leichter Kreuzer De Ruyter

[Teddy Suhren]

Hallo

Die Flakarmierung des Leichten Kreuzers "De Ruyter" von 1935 wird immer wieder als fortschrittlich und gut bezeichnet.
Warum?

Gruß
Jörg

[Leutnant Werner]

"No heavy AA armament was fitted, only light AA, but these were 40 mm Mk III Bofors in five twin stabilized mountings with advanced fire control. Although this outfit was much in advance of any contemporary, it was open to criticism because all five mountings were grouped in close proximity and could have been disabled by a single hit." (Whitley: Cruisers of WW II, Seite 193)

[Lutscha]

"The air cooling obviously limited the continuous rate of fire (the 2pdr, and even the 5in Vickers, were almost invariably water--cooled although the Oerlikon was not). The Navy therefore adopted the twin-barrelled water-cooled Hazemeyer mounting of Dutch origin, the first RN vessel so equipped being the Whimbrel in November 1942. This was a complex mounting, triaxially stabilised so that the guns would (at least in theory) be held on target regardless of ship movement, but it weighed over 7,000kg and was not noted for reliability. Towards the end of the war the simpler and lighter (6.500kg) Mk V twin mounting was developed instead and this became the standard postwar twin mounting."

Von der HP von Tony Williams.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RNCIWS.html

Und von navweaps:

The Mark IV twin mounting was derived from the Hazemeyer triaxial mounting which had its origins in the 1940 arrival in Britain of the Dutch minelayer Willem van der Zaan.  The Mark IV was a self-contained twin mounting that had its own rangefinder, radar and analog computer on the mount.  This mounting used Mark IV water-cooled guns.  This mounting utilized a track and pinion system for elevating and training and was powered via a Ward-Leonard system for automatic target tracking.  The Mark IV was probably too advanced for its day and proved to be somewhat delicate for use on destroyers and sloops.  The later STAAG and Buster designs were more robust but very much heavier.  According to service notes, the Mark IV was apparently used more often in manual mode than in power mode.  Elevation was -10 to +90 degrees with cross-level of +/- 14 degrees with control cutting out at +/- 12 degrees.  Maximum elevating speed was 25 degrees per second, but training and elevation control was limited to little more than 10 degrees per second.  Weight was 7.05 tons (7.16 mt).  The later Mark IV* differed in details of the controls and gyros.  The following description taken from "Destroyer Weapons of World War 2" is of interest:

'The 7-ton "Haslemere," as it was generally known, was a brilliant concept, but unfortunately it needed more advanced technology than then existed.  It cannot claim to have been the most popular of weapons but at least it provided a little light relief on occasions.  When stationary in the "power-off" mode during maintenance, a combination of training, depression and cross-roll made it look for all the world as though it was about to fall off its gundeck.  Observations like "I see the Haslemere is ill again" were common.'

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.htm

[Hastei]

Hallo,
ist dies ein deutsches Forum ?

Kann es zwar lesen und auch verstehen, aber warum nicht in deutsch ?
oder bin ich schon zu alt für dieses Forum ?

das Thema ist zwar schon uralt, aber für mich sehr interessant, da ich vor zwei jahren
in ganz Holland nach dem Buch über  diese Schiff gesucht hatte und es letztendlich auch gefunden
habe. (Text in nied .und engl.) Phantastische Fotos und gut beschrieben.

Gruß Hastei

[winni]

@hastei:Da bist du mir im Vorteil. Ich bekomme ohne Übersetzungshilfe nur noch etwa die Hälfte zusammen.Daher mach ich diese Abhandlungen meist gleich wieder zu. 

[Mario]

Wir hatten dieses Thema schon desöfteren. Deshalb bittet die Crew dieses Forums alle Mitglieder, auch an die User zu denken, die der englischen Sprache nicht so mächtig sind. Es wäre eine nette Sache, wenn man neben der englischen Fassung zumindest eine deutsche Zusammenfassung mit dazuschreibt. 

Wenn ich Lt. Werner englischen Text richtig interpretiere, dann wird darin bemängelt, daß ein einziger Treffer die gesamte Flak ausschalten könnte, richtig. Das wäre doch aber negativ ? 

[t-geronimo]

Die Treffer-Redundanz ist tasächlich der negative Aspekt.

Positiv war wohl, schon 1935 die 40-mm-Bofors zu haben (wenn die denn schon zu der Zeit eingebaut war).
Da haben viele erst viel später erkannt, daß es ein sehr gutes Geschütz ist