User talk:Tone
Blond's dissertation on wireless telegraphy
Have you got Blond's doctoral thesis on wireless telegraphy in the R.N., 1895-1920, out of interest? —Simon Harley 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope. I might have some take-away factoids from "Signal!"Tone 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That is a book I need to get at some point, if only for the anecdotes. —Simon Harley 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It was not easy to find. I spent $80 on a copy of Burt's Battleships that was so thoroughly water damaged, it could not be opened. That is on my radar. I do, however, have 2 copies of IDNS Tone 20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Next time I go down to the National Maritime Museum I intend to photograph Burt's battleship books, as well as D.K.B.'s A Century of Naval Construction which I spied on the shelves on my last visit. In fact, I really should draw up a "shopping list". I must confess to having scanned my copy of Sumida many years ago now. I really need to go through it properly at some point and mine all the quotes from it. —Simon Harley 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Effective large calibre range, circa 1900
Just reading through a report on 1899 manoeuvres, and in the scoring battleships were allowed, as it were, to engage other battleships within two [nautical] miles, and cruisers at a range within three [nautical] miles. Given that the latter range is something over 6,000 yards, and cruisers weren't exactly slow, there must have been some rationale for allowing the threshold to be so high. Is this a foolish notion, do you reckon? —Simon Harley 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not know. is the smaller, quicker target legit at longer ranges due to a threshold of effective damage on a hit? I often find the short ranges of the immediate pre-dread era puzzling, as rough experience with the sim suggested that 5,000 yards just seems darned close, but I had any number of factors missing, not least the confusion of lots of guns going off, often independently. I wish I could throw some money at a third-world coder and have him force my old sim onto a modern platform. Tone 20:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the table, with the upper range limits established as above, a battleship was ruled out of action after one hour and a cruiser after half an hour. "The period of 'Action' is to be between the two guns which either ship fire to mark it; the first is to be fired when the two ships are within the prescribed distance, and the second from the same ship at the expiration of the time allowed; no other guns than these are to be fired." I know the R.N. gets attacked often for an amateurish approach to things, but there must have been some basis for rules such as these. It's pretty infuriating that there isn't more on this in print - Roger Parkinson, whose recent Ph.D. thesis has been published as The Late Victorian Navy: the pre-dreadnought era and the origins of the First World War, makes barely any mention of long-range gunnery whatsoever, other than saying that Fisher didn't understand it, based I'm assuming on Prof. Sumida & Co. —Simon Harley 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, will try and get myself on various chat things at some point in the evenings (for me, anyway) this week! —Simon Harley 18:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops.
Er, good catch on the Scott page. Slightly embarrassing cock-up on my part there! —Simon Harley 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Something Else For You
Photo at the bottom of this page. —Simon Harley 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
