The role of a Gun Layer

[RedCoat]

Hi everyone,

 

I am researching a First World War sailor who served aboard HMAS Sydney as a Gun Layer 2nd Class. I am keen to learn more about his role, especially in action. Any information would be fantastic -

 

Kind regards, Daniel.

[terryb95]

Gun laying is the process of aiming an artillery piece, such as a gun, howitzer, or mortar, on land or at sea, against surface or air targets. It may be laying for direct fire, where the gun is aimed similarly to a rifle, or indirect fire, where firing data is calculated and applied to the sights. The term includes automated aiming using, for example, radar-derived target data and computer-controlled guns.

Gun laying means moving the axis of the bore of the barrel in two planes, horizontal and vertical. A gun is "traversed" (rotated in a horizontal plane) to align it with the target, and "elevated" (moved in the vertical plane) to range it to the target.

[MikB]

There's a possible terminology quibble here. Naval parlance divides the aiming of ships' guns into laying (for elevation/range) and training (for bearing/line). (Gun mountings or turrets sometimes bore the notice "Mounting may train without warning")

 

So your man may have only had the role of setting elevation.

 

Early WW1 cruisers didn't have director systems for full centralised control of guns - effectively each mounting would have set its own firing solution, though it may have had range and bearing data passed to it from a command position. In the early stages of an action where ranges were longer and the elevation data critical and changeable, but bearings changing more slowly, the laying function could be the busier. As ranges became close, elevation changes would be slower and smaller whilst bearing changes could get much larger and more frequent.

 

Offhand I don't know if it would be practical for one man to carry out both functions in the 6" mountings such as Sydney carried, but my guess is that the mounting would have separate 'numbers' (crewmen) for each to prevent risk of overloading a single man in an action such as Sydney fought against Emden.

 

The term 'traverse' has seemed to me more a term for landbased artillery and especially tank gunnery - it has been also much used to refer to the powered movement of machine tool slides in milling or turning operations. This might well be because of the similarity of the military and civil technologies, and the men doing both jobs being drawn from the same skilled manual base. 

Edited 14 February , 2019 by MikB

[MikB]

I've just looked at a copy I have of a 1917 manual for 6" Mk. XII guns. I think the mountings referred to may all be later than Sydney's original equipment, but the training and elevating gears are on opposite sides of the mounting, so would normally have required separate manning.

 

But of course, the man may have been employable in either position on the mounting.

 

This Wikipedia entry:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_6-inch_Mk_XI_naval_gun

 

shows a photo of an identical mounting at practice on board Sydney's sister ship Melbourne - the crewman doing the laying can be seen on the left of the gun, and I think the cap-top you can see on the right belongs to the one doing the training.

 

I guess the question is whether the navy separated the two roles in job-titles; are any personnel on operational ships described as 'Gun Trainers'?

Edited 14 February , 2019 by MikB

[RedCoat]

Hi MikB,

 

Thanks very much for such an informative response, its great to think that the chap I was researching had Emden in his sights!

 

I read that RFA Gun Layers were also the men who fired the weapon, is that the case for a Naval 6" gun crew?

 

Kind regards, Daniel.

[MikB]

There is a firing handle and trigger linked to an electrically-driven 'percussion mechanism' associated with the elevation controls on the left side of the gun, so effectively accessible only to whoever is laying it. There's no such equipment I can see on the right (training) side, but there is also a 'pistol grip' in one of the circuit diagrams, somewhere that I can't see on any of the General Arrangement drawings, so perhaps it's on a flying lead somewhere to be available to the gun captain. So certainly in some conditions the layer was expected to fire. Do remember though that my document's for the Mk.XII gun and Sydney carried the Mk.XI. There was a difference in calibre length and a small one in muzzle velocity, but I dunno what else.

 

The engineering drawings in the manual are gorgeously done, multicoloured to provide distinction between major assemblies in the mounting, and I'm experienced at reading drawings -  but unfortunately there's nowhere near enough detail in The Naming Of Parts. Ideally you'd have the actual gun in front of you as well, and several dozen sheets of detail nomenclature to cross-refer! 

 

The manual's way too big to email anywhere at 75 megs - I'd paste in a link if I could remember where I downloaded it from ... 

 

Ah! Got it. Try here:

http://www.archive.org/stream/HandbookForThe6-inchBreechLoadingMarkXiiGun1917.G.2111717/BL6inchMkXIINavalGunManual1917#mode/2up

 

Edited 14 February , 2019 by MikB

[RedCoat]

Hi MikB,

 

Thanks so much for the effort you have gone to for me. I really do find it amazing to think that he would have been looking through the sites at Emden and potentially firing the rounds.

 

I am looking forward to learning more and more about his role on board. Might see if I can find some diaries etc that mention the gun crews -

 

Kind regards, Daniel.

