PDA

View Full Version : The 2 Pounder "Pom Pom"


TheDigger
16-01-2008, 08:38
The Standard Anti Aircraft Gun of the Royal Navy during WW2 was the QF 2 Pounder Naval Gun.

The 2-pounder gun, officially designated the QF 2-pounder (QF denoting "quick firing") and universally known as the pom-pom, is a large calibre British machine-gun, used famously as an anti-aircraft gun by the Royal Navy. The name came from the sound that the original models were reported to make when firing. The name 2 pounder is derived from the size of the projectile which weighed 2 pounds.

The Royal Navy had identified the need for a rapid-firing, multi-barrelled close-range anti-aircraft weapon at an early stage. The design and eventual continued use of this weaopon was in part due to the the enormous stocks of 2-pounder ammunition left over from World War I.

Known as the QF 2-pounder Mark VIII, it is usually referred to as the multiple pom-pom. The initial mounting was the enormous, 16-ton, eight-barrelled mounting Mark V (later Mark VI), suitable for ships of heavy cruiser and aircraft carrier size upwards.

From 1935 the quadruple mounting Mark VII, essentially half a Mark V or VI, entered service for ships of destroyer and cruiser size. These multiple gun mounts required four different guns. The mount had 2 rows each of 2 or 4 weapons. Guns were produced in both right and left hand and "inner" and "outer" so that the feed and ejector mechanisms matched.

An advanced weapon when introduced, by the outbreak of World War II advances in aircraft had effectively made it obsolete. It was intended that the curtain of fire it threw up would be sufficient to deter attacking aircraft but lack of a suitable tracer round meant that the barrage was unseen and so the deterrence factor was prevented from being effective.

It had a low velocity due to the relatively short barrel and small charge, the fuse mechanism was unsatisfactory, the weapons were extremely complex and prone to jamming, and the mountings were enormously heavy and complicated and could not be produced quickly enough or fitted widely enough.

When HMS Prince of Wales was attacked and sunk by Japanese aircraft near Singapore the subsequent report judged that the single 40 mm Bofors gun, mounted on the quarterdeck, had been a more effective anti-aircraft weapon than the entire battery of multiple pom-pom mounts.

Apart from many of the issues noted above it was never entirely displaced by the Bofors gun during during WW2

Calibre: 40 mm L/39
·Shell Weight: 2 lb. (980 g) or 1.8 lb. (820 g) for High-Velocity (HV) round
·Rate of Fire: 115 rpm fully automatic
·Effective Range: 3,800 yards (3,475 m) or 5,000 yards (4,572 m) HV
·Effective Ceiling (HV): 13,300 feet (3,960 m)
·Muzzle Velocity: 1,920 ft/s (585 m/s)

The Sailor
16-01-2008, 09:07
Good post Digger. Very short barrel if you take off the flash eliminator.
Surprisingly short

herakles
16-01-2008, 09:25
It seems to have come obsolete rather quickly. Not great forward thinking demonstrated.

TheDigger
16-01-2008, 11:10
What gets me is the 2 pound shell flying towards you at 2000 ft/sec alone would be enough to bring you down let alone the explosives mounted in these things

John Brown
16-01-2008, 13:50
I used to work with an ex sailor who served as crew of a pom pom on a Hunt class destroyer. The name of the ship escapes me at the moment. However, he had a badly pock marked faced caused by injuries sustained when a shell exploded soon after leaving the barrel. Except for himself and one other, the crew were killed. Ironically, all those killed were married men and the two that survived were single.

He said the common belief was that the shell exploded prematurely because it had been tampered with by an Egyptian dockyard worker in Alexandria who was in the pay of the Germans. I doubt there was any real proof of this explanation though.

John

Harley
16-01-2008, 18:31
The main problem with the 2 pounder aside from its lack of effective vertical range was the control. The HACS in its original form wasn't worth a damn by WWII. It had been designed specifically for high-altitude bombers, and yet failed so completely as demonstrated by Prince of Wales and Repulse. The 40mm Bofors was a far better weapon, but the best weapon would have been the 5.25in guns on PoW with faster training and elevation.

Harley

Becky2171
11-03-2008, 00:02
Hi Digger

This was great reading, as this is what my Grandad operated in war

Thanks

herakles
11-03-2008, 00:06
It had been designed specifically for high-altitude bombers, and yet failed so completely as demonstrated by Prince of Wales and Repulse.

Harley

Could you expand on this comment pls Harley? I don't know anything about this.

Kevin Denlay
12-03-2008, 15:13
and yet failed so completely as demonstrated by Prince of Wales and Repulse.

I think Harley could be alluding to the fact that, if I am not mistaken, PoW shot no aircraft down, and Repulse only two. (But I seem to recall a third going down?)


The 40mm Bofors was a far better weapon, but the best weapon would have been the 5.25in guns on PoW with faster training and elevation.

In general I think the Bofors performed superbly during WW11, and US ships for sure couldn't get enough of them. A fearsome weapon, especially the quad mounts. On the other hand the 5.25's performed relatively poorly on PoW as it seemingly did not take much to make them inoperable. Also being very heavy they could not be trained by hand, as proved the case when PoW lost all power (and all the 5.25's). I also 'think' that their elevation was somewhat limited (as say compared to the Bofors). So yes they certainly would have needed some modification as you say to make them a 'contender'.

So all things being equal, although the 5.25 packed a much bigger punch, i.e. much bigger, the Bofors seemed more reliable/'easy' to use and although had lighter 'shot' threw up a veritable wall of steel (that, I know, many a Jap still flew right through!)

K

astraltrader
12-03-2008, 15:43
It would appear that the design for the pom-pom was flawed from the start and was primarily put into production as Digger alluded to, in order to use up the enormous stocks of two-pounder ammunition left over at the end of the First World War...

Maritime Michael Ian
12-03-2008, 16:40
G'day Digger,

Very interesting read.... was it the pom pom that got the name 'Chicago Piano' on US ships?? if not which gun was it??

The other item regarding Prince of Wales and Repulse was that aircraft sealed the fate of the battleships per se.

Ian

Kevin Denlay
12-03-2008, 21:04
was it the pom pom that got the name 'Chicago Piano' on US ships?? if not which gun was it??

I 'believe' it was the 1.1" quad, a rather unreliable weapon also but, it seems, at least equal to or maybe a little better than the Pom Pom. Quickly replaced (on US ships) early in the war by the Bofors as soon as they became (more) available.

K

Batstiger
12-03-2008, 23:39
Ian, I'm not nit picking but I think you will find the term was "Chicago Organ"

Bob.

Kevin Denlay
13-03-2008, 00:07
Hi Bob,

Chicago Piano is certainly the term that i have heard the Yanks refer to it as, although no doubt it could have been called 'organ' also, however thats not a term i am familiar with in reference to that weapon as it were. (I do remember 'Stalins Organs' but.............. different theater so to speak.)

K

herakles
13-03-2008, 00:30
I'm sure there's a good reason for the name "Chicago Organ"!

Stalin's organ? My word!

Maritime Michael Ian
13-03-2008, 09:14
I checked on the internet a few minutes ago as a check and came across wiki-answers as follows:

Quote

Q. What was a Chicago Piano?

Answer

The Chicago Piano or the 1.1-inch Quads was an anti-aircraft gun used on navy ships during WW2.

In 1933, the US Navy needed an automatic anti-aircraft gun that was between the machine gun and the larger dual-purpose guns. They were presented the Hudson Gun that fired a 1.1-inch shell. It was developed to fit on a mount that fired 4 guns simulataneously in order to achieve the desired firepower. There was some design problems with the mount and improvements allowed it to enter service in 1938.

The Hudson 1.1-inch gun was a water-cooled gun that used a gas-set, spring operated recoil. It could fire 150 one-pound high explosive shells per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,700 feet per second to a max range of 7,000 yards. The 1.1-inch Quad was mounted onto everything from destroyers to battleships and carriers. It was in action at Pearl Harbor but there is no record of one downing a Jap plane.

Soon the 20-mm Oerlikon automatic guns were replacing the .50-caliber maching guns and the 40-mm Bofors in twin and quad mounts began to replace the Hudson 1.1-inch Quad mount.
Unquote

Ian

Batstiger
13-03-2008, 10:24
Did you ask the same qestion re the Chicago Organ?

Maritime Michael Ian
13-03-2008, 11:31
Hi Bob,

Yes I typed the same question in and came with stuff about organ transplants as well as pipe and electronic organs!

Ian

Batstiger
13-03-2008, 15:19
I'll keep my mouth shut next time!

nigelweysom
30-08-2008, 19:20
my dad was a gunner on Whirlwind , i believe he used a Bofors to shoot a kamikaze planes in the pacific i don't know how efficient they were but some where along the line he picked up a lot of shrapnel

MartinH-K
06-03-2009, 20:55
My dad was on pom poms on the Repulse. It went down!:rolleyes: