Talk:Fire-control system

Untitled

Nice work. Are you planning to suggest this new article for Template:Did you know (talk)? —Michael Z. 2005-02-11 15:52 Z

I hadn't really thought about that. I was certainly planning to wait and see if someone had some ideas for enhancing this article, as I'm fairly happy with it but it could possibly use some more detail. For example while researching it I came across some detailed descriptions of ship-based fire-control systems but I didn't really use most of the information there - if I put it all in, it would become too complex, so I thought I would start with something simple. I suppose if after a few days nobody has anything to add then maybe I should. Thanks, Nvinen 01:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's only eligible to be nominated for DYK if it's under 72 hours old. Please add an item to the suggestions on the talk page, or let me know and I'll do it. If it gets listed it will appear on the WP home page, which is a great way to attract more editors. —Michael Z. 2005-02-12 23:55 Z

Yes, after you wrote the above, I checked and found this out. I submitted it and it made it to the front page. Thanks for the suggestion :) Nvinen 04:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definition of "Fire control"?

Interesting, I cannot find an article where the concept of "fire control" as used by the military is defined... Can anyone please help? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• yah the defenition needs work, a "SYSTEM" is not a single component, it is several components working togeather. Brian in denver (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would think that the definition should be broadened to include the personnel, tools, and techniques used to locate targets, prepare the firing data necessary to direct guns to hit those targets, transmit these data to the guns, and adjust fire based on observation or detection of results. I believe earlier FC systems (such as the Coast Artillery systems I just added a short section for) made use of manual, not automated, techniques. Pgrig (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

needs more army

• TM 9-2300 "Standard artillery and fire controll material" lists most of the WWII gun computers like the famous M9 ect. some mention of FADAC ect. should also be made. I dont know that creating a page for each computer would be very efficent, so I might start a versions list here, or just expand Battery computer system. Brian in denver (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Scope

This article needs a lot of serious work.

Coast artillery - given that Major HS Watkins of the Royal Garrison Artillery invented a system in 1879 which was widely deployed and in use decades before navies woke up deserves a mention.

• Section on U.S. Coast Artillery added. Pgrig (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AA - both France and UK (and probably Germany and others) introduced small (tripod mounted) tachymetric devices in WW1 to prodice lead (aim-off) data (eg Wilson-Dalby, not to mention other AA fire control instruments). Then there's the whole matter of AA predictors, starting, I think, with the Vickers produced Predictor No 1 in the early 1920s.

Field arty fire control is generally covered in the Indirect fire article. Also need to think about how this article relates to Gun layingNfe (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging

This article should be merged with the article Director (military) --92.239.234.80 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Torpedoes

Why is a 2-minute time-to-target especially onerous for torpedo-aimers? A large caliber naval shell also takes several minutes to reach its target, and the distances are far greater meaning that even the slightest deviation would mean a miss. Surely, the typical naval artillery ranges were shorter in the early days of torpedoes and submarines, but not that much shorter, and it would be nice if it specified that that statement was only relevant for a short period in the first years of the 20th century. By the end of WWI, gunnery ranges were 20 miles or much more for a typical battle (as far as they ever had "typical" battles). In any case, the problem of aiming a gun from a moving ship at another moving ship at long range has been more complex than aiming a torpedo from a moving ship for a long time; if there was a time when it was more difficult to aim a torpedo, it was very short-lived, and was only due to the fact that they hadn't started building guns meant for truly long ranges just yet..45Colt 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Modern fire control systems

Can we agree some wording on this? Nytend doesn't like "Modern".[1] Can we use "contemporary"? Or date it to 2017? Is this even true - given military procurement cycles, what are the oldest fire controls still in service?

"Electronic" doesn't imply anything more than "not mechanical" or possibly "not electromechanical". There are at least three generations of electronics though: analogue, digital and those based on computers. All three are distinct - maybe even splitting "computers" down into sub groups. Many of the artillery "computer" systems, like FACE, were also not computers in the sense of generalised stored program or microprocessors, and we should keep these distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"בק"ש" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect בק"ש and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#בק"ש until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)