How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded
Pete
Hi,
How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded?
I know that they're loaded manually from 4 shell clips, but with four
barrels, and firing speed of 160rounds per minute, Wouldn't it be quite
difficult for the loaders to load quick enough to catch up with the firing?
Also does the 4 shell clip supply all four guns, or does each gun require
it's on clip.
And does the 160rpm apply to four guns (individual firing cycle of about 40
rpm) or does each barrel fire at 160rpm (total firing cycle of 640rpm).
Thanks
Kennedy How
Pete wrote:
> How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded?
From the top, there is a curved clip guide where the loader drops the
clips into it.
> Also does the 4 shell clip supply all four guns, or does each gun require
> it's on clip.
Each gun has it's own clip. I think each gun has it's own loader as
well (at least I THINK it looks that way in the pics of the quads
shooting at the Kamikazis). The quad mount is 4 singles mounted
together, though I don't know the firing sequence, don't believe all
four fire together.
> And does the 160rpm apply to four guns (individual firing cycle of about 40
> rpm) or does each barrel fire at 160rpm (total firing cycle of 640rpm).
By watching the wartime footage, they could be conceivably firing at the
2.5 rnds/sec to get the 160rpm.
Kennedy
John Lansford
"Pete" <newm...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded?
>
>I know that they're loaded manually from 4 shell clips, but with four
>barrels, and firing speed of 160rounds per minute, Wouldn't it be quite
>difficult for the loaders to load quick enough to catch up with the firing?
That's why there were so many men for each 40mm quad mount. Most of
them were involved in keeping shells coming to the guns. From the film
I've seen of them firing, there were two men, one to a side who did
nothing but put clips into the guns from the top. While the guns were
firing they put those clips in continuously. Other men were keeping a
chain of clips coming to them, while two men sat in the seats and
aimed and fired the guns.
>Also does the 4 shell clip supply all four guns, or does each gun require
>it's on clip.
One clip per gun. The loaders kept very busy.
>And does the 160rpm apply to four guns (individual firing cycle of about 40
>rpm) or does each barrel fire at 160rpm (total firing cycle of 640rpm).
I think the rate of fire was for the entire mount, not each individual
gun in the mount.
John Lansford
Paul J. Adam
In article <01bc7e89$5b450300$0ddad5cf@newmannz>, Pete
<newm...@ihug.co.nz> writes
>Hi,
>How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded?
A curved clip guide on top of the gun :)
>
>I know that they're loaded manually from 4 shell clips, but with four
>barrels, and firing speed of 160rounds per minute, Wouldn't it be quite
>difficult for the loaders to load quick enough to catch up with the firing?
Yep. You'd have at least one loader per gun just stuffing clips in the
gun, more men bucket-brigading ammunition up to the mount: these weapons
were quite crew-intensive simply to keep them fed. ISTR a total crew of
around a dozen for a quad 40mm.
>Also does the 4 shell clip supply all four guns, or does each gun require
>it's on clip.
Each gun has its own feed and its own clips.
>
>And does the 160rpm apply to four guns (individual firing cycle of about 40
>rpm) or does each barrel fire at 160rpm (total firing cycle of 640rpm).
Each gun managed 160rpm, total rate of fire for the quad mount 640rpm.
The barrels were water cooled.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Ken & Laura Chaddock
Kennedy How wrote:
>
> Pete wrote:
>
> > How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded?
>
> clips into it.
>
> > it's on clip.
>
> well (at least I THINK it looks that way in the pics of the quads
> shooting at the Kamikazis). The quad mount is 4 singles mounted
> together, though I don't know the firing sequence, don't believe all
> four fire together.
Each gun does have it's own loader, the two inner loaders standing
back to back facing their opposite numbers outboard. The gun consisted
of two twin 40mm Mk1 gun mounts installed on the same turntable. Since
each of the twins could be independently elevated, there was a special
linkage to interlock their elevation.
The Mk1 twin mount consisted of one Mk1 Gun (left hand) and one MK2
Gun (right hand) forming a single elevating mass in a single cradle.
The first Quad mount was installed in the USS Wyoming on 22 June 1942
and was intended to replace the quad 1.1 inch however it was soon also
replacing the Mk1 twin mounts on any ships large enough to carry it.
> > And does the 160rpm apply to four guns (individual firing cycle of about 40
> > rpm) or does each barrel fire at 160rpm (total firing cycle of 640rpm).
> By watching the wartime footage, they could be conceivably firing at the
> 2.5 rnds/sec to get the 160rpm.
The firing rate was 120 rds per minute per gun, exactly the same rate
for all Bofors L60 guns prior to the RETROTECH upgrades developed during
the 1960's
The book "THE 40mm BOFORS GUN" by Terry Gander (authorized by Bofors)
is still in print and available and gives a good history of the Bofors
40mm guns right up to the current 40mm L70s and Trinity.
...Ken
Rcheung
The quad mount fires 4 X 160 rpm and each gun is loaded individually.
There is a small magazine holding 3(?) clips (can't remember, can look up)
- the idea is to have them stuffed before firing and keep them topped up
while the guns are going.
What you need is a whole gang of clip passers and "magazine stuffers"
(loaders) (- or one very intelligent giant octopus). There are ready
reserve racks all around the gun tub from whence the clips are passed by
hand to the loaders on the mount for placing on to the guns' magazines.
