John P. Cromwell attack technique on order

[Orion2012]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Well, I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that the attack method works fabulously, both using the TDC and not using the TDC and I'll teach it both ways at once! The bad news is I'm about the worst movie maker in history and I screwed up four takes in a row tonight for technical reasons. I have put 16 of 16 torpedoes into various targets. This is just as deadly as Dick O'Kane and just as easy.

I spent a lot of time trying to talk Nisgeis out of drawing triangles on the nav map to aim the torpedo, tried it myself and I love it! It does require you to keep several pieces of information straight, but if your TDC ever breaks and you can keep your facts straight, you'll never miss the missing TDC.

Some might say that a 45º shot might not be as accurate as a 90º shot because of the lesser error tolerance and the smaller angular size of the target. Don't believe it. I hit 4 of 4 at 3000 yards with no problem.

But I don't have a good tutorial movie yet. Tomorrow will have to do. I think you'll enjoy it. It will be so simple that most of you will be better at it than I am in 24 hours. But I can't believe it. I filmed and talked myself silly for two hours and have nothing to show for it!:rotfl:

Anxiously awaiting the new targetting tutorial.

[IronPerch]

Wow ,

i have also done experiments with this kind of tactic and i have also plans for making a tutorial video. Though i have been waiting for new RFB to be "a platform" used in tuorial before starting the project. I haven't made much videos so i'm not going to say for sure that i'm going to release a tutorial video, but i'll try.

So far i have called my methods "Anti-Dick O'Kane" or something like that, but the basic idea is to get 90 degrees hit from non 90 degrees angle (anything from 90 to 180 degrees) with 100% realism settings, with or without TDC. There is two versions of the method: Moving towards the target and moving in same direction with the target. With the first mentioned you have to do the math more quickly (if you play in realtime while charting) and target has less time to react. The latter gives you time to gather the information needed for making the shot, but if you miss you propably are not going to have second change. So far i have used calculator to do the math, but i quess all can be done also by "rule-of-thumb" kind of methology.

Second method i have tried to implement is "fully optical" method with 100% realism, that means i'm able to get all the information needed (also speed and aob) from periscope view, with a few sights and not just by quessing or by "captains eye". This works (normally) with the close range targets and should be good method for situations that need fast decisions and fast data input. Anyway this method also needs calculator (or brains ) and you need to know the length of the target (I hope the new RFB has this info in recognition manual ?). There is a pdf-manual for doing this done by Hitman in this forum.

The third issue i have planned to cover is "Charting after first contact" (again with 100% realism) type of method. That should dig into charting and navigating before you are able to get deacent range readings from your target, but you know that there is something in certaing bearing...

Big plans, High hopes... I hope i'll find time and inspiration to make the tutorials.

[Rockin Robbins]

IronPerch, once (not if--you can do it, mon!) you get those movies made, please post them in the [REL] Video Tutorals: TDC + PK advanced thread as well as here. Then it will be time to make a new updated links post over there with my new tutorials, yours and Tale's multi-targeting. FINALLY we're building some tactics momentum.

When these movies are posted, remember the goal is to make these attacks possible. If anybody tries these and has difficulty, please post so we can improve our movies. My guiding principle has always been that it should be so easy my cat can do it, but I realize not everybody has a cat. So we're dependent on everyone who tries our videos out to make suggestions for improvement.

IronPerch, yours will be more technical than mine tend to be. Maybe my cat wouldn't be a good test subject. Where my goal is to make manual targeting so simple that the new guy who's terrified to check that manual targeting box will give it a try, yours is different, but just as important.

Actually, in my tutorial I'm going to use an S-Boat with the stock game complete with silhouettes and velocity vectors to make everything crystal clear. My S-Boat has radar, but without radar, my inital determination of course and speed would be cheating. I'd still do it the same way because my aim is to get beginners to try manual targeting and be successful at it. They can get restrictive on how they gather information later.

[Hitman]

Personally I think that this method has an important problem, and that's that the added torpedo and target speed make it easier to miss. The target is already small, and with a 45º AOB at the moment of impact it presents only 70% of his side to be hit by the torpedo, with the added problem of the increased speed of approach.

90º is still the method with best chances of success

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, Hitman, 16 of 16 torpedoes, 4 of them from 3000 yards say this is plenty accurate. (Of course they're not around any more to testify.) I'll have to shoot four more this evening, at least, while I continue my ground-breaking research into how to screw up a Hypercam movie. Tip #1: leave a Hypercam dialog box open. Then you can pause the recording but it won't resume! Result--half the movie was never taken. I'm going to make these long range shots with Mark 10 torpedoes from a sugar boat for maximum disadvantage. So far I'm finding that the slower angular speed of the target tends to compensate for the inherent advantages of the Dick O'Kane technique. Another thing to think about is that your percentage of duds will be much lower than with a right angle scheme like Dick O'Kane.

