Suche löschen...
Mechanics magazine
- Bandzählung
- N.S. 23=92.1870
- Erscheinungsdatum
- 1870
- Sprache
- Englisch
- Signatur
- A146
- Vorlage
- Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
- Digitalisat
- Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
- Digitalisat
- SLUB Dresden
- Lizenz-/Rechtehinweis
- Public Domain Mark 1.0
- URN
- urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id507363582-187000013
- PURL
- http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id507363582-18700001
- OAI-Identifier
- oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-507363582-18700001
- Sammlungen
- Projekt: Bestände der Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
- LDP: Bestände der Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
- Strukturtyp
- Band
- Parlamentsperiode
- -
- Wahlperiode
- -
- Digitalisat
- SLUB Dresden
- Strukturtyp
- Ausgabe
- Parlamentsperiode
- -
- Wahlperiode
- -
-
Zeitschrift
Mechanics magazine
-
Band
Band N.S. 23=92.1870
-
- Titelblatt Titelblatt -
- Register Index to vol. XXIII I
- Register Illustrations to vol. XXIII IV
- Ausgabe Jan. 1, 1870 1
- Ausgabe Jan. 8, 1870 19
- Ausgabe Jan. 14, 1870 37
- Ausgabe Jan. 21, 1870 55
- Ausgabe Jan. 28, 1870 73
- Ausgabe Feb. 4, 1870 91
- Ausgabe Feb. 11, 1870 109
- Ausgabe Feb. 18, 1870 127
- Ausgabe Feb. 25, 1870 145
- Ausgabe Mar. 4, 1870 163
- Ausgabe Mar. 11, 1870 181
- Ausgabe Mar. 18, 1870 199
- Ausgabe Mar. 25, 1870 217
- Ausgabe Apr. 1, 1870 235
- Ausgabe Apr. 8, 1870 253
- Ausgabe Apr. 15, 1870 271
- Ausgabe Apr. 22, 1870 289
- Ausgabe Apr. 29, 1870 307
- Ausgabe May 6, 1870 325
- Ausgabe May 13, 1870 343
- Ausgabe May 20, 1870 361
- Ausgabe May 27, 1870 379
- Ausgabe June 3, 1870 397
- Ausgabe June 10, 1870 415
- Ausgabe June 17, 1870 433
- Ausgabe June 24, 1870 451
- Ausgabe No. 2361 I
- Ausgabe No. 2362 I
- Ausgabe No. 2363 I
- Ausgabe No. 2364 I
- Ausgabe No. 2365 I
- Ausgabe No. 2366 I
- Ausgabe No. 2367 I
- Ausgabe No. 2368 I
- Ausgabe No. 2369 I
- Ausgabe No. 2370 I
- Ausgabe No. 2371 I
- Ausgabe No. 2372 I
- Ausgabe No. 2373 I
- Ausgabe No. 2374 I
- Ausgabe No. 2375 I
- Ausgabe No. 2376 I
- Ausgabe No. 2377 I
- Ausgabe No. 2378 I
- Ausgabe No. 2379 I
- Ausgabe No. 2380 I
- Ausgabe No. 2381 I
- Ausgabe No. 2382 I
- Ausgabe No. 2383 I
- Ausgabe No. 2384 I
- Ausgabe No. 2385 I
- Ausgabe No. 2386 I
-
Band
Band N.S. 23=92.1870
-
- Titel
- Mechanics magazine
- Autor
- Links
- Downloads
- Einzelseite als Bild herunterladen (JPG)
-
Volltext Seite (XML)
THE MECHANICS’ MAGAZINE. LONDON: FR1DA1, APRIL 22, 1870. THE WHITWORTH GUN. No. 3. H AYING conclusively demonstrated the points of excellence which are inherent in the Whitworth system, and which render it superior to any other, we will next proceed to unfold the other side of the question. Let us therefore see what are the objections taken to the Whitworth gun by its detractors. These are mainly three—that the system is costly, that it differs from other systems, and that the Whitworth gun is more subject than others to difficulty in loading. In the first place, then, it is objected that the gun is more costly than the . Woolwich and other guns. This we at once admit in a spirit of thankful ness, knowing full well that it is the universal experience in every department of life that if we want a superior article we must pay a little more for it. An experience equally universal is that it always proves cheaper in the long run to pay a little dearer at the outset, and that a penny-wise economy is always succeeded by a pound-foolish result. Besides, it is rather comical to find that those papers which have been most zealous in their endeavours to prove that with the present government economy and parsimony are convertible terms, are now turning round and accusing it of extravagance. But, ac cepting the truth of the assertion of greater costliness, we maintain that the superiority of the metal, and the consequent endurance of the piece, far outbalance the excess of cost. As the gun is made throughout of one kind of material only, we further have a cer tainty of all parts being of the same strength. No amount of care could secure the same merits in the service gun. Errors and weak ness are inherent in the large forgings of the Government wrought-iron guns, and with increase of size the difficulties are proportion ately increased. As bearing on this point we may refer to the 9-inch service guns, the endurance of one of which is no safe or certain measure of that of all the 9-inch guns of that construction. Indeed, under the present system of manufacture we do not believe it