Just to add a bit of confusion. In "Sherman Firefly" by Mark Hayward he mentions that the Firefly 17pdrs where ordered as:
3 inch 16-cwt Sherman Tank Gun Mk. VIII
3 inch 17-pdr Tank Gun Mk.II
3 inch 17-pdr tank including barrel

He does metion that there may be some confusion between guns for conversion of M10C as well as Sherman Fireflys

Regards,

Jay

Sorry Shane, I kinda thought I was losing the thread of this thread. But the how is fairly simple. The 17-pdr design requirement began as a heavy antitank gun, and QF guns for direct lay were designated as pounders. And those mounted in the Sherman were conversions of the original antitank gun, so the designation was kept. The "77mm" for the Comet was a redesign though to fit in a tank, so it got the alternate designation. They would not have called it a 3" though, since the 3" CS already existed. And the US story is similar. Of course it was even more complicated in the American Civil War; try being an Ordnance officer and dealing with having a 10-pdr Parrott (2.9" and 3" variant), 3" Ordnance Rifle, 10-pdr Wiard Rifle, 12-pdr James Rifle, and all the other host of "almost" 3" calibers that existed. And of course then there are the Imperial Russian/Soviet succession of "almost" 3" and 76.2mm guns and howitzers that proliferated - they really get confusing

In other words, it wasn't so much a "system" as it was an accident.

Again Rich ol' buddy ol' pal, I couldn't agree more, and you've just reached the same point I (hope) I did from the oposite direction


I certainly do agree that it wasn't a system in more than name, a common convention seems like a reasonably accurate discription. It makes you understand why Wellington kept his field artillery to just 6's, 9's and 5.5" howitzers doesn't it.

If your ordnance officer was a Corn-fed, they'd be Whitworths and all sorts of other things too, oh you mentioned James so he probably was, sorry.

I just look at Pre NATO artillery as being like sporting cartridges, sometimes there's method to the madness, but either you know or just accept them as names and nothing more.

shane

Heh! But the James were used by both sides as well, and they had probably more designations for the damned things than any other piece in history. Just a few I've seen referred to the exact same piece as a "10-pdr James Rifle" (referring to the new round), the "6-pdr James Rifle" (referring to the old round), the "12-pdr James Rifle" (somebody getting confused?), the "3-inch James Rifle" (somebody didn't like pounds), and - my personal favorite - "the 3.08-inch James Rifle" (in an actual document giving the Confederate artillery present at Chickamauga, evidently written by an anal-retentive Rebel ).

Well compared to that, 'R.B.L 12-pr 8cwt Mark I on Carriage, Wood, Field' comes across as downright inaccurate, let alone the joys of Ordnance Q.F 18-pr Mark II* on Carriage 18-pr MarkIIP (Aust)...

shane

There was also a 14-pdr James Rifle.

Probably, the "James Rifle" was actually a process for converting smoothbore tubes into rifles and pretty much any smoothbore handy was liable for conversion. The most common choice for the conversion was the Model 1841 6-pounder Gun, which resulted in the majority of the "almost 3-inch" James types. However, other pieces were also used for the conversion, including IIRC Model 1841 12-pounder Guns, which resulted in some pretty odd pieces (variations on 3.5-inch also seemed popular). Of course, the biggest oddity was the system itself, which utilized a rifled-bronze liner, that by most accounts lasted about two-dozen rounds before wear started affecting accuracy. Some even say that a number of the "six-pounders" to be found on battlefields are actually James Rifles, with the rifling so worn they are indistinguishable from smoothbores.

I washed my library and I can't do a thing with it. A helpful soul restocked my shelves.

So I can't find my reference on ACW artillery.

But IIRC, there were the converted smootbores and ALSO new "James Rifles." I have vague recollections that the 14-pdrs I mentioned were a battery bought cheap by a NE governor (Conn.?) that stayed in the home state because of the non-standard caliber and are apparently still around on courthouse lawns.

I have a feeling there was the James rifling process and there was a James Foundry that cast cannon.

Hazlett, Olmstead and Parks in "Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War" (partially overlaps authors of "The Big Guns", together accounting for ACW pieces in some cases down to the individual weapon) say:
"James' name continues to be applied indiscrimately to a number of rifles which have been converted from smoothbores. Some day we may learn whether such use of his name is correct....Rifling which measures 3.8" land to land is the only rifling we are reasonably certain was exclusively James's. To be explicit we identify only fieldpieces thus rifled, and no other ordnance, as 'James rifles'".

3.8" is 14pdr. They then go on to list 3 Types of James rifles, with 4 series under Type 2. Type 1 is of the form of Model 1841 6 pdr, the others are "Ordnance Profile" or IOW of the form of Models of 1861 (for example 3" Ordnance Rifle). Type 3 is cast steel. If anyone doubts that material so do the authors from observation of surface metallurgy of survivors, but Ames foundry (with which Charles T. James was affiliated) records say "cast steel". Types 1 and 2 are cast bronze.

A small number of James smoothbores are also listed, 6pdrs again of bronze, form of the 3" Ordnance Rifle.

From appendices of the book, surviving James weapons (as the authors strictly define them) are disproportionately represented at Shiloh National Mil. Park.

Joe

Ripley lists a couple of cast-steel 3" Ordnance rifles found at Shiloh. Apparently one battery was cast by an outfit called Singer-Nimick. IIRC the two at Shiloh were #2 and #5.

I remember a artillery firepower study result wsomwhere on the net that looked at the frag effect of different calibers and HE.
The 25pdr came out as the most efficient HE shot in terms of shell weight to frag effect ratio.

So I tend to think that against unprotected soft targets, it was probably a relatively very lethal weapon if the target's in range.