|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 13, 2013 14:08:37 GMT
the point should also be made that many of the museum ships are being maintained in "readiness capable" condition - and it is slightly more economical to do that when the public is paying admission than when they are not. others are "given" to private organizations, who assume responsibility for the upkeep.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 13, 2013 14:13:47 GMT
I think Paddy is talking about the selection process, rather than saving all of them. preserve the SS hero with all its battle scars rather than the SS nobody. There were literally thousands of Spitfire MKVs and MkIXs manufactured and flown in combat. In Australia they were mostly collected in a central location and sold for scrap. I can imagine that at the time they were part of a history that people would rather not remember (?) well not all of it. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 13, 2013 15:49:25 GMT
The Enterprise CV-6 was attempted to be sold for preservation as a museum ship, but the money couldn't be raised, so she was scrapped.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 14, 2013 12:16:37 GMT
The Enterprise CV-6 was attempted to be sold for preservation as a museum ship, but the money couldn't be raised, so she was scrapped. It's good to know that at least an attempt made to save her, not many ships from that era survived. |
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Jul 8, 2013 3:54:37 GMT
Yes, Disney made a training film of the Boys .55 rifle for the Canadian Army. And I think that's supposed to be Dopey dwarf. It's kind of a shame that some models of old warbirds were not preserved for posterity. Like the Short Sterling. Not one bomber exists today.  Anyone know about M1911s in .455 Webley? About 11,000 were made for the Royal Navy and British and Canadian Armies in the First World War, and issued to the RAF in the Second World War. For some reason, I can't help but wonder if it would have been possible to chamber a Thompson SMG in .455. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 8, 2013 13:55:30 GMT
if you could make an M1911 in .455 webley, it should be no problem to do the same with a Thompson SMG.they were made to be companion guns, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jul 8, 2013 20:17:24 GMT
The 1911's chambered in .455 Webley, were chambered in the .455 Webley Auto MK I, which is a different cartridge than the Webley revolver cartridge.
Those 1911's had different barrels entirely, they were not simply rechambeered. The magazine wells were manufactured wider as were the magazines for these pistols, to accommodate the slightly fatter shell casing.
Thompsons could have been manufactured to fire the .455 Webley Auto, but would have had different chamber structures and different magazines, just as the 1911's in that clambering had.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 9, 2013 0:19:18 GMT
The 1911's chambered in .455 Webley, were chambered in the .455 Webley Auto MK I, which is a different cartridge than the Webley revolver cartridge. Those 1911's had different barrels entirely, they were not simply rechambeered. The magazine wells were manufactured wider as were the magazines for these pistols, to accommodate the slightly fatter shell casing. Thompsons could have been manufactured to fire the .455 Webley Auto, but would have had different chamber structures and different magazines, just as the 1911's in that clambering had. I did say "make," not "modify" |
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Jul 9, 2013 5:07:46 GMT
I found a forum where someone was asking for a friend about rechambering a .455 1911 in .45 ACP for plinking (as well as whether an old 10 ga. shotgun could be fired).
It was pointed out it would require extensive modification, including replacing the barrel, but for some reason no one mentioned that for the cost of modifying it, he could buy a 1911 already chambered in .45 ACP - either a cheap Norinco or a second hand pistol - and not destroy the collector value of a rare item.
He later mentioned the friend had sold it to a collect shortly after the thread was started.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 9, 2013 5:32:18 GMT
as for the shotgun - what matters is how old. my old 10 gauge is proofed for smokeless powder and chambers 3½" shells.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Jul 10, 2013 2:42:55 GMT
If I recall, they told him to have checked out by a professional gunsmith, but if it was a Damascus barrel, he probably shouldn't fire it.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Jul 10, 2013 6:06:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 10, 2013 6:19:53 GMT
yeah - damascus deteriorates over time. I have a strong suspicion it was in the days of damascus barrels that you got the replication of results on the finger in the barrel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 10, 2013 22:15:22 GMT
yeah - damascus deteriorates over time. I have a strong suspicion it was in the days of damascus barrels that you got the replication of results on the finger in the barrel. It was, especially around the time the percussion cap was introduced. Many older flint-locks were converted to use the newer cap system, which could cause problems with Damascus type barrels and really caused problems when the newer more powerful smokeless powders started to appear. This would be especially true for those people who had Grandads old shotgun sitting above the fireplace for decades before deciding one day to take it out and fire it... From what I can tell it seems that these problems were more apparent with Damascus type pistols, muskets and rifles - I'd assume because such weapons tended to produce higher pressures when fired than shotguns. Certainly Damascus type pistols seem to have died out very shortly after the appearance of the percussion cap. |
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jul 13, 2013 17:59:45 GMT
It took be a lot of searching to find this clip - my family used to vacation at Fort Stevens state park regularly, and I remember this film from my youth. Take 2 take 1 disappeared. In the discovery military forum I did some research in a thread "Bismark V North/South Carolina" WWII fast modern Battleship. Nine 16 inch 45 Cal Guns/Rifles, the Bismark with 8 15 inch 52 Cal guns out ranged her. With the demise of the forums much was lost. They never met in combat as any student of the period would tell you, it was a Hypothetical. The thing that stood out to me was even with the best trained crews and despite the gunnery control system ie Royal Navy USS Navy or Kriegsmarine, the hit ratio was 10 or 11 percent. In fact the Bismark did not score a single hit on any Royal Navy unit prior to her imminent sinking/scuttling. From memory their were about 11 Battleship on Battleship engagements in WWII, hit ratios appeared from my research to hold to those figures. Shore batteries had a distinct disadvantage in an artillery duel. They were stationary, while Naval Units could manoeuvrer toward or away from the last fall of shot. I recall the KM Tirpitz in her operations in Norway had a brief engagement with Norwegian shore batteries. I thought it was generally accepted that a shell from Bismark sunk HMS Hood. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 13, 2013 19:06:14 GMT
She fired at and hit both HMS Hood (sinking her) and HMS Prince of Wales (Which had to withdraw). Later she fired at both HMS Rodney and HMS King George V, but without effect.
