Rangekeeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Figure 1: The Ford Mk 1A Ballistic Computer. The name rangekeeper began to become inadequate to describe the increasingly complicated functions of rangekeeper. The Mk 1A Ballistic Computer was the first rangekeeper that was referred to as a computer.
Enlarge
Figure 1: The Ford Mk 1A Ballistic Computer. The name rangekeeper began to become inadequate to describe the increasingly complicated functions of rangekeeper. The Mk 1A Ballistic Computer was the first rangekeeper that was referred to as a computer.

Rangekeepers were electromechanical fire control computers used primarily during the early part of the 20th century. They were sophisticated analog computers whose development reached its zenith during World War II. During World War II, rangekeepers directed gunfire on land, sea, and in the air. While rangekeepers were widely deployed, the most sophisticated rangekeepers where mounted on warships to direct the fire of long range guns.[1] The warship-based computing devices needed to be sophisticated because the problem of calculating gun angles in a naval engagement is a very complex mathematical problem. In a naval engagement, both the ship firing the gun and the target are moving with respect to each other. In addition, the ship firing its gun is not a stable platform because ships roll, pitch, and yaw due to wave action. The rangekeeper also performed the required ballistics calculations associated with firing a gun. This article will focus on US Navy shipboard rangekeepers, but the basic principles of operation are applicable to all rangekeepers regardless of where they are deployed.

A rangekeeper is defined as an analog fire control system that performed three functions: [2]

  • Target Tracking
The rangekeeper continuously computed the current target bearing. This is a difficult task because both the target and the ship firing (generally referred to as "own ship") are moving. This requires knowing the target's range, course, and speed accurately. It also requires accurately knowing the your own ship's course and speed.
  • Target Position Prediction
When a gun is fired, it takes time for the projectile to arrive at the target. The rangekeeper must predict where the target will be at the time of projectile arrival. This is the point at which the guns are aimed.
  • Gunfire Correction
Directing the fire of a long range weapon to deliver a projectile to a specific location requires many calculations. The projectile point of impact is a function of many variables, including: gun azimuth, gun elevation, air resistance, gravity, latitude, gun/sight parallax, barrel wear, powder load, and projectile type.

During WWII, all the major warring powers developed rangekeepers to different levels. [3] Rangekeepers were only one member of a class of electromechanical computers used for fire control during World War II. Related analog computing hardware used by the United States included:

US bombers used the Norden bombsight, which used similar technology to the rangekeeper for predicting bomb impact points.
US submarines used the TDC to compute torpedo launch angles. This device also had a rangekeeping function that was referred to as "position keeping." This was the only submarine-based fire control computer during World War II that performed target tracking. Because space within a submarine hull is limited, the TDC designers overcame significant packaging challenges in order to mount the TDC within the allocated volume.
This equipment was used to direct air defense artillery. It made a particularly good account of itself against the V-1 flying bombs.[4]

During World War II, rangekeeper capabilities were expanded to the point where the name rangekeeper was deemed to be inadequate. The name computer, which had been reserved for human calculators, then began to be applied to the rangekeeper equipment. After World War II, digital computers began to replace rangekeepers. However, components of the analog rangekeeper system continued in service with the US Navy until the 1990s. [5]

The performance of these analog computers was impressive. The battleship North Carolina during a 1945 test was able to maintain an accurate firing solution[6] on a target during a series of high-speed turns. [7] It is a major advantage for a warship to be able to maneuver while engaging a target.

Night naval engagements at long range became feasible when radar data could be input to the rangekeeper. The effectiveness of this combination was demonstrated in November 1942 at the Third Battle of Savo Island when the USS Washington engaged the Japanese battlecruiser Kirishima at a range of 18,500 yards at night. The Kirishima was set aflame, suffered a number of explosions, and was scuttled by her crew. She had been hit by 9 - 16 inch rounds out of 75 fired (12% hit rate).[8] The wreck of the Kirishima was discovered in 1992 and showed that the entire bow section of the ship was missing.[9] The Japanese during World War II did not develop radar or automated fire control to the level of the US Navy and were at a significant disadvantage.[10]

Rangekeepers were very large and the ship designs needed to make provisions to accommodate them. For example, the Ford Mk 1A Computer weighed 3150 lbs. [11] The rangekeepers also required a large number of electric cables over which they received information from the various sensors (e.g. pitometer, rangefinder, gyrocompass) and sent commands to the guns.

Contents

[edit] Background

[edit] History

The early history of naval fire control was dominated by the engagement of targets within visual range (also referred to as direct fire). In fact, most naval engagements before 1800 were conducted at ranges of 20 to 50 yards. [8] With time, naval guns became larger and had greater range. At first, the guns were aimed using the technique of artillery spotting. Artillery spotting involved firing a gun at the target, observing the projectile's point of impact, and correcting the aim based on where the shell was observed to land, which became more and more difficult as the range of the gun increased.[8][12]

Between the American Civil War and 1905, numerous small improvements, such as telescopic sights and optical rangefinders, were made in fire control. There were also procedural improvements, like the use of plotting boards to manually predict the position of a ship during an engagement. Around 1905, mechanical fire control aids began to became available, such as the Dreyer Table, Dumaresq (which was also part of the Dreyer Table), and Argo Clock, but these devices took a number of years to become widely deployed.[13] [14] These devices were early forms of rangekeepers.

