WorldNavalShips .com Home Page
Order Enquiries (UK) : 01436 820269

You currently have no items in your basket
Naval History by Country :
ROYAL
NAVY 		US
NAVY 		GERMAN
NAVY 		FRENCH
NAVY 		MORE
PAGES
VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE
NAVAL ART AVIATION ART MILITARY ART SPORT ART
Ship Search by Name :
Product Search         
ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :
20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS
BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS
FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Gunnery and Fire Control World Naval Ships Forums Archive


Gunnery and Fire Control


Posts 1 to 50


some years ago i was at a boot sale with a colleague who bought a very strange looking camera; it was pale grey, AP-numbered, stereo and seemed to work upside-down. On telling my fahter about this I discovered it was meant to be fitted to either a bracket above the fire control table or inside the director and linked to the electronic firing circuit so that when the guns fired it took a snapshot of the position of all of the dials, pointers etc for post-shoot analysis. I noticed when I looked round Belfast's T/S that the bracket for this camera was there but the actual camera absent, they had all wondered what it had been for. Belfast's fire control table/clock is not so big but still there and a complete enigma in ints operation. Does Cavalier still have hers or was it replaced by a later electronic gizmo? Belfast is restoring one of the many tachymetric directors just now, the thing like a toffee-apple between the Bofors, next time I visit I will take copious pictures for you all; ditto one of the 40mm mountings. Is there anyone out there who actually used to sit in one of these contraptions as an operator? what were they like? did they work? How did they work? what were their foibles? tim
Attachments :


Dear KC, in the small boats/HMS Anson string Jonti has opened a very interesting topic on gunnery and related disciplines to which i replied forgetting this started as being about ships boats; perhaps with your skills and dexterity you could manoevre these into a new thread related to guns, gunnery and fire control systems? tim

Hi Ted. I think your father operated a gunnery range unit (gru) in the Transmitting Station (TS) controlling either the forward or rear guns on the Anson. The TS is below decks and is the nerve centre of the gunnery system, receiving information on the enemy's position from visual sightings, usually high up above the bridge structure. There may have been a crude radar system also at that time. Visual operators would turn handles to keep the target in their binoculars, that is bearing and estimated range and at the same time this information would be indicated on dials in the TS. Your father was seated around the Fire Control table, a wholly mechanical device which could compute the future position of the enemy and send the required elevation (computed from the range) and bearing to the guns to hit the enemy in the future position. Your father turned a handle to keep his dial on the Fire Control table aligned with the indicating dial from the visual operators, by lining up the dots. There would have been 5 or 6 operators around the table not unlike a quarter sized billiard table, with a gunnery officer in overall charge. Fire Control tables were mechanical computers with superbly made components, were part of gunnery systems before WW1 up to at least the 1960s. German designed and manufactured tables were considered to be the best. Hope I didn't lose you along the way! Rob T

"Hope I didn't lose you along the way! Rob T" Hi Rob, so that's what a gru is! Sounds like an interesting and important job. Do any of these systems still exist and would you know if any parts of Anson survive? Many thanks, Ted.

Hi KC. I agree with Tim that naval gunnery would be an interesting topic as a separate thread. It would enable me to air my knowledge on such rivetting subjects as ' Gun-canted trunnion correction' and the Elliots Pinwheel. Rob T

Good idea, just finnished reading percy Scotts Bio. I also think people will be suprised at how early computers were used in gunnery. Regards Charles

what about the "E-type pickup"? sound like the sort of thing I had in mind when I bought an E Type jag many years ago but I beleive it was a device for keeping guns on bearing while the ship rolled?

