Difference between revisions of "British Adoption of Director Firing"

From The Dreadnought Project
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The Royal Navy's adoption of the director occurred in a blizzard of activity immediately prior to the war and throughout its duration.  Priority was placed on the ships with the largest guns and those most likely to see front-line service in the face of the enemy:  dreadnoughts, battle cruisers and monitors.
 
The Royal Navy's adoption of the director occurred in a blizzard of activity immediately prior to the war and throughout its duration.  Priority was placed on the ships with the largest guns and those most likely to see front-line service in the face of the enemy:  dreadnoughts, battle cruisers and monitors.
  
−
==Early Trials in H.M.S. ''Africa''==
+
==Prehistory==
−
Directors of various forms had been tried for over twenty years, but the type used in the war traced its lineage to that proposed by [[Percy Scott]] in 1905.<ref name=brooks>{{BibBrooksDreadnoughtGunnery}}, p. 48.</ref> [[H.M.S. Africa (1905)|''H.M.S. Africa'']] conducted the first tests of an elevation-only director in 1907<ref name=ukfc>{{BibUKFireControlInHMShips1919}}, p. 4.</ref>, and a variant from Bacon was tested in ''Dreadnought'' and ''Bellerophon''.
+
The earliest use of the word "director" in the Royal Navy appears to be tied to a firing circuit only, with one trigger firing more than just its single weapon, those other weapons involved firing at a fixed elevation as the sights rolled on.  There is no mention of angles being transmitted.
  
−
Successes in the 1909 Battle Practice and thereafter fostered support for the concept, culminating in successful trials in May 1910 aboard ''Bellerophon''.  The system was not without faults, however.  It was still elevation-only and the need to fire on the roll apparently resulted in a low rate of fire.  ''Bellerophon'''s commander, Hugh Evan-Thomas, reported, "In view therefore of the slowness of the system and the doubtfulness of the advantages to be gained by it, the system of Director Firing is not recommended for adoption in HM [His Majesty's] Service."<ref>John Brooks.  "Percy Scott and the Director".  p. 159.</ref>.
+
In the ''Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1881'' there is mention of electrical firing of a broadside by a "directing gun", a concept approved in late 1880 and for which suitable a firing pistol was being sought.{{ARTS1881|pp. 19, 61.  Plate X}}
 +
 
 +
The ''Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1890'' has several pages and diagrams on these systems.{{ARTS1890|pp. 91-93, Plates 16 and 18}}
 +
 
 +
The ''Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1891'' bemourned a multiplicity of different director schemes burgeoning in the fleet, illustrating the status quo as follows:{{ARTS1891|pp. 123-4}}
 +
 
 +
'''Battleships'''
 +
* [[Admiral Class Battleship (1882)|Admiral]] and [[Trafalgar Class Battleship (1887)|''Trafalgar'' class]] battleships had directors "on the new plan".
 +
* {{UK-Victoria}} and {{UK-SansPareil}} had directors for their 6-in guns only.
 +
* turret-ram [[H.M.S. Hotspur (1870)|''Hotspur'']] had a director circuit of "old pattern".
 +
* {{UK-1Dreadnought}}, {{UK-2Neptune}}, {{UK-1Agamemnon}}, {{UK-1Inflexible}}, {{UK-1Colossus}} and {{UK-1Edinburgh}} had director circuits "on an old plan".
 +
* {{UK-1Thunderer}}, {{UK-Devastation}}, {{UK-2Ajax}} and new battleships had no directors.
 +
 
 +
'''Cruisers'''
 +
* [[Mersey Class Cruiser (1885)|''Mersey'' class]] director for 8-in guns.
 +
* "Belted cruisers" had 6-in gun directors.
 +
* {{UK-Imperieuse}} and {{UK-1Warspite}} had directors for 6-in guns and 9.2-in broadside guns only.
 +
* [[Blake Class Cruiser (1889)|''Blake'']] and [[Edgar Class Cruiser (1890)|''Edgar'' class]] cruisers had none.
 +
 
 +
It was further proposed that:{{ARTS1891|p. 124}}
 +
* the [[Mersey Class Cruiser (1885)|''Mersey'' class]] have their 8-in guns removed from their circuit.
 +
* {{UK-1Centurion}} and {{UK-Barfleur}} not have directors installed.
 +
* {{UK-1Dreadnought}}, {{UK-2Neptune}}, {{UK-1Agamemnon}}, {{UK-1Inflexible}}, {{UK-1Colossus}}, {{UK-1Edinburgh}}, [[H.M.S. Hotspur (1870)|''Hotspur'']], {{UK-1Glatton}}, ''Cyclops'', ''Hecate'', ''Gorgon'', ''Wivern'' have their systems removed upon their next refit.
 +
* all other ships remain as fitted.
 +
* a report on the "new plan" systems be called for on 30 December 1892.
 +
 
