Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Railway Wargaming => Topic started by: former user on November 29, 2009, 07:25:19 PM
-
I happened to find this interesting picture of a british naval railway mounted naval gun, just prior to the battle of Modder Station
(http://www.corbisimages.com/images/HU025148.jpg?size=67&uid=25FA54D8-AFD8-4860-98E2-E0F99B05EA4C)
hope it pleases colonial wargamers :)
I am always wondering how reality differs from the "primitive" depiction of colonial warfare through us wargamers....
understandably, no european force would have fielded railway guns against native warriors ;)
-
Interesting image B. Presumably that would have had a limited traverse so as to avoid blowing itself off of the tracks? ???
-
this is a very valid point!
however, we can see that the Gun is far too big for the carriage - so, hard to judge...
the carriage is not a normal one - it looks reinforced and without bogies
- maybe someone has more consistent information?
otherwise, judging from the calibre, I would classify it as heavy support and thus firing with a high trajectory.
It would also not be far off to expect an emplacement to be added in the firing position
but then the gun shield is rather useless.
My educated guess would be - rough aiming to the direction of the tracks, with traverse fine correction and sliding recoil buffering - that would also require the use of these gigantic beams visible in the foreground and the steel girders behind.
For an improvised gun this is the quickest way of deployment, since it requires the carriage only to be jacked up from the track - it was employed during WWI by the French.
-
Could it have been built on the chassis of a light steam crane? - the wheelbase might support that idea as well as the foldout jack which is mounted on the frames by the second axlebox.
But why sandwich it between two cattle trucks? A couple of open wagons with uprights to retain the barrel when in transit would have been a better idea.
vT
-
Itīs one of two 6in naval guns mounted on railway carriages and used for fire support tasks. From what I remember from "Railway and War before 1918" (Bishop & Davis 1972), it retained the original 360° traverse and was indeed usually fired as "broadsides", as opposed to the 9.2in railway gun which was also prepared for but never saw service in the Boer War, but was a "fixed firer".
Since those would run on Cape Gauge tracks, it would make sense stabilising the carriage, but Iīm not sure it was actually necessary.
-
But why sandwich it between two cattle trucks? A couple of open wagons with uprights to retain the barrel when in transit would have been a better idea.
this is indeed a bit "unfortunate"
Could it have been built on the chassis of a light steam crane? - the wheelbase might support that idea as well as the foldout jack which is mounted on the frames by the second axlebox.
seems convincing to me
Since those would run on Cape Gauge tracks, it would make sense stabilising the carriage, but Iīm not sure it was actually necessary.
well if the traverse was functional, stabilising it would have been absolutely necessary.
at least I can't see any recoil buffering system
and yes, why not a steam crane with stabilizing system if available
-
well if the traverse was functional, stabilising it would have been absolutely necessary.
at least I can't see any recoil buffering system
and yes, why not a steam crane with stabilizing system if available
Not necessarily so. The recoil absorber assembly is, in this case, not visible due to the gun shield and crew in front, but you can see it here:
(http://www.fsgfort.com/Fort/27/Art4/P133b.jpg)
Furthermore, I didnīt express myself clearly enough, so sorry for that: you can obviously see the swiveling stabilizer feet between the second and third axles from the right. You would not need much more stabilization than that, so the stuff in front next to the tracks might just lie there by coincidence.
-
I see
so You think it would be enough?
very well then
mine was only guessing ;)
-
Thanks for all the replies - most informative. So if I understand it correctly, the recoil absorber is what looks like a piston tube (presumably one of a pair) sitting beneath the breach area?
-
yup
You can see the end of the other one
-
So I can. Thanks B, I've learnt something new today. :)
-
me too
I would have expected the thing to topple over with the first shot
-
It looks so Miyazaki. Very interesting.
-
I see
so You think it would be enough?
very well then
I donīt "think" it, I perform educated extrapolation from photographies I had seen of the things in action (strangely not on the web, though!). ;) Furthermore, there are images of 12" howitzers deployed to fire broadsides in France in 1940, so basically the concept must have been sound (if complex) if it also worked for those considerably larger calibres.
As said, after the recoil dampener caught the brunt of the recoil, there should not be much left, since this could throw the original naval pedestal mount bearings out of true. Apparently, you can catch that with the deployable screw feet.
I will happily admit, though, that my thoughts as to toppling the car were exactly the same when I first came across pictures of the thing some 20 years ago.
-
I "think" You mean something like the opening squence of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU5G1Upd4_0
that shows the 15 cm naval guns on traverse mounts, with additional deployable 4 hydraulically dampened side outriggers (v. Senger Etterlin: German Artillery 1939 - 1945. Vienna 1998, p. 151) ;)
that look triple the size oh those of the colonial gun
no doubting Your expertise, i know about the WWII medium calibres too, but You must admit that 1900 and 1940 recoil absorbing are pretty different things.
and I did not expect an improvised naval gun to be that easy....
