# Looking to ID some artillery. Help please?



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I know there's a lot of very smart and knowledgeable folk here at Hobbytalk, so I have a 'brain worm' driving me nuts and need help figuring something out. 

It's field artillery from sometime around the late '50s/ early '60s. It may not have been fielded, only a prototype. It's strange. 

It appears to be a twin barrel cannon with 6 revolving breeches (maybe 5?) per barrel. I couldn't tell what size shell it uses as there are no people in view, I doubt it was a 105 MM. It was shown to be USMC issue.

any ideas?

Context. I was watching an episode of 'The Lieutenant', a show about the Marines created by Gene Roddenberry. I always like catching vintage TV with military themes because sometimes you get some beautiful stock footage from the time. One thing that makes me stupidly happy about this show is the Ontos gets some nice screen time. For some reason I like those 'abandoned' vehicles- Ontos, Mechanical Mule and so on. 

Anyway, they're doing a field exercise, and they cut to some random 'action' footage, Howitzers and rocket launchers and an Ontos cutting loose and then that multi-breach quickfire monster. 

I'm guessing it either wasn't fielded as operational or it had a short life because brother that had to be a maintenance nightmare. 

I can see the potential in it. One gun ripping off a battery 10 in mere seconds? Seems a redleg's dream. But then there's a long reload time...


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Without a photo who knows. But it sounds sort of like the 75mm Skysweeper anti aircraft gun. That was a single barreled weapon, though, but it had two large revolving ammo cages on each side of the receiver. If you saw a photo of a batery of guns you might get the impression it was two barreled. The US did not have any two barreled guns that I know of aside from the 40mm Bofors fitted to the M42 AA tank.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> Without a photo who knows. But it sounds sort of like the 75mm Skysweeper anti aircraft gun. That was a single barreled weapon, though, but it had two large revolving ammo cages on each side of the receiver. If you saw a photo of a batery of guns you might get the impression it was two barreled. The US did not have any two barreled guns that I know of aside from the 40mm Bofors fitted to the M42 AA tank.


Mmmm, close, but not. Not unless I'm even more blind than I thought! 

(and I think I had that Renwal kit! Arrgggh.)

This appears to be some form of howitzer, it has the usual split trail, I can make out distinctive breech blocks as they rotate (very much not ammo in rotating cages).

Since I can't seem to post anything because all my jpegs are 'not valid images' for some reason, how about a Youtube link?






At about the 28 minute mark is where the stock footage barrage starts. (Ontos!) The mystery gun is at 28:37 but waiiit a moment. I think that's a crew servicing the gun before the firing footage, which means it's much smaller than I thought. This looks like something a Jeep could tow. Huh. quickfiring anti-tank gun? If that IS the same gun it's single barrel, but rotating breeches? 

(and of course there's a watermark RIGHT ON TOP of the important part! argh)

Man, the more I look at those few seconds, the less sense it all makes.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Ok at 28:35 you can see clearly that it has a single barrrel. There are two tubes on each side but they are short.

As to what it is, I don't know but it is not an in service weapon. Probably a prototype for something. I'd say it is 105mm. It might be something related to the development of the M102 105mm towed gun.

The only auto loading gun I can think of that we did use was the Skysweeper. But, in the 50s, auto loaders were all the rage so it is not unrealistic to think that they were tested on field guns and howitzers.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> Ok at 28:35 you can see clearly that it has a single barrrel. There are two tubes on each side but they are short.
> 
> As to what it is, I don't know but it is not an in service weapon. Probably a prototype for something. I'd say it is 105mm. It might be something related to the development of the M102 105mm towed gun.
> 
> The only auto loading gun I can think of that we did use was the Skysweeper. But, in the 50s, auto loaders were all the rage so it is not unrealistic to think that they were tested on field guns and howitzers.


Yeah, in the beginning where the crew is getting it ready I can see a single barrel. I'm assuming the side cylinders are part of the recoil mechanism. Going by the crew I'm thinking that may be a 75mm gun. Maybe it's a proof-of-concept prototype meant to be scaled up to 105 or 155 mm?

If you watch carefully, the handwheel on the right side rotates some with each cycle of the rotating breech. I'm guessing that's so they can cycle the gun for loading or maybe cleaning.

I'm really not seeing much advantage of this idea over, say, a sliding breech and a feed tray/magazine. 

Nonetheless, interesting, huh?


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The main use of auto loaders is in tanks. Round can be loaded into magazines for the main gun while the crew is safely down in the hull of the tank. Since you don't need 2-3 men in a turret to handle shells (especially large, two piece rounds) the turret can be smaller and more compact.

In general auto loaders were a big thing in the 50s since it was "new" then. Sort of like today the trendy armor "trend" is laminate or composite armor. A decade or two back it was reactive armor. Always something new to develop.

I spent some time looking around and could not find anything exactly like the gun in the movie.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> The main use of auto loaders is in tanks. Round can be loaded into magazines for the main gun while the crew is safely down in the hull of the tank. Since you don't need 2-3 men in a turret to handle shells (especially large, two piece rounds) the turret can be smaller and more compact.
> 
> In general auto loaders were a big thing in the 50s since it was "new" then. Sort of like today the trendy armor "trend" is laminate or composite armor. A decade or two back it was reactive armor. Always something new to develop.
> 
> I spent some time looking around and could not find anything exactly like the gun in the movie.


What this shows me is I have an unpleasant gap in my library and knowledge bank. Thing is, you can always find books on 'X-Planes' and prototypes (and I have several) but un-fielded ground weapons tends to be catch-as-catch can. Unless it's WW II German of course. 

Heck, I never even knew about the 'Gama Goat' articulated vehicle until I stumbled across it when Tamiya made a kit of it and that was right at my peak armor building mania! Now suddenly I spot the thing watching 'Stripes' on a local channel, doing service as a Soviet transport. 

Yeah, I need more books.  Thanks for trying!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

For actual wheeled and tracked vehicles I recommend US Military Wheeled Vehicles and US Military Tracked Vehicles by Fred Crismon. They cover every weird, obscure and production vehicle from before World War I up to at least the 1980s. For example, you mentioned the Ontos... you know there was an Ontos APC where the driver was in the prone position?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> For actual wheeled and tracked vehicles I recommend US Military Wheeled Vehicles and US Military Tracked Vehicles by Fred Crismon. They cover every weird, obscure and production vehicle from before World War I up to at least the 1980s. For example, you mentioned the Ontos... you know there was an Ontos APC where the driver was in the prone position?


An Ontos APC?! But, if I recall correctly, that thing barely had room for 2 crew as it was! 

I'm guessing it was an attempt to give greater mobility to a rifle squad compared to a combat car or a jeep. Couldn't have been much protection, I don't recall the Ontos being rated for NBC warfare. 

When and if I can get some cash I'll check out those books and I thank you.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

wooden developmental models







[/URL]


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, that's just crazy. 

Maybe it's a case that the Army was giving up the recoilless rifle and they wanted to re-purpose the hulls. I dunno. 

guess I need some new books.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Actually the APC, tank destroyer etc all came around about the same time. It was to be a multi purpose chassis. The recoilless rifle lasted into the 70s, longer than the Ontos, ultimately.


----------



## EvanRobinson (Jul 6, 2017)

I have taken the video from the Lieutenant into the US Army Artillery Museum at Fort Sill.

They don't know what it is, but if anybody figures it out, they'd like to.

Their tentative conclusion is that it is a prototype weapon, possibly German, possibly from WWII.

I'd note that there is a cut between the crew setting up a weapon and the (apparent) stock footage of this particular weapon, and I am as sure as I can be that they are NOT the same weapons in the two clips. The crew setup shows a weapon that is nearly two-man portable (at least two-man positionable) and the firing footage shows a weapon that appears to be a full field artillery piece, not anything a USMC infantry platoon would be carrying around with them.

I'll try to remember to post here if I figure anything else out.

-- Evan


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

EvanRobinson said:


> I have taken the video from the Lieutenant into the US Army Artillery Museum at Fort Sill.
> 
> They don't know what it is, but if anybody figures it out, they'd like to.
> 
> ...


It's been a while since I've seen the episode (and the footage on YouTube) but you may be right. I do recall the 'set up' clip seemed to be a portable weapon( if not manpacked then easily Jeep towed) and the 'fire action' clip appeared to be a larger field piece. 

I realize that shows would often grab stock footage and re-purpose it at will, but I can't help but believe that Roddenberry and his USMC consultants/advisors would make sure that footage used would be both accurate and relevant to then-current USMC weapons, equipment, tactics and procedures. So archive footage of test firing a captured (or prototype and unfielded) WW II German weapon just doesn't 'track' in my mind. 

Of course OTOH there was a LOT of testing out German and British and other nations weapons in search of new systems for our military in the '50s.

One thing I really enjoyed about The Lieutenant was seeing the huge difference in a Marine's 'combat loadout' or 'battle rattle'. Man, to think they would go out with those tiny backpacks, ONE canteen, hardly any ammo for their M-14s. Crazy. 

Thanks in advance for whatever you find out!


----------



## EvanRobinson (Jul 6, 2017)

The artillery piece in question appears to be a USMC prototype rocket artillery piece, the XM-70, shown in stock footage with the cylinder covers removed.

Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM70E2

Stock Footage: liveleak.com/view?i=511_1347383868 (footage begins at about 0:42, right after the ONTOS). Narrated by Jack Webb

Thanks to "Moose" at the Delphi Forums for Military Guns and Ammunition for the identification.




EvanRobinson said:


> I have taken the video from the Lieutenant into the US Army Artillery Museum at Fort Sill.
> 
> They don't know what it is, but if anybody figures it out, they'd like to.
> 
> ...


----------

