Talk:Disappearing gun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Advantages / protection

I removed a section claiming the Royal Navy had performed tests during the 1890's that concluded shore batteries could not be hit by naval fire, hence disappearing guns had no real advantage. This is obviously incorrect, as the contemporary Battles of Wei-Hei-Wei (1895), Manila Bay (1898), and Port Arthur (1904) proved. In each case, naval gunfire was quite effective at silencing shore batteries. Whether or not the actual gun itself was physically hit in the process is largely academic, as the potent lyddite/shimose and similar picric acid based explosive shells of the day were more than capable of unmounting the weapons, shredding the gun crews (who were far easier to eliminate that the gun they manned via shrapnel/splinters), and disabling the fire control equipment (again, see any naval battle of the period, such as Yalu River or Tsushima). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.244.215.61 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The trajectory of naval guns of the period should be considered in assessment of the vulnerability of disappearing gun fortifications. Naval rifles were designed for high velocity to penetrate armor plate and had relatively flat trajectories in comparison to army howitzers and mortars intended to reach targets behind hills or embankments. If the disappearing guns were installed on high ground behind a protective seaward-facing embankment, there would be no surface behind the embankment to trigger flat-trajectory impact-fuzed projectiles within splinter range of gun personnel. Although personnel might have been vulnerable to time-fuzed shrapnel projectiles or high-trajectory weapons, the former were in a comparatively crude state of development, and the latter were unlikely to be carried by conventional naval vessels of the period. Fire control positions could be quite distant from the guns they served and were typically camouflaged to limit successful targeting by ships.Thewellman (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This all sounds like original research and or specualtion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My comments on this page reflect training and experience in naval gunnery. Unclassified documentation is notoriously elusive for technical information once considered military secrets (particularly in our age of non-proliferation and terrorist paranoia), but Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two provides a good description of the velocity and elevation limitations of major caliber naval guns designed prior to the battle of Jutland, most college physics textbooks describe the exterior ballistics relationship of what goes up and how it comes down, and pages 549 to 557 of Fairfield's 1921 Naval Academy Textbook Naval Ordnance offers description of the history and limitations of projectile fuzes to that date. I simply question the "obviously incorrect" characterization of the deleted statement (including its inline citation) regarding testing by New Zealand. Testing methodology and conclusions may have regarded the suggested historical examples as irrelevant because of dissimilarities from disappearing rifle fortifications described in this article. Thewellman (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we have two experienced contributors who disagree, but the both the inclusion and removal of material is based on personal knowledge/conclusions not documented opinions. It seems that we need to develop a consensus between Thewellman and 137.244.215.61, as to what our article should present, and then determine if and how the conclusions should be referenced. Consider WP:NOR especially the section on synthesis.--Kevin Murray (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhmm, this is pretty easy in my opinion. No removal of referenced material unless there's proof of the reference being shoddy/unreliable OR there is overwhelming contrary proof. If SOME references contradict each other, this needs to be discussed IN-article. Therefore restoring deleted sections. Ingolfson (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

British gunnery authority Ian Hogg stated (British Artillery weapons & ammunition 1914 - 1918) that the major problems were that the complex geometry of the separate struts supporting the gun effectively prevented elevation above 20 degrees; second was the time wasted in raising and lowering the gun. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Naval use

This article says the only naval use was on the HMS Temeraire in 1877. But the link that brought me to this page was from the Japanese Aircraft carrier Hosho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_H%C5%8Dsh%C5%8D) in which it is stated the Hosho's anti-aircraft armament was in disappearing mounts.

It appears one of the two articles has to be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.179.104.135 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Survivors

Up to Hurricane Ivan, there was a Buffington-Crozier type gun at Fort Pickens in Pensacola, Florida. I haven't been back since then, but I suspect the gun is still there; I can't imagine that the waves could have damaged it much. The last I saw it in 2005 or so it was intact and looked pretty good.98.170.200.238 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC) The Pensacola example appears to still extant in this Google Maps panorama. DRNewcomb (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fahpanzer is not a disappearing gun

The small mobile armoured turret "Fahrpanzer", produced by Krupp and Skoda (with QF-gun fixed to the upper cupola) has nothing to do with the topic. Disappearing guns, or better "guns at disappearing carriages", are the specific constructions with specific system of shooting and loading - quite different from normal weapons. The gun itself could be the same as a gun with usual carriage.

