<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Oddities &#8211; Small Arms Defense Journal</title>
	<atom:link href="https://sadefensejournal.com/tag/oddities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://sadefensejournal.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 20:06:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>ORDNANCE ODDITIES—LATE VIETNAM WAR</title>
		<link>https://sadefensejournal.com/ordnance-oddities-late-vietnam-war/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2020 16:39:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Features]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search By Issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V12N3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 12]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2020]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oddities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stoner]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=82235</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” Here is another follow-on to earlier oddities that have appeared in previous SADJ issues. In this edition, we&#8217;ll take a look at some interesting [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>In the course</strong> of decades of research in various military and museum archives, <strong>Robert Bruce</strong> has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” Here is another follow-on to earlier oddities that have appeared in previous <strong>SADJ</strong> issues.</em></p>
<p><em>In this edition, we&#8217;ll take a look at some interesting developments as the massive might of the combined U.S. Armed Forces was brought to bear in Southeast Asia, not only against elusive Viet Cong guerrillas, but increasingly in pitched battles against well-trained and -equipped regulars of the North Vietnamese Army and their Communists Chinese and Russian “advisers.” </em></p>
<p><em>Now, with apologies for some of these rough-looking images—presented as they were found—let&#8217;s look at some very unusual weaponry from America&#8217;s quickly escalating involvement in South Vietnam&#8217;s fight against Communist guerrillas, backed by North Vietnam and China.</em></p>
<figure id="attachment_82237" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82237" style="width: 2016px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2016" height="2300" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_01.jpg" class="wp-image-82237 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82237" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>People Sniffer</strong>. <em>January 31, 1967, An Khe, RVN (Republic of Vietnam). Sp4 Gilbert Hurte of Company B, 5th Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division with the XM-2 “Manpack Personnel Detector—Chemical” on simulated patrol. One would be hard pressed to come up with anything more absurd than the “People Sniffer,” a backpacked, automated chemistry set with rifle-mounted, vacuum-cleaner-type scent collector. Apparently desperate to try anything that research and development money could buy to help keep infantry troops from being ambushed, the Army&#8217;s Chemical Corps fielded this monstrosity. It “worked” by sucking in air laced with the ammonia-based sweat smell of nearby humans, analyzing it on the move and warning the operator/point man. Oh, and there was a bigger version for recon helicopters. You can&#8217;t make this stuff up.</em></figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82241" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82241" style="width: 2838px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="2838" height="2109" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_02.jpg" class="wp-image-82241 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82241" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>That Special Smell</strong>. <em>Probably in a pine forest on Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a U.S. Army Special Forces “Green Beret” Sergeant demonstrates how the XM-2 “Manpack Personnel Detector—Chemical” will be used on patrol in Southeast Asia to detect the presence of enemy soldiers hiding behind thick jungle growth, sounding a headband-mounted warning buzzer. Upon positive identification, of course, the smelly VC or NVA would then be dispatched immediately with bursts from his 5.56mm M16 rifle. Note that this is a very early model AR-15/M16, characterized by slab-sided receiver, lack of a forward assist, “waffle” magazine and 3-prong flash suppressor.</em></figcaption></figure>
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Escalation in Vietnam </strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: left;">While it was initially believed that the Viet Cong insurgency in the Republic of Vietnam would soon collapse when confronted by strong South Vietnamese forces being trained, armed and equipped by America, this proved sadly optimistic. Despite horrendous casualties, Communist VC guerrillas didn&#8217;t seem to falter and were increasingly well-armed and reinforced by PAVN (People’s Army of Vietnam) regulars from the north.</p>
<p>America&#8217;s political leadership was unwilling to cut and run (that would eventually change when Democrats took control of the money), so escalation was inevitable. By the high water mark in 1968, more than 536,000 U.S. Soldiers, Seamen, Airmen and Marines were in the fight, alongside Allied counterparts, notably 800,000 South Vietnamese and 50,000 South Koreans.</p>
<p>Desperate for some sort of victory that would put an end to the hemorrhage of American lives and treasure, the Army as an institution and its essential Ordnance Corps radically ramped up RDT&amp;E (Research, Development, Test &amp; Evaluation). This came in support of the ever-expanding war in Vietnam that was already spilling over to other countries in Southeast Asia. Results, as it&#8217;s said, were mixed, and it wasn&#8217;t rare for combat troops in the field to make their own modifications and innovations.</p>
<figure id="attachment_82242" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82242" style="width: 2364px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="2364" height="2117" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_03.jpg" class="wp-image-82242 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82242" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Mini Mortar</strong>. November 1970, RVN. Mortarmen with the 9th ARVN Division using “Kentucky windage” to aim and trigger fire their 60mm M19 mortar, a lighter, purpose-built version of the venerable M2. It was unhampered by an awkward and heavy bipod and was fitted with a 4-pound mini baseplate, so these South Vietnamese soldiers could quickly move into position to engage enemy troops with a somewhat accurate mini barrage. The rag-wrapped tube protects the soldier’s aiming hand against burns after firing multiple rounds. Noting the absence of customary helmets and gear, this appears to be a training session.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82243" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82243" style="width: 2256px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="2256" height="3408" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_04.jpg" class="wp-image-82243 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82243" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Mini Blooper</strong>. October 30, 1970, RVN. Seen with a group of Pathfinders of 2nd ARVN Rangers, is this radically chopped M79 grenade launcher. Firing a selection of low-recoil but highly effective 40mm rounds, in some situations it&#8217;s a much handier solution to close engagement with an area fire weapon. While this homemade modification wasn&#8217;t officially approved, it was not uncommon among U.S. and Allied special warfare units in the war and even up to recent times with Navy SEALs. Meanwhile, Ordnance fielded the M203, a single-shot blooper hung under M16s.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82244" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82244" style="width: 2240px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="2240" height="3408" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_05.jpg" class="wp-image-82244 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82244" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Multi-blooper</strong>. Earlier, back in the states, U.S. Army Captain Roe was showing off Springfield Armory&#8217;s T148E1, a clever experimental 3-shot version of the well-regarded 40mm M79 “Bloop Tube.” Judging the shotgun-style, single-shot, break action necessary for reloading the standard 79 to be too slow, the spring-advanced “harmonica” chamber allows quick follow-up shots, presumably aided by a double-action trigger mechanism. It&#8217;s said that some 300 were made for troop testing, and some even found their way to &#8216;Nam before the plug was pulled due to unreliability.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82245" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82245" style="width: 3200px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="ROBERT BRUCE" width="3200" height="2200" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_06.jpg" class="wp-image-82245 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82245" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Pumper Thumper</strong>. While the Army was sliding second and third rounds across the breech, the Navy was pumping out up to four of &#8217;em in sequence from this 40mm mega-shotgun. It&#8217;s the “China Lake Pump,” developed for Navy SEALs at their famed California RDT&amp;E complex. While undeniably impressive, combat experience showed what SEALs dubbed as the “pumper thumper” turned out to be impractically heavy, and it wouldn&#8217;t reliably feed the flat-ended XM576 buckshot round that&#8217;s pretty much indispensable in close combat.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82246" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82246" style="width: 2310px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="USMC/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="2310" height="1914" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_07.jpg" class="wp-image-82246 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82246" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Four-Shot Flamethrower</strong>. April 1970, RVN. Marine Staff Sergeant Davenport (gunner) and Sergeant G.A. Sorensen prepare to fire the XM191/M202 Multi-shot Portable Flame Weapon. Responding to a 1966 requirement from the Marine Corps to blast/burn out enemy bunkers at 100m or more, Army Ordnance and Chemical Corps teamed to field a rocket pack that eventually became the M202. “The MPFW system consists of the lightweight, shoulder-fired, four tube, semiautomatic, 66mm, XM202 rocket launcher and the factory-loaded, four-round XM74 rocket clip. The rocket, which is propelled by the M54 LAW motor, has a warhead containing 1.3 pounds of thickened triethylaluminum. &#8230;”</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82247" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82247" style="width: 2715px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/MILITARY HISTORY INSTITUTE" width="2715" height="2048" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_08.jpg" class="wp-image-82247 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82247" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Zippo Reb</strong>. June 18, 1967, Cau Dat, RVN. In Operation Cedar Falls, troopers of 1st Battalion, 4th Cavalry Regiment light up the surrounding jungle with hose bursts of flaming napalm from “Zippo Reb,” their M132 Armored Flamethrower. These vehicles had been quickly crafted by Ordnance and Chemical Corps engineers by stuffing the spacious interior of a standard M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) with four 50-gallon fuel tanks and a high-pressure pumper unit feeding an armored cupola mounted M10-8 flame gun. Side by side with the flame nozzle is the problematic 7.62mm M73 machine gun that—when it wasn&#8217;t jammed—could be used for suppressive fire. In addition to that pintle-mounted 7.62mm M60 for much needed backup, their APC is well-accessorized with concertina wire, crates of extra ammo and chow and a handy stretcher for sleeping or just in case.