previous post next post  

I've got a new skillset for my resume - and a whatziss!

January 21, 2007 | | Comments (45) | TrackBacks (1)

Antique Ordnance Restoration Expert.

Heh. *That* oughta jump right out at all those Fortune 500-type recruiters…

A couple of the guys from the State Militia Museum found out I was "between jobs" and dragooned me into doing a li'l pro bono work. Okay, okay, a * lot* of pro bono work. They made me the Aviation SME and have me working on everything save things that slip the surly bonds of earth. Well, for a couple of months, I kept telling myself, I should'a brought my camera – the kids would love this stuff. Today, I did.

I'll post my latest project sometime this week; I sure as hell hope b'lieve it'll be finished by Friday…

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Meantime, a minute portion of what I'm currently involved with is returning what's left of one of our three French 75s to its original state. This one came back to the US after the War to End All Wars and, sometime in the mid 1930s, was upgraded, modernized and modified with a more offroad-friendly carriage. Heh. You wouldn't believe where we found a bunch of OEM parts for it… [Armorer's note - I believe this is in fact a M1905 3 inch gun, which saw combat in the Punitive Expedition, but never left the US during WWI. Having been loosely patterned on the French M1897 75mm, it is often mistaken for one. What *is* unique about this one - it's the first one I've seen modified to a high-speed (i.e., faster'n a team of horses) towing configuration. I've asked Bill to check the data plates on the gun.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The caisson here is an oddball. I separated the layers of a paint chip with a razor blade and the first coat that was slapped over the primer was good ol' Desert Sand Yellow. In 1907.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Heh -- a hundred years ago, the Army in the West was painting stuff the same exact color as the stuff used by the Army in the East today. Sooooo, that's the color it got after the major repair work. Only difference is that there's no lead in this tintage.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Got all kinds of goodies in the scrap heap restoration yard (even more in the museum proper), including some things you don't often see. Like this --

Whatizzit?

Okay, all you Field Artillery types, Whadizzit?

No, guys, it's the #82-lookin' thingy in the center, not the Jeep or the Reckless Rifle. My stuff is a lot easier to figger out than John's, but I'm not gonna hand you the answer on a silver platter.

Oh, stop whining. Here's a side view, too.

C'mon, quite stalling. Whatizzit?

Heh. Like Captain H sez, "Context is everything." I'll be back later.

Ummmmmm -- don't let WK and Maggie drag the comments too far afield…

Share This Article:

Categories:

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/6695

ATTN Military Hardware Geeks. from MilBlogs on January 23, 2007 6:05 PM

Over at the Castle, co-blogger Bill has been doing some pro bono work at the New Jersey Militia Museum. Where he found this: You should come over and read that post - and then, after you've tried your hand at... Read More

45 Comments

By FbL on January 21, 2007 10:18 AM
Heh. John must be an amazing shade of green right now... :D
 
By Justthisguy on January 21, 2007 12:09 PM
Oh, on the paint colors, and other sillyness: Along about that same year, (1907) I believe that the US Army went to rough-side out leather boots, i.e., non-shiny. They were kind of a tan color, like the rest of the new uniform. The idea being that they'd kinda blend into the scenery, so to speak. Also the smooth-side-in boots are proveably more weatherproof. Well, the old soldiers prevailed, and co-erced evverbody into making his boots all shiny, and everything, when he could have used the time better exercising with his weapons. At least we got the Munson Last from that
 
By WereKitten on January 21, 2007 12:28 PM
"Oh, stop whining".... But SB... I *LIKE* wine! *sniff* *pout* Hey, that reminds me.... do you know what the Jewish lady's favorite wine is? "When ahh we goin' to Mi-yaaaaaaaam-i?!?!?"
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 3:37 PM
Hmmmmm -- nobody's even taken a SWAG at the Whatziss yet. Guess everybody figures it's either something so incredibly commonplace they'll look silly if they guess incorrectly *OR* something so incredibly esoteric that they'll be held in awe even if they guess incorrectly. It's incredibly commonplace in one respect and incredibly esoteric in another. Context is everything, Grasshoppah...
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 3:47 PM
I've got thoughts, but no postable answers yet.
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 3:49 PM
John - You could be right about it being a US 3-incher, but there's no dataplate on the gun or the carriage. However, if it *is* a 3-incher, it'll have the info etched into the top of the tube down by the breech -- I haven't wire-wheeled the dozen layers of paint off this one yet. Q: Geez, Bill, how'd you know about the etching-on-the-tube deal? A: 'Cuz I'm working on one...
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:11 PM
As for your whatzit - my working hypothesis is that it's a test rig for the 90/105mm tank guns, possibly an experiment to making towed guns. I like the T21, which was a 90mm with a muzzle brake *and* used the breech from a 105mm howitzer The breech on the whatziss does not look like the standard dropping block breech used in tanks, but more like a sliding block used in artillery. But I haven't been able to find a good picture anywhere - whether on the web or in my library.
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 4:11 PM
Just compared the tube 'n' recoil guts -- John SCORES!!! -- with the 3-incher I'm working on. As an extra added attraction, you can see the fiddly bits of the high-speed mod. Heh -- gun *carriage* pr0n...
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:14 PM
Bill, you guys may actually have the *rarest* M1905's in existence.
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 4:15 PM
I've got thoughts, but no postable answers yet. Postable or possible? Hint. Context is everything. Geez, I'm givin' away the ranch with all these hints...
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 4:22 PM
Heh. The one I'm reworking's even rarer than you think. It's a 1902 model, and based on the RM fabrikwerke stamping on the muzzle, it may have been contract produced in Germany; I'm still researching it.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:24 PM
Snerk - what, that it's in a barn? That it's next to the jeep? The reckless? That it's reversed? That it's on a damn light looking carriage for the size gun? That it looks like a tank gun on an anti-tank carriage with an artillery-style breech? I gots lots of context... but my recently unfrozen caveman brain ain't got a template to hang it on. Or I have too many templates, rather.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:31 PM
And my first thought was later model of the 3 inch anti tank (hey, context) except, while it does have a sliding block breech, it didn't have a muzzle brake, the cradle is not right, and there doesn't appear to be provision for the shield. I did, however, find a good pic of troops firing 'em as salute guns... but probably not having a good time doing it.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:32 PM
The first official version of those guns that I'm aware of is the M1903 (yer right, M1902, my bad), some produced, I believe, by Krupp, though all I've ever seen have Watervliet marks. What's the muzzle say?
 
