Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
did I say there wasn't a solution for any angle colonel? I don't recall I ever did
|
Well, let me refresh your memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
all three methods could not have been for a ninety track, that would be redundant, these other two had to be made for different angular tracks, but then again, one of these might be for a right angle, like the constant bearing method is
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
notice in that paragraph that the track is 90, the constant bearing method was made for the 90 track.
|
You have explicitly stated, multiple times, that the Constant Bearing Method is intended for a 90 degree track. This is incorrect. The track angle is irrelevant to the firing method used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
you don't get a divergent spread in most angles, they would have to be 90 or near ninety degrees.
|
Also incorrect. It's important to remember that the relationship between ship length and AOB is a sine curve At 60 degrees, the spread is 85% of what it is at 90. At 45 degrees, the spread is still 70%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
how could you do that with a target coming at you in a 20 aob? if you can do the calculations for an angle like that manually, your the best colonel!
|
Easy peasy. No calculation required. There is a device at the bottom of your periscope that is designed to measure ship length in degrees. In low power mode, each hash mark is 1 degree. Well, depending on mods and screen res. It's correct if you're using something like OTC anyways.
As for the rest, I'm working on it, but give me some time. I've got multiple walls of text to sift through and I want to be both thorough and accurate.
That being said, I gather from your response that you're going all, "who is this arrogant SOB and why should I listen to him?". Fair enough. I guess that for now, all I can do is assure you that I know the material.
Thoroughly.