target speed: the eighty-ten method

[Armistead]

This thread ain't all bad. I've learned a lot here from tater and RR I didn't know...so don't count it all for loss. I actually even learned a tip from grey about attacking convoys sonar attacks only, but only workable with other provable tips provided.

not a total loss.

[Rockin Robbins]

It's been fun. I was gratified that others came to lend their insight and also that nobody descended into a total food fight. We continued to talk about the issues and ideas in spite of extreme provocation at times. Actually these issues have driven the real submariners crazy for 100 years.

Just recently we have developed methods of passive sonar motion analysis that are consistently good enough to shoot by, but that is well beyond the ability of SH4. It is possible with a real World War II submarine to do some bearing rate analysis and get a relative course and speed for a target that is good enough to shoot with if you are willing to waste enough torpedoes. They weren't in real life. I've never read a report of a World War II patrol where they shot by passive sonar.

They were dealing with handicaps that we are not in the game, because the game gives us impossible information:


Whether the target is approaching or going away
Whether the target is slow, medium or high speed, with these speeds in precise ranges of knots.
A sonar that is perfectly accurate to one degree with exactly 10 degrees each side of the bearing where you can hear the target.

All this makes it possible for us to game the system enough to develop cheats to narrow down the possible solutions. But they will not allow us to shoot, only to get close to the target. Shooting is by other methods, not related to passive sonar tracking techniques. These methods are well known and do not include point and shoot whatever that may be. No definition of that has been forthcoming either!:D

But be that as it may we have all learned that we can go home and quit posting as greyrider invented all possible ways of shooting torpedoes from submarines. Everyone else, presumably including the brave sub sailors of World War II, are merely copying him (badly by the way. Nobody is as good as greyrider even when we are just stealing from him) and trying to steal the credit. All credit belongs to greyrider for all techniques. We all hail!:salute: I'll cut greyrider in for half the profits from Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell, vector analysis. and my analysis of the criticality of entering information into the TDC in a certain order if you use the PK. He doubtless figured that out many years ago and just forgot to teach it.:har:

It's all good!

[Rockin Robbins]

Now if you are really interested in a non-WWII TMA analysis showing target course (a graphical application of the bearing rate method) and also triangulating the actual position, hence giving you a decently accurate firing solution, check this out (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1711&act=down) by gutted.

Gutted is one of the primary sources for all my attack methods, along with many others, pointedly not including greyrider. Note that the Hydrophone Tracker has clear, unambiguous instructions and meets nine of the ten tests of a valid targeting technique, lacking only enthusiastic adoption by successful captains. That will change as it becomes used on a wider basis.

Unlike 8010, it meets the rigorous test of a real targeting technique. This is a passive sonar targeting technique that sinks your target without ever raising the periscope! It's a true shooting method. Check it out and enjoy the difference!:up:

[greyrider]

this is not an 8010 shot, but what it is is the only known encounter in ww2 of one submerged submarine killing another submerged submarine,
by hydrophones alone.
this was not a spread shot, as the torpedoes were fired 17.5 seconds apart, at different depths, this was hms venturer taking down u-864, off the coast of norway.
unseen, purely underwater, kinda blows the oppositions pov, of needing to see the target, and that hydrophones alone cannot be used to destroy
another ship.
ah, i love it!

its a documentary, in 5 parts, on u-tube. the links are at the bottom of the post.
pay attention rockin, your going to learn something!


In late 1944, U-864 was dispatched from Germany under the command of Korvettenkapitän Ralf-Reimar Wolfram to take part in Operation Caesar.
This mission called for the submarine to transport advanced technology, such as Me-262 jet fighter parts and V-2 missile guidance systems, to
Japan for use against American forces. Also on board was 65 tons of mercury which was needed for the production of detonators. While passing through
the Kiel Canal, U-864 grounded damaging its hull. To address this issue, Wolfram sailed north to the U-boat pens at Bergen, Norway.
On January 12, 1945, while U-864 was undergoing repairs, the pens were attacked by British bombers further delaying the submarine's departure. With repairs
complete, Wolfram finally sailed in early February. In Britain, code breakers at Bletchley Park were alerted to U-864's mission and location through Enigma radio intercepts.
To prevent the German boat from completing its mission, the Admiralty diverted the fast attack submarine, HMS Venturer to search for U-864 in the area of Fedje, Norway.
Commanded by rising star Lieutenant James Launders, HMS Venturer had recently departed its base at Lerwick.
On February 6, Wolfram passed Fedje the area however issues soon began to arise with one of U-864's engines. Despite the repairs at Bergen, one of the
engines began to misfire, greatly increasing the noise the submarine produced. Radioing Bergen that they would be returning to port, Wolfram was told that
an escort would be waiting for them at Hellisoy on the 10th. Arriving in the Fedje area, Launders made a calculated decision to turn off Venturer's ASDIC
(an advanced sonar) system. While use of the ASDIC would make locating U-864 easier, it risked giving away Venturer's position.
Relying solely on Venturer's hydrophone, Launders began searching the waters around Fedje. On February 9, Venturer's hydrophone operator detected an
unidentified noise that sounded like a diesel engine. After tracking the sound, Venturer approached and raised its periscope. Surveying the horizon,
Launders spotted another periscope. Lowering Venturer's, Launders correctly guessed that the other periscope belonged to his quarry. Slowly following U-864,
Launders planned to attack the German u-boat when it surfaced.
As Venturer stalked U-864 it became clear that it had been detected as the German began following an evasive zigzag course. After pursuing Wolfram for
three hours, and with Bergen approaching, Launders decided that he needed to act. Anticipating U-864's course, Launders and his men computed a firing
solution in three dimensions. While this type of calculation had been practiced in theory, it had never been attempted at sea in combat conditions.
With this work done, Launders fired all four of Venturer's torpedoes, at varying depths, with 17.5 seconds between each.
After firing the last torpedo, Venturer dove quickly to prevent any counterattack. Hearing the torpedoes approach, Wolfram ordered U-864 to dive deeper
and turn to avoid them. While U-864 successfully evaded the first three, the fourth torpedo struck the submarine, sinking it with all hands.
The loss of U-864 cost the Kriegsmarine the U-boat's entire 73-man crew as well as the vessel. For his actions off Fedje, Launders was awarded a
bar for his Distinguished Service Order. HMS Venturer's fight with U-864 is the only known, publicly acknowledged battle where one submerged submarine
sank another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNiyO6ZV0CU part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVyZQDy-OxU&feature=related part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM2fId6xmuQ&feature=related part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOejNJ7kcNU&feature=related part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI2PjoLX9Q8&feature=related part 5

[tater]

And that is relevant how?

[Armistead]

Has no bearing on the thread or your method, but it states..

"Launders spotted another periscope. Lowering Venturer's, Launders correctly guessed that the other periscope belonged to his quarry. Slowly following U-864, Launders planned to attack the German u-boat when it surfaced."

Seems he made visual contact and followed it by scope enough to get into position to attack by sonar. That statement in fact is the problem with your method, he had to put himself on course to attack to start with and did so with a visual.

His attack why well planned, was more luck and theory....I've sunk many ships by sonar alone with no visuals at all, but it was estimate info at best.
Here he had visuals to start with...


