※ 引述《hgt (hgt)》之铭言： : Sea Power: A Naval History - 第 118 页 : " Following the Napoleonic war, a French artillery officer, Henri-Joseph : Paxihans, designed a shell gun, shorter, lighter, using smaller charges than : guns of the same caliber designed for solid shot, and in 1824, demonstrated : its potentiality by splintering an old two-decker.Though both the French and : the British navies in the late 1830s adopted the Paixhans gun, it was : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : regarded as a special-purpose weapon, secondary to solid-shot ordnance." : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- : 写得很清楚 派克桑炮是一种"特殊用途"的炮 本来是次於实心弹火炮 : 但以鸦片战争战果看来 是很有用的 因此1840年後 大量采用 : 就是这麽简单逻辑 找几个网页维基就想证明自己的脑补???? : 呵呵 再加油啦! 是说我想你也是看google books吧，和我有啥差别，这麽呛XD 帮你补上网址: http://tinyurl.com/m54ffb6 和你提的那一段同一页，前两段: In the first opium war, ......... 虽然有鸦片战争的英文但是与战争本身无关。 这段完全没提到火炮，而是在叙述英军装备了铁壳船之後又一度认为铁甲比木船还脆弱， 结果把铁甲船用於运输而非战斗，克里米亚战争也未投入战局。 Navies were slow to adopt the explosive shell for general use although naval officers recognized the inadequacy of solid shot as a ship destroyer ... (中略) For centuries small mortar boats and bomb ketches had been lobbing explosive- filled projectiles into fortifications with deadly effect, but officers considered shells too great a fire hazard to be carried about and fired in the main fleet, and at any rate those could be fired from the standard 24- and 32- pounds were too small to be effective. 这段在说虽然海军知道实心弹对於摧毁船只效果非常差，却对采用爆破性弹药相当迟疑， 一方面太强力很危险，太弱又没有效果。 接下来就是你打得那一段，也是说示范如何炸船。 再接下来那段则提及 The annihilation of th Turkish fleet at Sinop convinced the naval powers that the shell had come to stay. 正如我所说，1853年俄国海军用新的火炮痛宰土耳其海军使世人理解其威力， 这段後面则是说克里米亚战争前夕英法都开始造铁甲船。 基本上各个资料都提到这种新火炮装备用於海军就是为了炸、烧木头船壳， 而同一时期流行的另一理论则是用铁壳防御燃烧和爆破的攻击手段， 这催生了之後的铁甲船时代。 所以说，看书请看完前後文。 -- The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten. ～John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 1.171.61.108 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Warfare/M.1430936849.A.EE8.html 该文提及的关键有不少是清军自己军备废弛、故步自封造成的， 且直接以英国所拥有的技术套用在远东战局上恐怕还需要多加详查， 而单论火炮会无视了双方在单兵装备上差距极为微小，遑论短兵相接。 我说是无决定性是因为─英军即使在无法发挥火炮优势时也多半能轻易击败清军， 而此一情景确实是存在的，且清军的人谋不臧远较器物上的差距为重， 英军在战争中并非全凭船坚炮利，反而是对军事的理解远超清朝。 当然你要说这就是决定性我也只能认了，只能说观点和逻辑不同吧。 ※ 编辑: jimmy5680 (1.171.61.108), 05/07/2015 11:47:41