cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 . . . Professor of Mathematics at Woolwich. . . Nigel So the Mathematics was his day job and not the Divinity. I also confused him wth Benjamin Robins who invented the ballistic pendulum. Bashforth invented the chronograph (and still the source of pleasure to riflemen and others) but in 150 years there have great changes to the screens and the measuring of the time interval. . . . and the Ballistic Coefficient, Sectional Density and Form Factor. I can upload some other images if there is an interest and blanket approval to go outside WW1. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 16 August , 2008 Share Posted 16 August , 2008 Great photograph. Do you know when and where? I would be very interested to see any other pictures you have of ballistic tests. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 . . . This older generation of guns were not better than 13 and 18 pr! . . . What about that illustrious 4.7-inch and the good ol' 6-inch? Would that dainty old mekometer with the shortish base have in fact been able to determine an accurate (extended) range? This 6-inch gun is on Scott's WW1 carriage that had been built at Chatham and was used for cross-channel fire Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 . . . when and where? . . . Regards TonyE Tony Valcartier (Canada) (early?) WW1 - but sadly due to the ephemeral nature of the internet, I have never been able to find the web site again (although I am sure this is an official (ie Canadian government archives) source. Another view Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 Tony WW2 screens - but sadly no other data but the photo number might help. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 Tony Timing equipment - again WW2 with no details except the photo number I have some other inter-war images somewhere on my PC. I can also scan images from Elements of ordnance and Elements of ammunition and from an original copy of the Du Pont charts (all being products of wasteful and misspent youth). Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 16 August , 2008 Share Posted 16 August , 2008 One of those two pictures appears to have been reversed at some point - note any detail (such as the distinctive tree in the distance on the left side of the first picture), and it's on the opposite side of the next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 One of those two pictures appears to have been reversed at some point . . . Andrew That too was my first impression on saving the images but you will note there are three lanes on the range and that one image has 'volunteers' fixing the screens while the gun is being . . . None of this namby-pamby business about standing away from the firing line. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 The mechanism from Elements of Ordnance. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 From page 89 of Elements of Ordinance. This is the last image. I seem to have saved only links in my Favourites Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 16 August , 2008 Share Posted 16 August , 2008 That too was my first impression on saving the images but you will note there are three lanes on the range and that one image has 'volunteers' fixing the screens while the gun is being . . . Nooo, one's definately been reversed - the tree in the distance is the dead give away, the same sandbags in reverse on both, the same odd shaped pieces of wood to the right and left respectively of both guns, the patterning in the gravel to the front right/left of both guns - also, the loop hole on the gun itself changes sides... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 16 August , 2008 Share Posted 16 August , 2008 Two photographs, one with range personnel one without. Second one reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 Nooo, one's definately been reversed . . . Andrew One of the images has indeed been flipped horizontally BUT there are THREE gunners (plus all the gunners working on the screens) in this horizontally flipped image and TWO gunners in the other image. And now we need a gunner and / or gun expert to tell us which image has the correct orientation and maybe even identify the gun. I will post an enlarged clip with the brightness/contrast enhanced Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 THREE gunners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 16 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2008 TWO gunners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 16 August , 2008 Share Posted 16 August , 2008 I never said it was the same image reversed, just that one had been reversed - I could see it was quite different otherwise . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 16 August , 2008 Share Posted 16 August , 2008 And if I've got this right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 17 August , 2008 Share Posted 17 August , 2008 What about that illustrious 4.7-inch and the good ol' 6-inch? Would that dainty old mekometer with the shortish base have in fact been able to determine an accurate (extended) range? This 6-inch gun is on Scott's WW1 carriage that had been built at Chatham and was used for cross-channel fire Barrel looks suspiciously like that on 6-in Mk 19. Max elevation 38 degrees, max range just over 17 km. Presumably the channel was shrunk. Mk 5 4.7 gave 16500 yds. In hot and high conditions, with a tail wind and a fairly new barrel then 18000 might have been squeezed. However, the 4.7 on Scott carriage used in SA gave 10000 yds With most rangefinders (all if optical?) accuracy decreases with range. Meko used subtension with a very short base, for long distances and the small angles involved even small errors in the base measurement could put you in Tokyo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 17 August , 2008 Share Posted 17 August , 2008 Nigel So the Mathematics was his day job and not the Divinity. I also confused him wth Benjamin Robins who invented the ballistic pendulum. Bashforth invented the chronograph (and still the source of pleasure to riflemen and others) but in 150 years there have great changes to the screens and the measuring of the time interval. . . . and the Ballistic Coefficient, Sectional Density and Form Factor. I can upload some other images if there is an interest and blanket approval to go outside WW1. My site says he was 'Professor of Applied Mathematics' and at the 'Artillery Advanced Course', ie not RMA. Don't know how long he held this posiiton and if he held others. I've also a vague memory of him being somewhere else, Cambridge? It does seem as if he did a fair amount of research. All sounds to me like a full time job. Interesting photo, obviously not a research range or producing range and accuracy data. The 3 firing positions being readied simultaneously are a giveaway, it's obviously a calibration range. Makes me wonder if it might be in France. Of course this method wasn't notably accurate or consistent but that didn't reveal itself until Doppler radars took over in the 1960s or so when they started getting results that could be related to the observed fire calibration method and realised it was the old instrumentation methods that had caused 50 years of puzzlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 17 August , 2008 Share Posted 17 August , 2008 Andrew One of the images has indeed been flipped horizontally BUT there are THREE gunners (plus all the gunners working on the screens) in this horizontally flipped image and TWO gunners in the other image. And now we need a gunner and / or gun expert to tell us which image has the correct orientation and maybe even identify the gun. This one is reversed. I can see the vertical handle of thee lever breech mechanism on the right, it should be on the left. The high handwheel, side on, should be on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 17 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 17 August , 2008 . . . the 4.7 on Scott carriage used in SA gave 10000 yds . . . Nigel Thanks for the info. Does this explain why the 4.7-inch guns being offloaded at Cape Helles (as shown in record H10292 at the Australian War Memorial) were not "covered with British Army soldiers' overcoats to hide them from the enemy" but were covered in shame and embarassment because they were in fact expecting 4.7-inch guns on the new, lighter and improved carriages that Scott had built in March 1900 at the Durban Workshops of the Natal Government Railways (image to follow). Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 17 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 17 August , 2008 Nigel One of the four new, lighter and improved carriages that Scott had built in March 1900 on test on a Durban beach. Somewhat different to the two Woolwich versions. This image was scanned from Crowe's The commission of the "HMS Terrible". Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 18 August , 2008 Share Posted 18 August , 2008 Ah, the saga of the 4.7, that's what you get when the British media gets involved. After the Boer War 4.7 took on a life of its own even though the army was working towards the new 60 pr. IIRC Parliament actually legislated for the TF to have 4.7! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cahoehler Posted 18 August , 2008 Author Share Posted 18 August , 2008 . . . Parliament actually legislated for the TF to have 4.7! Nigel Because they had done so well in South Africa Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now