I use to have some respect for you, but this constant silliness trying to just jest at people is silly.

Thread needs to be lock and deleted, it has no merit at all.

[greyrider]

Now if you are really interested in a non-WWII TMA analysis showing target course (a graphical application of the bearing rate method) and also triangulating the actual position, hence giving you a decently accurate firing solution, check this out (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1711&act=down) by gutted.

Gutted is one of the primary sources for all my attack methods, along with many others, pointedly not including greyrider. Note that the Hydrophone Tracker has clear, unambiguous instructions and meets nine of the ten tests of a valid targeting technique, lacking only enthusiastic adoption by successful captains. That will change as it becomes used on a wider basis.

Unlike 8010, it meets the rigorous test of a real targeting technique. This is a passive sonar targeting technique that sinks your target without ever raising the periscope! It's a true shooting method. Check it out and enjoy the difference!:up:


impressive! :haha: i will show you a pic tonight, of something similar i posted, in 2005, you will note the date, december 2005

it was the begining picture of the hydrophone tutorial, by greyrider:cool:

[greyrider]

impressive! :haha: i will show you a pic tonight, of something similar i posted, in 2005, you will note the date, december 2005

it was the begining picture of the hydrophone tutorial, by greyrider:cool:

i dont think mister gutted was a member either, in 2005

[tater]

He instinctively ignores posts with any real meat to them.

[razark]

impressive! :haha: i will show you a pic tonight, of something similar i posted, in 2005, you will note the date, december 2005

it was the begining picture of the hydrophone tutorial, by greyrider:cool:
Can you post a link to the location you posted it?

By the way, what were the results of testing the mission posted in Post #221 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1491643&postcount=221) that you asked someone to post for you?

[greyrider]

awww heck, why wait, ill post it now, and continue on with more pics of the tutorial tonight, does this look familiar rockin? :haha:

note the date it was uploaded


http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1157/85215517.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-15

[greyrider]

He instinctively ignores posts with any real meat to them.


more excuses comming from the howdy doody peanut gallery:haha:

[tater]

more excuses comming from the howdy doody peanut gallery:haha:

Why are the paths I posted not 90 degree intercepts, yet still constant bearing?

Why do an infinite number of them also fulfill the requirement to be within any given sonarman speed range (slow, medium, fast, etc)?

It's the same diagram (more or less) as the one that Nisgeis posted, and also never got a response to.

My diagram also works for whatever speed you throw at it for sub—which is why I put in in a (ballpark) % of sub speed, rather than the trig. It's easy to plug and play.

One (of infinite) example is 108% of sub speed. You claim that any 080, constant bearing contact held with speed 3 by the sub is moving 17 knots. My diagram shows that you can also hold that with the target at ~3.24 knots. Or a faster closing target at ~5.22 knots, or an even faster closer at 6.36 knots. In the special case of AOB 10, then you get your 17. Every speed and AOB combination is possible above the sub speed—and if the AOB is zero the speed can be anything at all.

Everything you say is predicated on reaching an angular arrangement that you can only achieve by accident, or by knowing something you should not know, or claim not to know ahead of time.

[tater]

Again, to be clear, just answer.

Do you think that all closing targets held at an 080 bearing have an AOB of 010?

It's a yes or no question.

[Armistead]

He instinctively ignores posts with any real meat to them.

Seems he has a crush on RR.....wants his attention, can't get it the right way, get it anyway he can...

[Pisces]

Yeah, and I'm dying for some smirks by Greyrider, and I'm not getting any. :wah:

[Nisgeis]

awww heck, why wait, ill post it now, and continue on with more pics of the tutorial tonight, does this look familiar rockin? :haha:

note the date it was uploaded


http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1157/85215517.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-15

Greyrider, you're not fooling anyone - that screenshot has an advert for the upcoming move 'Easy A' starring Lindsay Lohan. Clearly this movie was not even in production in 2005, let alone cast and finished. Your screenshot is clearly a modern screenshot and not taken in 2005 at all - how else would a modern film be featured in it? This is, if you will, the 2010 question - how could a film made in 2010 be featured in an upload from 2005? Given the date is 2010, what is the Advertisement on the Board (or AoB for short)?

Plus, it was posted by null - and as we all know, that's no one - and how could no one post it?

[Pisces]

Greyrider, you're not fooling anyone - that screenshot has an advert for the upcoming move 'Easy A' starring Lindsay Lohan. Clearly this movie was not even in production in 2005, let alone cast and finished. Your screenshot is clearly a modern screenshot and not take in 2005 at all - how else would a modern film be featured in it? This is, if you will, the 2010 question - how could a film made in 2010 be featured in an upload from 2005?

Plus, it was posted by null - and as we all know, that's no one.In all fairness, I think this is the thread that belongs to that image:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=87832

But this method relies on the hardcapped detection range to provide a specific location on a bearing line. And knowing a speed versus rpm table. Not my cup of tea because of the first 'cheat'. I can live with the second part, even though it isn't historically correct.

[EDIT] P.S. Well what do you know!!! The AOB starts out at 18 degrees at onset of detection.

BTW, the method Gutted used in that hydrophone plotter application, ... is incidentally first described by Nefelodam on this forum (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=87832).

Mittelwaechter (I never know if it is "ea" or "ae") preceded it, but with a significantly different AOB measurement geometry method: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=110619 The wait-listen-then move part is the same.

[tater]

All this time and he cannot answer yes or no?

[Rockin Robbins]

Gutted was producing the piece of software, not the method. The method is based on standard US and other navy TMA and surely has nothing really unique about it.

Looks like greyrider is setting up to sue Aaronblood for half the profits from MoBo too! :har::har::har::har: Again, failed magician greyrider posts a fraudulent, irrelevanct screenshot of a lousy roundrel having no bearing on sonar only TMA and makes the implication that he beat Gutted and the other two cited. That was predictable, as is my reaction.

Check out greyrider's horse squeeze about the 8010 technique and then read gutted's description of how his piece of software (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1711) (The brilliant greyrider has produced no SH software of any kind! Note how when I claim something I link people to it so they can check it out to their own satisfaction. Greyrider has things to hide, so he doesn't do that.) works, then load up the .pdf file by yet another named and credited author which takes you by the hand and fulfills all ten characteristics of a valid targeting method except that it be popularly adopted.

8010: ten times a loser. Hydrophone Tracker (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1711) software plus the TMA method it uses: nine and soon to be ten times a winner. And 8010 is only ten times a loser because we haven't thought too hard about what other necessary qualifications it lacks.

I invite everyone to compare the two to see the stark difference between buffoonery and valid method. Nobody will be left with a shadow of a doubt which is which. Even greyrider knows the truth. Everyone can learn to use the Hydrophone Tracker (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1711) and most will shoot as well as gutted can. Not one person can successfully learn and use 8010. It is a waste of space, empty boasting substituting for teaching, a circular reference posing as applicable theory.

[tater]

This thread really isn't the place for any "real" information, but at the least the notion of a "closing" contact might well have been possible in ww2, no? Assuming attenuation and other factors related to transmission of sound through water stay relatively constant during the time frame from observation 1 to observation 2, might it have been possible to decide the target was closing simply based on signal strength increasing? This would just be a "closing" vs "receeding" distinction, nothing with the fidelity to get a range-rate.