 +
==1907 Trials in H.M.S. ''Africa''==
 +
Directors of various forms had been tried for over twenty years, but the type used in the war traced its lineage to that proposed by [[Percy Moreton Scott, First Baronet|Percy Scott]] in 1905.{{BrooksDGBJ|p. 48}}  {{UK-Africa|f=p}} conducted the first tests of an elevation-only director in 1907.{{FCHMShips|p. 4}}
 +
 
 +
==1910 Trials in ''Dreadnought'' and ''Bellerophon''==
 +
[[Reginald Hugh Spencer Bacon|Reginald Bacon]] oversaw the testing of a variant in {{UK-Dreadnought}}. 
 +
 
 +
Successes in the 1909 Battle Practice and thereafter fostered support for the concept, culminating in successful trials in May 1910 aboard {{UK-Bellerophon}}.  The system was not without faults, however.  It was still elevation-only and the need to fire on the roll resulted in a rate of fire sufficiently low to inspire criticism.  ''Bellerophon'''s commander, [[Hugh Evan-Thomas]], reported, "In view therefore of the slowness of the system and the doubtfulness of the advantages to be gained by it, the system of Director Firing is not recommended for adoption in HM [His Majesty's] Service."<ref>John Brooks.  "Percy Scott and the Director".  p. 159.</ref>.
  
 
==Trials in H.M.S. ''Neptune''==
 
==Trials in H.M.S. ''Neptune''==
−
A final change to make the system work in elevation as well as training was tried aboard [[H.M.S. Neptune (1909)|''Neptune'']].  By early 1911, confidence was sufficient that the ''Orion''- and ''Lion''-classes were to be completed with the extensive wiring required for the directors, but a further generation of refinement was to be tried in [[H.M.S. Thunderer (1911)|''Thunderer'']] to address issues of reliability and accuracy in the ''Neptune'' design.   
+
A final change to make the system work in elevation as well as training was tried aboard {{UK-1Neptune}}.  By early 1911, confidence was sufficient that the ''Orion''- and ''Lion''-classes were to be completed with the extensive wiring required for the directors, but a further generation of refinement was to be tried in {{UK-Thunderer}} to address issues of reliability and accuracy in the ''Neptune'' design.   
  
 
==Trials in H.M.S. ''Thunderer''==
 
==Trials in H.M.S. ''Thunderer''==
−
[[H.M.S. Thunderer (1911)|''Thunderer'']]'s refined system was subjected to a competitive shoot-out against [[H.M.S. Orion (1910)|''Orion'']] in November 1912 which finally clearly demonstrated the advantages and utility of director firing.
+
{{UK-Thunderer}}'s refined system was subjected to a competitive shoot-out against {{UK-1Orion}} in the Channel off Portland on 4 December 1912 which finally clearly demonstrated the advantages and utility of director firing. The tests were reported in the papers as being of "the new apparatus".<ref>"Gunnery Tests off Portland" ''The Times'' (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 04, 1912; pg. 12; Issue 40073.</ref>
  
 
The acceptance of the ''Thunderer'' prototype in 1913 pushed the Royal Navy to the point it was ready to deploy the equipment in new construction and to retrofit its existing fleet.
 
The acceptance of the ''Thunderer'' prototype in 1913 pushed the Royal Navy to the point it was ready to deploy the equipment in new construction and to retrofit its existing fleet.
Line 17: Line 49:
 
At the outset of the program of equipping the fleet, a large number of suitable platforms for retrofit were on hand, and they were handled in sets as finances, dock time and equipment availability permitted.  [[Vickers]] was to perform most of the work of manufacture and installation.
 
At the outset of the program of equipping the fleet, a large number of suitable platforms for retrofit were on hand, and they were handled in sets as finances, dock time and equipment availability permitted.  [[Vickers]] was to perform most of the work of manufacture and installation.
  