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82248" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82248" style="width: 3312px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/MILITARY HISTORY INSTITUTE" width="3312" height="2248" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_09.jpg" class="wp-image-82248 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82248" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Queen’s Cobra Spits Fire</strong>. A useful side-on view of the M132&#8217;s cupola-mounted M10-8 flame gun in action, capable of sending multiple bursts of liquid fire out to 200m. Solidarity with our allies in the Vietnam War apparently extended to this crew from the Royal Thai Army&#8217;s Queen’s Cobra Regiment on operation near Phuc Tho, RVN, on November 19, 1967.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82249" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82249" style="width: 2826px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="USMC PHOTO/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="2826" height="2110" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_10.jpg" class="wp-image-82249 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82249" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>The Thing</strong>. On May 28, 1966, on Operation Mobile in RVN, this USMC-tracked and -armored six-shooter and its three-man crew are ready for action. Semi officially known as Ontos, from the Greek word for “thing,” the rifle, multiple 106mm, self-propelled, M50 was the Army&#8217;s somewhat bizarre attempt to field a compact, light, airmobile antitank weapons platform. The marines latched on to it and used its six powerful 105/106mm recoilless rifles (there&#8217;s a confusing/amusing story there) to excellent effect in the epic battle for Hue City in 1968.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82250" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82250" style="width: 2208px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="2208" height="2412" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_11.jpg" class="wp-image-82250 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82250" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Morning Mine Clearing</strong>. August 6, 1970, RVN. A 1st Squadron 10th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division M48 series tank with E202 Tank-Mounted Expendable Mine Roller system is ready for a day’s work on Highway 19. The enemy&#8217;s profligate use of pressure-detonated mines and powerful IEDs proved formidable weapons against supply convoys moving essential fuel, ammo and rations, so brave tankers “Butch” and his TC (track commander) rolled out every morning for the nasty, dangerous and TBI-inducing job of clearing the way.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82251" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82251" style="width: 1668px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY/MILITARY HISTORY INSTITUTE" width="1668" height="1317" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_13.jpg" class="wp-image-82251 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82251" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>War Wagon</strong>. On March 22, 1968, Can Tho, RVN, we find the 3rd Combat Aviation Battalion&#8217;s mobile security team. Standing up in the back, manning the crank-operated 40mm MK18 grenade machine gun, is Warrant Officer Bernard Buono, creator of this heavily armed, sandbag-protected, rapid-response M151 Mutt, named the “War Wagon.” Its mission is to rush to defend the unit&#8217;s perimeter to counter increasingly frequent and effective enemy assaults. The formidable array of onboard weaponry includes the driver&#8217;s 5.56mm XM177E1 submachine gun, the passenger&#8217;s 7.62mm M134 Minigun—probably a spare from the unit&#8217;s armed helicopters—and a 40mm M79 single-shot grenade launcher resting on the back fender as Buono&#8217;s MK18 backup.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82252" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82252" style="width: 3006px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. NAVY PHOTO/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="3006" height="1959" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_12.jpg" class="wp-image-82252 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82252" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Low-Level Flying</strong>. May 11, 1966, Cat Lo Beach near Vung Tau, RVN. A U.S. Navy PACV (Patrol Air Cushion Vehicle) effortlessly glides from river to shore, powerlifted by an aircraft turbine engine and pushed by a giant, aft-mounted propeller. Only six of these million-dollar-a-piece hovercraft monstrosities were completed and then divvied up to the Navy and Army for use on rivers and swamps in Vietnam. Although seemingly a great idea for roaring at high speed over water and right up onto land to chase and kill the enemy, PACVs experienced some limited success but ultimately proved to be too loud, complicated, expensive to operate and maintain and vulnerable to enemy fire.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82253" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82253" style="width: 2244px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM" width="2244" height="1792" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_14.jpg" class="wp-image-82253 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82253" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Gun Trucks</strong>. June 1, 1971, RVN. Built up from a beefy M54 5-ton 6&#215;6 cargo truck and mounting four .50-caliber M2 Brownings, famed armed and armored gun truck “Eve of Destruction” makes a photo run on one of her final convoy escort missions. Beginning around 1967 in a desperate response to increasing ambush attacks on daily supply convoys through the Central Highlands, truckers of the 8th Transportation Corps began welding and bolting scrounged sheets of armor to their cargo trucks and piling on as much armament as available or possible. Eve and dozens of other home-built rolling fortresses—everyone a unique design—provided daily route security in the Central Highlands and along the coast. Eve was singled out as the only one of her kind for a return to America and now—completely refurbished and repainted—she resides comfortably inside the U.S. Army Transportation Museum&#8217;s climate-controlled main gallery.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82254" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82254" style="width: 2120px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. NAVY PHOTO BY PH1 L.R. ROBINSON/NAVY HISTORICAL CENTER" width="2120" height="2584" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_15.jpg" class="wp-image-82254 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82254" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>SEAL Stoner</strong>. March 26, 1968, Mekong Delta, Tan Dinh Island, Operation Bold Dragon III. The M16 wasn&#8217;t the only weapon in &#8216;Nam designed by Eugene Stoner. Here, a Navy SEAL armed with a 5.56mm Stoner 63, set up as a squad auto weapon for belt feeding from a drum magazine attached underneath, covers members of his squad as they prepare demo charges in an enemy bunker. The versatile Stoner modular system could also be quickly configured as an assault rifle or carbine, fed from detachable box magazines on the top or underneath.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82255" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82255" style="width: 2248px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="ROBERT BRUCE PHOTO" width="2248" height="2616" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_18.jpg" class="wp-image-82255 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82255" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Constant Force Magazine</strong>. Handicapped by standard 20 rounders for their “Sixteens” and Stoners, SEALs in furious firefights in &#8216;Nam desperately needed high-capacity magazines, so Childers sprang into action in 1970 with characteristic avoidance of unworkable conventional solutions. Seen here is his “Constant Force 50-round Magazine,” Model 2 version, with a smooth body curve, nylon follower and all-important twin-coiled lift springs, reportedly inspired by those used in common roll-up window shades. This solution, he explained, lifts all the rounds with ease and the same follower pressure from first to last as the mag is emptied, eliminating that common source of feed stoppages. Inexplicably, the Navy abandoned it when Vietnam fell, and we&#8217;re unaware of any subsequent military or commercial attempts to exploit this clever concept. Any takers out there?</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82256" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82256" style="width: 3208px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="U.S. ARMY PHOTO/NATIONAL ARCHIVES" width="3208" height="2168" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_16.jpg" class="wp-image-82256 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82256" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>Starlight Scope</strong>. October 23, 1967, Bearcat Base, RVN. Taking a picture-perfect squatting position, SP4 Michael Longo, 9th Infantry Division, poses for a daytime photo with his 5.56mm M16A1 topped with the game-changing AN/PVS-1, the first “starlight” scope fielded for combat use in SE Asia. While previous night scopes were heavy, bulky, of limited range and used inefficient infrared light, this Generation 1 device&#8217;s S-20 photo cathode gathered and amplified ambient light nearly 1,000 times. Under a bit of moonlight, the gunner could detect and fire on enemies at 400 yards or more. The more durable and capable AN/PVS-2 soon followed, and today, far more sophisticated night vision devices are in widespread use.</figcaption></figure>
<figure id="attachment_82257" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-82257" style="width: 2028px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="ROBERT BRUCE PHOTO" width="2028" height="2140" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3142_OO5_17.jpg" class="wp-image-82257 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-82257" class="wp-caption-text"><strong>One Unsung Hero</strong>. There are many good men behind developments in weapons, ammunition and sighting systems in the Vietnam War, including well-known ones like ArmaLite&#8217;s Gene Stoner and Colt&#8217;s Rob Roy. Lesser known but on a similar level is MajGen Carroll D. Childers, seen here in September 2000 at his home in Stafford, Virginia. A prominent member of what was formally known as the Vietnam Laboratory Assistance Team while stationed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Childers was a key figure behind some important weapons and related equipment used by the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy Special Operations. A fascinating interview with Childers discussing his radically innovative RHINO/MIWS/SOW selective fire shotgun, and a detachable box magazine for the Remington 870 shotgun, can be found in <strong>Small Arms Review</strong>, Vol. 5, No. 8 (May 2002).</figcaption></figure>
<p style="text-align: center;">**********</p>
