Re: Some observations about raising of US airborne divisions


"Rich" <RichTO90@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dju15k$deu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Robert Willett wrote:
> > You talk like the mad hatter. " It was *based* upon the M1 90mm AA
Gun."
>
> Yes, in the same sense that the 90mm M3 Tank Gun was *based* upon the
> M1 90mm AA Gun. That did not make the M3 an AA gun. Nor does the fact
> that the Army 3-inch M1918 AA Gun was *based* upon a naval gun make the
> Army AA gun a Navy gun.

As to your last sentence I never said it did. I said the gun in question
was a conversion of a naval gun. Whivh you then confimed the derivation.

>
> I must confess that your logic has escaped me throughout much of this
> conversation.

Please examine your own logic, if the weapon used in the anti-ship
installations you cite was not an AA gun because it was mounted on a special
mount that took away its AA capabilities, then you cannot claim an
anti-shipping role for the 90 mmAA gun based on the installlations you cite.
I am willing to accept that the installations you cite were an example of
use of the M1A which was developed as an AA weapon as an anti-shipping
weapon. However if you wish to say they were not AA weapons I accept that
also.

Previosly you have pointed out the M3 was developed a a ground use weapon
and was not just a follow on of the M1, M1A or M2. I accepted that and do
not claim them as AA weapons any more than I say the 3 in AA weapon, the
76mm tank gun or the towed 3in AT weapons were navy weapons. You have shown
their heritage which dates back to a navy weapon but they were army weapons.

>
> > The small bursting charge of a 90mm shell would not penetratrate the
hull
> > plate of a U. S. Destroyersuch as USS Hunt DD674. Now armor pierceing
would
> > but not creating a hole that wouldn't be easily plugged by DC. You are
> > right it could do damage to lighter upper works but not the main pattery
> > turrets. Exactly what would you cite from first G.
>
> Did I ever say that it would? And a combination of impact fused-HE and
> the bursting charge of the APC round with base fuse would pretty much
> make hash of the interior spaces as well, including the interior of the
> gun houses.

Funny Rich that hits from heavier pieces didn't always make hash of interior
spaces on destroyers. Of course part of it was the difficulty landing hits
on a destroyer in combat. If you have read Last Stand of the Tin Can
Sailors you are aware of how much damage it took from experienced Japanese
Naval gunners firing heavier weaons to put down the "small boys"

Again, coupled with the rate of fire, range and accuracy of
> the piece it would likely be able to make a hash of any DD coming close
> enough.

And what do you think was close enough? And do you think most can skippers
would come that close.

Then of course there is the little matter that under director
> control there could be four to sixteen 90mm guns firing at the DD, with
> an excellent fire control system, so instead of the half-dozen or so
> hits you saw in the practice shoot, substitute say 20, 40....?

Sorry Rich you are bubbling hope. The destroyer would be bobbing and
weaving and returning fire. Also you now postulate only one destroyer and
other warships wandering close enough to 4 to 16 guns without retuning fire
with heavier weapons. How many times do you think that would happen.
>
> > Since the "role" I referred to was the anti-ship use and the places you
> > mentioned had no anti-ship action. Therefore any ammunition expended in
> > that role certainly wasn't against real targets.
>
> Again, I have a problem following your logic, if such exists. The
> assumption you appear to be making is that since "no" anti-ship action
> occured, then there was "no" requirement for guns capable of anti-ship
> action, which rather flies in the face of reality.

No Rich you are lost. My original comment was that there was a limited use
of the 90 mm AA gun in an anti-shipping role outside the U. S. based on the
installations in the HI and PC and the possible set up of the 3rd Marine
Defense Battalion at the Canal. Although you snipped that comment you
jumped in with a tirade about ammunition usage which did nothing to show the
use of the 90mm AA as an anti-shipping weapon. I then pointed out to you
that I was specifically commenting about limited role of 90 mm AA weapons in
an anti-shipping role (Which was clear in the original) and there fore
ammunition usage by all 90mm AA weapons in all deployments meant nothing
especially since it was doubtful that any 90 mm AA amunition was used in
actual anti-shipping fire missions. You then frantically trying to go one
up attempted to convert that to my questioning the requirement for
anti-shipping guns. Of course there was a requirement for anti-shipping guns
but as you pointed out earlier in another attempt to go one up the
requirement was not filled by 90 mm AA guns. However I accept that the M1A1
on M3 mount was a 90mm AA weapon emplaced as an anti-shipping weapon even
though you seem to be confused as to what your position is.


>
> Nor do you appear to be understanding my meaning, so I will try to
> restate it again. 90mm guns were designed initially as anti-aircraft
> pieces (M1 and M1A1), then were sucessively re-designed so as to be
> capable of engaging targets with the tube depressed below zero
> degrees, and to have the capability to "fire off the wheels" - that is,
> to fire with limited traverse, while still on carriage, neither
> capability of which the M1 and M1A1 had. The result was the M2. The
> M1A1 on mount M3 was a separate offshoot, designed as a permanent
> coastal fortification, replacing and supplementing the older 3-inch
> coastal defense pieces.

