Jump to content


Photo

Us 90Mm Aa Guns And Ap Ammo


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1631 PM

Saw this picture on Strategy Page of a 90mm AA gun in Bastogne and it made me wonder if there was an AP round for it and if so were they issued?

 

https://strategypage...1227191447.aspx



#2 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1729 PM

Hogg notes:

 

Shell APC M82.  Penetrating and ballistic caps, weighed 24.6lb with filling of .31lb Explosive D and Base Fuze M68.  Propelling charge 7.31lb, MV 2,670ft/sec penetrate 5.12in of face hardened plate at 500 yards.

 

also

 

Shot AP M77, the substitute standard replaced by the M82.  Propelling charge7.31lb  MV 2,700ft/sec.  penetration into homogeneous plate 5.6in at 500yards.

 

Hogg notes that the ammunition fired by the 90mm A-T gun (ie M36 tank destroyer etc) was the same that that for the 90mm AA gun, which implies that AP ammunition should have been readily available in divisional and corps supply chains.


Edited by DougRichards, 01 January 2017 - 0612 AM.


#3 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1741 PM

Another point, the AA round, Shell HE M71, was also able to be fitted with Percussion Fuze M48 for ground firing, so that the use of the gun in ground firing, both in AT and other work, was anticipated.

 

Maximum horizontal range 19,500 yards. The gun was also considered useful for coastal defence purposes, the Shell APC M82 would have been useful in that role. 



#4 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,811 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 28 December 2016 - 1841 PM

The 90mm was a wonderful multi-purpose gun, produced initially for AAA, it was also a CD anti boat gun, an AT gun and finally modified to be a tank/TD cannon. The nominal HE round had the usual alternate delay fuze setting for .02 sec. delay, plus concrete piercing fuzes, AA time fuzes and proximity fuze AA ammo. APC ammo was provided for AT use, later part of the AFV array that extended to HVAP, HEAT, canister, WP, HEP and [not standardized in US] APDS.



#5 EvanDP

EvanDP

    Deus Ex Nukina

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Interests:SciFi, firearms, Military history, computers, redheads

Posted 29 December 2016 - 0023 AM

The 90mm was a wonderful multi-purpose gun, produced initially for AAA, it was also a CD anti boat gun, an AT gun and finally modified to be a tank/TD cannon. The nominal HE round had the usual alternate delay fuze setting for .02 sec. delay, plus concrete piercing fuzes, AA time fuzes and proximity fuze AA ammo. APC ammo was provided for AT use, later part of the AFV array that extended to HVAP, HEAT, canister, WP, HEP and [not standardized in US] APDS.

I always wondered if the USN ever showed any interest in the 90MM. It looks like it would slot in nicely between the 76mm/3in and the 127mm/5in guns.



#6 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 29 December 2016 - 0242 AM

 

The 90mm was a wonderful multi-purpose gun, produced initially for AAA, it was also a CD anti boat gun, an AT gun and finally modified to be a tank/TD cannon. The nominal HE round had the usual alternate delay fuze setting for .02 sec. delay, plus concrete piercing fuzes, AA time fuzes and proximity fuze AA ammo. APC ammo was provided for AT use, later part of the AFV array that extended to HVAP, HEAT, canister, WP, HEP and [not standardized in US] APDS.

I always wondered if the USN ever showed any interest in the 90MM. It looks like it would slot in nicely between the 76mm/3in and the 127mm/5in guns.

 

 

It was also 'not invented here'.

 

I mean the Royal Navy placed both 25pdrs and 17pdrs on landing craft for fire support: but the USN stayed with, well, USN guns.

 

There were some 4" guns fitted to some classes, but never anything between 3" and 4".



#7 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 29 December 2016 - 0334 AM

I have jogged my own memory - to the extent that the Royal navy did not consider the 3.7in in either form. (ie Mk 3 or Mk6)

 

But the latter 3.7in AA was actually a 3.7in barrel relined in a 4.5in naval gun (with Probert rifling).

 

Meanwhile, the British 4.5in AA gun WAS a naval gun, as was the 5.25in AA gun, which was roughly equivalent to the German 12.8cm Flak, but far more convenient.



#8 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Live from his Bunker of arrogance, deep beneath the Cotswolds.

Posted 08 May 2017 - 0640 AM

Going off topic, I was reading through the military balance circa 1973/74, and noted that Greece had 90mm M117 and I think Spain (and Turkey) had 90mm M118. What exactly was this, was it WW2 guns modified to some cold war standard?

 

Also, anyone have any idea where these were used, or integrated with the AD system?



#9 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 08 May 2017 - 0735 AM

Just a redesigned M1 and M2.



#10 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Live from his Bunker of arrogance, deep beneath the Cotswolds.

Posted 08 May 2017 - 0809 AM

Ok, that clears that up. Thanks.



#11 Richard Lindquist

Richard Lindquist

    Purveyor of flints to General Washington

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lighthouse Point, FL, USA
  • Interests:military hardware, military history

Posted 16 May 2017 - 1940 PM

It wasn't that the US Army didn't want APDS, it was because the Air Farce had first call on tungsten for machine tooling for aircraft.  All through WWII, the ground army sucked hind tit on allocations of strat0egic inesmaterials and construction facilities behind the Army Air and the Navy.  The Air Farce took away all the radial engines and the Navy scarfed up the diesels. 



