krysa написал:

#1276842
Да разницы то?

Ну если вас звать турком, то вы как то будете озадачены, а разница то минимальна, человек будет как то предпочтительнее, не находите?

krysa написал:

#1276842
с 1905 года.4 ка типа "Финн" с 2мя 75мм уже спущена на воду.

С 1905года уже было понятно что вооружение из 12фунтовок было ошибкой.

krysa написал:

#1276847
Вошли в строи и сразу устарели)

Угу, времена были такие. Ну и устарело только их вооружение, хуже было с блондинками, когда в момент вступления устарела скорость и мореходность....

Отредактированно РыбаКит (10.05.2018 08:12:20)

РыбаКит написал:

#1276850
Угу, времена были такие.

А причем тут "времена"?Имеем не оправдавшую себя в течении войны теорию.Выводы то о недостаточной эффективности 75мм по миноносцам была сделана по результатам боев с кораблями заложенными зачастую раньше самих скаутов.

РыбаКит написал:

#1276962
До 1905 года кошмарным сном Британского Адимиралтества был удар Французских и Российских торпедных сил по судоходству империи. Для противодействия чему и строились в том числе скауты. С 1905 года основным противником скаутов стали германские легкие силы с их многочисленными кляйнами.

Я вот реально не понимаю,чем русские типа "Буйный" отличаются в плане живучести от типа "Икадзути",против которых 75мм пушки оказались не особо эффективными.

QF написал:

#1276977
4" появились из следующих соображений:

1. У французов есть классная 100-мм.
2. У французов бронеминоносцы.
3. Малые крейсера нинужны, даёшь большие дестроеры.

Это вам показалось.

РыбаКит написал:

#1276988
Это вам показалось.

Не мне.

"In April 1900 DNO asked the Captain of HMS Excellent whether new high-powered 4in, 12pdr, 6pdr and 3pdr guns should be designed. He replied that, given the likelihood that more 4in guns would be needed in the future, the Royal Navy needed something comparable to the French 10cm gun (31lb shell, 2785ft/sec, 45 calibres long). Two prototypes should be made, one for bare charges and one with brass cartridge case ‘to guard against the possibility of the bare-charge gun being unable to come up to the requirements of rapidity on account of heat’. He doubted that higher power was worthwhile in the 6pdr, but did propose higher-powered 12pdrs and 3pdrs (see below). DNO called for a 4in/45 or 4in/50 with a muzzle velocity of 2800ft/sec. He wanted prototypes with brass cartridge cases and with bare cases, and of both lengths. At this time the British 4in/40 QF (presumably Mk I) fired a 25lb shell at 2500ft/sec. DNO asked whether the British 4in shell (25lbs) was heavy enough compared to the French; if not, did Captain HMS Excellent (W H May) think that the difference was great enough to justify new shells? May pointed out that the existing shell was not heavy enough to have good ballistics, and compared very unfavourably with the French one. A heavier and larger shell would also have a larger burster; the advantage was great enough to outweigh any disadvantage. The Ordnance Committee pointed out that the existing 4in Lyddite shell was unsuitable in any case, having been designed only to withstand 16.6 tons pressure. Even to maintain the existing bursting charge a heavier shell would be needed to handle the greater pressure associated with higher velocity. Calculations suggested that it would be difficult to attain 2800ft/sec with a 32lb shell at 17 tons pressure, so a 31lb shell should be adopted.

Design of a new 4in BL gun was approved in 1901. It was expected to develop a muzzle velocity of no more than 2566ft/sec with the original chamber, which might be increased to 2670ft/sec by enlarging the chamber to 635in3.

Given likely delays in producing the new gun, in October 1902 a conference in First Naval Lord’s room decided that the new Third Class cruisers (HMS Diamond and Sapphire) would have 4in QF Mk III guns, an effort being made to increase their velocity if possible. Similarly, they would have 3pdr Mk I* rather than the new high-powered 3pdr then being developed.

Design of a high-velocity 4in gun was ordered in 1903, as part of the programme of developing higher-velocity guns. Initial calculations suggested that at the same chamber pressure, and with a smaller chamber, muzzle velocity would be 2930ft/sec rather than 2810ft/sec. An EOC design was approved, but it was not considered necessary to produce this gun as yet. The prototype, moreover, initially shot very badly. This was presumably the 4in/45 mentioned in the February 1905 DNO report for his successor. At the same time a 4in/50 was approved by the Board for sloops planned for the 1903–4 programme. When they were dropped, the gun was not ordered.

However, on 30 January 1906 DNO asked for a high-velocity 4in gun, with a muzzle velocity of at least 2800ft/sec. The Ordnance Committee laid out basic requirements, including the 600in3 chamber, that February. The gun need not be wired to the muzzle. Competing designs were received in May, EOC’s Pattern K being favoured. The shipbuilder John Brown offered a design, which was not considered acceptable. The EOC design initially promised a muzzle velocity of 3000ft/sec with an 11lb charge. This gun was made of nickel steel.

Mk VII had an inner A tube, A tube, part-length (108.65in) wiring, a B tube extending to the muzzle, and a jacket. The Mk VII designation was originally reserved to two prototypes, guns with pure-couple breech blocks were initially designated A Mk VII. Mk VII* was a single Beardmore gun with different construction. Mk VII** applied to fifteen guns with no inner A tube, the B tube and jacket being combined. The simplified construction suggests that it was intended for DAMS. Mountings were PII, IIx, IV, IVx, IVxx, VI and VIII (all with 15° elevation except PII, 15¼°).

In 1908 estimated rifling life of the Mk VII gun was about 1200 rounds with full charges, one full charge being equivalent to four two-thirds charges (DNO opted to use only full charges). This was the figure used in 1915 for Mk VII and Mk VII**.
As mounted on board World War I capital ships, this gun had a maximum elevation of 15° and a maximum range of 11,400yds. Guns on HA mountings used a 6.04lb MDS charge and had a muzzle velocity of about 2400ft/sec.

The 4in/50.3 Vickers Mk XII (twenty bought) was practically an all-steel version of Mk VII, bought in 1917–18 but not mounted afloat. It was a standard Spanish Navy gun.

The single Mk XIV was an EOC design on the same lines, but with the A tube in three pieces. It required special charges, as the breech opening was too small for the service charge (the chamber had the same capacity as Mk VII). This gun was made for the 1906 Milan Exhibition, and in 1913 it was in stock at Pozzuoli. The single gun was mounted on board the Portuguese transport India, formerly the Austrian Vorwaertz, in February 1918. Mk XIV fired a 31lb shell at a muzzle velocity of 2516ft/sec."



"This medium-velocity 4in gun was developed specifically to arm the 36kt destroyer Swift. It armed that ship, as well as destroyers from the ‘Tribals’ to the first thirteen of the ‘K’ class and the Australian Swan class and, in 1918, the Japanese destroyer Sakaki (presumably replacing her 4in gun). It was mounted on board the submarines E2, E11, E12, E14, E21 and E25, on board some P boats, ‘Fly’ class river gunboats, and some Q ships. Four were sent to the Caspian Sea during the British intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Destroyers typically had a PHI mounting (elevation 20°, range 10,200yds). Other mountings with the same elevation were Mk III, IIIx, IIIxx, V and VII. Some destroyers had ‘trap door’ anti-aircraft mountings for these guns: the ‘K’ class, Acasta, Midge and Spitfire. Production: 246."


"DNO developed specifications at the verbal request of First Sea Lord (Admiral Fisher) beginning in mid-November 1905. The gun was justified by reports that the destroyers of ‘certain foreign powers, notably those of France’ were being armoured over their machinery spaces. Initially Swift was to have been armed with the new 12pdr 18 cwt gun, but discussion with EOC revealed that a 4in gun with the same amount of ammunition could be accommodated at an additional weight of about 8 tons. The new gun was visualised as a 25pdr with a muzzle velocity of 2335ft/sec, compared to 2600ft/sec for the 12pdr. It would thus have twice the weight of shell, twice the weight of burster, and it could fire a Lyddite shell. DNO also argued that there was already a large suitable 4in shell supply. He therefore proposed to ask EOC for a design for a 4in QF gun and mounting, with a muzzle velocity of 2300ft/sec (unless the existing 4in QF could be used, which would be very desirable). The existing gun, however, would need a long recoil to reduce deck stresses (the method used was similar to that in the 18pdr used ashore). DNO wanted the deck stresses of the new gun not to exceed those of the 12pdr 18 cwt, and the weights as low as possible (not to exceed 5 tons per mounting, complete with 100 rounds). DNO favoured EOC because that firm was already working on the subject. Fisher wanted to deal with EOC’s chairman, Sir Andrew Noble, directly, to avoid any delay in his pet destroyer project. DNO wanted a larger burster, so the Ordnance Committee suggested using the 31lb shell already developed for the experimental 4in/45. The charge would have to be increased to provide the desired velocity. By this time there was considerable sentiment favouring bare-charge over QF guns, so EOC submitted a new BL design (February–March 1906).

The gun consisted of an A tube with breech piece, wire over the breech piece and A tube, and a jacket. Worn guns were given a tapered inner A tube; the last twenty-eight guns had tapered inner A tubes in addition to their A tubes. Mk VIII* was the first six guns, which had a different shape of chamber (208in3) and a modified breech block. In 1915 rated lifetime was 2000 rounds. Mk VIII* was in Swift."



"In January 1906 DNO wrote that he understood that there was interest in a fast scout to work with destroyers, armed with four 4in high-velocity guns (this was presumably an early reference to what became the Boadicea class). The low-velocity Mk VIII was not suitable. DNO hoped to use the same 31lb shell; with much heavier scantlings, she could withstand much greater deck stresses. Even so, deck stress could be limited to allowing for a 42in recoil, so long as that did not interfere with rate of fire. DNO therefore suggested a muzzle velocity of 2800ft/sec. He thought that a 4in gun might have to be adopted as the capital ship anti-torpedo weapon; a new high-velocity weapon would be suitable. The mounting should allow 15° elevation. As this was a completely new gun and mounting, DNO suggested that Cammell Laird (COW) should be invited to bid. First Sea Lord (Admiral Fisher) agreed to the project on 15 January 1906. Designs were requested from Vickers, EOC, COW (Cammell Laird) and RGF. Length of bore was not to exceed 50 calibres. The Ordnance Committee added that chamber volume should be no more than 600in, in which case the gun might attain 3000ft/sec. The gun might not have to be wire-wound over its full length. In addition to the firms named, John Brown offered a design. The Ordnance Committee liked EOC’s best, and COW’s was rejected altogether. After EOC modified its design, it was awarded a prototype contract in August 1906."



