I've often read that this gun wasn't liked, with comments about it being "clumsy" of its accuracy being questioned. Wiki does mention "QF 4.7-inch guns on more modern Mk I "Woolwich" carriages dating from June 1900 with partially effective (12-inch) recoil buffers".
I just ran across this site:
https://militaria.british-classic-motor ... -inch-gun/
which seems to explain things:
"The recoil mechanism would have been adequate when used in its coastal defence gun form with fixed carriage but was very limited in field gun use with a recoil length of only 12 inches. In order to stabilise the field gun properly during firing, it had to rely on a spade mounted at the end of a telescopic spring cylinder that was hinged beneath the front transom on the carriage. The spade was attached to a spring case on the rear of the trail by means of two steel cables. During recoil, the spade dug into the ground but allowed the gun carriage to move backwards to then be rolled forward again under spring action."
It would seem that on CD (and, I assume, shipboard) mounts the recoil not absorbed by the 12" hydraulic stroke was resisted by bolting the mount solidly in place, on the field carriage that spade had to be deployed and dug in, which would certainly seem "clumsy" and would likely not return exactly to its original position.
To improve this a new gun had to have a different recoil mechanism and, to exploit that, a new carriage. The War Office obviously preferred a bag charge gun as that's what they specified and they wanted a heavier shell. Which would seem to explain why the 60 pdr had nothing in common with the 4.7" bar the role it was intended for.
I just ran across this site:
https://militaria.british-classic-motor ... -inch-gun/
which seems to explain things:
"The recoil mechanism would have been adequate when used in its coastal defence gun form with fixed carriage but was very limited in field gun use with a recoil length of only 12 inches. In order to stabilise the field gun properly during firing, it had to rely on a spade mounted at the end of a telescopic spring cylinder that was hinged beneath the front transom on the carriage. The spade was attached to a spring case on the rear of the trail by means of two steel cables. During recoil, the spade dug into the ground but allowed the gun carriage to move backwards to then be rolled forward again under spring action."
It would seem that on CD (and, I assume, shipboard) mounts the recoil not absorbed by the 12" hydraulic stroke was resisted by bolting the mount solidly in place, on the field carriage that spade had to be deployed and dug in, which would certainly seem "clumsy" and would likely not return exactly to its original position.
To improve this a new gun had to have a different recoil mechanism and, to exploit that, a new carriage. The War Office obviously preferred a bag charge gun as that's what they specified and they wanted a heavier shell. Which would seem to explain why the 60 pdr had nothing in common with the 4.7" bar the role it was intended for.
statistics: Posted by ChrisPat — 9:28 PM - 1 day ago — Replies 2 — Views 87