Jump to content

Talk:Ship gun fire-control system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jfgrcar (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 15 August 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 4, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed

Misleading

I think this article is misleading. It is very sketchy on dates of implementation. For example, the Iowa was launched in 1940, yet it is pictured with fire control systems that were probably retrofitted at the end or after WWII, and the clear implication is that all Iowa class ships had these controllers from the start. Jfgrcar (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International?

This started out as a survey of US systems, but the British system seems to fit fine, and it's open to entries about what other Navies came up with, so please contribute. Bachcell (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article is quite long (and complete) as is. I'd rather rename it "US Ship ....", and would create a new one more "general" (or "International", if you prefer), which may have the same name as this one (or even better "Naval Gun ..."). Does it sound reasonable?
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Covering all nations would just be "list of....." some general principles and examples can go on "(Naval) Fire control systems". I would avoid Naval gun because it might not be limited to guns - eg Unrotated projectile. Also watch the capitalization when naming. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

What happened before the 1930s - or is this article limited to A/A gun control systems? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some research to push it back to 1912 with the invention of the director system. Bachcell (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor detail, Mk. 37 GFCS:

Text says that a battleship's director was protected by 1.5-inch thick armor plate, but was that the main battery director (not a Mk. 37?) I see that the original author is inactive, so this might take a while to resolve. Regards, 66.92.74.189 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should AN/SPG-25 be AN/SPG-53?

It seems that the latest radar on top of a Mk.37 director might be an AN-SPG-53, not an SPG-25. Regards, 66.92.74.189 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 25 of NAVAL ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY, VOL. 2, FIRE CONTROL, 1958 Edition describes the Mk 37 GFCS, and Paragraph 25B20 Radar, says "The Mark 25 radar is an automatic tracking fire control radar...." I hope this helps. Best regards, FTC Gerry (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patent on the Mk 56 GFCS

I don't have the energy right now to locate it, but it was probably issued to Ivan Getting, and probably has a number around 3,500,000. It was classified for many years. 66.92.74.189 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive job folks

Wow this article has really grown, thanks for all the hard effort. This a very under-appreciated asset in naval warfare and history as it was probably the crucial technology in the battle off samar victory Bachcell (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Pollen-relayed point about Queen Mary having done the best shooting at Jutland. She was not the only ship but one of five ships carrying the Argo Clock-endowed Dreyer Table Mark II, a nice machine, but one with no real advantages over the Dreyer tables Mark IV and IV* seen in many ships in the Grand Fleet that day. John Brooks and the Admiralty's Official Despatches from Jutland makes it abundantly clear that a lack of range cuts (input data) rather than imperfections in calculating equipment (certainly as Dreyer equipment compared to Argo systems or even those of the Germans) hurt the British gunnery performance most. DulcetTone (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


US Navy systems

Although this article does seem to meet the guidelines presented at WP:SIZE, it should be noted that it does meet them only barely so! The prose size (text only) is 44 kB (7347 words)Test35965 (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]