<h2>What&#8217;s Ahead</h2>
<p><em>In the next installment of “Ordnance Oddities,” we&#8217;ll turn a jaundiced eye on some “Silliness in the 70s and 80s.” Like the funny 5.56mm Folded Ammunition/Weapon System from Frankford Arsenal and maybe even the remarkable Colt SCAMP.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ORDNANCE ODDITIES—EARLY VIETNAM WAR</title>
		<link>https://sadefensejournal.com/ordnance-oddities-early-vietnam-war/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2020 22:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Features]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search By Issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V12N2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 12]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2020]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oddities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=58630</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” This is yet another follow-on to earlier oddities that appeared in previous issues.  Now, with apologies for some of these rough-looking images—presented as they [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>In the course</strong> of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” This is yet another follow-on to earlier oddities that appeared in previous issues. </em></p>
<p><em> </em><em>Now, with apologies for some of these rough-looking images—presented as they were found—let&#8217;s look at some very unusual weaponry from the early 1960&#8217;s and America&#8217;s gradual but quickly growing involvement in South Vietnam&#8217;s fight against Communist guerrillas, backed by North Vietnam and China.</em></p>
<p><em>First, here are some weapons used by the VC (Viet Cong) and NVA (North Vietnamese Army).</em></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="738" height="600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_01.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57235 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: DOUGLAS PIKE PHOTOGRAPH COLLECTION, THE VIETNAM ARCHIVE, TEXAS TECH</strong></p>
<p><strong>Homemade Recoilless Gun.</strong> A “VC HOMEMADE BOMB LAUNCHER 66mm TYPE SSA CAPTURED AT NAM CAN ON FEB. 5, 1963.” This was during the early days of the “America adviser” period before large numbers of conventional troops were committed. According to the 1964 edition of <em>FSTC 381-5012 Typical Foreign Unconventional Weapons,</em> “The Model S.S.A. Recoilless gun was made either in North Vietnam or in a Viet Cong safe area because its manufacture requires fairly extensive machine shop capabilities. The tube is a 60mm smooth bore made of a piece of pipe approximately 4½ feet long. The weapon traverses freely, but elevation is accomplished by means of a threaded shaft extending from a clamp around the rear of the tube to an arm attached to the mounting clamp. The total weight is approximately 72 pounds. The test history of this weapon is not known. The weapon is presumed to be effective.” No word on the finned rocket, but it had to have operated on the recoilless principle, delivering its explosive warhead at some undetermined range and with some degree of effectiveness.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<h3><strong>Why Vietnam? </strong></h3>
<p>American military involvement in French Indochina dated back to WWII when the OSS (Office of Strategic Services—forerunners of the CIA] assisted Ho Chi Minh in his guerrilla war against Imperial Japanese occupiers. It continued in the early 1950s with advisers and massive shipments of war materiel to the French who were trying to keep Ho and his Viet Minh insurgents from kicking them out of their reclaimed colony. The French lost, and Vietnam was divided into a Communist north and a republic in the south. Fearful of South Vietnam falling like a “domino” into the rapidly growing Communist bloc, American aid and advisers began pouring in again. But the nature of counter-guerrilla warfare was quite different from what characterized massive conventional battle in WWII and the Korean Conflict. Once again, the U.S. Army, as an institution, and its essential Ordnance Corps were inadequately prepared, even against a poorly equipped but highly determined foe.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="683" height="600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_02.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57236 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: DOUGLAS PIKE PHOTOGRAPH COLLECTION, THE VIETNAM ARCHIVE, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY</strong></p>
<p><strong>Medieval Crossbow in Modern Warfare? </strong>This undated Communist propaganda photo is intended to show the courage and determination of these teenage “liberators” despite the terrible handicap of primitive weapons. Its official caption says, “Militia of the Khua minority people &#8230; have efficiently helped the border guards defend the security of the DRVN (North Vietnam) frontier &#8230; They have detected and captured many spy-commando groups smuggled by the U.S. imperialists and their henchmen.” We note that the string on the young man&#8217;s crossbow is being held rearward by his thumb because the triggering stud is apparently a bit too short. His female battle buddy is much more effectively armed with what looks to be a U.S. .30 cal. M1903A3 bolt-action rifle, presumably captured from their South Vietnamese Army enemies.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="750" height="600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_03.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57237 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY MILITARY HISTORY INSTITUTE </strong></p>
<p><strong>Vintage Submachine Guns.</strong> This trio of subguns, captured from VC combatants, represents some typical subguns supplied by the insurgent movement&#8217;s Communist benefactors. <em>From top to bottom:</em> the Soviet PPS-43 or Chicom Type 54, a WWII German MP40 and an NVA K-50M, modified from the Red Army&#8217;s iconic PPSh 41. Judging from its descriptive card, the German “burp gun” has probably the most interesting origin, “GERMAN 9MM SCHMEISSER SMG 1941 ASSEMBLED FROM THE COMPONENTS OF SEVERAL SCHMEISSER WEAPONS PURCHASED IN EUROPE BY COMMUNIST AGENTS &#8230; .” Aside from perpetuating the long-common mistake of erroneously identifying Heinrich Vollmer&#8217;s MP38 and 40, there must have been some evidence of its origins from among millions of surplus German weapons in Europe after the War.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="457" height="600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_04.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57238 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p>VC “Zip Gun.” July 6, 1965, Fort Hood, Texas. SFC Wes Willoughby, curator of the 1<sup>st</sup> Infantry Div. Museum, shows a VC-made 9mm pistol. While pretty conventional and surprisingly sophisticated in its grip, receiver and barrel, it feeds from a highly unusual 3-round sliding chamber. No word on how this was moved up or down to index each round for firing. The rifles in the display case behind him appear to be typical types from the Soviets, Red Chinese and various European countries.</p>
<h3><strong>Ingenious GIs</strong></h3>
<p>When his life is on the line and the weapons he&#8217;s given don&#8217;t measure up, the American GI takes action. Either on his own or with some help from higher ups. Here are some developments that validate once again the old expression, “necessity is the mother of invention.”</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="800" height="478" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_05.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57239 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><strong>Improvised Door Gun.</strong> In Vietnam in 1963, PFC Dave Foch, 57<sup>th</sup> Light Helicopter Transportation Company, shows his “John Wayne Sling,” with on-board ammo can and chute-fed .30 cal. Browning M37 machine gun. According to Wikipedia, “The shooting down of a CH-21 Shawnee near the Laotian-Vietnamese border with the death of four aviators in July 1962 were some of the U.S. Army&#8217;s earliest Vietnam casualties.” So, since this H-21C Shawnee “Flying Banana” doesn&#8217;t appear to have a suitable mount for the gun in its door, Foch&#8217;s clever rig is likely intended to provide suppressive fire when in flight and on landing zones, as well as a formidable, portable weapon in case his helo is forced down like the one some months before when the whole crew was killed by guerrillas.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="800" height="563" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_06.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57207 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY/MILITARY HISTORY INSTITUTE</strong></p>
<p><strong>Browning Hits the Skids.</strong> In the undated, but probably around 1959 photo, the XM-1 Armament System is seen on the left side skid of a little Hiller OH-23D Raven observation helicopter. A common complaint from pilots of these nimble but unarmed little scout choppers from service dating back to the Korean War was the inability to take out targets of opportunity or to immediately retaliate against hostile ground fire. That&#8217;s a solenoid fired, .30 caliber Browning M37 machine gun, fed by disintegrating steel-linked belts pulled up from an under-mounted magazine. Because the feed side of the M37 could be easily switched, another set was mounted on the right skid for balance, backup and double the firepower when needed.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="800" height="527" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_07.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57208 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES </strong></p>
<p><strong>“Custom” Pistol?</strong> In 1963 at Ton Son Nuht, Vietnam, Staff Sergeant Robert Blerk, Chief Machine Gunner with the Army&#8217;s 57<sup>th</sup> Light Helicopter Transportation Company, shows off “Long Tom,” a customized .22 auto that&#8217;s obviously set up to take a muzzle-coupled suppressor along with a high-mounted rear sight to clear the can. With no more info on the photo print we found, we&#8217;ll speculate that the pistol (possibly built on a High Standard Target model) was acquired in friendly association from flying around some of America&#8217;s clandestine operators of the CIA, spookily assessing strength and capabilities of insurgent forces. That&#8217;s an H-21C Shawnee in the background.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="800" height="543" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_08.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57209 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: USAF/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><strong>Dragon Feeding Time</strong>. We&#8217;ve got a “two-fer” here in this May 1966 photo from the Vietnam War with cowboy-rig revolvers and Gatling guns. From left to right are Staff Sergeant John Boineau, Staff Sergeant Carl Starwalt and Master Sergeant Norris Johnson, USAF airmen loading steel-linked 7.62mm ammunition for Miniguns on an AC-47. Plenty was needed because each of the three M134 Miniguns could rip out up to 100 rounds per second at top speed, and with every fifth round a red tracer, its nighttime signature, looked like undulating streams of dragon fire. Whole books have—rightly so—been written about Dr. Gatling&#8217;s hand-cranked cartridge spitter in America&#8217;s War of Northern Aggression and its evolution into various motor-driven super machine guns, as well as other books detailing the saga of stalwart Captain Ron Terry fighting the arrogant Air Force brass to fly close support missions in his FC/AC-47 modified WWII cargo planes. These quickly became known fondly as both “Spooky” and “Puff the Magic Dragon.”</p>
