"Impact of multiple shooters on gun accuracy" Topic

During WWI, having multiple ships shoot at a single target created a significant impact on the ability of the shooters to target accurately. Because it was difficult to tell the shell splashes of different ships apart, it made it very difficult to adjust fire based on the fall of shot.

To what extent was this a problem during WWII? Use of dye bags in shells was fairly common, thus making it easier to distinguish between the shooting of different ships. I'd imagine RDFC probably helped also.

I don't have any reference materials handy, but I do seem to recall at Denmark Strait, one of the British ships was shooting consistently over, but confused its shell splashes with those of the other ship and did not adjust fire as a result. . . but w/o my books handy I could just be confusing my battles (I've read a LOT of them!)

Is this something that improved during the course of the war. So maybe it was a more significant problem in the early part of the war, but had pretty much been dealt with by the late war?

Can anybody offer any insight into this topic? Thanks!

There were two significant advances in gunnery that came into play in WWII: radar and improved optics. Denmark Strait illustrates the fact that not all ships were fully modernized early in the war. Consider the large role night played in Pacific surface gunnery battles. Airpower dominated the day, but the gun ruled at night because of these improvements.

The Japanese used dye packets. During the battle off Samar of the Japanese battleships versus the jeep carriers of Taffy 3, the Americans noted that the shell splashes were of different colors (such as red, green, yellow, etc.).

Jim

Then agin, every little bit of advantage helps

So. . . were shell splashes a problem or not?

"So. . . were shell splashes a problem or not?"

Not necessarily….but a hit could ruin your day!

Given the IJN daylight surface gunnery at Samar was apallingly bad, it may well be that dyed shells and improved optics did not help greatly surface gunnery in WW2. Part of that may have been that the IJN practiced so extensively for night actions that their daylight gunnery suffered.

Absent RFC, I do not believe long range gunnery accuracy (over say 12,000 yards) was much better than WW1.

The radar displays available for fire control in WWII would make it nearly impossible to distinguish your shell splashes from somebody else's.

Perhaps even more importantly, there doesn't seem to have been a system for timing to expected impact and relating that to the radar display. Of course, tight timing only matters if your shells and those of your squadron mates aren't hitting within a few seconds of each other …

Overconcentration DEFINITELY continued to have a negative impact on judging the accuracy of gunfire at sea during WW2. Dyes were put in use by multiple navies before WW2 and they did little to alleviate the problem for all sorts of reasons. That does not mean however that "long range" gunnery accuracy was not better during WW2 than WW1. Range finding and fire control was significantly improved. And remember, we have to judge by 'time on target' as well as distance of hits because he who hit first usually won the fight.

One (unintentionally) useful thing about dyes was that IF the target stayed afloat after being hit the dye colour could help indicate the source of the shell for AARs by historians etc… Several disputes have been influenced by an enemy combatant testifying something like "the bridge area was coated in blue paint, (when Nachi was hit at Komandorski Islands and both Salt Lake City (blue) and Richmond (orange) claimed credit.) It's a fairly safe bet then that SLC scored the hit…provided there was only one…which was not always the case. Even friendly fire can be identified by dyes…as was the case of the San Francisco being smeared at Guadalcanal.

Excellent. Thanks guys!

So which nations in WW1 and WW2 used the colored dye for shell splashes? Were they only used with capital ships or did all surface vessels use them?

My understanding is that gunnery radar basically provided some indication of a target presence at night and in bad weather and perhaps verification of range in all conditions. Am I way off the mark?

Froms some basic reading on the subject – some nations had no radar; some had inferior radar and some had outstanding radar and the naval gunnery of those nations suffered accordingly. On the game table if I'm looking to add gunnery penalties to nations for no or inferior radar which nations do I penalize and which more so than others?

Thanks,
Mike

Off the top of my head I don't think you can or should attempt to do it "by nation." The logical criteria is by ship. Within the same navy some battleships had it, others did not…and more importantly what radar they had changed over time. Also worth mentioning is that the Japanese developed a radar detection device (which alerted them to when the Americans were using it) and the German loaned the Italians radar which was mounted on some destroyers (which were escorting convoys at night,) despite the fact that many of their cruisers and capital ships did not have it. And of course keep in mind that in addition to surface targeting radar there was also anti-aircraft radar…which might or might not be fed into fire control.

WW2 surface gunnery radars often had problems distinguishing between targets that were close together. So at long range two or more ships in line ahead, could appear as one big blip. If two ships made up the blip the shells could fall between them, but a gunnery officer in the know, should correct it. If three ships were in a row the middle one was sure to take a pasting!

Making radar images clearer and more able to distinguish individual targets was an important part of radar research in WW2. Even with an air formation they would appear as one big blob. That was not much help in working out how many were in the blob. But a practiced operator could usually give a reasonable estimate of the size of the formation.

Radar type 285 used for British heavy AA fire direction, had a relatively short range. Part of the reason was that it would only distinguish the closer from the more distant and help with accurate ranging. Less clutter was always helpful.

You're also missing the effect of GOOD optical range finders. Or what their navies considered good.

WW1 saw the allies using fairly short base optics. RN used the 9 foot Bar and Shroud "coincidence" (split image) type on most large ships (QE class = 15 ft) until after Jutland. It consistantly overestimated by 5-10% in the opening salvos. The operator had to retrain himself on the fly to get good results and pass them to the gun layers. Many smaller vessels used a pitiful 5 foot version. Most of the world bought them. Germany had Zeiss large base (up to 8 meter) stereoscopic equipment that was typically right on initial acquisition. Even the smaller ship classes used a 3 meter set. However, excellent calibration, eyesight and training were required for consistant results. Fatigue was a major factor in efficency falling off (as at Jutland). (Strangely, the Austro-Hungarians used Bar & Shroud, but went for the biggest 16 footers as their 12" guns could reach 25 KM!)

By WW2 most navies had gone to 15 to 25 foot base rangefinders (Hood had 30 footers). Germany's Scharnhorst and Bismark class had magnificent 10.5 meter optics that could range a mast head at 50 KM. Even the 15 CM guns carried 6.5 meter sets. All smaller ships had long base optics too. (Look at the pics and zero on the big control towers) Japan's Yamato's had 49 footers (though they didn't seem to use it very well).

Much of this thinking was due to the expected engagement range of the time. WW1 started with that range at about 10 KM and defaulted to 20 KM by Jutland. The beginning of WW2 expected 25 KM and progressed to the horizon as radar took over.

See this item for some great info:
link

It should be noted that well trained director and range personnel knew the time of flight for their ship's shells to any target distance. thus, they could often discern their fire from others.

Submarine commanders used the same knowledge to determine if their torpedo was running correctly. Incorrect early times to detonation meant a predetonation, a closer target being hit or another sub's torpedo going off.

Yup. In movies like "Run Silent, Run Deep" you can see the bridge crew start their stopwatches to confirm and because they knew "time to target." I was just reading where this was a routine practice for dreadnought gunfire as well, but I can see that would be far more confusing for a spotter in an engagement like Jutland.