Here's a conundrum that is particularly relevant to us folks in Australia, who purchased a lot of Armstrong/Elswick Ordnance Company guns in the late 1870s and 1880s.
The Australian colonies purchased a wide variety of 6in guns ranging from 4ton Pattern D to 5ton Pattern M from Sir WG Armstrong. Amongst these are several guns called Pattern K1. This is given by Norm Campbell as the Elswick Pattern that was purchased by the UK Govt to become the MkV.
Between the time of the purchase and the issue of these guns to services (primarily in the Far East), a couple of Ordnance Committee reports came out recommending that the MkV, in particular, be chasehooped prior to issue.
That's fine. In the 1886 and 1893 Treatise on Service Ordnance, you can clearly see what the UK did to chasehoop (very similar to the Pattern M of Elswick).
HOWEVER, when the colonies, particularly Aus and NZ, sent their EOC weapons into the UK to be chasehooped in the early 1890s. Quite a few of these weapons still exist. And surprisingly, NONE of them have the same form that is shown in the UK treatises. All EOC appears to have done is replace two hoops with a longer, single hoop.
This suggests to me that the UK insisted on a method of chasehooping for their guns that was not insisted upon by the colonies when they sent their ordnance back in.
So, this has raised the question in my head of what exactly did the british purchase from EOC/Armstrong in 1884/5.
Usually, I would think the Ordnance Committee would have had a voice on this, but I have never seen a copy of the 1884 to 1886 Annual Reports of the President (in SUPP5 or SUPP6 in The National Archives). and there is evidence that in the case of the 8in MkVII, that the OC was not consulted at all (the 8in MkVII was purchased for Singapore and had chasehooping issues, as well...one having burst in Singapore in 1890).
Was curious if
a) anyone had seen anything on the MkV 6in gun pre 1886 Treatise on Service Ordnance
b) anyone had seen the MkV List of Changes of War material that also comes from pre 1886
REgards,
Matthew
The Australian colonies purchased a wide variety of 6in guns ranging from 4ton Pattern D to 5ton Pattern M from Sir WG Armstrong. Amongst these are several guns called Pattern K1. This is given by Norm Campbell as the Elswick Pattern that was purchased by the UK Govt to become the MkV.
Between the time of the purchase and the issue of these guns to services (primarily in the Far East), a couple of Ordnance Committee reports came out recommending that the MkV, in particular, be chasehooped prior to issue.
That's fine. In the 1886 and 1893 Treatise on Service Ordnance, you can clearly see what the UK did to chasehoop (very similar to the Pattern M of Elswick).
HOWEVER, when the colonies, particularly Aus and NZ, sent their EOC weapons into the UK to be chasehooped in the early 1890s. Quite a few of these weapons still exist. And surprisingly, NONE of them have the same form that is shown in the UK treatises. All EOC appears to have done is replace two hoops with a longer, single hoop.
This suggests to me that the UK insisted on a method of chasehooping for their guns that was not insisted upon by the colonies when they sent their ordnance back in.
So, this has raised the question in my head of what exactly did the british purchase from EOC/Armstrong in 1884/5.
Usually, I would think the Ordnance Committee would have had a voice on this, but I have never seen a copy of the 1884 to 1886 Annual Reports of the President (in SUPP5 or SUPP6 in The National Archives). and there is evidence that in the case of the 8in MkVII, that the OC was not consulted at all (the 8in MkVII was purchased for Singapore and had chasehooping issues, as well...one having burst in Singapore in 1890).
Was curious if
a) anyone had seen anything on the MkV 6in gun pre 1886 Treatise on Service Ordnance
b) anyone had seen the MkV List of Changes of War material that also comes from pre 1886
REgards,
Matthew