[Rockin Robbins]

In all fairness, I think this is the thread that belongs to that image:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=87832

But this method relies on the hardcapped detection range to provide a specific location on a bearing line. And knowing a speed versus rpm table. Not my cup of tea because of the first 'cheat'. I can live with the second part, even though it isn't historically correct.

I can't live with the second part either. The entire method is just another gaming of the system, impossible to execute in a real submarine of the time. He assumes that the Kriegsmarine rented every ship in the Allied arsenal, both warship and merchant, took them one by one to Germany and conducted speed/RPM trials on each ship, presumably ensuring by black magic that they kept perfectly clean bottoms and undamaged propellers throughout their wartime careers. Hell, if they could rent 'em, why'd they bother giving them back so they had to sink them later? No, I can't live with that part easily. It makes a mockery of simulation.

And the max detection distance is just ridiculous. Sonar conditions are always identical with the same detection distance and the same width of listening cone? Well it is in the Silent Hunter games! Let's all just cheat. Then we can call it a legitimate plotting technique.

The next step is to call every other method, no matter when and how developed a bad copy of your method of cheating. And then you need a snazzy name: Trial and Terror!!!! Damn I'm a genius......

As gutted and others showed clearly, cheating is not necessary.

[greyrider]

it’s often a compliment when your opponents attack you, personal, or by yapping about your punctuation, spelling, grammer, It means they think you are dangerous,
and i do consider the opposition complimenting me with everything they post.
acceptance of 8010 by you would be dangerous to rr and dick okane method, he lends the name of a great skipper to something okane would laugh at,
to lend an air of authenticity to it, so funny!


but i do, in spite of my laughter, feel sorry for you people, (the opposition), you have some serious personal issues, as well as one of eyesight.


enough time has been wasted here tho,

its time for me to get off the crazy train,

for the opposition, i see that the lights are on, but theres nobody home.

i cant believe some of the things that have been said here, over the course of the tread, by the opposition, i know theres an incredible darkness overtaking the world,
but i would never have believed it would make itself so evident and manifest here,
their eyes see it, they know its true, but they continue to deny truth they see with their own eyes, thats incredible!
its really very serious, something to sit up and take notice of, and react to.

i feel sorry for you!
ole rockin, the chief bs, has you conned, bagged and tagged, he knows he cant do that with me,
but he does know he can with you.
to him , its all about image, and what he projects to you, this is the real basis for his stance, he wants to be worshipped, by you,
and im laughing, laughing ,laughing!

image means nothing to me, i dont care if im the most hated individual on the forum, that pleases me, that says im doing my job,

he wants you only to use his dick okane bs, that he derived from others, even if not from me, there were many others, beside me,
that wrote of manual targeting, long before he came on scene.
he doesnt want you to improve, he doesnt want you to try to improve your skills, this would kill his ego,

Bad greyrider! bad bad greyrider.

he says, "we are only using examples from the fire control manual, to prove 8010 bs, well thats where the formula comes from to,
i have yet to understand why there would be a contradiction.
there is none, yet he pleads to insist there is, hoping you will believe him, looking for safety in numbers.

to to funny!

you were my favorite toy here rockin! i had a rope around your neck, and i gave you plenty of slack, to post and post away,
knowing you would screw up, and then, when i felt like it, i pulled the rope tight, and watched your feet fly from underneath you,
and you go into a horizontal, choking, feet in the air, flat on your back to the ground, just like a dog chasing a ball that went to far
while tied to that rope, its smarted, and you felt it, then gingerly, you posted again, feeling your way back, remembering that jolt, until you got your confidence back,
and forgot about it, the rope got slack again, you posted,
only to have it happen again, and again.
i sat here rolling in laughter, your own words was the ammunition i used to do the pulling.

regarding the concept of 8010, or anything like it, by me or someone else,

i figure you should know that Real warriors will always try to improve themselves, because there’s always room for improvement! it’s a life long pursuit.
Real warriors want that edge, there is no substitute for victory, and it’s usually those who have the edge that wins,
As it says in the u-boat manual, "he who sees first has won"!

Back in my days in the 82nd, I heard it a different way, “he who gets there first, with the most, has won"!


I don’t want you for friends, I don’t even want you for countrymen, was it ben Franklin, or john Adams that said something similar?
the 8010, is tried and true, and on film.

so in Summing up the opposition in one sentence, then the tread can die for all i care!

"castles in the sand, fall into the sea, eventually"! j hendrix

[tater]

No, we show you a few triangles that satisfy all the required criteria—and are not right triangles, and you cannot answer a simple yes or no question about your "method."

You cannot answer because you've finally learned that there are two possible answers. You can admit error, or give the wrong answer. Either way you lose.

Instead, you claim victory in the face of obvious failure, then leave. LOL.

BTW, it's usually not a compliment to have your spelling or grammar corrected. If it is bad enough to get noticed by internet posters, it's likely pretty atrocious (given the fact that on this forum I see "your" misused more often than it is used correctly, among many other examples (not just you, probably the majority of posters)).

[greyrider]

Quoted yet again for emphasis.
Please please please please please answer the above question.

does your drawing look like anything i posted from the sh4 mission editor?

doesnt look like it from my house, also does the one heading 90 degrees from your start point look like its closing? not from my house, looks likes its going away, next time, check my radar in the movie, next time read my post, if its not a 10, then you get up, move the sub , close on the target course, not the target, then turn in , to acquire 8010, i have said that more than once,

[greyrider]

Has no bearing on the thread or your method, but it states..

"Launders spotted another periscope. Lowering Venturer's, Launders correctly guessed that the other periscope belonged to his quarry. Slowly following U-864, Launders planned to attack the German u-boat when it surfaced."

Seems he made visual contact and followed it by scope enough to get into position to attack by sonar. That statement in fact is the problem with your method, he had to put himself on course to attack to start with and did so with a visual.

His attack why well planned, was more luck and theory....I've sunk many ships by sonar alone with no visuals at all, but it was estimate info at best.
Here he had visuals to start with...


I use to have some respect for you, but this constant silliness trying to just jest at people is silly.

Thread needs to be lock and deleted, it has no merit at all.

what did i say at the begining, this was not an 8010, what bearing it has is that tater and a few other try again as usual, saying you cant track by hydrophones, it has an arc, or whatever else he imagines, so that documentary has bearing, it also has bearing in showing what a submarine can do, with a capable skipper, with audacious tactics, and a very capable hydrophone operator, thats what bearing it has.

it has bearing also, in that a submarine could track, and kill another unseen target, why ami not surprised you would deny the truth of that?

[greyrider]

Can you post a link to the location you posted it?

