Laurence Batchelor wrote:I would like to add that in actual combat is the best way to compare those 15" guns and mountings.
I still consider the RN 15" unequalled by any piece of naval artillery in any navy from 1912-1960.
Its combat record beats anything else even if a pure technical comparison doesn't.....!
I can not find any particularly convincing justification for that claim.
Anonymous wrote:
You have to be more specific about what aspects makes up quality and how you would compare them.
You are the person that stated that the GUN was inferior. On that basis I feel that it is up to YOU to prove your case by giving a set of comparative figures, not I having to be specific.
The floor is yours.
If you care to read the very first post in this thread, 3 pages back, you would find that I've quantified the inferiority of the British 15"/42 in the specific area of throwing power to 2 decimal places. I also offered an interpretation of what that might mean to the effectiveness of the gun.
The claim that the British gun is the equal or better of any other seems to be made without any effort to identify which traits were being compared, except some vague "combat record", much less any actual figures.
I did read your first post on the subject.
Here are some of the factors that I believe should be taken into account when making comparisions.
Quality of forgings.
Barrel droop and its effect on flight of shell.
Muzzel flare and its effect on life of the gun.
Type of construction. ie all steel, wire wound, hoops, twist characteristics.
Type of propellent used for the shell. Different types effected the accuracy of the gun, ie deposite within barrel.
Type of liner.
Quality of construction and it's consistency from gun to gun.
Effective life of gun at full charge.
ar wrote:I did read your first post on the subject.
Here are some of the factors that I believe should be taken into account when making comparisions.
Quality of forgings.
Barrel droop and its effect on flight of shell.
Muzzel flare and its effect on life of the gun.
Type of construction. ie all steel, wire wound, hoops, twist characteristics.
Type of propellent used for the shell. Different types effected the accuracy of the gun, ie deposite within barrel.
Type of liner.
Quality of construction and it's consistency from gun to gun.
Effective life of gun at full charge.
If you have numerical basic data on those, I'll be grateful if you share them.
Mind you that, for any data on Quality of construction and Effective life to be taken as sound basis for comparison, the methods and limitations of the measure for things like Quality of construction and Effective life needs to be elucidated.
ar wrote:I did read your first post on the subject.
Here are some of the factors that I believe should be taken into account when making comparisions.
Quality of forgings.
Barrel droop and its effect on flight of shell.
Muzzel flare and its effect on life of the gun.
Type of construction. ie all steel, wire wound, hoops, twist characteristics.
Type of propellent used for the shell. Different types effected the accuracy of the gun, ie deposite within barrel.
Type of liner.
Quality of construction and it's consistency from gun to gun.
Effective life of gun at full charge.
If you have numerical basic data on those, I'll be grateful if you share them.
Mind you that, for any data on Quality of construction and Effective life to be taken as sound basis for comparison, the methods and limitations of the measure for things like Quality of construction and Effective life needs to be elucidated.
I do not have the data to hand, and no where is there a study published commercially that I am aware of. A lot of data has been put out commercially but spread over many books over many years in a disjointed way as one would expect.
After the end of WW11 the RN produced a comparitive study of heavy naval guns and mountings which I had a very brief look at, but this was over thirty years ago. Forgive me. Maybe young Laurence has a title or two on his list sitting there waiting for people to look at.