<h3><strong>A New Rifle for a New Type of War</strong></h3>
<p>At the time, soldiers and militiamen of South Vietnam were armed with the usual array of America&#8217;s leftover infantry weapons from WWII. Since most of these men were considerably smaller than their GI counterparts, big Garands, Brownings and Thompsons weren&#8217;t a good fit. M1 and M2 carbines were more favorable, but range and stopping power were lacking. American soldiers and Marines had heavy M14 rifles firing hard-hitting 7.62mm (.30 caliber) rounds; excellent for warfare in the open spaces of Europe but not so much for tropical Vietnam. What followed is a tale of optimism and woe, perhaps best detailed in R. Blake Stevens&#8217; and Edward C. Ezell’s <em>The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective</em>.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="474" height="600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_09.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57210 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><strong>ARVN Armalite</strong>. In June 1962, ARVN (Army of Republic of Vietnam) infantrymen were armed with early-production 5.56mm AR-15 rifles during a field operation; these small-stature soldiers no doubt were glad to be rid of the heavy, hard-kicking M1 Garand rifles previously issued. Sharp-eyed readers will note the prong-style flash suppressor and slab-sided lower receiver with unshielded mag release and no forward assist mechanism. Also, on the soldier&#8217;s pistol belt is the little rifle&#8217;s bayonet and carrying case with “clothespin” bipod. Early field performance reports were sometimes exaggerated, hastening replacement of the 7.62mm M14 with the M16 in U.S. military service. A fateful decision &#8230;</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="800" height="568" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_11.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57212 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: USMC/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><strong>AR Optic Experiments</strong>. While today&#8217;s American military riflemen take for granted the combat effectiveness of electro-optical sights now standard on their M16 series rifles and M4 carbines, this was a long time coming. As early as 1961, with the USAF&#8217;s initial evaluation of Eugene Stoner&#8217;s Armalite/Colt AR-15, some low powered scopes were handily mounted without any modification into their preordained space on the carrying handle. But for various reasons this essential enhancement didn&#8217;t become standard for decades despite the Son Tay Raiders in 1970 having early Aimpoint red dots on their XM177E carbines. However, some optically scoped “Sixteens” did find use in ‘Nam as seen in this photo of a 2<sup>nd</sup> Bn 2<sup>nd</sup> ROK (Republic of Korea) Marine sniper’s M16A1 during Operation Dragon Fire, south of Chu Lai.</p>
<h3><strong> “Brown Water Navy” </strong></h3>
<p>The U.S. Navy has its own Ordnance establishment that&#8217;s turned out some interesting weaponry over time. Relevant to this installment is the immediate adaption of the WWII PT (Patrol Torpedo) boat&#8217;s swiveling gun tub with twin .50 M2 machine guns to the similarly fast and light PBR (Patrol Boat River) of Vietnam. Transitioning from open-ocean “blue water” to muddy rivers of the Mekong Delta, supporting riverine operations required some real institutional and engineering expertise. Fortunately for sailors, SEALs and Marines, the work started early and paid off quickly.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="479" height="600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_12.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57213 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: “ORDNANCE FOR SMALL BOAT NAVY” U.S. NAVY/NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER</strong></p>
<p><strong>Piggyback Pounder.</strong> An early 1960&#8217;s joint development by weapons wizards at Naval Weapons Station, Crane, Indiana and their Coast Guard comrades at Curtis Bay, Maryland, the Mk 2 Mod 0 and Mod 1 81mm mortar with piggyback .50 cal. machine gun was a murderous combination on patrol craft in Vietnam. The mortar tube could be elevated for conventional drop fire at long range or levered down for direct fire with a trigger mechanism. And with all that steel in the gun and its massive mount, bolting a Browning M2 on top was a piece of cake. The mortar fired all the conventional M43 series ammo and the wickedly awesome M120 APERS packed with 1,200 steel needle flechettes.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="419" height="600" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_13.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57214 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. NAVY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><strong>Crank &#8217;em out!</strong> April 1969, Cà Mau Peninsula, RVN. A U.S. Navy PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) “Swift Boat” crewman readies an Mk 18 grenade launcher. No word if this was the one that John Kerry claimed to have been cranking when he was “wounded in combat action.” Responding to an urgent request from the Navy in the early 1960s, Honeywell Corp. developed a novel hand-cranked weapon firing standard, low-velocity 40mm ammo for the M79, held securely in Mylar/Dacron tape belts. What became known as the Mk 18 Mod 0 Grenade Launcher utilized a clever “clam shell” split breech of two star wheels that clamped around each cartridge from opposite sides as it was ratcheted up into firing position. For simplicity, the rounds were not extracted from the belt for firing, and the empties were simply cranked out the other side.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="800" height="544" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_15.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57216 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: “ORDNANCE FOR SMALL BOAT NAVY” U.S. NAVY/NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER</strong></p>
<p><strong>40mm Forerunner to the Mk 19.</strong> While not strictly an early Vietnam War weapon, the Mk 20 is included here as an example of rapid development in response to combat urgencies. Although it&#8217;s hard to understand how the ultra-simple and somewhat reliable Mk 18 was falling short, the archaic hand crank was dispensed with in the automatic firing Mk 20. Fielded by the Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky, in a crash program after just 6 months’ work, it fired the same belts of the low-velocity 40mm M79 ammo but in a radical blow-forward mechanism. Only a very few of these oddities were made, and the much more effective Mk 19, firing high-velocity, longer range 40mm ammo in full-auto, quickly gained acceptance, continuing to this very day.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="800" height="566" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3647_OO4_14.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-57215 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. NAVY/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><strong>An A 40 and A 50 for the Fight.</strong> April 1969, My Tho, RVN. Gunners Mate 3 Thomas Bruemer USN PBR on river patrol. In a piggyback rig that&#8217;s handy in most any engagement, the 40mm Mk18 on top is used to crank out M79-type grenades for suppressive fire in close-combat action, while the much more formidable M2 .50 cal. could punch hard and fast at near and very far range. It is worthy to note that around this time there was experimentation with Duplex and Triplex (two and three projectiles) in each cartridge case for the M2.</p>
<h3><strong>What’s Ahead</strong></h3>
<p>In the next installment of Ordnance Oddities, we&#8217;ll take a look at some interesting developments that the massive might of the combined U.S. Armed Forces was brought to bear in Southeast Asia; not only against elusive Viet Cong guerrillas but increasingly in pitched battles against well-trained and -equipped regulars of the North Vietnamese Army.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ORDNANCE ODDITIES 1950s Fantasies</title>
		<link>https://sadefensejournal.com/ordnance-oddities-1950s-fantasies/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2019 18:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Features]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search By Issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V12N1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 12]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2019]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oddities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=39010</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” This is a follow-on to earlier oddities that appeared in previous issues.  Now, with apologies for some of these rough-looking images—presented as they were [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” This is a follow-on to earlier oddities that appeared in previous issues. </em></p>
<p><em> </em><em>Now, with apologies for some of these rough-looking images—presented as they were found—let&#8217;s look at some very unusual weaponry from the 1950s, when countering nuke-armed Commies was paramount. </em></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT U.S. ARMY TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="3151" height="2373" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_01.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39011 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Flying Jeep! </strong>American frontiersman Davy Crockett rides—actually flies—again in this provocative photo taken at Piasecki Aircraft Corporation facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As noted on the side, it&#8217;s a prototype VZ-8P Airgeep, produced in response to a 1957 Army requirement for an aerial platform cheaper and easier to fly than conventional helicopters. Enormous, ducted fans fore and aft provide lift, and a mock-up of a revolving, multi-chamber recoilless rifle indicates intended armament. No word on why the pilot is whimsically dressed in coonskin cap and fringed buckskin shirt.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: ARMY ART COLLECTION</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1076" height="1449" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_02.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39012 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>“Aerial Assault Vehicle.”</strong> So, how would the Army use these Airjeeps? Deep thinkers at the Pentagon commissioned artist Robert Rigg to illustrate a futuristic attack scenario with side-mounted rocket pods softening up enemy forces in advance of a ground attack. Wisely, the pilot has been relocated to a more efficient and comfortable bubble-topped cockpit in the front.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2136" height="3216" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_03.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39013 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>“Night Recon.” </strong>Another one from Robert Rigg shows a pair of Airjeeps with some manner of underbody weaponry—possibly ray guns—raining hell on a doomed enemy soldier.</p>
<p>**********</p>
