Talk:Ship gun fire-control system

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 4, 2009	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Misleading

I think this article is misleading. It is very sketchy on dates of implementation. For example, the Iowa was launched in 1940, yet it is pictured with fire control systems that were probably retrofitted at the end or after WWII, and the clear implication is that all Iowa class ships had these controllers from the start. Jfgrcar (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International?

This started out as a survey of US systems, but the British system seems to fit fine, and it's open to entries about what other Navies came up with, so please contribute. Bachcell (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article is quite long (and complete) as is. I'd rather rename it "US Ship ....", and would create a new one more "general" (or "International", if you prefer), which may have the same name as this one (or even better "Naval Gun ..."). Does it sound reasonable?
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covering all nations would just be "list of....." some general principles and examples can go on "(Naval) Fire control systems". I would avoid Naval gun because it might not be limited to guns - eg Unrotated projectile. Also watch the capitalization when naming. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

What happened before the 1930s - or is this article limited to A/A gun control systems? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some research to push it back to 1912 with the invention of the director system. Bachcell (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor detail, Mk. 37 GFCS:

Text says that a battleship's director was protected by 1.5-inch thick armor plate, but was that the main battery director (not a Mk. 37?) I see that the original author is inactive, so this might take a while to resolve. Regards, 66.92.74.189 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should AN/SPG-25 be AN/SPG-53?

It seems that the latest radar on top of a Mk.37 director might be an AN-SPG-53, not an SPG-25. Regards, 66.92.74.189 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 25 of NAVAL ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY, VOL. 2, FIRE CONTROL, 1958 Edition describes the Mk 37 GFCS, and Paragraph 25B20 Radar, says "The Mark 25 radar is an automatic tracking fire control radar...." I hope this helps. Best regards, FTC Gerry (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patent on the Mk 56 GFCS

I don't have the energy right now to locate it, but it was probably issued to Ivan Getting, and probably has a number around 3,500,000. It was classified for many years. 66.92.74.189 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A patent that more or less matches the above criteria (Gun fire control method and system, US3144644A, issued to Ivan A Getting) can be found here: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3144644A 141.157.7.93 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive job folks

Wow this article has really grown, thanks for all the hard effort. This a very under-appreciated asset in naval warfare and history as it was probably the crucial technology in the battle off samar victory Bachcell (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jutland

I removed the Pollen-relayed point about Queen Mary having done the best shooting at Jutland. She was not the only ship but one of five ships carrying the Argo Clock-endowed Dreyer Table Mark II, a nice machine, but one with no real advantages over the Dreyer tables Mark IV and IV* seen in many ships in the Grand Fleet that day. John Brooks and the Admiralty's Official Despatches from Jutland makes it abundantly clear that a lack of range cuts (input data) rather than imperfections in calculating equipment (certainly as Dreyer equipment compared to Argo systems or even those of the Germans) hurt the British gunnery performance most. DulcetTone (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Navy systems

Although this article does seem to meet the guidelines presented at WP:SIZE, it should be noted that it does meet them only barely so! The prose size (text only) is 44 kB (7347 words)Test35965 (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail in lead ?

The 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the lead look out of place - The 3rd para (US WWII) could go to History ? and the 4th seems too specific and could be moved way down ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ship gun fire-control system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501104353/http://pages.cthome.net/boyd544/Diary03a.htm to http://pages.cthome.net/boyd544/Diary03a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title

IS "Ship gun fire-control system" the best title we can come up with? It sounds awkward and strange. Is "ship" the correct, official term? My experience is that most people say "ship" mistakenly when they mean "vessel". Wouldn't "Maritime Gun Fire Control System" or "Naval Gun Fire Control System" be more correct and appropriate sounding? If it is supposed to be "ship", then why isn't it "SGFCS"? Since such systems can be used on all different sizes of vessel, I doubt that calling it "ship GFCS" is right. Maybe "Shipboard GFCS" or something. Also, if this is an official designation, then the letters should all be capitalized. And I don't think that hyphen is in the right place. I've never heard of a "fire-control system". "Gun-fire control system" or "Gunfire control system" would be correct, MAYBE "Gunfire-control system", but I don't think "Gun fire-control system" is right. It should be "Maritime Gun Fire Control System". A "gun-fire control" would be "for the control of gunfire". A "Gun fire-control system" is "a fire and control system for guns". "Maritime (or naval) gun fire control system" is "naval guns, fire control system for" (or "guns, shipboard, fire control system for" if you prefer).

64.223.107.150 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest ship gun fire-control system is the preferable term. The 1985 Naval Institute Press textbook Principles of Naval Weapons Systems chapter title is Ballistics and the Fire-Control Problem although the hyphen is sometimes omitted in the text. The broadest category is fire control system which involves making sure the projectile hits the target. Gun fire control systems differ from missile fire control systems, because missiles have the additional complexity of multiple accelerations between launch and impact. It has been quite common for naval guns to be used in coastal and railroad artillery installations lacking the complexity of shipboard roll and pitch, and ships are more likely to use a single fire control system for all guns while artillery ashore often employs a simpler separate fire control system for each gun. The term ship is preferred to vessel in naval usage, and guns installed on merchant shipping are almost invariably naval designs. Naval patrol boats typically have smaller guns with significantly less sophisticated fire control systems than provided for a warship's main battery guns. Thewellman (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent "Mark" vs "Mk/MK"

Prior to edit 991806182, this article had a large mix of variant uses of Mk.XX, MK XX (and combinations with and without either the period or space between 'Mk' and the number):

Mk [number]: 51: 6 in captions
2 in quotations
2 in wikilinks, 2 in local anchors
1 in citation/ref titles
the rest in running text
MK [number]: 24: 9 in headings
1 in wikilinks
4 in citation/ref titles
the rest in running text
Mk. [number]: 16: all in running text
Mk[number]: 19: 7 in Wikimedia Commons filenames
2 in quotations
4 in ref "name=..." IDs
the rest in running text

I left the Commons filenames and <ref name="..."> instances alone, and changed all section headings and running text to "Mark ##" for self-consistency in this article, and with most WP articles with "Mark" in the title. sbb (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]