Tribal class dd

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Tribal class dd

Post by dunmunro » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:52 am

Byron Angel wrote:The entry is technically silent as to whether the RN made use of its own accumulated data in its own study of a topic of apparent interest to it. I myself would most definitely hesitate before advancing an argument that this silence in the PiNG text represented any sort of proof that the RN opted to not use its own data in its own study. The notion simply defies common sense.

B
We know what conclusions the RN reached with it's own RF data as the RN exclusively adopted the CI RF and presented a detailed study as to why. Past issues of PING have not been shy about summarizing RN RF trials data and presenting such summaries in the form of numerical tables. The 1943 PING announced a change to the RN's long standing RF policy, and explicitly states that the change was based upon a study of foreign stereo RF trials data, mainly from the USN.

As in WW1 the RN was convinced that their RF's were lacking, while another navy seemed to be getting the better of them using stereo RFs. The situation in WW2 was very similar; the RN was deeply disappointed in it's AA performance and some were suspicious that the RN's use of CI RFs and goniometric FC lay at the root of the problem. These suspicions were seemingly confirmed when the USN showed off it's shiny new Mk 37 GFCS with a tachymetric computer and a stereo RF. The USN then published data, via it's AA Summaries, that showed the system to be highly successful in combat...

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Tribal class dd

Post by pgollin » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:17 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
..... The summarizations provided by the PiNG were just that - summaries of a myriad of investigations, studies and analyses undertaken on wide range of naval gunnery related topics as they were being viewed at the time of publication. As such, it reported observations, conclusions and opinions of the various technical branches without going into the lengthy processes pursued to develop them. To have attempted to do so would have created a PiNG document eight feet thick and unintelligible to most non-specialist sea-going officers. If one's interest is to discover exactly HOW a particular conclusion was reached, I agree, the PiNG documents are not terribly helpful. But if one's interest is simply to learn WHAT conclusions were reached or WHY certain lines of inquiry were being pursued in a given time frame, I consider them to be quite useful. That is obviously why the Admiralty printed them in the first place.

If your argument is that the PiNG material is misleading, inaccurate, wrong, etc, I would be interested to learn what particular items have led you to that opinion.

The technical documentation that could reach any deeper was quite likely all discarded years ago (a great sin that is being repeated with WW2 archives here in the USA). I myself have been frustrated for years in my pursuit of the records of proceedings of the post-Dogger Bank BCF gunnery committees - absolute unobtainium - rumored to have been erased from Admiralty files in the early 20s at Beatty's instigation.

B


What nonsense.

They were NOT "summarizations" - (actual word = summaries) they were particular articles for release to general officers of the fleet - they did NOT report from all the technical branches, and certainly did NOT include all information (whether in summary form or not) that might affect general officers.

.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Tribal class dd

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:41 am

pgollin wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:
..... The summarizations provided by the PiNG were just that - summaries of a myriad of investigations, studies and analyses undertaken on wide range of naval gunnery related topics as they were being viewed at the time of publication. As such, it reported observations, conclusions and opinions of the various technical branches without going into the lengthy processes pursued to develop them. To have attempted to do so would have created a PiNG document eight feet thick and unintelligible to most non-specialist sea-going officers. If one's interest is to discover exactly HOW a particular conclusion was reached, I agree, the PiNG documents are not terribly helpful. But if one's interest is simply to learn WHAT conclusions were reached or WHY certain lines of inquiry were being pursued in a given time frame, I consider them to be quite useful. That is obviously why the Admiralty printed them in the first place.

If your argument is that the PiNG material is misleading, inaccurate, wrong, etc, I would be interested to learn what particular items have led you to that opinion.

The technical documentation that could reach any deeper was quite likely all discarded years ago (a great sin that is being repeated with WW2 archives here in the USA). I myself have been frustrated for years in my pursuit of the records of proceedings of the post-Dogger Bank BCF gunnery committees - absolute unobtainium - rumored to have been erased from Admiralty files in the early 20s at Beatty's instigation.

B


What nonsense.

They were NOT "summarizations" - (actual word = summaries) they were particular articles for release to general officers of the fleet - they did NOT report from all the technical branches, and certainly did NOT include all information (whether in summary form or not) that might affect general officers.

.

Get a grip, Phil.
[ 1 ] The term "summarization" has been firmly ensconced in the English language lexicon for 150 years. Look it up if you are unsure as to its meaning.
[ 2 ] Nowhere was it claimed that any PiNG document sought to report on the activities of ALL the technical departments. They presumably reported on whatever the Admiralty felt it wise to bring to the attention of the service.
[ 3 ] Nowhere was it claimed that any PiNG provided ALL information "that might affect general officers". Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote.

B

Post Reply