Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I - The Naval Fiction Board - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
NewGolconda	Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I		Lead	[-]
Posts: 3249 8-Apr-2008 00:47:01 Commonwealth Moderator	There are a few dissapointing things in Norman Friedmans new book on Naval Fire Control - but it still introduces some more information into the public sphere. One of these is the fitting of RN dreadnoughts, late in the war (1917/1918/1919) with modified bridges to eneable a tactical plot, and additional rangefinders mounted within the bridge structure as "tactical rangefinders" - to provide information for these new plots. Mention is made of Iron Duke maintaining a early plot during Jutland for W/T reports, and that it proved allmost useless, showing a light cruiser squadron making 3 knots, and the battlecruisers making 60. According to Friedman, the Germans did not practice tactical plotting at all at this time. This leads me back to posts a few months ago. It confirms my opinion that no tactical plot would be present in 1915, apart from possible improvised annotated charts in a flagship, and that precise rangeinformation from the fire control system was not generaly available for tactical plotting on for the bridge or conning tower teams, who would rely on their mk1 eyeballs and naval experience to turn the ships on the horizon into a coherent mental tactical picture. Last Edited By: NewGolconda 8-Apr-2008 23:49:07. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
SeaTurtle Prince	enemy light cruisers with zero speed	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 295 8-Apr-2008 01:30:51	Wiesbaden would have had zero speed for a goodly portion of the battle.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
jim 1		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 8979 8-Apr-2008 02:05:51 Generally Obscure	Indeed.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NewGolconda		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3252 9-Apr-2008 03:09:51 Commonwealth Moderator	Edited a bit, after re reading the Friedman.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Dave Bender	No tactical plot would be present in 1915	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6396 9-Apr-2008 13:30:42	Wouldn't a huge naval battle like Jutland make the need apparent for a tactical plot? There were too many ships present for anyone to keep them all straight in his mind. Not that I would expect this inovation to be implemented only 1 month after Jutland. But the seed should have been planted in RN and HSF minds. Perhaps it will show up in LettersTime 1916.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
SeaTurtle Prince	Jutland tactical plot	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 298 9-Apr-2008 22:08:56	I would like to see one giant map including all the phases of the battle. In all the books we just get closeups of the different engagements (Run to the South, etc) so it is hard to judge things like where did Indefatigable blow up in relation to where did Wiesbaden stop vs where did Invincible blow up...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NewGolconda		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3254 9-Apr-2008 23:20:06 Commonwealth Moderator	Yes it would and yes it did - it took the British 2-3 years to roll out the nessasary bridge modifications and additional tactical rangefinders. But in LT? Naval C3I goes something like this. 1900 Man on the bridge and flags. 1915 Limited flagship plotting, low data rate WT. 1920's Tacatical plotting by own ship sensors, higher data rate WT for things like concentration fire. 1940's CIC/AIO + Radar + TBS + IFF 1960 NTDS - datalinks and reliable fixing of own ships position, virtualy seemless sharing of enemy tracks through the fleet based on singe ship or multiple ship sensors. IMHO the tactical control displayed during the LT Jutland has more in common with the last two paradigms than the first two. If a commander in a group of ships over the horizon can exert succesfull control of fleet he cant see, and use it to win a fleet action - then what point clunky old tactical plotting of the things your ship can see?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Dave Bender	Roll out the nessasary bridge modifications	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6397 10-Apr-2008 01:49:29	Why do you need bridge modifications to maintain an operations plot? All you need is a flat surface, a map or nautical chart, acetate (or glass), a ruler, a compass and a grease pencil. Then you add contact reports to the plot as they come in. Most of the contact reports should be from the DD flotillas but some will come from other sources like W/T Command 6, seaplanes and Zeppelins.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NewGolconda		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3255 10-Apr-2008 02:06:24 Commonwealth Moderator	Presumably this is just what was done on the early plots trialed on GF flagships 1914/15/16. I suspect this impinged on other bridge functions, and that a sheltered space was desirable, as these modifications were made through the battle fleet in the years after Jutland. Preumably the dedicated rangefinders proved nessasary to generate the range and bearing information to polulate their own line of site plot. I suspect the navigational accuracy and data transmition rates were still too poor for reliable beyond the horizon plotting till the 1920's or latter. Its better history to find out what was and wonder why than to decide what should have been and ask why not. Interesting tid bit - check out photographs of early turtle decked TBD's - you will make out a soft canvas covered hutch on the bridge - as a sort of shelter for the navigation charts. Tid bit two - check out the dates where range dials and turretbearing marks disappeared from the RN/USN (mid 20's on) - this was the point when 2-4 ships were able to transfer sufficient time bound fire control information via wireless to fire under master ship control with only a modest increase in pattern size in exercise conditions, though this failed in action in the few times it was tried during WWII.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Dave Bender	Data transmition rates	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6398 10-Apr-2008 02:54:38	A good point. Plotting the contact takes less then a minute. But you need to receive the message first. How long did it take to transmit a basic contact report using WWI era radios? How about by signal flag?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
NewGolconda		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3257 10-Apr-2008 03:06:32 Commonwealth Moderator	The best account of this I know of is Andrew Gordons "Rules of the Game" - unfortunately it covers some of these issues only partially. By all accounts signal flags could carry complicated messages to the ends of a fleet and back again in minutes, within known limitations (smoke, visibility, repeating, errors etc). I suspect the data capacity of a well trained flagship signals team is good enough to saturate control by the single "man on the bridge" style then current. My admiration for Jellicoe and his ability to control a concentrated fleet via this technology knows few bounds We know a poorly trained signals team can cause monumental stuff ups in control, and even delay the order to open fire by thousands of yards. WT? Not spelled out in Gordon, or anywhere else I know. I suspect its variable, and the time needed for a message to pass from a man on a bridge (cruiser captain) to another man on the bridge (admiral) could be a somewhere from a few minutes to 15 minutes. Good enough to bring groups of ships into contact. Possibly not good enough to prevent contacts! Questions of repeating and acknowledgement, number of frequencies used, capacity for a flagship like Iron Duke to accept n ammount of messages at the one time etc are things I would like to know but dont.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I	8-Apr-2008 00:47:01	NewGolconda
enemy light cruisers with zero speed	8-Apr-2008 01:30:51	SeaTurtle Prince
Re: Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I	8-Apr-2008 02:05:51	jim 1
Re: Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I	9-Apr-2008 03:09:51	NewGolconda
No tactical plot would be present in 1915	9-Apr-2008 13:30:42	Dave Bender
Jutland tactical plot	9-Apr-2008 22:08:56	SeaTurtle Prince
Re: Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I	9-Apr-2008 23:20:06	NewGolconda
Roll out the nessasary bridge modifications	10-Apr-2008 01:49:29	Dave Bender
Re: Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I	10-Apr-2008 02:06:24	NewGolconda
Data transmition rates	10-Apr-2008 02:54:38	Dave Bender
Re: Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I	10-Apr-2008 03:06:32	NewGolconda
Re: Norman Friedmans new book, and LT C3I	10-Apr-2008 03:57:44	NewGolconda
Electronic Warfare	11-Apr-2008 17:40:01	Dave Bender