During February 2013, on a visit to the Marine Corp Recruit Depot [MCRD] Museum in San Diego, I noticed an outside display improperly marked gun.

I brought this to the attention of the Museum Director and about a month ago I received [edited response] the following email.

Also, Glen Williford worked on identifying it and he can not.

- - - - -

TO: Charles Bugajsky

FROM: Ellen Guillemette, Historian Command Museum MCRD, San Diego

Mrs. McCurtis, the museum director, passed on your contact information as well as your take on the gun that was identified as a Japanese 75mm Type 38 M1905 Gun.

For the past 18 months I have been looking into the correct identity of that gun myself, because the one thing it is not is what it has been identified as being.

When we installed different photographs in our early days exhibit, one of the photographs depicted a gun that looked identical to the one we are referring to, located to the right of an octagonal guard shack in front of Gate 3, which used to be the main gate. That photograph was taken in the late 1920s.

In 1924, Gen Joseph Pendleton, USMC, the first commanding general of this base, requested that a 3-inch gun, captured by the Marines at Coyotepe, Nicaragua, 1912, be relocated permanently from the Marine Barracks at the Philadelphia Navy Yard to Marine Corps Base at San Diego. In his personal papers, from May and June 1924, there is a letter making this request and copies of 9 endorsements okaying and facilitating this transaction. In these endorsements, there is mentioned the name of the ship which transported the gun from Philadelphia to Hampton Roads and the name of the ship which transported it here to San Diego, along with dates, and the Bill of Lading Number.

The gun that came here was known by the Nicaraguans as "EL Heraldo" and in his November 1914 papers, there is mention of this gun, its significance and the wording of a plaque that he wanted to go with the gun. It is also noted that "El Heraldo" was located on the parade grounds of the Marine Barracks at the Philly Navy Yard.

To make a long story very short, when I contacted the photo curator at the Marine Corps History Division in Quantico, sending her a copy of the 1920s photo, she referred me to another researcher who sent me a photograph of what appears to be our gun captured at Coyotepe.

According to the curator at the Royal Artillery Museum in England, our gun is an Ehrhardt-type field gun and it is very similar to their QF 15 pounder. I have contacted a historian at Rhinemetal in Germany (this company took over Ehrhardt) to see what he could tell me. (He mentioned that they do not keep track of their guns by serial numbers.) It would be nice to know which country procured these guns for Nicaragua.

In addition to Rhinemetal & the Royal Artillery Museum, I have sent photograph of the gun as it looks now, the old photograph and the gun at Coyotepe to the U.S Army's Artillery Museum's current and retired curators, as well as Ken Smith Christmas, who worked both for the Marine Corps and Army museums, and Alfred Houde, chief ordnance at the National Museum of the Marine Corps. All agree that our gun is not Japanese and the researcher who sent me the photo of the gun at Coyotepe, the retired artillery museum curator and Ken Smith Christmas are adamant in their belief that we have made the correct identification.

Along the way, it was suggested that our gun might be one of the Ehrhardt gun procured by the Army and the Navy in the early 20th Century, but photographic comparisons ruled that out.

There are a few facts it would be nice to have, such as a mention of the serial number (which is now only on the breech), a copy of the paper work that would have come with the gun, photographs of the gun at the Marine Barracks at the Philly Navy Yard and any information which may have appeared in the log books of the two ships that carried the gun from Philadelphia to San Diego. There are log books for these ships in the National Archives from 1924, but so far, my requests regarding them have not been replied to. I have also contacted one of the Marine Corps' archivists regarding what Marine Corps records to look at in the National Archives.

The breech serial number for our 7.62cm Ehrhardt-Type Field Gun is "180639."

There is no carriage plate. It has be really hard to know just how to refer to this gun. "Three-inch" is the standard American reference. "75mm" seems to be the standard metric measurement, but I believe Ehrhardt used 7.62cm, which is what our gun measures.

When I conducted my research there was some speculation that our gun was a British QF 15 pounder, or a Krupp 75mm Field Gun, but both the British Royal Artillery Museum and other sources, dispute that.

A researcher, Nelson Lawry, who supplied me with photos of both the Navy's Mark VII landing gun and the gun we believe is ours at Coyotepe, said in an email, ..." it bears a strong resemblance to the British stopgap 15-pounder QF field gun, although there are some differences in the muzzle end.