"Two 4in QF Mk III guns are shown atop ‘A’ turret on board HMS Invincible during the 1910 naval review in the Hudson River at New York. The guns were placed in this exposed position because they were expected to deal with attacking destroyers before or after but not during, a gun action. Originally the Invincibles were to have had the same 12pdr 18 cwt anti-destroyer guns as HMS Dreadnought. It was soon clear that high-velocity 4in guns would be better but the projected new gun would not be available in time. The existing QF Mk III, which armed obsolete ships, was considered preferable to the 12pdr because its shell was about twice as heavy (and was needed, in view of recent experiments with the old destroyer Skate), even though it had a lower velocity at 2000yds (presumably the desired range to stop a destroyer) and hence would be less accurate there, due to its shorter danger space. QF Mk III guns on PI mountings were used, taken in part from HMS Pactolus and Pomona, and modified (as PI*) with cross-connected sights and right-hand training gear. QF Mk III on PI mountings armed British sloops."


___________________
"recent experiments with the old destroyer Skate" - это как раз имитация французского бронеминоносца.

РыбаКит написал:

#1277011
А понял о чем вы. Вы о появлении 4" вообще, я вообще то имел ввиду 4" на скаутах и дестроерах.

Скауты и дестроеры получали свои пушки не в порядке общей очереди и не в рамках представлений DNO, а каким-то иным способом?

QF написал:

#1276977
3. Малые крейсера нинужны, даёшь большие дестроеры.

А вот это шикарно, там ьакие дискуссии кипели, что можно обосновать любую точку зрения.
По факту, решили не продолжать линию крейсеров третьего ранга, а создать новый малый крейсер на совершенно новых принципах.

QF написал:

#1277032
12 фунтовые были лишь следствием затянувшихся работ по 4". Когда эти работы начались там написано.

Вы ошибаетесь. Скауты получили новые 12фунтовки сделанные по этому же кипишу. Хотели бы поставили те же что на джемах. И кстати в инициативных проектах так и было, но посчитали что 12фунтов лучше.

krysa написал:

#1276831
Уголь вам Господь Бог материализует прямо в бункерах посреди Атлантики?Так даже если так-он 3я сторона и есть

Разные варианты могут быть.
Взять с собой уголь на быстроходных "добровольцах".
Захватить "трофейный" угольщик.
Ну и "коммерческий интерес" частных лиц (германскоподданых, к примеру), готовых доставить уголь в "точку Х", но при чём тут само государство ("3-я сторона")?!

QF написал:

#1277078
ерепитии с утрясанием требований к новой 4" заканчиваются в 1906 году и надо же, какое совпадение, скауты программы 1907 года строятся уже с 4". А с 12 фунтовками строятся лишь те, которые вводятся в строй в 1905-м. И надо же, снова это нелепое совпадение, новая 12 фунтовка в 1904-м уже прошла испытания. А водоразделом является/quote]
Можно придумывать много версий, но факт остается фактом скауты изначально шли под двенадцать фунтов. И с перевооружением не торопились. И не стоит додумывать. Противоминоносный калибр линкоров и вооружение эсминцев и скаутов совсем разные вещи. Параллельно с Риверами для бразильцев запилили тип пара с двумя 4" и весьма раскричались типа круто. Адмиралтество же на идею перевооружить риверы на 4" послало идейных на три буквы, и с огромным скрипом согласились на микс из одной 4" и пары 12фунтовок. Так что развитие орудий одно-концепций совсем другое. По перевооружению первых скаутов там вообще песня. Когда анонсировали блондинок с 6-4" пошел шквал критики на предмет сравнения с немцами, припомнили, что первые скауты ходят с 12фунтов, хотя орд французских миноносцев уже не предвидется. Конструкторов напрягли на тему перевооружить чем то похожим на 10-10.5см немцев. Давили настолько сильно, что Ватт взял папку с документами по первым скаутам поработать домой и... пролюбил... В итоге теперь неизвесно как выглядели инициативные проекты Виккерса и Армстронга, как выглядели пролетевшие мимо, да и вообще как выглядели первые проекты и первый вариант ТТЗ. Так что пушки пушками а коробки коробками. Просто первоначально противник-овер 400 французских и российских торпедных кораблей, а после ряв кляйны немцев, против которых 12фунтов как то не комильфо.

Отредактированно РыбаКит (11.05.2018 06:37:34)

---

Dear God, be good to me;
The sea is so wide,
And my boat is so small.