Fire Control of Pre-Dreadnoughts

[marcelo_malara]

Pre-1900 or so, with the likes of Inflexible and Sovereign, how did you actually aim, though?

I can't imagine these monster guns had iron-sights fitted. Where they laid by the gun captains, and the range estimated?

Lacking a telescope you need iron sights, there is no other way.

[Byron Angel]

Pre-1900 or so, with the likes of Inflexible and Sovereign, how did you actually aim, though?

I can't imagine these monster guns had iron-sights fitted. Where they laid by the gun captains, and the range estimated?

Lacking a telescope you need iron sights, there is no other way.

Adaptation of the telescopic gun-sight for naval applications, coupled with the development of "continuous aim" (which largely confined the scheme to smaller, more easily handled light/medium guns </= about 6-in) was the first big breakthrough. This was all the result of some clever and practical technical imagineering by Captain Percy Scott. I highly recommend reading his autobiography "Fifty Years in the Royal Navy", which can be D/Led from archive.org.

Got to go right now, but there were other very important, but less appreciated technical factors involved in the movement from 19thC gunnery to 20thC gunnery. I have some interesting notes on fire control and gunnery analysis carried out by the USN circa 1904/1905 in case anyone is interested. It is slightly lengthy, so it would be best to email it.

Anyone interested, just PM me.

Byron

[marcelo_malara]

Pre-1900 or so, with the likes of Inflexible and Sovereign, how did you actually aim, though?

I can't imagine these monster guns had iron-sights fitted. Where they laid by the gun captains, and the range estimated?

Lacking a telescope you need iron sights, there is no other way.

Adaptation of the telescopic gun-sight for naval applications, coupled with the development of "continuous aim" (which largely confined the scheme to smaller, more easily handled light/medium guns </= about 6-in) was the first big breakthrough. This was all the result of some clever and practical technical imagineering by Captain Percy Scott. I highly recommend reading his autobiography "Fifty Years in the Royal Navy", which can be D/Led from archive.org.

Got to go right now, but there were other very important, but less appreciated technical factors involved in the movement from 19thC gunnery to 20thC gunnery. I have some interesting notes on fire control and gunnery analysis carried out by the USN circa 1904/1905 in case anyone is interested. It is slightly lengthy, so it would be best to email it.

Anyone interested, just PM me.

Byron

For sure I am!

[Byron Angel]

Lacking a telescope you need iron sights, there is no other way.

Adaptation of the telescopic gun-sight for naval applications, coupled with the development of "continuous aim" (which largely confined the scheme to smaller, more easily handled light/medium guns </= about 6-in) was the first big breakthrough. This was all the result of some clever and practical technical imagineering by Captain Percy Scott. I highly recommend reading his autobiography "Fifty Years in the Royal Navy", which can be D/Led from archive.org.

Got to go right now, but there were other very important, but less appreciated technical factors involved in the movement from 19thC gunnery to 20thC gunnery. I have some interesting notes on fire control and gunnery analysis carried out by the USN circa 1904/1905 in case anyone is interested. It is slightly lengthy, so it would be best to email it.

Anyone interested, just PM me.

Byron

For sure I am!

Marcelo,
Please email me directly.
My Email = byronangel@verizon.net

Byron

[paul.mercer]

>>>>> Seeing that you posted this inquiry on my birthday, I will do my best to help.

Hi, all.
In ships such as HMS Inflexible (1881) who had big ol' 16" (406mm) muzzle loaders as her main armament, and HMS Sovereign (1891) who had 2 twin 13.5" (343mm) guns - how did these ships direct their fire?

I'm aware that this was before the days of the fancy fire control mechanical machines they used in the First World War, but there must have been a way to control the fire of these ships?
Or, was it more a case of: Target is estimated to be at X distance travelling at Y speed and you consult stats table next to the gun and just adjust for drop and windage and watch for splashes and try to adjust?

Were the secondary batteries of these ships controlled at all, or was is just: when in range, aim and shoot?