At the breech end, the gun does NOT resemble Ehrhardt's famous Model 1901 75mm field gun sold to Norway. I do not agree with Al that the piece as now standing has American wheels, other than perhaps their hubs. American wheels for a fieldpiece of this size would have been made by Archibald of Lawrence, Mass., and bear its traditional 16 spokes, NOT 12 as shown in every photo, whether at Coyotepe, MCBSD [Marine Corps Base San Diego] in the 1920s, or MCBSD in the second decade of the 21st century.

Nelson continues, "

 

The breech on the San Diego gun is functionally very similar to the British 15 Pounder although it looks different. On the 15 Pounder the actuating lever was below the breech, it actuated a spiral gear located on a post on the right (from the rear). This gear rotated the interrupted screw breech block, then the breech block could be swung out. On the San Diego gun the actuating lever is on the top of the breech but the actuation part looks the same. The Norwegian M1901 Ehrhardt guns had a Nordenfeld breech, similar to the French 75mm M1897. 

The attached is a 1901 image of the British 15 Pounder - it has axle tree seats and no gun shield. The British fitted a gun shield and removed the axle tree seats.

There is a suggestion in your text that the San Diego gun is a Mark VII Landing Gun - I know a collector in Sydney who has one of these - the carriage looks nothing like the San Diego gun.

Regards,

Charlie

 

 

I've been doing a bit of research on the Ehrhardt gun for a Landships II article. So far, I've found that the Ehrhardt guns were exported to 

Britain (1901 - 108 guns), Norway (1902 - 132 guns) and the USA (1902 - 50 guns). The Rheinmetall history also mentions an order

from Austria but there's no sign of any exports to Latin or South America. I wonder if the Ehrhardt guns in Nicaragua were originally US guns since

the Ehrhardt guns didn't stay in service with the US Army for long - they were replaced by the M1902 gun as soon as sufficient had been

produced by the Rock Island Arsenal.

Regards,

Charlie 

 

I think the second image is of a Norwegian order gun - these had a Nordenfeld breech like the French Mle 1897.

Attached is the Ehrhardt breech on the 15 Pounder. I think the mechanism of the American gun is the same - all

that varies is the position of the actuating lever. I think it would depend on which gun number actuates the breech -

the US Army may have had different duties for the gun numbers so a modified breech lever may have been

necessary.

I can find no evidence that the Ehrhardt guns were sold to anyone besides Britain, USA and Norway. It may be that

the Nicaraguan gun was originally a US gun. The Ehrhardts didn't stay in US service long - they were supplanted by the

75mm M1902.

Regards,

Charlie 

 

 

The patent certainly refers to the same type (ogival) breech block as the British guns had - I don't know whether it refers to the US guns in particular since the

subject of the patent is the modification to the firing pin mechanism.

I haven't been able to find any images of the US Ehrhardt guns - I think the only way to find images is to dig through the old journals (sigh).

Regards

 

Hi Charlie, I guess the question remains as to whether or or not the San Diego gun is ex US, I cant say I'm convinced largely because of that NYT article I posted, which would suggest an altered production carriage and would rule out the San Diego gun as ex US...

What do you make of this M1902:

http://www.passioncompassion1418.com/Canons/ImagesCanons/USA/Legere/english_FC3inM1902Aberdeen.html

Breech Markings: 3inch US Field Model 1902.  Carraige: Nr124 Model of 1902 Rheinische M.V. A.M. Fabrik 1904

 

Kosar seems to list the first 50 of the M1902s as produced by Ehrhardt,

 

From "Modern Guns and Gunnery" 1907 edition pg35

"On the otherhand, the downward bending strain on the trail is

undesirably heavy. For the wholesystem of gun, buffer, and cradle

turns about the axle tree, and the buffer is interposed between gun

and axletree, rendering the distance between the gun and the pivot

upon which it turns unduly great. That is to say that the force of

the recoiling gunacts at the end of a comparatively long lever

tending to break or bend the trail, which has to be made stiff and

heavy in order to stand the strain..

Hence we find the tubular trail, once so popular, being replaced,

In equipments of this description, by trails of box or girder section.

The tubular trail is strongest all round, but since the strength is

principally required to resist a vertical bending strain it is found

better to use a form giving more vertical and less lateral stiffness.'

In the Ehrhardt 1903 equipment ,for instance, the original cylindrical

trail is replaced by one of U section."

The M1902 is listed as the "THE AMERICAN 1903 Q.F. EQUIPMENT" in this volume and apparantly the info was taken from "The Journal of the U.S. Artillery" (unknown volume but likely 1903-7) so it maybe there is a good deal more to be found there...

