attack tactics

[cali03boss]

I see a lot of people posting about their approaches and how they fire off 4 torpedos then get maybe one or two to hit. My question is what are you guys doing in your approaches? I play the game on 100% realism with all those Tmaru whatevers added on and I get a miss maybe once every 15 shots.

Maybe I've just been playing this and SH3 for too long, but using the map and course finder it seems impossible for anyone to miss a shot unless they've been seen.

Maybe if someone could direct me to a topic where they map out the "correct" way to approach a target....because if everyone is following that and I still hear of people wasting over half of their torpedos.....then obviously it isn't a correct way to approach.

[tater]

Well, I play with hardcore torpedoes, so a huge % of my fish fail to function properly.

I also fire spreads regardless of what I think my solution is like since they would have in RL.

Wasting only half would make you the best skipper in the fleet in RL (by a long shot since 70% failed in RL).

YMMV.

tater

[cali03boss]

Then that just goes to show you the lack of realism present in SH4. I typically come back from the patrols with all objectives completed...average of 10k-20k tonnage....ALWAYS have over 75% of my reserve torpedos.

[tater]

How abnout this. Use the hardcore torpedo mod, and for the first year of the war, set your fish 10 feet under the keel. The fish will run another 10-12 feet under that, and none will hit.

Welcome to RL for the USN, 1942 ;)

tater

[cali03boss]

I'm not talking about depth. I'm talking about the approach, and the gathering of information for the TDC. It seems that some people still miss when using this sytem...reguardless of mods.

[tater]

Everyone's not the stud on the TDC that you are I guess.

[kentcol]

:lol:

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not talking about depth. I'm talking about the approach, and the gathering of information for the TDC. It seems that some people still miss when using this sytem...reguardless of mods.
Putting aside the stud deal, some people may not be as patient to get in a 100% guaranteed shot. Some do not understand the mechanics fully. Some do not understand when to use fast torps or slow torps. Some like to keep on trying the magnetic exploder that is a big failure in itself. Perhaps you just have a good grasp on all of the above and do well. If this is the case, help those that ask what your secret is. I see one thread today getting some attention of convoy tactics. Personally, I suck for the most part. 97% realism, outside view only:D. Straight up vanilla with textures added and the sinking mechanics mod. No more and no less.

Tater has a point, and wonder if this can be modded in. The skippers were ordered to use the magnetic exploders. Perhaps a mod that will only allow magnetic to be used until the date that Lockwood said to stop using them and use impact.

[Wim Libaers]

Tater has a point, and wonder if this can be modded in. The skippers were ordered to use the magnetic exploders. Perhaps a mod that will only allow magnetic to be used until the date that Lockwood said to stop using them and use impact.

It has been claimed that this is, in fact, hardcoded into the game, and that the selector switch is not functional.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120328 (post number 20 and later)

[Captain Scribb]

I assume I am just a "rogue" commander, who lies in his logbook about his detonator settings. :cool:

[AVGWarhawk]

Tater has a point, and wonder if this can be modded in. The skippers were ordered to use the magnetic exploders. Perhaps a mod that will only allow magnetic to be used until the date that Lockwood said to stop using them and use impact.

It has been claimed that this is, in fact, hardcoded into the game, and that the selector switch is not functional.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120328 (post number 20 and later)

Hmmmm....I will have to mess with it. Usually I set depth at the shallowest and they work on impact.

[Swede]

read my signature:cool:

[amurph182]

Hmmmm....I will have to mess with it. Usually I set depth at the shallowest and they work on impact.

that's because the Contact Influence setting is not "contact-influence" but "contact/influence"...as in it will either explode on "contact" or via the magnetic "influence" trigger.

I may be incorrect, but my reading seems to indicate that selecting a trigger was not as simple as flipping a switch in real life. From what I can recall, all of the torps had the magnetic triggers installed, and that was how they were fired. To disable the magnetic trigger the torpedomen had to take the thing apart and doing so was forbidden by the Navy for quite some time. A few enterprising skippers disabled them anyway and were much more successful with their attacks. They would of course not report that they had disabled them and would have any unused torpedos repaired on the way home. Ironically, their success was actually seen as proof that the magnetic exploders worked since they were afraid to be honest about violating orders.

[ktrboston]

Apparentlly I must be doing the wrong thing still trying to work on it and trying to full understand the proper or rather best way to approach and intercept. This part eludes me somewhat. Naval sim games are farely new to me. I got SH3 beginning of the year and just got SH4 couple of months ago. There are some very good post on this forum that help folks like me. Sorry but the USAF did not teach proper naval tactics, approaches, and interception at least not on ships.:smug:

[Capt. Shark Bait]

Everyone's not the stud on the TDC that you are I guess.

oowwww snap:ping:

[AVGWarhawk]

Hmmmm....I will have to mess with it. Usually I set depth at the shallowest and they work on impact.

that's because the Contact Influence setting is not "contact-influence" but "contact/influence"...as in it will either explode on "contact" or via the magnetic "influence" trigger.

I may be incorrect, but my reading seems to indicate that selecting a trigger was not as simple as flipping a switch in real life. From what I can recall, all of the torps had the magnetic triggers installed, and that was how they were fired. To disable the magnetic trigger the torpedomen had to take the thing apart and doing so was forbidden by the Navy for quite some time. A few enterprising skippers disabled them anyway and were much more successful with their attacks. They would of course not report that they had disabled them and would have any unused torpedos repaired on the way home. Ironically, their success was actually seen as proof that the magnetic exploders worked since they were afraid to be honest about violating orders.

I have read much the same! Hell, if I was the skipper I would have told the torpedomen to change the exploder. I'm not risking 70 mens lives over a 10 dollar magnetic exploder.

[amurph182]

Tater has a point, and wonder if this can be modded in. The skippers were ordered to use the magnetic exploders. Perhaps a mod that will only allow magnetic to be used until the date that Lockwood said to stop using them and use impact.

the mod would have to force you to set the torps to run deep, as the "contact influence" setting allows for detonation upon contact and not just magnetic influence. As it is, the only thing the switch in the game does is disable the magnetic exploder (IF the switch actually works, which seems to be debatable). So even if the switch is disabled in a mod or doesn't work to begin with, you can still run the torps into the target as opposed to under it to avoid some of the problems with the magnetic exploder. The real life exploder had a contact trigger as well (IIRC), so it would be unrealistic to disable this in game, but it would force you to aim for magnetic shots if you could do this.

The problems of the Mk14 were solved in this order:
1) running deeper than set
2) magnetic exploder either not working at all or causing premature detonation
3) contact exploder not working when hitting the targets in the 90-degree range because of a weak firing pin.

So the mod you suggest would need to have, essentially, four different versions of the Mk14:
1) an early war model where the contact exploder is either completely disabled or strongly gimped to either force or encourage you to aim under the hull, along with a random depth error between 10 and 25 feet and a magnetic exploder with X% failure rate
2)a mid-early war torp that runs at the correct depth but with the same exploder problems.
3) a mid war torp with the magnetic exploder completely disabled but with the contact exploder working the exact opposite of the one in SH3: you will recall that in SH3, the exploder was only reliable withing X degrees of 90 and that oblique shots would often fail to explode. Simply flip that over, and you have the Mk14 contact exploder.
4) a mid-late war torp with no problems, but still with a Y% failure rate (as nothing was ever really perfect).

I don't know how easy this would be to mod. The best case scenario is that you can create separate torpedos with varrying levels of supply, to simulate the availability of "fixed" torpedos. But if that's too hard then you can probably just have a mod that tweaks the torp performance at various dates but I don't know if you can actually mod how the exploder works.

[amurph182]

Sorry but the USAF did not teach proper naval tactics, approaches, and interception at least not on ships.:smug:

but they did teach you when you use a sand wedge and when to use a pitching wedge, right?

[ktrboston]

Of Course:lol: Help me improve my short game

[Sailor Steve]

Hmmmm....I will have to mess with it. Usually I set depth at the shallowest and they work on impact.

that's because the Contact Influence setting is not "contact-influence" but "contact/influence"...as in it will either explode on "contact" or via the magnetic "influence" trigger.

I may be incorrect, but my reading seems to indicate that selecting a trigger was not as simple as flipping a switch in real life. From what I can recall, all of the torps had the magnetic triggers installed, and that was how they were fired. To disable the magnetic trigger the torpedomen had to take the thing apart and doing so was forbidden by the Navy for quite some time. A few enterprising skippers disabled them anyway and were much more successful with their attacks. They would of course not report that they had disabled them and would have any unused torpedos repaired on the way home. Ironically, their success was actually seen as proof that the magnetic exploders worked since they were afraid to be honest about violating orders.

I have read much the same! Hell, if I was the skipper I would have told the torpedomen to change the exploder. I'm not risking 70 mens lives over a 10 dollar magnetic exploder.
All of the above is true. there was no switch to turn magnetic pistols on and off. There is even some question as to whether the Germans had such a switch. Some skippers did have their chiefs disable them, but it also required recognizing that that was the problem, and having the skills to actually do the job; otherwise every one of them would have done it.

[amurph182]

All of the above is true. there was no switch to turn magnetic pistols on and off. There is even some question as to whether the Germans had such a switch. Some skippers did have their chiefs disable them, but it also required recognizing that that was the problem, and having the skills to actually do the job; otherwise every one of them would have done it.

I don't know about his. Skippers read each other's patrol reports before going out themselves, and the silent services was (is) such a close-knit community that I'm going to bet that it was within the first couple months of the war that the general consensus was that the torpedos were junk. And it wasn't much longer before plenty of good skippers were reporting that their torps were running directly under their targets. The fact that BuOrd and ComSubPac were ordering skippers to shoot the torps as they had been designed (under the keel) and to not disable the magnetic exploders would seem to indicate that pretty much everybody knew that they ran deep and that the magnetic exploders were crap and that people were actually shooting shallow for contact, and moreover that this was reportedly working better than the ordered tactics. Otherwise, why tell everyone not to do it? Since the torps required routine maintenance and navy torpedomen were well trained, actually disabling them was more time consuming that difficult.

I think that pretty much everyone knew that they didn't work right, but some skippers were just more adept at discerning which orders should be followed and which shouldn't. Let's not forget that most of the early war skippers were older, peace-time navy skippers, who had risen to their positions by playing the game. It took a while for the maverick, do whatever it takes-type of skipper to become commonplace.

That and at least a certain number of torps worked just fine, which would dissuade some skippers from using non-approved tactics since their buddy so-and-so had just come back from a patrol with a few ships sunk and everything had worked well for him.

There was immense pressure on skippers to sink ships. Those that didn't were replaced. Yet there was also immense pressure to operate exactly as ordered. This affects different people differently.

[cali03boss]

Well after reading this all over I understand your guys' comments. But as far as the war date and torpedo settings...I'm playing in November of '43.

And From what AVG said, I guess if anyone would like advice Ill give it out.

Its all about not stressing out.

[amurph182]

And From what AVG said, I guess if anyone would like advice Ill give it out.


well, based on your original post where you said that you don't understand how people are missing with their shots, I think I can shed some light on that as I was having a lot of problems until recently.

The biggest problem for me was AOB. I was getting it pretty close, but my shots were consistently missing either just forward or just aft of the target. Once I changed my method of determining AOB, my shots are all hitting except for duds and when I rush a shot or make a stupid mistake.

Previously, I was determining AOB either by my manual plot or by eyeballing it. Once I watched wernersobe's vids, where you determine course and then adjust the AOB wheel until it matches the target heading in the tdc, that problem was resolved. I really wasn't off by much before that, but over time the PK will really be off with even a relatively small AOB error.

I was also getting the range wrong by a couple hundred yards...again, not much but enough that over time the PK ends of being off just enough to miss. First I was a victim of the known imperial measurement error with ship heights, but then I was just not being careful enough when using the tool. Some people have said that range doesn't matter at all, but I don't see how this is possible.

I was usually right on with speed but again, even a mistake of a knot or two can cause a problem over time or with a long shot.

+/- ~200 yards and ~5 degrees AOB when you start the position keeper can ruin the entire shot if you just assume that everything is correct. And the indicated bearing and AOB on the pk is close enough to the target's true bearing and AOB that you don't notice an error a lot of the times. It can look like you've set the shot up perfectly, only to have torps miss the target by several yards

[cali03boss]

The biggest problem for me was AOB.