Only a few Farpanzers could be sheltered (Swizerland). Others were transported by horses and fixed to the concrete or field position. They could be transported to the endangered part of the fortress if necessary, but not during the fight. Many other quick firing fortress guns could be sheltered using their wheels or small rails and it is not making them to be "disappearing" guns. Maybe only in very general sense of those term, but not tactically and technically, not in military terminology.

By the way, the description of the "Farpanzer" is quite inaccurate.

I do not want to make the big edit without previous explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondřej Filip (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of partial disagreements. First, while most fahrpanzers were merely armored cupolas, there were a number meant to to move short distanced horizontally or vertically in order to hide or take cover. The versenkpanzerturm Gruson turrets were exactly parallel to larger sinking armored cupolas, or sinking barbette platforms.

Next, I think you'll find that several placed used shelterable turrets. Germany, in what the French saw as occupied France, comes quickly to mind.

That said, the article focuses on a small usage of Gruson turrets as if it is the main one, and also neglects other, larger disappearing cupolas which were a mainstay of 20th century fixed fortifications. Whether the article needs to be expanded or split is an open question, I think. Anmccaff (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is an essential confusion. Disappearing gun is a specific kind of cannon, developed for the coastal artillery. It use an energy of the recoil to move whole cannon under the parapet. After the cannon is loaded, it is lifted above the parapet for the short moment of shooting. Those weapons were used at the coastal artillery of UK and USA (plus a few pieces at Sweden) during the short period. Other uses are very rare, for the tests only (like a guns at the Switzerland experimental fortress Dailly). It is properly described at the first part of the article. The disappearing turret has nothing to do with it. They consists of heavy armoured cupola, which could be move up and down with special mechanism (hand drive, electric motor, hydraulic motor). The equipment (cannon, howitzer, machine gun or granade launcher) is installed inside the turret. The turrets were used in land defences (most of the them at France, a few piece at Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Denmark and Germany) The Fahrpanzer has nothing common with both categories descibed above! It is lightweight steel box with quick firing gun, which could be transported by horses if necessary. In a few cases it can be transported via the short rail to the shelter.Ondřej Filip (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, maybe, no, no, sometimes, mostly, possibly, nonsense, yes, yes.

To expand a bit:

• there is no essential confusion, rather there are similar, related matters, which are often functionally identical, even if radically-literally-different in concept.
• Next, disappearing carriages were conceived for siege work as much as for coastal artillery, perhaps more so. This, BTW, is a good part of the etymology -carriage vs mount.
• Several types of disappearing carriage did not make effective use of recoil; some did not at all. Steam-raised barbette platforms were called "disappearing guns"; the Armstrong DCs often needed mechanical supplementation to return to battery.
• Several types of disappearing mount remained in battery until retracted, the US light pedestal mounts a prime example.
• Other uses hardly seem rare at all. The Japanese, Russians, Danes, Germans, Thais, just from an off-the-top of my head list, all used them in shore defenses, and most major manufacturers were still selling, at least, siege mounts into the 90's.
• De Dailly was not a test, but rather a site where air vulnerability was seen as low enough that an otherwise obsolescent system could be retained.
• Disappearing turrets are intimately connected with the subject, being another approach to a common problem, and, in a few rarer cases, are connected closer. I suspect we might agree that they need their own separate article.
• The particular uses of fahrpanzers described have a great deal to do with the subject; they were used like other variants of disappearing guns, some popping out like clock-cuckoos , and some rising up from below grade. Again, I'd agree that they deserve separate coverage of their much wider use as semi-mobile pillbox Anmccaff (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ondřej Filip, does the latest edit deal with your concerns within this article? I understand that the fahrpanzers deserve wider treatment for their more usual uses; I'm just talking about the far less common uses tangent to this article. Anmccaff (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I will ask the simple "ethymology" questions. 1) If I grab the machine-gun from the parapet of the fortress and I will "disappear" inside a shelter, could it be refer as a special weapon system - "disappearing machine-gun"? Because it is the same logic, as to call Fahrpanzer "disappearing gun". Many fortress weapons could be sheltered, like Austrian QF guns at the rail carriages or Yugoslavian 8.8 coastal guns, but there could not be called "disappearing guns". (By the way, there were not "rising" Fahrpanzers.) 2) If there is an antitank gun mounted inside the tank turret, could I refer to whole tank as "antitank gun". Because it is the same logic, as to call "disappearing turret" as "disappearing gun". Except one part, the rest of the article is right: the Introduction describes disappearing guns. The first half of "History" describes disappearing guns. The "Advantages" and "Disadvantages", "Other applications" and "Significant Installations" are describing disappearing guns only. I contrary, there is the second half of "History", talking about two completely different weapons systems, with different construction, history and use. This part have nothing common with the rest of the article. It could by simply deleted and the article will be correct. Could I write here anything about submarines? They can disappear and the can shoot, so why do not refer them like disappearing guns. Excuse me for this use of hyperbole, but it is the way how to simply describe this confusion. Ondřej Filip (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

