Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fire Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Was there a good reason to take the optics off turret #1? I have never heard a reason.

    Comment


    • #32
      Removal of optics.

      From my understanding in rough seas water would enter the turrent and damage the optics.

      Rusty is the expert though, lets see his take on why the optics were removed.

      Comment


      • #33
        IMO, Weight savings. When they removed turret ones rangefinder they brought onboard other equipment improvements and gave them a new bridge structure as well. They transformed the circular bridge structure around the conning tower into a more trapazoid style structure They still carried the 40mm Bofors as well in that time period and made other improvements. They were only 8 years old when Korea came and had just retired from service except for Missouri which was still at sea.

        The ships at speed were wet up front because of their hull/bow style, speed and displacement. They have a real nice incline to the bow/focsul as well.
        Wetness could have been an issue for the optics, several ships from the USN and RN i have read about recorded shutter damage to the range finders ears during heavy weather etc, but there was also mods on the bridge, radars etc so it was a pretty hefty overhaul for such low mileage ships.

        Back to turret ones rangefinder, when removed a "cheater" box was installed at some point during their reactivation for Korea. It records turret one, two and threes train and elevation orders if bearing match were required and not recieving the orders from gun plot or the directors or they are cut off. It dispays them on an instrument on the lower right side of the turret bulkhead looking forward as a back up. They do however still retain turrets two and three manual rangefinders and optics as well as 2 different sets of optics in turret 1.
        Last edited by Dreadnought; 21 Jul 10,, 04:35.
        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
          Rusty, maybe this question is for GG ???

          So who built the gunnery tables for Navy ships if the Army didn't contract for gunnery tables until 1943?

          The following citation is from "Wiki"......


          The Navy had range tables prior to that. Here is a copy of their Range and Ballistic tables from 1935

          USN-RANGE-TABLES-1935

          Don't confuse the Eniac tables for tables that were computed manually prior to that.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
            I find it amazing how they could hit other moving ships, from a moving ship at the ranges they did. We babble on today on how RFC was a game changer yet forget that back in WW1 it seemed the ships could hit each other as long as they could see each other. I wonder how much better the fire control on a BB could be with todays electronics and optics (no radar).

            If you have anymore technical stuff Dread I will read and appreciate it.
            If you look at the number of rounds shot vs the number of rounds hit in naval gunfights, luck plays a really big role. Except for the short range battles.

            The fire control system might be much improved with new optics and electronics. But, it wouldn't help a lot when it comes to accuracy. It would be like putting a sniper scope on a musket, (oversimplification). You are still dealing with 1930s gun design and the inherent inaccuracies from that.
            Last edited by Gun Grape; 24 Jul 10,, 23:15.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by surfgun View Post
              Was there a good reason to take the optics off turret #1? I have never heard a reason.
              Didn't the effectiveness of radar range finders play a part in the removal of the local range finders in turret #1? I understand that weather damage was another factor. The possibility of a gun fight knocking out all the other systems and leaving the turrets in local control had been reduced to nil after WWII, since there were no enemy battleships to fight. I think the combination of lack of need for them and the regular efforts to repair weather damage on turret #1 probably led to the removal of the big rangefinder. Since the other two turrets were not as prone to weather damage, their rangefinders were left there, just in case they were needed (and still provided triple redundancy), but the superior position (high in the superstructure) and range of the newer radar systems meant the local optics were only useful as emergency backups. I also agree with Dreadnought, the top weight savings was important - but turret #2 would have been a better choice for this reason alone.
              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 27 Jul 10,, 15:27.
              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                Didn't the effectiveness of radar range finders play a part in the removal of the local range finders in turret #1? I understand that weather damage was another factor. The possibility of a gun fight knocking out all the other systems and leaving the turrets in local control had been reduced to nil after WWII, since there were no enemy battleships to fight. I think the combination of lack of need for them and the regular efforts to repair weather damage on turret #1 probably led to the removal of the big rangefinder. Since the other two turrets were not as prone to weather damage, their rangefinders were left there, just in case they were needed (and still provided triple redundancy), but the superior position (high in the superstructure) and range of the newer radar systems meant the local optics were only useful as emergency backups. I also agree with Dreadnought, the top weight savings was important - but turret #2 would have been a better choice for this reason alone.

                Another reason perhaps why they chose Turret #1 for the removal, outside the reasons listed above and not Turret #2 is that in local mode, the optics themselves in Turret#1 probably would not be able to see as far as Turret#2 due to being a higher elevation or in the "super firing" position. Your vision from the Primary Conn at the bridge level is roughtly 7.90 nautical miles distant to the horizion. The Turrets (#2) being 3 levels lower and #1 being at Main deck level then the bridge will shorten this distance that you eyes can see to the horizion and therefore the optics in Turret #1 as well. Spots #1 & #2 high up on the FC tower see the farthest with their optics and much farther then any other sight point aboard ship. So Turret #1's rangefinder removal really does'nt negate any optics for sighting when you have Turret #2 forward that can see slightly further then Turret #1 and Turret #3 aft to CYA.
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 10 Aug 10,, 22:31.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The mechanical fire control computers, had provision th enter spots, to correct the fall of the shels for the next salvo. The computations even took care of magazine temperature, & barrel wear to compensate for the initial velocity setting. They were marvels of technology for there day, & some were still in use into the late 60's. The synchro inputs for Target Range, Bearing, and Elevation were fed to the computer through a large switchboard. The gyro inputs were directly coupled with shafts to the computer. The synchro output commands for gun Bearing, Elevation, & Fuse Setting were also routed to the selected gun turret through the switchboard.

                  One of the things I remember from Fire Control A School, was the full page of calculations necessary to compute the basic fire control problem.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Agreed, several settings come automatic to the FC computers via the switch board the rest must be manually imputed to correct for both drift,fall of shot etc. If you were to turn one, the manual input inturn is adjusting several others mechanically.

                    This being dependant upon which mode of FC the weapon system is in at the time.
                    Last edited by Dreadnought; 18 Jul 12,, 23:05.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The range finders on Turret I were taken off all four of the Iowas in WW II as green water in heavy seas would come up that high and damage them. On at leas three of the ships, special high vents were added to mount on the sides and the rear of the turrets and curve under to the vents under the overhang. Only two of them were rebuilt in the 1980's (Missouri and Wisconsin).

                      I have photos and even WW II plans of them but been too busy to dig them out and scan them. My wife has had to have another operation on her right shoulder to snip off the end of a torn tendon and chip off a bone spur on the clavicle. That's the shoulder that's part stainless steel.

                      There have been time I've been up until 0200 to keep an eye on her to make sure she doesn't get out of bed and overdose her meds. She would take her proper dose but five minutes later she would forget she took it and start doubling up. I have to be by her side to make sure.

                      Than GOD for our dogs. If I'm in the back room on this computer and she stumbles on the way to the kitchen, BOTH dogs would come in and nuzzle my arm off the mouse telling me something is wrong with "Mommy".

                      Once she fell down in the dining room and as I'm trying to pick her up our Akita would put his nose under her chin and try to help her up.

                      If dogs don't go to Heaven, I don't want to go either.
                      Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I share your view on dogs Rusty! Also, I hope your wife's shoulder surgery is successful.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X