All of the above is clearly understood but you have no examples of M2 units
outside the U. S. being used as anti-shipping weapons. The only examples
are the M1A1 on the M3 mount which you can't seem to make up your mind was
or was not a 90 mm AA weapon.

>
> Whether or not *your* hindsight tells you that the capability wasn't
> really required, because they did not engage naval targets, is
> irrelevent to the decisions that were made at the time and the thinking
> behind them. As I already mentioned, that you seem to find it silly
> that they anticapated a threat from torpedo craft, is also irrelevent,
> it was accepted doctrine for harbor defense virtually from the
> inception of torpedo craft, and various types were employed by all
> powers with harbors and naval facilities to protect (examples have
> already been given including the British twin 6-pounder, the Germans
> utilized the 8.8cm and 10.5cm TbsK as well as similar captured and Heer
> pieces extensively for the same purpose, the Japanese, Italians, French
> and Soviets also had equivalent pieces and doctrine).

Well Rich we aren't talking about the other powers we are talking about
specifically about the U. S. and the use of 90mm AA pieces outside the U.S.
as anti-shipping weapons. So far you don't seem to be able to make up your
mind if the few examples (oh hell the many examples to avoid another
semantics argument ) of M1A1 on M3 mounts were AA weapons. You were the one
who admitted that for torpedo craft to attack the HI or the PC where I am
admitting that 90 mm AA weapons (M1A1 on M3 mounts) were deployed as
anti -shipping weapons was based on a 1920-30's naval idea of parasite
torpedo boats carried to those targets by larger mother ships. It was that
aged out doctrine I find amusing. As for the foreign usage most of those
countries had ports and coasts within range of enemy torpedo boats.



>
> Of course the primary matter, which you have been at pains to
> smokescreen, has nothing to do with coastal defense. You appear to
> question whether or not the 90mm was a multi-purpose weapon, despite
> the simple fact that it was designed to meet such a requirement, and
> did function as such.

No Rich I never questioned that the M2 was announced as a multi-purpose
weapon. I even found one of the few mentions of it actually being used as
an anti-tank weapon. Also I accepted that it was used as a substitute for
the more capable 155 mm gun in counter battery fire in Italy. I even
accepted the use of the M1A1 on the M3 mount as an example of the limited
use of a 90mm AA gun in an anti-shipping position.
>
> > I think if you read carefully you will acknowledge you didn't clearly
> > mention these smi-mobile deployments to Europe before. Now I understand
> > your math.
>
> No, I think if you go back and read carefully you will find that you
> were making a host of assumptions, of which this was just one, based
> upon either a faulty understanding of what occurred, or wishful
> thinking so as to hammer the facts into line with your assumptions.

Sorry Rich it appears that you are much more attempting to hammer my actual
comments in line with what you wish were my positions.


>
> > > What "deep questioning"?
> >
> > The kind you don't like.
>
> No, I actually don't mind "deep questioning" - at least when it's
> evident that there is some "deep thinking" going on behind it.

Well Rich oh deep thinker who cannot keep up from one post to the next with
what is the real question and can't decide when an anti-shipping weapon is
an AA gun or not I appreciate your attempt to help out those of us who less
blessed.

You are possessed of a magnificent storehouse of information and frequently
present it in a coherent manner. I have enjoyed discussing the claimed
capabilities and actual usage of U. S. 90 mm weapons with you. Perhaps we
will find another subject of interest to botyh of us in the future.

Interesting how you come to meet some people. Just a few days ago I was at
a locl cafeteria. The man behind me saw my cap from the carrier T. R.
Roosevelt. He asked if I served in the navy. I said I did. He then said he
served in the Third Army as a dough but was wounded just before they shifted
toward the Bulge. He still walks with a limp. Said his half track caught a
mortar round which injured everyone but the driver who then ran down the
mortar crew before turning back to an aid station. There is no way I could
have done that. They are the greatest generation.

God luck and goodbye for now.


> --
>
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Super killing machine to be tested in Singapore
    ... a gun that can fire 240,000 rounds per minute. ... >>A Metal Storm gun of any size -- from a 9 mm hand-gun up to a machine ... >>The weapon system can be mounted on an unmanned ground combat vehicle, ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: New gun
    ... multibarreled weapon and can fire 4000-6000 rpm (100 per ... second) and reloads each barrel as soon as it is fired. ... The rate of fire for a period of a fraction of a second is ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: Goddamm, Cheneys got his head up his ass
    ... Gun safety and car safety operate by different rules in this society. ... you are required to hold your fire. ... weapon closed on an empty chamber with the safety on. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Some observations about raising of US airborne divisions
    ... > Try google using 120 mm anti-tank gun. ... > using it as a towed weapon quickly went by the way and it was truck mounted. ... > provie the accurate fire of their 5in/25s and 5in/38s to targets on the ... destroyers began to close the beach and employ direct fire at different ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: New gun
    ... >heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a gun that can fire ... >The weapon system can be mounted on an unmanned ground combat vehicle, ... As long as the grenade or mortar is fired ... >radar is in use, a Metal Storm system could be an effective defense, ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)