Better Gunnery from Invincible at Jutland

[simonharley]

I'm not sure the cost of shell was really an issue once war began. I have a copy of the docket from 1915 when the Admiralty decided to order three reserve outfits of shell for the fleet to keep production at full capacity, which included 17,000 shell of 12-inch and above. The cost of the whole lot (down to 12 pdr shell) was estimated at two million pounds. To put this in perspective the Admiralty's net expenditure for the financial year 1915-1916 was £205,733,596 17s. 7d.; 1916-1917 was £209,877,217 16s. 7d.; that for 1917-1918, £227,388,391 7s. 1d.; and for 1918-1919, £334,091,227 1s. 7d.

[TeeCeeCee]

Of course it was an issue, witness the signal after Heligoland Bight when someone at the Admiralty had worked out the shells & torpedoes used V damage inflicted maths and not being impressed, sent the chivvying letter that "greater care is enjoined".

[simonharley]

Which signal is this? And surely such a signal would tend towards increasing greater numbers of ammunition being expended rather than the opposite?

[TeeCeeCee]

On 05/07/2016 at 10:10, simonharley said:

Which signal is this? And surely such a signal would tend towards increasing greater numbers of ammunition being expended rather than the opposite?

 

I'm sorry, I thought you would have read the Chatfields 'Vol 1' book 'Navy and Defence'? It's p126-7.

 

It was actually an order after Heligoland Bight asking everyone involved in the battle to take more care before using munitions, as, as I say above, the author wasn't too impressed with the enemy damage versus munitions expended maths. Chatfield mentions it as it affected their (the BCs) gunnery at Dogger Bank as they (BCs) fired at a slower pace.

[simonharley]

I have a copy, but not unsurprisingly can't recall every feature of it offhand. Will have to look at it tomorrow..

 

Having consulted the Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Orders yesterday at Kew, I see that Nicholas Lambert was in error about practice rounds being exchanged for live ones. GFG&TO 27 printed in 1915 states that ships should carry 4 practice projectiles per gun at a time, reaffirmed in GFG&TO 194 of December 1916. GFG&TO 228 which came into force on 1 April 1917 states that ships were to conduct one full calibre firing per quarter, with one night action practice per year, for a total allowance of 24 practice projectiles per gun per year.

 

An idea of the numbers involved can be gained from the fact that in the first quarter of 1917 41 battleships and battle cruisers fired 2,063 rounds.

 

[TeeCeeCee]

On 10/07/2016 at 14:33, simonharley said:

I have a copy, but not unsurprisingly can't recall every feature of it offhand. Will have to look at it tomorrow..

 

Having consulted the Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Orders yesterday at Kew, I see that Nicholas Lambert was in error about practice rounds being exchanged for live ones. GFG&TO 27 printed in 1915 states that ships should carry 4 practice projectiles per gun at a time, reaffirmed in GFG&TO 194 of December 1916. GFG&TO 228 which came into force on 1 April 1917 states that ships were to conduct one full calibre firing per quarter, with one night action practice per year, for a total allowance of 24 practice projectiles per gun per year.

 

An idea of the numbers involved can be gained from the fact that in the first quarter of 1917 41 battleships and battle cruisers fired 2,063 rounds.

 

 

I had an idea it would be the case.

 

Mistakes -  we all make them.

 

That paragraph is really interesting. Firing practice with '4 rounds' is mentioned in several diaries which seems in agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sheldrake]

On 18/06/2016 at 14:11, michaeldr said:

Regarding Gunnery at Jutland; I recommend the article 'Exploding Myths – Battle Cruisers' seen in The Naval Review here http://www.naval-review.com/issues/1990s/1999-1.pdf#Page%3D54&View%3DFit

The author suggests that the Fire Control System chosen was the wrong one. Pollen's system was better, but Dreyer's was chosen as he was not only a naval officer, but also known to both Jellicoe and Fisher.

The author also suggests that the British armoured piercing shell was less then effective; a point which he says was made by Jellicoe himself as Controller of the Ordnance Board in 1910.

 

Did you know that there is an online simulation of the Dryer Fire Control system?  An American computer gamer Tony "Tone" Lovell built an HMS Queen Mary just to demonstrate the fire control system.  He has given  presentations at HMS Excellent. I like the signallers!

 

The collaborative project is here http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Main_Page   

[FROGSMILE]

I wonder if contributors to this fascinating subject might be interested in the relevant thesis/dissertation linked as follows:

 https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/2931913/274933.pdf

 

Edited 5 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[rolt968]

I missed this post earlier in the month. Thank you.

[FROGSMILE]

16 minutes ago, rolt968 said:

I missed this post earlier in the month. Thank you.

Glad to help, it’s an interesting subject and I thought the dissertation of some relevance.