−
The "Twelve Ship Order" was to replace the prototype director in ''Thunderer'' with production gear, and to provide sets also for [[H.M.S. Monarch (1911)|''Monarch'']], [[H.M.S. Benbow (1913)|''Benbow'']], [[H.M.S. Emperor of India (1913)|''Emperor of India'']], [[H.M.S. Marlborough (1912)|''Marlborough'']], [[H.M.S. Iron Duke (1912)|''Iron Duke'']], [[H.M.S. King George V (1911)|''King George V'']], [[H.M.S. Ajax (1912)|''Ajax'']] (which received the first production set), [[H.M.S. Centurion (1911)|''Centurion'']], [[H.M.S. Audacious (1912)|''Audacious'']], [[H.M.S. Queen Mary (1912)|''Queen Mary'']] and [[H.M.S. Tiger (1913)|''Tiger'']].
+
The "Twelve Ship Order" was to replace the prototype director in ''Thunderer'' with production gear, and to provide sets also for {{UK-Monarch}}, {{UK-Benbow}}, {{UK-EmperorOfIndia}}, {{UK-Marlborough}}, {{UK-IronDuke}}, {{UK-KingGeorgeV}}, {{UK-1Ajax}} (which received the first production set), {{UK-Centurion}}, {{UK-Audacious}}, {{UK-QueenMary}} and {{UK-Tiger}}.
 +
 
 +
The successive "Seventeen Ship Order" covered {{UK-1Orion}}, {{UK-Colossus}}, {{UK-Hercules}}, {{UK-1Neptune}}, {{UK-StVincent}}, {{UK-Collingwood}}, {{UK-Bellerophon}}, {{UK-Superb}}, [[H.M.S._Temeraire_(1907)|''Temeraire'']], [[H.M.S._Dreadnought_(1906)|''Dreadnought'']], {{UK-Lion}}, {{UK-PrincessRoyal}}, {{UK-Indefatigable}}, {{UK-NewZealand}}, {{UK-Invincible}}, {{UK-Indomitable}} and {{UK-Inflexible}}.
  
−
The successive "Seventeen Ship Order" covered ''Orion'', [[H.M.S. Colossus (1910)|''Colossus'']], [[H.M.S. Hercules (1910)|''Hercules'']], [[H.M.S. Neptune (1909)|''Neptune'']], [[H.M.S. St. Vincent (1908)|''St. Vincent'']], [[H.M.S._Collingwood_(1908)|''Collingwood'']], [[H.M.S._Bellerophon_(1907)|''Bellerophon'']], [[H.M.S._Superb_(1907)|''Superb'']], [[H.M.S._Temeraire_(1907)|''Temeraire'']], [[H.M.S._Dreadnought_(1906)|''Dreadnought'']], [[H.M.S._Lion_(1910)|''Lion'']], [[H.M.S._Queen_Mary_(1912)|''Princess Royal'']], [[H.M.S._Indefatigable_(1909)|''Indefatigable'']], [[H.M.S._New_Zealand_(1911)|''New Zealand'']], [[H.M.S._Invincible_(1907)|''Invincible'']], [[H.M.S. Indomitable (1907)|''Indomitable'']] and [[H.M.S. Inflexible (1907)|''Inflexible'']].
+
The combined result of these orders and the trial installations was that when the war started, 8 dreadnoughts were equipped with director firing for their main battery:  ''Neptune'' possibly still with her prototype gear from 1911, ''Thunderer'' with her director from 1912 possibly updated, ''Ajax'' from 1913, and ''Iron Duke'', ''Marlborough'', ''King George V'', ''Centurion'' and ''Monarch'' from earlier in 1914.{{UKTH23|pp. 4, 9-10}}
  
−
The combined result of these orders and the trial installations was that when the war started, 8 dreadnoughts were equipped with director firing for their main battery:  ''Neptune'' possibly still with her prototype gear from 1911, ''Thunderer'' with her director from 1912 possibly updated, ''Ajax'' from 1913, and ''Iron Duke'', ''Marlborough'', ''King George V'', ''Centurion'' and ''Monarch'' from earlier in 1914.<ref name=ukfc>pp. 9-10.</ref>
+
In early 1913 Sir Percy Scott had informed the [[First Lord of the Admiralty]], {{WSC}}, that, "With a big effort we could have 12 of our Dreadnoughts fitted by the Autumn."<ref>Scott to Churchill. Letter of 5 January, 1913.  Churchill Papers.  Churchill Archives Centre.  CHAR 13/19/1.</ref> This offer was clearly declined.
  
 
==Proliferation==
 
==Proliferation==
 
Once the director design was finalised, all successive dreadnoughts, battlecruisers and big-gun monitors were completed with an installation for the main battery.  However, the number of unequipped vessels of these types were still considerable and beyond them, there were light cruisers and destroyers awaiting similar if less elaborate facilities, and secondary batteries of large vessels as well.  Priorities were established.
 