Usually always the problem. I've tried all the online plotting stuff and it just does't work for me. What you said sounds like one of the other tutorials I saw here on the web. I don't remember which one. I do what is called "point eye ball mark". My dad taught it to me (he served as an XO during the 70s). You look at a target, reguardless of your bearing or approach.....take your right hand and recreate what the ship looks like to you when locked on. Be careful, but be quick...mimic the AOB by what you see with your hand. Then lock your wrist with your muscles...and rotate your arm forward so you see your hand...and the AOB vertically. Then you match it to the computer's diaginal finder.(in this case the picture of the boat)

[amurph182]

. My dad taught it to me (he served as an XO during the 70s).

my dad was also a submariner. What boats did he serve on?

[Powerthighs]

Some people have said that range doesn't matter at all, but I don't see how this is possible.

I've seen this a lot too, and its simply not true. Of course range matters. At the very least, it determines how long your torpedos run, so it affects how much the target is led.

[cali03boss]

my dad was also a submariner. What boats did he serve on?
He was on two...one was called the Hato or something...the other I don't remember. I can ask though next time I see him. (Im away at college)

EDIT:

Woodril Wilson? i think that may have been the other one.

[cali03boss]

Of course range matters.

Should be updated the most as well. Who says range doesn't matter?

[amurph182]

Who says range doesn't matter?

without taking the time to do a search and tell you exactly who says this, it has been repeadtedly stated on this board that range doesn't affect torpedo accuracy. Since you can't create a solution without it, I don't know what they're talking about unless there is some kind of flaw in the tdc. While the game has many flaws, I can't say that this is one I have seen.

[AVGWarhawk]

Who says range doesn't matter?
without taking the time to do a search and tell you exactly who says this, it has been repeadtedly stated on this board that range doesn't affect torpedo accuracy. Since you can't create a solution without it, I don't know what they're talking about unless there is some kind of flaw in the tdc. While the game has many flaws, I can't say that this is one I have seen.

All three pieces of data are critical to a good solution. Perhaps range does not not have to be dead on for a good shot but.....good range will give you good data for speed estimation. I will say it again though, the closer you get the more room for error you have but with good results. Skippers got to 1500 yards or closer. I'm not one for the 3000 yard shot and most skippers did not either. So not bothering with range, how does one know how close they are to the target? Got me!

[cali03boss]

I'm not one for the 3000 yard shot and most skippers did not either. So not bothering with range, how does one know how close they are to the target? Got me!

Yes. never fire a torpedo prior to 1600 yards. Seems impossible to hit otherwise...maybe THATs why everyone is missing.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not one for the 3000 yard shot and most skippers did not either. So not bothering with range, how does one know how close they are to the target? Got me!
Yes. never fire a torpedo prior to 1600 yards. Seems impossible to hit otherwise...maybe THATs why everyone is missing.
Good possibility. The 3000 yard shot leaves to much of gap for good solution. Once within 2000 yards, the target should darn clear and accurate range made. Make this your last look! Open doors and plan on firing at 1500 yards or less. Watch the TDC for best angle to fire. If you read up on RL skippers and their accounts. A lot of calculation was done off the hip and done at close range. As a result of the close range, the error in his speed and quick range estimates did not play a huge factor for solution and good outcome.

[cali03boss]

by last look do you mean pull the scope down and fire?

[Rafter11]

I'm not one for the 3000 yard shot and most skippers did not either. So not bothering with range, how does one know how close they are to the target? Got me!

Yes. never fire a torpedo prior to 1600 yards. Seems impossible to hit otherwise...maybe THATs why everyone is missing.

If you can shadow with radar and take the time to nail speed & AOB, plus get a decent range, 2500 yrd shots work. Given the new IJN ASW, I have been going for longer shots from the ten or two oclock positions.

[cali03boss]

Given the new IJN ASW, I have been going for longer shots from the ten or two oclock positions.

So what is your hit ratio then?

[AVGWarhawk]

by last look do you mean pull the scope down and fire?
Yes, if you get your TDC set as best you can and fairly accurate, no need to see the target anymore. Drop scope and watch your TDC. You can see the range close and the AOB change. Once you are comfortable with your range, fire away and listen for he WHACK of the torps. Also your watch pops up and you can time it when it should happen. If it passes the red hand by a large margin, your solution was off. If you have a good solution, the torps should explode when it hits that red hand.

The best video and I can not find it was the community member who showed us how to use the sonar only to fire torps. This guy never saw the ship at all. He was dead on just using sonar and pinging the ship. Set up the TDC and completely nailed it. The scope never went up. Much the same with the scope. Get you calculation, set up the TDC, drop scope. Fire when ready

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not one for the 3000 yard shot and most skippers did not either. So not bothering with range, how does one know how close they are to the target? Got me!
Yes. never fire a torpedo prior to 1600 yards. Seems impossible to hit otherwise...maybe THATs why everyone is missing.
If you can shadow with radar and take the time to nail speed & AOB, plus get a decent range, 2500 yrd shots work. Given the new IJN ASW, I have been going for longer shots from the ten or two oclock positions.
No doubt 2500-3000 yard shot work. But, the margin for error is greater than working in closely for more accurate range, AOB and speed estimates. We are offered the spread with TDC to help offset small errors in our calculations. In my experience the spread angles should be used with the longer shots and no spread on the 1500 yard or less shots. Also, I use slow setting on my torps unless it is DD that can manuever a bit faster than the fat old merchant. Most like the fast torp all the time. I use slow setting when I'm in close. If I'm 1500 yards or more, I set torps to fast. But that is just me. Everyone has their own way to handle the torps.

[Rafter11]

[/quote]
No doubt 2500-3000 yard shot work. But, the margin for error is greater than working in closely for more accurate range, AOB and speed estimates. We are offered the spread with TDC to help offset small errors in our calculations. In my experience the spread angles should be used with the longer shots and no spread on the 1500 yard or less shots. Also, I use slow setting on my torps unless it is DD that can manuever a bit faster than the fat old merchant. Most like the fast torp all the time. I use slow setting when I'm in close. If I'm 1500 yards or more, I set torps to fast. But that is just me. Everyone has their own way to handle the torps.[/quote]

Warhawk, that is a great point on when to use the spread, I am going to use your rule of thumb. At 1500 yds, what degree spread would you recomend?

I am curious about your torp speed settings. Why you think slow settings on the torps for close shots are advantageous?

[cali03boss]

At 1500 yds, what degree spread would you recomend?

no spread on the 1500 yard or less shots.

none.

[tater]

I always use the fast setting (I might switch to slow if I was attacking invasion forces standing still in shallows, though), and I almost always fire a spread. 3 or more at any warship, at least two at all but the smallest merchant.

Why?

Because they did in RL, I don't care what it does to my hit %.

tater

[cali03boss]

Because they did in RL, I don't care what it does to my hit %.

They may have fired salvos yes...but not beyond 2000 yards and certainly not without range calculations.

They also always used the standard speed. (Its not modeled in the game but the reason is it had less of a wake)

[Rockin Robbins]

Actually there is one secret to hitting just about everything you shoot at. That is getting as close as you can. Learned it from Baron von Richthofen. I defy you to miss from 500 yards. I seldom take a shot from outside 700 yards. Being careful to take such shots I can hit a ship with all three sonar only fired torpedes in a 1½º spread bow, center, stern just about every time.

If you're that close they can turn, they can accellerate or decellerate and they're pretty much toast anyway, especially if you fire a spread. I usually fire center, 1½º toward the stern, then 1½º toward the bow. Sometimes on small ships I'll only fire 2.

I shoot one when firing at destroyers. They only get shot in dire circumstances and AOB 0º or 180º. I'm out for tonnage, not tin cans. One hit and they're done anyway.

[cali03boss]

That tactic would work for a single target or a single column convoy...but not a double or triple column convoy.

You need range to fire the torps at the farthest ships first, then fire at the closer ones last.

[AVGWarhawk]

I always use the fast setting (I might switch to slow if I was attacking invasion forces standing still in shallows, though), and I almost always fire a spread. 3 or more at any warship, at least two at all but the smallest merchant.

Why?

Because they did in RL, I don't care what it does to my hit %.

tater

I always used the slower settings for no reason at all really but yes, skippers were advised to use a spread up to 3 torps. The thought was a greater degree in scoring a hit. Any more and it was considered a waste. As far a my spread, I use just one degree unless the mechant is over 1500 yards and moving fast....I set torps to fast as well. From what I gather we are missing some variables in the game...rough water, strong currents. These are variables that had to be considered by the skipper. For example, the USS Jack had to transverse the straits between Borneo and Sumartra on the return course back to Fremantle the skipper heard the currents were very strong in the direction of travel towards Java. Being the straits here are very shallow getting through quickly was the order of the day. Normally the Jack would be run at 3 kts submerged but as a result of the strong currents the Jack was running at 5 kts and cleared the straits in a day. If the currents are strong enough to influence a submarine, certainly the currents would influence a torpedo and probably more so with a greater distance to travel. I believe this was part of the doctrine to get in nice and tight before you fire. Like Tater, I always send out three torps no matter the size of the merchant. Like Tater, I like to get it as real as possible. As a result, my tonnage is very much like would have and did occur during patrols. I'm still a firm believer in getting in close to have a greater degree of success.

[AVGWarhawk]

Actually there is one secret to hitting just about everything you shoot at. That is getting as close as you can. Learned it from Baron von Richthofen. I defy you to miss from 500 yards. I seldom take a shot from outside 700 yards. Being careful to take such shots I can hit a ship with all three sonar only fired torpedes in a 1½º spread bow, center, stern just about every time.

If you're that close they can turn, they can accellerate or decellerate and they're pretty much toast anyway, especially if you fire a spread. I usually fire center, 1½º toward the stern, then 1½º toward the bow. Sometimes on small ships I'll only fire 2.

I shoot one when firing at destroyers. They only get shot in dire circumstances and AOB 0º or 180º. I'm out for tonnage, not tin cans. One hit and they're done anyway.

Right on! One can sink by sonar alone all day! As long as the merchant does not change course on you, he is bagged:yep: RR has nailed my point to a T. Close and personal just about guarantees great results. The biggest thing is not getting your butt detected. Short looks 2-4 times for AOB/speed/bearing, drop the scope and let the PK do it's thing. Sometimes I get the urge to sit and watch the eye candy explosion and often this is what cooks my goose on getting detected....merchant turns or slows down. All calculations are now a wash. BUT....if your close enough....it usually makes no difference...let the torps fly! There is an excellent chance he will be bagged anyway.

[Luckye]

This is probably the wrong place for this long reply i'm fixing to make, but i've just got through reading the whole post and i think i got some interesting things to say about my patrol today.

I've had this game for about 3 days now so i'm still new, so bear with me. This patrol was run in v 1.3 SH4, realism 94 i think, everything set to hard except i kept external view on this time cause i wanted it on for learning purposes.

Anyway, i start a new career at pear harbor 1941, and receive my sub the USS Permit.

1st Mission, Photo recon of Tokyo naval base. At first i say no way i'm going into tokyo, i'm too new. But then i thought, think of how much a mission like this could help out the war if completed, heh.

I leave dock and set up waypoints to go from pearl harbor, then to midway, then to tokyo. I set speed standard and increased time and arrived near tokyo pretty fast and in the cover of night, plot a short coarse to go up in there to the dock and go half way in surfaced and the other half at periscope deapth. On my map i messed up my calculation of 8nm so that i can take a picture and flee and set up a point i needed to go to that was 800m, and i only realized this because i wasn't even close to that point and realized it would be suicide to go in that close since the ships belly was nearly draggin on the floor.

Anyway figured out that i was plenty close, raised periscope, took a photo and started to make my way out, its early morning and i decide to hop to the surface and get some distance south and recharge my batteries a bit. Some reason my crew neglected to tell me ship sighted, i read the chat box and i was surfaced for a long time and looked soon as i was surfaced and didn't see this destroyer. Getting to the point i hit the time accelerator and noticed rounds being fired at me, i go to periscope depth, in shallow waters and thats as deep as i could go, and i dodge his depth charge attacks by using the observation scope to bank hard just before he ran over me.

This is where it gets good if your still reading this poorly told story.

This destroyer calls in 2 other destroyers and 4 other gunboats that don't drop depth charges, or they never did the whole time. By this time i have gave up on not cheating so i'm using the external view to navigate around and dodge ships.

Destoryer #1 passes over me, i bank hard then continue south after he passes and drops some depth charges, he circles around, i pop up attack periscope, whip up a quick shooting solution and fire out aft torpedo and make a direct hit and he goes down.

Well while doing all of this i didn't see Destroyer #2 commin in for his depth charge pass, and he runs smooth over me, i mean all i had time to do was drop the periscope, his full left rudder and bam, he runs into my tower, ship leaned sideways, screaching of metal rubbing to together, and i just set back in my chair and think GG.

But the destroyer drops his depth charges all the way to the floor and i'm not harmed, lawl. I immediately raise periscope and go for a quick shooting solution on him, hes banking hard and i'm at flank speed from trying to evade, i whip up and quick solution, guess the range and the speed and fire with highe speed torpedo, torpedo turns sharp and hits him right on the tail, just barely, and this just just limps off, not turning back to me, he just left the battlefield, guess the rudder was gone.

By this time destoryer #3 is commin in for a pass, and he wasn't moving that fast and i was waiting for the right moment to hit flank speed and hard rudder, but he like turns on the turbo jets and is on top of me before i had time to evade, another metal grinding experience and he actually hits me with depth charges and knocks some holes on the right side of my hull, he too banks right and i set up for a quick shot, guessing on range and speed i fire and the torpedo is right on, i mean it couldn't have been a more beutiful shot, and the torpedo just goes right through him, either it was a dud and the ship didn't stop the torp, or it messed up and just went too deep, i'll never know.

After this i'm running and trying to evade, i had so ignorantly wasted the rest of my torps taking pop shots and the gunboats (lesson learned) and was outa torpedos not just dodging destroyer #3.

Then all of a sudden like if the game had seen all that i had done decided to show mercy, the destroyer makes a pass from the front and i'm once again hit from his belly and the metal grinding again, he drops depth charges too shallow.

Here is the wierd part, i don't know if he depth charged himself, if one went off in the boat, or of he running into me cause something bad to his ship, but i look back after regrouping and this guy has his nose stuck in the mud and about 1/4 of his tail end is stick up in the air and fire and smoke everywhere.

All of the gunboats, 4 of them, just start circling this guy, and i float off at 1/3 silent running and escape.

Ships all repaired with my hard working crew, i'm about 1/4 of the way back to midway and i run into a lone merchant and sink him.

Now for the sad part, i'm about 1/2 way back to midway and i missed it somehow, but some planes came in and starting bombing me, i crash dive and one drops a bomb and kills me at 50 meters under water. All that work gone, of coarse i had it saved and made it back to home, but still i would've been so great if i woulda made it back without having to have 2 lives.

And i didn't even get a single medal for my heroics that day when i got back :(.

Really long story but i some weird things happened, thought i'd share it.

[Powerthighs]

You may have noticed that a destroyer hitting your periscope will take fatal damage without any damage dealt to you. It makes it possible to take out large numbers of destroyers by letting them hit your periscope on their depth charge runs. Needless to say, the immersion factor suffers.

[Rockin Robbins]

That tactic would work for a single target or a single column convoy...but not a double or triple column convoy.

You need range to fire the torps at the farthest ships first, then fire at the closer ones last.
Ducimus, you're right again. I hand over the holy Grail and he says "Yeah, but....":rotfl:

My Red Baron strategy always works. It assumes you always have some targeting error. It cancels the effect of the error by putting you so close to the target it doesn't matter. It's the pistol strategy.

You're using the sharpshooter strategy. It's slower, cleaner and puts you too far from the cool explosions. It demands perfect setups every time. In war that doesn't happen. It works for a stud like you but not for most other klutzes.

My cat can use the Red Baron strategy and sink most every ship she fires on. And that's the other disadvantage of the sharpshooter strategy. You hit ships. I sink em. Many a ship will take a torpedo, increase speed to 14 knots and he's gone because you're too far away to set up for another shot. Admiral Lockwood says it is better to sink one ship than hit three. I'm not in the habit of contradicting him. Of course I'm using Realistic Sinking Mechanics 3.0, so I have to make my ships sink. They don't just explode and sink in seconds like stock SH4.

Ducimus, I'll join you in the self-imposed penalty box if you have room over there.

[cali03boss]

My Red Baron strategy always works. It assumes you always have some targeting error.

You're right...I did throw the holy grail back at you. You shouldn't have to assume targetting errors. I don't have targetting errors....and you wouldn't either if you did it RIGHT.

You're using the sharpshooter strategy. It's slower, cleaner and puts you too far from the cool explosions.
Actually i distinctly remember saying not to fire until closer than 1500 yards.

You hit ships. I sink em. Many a ship will take a torpedo, increase speed to 14 knots and he's gone because you're too far away to set up for another shot.
That has NEVER happened to me...so sorry.

You hit ships. I sink em. Many a ship will take a torpedo, increase speed to 14 knots and he's gone because you're too far away to set up for another shot.
So am I 'quint'.

[cali03boss]

In war that doesn't happen. It works for a stud like you but not for most other klutzes.

Yea in real war we weren't exactly limited to 9 viewing locations on the sub either. We were also given much more direct control over multiple aspects of the targetting system rather than just AOB, range, and speed. Newsflash: We aren't in a real war. We are in a situation that demands us to maximize the use of the weapons and options we are given. No need to half-ass it just because you aren't the real captain of a real submarine. Do it right. Sink more ships. Play the game.

[tater]

Standard speed was fast. The slow speed was removed later.

Ships did fire past 2000 yards sometimes, particularly if they knew they'd not get another try. There are many examples cited in Blair of them throwing a spred at targets at extreme range (usully something overlapping like a convoy or TF). A few even got hits. Obviously this wasn't SOP.

The default game has the wrong arming distance for torpedos, so if you are playing with them properly modded, 500 yards is cutting it close for a 400-450 yard arming distance. Stock game arming distance is 200 or 220m. Way too short.

After determining their fish were screwy, they also fired spreads just to make up for failures. Hit %s without using a mod like hardcore dud torepdoes will always give screwy results (compared to RL). Many of my best setups end with a "klunk!" not a "boom!"

As for targetting errors, yeah, thsi is a failure, IMO. It's too easy to hit, frankly. If you bother to take time, you can hit a huge % of the time. In RL, this would have been vastly more difficult because you'd not instantly know it was one of 6 (8, 10, whatever) merchants. You'd likely have misjudged the displacement, range, etc for lack of data.

I'd like to clone a bunch of the merchants and very slightly alter them, and not make accurate rec manual changes to go with them. Make it hard to narrow most ships past maybe 4 equally good choices, any one of which being wrong would result in a single MOT torpedo missing the target many ranges past point blank.


tater

[cali03boss]

lol you guys base your pacific theatre realism on a book written by a historian who only specializes in u-boats?

[tater]

Clay Blair served in the pacific on a submarine (Guardfish).

Silent Victory is an excellent book.

I could equally quote Roscoe, or other tomes I have on US operations in the pacific.

You're welcome to source the statement that US subs never fired past 2000 yards though. Who ever said anyone would fire without trying to determine the range (particularly at extreme range)? Certainly not me.

BTW, he wrote Silent Victory before his u-boat books.

tater

[cali03boss]

btw...historians know historians...and though he served in the pacific he specializes in German U-boats. I'm not gonna look up anything...I wasn't doubting your facts, I was mocking your acceptance of realism based on Blair's reports. Clay Blair has been a contested voice in World War two history for quite some time now. Most of what he has said reguarding the patrols and tactics of the British Navy are completely false...and have been corrected by both the British government and former British admirals.

Blair is not the know-it-all when it comes to submarining and tactics at sea. He wrote good books with fictionalized aspects based on his personal experiences.

YOU are welcome to look up anything I just said.

Though I am not a NAVAL historian...I don't try to be because I have some personal connections with submarining.

[John Channing]

Your second paragraph makes me wonder if you have read Silent Victory. While there is some editorializing there is very little in it that could be even remotely considered "fictionalized", nor does he speak to anything about tactics, other than what was in the Captain's patrol reports. The list of citations at the end of Silent Victory leads me to believe that the man did his research and knew what he was talking about.

Perhaps you have him confused with Edward L Beach Jr?

And as to the statement that US subs never fired at ranges greater that 2000 yds, the facts do not support your statement.

From the Patrol Reports of the USS Batfish...

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 1
Patrol No. 1.
Course: 325° T., Speed 9 knots (pit), Range: 3,400 yards.

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 2
Patrol No. 1.
Course: 325° T., Speed 9 knots (pit)., Range: 3,600 yards

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 3
Patrol No. 1.
Course: Stopped and drifting on heading 100° T., Speed 0, Range: 6000 yards

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 5
Patrol No. 3.
Target Draft: 4', Course: 355° T, Speed: 13 knots, Range: 3350 yd. (at firing)

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 1
Patrol No. 4.
Target Draft: 9'5", Course: 143, Speed: 0, Range: 2670 Yd. (at firing)

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 3
Patrol No. 4.
Target Draft: 9'9", Course: 105, Speed: 0 knots, Range: 2970 Yds (at firing)

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 1
Patrol No. 5.
Target draft: 2', Course: 095, Speed: 9 knots, Range: 2950-2800 yards (at firing)

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 2
Patrol No. 5.
Target Draft: 2', Course: 095, Speed 9 knots, Range: 2855 yards (at firing).

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 3
Patrol No. 5.
Target draft: 12', Course 010°-015° T., Speed: 3.5 knots, Range: 2320-2290 Yds (at firing)

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 4
Patrol No. 5.
Target Draft: 10', Course: 330°, Speed: 0, Range: 2500 yds (anchored), 4800 yds (moored).

U.S.S. BATFISH
Torpedo Attack No. 5
Patrol No. 5.
Target Draft: 10', Course: 300° T., Speed: 7.2 knots, Range: 3750 yards (at firing)

I have many, many more from different Subs if you are interested.

JCC

[Luckye]

You may have noticed that a destroyer hitting your periscope will take fatal damage without any damage dealt to you. It makes it possible to take out large numbers of destroyers by letting them hit your periscope on their depth charge runs. Needless to say, the immersion factor suffers.

That must have been why the ship went down, that or he collided with one of the other boats, dunno how often the ai does that.

[cali03boss]

And as to the statement that US subs never fired at ranges greater that 2000 yds, the facts do not support your statement.

I said they may...I never asserted anything. I don't fire unless its under 2000 so in relation I was referring to myself.

[panzer 49th]

My approach tactic: Move in at 1/3 throttle at periscope depth then stop at pre-determined distance and fire torpedos.

(I play on 100% realism and still get an incredible hit rate 99% of my torpedos hit their targets what is going on :doh:

[John Channing]

And as to the statement that US subs never fired at ranges greater that 2000 yds, the facts do not support your statement.

I said they may...I never asserted anything. I don't fire unless its under 2000 so in relation I was referring to myself.



Sorry. I was confused by your earlier post...


"They may have fired salvos yes...but not beyond 2000 yards "


Most of the attacks I quoted were salvos.

JCC

[AVGWarhawk]

Many torpedo firings were attempted at 2000+ yards and some with great success. Most skippers (from what I read) considered these firings as long shots and sometimes called them desparation shots. The main idea hear is get in close for a better probability of success. Skippers were told to get in close and firing of torpedoes at great distances was not the order of the day because SUBCOM felt it increased the chance of wasteful expenditures of torpedoes. From my recent readings, the after patrol analysis shows SUBCOM chastising some skippers because a particular attack was poor, too far from target, poor position, should have been submerged at night instead of surfaced. Things of this nature. At any rate, if you read most accounts, the skippers often discribe with detail what the sailors on the stricken vessel were wearing after a submerged daylight attack. So, yes, getting in close was the best way to attack and as a result, many skippers were called aggressive by their crew and not in a negative sence of the word.

[tater]

You said They may have fired salvos yes...but not beyond 2000 yards and certainly not without range calculations.

That's pretty definitive as a statement, you didn't say they might past 2000, and it clearly refered to RL, not your in game technique. In fact they usually fired salvoes, and frequently enough did so past 2000 yards.

Blair is a readable book, and I reread it recently so specific examples of long range attacks were fresh in my mind. As I said, I could also look up patrols in Roscoe (or various books of about the exploits of particular boats) to find the same information. Actually, Alden might also list fish expended vs hits, I'd have to check.

I think it's fair to say US submarines typically fired spreads of torpedos, not single fish, regardless of the range.

tater

[cali03boss]

welcome back neco-man. I said may. It is not very diffinitive if there is still room for opposition. It is simple English.

And Blair will always remain a 2nd-rate historian.

[tater]

Blair isn't at issue, it was mentioned in passing regarding accounts of specific long range torpedo shoots by specific boats, not as Blair's opinion regarding tactics/doctrine. Your post suggested that such shoots (beyond 2000 yards) never happened, though perhaps you misspoke. In fact they frequently happened.

