Shells in the Royal Navy: Difference between revisions
Simon Harley (talk | contribs) (Oops.) |
Simon Harley (talk | contribs) (Made Changes.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Jellicoe later wrote: | |||
<blockquote>In order to determine the effectiveness against armoured ships of the shell supplied for the various guns I arranged for extensive firing trials to be carried out in 1910 against the old battleship Edinburgh, which had been specially prepared by the addition of modern armour plates. As a result of these trials, before the end of my term of office as Controller, the Ordnance Board were asked in October 1910 to endeavour to produce an armour piercing shell which would perforate armour at oblique impact and go on in a fit state for bursting. The minute of the D.N.O. on the subject and the Ordnance Board reply were as follows: - | |||
{| | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| colspan="3" align=center |<u>PROCEEDINGS OF THE ORDNANCE BOARD - October 28th, 1910</u>. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| colspan="3" align=left |<u>Minute No.3284.</u> | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| width=45%; |D.N.O. 18.10.10. states that the trials recommended by the Board are approved. | |||
| width=10%; | | |||
| width=45%; |<u>Ordnance Board reply</u>. | |||
|-valign="top" | |||
| width=45%; | He asks them to consider the possibility of increasing the chance of A.P. shell carrying their burster through armour plates when skriking obliquely by increasing the thickness of the walls of the shells, or by carrying out trials with shell of various shaped cavities, i.e. ribbed, which may be stronger than the cylindrical cavities, observing that the introduction of lyddite seems to render this question more feasible than formerly. | |||
| width=10%; | | |||
| width=45%; |Ask C.S.O.F. [Chief Superintendent of Ordnance Factories] to consider the D.N.O.'s proposals, and the favour the Board with his remarks.<ref>British Library. Jellicoe Papers. Add. MSS. 49038. ff. 211-212.</ref> | |||
|}</blockquote> | |||
On the strength of a conversation with Admiral [[Frederic Charles Dreyer|Sir Frederic C. Dreyer]] in 1946, Professor Marder wrote in 1960 that: | On the strength of a conversation with Admiral [[Frederic Charles Dreyer|Sir Frederic C. Dreyer]] in 1946, Professor Marder wrote in 1960 that: | ||
<blockquote>[I]t seems that the person mainly responsible for the shell deficiency was an officer in the Department of the D.N.O., Lieutenant-Commander [[John Alexander Duncan|John A. Duncan]]. He was, in 1910—1913, one of the naval officers employed on inspection and experimental duties under the War Office. In 1914 he served as Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance, with the acting rank of Commander.<ref>Marder. ''From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow''. '''I'''. p. 418.</ref> | |||
Marder later wrote, "The statement is not fair, since I have only the Admiral's [Dreyer's] opinion, without supporting facts, and were he alive, moreover, he might wish to qualify the charge."<ref>Marder. ''From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow''. '''III'''. p. 206.</ref></blockquote> | |||
Churchill wrote in 1926 to the then First Lord, Francis Bridgeman, "I suppose I am to blame for our shells not being as good as the German. I assumed our constructors and ordnance experts were the last word in their science."<ref>Letter of 15 November, 1926. Quoted in Prior. ''Churchill's World Crisis as History''. p. 204.</ref> | |||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Revision as of 18:52, 27 December 2010
Jellicoe later wrote:
In order to determine the effectiveness against armoured ships of the shell supplied for the various guns I arranged for extensive firing trials to be carried out in 1910 against the old battleship Edinburgh, which had been specially prepared by the addition of modern armour plates. As a result of these trials, before the end of my term of office as Controller, the Ordnance Board were asked in October 1910 to endeavour to produce an armour piercing shell which would perforate armour at oblique impact and go on in a fit state for bursting. The minute of the D.N.O. on the subject and the Ordnance Board reply were as follows: -
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ORDNANCE BOARD - October 28th, 1910. Minute No.3284. D.N.O. 18.10.10. states that the trials recommended by the Board are approved. Ordnance Board reply. He asks them to consider the possibility of increasing the chance of A.P. shell carrying their burster through armour plates when skriking obliquely by increasing the thickness of the walls of the shells, or by carrying out trials with shell of various shaped cavities, i.e. ribbed, which may be stronger than the cylindrical cavities, observing that the introduction of lyddite seems to render this question more feasible than formerly. Ask C.S.O.F. [Chief Superintendent of Ordnance Factories] to consider the D.N.O.'s proposals, and the favour the Board with his remarks.[1]
On the strength of a conversation with Admiral Sir Frederic C. Dreyer in 1946, Professor Marder wrote in 1960 that:
[I]t seems that the person mainly responsible for the shell deficiency was an officer in the Department of the D.N.O., Lieutenant-Commander John A. Duncan. He was, in 1910—1913, one of the naval officers employed on inspection and experimental duties under the War Office. In 1914 he served as Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance, with the acting rank of Commander.[2] Marder later wrote, "The statement is not fair, since I have only the Admiral's [Dreyer's] opinion, without supporting facts, and were he alive, moreover, he might wish to qualify the charge."[3]
Churchill wrote in 1926 to the then First Lord, Francis Bridgeman, "I suppose I am to blame for our shells not being as good as the German. I assumed our constructors and ordnance experts were the last word in their science."[4]
Footnotes
Bibliography