Bismark hit HMS Hood with her first salvo - although this was not the shot that sank the Hood - and in return was hit three times by HMS Prince of Wales in the first battle. In the second she was hit multiple times by both Rodney and the King George, which more or less removed the upperworks of the ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jul 13, 2013 20:45:30 GMT
The Tirpitz never hit any British ships. Though of course, the only time she fired her main guns in "battle" was to bombard an island.  |
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Jul 19, 2013 2:14:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 20, 2013 5:44:30 GMT
Take 2 take 1 disappeared. In the discovery military forum I did some research in a thread "Bismark V North/South Carolina" WWII fast modern Battleship. Nine 16 inch 45 Cal Guns/Rifles, the Bismark with 8 15 inch 52 Cal guns out ranged her. With the demise of the forums much was lost. They never met in combat as any student of the period would tell you, it was a Hypothetical. The thing that stood out to me was even with the best trained crews and despite the gunnery control system ie Royal Navy USS Navy or Kriegsmarine, the hit ratio was 10 or 11 percent. In fact the Bismark did not score a single hit on any Royal Navy unit prior to her imminent sinking/scuttling. From memory their were about 11 Battleship on Battleship engagements in WWII, hit ratios appeared from my research to hold to those figures. Shore batteries had a distinct disadvantage in an artillery duel. They were stationary, while Naval Units could manoeuvrer toward or away from the last fall of shot. I recall the KM Tirpitz in her operations in Norway had a brief engagement with Norwegian shore batteries. I thought it was generally accepted that a shell from Bismark sunk HMS Hood. It is generally accepted and perhaps I should have conveyed my meaning of "prior to her imminent sinking/scuttling." meaning her last engagement. There has been and will be quite a bit written and debated about the loss of the Hood, was she in the midst of a 20deg turn, was the first shell that hit near the mainmast from the Bismark or the Prince Eugen? Because of the amount of damage it was more likely to be the latter. According to the timeline at the time that the Hood was dealt her death blow the Prince Eugen was concentrating her main armament on the Prince of Wales along with the Bismark secondary guns. Bismark concentrated her main guns on the Hood which on their 5th salvo fatally hit the Hood. On viewing the wreck it is immediately apparent that the resulting explosion obliterated large portions of the vessel. |
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jul 20, 2013 6:43:14 GMT
She fired at and hit both HMS Hood (sinking her) and HMS Prince of Wales (Which had to withdraw). Later she fired at both HMS Rodney and HMS King George V, but without effect. Bismark hit HMS Hood with her first salvo - although this was not the shot that sank the Hood - and in return was hit three times by HMS Prince of Wales in the first battle. In the second she was hit multiple times by both Rodney and the King George, which more or less removed the upperworks of the ship. As admitted previously an error in translation between what I meant and some peoples interpretation. I do not remember the Bismark being attributed with a hit on her first salvo, but as I said previously a lot has been written about the Bismark, most concerning is the Teutonic attitude toward her invincibility and superiority. From memory, which is not always the best source, one of the hits/close hit from the Prince of Wales was below the waterline causing flooding of Engineering compartment. Secondly the tiller flat area flooded because the welded join between the stern and the armour belt failed due to a torpedo hit (?). According to my research at the time and comments made by one of the survivors a damage control member (Some of the references are no longer available on-line). The welds failed because the US would not supply the correct welding rods/equipment and substitute rods/equipment were of inferior quality. It is also quoted by documentary sources that the Prince of Wales formed part of the shadowing force and was there at the Bismarks end. |
|