BTW, a quick scan of Alden (US Submarine Attacks During World War II, NIP, 1989) of a couple months in 1942 shows fewer than 5% of attacks were single fish. May '44 it was 9 out of 120 attacks (7.5%).

<EDIT> Jan 43 (pulling random months here) 5 attacks out of 65 (7.6%) were single fish. 19 were 2 fish, 21 attacks were three fish. 20 were 4 or more fish.

Clearly salvoes were the norm. Even at longer ranges the rate of multiple fish fired per attack would have to be vastly lower than normal for it to be any less than "frequent" at long ranges (since the average looks to be 90% or more in salvoes).

So they USUALLY fired salvoes, possibly just as much or more over 2000 yards as under 2000 yards.

(neco-man?)

tater

[John Channing]

Perhaps the US Navy would be a credible source?

The following is from the document...

Current Doctrine
Submarines, USF 25(A)
Prepared By: COMMANDER SUBMARINE FORCE, PACIFIC FLEET
FEBRUARY, 1944



"The volume of fire will depend upon the importance of the target, its life in torpedo hits, whether a spread is necessary, the type of torpedo fire, the number of tubes installed, the supply of torpedoes on hand or available at the base, and whether reduction in strength

BB, CC: 10 (all tubes)
Large CV: 10 (all tubes)
Small CV: 6
CA, Large CL: 6
AV, Large Aux., Med. CL, Merchant, Small CL, Small Aux.: 3 or 4
DL, DD: 3

The above table is simply a guide and is in no way mandatory. It is the opinion of most submarine officers that any combatant ship is worth a full nest torpedo salvo. It is also a known fact that in areas normally low in ship contacts, a submarine is justified in firing sufficient torpedoes regardless of target to cause a sinking. In like manner, in an area where targets are known to be numerous Commanding Officers must use their torpedoes with discretion and care in order to inflict the utmost damage to the enemy."


Thanks,

JCC

[cali03boss]

necro-man is what you typically call someone who revived a thread that had already been through closure.

[gutted]

What i've done is create a table for firing angles for 90 degree attacks.

The gist of it is that if you are 90 degrees ofcourse of a target and you know his speed... you dont need to ID him, nor do you need to know his range. This allows you to do rapid attacks vs. multiple ships in a convoy... to the extent that you can have multiple ships being hit almost simultaneously.

as seen in this SH3 video i made a long time ago:
http://jg52.com/gutted/sh3/Convoy.wmv

this is basically what is happening in that video (NOTE: Shooting 1 torpedo per ship is not recommended):
http://jg52.com/gutted/sh3/Animation2.gif


To pull this feat off.. all you need to do is be 90 degrees ofcourse and know his speed. The propertes of the right triangle are such that if you know both legs of it (your torpedo's speed and the ships speed).. you can easily determine any angle inside of it with a simple formula.

I've gone ahead and done the gruntwork for you (rounded to the nearest half degree):
http://jg52.com/gutted/SH4/90_FiringAngles.png

to see it in action:


vs. a 24knot destroyer:
http://jg52.com/gutted/SH4/DD_Attack.wmv


and vs. a Convoy (also shows how to approach without being detected by the lead escort and how to escape):
http://jg52.com/gutted/SH4/ConvoyAttack_90AOB.wmv


enjoy!

[Elphaba]

Absolutely BRILLIANT!!!! Thanks so much for this and taking the time to make very clear tutorial videos.... I've always wanted to take on convoys & DD's and now you've given me a tool that might finally work for me.

Thanks so much.

Elphaba

[switch.dota]

So this literally boils down to knowing the target's course and speed, right?


The angle in the table is the one between the green and blue lines, correct? AKA the relative bearing of the ship at the moment the torp is fired.

[Rockin Robbins]

This is a great way to hit multiple ships and watch them blithely sail over the horizon after you've wasted six torpedoes for no gain. Well, not exactly no gain. You'll be able to tell stories to your pals behind other desks after Admiral Lockwood reams you a new orfice. He has told you once that we attack ships, not convoys. Those who don't learn end up skippering a desk or cleaning out submarines as part of a turnaround crew in Pearl. One thing for sure: they never sail again. Too many skippers will listen and succeed to put up with those who take shortcuts and try to do business the easy way.

"We sink ships in this Navy. We don't damage them. We get in close and hit each ship individually with multiple torpedoes using a proper spread. Don't even shoot if you're not targeting a single ship with intent to kill it. If you have time to target another single ship and kill it too, good. Otherwise pull out, do another end around and resume carnage. Look me in the eye and tell me this is understood. One more chance. Dismissed!"

Damn, that Lockwood sure isn't flexible.

[Rockin Robbins]

lol you guys base your pacific theatre realism on a book written by a historian who only specializes in u-boats?
Let me run down my sources: Thunder Below, Admiral Eugene Fluckey of USS Barb, most successful boat in history,
Torpedoman, Ron Smith, American torpedoman on several subs
War Patrols of the USS Flasher, Capt William McCants
Silent Running, My Years on a World War II Attack Submarine by Vice Admiral James F Calvert
Sub Duty, by Grover S McLeod, various US subs
Freshwater Submarines, the Manitowoc Story, Rear Admiral William T Nelson
Shinano! by Capt Joseph F Enright

That's a portion of my library. Most of these are personally signed by the Captains. Also I have first hand data from years of conversations with my wife's grandfather, Warren Watkins of USS Kraken.

Yup. all U-Boat sources. Yup, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I agree totally with what Tater has said, and my sources back him up. We sank ships, not convoys. We did it the way Tater and I have outlined. The goal is to get in damn close and fire a spread at a single ship. If the target is particularly juicy and the positioning such that plan A isn't attainable a spread from 2000 yards is a worthwhile gamble.

No historians in my group, but Blair's conclusions agree with these and other original primary sources.

Edit: And you sure had MY AOB figured. Hit me right in the head with that grail. You'll get a bill for fixing that in the morning! :nope:

[switch.dota]

In TM + NSM this is actually quite plausible if you fire 1/2/3 torps per small/med/large merchant. It's unlikely for the said vessel class to take more. Remember that if you get the angle right, this is almost like automatic targetting in that you hit EXACTLY where the periscope is pointing.

In the same TM + NSM combination it's unlikely that anyone will be able to end-around an escorted convoy without wasting a lot of fuel.

[amurph182]

lol you guys base your pacific theatre realism on a book written by a historian who only specializes in u-boats?

what are you talking about? The guy has written 20+ books and only two about U-boats. And it was really just a single piece of work with two volumes. not to mention the fact that he wrote Silent Victory in 1975, 20 years before his U-boat book(s).


btw...historians know historians...

apparantly you don't or you wouldn't say:

and though he served in the pacific he specializes in German U-boats

which is decidedly untrue. Considering he only has two works on WWII submarines out of his entire body of work, I don't see how you could even begin to argue this point let alone make a such a definitive statement.

Clay Blair has been a contested voice in World War two history for quite some time now. Most of what he has said reguarding the patrols and tactics of the British Navy are completely false...and have been corrected by both the British government and former British admirals.

show us criticism of Silent Victory in that regard. The worst things I have read about this book is that it contains too many details and not enough commentary. It seems like half the book is quotes from patrol reports.

And Blair will always remain a 2nd-rate historian.

Even if he is a "2nd-rate historian", Silent Victory is sourced almost entirely from patrol reports, which is what people in this discussion are basing their statements on. It's not that Blair said that skippers routinely made shots from 2000+ yards, it's that Blair quotes the patrol reports of the skippers themselves.

[Rockin Robbins]

In TM + NSM this is actually quite plausible if you fire 1/2/3 torps per small/med/large merchant. It's unlikely for the said vessel class to take more. Remember that if you get the angle right, this is almost like automatic targetting in that you hit EXACTLY where the periscope is pointing.

In the same TM + NSM combination it's unlikely that anyone will be able to end-around an escorted convoy without wasting a lot of fuel.
Yes, let me make clear that this is a great tactic for attacking a single ship, an analog to how destroyers use their torpedo tubes. I'm not saying the technique doesn't work, I'm saying that its application is wrong here according to the Admiral, who is contradicted at your peril. It also solves the problem of multiple setups. So long as the convoy doesn't go haywire on you, you leave all settings the same (correcting for any new course by you) and fire away on the next ship! I hate to make it more complicated, but here goes (and it's really not all that bad). This will allow you to use this technique with gutted's tables from any heading!

Destroyers typically shot from a roughly parallel course. They set up their gauge on a pivot so the first step was to aim the gauge itself 90º to the target's course. Then they read the angle to the target based on the chart through the sight tube. That way it wasn't necessary for the attacking boat to actually have to take a perpendicular course.

You can do the same thing mathematically. Lets say the target is going straight east like the animation in the first post. But your path is more than 90º from the target's, like you're on course 45º. You just take the angle from the chart corresponding to the target's speed and add 45º to it to get your periscope offset angle. Set up the TDC ahead of time and when the target lines up, shoot. Just make sure the position keeper is off. You can fire a spread just by timing the shots.

Because you set up once, before you're embroiled in the action, this can eliminate errors in a complicated situation. I know I'm going to load up gutted's chart and go hunting!

[tater]

Well, the most definitive (quick) reality check is Alden. A scan of months throughout the war shows that typically under 8% of attacks were made with single fish.

I think to be realistic, unless you have unescorted merchants where you can make a good setup in a target rich patrol area, firing a spread would have been the norm.

Before the war, they determined that the best chances was a 3 fish spread. Because of torpedo shortages, they were encouraged to be miserly with the fish. Nevermind that the fish were failing a majority of the time they were employed. Many skippers seem to have split the difference according to what I have read and fired 2 (just ahead and astern of MOT). They quickly learned that sparing the fish meant sparing jap shipping, and they fired spreads anyway.

So the original point I made stands, you should fire a spread even if you know you can sink them with one fish if you want to be realistic. I know for example, that all CVs in SH4 can be sunk almost every time by a single fish. Doing so in game would be well within the game's "rules" to get tonnage, but it feels wrong, so I always fire the entire nest at any large warship.

tater

[amurph182]

So the original point I made stands, you should fire a spread even if you know you can sink them with one fish if you want to be realistic. I know for example, that all CVs in SH4 can be sunk almost every time by a single fish. Doing so in game would be well within the game's "rules" to get tonnage, but it feels wrong, so I always fire the entire nest at any large warship.

tater

+1

I make it a point to fire at least 2 fish at all but the smallest targets, usually 3, and never fire less than three at high-value merchants such as tankers and troop ships. DD's get one, just because those shots are usually last second "uh oh" kinds of shots, while other warships usually get 4+ depending on size.

[gg5056]

Tried it in Sub school, it works on cruiser. thanks

[zylark]

When facing a convoy I never try to take down more than two ships at a time. I use a similar tactic to the OP, but with a different method. First thing is getting past the lead escort and get within 1km of the nearest merchant. This is done in one slow move.

Basically running silent at PD, bow facing lead destroyer until I reach 80' AoB on it (or more corectly to the course of the convoy). Then rudder amidship, and close in on the centerline of the convoys heading. All stop when between 500m - 1km of nearest ship. Since I'm somewhat off the 90' angle to the convoy, I get a better view of the convoy thus making it easier to determine the juicy targets whilst running a lower risk of my fishes hitting some ship that gets in the way of my intended targets, especially if said target is off on the farside.

I usually fire two spreads of two fishes. First spread on the furthest away target, and then wait approx 50 seconds (slow fish) or 30 seconds (fast fish) for each row closer to me the next target is (Spacing between rows is usually 800 meters. A fast fish (46kt) travels about 25m/s, a slow fish (31kt) about 16m/s, do the math :p ). Also I add or subtract about 10 seconds depending on whether target two is further back or ahead in a row relative to the first target.

After shooting, I'm left with two fishes still in their front tubes to finish off stubborn targets, alternatively pick a third if all goes well.

Say a convoy is 3x3 like this, moving left to right:

1 2 3
4 5 6 -------> DD
7 8 9


------|ME

and ship 2 and 9 is fish-worthy. After shooting two fast fishes on no. 2, I wait about 50 seconds and fire two fast fishes on no. 9.
(two rows closer, 2 x 30 secs :: one step ahead in the rows in relation to first target, minus 10 seconds)

Almost without fail this gives impact on both ships within 0-5 seconds of eachother. Depending on what happens next (and how many escorts are hovering around) I have quite the freedom of choice what to do next.

