Guides and Training

Frederf · 09-07-09, 04:17 PM

I think it's rash to discredit any of the graphs or math for not taking in all possible tactical factors. The base assumption in pretty much all of these targeting tools is a contact that will continue to travel in a straight line throughout the attack. O'Kane or Cromwell methods are similarly lacking in their encompassing of all factors.

Another big one is these all assume our ordinance works perfectly which, don't mention this to the Admiral Lockwood, but I'm beginning to have my doubts. All methods are limited by their driving factors. This is the only thing that makes the problems tractable. It is up to the commander to utilize the various methods with the brainglue to bridge all of them together.

I'd like to throw a red flag at this notion that "fastest speed-made-good to target" is somehow the best. A meeting of greater than right angles means a slower effective torpedo speed...boohoo. If torpedo approach speed was such a boon, we'd all be shooting straight down the bow's of targets. I could even argue that the slower torpedo approach speed places the torpedo in close vicinity of the target for longer which should increase the odds of impact. Obviously shortest physical run and endurance are nice things but the balance point between that and other aiming factors likely skews the best combined track angle away from 90.

Practically, my track angle depends on a lot. Due to the problems with the MK14's impact detonator, my TTa windows are currently 50-60 and 120-130. I hear that shallower tracks are better for magnetic detonation too. It's really nice to know what the best TTa's are for perfectly functioning hardware for when I get some more reliable fish. Against convoys I'll most certainly be using a convoy speed-directed TTa as the chance of picking up secondary impacts outweighs first target accuracy.

09-07-09, 04:17 PM	#17
Frederf Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 665 Downloads: 79 Uploads: 1	I think it's rash to discredit any of the graphs or math for not taking in all possible tactical factors. The base assumption in pretty much all of these targeting tools is a contact that will continue to travel in a straight line throughout the attack. O'Kane or Cromwell methods are similarly lacking in their encompassing of all factors. Another big one is these all assume our ordinance works perfectly which, don't mention this to the Admiral Lockwood, but I'm beginning to have my doubts. All methods are limited by their driving factors. This is the only thing that makes the problems tractable. It is up to the commander to utilize the various methods with the brainglue to bridge all of them together. I'd like to throw a red flag at this notion that "fastest speed-made-good to target" is somehow the best. A meeting of greater than right angles means a slower effective torpedo speed...boohoo. If torpedo approach speed was such a boon, we'd all be shooting straight down the bow's of targets. I could even argue that the slower torpedo approach speed places the torpedo in close vicinity of the target for longer which should increase the odds of impact. Obviously shortest physical run and endurance are nice things but the balance point between that and other aiming factors likely skews the best combined track angle away from 90. Practically, my track angle depends on a lot. Due to the problems with the MK14's impact detonator, my TTa windows are currently 50-60 and 120-130. I hear that shallower tracks are better for magnetic detonation too. It's really nice to know what the best TTa's are for perfectly functioning hardware for when I get some more reliable fish. Against convoys I'll most certainly be using a convoy speed-directed TTa as the chance of picking up secondary impacts outweighs first target accuracy.