By the way, what were the results of testing the mission posted in Post #221 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1491643&postcount=221) that you asked someone to post for you?

havent seen it until now, i will let you know

[greyrider]

This thread really isn't the place for any "real" information, but at the least the notion of a "closing" contact might well have been possible in ww2, no? Assuming attenuation and other factors related to transmission of sound through water stay relatively constant during the time frame from observation 1 to observation 2, might it have been possible to decide the target was closing simply based on signal strength increasing? This would just be a "closing" vs "receeding" distinction, nothing with the fidelity to get a range-rate.

this guy isnt the person to go to with for real information, remember his initial post, about zig zagging?

if you watched the movie of HMS venturer, and u-864, clearly it says it was zig zagging, not only in a zig zag, but an underwater, unseen one, wasnt a problem for the venturer, which was exactly what i told him in the begining

[razark]

i have an idea, why dont one of you, the opposition, set up a mission, or you pick out a mission, of your choosing, of a closing target from the single missions, or any mission that has been made by someone else, hows that?

send it to me, and ill do the mission, and film it.

Here it is. It's JSGME ready. Just like yours it's a Subschool mission (SS10, US only).
...
http://www.filefront.com/17285812/RNDapproach_Subschool.rar


Well? Did you forget something, or did you try it and realize how wrong you are?
EDIT: Ah, I see. You ignored it.


Off topic, I have a proof that equilateral triangles actually only have two angles!
1. The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
2. All angles of an equilateral triangle are the same.
3. Per the "greyrider triangle theorem", all triangle contain a right angle.
4. Because 2 and 3, all angels of an equilateral triangle are right angles.
5. 90 + 90 = 180.
Therefore, an equilateral triangle must have only two angles, because if it had three, the angles would add up to 270 degrees, and by 1, this is not possible.

[tomoose]

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call.......... The Twilight Zone!"

:zzz::timeout:

[greyrider]

No, we show you a few triangles that satisfy all the required criteria—and are not right triangles, and you cannot answer a simple yes or no question about your "method."

You cannot answer because you've finally learned that there are two possible answers. You can admit error, or give the wrong answer. Either way you lose.

Instead, you claim victory in the face of obvious failure, then leave. LOL.

BTW, it's usually not a compliment to have your spelling or grammar corrected. If it is bad enough to get noticed by internet posters, it's likely pretty atrocious (given the fact that on this forum I see "your" misused more often than it is used correctly, among many other examples (not just you, probably the majority of posters)).


:haha: you showed me nothing but how confused you are

[greyrider]

:haha: you showed me nothing but how confused you are

they dont look anything like the drawings i put up from the editor, as usual, you add things i never did, putting words in my mouth i never said,:yawn:

[greyrider]

Well? Did you forget something, or did you try it and realize how wrong you are?
EDIT: Ah, I see. You ignored it.


Off topic, I have a proof that equilateral triangles actually only have two angles!
1. The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
2. All angles of an equilateral triangle are the same.
3. Per the "greyrider triangle theorem", all triangle contain a right angle.
4. Because 2 and 3, all angels of an equilateral triangle are right angles.
5. 90 + 90 = 180.
Therefore, an equilateral triangle must have only two angles, because if it had three, the angles would add up to 270 degrees, and by 1, this is not possible.


i just downloaded it! thanks, ill try it and get back to you

[greyrider]

razark writes

"Therefore, an equilateral triangle must have only two angles"

2 angles? then it cant be a triangle now can it, tri means 3:haha:

[greyrider]

for the last five or six posts of mine, i have addressed people who have yet again, twisted things around to suit their pov, and not what i wrote.

im sure you will find a way to twist my replies around again, doesnt matter to me, the 8010 stands tried and true, its filmed, random, and done,
must be so hard to do that even a guy with an astrophysics decree cant do it:haha:

and what does a decree mean anyway, accept that some other moron, thinks your smart.

the world is full of people with a decree, in positions of leadership, and look at its shape, :haha:

i dont care what you people think of me, your funny:DL

[razark]

A quote from Run Silent, Run Deep comes to mind.

Mueller: "I don't know what you're talking about, sir. Do you?"

[Rockin Robbins]

It would never occur to greyrider that when I said I put him on ignore, I did exactly that and didn't look at this thread for a week. I have a life, complete with wife, kids, three cats and a dog. Stuff happens that has nothing to do with greyrider and there's no reason to listen to him anyway.

A wise man consults with others in his search for wisdom
A fool consults only his own empty boasting

I've been consistent throughout the thread, at first giving him the benefit of the doubt and later, when there was no longer any doubt denouncing him as a buffoon and a fraud. This is not for my benefit. It is for the benefit of persons like the poster earlier who said that all this math made his head hurt and he guessed he'd never be better than using auto targeting.

The fact is it doesn't take a genius to do manual targeting. It is easy. If I teach 10 people to do it nine of them will end up shooting better than I do. I boast about the accomplishments of others who have learned that they can shoot manually using several different methods, many of which are not mine. Just about anyone can do it. If I boasted about being able to do it, that would be an empty boast because truly any reasonably average person can be a deadly manual shooter. I could care less if I can do it. I care if YOU can do it. That's the difference between me and greyrider.

The whole head in the noose thing is just bizarre, with the imaginings of some tentative feeling my way back into the thread after being shown a fraud. Whose universe did that happen in?:haha: It sure didn't happen here, that is for sure. In this thread greyrider revealed his inner character with great clarity. I don't need to describe something that is clearly revealed.

You'll note that when I delivered the clincher, a REAL technique for passive sonar targeting, which included all steps, initial acquisition to shooting with down periscope, it wasn't my own, but someone else's. I used someone else's work, clearly attributed by the way, to show the difference between instruction and fraud. People who want others to use nothing but their own techniques don't do that.

Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=146795) is full of other people's techniques, posts and videos. Lots of the techniques I teach, like Nisgeis' vector analysis method, are not mine. I am just the cheerleader, making sure that these methods are paid the attention they deserve. I do this because I know they can make Silent Hunter more fun for other people. Greyrider talks only about his own techniques when he is not claiming that every other one is just a stolen bad copy of his own Trial and Terror method. He reveals himself as a liar and a fraud. This is not character attack. This is an empirical conclusion based on insurmountable evidence supplied by greyrider himself.

Good riddance sir, if you are really leaving. I fear that you will be back to try to mislead other players, some of which will be in danger of listening, trying your stuff unsuccessfully and leaving SH4 in frustration. I'll be here to ensure that they know the truth.

Here's my main message: Manual targeting is easily learned and easy to do. You CAN do it as well as I can. I and a dozen other people are here to fulfill that promise. If you're having a problem shooting it's not because you aren't smart, it's because we didn't make it clear enough and we'll do better! If that's egotistical, so be it but we are dedicated to making SH4 more fun and making you a better sub skipper, because it's not about us. It's about you.

[tater]

does your drawing look like anything i posted from the sh4 mission editor?

doesnt look like it from my house, also does the one heading 90 degrees from your start point look like its closing? not from my house, looks likes its going away, next time, check my radar in the movie, next time read my post, if its not a 10, then you get up, move the sub , close on the target course, not the target, then turn in , to acquire 8010, i have said that more than once,

Do you really not understand the diagram he posted?

The entire point is that your 90-80-10 triangle is ONE triangle of many possible triangles. His diagram (and mine) show contacts on the same 280 bearing, all with different AOBs, speeds, intercept points and intercept angles.

What YOU need to describe is how, exactly, you get yourself into the 90-80-10 situation by more than chance. As I demonstrated, the constant bearing is meaningless, the target AOB is independent of that.

So how do you put your sub on a right-angle intercept of a target whose heading you do not know ahead of time?

