Naval History Forums

Again, I would argue that if BuOrd had conducted and published a proper and honest evaluation of Mk37 AA efficacy, that the UK could have avoided, what turned out to be a costly mistake. And you are claiming that in 1950 the British still didn't know the actual capabilities of the Mark 37. Why was ...

As I stated earlier, MK37 was replaced, in the Audacious class, as the primary AAFC system by MRS3 (similar to MK56). Mk37 was supplied for free at a time when the MK6 director was in short supply. According to Porteous Mk6 and GRUS/GRUDOU and/or Flyplane was superior to Mk37. I don't think you poi...

I was just reading on the armoredcarriers.com web site about the design of the Audacious class. I found the following sentence:

"Fire control system was also improved: It was a grafting of the US Navy’s Mark 37 director with a modified Royal Navy Type 275 radar set."

I'm pretty sure Mark 37 dead time was set by the director. It was then up to the shell men to be consistent in how long it took them to remove the shell from the hoist fuse setter and place it in the loading tray. Most ships with 5"/38s had a loading trainer, so it's just a matter of training w...

I'm somewhat confused. You said "PoW did quite well against level bombers at ~9000ft (IIRC) using radar, even with a substantial list and half her 5.25in armament OOCS". I'm not sure you addressed my question, which was whether a US ship could do as well PoW could do. If not, why not? You...

I'm somewhat confused. You said "PoW did quite well against level bombers at ~9000ft (IIRC) using radar, even with a substantial list and half her 5.25in armament OOCS". I'm not sure you addressed my question, which was whether a US ship could do as well PoW could do. If not, why not? You ...

Doesn't sound like someone who thinks HA fire is useless. Presumably his thinking changed at some point, since you have determined that HA fire doesn't do very much. edit: was referring to the Halpern quote. I think the salient points are that there was over 100 observed runs and only a few drones ...

Doesn't sound like someone who thinks HA fire is useless. Presumably his thinking changed at some point, since you have determined that HA fire doesn't do very much.

I believe the Mark 51 required that the guns had RPC. Was that true of GRUB? Which British HAA had RPC? You said GRUB controlled the same guns as HACS or FKC, so does that mean one GRUB would control ALL HAA by switch transfer? Each Mark 51 was only connected to 5" mounts which could bear on th...

Could GRUB be linked to the HAA like Mark 51?

Were there British ships with Mark 51?

Gentlemen, Thanks for your replies, I realise this is a bit 'off topic' but I wonder why the USN went for 12" guns and armoured the Alaskas to protect them against 10" shells? By the time that they were built 10" & 12" shells were a throwback to WW1, unless of course it was ...

I think the biggest problem with RPK as a metric is it always goes up as the number of ships firing goes up. There is also the question of whether ships are encouraged to begin firing as soon as possible. But we are repeating ourselves.

FC shouldn't be degraded by very much during a ship maneuver, assuming the director and guns can traverse fast enough to stay on the target. Of course, that isn't always the case with ships using HACS and/or guns with manual traverse.

The USN didn't actually call the Alaskas CAs; i.e. "Heavy Cruisers". I think that by most people's idea of a Battle Cruiser, that's what they were. Of course, so were the Iowas, really. But that's getting off topic of course.