Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Mr. Gates more than likely has hit it right. A similar situation developed in naval gunnery around the turn of the twentieth century.
Before then, most naval guns were designed to do one thing- fire the heaviest shell for a given bore at short ranges. Even the best naval gunners were limited to about 10,000 yards under perfect conditions. But with new propellants and, most important, greatly improved optical rangefinders, it became possible to "reach out and touch someone" at twice that distance.
But a new problem arose. Now that shells were plunging through thin decks instead of blasting through thicker belt armor, the rounds would often perforate a targeted ship without doing much damage. (Now does this history lesson sound familar to the discussion at hand?)
In several instances it was found that by changing the projectile shape to a more blunt configuartion that the rounds were slowed just enough to improve damage potential. Much like the SGB tool, eh?
Before then, most naval guns were designed to do one thing- fire the heaviest shell for a given bore at short ranges. Even the best naval gunners were limited to about 10,000 yards under perfect conditions. But with new propellants and, most important, greatly improved optical rangefinders, it became possible to "reach out and touch someone" at twice that distance.
But a new problem arose. Now that shells were plunging through thin decks instead of blasting through thicker belt armor, the rounds would often perforate a targeted ship without doing much damage. (Now does this history lesson sound familar to the discussion at hand?)
In several instances it was found that by changing the projectile shape to a more blunt configuartion that the rounds were slowed just enough to improve damage potential. Much like the SGB tool, eh?
