25 Pounder Short gun

[watercart]

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.

[watercart]

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.

[Mike C]

A8 is a nice find, Damien - one of only 12 improved prototypes, so rare in the extreme. I'm sure, given your hands-on experience, that you'll give it the restoration TLC it deserves. What ordnance number do you have for it, and do you have the early form of muzzle cone?

The first prototype image is, appropriately, the first 25-pdr Short image reproduced in the book. We probably sourced it from the same album waaaaay back in the early 1990s. I interviewed Maj Gen Whitelaw on a couple of occasions, and we exchanged correspondence over a number of years on a wide variety of subjects, mostly artillery, but his involvement with other equipment acquisitions during his time as a senior officer was also of considerable interest to me. His father of course features prominently in the Australian 25-pdr story overall, not just the Short, including the first rumblings about an Australian SP version, so there are several quotes and references attributed to him throughout the book. 

As for the book, I've done my best with the information available to me at the time of writing. I hope I have done the subject justice, and that the book will satisfy the vast majority of readers.

 Mike

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Mike C

[watercart]

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

[watercart]

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.

[Mike C]

Hi Damien,

Thanks for the positive comments about the section you have had the chance to read. I'll look forward to further comments/critique once you have had a chance to digest the entire contents.

I was elated that Maj Gen Paul Stevens agreed to write the foreword after reading through a late draft, as he is a gunner with a wealth of experience in both gunnery and in historical research.  If he was satisfied with the result, I figured most other readers would be, too.

Regards

Mike

 

 

[watercart]

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

[Mike C]

Thanks Damien, high praise indeed!

I do hope you do a revised edition of your marking codes book - it is a great reference, and is quite rightly included in the reference list in my book, as it was very useful in determining some of the manufacturers. I've often pulled it out over the years, so it's looking a big dog-eared. Time to replace it with a revised edition!

Mike