watercart

Thanks Steve, I am one of the luddites that does not have a facebook account. I would like to keep in touch, but will PM alternative contact details, all the best, Damien

Steve, this is the closest I've ever come to having a Zeiss made No.7. Many WW1 captured and souvenired RblF were converted by Esdaile Instrument makers in Ultimo Sydney. They were intended to fill the gap in optical munitions until Australian manufacturers could gear up, which they did. The Australian version of the No.7 is the No.107 made by JW Handley in Victoria. It needed a new number as it was not very interchangeable with the No.7. The converted German sights were reverted for drill and training.

Many thanks Steve. I'll put a bid on! I have never seen the bottom side of one and did not realise that they have a tapered dovetail to attach to the tripod. It reinforces my understanding that the elevation arc is part of the tripod rather than the main part of the director. I agree that the No.1 and No.2 Directors are rare, and I have never seen either. A No.3 will do me for an early 18Pr gun, so I will not be competition for the No.1 or 2. If I see any, I'll let you know. There are dial sights that are very similar to directors that mounted on a bracket on top of the shields of 18 Pounder Mk.I carriages - up to the introduction of the No.7 dial sight. I did not know that No.8 dial sights existed until one turned up on ebay. The No.10 dial sight looks remarkably similar to the No.8. I was reading something on the WW1 British optics industry, and I was surprised to see that there were No.7 Mk.I dial sights made by a London branch of Zeiss. Finding an unmolested No.7 Mk.I would be brilliant, but one made by Zeiss London would be even better. cheers, Damien

Very nice! Ever seen the tripod? Here is a photo of a No.3 being used in the pre-Gallopoli training Giza. The Australians fielded 36 x 18 Pounders. Looks like I missed the No.3 on ebay. I have not been looking too hard for a while, but it's always the way...

I have been searching for one of these for a long while, but I think you have the most complete one I have seen. If I find any early Directors or parts that are surplus to requirements, I'll let you know. Are you after any other director, sighting or fire control gear? cheers, D.

Steve, a magnificent piece of research. I hope someone out there can provide some answers on where this dial sight carrier fits into the scheme of things. There must be a consolidated list of the various No. / Mk. designations of optical equipment somewhere, if for no other reason than to prevent gaps and overlaps in the nomenclature. Finding a gun carriage with the corresponding mounting interface would be good... The List of Changes is the only information source I can think of, but not sure how conscientious they were about it from the 1930s onwards. My area of interest is more WW1, and even then the LoC was a bit hit-and-miss as the war went on. Some pics of the No.8 dial sight for your info.

The range dials of these things often have the manufacturer and date. It is very well designed and made, so a lot of effort has gone into it. If I made it, I would be proud enough to put my name on it! Hard to believe there were not a few made, but this is the first one I have ever seen. Your theory of it being a prototype makes sense if it were made in the tool room of a Government ordnance factory. If a production item, it would have had IPL / catalogue part numbers on it, an official designation and maybe a production serial number. When was the No.2 field clinometer introduced? That may give an indication of date? There are some odd things in obscure Brit artillery optics. I found a circa 1915 made No.8 dial sight that fits numerically between the standard issue Goerz based No.7 (18Pr, 4,5in How, earlier 25Pr, etc) and the No.9 for guns post 1941 you have photographed, but seems to fit in an entirely different mounting bracket. Its closest relative is the No.10 dial sight made in WW2, although the No.10 is designed to fit the same mounting socket as the No.7 and No.9. Although undated, the No.8 had a broad arrow and makers name (defunct a long time ago) and used a bit of die casting. The only reason I could see why the No.8 was made was for mass production dirt cheap or to dodge the Goerz patents maybe. I have never seen another one, nor any reference to it despite it being in the main number sequence for dial sights.