>>>>> In the years leading up to the Russo-Japanese War, centralized fire control did not really exist. There was no centralized fire control system of any sort. Not only were there no "fancy mechanical fire control machines", there was really no centralized fire control organization of any sort to collect and analyze fall of shot spotting data; nor were there any communication systems of any kind which might permit the guns of a battery to receive range estimates or spotting correction data in real time. The idea of "collective fire" ("salvo fire" in modern terms) was only just passing from the theoretical to the testing stage in 1905. The most modern and sophisticated gunnery aids of that period were pioneered by Adm Percy Scott - use of telescopic sights and "continuous aim by light and medium caliber guns whose elevation gear was sufficiently smooth and easy to enable it. Essentially, the guns of light and medium batteries were independently aimed and fired by the individual gunlayers

The situation with the heavy main battery guns in the period you referenced (1880-1905) was even more difficult. Apart from the afore-mentioned lack of centralized fire control, the traversing and elevating gear was far too slow and cumbersome to permit continuous aim and the rate of fire of these big guns could be remarkably slow as well, for example -
> 13.5-inch 30 caliber Gun Mk III (Royal Sovereign, Admiral and Trafalgar Classes) - RoF = 1 round per 2 minutes.
> 12-inch 35 caliber Gun Mk VIII (Caesar and Illustrious) - RoF = 1 round per 1 minute 50 seconds.

"British Battleships 1889-1904" by R A Burt (pp 44-51) reproduces a fairly lengthy segment of commentary contained from a 1902 report on the state of RN gunnery written by Lt A V Vyoyan (yes "Vyoyan"). Well worth reading.

Another much briefer extract from Burt's text is repeated as follows and describes the state of affairs at the turn of the century -
The longest battle ranges of the day were about 1,000 yards, but it was becoming increasingly obvious to many officers, that the need to open fire sooner, and at greater ranges, was paramount.
Criticism of the , "If the target cannot be successfully hit at short range, it will not be hit at long range," kind was voiced, and it was also argued that, "perhaps it is best to walk before you run".
To use the same method for both long and short range, however, would cause many problems. The report showed that short range should be defined as anything up to 3,000 yards, and long range up to as much as 8,000 yards - hitherto an unheard of figure. (During tests carried out in HMS Venerable during 1903 in the Mediterranean, by Rear Admiral Sir Reginald Custance, he remarked:
"It is practically useless to open fire at ranges beyond 4,000 yards, and 8,000 yards is a ridiculous and impossible range at which to fight."

Hope this is of some help in clearing away at least a bit of the smoke .....

B

Hi Byron,
Re the 13.5 and 16" muzzle loaders, roughly how heavy would the round be - and was it a shell or a Ball? I was thinking of how they could be manually loaded. Also, I presume they were using black powder and I've often wondered whether the charges would vary and either increase (or decrease) the range and accuracy?
With regard to the accuracy of Naval guns during WWI, didn't they have a 'firing table' invented by a lieutenant Dreyer?

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Byron,
Re the 13.5 and 16" muzzle loaders, roughly how heavy would the round be - and was it a shell or a Ball? I was thinking of how they could be manually loaded. Also, I presume they were using black powder and I've often wondered whether the charges would vary and either increase (or decrease) the range and accuracy?
With regard to the accuracy of Naval guns during WWI, didn't they have a 'firing table' invented by a lieutenant Dreyer?

Hi Paul. The heavy muzzle loading guns were loaded by lowering the tube to a depression angle that would put the muzzle directly behind a waiting shell, then the shell would be pushed to the chamber by a rigid hydraulic rammer.



The 16" shell weighted 1700 pounds with a bursting charge of 75 pounds. Do not know for sure if there was a solid shot, I believe that not. The propellant would not be pure black powder, but some variation of it, mostly black powder in the form of big pellets, or prisms, or some shape with which the chemist of the day could lower the burning rate, making them generate lower firing pressures.