By AFSister on January 21, 2007 5:55 PM
40mm anti-aircraft gun
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 6:11 PM
Hmmm. A bit small, AFSis. But then, you're handicapped in that arena, after having spent all that time during your marriage being told that "But honey, this *is* eight inches!" so, you're excused for misunderestimating.
 
By AFSister on January 21, 2007 6:16 PM
LMAO... John, that's hilarious! Ya know, one of these days, I'm gonna get one of these durned things, and your eyes are gonna pop out of your head. "Well, dag GUM! She DID IT! She really DID IT!" *sigh* a pipe dream... i know.....
 
By AFSister on January 21, 2007 6:24 PM
How about a M46 130mm field gun?
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 7:25 PM
Nope, not no commie gun.
 
By Old Fat Sailor on January 21, 2007 7:31 PM
That is an awful dinky recoil cylnder for such a big tube (course us naval types used a much more manly charge than the red leg types:-))looks kinda Canadian.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 7:34 PM
I agree, OFS. Perplexing!
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 7:54 PM
Okay, the 3-incher's muzzle sez: RHEINISCHE [blur] M [blur] W&M FABRIK 1903 846 Lbs. No. 107 J.W.J. Above the breech is: [upper arc] 3 INCH FIELD [centered] U.S. [lower arc] MODEL OF 1902 Soo, it's a 1902 model cranked out by Rheinmetall before it was Rheinmetall. I'm almost positive RM got a lot of subcontract work from Krupp pre-1915, because the two of 'em were joined at the hip during the First WW and into the Second one.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 8:01 PM
Kewl, Bill - rare gun, indeed!
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 8:19 PM
I'll have to do some brushing to see what info's on wreck #2... Meantime, the Whatziss is *not* Canadian. Context is everything. Heh. Getting even for that Portuguese Duck O' War...
 
By BillT on January 21, 2007 9:00 PM
...course us naval types used a much more manly charge than the red leg types... True, but this gun was designed to hit specific targets, rather than just the Earth. Although, after receiving a broadside from the New Jersey, specific targets tended to become one with the Earth...
 
By SangerM on January 21, 2007 11:37 PM
From left to right (and no, I didn't look first): It's an old field-gun glacis, T-8? A 106mm RR. some kind of towed gun, lightweight, like the giat NATO gun, about 90-100mm? A Trk, 1/4 utility, 4x4, M151 (TM: 9-2320-218-20&P, and NO, I did NOT have to look up that number). But a newer one, or with new stuff (the side webbing was never available to us... And oh yeah, that Antenna is pulled down too far... it's stressing at the middle (where top and bottom screw in... Might want to ease up on that some)
 
By SangerM on January 21, 2007 11:46 PM
Oh! And the Ajax missile on the table in the back.
 
By BillT on January 22, 2007 6:41 AM
Sanger - From left to right: nope, yep, d-uuuh but wrong ID, yup (and the antenna spring was already busted, which is why they gave it to us) and yup. Got a Nike-Herc in the boneyard, too.
 
By BillT on January 22, 2007 6:54 AM
Oh, about that first "nope" -- no real quibble with "field gun," but it's earlier (and smaller) than the T-8.
 
By BillT on January 22, 2007 7:03 AM
But John would call the sheet metal a gun shield (we've got the whole critter). And a tanker would squeal that the sloped forward portion of their mobile ATGM catchers is the only proper application of the term "glacis"... Speaking of tanks, how's that old joke about a crew-served portable radio go again?
 