Must have been quite a "rat race" when the mounts were training to track a
crossing target. Bend down to retrieve a clip - look up and the loader
you were passing to is at the other end of the tub- worse still, the
barrels are firing over your head!
I've heard the story of a night torpedo attack by Japanes G4M bombers
(Betty's). A quad mount gun captain had the embarrassing situation of the
loaders fleeing for the other side of the carrier when a Betty came right
at them. The magazines were full and the gun captain stayed at his
position firing the guns and helped to bring the Betty down. Afterwards,
the whole crew was kept "after class" for a king-sized chewing out and
extra loading drills!
JCarew7377
Paul Adam wrote
(speaking of the 40MM Bofers Gun)
>The barrel were water cooled
Are you sure about that? This is going back 50 years, I was a "1st loader"
on a Twin 40MM in WW II, and as I recall there were no "water cooled"
barrels they were air cooled. The barrels as I recalled had some hydraulic
lines attached to them(cant remember why) Maybe I got it wrong?
Jim
Jim Carew
Paul J. Adam
In article <19970626212...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, JCarew7377
<jcare...@aol.com> writes
You were there, I just looked at the schematics in Friedman's "US Naval
Weapons". I'd suggest those "hydraulic lines" were the coolant feed and
return: on the drawings, the coolant hoses are attached on a cagelike
affair between the trunnions and the recoil springs. Sound right?
The twin and quad 40mm mounts shown in there have water jackets around
the barrels. Doesn't mean they all did, doesn't even mean most did, but
at 120rpm for any length of time I'd suggest it might be a good idea if
you had the water available.
JCarew7377
Paul J. Adam wrote:
>I,d suggest those "hydraulic lines" were coolent feed<snip> Sound right?<
Sounds right to me. I stand corrected. I never did like the job of "1st
loader" no protection. 2nd loader had the best job he had the gun mount
for protection
Jim Carew
JCarew7377
I was a "1st loader" on a twin mount 40MM Bofers, and one of the problems
you had was that you had to stand up on top with no protection at all
before God and the enemy and had load each clip in without being able to
look up and see if a Japanese Plane was coming at you. You felt all a lone
and lonely for some kind of protection, no matter what kind. Sorta like
how did I get my self in this mess and would anyone like to take my place
for free. Or you take my place Im a coward I want to go home now. Try it
sometime and you will know what I mean.
Jim Carew
A R BREEN
In article <DKkCvuAt...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,
Paul J. Adam <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <01bc7e89$5b450300$0ddad5cf@newmannz>, Pete
><newm...@ihug.co.nz> writes
>>Hi,
>
>>
>>I know that they're loaded manually from 4 shell clips, but with four
>>barrels, and firing speed of 160rounds per minute, Wouldn't it be quite
>>difficult for the loaders to load quick enough to catch up with the firing?
>
>Yep. You'd have at least one loader per gun just stuffing clips in the
>gun, more men bucket-brigading ammunition up to the mount: these weapons
>were quite crew-intensive simply to keep them fed. ISTR a total crew of
>around a dozen for a quad 40mm.
>>rpm) or does each barrel fire at 160rpm (total firing cycle of 640rpm).
>The barrels were water cooled.
This, of course, goes a long way towards explaining the rapid demise
of the sextuple bofors mounting post-WW2 - the ammunition flow
problems would have been substantially greater for the latter mounting
(shades, perhaps, of the unsuccessful triple-4" mount in Repluse/
Renown in WW1..).
The older quad- or -octuple Vickers AA pieces (the 4-barreled or
eight-barrelled pom-pom - the chicago piano) didn't suffer the
ammunition feed problems of the bofors mounts, being fed by metal
disintigrating belts. The muzzle velocity and effective range of
these guns were lower than for the corresponding bofors mountings,
hence their replacement. The eight-barrelled pom-pom put out
120rpm/barrel - close on 1000rpm/mounting. All barrels water-
cooled, of course.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane mittam (For non-latiners: "I have a catapult. Give me all the
money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head."(Michael Hinz)
Andy Breen, Solar Physics Group, Aberystwyth, a...@aber.ac.uk
Paul J. Adam
In article <19970626222...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, JCarew7377
<jcare...@aol.com> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
>>I,d suggest those "hydraulic lines" were coolent feed<snip> Sound right?<
>
>Sounds right to me. I stand corrected.
I had leisure to sit studying the schematic, I'd hazard you had other
things on your mind when you were there :)
>I never did like the job of "1st
>loader" no protection. 2nd loader had the best job he had the gun mount
>for protection
Still sounds horribly exposed to me. Shrapnel and fuel fires could wash
right over the mount: anyone not killed outright might well wish they
had been. No place to dig a trench with overhead cover, nowhere to run
to, all you can do is stand fast and keep loading the gun. At least when
I was playing infantryman, we could scatter and take cover under attack.
You're a brave man, and you have my respect.
JCarew7377
Rcheung wrote:
>There is a small magazine holding 3(?) clips<
You may be right on the number of clips its so long ago, I can,t remember.
