战列舰

 找回密码
 登上甲板
搜索
查看: 7269|回复: 18

位什么大药室高膛压的纳尔逊主炮威力如此之差

[复制链接]

上尉

十二年服役纪念章旗手

发表于 2012-7-19 10:01 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
纳尔逊的那门16寸,药室容积达到了令人发指的577升,膛压3150-3250KG/cm2,装药也不少225.9KG
怎么打出来的威力那么一般,和42倍的15寸的威力相比都没太大提升,比起各国的新15寸简直就是玩具
和美国的mk6,mk7还有蝗国的3年式16.1都没法比
是不是炮弹太差了???
难以理解,轻弹,大药室,高膛压,新炮的初速还没有重弹,药室膛压都差一些的蝗国3年式的16.1高

上将

十二年服役纪念章TIME TRAVELER功勋勋章钻石金双剑金橡叶铁十字勋章行政立法委骑士团勋章政道纪念章旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-7-19 11:43 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 mathewwu 于 2012-7-19 11:59 编辑

导因于1920.3兵器总监(DNO)提交的一份备忘录,怀疑低速重弹的效果而建议采用高速轻弹。其实他的看法是基于不完全的实验论证。以下引用 "British Battleships of World War Two" by Alan Raven and John Roberts 的说明:

The general requirement was for a gun capable of defeating a ship protected by a 15-inch belt and a 7-inch deck.  The design for the 18-inch gun was regarded most favourably as the one least likely to be outclassed by foreign designs. . . .

All the heavy gun designs considered early in 1920 and listed above, followed the practice that had begun with the 13.5-inch gun of having a heavy shell/low velocity combination, but in March 1920, the DNO issued a memorandum in which he cast serious doubts upon the advisability of this system.  His arguments were based on the results of the proof tests of the 13.5-inch, 1,250-pound and 1,400-pound projectiles, which demonstrated that it was by no means certain that, at oblique attack, the heavier shell was the more efficient armour piercer.  Both the light and the heavy 13.5-inch shell had to pass the same proof tests at the same striking-velocities, and while there were no failures with the 1,250-pound projectile, there were many, at first, with the 1,400-pound projectile.  The failed shells usually passed through the plate but not in a fit state to burst, probably - it was thought - because of the greater length of the heavy shell.  When penetrating armour at oblique angles of attack, the projectile was deflected from its line of flight, which produced a whip in the base portion.  The stresses set up by this whip were greater in the long-bodied shell than in the short one, and its chances of breaking up during penetration were, therefore, greater.

It was also pointed out by the DNO that the existing 15-inch armour-piercing capped shell was not, as was commonly believed, capable of penetrating whole, any armour then carried afloat.  Under proof conditions, only two such shells had successfully penetrated, in an unbroken condition, a 12-inch plate at 20° to the normal.  The first was fired with a striking-velocity of 1,690 feet per second, equal to a range of 12,300 yards, at a standard armour plate, and the second, with 1,347 feet per second, equal to 25,000-yards, at a Vickers trial plate.

Trials against turret roofs showed that 5-inch and 6-inch armour when struck at 60° to the normal, could keep out a 15-inch shell, though a hole was punched in the armour.  From these results, it was deducted that a 7-inch armour deck would defeat a 15-inch armour-piercing capped shell at 60°, that is up to a range of 25,000 yards.  Only one trial at a steeper angle had been held, in which a 15-inch APC shell penetrated a 7-inch plate, at 45°, with a striking-velocity of 1,465 feet per second. Again, the DNO intimated that a shorter-bodied 15-inch shell would probably have better powers of penetration, and for future designs, he proposed the adoption of a high-velocity gun, firing a light shell. The theoretical advantages of a gun of this type were, a high striking-velocity at short range, a steep angle of descent at long range and a greater danger-space up to certain ranges.  The loss in striking-energy resulting from the lower weight of a short shell compared to a long one of the same calibre and type, were considered by the DNO to be far more important in small and medium calibre guns than in heavy guns.  Calculations showed, that for an equal maximum chamber pressure, a 1,690-pound 15-inch shell would have a muzzle velocity of 2,650 feet per second compared to 2,450 feet per second in the existing 1,920-pound shell.  This gave the lighter shell a greater danger-space up to 22,000 yards, or 25,000 yards with a modified ballistic cap (6 crh instead of 8 crh).  In the opinion of the DNO, the greater striking-energy of the heavy projectile would have little effect on the ability of the shell to perforate in a fit state to burst.  Calculations were also made for the 18-inch gun with 8 crh projectiles of 3,353 pounds and 2,837 pounds and muzzle velocities of 2,500 feet per second and 2,700 feet per second respectively.  The remaining velocities were found to be the same at 23,000 yards and only differed by 25 feet per second at 30,000 yards.

