| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3062 (24-Jan-2008 02:12:20) Commonwealth Moderator |
reads like a wives tale to me. Early AA fire control systems included optical rangefinders. It would make sence that a ship with such a fire control system
would use the difference between rangefinder ranges and bearings to calculate target speed.
Sad fact was that hitting a plane with a gun was no easy thing to do. |
||
|
jlyons97 |
|||
|
Posts: 1237 (24-Jan-2008 04:18:00) |
NewGolconda wrote: It may make sense, but how does the system do that? The two inputs, as I understand it, are independent. Range as always is the most difficult parameter to
determine; bearing is easy by comparison. Whatever computation device is at work could not (can not?) differentiate between these two parameters to come up
with a more accurate solution. For how does it know one is specious, the other valid, and then process a better set of gun orders?
|
||
|
robertf2 |
|||
|
Posts: 311 (24-Jan-2008 06:47:37) |
emc wrote: IIRC there is mention in Lamb's "War in a Stringbag" of a wry joke making the conceit that their stringbags were so slow that enemy fire
control would not be able to be set slow enough to shoot them down. I'd say that the conceit morphed into fact in the retelling.
|
||
|
RBH Jr |
|||
|
Posts: 651 (24-Jan-2008 20:51:31) |
It may make sense, but how does the system do that? The two inputs, as I understand it, are independent. Range as always is the most difficult parameter to determine; bearing is easy by comparison. Whatever computation device is at work could not (can not?) differentiate between these two parameters to come up with a more accurate solution. For how does it know one is specious, the other valid, and then process a better set of gun orders?Given the Swordfish's exceedingly slow speed while carrying a torpedo plus the low and very predictabile course it must maintain during a torpedo attack I would have to guess that the Swordffish has to have been the easiest of WWII torpedo planes to hit with AAA. The fact that the Swordfish is less vulnerable to flak because of her stringbag design and wider tolerences helps to explain why this didn't equate to the planes being completely shot out of the sky by modern capital ships. It is interesting to note that the one time the swordfish faced an opponent with aircover (the channel dash) they were all shot down with nothing to show for their effort. |
||
|
FreeloaderUK |
|||
|
Posts: 53 ( 5-Feb-2008 14:42:38) |
the Royal Navy carriers didnt have any serious rivals in the air.
had they been up against the IJN it would have been a different story. the Royal Navy carriers were small & carried less aircraft than their USN or IJN conterparts. FAA aircraft were horribly out of date until they managed to get their hands on american aircraft. |
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3106 ( 6-Feb-2008 13:40:33) Commonwealth Moderator |
"the Royal Navy carriers didn't have any serious rivals in the air"
This must be silly comment no 83274-7a. The Royal Navy had serious (land based) rivals in the air, and it cost them two bombed up fleet carriers and countless near misses 1939-1942. They ran major fleet operations, convoys and the landing and withdrawal of large land forces under these same serious rivals, at the cost of greviois losses in surface ships. They did lack a carrier based opponent until 1942, at which point they endured a little dance with death with the Japanese Fleet Carriers, and scraped by with the loss of Hermes and a Cruiser or so. By this point a portion of their air group were American Made. |
||
|
FreeloaderUK |
|||
|
Posts: 57 ( 6-Feb-2008 21:49:01) |
ok put it another way- had the Kriegsmarine had a fleet on par with the IJN- the Royal Navy would have been screwed.
|
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 3108 ( 8-Feb-2008 00:40:58) Commonwealth Moderator |
It took the Japanese 20 years to build a formidable carrier air arm, and that was starting with RN technical assistance.
Had the Germans built a comparable force, it would have taken them many years, and there would certainly have been a very different RN in responce. Incidentaly war with Japan was the main RN planning basis up to 1934. It came an immediate second to "dont spend any money". The RN planned to send its carrier conversions and Skua dive bombers as a tactical unit. It would have been interesting. Of course, the Skua was late, and by then Germany was the number one target. |
||
|
dunmunro1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1400 ( 8-Feb-2008 01:46:59) |
FreeloaderUK wrote: Had there been no war in 1939, the RN would have still been the largest navy in the world, in 1942, by an even larger margin over potential rivals, than in 1939. The outbreak of war, and the fall of france, severely disrupted RN expansion plans, due to the conflicting demands for industrial allocation, and unlike rivals such as Nazi Germany, the UK could finance and sustain its rapid build-up: http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/RNbuildup.pdf
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/RNbuildup2.pdf
|
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4355 (10-Feb-2008 04:13:09) |
FreeloaderUK wrote: I don't know. By late 1943 or early 1944, the RN has more carriers (and likely carrier pilots) than the IJN. Given their greater availability of carriers, I'd put three RN radar-equipped Illustrious/Indomitable type carriers, each equipped with 45-55 aircraft, replacing the American-types with Seafires Mk F III (folding wing version) and Fairey Barracuda torp/divebombers (entered service late 1943) against two IJN (90+ aircraft) carriers with 1930's tech Zekes, Vals and Kates.
Last Edited By: Admiral Beez
25-Mar-2008 21:56:20.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