Since I started posting to this on this thing Iv been trying remember what
happened to the "clips" themselves. The shell case,s used to come out a
chute under the gun, as I remember. I think the "clip" its self came out a
chute to. One thing I do know, speaking of servicing one gun, those thing
sure "ate" ammo. If you did not keep your head down and concentrate on
feeding that magazine it "ran dry" real quick. We had a Gunners Mate 3rd
in charge of the gun tub, and you got chewed out royol if you did. Any how
does any one know what happened to the "clips" after the shells were
fired? Sorta of dumb thing to ask I know but its one of those things that
sticks in your head and you got me started on this thing
Jim Carew
Rcheung
Re: Where clips went
I believe they they went out the chutes to join the clutter in the tubs.
Ever have people slipping on the casings?
Sure great to have someone "who was there" telling us how it really was!
Guess I never thought about how exposed the first loaders were in action -
unsung heroes - you have my respects!
Isn't it true that you cannot push down on the clips or you'll jam the
gun?
William H. Wright
John Lansford wrote:
> >barrels, and firing speed of 160rounds per minute, Wouldn't it be quite
> >difficult for the loaders to load quick enough to catch up with the firing?
>
> them were involved in keeping shells coming to the guns. From the film
> I've seen of them firing, there were two men, one to a side who did
> nothing but put clips into the guns from the top. While the guns were
> firing they put those clips in continuously. Other men were keeping a
> chain of clips coming to them, while two men sat in the seats and
> aimed and fired the guns.
>
>
> John Lansford
The Quad 40 had a crew of eleven: pointer, trainer, gun captain, and
eight loaders. This does not include the ammo passers. When the gun was
under automatic control by the director, the crew did not point or
shoot. They just kept the beast fed.
--
William H. Wright
Systems Analyst
Email William...@PSS.Boeing.com
RoundTower
Jim Carew fingered:
>> I was a "1st loader" on a twin mount 40MM Bofers, and one of the
problems
you had was that you had to stand up on top with no protection at all
before God and the enemy and had load each clip in without being able to
look up and see if a Japanese Plane was coming at you. You felt all a lone
and lonely for some kind of protection, no matter what kind. Sorta like
how did I get my self in this mess and would anyone like to take my place
for free. Or you take my place Im a coward I want to go home now.<<
I recall a story - possibly apocryphal - of such a loader on board a
carrier during the Okinawa campaign. At one point, he stood up, announced
something like "That's It!" - and jumped overboard, never to be seen
again.
RT
"I speak for myself, only for myself, and for no one but myself."
JCarew7377
Rcheung wrote:
>Ever have people slipping on casing<
As I recall the only one,s on the deck of the Guntub were the two 2nd
loaders(twin Bofers) and the Gunners Mate who was to supposed to jump in
if we had a real problem that needed fixing(bad jam), he was really in
charge as I recall. To my point when there was a lull they through most
the shell casings over the side, as far as I can remember it was not that
big of a problem.
>Isnt it true that you cannot push down on the clips or you,ll jam the
gun?<
As I recall yes! You tried to kinda lay the 4 round clip on top of the
preceding clip, which was being "ate up" by the auto firing of the gun. As
I recall you wanted to do it as smoothly as possible so there would be
know break in the automatic fire. You had to as I recall smoothly to put
it on top of the preciding clip and than let go fast because once the clip
was in the magazene it disappeared fast. In fact it felt like it was
jerked right out of your hand if you did not let go fast enough. Yesterday
someone mentioned that you could put 3 clips in the magazine and I said I
thought he was right. The more I think about it the more I think you could
only put 2 clips in the mag. Three clips in the magazine is 12 shells, and
as I recall they were not the big? I may be wrong on this. The thing as I
remember is that when the gun was firing you tried to set up a rythm
between you and the 2nd loader so the amo was loaded smoothly into the
magazine. Iv been trying to think of the types of shells in the 4 round
clips, as I recall they were 1 armour preacing 1 tracer, 1 he and 1 ball,
not sure of the last. I also question 160 rounds per min, thats 40 clips a
min you would have to load, that seems like a lot of clips. I never timed
it
Jim Carew
Per Nordenberg
Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> skrev i inlägg
<33B1F3...@istar.ca>...
> The book "THE 40mm BOFORS GUN" by Terry Gander (authorized by Bofors)
> is still in print and available and gives a good history of the Bofors
> 40mm guns right up to the current 40mm L70s and Trinity.
Ken, do you know the ISBN number for this book or where I can find one?
Regards,
Per
Phillips, III, J.A.
PN-
Bofors (Military Ordnance company in Sweden): Bofors ; Sweden:
Bofors, No Date(about 1958). 1st Ed.,
VG-/Good, 4to Cloth Cover w/DJ 120 pgs DJ chipped head/foot of spine &
at top front edge & shelfwear at foot of
book spine, o.w. clean & tight., Many COLOR & B/W Photos Offered for
sale by Edward Conroy, Bookseller at
US$32.50
Chamberlain, Peter & Gander, Terry: Heavy Artillery ; Arco NY
1975 64 pgs., Softcover, Part of WW2 Factfile
Series, VG Offered for sale by The Antique Book Worm at US$10.00
--via http://www.bibliofind.com
2 items are shown below.
The 40mm Bofors gun
Terry Gander / Unknown Binding
(Hard to Find)
The 40Mm Bofors Gun
Terry J. Gander / Hardcover / Published 1991
(Hard to Find)
The 40Mm Bofors Gun
by Terry J. Gander
Published by Haynes Pubns
Publication date: January 1991
ISBN: 1852603879
Availability: This title is out of print, but if you
place an order we may be able to find you a used copy
within 2-6 months.