possible in the Government foundry to make all the 9-inch service guns in all respects equal in strength. The very cha racter of the manufacture precludes the possibility of such a coincidence. A prac tical proof of this is found in the fact that a gun of this construction burst explosively at proof, either on the first or second round ; although we presume that everything had been done in the manufacture to make the gun which failed as good as a similar gun that fired 1,000 rounds. But in considering the relative expense of the two systems it is essential that we should view the cost of the guns and projectiles together, inasmuch as the cost of the former cannot be considered apart from that of the latter. Indeed, it is in the important point of economy in projectiles that the Whitworth polygonal system, when fully carried out in practice, would be found to stand pre eminent. This pre-eminence would be ob tained not only in the manufacture but in the use of the projectiles. First, then, the manufacture. The Whitworth projectiles are made of one single metal, and are so simple in form that they are fired just as they are cast, without being touched by a tool. As regards the larger sizes the sim plicity of manufacture and the rapidity of production may be estimated from the fact that one man with one machine can shape a 9-inch projectile weighing 3121b. in twelve minutes. Contrasted with the manufacture of the service projectiles this facility of production and economy in cost is really startling. To realise this fact we have only to consider the cost and labour of working an expensive metal like the brass used in the studs of the service projectiles ; the labour of boring and recessing the holes in the pro jectiles to receive the studs, the amount of time and machinery necessary to press them in and to adjust their bearing surfaces. In view of all this it cannot be denied that the polygonal system greatly conduces to economy as regards first cost. The Whitworth and Armstrong Committee testified to the eco nomy of the polygonal projectiles when they reported that, making every allowance for reduction in hand labour consequent on the systematic establishment of the manufacture, the Armstrong projectile must be more expensive than the Whitworth projectile. But when we come, in the second place, to consider the economical advantages of the Whitworth projectiles when in use we shall find them to be very numerous. They can be fired a number of times without any detcrioiation in range or accuracy. Their transport is economical inasmuch as they do not require the elaborate precautions which render the transport of the service projectile so costly. Another point is that the expen sive gauges at present required at all the large stations in order to ascertain when the soft metal studs of the Government projec tiles have received damage would be dispensed with. In this single item an annual saving might he effected which alone would amount to a very considerable sum. The capability in the Whitworth projectiles of being fired over and over again would entirely stop the great waste of stores which now takes place in making experiments. It is evident, there fore, that, taking the projectiles into con sideration with the gun, the Whitworth system presents important economical advan tages over the service system. The third of this series of grave objections brought against the Whitworth system is that the gun and projectiles differ in type from others. We disposed of this objection at the outset, inasmuch as it was the one advanced by Sir John Hay when he over threw the Duke of Somerset’s order for the thirty Whitworth guns. The objection that a special gun requires a special ammunition, as we have already stated, holds equally against a gun of new size as well as against a gun of a new type. To this we may here add that a change to the Whitworth system would result in an increase rather than a decrease of the facility with which shot and shell could be obtained on distant stations. It is also objected by some—whose brains must have oeen sorely taxed in inventing the allegation—that it would be inconvenient and expensive to introduce another system of rifling for any larger description of ord nance that may be required. Now this might lead to the supposition that there was an unimpeachable regularity and uniformity in the present service constructions. We need hardly observe that this would be a very great mistake, inasmuch as there is no uniformity whatever, the so-called service “ system ” being composed of a collection of guns differing as