Talk:Frederic Charles Dreyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Military work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

[edit] Fire Control

Having just reread Andrew Gordon's "The Rules of the Game", Gordon asserts that Pollen's system was definitely better (refs page 11, also bibliography refers to Prof Sumida's "The Best Laid Plans", which I have not read, but Gordon claims corroborates this). Gordon's work is strong in many areas, and so I am suprised that the final paragraph in the Fire Control section currently says "Subsequent research seems to indicate that Dreyer was unfairly treated and his system was not only largely original but clearly superior to Pollen's.", which clearly contradicts Gordon. Can anyone cite this assertion?

Regards, Tim 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

The comment appears to have slipped in around April this year. GraemeLeggett 12:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment is exceptionally valid. Gordon based his comments on one book - In Defence of Naval Supremacy (now listed in the references) by American author Jon Tetsuro Sumida. Essentially Sumida spent the decade 1979-1989 leading up to this work which is essentially a study of how Arthur Pollen got stiffed by the admiralty - an article in the Journal of Modern History in 1979 (British Capital Ship Design & Fire Control In the Dreadnought Era), his editing of The Pollen Papers for the Naval Records Society in 1986 and this culminated in the publication of In Defence of Naval Supremacy in 1989. Until then no one had studied fire-control in any depth, consequently authors like Gordon were forced to rely on Professor's Sumida's conclusions. Sumida's book reinforced the re-emerging view that the Royal Navy was a body resistent to change - hence its rejection of Pollen's fire-control device in favour of one created by a naval officer.

In 2005 John Brooks published a book which was a development of a PhD thesis from King's College, London, overseen by noted naval historian Andrew Lambert. This book, Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland utilised much of the materiel Sumida had, yet Dr Brooks, being a retired computer engineer was able to clarify many technical points which apparently Professor Sumida had overlooked. Dreyer's system has been accused of being a copy of Pollen's Argo system but inferior. Brooks admits that certain features were identical to Pollen's, but makes the convincing technical case that the Dreyer Table could perform all the tasks required of it, including in later marks the "helm-free" capability - to continue calculating the range while turning away/from the enemy. Sumida has always asserted that the Dreyer system couldn't do this, when it could - and that the Pollen system could, when it couldn't.

Brooks highlights the outrageous terms Pollen was extracting from the Admiralty to test his equipment - secret contract, opt-out clauses galore, multiple advances of money - and when Pollen failed to deliver the goods and the Navy became impatient he threatened to take his business to other navies - this during the Naval-Arms race, no less. Whatever advantages the Pollen system had to Dreyer's were made null and void by Pollen's inability to produce results. Dreyer's system was relatively simple and could be improved/modified (as it was from its inception in 1911 until the final mark installed in Hood in 1919 - when battle ranges and speeds had jumped from 10,000 yards and 21 knots maximum respectively to 29,000 yards and 30 knots.

My advice is - read Sumida's book (it does have some great detail on the economics of the time). Then read Brooks' book. Hopefully Gordon has also done the latter by now. --Harlsbottom 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)