--via http://www.amazon.com
73s,
JP
--
Tell Tale News | http://pw2.netcom.com/~whstlpnk/telltale.html
Northern Pacific | http://pw2.netcom.com/~whstlpnk/np.html
Historical Assoc. | http://www.employees.org/~davison/nprha/nprha.html
scha...@notis.nospam*.com
In Article Re: How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded , JCarew7377 <jcare...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Adam wrote
>
> (speaking of the 40MM Bofers Gun)
>
> >The barrel were water cooled
>
> Are you sure about that? This is going back 50 years, I was a "1st loader"
> on a Twin 40MM in WW II, and as I recall there were no "water cooled"
> barrels they were air cooled. The barrels as I recalled had some hydraulic
> lines attached to them(cant remember why) Maybe I got it wrong?
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Carew
There was an "army" version of the 40mm used by the USN, which was aircooled.
This was the single barrel mount for PTs DE etc. So that may explain the
confusion (that and time). The multibarreled mounts were trained by hand or
electric motors.
Ben
scha...@notis.nospam.comm
Kennedy How
JCarew7377 wrote:
> Yesterday someone mentioned that you could put 3 clips in the magazine and I said I
> thought he was right. The more I think about it the more I think you could
> only put 2 clips in the mag. Three clips in the magazine is 12 shells, and
> as I recall they were not the big? I may be wrong on this.
From looking at pictures and the same repetitive footage on the
documentaries (!), maybe it's 2 1/2 clips, the third one being partially
loaded and guided in until the full length is in the guide, whereupon
you put the next clip in?
Kennedy
JCarew7377
Kennedy How wrote:
>From looking at pictures and the same repetive footage on the
documentaries (!) may be its 2 1/2 clips<snip>
Ok I think I know were our difference may be. What I was talking
about(twin 40,s) was when the gun was getting ready the fire. Your talking
about when the gun is firing. Big Difference!! As I recall when you were
getting ready to fire the Bofors you put 1 clip in and "throw" a cocking
lever on the side which drops a shell into the breach and leaves 3 shells
in the clip, then you can but another clip into the guide. What I think
you talking about is when your firing automatic. When your firing auto the
Bofors really "eats" amo, by the time you but a clip in and turn and pick
up another clip from the second loader the thing is half gone and so on,
so it may be that what you saw looked like the 1st loader was loading in
three clips in to the guide, because by the time he loaded the 3rd clip
the 1 st clip was gone. You have to load 40MM clips using two hands, we
always said that the best 1st loader would be that some one who could load
clips one in each hand, which would be hard to do, they "ate" amo that
fast. Maybe that clarify,s it I hope. As I recall when the Bofors was
loaded and ready the fire it was said to be "in battery" at least thats
what our Gunners Mate said, it sounded good anyway.
Jim Carew
Thomas Buell
Kennedy How (howl...@tir.com) wrote:
: JCarew7377 wrote:
:
: > Yesterday someone mentioned that you could put 3 clips in the magazine and I said I
: > thought he was right. The more I think about it the more I think you could
: > only put 2 clips in the mag. Three clips in the magazine is 12 shells, and
: > as I recall they were not the big? I may be wrong on this.
: From looking at pictures and the same repetitive footage on the
: documentaries (!), maybe it's 2 1/2 clips, the third one being partially
: loaded and guided in until the full length is in the guide, whereupon
Our boat had a single 40mm Bofors approx. 1960 vintage. The loader
told me the same: The third clip had to be guided until the
first rounds were fired. But I do not know whether the loading
mechanism was still the same as in WW2.
Jim, I remember our gun could perform sudden and rapid motions,
especially while director controlled. With your liquid cooled
guns, could you keep on loading/autofiring while the gun was trained?
I guess passing heavy clips to a roating multi-barreled mount or inserting
them into the magazine while the elevation changes wouldn't be fun.
Thomas
Kennedy How
JCarew7377 wrote:
> Ok I think I know were our difference may be. What I was talking
> about(twin 40,s) was when the gun was getting ready the fire. Your talking
> about when the gun is firing. Big Difference!! As I recall when you were
> getting ready to fire the Bofors you put 1 clip in and "throw" a cocking
> lever on the side which drops a shell into the breach and leaves 3 shells
> in the clip, then you can but another clip into the guide. What I think
> you talking about is when your firing automatic. When your firing auto the
> Bofors really "eats" amo, by the time you but a clip in and turn and pick
> up another clip from the second loader the thing is half gone and so on,
> so it may be that what you saw looked like the 1st loader was loading in
> three clips in to the guide, because by the time he loaded the 3rd clip
> the 1 st clip was gone.
Yes, I was referring to the continuous firing to splash the incoming
Bogie. Based on the rate of fire, I can see why you say it eats ammo.
> You have to load 40MM clips using two hands, we
> always said that the best 1st loader would be that some one who could load
> clips one in each hand, which would be hard to do, they "ate" amo that
> fast.
I've never seen anybody load a Bofors one-handed, in fact, it always
seemed that the loader was pushing down on the top clip until it fed
some into the guides before grabbing another clip.
OK, a different question. How much does one clip weigh, and could the
ammo passer hold on to more than one clip at a time, i.e., 2 or 3 piled
onto his arms? Is this even a good idea?
This is a great thread, BTW.