Once the director design was finalised, all successive dreadnoughts, battlecruisers and big-gun monitors were completed with an installation for the main battery.  However, the number of unequipped vessels of these types were still considerable and beyond them, there were light cruisers and destroyers awaiting similar if less elaborate facilities, and secondary batteries of large vessels as well.  Priorities were established.
 +
 +
Despite the overarching need to preserve wartime readiness of the fleet, the installed base of directors grew rapidly as refit opportunities permitted.
 +
 +
:{|border=1
 +
!align=center colspan=7|Director Installations for Main/Secondary Armament{{UKProgressInNavalGunnery1914-1918|p. 37}}
 +
|-
 +
!align=center|
 +
!align=center|Battleships
 +
!align=center|Battlecruisers
 +
!align=center|Cruisers
 +
!align=center|Light Cruisers
 +
!align=center|Monitors
 +
!align=center|Leaders &<br>Destroyers
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1911
 +
|align=center|1
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1912
 +
|align=center|1
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1913
 +
|align=center|1
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1914
 +
|align=center|8
 +
|align=center|1
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1915
 +
|align=center|8
 +
|align=center|4
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|14
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1916
 +
|align=center|14
 +
|align=center|5/2
 +
|align=center|2/2
 +
|align=center|2
 +
|align=center|2
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1917
 +
|align=center|1/15
 +
|align=center|&ndash;/1
 +
|align=center|1/1
 +
|align=center|18
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|1918
 +
|align=center|&ndash;/3<ref name=sep1918>By 1st September, 1918.</ref>
 +
|align=center|&ndash;
 +
|align=center|2
 +
|align=center|25
 +
|align=center|5
 +
|align=center|118<ref name=sep1918/>
 +
|-
 +
|align=center|'''Total'''
 +
|align=center|31/18
 +
|align=center|11/3
 +
|align=center|5/3
 +
|align=center|45
 +
|align=center|21
 +
|align=center|118
 +
|}
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
*[[British Gunnery Director Systems]]
+
{{refbegin}}
 +
*[[British Director Firing Systems]]
 
*[[Henderson Firing Gear]]
 
*[[Henderson Firing Gear]]
 +
{{refend}}
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==
Line 35: Line 157:
 
==Bibliography==
 
==Bibliography==
 
{{refbegin}}
 
{{refbegin}}
−
*{{BibUKFireControlInHMShips1919}}
+
*{{FCHMShips}}
−
*{{BibBrooksDreadnoughtGunnery}}
+
*{{BrooksDGBJ}}
 
*Brooks, John (1997). "Percy Scott and the Director".  ''Warship 1996'': pp. 150–170.
 
*Brooks, John (1997). "Percy Scott and the Director".  ''Warship 1996'': pp. 150–170.
 +
* ''Director Firing Gear: Transfer from Dreadnought to Bellerophon'', 1910 at {{TNA|ADM 1/8145}}
 
{{refend}}
 
{{refend}}
  
 
[[Category:Fire Control]]
 
[[Category:Fire Control]]

Latest revision as of 21:40, 6 September 2022

The Royal Navy's adoption of the director occurred in a blizzard of activity immediately prior to the war and throughout its duration. Priority was placed on the ships with the largest guns and those most likely to see front-line service in the face of the enemy: dreadnoughts, battle cruisers and monitors.

Prehistory

The earliest use of the word "director" in the Royal Navy appears to be tied to a firing circuit only, with one trigger firing more than just its single weapon, those other weapons involved firing at a fixed elevation as the sights rolled on. There is no mention of angles being transmitted.

In the Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1881 there is mention of electrical firing of a broadside by a "directing gun", a concept approved in late 1880 and for which suitable a firing pistol was being sought.[1]

The Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1890 has several pages and diagrams on these systems.[2]

The Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1891 bemourned a multiplicity of different director schemes burgeoning in the fleet, illustrating the status quo as follows:[3]

Battleships

Cruisers

It was further proposed that:[4]

1907 Trials in H.M.S. Africa

Directors of various forms had been tried for over twenty years, but the type used in the war traced its lineage to that proposed by Percy Scott in 1905.[5] H.M.S. Africa conducted the first tests of an elevation-only director in 1907.[6]

1910 Trials in Dreadnought and Bellerophon

Reginald Bacon oversaw the testing of a variant in Dreadnought.

Successes in the 1909 Battle Practice and thereafter fostered support for the concept, culminating in successful trials in May 1910 aboard Bellerophon. The system was not without faults, however. It was still elevation-only and the need to fire on the roll resulted in a rate of fire sufficiently low to inspire criticism. Bellerophon's commander, Hugh Evan-Thomas, reported, "In view therefore of the slowness of the system and the doubtfulness of the advantages to be gained by it, the system of Director Firing is not recommended for adoption in HM [His Majesty's] Service."[7].

