Speed number--figuring out ships speed

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by Kendras

Who said that SH3 was a simulation ?

No. SH3 is a game based on the German submarines of WWII, but it's far from a real simulation. Very far !

In English, at least, the terms "game" and "simulation" are not mutually exclusive.

Game:

A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. (Google)

A game is a structured form of play, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool.[1] Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports or games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong, solitaire, or some video games).(Wikipedia)

Simulation:

The representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.(Dictionary.com)

Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[1] The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics, behaviors and functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.(Wikipedia)

Simulation games:

Strategy games—both traditional and modern—may be viewed as simulations of abstracted decision-making for the purpose of training military and political leaders (see History of Go for an example of such a tradition, or Kriegsspiel for a more recent example).
Many other video games are simulators of some kind. Such games can simulate various aspects of reality, from business, to government, to construction, to piloting vehicles (Wikipedia)

So a computer program (or a board game or miniatures game) can be both a game and a simulation. It is a game because it is an activity indulged in for recreation. It is a simulation if it is an attempt to imitate another process. Bridge (the card game) is a game which does not imitate anything, so it is not a simulation.

All the Silent Hunter series are both games and simulations. We can argue as to the quality or fidelity of the simulation, just as we can argue as to their entertainment value as games. But they are used for entertainment and they are modeled on other real or hypothetical processes. So they are both game and simulation.

Are these simulations usable for developing new tactics? No. Are they usable for training submarine crews? No. They are programs intended to retail for about $40. Can they teach us anything about the historical problems and challenges of commanding a U-boat? Possibly, and they can probably teach us things that are simply historically wrong, as well. Any simulation merely teaches us how to use the simulation, not the real-world process it is imitating.

Are we now so far OT that the mods are going to come and turn off the lights?

[Zosimus]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

Let's go back and read the Submarine Commander's Handbook, Kriegsmarine publication number 1643, edition of 1943.

172.) If the range is over 1,000 m, or if there is uncertainty as regards the aiming data (high

speed of the enemy, several torpedoes (2, 3, or 4) should be released on the "fan" pattern. The

idea is to make sure of

one hit. It is better to score only one hit than to miss the target with each of several consecutive shots.

The target should therefore be covered by aiming at the boundaries a the area of dispersion on

the target; i.e., the shots should be spread by the width of the dispersion area in relation to one

shot aimed on the basis of the estimated data (if 2 or 4 shots are fired, in relation to an

imaginary middle shot).

So, according to the KM manual, the purpose of the salvo is not to hit with all torpedoes, but to ensure that at least one hits the target. By firing the 4-degree spread, our tolerable speed error increases from 27% to a whopping 45%.

So where is Kretschmer's treatise on the mathematics of the submerged approach? Where did Topp earn his PhD in Toppology? And what is your basis for claiming that what you do is any closer to Kretschmer's technique than to Rosenstiel's? Evidence, please.

Let's look at some of these commanders who you say "sucked." Because the names are familiar to anyone who knows the history of the U-boat war. Jenisch (26) sank 17 vessels in 6 patrols. Zapp (27) sank 16 in 5 patrols. Endrass (23) sank a "mere" 22 vessesl in 10 patrols. These were brave, seasoned, experienced naval commanders. Do not denigrate their performance just because you and I can achieve higher scores in a game which is a trivialization of the environment they fought in.

Now, you spent good money for your copy of the game, and you can play it any way you want. You can turn it into your high school science project in trigonometry if you wish. Or you can play at 27% realism (sic) and sink the entire British Navy every patrol. Whatever floats your (U-) boat.

But if I can use historically attested tactics and methods in this little game, and get results as good as Hardegen (rank 24, 22 ships in 5 patrols for 115, 656 tons), then I am having fun. If Hardegen sucked, and if Endrass and Jenisch and Zapp sucked, then well, I guess I suck too. It could be worse.

YMMV

Well, I think you need to go back and read the post again and/or take some remedial English lessons.

As I said, the numbers of U-boats ranged into the thousands. Assuming that there were 500 in operation at one time, each with 500 captains, your average captain is number 250 on the list.