The issue of directing long-range gunfire came into sharp focus during World War I with the Battle of Jutland. While the British were thought by some to have the finest fire control system in the world at that time, during the Battle of Jutland only 3% of their shots actually struck their targets. At that time, the British primarily used a manual fire control system. The one British ship in the battle that had a mechanical fire control system turned in the best shooting results. [15] This experience contributed to rangekeepers becoming standard issue.[16]

The US Navy's first deployment of a rangekeeper was on the USS Texas (BB-35) in 1916. Because of the limitations of the technology at that time, the initial rangekeepers were crude. For example, during World War I the rangekeepers would generate the necessary angles automatically but sailors had to manually follow the directions of the rangekeepers (a task called "pointer following" or "follow the pointer"). Pointer following could be accurate, but the crews tended to make inadvertent errors when they became fatigued during extended battles.[3] During World War II, servomechanisms were developed that allowed the guns to automatically steer to the rangekeeper's commands with no manual intervention. [17]

During their long service life, rangekeepers were updated often as technology advanced and by World War II they were a critical part of an integrated fire control system. The incorporation of radar into the fire control system early in World War II provided ships the ability to conduct effective gunfire operations at long range in poor weather and at night.[18]

The rangekeeper's target position prediction characteristics could be used to defeat the rangekeeper. For example, many captains under long range gun attack would make violent maneuvers to "chase salos." A ship that is chasing salvos is maneuvering to the position of the last salvo splashes. Because the rangekeepers are constantly predicting new positions for the target, it is unlikely that subsequent salvos will strike the position of the previous salvo.[19]

The last combat action for the analog rangekeepers, at least for the US Navy, was in the 1991 Persian Gulf War[5] when the rangekeepers on the Iowa-class battleships directed their last rounds in combat.

[edit] The Problem of Rangekeeping

Long range gunnery is a complex combination of art, science, and mathematics. There are numerous factors that affect the ultimate placement of a projectile and many of these factors are difficult to model accurately. As such, the accuracy of battleship guns was ~1% of range (sometimes better, sometimes worse). Shell-to-shell repeatability was ~0.4% of range.[7]

Accurate long range gunnery requires that a number of factors be taken into account:

  • Target course and speed
  • Own ship course and speed
  • Gravity
  • Coriolis effect: Because the Earth is rotating, there is an apparent force acting on the projectile.
  • Internal ballistics: Guns do wear and this aging must be taken into account. There are also shot-to-shot variations due to barrel temperature and interference between guns firing simultaneously.
  • External ballistics: Different projectiles have different ballistic characteristics. Also, air conditions have an effect as well (temperature, wind, air pressure).
  • Parallax correction: In general, the position of the gun and target spotting equipment (radar, pelorus, etc) are in different locations on a ship. This creates a parallax error for which corrections must be made.
  • projectile characteristics (e.g. ballistic coefficient)
  • power charge weight

These issues are so complicated and need to be performed so quickly that the need arose for an automated way of performing these corrections. Part of the complexity came from the amount of information that must be integrated from many different sources. For example, information from the following sensors, calculators, and visual aids must be integrated to generate a solution:

  • Gyrocompass: This device provided a accurate true north own ship course.
  • Rangefinders: Optical devices for determining a projection of the range to a target at the time of projectile impact.
  • Pitometer Logs: This device provide an accurate own ship speed.
  • Range clocks: This device provided a projection of the target's position at the time of projectile impact.
  • Plotting board: A map of the gunnery platform and target that allowed predictions to be made as to the future position of a target.
  • Various slide rules: These devices performed the various calculations required to determine the required gun azimuth and elevation.
  • Meteorological sensors: Temperature, wind speed, and humidity all have an effect on the ballistics of a projectile.

To illustrate the complexity, Table 1 lists the types of input for the Ford Mk 1 Rangekeeper (ca 1931).[8]

Table 1: Manual Inputs Into Pre-WWII Rangekeeper
Variable Data Source
Range Phoned from range finder
Own ship course Gyrocompass repeater
Own ship speed Pitometer log
Target course Initial estimates for rate control
Target speed Initial estimates for rate control
Target bearing Automatically from director
Spotting data Spotter, by telephone

An integrated solution was needed and the first rangekeepers were developed. The ultimate solution also included the automated steering of the guns to the proper azimuth and elevation through the use of servomechanisms. The first rangekeepers were being deployed during World War I. During World War II, many types of rangekeepers were in use on many types of warships.

