|
|
05-23-2013, 12:17 AM
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,361
Likes: 24,260
Liked 16,154 Times in 7,408 Posts
|
|
40MM Guns Origin?
I saw the pic of the destroyer in another topic and wonder when the 40mm batteries first appeared on warships.
Was the Swedish-developed Bofors the first effective 40mm? Did other nations use it first?
The 20mm Oerlikon (sp?) ?
Sailors?
|
05-23-2013, 01:15 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 7,179
Liked 6,595 Times in 2,117 Posts
|
|
I think the US adopted it in late '39 or '40, actually beginning domestic production a few months before it was legal. (alls fair, as they say)
They're were several designs of small cannon used by the US Navy from the civil war forward. I remember seeing a 1 1/2" manually loaded Gatling gun mounted on board a cruiser around the time of the Spanish American war. Remember at that time the boogie man was a fast torpedo boat, not a plane.
__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner
|
05-23-2013, 08:20 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: OK. U.S.A.
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 5
Liked 296 Times in 189 Posts
|
|
Before the 40mm came into use during WWII..the Navy used .50 mg and some sort of 1.1" quad that apparently wasn't very good or very safe to shoot.
|
05-23-2013, 02:49 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: winston salem nc
Posts: 1,740
Likes: 3,253
Liked 1,766 Times in 667 Posts
|
|
By the 1960`s when I was in all of those small guns were gone. The smallest fixed mount I saw was a 3inch/50 cal.
I was told by a WW2 vet the navy learned that the small stuff was ineffective on Kamikazes- they had to be literary blown to pieces and shot out of the air, and not much less than a 5 incher could do that.
My WW2 era destroyer was modernized in 1960 . That`s when the small stuff was removed.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-23-2013, 03:30 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 31,000
Likes: 41,665
Liked 29,250 Times in 13,830 Posts
|
|
They quickly spread
It was developed and quickly spread to other countries, even Germany and Japan captured and used them.
|
05-23-2013, 04:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 20,058
Likes: 24,583
Liked 29,381 Times in 10,930 Posts
|
|
Funny thing is a lot of those smaller guns have reappeared to deal with the small boat threat.
The UK had a 40mm anti-aircraft gun commonly known as the "Multiple Pop-Pom". This weapon had a much lower muzzle velocity than the Bofors but had the advantage of large magazines so a guy did not have to stand there feeding clips all the time. there is a good write up here. QF 2 pounder naval gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Oerliken had a chequered career in that the Royal Navy was very reluctant to adopt it. This gun was rugged but had a slow rate of fire due to its blowback operation. Variants of it appeared as the MG FF in German fighters but it is generally thought that the Hispano and Breda 20mm cannons were better designs. The UK used captured Bredas whenever they could in North Africa and the Med. Of course, the Germans had the MG213 nearly ready for production at the end of WWII and that spawned a large number of weapons in the West such as the British ADEN, French DEFA, US M39 and the Oerlikon KCA.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-23-2013, 05:09 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Before the 40mm came into use during WWII..the Navy used .50 mg and some sort of 1.1" quad that apparently wasn't very good or very safe to shoot.
|
The 1.1" wasn't particularly dangerous to the gunners, but it had a VERY low rate of fire. The reason was the nature of the action which was designed to minimize stress on deck mountings, and to safely feed and fire the VERY sensitively fused projectiles thought necessary for shooting down fabric covered biplanes.
|
05-23-2013, 05:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,631
Likes: 241
Liked 29,144 Times in 14,091 Posts
|
|
A very few U. S. vessels were equipped with 1.1" AA guns throughout WWII, but most were given the deep 6 very early on in the war by replacing them with the Bofors 40mm, which was far more effective. The Oerlikon 20mm was also fairly effective as AA if the enemy planes got in close enough.
|
05-23-2013, 06:33 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalt
A very few U. S. vessels were equipped with 1.1" AA guns throughout WWII, but most were given the deep 6 very early on in the war by replacing them with the Bofors 40mm, which was far more effective. The Oerlikon 20mm was also fairly effective as AA if the enemy planes got in close enough.
|
The 1.1" had a very interesting action with a very mild recoil. The problem was that it was VERY complicated for the result achieved, from a requirement that was essentially obsolete by the time the gun was fielded.
The 1.1" was designed to deal with aircraft which by the time it entered service, only the British were using. The projectile was designed to detonate upon impact with a doped fabric fuselage or wing, an important consideration... if we were attacked by Fairey Swordfish. There was no problem getting a conventional impact fuse to detonate when it struck a Val or a Kate.
|
05-23-2013, 11:55 PM
|
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,580
Likes: 13,500
Liked 6,743 Times in 2,526 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmort666
The 1.1" had a very interesting action with a very mild recoil. The problem was that it was VERY complicated for the result achieved, from a requirement that was essentially obsolete by the time the gun was fielded.
.
|
I think the 1.1 was a Maxim design; a toggle joint type of operation, very like the MG 08 of WW I, just bigger. It was reliable, but very complicated, heavy, and had a slow rate of fire.
|
05-24-2013, 05:43 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano
I think the 1.1 was a Maxim design; a toggle joint type of operation, very like the MG 08 of WW I, just bigger. It was reliable, but very complicated, heavy, and had a slow rate of fire.
|
You're thinking about the "Pom Pom" gun, which is basically just the Maxim action scaled up to 37mm and 40mm.
The 1.1" gun was a LOT more complicated than the "Pom Pom", using a system of springs and counterweights to produce a counterrecoiling action to reduce stresses on the ammo and mount. It's a very interesting system, but nowhere near worth the effort to get what was achieved. It also traded reduced recoil forces for a REALLY slow rate of fire. That's why they had to be used on a quadruple mount.
|
05-24-2013, 07:38 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshooter
They were guite likely quite unstable.
|
The Japanese used picric acid (which they called "shimose") as a filling for artillery shells and grenades.
Picric acid is EXTREMELY reactive with metal, forming crystals which are very sensitive to mechanical shock. Famous British weapons writer Ian V. Hogg goes into some detail about his
experiences with unexploded Japanese ordnance in the Doubleday book "Grenades and Mortars".
My aunt's boyfriend was in New Guinea(?) during WWII. He said that they frequently came across boxes of Japanese grenades and mortar shells that had rotted and disentegrated in the humid climate. They would throw a loop of rope to the far side of the ordnance and slowly drag them across the floor or ground. If they didn't explode, they were safe enough to pick up and dispose of.
|
05-24-2013, 09:39 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nebraska
Posts: 987
Likes: 1,406
Liked 936 Times in 372 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack oconnor
By the 1960`s when I was in all of those small guns were gone. The smallest fixed mount I saw was a 3inch/50 cal.
I was told by a WW2 vet the navy learned that the small stuff was ineffective on Kamikazes- they had to be literary blown to pieces and shot out of the air, and not much less than a 5 incher could do that.
My WW2 era destroyer was modernized in 1960 . That`s when the small stuff was removed.
|
Most of the small guns where gone by the 60's due to the fact that they where almost useless against jet aircraft. That and at the time, the US military was in the "missals can handle everything" phase.
To the OP question, I think that post the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, Navy ships where retrofitted with the 20mm and 40mm guns when they came in for major repairs. If I recall, the surviving pre-war carriers lost some of the larger guns to reduce weight for more of the 20 & 40 mm guns.
Here is a Wikipedia link to the USS Enterprise. They list how the armament increased during the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)
Last edited by dswancutt; 05-24-2013 at 09:43 PM.
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|