Difference between revisions of "British Adoption of Director Firing"
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
==Early Trials in H.M.S. ''Africa''== | ==Early 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.<ref name=brooks>{{BrooksDGBJ}}, p. 48.</ref> | + | 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.<ref name=brooks>{{BrooksDGBJ}}, p. 48.</ref> {{UK-Africa|f=p}} conducted the first tests of an elevation-only director in 1907<ref name=ukfc>{{FCHMShips}}, p. 4.</ref>, and [[Reginald Hugh Spencer Bacon|Reginald Bacon]] oversaw the testing of a variant in {{UK-Dreadnought}} and {{UK-Bellerophon}}. |
| − | 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 apparently resulted in a | + | 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 apparently resulted in a rate of fire sufficiently low to draw attention. ''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''== | ||
Revision as of 16:43, 17 November 2012
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 a single weapon, with those involved being at a fixed elevation and fired 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
- Admiral and Trafalgar class battleships had directors "on the new plan".
- Victoria and Sans Pareil had directors for their 6-in guns only.
- turret-ram Hotspur had a director circuit of "old pattern".
- Dreadnought, Neptune, Agamemnon, Inflexible, Colossus and Edinburgh had director circuits "on an old plan".
- Thunderer, Devastation, Ajax and new battleships had no directors.
Cruisers
- Mersey class director for 8-in guns.
- "Belted cruisers" had 6-in gun directors.
- Imperieuse and Warspite had directors for 6-in guns and 9.2-in broadside guns only.
- Blake and Edgar class cruisers had none.
It was further proposed that:[4]
- the Mersey class have their 8-in guns removed from their circuit.
- Centurion and Barfleur not have directors installed.
- Dreadnought, Neptune, Agamemnon, Inflexible, Colossus, Edinburgh, Hotspur, Glatton, 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.
Early 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], and Reginald Bacon oversaw the testing of a variant in Dreadnought and Bellerophon.
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 rate of fire sufficiently low to draw attention. 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 November 1912 which finally clearly demonstrated the advantages and utility of director firing.
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.[6]
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[8] Battleships Battlecruisers Cruisers Light Cruisers Monitors Leaders &
Destroyers1911 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[9] – 2 25 5 118[9] Total 31/18 11/3 5/3 45 21 118
See Also
Footnotes
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1881. pp. 19, 61. Plate X.
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1890. pp. 91-93, Plates 16 and 18.
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1891. pp. 123-4.
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1891. p. 124.
- ↑ 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)., p. 48.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 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., p. 4. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "ukfc" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ John Brooks. "Percy Scott and the Director". p. 159.
- ↑ Progress in Naval Gunnery, 1914-1918. p. 37.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 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.