We do not have stats for the top 500 u-boat captains. What we do have stats for is the top 50, and even in the top 30 we have some captains who return from patrols with an average of 3 merchants sunk per patrol. Some of these are big name people—names that students of u-boats would recognize. So if the top of the top are returning with 3 under their belt, a good number of mediocre captains are returning patrol after patrol with 0 kills.

By way of comparison, I returned from my latest patrol with 11 merchant kills—10 by torpedo and one by deck gun. Every merchant ship kill was with a two-torpedo salvo striking fore and aft. So yes, this is different from Kretschmer's slogan of one torpedo one ship. On the other hand, he enjoyed an advantage that I do not. In real life, ships hit by torpedoes fall out of formation and can be picked up later with the deck gun. The ships that I hit generally do not fall out of formation—only hits to the aft of the ship bring the ship out of formation. So your 45% error is just a bunch of bullcrud. If you hit a ship in the fore area and the rear shot misses, bounces, or prematures, the ship will pump out the water and continue on as though nothing ever happened.

Plus, in most cases, my crew cannot man the deck gun. Rain or high winds make manning the deck gun impossible, and I can easily experience 30 days straight of bad weather without so much as a 15 minute break to deliver a two-shot coup de grace to a stationary ship. We all know that SH3 weather is broken.

What do I attribute my success to? Patience and perfectionism. While others on here take 3m15s to figure out the course and speed of a ship, I generally take 65 minutes—more than an hour to make certain that alles in Ordnung. I calculate the exact angle to steer when I'm behind the convoy, one that takes me out to a safe distance quickly without falling farther behind the convoy. I submerge every 32 minutes to ensure that the convoy is still on course. I even calculate the exact angle the ship should be at when I'm leading the pack and planning to dive. Using that angle, I calculate the approach angle to use to put myself in optimum position in front of the convoy.

And I do it all with a compass, a ruler, and a protractor. I don't use any trigonometry at all. I just draw a few lines, sketch a couple of circles, draw a similar triangle or two, and measure the angles I need. There's no "high school science project in trigonometry." Just good, old fashioned human ingenuity—the same thing that let the Egyptians build the pyramids with nothing more than a 3,4,5 right triangle in their hand.

[hauangua]

Originally Posted by Zosimus

Well, I think you need to go back and read the post again and/or take some remedial English lessons.

As I said, the numbers of U-boats ranged into the thousands. Assuming that there were 500 in operation at one time, each with 500 captains, your average captain is number 250 on the list.

We do not have stats for the top 500 u-boat captains. What we do have stats for is the top 50, and even in the top 30 we have some captains who return from patrols with an average of 3 merchants sunk per patrol. Some of these are big name people—names that students of u-boats would recognize. So if the top of the top are returning with 3 under their belt, a good number of mediocre captains are returning patrol after patrol with 0 kills.

By way of comparison, I returned from my latest patrol with 11 merchant kills—10 by torpedo and one by deck gun. Every merchant ship kill was with a two-torpedo salvo striking fore and aft. So yes, this is different from Kretschmer's slogan of one torpedo one ship. On the other hand, he enjoyed an advantage that I do not. In real life, ships hit by torpedoes fall out of formation and can be picked up later with the deck gun. The ships that I hit generally do not fall out of formation—only hits to the aft of the ship bring the ship out of formation. So your 45% error is just a bunch of bullcrud. If you hit a ship in the fore area and the rear shot misses, bounces, or prematures, the ship will pump out the water and continue on as though nothing ever happened.

Plus, in most cases, my crew cannot man the deck gun. Rain or high winds make manning the deck gun impossible, and I can easily experience 30 days straight of bad weather without so much as a 15 minute break to deliver a two-shot coup de grace to a stationary ship. We all know that SH3 weather is broken.

What do I attribute my success to? Patience and perfectionism. While others on here take 3m15s to figure out the course and speed of a ship, I generally take 65 minutes—more than an hour to make certain that alles in Ordnung. I calculate the exact angle to steer when I'm behind the convoy, one that takes me out to a safe distance quickly without falling farther behind the convoy. I submerge every 32 minutes to ensure that the convoy is still on course. I even calculate the exact angle the ship should be at when I'm leading the pack and planning to dive. Using that angle, I calculate the approach angle to use to put myself in optimum position in front of the convoy.