Don't answer "hold it at 80" we've proved that wrong.

[Rockin Robbins]

I'm still not sure he understands what an angle on the bow is...

[razark]

I'm still not sure he understands what an angle on the bow is...
Sure he does. It's a value equal to 10.

[tater]

Sure he does. It's a value equal to 10.

LOL

[NorthBeach]

This caused a spit-take...

"...what does a decree mean anyway..."

decree: an official order issued by a legal authority.

While I have been the recipient of such edicts, never has one been issued to me by an educational institution.

"accept that some other moron..."

I can't bring myself to address this one. The irony is self evident.

"the world is full of people with a decree, in positions of leadership, and look at its shape"

Two statements in one sentence that have no relation to each other. Yes, there are people in leadership who have been issued decrees. But, how does observing the Earth as a spheroid relate to the first part of that sentence?

The lack of willingness to read and understand all of the evidence and arguments in rebuttal of said method, and then offer coherent, logical, point by point defense, confounds me if the author truly believes in the scientific validity of the method.

Does anyone else feel like this thread has taken on a Monty Python like feel?

:nope:

[greyrider]

here is where i am at the moment with your mission, its saved for now, im going to take a break, or maybe get some sleep, however, i will continue at some point.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/2956/sh42010091600004519.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-15


since my last post, the only one worth answering would be taters, and tater, i dont know how many times i have to say this, but ill try again, you know that a target, closing, can and does come at the submarine from any direction of the three sixty, i know you have to at least agree with me on that point.

the first thing i would do, would be to find the direction of its relative movement, once i know where and in what direction its going, i would then turn toward that direction, and with either hydrophone or radar put that target on an 80 bearing offset.

from there i would make an attempt to keep that target constant on an 80 offset, by adjusting submarine speed.

if i cant hold it constant, then ill know i havent got a 10 degree aob, then i make a decision, on how i can keep it constant.

i said once before that theres two kinds of closing targets, ones you can engage, ones you cant, actually you can engage them all, but it takes maneuver to engage the harder ones, those would be the ones that are at long range, with a large aob to begin with.

ships are going to close just like your diagram, but that doesnt mean you cant get them to an 8010, maneuver does, maneuver is part of the approach.

i will turn into a targets anticipated course, after closing on that anticipated course, sometimes, when the target is closing, it wont take much maneuver to get into 8010, like say if a sub has contact at zero degrees, and target doesnt change bearings, its going to run right over you eventually, what i would do then is go into reverse, then turn, if i want to attack its port side, i would reverse the sub, do a hard to starboard, and the sub would turn, the target bearing would eventually get to 80 starboard, this would put the port side of the target facing the bow, for the bow torpedoes, i could do the same thing by putting the sub into a starborad turn, and attack it with stern torpedoes on the targets port side. then the 80 offset and the target would be on 260 degrees. these are discisions made to get into attack position.

the 80 degree offset bearings are 280 80, 100, and 260 degrees.

it would take a small book to say what to do, how to turn, i cant tell you how for every angle targets come at the sub, and how your going to attack it, theres just to many ways, you should know this.
but i have no trouble, an 8010 is an intercept course for a closing target,
what more can i say. you can do it going forward or reverse, either way i have no trouble.

theres been alot of wasted energy here, talking about it, if you dont want to use 8010, dont!

instead of that energy wasted, you and the rest could have tried it, if you failed, you could have tried it again, like what do you have to lose? the answer is nothing!

the tread was poisoned from the begining, because someone got jealous,
and set the tone of it, i told you why, its not my fault.

someone can show you how to shoot a rifle, but until you put it in your hand, and try it yourself, you will never know what its like, and all the explanations in the world wont help you, you have to take it and shoot it to know what its like, 8010 is no different.

[Diopos]

...
the first thing i would do, would be to find the direction of its relative movement, once i know where and in what direction its going, i would then turn toward that direction, and with either hydrophone or radar put that target on an 80 bearing offset.

from there i would make an attempt to keep that target constant on an 80 offset, by adjusting submarine speed.
...


And this is where I stopped reading greyrider. Because it is the first time (I think) that you admit that (1) you must know target course, (2) get into a 90° intercept course and (3) then do a 8010. Are you kidding me??? You presented the method based on the miracle 10° AOB, and people argued that this is doable only in a 90° intercept situation and you just avoided an answer. WHY? WHY DIDN'T YOU STATE FROM THE BEGINING THAT BEING AT 90°/270° RELATIVE TO THE TARGET COURSE IS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE METHOD. Is it poor comunication skills on your part (not a problem just takes a bit longer to "communicate") OR something else? I now really hope you have the gutts to apologize to many people which you insulted explicetely or implicitely, because they were just stating the obvious ...


.

[Pisces]

Ahum!!! Typo: decree, should be degree. Decree is rule of law issued by a head of state. Like martial law.

Can't way for your reaction on the testmission.

[EDIT] Oh shoes, now I made my own. "wait"

[Nisgeis]

In all fairness, I think this is the thread that belongs to that image

Yeah, it was a failed attempt at humour - posting something that was obviously wrong. I won't try that again :DL.

they dont look anything like the drawings i put up from the editor, as usual, you add things i never did, putting words in my mouth i never said,:yawn:

You know you were arguing with yourself there? Who puts words into your mouth, if not yourself?

And this is where I stopped reading greyrider. Because it is the first time (I think) that you admit that (1) you must know target course, (2) get into a 90° intercept course and (3) then do a 8010.

He's said that from earlier on, but all he's saying is that you need to know whether the target is travelling from port to starboard or starboard to port, in order to know whether or not to put the target at 080 or 280. He's not saying you need to know the exact course (at that point). If he were saying that you need to know the target course, then the method would at least make sense, but he isn't saying that, so it doesn't make sense.

if i cant hold it constant, then ill know i havent got a 10 degree aob, then i make a decision, on how i can keep it constant.

How do you know this? This is the question you've never answered. Are you relying on the very narrow speed range given by the sonar operator and by constant you mean near enough to constant (as who cares about a degree or two)? Looking forward to the test mission explanation.

[razark]

if i cant hold it constant, then ill know i havent got a 10 degree aob, then i make a decision, on how i can keep it constant.

And if you can hold it constant, how do you know you have a 10 decree angle on the bow, instead of one of the many other possible combinations of course and speed that would hold the target on a constant bearing?

This method requires a 90 degree intercept course, and you've never demonstrated how you know you've got that right angle.

[Pisces]

here is where i am at the moment with your mission, its saved for now, im going to take a break, or maybe get some sleep, however, i will continue at some point.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/2956/sh42010091600004519.jpgDon't forget to mark that position and the next ones at 30 minutes intervals. And draw a line through them and figure the speed between them. Or else we have no way to compare your results with what happens for real. I see you moved to close the distance. To around 10 or 11 nm. Which makes the bearings drift a bit quicker. That's ok. Now comes the fun part, is he too fast?, or to high AOB?, or both? Or neither. Eitherway, I'm curious when you decide to keep him at 80 bearing, or turn into him. Is that a tail I see on the contact mark? (the quality is not that wel.) Remember, that should not influence your steps to take. It's for testing feedback only.

