Naval Pom Pom Gun World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Naval Pom Pom Gun World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Naval Pom Pom Gun

Posts 1 to 50

The 2 Pounder "Pom Pom" 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)
Attachments :

Good post Digger. Very short barrel if you take off the flash eliminator. Surprisingly short

It seems to have come obsolete rather quickly. Not great forward thinking demonstrated.

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

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

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

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

[quote=Harley;2455]It had been designed specifically for high-altitude bombers, and yet failed so completely as demonstrated by Prince of Wales and Repulse. Harley[/quote] Could you expand on this comment pls Harley? I don't know anything about this.

[quote=Harley;2455]and yet failed so completely as demonstrated by Prince of Wales and Repulse.[/quote] 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?) [quote=Harley;2455]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.[/quote] 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

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...

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

[quote=Maritime Michael Ian;6821]was it the pom pom that got the name 'Chicago Piano' on US ships?? if not which gun was it??[/quote] 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
Attachments :

Ian, I'm not nit picking but I think you will find the term was "Chicago Organ" Bob.

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

I'm sure there's a good reason for the name "Chicago Organ"! Stalin's organ? My word!

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

Did you ask the same qestion re the Chicago Organ?

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

I'll keep my mouth shut next time!

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

My dad was on pom poms on the Repulse. It went down!:rolleyes:

With regard to post #14, the term Stalin's Organ was one given by German troops to the Russian Katyusha multiple rocket launcher, due to the likeness of the weapon to a church organ pipes and the sound of the rockets. Bert
Attachments :

My father's action station in Anemone, was on the single barrel pom pom abaft the funnel -here seen with the PO gunner cleaning barrel [ATTACH]137944[/ATTACH]----click on image to magnify jainso31
Attachments :

I have heard of the 2lb pom pom refered to as the "Chicago piano", but not as the "Chicago organ".

The four barrelled pom pom was referred to as a Chicago Piano-found on large warships eg.carriers. jainso31

A couple of pictures showing the laborious task of loading these beasts. Bert.
Attachments :

[QUOTE=bert-261;10092572]A couple of pictures showing the laborious task of loading these beasts. Bert.[/QUOTE] Wonderful detailed shots Bert. Must admit that I hadn't realized that these guns used "belts" of ammunition, rather like a machine gun. Even with the "belts," given the rate of fire of these weapons, it must have been a real challenge for the guns crews to keep them supplied in action. I wonder how often the feed system jammed?

Thanks for that Tim, and an interesting article can be found at, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF 2 pounder naval gun [/url] regards, Bert

[QUOTE=bert-261;10092616]Thanks for that Tim, and an interesting article can be found at, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF 2 pounder naval gun [/url] regards, Bert[/QUOTE] Thanks Bert.

[QUOTE=Scatari;10092608]Wonderful detailed shots Bert. Must admit that I hadn't realized that these guns used "belts" of ammunition, rather like a machine gun. Even with the "belts," given the rate of fire of these weapons, it must have been a real challenge for the guns crews to keep them supplied in action. I wonder how often the feed system jammed?[/QUOTE] Wasn't that the the problem that HMS Prince of Wales suffered off Kuantan? Im sure I read in Martin Middlebrooks book "Battleship" that shell casings came apart or away from the belt resulting in jams and stoppages.Whether that was to do with the heat or the way they had been loaded I don't know.

[QUOTE=VirtualF;10092658]Wasn't that the the problem that HMS Prince of Wales suffered off Kuantan? Im sure I read in Martin Middlebrooks book "Battleship" that shell casings came apart or away from the belt resulting in jams and stoppages.Whether that was to do with the heat or the way they had been loaded I don't know.[/QUOTE] Thanks Virtual - must dig out my copy of "Battleship" and suss it out!

Pom Poms on KGV. [Courtesy of Jim Bryce!] ;)
Attachments :

both the Germans and the British experienced 'short comings' on their main AAA weapons, while the American AAA worked well enough through the late war even against kamikaze attacks. Is there a simple explanation for this?

Probably via the misconception- borne of early 20th century Admiralty thinking- that aircraft could not harm a capital ship-even though POW and Repulse were sent to the bottom by Japanese aircraft in early 1942 and we almost lost our Mediterranean Fleet the same year to German aircraft."Head in the Sand"thinking I should say. jainso31

That doesn't explain why nearly all Royal Navy vessels were armed with a lot of pompom guns, dual-purpose and anti-aircraft guns, long before PoW and Repulse were sunk; I think they were very aware of the aircaft threat. The Americans were worse off at the beginning of the war, improved greatly, but could not stop kamikazes at the end of the war. The 40mm Bofors had insufficient stopping power and deterring a pilot was no longer a viable strategy.