<p>Now that you know what was going on at the time, let&#8217;s take a look at some oddities in the latter part of the 1950s, following the “police action” in South Korea that claimed more than a million American and Allied lives before the formal cease fire in 1954. The very real threat of apocalyptic war with the nuclear-armed Soviet Union and its Communist Chinese cronies led to some truly bizarre theories and experimentation; supported, by the way, by a bloated bureaucracy with multi-million-dollar budgets. For the record, not all of these were developed by the Army&#8217;s Ordnance Branch, but maintaining them was their mission, and all were intended to perform some sort of land warfare mission.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: ARMY ART COLLECTION</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1048" height="1576" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_04.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39014 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Flying Fan.</strong> While all those Airjeeps were flying around and shooting things up, this one-man flying fan was to be going in ahead to spot suitable targets, give damage assessments and radio the info back to headquarters. A couple of these 1031 Flying Platforms were actually made by Hiller Aircraft for evaluation, but—for some reason—didn&#8217;t do the job intended. Gosh, why not?</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><strong>Aerocycle.</strong> Why stand on a bucket fan when you can ride into battle on top of de Lackner Helicopters&#8217; HZ-1 Aerocycle with its impressive set of long, counter-rotating blades? Regular infantry grunts assigned to recon duty were supposed to be able to climb aboard and fly this monstrosity with only about 20 hours of instruction. After a couple of predictable crashes, the program was abandoned.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="3408" height="2248" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_05.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39015 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Particularly notable in this mid-1950s photo, the soldier-pilot is armed with a distinctive T48 rifle, an American-trial version of the superlative Belgian FAL that was on the fast track for replacing the venerable M1 Garand as the Army&#8217;s standard battle rifle. Keep reading below for more on this debacle.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1500" height="1420" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_06.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39016 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Air Cushion Sled.</strong> Hard to get more absurd than this twin-fan, air-floating belly flopper for scooting riflemen up to the front lines. The only info accompanying the photo, taken some time in the 50s at Fort Eustis, Virginia, is the designation “Experimental GEM” (ground effect machine). Apparently steered with that joystick, did the soldier have to drag the toes of his combat boots to stop?</p>
<p><strong>Move, Shoot, Communicate</strong></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2240" height="3392" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_07.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39017 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Can you hear me now? </strong>At Fort Carson, Colorado, in June 1955, Captain E. A. Treadwell calls Private First-Class Edward Croft&#8217;s helmet-mounted, cutting-edge transistor radio. Assuming it worked at some practical distance, Croft could be directed to move into a specified position and employ his venerable M1 Garand rifle against designated targets. While this kind of rig is very common now in SPEC OPS, it was quite the noble novelty 60 years ago.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="3328" height="2216" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_08.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39018 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>“Tank of the Future.”</strong> Right in there with Pentagon pipe dreams of the “Pentomic” battlefield, tank designers at Aberdeen Proving Ground produced this racy model of a streamlined, rocket-shooting, armored fighting vehicle. With no info accompanying this March 1960 photo, we speculate that the ultra-low silhouetted tank would have a front-mounted engine (see fan on the deck and front drive sprocket on the Christie suspension) along with an unmanned, rotating turret with swing-up rocket tubes, underslung heavy machine gun and TV camera.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2400" height="1608" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_09.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39019 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Burst and Burn.</strong> In what is probably a dual development by Army Ordnance and Chemical Corps, the inexplicable mistake made in shortening the M2 flamethrower&#8217;s gun (exiting flame stream heats up the operator&#8217;s hands) is made a bit less awful by piggybacking a modified M2 carbine. Probably in response to requests from GIs in the field, it gives the flame gunner the capability to drill threats with .30-cal. bursts at 750rpm or light &#8217;em up in the old-fashioned way. Sadly, this photo was not accompanied with info on results of the Infantry Board&#8217;s evaluation in 1958, and we&#8217;ve seen no evidence of this in any subsequent use.</p>
<p><strong>Search for the “Ideal” Infantry Rifle</strong></p>
<p>Books have been written (notably in a series from Collector Grade Publications) on the ups and downs of the U.S. Army&#8217;s quest in the 1950s for a replacement for the iconic M1 Garand. While a short version here doesn&#8217;t serve justice, several candidates and different calibers were evaluated by NATO&#8217;s “Rifle Steering Committee,” including entries from Britain, Belgium and the American government with commercial armament establishments. All users of modern U.S. military small arms should make it a point to delve deeper into this disturbing story to know why they got the M14 and then the M16 and M4.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS/NATIONAL ARCHIVES</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2400" height="1973" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_10.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39020 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Brit Bullpup.</strong> One of the more radical candidates for America&#8217;s new rifle was the British EM2, not only a very unconventional bullpup but also chambered in a lightly recoiling, flat flying, terminally efficient .280 caliber “intermediate” cartridge. Characterized by the bolt group and magazine behind the pistol grip/trigger group for a compact profile, the EM2&#8217;s overall length was a handy 35 inches—about 9 inches less than that of what would become the M14. This photo shows it being handled by a U.S. Army senior NCO, probably during Ordnance Corps/Infantry Board evaluations in 1950 or the International Trials of 1952 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Despite ingrained prejudice against its layout, lower powered cartridge and British pedigree, it was well-received but ultimately rejected higher up on the chain of command.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS/SPRINGFIELD ARMORY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2400" height="1825" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_11.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39021 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Beyond the BAR.</strong> Among the requirements for the Army&#8217;s new rifle—with cartridge standardized as the new 7.62&#215;51 NATO—were both semi- and full-auto fire in the manner of the beloved but very heavy .30-06 cal. Browning Automatic Rifle, seen at the bottom of this photo. Right above it is a heavy-barreled, bipod equipped E1 version of the Belgian-made and then-to-be American-built T48. Springfield Armory&#8217;s homegrown T44, essentially a “modernized” M1, is at the top, later designated M14.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS/SPRINGFIELD ARMORY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2400" height="2064" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_12.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39022 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Belgian Twofer.</strong> Springfield Armory technician Majewski pauses during live-fire trials in May 1955 at the Quabbin Reservoir range to show the distinctive T48 rifle, tipped with an ENERGA rifle grenade, both Belgian designs. By this time, it seemed almost a sure thing that the T48 would win the U.S. trials, but that wasn&#8217;t the way things turned out.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS/SPRINGFIELD ARMORY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2100" height="1547" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_13.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39023 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Springfield Armory vs. Fabrique Nationale.</strong> Here are the two remaining contenders for America&#8217;s new battle rifle—and most of NATO too—going into last gasp, winner-take-all “Light Self-Loading Rifle” competition in 1955. Underneath Springfield&#8217;s more traditional looking T44 with modified M4 bayonet and its new grenade launcher is the decidedly different T48. Although billed in the photo as “FN” (Fabrique Nationale), the T48 pictured is reliably identified as one made under Ordnance contract by the American company High Standard for the trials. By most accounts the T48 proved superior, but the deck was stacked against it. For a combination of unsettling factors, not the least of which was “not invented here” prejudice, the T44 was chosen, entering U.S. service in 1958 as the M14. Meanwhile, Britain, Canada, West Germany and much of the rest of NATO chose the T48 FN FAL.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS/SPRINGFIELD ARMORY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2400" height="1561" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_14.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39024 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Full-Auto Follies.</strong> Recalling that photo of the BAR, T44 and T48 to indicate the requirement for effective full-auto performance, this one shows the results of desperate efforts by Ordnance engineers to tame the nearly uncontrollable, wild dispersion of the lightweight T44/M14 in full-auto. Despite addition of a muzzle brake and bipod as well as a heftier straight line wooden stock with FAL-like pistol grip and fold-down metal foregrip, the M14E1 was still a conspicuous, embarrassing failure as a replacement for the BAR.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Project SALVO</strong></p>
<p><u> </u></p>
<p>At about the same time Big Army was muddling through its selection of a main battle rifle, firing traditional bullets from full-size, hard-recoiling cartridges, parallel developments were underway in “Project SALVO.” Kicked off around 1951, this was an earnest effort to dramatically increase the rifleman&#8217;s hit probability with multiple projectiles from each shot. Visionary ordnance engineer Irwin Barr at AAI Corp. was way ahead of the pack with his tiny steel arrows called “flechettes.” First proven for Office of Naval Research by 32 of &#8217;em nested in a particularly nasty 12-gauge shotgun shell, Barr took the concept further for rifles with larger, single flechettes loaded in otherwise conventional brass cartridge cases.</p>
