The true value of battleship radar fire control?
Obviously, radar offers a lot of advantages over optical fire control systems naming, the ability to detect, range and bearing a target in low visibility.
Now, while this is being true, this is only a part of the fire control process. Radar does not tell you what direction and speed the target is traveling at; and it does not account for currents, wind and temperature differences.
Thus the fire control computer or operators will have to assume a vector for the target or generate a derivative to approximate the vector. Mind you, optical systems are not much better as they rely on the physical dimension of the target to scale the approaching or leaving angle of the target, and the speed have to be guessed from bow waves etc. this is why navies painted false bow waves on their ships and attached panels to the funnels to break up vertical lines.
A lot of people will claim the superiority of radar fire control from Washington vs. Kirishima where Washington achieved ~20 16" hits on Kirishima at about 10,000 yards, while Kirishma landed 5 hits on South Dakota at around the same range. Why Kirishma was firing HE type 0 and AA type 3 out of her 14" guns is another question.
But I don't think it was fair, Kirishma being 20 years senior was fighting south dakota whom was shooting back, Washington snuck up on Kirishma before opening fire. so it shoudn't be an issue of radar as the battleships will be fairly well illuminated by shell fire. As the range is so short, the issue of target vector doesn't really matter, as the shell will hit within 3-4 seconds.
Thus if we ask the question of if fighting at long range, low visibility, and a target with radar warning equipment (i.e. knowing that they are being fired upon and taking evasive maneuvers) does radar actually give as much of an edge as we, with are understanding of powerful computers, would like to believe today?
I am having a rethink about how true our understanding of the realities of war is back in the day. Battleship underway unlike battleship row at pearl harbor (or tirpitz); Yamato, Mushashi, Prince of Wales, Repulse, etc. we have to remember that it is not 1 aircraft that sank them. The thing is, it took four carrier worth of stikes (~400 aircraft) each to sink the yamato and mushashi, POW and repulse took ~100 bombers. The stukas of the Mediterranean didn't acheive as much at much greater loss. Were battleships as obsolete as our F14 tomcats narrative make them out to be?
