashore, and in conveying it to a firing position. The fourth gun is now practically ready at Sheerness and will be over in France to replace this gun before French can want it.

In the circumstances the First Sea Lord and I wish most strongly that the despatch of the gun should go forward with the utmost speed as has been arranged.

I should be glad also if you would send the following to Sir John French from First Lord:-

We regard the immediate despatch of the gun as an imperative precaution at this juncture. We can replace it within a week by the fourth gun now finishing proof at Shoebury. We do not wish Admiral Bacon to go to the Dardanelles with the gun; his services are urgently required for a naval command here, and we shall be very grateful if you can spare him from the field army.

Yours sincerely

Winston S. Churchill.

end of quote

[details from 'Winston S Churchill Vol.III 1914-1916 (p.390>) and the Companion Part I Documents (p.778) both by Martin Gilbert]

regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with heavy-lifting port facilities at his disposal at Dover and Dunkirk, Bacon designed equipment and methods for moving heavy guns that ensured it was never necessary to lift the dead-weight of the gun/mounting. I suspect that no-one thought to consult him before despatching No 3 to Gallipoli, otherwise he would either have advised against it or devised a means of getting it all ashore.

Well, I was clearly mistaken on that score. Thanks to Michaeldr for finding that revealing piece of correspondence. So now I wonder what went wrong with the proposed method for landing the gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now I wonder what went wrong with the proposed method for landing the gun.

Good question.

Even though Admiral Bacon was not sent to the Dardanelles, there was nevertheless the know-how available there to overcome the difficulties of landing heavy gear.

E.G. the RNAS under Samson at Tenedos

“The transport Abda, in which were the first aeroplanes to arrive, was placed alongside Ark Royal which with her main derrick, hoisted the heavy aeroplane cases off the Abda on to a 47-foot launch and a sailing pinnace lent by the Vengeance. The Maurice Farman aeroplanes, which had been packed in cases of fragile construction, 47 feet long and weighing two tones, were particularly troublesome to unload. The ships' boats were eventually, with their load, hauled as far ashore as they would go, and the cases got off over planks and rollers; thence they were pushed on rollers along the roughly improvised road by Greek labourers patiently exhorted by the sailors. The eleven aeroplanes in the Abda were landed without damage, in two days; the packing cases served later to house some of the men.”

[from The War in the Air Vol.II, by H A Jones]

regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for another interesting find, Michael. That sounds more like 'awkward', though, rather than 'heavy'. The gun and mounting weighed about 95 tons, so the heaviest lift in the whole 'set' (gun, mounting, platform, tractors, trucks, etc) would be upwards of 50 tons, which I think would have been beyond the capacity of the derricks on most cargo ships. Bacon moved the barrels of heavy naval guns by wolding them in wood to make the barrel cylindrical over a large part of its length and then rolled them, thus avoiding a 'dead-lift', but the mountings of those guns were heavier and at least as awkward as that of the 15" howitzer, and he shifted them too. Maybe one of the parameters at the Gallipoli end of the operation was not as described to Bacon when he expressed confidence in being able to get the gun ashore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mick,



Your figures do rather put the RNAS comparison into perspective.


I think that your guess is quite the most likely reason for the failure to land; something at the eastern Mediterranean end was not as originally described to Bacon.



best regards


Michael


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see a photograph of a weapon as large as this being moved from A to B. Lot of photographs of the heavy artillery taken to Belgium, in the Dover Patrol by Bacon.

Not exactly what you are looking for, but nevertheless perhaps of interest:-

One of the Foster tractors - http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205252202

Film (from minute 11.00 >) of one of the howitzers being fired - http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060022882

A couple of slightly better photographs to be seen here http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205316233

and here http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205316232

to give some idea of the Foster tractor and trucks in working order

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it must be a 15-inch, although the orbats at the National Archives show no howitzers above 9.2-inch (and only "Mother" at that") with the BEF until March 1915.

My understanding is that the 12-inch was a later development, arrived at by "splitting the difference" between the 9.2-inch and the 15-inch.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it must be a 15-inch, although the orbats at the National Archives show no howitzers above 9.2-inch (and only "Mother" at that") with the BEF until March 1915.