<p><strong>CREDIT: AAI (AIRCRAFT ARMAMENTS, INC.)</strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="3328" height="2248" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_15.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39025 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Needle Rifle.</strong> The rifles to fire these took various forms, leading eventually to this early 1960s version of a SPIW (Special Purpose Infantry Weapon) from AAI, fed by a rotary magazine.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2640" height="1108" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/3141_OO3_16.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-39026 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>“Hypersonic Micro Arrows.”</strong> Sequentially improved throughout the 1950s, here&#8217;s the deadly steel dart that&#8217;s launched in super-quick bursts from Barr&#8217;s SPIW. Now weighing 10.3 grains and secured inside the cartridge case neck by a fiberglass sabot, the little arrow flew at more than 4,000 fps beyond 400m on an ultra-flat trajectory with strong crosswinds having virtually no effect. Target penetration of multiple-stacked pine boards—and even a steel helmet—was also spectacular, as might be expected from these rocketing needles.</p>
<p><strong>It&#8217;s a Wrap</strong></p>
<p>Yes, we&#8217;ve been making fun of many of the seemingly oddball developments in Ordnance during the 1950s, but we&#8217;ll give a tip of the hat to those that were well-intentioned. One way or another, these either demonstrated dead ends or opened the doors to further examination.</p>
<p><em>In the next installment of Ordnance Oddities, we&#8217;ll march into the early part of the 1960s with a look at what happened when a focus on atomic war with the Soviets shifted a poorly prepared Ordnance Corps to counter-guerrilla operations against Communist surrogates in Southeast Asia.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ORDNANCE ODDITIES WWII and the Cold War</title>
		<link>https://sadefensejournal.com/ordnance-oddities-wwii-and-the-cold-war/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Military Museums]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search By Issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V11N6]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2019]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oddities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=33456</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” This is a follow-on to the first installment of “Ordnance Oddities: The Early Days” that appeared in SADJ, Vol. 11, No. 5. Now, with [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” This is a follow-on to the first installment of “Ordnance Oddities: The Early Days” that appeared in <strong><em>SADJ,</em></strong> Vol. 11, No. 5.</p>
<p>Now, with apologies for some of these rough-looking images—presented as they were found—let&#8217;s look at some very unusual weaponry from the 1940s through the 1950s.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2700" height="2160" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_001.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33457 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT/NATIONAL ARCHIVES/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</p>
<p><strong>Atomic Bazooka! </strong>Undoubtedly the most spectacular of these oddities is the M28 and M29 man-portable, tactical nuclear weapon system, officially named the “Davy Crockett” after a semi-mythological American patriot of the early frontier days. Developed in the late 1950s Cold War period, in this case, Davy&#8217;s job was to quickly move into position to take out Communist enemy concentrations with the watermelon-sized M338 mini-nuke. The inability to kick its atomic warhead to a safe distance from the gun crew was an unfortunate limitation that added to other concerns, and the project was scrapped after very limited deployment. Photo taken at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1290" height="1616" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_002.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33458 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</p>
<p><strong>Effect on Target!</strong> While we&#8217;re exaggerating the Davy Crockett&#8217;s nuke blast effect (equivalent of 20 tons of TNT) in this photo of a 14-kiloton test, it is in color and has its characteristic mushroom cloud. The M29 weapon itself used a novel piston-spigot system to propel the 50-plus-pound Mk-54 sub-fission warhead to a maximum range of 2.5 miles. Photo taken October 30, 1951, at Yucca Flat, Nevada.</p>
<p>_________</p>
<p>Now that we&#8217;ve set the stage, let&#8217;s go back in time to the early 1940s, just two decades after “The War to End All Wars.”</p>
<p>___________</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2700" height="1800" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_003.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33459 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</p>
<p><strong>Frankengun .45!</strong> Despite being nearly perfect in its original M1911 form, John Moses Browning&#8217;s superlative .45 ACP semiautomatic handgun was an apparently irresistible candidate for “improvement.” And so, here&#8217;s what happens in peacetime when idle hands at Army Ordnance Corps go to work to fit a detachable shoulder stock, extended magazine and slide with long barrel and an eye-catching perforated cooling jacket. Photo taken at Aberdeen Proving Ground, one month before the U.S. entered WWII.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2700" height="1800" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_004.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33460 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</p>
<p><strong>Convertible Chopper!</strong> Urgent wartime production demands spurred experimentation in alternatives to America&#8217;s heavy and expensive Thompson Submachine Guns. Here&#8217;s the UD-1, a novel offering from United Defense that can be quickly converted to fire either standard U.S. .45 ACP ammo or the European-favored 9mm Parabellum. For various reasons, it lost out to the ultra-cheap and simple M3 “Grease Gun.” Photo taken at Aberdeen Proving Ground in April 1943.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2700" height="1800" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_005.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33461 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</p>
<p><strong>A Mortar Rifle?</strong> Desperate times for Marines in desperate fights with a fanatical Japanese enemy in early Pacific island-hopping combat inspired this trigger-fired 60mm mortar. Don&#8217;t make fun of this clever field-expedient because it&#8217;s a very practical solution to the urgent need for Marine mortarmen to move fast and hit hard in close-range jungle fighting. Its tube, carried by a single Marine, has an under-slung rifle stock serving as both a trigger mechanism and its baseplate (seen buried butt-deep into a sandbag); <em>not intended for shoulder firing</em>. While seen here with the heavy and ungainly standard bipod with quick release collar, this was most certainly dispensed, in most cases, with the gunner slamming the butt into the ground, grabbing that broomstick foregrip and using “Kentucky windage” to aim.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="3300" height="2200" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_006.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33462 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</p>
<p><strong>Improved One-Marine Mortar!</strong> Probably inspired by that rifle stock mortar, Master Gunnery Sergeant Garrett pushes this to the limit with his design for a bipod-mounted, trigger-operated, shoulder-fired 60mm mortar. Yes, Leathernecks are notoriously tough guys, but ouch! Noting the angle of the simple quadrant sight on its left side, that bipod will have to extend pretty far to lob the shell even a short distance. Photo taken at Aberdeen Proving Ground in September 1943.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2300" height="1606" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_007.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33463 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS, NATIONAL ARCHIVES</p>
<p><strong>Gotta Have a Bayonet!</strong> Among the first M1 Carbines delivered to the Army&#8217;s Infantry Board at Fort Benning, Georgia, February 1942, this one has been “improved” by taping a trench knife to the barrel. This came at the start of a crash program to put a “pig sticker” on the little rifle. Well, only about 2 years later, the M4 Bayonet was standardized, secured to carbine barrels modified with the T2 lug assembly.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2342" height="1594" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_008.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33464 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS, NATIONAL ARCHIVES</p>
<p><strong>First Full-Auto M1 Carbine?</strong> While industry and Army Ordnance Corps engineers and technicians back in the U.S. were scrambling to provide full-auto capability to semiauto-only M1 Carbines, some muddy-boots Ordnance GIs in Europe apparently didn&#8217;t wait. Photographed in Belgium on November 10, 1944, “Sergeant Harold Schwarz, one of two inventors of an improvement of the Carbine, proves the worth of the piece by firing 15 rounds in less than 2 seconds.” It was apparently not good enough, and Inland Manufacturing&#8217;s trip lever mod won, standardized as the M2.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1577" height="2366" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_009.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33465 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS, NATIONAL ARCHIVES</p>
<p><strong>Backpack Machine Gun! </strong>U.S. Army Technical Sergeant O. P. Peterson demonstrates a clever, field expedient backpack mount for the Browning M1919A4 .30-caliber machine gun with pintle, T&amp;E and a can with 250 rounds of belted ammo. This rig was made by enterprising, close-to-the-front-lines Army Ordnance Corps soldiers in response to the call from “line doggies” for greater portability and faster setup time for this workhorse infantry medium machine gun. Unstrapped and placed on its four, fold-down wire feet, the gun goes immediately into offensive or defensive action.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2100" height="2100" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_010.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33466 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM COLLECTION VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</p>
<p><strong>Sticky Grenade! </strong>It&#8217;s just no good to throw an ordinary grenade at an enemy vehicle because, more often than not, it bounces right back at you. So, early in the second war against the “Hun,” clever Brits fielded the “Sticky Bomb,” a hand grenade coated with a particularly strong and thick adhesive that would cling to its target then explode with maximum effect. This 1943 photo shows how the grenade was packaged in a sheet metal clam shell to protect its inherent stickiness without also gluing it to everything it touches. But it wouldn&#8217;t also stick to its shell due to numerous little spikes inside.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1800" height="2125" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_011.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33467 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>U.S. NAVY BUREAU OF ORDNANCE VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</p>
<p><strong>Inside the Sticky Grenade.</strong> When a suitable target presented itself at close range, the plucky British Tommy would reach into his haversack, firmly grasp the hand bomb by its protruding handle and quickly undo the protective shell. It was a bit complicated to use; pulling one pin armed the fuse striker mechanism so the grenadier could throw or stick it. When the safety spoon lever on the handle was released, the nitroglycerin filler detonated in five seconds. “Sticky wicket lads!”</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2286" height="4526" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_012.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33468 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: PHOTOGRAPHED BY DER RIKKK AT WEHRTECHNISCHEN STUDIENSAMMLUNG, KOBLENZ. WIKIMEDIA COMMONS</p>
