Fire Control of Pre-Dreadnoughts

[AThompson]

Hi, all.

I was wondering if I may seek the knowledge of the People That Know More Than Me

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 of 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?

[Byron Angel]

>>>>> 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

[OpanaPointer]

Well worth reading. No link.

[Byron Angel]

Well worth reading. No link.

Sorry Opanapointer,
I had manually underlined my comment for emphasis. I failed to understand that it could also imply a link. There was none.

Apologies.

Byron

[OpanaPointer]

No probs. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything.

[marcelo_malara]

I took a look at Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland, which a has a chapter with a brief history of the evolution of fire control. It can be said that the evolution was:

-optical sight in each gun
-introduction of the optical rangefinder
-director sighting, ie a centralized means of sighting and pointing
-mechanical calculator, for both range and deflection

Of all this, the only device existing in the pre-dreadnought era was the optical sight, and no even in every ship.

Regards

[marcelo_malara]

I want to share this, from chatGPT:

the first gun at sea aimed with a telescope?

The first gun at sea aimed with a telescope was the British warship HMS "Thunderer" in 1877. The use of telescopic sights allowed gunners to aim more accurately at targets, increasing the range and accuracy of naval gunfire. This was a significant improvement in naval gunnery, and it was quickly adopted by other navies around the world.

first warship with director firing?

The first warship equipped with director firing was the British battleship HMS "Exmouth" which was commissioned in 1901. The director firing system was a revolutionary innovation in naval gunnery that allowed a single gunnery officer to direct the fire of several guns on a warship simultaneously. This greatly increased the accuracy and speed of naval gunfire, and gave the British Navy a significant advantage in naval warfare at the time. The system was later adopted by other navies around the world.

the first warship with rangefinder?

The first warship to be equipped with a rangefinder was the British battleship HMS "Collingwood" which was commissioned in 1908. The rangefinder was another important technological innovation in naval warfare that allowed gunners to accurately determine the distance to a target, which was crucial for accurate firing. The introduction of rangefinders greatly improved the accuracy of naval gunfire and was a major factor in the development of naval tactics during the early 20th century.

Amazing!

[AThompson]

Thanks, all, for the replies.

Blimey, Byron Angel, so it sounds like there's no chance then of any capital ships hitting each other if they even engaged each other.

I'm thinking; I wonder if it was due to the "Long Peace/Pax Britannia" that leant itself to this lack of fire control thinking. I would assume that if any of the Major Powers got into a shooting war in this period they'd learn pretty quickly that no one can hit anything and then they'd have to develop something to facilitate this.

I assume this goes for pre-First World War cruisers too? I look at these photos of these sleek craft and see that they have 4 or 6 independently controlled guns and I ask: 1) Does every gun crew just aim and fire their own piece when given the Fire order, and 2) what good can 4 or 6+ cruiser shells do to an enemy ship? They're pretty "small", and they're even less effective if you can't even hit your target*

*I say this in full knowledge that I'm not a naval architect or shipwright.

[marcelo_malara]

Thanks, all, for the replies.

Blimey, Byron Angel, so it sounds like there's no chance then of any capital ships hitting each other if they even engaged each other.

I'm thinking; I wonder if it was due to the "Long Peace/Pax Britannia" that leant itself to this lack of fire control thinking. I would assume that if any of the Major Powers got into a shooting war in this period they'd learn pretty quickly that no one can hit anything and then they'd have to develop something to facilitate this.

I assume this goes for pre-First World War cruisers too? I look at these photos of these sleek craft and see that they have 4 or 6 independently controlled guns and I ask: 1) Does every gun crew just aim and fire their own piece when given the Fire order, and 2) what good can 4 or 6+ cruiser shells do to an enemy ship? They're pretty "small", and they're even less effective if you can't even hit your target*

*I say this in full knowledge that I'm not a naval architect or shipwright.

Bear in mind that in modern times, ie rangefinder, director firing and analog computers, the hitting rate varies between 2.5 and 5% of the fires shells, so lacking these devices hitting at long range is almost impossible. I think that the idea befor fire control was closing to within 5000 m or less.

[marcelo_malara]

Thanks, all, for the replies.

Blimey, Byron Angel, so it sounds like there's no chance then of any capital ships hitting each other if they even engaged each other.

I'm thinking; I wonder if it was due to the "Long Peace/Pax Britannia" that leant itself to this lack of fire control thinking. I would assume that if any of the Major Powers got into a shooting war in this period they'd learn pretty quickly that no one can hit anything and then they'd have to develop something to facilitate this.

