|
Post by fots2 on Sept 19, 2012 17:25:06 GMT 8
This is a good discussion folks. First, since we are on another page, I will repost a crop of the tunnel photo in question. Paul, if you are reading this then welcome to the forums. Feel free to add any information that you see fit. oozlefinch, a Malinta Tunnel blueprint shows two different sizes of ordinance laterals. They were either 12’ high by 10’ wide or 12’ high by 12 wide’. If the soldier was lying across the floor it appears you could get two of him from wall to wall. We may be looking at a 12’ wide lateral here. Two types of shells were produced for the 6-inch M1905 guns, High Explosive shells and Armor Piercing shells. Here is a chart of the shells used in this type of gun. HE and AP Shells Fuse, Primer, and Propellant Bag for 6-inch Guns. (Source of data: ROTC Manual, Coast Artillery, Basic, 10th Edition, 1938, US Army TM 9-2300, pages 130-131). As John said, there is a variety of 155mm shells having different lengths and shapes. From the web sites it is difficult to determine which shells are pre-war vintage (i.e. specific to the old 155mm GPF) and which are more modern. During WWII, the 155mm GPF was superseded by the newer 155mm “Long Tom”. It could not use the same ammunition of the older GPF so not even all US WWII 155mm ordinance was the same. Here is another photo of 155mm shells, this time with the 155mm GPF gun (as was used on Corregidor) in the background. From my searches, all 155mm GPF gun photos that also show the shells seem to have the same stubby nosed fat ordinance. I fail to see how the long slim ordinance seen in the tunnel fits the profile of either the M1905 or the 155mm GPF shells. Let the games continue.
|
|
|
Post by sherwino on Sept 19, 2012 17:52:02 GMT 8
Good research, fots. Your long and slim comment is also my point. Did WWII aerial bombs use the eyebolt lifting plugs for storage?
|
|
|
Post by EXO on Sept 19, 2012 18:31:28 GMT 8
My old friend Art, one of the fellows who was in on the founding of the CHS, is a redleg from the Vietnam days, and a restorer of artillery. He's the person I turn to for enquiries concerning artillery. Of the munition issue, he writes: I'll base this response on my years in the photo industry. The curvature of the shells appears to be caused by the camera lens and the fact that the tunnel is rounded. It is like an optical illusion. As for the shells, they look like 3 inch Rapid Fire or 75MM rounds
|
|
|
Post by JohnEakin on Sept 19, 2012 20:51:38 GMT 8
OK, this is rapidly becoming a how many jelly beans in the jar guessing contest, but I'll play. <G> We seem to be making progress and the consenous seems to agree that these are artillery rounds of roughly 3 to 6 inches in diameter. Any votes for anything else?
If these are 3 inch shells, how many layers are seen in the stacks? 10? 12? 15? I count five, maybe 6.
There are at least two different types of shells or at least two different types of fuse plugs and one of them has a lifting ring. (The shells on the bottom one or two layers.) That's not consistent with a 3 inch shell which are light enough not to require a lifting ring.
3 inch shells have a sharply defined neck in the cartridge (like a rifle cartridge). 6 inch/155mm shells have a rounded taper from the front to about 1/3 of the way aft then a slight taper to the bottom. Look at the top layer in the cropped photo and the profile of these shells is pretty obvious. I don't see a sharply defined neck. Looks like both ends are tapered - a lot at the front and slightly at the rear. Any camera distortion is most pronounced close to the camera, less so in the distance.
Also notice in the photo that there is something on the shell just an inch or two or three from the base. It is pretty ill defined, but there is something there. Looks like a rotating ring/grommet/shipping cover to me. This would account for the set back in each layer as each layer would be offset the width of this grommet. The presence of this rotating ring and the absence of a rim on the bottom would indicate this is a bagged charge round.