<p><strong>Shoot Around the Corner!</strong> A WWII German <em>Krummlauf (</em>curved barrel<em>) </em>seen here on an MP 44 select-fire 7.62mm kurz rifle in a display cutaway of a typical armored vehicle mount. This model has a 90-degree bullet deflector barrel clamped on that allows a crewman safely inside to shoot attacking infantrymen as they approach or in the dire situation when they&#8217;re climbing aboard. There was also a 30-degree model for dismounted combat in built-up areas, enhanced by a prism sight that allowed somewhat accurate target engagement out to nearly 200m. Oh, and a similar curved barrel was developed for the U.S. M3 “Grease Gun.”</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2700" height="1800" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_013.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33469 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</p>
<p><strong>Copycat Recoilless Rifle</strong> WWII German paratroopers were equipped with the 75mm L.G. 40, a 325-pound highly maneuverable and hard-hitting wheeled recoilless artillery piece first noted in the airborne assault on Crete in 1941. Quickly responding on behalf of America&#8217;s brand-new airborne forces, the Army Ordnance Corps developed the T26 Artillery Rocket Launcher, with a 4.5-inch (115mm) bore. Parallel development of what was to become the shoulder-fired 2.36-inch “Bazooka” rocket launcher apparently doomed the T26 and GI paratroopers were stuck with heavy 1400-pound M1A1 75mm pack Howitzers.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2358" height="1572" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_014.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33470 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS, NATIONAL ARCHIVES</p>
<p><strong>Nazi Death Metal “Music?”</strong> In this 1945 photo, a U.S. Army officer examines a pair of gigantic parabolic reflectors that concentrate, and direct intense sound waves generated by pulsed detonation of a methane/oxygen mix. Theoretically, this sonic cannon—intended for defense of static positions—would incapacitate or even kill attacking troops. But don&#8217;t laugh, this concept and other “directed energy” weapons are being deployed right now by friend and foe alike.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2400" height="1590" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_015.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33471 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS, NATIONAL ARCHIVES</p>
<p><strong>German-Based Night Vision.</strong> Posed in front of a tank fitted with a large infrared spotlight, this is the U.S. M3 Sniperscope, an early night vision device consisting of an M2 Carbine topped with an infrared light and cathode ray detector sight. It&#8217;s based on the WWII German <em>Vampir </em>(vampire) night vision system for vehicles and small arms that gave enhanced tactical capability at night. This set-in motion a crash program of reverse engineering and subsequent enhancements by Army Signal Corps and Ordnance Corps technicians.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2700" height="1800" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_016.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33472 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</p>
<p><strong>Bazooka Revolver! </strong>October 14, 1947, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. This Army Ordnance Corps photo is one of several we found documenting progress on Project No. TS4-4007, the “Launcher, Rocket, Repeating, 2.36-inch, T112 (Drum Type).” When a loaded tube is rotated into alignment with the forward end of the M9A1 launcher, moving the black knobbed lever apparently twist-locks it into the coupling for firing. Two more rockets can then be quickly launched and—as empty tubes are rotated around—reloaded.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="2700" height="1800" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2443_017.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-33473 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>CREDIT: U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM</p>
<p><strong>Magazine-fed Super Bazooka! </strong>February 23, 1950, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Another Army Ordnance Corps photo of Bazooka experimentation, this one is from Project No. TS4-4019. It shows the “Launcher, Rocket, Repeating, 3.5-inch, T115.” It looks like its gravity-fed magazine holds at least three of the “Super Bazooka” rockets that drop down into the firing tube in turn. Too bad this wasn&#8217;t available at the outbreak of the Korean War when GIs only had puny single-shot 2.36-inch bazookas against the enemy&#8217;s heavily armored, Soviet-supplied T-34 tanks.</p>
<p>________</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>While the end of the Cold War came in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, don&#8217;t think that the “peace dividend” that followed would have put a crimp in experimental oddities by newly idle bureaucracies. Many of the developments in weaponry that followed are no less interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ORDNANCE ODDITIES The Early Days</title>
		<link>https://sadefensejournal.com/ordnance-oddities-the-early-days/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jul 2019 17:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search By Issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V11N5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2019]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oddities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Bruce]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=5487</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” We&#8217;ve conspired to select a few of these for presentation here, representing early developments that may or may not have spurred further innovation. Credit: [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the course of decades of research in various military and museum archives, Robert Bruce has acquired a treasure trove of photos of what might be considered “odd and unusual weapons.” We&#8217;ve conspired to select a few of these for presentation here, representing early developments that may or may not have spurred further innovation.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="994" height="768" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-013.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5489 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. War Department/National Archives/Wikimedia Commons</p>
<p><strong>First Flying Cannon</strong></p>
<p>Since mounting a heavy and hard-kicking cannon would destroy the typically flimsy wood and fabric aircraft of WWI, this novel gun was developed by U.S. Navy Commander Cleland Davis for use in anti-submarine and anti-Zeppelin engagements. Seen here mounted at the nose gunner&#8217;s station of an F5L seaplane, this <em>Davis Non-Recoiling Gun</em> is fitted with a Lewis machine gun for both aiming the cannon and as a defense weapon. Its secret is cleverly designed ammunition that simultaneously fires its explosive projectiles out the front while blasting a counterweight of lead balls packed in grease out the back. Thus circumventing Newton&#8217;s Third Law of Motion, a technique quite successfully applied to subsequent developments in a variety of recoilless cannons including the U.S. military&#8217;s spectacular 105mm M40 and the now-ubiquitous Carl Gustaf.</p>
<p>Our introductory photo for this feature doesn&#8217;t show the earliest of these oddities, but it certainly represents an excellent engineering solution to a previously unknown challenge in the evolution of warfare and weaponry. But now having set the stage, we&#8217;ll move out smartly in somewhat chronological order, starting with a peek at a place way back on the developmental trail of the multipurpose hand grenade.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="503" height="611" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-001.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5493 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: Richard Knotel in Glogau 1857/Wikimedia Commons</p>
<p><strong>Hand Bombs!</strong></p>
<p>What we now think of as hand grenades originated centuries before as fuzed, gunpowder-packed clay pots, evolving into somewhat efficient and deadly miniature cannon balls. In this illustration, a pair of handsomely uniformed and equipped Prussian (German) Grenadiers is plying their trade, circa 1715. Note the length of slow burning match cords in their left hands, used to light the shorter time fuze on the grenade itself. The Grenadiers of King Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia were elite soldiers, chosen for exceptional throwing strength as well as being at least 6 feet tall due to the short and rotund King&#8217;s odd fetish for his personal regiment of what became known as “Potsdam Giants.” Their quite necessary secondary armament consisted of a sword and a matchlock musket with detachable bayonet. A small supply of the heavy cast iron bombs was immediately available from that large leather bag slung over the left shoulder.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="683" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-002.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5494 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art/Wikimedia Commons</p>
<p><strong>Shoot and Stab!</strong></p>
<p>Yes, muzzle loading pistols with flintlock ignition were much more handy and efficient than matchlock hand cannons for close-quarters fighting by the likes of ship-to-ship boarding parties in the age of sail. Alas, they still offered the user only one shot before the decidedly inconvenient need for a reload in the midst of a melee, so most sailors preferred stab, slash or smash weapons. Of course, it made sense to add a handy mini-bayonet to the pistol for use as the situation required. The matched pair seen here is finely crafted in silver-inlaid walnut and intricately carved brass with a steel barrel and lock mechanism; most likely a custom-made armament for a wealthy Naval officer. Their wicked triangular bayonets are immediately deployed when the trigger finger pulls back on the sliding latch seen just below the lock.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="576" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-003.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5495 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: Photograph by Andreas Franzkowiak at Germanisches Nationalmuseum/Wikimedia Commons</p>
<p><strong>Matchlock Revolver</strong></p>
<p>Finding the slow rate of fire of single-shot matchlock weapons to be intolerable, this clever <em>Luntenschloss-Drehling </em>mechanical repeater was crafted in Germany circa 1580. Its revolving cylinder has multiple chambers with sliding touch hole covers, each loaded with powder and a ball. The glowing tip of a slow-match cord would fire each in turn as it ratcheted up to align with the barrel. This revolver arrangement was adopted for any number of muskets, rifles and pistols, enduring today in such notable weapons as Milkor USA&#8217;s 40mm M32A1 Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-004.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5496 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. Army Ordnance Museum</p>
<p><strong>Fast Firing Flintlock</strong></p>