If I meet a smaller convoy, that is just one row of 2-3 ships (usually troop convoys) the tactic is similar. For example:

DD --> 1 2 3 --> DD


-----------|ME

Again my course is about 80' to the convoys course. As ship 3 is within 0' gyro, I target ship 2 and let two fishes go. Within the next 10 seconds, retarget ship 3 and shoot two fishes at the 10sec mark. Again, if all goes well, both ships are hit almost simultaniously and sink. Get ready to sink ship 1, if not send the finishing touches to ship 2 and/or 3.

[cali03boss]

[QUOTE] show us criticism of Silent Victory in that regard.[quote]

His facts on the British Navy were in relation to the war in the European Theatre. He told good stories in a historical sense which made it a narrative. It isn't a real telling of history nor is it a textbook to be used to understand events.

I was told this by my Naval history professor when I used him to cite a majority of information about tactics of U-boats against the British navy. It's not that he is untrustworthy....its that he is not a historian and cannot be accredited with historical fact.

It is a collection of stories molded into a historical narrative.

[John Channing]

That certainly was not the case with Silent Victory.

JCC

[cali03boss]

we we here on the boards can sit back and talk about what we think is and is not history.

But I am a historian, and a professor. It is my duty to adhere to such understandings of logic and rationality (use of documented primary sources).

[tater]

Unfortunately, there are few scholarly histories of the totality of US submarine operations in WW2. Roscoe (United States Submarine Operations in World War II, NIP) is one I know of, but it's also an internal Navy history, effectively. It includes JANAC information, but not any other post war analysis of japanese records (which is what Alden's book is, an attempt to improve upon the JANAC score-keeping). Other than that, most tend to be single boat narratives (though many are by the skippers or officers, so at least it's 1st hand).

Silent Victory is an excellent survey of US submarine operations in the PTO, IMO. That's what it is, a survey, and obviously you take those as such, it doesn't claim to be anything else.

When someone attacks the submarine war in a manner similar to Lundstrom's work on USN aviation in the first year of the war (the exceptional Firt Team books), or Chris Shores, et al and their work on Malaya/Burma/NEI (Bloody Shambles) I'll be the first one in line to get a copy. Until then, Roscoe and Blair are pretty much it short of taking a vacation to the archives to read raw patrol reports.

tater

[cali03boss]

Until then, Roscoe and Blair are pretty much it short of taking a vacation to the archives to read raw patrol reports.

If you go to a university those reports are not hard to obtain.

[tater]

Yeah, well, have you read every single patrol report?

Rather a lot of work to answer the question "did US submarines usually fire spreads."

A quick look at any survey will show that they did as SOP. So would a look at Alden since it lists every single allied submarine attack in the PTO including the number of fish fired, and the number of hits (as well as the name and lat/long of the target wherever possible from US and japanese records).

tater

[joea]

we we here on the boards can sit back and talk about what we think is and is not history.

But I am a historian, and a professor. It is my duty to adhere to such understandings of logic and rationality (use of documented primary sources).
Which university? Just asking mind.

[cali03boss]

Currently at SBCC waiting to finnish my doctorate so I can start teaching at UCSB. I'm hired through the university, but they require professors who don't have doctorates to begin work at the city college.

[Rockin Robbins]

So you can attack historians based on arcane criterea which do not bear on their truthfulness, but toward some academic brownie point scale. War cares little for academia, unless it is a Military Academy.

But my sources are primary sources, not subject to academia's "qualifications." As most academics do, you merely ignore that which you cannot refute. The appeal to authority is one of the most egregious of logical fallacies. It certainly carries no weight in this forum.

To my list of primary historical sources, I have to add the novels of Edward Beach, which are veritable textbooks of WWII submarine strategy with lengthy discussions of the merit of one attack strategy vs. another. I would argue that for letting us into the mind of a sub skipper they are superior to any of the historical sources, as Beach not only tells you what was done, but why, and offers his commentary on the shortcomings of alternate schemes, even when they were official policy. Edward Beach, of course, was not just a novelist, but a premier WWII sub skipper of three subs who went on to command the USS Triton during her submerged circumnavigation of the Earth.

Beach comes down squarely on the attack of individual ships, not convoys. He is in favor of spreads in almost all circumstances, even after a lengthy, methodical approach with numerous checks for accuracy of projection vs. actual position.

There was one captain only whose motto actually was "one ship, one torpedo." Was it Fluckey or McCants? I'll have to check that when I get home and quote you chapter and verse. Whichever skipper this was, their results speak for themselves. My two candidates were two of the most outstanding skippers of the war. They also were willing and able to butt heads with Admiral Lockwood. But this deviation from policy (however rigid that policy may have been) implies that the policy of spreads was a true consensus of skippers, not merely obedience to orders. This would strengthen tater's point to the point of irrefutability. As such it would be an actual application of "the exception proves the rule" in the modern sense. That phrase was invented when "prove" meant to test with the purpose of showing something is false, a meaning quite different from our own.

Academic elitism carries little weight here but facts do.

[Rockin Robbins]

my dad was also a submariner. What boats did he serve on?
He was on two...one was called the Hato or something...the other I don't remember. I can ask though next time I see him. (Im away at college)

EDIT:

Woodril Wilson? i think that may have been the other one.
How can a historian not know Woodrow Wilson's name? Something is rotten in Denmark. Methinks thine own words do betray you.

Furthermore, you engage in the fallacious strategy of requiring rigorous scrutiny of others' sources while citing none yourself, something a true historian would never do. No historian takes a non-falsifiable view such as you have. (hows THAT for internal contradiction! See? I can do it too):rotfl:But reading the entire thread shows more than you mean to reveal. Real historians are intrigued by differences and wish to understand them. They do not take an unsupported position and ride it to hell.

The shop is still trying to straighten out the dents in the Holy Grail. Monty Python is mightily upset with the situation and has threatened legal action against me as bailor. This is getting uncomfortable.

[gutted]

In TM + NSM this is actually quite plausible if you fire 1/2/3 torps per small/med/large merchant. It's unlikely for the said vessel class to take more. Remember that if you get the angle right, this is almost like automatic targetting in that you hit EXACTLY where the periscope is pointing.

In the same TM + NSM combination it's unlikely that anyone will be able to end-around an escorted convoy without wasting a lot of fuel.
Yes, let me make clear that this is a great tactic for attacking a single ship, an analog to how destroyers use their torpedo tubes. I'm not saying the technique doesn't work, I'm saying that its application is wrong here according to the Admiral, who is contradicted at your peril. It also solves the problem of multiple setups. So long as the convoy doesn't go haywire on you, you leave all settings the same (correcting for any new course by you) and fire away on the next ship! I hate to make it more complicated, but here goes (and it's really not all that bad). This will allow you to use this technique with gutted's tables from any heading!

Destroyers typically shot from a roughly parallel course. They set up their gauge on a pivot so the first step was to aim the gauge itself 90º to the target's course. Then they read the angle to the target based on the chart through the sight tube. That way it wasn't necessary for the attacking boat to actually have to take a perpendicular course.

You can do the same thing mathematically. Lets say the target is going straight east like the animation in the first post. But your path is more than 90º from the target's, like you're on course 45º. You just take the angle from the chart corresponding to the target's speed and add 45º to it to get your periscope offset angle. Set up the TDC ahead of time and when the target lines up, shoot. Just make sure the position keeper is off. You can fire a spread just by timing the shots.

Because you set up once, before you're embroiled in the action, this can eliminate errors in a complicated situation. I know I'm going to load up gutted's chart and go hunting!

in theory that would work.. but the reality is that unlike a torpedo launcher on a DD, the torpedos on the sub would have to turn. that initial run before the turn might possibly throw off the solution if it has to turn too much.

[gutted]

actually i take that back. it seems to work really well. just make sure your crossing angles aren't too gross.


ok so here's how to try it out:

load up the torpedo attack tutorial with map contacts turned on. when it opens go silent running and turn left 20 degrees and stop. while turning setup your torpedos for fast (the enemy cruiser is going 9kts by the way).

go to your map screen and draw a line through his course. then pull out the angle tool. put the first point on yourself.. the second point on his course where it intersects yours.. and the third point somwhere on his courseline in the direction he is traveling. then move the center point along his course until it reads 90 degrees.

the bearing created from the line from your ship to the 90 degree point is your 0 point for your scope.

go to the scope.. and put it on that bearing and input it. now subrtract or add the firing angle from the table as needed and fire when he crosses it.

i can create a second video demonstration if needed.

[STEED]

Take out the escorts and the convoy is yours or select two big ones, wounding the enemy means no renown sink them and you get renown.

But everyone has there own tried and tested method. :yep:

[gutted]

i normally fire 3 torps at merchants, unless its small or a tanker i might opt for 2.

[cali03boss]

How can a historian not know Woodrow Wilson's name? Something is rotten in Denmark. Methinks thine own words do betray you.
uhm...ok. So I don't know how to spell Woodrow...wow. Amazing. You refuted my entire life's work with a single word.

My field is European History anyway. American history is filled with arrogant hub-bubs.

Furthermore, you engage in the fallacious strategy of requiring rigorous scrutiny of others' sources while citing none yourself, something a true historian would never do.

Ok kid. I can see you're getting hot headed and ego mined in your rant. But now you're just finding random ways to try and, I don't know...discredit me. Cite sources for what? That Blair is not a historian? Why don't you just look up the definition of a historian? Blair is a war novelist. He uses historical writings in his books, but his books themselves are not history textbooks. They are collections of information. This is what we call a secondary source. Blair's writings on his personal experience are minimal, and typically crowded around factual information brought by other writers.

They do not take an unsupported position and ride it to hell.

I'd like you to find me a professor who disagrees with me on primary and secondary sources. Go calm down, drink a soda....maybe go play the game for a while.

[cali03boss]

War cares little for academia, unless it is a Military Academy.

Most typical argument from anyone faced with academic authority: "academics don't matter in x" (throw in any variable circumstance)

But my sources are primary sources, not subject to academia's "qualifications."

Interesting that you say that since being a primary source is the only qualification.

The appeal to authority is one of the most egregious of logical fallacies.

Obviously you forgot your Ying and Yang....because so is the rejection of authority.

I have to add the novels of Edward Beach, which are veritable textbooks of WWII submarine strategy with lengthy discussions of the merit of one attack strategy vs. another

We used to read documents from him in my old ww2 naval history class. His documents are primary sources. Blair's weren't...that was my original point.

Academic elitism carries little weight here but facts do.

No one likes academics because they show you rationality in the face of your idealism.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok men, how a tactics thread turned into an academia discussion is beyond me. At any rate, I believe we can safely say three torps (on average) were sent out in a spread as the order of the day. Skippers were advise to get in very close for the shot. Many torpedo firings were done at over 2000 yards and many successfully. Did I miss anything?

[cali03boss]

Nope I'm done with catering to childish antics. Sorry 'capin.

[tater]

What's your source for it being rare (I'll assume you really didn't mean never by "but not beyond 2000 yards") to fire spreads past 2000 yards, BTW?

tater

[gutted]

just noticed that mark18 torpedos are like 29knots, making this table is useless for them. the table was made for the standard torpedo (31kts/46kts).

i'll update the table soon for other speeds.

any other torpedo speeds i need to be aware of? i dont have access to all torpedo types yet and the manual (if you can call it that) is sorely lacking.

[The_Pharoah]

I take a simple approach - I go for a max of 2 ships in front and 1 behind. I usually try to time it so that the torps all hit at roughly the same time eg. I shoot at the furthest first, then estimate when to shoot at the closer ship. I try to do this with the stern shot as well (if applicable). Otherwise, the rest of the convoy will start zig zagging immediately which will throw off your spread. I learned this the hard way when I fired all 6 torps (2 per ship), hit the first and watched the rest of the convoy commence zig zagging such that the other 4 torps have some watery grave somewhere in mid-pacific. :(

Doesn't always work (I roughly guess) but does most of the time. Sure there is a scientific approach ie. velocity = distance x time blah blah blah but meh...to much maths for me :P

[amurph182]

How can a historian not know Woodrow Wilson's name? Something is rotten in Denmark. Methinks thine own words do betray you.
uhm...ok. So I don't know how to spell Woodrow...wow. Amazing. You refuted my entire life's work with a single word.

My field is European History anyway. American history is filled with arrogant hub-bubs.


it doesn't get much more arrogant than the divine right of kings. The only difference between American and European history in regards to "arrogant hub-bubs" is that in European history there are more of them owing to the longer time period.

And I would expect someone specializing in European history to know the name of the American president during WWI, especially considering the fact that the man was a prime mover in getting the League of Nations to be adopted into the Treaty of Versailles, which led to his Nobel Peace Prize.


As for Blair: nobody here ever asserted that Blair's opinions were made of gold. Yes, Silent Victory is a secondary source. But it contains an insane amount of primary source material in the form of dry patrol report excerpts. So much so that most people who pick it up put it right down if they aren't truly interested in the topic.

Why don't you refute the information instead of merely shrugging off the source. Skippers routinely engaged beyond 2000 yards, and spreads were SOP. This information comes from the patrol reports themselves, and from the excerpts as compiled by Blair among others.

Just because you don't care for his work or you find that he editorializes too much and is a poor researcher doesn't mean that Silent Victory is not to be taken seriously. But seeing as how you think he specialized in writing about U-boats when he did nothing of the sort should lead all of us to believe that your opinion on his work is somewhat less than informed.

[gutted]

I take a simple approach - I go for a max of 2 ships in front and 1 behind. I usually try to time it so that the torps all hit at roughly the same time eg. I shoot at the furthest first, then estimate when to shoot at the closer ship. I try to do this with the stern shot as well (if applicable). Otherwise, the rest of the convoy will start zig zagging immediately which will throw off your spread. I learned this the hard way when I fired all 6 torps (2 per ship), hit the first and watched the rest of the convoy commence zig zagging such that the other 4 torps have some watery grave somewhere in mid-pacific. :(

Doesn't always work (I roughly guess) but does most of the time. Sure there is a scientific approach ie. velocity = distance x time blah blah blah but meh...to much maths for me :P

did you even watch the SHIV video? that is exactly what i did.

[cali03boss]

ok. To clear this up. I wasn't trying to refute any of blairs comments. When I made my original comment about Blair I was also considering about 4 other posts I had read within about an hour citing Blair....So I was just generalizing that he was what most of you turn to for factual information.

I also never shrugged off his works. I just don't see them as primary sources, which it seemed to me some people were trying to assert.

And as far as my reputation, why don't you call up the University and ask for my extension?

[Rockin Robbins]

How can a historian not know Woodrow Wilson's name? Something is rotten in Denmark. Methinks thine own words do betray you.
uhm...ok. So I don't know how to spell Woodrow...wow. Amazing. You refuted my entire life's work with a single word.

My field is European History anyway. American history is filled with arrogant hub-bubs.

Furthermore, you engage in the fallacious strategy of requiring rigorous scrutiny of others' sources while citing none yourself, something a true historian would never do.
Ok kid. I can see you're getting hot headed and ego mined in your rant. But now you're just finding random ways to try and, I don't know...discredit me. Cite sources for what? That Blair is not a historian? Why don't you just look up the definition of a historian? Blair is a war novelist. He uses historical writings in his books, but his books themselves are not history textbooks. They are collections of information. This is what we call a secondary source. Blair's writings on his personal experience are minimal, and typically crowded around factual information brought by other writers.

They do not take an unsupported position and ride it to hell.
I'd like you to find me a professor who disagrees with me on primary and secondary sources. Go calm down, drink a soda....maybe go play the game for a while.
More of the same. To quote a European (sorry, characterization his, not mine) "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." You still have not supported a single claim. You still have not disputed a single cited primary source, or demonstrated any knowledge of any source whatever relating to American submarine warfare in WWII. Indeed you have engaged in not a single behavior such as would be exhibited by a history professor. A historian shows curiosity and exchanges information freely regarding controversy, seeking defensible rectification. You hold all information close to the vest and attack others' sources rather than seek the truth. It is your words and your methods which are your own star shell, illuminating yourself. It is you who refute yourself. There is no need for me or some professor you wish me to produce to do so.

Woodrow Wilson was a central figure in 20th European history, as you would know if you were indeed a true history professor, as you profess. Two Europeans, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau had extensive relationship with him in a major transaction affecting Europe for 40 years of the 20th century. Again you come up short on your claimed specialty. But I know your tactics now. You will claim to be a specialized scholar of Xth century European history.

I enjoy discussions where different positions are exchanged and different viewpoints honestly discussed. This thread is not one of those, because one participant is not participating in good faith. I am afraid it is likely I have forgotten more history than you will ever know.

I challenge you to demonstrate proficiency in submarine attack tactics, such as tater and ducimus have with great and helpful detail in post after post with the intent of helping, not taunting, fellow forum particpants. I challenge you to refute any of my list of sources for my truth claim that not only was it policy, it was a voluntary consensus of prominent submarine captains that the attack method of choice was to get close and fire a spread. I have participated in good faith by citing specific primary sources. They disagree with your position.

I make no claims of authority. I do not use age as a tool to disparage or to add credibility to a fallacious or a true position. I have cited the sources of my position and stated it clearly. I have shown you a straight flush. My cards are on the table for all to see while yours are clutched to your chest. Your claim of a royal flush will not win the hand. Only showing your cards is of any use. I call.

I invite you to drink some coffee yourself. Then let's have an honest discussion in good faith.

I'll take that pot now and use it to pay Monty Python for the damage you did to their Holy Grail.

[Rockin Robbins]

actually i take that back. it seems to work really well. just make sure your crossing angles aren't too gross.


ok so here's how to try it out:

load up the torpedo attack tutorial with map contacts turned on. when it opens go silent running and turn left 20 degrees and stop. while turning setup your torpedos for fast (the enemy cruiser is going 9kts by the way).

go to your map screen and draw a line through his course. then pull out the angle tool. put the first point on yourself.. the second point on his course where it intersects yours.. and the third point somwhere on his courseline in the direction he is traveling. then move the center point along his course until it reads 90 degrees.

the bearing created from the line from your ship to the 90 degree point is your 0 point for your scope.

go to the scope.. and put it on that bearing and input it. now subrtract or add the firing angle from the table as needed and fire when he crosses it.

i can create a second video demonstration if needed.



Fantastic! See folks this is the way to contest an idea. Try it out and report results. Now we have a new tool that keeps us from having to do complicated setups in a crowded situation and lets us sink multiple ships targeting each individually without changing setups. Can you come up with a guideline of when the error gets significant, like 45º from perpendicular? It might also be possible to come up with a second table of corrections for angles greater than this critical angle. Hopefully we all take lower percentage shots when the reward is right.

I also have to try out the procedure in a single mission so I can work out the mechanical procedure of periscope setup. I'm a little hazy about how this would work in a manual setup mode. I'll post the procedure when I know what it is. :oops:

This is really cool! It's very close to U-Boat procedure, and they, with less advanced Torpedo Data Computers compiled a higher hit percentage than American skippers, who had the advantage of more refined equipment. Charts like this are cheap and work every time. They aren't subject to mechanical failure either!

[amurph182]

And as far as my reputation, why don't you call up the University and ask for my extension?

a) it's long distance
b) I'm sure cali03boss is listed in the directory
c) I post on this forum because I'm at work and would rather do this than what I am actually paid to do. If I were to actually put some effort into this, such as looking up the number to call, what kind of slacker would I be?

[greyrider]

Of course range matters.

Should be updated the most as well. Who says range doesn't matter?

i say range doesnt matter, range only matters when map plotting, my only concern about range is in trying to hit something that may be out of range of the torpedo.

this goes for a 90 degree target course rel to submarine

obstruse and acute angles is just a matter of timing, i never use the position keeper, nor the tbt.

with obstruse and acute angle shot, just apply alittle kentucky windage.

[tater]

Blair is oft cited because it's the best survey history of US submarine operations in the Pacific currently in print.

Most people here who have read submarine histories have read Blair, plus a raft of single boat histories. I'd wager that few of us own Roscoe (I do ;) ). It's not any more complicated than that. The only available book that covers the totality of the sub campaign is Blair's right now, so it's likely to be cited.

Plenty of people cited Fuchida's Midway book in the US for years (in scholarly works, not just forum postings) not aware that it was filled with errors (though it also contains some good information mixed in).

Anyway, the first mention of Blair was just me saying he cited many examples of long range shoots (only one of which need be true for a "not beyond 2000 yards" statement to be disproved). That's hardly an attribution to him as a primary source.

tater

[cali03boss]

That's hardly an attribution to him as a primary source.
I think this all got taken out of hand to begin with Tater. I was originally just posting in surprise to how many times I had seen people mention Blair that day.

You still have not supported a single claim.
oh my gosh! ding ding ding! maybe thats cuz I'm not trying to prove anything other than Blair's works are secondary sources! If you need citation on that you need a dictionary!

as you would know if you were indeed a true history professor, as you profess
It's going to take more than the arrogant rant of a child to break me down.

Again you come up short on your claimed specialty.
Yes I come up short not mentioning people who are COMPLETELY irrelivant to this thread. Amazing. Keep going, you're on a roll.

You will claim to be a specialized scholar of Xth century European history.
Nope, 20th Century, Cold War. 2ndary(What is taught to undergrads) is European...basics are Western Civilization and European Civil War (WW1 + WW2)

My cards are on the table for all to see while yours are clutched to your chest. A claim of a royal flush will not win the hand.

Wow you have such a way with words. I bet you could convince yourself that a rock has an *******.

I invite you to drink some coffee yourself. Then let's have an honest discussion in good faith.

I'd love to converse with you more if you'd stop acting like a child. Rather than start a whole forum debate on my reputation...since that seems to be your only method of proving anything....why don't you start participating in the forum in the way its designed to....help players in an game. I could give 2 ****s less your opinion on my job and my life...I'm never going to see you and I certainly won't end up teaching you if you treat people like that. I've worked with T. Hasegawa and D. Elliott here in Santa Barbara for over 3 years on the study of the Cold War....so whatever smart remarks you think you can say to brandish my reputation is petty and humerous.

As I said before I'm done with this thread since it serves no purpose other than to perpetuate childish behavior. I shall see the rest of you in actual discussions on this game in other threads.

[SteamWake]

It's very close to U-Boat procedure,

Ive been doing this since SH3.

It is very gratifying to 'watch' two or three explosions go off within a few seconds of each other.

[XLjedi]

Some people have said that range doesn't matter at all, but I don't see how this is possible.

I've seen this a lot too, and its simply not true. Of course range matters. At the very least, it determines how long your torpedos run, so it affects how much the target is led.

To be perfectly clear... when I and others mention that range doesn't matter, we are referring to the firing solution as it applies to the constant bearing formula. If AoB and Speed are correct, the course for a torpedo to intercept target is the same course regardless of distance.

The constant bearing solution is the same at all distances. Here's a graphic to help drive home the point:
http://www.xl-logic.com/mobo/tutorial_pics/range_na.png

Notice in the image above, the red crosshair indicates the point of intercept... and notice that regardless of contact range (M1 to M5) all the intercept points fall on the same firing solution line. Hence the "range doesn't matter" commentaries...

Where range error comes into play is when your AoB or Speed estimates are wrong. Range will magnify those errors... However, if your AoB and Speed are correct, range does not matter. My commentaries on this subject have usually been something along the lines of, "focus your attention on getting AoB and Speed correct and you don't have to worry so much about distance, if you're inside 2000-3000M it doesn't matter, you can set it to 1000 and not worry bout it."

In the constant bearing formula I'd say speed is the number one concern, followed by AoB and then distance is just a magnifier of the error of the above two.

In SH3 it was possible (even at 100%, no map updates) to completely eliminate error in AoB and Speed using the scope like a whiz wheel to automatically calculate the correct AoB.

[AVGWarhawk]

All right men, the conversation of Blair and who does what for a living ends here. Continue on with tactics and keep personal attacks out of the thread. If said conversation continues, thread to be locked.

Your cooperation is appreciated!

[greyrider]

:D on a ninety degree target course relative to submarine, range does not matter, period !



i use an s-boat, with mk10's, range 3500 yards, thats my only concern of range.


aron said:
Where range error comes into play is when your AoB or Speed estimates are wrong. Range will magnify those errors... However, if your AoB and Speed are correct, range does not matter.


who's fault would that be, the commanders right, not the attack angle, not the torpedo, so i say again, range does not matter, on a ninety degree target course R to sub.

you have a target on bearing 25 S, heading 270, you calculate its speed, and its 11 knots. its at 1000 yards, firing the torpedo when the target is on bearing 17 S, will strike the target at zero degress, r to sub, in 47 seconds.

now a target, same speed and course, at 3500 yards, fire torpedo at bearing 17 S, at zero degrees r to sub, the torpedo will strike in 2:45 minutes.

where does range matter mathematically? it doesnt, your point discribes a human error, not a mathematical one.
:)

[XLjedi]

on a ninety degree target course relative to submarine, range does not matter, period !