One other thing I notice is that in Viet Nam the smaller ammo - 105mm and smaller with an integrated charge - were shipped in fiber tubes which were usually in wooden boxes to prevent damage to the relatively soft brass cartridge casing. OTOH, 155mm projectiles were palletized with an open crate around them as they were less susceptible to damage in handling. I wouldn't expect to see brass cased ammunition of any type stacked on their sides. Even with dunnage between the layers there is a lot of weight on the bottom layer.
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on Sept 20, 2012 1:44:31 GMT 8
John, None of our guesses fit perfectly or this discussion would be over by now. You bring up some good points that I cannot explain. I will try to address them as best as this novice can. The bump near the rear that you say may be a rotating ring/grommet/shipping cover. I cannot see it well enough to say with any certainty. Is it actually sticking up or a short dip in the profile of the shell? You say that “3 inch shells have a sharply defined neck in the cartridge (like a rifle cartridge)”. We should clarify that a bit. Yes if talking about 3-inch Rapid Fire shells (photo #3 in Reply #8). No if talking about 3-inch AA shells (photos #4,5,6 in Reply #8). There is a distinct difference between the two types of 3-inch shells. Since we are assuming that all ordinance here is of the same type then maybe we can try another assumption in that we are seeing a mix of ordinance. The bottom rows may be overflow from another tunnel and not needed quickly. Smaller and lighter 3-inch shells of some sort (that do not require rings) are laid out on top to fill the tunnel. This 1941 photo was during wartime, who knows what emergency measures were taken to get the job done. Speaking of emergency wartime measures, I expect this also explains why (normally) brass cased ammunition was laid out on its side. The domed shape tunnels would restrict the quantity of wooden boxes placed there and waste valuable space. Individual shells would allow for flexibility in putting them anywhere space allowed. The purpose of the rings for 6-inch and larger shells was not only to assist in lifting but to keep dust and dirt out of the chamber where the fuse screws into. I have read that the rings stay in place until the shell is readied for firing. If all the ordinance seen in the photo is 6-inch then they all should have had the rings. Why do only the bottom rows have the rings installed? For some unforeseen reason that ring quantities were limited, wouldn’t the rings be in the top rows since they went in last and would be leaving first? The setback in each layer is a good point unless it is just to allow for easier walking down the narrow aisle. What you suggest may have been started for the bottom layers if they were six-inch shells and just continued in upper rows. I cannot answer that. The absence of a visible rim on the bottom is one point against the idea that these are AA shells. I would think that this should be quite noticeable. Even 75mm shells should have a rim shouldn't they? No answer again. In summary, both six-inch and 155mm shells require bagged powder charges. To be ordinance of this size we should be seeing a shorter/stubby shell and not the long slender pointed profile clearly visible in the photo. (Note the photos of M1905 and 155mm GPF shells in Reply #30). In my humble opinion, I do not know exactly what types of shells are on the upper rows in this tunnel. The six-inch and 155mm shell profiles do not match for sure. That leaves something smaller and quite likely a shell that has the propellant integrated. I wonder if we are not considering some other type of ordinance that might have been stored on Corregidor but I cannot think of anything at the moment. The poor photo quality is not helping us either. Here is the only photo I have showing a 75mm M1917 gun and its shell. Unfortunately the front of the shell is in the shadow of the guy to the far left so you cannot see it well.
|
|
|
Post by JohnEakin on Sept 20, 2012 5:30:31 GMT 8
Fots - Looking at this on my large monitor, now, and I can see a lot more detail. The fuze plugs with lifting rings are clearly visible in all layers top to bottom (not all shells, but all layers, especially near the GI). A 3 inch round doesn't need a lifting ring and even with dunnage between the layers its not possible to stack 3 in and 6 in/155mm in the same layer.
FWIW, I would suggest that the rings are present on the heavier shells - probably armor piercing or deck piercing and the fuze plugs without the rings are likely either fragmentation or smoke rounds or something which are significantly lighter in weight. There are quite a variety of types available for these size guns and the length, weight, color, etc can vary considerably in the same caliber or projectile.