#12 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 17 May 2017 - 1329 PM

It wasn't that the US Army didn't want APDS, it was because the Air Farce had first call on tungsten for machine tooling for aircraft.  All through WWII, the ground army sucked hind tit on allocations of strat0egic inesmaterials and construction facilities behind the Army Air and the Navy.  The Air Farce took away all the radial engines and the Navy scarfed up the diesels. 

 

Not entirely. Ordnance funded extensive experimentation on developing an APDS round, but was always stymied by the separation/accuracy problem. When the ETO sent its urgent request for an improved round after the failures of the APC rounds at Shoeburyness in late May, Ordnance decided to go with the quick (six weeks) and dirty APCR round as the emergency go to HVAP.

 

The Air Force did not "take" all the radials. The decision in 1941 was that Wright would build aircraft radials and Continental the medium tank radial designed by Wright. Continental was already building the light tank radial. That division of labor continued to the end of the war.

 

Nor did the Navy "scarf up" all the diesels...the Army basically gave them to them. Originally, it was planned to augment the radial gasoline designs with the radial diesel design by Guiberson and a factory in Garland, Texas was refurbished just for that purpose. However, in January 1942, the Armored Force backed off its commitment to diesels for its own use and demanded they only be supplied to Lend-Lease users. The Garland factory was then converted to building Continental gasoline tank radials and only the twin GM truck diesel 6-71 Medium Tank M4A2 and later small production Caterpillar-engined M4A6 were built. Light tank diesel manufacture ended in January 1943. Most of the landing craft, landing ship, and sub diesels produced were variants of the GM 6-71 and its Gray Marine adaptation of it or the GM 12-567 and 16-278a and the Fairbanks-Morse adaptations of it.



#13 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 19 May 2017 - 0016 AM

Re navy, I guess main thing was USN hitting the sweet spot with the 5"/25 gun and 5"/38. Why go down?

#14 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 19 May 2017 - 0552 AM

We need to remember that the USN and RN intended their heavy AA-guns to be dual purpose. ~90mm guns are fine in that regard if you shot at planes and tanks but against targets the size of a destroyer a 20-ish pound shell is not enough. Even a 4"/30+lb shell is not ideal. 

 

And the USN's 3" AA gun was rightfully considered obsolete anyway until Kamikazes showed up and the VT fuse could be fit into a 3" shell. Until then there was IMO no need for a gun between 40mm and 4"-5". 



#15 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,395 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 19 May 2017 - 0759 AM

Just a redesigned M1 and M2.

 

redesigned or redesignated?



#16 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 19 May 2017 - 0811 AM

We need to remember that the USN and RN intended their heavy AA-guns to be dual purpose. ~90mm guns are fine in that regard if you shot at planes and tanks but against targets the size of a destroyer a 20-ish pound shell is not enough. Even a 4"/30+lb shell is not ideal. 

 

And the USN's 3" AA gun was rightfully considered obsolete anyway until Kamikazes showed up and the VT fuse could be fit into a 3" shell. Until then there was IMO no need for a gun between 40mm and 4"-5". 

 

In many ways yes, but out of the 423 DE built for the USN in WW2, 75% of them were armed with 3in guns, so the 3in was definitely used by the USN.

 

The US Gun 90mm M1  AA was also intended to be a dual (actually triple) purpose AA and Coastal Defence weapon, so someone thought it must have had some value against ships. On the M2 mounting it was basically on a fixed pedestal in an armoured turret that was still capable of 80 degree elevation for AA work.

 

Germany emplaced 7.5cm Pak guns and 88mm schiffskanone as coastal defence guns also.



#17 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 19 May 2017 - 0855 AM

I was under the impression that 3" on early DE classes was because they weren't considered 'front line' vessels, 5" was prioritized for the first-line ships and 3" was 'good enough' against subs?  Could the 3"/50 penetrate a sub's pressure hull?  I've read many statements that the RN 4"/40 that armed their light escorts couldn't.


Edited by shep854, 19 May 2017 - 0859 AM.


#18 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 19 May 2017 - 1102 AM

 

The US Gun 90mm M1  AA was also intended to be a dual (actually triple) purpose AA and Coastal Defence weapon, so someone thought it must have had some value against ships. On the M2 mounting it was basically on a fixed pedestal in an armoured turret that was still capable of 80 degree elevation for AA work.

 

 

Mount M3 was the pedestal mount for coast defense (anti-torpedoboat). Mount M2 was intended to go with the Gun M2 as a truly dual-purpose weapon more similar to the 88. In the M1A1 it was impossible to fire without removing the wheel bogie assembly. It is unclear how many Guns and mounts M2 managed to get to the ETO, since they were not standardized until May 1943. It is also unclear how many were completed, but my guess is between 500 and 575.



#19 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 19 May 2017 - 1130 AM

Re: Destroyer escorts

In 1940/41 German aircraft sank a lot of ships in waters near and sometimes not that near the UK. Thus DE needed some kind of heavy AA gun. At first nothing but the old 3" was available and I'm fairly sure they weren't even having FCS. The guns were also not able to reliably penetrate U boat hulls.

#20 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,298 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 19 May 2017 - 1615 PM

 

redesigned or redesignated?

 

AFAIK they went through the program of modifications and standardization, so both. :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users