Trials in H.M.S. Neptune

A final change to make the system work in elevation as well as training was tried aboard Neptune. By early 1911, confidence was sufficient that the Orion- and Lion-classes were to be completed with the extensive wiring required for the directors, but a further generation of refinement was to be tried in Thunderer to address issues of reliability and accuracy in the Neptune design.

Trials in H.M.S. Thunderer

Thunderer's refined system was subjected to a competitive shoot-out against Orion in the Channel off Portland on 4 December 1912 which finally clearly demonstrated the advantages and utility of director firing. The tests were reported in the papers as being of "the new apparatus".[8]

The acceptance of the Thunderer prototype in 1913 pushed the Royal Navy to the point it was ready to deploy the equipment in new construction and to retrofit its existing fleet.

Early Orders

At the outset of the program of equipping the fleet, a large number of suitable platforms for retrofit were on hand, and they were handled in sets as finances, dock time and equipment availability permitted. Vickers was to perform most of the work of manufacture and installation.

The "Twelve Ship Order" was to replace the prototype director in Thunderer with production gear, and to provide sets also for Monarch, Benbow, Emperor of India, Marlborough, Iron Duke, King George V, Ajax (which received the first production set), Centurion, Audacious, Queen Mary and Tiger.

The successive "Seventeen Ship Order" covered Orion, Colossus, Hercules, Neptune, St. Vincent, Collingwood, Bellerophon, Superb, Temeraire, Dreadnought, Lion, Princess Royal, Indefatigable, New Zealand, Invincible, Indomitable and Inflexible.

The combined result of these orders and the trial installations was that when the war started, 8 dreadnoughts were equipped with director firing for their main battery: Neptune possibly still with her prototype gear from 1911, Thunderer with her director from 1912 possibly updated, Ajax from 1913, and Iron Duke, Marlborough, King George V, Centurion and Monarch from earlier in 1914.[9]

In early 1913 Sir Percy Scott had informed the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, that, "With a big effort we could have 12 of our Dreadnoughts fitted by the Autumn."[10] This offer was clearly declined.

Proliferation

Once the director design was finalised, all successive dreadnoughts, battlecruisers and big-gun monitors were completed with an installation for the main battery. However, the number of unequipped vessels of these types were still considerable and beyond them, there were light cruisers and destroyers awaiting similar if less elaborate facilities, and secondary batteries of large vessels as well. Priorities were established.

Despite the overarching need to preserve wartime readiness of the fleet, the installed base of directors grew rapidly as refit opportunities permitted.

Director Installations for Main/Secondary Armament[11]
Battleships Battlecruisers Cruisers Light Cruisers Monitors Leaders &
Destroyers
1911 1 – – – – –
1912 1 – – – – –
1913 1 – – – – –
1914 8 1 – – – –
1915 8 4 – – 14 –
1916 14 5/2 2/2 2 2 –
1917 1/15 –/1 1/1 18 – –
1918 –/3[12] – 2 25 5 118[12]
Total 31/18 11/3 5/3 45 21 118

See Also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1881. pp. 19, 61. Plate X.
  2. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1890. pp. 91-93, Plates 16 and 18.
  3. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1891. pp. 123-4.
  4. ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1891. p. 124.
  5. ↑ Brooks. Dreadnought Gunnery. p. 48.
  6. ↑ The Technical History and Index, Vol. 3, Part 23. p. 4.
  7. ↑ John Brooks. "Percy Scott and the Director". p. 159.
  8. ↑ "Gunnery Tests off Portland" The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 04, 1912; pg. 12; Issue 40073.
  9. ↑ The Technical History and Index, Vol. 3, Part 23. pp. 4, 9-10.
  10. ↑ Scott to Churchill. Letter of 5 January, 1913. Churchill Papers. Churchill Archives Centre. CHAR 13/19/1.
  11. ↑ Progress in Naval Gunnery, 1914-1918. p. 37.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 By 1st September, 1918.

Bibliography

  • Admiralty, Technical History Section (1919). The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in H.M. Ships. Vol. 3, Part 23. C.B. 1515 (23) now O.U. 6171/14. At The National Archives. ADM 275/19.
  • Brooks, John (2005). Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 0714657026. (on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk).
  • Brooks, John (1997). "Percy Scott and the Director". Warship 1996: pp. 150–170.
  • Director Firing Gear: Transfer from Dreadnought to Bellerophon, 1910 at The National Archives. ADM 1/8145

Retrieved from "http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php?title=British_Adoption_of_Director_Firing&oldid=331835"