[MikB]

Well, it's your question that prompted me to do the digging, and now I know more than I did before, so thank you. 

 

I'm still aware of 2 questions:-

i) Are your man's dates on Sydney right for the battle of Cocos on 9/11/14?

ii) (far less important) Did the navy distinguish between the roles of gun layer and trainer, or would a 'Gun Layer' be expected to do either interchangeably?

 

I don't know how to find the answer to either. 

 

Your bloke in the pic here? :-

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/sailors-of-hmas-sydney-in-nov-1914/5854418

 

Edited 16 February , 2019 by MikB

[hmsk212]

The Royal Naval Air Service also had the trade classification of Gunlayer these men became classed as Aerial Gunners when the RNAS merged with the RFC to form the Royal Air Force.

 

Steve

[RedCoat]

2 hours ago, MikB said:

Well, it's your question that prompted me to do the digging, and now I know more than I did before, so thank you. 

 

I'm still aware of 2 questions:-

i) Are your man's dates on Sydney right for the battle of Cocos on 9/11/14?

ii) (far less important) Did the navy distinguish between the roles of gun layer and trainer, or would a 'Gun Layer' be expected to do either interchangeably?

 

I don't know how to find the answer to either. 

 

Your bloke in the pic here? :-

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/sailors-of-hmas-sydney-in-nov-1914/5854418

 

 

George Auldren Hoar joined the Royal Navy in 1902 as a Gun Layer 2nd Class, and remained in this trade until his discharge in the early 20's. He started his attachment to the Royal Australian Navy in 1913, being posted to HMAS Sydney. He was part of the crew that delivered the brand new Australian fleet to Sydney in Oct 1913 and remained aboard her until December 1917. As such, he served at the historic and legendary engagement with SMS Emden where he is confirmed on the Crew List for the action. Interesting enough on its own, but I also found a crystal clear photograph of him taken in front of his Gun on the deck of Sydney a week after the action, and also a first hand account of the action he had written and sent to his parents. 

Writing to his parents at Trelawny Terrace, Bannawell Street, Tavistock. Seaman-Gunner G. A. Hoar, briefly refers to the struggle between the Australian cruiser “Sydney,” to which he was transferred sometime since and the “Emden,” the German raider which did so much damage to our shipping in the Indian Ocean.

“We have had a bit of sport,” he writes, “and I can assure you that it was all right for about 1.75 hours. The “Emden” fired about 1,400 rounds at us, and only about 42 hit us, and we fired about 600 at her and over 500 hit her. As for the casualties, the “Emden” had 200 killed, 50 or 60 wounded, and all the remainder were taken prisoners on our ship. We had four killed and nine wounded, so you will see that we were extremely lucky. As for the fight, it was all right, but it was awful after getting their wounded aboard of us – some with no legs or arms, and others with their faces blown away. One of our chaps has lost his right eye, and another his left foot. That is the worst part of a fight. If anything does happen to me the Admiralty would soon let you know, but you must not worry if anything does happen as I shall be happy in the thought that it was for a good cause, and King and country. I am glad to say that Tamblyn and myself did not get a scratch and we are both in the best of spirits.”

 

 

Cheers, Daniel

[MikB]

Thanks for the info. Gunner Hoare might have believed in 500 6" hits on the Emden, but I struggle with that. The visible damage in photos of the beached wreck could probably have been inflicted with about a tenth of that. A 6" hit is a hard blow to a light cruiser, and I'd reckon 500 of those wouldn't leave much recognisable structure.

[MKC]

I agree: 500 rounds of 6 inch BL seems an over-estimate.

 

Bean, in the official history, gives a very readable account of the action here:

 

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/RCDIG1069728/document/5519217.PDF

 

One of HMAS Sydney I's 6 inch BL guns is held in the collection of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, along with a 10.5 cm gun from SMS Emden.

 

There are also a range of 6 inch BL gun handbooks for various marks held by the Research Centre. I think what you need to answer your queries regarding the Layer's duties is the Gun Drill instruction book. 

 

Mike

[RedCoat]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for both your replies -

 

I am not surprised that Gunner Hoar's estimates are out, he likely wrote that letter a night or two after the action and didn't have all the facts to hand. I can imagine that being on deck, the experience of the Emden firing back at you would have made it a little difficult to count accurately. His number of enemy dead seems pretty close though. 

 

I also suspect he would have been a member of the party that boarded Emden after the action.

 

Kind regards, Daniel.

[RedCoat]

This is a photograph of one of HMAS Sydneys 6" gun crews, can it be assumed that the chap I have marked with a red X is the Gun Layer?

 

 

Kind regards, Daniel.

[MikB]

7 hours ago, RedCoat said:

...can it be assumed that the chap I have marked with a red X is the Gun Layer?

Kind regards, Daniel.

 

Definitely, I'd say.