<p>This photo, fortuitously found in the somewhat haphazard research holdings at the U.S. Army Ordnance Museum when it was still at Aberdeen Proving Ground, is noted only as a “repeating flintlock rifle made by Kirkland &amp; Company.” Subsequent research suggests that it may have been influenced by a similar weapon from previous makers in Europe and the U.S. including the .54 caliber, four-shot Ellis-Jennings Military Repeating Flintlock Rifle. We speculate that the Kirkland version works with superposed loads in a manner similar to the Ellis-Jennings as noted in the Springfield Armory&#8217;s collection record: “The gun was loaded by ramming down four charges, one on top of the other. The lock was then pushed opposite the foremost vent and held there by a little apron closing the vent nearest to the rear. It was supposed that the flame was kept from reaching the next charge by tight ramming of the intervening ball. The apron having then been lifted, the lock was slid back to the next hole, and the process continued. A small reservoir for the priming powder was seen attached to the pan. By raising this up before each shot and [w]rapping the piece, the pan was filled. This rendered the piece self-contained, as the powder horn or cartridge box was not required for its service.” In some ways, its modern equivalent is found in the remarkable Metal Storm system.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="509" height="768" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-005.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5497 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: Booklet “Maxim Automatic Gun in Action” in the collection of the U.S. Army Center of Military History</p>
<p><strong>Backpacked Maxim</strong></p>
<p>Weighing “only” 44.5 pounds with tripod mount, this 1895 Extra Light machine gun from the Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company of London can be carried handily by an infantryman in a serviceable, but no-doubt uncomfortable, box with shoulder straps. Forced by competition from the much lighter Colt-Browning M1895 “Potato Digger,” Hiram Maxim radically reduced his anvil-like standard gun by eliminating the prominent water jacket, along with several other simplifications. Overheating of its brass-shrouded, air-cooled barrel was a major flaw, and, while few were sold, several of these light and handy guns served the British South Africa Company quite well in the Chitral and Matabele Campaigns.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-006.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5498 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: Booklet “Maxim Automatic Gun in Action” in the collection of the U.S. Army Center of Military History</p>
<p><strong>Cavalry Maxim</strong></p>
<p>Standard Maxim Automatic Machine Guns of the 1890s with their formidable tripods, tools and spares made for a heavy, bulky and ungainly load on even the sturdiest of pack animals, limiting tactical effectiveness in fast-moving cavalry engagements. Hiram Maxim sought to remedy this with the Extra Light machine gun of 1895, an air-cooled gun weighing 27.5 pounds and quite handily carried by a single cavalryman in a sturdy leather scabbard. Interestingly, a dozen or more of these (sold to the British South Africa Company) were used to devastating effect by rebellious Boers against the British Army.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-007.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5499 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: Archives of the Northwestern Military Academy and Wikimedia Commons</p>
<p><strong>Heck on Wheels</strong></p>
<p>In 1899, these four stalwart soldiers were aboard a specially modified, gas engine automobile from the Duryea Motor Wagon Company mounting a .30 caliber Colt-Browning M1895 “Potato Digger” machine gun behind a rather small steel shield. This was one of a series of experimental machine gun carriers and other developments from Major R.P. Davidson of the Northwestern Military and Naval Academy, recognized as a key figure in armored warfare evolution. While we are tempted to make fun of this early scout vehicle, it offered some advantages over horse-drawn versions at the time.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="384" height="768" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-008.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5506 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. National Archives</p>
<p><strong>Fight Club!</strong></p>
<p>With a pedigree dating back to the dawn of caveman conflicts, clubs are ultra-simple to make and use and are nearly foolproof in close-quarters battle. What&#8217;s remarkable about this selection of seemingly medieval examples is that they were made for and used with deadly efficiency in trench raiding in WWI. This is not surprising given the obvious limitations of long and heavy bolt-action rifles, particularly when equipped with absurdly long bayonets of the time. As such, the trench club, in all its particularly nasty forms with spikes, barbed wire wrapping and such, did yeoman duty along with knuckled knives, sharpened spades, handy hatchets, revolvers and grenades.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-009.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5501 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. National Archives</p>
<p><strong>British Biker Gang</strong></p>
<p>Motorcycles reached a high degree of utility by the time the world was at war in 1914-1918. All of the major combatants were using both solo and sidecar-equipped versions for a variety of tasks like liaison and message running. As scouting was prominent among these, mounting a machine gun was inevitable. Here we see a battery from the British Machine Gun Corps–Motor Machine Gun Service, heading out on heavy “combination” (with sidecar) bikes made by Clyno Engineering Company. The formidable belt-fed, water-cooled Vickers machine gun, Mark I, .303-inch, mounted in a firing position on the sidecars could be quickly detached and used on ground tripods.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-010.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5502 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. National Archives</p>
<p><strong>Last of the Lance</strong></p>
<p>The tragic absurdity of horse-mounted cavalrymen in modern conflict reached its pinnacle on the Western Front in WWI with trench warfare dominated by massed artillery, machine guns and endless thickets of barbed wire. This photo is said to depict a German <em>Uhlan</em>, armed with a steel tube lance and bolt-action Gewehr 98 rifle, patrolling behind the front lines. Noting his <em>Lederschutzmaske</em> <em>17</em> (leather protective gas mask model of 1917), it isn&#8217;t polite to ask what might happen to his noble steed if there actually were poison gas in the area. But the Germans did have a muzzle mask for the horse that looked like a canvas feed bag (apparently not available for this photo-op).</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-011.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5503 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. National Archives</p>
<p><strong>Ridiculous Rifle Grenade?</strong></p>
<p>Technically the <em>Granatenwerfer 16 </em>(grenade thrower model of 1916) is a trench mortar, but the on-target effect of this 79-pound piece of Teutonic over-engineering was little more than that of the simple cup or rod type grenade launchers for most any infantryman&#8217;s rifle. But to its credit, the device&#8217;s sturdy base is topped with a well-marked elevation mechanism and traversing plate to facilitate rather precise accuracy out to around 300m. Its finned fragmentation grenades contain a blank cartridge that—when its hollow base is slid down on the “spigot” rod—it is trigger-fired and quickly reloaded for multiple hits in the intended target area.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-012.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5488 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. Army Ordnance Museum</p>
<p><strong>Feel the Burn!</strong></p>
<p>In WWI, the “diabolical Hun” (Germans) were the first with both poison gas and flamethrowers in desperate attempts to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front. Seen here in a photo probably taken in 1917 at the <em>Stosstrupp </em>(Shock Troop) training center in Sedan, France, a four man <em>Flammenwerfer</em> (flame thrower) team advances down a trench behind a horrifying wall of “liquid fire.” The forward man in the stack is the gunner, directing the flame and regulating it with a valve mounted on the igniter-tipped wand. The second man stumbles along behind carrying the 70-pound pressurized steel cylinder looking like a giant Thermos bottle and holding four gallons of a volatile oil and chemical mixture. The two riflemen right behind are there for both protection of the crew and ready to take over as almost inevitably needed.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="682" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-014.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5490 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. Army Signal Corps/National Archives</p>
<p><strong>Birth of the Bazooka</strong></p>
<p>While the handwritten notation, “1 inch recoilless gun” is the only caption information that accompanied a vintage cyanotype print the author discovered and copied in the National Archives, subsequent research has revealed that it almost certainly shows Dr. Robert H. Goddard, widely considered to be “the father of modern rocketry,” demonstrating his rocket launcher for Ordnance Department representatives at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, on November 20, 1918. One report from this obscure but seminal event predicted that such weapons “could be developed to operate successfully against tanks.” Unfortunately, in the aftermath of Germany’s defeat and the American disarmament that followed, further development by U.S. Ordnance lay dormant for more than two decades until the birth of the iconic U.S. “Bazooka” of WWII.</p>
<p><strong>Spinning Slug Slinger </strong></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-015.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5491 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p>Credit: U.S. Army Signal Corps/National Archives</p>
<p>Using an electric motor to spin its mechanism at around 20,000 RPM, this remarkable contraption needs no gunpowder-packed cartridges and reportedly fires a continuous stream of 330 steel balls each second to punch through ¾-inch steel plates at several hundred feet! The hopper-fed, centrifugal force brainstorm of Earl Ovington and Levi Lombard is seen here in a demonstration for Ordnance Department officials at Aberdeen Proving Ground in October 1920. While exciting in its possibilities for defense against massed attackers, it destroyed itself in the demonstration and disappeared from official consideration.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async"   alt="" width="1024" height="679" data-src="https://dev.sadefensejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2442-016.jpg" class="alignnone wp-image-5492 size-full lazy" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E" /></p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>Experimentation in armaments languished in the aftermath of the “War to End All Wars” but exploded once again in 1940, forced by naked aggression by a resurgent Germany and its allies. Developments in weaponry that followed over the next 5 years and beyond ranged from sublime to ridiculous. We&#8217;ll mine more from Robert Bruce&#8217;s archive collection to unearth and present additional Ordnance Oddities for the amusement, and perhaps amazement, of <strong><em>Small Arms Defense Journal&#8217;s</em></strong> discerning readers.</p>
<p>[Copyright 2019 Robert Bruce Military Photo Features.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
