Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

10.5cm/L45

Discussion in 'Artillery' started by Erich, Jun 9, 2011.

  1. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    looking for a couple of pics and information on the German navy artillery piece. I know it was used on earlier U-Boots and then later on smaller vessels till wars end.

    any help ?

    thank you
     
  2. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    449
    Erich, Gebirgsjaeger and sniper1946 like this.
  3. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    289
    Erich likes this.
  4. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    thanks guys much appreciated, have spent time in the past on the NavyWeapons site. good overall info, what is a bit confusing will admit is the pedestal and general mounting of this former U-Boot low slung weapon. I have a couple of Naval pics of the unit but the breech is incorrect so it appears being placed on a C/32 as well as C/33 mounts and others. am still trying to find the weapon in the partially shielded conversion used on ships other than the dreaded U-Boot. the Flak Kreuzers mounted these in addition to tons of smaller 2cm and 3.7cm Fla pieces. And even with this shield have seen in mostly very dark and fuzzy pics the gun itself is still low down in the shield.

    you'll see my interest in this piece soon in the Militaria thread section
     
  5. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,255
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Do not mean to be off topic but can someone explain to sometimes slow me how calibers such as 10.5 or 105 mm come about. Why not 100MM, 150 and not 155 ? The 88 for that matter, why not 90. Is this a lands and grooves measuring difference , such as a .38 Special and .357 Magnum ? Is 10.5 CM the groove dimenion and say 10CM the lands? The Russians seem to be more even in nomenclature, 75, 85, 100, but then is there not a 128! Modern day Russian tanks are 125.

    At least slightly relevant the 10.5 mentioned here. while we are at it, why is it sometime called a 10.5 and other times a 105. I do understand millimeters and centimeters, even in Alabama, but not clear how they are applied or perhaps there is no rationale.

    GB
     
  6. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    449
    AFAIK The German designations are in centimeters, but as everybody else used millimeters most English language pubblications did the conversion so as to make comparaison easy for people not familiar with the metric system.
    BTW the short for millimeter is mm not MM that I don't believe is a measurement unit though Mm would be a mega meter (one million meters), in the metric system multiples are in capitals and fractions lower case.

    Calibers are barrel diameter, most sources I have say it's measured between lands but some say grooves ... very confusing, lands would make more sense for large caliber guns at the it's the diameter of the shell without the driving band.
    AFAIK each "odd" number has a history of it's own, the 105 and 155 are probably a "rounding up" of the 4" and 5" but why German 15cm naval guns are actually 149mm remains a mistery to me.
     
  7. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,255
    Likes Received:
    632
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Thank you for the useful information. Here is the US we are stuck with feet, inches and fractions for architecture and feet, inches and tenths of inches for engineering so on the same set of drawings the building will be say 1/8" = 1" and the site plan 1" =20' !!! I think the Brits gave us this to get even for the Revolution while they switched to metric ! lol The world is nearly all metric except for backward us ! But even we make cars , machines, weapons and planes in metric.

    Interesting WW2 story told to me in 1981 by a retired Italian Naval Officer who was my neighbor one summer in Cortona, a small hilltown on the Tuscany-Umbria border. The town was garrisoned by a Germany company in 1945. The British 8th Army was camped in the Chianti Vally below and planned to send a Polish Brigade to capture the town the next day. Some local residents warned their friends there may be fighting and the word spread. During the night most of the enlisted men evacuated by the rear gate, Cortona is still walled. The officers awoke to find no troops and took refuge in a monastery. The Poles arrived to no activity and departed, the Brits sent a small contingency to administer the area and upon getting that word that Germans came out to surrender to the Brits.He was a truly wonderful story teller and swore it was true, several town's people concurred. Nicest summer of my now 71 years. Bar Unica has a photo of a Sherman sitting in the main piazza in 1945, I know the town well and cold never figure out how it got there, give the narrow streets. If we come back in a second life I hope I am in Cortona. :)

    Ciao,
    Gaines
     
  8. Carronade

    Carronade Ace Patron  

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    385
    Do not mean to be off topic but can someone explain to sometimes slow me how calibers such as 10.5 or 105 mm come about. Why not 100MM, 150 and not 155 ? The 88 for that matter, why not 90.

    Don't know for sure, but it could be by weight. 88, 105, 128mm shells weigh approximately 10, 15, 25kg. Functionally one might define a requirement to deliver a certain weight of projectile or explosive, call it a performance standard, and then calculate the weapon size to do it.

    Another oddity is the American 106mm recoilless rifle, which is actually 105mm. There was an earlier 105mm RR, based on a German WWII design IIRC. The Army developed a new 105 whose ammunition was incompatible with the other, so they designated it 106.

    I was just at the range yesterday shooting .38s from my .357......
     
  9. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    449
    I suspect there is a "me too" aspect for a lot of those, the British that initially led the field in naval artillery usually went for exact inches, though there were some odd exceptions like the 4.7 (120mm) the 13.5 (343) or the 9.2 (234mm)., metric countries when developing something similar rounded up or down to to fit existing tooling. so a European 4" equivalent could be a 100 or 105 a 6" a 150 or a 155 etc.
    Tradition has a lot to do with it, NATO is currently firing 155mm guns and howitzers that trace back to a a French WW1 gun, after WW1 the Royale tried to standardize on the 155 as a naval caliber on the Emile Bertin light cruisers but reverted to 152 for the La Galissoniere class, possibly treaties had something to do with that as a 155 would be a "heavy cruiser" gun.
     
  10. Carronade

    Carronade Ace Patron  

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ironically the London Naval Treaty which established the distinction between heavy and light cruisers set it at 6.1" (155mm). Presumably this was to accommodate the French, who were the only ones using that caliber at the time, but as you say they switched to a 6" (152mm) shortly thereafter.


    The London Treaty also modified the Washington Treaty with: "Wherever in the said Articles IX and X the calibre of 6 inches (152 mm) is mentioned, the calibre of 6.1 inches (155 mm) is substituted therefor." Those articles concerned the armament of aircraft carriers; technically the Bearn with 6.1" guns was in violation.

    The Japanese promptly developed a 6.1" gun, which they had not had before, in order to get maximum firepower on their next class of cruisers, the Mogami, although they ultimately planned to swap them for 8".
     
  11. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    449
    Would Bearn with 6.1 be in violation when the US and Japanese carrier conversions had 8" guns that IIRC were the initial limit for carriers? can't find where that was changed.
    The Japanese obviously believed in pushing the traty limits, the rearming of the the early heavy cruisers with true 8" (203mm) guns to replace the previous 200mm ones is probably the most obvious case, but at leat they replaced all the 200mm while they even built some new ships with 152s after introducing the 155!
     
  12. Carronade

    Carronade Ace Patron  

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    385
    "Violation" was the wrong word, my mistake. The treaty established a distinction between classes of guns at 6" which the powers subsequently agreed to change to 6.1".

    Article IX
    No aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.
    However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby exceeded, build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight.
    Article X
    No aircraft carrier of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres). Without prejudice to the provisions of Article IX, if the armament carried includes guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre the total number of guns carried, except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed ten. If alternatively the armament contains no guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre, the number of guns is not limited. In either case the number of anti-aircraft guns and of guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres) is not limited.

    Although each navy could possess two carriers up to 33,000 tons, they could have no more than eight heavy guns. 27,000 ton ships could have ten. This probably explains why the Japanese Akagi and Kaga were officially 26,900.
     

Share This Page