Ron,

the title “...in Action 1914” is clearly wrong – British steel helmets arrived only 12-18 months later [someone is bound to know the correct date for that item!]

The Canadian photograph upon which it is clearly based is dated September 1916.

and note, that the painting itself dates from 1921.

regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wheels look rather small and spindly compared to Bacons carriages though.

The wheels for the truck carrying part of a railway guns etc were indeed more substantial

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205316352

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205316348

but so far I have not been able to find a similar photograph of a truck carrying part of the 15-inch howitzer

There are pictures of some of the trucks which carried the 15-inch howitzer ammunition

see http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205071216

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205071198

and they seem to be the same (spindly) design as the test vehicles linked to previously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wheels for the truck carrying part of a railway guns etc were indeed more substantial

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205316352

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205316348

The captions to those photographs are wrong, I think. They show the barrel and part of the mounting of one of the 12" naval guns installed by Admiral Bacon on the Belgian Coast, probably the gun that was mounted at St Joseph's farm near Adinkerke, camouflaged beneath a dummy barn, which was named the Dominion battery in honour of the Canadian railway troops who assisted in its construction. The rotund, bearded naval officer in the centre of the photo showing the gun barrel looks like 'Old Bick', Commander Bickford, who was Bacon's 'gun shifter in chief'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, for the references to photographs. The wheels look rather small and spindly compared to Bacon's carriages though.

I think they are 'Bacon's carriages'. There were two types, as shown in the photographs .... 'super-heavy-duty' trucks for transporting the gun barrel and mounting and 'heavy-duty' trucks for transporting the ammunition, the girders that formed the base platform and other heavy 'accessories' such as the lifting gear used to assemble the gun on site and the shell-handling/loading machinery.

Note, in the photos of the naval gun and mounting 'in transit' that the truck tyres are in two parts, an inner tyre making up about two-thirds of the width and an outer extension piece making up the other third. This, I think, was an adaptation allowed for in the original design to cope with variations in ground conditions and was later used to permit the carriage of bigger/heavier loads such as naval guns. Bacon says in his autobiographical 'From 1900 Onwards' that his original design calculations were based on not exceeding a load of 2 tonnes per wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fascinating thread. I know nothing about artillery (and, to be truthful, I'm not that keen to expand my knowledge), but the photographs are wonderful, and it makes one realise two things.

Firstly, the technological advances made in the Great War, and secondly what an amazingly manpower-consuming affair it all was. When one considers the mind-bogglingly massive numbers of men in the various armies on both sides, the vast amount of those would appear to have been doing extremely menial duties, miles away from great harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the gun was made at the Coventry works, the base plate was manufactured at the other COW factory in Scotland, at Scotstoun, under the supervision of John Brown and Co. one of a syndicate of three companies that owned the company.

As an aside, it would not be too strong to say that Bacon was detested at the Coventry factory. Although he was a clever designer, he had absolutely no business acumen and was probably hired because of his contacts at the Admiralty through his former post as Director of Naval Ordnance, He would make promises to customers that were impossible to keep and simply ignored his very experienced management team, indeed he could be quite dismissive of them. His interference on the shop floor did not help matters. When he left the factory in February 1915 there was a sigh of relief if not some jubilation.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, it would not be too strong to say that Bacon was detested at the Coventry factory. Although he was a clever designer, he had absolutely no business acumen and was probably hired because of his contacts at the Admiralty through his former post as Director of Naval Ordnance, He would make promises to customers that were impossible to keep and simply ignored his very experienced management team, indeed he could be quite dismissive of them. His interference on the shop floor did not help matters. When he left the factory in February 1915 there was a sigh of relief if not some jubilation.

It does appear that the civilian attitude is for 'profit and business' not actually winning.... So until the government made certain tax breaks and constraints, they even thought about conforming to the general consensus of 'there is a war'. Bacon obviously wanted more than they could give......... but he did achieve his aim.... proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fascinating thread. I know nothing about artillery (and, to be truthful, I'm not that keen to expand my knowledge), but the photographs are wonderful, and it makes one realise two things.