[edit] Implementations

For more details on this topic, see Mathematical discussion of rangekeeping.

The implementation methods used in analog computers were many and varied. The fire control equations implemented during World War II on analog rangekeepers are the same equations implemented later on digital computers. The key difference is that the rangekeepers solved the equations mechanically. While mathematical functions are not often implemented mechanically today, mechanical methods exist to implement all the common mathematical operations. Some examples include:

Differential gears were often used to perform addition and subtraction operations. The history of this gearing for computing dates to antiquity (see Antikythera mechanism).
Gear ratios can be used to multiple a value by a constant.
  • Integration
Disk and ball integrators (or its variants) performed the integration operation.
Differentiation was performed by using an integrator in a feedback loop.
  • Evaluation of Functions
Rangekeepers used a large number of camshafts to generate function values.

[edit] See Also

[edit] References/Endnotes

  1. ^ Technically, it would be more accurate to use the term "rifle" for long-range ship-board cannon. However, the term "gun" is commonly used and that nomenclature is maintained here.
  2. ^ [1950] (1958) “Chapter 19: Surface Fire Control Problem”, Naval Ordnance and Gunnery (HTML), Annapolis, MA: United States Naval Academy. NavPers 10798-A. Retrieved on 2006-08-26.
  3. ^ a b Bradley Fischer (2003-09-09). Overview of USN and IJN Warship Ballistic Computer Design (HTML). NavWeaps. Retrieved on 2006-08-26.
  4. ^ Mindell, David (2002). Between Human and Machine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, p. 254. ISBN 0-8018-8057-2.
  5. ^ a b "Older weapons hold own in high-tech war" (html), Dallas Morning News, 1991-02-10. Retrieved on 2006-09-30.
  6. ^ The rangekeeper in this exercise maintained a firing solution that was accurate within a few hundred yards, which is within the range needed for an effective rocking salvo. The rocking salvo was used by the US Navy to get the final corrections needed to hit the target.
  7. ^ a b Jurens, W.J. (1991). "The Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the U.S. Navy, 1920-1945". Warship International No. 3: p. 255.
  8. ^ a b c d A. Ben Clymer (Vol. 15 No. 2, 1993). "The Mechanical Analog Computers of Hannibal Ford and William Newell" (pdf). IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. Retrieved on 2006-08-26.
  9. ^ Anthony P. Tully (2003). Located/Surveyed Shipwrecks of the Imperial Japanese Navy (html). Mysteries/Untold Sagas Of The Imperial Japanese Navy. CombinedFleet.com. Retrieved on 2006-09-26.
  10. ^ Mindell, David (2002). Between Human and Machine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, pp. 262-263. ISBN 0-8018-8057-2.
  11. ^ Ballistic Computer (html). Destroyer Escort Central. USS Francis M. Robinson (DE-220) Association, 2000 (2003). Retrieved on 2006-09-26.
  12. ^ The increasing range of the guns also forced ships to create very high observation points from which optical rangefinders and artillery spotters could see the battle. The need to spot artillery shells was one of the compelling reasons behind the development of naval aviation and early aircraft were used to spot the naval gunfire points of impact. In some cases, ships launched manned observation balloons as a way to artillery spot. Even today, artillery spotting is an important part of directing gunfire, though today the spotting is often done by unmanned aerial vehicles. For example, during Desert Storm, UAVs spotted fire for the Iowa-class battleships involved in shore bombardment.
  13. ^ Mindell, David (2002). Between Human and Machine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, pp. 25-28. ISBN 0-8018-8057-2.
  14. ^ The reasons were for this slow deployment are complex. As in most bureaucratic environments, institutional inertia and the revolutionary nature of the change required caused the major navies to move slow in adopting the technology.
  15. ^ Mindell, David (2002). Between Human and Machine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, pp. 20-21. ISBN 0-8018-8057-2.
  16. ^ The British fleet's performance at Jutland has been a subject of much analysis and there were many contributing factors. When compared to the long-range gunnery performance by the US Navy and Kriegsmarine, the British gunnery performance at Jutland is not that poor. In fact, long range gunnery is notorious for having a low hit percentage. For example, during exercises in 1930 and 1931, US battleships had hit percentages in the 4-6% range (Jurens).
  17. ^ Tony DiGiulian (17 April 2001). Fire Control Systems in WWII (html). The Mariner's Museum. Navweaps.com. Retrieved on 2006-09-28.
  18. ^ The degree of updating varied by country. For example, the US Navy used servomechanisms to automatically steer their guns in both azimuth and elevation. The Germans used servomechanisms to steer their guns only in elevation, and the British did not use servomechanisms for this function at all.
  19. ^ Captain Robert N. Adrian. Nauru Island: Enemy Action - December 8, 1943 (html). U.S.S. Boyd (DD-544). USS Boyd DD-544 Document Archive. Retrieved on 2006-10-06.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/n/Rangekeeper.html"