widely as possible in every respect, except that they all burn powder and carry shot. But if even there was at present any uniformity in the service con structions such an objection ought not to have any weight. The adoption of the Whitworth system would not create any more complication than having guns of two different calibres in the same fort or on board the kame ship. As far as we are aware there are not any articles of store, nor any implements common to two of the service guns of different calibres, that would not be equally available for guns on the Whitworth system. The truth is that a large amount of I money might be annually saved if the service ^possessed a true system of ordnance instead of a heterogeneous collection of guns and projectiles bearing no relation whatever to each other. We may here refer in passing- to another objection which has been raised, that any change would necessitate an extended series of costly experiments. Now this objection is entirely without foundation. We have shown that the superiority of the Whitworth system over the service guns, as regards range, accuracy, and flatness of trajectory, has already been amply proved. The experi ments already carried out have been so com plete and so exhaustive as to leave no point untested, and so conclusive as to leave no room for further objection so far. But such is the peculiar and beautiful uniformity of the Whitworth system that any points which might require to be developed could be worked out with the 1-pounder or the 3- pounder gun, without any experiments being made with the larger calibres. The 1-poun der gun is thoroughly effectual for all experi mental purposes, and is, in fact, the piece used by Sir Joseph W r hitworth in his experi ments. Every question which requires to be elucidated is first thoroughly considered and then carefully and' repeatedly tested in the 1-pounder gun, and so satisfactory do these results invariably prove that Sir Joseph never fails to obtain proportionate results with the few experiments made with larger calibres. We now come to the last allegation to which any special answer is necessary, and that is that the Whitworth gun is more sub ject than others to difficulty in loading. The true answer to this objection is, that it does not really exist, inasmuch as the polygonal system is the only one which centres the shot in the gun with any required amount of windage. For that reason it is the best of all systems for allowing of easy loading with out injuring the accuracy of its fire. It is true that hitches have occasionally occurred in loading Whitworth guns; but they have also occurred in a far greater degree with all other guns, including those formed with grooves to receive studded projectiles. If we again turn to the Whitworth and Arm strong Committee’s report, we shall find the truth of the matter stated in a very few words. A number of trials and a careful investigation of the results lead the Commit tee to report that:—“ Upon consideration of these experiments and the long course of practice they have witnessed with these guns, the Committee are of opinion that, as re gards ease of loading, the only instances of difficulty that have occurred with either gun have been so rare and obviously exceptional that they are unable in summing up to assign to either gun a decided advantage over the other in this respect.” But to be fair and impartial in the matter we must admit that there w-ere some grounds, although very slight, for the allegation with which we are now dealing. The Whitworth gun was in use in the Brazilian navy during the war, and there was some experience of jambing. The cause of this, however, is clearly shown to be due to anything but inherent defects in the sys tem ; in fact, it was not connected with either guns or projectiles at all. The officers of the Brazilian navy who had used rifled guns during the war reported in 1866 to the Ministry of Marine at Rio de Janeiro, the results of their experience in this respect, and from their report we find the following most conclusive evidence against the jambing arising from any peculiarity of the Whit worth system. The plain question was put, “Have projectiles ever stuek in the bore? ” and the admiral of the fleet first replies that “ It occasionally happened that projectiles, jambed in the bore of rifled guns, but this proceeded from a mass formed of the resi duum of powder and tallow wads.” Another officer reports that projectiles did jamb, but he attributes it to inferiority of the powder,
- Aktuelle Seite (TXT)
- METS Datei (XML)
- IIIF Manifest (JSON)