imported>J. Noel Chiappa |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
| (74 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
|
| |
|
| ==Another great ref== | | ==Focusing the article== |
|
| |
|
| Another great reference on this subject is:
| | The existing article had a great deal about ship types, which I've moved to separate pages -- see related articles. I'm trying to make this article match the title: guns and gunnery, although it's still a bit awkward to manage the transition to the secondary role of guns today. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
| | |
| : Peter Hodges, "The Big Gun: Battleship Main Armament 1860-1945", Naval Institute, Annapolis, 1981
| |
| | |
| which goes into a great deal of technical detail. It doesn't cover the entire period covered by this article, but for the period it does, it has to rate as close to a definitive reference work. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:58, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Comments on content so far ==
| |
| | |
| Overall, it seems pretty good. One main large-scale comment is that in a few places it seems like there's more maritime military history detail than is really needed to provide context for the content of this particular article. Places I especially noticed this:
| |
| | |
| * British fleet decline, and growth of opposing fleets, after the 7 Years' War
| |
| * Frigates (the whole section would make a nice stand-alone article, but that is more naval history than weapons history)
| |
| * Fire/powder ships (again, interesting, and worthy of an article, but they aren't guns)
| |
| * Battle cruisers at Jutland, and the Washington Treaty comments (again, more naval architecture than guns specifically)
| |
| * Most of the Jutland section, except for the comments about the cause of the loss of the British ships, and the material about the tactical plans and the consequent lack of training in long-range gunnery. Again, good material, useful in an article on the battle itself, but out of place here, I think.
| |
| * Missiles; again, good material, but for an article on naval missiles
| |
| * The AEGIS system; AFAIK, this only controls missiles, not guns (although perhaps it sets loose anti-missile point-defense systems like Phalanx CIWS, although I thought that was basically a self-contained system).
| |
| | |
| Other comments:
| |
| | |
| * The article could use more content on the switch from round cast shot to conical shells, and the development of explosive shells (and in particular the development of contact fuses, which depended on spin-stabilized shot - i.e. rifling - to ensure that the shell is properly oriented on arrival, to activate the fuse). Conical shells also had better penetration properties against armor.
| |
| * More about rifling, because conical shells and rifling are synergistic - were they actually developed together, or was one first? (I don't know off-hand.)
| |
| * More about breech loading - another synergistic technology to the above, because rifling, especially large caliber guns, is really infeasible without breech loading. Breech loading probably also increases the rate of fire, and simplifies loading arrangements - particularly with very large caliber, i.e. longer, guns (which also use heavier shells, which need mechanical handling), since access to the muzzle is no longer required. Oh, I see, you mention that later in the article.
| |
| * Again, the timing relationship, and synergism, between all three; I suspect it's no accident that they (to a large degree) came into use at the same time. Maybe a section which is just about these three, and exploring their (probably interlocking) development?
| |
| * Could use more on the development of a suite of projectiles, designed for use against different classes of targets (analagous to the earlier round/bar/etc shot). A lot of work went into these in the period 18xx-1940, e.g. with the development of "windshields" (long thin-walled caps that made the shells more aerodynamic, increasing range and speed - i.e. penetrative power - at impact, and covered a nose designed to pierce armour). Specialised shells were also developed; full armour-piercing for use against other capital ships (with fuses in the base, designed to explode a fraction of a second after contact, when the shell would have penetrated inside the armour), high-explosive (designed for use against merchant ships, etc - a full AP round would go straight through one without exploding), etc.
| |
| | |
| Specific comments:
| |
| | |
| * "They would have been both awkward to handle and dangerous until the high wheels were replaced by low ones" - maybe explain why the large wheels were dangerous?
| |
| * "the 'Makalos', which burned in 1564" - was that a long time after it was built, or when it was new?
| |
| * "The effective ranges of these guns were only a small fraction of the extreme ranges. " - I assume that's an accuracy issue?
| |
| * "tearing, raking, and bilging the ships" - might want to explain that (I assume "bilging" is making a hole below the waterline (i.e. in the bilges) when the ship rolls (in the ocean swell).
| |
| * "'ships of the line' had to grow bigger" - I seem to recall reading that SotL in this era used very large-section timbers not just for strength, but also as a primitive form of armour (but my memory might be playing tricks on me here).
| |
| * "The carronade's short range eventually led to loss of interest in it as a naval weapon." - You might want to explain why, in tactical terms; I assume it's the same situation then as later, in that the vessel with the longer range - especially if it's faster - can 'stand off' and destroy her opponent while remaining untouched herself (even with the inaccurate shooting of the day). Although now that I keep reading, I do see this is alluded to in the description of the Battle of Lake Erie.
| |
| * "The greater range, velocity, and accuracy which were the advantages of rifled guns" - I don't think rifling increases velocity directly - although it may do so indirectly, because by allowing spun conical shot to remain aligned with the direction of flight, as opposed to tumbling, they are slowed down less by air resistance. (This will of course also increase range.)
| |
| * "slow rate of fire until elongated bullets permitting rapid loading" - Do conical muzzle-loaded bullets really load easier? Or was it actually the development of catridges (which included the powder and bullet in one unit), loaded from the breech, which really sped up the rate of fire?
| |
| * "The elevation that could be given to guns on British ships was increased from 13 in 1909 to 40 in 1917." - I think it depended on the specific turret and gun design. I don't have the reference books right at hand (and I'm too lazy to get up and go get it :-), but I seem to recall that the British standard 15" twin turrets, installed in the 'Renown' and 'Repulse' (built during WWI, along with the Warspite and 'R' class battleships) could originally only reach 20 or so, and when these two (along with the Warspites) were massively refitted in the 30s, the turrets in all of them were rebuilt and greatly increased the allowed elevation (to the 30 range, IIRC).
| |
| | |
| Hope this is all a) useful, and b) not too much! [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