By BillT on January 22, 2007 7:06 AM
[heh. any way ya bump the comment count -- ummmm -- counts]
 
By Princess Crabby on January 22, 2007 8:03 AM
"Ummmmmm -- don't let WK and Maggie drag the comments too far afield." Hey I am the target of vicious profiling. I didn't even comment in this thread (I rarely do in threads about weapons, my weapon of choice has always been a wooden spoon). I have read all comments and I believe John is the chief instigator here. I'm just a poor, innocent victim......or, as my friend WK likes to quote "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way!"
 
By MajMike on January 22, 2007 8:41 AM
i got yer glacis right here, pal... but meanwhile, back at that AT piece, i'm 'contexting' the heck out of it, and all i'm coming up with is 37mm, nothing bigger. (so i get credit for any correct answer up to and including 8 inch)
 
By Chris Denny on January 22, 2007 10:47 AM
I think it is part of the experimental T-18 90mm anti tank gun series developed late in WWII from the same gun that the M-26 Pershing and M-36 Wolverine used. Which itself was derived from an AA gun to boot. :]
 
By John S. on January 22, 2007 11:52 AM
The muzzle markings only ID the barrel maker and serial number. Barrels were replaceable and after they were worn out, replaced with aonther from spare parts inventory. The actual gun number and maker are the ones on the breech. Several of the early US 3 inch guns M1902 etc were nearly identical and I suspect the barrels were interchangeable.
 
By SangerM on January 22, 2007 2:49 PM
Ok.. yer right about glacis, I was T'ard 'an it was late, etc... As for the gun, that looks to be about 85-100mm (hard to say, possible 105), and I realize it's missing some pieces unless its supposed to be recoilless, it needs some kind of shock dampeners or soemthing, it has nowhere to recoil from what I can see... So... guessin' context: test version of some kind of AT gun, recoilless, OR, its something someone decided to kit-bash to drive folks like us nuts... As for the "field" gun: 37mm Gun M3A1 ? Caliber: 37mm Weight : 990 lbs Elevation : -10 to +15 gegrees Muzzle Vel: APC 2,900 feet/sec Barrel length : 82.5 inches Penetration : 2 inches in 1000 yards Breech Mechanism : Vertical sliding block Projectile types : APC and HE If so, MajMike gets that one, IF he was talking about the left hand gun, not the middle weirdo... Otherwise, I do. PS I also saw the Sherman (was looking for it, cause I think that's one of its rubber roadwheels sitting on the towing end of the at gun. Or not, in which case I wasn't thinking that at all... :)
 
By Will Putnam on January 22, 2007 4:20 PM
...I know where that is. That's the old horse rink at the 112th FAA in New Jersey! I did a ton of work there last summer with Col. Kale and the other vets, helping reorg the library and clean up an old jeep, and my USNSCC unit drills there the last weekend of every month! Man, the world gets smaller every day.
 
By MajMike on January 22, 2007 6:21 PM
could that piece in the middle be this French 75mm from this photo in the NJARNG archives? http://www.newjersey.gov/state/darm/links/images/ng/SDENG010-A268f.jpg
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 22, 2007 6:28 PM
MajMike - no, because that *is* a French 75mm. The quick give-away are the sideburns on the muzzle.
 
By SangerM on January 22, 2007 6:39 PM
If you google the 112th Field Artillery Museum, you will see a lot of decent equipment shots, especially the outside tanks... Cool, they have a duster and a long tom and some old tank (looks french) I don't have time to look for... BTW, this is really aggravating! That's two in a row I can't figure out. Frabjous Snarkleflix!
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 22, 2007 7:44 PM
Sanger gets hung up on this - Sanger - they have a fargin' submersible! Or something close, anyway. Bad news, fdcol - we're museum pieces!
 
By BillT on January 22, 2007 8:46 PM
Hah! The Sea Scout un-lurks and tosses google-clues! He feints with a Jeep! The treadhead ducks the 8-incher and reverts to a smaller bore! Sanger sweeps in from the outside and changes the subject! Whatagame, whatagame, whatagame, sports fans!!
 
By SangerM on January 22, 2007 11:36 PM
Ok.. just nevermind that now!!! I had never seen an M2 before that I can recall. I thought it was a modified M3/M5 or something 'cause of the suspension and the odd hull/turret, but I was thinking the wrong way in time. So there... And yeah, I saw the teardrop, but got distracted by the jeep with the right side steering wheel. Lots of cool stuff there...
 
By SangerM on January 23, 2007 12:29 AM
I was wrong, I think.... That looks like an M2 turret, sort of, the early one, and it has the right number of roadwheels, etc, but it's all wrong and the upper hull is wrong, etc... crap. I'm gonna quit doin' this. Waaaa
 
By BillT on January 23, 2007 1:04 AM
Don't forget the rivet-count in the turret. The rivet-count is the key... [going straight to *do-not-pass-go* hades for that one!]
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.