Relevant Journal (1903) here see page 287 on "The New Field Artillery":

https://archive.org/details/journalunitedst13vagoog

to download click on all files and the relevant pdf file.

 

Cheers

 

-- Edited by Ironsides on Thursday 28th of November 2013 11:31:37 AM

Interesting background information you have found on the US 3 inch M1902 and M1905 Field Guns.  These are fairly common in the US and were used in the 1916 Punitive Expedition in Mexico.  US Field Artillery units trained with them stateside before deploying to Europe in 1917-18.  It seems that these were not used by US forces in Europe and I have been able to find no indication that they made it overseas.  From time-to-time someone will claim that they were, but I have never seen anyone making these claims that could show documentation to support it. Case-in-point, the US Artillery Museum at Ft Sill has changed their interpretive signs since 2009 to say they did not have WW1 overseas service.  The US chose to go with the French 75mm mle/97 for a number of reasons including standardization of ammunition with France.

 I know of only one US 3-inch gun in the US that was actually manufactured in Germany by Rheinmetal (Ehrhardt).  It is located in New Mexico and has recently been cosmetically restored (new wheels and paint). Most were manufactured by US government depots, such as Watervliet Arsenal. There was also a gun developed with basically the same barrel/breech-ring with a split trail and a Saint Chamond recoil mechanism designated the 75mm M1916. These were just experimental guns and only a few were produced. 

R/

Ralph Lovett

Some additional info from "The progress of modern field artillery" (1908 but originally from a French article 1904)  pg 79 on:

"The following countries, not mentioned in the table, have

also adopted the rapid-fire gun: Bolivia, China, Peru and

Persia.* The latest competition between guns occurred last

summer (1907), the object being to select a suitable gun for

the Greek Artillery, Seven guns (one Armstrong, two

Krupp, two Ehrhardt and two Schneider) were entered,

with the result that an order was given to Ehrhardt for

thirty-six 4-gun batteries, while the order for ammunition

was divided between this firm and Armstrong, the latter

getting the high explosive shell. In firing, most of the tests

for accuracy and effect were carried out at a range of only

1,750 yards, which is generally regarded as too short. The

test for mobility and strength of material consisted in form-

ing the seven guns into a battery and marching over 250

miles of road, and no miles of rocky hillside at a walk and

trot. All of the carriages suffered from the latter test. The

Schneider wheels were weak, one Ehrhardt limber broke

down, one Krupp shell exploded in the limber, and various

minor defects were revealed. Ehrhardt has abandoned the

axle pivoting system and telescopic trail."

 

The British 15pdr Ehrhardt gun features in an earlier table I believe but doesnt say its make, the table shown is the Translators additional information.

Presumably this means that Ehrhardt abandoned the telescopic trail some time before, the other mentioned references seem to point to around 1903, so it would follow then that the San Diego gun is 1903 or pre 1903 production, the breech seems to conform with the Ehrhardt 1902 breech firing pin patent (a similar safety device also incorporated in the US M1902 breech) so this might fix the date of production more firmly.

So with no apparent evidence to the contrary I would suggest the San Diego gun was produced between 1902-1903, is of the general type supplied earlier to the British but not exactly and was acquired as part of a small order by forces in Nicaragua about that time or a little later.  

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/november/nicahond1907.htm

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19070223.2.28.5#

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/87638461

http://libraries.ucsd.edu/locations/sshl/resources/featured-collections/latin-american-elections-statistics/nicaragua/elections-and-events-19071924.html

In any case it seems Nicaragua was involved in almost continues war at this time under Jose Santos Zelaya so doubtless there would have been a ready market for any modern guns and the will to acquire and use them.

Cheers

 

 

Hi Nuyt can you supply a scan of the pic in "Fünfzig Jahre Rheinmetall Düsseldorf 1889-1939" you mention....

unfortunatly the only way I could get hold of a copy would be via the library and that might take sevetral weeks..

There are pics of some US guns in the artical attached to the original post(field artillery journal april-june 1915) it looks like none are Ehrhardts...

Three 3 inch guns, several 1pdrs guns and machine guns are mentioned as in use by the Nicaraguans at Coyotepe as far as I can make out.. 

 

Cheers

 

These are a few photos of the marks on the German manufactured (Rheinische Steel) US 3-inch M1903 field gun in Hobbs, New Mexico. 

