Good idea; - Done, I'll get back to you with an answer.marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:26 pm Have you contacted the author at baryamakgun@hotmail.com? May be he has actually measured the guns.
Regards Holger
Good idea; - Done, I'll get back to you with an answer.marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:26 pm Have you contacted the author at baryamakgun@hotmail.com? May be he has actually measured the guns.
Good! If you want me to participate in the exchange mail me to marcel_malara@yahoo.com.arTool1958 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 3:06 pmGood idea; - Done, I'll get back to you with an answer.marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:26 pm Have you contacted the author at baryamakgun@hotmail.com? May be he has actually measured the guns.
Regards Holger
Noted; - will set you in copy with the answer.marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 5:00 pm
Good! If you want me to participate in the exchange mail me to marcel_malara@yahoo.com.ar
Tool1958 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 12:43 pm Coming back to the original topic:
Differences between 10,5-cm (4.1") Krupp Naval guns S.K. L/40 and L/45?
After further internal discussions with the, underrated author of the book:
“10.5 cm S.K.C./1932 . . . . . SAGA“
The development of the 10.5 cm naval gun in the German army and navy from 1890 to 1945"
. . . . . I received the following short and logical explanation from him:
“The barrel length of the 40-caliber cannon does not have a “reinforcement ring“.
Its pipe is cast in one piece in a sand mold and is called monobloc. Since it is
important that the cooling is done at the same time in order not to create gas
inclusions in the pipe that would lead to cracking or bursting, the back part is more
massive and also has the role of absorbing the inclusions. In this way the risk of
cracking is minimal, the percussion/explosion chamber being closed by the breech.“
On the 45-gauge gun, the barrel screws into the breech, which is machined from forged
steels and can be much thinner. Her appearance in the pictures is "without reinforcement Ring"
To get to the point; - The reasons for the different contours by L/40 and L/45 result
primarily from a metallurgical development in the product process of gun technology
L/40 barrels were cast and L/45 barrels were forged.
Regards Holger
Since we have discussed the topic of the thickening and the muzzle on the gun barrel, initially on the first andmarcelo_malara wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 2:58 pm The photos of the muzzle of the /40 disagrees with this, clearly they have an inner A sleeve with the rifling, so they are built up guns and not monoblocks.
marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 3:34 pm The only gun that we can be sure (because it was measured) to be a /45 is this one:
Then we have this one. It has no muzzle thickening, it is a monoblock gun, but it can be any other model, or even another calibre. I would like to see the markings in the barrel, it seems to be totally ignored bu the photographers.
Hi Holger. The thickening of the muzzle is a leftover from the muzzle loading era. It was used to fasten the cannon in bad weather, look in this photo to the gun to the right. Really it has no use in a modern gun.Tool1958 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:00 am
Hello Marcelo,
Basically, I am already convinced that both photos you posted represent a 10.5-cm Q.F. L/45 Gun-Barrel.
Both photographers, Bayram Akgün and Nils Mosberg, have been dealing with this topic not since yesterday
and are actually very credible when they make such a statement.
In my opinion, both gun barrels and breech blocks also have the same appearance. At least I can hardly
tell any differences based on the photos. Both photos also show a similar gun breech in detail.
10,5-cm L45 Gun-breech in Turkey.png
Original Photo was vertical mirrored
10,5-cm L45 Gun-breech in Norway.png
Original Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nilsmosbe ... otostream/
But of course there are differences. However, these may result from the fact that the gun in Turkey is a 10.5-cm
L/45 C/1906, and in Norway is 10.5-cm L/45 C/1912 gun; - even if the pure barrel length is identical to 4.725 mm.
Back to your question; - Why late L/40, as well as L/45 gun-barrel-variants in some photos have a thickening
at the muzzle, and on some not, is not known to me; - But I will forward this question and update here.
Regards Holger
marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:00 pm Hi Holger. The thickening of the muzzle is a leftover from the muzzle loading era. It was used to fasten the cannon in bad weather, look in this photo to the gun to the right. Really it has no use in a modern gun.
The thickening at the muzzle had nothing to do with the recoil brake.marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:00 pm The gun in Norway has no muzzle thickening but also a second bumper on top.
Yes; - as I already mentioned: The gun in Turkey is a 10.5-cm L/45 C/1906, and in Norway is 10.5-cm L/45 C/1912 gun
Hi! No, no kidding intended, many people do not know this. True that many guns after the sailing era had the muzzle thickening, it served no purpose then (in my knowledge).Tool1958 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 5:23 pm
MARCELO - !!!
Please; - are you serious or are you kidding me?
( . . . or you have had one bottle “Lequi Liquor“ to much? - - - )
The thickening at the muzzle had nothing to do with the recoil brake.marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:00 pm The gun in Norway has no muzzle thickening but also a second bumper on top.
Yes; - as I already mentioned: The gun in Turkey is a 10.5-cm L/45 C/1906, and in Norway is 10.5-cm L/45 C/1912 gun
Regards Holger
marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 7:06 pm Hi! No, no kidding intended, many people do not know this. True that many guns after the sailing era had the muzzle thickening, it served no purpose then (in my knowledge).
For the second, I meant that the Norway gun has an upper and lower dumper, besides the lack of muzzle thickening. The Turkish gun has only a lower dumper and muzzle thickening.
Regards
Hi Holger. Yes, I know that. The conclusion would be that there are two different /45, the differences being the lack of muzzle thickening and two dumpers in lieu of one in the newer 1912 model.Tool1958 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:18 pmmarcelo_malara wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 7:06 pm
For the second, I meant that the Norway gun has an upper and lower dumper, besides the lack of muzzle thickening. The Turkish gun has only a lower dumper and muzzle thickening.
Regards
Hi Marcelo,
Regarding the different muzzle shapes of the two guns, we both agree.
Regardingh your fourther comments; - Let's hear what VladAlex mentioned about it:
"So to recap, the spring cylinders return the pipe to its original position and the piston cylinder
has the main role of DAMPING the recoil movement and avoiding shock braking of the barrel.
Thus, it linearizes the recoil speed and absorbs shocks similar to shock absorbers from the suspension
of a car or from the bogies of a passenger car. This protects the optical sighting mechanism in particular.
To compensate for hydraulic oil losses, the damping cylinder is usually equipped with oil filling valves in several parts."
Good explained; - Sounds logic; - or not?
Reagrds Holger
marcelo_malara wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 2:46 pm
. . . The conclusion would be that there are two different /45, the differences being the lack of muzzle thickening and two dumpers in lieu of one in the newer 1912 model . . .