To test these theories, experiments were conducted with short-bodied 15-inch armour-piercing capped shells.  The detailed results of these trials are not known, but they must have vindicated the DNO's arguments, for the 16-inch Mk I gun mounted in Nelson and Rodney used the high-velocity/light shell combination; in the event it was to prove a mistake.

It was considered that the best distribution of the main armament was in four twin turrets, arranged as in the Queen Elizabeth class. This system was ideal for efficient fire-control, and twin mountings allowed for turret designs of maximum simplicity and reliability.  It was realised, however, that it might be necessary to adopt triple turrets in order to keep the displacement of the new ships within reasonable limits.  Designs for both twin and triple mountings were obtained from Vickers and the Elswick Ordnance Company, for inclusion in the sketch designs of the 1921 to 1922 capital ships.  These turret designs were given a maximum gun-elevation of 40° or 45°, which, it was thought, was necessary in order to obtain the maximum possible range.

上尉

十二年服役纪念章旗手

 楼主| 发表于 2012-7-19 12:02 | 显示全部楼层
mathewwu 发表于 2012-7-19 11:43
导因于1920.3兵器总监(DNO)提交的一份备忘录,怀疑低速重弹的效果,而建议采用高速轻弹。其实他的看法是基 ...

问题是英国的采用了轻弹,但是高膛压,大药室换来的轻弹的初速还不如人家重弹,真是费解啊
比如长门那炮新炮初速达到806M/s,比纳尔逊的要快不少

中将

十二年服役纪念章TIME TRAVELER一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-7-19 12:31 | 显示全部楼层
最初的设计炮口初速是823米/秒,这样的话其炮口动能比美国原用于科罗拉多的MKI还高,计算炮口穿深也将比长门的3年式高一点。
但是似乎试射中发现炮口磨损严重,而且还有膛线被剥离的趋势?“as there was a tendency for the projectiles to strip the rifling out of the guns ”是这个意思吧?
此后降低了炮口初速到788米/秒,于是威力悲催了。
20年代有计划是使用1021千克炮弹、炮口初速785米/秒,这样估算其穿甲能力也会超过长门3年式改造前的水平。

不过英国舰炮药室容积倒确实是格外地大,不知道是为“强装药”做准备还是英国发射药孔隙率大、密度低的原因。还请高人调研吧。

中将

十二年服役纪念章TIME TRAVELER银星勋章荣誉勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-7-19 12:47 | 显示全部楼层
akagizuo 发表于 2012-7-19 12:02
问题是英国的采用了轻弹,但是高膛压,大药室换来的轻弹的初速还不如人家重弹,真是费解啊
比如长门那炮 ...

文中所述的实验的结论是,在同初速情形下,轻弹威力比重弹好。
「置酒上方,烽火未熄,望风樯战舰,在烟霭间,慨然尽醉。」

中尉

十二年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-7-19 14:28 | 显示全部楼层
克虏伯火炮 发表于 2012-7-19 12:31
最初的设计炮口初速是823米/秒,这样的话其炮口动能比美国原用于科罗拉多的MKI还高,计算炮口穿深也将比长 ...

那是不是说,一旦换转重弹,威力仍然是客观的?

中将

十二年服役纪念章TIME TRAVELER银橡叶铁十字勋章行政立法委MP Team骑士团勋章终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-7-19 14:33 | 显示全部楼层
轻弹惯性小,出膛快……

没有长身管配合搞毛轻弹……

中将

十二年服役纪念章TIME TRAVELER一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-7-19 16:42 | 显示全部楼层
斯佩伯爵 发表于 2012-7-19 14:28
那是不是说,一旦换转重弹,威力仍然是客观的?

