Fire control directors

[Guest]

Mk 1 seems to be a secondary or AA computer.

[Werner]

Navweps has an interesting short article comparing the various fire control systems of Japan, Germany and the US

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm

[Guest]

The article on Mk 1 reads like a more elaborate version of a car advertisement. It seem to try to overwhelm with a long list of features that's been made to seem more impressive by a sprinkling of jargons. It concludes that this is the best system in the world without offering any direct line of evidence in support of it, nor any comparative analysis of the capabilities of competing instruments. Nice little touches like "a differential just like in you car, but you can hold in your hand" adds nothing whatsoever to the meat of the argument.

[Guest]

Navweps has an interesting short article comparing the various fire control systems of Japan, Germany and the US

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm

It's interesting, but his example of wave obscuring long based rangefinder's in Hood's turret was not convincing. The Hood had a equally long based range finder on the director position just forward of the tripod mast, and also had a substantial base length range finder right on top of the tripod mast. This suggests Hood's poor gunnery has nothing to do with range finders in the turret being too low. It may have more to do with the fact that Hood still used Dreyer table of WWI vintage rather than the more up to date Admiralty FC table. Also, Hood's shooting was off in bearing as well as range. This is not attributable to low position of any range finder.

[Werner]

Since you won't accept Friedman or Navweps as authoritative, we're going to have to wait and hope someone with more authority speaks up. There is no point in debating otherwise.

Maybe Mr. Raven or one of our other experts can speak up.

[ar]

Since you won't accept Friedman or Navweps as authoritative, we're going to have to wait and hope someone with more authority speaks up. There is no point in debating otherwise.

Maybe Mr. Raven or one of our other experts can speak up.

Have nothing to add that would be of any real use. I believe from speaking to Friedman, that some questions may be answered in his new book that will be out this January. I also believe that it will raise many new questions. The Barr and Stroud thing may be one of those.
All good fun.

[1Big Rich]

Thanks for posting that, Werner.

This page may prove useful as well, though it's more focused on the specific radars used than the individual director systems. Still, there are excellent diagrams. There are several chapters as well, use the 'Previous' and 'Next' links at the bottom to page through them.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar-2.htm

Regards,

[Werner]

The Barr and Stroud thing may be one of those.
All good fun.

Today I am wearing my Barr & Stroud wristwatch.

MIL-W-483745

[Guest]

"For example, Yamato's estimated error in ranging at 35,000yards would be +/- 229 yards; Iowa's would be +/- 275 yards. Obviously one is better, but neither is as large as a pattern size."

Tiornu,

I'd love to know where you found that info, so that maybe I can get my hands on stuff like that too.

Thanks

[Tiornu]

I got that from Brad Fischer. He's one of the authors of the WI article I mentioned. Have you seen the article? It may have the sort of information you're looking for.

[Guest]

The Barr and Stroud thing may be one of those.
All good fun.

Today I am wearing my Barr & Stroud wristwatch.

MIL-W-483745

You ought to do very well at Russo-Japanese war engagement ranges.

[phil gollin]

Friedman's new book, which will be out in January should help a lot. ............

Friedman's book "Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era" is now listed on the Pen and Sword Website as "just released".

Now when it will actually appear is a different matter.

.

[Tiornu]

I am told the book has arrived at the warehouses and should be ready to go.

[phil gollin]

I am told the book has arrived at the warehouses and should be ready to go.

I have put aside plenty of time to read it - so much expected, I hope it delivers.

Obviously mainly interested in the Royal Navy (where he is going to have to go some to add much more than John Brooks had already found [both printed and unprinted]) but the comparison bits will be fascinating however they are presented.

Especially interested in such matters as not just the Bailey Committee but also Home Fleet tests and the aftermath of the Bailey Committee and the fire control mechanism of a certain modernised Italian battleship. The other big one will be whether he agrees with the big de-brief of the German Fire Control Engineers in Paris - there is lots of detail there.

Just from the UK archives there are lots of bits to be absorbed, considered and put forward in a conscise, readable and informative manner.

(Lots of crossed fingers).

.

[Tracy White]

I'm coming to this late, and the below link may not be permanent as I'm working on it off and on, but
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/Misc/Mk63GFC/

This might be on a smaller scale than you guys deign to discuss however.

I've also got quite a few photos of the Mk 19 director in the late 1930s.

[phil gollin]

Werner,

You need to read John Brooks' book or, PRESUMABLY, Norman Friedman's book.

.

[Werner]

Hopefully Friedman's new work has not been as badly edited as was his design history books.

Maybe someday someone who gives a darn will re-edit those books and make them what they could have been.

[chuck]

You need to read John Brooks' book ....

.

What is the title of John Brook's book?