Kennedy
JCarew7377
Kennedy How wrote:
>I remember our gun could perform sudden and rapid motions, especially
while director controlled<
Ours was the same way it felt like you were robot controlled, you never
knew when you would be jerked this way or that, when you were on manual
you got a much smoother ride.
>With your liquid cooled guns, could you keep on loading/autofiring while
the gun was trained?<
As I recall yes you had to! If you stopped firing while the gun was
training you would miss a chance to bring your target down i.e. A target
coming across in front of you you had to lead and follow the target, just
like bird hunting. As I recall one of the trainers had foot peddle when he
thought he had a "good" shot he pushed the peddle down for each shot, or
held it down for automatic fire, this of course is when we were on manual
fire, not when you were director controlled. It was something like duck
hunting with an automatic shot gun, only bigger ducks, and you had a guy
inserting shells into your gun so you never had to worry about running out
of ammo. In training I always thought the trainers had a lot of fun, the
rest of us were just glorified gunbearers.
With regards to the elevation changes of the gun your right it was just
something you had to get use to.
Jim Carew
JCarew7377
Kennedy How wrote:
>I've never seen anybody load a Bofers one-handed, in fact, it always
seemed that the loader was pusing down on the top clip until it fed some
into the guides before grabbing another clip<
I was being a little fesious(sp) when I said that, I agree I dont think it
can be done, we used to talk about during a lull, as a faster way to put
out more fire, but it was just talk.. As to the loader pushing down on the
top clip until it fed into the guides, it my understanding that, thats a
no, no, you could cause a jam. As I remember when you were loading a
Bofers, you grabbed the back of the clip with one hand and the bottom of
shell of the clip with your other hand and then but it over the guide
inserting the part of the clip that was not covered by your hand and let
go quickly, and the guides would do the rest, kinda like laying concrete
blocks. Now it seems to me there was another method also, you could grab
the 1st shell in the clip with both hand and let the rest dangle, and them
pop the clip in the guides and let go, as I remember if you did not let go
fast enough the gun pulled the clip right out of your hand. As I remember
you can do it both ways but the 1st way is the safest.
As to how much did one clip weigh, to honest about it I cant remember Im
sure they told us in the training class. I,ll guess about 10 lb or 15
lb??. As I remember an ammo passer, the 2nd loader if the 1st loader got
it he was supposed to take his place, would only pass one clip at a time,
and only carried one clip at a time. The reason for this was that between
the 1st and 2nd you wanted to setup a rythem when the gun was firing
especialy when on auto so the more clips he had in his hand the harder it
would be to keep up with the 1st loader and visa a versa. It might work if
someone would figure out the logistics of it. As far as I know no one ever
did
Glad you like the thread hope it helps. If someone had told me 55 years
ago approx I would discussing the 40MM Bofers I would have told them they
were crazy. I understand its still in use so it must be a good gun.
Jim Carew
JCarew7377
Thomas Buell wrote:
>Our boat had a single 40MM Bofers approx. 1960 vintage. <snip> But I do
not know whether the loading mechanism was still the same as in WW2<
I would imagine they would be pretty much the same. I saw some pictures of
the inside of a C130 Gunship and they have a 40MM Bofers single mount in
them, last year I think it was. To my point it looked the same as the WW2
model. Actually as I recall it was about 4 inches high in the back and
sloped down as you went forward which made it easy for your right hand to
drop the clip into the breach.
As to this liquid cooled thing Iv thinking about that. I saw part of an
old WW2 movie to day on TV and they showed a 40 MM twin mount Bofers in a
couple of scenes. I dont know if you have seen any of the Army,s old water
cooled heavy from WW2, but the cooling jacket goes all the way up to the
end of the barrel. To my point I think the barrel of the Bofers was only
partialy water cooled. The water jacket only went about a third of the way
up the barrel. Correct me if Im wrong on this.
When I get a chance Im going to take a look at a real live twin mount 44MM
Bofers. I leave near Los Angeles Harbor and some Merchant Marine WW2 Vets
have restored a old WW2 Victory Ship as a Marine Museum and they have a
Twine Mount Bofers, along with a 20MM, a 3" 50cal and 5" 38cal all from
WW2. So maybe the wife and I will have lunch next week at the harbor so I
can brush up on my gunnery. BTW this is a working Victory ship, they have
cruses out into the Catalina channel with fake air raids by one of the
local air museums WW2 planes etc: Iv never been on one but I hear there
quite a show.
Jim Carew
JCarew7377
Ooops my last post
>I dont know if you have seen any of the Army,s old water cooled
heavy(put in Machine Guns) from WW2.
Jim Carew
Thomas Buell
JCarew7377 (jcare...@aol.com) wrote:
<snip>
: As I recall one of the trainers had foot peddle when he
: thought he had a "good" shot he pushed the peddle down for each shot, or
: held it down for automatic fire, this of course is when we were on manual
: fire, not when you were director controlled.
IIRC this was the one on the left seat in our single mount. For powered
training in local control he had something that looked like a cross-breed
of aircraft controls and a barhandle as used on triathlon bikes:
There were cradles on both sides to rest the elbows on and in between an
inverted-V-shaped handle (for the elevation?) to hold in the hands.
For full manual control both trainers had to unfold cranks.
Was this the same in WW2? This would be quite funny because
the new German minehunters are - at least temporarily - equipped
with guns obviously taken from the old boats.
: It was something like duck
: hunting with an automatic shot gun, only bigger ducks, and you had a guy
: inserting shells into your gun so you never had to worry about running out
: of ammo. In training I always thought the trainers had a lot of fun, the
: rest of us were just glorified gunbearers.
What happened to the 2nd loader and the ammo passers if there was e.g.
a fast fly by and the gun swung around to the opposite direction.
Had they to jump for cover to avoid being swept away by the barrels
or standing in front of the muzzles?
I remember there was a red circle painted on the deck around the gun.
Nobody was allowed inside when the gun was moving. But then there were
racks for the ready ammunition in the back of the mount, so there
would be no need to pass clips to the gun during an engagement.
The clips could be inserted into the racks form the outside of the mount
and pulled out to the inside.
regards
Thomas
Kennedy How
JCarew7377 wrote:
> As to the loader pushing down on the
> top clip until it fed into the guides, it my understanding that, thats a
> no, no, you could cause a jam.
OK. It just LOOKED like they were pressing down on it.
> Glad you like the thread hope it helps. If someone had told me 55 years
> ago approx I would discussing the 40MM Bofers I would have told them they
> were crazy. I understand its still in use so it must be a good gun.
Especially if you mentioned "Internet"! :)
Kennedy
Kennedy How
Thomas Buell wrote:
> IIRC this was the one on the left seat in our single mount.
Hmmm. I was watching Earth vs the Flying Saucers (!) the other night on
the Sci-Fi channel, and they had a dual 40mm on a truckbed firing. I
noticed the gunner was on the right, I say that because I saw his feet
rocking forward alternately to fire each gun.
(Never did see how the loaders were doing!)
Kennedy
Rcheung
>Subject: Re: How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded
>From: Thomas...@heim1.tu-clausthal.de (Thomas Buell)
>Date: 3 Jul 1997 07:44:24 GMT
>Message-ID: <8679158...@theke.heim2.tu-clausthal.de>
>JCarew7377 (jcare...@aol.com) wrote:
><snip>
>: As I recall one of the trainers had foot peddle when he
>: thought he had a "good" shot he pushed the peddle down for each shot,
or
>: held it down for automatic fire, this of course is when we were on
manual
>: fire, not when you were director controlled.
>IIRC this was the one on the left seat in our single mount. For powered
>training in local control he had something that looked like a cross-breed
>of aircraft controls and a barhandle as used on triathlon bikes:
>There were cradles on both sides to rest the elbows on and in between an
>inverted-V-shaped handle (for the elevation?) to hold in the hands.
>For full manual control both trainers had to unfold cranks.
>Was this the same in WW2? This would be quite funny because
>the new German minehunters are - at least temporarily - equipped
>with guns obviously taken from the old boats.
The German minehunters have the later 70 caliber (L70) Bofors developed
after WWII. The U.S. pattern L60 did not have the folding cranks.
Instead, they have big round "wheel" shaped cranks. As I recall, none of
the twin mounts had provisions for local powered gun pointing. They had
to be controlled by the director (eg. Mk-51) for powered gun pointing.
The quad mounts did, however, have local controls for powered pointing.
There is also a more recent USN 40mm L60 powered single mount (mod.9 of
some Mk I cannot remember). These were replaced by the manual / free
swinging Mk88 25mm Chain guns on the PBR not so long ago. The powered
single mount was stabilized for more accurate shooting from a small boat.
There was also a huge drum magazine that fits over the gun. This,
however, was not popular as it obscured the view from the pilot house.
JCarew7377
Thomas Buell wrote:
>What happened to the 2nd loader and the ammo passers if there was e.g. a
fast fly by and the gun swung around to the opposite direction<snip>
A little clarification here as to type of ship I was on, we were a
destoryer repair ship built on a Merchant Ship, C3 Hull, approx 20,000
fully loaded. We had two 5' 38 AA guns 1 forward 1 aft., 4 Twin Mount 40MM
Bofers, 2 fwd, 2 aft, on starboard and port side, more 20MM then I could
count. My gun station was the portside, fwd 40MM Our field of fire was
only 180 degrees Portside, if we had been able to fire 360 degrees we
would have taken out the bridge, a bunch of workboats we had stored an
deck and the fwd 5 inch. As you can problely figure out we were way over
gunned for the type of work we were supposed to do. In those days the big
worry was the "Kamakizie,s(sp) and the idea was that we were supposed to
get as close to the destoryers on picket duty as we could and helped the
damaged, I never liked the idea personally, but such is the fortunen,s of
war.
>I rember there was a red circle painted on the deck around the gun.<
We had somthing simular to. As I remember we had racks for the ready ammo
on the inside of the guntub, plus we kept the magazine,s loaded with at
least one clip, but without a shell in the breach with a metal cover over
the guides, so all we had to do is strip of the breach cvr, throw the
cocking lever and we were ready as long as the whole gun crew was there.