Also let's pretend you do miss, Mr Deadeye! You're way out in front and have lots of time to pick up the spare with a Dick O'Kane. If you miss a 20 knot target with a right angle approach, you can just wave goodbye. They're gone. Having a second chance makes this a tactic well worth investigating.

Of course, I'm not just bragging. I'm putting this out there with complete instructions so you can perform it as well as I can and decide for yourself. Let's say it turns out to be 70% as effective as Dick O'Kane. A .700 ballplayer is pretty well paid I think. Oh. There aren't any that good?

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Personally I think that this method has an important problem, and that's that the added torpedo and target speed make it easier to miss. The target is already small, and with a 45º AOB at the moment of impact it presents only 70% of his side to be hit by the torpedo, with the added problem of the increased speed of approach.

90º is still the method with best chances of success

With rounded sterns it actually works out to be about 75% of the target length for a stationary target. The increased closing speed means that the run length is shorter for any given range, therefore the angular length of the target is dependant on the speed of the target and the torpedo. For some targets the angular length is larger. For any given range, the run length is shorter, so errors in your solutions consequently are less important at that shorter run length. Increased closing speed is always a benefit.

EDIT: Also, the target is not moving at the same speed accross the path of the torpedo, for example, a 20 knot target will be moving across the torpedo's path at 14 knots, whereas with a 90 degree attack it going at 20 knots relative to the torpedo's path. So what you lose in length, you gain in slowing the target down. If you imagine a target coming straight towards you, it's bearing doesn't change and it's effective speed accross the torpedo track is 0 knots.

Also, if you are using the PK and attack at 45 degrees, with a divergant spread from aft to stern, the torpedoes all arrive at the same time and explode together - giving no time to evade as in a normal divergant spread from 90 degrees. If your target turns away, he is increasing his apparent target length, making you more likely to hit.

Post war analysis of U.S. torpedo attacks showed that attacks from in front of the target heading in had the highest hit rate, followed by ones at 90 degrees, followed by ones fired from behind the target. historically it's the most successful tactic.

The benefits increase as the speed of the target you are attacking increases and also the benefits increase with slower torpedoes, due to the percentage increase in closing speed.

[doulos05]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Also, if you are using the PK and attack at 45 degrees, with a divergant spread from aft to stern, the torpedoes all arrive at the same time and explode together - giving no time to evade as in a normal divergant spread from 90 degrees.

Just to clarify: You mean bow to stern, correct? Since aft to stern would mean the same thing, or am I confusing my maritime terminology. I don't ask to be smart, I ask because I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

[Rockin Robbins]

No, he means shoot at the stern first, then middle of target (MOT), and last the bow of the target. This yields the most divergent spread, with the three torpedoes taking the most widely separated paths. Since you are firing the most distant shot first and since the target is moving toward you reducing the distance subsequently fired shots need to travel, all three shots will arrive almost simultaneously. Can you say BOOM?

Once I conquer my incredible ham handedness with Hypercam and make a successful tutorial for the base technique, I'll try one of the divergent spread. It should be semi-amazing.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by doulos05

Just to clarify: You mean bow to stern, correct? Since aft to stern would mean the same thing, or am I confusing my maritime terminology. I don't ask to be smart, I ask because I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

You're absolutely right, I didn't mean to put aft to stern, that would be silly . I wrote it just as I was getting ready to leave for work, so... I didn't proof read it properly. Aft to forward I was going to say, but then I decided on stern to bow, but ended up typing aft to stern. But yes what I mean is one in the stern, one at MOT and one at the bow. Thanks for pointing that out.

[doulos05]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

You're absolutely right, I didn't mean to put aft to stern, that would be silly . I wrote it just as I was getting ready to leave for work, so... I didn't proof read it properly. Aft to forward I was going to say, but then I decided on stern to bow, but ended up typing aft to stern. But yes what I mean is one in the stern, one at MOT and one at the bow. Thanks for pointing that out.

Just wanted to make sure I understood what was going on!

[IronPerch]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

IronPerch, once (not if--you can do it, mon!) you get those movies made, please post them in the [REL] Video Tutorals: TDC + PK advanced thread as well as here. Then it will be time to make a new updated links post over there with my new tutorials, yours and Tale's multi-targeting. FINALLY we're building some tactics momentum.