NewZealocentrictricity?

This article seems to be disproportionately centered on British design and practice, particularly as it applied in New Zealand.Anmccaff (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Disappearing carriage" for the gun itself? not except loosely, or metaphorically. (copied from User_talk:Binksternet)

""== "Disappearing carriage" for the gun itself? ==

I say again...where, when? Doesn't seem to be too common at all in my experience, except from cloned sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I searched Google Books in the 19th century and found a slew of results. See this link. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gone through all of 'em, but the first 3 pages seem to be -all- references to the carriage itself, not the gun. Anmccaff (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Went through the first 50, one of the last 10 was arguably a metathesistic usage. The rest were all references to the carriage proper, and quite often used the word "gun" or "rifle" (usually abbreviated) in the same sentence, or nearby. Anmccaff (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The article Disappearing gun is not really about the gun, it is about the technology for having the gun hide from the enemy while reloading. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it is factually incorrect. "Disappearing guns" weren't often called "disappearing carriages" in their day, as the cites you just gave show. I'm moving this discussion to the talk page for disappearing gun, to see if there is any other objection to cleaning up the intro sentence."

I think this intro section would be more accurate as "a disappearing gun," a gun monted on a "disapearing carriage"... Any thoughts?Anmccaff (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. The Century Illustrated Monthly carried a story by Victor Louis Mason in 1895 which described advances in gunnery. The term "disappearing gun" was not used, but "disappearing carriage" and "disappearing gun-carriage" were. The way I look at this article is that it is about a type of gun carriage rather than about a type of gun. (Smoothbores, rifles, howitzers and mortars have all been mounted on the disappearing carriage.) The technology has also been called a disappearing gun mount. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A few issues there: although almost all of the designs were, in the strict sense, mounts rather than carriages -only the earlier Moncriefs and some ...I don't remember offhand, one of the French manufacturers - were designed for even limited movement, but that is what people called them, even for what were obviously fixed mounts. Although I've seen mortar references to mortars on disappearing carriages, most are either obviously ignorant usage, or descriptions of mounts of similar design whose purpose is not about hiding, but about speeding and easing reloading. Every major production disappearing gun was a gun or a howitzer, and the overwhelming majority were guns.

I think the bigger issues with the article, though, are the conflation of US and British design, the heavy dependence on two scholars only deeply familiar with British practice, and whose experience with disappearing carriages was especially narrow; a need to make a distinction between the mainline Anglo-French design practice which was pretty much bleeding edge, ahead of its time, in the bad sense, and the American and German practice, which was trailing edge, in the good sense. Oh, and the anachronistic descriptions of coastal vs. naval gun elevations. (And that's just for a start....)Anmccaff (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

King's design...

...was but one of many, a developmental dead-end, and, worst of all, a particularly bad idea for a muzzle-loader. I don't think it, or the odd speculations about Kiwiistan, really belong in a piece this size, especiaaly when the German and French stuff is barely mentioned. Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: King's monograph on his and other similar designs "Counterpoise Gun Carriages and Platforms" is now available free on Google Books; it's a nice work, and about as unbiased as an inventor himself can be - although some advantages claimed are peculiar to the US, which had just spent a good deal on big-ish guns, and adaptations that allowed their use in existing facilities were more important locally than world-wide. Unfortunately, the illustration plates are often missing or incomplete. Anmccaff (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

UK and disappearing carriages

If memory serves, and I'm fairly sure it does here, British and Commonwealth armies still used DCs well into the 20th century. e.g, Fort Rodd Hill's guns remained in use right up until WWII, for instance, and at least one of them was never removed. Anmccaff (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)