Hi Mike, I have gone through the rest in some detail now. Comments are: 1. An excellent technical description of the gun and its production variants. Well laid out and well illustrated. 2. A detailed description of the production history of the gun, trailer and ammo, including the contractors and sub contractors. I found this especially interesting, as I am keen on industrial history amongst other things. My own research has not drilled down to the same levels, so I was pleased to see references to the subcontractors' trades and products. It certainly filled in a few gaps in my knowledge 3. Good summary of operational history and salient examples without trying to be a full regimental history. Generally tells us what the regimental issues were where the guns were used. 4. Great narrative stringing all of the production, design, trials and operational info together , as well as the personalities involved. Makes a potentially dry list of facts come alive into an interesting read. (BAMs interaction with Kirby a case in point. Kirby was rather preoccupied with aircraft engine production, so he was drinking through the proverbial fire hose for other war effort projects. Still, his taking on the 25 Pr recuperator was something he should have avoided with hindsight). 5. In 239 pages, info is densely packed and covers every conceivable angle of 25Pr from artillery to tank use. Good value for money IMHO. 6. Comprehensive referencing and end notes. A readable book for anyone interested in the subject, with academic rigor. I like the publications list 😉 7. On arcane points, I was uncertain as to why Ruwolts marked the saddle data plate No.11 Mark. 1, for what should have been marked No.2 Mk.I, (was there a No.11 saddle I didn't know about?) but I was pleasantly surprised that you covered that point. As you say, the standard way of marking is to have model Number (No.) in Hindu-Arabic, and Mark (Mk.) number in Roman numerals. This was done by GMH and everyone else in the British arsenal system. I agree that Ruwolts have intended to use Roman numerals (II) where they should have used a '2', but on short 25 Reg. A8, Ruwolts they have been cheeky and used a '1' instead of a 'I' stamp. Maybe it allowed Charles Ruwolt to economise on stamps! Glad I've cleared that up now.... 8. One of my own projects, now I am in semi-retirement, is to republish my book on Australian manufacturers' codes. That gives the actual makers code marks stamped on the components / ordnance for most of the government factories and contractors you mention. Overall Mike, thanks for writing this book for us artillery aficionados, it is a cracker. I cannot see anyone being bothered to write another book on the subject, as there would be little extra to write about unless they went to the same level of detail on UK and Canadian production. That said, I think your book would cover off on that to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the readership. All the best, and good luck with it, I am sure it will be very successful. Damien

A way of valuing a good buying price may be to work out what a restored on is worth (GBP 12,500?) minus the cost of the restoration. What is missing, and how likely are you going to find these missing bits? How much will they cost to buy if they turn up? One of the killers of 25Pr value is the steel wheel rims and tyres. Left outside for a long time, the rims rust out along the tyre beading. This writes the rims off, but the tyre can be salvageable if very carefully removed. A time consuming process that requires patience from my experience. If the rims are stuffed, where do you get spares? PS. Use all normal precautions in inflating the tyres on split rims in a cage. Avoid using corroded and damaged rims. If there is any sudden and unexpected way to die in gun and vehicle restoration, it is via a wheel's locking rim suddenly letting go.

Mike, just received the book in the mail. Congratulations on a magnificent effort! This is the first book on Commonwealth field artillery I have seen in years with lots of new information that is not a rehash of other work done by Ian Hogg and Terry Gander, etc. In a nutshell, I would call it original and close to definitive - definitely a worthwhile addition to the library. I have naturally perused the 25Pr short section first. It is definitely a wealth of information, and I can't see how someone would read something more comprehensive without having all of the referenced archive files and gun manuals on hand. I see what you mean about the production numbers - they seem pretty tight. You seem to know all of the guns by name and where they live, so to speak. How the third Mk.II carriage (production number B3) ended up with Rego No. A224 / 225 remains a mystery, but that may be revealed in time, who knows. You mention discrepancies in production numbers and how they may arise, so that may give me some clues for ongoing pondering.... there was a bit of chopping and changing (literally) that may have contributed to that, and also the possibility of guns plucked from the factory for war bonds work. The Rego Number is Army allocated, so that is where the discrepancy may lie.... I have only had the chance to skim through the rest of the book so far, but I can see that there is a lot of interesting info that is not available published works to date. It is a valuable one-stop reference to anyone interested in the 25 Pounder generally, not just those in Australian service. I will be putting other books aside for a few days until I have a good read through the rest. ATB, Damien.

Thanks Mike, I am hoping to do A8 the justice it deserves. Although the main sections were sandblasted and primed before I obtained them, there is a spare shield with lots of original paint that I can sample to ensure an authentic paint scheme. The ordnance number is hard to read, as it is pitted from lying on the ground for years, but it has the standard muzzle cone. That will have to do for the moment, but I am hunting an early barrel with the early type cone. That said, there is a Whitelaw photo that shows a prototype with the later type cone, which could have been A8 for all I know. You may already be aware, I completed an 18Pr Mk.I in 2016 as shown in posts in HMVF, but mainly Gunboards in the Commonwealth Weapons section. It required extensive research into all aspects of the 18 Pounder, so with similar research into the Short 25, my I hope to get A8 to that standard of condition and completeness. Very lucky for me, Mr Belfield traded me a sight cone for very early short gun (possibly prototype) that was manually graduated, and a later production type made by the Union Can Company (UCC/V), so beyond my wildest expectations, those fine details will be correct. There was a report of a bulk lot of the barrels lying in a row somewhere in Victoria, according to a colorful Victorian collecting identity we both know (I have not spoken to him since 2003), so if that were ever to be found by others, there may be some interesting things to come out of that. Best of luck with your book, I am sure it well do very well. ATB, Damien