In as much as we only had a field of fire of only 180 degrees and the
guntub was pretty big the 2nd loaders did not have much of a problem
following the rear of the gun, actually me, when the gun moved, as you
might think. Also we had a Gunners mate 3rd who was supposed to jump in if
we got into trouble with the gun(bad jam) who was in the back of the
guntub out of the way of the second loaders. Our tubs were pretty big
Jim Carew
JCarew7377
Rcheung wrote:
>As I recall, none of the twin mounts had provisions for local powered gun
pointing. They had to be controlled by the director(eg. MK-51) for powered
gun pointing<
Your right; we were either powered, "manual" as we called it or the
"director" which used an electric power source tied into radar some how,
as I remember. You might remember that in the 40,s a lot of things that
people take for granted in that area were never heard of so when the
"director" took over we did not fully understand what was going on. To be
honest about it I never new until now that the "director" was called a
MK-51. Thanks for the info :)
Jim Carew
JCarew7377
Thomas Buell wrote:
>For powered training in local control he had something that looked like a
cross-breed of aircraft controls and a barhandle<snip><
We never had "powered training in local control" the only power training
we had was by director orther that that we had manual control. Our "manual
control" were the 2 trainers turning wheels that controled elavation and
transverse(side to side) movement.
>But then there were racks for the ready ammunition on the back of the
mount, so there would be no need to pass clips to gun during an
engagement.<
Our mount was two feet off the deck with an open back, in fact all it was
steel tubing to keep you from falling off the back when the mount was in
action.
Our guntube was big enough that in hot weather some us would take our
mattress at night and sneak up on deck and sleep in the guntub, which was
frowned upon. They were afraid that when they sounded general quarters
they would a mess trying to get to your general quarters stations, and
they were right, but it was cooler there. What can I say
Jim Carew
Rcheung
>Subject: Re: How are Quad 40mm Bofors loaded
>Date: 3 Jul 1997 19:41:40 GMT
>Message-ID: <19970703194...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
JCarew wrote:
>>RCheung wrote:
The Mk-51 was the most frequently used fire control director for the 40mm
Bofors on USN ships. It was designed by Dr. John Draper's group at MIT.
The Bofors mount was "slaved" to the Mk-51 for elevation and train via
servos. The director itself was manually controlled by handle-bars.
A Mk-14 gyro gun sight on the director estimated the forward allowance
needed for the guns to "lead" the target. Rate gyros powered by
compressed air sensed the rate at which the sight was turning (in the
horizontal as well as vertical) while the operator is tracking the target.
A sighting reticle is displaced from the center of the sight in
proportion to the amount needed to "lead" the target. The operator simply
keeps the reticle (rather than the center of the sight) on the target and
depress the trigger on the right handle bar to fire the guns.
Theoretically, the slaved Bofors mount would be firing with sufficient
lead for the shells to be on target. This type of sight (also used on
aircraft and 20mm Oerlikon guns) uses the "disturbed line of sight"
operating format.
Since the Bofors would be firing at pretty close range, target range is
not inputted - the Mk-14/Mk-51 analog computer assumes the range to be
fixed within the typical engagement range of the guns. Later systems like
the Mk-52, Mk-57 and Mk-63 have radars to provide a range and range-rate
inputs to generate even more precise fire control solutions. With the
"lead" calculation taking "super elevation" into account, these systems
can engage distant targets more accurately. Some even have "blind fire"
capabilities for night engagements.
Dr. Merle Tuve's group (which also designed the proximity fuze) developed
the Mk-57 radar fire control director for the Bofors. Their system used
the "fixed line of sight" where the rate gyros generated "lead" angle is
fed directly into the gun drives. As a result, the guns will train and
elevate with the proper lead while the operator kept the center of the
sight on the target, a small ranging radar provides target range.
Geez, sorry to carry on like this ... consequences of a misspent youth
studying USN GFCS development!
Ken Young
In article <19970702193...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jcare...@aol.com (JCarew7377) wrote:
> Glad you like the thread hope it helps. If someone had told me 55 years
> ago approx I would discussing the 40MM Bofers I would have told them the
> y
> were crazy. I understand its still in use so it must be a good gun.
>
>
Judging by all accounts it was the best close range weapon available in
WW2. Britain, USA, and Germany all used it and Japan started production
(based on a captured model).
By the way just looked up the data for the British gun. Rate of fire is
given as 120 rpm with 140 to 150 possible for a horizontal gun. The feed
mechanism took two clips though it was possible to have two loose rounds
between the clips for a total of ten. Usual ammo was HE tracer.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
With Capitalism; man exploits man
With Socialism; the reverse occurs
Merlin Dorfman
Rcheung (rch...@aol.com) wrote:
: The Mk-51 was the most frequently used fire control director for the 40mm
: Bofors on USN ships. It was designed by Dr. John Draper's group at MIT.
Charles Stark Draper, for whom the Draper Labs are named.
By the way, this has been a really outstanding thread. Can we find
a volunteer to archive it on a web site?
Merlin Dorfman
DOR...@NETCOM.COM
Thomas Buell
JCarew7377 (jcare...@aol.com) wrote:
<snip>
: As to this liquid cooled thing Iv thinking about that. I saw part of an
: old WW2 movie to day on TV and they showed a 40 MM twin mount Bofers in a
: cooled heavy from WW2, but the cooling jacket goes all the way up to the
: end of the barrel. To my point I think the barrel of the Bofers was only
: partialy water cooled. The water jacket only went about a third of the way
: up the barrel.
They showed "The Enemy Below" on TV, again. From what I know it doesn't have
much to do with the reality of submarine war. But there was something
in the background that looked like a quad 40mm Bofors. It looked as though
the water jacket covered the whole barrel and ended just below the flash
disperser (term?).