And I do it all with a compass, a ruler, and a protractor. I don't use any trigonometry at all. I just draw a few lines, sketch a couple of circles, draw a similar triangle or two, and measure the angles I need. There's no "high school science project in trigonometry." Just good, old fashioned human ingenuity—the same thing that let the Egyptians build the pyramids with nothing more than a 3,4,5 right triangle in their hand.

Wowwww!!If Doenitz had captains as you won the war!It is a pity that the real war is not a PC-game
You tried to ask
Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and Diamonds ?
How can you video game player compare a real commander...Bragging yourself ... you really think is the best of?....
He who praises himself befouls himself....

Good luck zosimo
and community forgive for my words

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by hauangua

Wowwww!!If Doenitz had captains as you won the war!It is a pity that the real war is not a PC-game
You tried to ask
Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and Diamonds ?
How can you video game player compare a real commander...Bragging yourself ... you really think is the best of?....
He who praises himself befouls himself....

Good luck zosimo
and community forgive for my words

'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

So a computer program (or a board game or miniatures game) can be both a game and a simulation. It is a game because it is an activity indulged in for recreation. It is a simulation if it is an attempt to imitate another process. Bridge (the card game) is a game which does not imitate anything, so it is not a simulation.

All the Silent Hunter series are both games and simulations. We can argue as to the quality or fidelity of the simulation, just as we can argue as to their entertainment value as games. But they are used for entertainment and they are modeled on other real or hypothetical processes. So they are both game and simulation.

Are these simulations usable for developing new tactics? No. Are they usable for training submarine crews? No. They are programs intended to retail for about $40. Can they teach us anything about the historical problems and challenges of commanding a U-boat? Possibly, and they can probably teach us things that are simply historically wrong, as well. Any simulation merely teaches us how to use the simulation, not the real-world process it is imitating.

Ah OK, I see. A simulation will never be able to perfectly imitate real word, so we call "simulation" whatever process which try to imitate a real thing (even if very badly).

For me, "simulation" means a software which imitates perfectly (or at least as best as technology allows to) a real thing. It's not at all the case for SH3, IMHO.

Examples : wrong proportions of 3D models (ships, buildings, crews, trees ....), wrong aspect of 3D models (harbours, bunkers, lighthouses ....), wrong aspect of environment (night, underwater light, fog, no snow, see waves, deformed world map, wrong distances ....), wrong AI behaviour (sonar, visual, radar, airplanes ......), wrong ships' buyoncy, wrong sounds (sonar, u-boat engine, voices, orders, torpedoes ......), wrong aspect of GUI (periscope reticules, tools for manual attacks .....), wrong convoys (not historical dates, routes, number of ships, escorts .....), and so on ......................

So, SH3 is just a game which is based on real German u-boats, but very badly imitated.

Examples of good simulations in my opinion ("true simulation", I don't think it's possible to do better) :

- Naval action
- Cliffs of Dover
- Rise of Flight

[Zosimus]

Originally Posted by hauangua

Wowwww!!If Doenitz had captains as you won the war!It is a pity that the real war is not a PC-game
You tried to ask
Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and Diamonds ?
How can you video game player compare a real commander...Bragging yourself ... you really think is the best of?....
He who praises himself befouls himself....

Good luck zosimo
and community forgive for my words

Could you run that by me again, but this time in English? That'd be swell.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Zosimus

Well, I think you need to go back and read the post again and/or take some remedial English lessons.

As I said, the numbers of U-boats ranged into the thousands. Assuming that there were 500 in operation at one time, each with 500 captains, your average captain is number 250 on the list.

We do not have stats for the top 500 u-boat captains. What we do have stats for is the top 50, and even in the top 30 we have some captains who return from patrols with an average of 3 merchants sunk per patrol. Some of these are big name people—names that students of u-boats would recognize. So if the top of the top are returning with 3 under their belt, a good number of mediocre captains are returning patrol after patrol with 0 kills.

By way of comparison, I returned from my latest patrol with 11 merchant kills—10 by torpedo and one by deck gun. Every merchant ship kill was with a two-torpedo salvo striking fore and aft. So yes, this is different from Kretschmer's slogan of one torpedo one ship. On the other hand, he enjoyed an advantage that I do not. In real life, ships hit by torpedoes fall out of formation and can be picked up later with the deck gun. The ships that I hit generally do not fall out of formation—only hits to the aft of the ship bring the ship out of formation. So your 45% error is just a bunch of bullcrud. If you hit a ship in the fore area and the rear shot misses, bounces, or prematures, the ship will pump out the water and continue on as though nothing ever happened.

