Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Ship Gun Fire Control Systems

Ship Gun Fire Control Systems

This peer review is filed on behalf of Bachcell (talk · contribs), who added the tab to the {{WPMILHIST}} template but did not create the page. I have left a message on his talk page inviting him to clarify what exactly he wishes to get out of the peer review, and with luck we will have that info shortly. In the mean time though any input anyone can offer as to the improvement of the article would be appreciated. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Land

My first thoughts are that this article could go in two directions. It could either become an article about naval fire control as a comprehensive subject, or it could become List of U.S. Navy Gun Fire Control Systems... at present it is closer to the latter. The Land (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone is saying roughly the same thing, and the person who opened the peer review has not yet put in an appearance, perhaps we should stop the peer reviewing until they turn up? The Land (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harlsbottom

I would go along with removing HACS and making it a U.S. list. Then at least there will be a good article on U.S. fire control equipment. It would be exceedingly difficult to do a comprehensive article on naval fire control due to the many varied methods and types of equipment used in so many navies over a century, a lot of which isn't very well documented. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett

this article has no real background nor overview of a timeline, and nothing happened before 1941? so its just a list with details at the moment. As HACS has its own article (word for word?) it could be lifted out and this would be a fully US list. Some backfeed from here to Fire_control_system#Naval_fire_control would be good though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tartarus

After a once over and checking the dab and external links, I find that the refs are good, but there are only a few of them, so refs need to be found. Also, there are to many images on the article for the small amount of information that is provided. I think that this article needs to have a choice mad about it, per The Land. TARTARUS ^talk 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring

It doesn't present a worldwide view on the subject. I do have strong doubts that other nations didn't develop such systems until now. Please rename and move the article to reflect its US-centrism and the limited time range. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bachcell

Thanks for the feedback, it started as just the MK 37, then its successors, then I thought it might be good to throw in the British one, since one source contrasted as an example of a bad fire control system in comparison to the US system. You may note that last system, and the one for the Bofors 40 are Americanizations of European systems. Computer-aided fire control system pretty much started before WWII with the MK 37 as far as my research takes me. Something else is that as major a contribution that this makes, it's usually left out of the list of weapons for ships, but there's a big difference between a destroyer which had the MK 37 for its 5 in guns and the escort destroyers and carriers which did not have the MK 37. The MK 37 made a huge difference in effectiveness in Leyte Gulf when little destroyers got in hundreds of hits before cruisers or battleships landed their first punches and American flyers remarked how much anti-aircraft fire they could put up without hitting anything. Bachcell (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still US-centric. Try a worldwide view or a story of US or NATO systems. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue computers puts Arthur Pollen's Argo at 1912, I suspect the US had something similar before reaching Mark 37 (36 others?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement on Analog computer is very wishy-washy and probably false (just checking my sources then I'll go amend it). The Argo Clock Mark IV wasn't ready until mid-1912 and saw limited use in the Royal Navy. It was the Mark V, a very different device actually finished in late 1913, which was delivered to the Imperial Russian Navy in very limited numbers. As usual someone is talking out their hat. This ignores for convenience the Dreyer-Elphinstone devices, which were contemporaries of the Argo devices and more capable. See John Brooks Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control.

The U.S.N. didn't get a proper fire-control computer until after the First World War, inspired by Pollen, but designed and manufactured by Hannibal Ford. Norman Friedman covers U.S. developments relatively competently in the recent book Naval Firepower. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]