我想应该是可以的。
对最初发现的身管磨损/膛线剥离问题,开发了膛线较浅的MKII身管;如果再使用重弹,炮口初速维持降低后的水平(原先是降低到788米/秒以减缓磨损),那么炮口磨损问题我认为不会再出现。

但重弹计划最后也取消了,威力到底还是没有上去。
而且更加悲催的是,MKI型身管已经生产了一定数量,又舍不得扔,乃至于后来居然混装两种身管,这必然导致射弹散布的加剧啊。

中尉

十二年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-7-19 16:43 | 显示全部楼层
克虏伯火炮 发表于 2012-7-19 16:42
我想应该是可以的。
对最初发现的身管磨损/膛线剥离问题,开发了膛线较浅的MKII身管;如果再使用重弹,炮 ...

也就是说,纳尔逊级实际上什么设计指标都没达到?

中将

十二年服役纪念章TIME TRAVELER一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-7-19 16:45 | 显示全部楼层
STG44突击步枪 发表于 2012-7-19 14:33
轻弹惯性小,出膛快……

没有长身管配合搞毛轻弹……

相比于同样炮口动能的条件下,在10-12公里,或者稍大一点的距离之内,采用轻弹确实会比重弹的垂直穿深更好,尤其是面对倾斜装甲。
我猜测英国之所以在20年代初期错走了一段“轻弹”路线,与测试德国巴登号的主炮和一些打靶有关系?

中将

十二年服役纪念章TIME TRAVELER一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-7-19 17:00 | 显示全部楼层
斯佩伯爵 发表于 2012-7-19 16:43
也就是说,纳尔逊级实际上什么设计指标都没达到?

不清楚你说的“设计指标”包含哪些内容。
总之单对16寸舰炮来说,炮口初速被迫降低、2种身管、被误导的轻弹、故障多发的炮塔、比15寸MKI偏低的射速......个人认为确实可以说“哪方面指标都没达到”。

上尉

十二年服役纪念章旗手

 楼主| 发表于 2012-7-19 17:02 | 显示全部楼层
STG44突击步枪 发表于 2012-7-19 14:33
轻弹惯性小,出膛快……

没有长身管配合搞毛轻弹……

汉斯的巴登上面还是45倍口径的轻弹……才750的弹重

上尉

十二年服役纪念章旗手

 楼主| 发表于 2012-7-19 17:03 | 显示全部楼层
L'Soleil 发表于 2012-7-19 12:47
文中所述的实验的结论是,在同初速情形下,轻弹威力比重弹好。

出现的情况是长门的弹重1020KG初速780-806
而纳尔逊的弹重957KG,初速新炮也只有790多的水平

中尉

十二年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-7-19 20:28 | 显示全部楼层
克虏伯火炮 发表于 2012-7-19 17:00
不清楚你说的“设计指标”包含哪些内容。
总之单对16寸舰炮来说,炮口初速被迫降低、2种身管、被误导的轻 ...

我的意思是,他预计要达到的设计初衷!

一等兵

十二年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-7-19 23:11 | 显示全部楼层
   谁能将2楼翻译一下,不懂鸟语。

军士长

十一年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-7-20 07:47 | 显示全部楼层
轻弹威力不行
【该用户ID已被系统回收】

上尉

十二年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-7-20 13:50 | 显示全部楼层
斯佩伯爵 发表于 2012-7-19 14:28
那是不是说,一旦换转重弹,威力仍然是客观的?

错了,恰恰证明了此炮即使换装重弹,大装药依旧无法解决炮口磨损的问题,必须减低膛压,所以威力一样悲剧。考虑到是重弹,近距离威力应该更悲剧;而远距离威力可能凑合,但是命中无法保证——压根就是垃圾炮。
【该用户ID已经被回收】

上尉

十二年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-7-20 13:51 | 显示全部楼层
铁公爵 发表于 2012-7-20 07:47
轻弹威力不行


这货的关键是炮管不行,所以不管轻弹重弹都是白搭
【该用户ID已经被回收】

上尉

十二年服役纪念章旗手

 楼主| 发表于 2012-7-20 17:32 | 显示全部楼层
动感炮神 发表于 2012-7-20 13:51
这货的关键是炮管不行,所以不管轻弹重弹都是白搭

恩,炮膛数据这么贵畜,还这么搓得表现,9成可能就是身管和炮弹的结合问题……动能没有充分转化

手机版|Archiver|© 2010-2025 战列舰 warships.com.cn, All Rights Reserved ( 沪ICP备13004737号 )

GMT+8, 2025-5-1 21:31 , Processed in 0.022119 second(s), 19 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2023 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表