Speculation for Nahrmahn' Little Brainstorm?

OK, I'll be the dumb one. How does the recoil mechanism relate to Time on Target?

dobriennm wrote:Maybe some sort of stereo-optic rangefinder using some of the angle-glasses from the navy to increase the baseline to 10-20 feet between the separated optics? (twist a dial to align the images from each separated spyglass and read the range off?) (I haven't run any numbers so I don't know what kind of separation you would need to get reasonable accuracy out 5 to 10 miles - and whether that would be a reasonable upper limit)

Plus the other part of fire control is getting range and bearing to the gun crew quickly - is there some improvement Nahrmahn has thought of there?

Range finder from the Graf Spee...

https://mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/800px-graf_spee_telc3a9metro_01.jpg

Expert snuggler wrote:OK, I'll be the dumb one. How does the recoil mechanism relate to Time on Target?

The better the recoil mechanism, the quicker the reload time, and the more rounds that can be put into the air before the first rounds impact.

It isn't the only factor in being able to do ToT, but it is necessary to have reasonably efficient recoil management.

What about developing a grid system to overlay on the maps that have been passed down to them using a new unit of measure called the kilomile (thinking of the NATO metric grid, I forget what it's called)? More precise locations for gun and observer gives faster firing solutions which reduces time to "fire-for-effect". This is obviously more important in a fluid situation. Shifting fires should be faster too. Defensive fire reference points could also be pre-plotted. I'm sure there would be more benefits this old redleg is missing right now.

According to FM 3-09, Field Artillery Operations and Fire Support, dated April 2014 there are 5 requirements for accurate artillery fires—
 * Accurate target location and size.
 * Accurate firing unit location
 * Accurate weapons and munitions information.
 * Accurate meteorological information.
 * Accurate computational procedures.

Norman Bates' (yes I know that is not how his name is spelled in the book thank you so much for that little twist RFC/MWW) little brainstorm could involve any or hopefully all of these. Maps could be improved on by printing what SNARCs already see coupled with a common grid system. With land surveys being necessary for accurately recording who owns what land, they could be printed on what looks like local paper as updates to what the Archangle Hasting provided. I would like to see what a UMT map of Safehold looks like at the 1:500,000 or 1:1,000,000 scale. (Takes care of first two bullets.)

Our favorite boffin/weapons developer (Baron Seamount)back in Charis could probably develop firing tables (with help from Owl). HFQ already mentions the development of computational procedures. These would address weight of the shell, fuze type, muzzle velocity variations, and propellant temperatures.) What is implied includes things like manual plotting boards and circular slide rulers.(Takes care of the third and fifth bullets.)

The fourth bullet addresses things that can really screw up ballistics. Such things as winds at different altitudes, air temperatures, and air density along the projectile trajectory. (With current U.S. Army guns this might cause changes of up to 4,700 meters when firing artillery at maximum range in extreme heat and low air density.) This is the one that is going to be real hard to address in the absence of radios and electricity. I look forward to how that is going to be addressed in the next book. (PS I vote for "The Saints Go Marching In" as a working title for the next Safehold book which is a great way to make this thread go off track. )

Expert snuggler wrote:Not my field, but rangefinders and slide rules come to mind.

You can get very accurate calculations from a cylindrical slide rule, particularly one of the larger ones. Many years ago, I used to use a Fuller model, which was ca. 15 ins. long when packed in its box, but whose scale was about 40 ft. long. I still have – somewhere – one of the much smaller and more portable Otis King models. This would fit in my pocket, and yet with care would give calculations accurate to between 4 and 5 significant figures, which was at least as good as 4-figure log tables, and do it very much more quickly. Of course, the Fuller would do a lot better than that.
.

niethil wrote:<stuff deleted for brevity>

A range finder would probably fit the bill. Coincidence, stereoscopic or stadiametric range finders are all possible. All of them were used during WWII for various purposes. Dimensions are about 2 meters for common models, I guess ? All of them can potentially be applied to geodesic measurements in civilian engineering as well.

Another possibility is something coming out of Mayklyn's work on mechanics to help compute trajectories. I don't remember whether the Charisian artillery units already have that.

You might like this article on said battleship computers:
http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... the-waves/

Okay, the following was where I was hoping someone with more expertise would go. I guess I see now that it's not one single "gadget", but rather a system involving all of the five listed requirements - basically a doctrine [forward observers, munitions/weapons performance tables, accurate maps using grids/sectors, procedures] and gadgets [circular slide rules?, telescopes+semaphore, land surveying equipment used in real time].

USMA74 wrote:According to FM 3-09, Field Artillery Operations and Fire Support, dated April 2014 there are 5 requirements for accurate artillery fires—
 * Accurate target location and size.
 * Accurate firing unit location
 * Accurate weapons and munitions information.
 * Accurate meteorological information.
 * Accurate computational procedures.

Norman Bates' (yes I know that is not how his name is spelled in the book thank you so much for that little twist RFC/MWW) little brainstorm could involve any or hopefully all of these. Maps could be improved on by printing what SNARCs already see coupled with a common grid system. With land surveys being necessary for accurately recording who owns what land, they could be printed on what looks like local paper as updates to what the Archangle Hasting provided. I would like to see what a UMT map of Safehold looks like at the 1:500,000 or 1:1,000,000 scale. (Takes care of first two bullets.)

Our favorite boffin/weapons developer (Baron Seamount)back in Charis could probably develop firing tables (with help from Owl). HFQ already mentions the development of computational procedures. These would address weight of the shell, fuze type, muzzle velocity variations, and propellant temperatures.) What is implied includes things like manual plotting boards and circular slide rulers.(Takes care of the third and fifth bullets.)

The fourth bullet addresses things that can really screw up ballistics. Such things as winds at different altitudes, air temperatures, and air density along the projectile trajectory. (With current U.S. Army guns this might cause changes of up to 4,700 meters when firing artillery at maximum range in extreme heat and low air density.) This is the one that is going to be real hard to address in the absence of radios and electricity. I look forward to how that is going to be addressed in the next book. (PS I vote for "The Saints Go Marching In" as a working title for the next Safehold book which is a great way to make this thread go off track. )

USMA74 wrote:(PS I vote for "The Saints Go Marching In" as a working title for the next Safehold book which is a great way to make this thread go off track. )

And as I have already suggested in another thread (thought you were going to hijack MY thread, eh? )

Another quote from Onward, Christian Soldiers?

At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee

Maybe not that exactly, but something along that line.

After all, the good guys are going up against the Mighty Host, right?

And the expectation is that they are going to be routed, i.e., flee, correct?

And the Mighty Host is on the side of Satan (Shan-Wei), true?

What do you think?

and as someone proposed in that thread

At the Sign of Triumph

Well, actually, the good guys are on the side of Shan-Wei...