Artillery piece at NEAM

I visited the North East Air Museum at Sunderland today and they have a very peculiar artillery piece on show outside. The chaps decribed it as a "squeeze-bore" barrel fitted to an interwar carriage. It was recovered from the Otterburn Ranges earlier this year. It came with a pair of rather rotten wooden wheels

Sure enough, the elevation kit carries the wording "Ordnance BL 4.164 Inch Howitzer 26 Calibres"

So, that's for a 105mm Howitzer and if I recall 26 x 4.134inches = 107.64 inches barrel length = 8.97ft (let's call it 9ft)

However the barrel is more like 15ft in length.

So, the museum chaps are calling it a squeeze-bore barrel and (I havent taken the calipers to it) it looks around around 4" bore at the muzzle.

I f the chaps are correct in calling it a squeeze-bore gun, could this be related to the Vickers 4.26/3.2 Gun? Vickers was just up the road in Newcastle.

I'll acquire some calipers and go back up and do some proper measuring.

If it is the barrel of the 4.26/3.2, why is it on an interwar 105mm howitzer carriage?

Chris

Someone else has had the same question: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?17347-Vickers-Prototype-gun (Unresolved)

Wheels also seem to have vanished, more pics: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/70147-1931-experimental-Vickers-squeeze-bore-gun

I would add that Vickers played with a variety of 105mm guns between the wars, IIRC they up to about 35 calibres but that is still 3ft short of your suggested barrel length. Just as a random musing; this particular weapon reminds me of the German PAW600 from 1944/45.

This is the long range 105mm from 1934: http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archiv...d+Weapon&subject=Armaments&subtitle=Field+Gun

The wheels are undergoing restoration in the repair shed. That are plywood, with sectional solid rubber tyres, held in place by plates on perifery of each surface of the wheel. The chaps reckon the wheels found with it had replaced spoked cart wheels.

Chris

I wonder, could it have been meant as a mobile coastal artillery piece?

CJGibson said:

The wheels are undergoing restoration in the repair shed. That are plywood, with sectional solid rubber tyres, held in place by plates on perifery of each surface of the wheel. The chaps reckon the wheels found with it had replaced spoked cart wheels.

Chris

Click to expand...

Well that pretty much confirms that the mounting/chassis is (or rather was) what it says it is "Ordnance BL 4.164 Inch Howitzer 26 Calibres", One of the various Vickers inter-war 105mms- to my mind anyway but as always I am open to other opinions. It seems strange that the barrel and breach lack any sort of identifying marks, as you say the barrel seems very long (there was a 105mm/45 sold to spain in the 30s as an AA gun), if it is substantially over 12ft (35 calibres) then I am at a loss in terms of actual evidence based theorising. The squeeze-bore idea has some merit but I would like to see some physical evidence, the breech even reminds me of the inter-war guns. Given the way Vickers developed these for export, on a shoestring internal budget with half an eye on war office requirements various chop and shop combinations were probably created. Also, the weapon does not seem to have much in the way of recoil management, no muzzle break and only the relatively small under barrel recuperator (from an 18 pdr?) suggesting that this combination was probably not a high velocity/high recoil system as one might expect from an AT/AA gun which makes me wonder about the squeeze-bore theory as I understood that was what the 4.26/3.2 for.

If you look at this picture the carriage and recuperator are almost identical: http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archive/details.asp?imageid=7154&title=&subject=Armaments&subtitle=

The wheels match and the breech looks similar. Also there is threading towards the end of the barrel. Could that be for a muzzle brake or...a Littlejohn attachment?

I'll be back later in the week to do some measuring. I was wearing the wrong trousers.

I was puzzled by the lack of recoil equipment.

Chris

It seems like a very large calibre gun for a Little John adaptor (IIRC it was only used on a 2 pdr) but it might have been tried. A muzzle break is possible, they are definitely threads of some sort. If it was for a Little John measuring the bore is unlikely to tell you that it was a squeeze gun. However I would love to know what the exact calibre is, the gun's profile is curious- it does not match anything else I have seen on that sort of carriage, the profile lacks the sudden reduction in thickness that occurred towards the end of the barrel in most pre-war Vickers designs (If anything it actually reminds of the 17 and 32 per AT guns). Vickers also made a series of 75mm guns, including AA weapons (of the pre-WW2 variety) that would have used longer barrels. I think Turkey and Romania acquired some. From a barrel to recuperator length ratio they would fit but i suspect that even at 43 calibre's the barrel would still be too short.


It would be nice to get this one nailed, it seems to have confused a fair few people down the years, the guys at the museum may have some idea of its origin beyond it being a Vickers squeeze-bore gun?

Little John was used on 2pdr and on a more limited scale some 37mm guns on M3/M5 series light tanks; some of which were in US service and some UK service.

