Cannon rounds from WWII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting.... I have some old, big military brass kicking around, like a WW2 40mm Mk 1 inert shell with a bullet seated. Along with an empty 1943 105 mm Howitzer shell that was turned into what I'm guessing was an ashtray. Had a couple handles mounted on each side. Found it in the trash many years ago when I drove a garbage truck. Still had cigarette butts in it when I rescued it. Don't have any pix of them here on the computer but if I have time I'll remedy that tomorrow. Is that bigger one a 40mm like I mentioned? Looks somewhat like mine except mine has two crimp grooves on the neck to hold the bullet. They could vanish when it gets fired and then look like yours, possibly? I'm also clueless on that axis one.
 
Interesting.... I have some old, big military brass kicking around, like a WW2 40mm Mk 1 inert shell with a bullet seated. Along with an empty 1943 105 mm Howitzer shell that was turned into what I'm guessing was an ashtray. Had a couple handles mounted on each side. Found it in the trash many years ago when I drove a garbage truck. Still had cigarette butts in it when I rescued it. Don't have any pix of them here on the computer but if I have time I'll remedy that tomorrow. Is that bigger one a 40mm like I mentioned? Looks somewhat like mine except mine has two crimp grooves on the neck to hold the bullet. They could vanish when it gets fired and then look like yours, possibly? I'm also clueless on that axis one.

You got the big one nailed, 40mm bofors.

That’s a neat story, thanks for sharing.
 
Seeing the two cartridges next to each other graphically illustrates why the Japanese Navy was at a serious mid-range AA disadvantage during the war, as they had no guns analagous to the 40mm so they just had to slap more and more 25mm on their decks. This, plus the lack of proximity -fused shells for their 4 and 5" guns made them extra vulnerable to high altitude attacks such as from the SBD.
Conversely, they were able to put up a veritable wall of close range 25mm AA, which (combined with fighter top cover) made low and slow torpedo attacks against them so dangerous.
 
Last edited:
If you didn't have the 44 Special in the pic for perspective, I'd have said 308 and a stretched out 45-70. But I have no clue otherwise.
 
Here's that aforementioned inert 40mm round that has a bullet seated pictured next to a .30-06... IMG_5600.JPG .. and the 105 mm Howitzer shell case that had been re-purposed as an ash tray when I got it... IMG_5606.JPG .. The Howitzer is dated 1943 & the 40mm 1942. It was interesting digging these out again and noticing things like the flash hole on the 40mm is threaded... Looks like a screw in primer must have been used... IMG_5602.JPG ... Haven't examined either of these closely in years.
 
Seeing the two cartridges next to each other graphically illustrates why the Japanese Navy was at a serious mid-range AA disadvantage during the war, as they had no guns analagous to the 40mm so they just had to slap more and more 25mm on their decks. This, plus the lack of proximity -fused shells for their 4 and 5" guns made them extra vulnerable to high altitude attacks such as from the SBD.
Conversely, they were able to put up a veritable wall of close range 25mm AA, which (combined with fighter top cover) made low and slow torpedo attacks against them so dangerous.

Isn't that the troof? By 1945 even the USN found the 20 mm Oerlikon inadequate against Kamikaze attacks. It was either 40 mm Bofors or 5"/38DP (both with proximity fuse) to keep them at baay. Post war the USN developed the 3" automatic gun in response to kamikaze threats. We should revive either the 40 mm or 3" for anti-piracy measures.
 
Isn't that the troof? By 1945 even the USN found the 20 mm Oerlikon inadequate against Kamikaze attacks. It was either 40 mm Bofors or 5"/38DP (both with proximity fuse) to keep them at baay. Post war the USN developed the 3" automatic gun in response to kamikaze threats. We should revive either the 40 mm or 3" for anti-piracy measures.
The new rapid-fire 57mm is pretty much the standard deck gun going forward, replacing both the 5" and 76mm. It's effective against small craft, aircraft, and subsonic cruise missiles at close/medium ranges.
The 20mm Phalanx was muderous against pirate-type targets, but the mounts were optimized for engaging incoming missiles and often had bad dead zones in close to the ship. They now lack the range to effectively engage new high-speed antiship missiles and are largely being replaced by the Rolling Airframe Missile for this purpose.
Many surface combatants also still mount the 25 and 30mm chain guns for use against small surface targets and low-flying aircraft- but drones are the new hot threat and lasers/dazzlers/jammers are increasingly going to be competing for precious deck space in the future.
 
Last edited:
why the Japanese Navy was at a serious mid-range AA disadvantage during the war, as they had no guns analagous to the 40mm so they just had to slap more and more 25mm on their decks. This, plus the lack of proximity -fused shells

Post war the USN developed the 3" automatic gun in response to kamikaze threats.

The 25mm Phalanx
USN mostly used the Orlikon 20x105 as a morale weapon (gives the cooks and clerks something to do during Air Attack). The IN was similar for their 25mm. Engagement range was only about 1500-2000 yards, or the last 20-25 seconds of aircraft attack (assuming they closed to that close to the ship)

The 40mm Bofors had better reach-out-and-touch distance, and a decent slew rate. And, was an excellent weapon under director control against un-massed air attacks. The problem was that the shells needed insensitive detonators, so they had to hit something substantial in the attacking aircraft--engine, landing gear, main spar, etc.) to detonate. Otherwise, they just left a ±2" hole and whistled on through.

CIWS Phalanx uses the long-proven 20mm Vulcan cannon. There are some installations of 25mm Chain Guns as anti-boat installations, but marine mountings of the chain guns have been problematic.

The jury is also still out on the OTO-Melara 57mm autocannon as a "success." It really does not have the range for Naval engagements (and the automation of the un-manned "turret" has not been a great success).

When Kamikaze massed attacks started in late 1943, there was a scramble to find a way to address that. The VX (proximity fuse) was already under way, but was not going to "miniaturize" to anything smaller than 3" shell. So, USN had a crash development on a rapid-fire dual 3" mount using the proven 3"50 gun. These were designed to fit on a quad 40 base ring, but weight penalties meant they could only be replaced 2 for 3. They entered fleet service in May 1945, and were actually combat tested.
 
The jury is also still out on the OTO-Melara 57mm autocannon as a "success." It really does not have the range for Naval engagements (and the automation of the un-manned "turret" has not been a great success).
Many somethings would have to go wrong for any two major surface combatants to engage in a gunfight now. I dont think the Navy considers it a serious possibility any more. Since the debacle of the Zumwalt AGS, and the rise of increasingly effective drones, theyve pretty much given up on shore support guns as well.
The 57 may not be perfect, but it can perform well enough against current realistic threats to replace the 5", 76mm, and (to some extent) Phalanx in a single mounting.
Well, thats the theory anyway......:confused:
 
Last edited:
The 57 may not be perfect, but it can perform well enough against current realistic threats to replace the 5", 76mm, and (to some extent) Phalanx in a single mounting.
Well, thats the theory anyway..
I'll grant the notion, in theory.
The counter missile aspect of CIWS remains pretty crucial. And it relies on being able to have relatively large stockpiles of 20mm ammo, both in magazines and on the mounts (from memory, the mount uses a 1000 round drum).

Going up to 57 more than halves the number of rounds available by both weight and volume.

Keeping the 5"54 does retain some 12 mile shore bombardment capability. The VX fusing allows or some, distant, anti-drone and anti-aircraft capability, too.

The 76mm OTO-Melara mount uses proven 3" rounds, and is largely limited to being installed on Auxiliaries, and some of the Frigates. Our Destroyer keep creeping up on Cruiser dimensions, so the 5" is more appropriate for that use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top