Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
you say you would use a percent of a 20 degree target, well that's fine, but would you be able to see and aim at the stern, would you be able to aim at it and fire if you can't see it?
|
You might be surprised at how much of the stern you can see at 20 degrees AOB.
And if you can see it...
You can hit it!
The real problem with shooting at 20 degrees AOB isn't what parts of the ship you can and can't hit. It's the torpedoes bouncing off the hull combined with the fact that a small shift in target course corresponds to a large gyro angle difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
definition:
in a divergent spread, the idea is to have at least 100 percent coverage over the targets length.
|
Woah there. No. Not at all. Not only does that manual not say that, it says the opposite.
Quote:
|
(e) Linear unit of spread should not exceed effective target length.
|
The *maximum* recommended spread is a 100% spread. Also note that it uses the words "effective target length". Not the absolute target length.
Further, that manual recommends that you consider using less spread when accurate target data is available. See - 600 (A) and 606. DETERMINATION OF COVERAGE for a couple of instance of this recommendation.
I wonder if you're laboring under the impression that the primary purpose of spread is to hit different parts of the ship. It's not. The purpose is to increase the probability of at least some torpedoes hitting in the event of errors and/or evasive action. Incidentally, it also increases the probability of at least one torpedo missing as well.
If we fire three torpedoes in a 100% spread, we are accepting that one of those torpedoes will almost certainly miss, in order to substantially increase the odds that the other two will hit. If your tactical situation is good enough that you don't need to just accept that some of your torpedoes will likely miss, then you should not use a 100% spread.