Plus, in most cases, my crew cannot man the deck gun. Rain or high winds make manning the deck gun impossible, and I can easily experience 30 days straight of bad weather without so much as a 15 minute break to deliver a two-shot coup de grace to a stationary ship. We all know that SH3 weather is broken.

What do I attribute my success to? Patience and perfectionism. While others on here take 3m15s to figure out the course and speed of a ship, I generally take 65 minutes—more than an hour to make certain that alles in Ordnung. I calculate the exact angle to steer when I'm behind the convoy, one that takes me out to a safe distance quickly without falling farther behind the convoy. I submerge every 32 minutes to ensure that the convoy is still on course. I even calculate the exact angle the ship should be at when I'm leading the pack and planning to dive. Using that angle, I calculate the approach angle to use to put myself in optimum position in front of the convoy.

And I do it all with a compass, a ruler, and a protractor. I don't use any trigonometry at all. I just draw a few lines, sketch a couple of circles, draw a similar triangle or two, and measure the angles I need. There's no "high school science project in trigonometry." Just good, old fashioned human ingenuity—the same thing that let the Egyptians build the pyramids with nothing more than a 3,4,5 right triangle in their hand.

You are conflating the success of WW2 u-boat captains who hit their targets with the lack of success of those who never found any targets to attack or never were able to make an attack to begin with.

[Leoz]

Sorry I started the thread. My fault.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by Leoz

Sorry I started the thread. My fault.

Not your fault.

[Zosimus]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

You are conflating the success of WW2 u-boat captains who hit their targets with the lack of success of those who never found any targets to attack or never were able to make an attack to begin with.

No, you can't read either.

I said: "So, basically, your average u-boat captain sucked. And if you do things the way he did, you'll suck too."

To which BigWallEyed replied: "If Hardegen sucked, and if Endrass and Jenisch and Zapp sucked, then well, I guess I suck too."

This is just proof that BigWallEyed cannot read. There were hundreds if not thousands of u-boat captains. Hardegen was in the top 25, and he was only averaging 3 a patrol.

What was the average u-boat captain doing? For people, like BigWallEyed, who do not know the meaning of the word "average" it means someone in the middle.

I don't know what the average was doing, because I don't have exact stats. I can, however, grab a few stories and see where that leads us.

U-510: 7 patrols, 11 ships sunk. Involved in 2 wolfpacks.
U-520: Sailed out of Kiel all the way to Newfoundland and got sunk by an aircraft. No victories.
U-530: 7 Patrols. Sank 2 ships. Most eventful patrol: Got rammed by a tanker and had to limp back to port. Rammed... by a f**king TANKER. Pathetic.
U-540. One patrol. Joined a wolfpack. Sank nothing. Got sunk by airplanes.
U-550. Sailed out of Kiel to Newfoundland. Found a convoy heading for Great Britain from New York. So basically, the ship had the whole Atlantic crossing to plan and set up an attack. Instead, she torpedoed one straggler, got depth charged and sunk. Pathetic.
U-560 No patrols. Moving on...
U-570 Captained by someone with no experience in u-boats. Surfaced directly under an airplane, which depth charged it. They were so shaken by the experience, that they surrendered to an airplane that was out of depth charges. No successes.
U-580. No patrols. Moving on...
U-590. Five patrols. Member of six wolf packs. Sank one ship.
--------------------------------------------
That, my friend, is your AVERAGE u-boat captain.

So when BigWallEyed says, "Your average u-boat captain didn't do it that way," I just don't see how that's an argument for anything.

I don't understand why you are quarreling with each other, guys ...

@ Zosimus : You can't say that u-boats' captains were incompetent, because you have not yourself commanded a German u-boat in WWII, so you have no real idea on how difficult it was (technology, navigation, psychology, self-control ....) Don't forget that SH3 is just a very unrealistic game with a very basic artificial intelligence, and you are playing it at home sitting on a confortable chair during your free time, without risking your own life, and the life of a whole crew ... If "game over", you can restart ... that was not the case in real life ...

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Kendras

I don't understand why you are quarreling with each other, guys ...

@ Zosimus : You can't say that u-boats' captains were incompetent, because you have not yourself commanded a German u-boat in WWII, so you have no real idea on how difficult it was (technology, navigation, psychology, self-control ....) Don't forget that SH3 is just a very unrealistic game with a very basic artificial intelligence, and you are playing it at home sitting on a confortable chair during your free time, without risking your own life, and the life of a whole crew ... If "game over", you can restart ... that was not the case in real life ...

What he implied is that since he did so well in a game, spending an hour making things perfect, most real uboat captains were incompetent because they followed their handbook while dealing with the unpredictable actions of other human beings who may or may not have spotted them, with the actions of their own crew, with the randomness of equipment failures or weather, eith the effects of wind and current on ownship course and speed made good, rather than trying to perfectly match his technique in a controlled environment.

Bottom line. The techniques used by real ww2 captains would've been used by all of them because they'd be discussed over drinks, gossipped about at squadron, and eventually become doctrine. New techniques discovered by a succesful captain would eventually be tried by all of them. For all we know, some Uboat captain may have parallelly figured out Ekelund ranging, Spiess Ranging, or CHURN, but if he never got a chance to employ it due to being sunk first, we'll never know.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by Zosimus

So when BigWallEyed says, "Your average u-boat captain didn't do it that way," I just don't see how that's an argument for anything.

That's interesting, since if you go back and actually read my post, you will see that I never wrote those words. or any words of equivalent or even similar meaning.

Some observations:

1. We are at an advantage over our RL counterparts. We know that AI ships only move at speeds in integer knots. Check in the campaign.xxx files. Or turn on the God's eye view so you can get exact data. You'll see what I mean.

2. Knowing the target's speed to better than the nearest integer is not necessary for a successful firing solution. The target is BIG. At 1000 meters, optimum firing range as recommended by KM doctrine, a 140 meter long ship will subtend 8 degrees. The lead angle for a 90 degree shot is 14.5 degrees for a target moving at 10 knots. So if you aim for the center of the target, you can have a speed error of 27% at 1000 meters and still hit. At 2000 meters, quite a long shot, the allowable error drops to 14%. That's 8.5 kts, instead of 10kts. It is not difficult to distinguish between 8.5 and 10 kts.

3. Submarine commanders were warriors, not engineers and certainly not accountants. If you read the first-person accounts, they didn't attempt to determine target parameters with great accuracy, just enough to get the torpedo on the target with a good probability of success. Better to fire two fish, hit, and retire than to try for the perfect shot, get detected, and have to abort the attack. I don't recall ever having read of an RL sub skipper who regarded the attack as a math problem. That's for staff officers.

Remember that the torpedo is a big, powerful weapon. Any hit will do a lot of damage. A heart shot is not needed.

[hauangua]

Originally Posted by Kendras

I don't understand why you are quarreling with each other, guys ...

@ Zosimus : You can't say that u-boats' captains were incompetent, because you have not yourself commanded a German u-boat in WWII, so you have no real idea on how difficult it was (technology, navigation, psychology, self-control ....) Don't forget that SH3 is just a very unrealistic game with a very basic artificial intelligence, and you are playing it at home sitting on a confortable chair during your free time, without risking your own life, and the life of a whole crew ... If "game over", you can restart ... that was not the case in real life ...

I agree
comprehensive answer
Someone confusing real life with game...

[Pisces]

From the originating post

Originally Posted by Leoz

...
Scenario: calculating a ships speed by how many seconds it takes to travel its own length.

Typically it is done by ships length in meters, divided by the seconds you observe, then multiply by 1.85 to get a ship's speed in knots.

Sorry, I know this thread had enough fire in it already. But I still feel this needs to be corrected. I know part of the arguments were about the non-need for accuracy. And that has merit. But if a method is to be explained it should have the right values from the start. Afterwards one can cut corners and round numbers of to your heart's content, yet deal with the consequences of inaccuracy.

Leoz, the proper conversion factor between meters/second and knots is actually 1.94. You see, it goes from meters/second to knots, or nautical mile/hour. 1.94 is 3600 seconds divided by 1852 meters. If it has to be done easy rather than accurate 'length times 2', divided by seconds, would be good also.