This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).
Latest 9:59 by QuintusO
Latest 6:53 by QuintusO
Latest 6:36 by Refleks
Latest 11-Jul by TonyDiG
Latest 3:07 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 2:52 by Kocur_
Latest 22-Sep by autogun
Latest 21-Sep by hobbes154
Latest 19-Sep by QuintusO
Latest 19-Sep by Parnis
Latest 18-Sep by QuintusO
Latest 18-Sep by graylion
Latest 17-Sep by autogun
Latest 14-Sep by roguetechie
Latest 13-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 11-Sep by nincomp
Latest 11-Sep by RovingPedant
Latest 11-Sep by autogun
Latest 9-Sep by mpopenker
Latest 1-Sep by Red7272
Latest 31-Aug by Red7272
Latest 30-Aug by autogun
Latest 30-Aug by JPeelen
Latest 27-Aug by stancrist
Latest 26-Aug by DavidPawley
Latest 26-Aug by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 25-Aug by graylion
I'm sorry to have to say that I seem to have been misled about the development of the 1.1" gun. I was just skimming through Norman Friedman's Naval Anti-Aircraft Guns and Gunnery and found this:
"By September (1929) BuOrd was working on its own gun design."
"BuOrd was also interested in a non-recoil 1.1 inch gun (Mk 2) offered by Automatic Guns Inc and designed by a Mr Hudson. He had built a 0.50-caliber prototype which was being scaled up to 1.1 inch calibre. Details of the two designs were tabulated in a 7 December 1929 memo in the BuOrd S74-1 file (RG 74, NARA).....The Hudson design was belt-fed (25-50 rounds per belt), the BuOrd design clip-fed (18 rounds per clip). The Hudson design was gas-spring operated....the BuOrd gun was recoil-spring operated. The BuOrd Gun and Mount history dates the beginning of the Bu-Ord design to 13 December 1928, when engineering work began. The Hudson gun was built and tested, but proved unsatisfactory.
I was astonished to read this, as I had first read about Hudson's claimed involvement with the 1.1 inch years ago. But Friedman is quoting official sources, which I can't argue with. Infuriatingly, I cannot locate the source of the information I posted at the beginning of this thread.
So I must apologise for inadvertently posting incorrect information. Fortunately, I haven't yet sent my book off to the publishers (any day now!).
I have been looking into this whole question in collaboration with Tony DiGiulian of the NavWeaps site and the situation is now a lot clearer.
The main source of of the account that the USN adopted the Hudson gun seems to have been Ian V Hogg, in his book Machine Guns: from 14th century to the present. The story is also repeated more briefly in another book of his, and was picked up by contributors to a couple of naval history magazines. So, it is widespread. In contrast, the BuOrd gun version is only mentioned briefly by Friedman as noted above, plus by Chinn (even more briefly) who, quoting from official documents, noted that the Mk 1 (service) version of the 1.1 inch was recoil-operated, whereas the Mk 2 was a gas-operated experimental project - almost certainly the Hudson, though Chinn doesn't mention the name.
Hogg's very detailed description of the Hudson gun is entirely correct - except for his assumption that it was that model which was adopted by the USN. It is unclear why Hogg assumed this (and we can't ask him), but there is no escaping the fact that it was the rather more prosaic recoil-operated gun that entered service.
An interesting example of the way that false information can gain traction simply by being picked up and copied from existing publications. I can think of a few other examples of this, particularly when in comes to aircraft armament...
As I told Tony W., this was a fun exercise for me, it let me get in back in touch with an old friend I hadn't heard from in a few years and made me dig deeply into the Hudson history and design work. Hudson's guns were very innovative, but I think that they would have been maintenance hogs.
Speaking of "hogs," I don't use much of Ian Hogg on my NavWeaps datapages, as he primarily concentrates on land weapons, but I've heard several stories over the years that serious researchers find fault with his work, one going so far as to claim that he simply made up stuff when actual data was not available. I have found a few errors in his specifications for German naval guns used as coastal artillery during WWII, but certainly nothing major. More the sort of thing I see when someone is using British war-time accounts rather than actual primary-source Kriegsmarine documents, I would not call these kinds of errors deliberate falsifications. Curious to know what other forum members, who are more familiar with his work, think of him.
Anyway, for anyone who is curious, this incorporates Tony W.'s and my latest thinking on the 1.1" gun. May get updated again should new information crop up.
I have noticed in the little of Hogg's stuff I've read, he makes it sound like whatever the new hotness of the time is, it's going to be adopted by everyone, right after the book leaves the press.
Farmplinker said...I have noticed in the little of Hogg's stuff I've read, he makes it sound like whatever the new hotness of the time is, it's going to be adopted by everyone, right after the book leaves the press.
Perhaps that's why he was so enthusiastic about the Hudson guns.
I never met or spoke to Ian Hogg but when I was writing Rapid Fire I wrote to him and asked if I could borrow any photos to use. I received a very fat package consisting of many brochures, pics etc. So I sent him a copy of the book and he replied with a very complimentary letter. So you could say I am biased in favour...
As far as his work is concerned I have quite a few of his books, and frequently refer to some of them (especially the two artillery books: WW2 German and WW2 British & American - he was an artilleryman). He was unusual in caring about the ammo as well as the guns, so that's something else we had in common. He is not the kind of researcher who only looks at official documents and other primary sources (like Friedman, for instance), but then, who does in this field apart from Friedman? So I reckon he is at least as good as most popular writers and better than most.
For example, when it comes to errors, I have to say that Chinn is full of them, despite the legendary status of his work (the more I learn, the more I find). Some are just blindingly obvious; for instance, Hotchkiss made a 25 mm automatic AA gun in the late 30s which fired at 220 rpm - about what could be expected from this kind of gun at that time - but before then they made an obscure automatic anti-tank gun using a longer-cased ammo. I've never seen a cyclic rate of fire for that gun but would expect maybe 180-200 rpm. So I looked at Chinn's data table and it said 600-700 rpm! No way......