 |
|
This is further documented by the Japanese in their own report entitled "Condition of Corregidor Island Defenses After May 6, 1942," a copy of which was captured and translated by the Allied Translation and Interpreter Section, South West Pacific Area in Hollandia on May 24, 1944. It was filed under Enemy Publication No. 223.
The Japanese report on the condition of Battery Grubbs states as follows: The Japanese may have reversed the identity of the guns. As illustrated by the photo series, the determinant of the difference between the two guns is the sandbagging and the covering of the breech. Gun no. 1 is sandbagged and its rear end and breach covered by what looks like tarpaulin. Gun No. 1 even before wartime had a mechanical defect on its recoil so gun No. 2 was the one mostly used by C 91st PS. has been 'conventional wisdom' that the present condition of Gun No. 2, with its barrel lying down on the loading platform, was caused by either:
Well, its neither. Let us go back to 1945 when the Americans did their analysis on the conditions of the Harbor Defenses of Manila and Subic Bays, titled: "Report on War Damage to the Harbor Defenses of Manila and Subic Bays" dated October 6, 1945. This is often referred to by in a shorthanded way as "The Case Report" named after Brig Gen Homer Case of the 14th Anti-Aircraft Command who signed off on the report.
Photo (above): Gun No. 1 is still mounted in its carriage.
Photo (above): Gun No. 2 is dismounted. The trunnion caps are visible and secured in place.
If you notice the photos of Battery Grubbs of both guns in 1945, No. 2 is already in its present day position. What the modern day scrappers did was to pick out the carriage and the elevating band on the turret. The Case reports also mentions the following:
So what about the theories that the guns jumped out of their carriage and caused a spalling effect underneath the loading platform for Gun. No. 2? Here is the analysis.
Photo (above): The spalling effect happened on the paint room immediately below Gun No. 2.
Upon observation on the location of the present day barrel of No. 2, it aligns perfectly on top of the paint room. Since we know that the guns never jumped out of their respective carriage, this was caused when the barrel was dropped after it was removed from the carriage (possibly by a POW detail working under Japanese direction) which caused the spalling.
Photo (above): The gun tube is also turned around with the elevating band removed later by post war scrappers.
As for the guns jumping out of the carriage, this theory has its origin in an examination of Gun No.1 as it exists today. In the photo (immediately below) the trunnion bolt on the right is bent at a bacward angle and the left side of the bolt was broken off. With the gun in its current position, it does indeed look as if it has jumped off the carriage.
However, the 1942 and 1945 photos show otherwise. The modern day position is attributed to post war scrapping, the damage occurring when they were removing the barrel. Both breech blocks remain in their guns. However the 1942 photo of Gun No. 2 shows the breech absent. This may have been removed by the crew prior to surrender but was replaced when the Japanese were trying to fix the battery back into working condition.
Tony Feredo |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
COMMENTARY |
|
B atterboy,Interestingly, the prisoners must have put the trunnion caps back on Grubbs No. 2 Gun after they dropped the barrel clear of its carriage. The caps are visible and secured in place in the1945 photograph of No. 2 Gun (i.e. the photo immediately above the photo of the paint store interior).
Regards Mapmaster, Yes, I'd noticed that and I was quite puzzled as well. Maybe they were in the process of repairing gun no. 2 but were rudely interrupted for reasons we know nothing about. Perhaps they just replaced the caps to protect the bolt threads from the weather or accidental damage, and didn't fully tighten them up.As an aside , I also found two (2) ten inch shells that belong to Battery Grubbs on display at Topside.
FWIW
|
