additionally inputs as water had no solid surface
the firing solution must be continuously corrected for movements of the own ship around (pitch, heel, yaw) and along A, B and C axes
(ie corrections for trunnion tilt)
Dave Saxton wrote:
In terms of range measurement for firecontrol, a "primitive" radar is just about as helpful as a "highly advanced" radar. The range accuracy of a primitive set will probably be just about as accurate as a highly advanced system and it will probably be more accurate than optics under most conditions. Usually it will be within 100 meters, which is within the typical dispersion tolerances for naval guns. For example, the USN found that their radar range accuracy was 0.1% of the range to target plus a tolerance. On the other hand the range accuracy of the large USN optics was typically about 1% of the range, or less accurate by a factor of ten. Therefore, the accuracy of the optics at a target range of 25,000 yards was would typically be 250 yards, while the range accuracy of the early Mk3 radar would be 65 yards (0.1% x 25,000 + 40 yards) at that range.
This was not the case with the early German radar, not because the radar wasn't accurate but because of the astonishing accuracy of the large German optics. Thorsten has posted the test results of pre-war trials of these optics on the panzershiffs. It was typically within 30 meters at ranges up to 23km. The early Seetakt had a range accuracy and a resolution for range of 100 meters. Therefore, radar became considered secondary and optics primary unless the visibility impaired the use of optics. This thinking was difficult to over come in the minds of commanders even after the radar accuracy improved to be better than the German optics.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest