Reply to thread

Message

Hood was being critical of my views about the Vickers 4" mounting that eventually only saw service with Chile. The reason that I like this mounting was that it was an 80/20 solution - you saw most of the benefits of being able to fire pre-loaded rounds, without the mountings crew having to close up, and that it had a simple, robust feed system. In contrast, the other 1950's era weapons like the UK 3" Mk 6 (which I've owned and operated) had a fearsomely complex feed system, large, and whilst a very good performer as an AA weapon, had less than perfect reliability. Faced with the same choice in the 1970s or 80's I'd have picked a 76mm Oto Melara offering, but in the 1950's, the Vickers 4" was much better, than a manually loaded 4.5" Mk 5 in the Tribal class frigates. The Vickers mount also had a much better, stiffer servo system than the 4.5" Mk 6 in Rothesay and Leander frigates, where poor RPC performance was a weakness that persisted throughout this mountings life.

<blockquote data-quote="XRNWEO" data-source="post: 732656" data-attributes="member: 56688">Hood was being critical of my views about the Vickers 4&quot; mounting that eventually only saw service with Chile.&nbsp; The reason that I like this mounting was that it was an 80/20 solution - you saw most of the benefits of being able to fire pre-loaded rounds, without the mountings crew having to close up, and that it had a simple, robust feed system.&nbsp; In contrast, the other 1950's era weapons like the UK 3&quot; Mk 6 (which I've owned and operated) had a fearsomely complex feed system, large, and whilst a very good performer as an AA weapon, had less than perfect reliability.&nbsp; Faced with the same choice in the 1970s or 80's I'd have picked a 76mm Oto Melara offering, but in the 1950's, the Vickers 4&quot; was much better, than a manually loaded 4.5&quot; Mk 5 in the Tribal class frigates.&nbsp; The Vickers mount also had a much better, stiffer servo system than the 4.5&quot; Mk 6 in Rothesay and Leander frigates, where poor&nbsp; RPC performance was a weakness that persisted throughout this mountings life.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="XRNWEO, post: 732656, member: 56688"] [B]Hood was being critical of my views about the Vickers 4" mounting that eventually only saw service with Chile. The reason that I like this mounting was that it was an 80/20 solution - you saw most of the benefits of being able to fire pre-loaded rounds, without the mountings crew having to close up, and that it had a simple, robust feed system. In contrast, the other 1950's era weapons like the UK 3" Mk 6 (which I've owned and operated) had a fearsomely complex feed system, large, and whilst a very good performer as an AA weapon, had less than perfect reliability. Faced with the same choice in the 1970s or 80's I'd have picked a 76mm Oto Melara offering, but in the 1950's, the Vickers 4" was much better, than a manually loaded 4.5" Mk 5 in the Tribal class frigates. The Vickers mount also had a much better, stiffer servo system than the 4.5" Mk 6 in Rothesay and Leander frigates, where poor RPC performance was a weakness that persisted throughout this mountings life.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification