Landships II

mad zeppelin wrote:

---

It reads:
"S.P.B. orudini zavod" which means "Sanct Petersburg ordnance factory".

---

That's fantastic. Thanks.

Anyone know anything about this factory and what might have been done to the gun there?

Interesting. Max Hundelby implies that these guns were purchased from Britain, but you reckon they were actually made in Russia. I wonder if the same applies to the Belgian version?

Perhaps I'm completely mistaken, but that seemed like the obvious reading to me. Why else would the St petersburg factory stamp their name on the guns (and is it actually a additional nameplate, or an integral part of the casting? I can't tell from the picture)?

If they were direct export purchases rather than license built, wouldn't the british seller make them to the customer specifications for bore, if different from the original design? What modifications would be needed?

in the putilov works probably then

For a number of reasons, I'm beginning to think that it wasn't a S.P license build now.

For one, this picture (let's see if I can manage to post it) of a different gun has similar engraved or stamped or etched or what have you labels in both Russian and Finnish from 1907 and 1936/1944, respectively. That suggests that the Finns added their own label to an existing gun that they neither manufactered nor, presumably, made significant alterations to. Perhaps the Russians chose to put their own label on the 57mm Nordenfelt. At the very least, the Finnish inscription shows that these labels need not be part of the original casting or forging.


Second, the fact that Belgium was another customer for the Nordenfelt made me curious about their ordnance production ability of that era. Ian Hogg in Allied Artillery of World War One has this to offer:

"In spite of there being two Belgium gunmakers, Cockerill and the Royal cannon Foundry, the Belgian Army boughtit's guns elsewhere, a 75mm (3in) design from Krupp and a 120mm (4.7in) howitzer from St Chamond in France. The 75mm Model 1905 was first bought complete from Krupp, then in components for assembly by Cockerill and the Cannon Foundry, and finally all components except the barrel came from Krupp while the barrel was made in Belgium from material procured from Britain." Maybe Russia had a similar arrangement with Vickers Maxim, either assembling the guns or manufacturing the barrel and assembling it with imported parts. Or maybe they didn't do anything except stamp their label on it, as the Finns would later do.

Another thing I'm wondering about is if the Saint Petersburg factory in question is indeed Putilov, or if it's Obukhov or someone else entirely. Putilov only started manufacturing artillery in 1900, so if it was them and they did major work on it, the 57mm Nordenfelt would have been one of their very first productions. It seems odd that the label on it doesn't say either "Putilovsky Zavod'" or "Obukhovsky Zavod'" (as my picture of the 1902 76mm does). Perhaps one or the other of those two factories was originally referred to as simply "S.P.B. Orudini Zavod"?

Ah, I wasn't aware of their earlier cannon production, and was just going off of the brief Wikipedia entry for the Putilov plant (now known as Kirov, apparently).

If a definitive date to the 57mm Nordenfelt design has been determined anywhere I'm afraid I've missed it. Could it possibly be as old as 1888? The following website has three photos of an 1888 57mm Belgian Cockerill-Nordenfelt gun, which looks similar to the rear details of the Mephisto buck mount shown in Hundelby and Strasheim, p 72.

http://www.rudi-geudens.be/html/oorlogsmuseum_belg_kanon_19_eeuw.htm

On the opposite page, I just noticed the drawn diagram attempts to reproduce what's legible of the factory stamp on the breech: "C.O.G.O........" in an arch above "1906" or "1900". This is in fact represents the gun from Schnuck, which we now know to be Russian rather than Belgian, as H & S thought at the time. They got the "C" (S) right, and read the cyrillic B as a "G".

Poking around on the site linked to above, I saw another one in a sort of field gun setup (with an oddly curved shield), rather than the pedestal mount of the other specimen:

http://www.rudi-geudens.be/html/oorlogsmuseum_wo1_kanon.htm

They state that the 1888 is indeed the same animal used in the A7V. Given that the Belgians designate it as a Cockerill-Nordenfelt, I'm now doubtful again that this was a straightforward import gun. Cockerill must have done something with it (same as our S.P.B. Orudni Zavod'), either assembly or license build or something.

Cockerill's own website would seem to indicate that they manufactured them completely:
"1890 onwards
Following the acquisition of the “Nordenfelt” patents, Cockerill starts building guns and revolving turrets (cupolas) for military fortresses."

ETA: Oops! Sorry, James, I think I stole your photo by editing a spelling error.

A pre WW1 German army handbook on Russia list the St.Peterburg Arsenal (which would be the German translation of S.P.B. orudini zavod) as different entity apart from Ishorski and Putilov.

The one on socle mount carries:

COCKERILL - NORDENFELT
1895
5c7 CAP No 22

the one on wheels carries:

COCKERILL - NORDENFELT
1898
5,7c CAP No 221

In both cases, the "c" is in high position.

