Naval History Forums

Hello all, no comment would be needed to above post. KGV Gunnery Control.jpg KGV Enclosure N.3_Section II_3.jpg Willingness to read and understand what is written in KGV GAR should be enough to judge whether there were problems or not with 284 personnel training (interpretation of echoes) and coope...

Steve Crandell wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:17 am Power is not measured in MHz. I'm guessing Kw?

Thank you, Steve. My bad.

Byron

Hi Byron, thanks again for your new info and reference ! I find a sentence from G. Mason quite interesting. He obviously analysed KGV GAR (as we are doing here; https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=91787#p91787 and in earlier posts) to summarize what happened during the engagement on May...

Hi Hans, A couple of offhand thoughts ..... Radar - Reading the original “user manuals”, I noted with interest the emphasis placed upon: > careful calibration of the radar device itself. > further calibration of the radar in connection with the gun battery itself. > the skill, training and experienc...

Hi Byron, I agree: it looks like this is an a.a. aid only. I'm convinced that, in 1941, an 'average' 284 was limited to anti-ship gunnery usable range of 18.000-20.000 yards, as per precious 'Handbook' you kindly posted here (https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=91770#p91770). Fact that,...

Hi Byron, thanks again for corrections to my wrong understanding, for explanations and additional info on 284 capabilities in 1941. It looks clear that in 1941 284 was able to receive echoes from distant ships (even up to 28.000 yards) but that "usable" ranging was possible only below 18....

I wasn't aware that 284 had two panels: "ranging" scope and "warning" scope. I had always thought to 284 as dedicated gunnery radar, therefore only with a "ranging" scope. Hi Hans, My apologies if anything in my earlier post(s) has proven misleading. The "precisio...

Hi Byron, thanks a lot, a most interesting document, confirming ranging tolerance of +/-150 yards for Type 284 vs +/- 40 meters of German FuMO radars in 1941. I wasn't aware that 284 had two panels: "ranging" scope and "warning" scope. I had always thought to 284 as dedicated gu...

Hello all, " we now know that Type 284 could not produce a radar echo from a salvo at that range" This is not what is written in GAR and usage of this aftermath info is supposition. Please let's try to stick to evidences: 284 radar operator reported fall of shot of first salvo as short, t...

Having read a bit of AoS naval history, it is fair to say the Real Armada did not lack courage.

B

It was you, dunmunro, who injected the USN Mk3/4 issue into this discussion. Your motive for doing so remains a mystery. B I certainly did not. See post: by hans zurbriggen » Wed Oct 18, 2023 1:25 pm where he used a USN MK3/4 ranging diagram from a link that you posted. The diagram (Figure 104) cop...

It was you, dunmunro, who injected the USN Mk3/4 issue into this discussion. Your motive for doing so remains a mystery.

B

You are making things up, that don't correspond to the known limitations of Type 284 radar. [ 1 ] I suggest that you refer back to BR2435/CB3213 and CB4182/45 before making such accusations. [ 2 ] Your attempt to divert this discussion by suddenly attacking the US Mk3/FC battleship main battery fir...

Go here - https://www.smecc.org/mcmahon%27s_radars!.htm FIRE-CONTROL RADARS Earlier work with the XAF showed great promise for gunfire control ("fire control") radars. They could work equally well in any weather and any time of day or night. Ranging accuracy could be almost exact, compared...

Hello Byron, most interesting, especially re. refraction and interpretation of radar panel echoes. hans Hi Hans, Indeed. There was a good deal to digest there. One item which has not really been touched upon in our discussion is the influence of Bismarck’s weaving curvilinear course. Her target ech...