Landships II

drakegoodman · Captain

37mm Hotchkiss revolving cannon - 2 new photographs

Pat · Commander in Chief

Excellent images, many thanks for sharing them. Some of the men look as warlike as some modern reenactors! smile

As the Germans considered the weapon obsolete from 1893 on (see Wikipedia), what were they doing with them in WW1? Could these be Russian booty guns (see http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_37mm_Hotchkiss.htm)?

drakegoodman · Captain

The guns of Russian manufacture seem to have an adjustable crank-handle (for want of a better word), whereas the French type was fixed. There was a shielded example on display in front of the Th��tre du Nord in Lille that was photographed a lot in 1914.

Landsturm infantrymen pose beside a Hotchkiss revolving-cannon in Lille (Th��tre du Nord) by drakegoodman, on Flickr

CharlieC · Legend

�

Krupp built the Hotchkiss revolver cannon under licence. Although the Hotchkiss gun may have been considered obsolete in the anti-torpedo boat role in 1893 Krupp continued to build the Hotchkiss design for the German Army. Krupp revolvers were sold to the Turkish Army in 1904(10), 1905(12), 1906(4), 1907(4) which suggests the guns were still in production only a few years before WW1.

Regards,

Charlie

�

28juni14 · Hero

These weapon systems proved most useful in the AA role during the war.� It is the fire from these 37mm guns that were dubbed "flaming onions"�by the RFC.�

�Both 3,7cm guns( RevKanone and MaschFlak )�were heavily used in this role as organic�batteries to balloon sections.

drakegoodman · Captain

Very interesting feedback. Cheers!

Just happen to have a photo of the abovementioned M-Flak handy.

3.7cm Maschinenkanone (M-Flak), May 1917 by drakegoodman, on Flickr

Excelsior1 · Major

Cracking pics and info; I wondered what flaming onions were.

K-Flak · Lieutenant

Wonderful pictures!

Revolverkanonen were in bigger numbers available in Germany in 1914, partly equipment of fortresses and Navy and some probably stored in magazines. In 1914 German infantry got Revolverkanonen for use in the trenches. As well demands for use as AA gun were made. During the war many Revolverkanonen were used by German Feldluftschiffer units to defend their balloons. And by the way "Landsturm" soldiers fit pretty well to Revolverkanonen - both were, hm, a bit "aged".�

Below one can see a surviving Revolverkanone (singular) on the fortress K�nigstein (=Kingstone) south of Dresden.

Regards

Hannes

�

Pat · Commander in Chief

Thanks for the additional info and the images. Do you happen to know when this model was in use?

K-Flak · Lieutenant

Hi Pat,

the shield at the exhibition called it "Deutsche Revolverkanone C/73/88 in einer Lafette f�r die Festung K�nigstein", Hersteller: Fa. Gruson, Magdeburg [etc]"

I think that means the Revolverkanone is a model of 1888 put into a gun carriage of the older 9-cm-Kanone C/73 and used to defend fortresses. I think it was produced and put on the fortress K�nigstein between 1888 and 1893 because in 1893 Gruson was taken over by Krupp and the production of most guns moved from Magdeburg to Essen. I don�t know if the gun was ever in action. However, a British source claimed in post-war times that Allied interrogators captured a number of "secret" Flak stored in K�nigstein. Maybe this one escaped confiscation or was bought back later.

-- Edited by K-Flak on Friday 3rd of June 2011 08:28:55 AM

K-Flak · Lieutenant

Some more remarks:

In the very first picture the commander seems to be the man on the right side of the right Revolverkanone, in the middle you can see some NCO and on the left and in the second row common troopers. Sad to know that no unit was given on the backside.

Revolverkanonen for the infantry came to the front with the beginning of trench war. For example 3. Royal Saxon Infanterie-Regiment "Prinz-Regent Luitpold von Bayern" Nr. 102 got 6 Revolverkanonen for the trenches in late October 1914.�

Other Revolverkanonen were used to fight airplanes, especially for protection of observation balloons. However, the original carriage did only allow an elevation of 45�. When hostile aircraft started to attack balloons form below the Revolverkanonen could not fight them. Later constructions and new socles manufactured by repairshops at the front helped to iron out this flaw.

Nevertheless, in the German victory lists of the Flak one can hardly find any aircraft shot down by Revolverkanonen. I am still puzzling if they were totally inefficent and had more a "moral" impact on fliers or if the absence of reported victories has to do with the fact that Revolverkanonen were under command of the Feldluftschiffer and not part of the German Flak arm.