Ok, thanks for encouraging i'm optimistic person (most of the time) and i know i can do it if i want . The thing is that i have also the wife (people seem to mention that time to time in this forum... now it's my turn) + couple of young kids, so normally when i have time to do something by my own the hours are allready a bit late (...yawn). But i'll give a try...

I agree with the "collected tactics" issue. How about a new thread that summarizes all the tactical threads in this forum to the first post of the thread (e.g. "Mobius22 Mods Link Thread!" kind of approach)?

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

When these movies are posted, remember the goal is to make these attacks possible. If anybody tries these and has difficulty, please post so we can improve our movies. My guiding principle has always been that it should be so easy my cat can do it, but I realize not everybody has a cat. So we're dependent on everyone who tries our videos out to make suggestions for improvement.

Trust me i have had couple of cats and it's a damn sure that those cunning beasts don't want to learn/do anything, if they don't find any bennefit from it to themselves ... anyway got the point.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

IronPerch, yours will be more technical than mine tend to be. Maybe my cat wouldn't be a good test subject. Where my goal is to make manual targeting so simple that the new guy who's terrified to check that manual targeting box will give it a try, yours is different, but just as important.

Actually, in my tutorial I'm going to use an S-Boat with the stock game complete with silhouettes and velocity vectors to make everything crystal clear. My S-Boat has radar, but without radar, my inital determination of course and speed would be cheating. I'd still do it the same way because my aim is to get beginners to try manual targeting and be successful at it. They can get restrictive on how they gather information later.

Well, maybe not so technical as it sounds(?). It's a game not a math lesson . If possible i'll try to mix theory and practice so it's easier to understand why things are how they are. Also i think the basic things for checking the manual targeting box off are pretty well available and explained in this forum, but checking the no map contact updates box is not so well covered. After that the game changes a lot and making a successfull approach, data collection and hitting the target is VEEERYYY satisfying though it happens not so often anymore (...somebody could make a wife related joke from the last one ?)

Btw, I have naturally seen your tutorials while learning the game, so thanks for those!!

[Rockin Robbins]

Let me talk to the moderators and see if there's something we can work out. If we could start a new stickied thread and move some of the posts from WernerSobe's thread to the new one, we could make a great tactics and targeting thread. My point in building on Werner's was that he posted the first three movies, which were really all we had for a year. I started building on his work as he was losing interest, but it seemed logical to build on the stickied thread so I obtained his permission to post the original Dick O'Kane technique tutorial.

There is one moderator who still doesn't fantasize about gory ways of killing my sorry posterior, and I'll apply heavy persuasion.

[Hitman]

That sounds really good, but I guess you need very accurate target data to make it that reliable :hmm: With good target data -speed, course- any shot is deadly accurate.

Of course I will try it with great pleasure when your instructions are ready My mind is entirely open to any improved form of sinking ships

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Hitman

That sounds really good, but I guess you need very accurate target data to make it that reliable :hmm: With good target data -speed, course- any shot is deadly accurate.

That's true for any zero gyro angle, low gyro angles introduce a small error with range and large gyro angle shots rely heavily of range being correct.

Originally Posted by Hitman

Of course I will try it with great pleasure when your instructions are ready My mind is entirely open to any improved form of sinking ships

I'll give you some figures, for a target that is for example 600 feet long, firing at a range of 3,000 yards for two set ups, a 45 degree torpedo track angle with zero gyro angle orders and a 90 degree torpedo track angle, with a zero degree gyro angle order. You aren't sure of the target's speed, you think it's about 12 knots, but you know the course. you would fire when the target got to the following bearing:

10 kts 12 kts 14 kts
90 degree firing bearing: 17.9 21.2 24.3
45 degree firing bearing: 10.5 12.1 13.6

As you can see, the difference is firing bearing is much smaller for the 45 degree attacks. The angular length of the target for a 90 degree attack is about four degrees and for a 45 degree attack, it's a bit above three degrees. So, you've lost less than a degree in angular length and your firing bearings are closer, reducing the impact errors in speed estimates.

The Dick O'Kane method is very tolerant of course errors, but very harsh on speed estimates. This new method is tolerant of speed and course errors.

[Xia288]

Can't wait to use the new attack method !!! Dick O'Kane works great for me. So let me get this right before I try this new way tonight:

1. Aim target at 45 degree
2. with fast top setting aim target at +10 degree when target is in the cross.
3. Aim & fire aft first, MOT 2nd and bow last.

wait for the BOOM !

If missed, go back to 2nd chance with 90 degree Dick O'Kane way.

Correct ? Gents.

Xia288