I assume this goes for pre-First World War cruisers too? I look at these photos of these sleek craft and see that they have 4 or 6 independently controlled guns and I ask: 1) Does every gun crew just aim and fire their own piece when given the Fire order, and 2) what good can 4 or 6+ cruiser shells do to an enemy ship? They're pretty "small", and they're even less effective if you can't even hit your target*

*I say this in full knowledge that I'm not a naval architect or shipwright.

Bear in mind that in modern times, ie rangefinder, director firing and analog computers, the hitting rate varies between 2.5 and 5% of the fired shells, so lacking these devices hitting at long range is almost impossible. I think that the idea befor fire control was closing to within 5000 m or less.

[marcelo_malara]

Thanks, all, for the replies.

Blimey, Byron Angel, so it sounds like there's no chance then of any capital ships hitting each other if they even engaged each other.

I'm thinking; I wonder if it was due to the "Long Peace/Pax Britannia" that leant itself to this lack of fire control thinking. I would assume that if any of the Major Powers got into a shooting war in this period they'd learn pretty quickly that no one can hit anything and then they'd have to develop something to facilitate this.

I assume this goes for pre-First World War cruisers too? I look at these photos of these sleek craft and see that they have 4 or 6 independently controlled guns and I ask: 1) Does every gun crew just aim and fire their own piece when given the Fire order, and 2) what good can 4 or 6+ cruiser shells do to an enemy ship? They're pretty "small", and they're even less effective if you can't even hit your target*

*I say this in full knowledge that I'm not a naval architect or shipwright.

Bear in mind that in modern times, ie rangefinder, director firing and analog computers, the hitting rate varies between 2.5 and 5% of the fired shells, so lacking these devices hitting at long range is almost impossible. I think that the idea befor fire control was closing to within 5000 m or less.

[wadinga]

Hello Marcelo,

Padfield's Guns at Sea has mathematician Niccolo Tartaglia claiming to have measured range at sea using the known height of the ship's mast and a an angle from the "maine top" measured with a Gunner's Quadrant. He lived from 1500 to 1557 and applied mathematics to ballistics around 1537.

It does acknowledge this was not very practical.

Aim Straight by Peter Padfield is the biography of Sir Percy Scott, RN gunnery revolutionary, who devised an electrical range transmitter as early as 1881 whilst serving in HMS Inconstant. Ranges may have been measured with a sextant using mast height or ship's length or some other device.
Professors Barr & Stroud were awarded an RN Admiralty contract to produce rangefinders in 1892. USN ships were supposed to have used rangefinders in the Spanish American war and they were definitely used in the Russo-Japanese war.

All the best

wadinga

[marcelo_malara]

Hello Marcelo,

Padfield's Guns at Sea has mathematician Niccolo Tartaglia claiming to have measured range at sea using the known height of the ship's mast and a an angle from the "maine top" measured with a Gunner's Quadrant. He lived from 1500 to 1557 and applied mathematics to ballistics around 1537.

It does acknowledge this was not very practical.

Aim Straight by Peter Padfield is the biography of Sir Percy Scott, RN gunnery revolutionary, who devised an electrical range transmitter as early as 1881 whilst serving in HMS Inconstant. Ranges may have been measured with a sextant using mast height or ship's length or some other device.
Professors Barr & Stroud were awarded an RN Admiralty contract to produce rangefinders in 1892. USN ships were supposed to have used rangefinders in the Spanish American war and they were definitely used in the Russo-Japanese war.

All the best

wadinga

Hi! I took a look at these books:

-US Naval Weapons
-Naval Firepower (both by Friedman)
-Questions on the Effectiveness of U.S. Navy Battleship Gunnery: Notes on the Origins of U.S. Navy Gun Fire Control System Range Keepers
Christopher C. Wright and J.L. Latimer (https://www.jstor.org/stable/44889874)

I can not find any date previous to 1905 for the adoption of any instrument in the USN. But I agree that it has to be adopted before than this.

Regards

[Byron Angel]

Per the book "Range and Vision - The First Hundred Years of Barr & Stroud", a considerable number of range-finders were sold to the IJN prior to and during the RJW (FA2 and FA3 as far as I can decipher). The Russians purchased a few B&S range-finders as early as 1902, but had only a paltry number on hand.

Some of the text suggests that the Japanese intent (not altogether realized) was to provide a range-finder for each gun position.

B

[AThompson]

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?