Re: [討論] 英國在鴉片戰爭中的船艦

[jimmy5680 (未必會飛的企鵝)]

Iron Ships and Iron Men: Naval Modernizaton in the Ottoman Empire, Russia,
China and Japan from a Comparative Perspective 1830-1897

http://tinyurl.com/mdnbra4

P23-24

Just as steam power, neither incendiary ammunition nor metal naval armor were
new discoveries. In East Asian naval warfare use of rockets and incendiaries
was established by the twelfth century AD. During the Japanese military ruler
Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea in 1596, Korean admiral Yi Sun-Sin
supervised the construction of geobukseon, the fabled “turtle ships”
covered with metal plates which protected the crew, and armed with gunpowder
artillery. They proved central in the defeat of the Japanese invasion armada.
In European naval warfare, however, the established norm was forcing the
surrender or retreat of the enemy warship, rather then destroying it
ultimately, so the use of incendiary ammunition was much rarer. When used, it
was generally an iron cannonball “baked” in fire until it became glowing
red. This was not a particularly successful or accurate weapon and despite
its psychological impact, red hot shot did not push European navies to
develop metal armor. It was only with the advent of a reliable shell gun that
incendiary ammunition became a threat, which ultimately forced the adaptation
of metal armor.
Along with the advances in shipbuilding and propulsive power during the
1820s and 1830s, there was an equally dramatic transformation in artillery.
As a result of the advances in metallurgy, it was now possible to cast long
and heavy guns which could resist heavier charges of explosives, thus
providing a longer range for heavy projectiles. In 1822, Colonel Henri
Paixhans, mentioned above, produced a new 68-pound gun which fired an
explosive ammunition that was able to doom any wooden warship. This
ammunition consisted of a hollow spherical case filled with gunpowder, and
was fitted with a time-set fuse ignited by the sparks produced by the
propellant.
As reliable as the new ammunition was, the great expectations were dashed
when it was discovered that the gun was slow to load, inaccurate and
possessed only half the range of lighter conventional guns. Nevertheless, the
possibility of one or more well placed hits which could destroy a battleship
in the closer range gunfights was attractive enough to naval staff and it
became customary to load a few of those pieces on battleships and frigates.
But especially for auxiliary paddle steamers which had limited gun space, the
highly destructive heavy gun was the choice of weapon par excellence.
The vulnerability of wooden ships to shell gun was demonstrated more than once
during Crimean War (1853-55), the most famous example being the destruction
of the Ottoman Winter squadron at the Battle of Sinop by the Russian Black
Sea Fleet at the start of hostilities in November 1853
Impressed enough by the performance of the Paixhans gun at Sinop and against
the allied fleet bombarding Sevastopol, Napoleon III ordered floating armored
batteries to assault the Russian fortifications at Crimea.


嘛...反正某人還是會跳針說新武器的成熟與否和工業技術能力無關，
也完全無視1853年的Sinop海戰在所有資料都被公認為shell-gun最重要的亮相表現，
我已經死心了，要跳針就繼續吧，別在我的文章底下亂就好。

對了，這篇網址是academia.edu，有興趣的人可以在這網站找到一些有趣的論文。

--

The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.

                        ～John Calvin Coolidge, Jr.

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 140.112.106.165
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Warfare/M.1430987585.A.A86.html
→ jetzake: ...看不順眼的推文直接刪掉? 有品一點行不行?
→ jetzake: 你這樣只會讓後來看到的覺得你是講不過就叫人閉嘴
板規就說暫時不禁止刪推文了，我也沒阻止他發文反駁，要不然看板主裁定要不要改。
是說如果推文不斷以不友善的言詞挑釁攻擊發文者，任誰看了都不會只是不爽而已。
※ 編輯: jimmy5680 (49.219.142.177), 05/07/2015 21:33:14
推 GilGalad: 別人在你屋子牆上抹臭屎還不能洗掉 得留著讓人家知道那
→ GilGalad: 個人抹的是臭屎 我個人是不覺得需要啦 反正這群組的都知
→ GilGalad: 到他這個人會在別人家上抹什麼玩意兒(攤手
→ Kavis: 覺得刪h*t推文有問題的人八成是新來的，而且很快會無異議
→ jetzake: ...因為不討厭這人的都被趕走了是嗎? 這哪們子發言
→ lbjg: 我也覺得有點過分，因為在我看來是雙方都在互相攻擊
→ Kavis: 因為你看得不夠多，翻翻前面的文章看h*t是怎樣對待別人認真
→ Kavis: 的回應。然後你會發現刪推文迫使他回文是件好事，因為他回
→ Kavis: 文的水準比推文高很多。h*t不是沒有料，只是推文不動腦子。
推 lbjg: 我已見識到他的回文，漸漸贊同你的看法了……原來是陽謀！
→ hgt: Jet大看的透啊！
→ hgt: 原來被人指正後不認錯，反而不擇手段自圓其說，叫認真回應？
→ hgt: 呵
推 cobrachen: 如果在閱讀前還要先判斷之這一次寫的人有沒有動腦，多
→ cobrachen: 累啊，這也表示，即使都忽略也沒差，反正有一半機會至
→ cobrachen: 少不動腦
→ hgt: 樓上也不必講得多清高  從飛虎隊那次為護航而護航的發言
→ hgt: 也知道你格調在哪 呵
推 diablo81321: ......其實板上又不是逢Hgt必反
→ diablo81321: 只是hgt不管觀點是否對錯 侵略性都高的不可思議罷了
→ diablo81321: 板上他的m文又不是沒少過
推 cobrachen: 傭兵算入正規軍，這種基本常識，你去的安親班沒教，不
→ cobrachen: 代表別人看不出問題啊，用護航兩字只是更加顯出有些人
→ cobrachen: 的說法或經驗的準確度
→ hgt: 到現在還在為反而反  你還有啥資格去批刀帥???  可悲喔!
→ jimmy5680: 為反而反不就是樓上嗎? 可悲
→ hgt: 我引中文論文 英文專書  你引網頁  誰為反而反 高下立判
→ hgt: 而且那些網頁內容大多都跟主題無關  模糊焦點罷了
→ jimmy5680: 你喜歡跳針可以繼續，蠻悲哀的
→ jimmy5680: 我這篇就是論文，前面也有引書籍，你大概是連看都沒看
推 cobrachen: 有憑據的網頁也會參考書和論文，安親班不教，所以有人
→ cobrachen: 就不懂，拿遊戲數據出來的，有什麼資格說勒
→ cobrachen: 還拿刀某當素材，呵呵
→ cobrachen: 傭兵和正規軍混在一起，講的很爽，其實很......