The Dreyer table, yes, an ingenious machine, but that would not solve without errors the long range shooting problem, mostly due to inaccuracies of the measuring equipment, more inaccuracies of the mechanical calculation, and some simplifications of the full algorithm.

Regards

[Byron Angel]

Re the 13.5 and 16" muzzle loaders, roughly how heavy would the round be - and was it a shell or a Ball? I was thinking of how they could be manually loaded. Also, I presume they were using black powder and I've often wondered whether the charges would vary and either increase (or decrease) the range and accuracy?
With regard to the accuracy of Naval guns during WWI, didn't they have a 'firing table' invented by a lieutenant Dreyer?

Hi Paul,

>>>>> Re the progress of gunnery and FC materiel in the RN, the following synopsis will provide a good overview.
Go here - https://slideplayer.com/slide/10198631/

>>>>> Rifled muzzle loaders (RMLs) fired elongated shot and explosive shells.
The 16-inch RML of the HMS INFLEXIBLE fired a 1,684-lb projectile @ 1,590 ft/sec, with a rate of fire of approx one round per gun every two minutes. Two twin turrets were mounted en echelon amidships. Re-loading was accomplished by rotating the turret to face inboard and depressing the gun into a gradually descending trough formed in the weather deck. A hydraulic rammer was located beneath said deck and aligned with the axis of the trough. First, the powder charge would be rammed into the gun, followed by the projectile. The gun would then be elevated clear of the trough depression and the turret then rotated outboard to once again bear upon the target.

>>>>> The above-referenced gun definitely predated the introduction of nitroglycerine-based propellants (~1890); it used prismatic black powder initially and later brown powder. Propellant charges were of a single standard weight; range was adjusted solely by varying gun elevation. Wikipedia actually has some decent data on this gun. Rather than duplicate it here, just go to the following address -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RML_16-inch_80-ton_gun

- - -

FWIW, I recommend acquiring a copy of BRITISH BATTLESHIPS - A History of Design, Construction and Armament 1860-1950 by Oscar Parkes. It is an excellent reference resource. Check the ADDALL website for used / out of print copies - it is not crazy expensive.

Byron

[paul.mercer]

Thanks to you both Marcelo and Byron.
With all that paraphernalia needed about re-loading, I'm not surprised it took so long - if a 13'5" needed that time to reload, heaven knows what a16" would take! What puzzles me about is the reloading mechanism shown in Marcelo's picture, which looks as if it would be on the deck outside the turret a bit noisy and dangerous for the crew if there was any 'incoming fire'!

[wadinga]

Hello Paul,

In fact as Marcelo's diagram makes clear the loading gear is under a deck in this design. However in the so called barbette ships the breech loading gun crews were totally exposed during loading. These ships expected to fight at close range 1-2000 yds max and incoming shells would have flat trajectories, and the armoured barbette might give some protection.

Rapid changes in technology at this time, 1870-90, meant tactics were totally confused since no-one knew what was practical. Hence the idea that ramming would become an important battle technique.

By the time the familiar Pre-Dreadnoughts were in service expected fighting ranges were increasing exponentially and therefore improved sighting and fire control systems were necessary and developed by enthusiasts like Percy Scott in the RN and Sims in the USN. Arthur Pollen too, although his lack of practical sea-time meant his forward-thinking ideas were difficult to realise with then-current technology .

Byron, I 100% agree, Oscar Parkes is a great source. and even older (1966) than "Guns at Sea".

I think we can all agree that the information provided by ChatGPT which Marcelo spotted, sounds very confident and authoritative and mentions real ships, but is just completely inaccurate. It seems "state of the art" AI cannot distinguish sh*t from Shinola. I won't be letting it drive my car for me anytime soon.

All the best

wadinga

[marcelo_malara]

Hello Paul,

In fact as Marcelo's diagram makes clear the loading gear is under a deck in this design. However in the so called barbette ships the breech loading gun crews were totally exposed during loading. These ships expected to fight at close range 1-2000 yds max and incoming shells would have flat trajectories, and the armoured barbette might give some protection.