Mad Zeppelin,
thanks for the lightening fast answer! Had you already noted that info down from a previous visit?

The fact that, unlike the Mephisto gun, they specifically state 'Cockerill-Nordenfelt' on the gun, reinforces the view that the earliest aquisitions would have been direct purchases from the UK with the Cockerill plant taking over production in the mid 1890s...if they produced an additional 200 guns between 1895 and 1898 that gives us a rate of roughly 66 per year, and the first Belgian built one done in 1894 or 1895.

The date of the Mephisto gun is unknown, but at serial number 5,864 the Maxim Nordenfelt plant must have been making them for quite a few years (and that quantity probably also included the Russian exports and possibly other customers).

It seems more likely to me all the time that the Russians followed a similar pattern, switching from direct purchases to domestic manufacture by at least 1900.

Does anyone know what "CAP" stands for?

mad zeppelin wrote:

---

Best guess is "caponiere", which describes this type of gun in French. I've no idea what that would be in English, it means a gun controlling the trenches of a fortress.

---

A caponiere (the French word is used in English descriptions) is a stone or concrete construction that is built in the bottom of a fortress ditch (not a trench). These were pierced for guns (small arms and light cannon) on either side allowing them to fire along the stretch of ditch that they commanded. They were way down below the level of the ditch (which could be 20 ft deep) so that they were protected from and siege guns. If the besiegers made it up the glacis, through the covered way and down into the ditch as part of an attempt to escallade the main ramparts they would be taken in enfilade fire by the caponiere. As forts became simpler in shape during the late 1800s  bastions, ravelins etc were dispensed with and more emphasis was placed on the role of the caponiere. Caponiere is not a gun type per se but a construction. A caponiere cannon would be a cannon placed in a caponiere but I have never seen any reference to a gun designed specifically just for this role

In that case - the version:
Can be is a gun - a German "Russian" trophy? And Russian gun is a license English manufacture.

Some guns were designed primarily to be used in Fortresses, and especially light ones, like the small 76mm Putilov the Germans later used as an infantry gun, of course had their main duty in close defense, not least just as Carponiere pieces - and then firing canister shot. See here!

1) The ammunition. Hundleby and Strasheim make no reference to it, but several sources say that large quantities were captured along with the guns. However, it seems the Germans were producing plenty of 57mm of their own.

The APK had ordered 8 of Rheinmetall's design for a 57mm Infanteriegeschutz, but they weren't finished when the War ended. However, according to Herbert Jaeger the plan was for the A7V to be stocked with a mix of delayed impact fuse, armour-piercing, and canister. A "super-quick" fuse was specified later. It seems unlikely that this assortment was lying ready-made in Belgian and Russian armouries, so the Germans must have been producing their own.

2) The caponiere question. Jaeger says the following: "The APK also tried out another 5.7cm Infanteriegeschutz, really an anti-tank gun, built from the tube of a Belgian ditch defence fortress gun, mounted on a shortened FK96 n/A carriage".The Germans referred to them by the term Kasemattkanonen. There's an illustration of one with the crew loading armour-piercing shells.

7.7s had already been mounted on 4-ton trucks for anti-tank purposes, and now "all available Belgian 5.7s were mounted in the same way". They were on a swivel mount known to the Belgians as affut a crinoline because of its resemblance to the conical frock fashionable at the time.

All this comes together with the withdrawal of the idea of the 57mm on a 77mm carriage because it would have disrupted production of the standard 77. "The tubes were later used to arm the German Tanks."

So the caponiere bit rings true, and the ammunition must have been produced specifically for the gun. Does this make sense?

With regards to Nordenfelt starting a new company. According to this, Nordenfelt was restricted until 1919 from making guns and ammunition.

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. Ltd [1894] AC 535

A 19th century English case decided by the House of Lords. It defines the 'blue pencil test' as a method for deciding whether contractual obligations can be partially enforced when the obligation as drafted in the contract has an element of illegality.

The dispute was about restraint of trade. Thorsten Nordenfelt, a manufacturer specialising in armaments, had sold his business to Hiram Stevens Maxim. They had agreed that Nordenfelt would not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world, and would not compete with Maxim in any way for a period of 25 years.

The court held that:

• The provision prohibiting Nordenfelt from making guns or ammunition was reasonable.
• The providing banning competition, in any way, was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The question on severability was whether the reasonable restriction could be enforced when it was in the same contract as an unreasonable and unenforceable restriction. The court used the test of striking out (with a blue pencil) words containing unreasonable provisions would leave behind a contractual obligation that still made sense. If it did, then the amended contract would be enforced by the court.

In this case, the unreasonable restraint was severable, and the court enforced the amended agreement that Nordenfelt "for the next 25 years, would not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world, and would not compete with Maxim in any way."

Regards Eddie