Wasn’t that 4.26/3.2 squeeze bore gun also going to have automatic loading; do we know what the method of breach operation on this gun is? If you are going back try to get a picture of that, it might help give a little more idea as to what the gun might have been intended for. The non matching carriage is entirely normal for an experimental weapon. Making carriages could actually be more time consuming then making gun barrels because of the heavy castings required.
[/color]

It is intriguing; I still wouldn't rule it out as being postwar on that basis, as the carriage might have been used for test barrels several times over. However personally I do think it is more likely that it is a prewar project, perhaps some unknown competitor to the less then totally satisfactory BL 4.5 inch as a 60pdr replacement or else a private initiative.
I can’t see any point to a squeeze bore 105mm for the AT role, it simply shouldn’t need it to deal with anything that existed in the time period when it already has such a long barrel. Squeeze bore never made that much sense for AA either but it certainly was worked on.

Took tape and micrometer to NEAM this morning.

Calibre at the muzzle is 81mm / 3.19in
Calibre at the breach end will need a proper set of drill-pipe calipers to get past the breech section. Plus the innards of the breech is coated with lashings and lashings of old grease.

Barrel length from the breach block to muzzle is 17ft 1 1/2in. Which gives 64.4 calibres long using the external dimensions,(I note that the 3.7in AA gun was 65 calibres, so could be floppy tape syndrome)

Also note that Vickers worked on AA guns from 3in to 4.7in from 1933. Perhaps this is one of these prototypes? The carriage is interwar.

More pics and dimensions when I get a chance.

Chaps at NEAM adamant it's a squeeze-bore job, but this seems to be heresay.

Chris

Well the calibre is incredibly curious, I am can not think of any Vickers weapons using that calibre at any point. Given the length of the barrel (64.4 calibre's would be highly unusual pre-war) you could actually be looking at a test barrel for the post-war 4.26/3.2 that made its way onto a pre-war field gun carriage that somehow survived the war. If that is the case (and to my mind based on the 81mm calibre at muzzle it is the case) then this gun is truly fascinating. Obviously the only way to be sure is to measure the breach but if it is what it seems to be (both the carriage and the barrel) it would be nice to see it properly labelled and under cover.

When you measured the bore, is that 81mm distance measured from the top of the rifling grooves, or the bottoms of the grooves?

'Scuse the delay, been helping to keep the country solvent.

The bore was measured from the bottom of the grooves, as seen in the photo.

The diagram shows the lengths of the various sections of the barrel.

Chris

The carriage is clearly for testing and proofing purposes. Most experimental guns are mounted on a solid carriage that could fit the test ordnance and that was sitting around in the gun park. Whatever is marked on the carriage (105mm) has no direct bearing on the ordnance in this case especially because of the huge disparity in quoted and measured bore length. Clearly the ordnance is the 4.26" squeezing down to 3.1" gun of well established lore.

What stands out the most to me for this gun is the quoted calibre at the breech. 4.26" is 108.1mm and who on earth would start with a unique calibre that requires a unique breech, shell casing and so on? Unless of course this is just a naming difference for the common Russian 106.7mm (4.21")? Since the Russians measured calibre from the top of the rifles in all weapons this is most likely the case. Their 7.62mm bullet is actually a 7.92mm diameter round.

Which actually makes more sense than one would think. The 105mm calibre only exists as a field gun shell because that was the calibre used by the French when they started to produce a copy of the Russian 107mm field gun in France before WWI (which was itself designed by the French for the Russians). The Schneider M1913 105mm field gun was a L28 gun and this is clearly where the test carriage comes from. Vickers probably license produced them for French use in WWI and the export market post war. Since the 105mm carriage could handle the 107mm ordnance it was a good choice to test this ordnance.

Now why would Vickers be playing around with a 107mm calibre for their squeeze bore? Maybe they never made it? The 107mm gun was a major German weapon in WWII since they captured so many from the Soviets in 1941/42. Perhaps this is a German effort to provide a squeeze bore modification for their captured Soviet guns. Vickers picked up this ordnance as post war booty and mounted it on a suitable field gun carriage for shooting a few rounds post war.

The Vickers 1934 photo of a long range 105mm field gun is just a long barrel version of the M1913. Bore length is up from L28 to around L40 so a long way short of the squeeze bore. But this would provide a few extra kms of range as is the case with L119 guns firing the same 105mm M1 ammunition compared to the M2A2 gun both of similar differences in bore length.

Well, the clincher will be a measurement of the ID just beyond the breech. Will need some long calipers, like wot we use on the rig, for that. I'll see what I can do when I get home.

Chris

Chris you can just measure the diameter of the chamber within the breech which will provide the diameter of the shell casing which is another metric that can be used to determine the calibre at breech. Also the diameter of the rim: with these dimensions the shell casing collectors forums will be able to determine the type of casing used in this ordnance, unless - highly unlikely - it was a unique shell.

I have doubts that this is directly related to the Vickers post war AA squeeze bore. Tony Williams writes on this topic:

It can only be assumed that a "super anti-aircraft gun" was behind the most remarkable British project; the 6.0/4.5" High Velocity. Plans (dated 1946/7) exist of a Vickers proposal for a 4.5" Littlejohn shell to be fired using a 6" naval cartridge case. The shell was to weigh 50lb and the muzzle velocity would presumably have been in the region of 4,000 fps. The use of the superseded squeeze-bore technology at such a late date can probably be attributed to the lack of any need to fire full-calibre projectiles, combined with the need to avoid the risk of discarded sabots falling back on to the gun crews.

Click to expand...

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/highvel.htm

I find it very hard to believe that post war Vickers would produce a barrel with a fully rifled taper from breech to bore as in this ordnance at NEAM. Even the Germans had moved to a threaded on adaptor at the end of the barrel by the end of WWII to provide the squeezing. The British with Littlejohn experience would surely just scale up this solution for the 6” ‘Super’ AA gun. Which would be a ~L40 rifled tube with a L10-20 tapered smoothbore screwed onto the end.

Then of course why would Vickers build a 107mm to 81mm squeeze bore? Two calibres the British Army did not use for guns (unlike the German Army). Surely any British subscale trial squeeze bore gun would be 94mm to 76mm?

I'll check it out when I get home next week.

Chris

Hogg briefly discusses the 4.2/3.1 and describes it in the context of being a full scale weapon intended for service and does not suggest it to be a sub-scale test weapon for something larger. Indeed he states that a 4 inch conventional gun was worked on as an insurance policy. The larger design referred to by Tonay Williams could be nothing more than a proposal. Also, let us not forget that the UK played around with various non-standard calibres in the post-war period and was certainly not averse to introducing new ones.

From History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery: Anti-Aircraft Artillery 1914-55 by Brigadier N.W Routledge, OBE, TD:

1) Believe it or not the 4.2 inch was originally a medium not heavy AA gun (though it later morphed into a heavy). The specification (1949) required a mobile weapon of 4.2 inch calibre but tapering. Shell weight was to be 20lbs with a muzzle velocity of 3,760lbs at an RoF of 60 RPM. The heavy AA gun was even more extreme with a proposed calibre of 5.68 inches with a heavier shell and higher MV with a similar RoF

2) The weapon mentioned by Tony Williams does not make an appearance but it is clear that it was not part of any actual procurement plan and that it certainly pre-dates the 4.2 (1946/47 versus 1949) which was part of a development and procurement plan

3) The Vickers 4 inch also makes an appearance, apparently it was successful

As an aside, In 1918 a specification was issued for a 3.6 inch AA gun firing a 25 pdr shell to 25,000 ft. A preliminary production run was cancelled after the armistice. Equally the 3.7 inch was the product of desired velocity, shell weight, altitude and mobility characteristics

sealordlawrence said:

1) Believe it or not the 4.2 inch was originally a medium not heavy AA gun (though it later morphed into a heavy). The specification (1949) required a mobile weapon of 4.2 inch calibre but tapering. Shell weight was to be 20lbs with a muzzle velocity of 3,760lbs at an RoF of 60 RPM. The heavy AA gun was even more extreme with a proposed calibre of 5.68 inches with a heavier shell and higher MV with a similar RoF

Click to expand...

And the apparant lack of calibre loyalty aligns with the light end of the AA and the 42mm RED QUEEN weapon. Basically the specs were for time of flights to altitude and warhead weight and calibre was to meet this with an appropiately streamlined shell. So the new post WWII generation of AA guns were to be 42mm, 108mm/81mm and 144mm...

JFC Fuller said:

Someone else has had the same question: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?17347-Vickers-Prototype-gun (Unresolved)

Wheels also seem to have vanished, more pics: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/70147-1931-experimental-Vickers-squeeze-bore-gun

I would add that Vickers played with a variety of 105mm guns between the wars, IIRC they up to about 35 calibres but that is still 3ft short of your suggested barrel length. Just as a random musing; this particular weapon reminds me of the German PAW600 from 1944/45.

This is the long range 105mm from 1934: http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archiv...d+Weapon&subject=Armaments&subtitle=Field+Gun

Click to expand...

Didn't know.

Since this thread has been necro'd back into existence, does anyone know the photo archivist(s) at The Dock Museum?

The above posted links to the Dock Museeum website's Vickers Photographic Archive (VPA) no longer work. The website has been re-organized (dis-organized?). Every gun image is categorized as "Armaments - Negative glass plate" ... which is nearly useless. However, dates are also given which helps narrow searchs a smidge.

Skimming through that online collection, the style of wheel being discussed here seems to have been popular with Vickers in the '30s - also being used on the QF 75, limbers, etc.

Confusingly, the 1934 105 mm long-range field gun is shown with spoked wheels (and split trails). That said, the breech looks very much like the NEAM piece. Unfortunately, the images posted on The Dock Museum's website are tiny.

- Negative glass plate. 105mm long range field gun.

- Negative glass plate. Drawing of 4.134" (10.5cm) field Howitzer and carriage.

- Negative glass plate. 105mm field gun with operator at Eskmeals Gun Range.

- Negative glass plate. 105mm field gun at Eskmeals Gun Range.

- Negative glass plate. Drawing of 4.134" (10.5cm) Howitzer (26 calibre).

North East Land Sea and Air Museum (formerly NEAM.), 2021