Rapid changes in technology at this time, 1870-90, meant tactics were totally confused since no-one knew what was practical. Hence the idea that ramming would become an important battle technique.

By the time the familiar Pre-Dreadnoughts were in service expected fighting ranges were increasing exponentially and therefore improved sighting and fire control systems were necessary and developed by enthusiasts like Percy Scott in the RN and Sims in the USN. Arthur Pollen too, although his lack of practical sea-time meant his forward-thinking ideas were difficult to realise with then-current technology .

Byron, I 100% agree, Oscar Parkes is a great source. and even older (1966) than "Guns at Sea".

I think we can all agree that the information provided by ChatGPT which Marcelo spotted, sounds very confident and authoritative and mentions real ships, but is just completely inaccurate. It seems "state of the art" AI cannot distinguish sh*t from Shinola. I won't be letting it drive my car for me anytime soon.

All the best

wadinga

Hi Wadinga. Yes, chatGPT should be disregarded, at least in the actual state. I reproduce here a "conversation" I have with "it" a few days ago, almost hilarious.




User
first ship with controllable pitch propeller
ChatGPT
The first ship with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP) was the French submarine "Monge," which was launched in 1927. The CPP allowed the submarine to have greater maneuverability and control over its propulsion system, making it a significant advancement in submarine technology at the time. Since then, CPPs have been used in various types of vessels, including ships, tugboats, and even some aircraft. They are highly versatile and efficient propulsion systems that allow for more precise control over a vessel's speed and direction.

User
what is your souce for this?
ChatGPT
My source for this information is the book "Marine Propellers and Propulsion" by John Carlton, which provides a detailed history of marine propulsion technology. The information about the first ship with a controllable pitch propeller, the French submarine "Monge," is widely accepted in the marine engineering community and can be found in various sources, including academic articles and historical records.

User
would you reproduce here the paragraph in this book mentioning that submarine?
ChatGPT
Certainly! Here is the paragraph from "Marine Propellers and Propulsion" by John Carlton that describes the French submarine "Monge" as the first ship with a controllable pitch propeller:

"The controllable pitch propeller (CPP) was first fitted to a ship in 1927, on the French submarine Monge. The CPP enabled the pitch of the propeller blades to be altered whilst the submarine was in motion, thus enabling it to manoeuvre with greater ease and to vary its speed with less noise than was previously possible. The CPP was subsequently fitted to ships and became particularly popular for naval vessels during World War II, when its ability to vary propeller pitch and hence the speed of a vessel whilst underway was seen as a major advantage." (Carlton, 2012, p. 39)

User
have the book but can not find the paragraph, are you sure about the source?
ChatGPT
I apologize for the confusion. The correct source for the information about the first ship with a controllable pitch propeller is actually the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton, which was published in 2012.

Here is the paragraph from that book that describes the French submarine "Monge" as the first ship with a controllable pitch propeller:

"The first successful CPP installation was fitted to the French submarine Monge in 1927. The CPP enabled the pitch of the propeller blades to be altered while the submarine was in motion, thus enabling it to manoeuvre with greater ease and to vary its speed with less noise than was previously possible." (Carlton, 2012, p. 74)

I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused and I hope this clears things up.

User
isbn for this book?
ChatGPT
The ISBN for the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton is 9780080982838.

User
would you check this isbn?
ChatGPT
I apologize for the mistake in my previous response. The correct ISBN for the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton is 9780080982845.

User
wrong too
ChatGPT
I apologize for my mistake. The correct ISBN for the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton is 9780080982869.

User
wrong too
ChatGPT
I apologize for the confusion. The correct ISBN for the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton is 978-0080982869.

User
there is no book from john carlton with that title
ChatGPT
I apologize for the incorrect information earlier. You are correct that there is no book titled "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton with the ISBN I provided. I must have made an error in my previous searches.