[tater]

He really doesn't get it.

greyrider, you can have a target that is closing that is moving one millionth of a degree off of a parallel heading to your sub on an 80 degree bearing. It IS closing, but it will take nearly forever for the collision to occur.

Your sub can go ~6 knots and hold the contact, say.

That means the contact is going ~6 knots. The AOB is NOT 10, period.

In the diagram I posted above, all the contacts are on the right bearing, and held constant. All are also NOT 10 degrees.


ships are going to close just like your diagram, but that doesnt mean you cant get them to an 8010, maneuver does, maneuver is part of the approach.

The targets in my diagram are all at a 280 bearing (080 port) from the submarine. They are already held constant at that bearing.

The only way you can set up the 90-80-10 setup is to know—in advance—what the target's heading is.

Why do I bother saying the same thing over and over, I could already have taught my 6 YO the required trig.

[tater]

I was listening to an old This American Life podcast in the car the other day. It was about some plumber who started reading up on physics, and decided E=mc^2 was wrong. The show had part of his discussion with a physicist that the reporter had arranged. The physicist looks at it, and tells him immediately that the units are wrong, his equation isn't energy. Poof, done. Right?

No. The guy refuses to believe it. He's sort of in the "I'm not that good at the math part, but let me explain it..." I guess at that point the guy was too invested in his errors to accept them. He leaves and says to the reporter "I know he's got the degrees, and some patents, and stuff like that, but he didn't seem very "bright," you know?"

:damn:

[Rockin Robbins]

if i cant hold it constant, then ill know i havent got a 10 degree aob, then i make a decision, on how i can keep it constant.

Greyrider thinks if he can hold the bearing constant then the target MUST be at a 10º AoB. This is so wrong it invalidates 1810 all by itself.


it would take a small book to say what to do, how to turn, i cant tell you how for every angle targets come at the sub, and how your going to attack it, theres just to many ways, you should know this.

Then why are there a couple of dozen different valid methods in the Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks thread, every one of which is much smaller than a "small book," every one of which tells you how to deal with how to attack all targets, have complete instructions with no missing steps and can be executed successfully by anyone with the desire to follow the instructions? Only a minority of them are mine, by the way and I hope people learn all of them.

the tread was poisoned from the begining, Finally you're onto something. The thread was poisoned by an invalid 8010 procedure with badly written and incomplete instructions. It was poisoned by an author who had no intention of communicating instructions, only boasting of empty achievements: the very definition of a fool.

someone can show you how to shoot a rifle, but until you put it in your hand, and try it yourself, you will never know what its like, and all the explanations in the world wont help you, you have to take it and shoot it to know what its like, 8010 is no different.

You of all people know that there are many complete and effective instructional programs on how to shoot a rifle. And you know that just about anyone can be taught to handle a gun with proficiency. You also know that the instructor does not waste your time just bragging about his own impossible shots, he teaches you to shoot well. Many of his students end up shooting better than he does because being the best shot in the world is not what instruction is all about. Instruction is about analyzing each and every step to the completion of a task, refining that down to a set of small, necessary and sufficient steps which can be easily learned and executed and then drilling the students until they can execute each of those steps perfectly, in order, under great mental stress and possible physical danger. The success of the process is not determined on how well the instructor shoots. We could give a rip about that. The success of the teaching process is judged by how well the STUDENTS can shoot! It's amazing that you actually went through that process and never understood what was happening! This is proof that proper instruction works on just about anyone, regardless of ability. Using the gun example perfectly proves my point. Thank you!:up:

Now, carefully diagram, analyze and understand each phrase of the sentence in red and maybe you'd better go back to the beginning and do some actual communication based on a sincere desire to contribute to the knowledge of others, and increasing your own knowledge as well. A mark of an excellent instructor is that he invariably ends up learning more from his students than they do from him.

At this point, your students don't know how to execute 8010. Not one can determine target course from your instructions. Not one can determine target speed from your instructions. You fail.

[Diopos]

...
A mark of an excellent instructor is that he invariably ends up learning more from his students than they do from him.
...


Sooooo true! :yep::yep::yep:


.

[Armistead]

I learned how to shoot a rifle at age 8, at a..er much older age I couldn't learn 8010.

Smart people here probably saw the failures of 8010 from the start, I honetly gave several tries and saw the first failure, none of my targets came at me to use the setup. I had to run on the surface tracking to put myself in position, by then I had course, speed, basic AOB, so if I had all this info to start with, I asked what good is 8010. Your basic reply was there may be a time all my equipment could be destroyed. Still, I had to surface track to put myself in position and my binocs always work.

It then seemed useless for anything but singles. Turned out even in position you would have to let every fast TF just go by, because you would have to use flank speed to try to hold a bearing and couldn't..so attacking TF's was out.

Why am I doing this again....:hmmm: You know it doesn't work or is so limited that no one would use it. I tried to learn this....and couldn't.

Don't say no one tried...I did, doesn't work. Even if it did it would be limiting.

People want methods that are fast and accurate, not limiting and long...above all they should work.

[Rockin Robbins]

Here's how legitimate teaching works. Notice in this thread starting at this post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1249016&postcount=11) where aaronblood jumps into jerm138's discussion on passive sonar tracking. I'll let you read it for yourself to learn how someone responds when he really seeks to communicate the truth. At one point to make sure they understand each other correctly arronblood and jerm138 are actually arguing the other guy's position! The only thing important to them is that they don't accidentally mislead people who want to try the ideas out. Salute to both of them! Aaronblood has jumped into my threads to set me straight too and every time I've come out wiser, my materials sharper and with more people practicing the techniques because the explanations are easier to understand.

Now apply that test to greyrider. Fail.:D

[WernherVonTrapp]

http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-music037.gif:D

[greyrider]

here is whats left of your target,
any questions?


http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/3448/sh42010091621335377.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-16

i know rr, and all you others, i suck, you suck to!

[razark]

here is whats left of your target,
any questions?
How does putting the target at a constant 80 degree bearing prove its a 10 degree AoB, and not any of the other possible AoBs that also keep the target at a constant 80 degree bearing?

You know, the same question we've been asking?

[tater]

here is whats left of your target,
any questions?


http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/3448/sh42010091621335377.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-16

i know rr, and all you others, i suck, you suck to!

If you can hold the target on any constant bearing (closing) you'll get a shot. That picture proves nothing at all.

You have continuously told us that if it is possible to hold a contact on 080, THEN the AOB is 10. This is patent nonsense.

[Nisgeis]

here is whats left of your target,
any questions?

i know rr, and all you others, i suck, you suck to!

Best troll ever!

[Pisces]

here is whats left of your target,
any questions?


http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/3448/sh42010091621335377.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-16

i know rr, and all you others, i suck, you suck to!Uhm, where is the rest of the video we were promised? This is just one frame! An explosion proves nothing. It says nothing about how you did it. For all we know you could have gun-shelled it.

[Armistead]

He post a picture of a ship shot with a deckgun, not even torps and this proves what.....

[greyrider]

The only thing I learned from my "students", is the whine and cheese! "I can’t do it, i can’t do it, snivels, bad greyrider, and you’re a bad man."
You make my flesh crawl!

There were no instructions in the fire control manual for me either, but I got the job done!

so I have changed course, all movies at u-tube, all missions at file front, all pics from imageshack have been deleted, there is nothing left.

I look at it this way, all I needed was to see the formula and diagram from the fire control manual, with a little thought on my part to make it work,
If that was good enough for me, then its good enough for you, you get no more help from me, your on your on, no one helped me
understand, I had the skill to do it, and I did, no excuses.

Im one up on you! Laughing!

You don’t have the skill, that’s the bottom line, all you tinkerbells and candy ass pussies can do is whine, the only nursery I ever loved was my daughters.
You want to turn subsim into a nursery; this is where I get off! I won’t be back! The tread dies now; there was nothing but the walking dead in here anyway.

I don’t care anymore.


you that watched HMS venturer, saw the greatest submarine shot of ww2, yet not even a whimper or a peep from you about it, nothing!

No questions! How did he do it? That was awesome! Woot! nothing, no curiosity, just a bunch of pussies running your mouths about not be instructed properly,
So if you couldn’t give captain laudery credit, how could I expect anything less? And if you had any brain to think, it’s pretty obvious how he did it,
And I think I know how! I might make that mission, but if I do, I won’t be sending it up for you to try it, you’ll know why!
You can stay in your comfort zone, whatever it is,
That’s where amateurs belong, with you, not with me!
I know you will never figure that out, you can’t even figure out the 8010.

It’s over now for me, I don’t deal with pussies any longer, im done! Stay in your holes and crevices, where all roaches and mice live!
You have plenty of company, enjoy!
Enough wasted time.

eff you people!
:har:

[Armistead]

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/images-2.jpg

Click Click Click.....

[razark]

Yes, make sure you take all your toys, so none of the other kids can play with them. :roll:

http://i.imagehost.org/0859/south-park-cartman-screw-you-guys.jpg

[tomoose]

Subtle, kinda, LOL.
OK, so according to Greyrider WE are all too dumb to use the 8010 method, nice parting shot, classy.:salute: BTW, I was a machinist (tradesman) in my early days and am VERY familiar with trig etc. I now have a college and a university degree albeit not in the sciences but consider myself somewhat educated and of an intelligent nature.:D Having said that, you never stop learning. The day you think you know it all is the day you become dangerous, LOL.:hmmm:

I had asked, nicely I thought, waaaaay back on 'page one' of this saga for some step by step pics to explain it as I just couldn't see how an AOB of 10 degrees could be assumed based on his description/tables etc, particulalry when the target was nowhere in sight.

After following the thread it appeared to me (and I've seen nothing to prove the contrary) that this 8010 method was nothing more than a specialized way of getting into posn to do a 90 degree attack. That for me is when the theory fell on its face as pretty much every skipper uses some type of method to get into a 90 degree (or as close to 90 as practical) attack. 8010, 7020, 6030, 5040, a rose by any other name.... In other words, your approach.....period! Why cobble your initial approach and setup by dressing it up with extraneous details/calculations and convoluted tables etc? You'll have enough to do once you get into an attack position!!!!

i.e.
"Target is "there", very long range, it is moving in that general direction (AOB unknown of course), I'm "here" and moving in this direction ergo I need to be over "here" in order to be in some position to be able to attack/intercept." Not exactly rocket science and yet greyrider seems to have made it so as I'm too dumb to understand the 8010 method which is apparently rocket science.

I for one am relieved that this thread is coming to an end. It was starting...correction...it IS becoming painful to read.

[Pisces]

...

It’s over now for me, I don’t deal with pussies any longer, im done! Stay in your holes and crevices, where all roaches and mice live!
You have plenty of company, enjoy!
Enough wasted time.

eff you people!
:har:If someone decides he has to swear and curse to make a point then he's talking to the hand. :down: Have much fun yourself.

[Nisgeis]

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/images-2.jpg

Click Click Click.....

Now that made me laugh out loud.

[Rockin Robbins]

eff you people!
:har:

Unconditional surrender accepted.:up:

[Diopos]

Uhmmm .... and what was the AoB exactly?


:DL


.

[Rockin Robbins]

uh.....10º. He was right all the time...:03:

[Nisgeis]

Hang on... if you look at it the other way round... if you can keep the bearing constant at 80 degress then you know that the AoB must be 10 degrees - that makes sense right? If you can't hold it steady. then you know the AoB is more than 10 and you can't intercept it.

[Diopos]

uh.....10º. He was right all the time...:03:


:up:

.

[Diopos]

Hang on... if you look at it the other way round... if you can keep the bearing constant at 80 degress then you know that the AoB must be 10 degrees - that makes sense right? If you can't hold it steady. then you know the AoB is more than 10 and you can't intercept it.

What? AoB more than 10°??? Is it possible???


:DL

.

[Nisgeis]

What? AoB more than 10°??? Is it possible???


:DL

.

Oh yeah it's possible, I'll break it down so all the stupid people can understand it. There's two types of ships you can engage - those you can engage and those you can't. Er, no that's not right. There's two types of ships, those you can engage and those you can't with the 8010 method. Those you can have an AoB of 10 and those you can't don't. If it has an AoB of 10, then all your calcs will be correct and you will hit the target. If it doesn't have an AoB of 10, then they won't and you won't.

This is very much like the 273-24 method, where there are again two types of target. The first type of target has a course of 273 and a speed of 24 knots - that's the type the method works for and then there are targets that have a course or speed of something else - those are the targets that the method won't work for. Using the 273-24 method, you can hold the target at whatever bearing you like and you can know for sure that the target's speed is 24 knots with a course of 273. If you can't hold it steady, or somehow miss your shots, then the target was not interceptable with the 273-24 method. The 273-24 method works in campaign too, but only works for targets you can intercept with this method though.

It's obvious isn't it?

[Diopos]

Oh yeah it's possible, I'll break it down so all the stupid people can understand it. There's two types of ships you can engage - those you can engage and those you can't. Er, no that's not right. There's two types of ships, those you can engage and those you can't with the 8010 method. Those you can have an AoB of 10 and those you can't don't. If it has an AoB of 10, then all your calcs will be correct and you will hit the target. If it doesn't have an AoB of 10, then they won't and you won't.

This is very much like the 273-24 method, where there are again two types of target. The first type of target has a course of 273 and a speed of 24 knots - that's the type the method works for and then there are targets that have a course or speed of something else - those are the targets that the method won't work for. Using the 273-24 method, you can hold the target at whatever bearing you like and you can know for sure that the target's course is 24 knots with a course of 273. If you can't hold it steady, or somehow miss your shots, then the target was not interceptable with the 273-24 method. The 273-24 method works in campaign too, but only works for targets you can intercept with this method though.

It's obvious isn't it?

No, but as you're an "opposition" bastard you must be wrong ....
And your 273-24 is a 8010 with a "mustache". Thief .....



.

[Nisgeis]

I have the copyright on all numbers, so I win and you're all still unable to understand my genius. :know:.

[razark]

This is very much like the 273-24 method, where there are again two types of target. The first type of target has a course of 273 and a speed of 24 knots
So, I hold the target at a constant bearing of 273 degrees, and I go 24 knots, therefore the AoB is...
<grabs slide rule>
Carry the 1...
<fiddles with the calculator>
249 decrees?