Well, I'm about to pack away my Short 25 Pounder files again, until my recently ordered copy of Mike's book arrives. I have followed the link Mike provided and it has a preview of several pages and the table of contents. Looks very good, so I wait with anticipation! Attached are a couple of photos from my own files that I hope the viewership will find interesting. This is the first prototype. Salient differences to the standard gun are: 1. The underslung axle as per the standard 25Pr gun 2. The light truck wheels and hub caps akin to 2 Pounder. 3. Short barrel with no muzzle cone / blast deflector, nor attachment screw thread tor attachment of same. 4. Short cradle and recoil block. No brass data plates on the cradle. 5. No hump in the trail, as no traversing platform was intended to be fitted (at this stage) 6. The four securing pins and lugs holding the front and rear of the trail together. These appear to be very similar to 2 inch tow balls with a longer shank and a cross bar handle. This is the carriage of gun Registered No.8, complete with shield as I found it about 20 years ago. It has some residual features of the standard trail that were not expected, such as the redundant attachment faces for the shield support arm brackets. The new light weight shield is attached to the saddle as per the remaining bracket visible in the photo above. The data plates on the saddle are also standard Ruwolt 25Pr types, as being a prototype there is no proper acknowledgement of the new trail pattern. The Reg No. is stamped A8 dated 1943, and the saddle data plate is marked No.11 Mk.I. Both data plates had "A8" marked on their reverse sides in black paint. I have almost all of the bits required to reassemble A8 into a complete gun, so am looking forward to starting the rebuilding process. ATB, D.

For the Australian membership, a 25Pr was auctioned in NSW in the last fortnight or so. It was deactivated and looked OK (needing cleaning up and a new paint job), and had been under cover for a long time, which is better than most. Completeness of the gun itself was acceptable, but no CES. Hammer price was $20,000 plus 20% commission, so pretty much aligns with the GBP 12,000 suggested above.

Mike, I am not saying that there were necessarily 225 guns made, but am asking the question as to why the carriage registration numbers go to at least 225. The registration number is not applied by the factory, but by Army on acceptance of the item. So unless there is a deliberate gap in the registration numbers as applied by Army, I have no answers. Rego A224 was one of the earliest Mk.2 carriages with the recoil block rego number 225 installed. This recoil block is (factory test?) dated 3 March 1944, which is almost 6 months after rego A103 and over 6 months before Regos A 107 and A 140. Rego A 183 is dated 8 Nov 1944. So a bit all over the place. However, I think it is clear that B3 / Rego A 224/225 sat on the factory floor for a long time and was one of the last carriages offered up for acceptance and registration. The other thing not covered so far is the ordnance situation. Generally, the breech rings were taken from standard production and I am unaware of any that were inscribed with the carriage Rego number. However, the barrel was a special component for the Short 25 Pr and the jacket was marked with an "A" number similar to the carriages. While one may imagine that a complete gun left the factory with carriage Rego and barrel numbers matching, I have never seen a complete gun with matching barrel and carriage numbers. We are all aware that the ordnance system managed barrels and carriages as separate items, so if the survivors are a representative sample, there must have been a lot of barrel changes throughout the fleet if they were all matching on Army acceptance. That said, most guns would have had such a small amount of work that a barrel replacement between manufacture in 43/44 and retirement in 1946 would seem unlikely on the basis of wear and tear. The breech rings and barrel jackets I have seen have all been made by either the ordnance factory at Maribyrnong or by Ruwolts, and while early barrels are MO, there is a mix of MO and CR barrels as production proceeds. This may be reflected in the contracts you have researched. So amongst other things, I am wondering when the barrel jackets were allocated their A number? Were the jackets numbered on production at Maribyrnong / Ruwolts and the carriage given the same Rego number on acceptance? Or perhaps they are completely separate numbering systems and streams of management? So to your question regarding whether I have accounted for spares...I have accessed a lot of archive material on the Short 25Pr, but not the production contracts, so the answer is "no". Given the fact that MO provided ordnance that was mounted onto Ruwolt made carriages at various stages during the project, were the ordnance and carriage contracts separate? MO made ordnance would not appear in the Ruwolts contracts unless it was in the Schedule / List of GFE (Government Furnished Equipment), whereas the balance of ordnance would be contracted to Ruwolts. So the obvious questions are: 1. how many carriages were contracted to Ruwolts? 2. how many breech/barrel assemblies were provided by MO as GFE? 3. how many breech/barrel assemblies were contracted to CR? 4. how many spare carriages and breech barrel assemblies were in the Ruwolt's contracts? 5. Given that the carriage production numbers and rego numbers are quite separate, did Army bother stamping unassembled spares with a Rego number? and 6. were there sufficient spares for army to build up more complete guns after final deliveries under the contracts, to which they applies a Rego number? I'm looking forward to reading your new book and thanks for making the effort to publish. I was going to do a monograph my self one day, but something published is worth much more than a manuscript that may get chucked in the paper recycling when they clear out your estate. ATB, D.