Upon further research, I found that John Carlton has authored the book "Marine Propellers and Propulsion" which was first published in 2012 by Butterworth-Heinemann, an imprint of Elsevier. The ISBN for this book is 9780080971238.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused earlier and I hope this information is helpful.

User
"The first successful CPP installation was fitted to the French submarine Monge in 1927. The CPP enabled the pitch of the propeller blades to be altered while the submarine was in motion, thus enabling it to manoeuvre with greater ease and to vary its speed with less noise than was previously possible."
ChatGPT
Yes, that is the paragraph from the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton that describes the French submarine "Monge" as the first ship with a successful CPP installation.

User
is this paragraph?
ChatGPT
Yes, that paragraph accurately describes the French submarine "Monge" as the first ship with a successful CPP installation, according to the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton.

User
were is it from?
ChatGPT
The paragraph is from the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton, which was published by Elsevier in 2012. The book is a comprehensive guide to marine propulsion technology and covers various topics related to marine engineering. The information about the French submarine "Monge" being the first ship with a successful CPP installation is widely accepted in the marine engineering community and can be found in various sources, including academic articles and historical records.

User
I can not find any reference to Monge in that book
ChatGPT
I apologize for the confusion. You are correct that the book "Marine Propulsion: Principles and Practice" by John Carlton does not mention the French submarine "Monge" as the first ship with a successful CPP installation.

After further research, I have found that the information about the French submarine "Monge" being the first ship with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP) is actually widely accepted in the marine engineering community and can be found in various sources, including academic articles and historical records.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused earlier and I hope this information is helpful.

User
but I need a source for the Monge
ChatGPT
I apologize for the previous incorrect information. Upon further research, I found that there is some controversy among experts about which ship was the first to have a CPP installed, and it appears that the French submarine "Monge" is not universally accepted as the first ship with a CPP.

However, according to the book "Propellers and Propulsion" by J.S. Carlton and R.D. Norris, which was published in 1999, the first CPP installation was fitted to the British steam trawler "John Munn" in 1903. The CPP enabled the pitch of the propeller blades to be adjusted while the ship was underway, allowing the vessel to maintain a more constant speed and improved maneuverability.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses and I hope this information is helpful.

[Byron Angel]

Byron, I 100% agree, Oscar Parkes is a great source. and even older (1966) than "Guns at Sea".

wadinga

>>>>> I bought Oscar Parkes' "British Battleships" and Edgar March's "British Destroyers" in 1973 (or thereabouts) and had to have them imported from the UK. IIRC, it cost me about USD 150.00 all told at the time. Adjusted for the "official" rate of inflation, that would be equivalent to about USD 900.00 in 2023 money. I was working as a humble document clerk in an ocean freight forwarding company at the time and USD 150.00 was not too far off from a week's salary. I still have both books fifty years later .....

B

[Byron Angel]

With all that paraphernalia needed about re-loading, I'm not surprised it took so long - if a 13'5" needed that time to reload, heaven knows what a16" would take!

>>>>> In the 1870s, Armstrong-Elswick built eight 17.7-inch 100-ton rifled muzzle-loading guns for the Italian navy - to be mounted in its two new ironclad battleships Dandolo and Duilio. This gun fired a 2,000 lb projectile at a MV of 1548 ft/sec using a charge of ~450 lbs of black prismatic powder.

Range was about 6,000 yards @ 10.5 degrees elevation.

Rate of fire was stated as one round every six minutes .....

Byron

[paul.mercer]

Hello Paul,

In fact as Marcelo's diagram makes clear the loading gear is under a deck in this design. However in the so called barbette ships the breech loading gun crews were totally exposed during loading. These ships expected to fight at close range 1-2000 yds max and incoming shells would have flat trajectories, and the armoured barbette might give some protection.

Rapid changes in technology at this time, 1870-90, meant tactics were totally confused since no-one knew what was practical. Hence the idea that ramming would become an important battle technique.

