Talk:Salvo

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

"Salvo" is also a slang term for someone in the Salvation Army, especially in Australia.

Statistical issues

I'd like to know if there are any statistical advantages in firing salvos compared to single shots or is the advantage purely due to practical aiming and controling firing. For example is there a greater probability of being hit by a shell from a salvo than being hit by a shell from a series of single shots? I would have thought that there is no difference but statistical issues can be very deceptive and I'd be intereded in hearing the statistical rational.

By the way, there are some great pictures here.

--ManInStone (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no statistics, but I believe that there is additional damage dealt by firing in a salvo as opposed to each gun independently. With salvo firing, all shot should hit the target at the same time, meaning that the target has to absorb the energy of all of the shot at once. In independent firing, the target has a chance to disperse some or all of the energy of the first shot before the second shot arrives. --Badger151 (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above assumes that most or all of the shots hit the target. Of course, it's also possible to spread the shots in a bracketing, or shotgun-like tactic, with the expectation that not all shots will necessarily hit the target, but the presence of multiple shots increases the likelihood that one or several will before the target has a chance to move. --Badger151 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firing bullets at infantry, at least, salvo fire is actually *less* effective at producing enemy deaths than firing at will. The advantage to salvo fire is that it is more *psychologically* impactful — the enemy are more likely to break and run in response to the sudden simultaneous death of numerous men all around them (and to the anticipation, on the part of the men in what is now the front rank, that they will face much the same when the next salvo cones) than they are in response to a more sporadic pattern of deaths, even if the latter produces more total deaths per minute. 2603:7081:7E3E:DB14:90B5:5CBD:3B8B:98A2 (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Article Additions

There are a number of items that could be addressed in this article. I will try to add them myself as time permits. This is really a set of notes to remind me what to put in the article. For example:

Good introduction photo candidates

USS Massachusetts firing a salvo. Note the shells can be seen in the air.

One of these may be a good photo to lead the article.

Different types of salvoes
- ladder salvo
- bracket salvo
- ranging salvo
- split salvo
- half salvo, double salvo, full salvo
- spotting salvo
Salvo timing

On a battleship, salvos may appear simultaneous but in fact shells normally were fired at slightly different times to prevent the shells from interfering with each other. A special device called a delay coil was developed to accomplish this feat.^[1]

Also, there should be something about celebratory (?) salvos during festivities, parades, and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jurens, W.J. (1991). "The Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the U.S. Navy, 1920-1945". Warship International. No. 3: p. 255. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

Nelson crossed the T?

Isn't Nelson more known for not crossing the T? --Badger151 (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent

Does this paragraph really belong? "Reloading a battleship guns, arriving at a firing solution and lining the guns up to fire took as long as 30 seconds, especially when the fall of shot needed to be observed and corrections made before firing again. A target ship moving at 18 knots (33 km/h) traveled 0.15 nautical miles (0.28 km) in 30 seconds, and would often maneuver to "spoil" the range measurement. The "spread" of the salvo would have one shot fire "over" the estimated range, one shot "under," and two on the estimated range. When a four-shot "salvo" "straddled" the target with one splashing over, one splashing under and two landing on or near the target, fire control officers knew they had the correct range. All turret mounted guns on battleships and cruisers were directed by the gunnery officer, positioned high in the ship and equipped with a visual rangefinder and other mechanisms for directing fire. Instructions to the gunlayers in the turrets were passed by voice pipe, messenger and, later, by telephone. Guns could also be laid by remote control by the gunnery director, with the appropriate technology. Late in World War II, guns were directed by radar. " It seems to be a tangent about the use of naval guns in the 20th century.207.159.186.125 (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[real_case-1] Jurens, W.J. (1991). "The Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the U.S. Navy, 1920-1945". Warship International. No. 3: p. 255. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

[1]