But I was a stoker, not a gunner. And there were no water cooled 40mm guns
in service during my time. Instead there was a small hose that was
connected to the fire main. And there always was a case with a spare
barrel mounted somewhere near a Bofors gun.
Can anybody enlighten me as to the philosophy behind full or partial
water cooling and this somewhat strange air and spray cooling?
Thomas
Thomas Buell
JCarew7377 (jcare...@aol.com) wrote:
: A little clarification here as to type of ship I was on, we were a
: destoryer repair ship built on a Merchant Ship, C3 Hull, approx 20,000
: In those days the big
: worry was the "Kamakizie,s(sp) and the idea was that we were supposed to
: get as close to the destoryers on picket duty as we could and helped the
: damaged, I never liked the idea personally, but such is the fortunen,s of
: war.
Jim,
as others have already pionted out, this has become a most interesting thread,
centring around what the 16"-crowd would probably consider the Volkswagen
among the guns.
What you have mentioned about your ship made me quite curious: Would you like
to tell us a little more about your time on that ship in a new thread?
I think that would make a nice contrast to those endless
Iowa-vs-<insert favourite hurra-steamer>-talks.
regards
Thomas
jlos...@comp.uark.edu
Hi guys,
Well let me tell you a story. A friend of mine and I were in
Anderson Indiana visiting the Anderson Tank Musem. Now my friend is a big
big land war buff and he loves this place because all of the toy I mean
vechicals in the place run. (Lots of neet stuff you should visit if you
are ever in Central Indiana) Anyway after we got done running around
inside there was a Quad 40 outside. I asked the people running the place
if they knew what ship it was from, they did not. Well I pretty much knew
that a mount that size must come from a BB or a CV. I got to go out and
crawl around on it and found a rusted tag that said "BB-63 U.S.S.
Missori". There were also stencled markings indicating that it came from
Long Beach.
Here is the question: can I determine which quad 40 mount this was
and how would I go about doing so? (Assuming that the mount actually came
off of the Missori) Thanks in advance.
Jon
JCarew7377
RCheung wrote:
(with regards to the MK-51 fire control director)
>As a result, the guns will train and elevate with proper lead while the
operator kept the center of the sight on the target, a small ranging radar
provides target range<
I think the MK-51 Director they used for our gun was between us and
starboard side Twin 40MM Bofers and aft of the 5' 38, in a deck house that
had a small radar dish on top of it. If a Mk-51 can control more than one
gun using one radar dish, that sounds like what your talking about. Any
way thanks for the info, I always wondered what the "director" was all
about as we called him. I still didnt like it when we went on "director"
control it was weird :)
As I remember when we went under control of the MK-51 director the person
who used the "foot peddle" to fire the gun had to depress the peddle like
we were firing under "manual" so that if something happened he could stop
the gun from firing, by letting off on the peddle, in other words the gun
crew could regain control if need be. I can,t remember weither it was the
one who trained or elevated the gun?
Jim
JCarew7377
Thomas Buell wrote:
(With regards to the water jacket on a 40 MM Bofors)
>Can anybody enlighten me as to the philosophy behind full and partial
water cooling and this somewhat strange air and spray cooling<
Im just as confused as you are, originaly I thought it had to do with some
kind of hydraulic system for the gun but somebody checked the drawings and
posted that they had to do with water cooling. If I can some Merchant
Marine Vets have rebuilt a WWII Victory ship and have set up a Marine
Museum down in Los Angeles with 5' 38cal, 3' , 20mm, and a 40MM twin
Bofors on desplay. If I can I,ll take a run down to LA Harbor and take a
look, and report back sometime this week
Jim
Ken Young
In article <86821134...@theke.heim2.tu-clausthal.de>,
Thomas...@heim1.tu-clausthal.de (Thomas Buell) wrote:
> Can anybody enlighten me as to the philosophy behind full or partial
> water cooling and this somewhat strange air and spray cooling?
The drawings I have indicate a full length cooling jacket. The first
Bofors were air cooled singles adapted from army models. The only problem
was that of sustained fire. Not really a severe problem for the Army as
attacks were usually short and there was time for barrel changes. Water
cooled guns solved the sustained fire problem but carried a hefty weight
penalty. On smaller ships air cooled guns had to be used because of weight
penalties.
Peter H. Granzeau
On 3 Jul 1997 23:03:03 GMT, jcare...@aol.com (JCarew7377) wrote:
>We never had "powered training in local control" the only power training
>we had was by director orther that that we had manual control. Our "manual
>control" were the 2 trainers turning wheels that controled elavation and
>transverse(side to side) movement.
One was the trainer (probably the one on the left); the other was the
pointer. The pointer also controlled the firing when in local
control, I believe.
leonard brodt
a425couple
> Jon, I was first loader on quad 14 barrel #3 on USS Missouri @ Iwo Jima and Okinawa and beyond missions and there were 20 40mm quads on the Mo and so it could be any one of those and they removed all of the 40mm quads and now the Mo is a skeleton.! I am 94 years old now and I wonder if you are still around.? and can you still read this comment.???
>
Here is a video of a ceremonial firing.
Battleship New Jersey Quad 40 Firing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ibSkcnbfJk
And this also show a fair amount of archives of 40mm firing
Naval 40 mm guns and 5 inches battery fired from USS Philippine Sea
(CV-47) in Ko...HD Stock Footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmKWje1q8xQ