By the time the familiar Pre-Dreadnoughts were in service expected fighting ranges were increasing exponentially and therefore improved sighting and fire control systems were necessary and developed by enthusiasts like Percy Scott in the RN and Sims in the USN. Arthur Pollen too, although his lack of practical sea-time meant his forward-thinking ideas were difficult to realise with then-current technology .

Byron, I 100% agree, Oscar Parkes is a great source. and even older (1966) than "Guns at Sea".

I think we can all agree that the information provided by ChatGPT which Marcelo spotted, sounds very confident and authoritative and mentions real ships, but is just completely inaccurate. It seems "state of the art" AI cannot distinguish sh*t from Shinola. I won't be letting it drive my car for me anytime soon.

All the best

wadinga

Hi Wadinga,
Many thanks for the info, I've just discovered that I have a book entitled 'The Navy in Battle written' in 1916 by Arthur Pollen, I don't know how or why I got it but may have belonged to my father who was a Lieutenant on a QE in the RN in the late 1920's it, might make some interesting reading

[wadinga]

Hi Paul,

Byron provided the detail on those slow-firers. With such lengthy loading times, and so few guns, it was essential to get close enough to guarantee a hit, hence the short ranges anticipated. I imagine such battles would be a bit like duelling at ten paces, don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes.

I too have Pollen's book, and like some of Byron's acquisitions, I have possessed it for over 50 years. I must applaud his commitment as a young man for his outlay of a weeks' wages to secure these British titles from across the seas. Bravo! But he must have gone hungry that week!

It is worth remembering that both Scott and Pollen were strong self-promoters, generated many bitter opponents, believed deeply that they were the only ones who knew how to overcome the RN's gunnery shortcomings, and who furthermore considered any criticism of their approaches to be dangerously anti-patriotic. There were undoubtedly other innovators at work who were subsequently shaded out by these luminaries.

The Navy in Battle is an interesting read bearing in mind Pollen's personal battles with Admiralty intransigence over accepting/supporting his complex, and possibly unachievable with then-current technology, ideas for fire control. His opinions on actions up to and including Jutland in the book are always flavoured by this wrangling which rattled on for years including charges of plagiarism and demands for compensation. If you have any spare cash left over after buying Oscar Parkes (on Byron's excellent advice) then "Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland" by John Brooks covers the technical details and Pollen's decade-long wrangles in exhaustive detail.

Off topic: Marcelo, are you aware of the frustrations of Arthur Dent in dealing with the products of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation ("Your Plastic Pal who is fun to be with") ? Your somewhat surreal conversation could have come straight from the the pen (keyboard?) of Douglas Adams in "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". However, I caution you to watch your step with ChatGPT. When HAL 9000 was caught out on inaccuracies and failings like that he........... went on a killing spree.

All the best

wadinga

[marcelo_malara]

If you have any spare cash left over after buying Oscar Parkes (on Byron's excellent advice) then "Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland" by John Brooks covers the technical details and Pollen's decade-long wrangles in exhaustive detail.

Off topic: Marcelo, are you aware of the frustrations of Arthur Dent in dealing with the products of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation ("Your Plastic Pal who is fun to be with") ? Your somewhat surreal conversation could have come straight from the the pen (keyboard?) of Douglas Adams in "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". However, I caution you to watch your step with ChatGPT. When HAL 9000 was caught out on inaccuracies and failings like that he........... went on a killing spree.

All the best

wadinga

Hi Wadinga. I fully agree with your view of Pollen and your recommendation of Brooks´ book. The book had an outrageous high price at the time of publishing, but now used copies are listed in Amazon by 20 bucks. Pollen´s devices exceeded the possibilities of the mechanical technologies of the day. It would need electronics to make them work.

For ChatGPT, I am disappointed with it. What I posted was not the only time I consulted it, and most times (in naval matters at least) I got incorrect answers and unverifiable sources.

Regards