Also, on this monitor I can clearly see the grommets/rotating rings just a couple of inches from the wall. With the variety of lighting front to rear they become pretty clear.
Does it seem odd that this quantity of projectiles were stored in Malinta Tunnel? With all the magazines on the island - and considering how long it had been since they had been resupplied - it would seem that space could have been found in a regular magazine somewhere where people weren't living.
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on Sept 20, 2012 23:44:35 GMT 8
EXO, thanks for the input from Art. The more experienced opinions we get, the better.
sherwino, honestly I have not researched bombs so I cannot answer your question about them having lifting rings.
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on Sept 20, 2012 23:53:31 GMT 8
John, Good catch, you must have the “mother of all monitors” there. We learned something new today. On my laptop screen I can see some of the rings down near the soldier. We have been saying that only 6-inch and above diameter shells required lifting rings for those heavy shells. Does the existence of these rings indicate beyond any doubt that we are looking at 6-inch or 155mm shells in the tunnel photo? Unfortunately that statement cannot be made. Here is today’s lesson #2. Just to muddy the waters a little bit, I did a search on lifting rings and guess what showed up? The 4.5-inch artillery shell also used such rings. Perhaps others did too but I did not look any further. I am not saying that 4.5-inch shells were on Corregidor but it does prove that sub 6-inch diameter shells used these rings. 4.5-inch Artillery Shells Does the “Fixed Ammunition” profile look familiar? It is 'much closer' to the shell diameter and length that we see in the tunnel photo than the significantly fatter/shorter/different shaped 6-inch shells. We have roughly touched on this idea before but what if we consider for a moment the possibility that there was other ordinance stored in Malinta Tunnel than we are not currently aware of. I have one other suggestion but I know little about it. I will mention it just to cover the possibility that there may be something to it. When the first coastal defensive positions were constructed on Corregidor, the island was divided into 10 sectors counting from east to west. Each sector had a number of concrete positions for machine guns, field guns and siege guns. The total number constructed was 63 (assuming I counted them correctly). Does anyone know what siege guns were equipped on Corregidor and what the shells looked like? I have not read about such guns being used during the war but I wonder if it is possible that at some time a number of the old shells finally ended up being stored in Malinta Tunnel. It is a long shot but nothing else fits perfectly yet. I still am undecided as to the type of ordinance seen in the 1941 LIFE photo. What is your opinion on what you see there? If you feel it is 6-inch or 155mm, can you post a photo of the type of shell that fits that long slim profile and also has a pre-1941 construction date? There were quite a few ordinance magazines on the island but the majority were above ground structures. Two or maybe three magazines (can’t tell, one was totally destroyed) had a man-made hill on top of them but they do not look like they could withstand a direct hit. Malinta Tunnel laterals were truly bomb proof. Using some photo editing software, I tried to flatten out the tunnel ordinance but had minimal success. Finally, I came across some details on the 75mm shells. FYI, I will post it here as I will never be able to find it again.
|
|
|
Post by pdh54 on Sept 20, 2012 23:58:36 GMT 8
Gotta love it!
All I did was post a picture showing the storage of stuff, a 'female' preoccupation maybe?, and the menfolk zeroed in on what kind of ammo, a 'male' preoccupation?, was being stored.
laughing, laughing, laughing........
This forum is so much fun. Things take such unexpected turns.
;D
|
|
|
Post by JohnEakin on Sept 21, 2012 1:29:56 GMT 8
Gotta love it! All I did was post a picture showing the storage of stuff, a 'female' preoccupation maybe?, and the menfolk zeroed in on what kind of ammo, a 'male' preoccupation?, was being stored. laughing, laughing, laughing........ This forum is so much fun. Things take such unexpected turns. ;D I can't think of a response that won't get me in trouble so I won't say anything. <G>
|
|