Naval History Forums

Best holiday wishes to all members of this forum (including those with whom I do not always see eye to eye). May you and your families and friends have the good fortune to be able to celebrate together.

May good spirits flow freely.

May 2024 bring better days for all.

B

Hi Holger,
If only more archives were as well organized as those of Australia .....

Byron

Hi Holger, Funny thing ..... while I was searching for that document re post-Jutland HSF rangefinder upgrades earlier this week, I also came across some even older material from another friend (long since sadly passed away) who had been a life-long afficionado of precision optics and a great authori...

Hello Byron, Thank you also for your PM with the information there. I will definitely follow up on your tips and references. If I find something I will share it here, of course. (I love the AHF-Slogan: " Information not shared is lost "!) It is surprising that so little attention has been...

Hi Holger, You are a lucky man! It took me a good amount of time to find the document (provided by an old researcher friend more than 20 years ago). The Imperial German Navy after Jutland Much is known of the Royal Navy's reactions to the unpalatable results of the Battle of Jutland. Indeed, not onl...

Hi Holger, I sent you a PM yesterday about some archive.org resources which you may find interesting. Re John Brooks, his doctoral thesis can be found on the British Library EThOS website as a free searchable PDF download. Re post-Jutland rangefinder developments on the British side, the battle had ...

Hello, Holger. Byron Angel here. Thank you for the archive.org access to the "Ottoman Steam Navy" volume. I do have the hard copy, but this digital version is very convenient. I have discovered a lot of interesting reference works on archive.org, but never thought something such as this wo...

Hello all, no comment would be needed to above post. KGV Gunnery Control.jpg KGV Enclosure N.3_Section II_3.jpg Willingness to read and understand what is written in KGV GAR should be enough to judge whether there were problems or not with 284 personnel training (interpretation of echoes) and coope...

Steve Crandell wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:17 am Power is not measured in MHz. I'm guessing Kw?

Thank you, Steve. My bad.

Byron

Hi Byron, thanks again for your new info and reference ! I find a sentence from G. Mason quite interesting. He obviously analysed KGV GAR (as we are doing here; https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=91787#p91787 and in earlier posts) to summarize what happened during the engagement on May...

Hi Hans, A couple of offhand thoughts ..... Radar - Reading the original “user manuals”, I noted with interest the emphasis placed upon: > careful calibration of the radar device itself. > further calibration of the radar in connection with the gun battery itself. > the skill, training and experienc...

Hi Byron, I agree: it looks like this is an a.a. aid only. I'm convinced that, in 1941, an 'average' 284 was limited to anti-ship gunnery usable range of 18.000-20.000 yards, as per precious 'Handbook' you kindly posted here (https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=91770#p91770). Fact that,...

Hi Byron, thanks again for corrections to my wrong understanding, for explanations and additional info on 284 capabilities in 1941. It looks clear that in 1941 284 was able to receive echoes from distant ships (even up to 28.000 yards) but that "usable" ranging was possible only below 18....

I wasn't aware that 284 had two panels: "ranging" scope and "warning" scope. I had always thought to 284 as dedicated gunnery radar, therefore only with a "ranging" scope. Hi Hans, My apologies if anything in my earlier post(s) has proven misleading. The "precisio...

Hi Byron, thanks a lot, a most interesting document, confirming ranging tolerance of +/-150 yards for Type 284 vs +/- 40 meters of German FuMO radars in 1941. I wasn't aware that 284 had two panels: "ranging" scope and "warning" scope. I had always thought to 284 as dedicated gu...