-
I mean something like these 12" howitzers in 1940 at Catterick (UK) (not France, that was WW1, sorry about that):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/12inchRailwayHowitzersMkVCatterick12December1940.jpg)
,As for the MkVII 6in, the gun was pretty much left as is, with the complete assembly of gun, recoil absorber, recuperator, and pedestal mount simply mounted to a sturdy rail chassis. The WW2 MkV 12" howitzer was the same as in 1918, and the design of recoil absorbers for artillery had only been moderately refined in the interwar period. There was considerable refinement as for tank guns, but the basic concept was pretty much finalised in 1890-1900.
-
thx for the info
I find it interesting to know that the British managed to build 12 '' howitzers that could fire broadside without outriggers, whereas the Germans limited traverse railway guns to 15 cm.
Must have something to do with the expertise of naval artillery.
The railway mount looks interesting however. You don't possibly have a pic from the side?
I happen to have a railway gun with traverse mount on the schedule for next year ;)
-
thx for the info
I find it interesting to know that the British managed to build 12 '' howitzers that could fire broadside without outriggers, whereas the Germans limited traverse railway guns to 15 cm.
Must have something to do with the expertise of naval artillery.
I cannot think, though, that they did not use ANY kind of support. The 12" must have support legs not visible in the shot, or not deployed, because I agree with you that without ANY support, they would probably topple over. Iīll try to find more images, over the christmas holidays at the latest, because now my interest has been picqued as well.
The railway mount looks interesting however. You don't possibly have a pic from the side?
I happen to have a railway gun with traverse mount on the schedule for next year ;)
Do you mean the 6" MkVII or the 12" MkV? I should be able to dig up some pics, but I donīt have the books here right now. Will have to wait until christmas. As for the 6", it should basically be a pedestal such as this one:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1074/1489979650_2b22391bf6.jpg?v=0)
-
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1074/1489979650_2b22391bf6.jpg?v=0)
Too late they realised that the giant tortoises had overrun the guns! :D
-
not the gun, the railway carriage is what I would like to see in more detail :)
I wanted to make a traverse railway gun of my own, cause the usual forward firers are rather ... boring :)
take Your time, I'm not on the run ;)
-
not the gun, the railway carriage is what I would like to see in more detail :)
I wanted to make a traverse railway gun of my own, cause the usual forward firers are rather ... boring :)
Ahh, I see!
As for the carriage, I think you and Luthaaren are right about it being a crane chassis for the Boer War gun.
Here's a picture of a 65-ton railcrane for the Kowloon-Canton railway (http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/imfile/14961.jpg), which shows the general boxy layout well.
The crane chassis would indeed be a sensible choice, since it is very stable, torsion-resistant, and (as for modern models) includes the aforementioned extending stabilizers.
As for Boer War railroad artillery, it was far more common to mount light guns (quickfirers of around 3" caliber) on pedestals in the ends of boxcars, with each gun covering an angle between 120-150° to the front right and rear left end of the car. As well as that, pom-poms on pedestals were used in the same configuration:
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg236/Christian_S_1979/guncarcopy.jpg)
-
wow!
did You whip that up off the wrist.....?
impressing
-
wow!
did You whip that up off the wrist.....?
impressing
Yes, for a quick image since I couldnīt find it on the web. Iīll try to scan the images from the Bishop and Davis book over christmas, which are far prettier.
-
it was actually this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/12inchRailwayHowitzerMkIII26February1941.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/12inchRailwayHowitzerHildaYpres7November1917.jpeg)
I wanted to see from the side and mre closely
since I don't get the principle
one time they very high on the carriage, the other time they are lowered to the ground ...???
-
since I don't get the principle
one time they very high on the carriage, the other time they are lowered to the ground ...???
Actually, you DO get the principle - the carriage can be lowered hydraulically to make physical contact with the ground, which will then absorb some of the recoil.
Another variant would be a "shooting pit" beneath the middle part of the carriage, so the gun could recoil into the empty space. The French used this concept extensively, but of course it required far more elaborate preparation of firing positions.
-
but I thought they were fired from the elevated 90° traverse position ??
like in the first picture?? o_o
bit confused...
OK
so this is actually some special railway carriage that can lower the mount and thus is not really 360°
MKI - MK IV
whereas MKV is 360° traverse and fires from high position?
-
but I thought they were fired from the elevated 90° traverse position ??
like in the first picture?? o_o
bit confused...
OK
so this is actually some special railway carriage that can lower the mount and thus is not really 360°
MKI - MK IV
whereas MKV is 360° traverse and fires from high position?
The first photo might be a staged shot with the carriage not fully depressed. Furthermore, the really "High" position is not the gun, but a service platform.
Apart from that, the 12" didnīt have a 360° arc of fire, but rather 120° to either side, IIRC.
-
aaahhhh
blink - bulb on! :)
thank You