The above displayed M-Flak (a wonderful picture as well) was notorious for being a lethal weapon against deep-flying aircraft and one can find plenty of shot downs. This weapon was also most-likely responsible for the most "flying onions"-reports because the M-Flak could fire the often mentioned "long strings" because of its big box or huge drum magazines. I always wondered about a rather negative opinion on the British side concerning their own pom-pom as AA gun. It seems to me that some "environmental" factors did limit the use value of the British 37 mm "pom-poms" - especially in 1914. Nobody cared or knew what to do with them.�

One has to note as well the often improper use of the term "Revolverkanone" in German sources (like postcards). It seems uninformed people called every little gun Revolverkanone.

Hope this is of some interest.

-- Edited by K-Flak on Saturday 4th of June 2011 10:08:27 AM

Pat · Commander in Chief

Many thanks for sharing the information with us!

K-Flak · Lieutenant

You are welcome, Pat!

By the way I was allowed to climb on the carriage and to photograph the breech look which was opened by a man from the permanent exhibition there. Sadly, I had to notice later that my digital camera was not coping with the short distance and the pictures not good.� So, I hope I get the same chance again if I make my next journey to the fortress.

28juni14 · Hero

FLA commanders prefered these weapon systems simply because of the sheer folume of fire they could put up.�� Though the individual burst was comparitively small, a battery could creat an impressive�wall of sustained�bursts.

Keep in mind,� German tactics for balloon protcetion was not to track intruder aircraft,� but rather to create a deadly wall of bursts in the path of the approaching aircraft.� Called a "sperre" the method was resonably efffective in forcing attacking aircraft to abort.�� These little rapid ifre guns proved ideal for the task.�� They brought down more than a few bold flyers who tried to fly through their barriers,� to include the American Frank Luke.

K-Flak · Lieutenant

rather to create a deadly wall of bursts in the path of the approaching aircraft

And this seems to be a problem for the outdated Revolverkanonen if we compare them to M-Flak! A firing rate of 40, 50 (or a little bit more given a gunner with enormous stamina) shells per minute was way lower than the M-Flak. "Risk-takers" like Luke got often through the protective screen of fire around the balloons.�

28juni14 · Hero

Please keep in mind these systems served in batteries; not individually.� Two to four �RevK could provide sustained�fire for a considerable period of time.� They never jammed or over heated.�� The geared firing crank turned easily and�though hand fed,� a well trained crew fired without interruption.

The MaschinenFlak was a slow firing automatic weapon system;� perhaps 150 rds per minute.�� However,� vertical firing posed a real problem with ammunition feed.� This is the primary factor that discouraged Brit use of the gun in the AA role;� just too many jams when the gun was elevated.�

The Germans made efforts to adddress the feed problem with first projectile feed guides and lastly the drum magazine.�� However,� the problem would not go away completely;� hence the continued need for a crew memnber to stand near�the right of the �breach.

You are correct in your ascertion of the Masch.Flak being the better choice of the two.� However though their numbers dwindled as they were replaced, �the continued expansion of the Balloon Service required the Revolver Kanone to soldier on until war's end.

K-Flak · Lieutenant

Thanky you! I am aware of the limitations of the M-Flak. Already during the first tests of the weapon for AA use it was underlined that frequent jamming would happen therefore the use in "Z�gen" (means platoons of two each) was demanded. [But the first Revolverkanonen in AA use could also not fire very steep.]

I have not seen any photograph or document displaying a whole "Batterie" (in Germany 4 AA guns) or two "Z�gen" of Revolverkanonen or M-Flak in balloon defense. Are you accidently aware of any picture or document reporting a greater concentration of fire, maybe a battery defending two neighbouring balloons?

Your pointing to 4 Revolverkanonen indicates this but I am only aware of defences with 2 R- OR 2 M-Flak encompanied by a number of M.G. and sometimes also 1 or even 2 bigger Flak at some distance. One especially interesting picture displayed a Revolverkanone together with a Becker 20 mm.

I think the British expected a bit too much from the pom-pom in AA use. Btw how did they close the "gap" between M.G. fire and bigger guns in the field of AAA?

Inspite of afore mentioend limitations and a big weight the M-Flak did not only "frustrate" or chase away attackers like the Revolverkanone. I am still searching for any "hard and tangible" success of the Revolverkanone. There is only one (1!) single downing of a hostile airplane mentioned in "Nachrichtenblatt" and this could be a M-Flak in fact as well if one considers that the term Revolverkanone was so often used in error.� �

Rectalgia · Legend

K-Flak wrote:

...I think the British expected a bit too much from the pom-pom in AA use. Btw how did they close the "gap" between M.G. fire and bigger guns in the field of AAA?

Agreed, it required better ammunition, not to mention more effective aiming arrangements. And, an excellent question, I await with interest the response of our more knowledgeable members.

The heavier QF 1� pounder and QF 2 pounder naval guns were used as a light anti-aircraft guns later in the war (practically anything which could be made to point to 70� was) but surely there was nothing very effective? Of course with the lower airspeed of the early aircraft the "gap" in AA coverage (say 1,000 to 5,000 feet) was not so much a problem as it later became with greater speeds and shorter tracking opportunity.

