|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
What happened before the 1930s - or is this article limited to A/A gun control systems? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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):
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)