Difference between revisions of "Directing Gun"

From The Dreadnought Project
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with 'The Royal Navy's initial commitment to Director Firing left it with a number of worthy ships which lacked sufficient sites for multiple directors to perm…')
 
m
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
It was preferable to have ships whose fall-back position was a proper fixture in an [[Armoured Director Tower]], as was incorporated in the ships of the [[Revenge_Class_Battleship_(1914)|''Revenge'']], [[Queen_Elizabeth_Class_Battleship_(1913)|''Queen Elizabeth'']] and [[Renown_Class_Battlecruiser_(1916)|''Renown'' classes]].
 
It was preferable to have ships whose fall-back position was a proper fixture in an [[Armoured Director Tower]], as was incorporated in the ships of the [[Revenge_Class_Battleship_(1914)|''Revenge'']], [[Queen_Elizabeth_Class_Battleship_(1913)|''Queen Elizabeth'']] and [[Renown_Class_Battlecruiser_(1916)|''Renown'' classes]].
 +
 +
==Installations==
 +
Information on which Royal Navy ships had directing guns can be found in their articles detailing their [[:Category:Ship Class|ship class]].
  
 
==Performance in Action==
 
==Performance in Action==
 
The Royal Navy was not enamoured of the use of directing guns vis-a-vis proper directors, as it received "adverse reports" in light of its "inherent disadvantages."<ref>''The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships'', p. 18.</ref>  In April 1915 options were discussed but no action taken.  Finally, in January 1917, the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet asked that ships of the ''Iron Duke'', ''Orion'', ''Lion'', ''King George V'' classes as well as ''Erin'', ''Agincourt'' and ''Tiger'' be given alternative main armament directors.  However, it was reluctantly realised that there were no resources to spare to make such installations happen, and the initiative was restricted to a belated fitting of an additional aloft tower aft to each of ''Lion'', ''Princess Royal'', and ''Tiger''.<ref>''The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships'', p. 18.</ref>
 
The Royal Navy was not enamoured of the use of directing guns vis-a-vis proper directors, as it received "adverse reports" in light of its "inherent disadvantages."<ref>''The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships'', p. 18.</ref>  In April 1915 options were discussed but no action taken.  Finally, in January 1917, the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet asked that ships of the ''Iron Duke'', ''Orion'', ''Lion'', ''King George V'' classes as well as ''Erin'', ''Agincourt'' and ''Tiger'' be given alternative main armament directors.  However, it was reluctantly realised that there were no resources to spare to make such installations happen, and the initiative was restricted to a belated fitting of an additional aloft tower aft to each of ''Lion'', ''Princess Royal'', and ''Tiger''.<ref>''The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships'', p. 18.</ref>
 
==Installation==
 
Information on which Royal Navy ships had directing guns can be found in their articles detailing their [[:Category:Ship Class|ship class]].
 
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==

Revision as of 12:34, 27 September 2009

The Royal Navy's initial commitment to Director Firing left it with a number of worthy ships which lacked sufficient sites for multiple directors to permit flexible and redundant service in action. The workaround they hit upon was to have one or more Directing Guns which could be used to provide training and elevation angles for other guns in the battery.

It was preferable to have ships whose fall-back position was a proper fixture in an Armoured Director Tower, as was incorporated in the ships of the Revenge, Queen Elizabeth and Renown classes.

Installations

Information on which Royal Navy ships had directing guns can be found in their articles detailing their ship class.

Performance in Action

The Royal Navy was not enamoured of the use of directing guns vis-a-vis proper directors, as it received "adverse reports" in light of its "inherent disadvantages."[1] In April 1915 options were discussed but no action taken. Finally, in January 1917, the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet asked that ships of the Iron Duke, Orion, Lion, King George V classes as well as Erin, Agincourt and Tiger be given alternative main armament directors. However, it was reluctantly realised that there were no resources to spare to make such installations happen, and the initiative was restricted to a belated fitting of an additional aloft tower aft to each of Lion, Princess Royal, and Tiger.[2]

See Also

Footnotes

  1. The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships, p. 18.
  2. The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in HM Ships, p. 18.

Bibliography