Talk:Fire-control system

message: Interesting, I cannot find an article where the concept of "fire control" as used by the military is defined... Can anyone please help? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Fire control"? 

message: *TM 9-2300 "Standard artillery and fire controll material" lists most of the WWII gun computers like the famous M9 ect. some mention of FADAC ect. should also be made. I dont know that creating a page for each computer would be very efficent, so I might start a versions list here, or just expand Battery computer system. Brian in denver (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: needs more army

message: This article needs a lot of serious work.
Coast artillery - given that Major HS Watkins of the Royal Garrison Artillery invented a system in 1879 which was widely deployed and in use decades before navies woke up deserves a mention.
* Section on U.S. Coast Artillery added. Pgrig (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: This article should be merged with the article Director (military) --92.239.234.80 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Why is a 2-minute time-to-target especially onerous for torpedo-aimers? A large caliber naval shell also takes several minutes to reach its target, and the distances are far greater meaning that even the slightest deviation would mean a miss. Surely, the typical naval artillery ranges were shorter in the early days of torpedoes and submarines, but not that much shorter, and it would be nice if it specified that that statement was only relevant for a short period in the first years of the 20th century. By the end of WWI, gunnery ranges were 20 miles or much more for a typical battle (as far as they ever had "typical" battles). In any case, the problem of aiming a gun from a moving ship at another moving ship at long range has been more complex than aiming a torpedo from a moving ship for a long time; if there was a time when it was more difficult to aim a torpedo, it was very short-lived, and was only due to the fact that they hadn't started building guns meant for truly long ranges just yet..45Colt 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torpedoes 

message: Can we agree some wording on this?  Nytend doesn't like "Modern".  Can we use "contemporary"?  Or date it to 2017?  Is this even true - given military procurement cycles, what are the oldest fire controls still in service?
"Electronic" doesn't imply anything more than "not mechanical" or possibly "not electromechanical".  There are at least three generations of electronics though: analogue, digital and those based on computers. All three are distinct - maybe even splitting "computers" down into sub groups.  Many of the artillery "computer" systems, like FACE, were also not computers in the sense of generalised stored program or microprocessors, and we should keep these distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fire-control system#Modern fire control systems|Modern fire control systems]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :בק"ש and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#בק"ש until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TartarTorte 17:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "בק"ש" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]