 

R/

Ralph Lovett

OK, I understand your thoughts, but:

1. It was not Kosar who invented the 50 guns delivered to the US. This info also appears in the 50 Jahre R'metall book.
2. The barrel in NM is marked 1903 Rheinische MW.
3. The low numbers of survivors (after a whopping 110 years - let's be realistic) do not convince me that they were never there. It might mean that the guns were distributed over a long period to various places, possibly even to Navy garrisons or allies around the world. Or, the barrels might have been used for the 1902, 1903 and 1905 gun models.
4. The wiki page on the 3 inch gun says there were various model years. Most pictures on the net appear to show the 1905 model (not sure though), with 16 spokes wheels, that Germanic shield (looks like the FK96 nA one) and the U shape box trail.
5. It may have been hard to manufacture the barrels of nickel-steel, a German speciality. In 1900-02 US factories might not yet be ready or able and the US may have continued to import Rheinische barrels. Military authors hardly ever write about that. Industrial capacity is often the key to development. I have researched Dutch attempts to build Krupp field guns during WW1 with US private sector assistance. The required nickel-steel construction proved elusive even then.
6. Of course the R'metall book may have been wrong, and the company did not export complete guns as the book says, but just the barrels and breech blocks (the book says "Geschuetze").
7. The use of the pole trail did not end here. It certainly was no dogma. The US built 1917 75mm "British" guns had them as well.
8. What few authors mention is that the Russian 1902 3 inch field gun had the Ehrhardt screw type breech. Intriguingly, the Rheinmetall factory museum in Unterluss still has such a gun. Of course no mention of that in the R book, whihc was published in the heydays of the 3rd Rch.

PS ironsides, I'll try to scan later.

Hi Nuyt Ok I'll try and be clearer..

on your points 

1. The US sources don't mention numbers produced or even Ehrhardt but do make a big point about the carriage being US design, but its clear that some M1902's were produced by Ehrhardt including carriages and barrels, its possible that the original reference to 50 guns comes from an earlier book "Rheinische Metallwaaren- und Maschinenfabrik 1889-1914"....

http://www.fortress-books.com/uk/fortress-books-detail.asp?menu=&sr=1&id=2827266&page=

2. see above 

3.quite agree a few Ehrhardt manufactured guns might survive if small numbers were produced, and this seems to be the case.. whats perhaps surprising is that any have survived at all.

4. M1902, M1904, M1905 versions are specifically mentioned in the manuals.

5. what seems to be mentioned a number of times in different contemporary artillery books, is the difficulty of producing the springs, US industry was'nt up to the task initially and they continued to be purchased presumably from Ehrhardt for some time.

"Experiments with various models began in 1899, and issue of the 1902 model began in 1904. Manufacture was delayed because of the necessity of obtaining the counter-recoil springs and panoramic sights from abroad, but by 1904, these items were being manufactured in the United States." from "The Organizational History of Field Artillery 17752003" CMH 60-16-1

6. see1.

7. The References I refer too about the pole trail are contemporary and varied, and relate specifically to Ehrhart field artillery not other manufacture like the 13/18pdr/US 75mm M1917 etc.

8. cant add anything but its interesting.-)

The whole point though was not to discover details about the M1902, but rather where the Coyotepe/SanDiego gun came from, the 1901-1902 trials and the M1902 gun derived from them turns out to be crucial in some ways, in that it effectively means the guns did'nt come via the US government.

So the question still remains where did the Coyotepe gun came from, the most logical answer has to be from Ehrhardt, the Nicaraguans where not very friendly with the US at that time but were on good trade terms with the Germans.. and the Germans were not shy about arming the South Americans...

see page 102 on

Germany in Central America: Competitive Imperialism, 1821-1929 

 

Regards

-- Edited by Ironsides on Sunday 1st of December 2013 04:12:45 PM

Couple of comments on old industrial practice....

Nickel steel isn't hard to make in a furnace - the trick is how to get clean ingots without defects as the feedstock for barrel manufacture. The process to get very clean steel

was a commercial secret which the various manufacturers protected.

The recuperator springs were probably pushing the limits of the technology of the time. It isn't hard to make a spring - start with 0.5 - 0.7% Carbon steel wire, form the spring and heat

treat. The springs for recuperators are required to handle very high preloads (Krupp springs were loaded at 50% of gun weight), absorb large amounts of recoil energy, handle many cycles

of compression without diminution of properties. The trick is in the heat treatment to give the properties required. As for the steel making the heat treatment processes in spring manufacture

were commercial secrets.

Regards,

Charlie