Hi Ted. I have no idea if anything from the Anson survives today. Regarding FC tables, almost any naval ship from size frigate up would have had a TS and a FC table in its centre. Living in OZ, I have not had the chance to tour HMS Belfast in the Thames but if you can enter a TS on her, the FC table would be immediately apparent. I know Vickers was one manufacturer and Sperry may have been another. Rob T

Horray! Another promotion. Back to a collar and tie at last. Google has details of the Drayer Fire Control table under 'Drayer....' which was a WW1 device, but more importantly, lists the inputs to the table and the outputs to the guns. What would we do if we couldn't google? Rob T

Charles, if you've read "Fifty Years in the Royal Navy" and nothing else by/about Scott, read it with a pinch of salt. He certainly made great innovations in improving British naval gunnery but it certainly wasn't as great a struggle against an ignorant Board of Admiralty as he made it out to be. "Aim Straight" by Peter Padfield is a biography of Scott, and was one of the first books (if not the first) in a long time to give British naval gunnery much of a look-at. British Naval gunnery before the end of World War One would be enough to fill a very large book - John Brooks has done just that in "Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland" available from Routledge for 20 pounds. British Naval Gunnery between the wars and WWII would fill another. Norman Friedman, who seems to write on absolutely anything which involves water and carries a gun, has tried to cover the whole topic, other navies and all, in his new "Naval Firepower" published by Seaforth. It's a huge book, costs 40 pounds, and on the British side of things is rather flawed - I returned my copy in annoyance. Unfortunately a case of someone trying to expound on everything under the sun and failing. Fire Control Tables and Directors are different things, the FCT calculating the range and the director directing the guns. The Director Control Tower of later ships combined the director and the spotting of the Gunnery Officer into one position. At some point I'm going to write a Wikipedia article on the principal Fire Control Table (FCT) of the British dreadnought battle fleet in the Great War, the Dreyer FCT. If I do get round to writing it I'll put it on here first. I was informed that it was impossible to write a concise article on the development and characteristics of the Dreyer, and I can never resist a challenge! Harley

Harley, It was "Aim Straight" that I read and found very interesting, I had some years ago delved into the inventions of Percy Scott after going in HMS Excellent's Museum. The political aspects of the 'long range gunnery' are interesting especially the time it took for anything to happen. The rivalries between Pollen and Dreyer produced a usable table taking the calculations away from the Gunnery Officer and Gunlayer. Regards Charles

The true result of the Pollen-Dreyer rivalry, as well as war experience, was the Admiralty Fire Control Table which appeared in all British battleships from the "Nelsons" onward. Strictly speaking there wasn't a rivalry between Pollen and Dreyer, as Pollen was under contract to the Admiralty and Dreyer was a serving officer utilising certain of Pollen's ideas and his own - Pollen turned decidedly nasty after the Admiralty rejected his Argo Clock Mark IV after trials in 1912, and thereafter became a bitter opponent of the RN and particularly Jellicoe. Rob T, I would be very interested to hear as to which source calls the German FC tables the best. Despite the Pollen propaganda which floated around for the past 40-50 years - which was based on the premise that the Dreyer was a poor imitation of Pollen's work - it is universally recognised that the British fire control equipment of the Great War and inter-war period was superior until the United States started developing and integrating superior radar equipment into their systems. It should be noted that the installation of Director and Fire Control equipment was a lengthy and complicated process. It literally took years before all the Grand Fleet dreadnoughts were equipped with directors, and that was with them being in full production. Somewhere I have the numbers of the men involved with the production and installation - they are quite astounding in light of the the relatively small number of items being produced. Harley P.S. I checked my records - the Royal Navy spent over £1¾ million on the purchase of directors, not including the testing and evaluation by DNO and his staff. The numbers of skilled labour involved in the fulltime manufacture of these things is quite staggering. 360 at Vickers Erith, 107 at Vickers Barrow, 800 at Wolsey Motors and 140 men who worked to install "each" system. By Jutland only "Erin" and "Agincourt" were without directors after nearly forty capital ships had been fitted with the Scott/Vickers system.

Harley, I think I would be upset if someone else stole my Idea's, especially when you are at the cutting edge of technology. I am correct in saying that Pollen sued for breach of patent in 1925 and won, I'm not sure if he sued the Admiralty or Dreyer. I have just been doing so research into the 'Poulson wireless' equipment and looking back in retrospect you can so easily accept the technology as easy, but then, these things were at the top end of development. I am not sure the German FC tables were better than ours but the range finding equipment was, simply because of the fact it was bigger 9 foot as opposed to 4 foot 6 inches. Regards Charles

Charles, if you check the actual results of the hearing at the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, then you'll find that both Dreyer and Pollen were "acquitted" of plagiarising each other. The sum that Pollen won was in light of his important contributions to the field of naval fire control. The only reason Dreyer did not receive any award at that point was because he had received a sum (much less than Pollen received) during the Great War and that it was deemed inappropriate for a serving flag officer of the Royal Navy to accept any more. Harley

Cheers Harley, I must look up my research I was sure it was a Civil action that Pollen brought If I remember it was to do with the Argo Clock Mark IV and Dreyers use of the technology. Pollen also went at Ford in America but an amicable agreement was made as Ford went about the calculations in a different way. I of course could have misread, have you got a date for the Royal Commission, I have read of them happening after the war as all inventions during it became Crown Property. Regards Charles

No worries Charles - I will attempt when time allows to dig some information out. Pollen went to the RCAI in 1923 and the case lasted until 1925. If memory serves the RCAI was set up during the war and lasted for years, dealing with the sort of case Pollen brought against the Admiralty. Will post back here, seems as best a place as any! Harley

Harley. I've been away for a couple of days so this response is late. Regarding the statement that German FCTs were considered the best, I have based that opinion on what I considered was a generally held belief by the Gunnery officers and Electrical & Ordnance Artificers with whom I served in my 10 years with gunnery systems. The comparison was made between FCTs in WW2 not WW1and there is no concrete evidence that I know of to support the belief. As has been pointed out, German rangefinding based on very good optics was probably better and that is a major input to predict the future position of the target. Other factors to consider are the quality and accuracy of the machining of mechanical components, the mechanical configurations used to solve the mathematical problems, the accuracy/ resolution of the FCT input devices by the operators, and the accuracy of the information coming from exterior sources such speed from the ship's log, gyro compass heading, wind speed and direction etc. Rob T

This website is dedicated to WW1 firecontrol and has videos of a fully functional "vitual" Dreyer FCT: [url]http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tech/[/url] It should be your first stop, in learning about fire control.

First class site many thanks. Regards Charles

I assume Tony Lovell's fine site above is the one Rob T referred to when mentioning the inputs and outputs of the Dreyer Table Mk III; [url]http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tech/essays/FireControl/DreyerFireControlTable/[/url] Charles, I'm shocked at myself for not mentioning it before, but having written "Aim Straight" in '66, Padfield later realised that he'd followed the Scott line far too closely when it came to writing "Guns at Sea" (published 1974). Having described in "Aim Straight" that the small number of directors fitted between 1911 and 1914 was "a piece of folly", he later wrote that "the finished Scott/Vickers system was one of infinite refinement which would have been impossible some years earlier." That the orders were placed in 1913 with Vickers, a company with which Scott had an extremely satisfactory financial arrangement, should be noted. It's also worth pointing out that F.C. Dreyer received £5,000 in 1915 for his rather important and continuing services to fire-control. Scott, through his incessant badgering of the Naval Ordnance Department managed to get £8,000 out of them in 1904 despite the fact that he had just signed a good arrangement with Vickers and had had a financial arrangement with Armstrong's for 12 years at that point (whose royalty payments to him Scott conveniently to have had no record of). Harley

Some of you are obviously experts, and should revise the Wikipedia article, which is not up to snuff.

Some of you are obviously experts, and should revise the Wikipedia article, which is not up to snuff. This is a subject there is not a lot written about in the civillian press.

I am privately working on a wikipedia article on the Dreyer Table, although I'll be d****d if I know how to get it simple enough - the description on the website above is probably the simplest you can get it AND it won't be "vandalised" by people who think they know better. Just a couple of weeks ago someone toodled along and changed every instance of "fire control" to "firing control", just because he thought it was right and that the people who used such terms 100-60 years ago must have been talking gobbledegook. For an "adequate" coverage of just the 1904-1918 stuff you would need an article on the Dreyer Fire Control Table, an article on the Aim Correction system and an article on the Scott/Vickers Director. You wouldn't really need an Aim Correction article but because so many people remain convinced (incorrectly) that the Dreyer tables were inferior copycats that one would have to be created to spell out the facts. I've just seen the fire-control system article on Wikipedia - I didn't even know it existed! It demands some instant attention I think... Harley

I visit the Belfast frequently and plan to make a series of pics for you all on fire control from the inside of the main director to the t/s and guns, hoists, shell rooms etc. right through and then to cover the secondary batteries of bofors and 4" each with its own tachymetric director (the things with the black domed hoods) Each gun has its own "local" director so how theses were linked is still a mystery. Here are some snaps of one of the bofors under renovation. They have also started work on one of the tach directors which actually looks not too bad inside although very dirty it has a lot of oil and grease on the moving parts so should clean up reasonably well. Unfortunately sme of the wiring had been vandalised in her days under the disposal threat so it wond be easy. A lack of appropriate DC power is also a drawback but the job can be done. The steel platecladding to the director is very shabby, lots of rust and lamination reflecting the poor quality of late 'forties plate. Poss some of it can be replaced by transparent plastic. I was surprised to see some of the equipment tallies inside were dated 1945, I thought these were rather later but fascinating to try to work out what all the bits do. Control was by joystick, i will photograph all the details later, the plating was off on the one under repair but the hood was still on making access (i was in my city suit!) difficult and the interior dark. tim
Attachments :


Tim, is the main DCT 22ft RF still in place and functional? Any other RFs functional? thanks. Duncan

Everything is still in place but as to functionality, I will need to check and come back to you, I don't think anyone has tried for more than 40 years. I would not trust most of the original cabling to power rotation motors either. Will try to answer this next week. Tim

Fantastic pics from the Belfast, Tim. I'm looking forward to seeing inside the TS and the gunbays. Rob T

Just come across this pic. this thread would seem to be the place for it. I'm not sure of the ship but the only RN ships I know which had this turret layout were Nelson & Rodney, they were 18" guns.
Attachments :


They were sixteen inch guns, Old Salt. Last of our wire-wound heavy guns if memory serves. That's a d*** fine shot of them though, presumably at maximum elevation. Simon

Sorry, excuse I was a Stoker ! :(:(:eek::eek:;)

I think Yamato and Musashi were the only battleships to mount 18" guns.

G'Day All [QUOTE=John Odom;24755]I think Yamato and Musashi were the only battleships to mount 18" guns.[/QUOTE] You are correct John, Yamato and Musashi were the only ones built to mount the 18 inch guns. Only one 18 inch barrell survives, and its at the JMSDF Academy in Etajima I think. While the 18 inch guns were effective, the Iowa class 16 inch guns were more accurate, due in no small part to their fire control systems, which had evolved during the Second World War. But planned for...The Montana class battleships were planned at first to carry twelve 18 inch guns, before common sense told them that the Iowa class 16 inch guns would make building these massive ships quicker. But only the first two hullplates of Montana were laid down before the class was cancelled. (The two hull plates had enough steel to complete 1/8th of a Fletcher class destroyer,) Hitler, in his ravings, harrassed Grand Admiral Raeder with plans for guns on superbattleships that, if they went forward, would have been 20 inch...again the ravings of a mad man.

It's that stoker again, were'nt 18" guns built to be fitted on Furious, when they converted her to a carrier I think one of her 18" guns was fitted in a Monitor.:confused:

After a quick shuffty in the crystal ball I find that Lord Clive was fitted with one of Furious 18" guns in 1918, it was removed in 1920, because they were considered to be ineffective on a Monitor. The guns were then mounted ashore and used in trials of ammunitions etc. They were finally scrapped in 1933.;)

G'Day All Bigship, what is Lord Clive? I thought Furious was an aircraft carrier? Ian

Lord Clive was a 12" gun Monitor, built in 1915, others of her class were, Prince Rupert, Sir John Moore, General Crauford, Prince Eugene, Earl of Peterborough, Sir Thomas Picton & General Wolfe. Furious originaly was built as a Light Battle Cruiser, armed with one 18" gun aft and an aircraft launch for'd, she was built in 1917. Later she was converted to an aircraft carrier. The Monitors were employed in bombarding German lines in Belgium and in the Med in the dardanelles.

I have found a photo of Lord Clive with the 18" gun mounted aft. I'm not old enough to know personally about these ships. The book is called "Big Gun Monitors" by Ian Buxton, full of info & superb pics.
Attachments :


A Full House I think, Gentlemen. Rob T
Attachments :


For a charming review of H.M.S. "General Wolfe", which I wrote mostly (but not quite all) with the assistance of "Big Gun Monitors" (and the photogrphical assistance of this forum), please see here; [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_General_Wolfe[/url] Simon

From the book the two 18" guns from Furious were fitted in Lord Clive & General Wolfe. A good idea but not too practicle.

G'Day All DAMN, Lord Clive is a BIG monitor! I thought that the river monitors of the US civil war got larger as the war continued. You would NOT want a misfire!

Back to Fire Control tables etc. which we debated in 2007, with particular reference to HMS Belfast, today I called up the Imperial War Museum website, clicked on HMS Belfast, and on Deck4 had a 360 deg view of the TS in the middle of which stood their fire control table, among all the 1950's electronics. Like meeting an old friend unexpectedly! Rob T

Very interesting! The development of the AFCT began in the 1920s, however, and not the 1930s (the first marks were fitted to "Nelson" and "Rodney" on commissioning). Simon

Hi all you gunnery rate, been looking thru my library, found a 1945 manual of gunnery, have posted a couple of diagrams of 4.7s Derek (ex bunting)
Attachments :


I have looked about for some where i could put the question, i apologize if it,s in the wrong thread. I was doing some research in a [old book ] and i came across this image . I know it,s not that hot to look at ,as i had to expand it rather larger than it was. Above the turret is the "clock " which is some antiquated gunnery system,{which being a ex FC rating}it,s before FCT and BOX 10. It,s those strange shaped pincher's that are below it ,???what the heck were those used for .? a LITTLE spot of observation to the image ,would you say that the ship looks like it could be "flood light " and what,s the black ball doing on the port yard arm,......being repainted and drying off ..:D Is that a animal head on the guns?? Thanks for having a look .... cylla
Attachments :


HMS TIGER, I think; post 1918?

Patroclus, I wondered if it was TIGER, but being a bad scan ,i didnt want to drop myself init. cylla

Whatever it is, and "Tiger" seems to be the best fit so far, it must be post-amalgamation of the RMA and RMLI - they're wearing peaked hats! EDIT: Just consulted "The Design and Construction of the Battle Cruiser Tiger" Part II by John Roberts - it's definitely "Tiger" taken on her quarterdeck after her 1924 refit (and incidentally after the amalgamation of the Marines!). Simon

It,s those strange shaped pincher's that are below it ,???what the heck were those used for .? It being a 'Concentration Dial' which allowed other ships in the formation, whose view of the target may be obscured by fog, gun smoke or funnel smoke, to have their guns at the proper elevation when their view becomes unobstructed. The pincers are just part of the superstructure between the two searchlight houses; Regards Charles
Attachments :


Joseph, Thanks for the answer,, it,s from a old book from my late father,s school days. My father wanted to join the R.N in the 30,s BUT his father would not allow it . cylla




More Posts


Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY  COPYRIGHT  LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.  NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Join us on Facebook!

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts.  Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269.  Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Follow us on Twitter!

Return to Home Page