:yep:

i use an s-boat, with mk10's, range 3500 yards, thats my only concern of range.

Doesn't matter on any other target course either... Nothing particularly special about a 90° relative course.

[Rockin Robbins]

Ahhhhh, the GWX'ers invade!!!!!! A nice dollop of U-Boat strategy is good, especially if you consider that American boats with technical superiority in targeting computers achieved the breathtaking statistic of one ship sunk for every 12 torpedoes fired, and the inferior (in that respect) U-Boats sank one for every four fired. Now whether the torpedoes themselves were a factor is a legitimate and open question (Germans had torpedo problems almost exactly corresponding with our own, however. I do not know the time range comparison).

But it shows that the American TDC with position keeper wasn't a device that revolutionized submarine warfare at all! Actually, in another thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120670, where we are actually discussing tactics (don't know why our pal wanted to discuss academic credentials when we were talking convoy tactics), you'll see that gutted, a fellow GWX'er imported his table on firing angles for fast and slow American torpedoes. We're having a great time adapting it (along with your disposal of 90º necessity) into Pacific sub strategy. This is really big because tables don't malfunction, ship identification and range goes out the window and you can just fight the boat!

Sometimes better technology gets beat by better stragegy. This is a perfect example. Somehow we should merge the two threads. Welcome to the big, warm Pacific Ocean!

How about a little observation of Japanese ASW vs Limey visciousness?:o If one were to migrate from SH4/TM 1.5 to SH3/GWX I believe they would be in for a shock. Any thoughts?

[AVGWarhawk]

Merged.

[XLjedi]

Ahhhhh, the GWX'ers invade!!!!!!
.
.
.
We're having a great time adapting it (along with your disposal of 90º necessity) into Pacific sub strategy. This is really big because tables don't malfunction, ship identification and range goes out the window and you can just fight the boat!

Sometimes better technology gets beat by better stragegy. This is a perfect example. Somehow we should merge the two threads. Welcome to the big, warm Pacific Ocean!

I'm just talkin math...

The same rules of trig apply to both the US and German devices. Understanding the difference between those devices is key. I don't think the underlying tactics from our gameplay perspective are a whole lot different really.

Historically, I can see where the US mechanics would've been advantageous... in our gaming world, the German tools are easier and more flexible to manage.

We choose to adopt some tactics in our game which probably aren't too realistic, but are certainly fun. I can sum up the difference in the SH3 vs. SH4 targeting mechanics with just two pictures...

Here's what everyone loves about the SH3 targeting device:
http://www.xl-logic.com/mobo/tutorial_pics/target_20070821_1.png
In the example above, we can plot a true course for the contact M1, train our scope on location M6 where AoB=90° is a given, set our TDC AoB as 90° lock that in and rotate to any spot M1 thru M6 and have an accurate firing solution. This is the essence of the Fast-90 and advanced Fast-90 methods that Wazoo spoke of in his targetting manual. For those who like to target multiple ships in a convoy it gives you a sorta gunslinger-style advantage over the US mechanics. One solution to kill em all, dial in one solution then point and shoot. The downside here (if you're honest with yourself) is you're maybe playin-the-game or workin-the-angles a little more than simulating reality.

Now comes SH4 and its US battleship inspired targetting system. It's detached from the torpedo gyro-angle calculator. You have to click a button to update it. You no longer have that SH3 advantage of using the scope as a whiz wheel to determine the AoB for you (DRAT!); rather, it forces you to act more like a real captain and make a good guess at that AoB instead of setting it at 90° and fire away.

If we try to do something similar to the popular Fast-90 tactics (or as I like to call it, whiz wheel tactics) used in SH3 we run into this scenario...
http://www.xl-logic.com/mobo/tutorial_pics/target_20070821_2.png

If we train our BB artillary targeting (or position keeper, PK) device on a future position with a 90° AoB it will assume the target is in that location and happily plot from that point forward. No good... If we set our solution as 90° and then try to beat the device by panning our view and toggling on/off the PK (the equivalent of ordering "Mark") we get a correct target bearing in the PK, but as you see in the above graphic, the whiz wheel magic is not present, so there's no automatic sharpening of the AoB (darn! again...) or adjustment of distance to target. If we tried to use that solution for the 30° bearing we'd probably miss.

Understanding this, you can do some things to bridge your SH3 tactics to the SH4 environment. One would be to create for yourself a pre-determined AoB solution at say 40° AoB and set speed at zero. Adjust speed dial to 7kts and wait for the lumbering maru (assumed moving at 7kts) to approach. When it crosses your aiming wire for your pre-determined 40° solution, send the speed to the PK... now it tracks in-step with the maru. You never get quite the same feeling as the Fast-90 tricks, but it's pretty close. ...and again, you don't need to focus a whole lot on distance.

When I play SH4, I have to put myself in the mindset that my career depends on me destroying (not damaging) enemy shipping. I have to play to the SH4 US aiming mechanic strengths which I think are less the gunslinger multi-target onslaught, and more the stealthy single target annihilation. I pick out one juicy target unload on it, dive, reload, listen to it sinking, and hope I have time to pick out another.

[cali03boss]

lol I used to love that firing tactic in Sh3....I always felt like a cheater tho.

[Rockin Robbins]

I have spent time on the US Submarine Vets of World War II website for some years, as my wife's grandfather served aboard the Kraken. I have been laboring under the generalization that Japanese destroyers were not even close to the killers British destroyers were. Maybe in some instances I was wrong. Check this out from the sub vets' web site:

REMEMBER THIS USS TRIGGER?
After attacking a convoy of 20 ships, with 25 escorts, on 23 March 1944, Trigger (Harlfinger) was attacked by six of the escorts for over 17 hours. When she surfaced, Trigger's forward torpedo room was flooded up to the deck plates, her hull air induction was flooded, bow planes, trim pump, and sonar gear and both radars were dead and her radio antennas grounded. After making repairs for the next four days, she rendezvoused with Tang, borrowed air compressor parts, and continued her patrol.


Yikes! That sounds like pretty good ASW tactics to me. Six destroyers, 17 hours, flooded to the deck plates. Scary! Wonder if they had scratches on the radar displays (arcane reference to another thread)?

[Rockin Robbins]

lol I used to love that firing tactic in Sh3....I always felt like a cheater tho.
why? It's an authentic U-Boat tactic! It's more like cheating in SH4 if you bind yourself to using historical techniques. I'd love to find a reference to using it in an American submarine. Haven't found one yet. Job for you, tater! Can you find an example?

[Powerthighs]

Originally Posted by Powerthighs
Quote:
Some people have said that range doesn't matter at all, but I don't see how this is possible.

I've seen this a lot too, and its simply not true. Of course range matters. At the very least, it determines how long your torpedos run, so it affects how much the target is led.

To be perfectly clear... when I and others mention that range doesn't matter, we are referring to the firing solution as it applies to the constant bearing formula. If AoB and Speed are correct, the course for a torpedo to intercept target is the same course regardless of distance.

I see my confusion now, the talk of range not mattering was in regards to firing solutions specifically, and my comment about range affecting how much a target is led was incorrect.

However, I was originally thinking primarily of range mattering in a more general sense when using the PK to track target movement. Range definitely matters if you want to track a target over time with the PK while manuevering your boat.

[tater]

Six escorts.

Very unlikey that more than a couple were DDs---even ODDs or Matsus.

That doesn't lessen the point, they were likely less capable craft than DDs!

tater

[XLjedi]

lol I used to love that firing tactic in Sh3....I always felt like a cheater tho.
why? It's an authentic U-Boat tactic! It's more like cheating in SH4 if you bind yourself to using historical techniques. I'd love to find a reference to using it in an American submarine. Haven't found one yet!

In Dic O'Kanes book on Wahoo, he mentions his tactic of overriding the PK by ordering that the bearing be held constant (ie, like setting the PK solution, but leave the tracking feature turned OFF) and as various targets (and specific targetted locations on each ship) passed the wire, he would fire.

So we know at least O'Kane and Mush Morton had some tricks up their sleeves when playing with the TDC. The way I read it was they had ways to bypass the PK that gave them more direct access to the TDC. I think we can mimic what they did, but the user interface is a tad cumbersome in that respect... (no way to mark bearing without turning PK on, although IRL we KNOW that feature existed)

I haven't been playing SH4 (and presently I don't have access to it) but it would be interesting to see if folks had success with aiming techniques that mimicked what O'Kane did by entering the TDC solution, but leave PK turned OFF. I suspect it would work just as it did for O'Kane. That's probably the direction I'll take when I finally return to an SH4 patrol.

[Rockin Robbins]

it would be interesting to see if folks had success with aiming techniques that mimicked what O'Kane did by entering the TDC solution, but leave PK turned OFF. I suspect it would work just as it did for O'Kane. That's probably the direction I'll take when I finally return to an SH4 patrol.
I think you've hit the key! Leave the PK off and the setting stays fixed, just like a U-Boat. It is such a shame that Morton didn't live to write a book. The things we could have learned!

Anybody getting an important point here? SH3 and SH4 feed off each other to make both games better, just as American skippers studied German tactics to learn their trade. If you own SH4 and not SH3, you're missing something great. It works the other way too. Buy 'em both!

Tonight is going to be dedicated to the nuts and bolts of making the simulation do the mechanics, in spite of not being designed to set bearing without the PK turned on. It should be fun.

[XLjedi]

I think you've hit the key! Leave the PK off and the setting stays fixed, just like a U-Boat. It is such a shame that Morton didn't live to write a book. The things we could have learned!


The way I would propose to mimic O'Kane would be...

From a stationary position, determine target true course and develop a solution for a 20° bearing (70° AoB) shot assuming zero target speed. Turn on PK to mark bearing and AoB. Turn PK off and send 7kt speed to TDC and LEAVE PK OFF! Now as targetting points of interest pass your aiming wire you may fire. ...and since distance doesn't matter in the math, just leave it at whatever the default is (about 1000 or so).

Unfortunately, it's not just like a u-boat cuz the u-boat would have the PK off and the scope would be attached to the gyro-angle calculator to allow you to pan, aim, and fire... in the US fleetboat you have to leave the optics stationary and wait for the aiming points to pass the wire.

[XLjedi]

Range definitely matters if you want to track a target over time with the PK while manuevering your boat.

Actually, not to be argumentative, but I still don't think it matters.

I'm thinking as long as your PK-entered distance to target is large and you don't completely close that distance in the PK universe (which would instantly flip the solution 180°) you're still going to have a good solution as you maneuver and the PK tracks.


Edit: Actually, after second-guessing myself, I just did the math and the PK would indeed be wrong, I have to correct myself. So PT's comments are correct as is.

[gutted]

the more i look at this the more we are all wrong. it doesn't matter if its a right triangle or not. the only time range becomes a factor is when the gyro angle is greater than 0. the further away from 0 the gyro is the more the range matters. this is due to the intial run the torpedo makes before turning. If it weren't for that.. range wouldn't matter at all.

this can easily be seen in SH3, since most of the dials are linked.

setup a solution for a a fake target (on any AOB), and turn your scope till the gyro reads 0. go to the F6 screen and enable manual entry. turn the range dial back and forth and notice how the gyro doesn't flinch.

disable manual entry and go back to the scope and turn it 30 degrees left or right.. now go back to the F6 screen, re-enable manual entry and move the range dial around... and note how the gyro angle moves considerably.

if you setup your own solutions instead of using the PK.. you can get away with not worrying about the range for most targets if you keep your gyro angles to a minimum. my advice is that if you have the targets course plotted on your map, turn 90 degrees to it and eliminate any gyro/range errors when doing your own solutions. so yeah.. make a right triangle.

[XLjedi]

setup a solution for a a fake target (on any AOB), and turn your scope till the gyro reads 0. go to the F6 screen and enable manual entry. turn the range dial back and forth and notice how the gyro doesn't flinch.

disable manual entry and go back to the scope and turn it 30 degrees left or right.. now go back to the F6 screen, re-enable manual entry and move the range dial around... and note how the gyro angle moves considerably.


Mmmmm...

You're noting the effect of torpedo advance in the calculation. If you fire when the target is at more like a 0-10° gyro angle you eliminate the torpedo advance error. It's probably fair to assume most commanders would prefer to fire at minimal gyro angles, but the error introduced by torpedo advance is certainly worth noting (and admittedly something I tend to ignore).

