75mm x 468R MKIII case, U.S., any Info on the gun?

[cannonmn]

Here's a brief slideshow. Our focus now is on the round which is always on the left when two are shown. We'd like to know something about the gun that fired this. All we know now is from the headstamp, referring to 75mm guns M1920, M1920M1, and M1920M2. This case has a primer dated 1940, which would mean one or more of the models of guns mentioned was still in service at that time.

 

[Tony Williams]

Interesting. Hawkinson lists it in his US section but provides no more information than you have. It's a reasonable assumption that it was for an army gun, as the USN used inch-calibre weapons of this size (3 inch) whereas the US Army used both inch and metric calibres. I know of no 75mm US gun of that period which did not use the standard 75 x 350R ammo. The longer case indicates that it might have been intended for an AA gun, but the US Army used a 3 inch AA gun….which is a long-winded way of saying that I don't know, but that it was probably experimental or saw very little service.

 

[cannonmn]

Thanks Tony, that's more than I knew. I think it is unquestionably US Army since it was made either at Frankford or much more likely under a F.A. contract, thus the "F.A. Lot 2." Am beginning to wonder if it may have been some Coast Artillery weapon as well as the distinct possibility you mention of an A.A. piece?

There's a book avail on Google books, only part of which is available as often happens with "in print" books, which mentions an M1920 and some other versions, as a modification of the U.S. 75mm M1916, but I didn't rely on that because I'm familiar with the M1916-used same ammo as M1897 and wasn't much different in size, so the idea of making it accept this huge cartridge did not make an sense to me. The book is kind of hard to read as it is a jumble of snippets of sparse info, like the author took neat tables of data and turned them into text or something. I didn't see any illustrations, perhaps all are in the hidden portion. But this book may offer clues in some instances. "Artillery, an Illustrated History of Its Impact, by Jeff Kinard." Thanks again Tony.

 

[HAZORD]

A photo:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:75mm-gun-M1920-FAJ19210102-3.jpg

There is a self-propelled gun here, 3rd photo down:

http://tanksandafv.blogspot.com/2012/11/old-aberdeen-photos.html

MK VI Self propelled here, 13th one down:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/selfpropelledguns.html

YouTube video of the Self Propelled gun driving under water:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z1R5c6pPJg

 

[Tony Williams]

Interesting: the M20/21 are listed by Hawkinson as AA guns, with slightly different ammo (fractionally shorter case).

The SP gun obviously has a high enough elevation for AA, but the first pic doesn't look like it.

 

[highlandotter]

from the size of the case and the length of the barrel, this looks like a pretty hot 75. But the economy of the times and the greater need for howitzers probably killed in great interest in it.

 

[bdgreen]

Some bits of information from several issues of The Field Artillery Journal, United States Field Artillery Association.

The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. 9 No.3, July – August, 1919 http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/1919/JUL_AUG_1919/JUL_AUG_1919_FULL_EDITION.pdf

Starting on page 289 is a report by a Board of Officers entitled Study of the Armament and Types of Artillery Matriel to be Assigned to a Field Army, December 11, 1918. The report calls for overhauling or developing new artillery pieces for all calibers of guns in use at the time, new types of ammunition & fuzes and new types of gun transportation (wheeled or mechanized). Basically an extensive wish list to “modernize” all aspects of artillery for the U.S. Army. For the 75mm gun the Board, in general terms, stressed a split-trail carriage, better traverse, 15 lb. projectile etc.

The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. 10 No.6, November – December, 1920 http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/1920/NOV_DEC_1920/NOV_DEC_1920_FULL_EDITION.pdf

Starting on page 641 (CURRENT FIELD ARTILLERY NOTES, Ordnance Notes II) there is a mixed discussion on the “new” 75mm and 105mm guns. Included is a photo entitled “WOODEN MODEL OF 75 MM. GUN ON SPLIT TRAIL CARRIAGE”. See photo #1 below

The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. 11 No.1, January – February, 1921 http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/1921/JAN_FEB_1921/JAN_FEB_1921_FULL_EDITION.pdf

There are 2 photos located between pages 74 and 75. The first photo (photo #2 below) is described as follows: 75-MM. GUN, MODEL 1920, ON CARRIAGE NO. 1, MODEL 1920. Above: Carriage unlimbered, traversing lock engaged. Below: Right side view; firing position 0 degrees elevation.
The second photo shown (photo #3 below) has the following description: 75-MM. GUN, MODEL 1920, ON CARRIAGE NO. 1, MODEL 1920. Rear view 80 degrees elevation; 0 degrees traverse.

Based on the the photo descriptions is it safe to assume that for the case headstamp shown in the beginning post above, that portion of the HS reading GUN MOD. 1920. 1920 MI & MII identifies the case as being for the 75mm Gun Model 1920 mounted on either carriage No. 1 (type MI) , Model 1920 or carriage No. 2 (type MII), Model 1920?

Maybe carriage No.1 was the wheeled mount and maybe carriage No. 2 was a mechanized mount?

Brian