Alternate warships of nations

CV(N)-6

CV(N)-6

Image result for uss constitution

I'm only 223!
 

sts-200

McPherson said:
Look, the British used a repeater kind of telegraphic system that transmitted data to the men at the gun positions who matched their own dial settings off transmitted data they read off master dials and shot. The US system was direct control in that the settings were fed directly to the servo motors with the men and a fire control computer slaved to the local gun-house rangefinder in the main armament gun-house there as backup in case the servos lost direct input feed from the main fire director. THAT is what the article states and what actually was. The other thing is that the British persisted in keeping long base length rangefinders at the gun houses and used shorter lengthed ones in their fire control director positions (less weight high up in the ship.). That induces inaccuracy at long ranges in their directors because their angle solutions were 'coarser" at their high mounted short base length directors. I understand that ranging positive control as a cybernetic system is poorly explained in the article but I think I gave it to you in plain English. Voice piping is not as stupid as it sounds either, because if the telegraphic transmission of data from the British system failed then telephonic, voice pipe and messenger runner if it came to it, still keeps the data flowing and the guns working. Let's not claim that it was not a thing. Local control was a very important aspect of British method because they expected their primary and secondary data telegraphic transmission from directors to guns aimer positions to fail during battle. It was a redundancy they learned from experience. Was it inferior to do things the way they did? No, absolutely not. Not if you expect Jutland again. But if you are fighting an enemy like the USN in the north Atlantic, it could be "problematic". during the mid battle ranges when their directors with 2 d stabilization give better angle solutions than yours. Belt punching range in a night gun fight? British system is actually "better".

That is essentially Friedman by the way. (^^^)
Click to expand...
No need to be defensive. I have no issue with anything you have said.
I was pointing out, shall we say 'factual minimalism', in the article you originally quoted. Many of it's points are indeed quite fair and accurate, but it misses quite a lot of vital detail, such as what you have said above.

My suspicions are further aroused by the phrase in the article: 'for a living, I design process control computers that do this digitally. So, please trust me on this, I'm amazed at what was achieved in closed-loop systems using 1930s analog computers'.
That may be true, but if he really does and has a solid engineering grounding, he would know that control theory and the related disciplines all originated in the 1930s on analog systems, and that those systems have a history that stretches well into the '80s.
It's a pop-sci article, so perhaps I'm being too harsh ... or perhaps I just have an aversion to people who say 'trust me on this'.
(and you can trust me on that) :)
 

Butchpfd

Also in Commission and afloat, the USS Constitution.. 223 years old, . only slightly younger then HMS Victory . then USS Texas at 108.
 
Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

Ok here is a question on subs. How much larger would the conning tower have to be to fit radio jamming gear into it powerful enough to overwhelm standard merchant ship radios. Say the time frame is in the 1920s and 30s.

If such a sub was there would they effectively be able to operate under cruiser rules?
 
McPherson

McPherson

Banned
Jim Smitty said:
Ok here is a question on subs. How much larger would the conning tower have to be to fit radio jamming gear into it powerful enough to overwhelm standard merchant ship radios. Say the time frame is in the 1920s and 30s.

If such a sub was there would they effectively be able to operate under cruiser rules?
Click to expand...

Based on RTL equipment, about the size of a GATO. No, as to cruiser rules. The only ways subs can work is if the sub torpedoes without mercy. Cruiser rules are for cruisers. Subs are assassins.
 

AJE

Jim Smitty said:
Ok here is a question on subs. How much larger would the conning tower have to be to fit radio jamming gear into it powerful enough to overwhelm standard merchant ship radios. Say the time frame is in the 1920s and 30s.

If such a sub was there would they effectively be able to operate under cruiser rules?
Click to expand...
In theory, not that big assuming only the antenna has to fit in the conning tower and everything else is in the hull. (I assume the jammers are running off the submarine's own batteries and generators)

I should note though that in general brute-force jamming is less preferred than recording and triangulating the enemy radios. Jamming is easily triangulated, giving the jammer's position away, and it forces the enemy to change radio procedures instead of continuing to transmit while unaware it is being tracked and possibly decoded. The latter is much more effective than jamming, as an enemy slowly becomes paranoid that they're being listened to everywhere and might refuse to use the radio anywhere out of fear, whereas jamming gives away its position and allows the enemy to prepare only when it needs to.
 

HMS Warspite

McPherson said:
I have to laugh at that utter absolute nonsense. The Falklands War proves that subs will be subs and one sails into harm's way at one's peril no matter if one is neutral or not. Maritime Exclusion Zones; hostilities present (MEZ;HP) (declared blockades) are the legal fig-leaf that allows for "free-shoot" zones.
Click to expand...

That was the point! It was precisely everything that was contradicting the "rules" of taking or engaging ships of non offensive types, as well as a very abstract formulation of what you expect the opposing force would do, or follow as a rule.
 
McPherson

McPherson

Banned
1583821713981.png


Some experimental game pieces for …"Another Splendid Mess You Got Us Into, Teddy!" Current author.

Top example is... 3x3 30cm BLNR, 6x2 15cm RFBLNR,, 16x10cm RFBLNR, 6x46cm TT (Howell with one reload.)
Armor (20cm CT, 20cm-15cm GH, 25-15cm belt, 10cm deck, 7.5-5cm deck (ends unarmored), 5cm torpedo bulkhead, triple bottom

Armor scheme TOPHAT.

Bottom example is... 3x2 15cm RFBLNR,, 20x10cm RFBLNR, 8x46cm TT (Howell with one reload.)
Armor (10cm CT, 15cm-10cm GH, 15-10cm belt, 10cm deck, 7.5-5cm deck (ends unarmored), 5cm torpedo bulkhead, triple bottom

Armor scheme DERBY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top