You need a pretty high bearing angle 30+ and a 500m variance in distance before you move the gyro 1-2°.

A good point though... and another good reason to fire at low gyro angles.

[Wim Libaers]

Range is important, because the in-game speed calculator uses this. Get the range wrong, and you will also get a bad speed, which means you will have a problem with the solution.

[XLjedi]

Range is important, because the in-game speed calculator uses this. Get the range wrong, and you will also get a bad speed, which means you will have a problem with the solution.

I never use the in-game speed calculator...

[cali03boss]

a real man plots his targets speed from 3 hours worth of marking target locations. :arrgh!:

[Rockin Robbins]

a real man plots his targets speed from 3 hours worth of marking target locations. :arrgh!:
Ingenius!!!!! But like cowboys from the old west we're trying to shoot from the hip here. So where exactly is the hip of a submarine?

I'm playing with point and shoot in American subs on manual targeting.

Question: does the Position Keeper have to be on to send a bearing? The answer turns out to be no. Whew! That would have been a deal-killer. So it turns out that turning the PK on and off is not necessary.

Do you have to use the stadimeter to send a bearing? Again, no! Although the manual says bearing and range must be sent together, as usual, it is wrong. Gutted clearly proved to me that you only need to point the periscope and hit the send button. So the only difference between SH3 and SH4 procedures will be hitting the send button.

(deleted tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing)

So to work gutted's chart, first you set the aiming point as above to a bearing 90º from the course of the target. Then you look on gutted's chart and see how many degrees from the aiming point you will point the scope. When the ship is in the crosshairs, you'll shoot. You should shoot at least 2 torps, timing the different parts of the ship as they cross the crosshairs. Using the cycle tubes button and opening the tubes ahead of time you can riddle the ship of your choice.

On another note, I was working on WernerSobe's Natural Sinking Mechanics mission with stationary ships. I found that at an aiming point bearing 40º (starboard of course) torpedoes aimed this way struck the better part of 2º left of the aiming point due to the initial leg and turning of the torpedo to the set gyro angle. So it looks like errors resulting from that could be integrated into a second table. I expect the error to vary with range and with the bearing angle. Hopefully, range will not be a major factor, as we're trying to eliminate range as a factor in our strategy.

So it turns out the American boats can execute this process just as well as a U-Boat, in spite of their superiority:rotfl:(purposeful ambiguity there). Gutted is working on a video and he'll be starting a new thread on the technique. Of course, he gets full credit for the work and anything I do he has full rights to use as his own.

Cali03boss, if you felt guilty before, we're about to unleash unbridled carnage such as the Pacific has never dreamed!:arrgh!: We'll end up with a hybrid stragegy where we're actually taking out single ships, but targeting a ship for every two torpedoes and shooting six shots at three targets in 20 or 30 seconds, maybe quicker. Even our hangdog Admiral will buy this one. Hang on for fun!

[gutted]

you don't need to play with the stadimeter or look at a ship at all with my method.

just point the scope where you want it and hit the input button. it will send the bearing.

[Rockin Robbins]

you don't need to play with the stadimeter or look at a ship at all with my method.

just point the scope where you want it and hit the input button. it will send the bearing.
Holy Mother of Tojo! Or duh! Whichever. I am just another victim of the thought prison imposed by all this advanced equipment: "We got it, so we gotta use it!" So much for documentation, it works! Point the scope, hit the input button and against all instructions, it sends the bearing! Probably sends a range too, but who cares! We're not looking at the F6 screen anyway.

Well, scratch one lengthy test session, and one post. That method works but takes too long and is unnecessarily complicated. Can we get about four more torpedo tubes in the bow of this Balao? How about an auto torpedo loader that will give me reloads in less than 60 seconds?:arrgh!: Naw, next I'd be asking for tractor beams and phazers and feeling the force.

Let the US Navy Accellerated Artificial Reef Program begin! Homes for fishies!

I'll edit my testing post so nobody reads it and thinks I know what I'm talking about there. ("But it works!!!!!!:oops:" / "Yeah, like counting a herd of cattle by counting the legs and dividing by four.")

[XLjedi]

you don't need to play with the stadimeter or look at a ship at all with my method.

just point the scope where you want it and hit the input button. it will send the bearing.

Cool... that's pretty much a Mark button then. Sounds good to me.
I suffer a bit from not actually playing SH4.

[XLjedi]

I think you've hit the key! Leave the PK off and the setting stays fixed, just like a U-Boat. It is such a shame that Morton didn't live to write a book. The things we could have learned!


The way I would propose to mimic O'Kane would be...

From a stationary position, determine target true course and develop a solution for a 20° bearing (70° AoB) shot assuming zero target speed. Turn on PK to mark bearing and AoB. Turn PK off and send 7kt speed to TDC and LEAVE PK OFF! Now as targetting points of interest pass your aiming wire you may fire. ...and since distance doesn't matter in the math, just leave it at whatever the default is (about 1000 or so).

Unfortunately, it's not just like a u-boat cuz the u-boat would have the PK off and the scope would be attached to the gyro-angle calculator to allow you to pan, aim, and fire... in the US fleetboat you have to leave the optics stationary and wait for the aiming points to pass the wire.

So I guess I should modify my suggested strategy to take advantage of the input button used to MARK...

From a stationary position, determine target true course and develop a solution for a 20° bearing (70° AoB) shot assuming 7kt speed and MARK. Never turn on the PK!

Now as targetting points of interest pass your aiming wire you may fire. ...and since distance doesn't matter in the math, just leave it at whatever the default is (about 1000 or so). For a 20° target bearing you should have a very low gyro angle, therefore torpedo advance error is negated (again, not to worry bout distance).

Unfortunately, it's not just like a u-boat cuz the u-boat would have the PK off and the scope would be attached to the gyro-angle calculator to allow you to pan, aim, and fire... in the US fleetboat you have to leave the optics stationary and wait for the aiming points to pass the wire.

In the above scenario when I suggest setting TDC inputs for a 20° bearing, with a perfect 90° position abeam of target true course, AoB is easily determined with (ie. you can do it in your head):
AoBp = 90° - Brg (Target Approaches from Starboard/Right)
AoBs = Brg - 270° (Target Approaches from Port/Left)

[XLjedi]

a real man plots his targets speed from 3 hours worth of marking target locations. :arrgh!:

My shoot from the hip approach, based on hydro guy calling it out...
Slow = 6-7 kts
Med = 9-10 kts
Fast = 13-16 kts

My fallback...
Mk I Eyeball

If I have time...
I can indeed plot and do the TSD calcs.

[Rockin Robbins]

Killed my first 2 freighters this morning with the fast-90 tactic.

I decided I'd go with PK turned off. TDC was set speed zero, don't know what the range ended up (cancels out with speed zero anyway). I set up the submarine at 90º from the target's course, pointed the scope at bearing 0 and clicked the send range/bearing button.

Blew it on the first try because I had loaded up the new MK 14 torpedo with only fast speed. The switch still says low speed and I picked the wrong column on the table. :doh:

Second attempt I successfully sank both ships. They were in line ahead formation with standard spacing. (I have to measure what standard spacing is in yards) Hit the first ship with 2 out of 3 torps fired with 8½º lead (he was 8 knots). Apparently he wasn't quite 8 knots because the first eel slid by the nose.

I made a guess that #2 would hit the gas and get to 12 knots by the time he reached my aiming point. I changed the aiming point to a 13º lead and plugged him with 3 out of 3. Had Werner's latest Realistic Sinking Mechanics and it was beautiful to see my first double victim set go down in two different ways after about 20 minutes. I'll bet the behavior of the second ship will be fairly standard and we'll be able to incorporate the expected speed change into the strategy.

So we short-circuited the TDC/PK combination and killed 2 ships within a thirty seconds, shooting from the hip (still don't know where that is) of an American submarine. The MacGuire Sisters will now sing "Anything You Can Do, We Can Do Better."

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Silent%20Hunter%204/SH4Img23-8-2007_733.15_859.jpg WernerSobe's Realistic Sinking Mechanics really shined with the two ships sinking in two different ways, the first sinking by the stern and the second, having taken 3 torpedoes bow, center, stern sank on an even keel.

No torpedoes left. Headed back to base after another successful cruise! Thank you gutted, aaronblood and all you GWXers for coming over to the dark side and showing us that we don't have all the answers in these advanced American boats. And thank you for adding a potent new trick to my bag of tricks. This "brain mod" is worth as much to me as any of the mods to SH4. Subsim rocks!

[joea]

Well done Rockin Robbins, take a bow, have this medal for you and your crew. :up:

[Rockin Robbins]

Well done Rockin Robbins, take a bow, have this medal for you and your crew. :up:
Thank you, but nuthin special. Just finding out how to bypass fancy American machinery and shoot like a U-Boat. And having a blast doing it!:arrgh!:

That General Motors/Pure Diesel Fuel/General Instruments/Tide Balao class boat ran great all day. I wanna thank my pit crew, my boat owner, my fleet commander, my wife and family who gave up so much of our time together so we could train for this great mission. And we wanna thank our sponsors, Ducimus, CaptainCox, leovampire, Anvart, WernerSobe, OakGroove, tater, nvdrifter, Dowly and FooFighters for the great shark mouth and red dive planes on the front of the boat. I wanna give a shout out to aaronblood and his fabulous MoBo Electronic Maneuvering Board and Dead Reckoning Tracker software and gutted for coming all the way over here to the dark side from GWX land to teach us a few new wrinkles. This is just awesome, man. Everything just came together there in those closing laps, and this victory belongs to you guys, man...

And if Fast-90 attack procedure is also easy enough to keep frustrated new skippers playing the game long enough to learn conventional manual TDC/PK targeting too, I'll be a happy man. What makes SH3 and SH4 more successful is worth doing.

GWX players are great! Thank you gutted and aaronblood!:rock:(now start that new thread with video tutorial, easy step-by-step directions and that beautiful blonde tutor to teach skippers the technique. Remember to give her a seductive Swedish accent.)

[gutted]

hehe i remember this thread. i've just started playing sh4 again after a year and am having quite abit of fun (though i still prefer roaming the atlantic in a Type VII uboat).

[Rockin Robbins]

Yikes! You resurrected the thread that started the whole Dick O'Kane manual targeting craze! That is very cool. I hadn't realized that it was just about a year ago. And now the Dick O'Kane technique has a new companion, the John P Cromwell technique using the same principles for an attack 45º from the track. That's incredible timing!

Thanks for digging this up from the graveyard. It's a bit smelly, but brought back lots of great memories. I still use your animated gif that started it all when people can't understand the process. If it weren't for your great graphic, Dick O'Kane Manual Targeting never would have been.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Silent%20Hunter%204/Manual%20TDC%20Range/OKanemethodanimation.gif

[BillBam]

What i've done is create a table for firing angles for 90 degree attacks.

The gist of it is that if you are 90 degrees ofcourse of a target and you know his speed... you dont need to ID him, nor do you need to know his range. This allows you to do rapid attacks vs. multiple ships in a convoy... to the extent that you can have multiple ships being hit almost simultaneously.

as seen in this SH3 video i made a long time ago:
http://jg52.com/gutted/sh3/Convoy.wmv

this is basically what is happening in that video (NOTE: Shooting 1 torpedo per ship is not recommended):
http://jg52.com/gutted/sh3/Animation2.gif


To pull this feat off.. all you need to do is be 90 degrees ofcourse and know his speed. The propertes of the right triangle are such that if you know both legs of it (your torpedo's speed and the ships speed).. you can easily determine any angle inside of it with a simple formula.

I've gone ahead and done the gruntwork for you (rounded to the nearest half degree):
http://jg52.com/gutted/SH4/90_FiringAngles.png

to see it in action:


vs. a 24knot destroyer:
http://jg52.com/gutted/SH4/DD_Attack.wmv


and vs. a Convoy (also shows how to approach without being detected by the lead escort and how to escape):
http://jg52.com/gutted/SH4/ConvoyAttack_90AOB.wmv


enjoy!

Just wondering if there is a good link somewhere for this chart?

[magic452]

Check out Rockin Robins stuff in this thread.
Dick O'Kane Method and others.

Magic

[BillBam]

Check out Rockin Robins stuff in this thread.
Dick O'Kane Method and others.

Magic

No links to the chart that is being used!

[Admiral8Q]

Yikes! You resurrected the thread that started the whole Dick O'Kane manual targeting craze!

Heh heh!
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6033/backui.jpg