In 1939 we were arming our ships with whatever guns we had; and many of our lower priority ships AMC DEMS corvettes,etc. were armed with leftovers from the Great War.You make mention of the 40mm Bofors -which British ships were armed with this gun and when please???? NB. Of course the Admiralty had to be aware of the air threat; but what did they do about it??? You say my answer did not explain the deficiency in AA armament -why then did we retain the weapons that were in use at the beginning of the war-if not via a misconceived ideology ??? jainso31

Jim, The first installation of British made water-cooled Bofors guns was on the Black Swan class sloop HMS Whimbrel in November 1942 (although earlier, Swedish manufactured air-cooled versions were fitted to the PoW and Nelson late in 1941). And when I was in the RNR we were still using the Bofors 40/60 on a MkIII mounting as late as 1993 on our River Class MSF’s!!! Michael

Michael-thank you for your interest and input-could you enlarge upon the the equipping of RN warships with the 40mm Bofors gun-single and multiple.I appreciate that at some point in WW2 the Admiralty would have had to waken up to the availibility of better AA weaponry. jainso31

The Dutch navy had operational Hazemeyers when the war broke out using the 40mm Bofors guns. Demonstrations to both the USN and RN were convincing enough for both, though the RN used the 'Haslemeres' sparingly, probably because they were complex and their on-board rangefinder suffered from vibrations. The USN redesigned the entire weapon to use less parts and for ease of manufacturing, also removing the tri-axial stabilization. It's interesting to note that the Bofors guns had its origins in Germany and that many weapon systems the Germans used were designed in the Netherlands by subsidiary companies, including the Hazemeyer. Still, they were left with that awful hand-loaded 37mm gun. The Dutch (very) light cruiser De Ruyter had 5 twin Bofors guns in Hazemeyers that could be aimed and fired as a single weapon, arguably giving it better close-in air defence than any of the German capital ships. The Germans later used a more modern 37mm gun (Flak 43) with slightly less punch and range than the 40mm Bofors, but twice the rate of fire. HMS Prince of Wales was fitted with an army version of the 40mm Bofors fitted on the quarterdeck, and was regarding very favourably by the crew compared to the pompoms.

[QUOTE=jainso31;10092834]Michael-thank you for your interest and input-could you enlarge upon the equipping of RN warships with the 40mm Bofors gun-single and multiple. I appreciate that at some point in WW2 the Admiralty would have had to waken up to the availability of better AA weaponry. jainso31[/QUOTE] Jim, I'm not a gunnery specialist, but as far as I'm aware, during the years 1942-3, the Bofors fitted to RN ships was the single barrel version. The multiple versions only started appearing later in the war - and there was even a massive 6 barrel version fitted to Vanguard, post-war:eek::

Thank you kind Sir-I think we can leave that for the time being-perhaps someone else will pick up the baton. jainso31

[QUOTE=Egypt;10092828]Jim, And when I was in the RNR we were still using the [B]Bofors 40/60[/B] on a MkIII mounting as late as 1993 on our River Class MSF’s!!! Michael[/QUOTE] The Canadian navy is still using this weapon as the main armament on our [B]Kingston Class[/B] Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels! Embarrassing, but true!

I expect it still does a job!! ;)

Egypt.............Fraser Gun Range at Portsmouth used to have a 6 barreled version of the Bofor and I think it was also fitted to some Aircraft Carriers? May be wrong in this, but I think some LST's (Landing Ship-Tank) in WW2 carried twin 40mm guns.

Hello Scurs, Talking of Fraser Gunnery Range, here's a photo of John Pertwee in front of a twin barrel Bofors - they were filming an episode of Dr Who there in 1971. It's also worth recalling that John Pertwee served as an RNVR officer during WW2 (and who can ever forget his portrayal of CPO Pertwee in the Navy Lark?). Hope I'm still on topic (just);) Michael
Attachments :

Michael..................and as I have always maintained, The Navy Lark was a most accurate documentary of 1960's Navy life! :D I was Fraser Ship's Company, briefly after my FC2 course, March-June 1965. To misquote Navy Lark, "Shutting up now, Mr Moderator"

A few pictures of pom-poms in action. Bert.
Attachments :

Crew members skirmishing empty shell casings after a firing. Ship unknown. Bert
Attachments :

IWM image A992 "Naval ratings, under the watchful gaze of a NCO (left) sweep up spent cartridge cases for the eight barrelled, Vickers two pounder Mark VIII 'pom pom' gun. These ratings were firing live ammunition at the anti-aircraft gunnery school, Portsmouth Harbour." [url=http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185077?cat=photographs][img]http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/28/media-28828/large.jpg?action=e&cat=photographs[/img][/url] [url=http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185077?cat=photographs]THE ROYAL NAVY DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (A 992)[/url][url=http://www.iwm.org.uk/corporate/privacy-copyright/licence]IWM Non Commercial Licence[/url]

Thanks for that, I came across the picture elsewhere, with no attribution. Regards, Bert.

More Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page