There was a sentiment, following WW1, as expressed by Ian V. Hogg in The Guns 1939-45A considerable body body of opinion arose which contended that the proper enemy of the airplane was another airplane and that the AA gun had been nothing but a pannicky stop-gap thrown up by the peculiar conditions of the war; and that from now on the air forces would look after that side of business, thank you, and kindly take your horrible cannon somewhere else and lose them.
Yet this was an opinion during the war also - at least it was one held by the Americans before they engaged in actual combat. The conclusion from Notes on anti-aircraft guns - Compiled at the Army War College from the Latest available information. (April 1917)After all, however, the only really effective defense against hostile aircraft lies in an aerial service of our own more efficient than that of the enemy. For this purpose powerful aeroplanes equipped with machine guns or light cannon should be used.
I'm not sure those intrepid pilots who braved the fire around balloons would agree with such dismissiveness of AA fire but that was a special circumstance. The altitude of the balloon was known to the AA gunners, and so they had the measure of the attackers too.

Incidentally, there is a brief American review of WW1 AA in http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Aircraft.pdf
...a photo journey from a unique historic document provided by Dr. James Alley, Ph.D which shows the evolution of antiaircraft deployment during the World War I years of 1914 to 1918 that include a Hotchkiss mounted on a wagon wheel to a large Maxim "Pom Pom" gun mounted on a truck for mobility.
All of these photos, except were (sic) noted, were copied from an Army Ordnance 1917-1919 manual, No. 1941, titled; History of Anti-aircraft Guns by W.N. Dickerson, dated Washington, 1920

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Thursday 9th of June 2011 05:39:37 AM

drakegoodman · Captain

Some exceptional information from all parties concerned. Many thanks!

Ironsides · Legend

you can download the book� History of Anti Aircraft Guns here...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34497799/History-of-Anti-Aircraft-Guns-USA-1920

Interesting pics with many I dont recall seeing before...

�

From "Go Get em" by WILLIAM A. WELLMAN Lafayette escadrille his A/C had a white prancing cat on the side...

"Like a flock of Winter birds we circled over
Luneville until we had reached an altitude of three
thousand meters, and then, arranging ourselves
above, below, and on either side of the big three-
man plane, we started eastward, crossed the front
line trenches at four thousand yards up in the
biting air, and struck into Germany, warmly wel-
comed as we sped over the Boche trenches by the
"Archies "or enemy anti-aircraft guns. These are
the objects of much ridicule among airmen, for they
next to never register a hit, which is perhaps
scarcely strange considering the speed and height
of their mark; but they are useful in keeping a
hostile plane at a respectable distance up."***

*** he repeats this several times during the book...

"The explosion of the shrapnel shells around and
below me sounded like a dull grunt emitted by a
monstrous pig a sort of a "wruf f f," and once
I actually saw one pass in front of my plane a
small streak of black lightning, if I can use the

expression to burst in black smoke well above.
The Boche below were very generous, and the air
was filled with compliments of the season from
the Kaiser. "

------

"The day was ideal for flying, clear and almost
windless; we could keep well out of range of the
spiteful "Archies." Their bark is worse than their
bite ; but there was no use seeking trouble."

-------

"Out of the clear sky came a blinding flash in my;
face; a crashing detonation in my ears. Half-
stunned for a second, I closed my eyes, then opened
them to a realization that my plane was pointing
perpendicularly downward and spinning rapidly.
A solitary shell from a Boche "Archie" had ex-
ploded directly in front of me and into the hole
which it had torn in the air my machine had dived
automatically."

"It took me a perceptible amount of time to get my
mind sufficiently cleared of the daze which the ex-
losion had brought, so that I could rightly under-
stand what had happened. Then I concluded that
was neither dead nor injured, and thanking my
lucky star for another narrow escape I cut off
my motor and drew back my control stick to bring
my plane out of its plunging descent.
Nothing happened. With a feeling merely of
utter surprise, I tried again. Still I continued to
rush earthward, head first and whirling. The aw-
ful truth began to dawn upon me. I looked around
and upward at the tail of my fuselage. Part of the

canvas there was flapping violently, and now the
full terrifying fact rushed over my mind. The fly-
ing shrapnel had scored a clean hit. My back con-
trol wires were shot away, my rear ailerons were
out of commission, and I was completely helpless.
Below me, still nearly three miles distant, but ris-
ing with appalling speed, was the hard earth. I
needed no one to tell me what was going to happen
in a few seconds when we two met."

Just thought I'd add some color to those black and white pics...

http://www.archive.org/details/gogetemtrueadven00well

Cheers smile

-- Edited by Ironsides on Saturday 23rd of July 2011 01:14:53 PM