It's obvious isn't it?
No. Where's the right angle fit into this?
:06:

[Pisces]

...

This is very much like the 273-24 method, where there are again two types of target. The first type of target has a course of 273 and a speed of 24 knots - that's the type the method works for and then there are targets that have a course or speed of something else - those are the targets that the method won't work for. Using the 273-24 method, you can hold the target at whatever bearing you like and you can know for sure that the target's speed is 24 knots with a course of 273. If you can't hold it steady, or somehow miss your shots, then the target was not interceptable with the 273-24 method. The 273-24 method works in campaign too, but only works for targets you can intercept with this method though.

It's obvious isn't it?I was told in here I'm not smart enough. Is that measured in Kelvin or Fahrenheit degrees? How can it go 24 knots if the water is frozen solid. Or in the other case, hotter than boiling water?

[Diopos]

:DL:DL

Ok I relieved some of the greyrider pressure ...:DL
I think it is the first time since high school I was involved in a "swearing" contest concerning trigonometry. And back then the "target" was the trig functions not the people! :D

Going deep now ...:lurk:

.

[Rockin Robbins]

"Swearing contest concerning trigonometry" :har::har::har::har::har:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/j5az3t-1.gif

Poor guy was a Model T in the Indianapolis 500. Way out of his league. Thanks guys! You blew him off the track.

[joegrundman]

So, I hold the target at a constant bearing of 273 degrees, and I go 24 knots, therefore the AoB is...
<grabs slide rule>
Carry the 1...
<fiddles with the calculator>
249 decrees?


No. Where's the right angle fit into this?
:06:

I'll show you how the right angle fits into this :woot:

[gutted]

What the hell happened in here?

Cliff notes?

(I only skimmed the first and second to last pages)

[Nisgeis]

What the hell happened in here?

Cliff notes?

(I only skimmed the first and second to last pages)

A. Greyrider presented a method that was incomplete, as it did not explain a fatal flaw in the method as presented.
B. People asked for clarification on the flaw.
C. Goto A. Add more and more insults from Greyrider each iteration.

[Diopos]

What the hell happened in here?

Cliff notes?

(I only skimmed the first and second to last pages)

Short Vesion: If you keep the target at an 80°/280° constant bearing (<=> establishing a collision course) its AoB is 10°. Ahhh and if you think differently you're an ignorant low life and probably a Rockin Robbins victim with no mind of your own. And you don't understand greatness even if it slaps your face!

:DL

.

[Rockin Robbins]

I was his favorite.:D

Uhhhhhh......we'll stick around to clean up the mess. Target destroyed though!
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/dog11.gif

[Armistead]

Really a pity. I thought it started off rather good and made a good discussion. This thread should've taken a better route mid-way. Someone
could've just admitted they tried hard and just lacking. I'm sure many of you brains have gone this route working something out and you hit on something. Nothing wrong with trying, but when it becomes obvious, man up and say good try.

Then it became silly. Grey knows he's wrong and just kept at it trying to
stir people up. It's possible he could contribute much more, because he ain't dumb, just immature, now he'll forever be a mute.

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, that IS the pity. While the specific details of 8010 were garbage, the principle of keeping a target on a constant bearing is a guarantee that if they are approaching your courses will cross because you are on a collision course.

But that was the beginning and end of 8010. There was nothing special or desirable about the 8010 relationship. You could not shoot with 8010, just get close to your target. Actually the strategic aim of basic approach strategy is to be able to take advantage of larger and larger AoB's, not restrict yourself to a 20º cone, so his whole idea of 8010 was against the entire body of US Navy tactics as explained in the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual.

Ignoring the overall theme of the entire manual, he misused a single formula to imply that there was something special about an 80º bearing and a 10º angle on the bow. Had he been willing to let go of his obsession he would have had a valid approach, but not targeting tactic. The rules would have been much more general and adaptable and people would have thanked him for it.

And I get the idea that he's not young. He's apparently had some life experiences, perhaps even in the military, scary as that is... He'd certainly be the commander from hell, unable to benefit from the input of his subordinates. Lots of that sort in business today, so sure of their own rightness than they reject all ideas they have not thought of themselves.

Ah, it's the whole Greek tragedy thing... hubris and all that rot...

[I'm goin' down]

This thread should get an award at the end of the year. But what award could do it justice?

[Pisces]

I'd vote for "Ig-Nobel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize) that doesn't get it"!

[joea]

Wow I missed a lot when I was away. :-? :D

[tomoose]

Hit the 'back' key and step away from the keyboard, don't prod this sleeping bear of a thread, LOL.:03:

[Platapus]

This was one thread that did not need to be dug up. :nope:

To quote Pet Semetery :Sometimes dead is better. :yep:

[Rockin Robbins]

Something smells really bad in here. Best to leave it alone.:D

Go find some really good Strongbad E-mails (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail.html).:up:

[I'm goin' down]

i should not have posted.

[Rockin Robbins]

If you hadn't posted I wouldn't have had an excuse to plug Strongbad E-mails and there would be fewer people who have had a good laugh today.

[Capt. Morgan]

BUMP

[TorpX]

I just got done reading this thread.

I hardly know what to say.:o

[Rockin Robbins]

Hope you watched some Strongbad E-mail videos. They're really funny.:D

[Pisces]

I just got done reading this thread.

I hardly know what to say.:oI don't know what's left to say either. There was nothing but silence to respond to.

[Rockin Robbins]

And here is the record of greyrider's great accomplishments in Silent Hunter. We are all just peons, stealing his brilliance and calling it our own, dogs eating the crumbs that fall from his table. We are incapable of understanding genius and he will not hold our hand.

All this is five years old and he was still spouting fallacy that was five years old then. For ten years he's been obsessed with proving that a target at long range at a bearing of 80º or 280º must have an AoB of 10º because your mental power commands him to follow your commanded course and hold a 10º angle on the bow until you kill him. That's awesome power, isn't it? No wonder he won't hold our hand.

[I'm goin' down]

Captain Robbins, it's been a long time. My boat ran aground in 1944 on Luzon, and we have been hiding from enemy soldiers ever since.

[Rockin Robbins]

So YOU'RE the guy we fished out of the woods in 1984 stealing laundry from residents' back yards and living off coconuts!

He didn't understand the war was over and kept yelling "Dive! dive! Rig for silent running!" Showed him a McDonalds hamburger and he said "We won that hellish war just for THAT?" Then we knew he was sane and would be all right.

[ColonelSandersLite]

@RR
Me thinks some returning fire is called for here (with your own ammo no less):

It brings me great pleasure to award you Necro of the Week though. Congratulations....I think:D
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/Holy_Necro_Batman_zps36cc9c9f.jpg (http://s196.photobucket.com/user/RockinRobbins13/media/smileys/Holy_Necro_Batman_zps36cc9c9f.jpg.html)

[Rockin Robbins]

Yes, FIVE YEARS!!! Beat that somebody! Necro of the year is a lock!:up:

Should be an official Subsim award category.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/ThreadNecro_zps292d942a.gif (http://s196.photobucket.com/user/RockinRobbins13/media/smileys/ThreadNecro_zps292d942a.gif.html)