Firstly, the technological advances made in the Great War, and secondly what an amazingly manpower-consuming affair it all was. When one considers the mind-bogglingly massive numbers of men in the various armies on both sides, the vast amount of those would appear to have been doing extremely menial duties, miles away from great harm.

Not really very mind boggling at all in an age when 'mechanical handling equipment' was mostly unheard of and the use of horses was still the norm. I'm not sure that 'technological advances' were that great. Aircraft developed rapidly but there wasn't much advance in their actual technology. Artillery expanded mightily but there was little if any technological advance apart from in the processes for producing indirect firing data, and even this advance was mainly to do with the application of existing knowledge about the effects of meteorological conditions using basic arithmetic. Even tanks were well short of a technological leap, more a remixing of existing technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, it would not be too strong to say that Bacon was detested at the Coventry factory. Although he was a clever designer, he had absolutely no business acumen and was probably hired because of his contacts at the Admiralty through his former post as Director of Naval Ordnance, He would make promises to customers that were impossible to keep and simply ignored his very experienced management team, indeed he could be quite dismissive of them. His interference on the shop floor did not help matters. When he left the factory in February 1915 there was a sigh of relief if not some jubilation.

It does appear that the civilian attitude is for 'profit and business' not actually winning.... So until the government made certain tax breaks and constraints, they even thought about conforming to the general consensus of 'there is a war'. Bacon obviously wanted more than they could give......... but he did achieve his aim.... proven.

Whalebone, I'm not sure what you mean. He was appointed MD of a commercial concern well before the war and that is when he caused the most trouble. His wartime efforts at the factory lasted for a matter of a few months only. His senior managers saved the factory's bacon ( pun intended)

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bacons wartime involvement with the factory achieved exactly what he wanted, the batteries of guns in Belgium are proof enough. He wanted what he wanted, probably the costs and business problems didn't come across to him like they do to businessmen. Hence problems.

Once war began tax breaks and other government incentives, altered the way businessmen thought and they used the advantages to make more money, this was changed again during the war as the government then began taxing war profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whalebone

Bacon's wartime involvement with the works finished in the second week February 1915. He joined the company in 1906, which was formed to try and break the stranglehold that Armstrong and Vickers had on the supply of naval armaments. As I mentioned in my first post, his former role of Director of Naval Armaments made him the prime candidate for the job because of his contacts. If you are suggesting, as you seem to be, that he had a secret agenda based on some sort of one man profitless patriotic armaments programme , then that is incredulous and you will need supply some strong evidence to support that. A dozen 15 inch howitzers is no evidence at all.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one man profitless patriotic armaments programme

What are you reading.

I was 25 years in the forces and now own several businesses, don't be tunnel visioned, did he jump or was he pushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whalebone

That is how your post comes across I'm afraid. I have spent a lot of time researching COW and am sure of my ground. It is not blinkered but based on solid research. Reducing things to pushed or jumped I'm afraid proves nothing. Bacon apart, profits and wartime contracts were not straight forward. The row over profiteering led to profits on government contracts being limited to around 4%, although I am open correction

With regard to the financing government contracts, the History of the Ministry of Munitions at TNA are worth studying as are the various MoM files for particular contracts, mainly in MUN4.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The experience and skills of moving heavy objects in the 'field' gained during WWI were invaluable in later years in industry before the availabilty of mobile lifting equipment. Many years ago before 'Health & Safety' had been thought of, I remember the arrival at work on a Carter Patterson low loader with a large boiler. The yard foreman, an old WW1 veteran, called for his 'Legs', two long wooden timbers, which he erected as an 'A' over the boiler and low loader. With a block tackle, chains, yards of rope and a gang of men, the boiler was off loaded without too much difficulty.

I can imagine the same basic system with plenty of manpower being used for unloading and moving guns and equipment during WWI. Today of course, to satisfy H & S, a mobile crane would be used and do the job in a few minutes!

TARA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just wondering if,apropos Michael's post #16 here,whether the Acting Major Ledgard and his unit No 3 Howitzer Battery RMA,was still associated with the "Special Gun" in 1917 prior to invaliding.

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...