target speed: the eighty-ten method [Archive]

View Full Version : target speed: the eighty-ten method

Pages : [1] 2

greyrider

08-01-10, 02:21 PM

target speed, the eighty_ten method
in this tread im going to be introducing to all of you a technique
from the TFCM, and from the realm of imaginative tactics, that which is characterized by
or bearing evidence of imagination.
so if you want to advance your target speed determinations, to an advance level, your probably
going to have to pass threw this post, because no one has done this before, no one has shown this before, and the beauty is
it works great.
"
about a year and a half ago, i opened a tread called: "target speed, seaching for the magic bullet".
and in that thread i talked about a particular angular setup between a target and a submarine, and that if
this angular setup could be maintained, the AOB becomes predictable, and it didnt depend on seeing the target,
in fact the target could be at the maximum listening range of the hydrophones.
so with a closing target being held at a constant bearing, with a known AOB, the targets speed can be determined by using the
submarines speed.
the only tools i used on the submarine to determine target speed is:
submarine hydrophones (just listening and keeping target on bearing)
submarine knotmeter ( adjusting sub speed to keep target at constand bearing)
submarine timepiece (not really needed if target is held constant, but TFCM likes to time it for 2 to three minutes)
combat information mod for TM 2 (has the data to rate a targets speed versus sub speed)
and math formula: St= So*sin LA / sin AOB

where:
ST = target speed
LA = lead angle
AOB= aob of the target

http://a.imageshack.us/img405/6939/sh42010080112134106.png
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-01

http://a.imageshack.us/img405/4021/sh42010080112140085.png
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-01

http://a.imageshack.us/img405/9526/sh42010080112345513.png
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-01

http://a.imageshack.us/img405/3079/sh42010080112394844.png
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-01

whats not used are maps, plots, radar, sonar pings or ship length.
altho i have a movie to show you, its about an hour and one half long, i cant seem to find a site
to upload the movie to, filefront only accepts vids that are less than 2gb. the movie has 15 parts, each part has about has almost 4 gb,
so i cant even upload it in parts.
this movie shows the submarine holding a closing target constant on an 80 degree bearing,
with a ten degree aob, the submarines speed is 2 knots, so at the bearing and aob, the targets speed is 11 knots.
this speed was determined while the target was over 19nm away, and it took the sub almost 1 1/2 hours to close on it,it was hit with
all three torpedoes fired at it.
what i can do is give you the mission to practice with, i can give you the combat information mod for TM.
the combat info mod has two new charts, one has the data for the 8010 method, and the other is a chart for torpedo offsets, that is,
taking out two or three targets simultaniously, but i really need to make a handbook for the mod first, which explains how to use the charts and graphs.
so ill try to get that up later on, right now this is all im going to say about it.

TabbyHunter

08-01-10, 08:03 PM

That...is a very great tactic. You didnt make it yourself, did you?

Rockin Robbins

08-08-10, 04:36 PM

Now you have to demonstrate how you can determine AoB visually or any other way from 19nm! That is a stretch because they are well beyond the horizon at that point. If you're going to find the AoB by radar, then you might as well shoot by it and eliminate all the hocus pocus. I see smoke and mirrors here.

Since you cannot determine AoB from extreme range and you cannot determine target speed, your equation becomes a two variable expression with many solutions, not one. I don't think the problem is insolvable, but you're not there yet.

greyrider

08-10-10, 01:12 PM

continuing with the discussion on the 80-10 methed, one could ask, "how do you know your closing target aob is 10 degrees after leading it by 80 degrees".
theres only one way, and thats if the targets bearing remains contant at the 80 degree lead angle.
one thing i am seeing about this angular arrangment is that im begining to think of it as a reference bearing and lead angle, and that you can find the true aob
of the target, even if the target does not remain on a contant bearing.
for instance, take a look at this and see something, what if you set up this angular problem, and no matter how much you adjust the submarines speed,
the target will not remain contant. if that happens, thats a good indication the the aob is not 10 degrees.
this example asumes the target has a starboard aob, this is the same example used in this original post. now if the aob of the target is not 10 degrees,
no matter what, the target is going to advance in bearings,
in my original post, i held the target constant at bearing two eight zero, so it had a 10 aob.
what if it has an 11 degree aob, or more, well you will still certainly close on the target, you will see it when it comes over the horizon, and it will
still be a ninety or near 90 target track, but it wont be good for a accurate speed estimation
but watch this:
using the formula SS x sin LA / sin AOB
where:
ss = sub speed
la = lead angle
aob = target aob
watch what happens when aob other than 10 degrees are present on the target.
ask the sonar man the targets bearing a speed, he will usually tell you a few facts about the target such as bearing, closing moving away, slow med, or fast speed.
medium speed is from 8 knots to 11 knots.in the op, the target held contant at 280, sub speed keeping target constant was 2 knots, so target speed was 11 knots.
if the taqrget cant be held constant, aob is not 10 degrees, it could be more so, at
11 degree aob, plug in formula, do the math,
for an 11 degree aob, sub speed at 2 knots, target speed is 10.3 knots, still within medium speed tolorance
for a 12 degree aob, sub speed 2 knots, target speed is 9.7 still a medium speed.
for a 13 degree aob, sub speed same, target speed is 9.0 knots
14 degree aob everything the same, target speed is 8.3 knots. still within the medium speed tolorance, but as you can see, as the aob increases, the targets speed is decreasing,
so now if you try to plug a 15 degree aob into the formula, your target speed is now 7.8 knots, and now is below medium speed and would be rated as slow speed by the sonar man.
now you know that your target has anywhere from a 10 degree aob to maybe a 15 degree aob, if your sonar man rated the targets speed as medium.
now its just a play with numbers, or maybe a little mapping and plotting to find the targets real speed.
so from this angular settup between target and submarine, you can get either an extremely accurate speed estimation, or one very close.
more to come later.

Pisces

08-10-10, 07:44 PM

I'm sure we are all very curious about your video. But I'm pretty sure we are not waiting to download 60 Gigabytes!! :o for it. Surely there must be a way to compress it.

Your idea has merrit, however I think fixing your mind on a target AOB of 10d and a target speed of 11.3 knot if your sub is going 2 knots, well ... is just a too special case to be usefull in practise. If you manage to get the bearing to target steady over a long period, then you only know you are in pure intercept. However he could just as easily have had an AOB of 30d when moving at 4 knots. Or have 20d AOB when moving at 6 knots. And add to that the possibility of the target moving away, so the AOB could also be towards his rear.

Sure, you say, but the hydrophone operator can tell us what speed range he is in, or if he is moving away rather than closing to us. That helps narrowing it down. Well I really doubt if that could be done so quickly as in the game, the instant he hears it, or that he really could be so sensitive in real-life. What do I know, I have no real naval experience, I just find it hard to believe.

And I also would like to pose the question, how slow is constant? How long do you wait before you consider the bearing steady enough?

Let's generalize your idea. Because I certainly can see a use for it.

First of all, no need to fix your lead angle to 80. The sound on the 90 or 270 bearing is good enough, and get's that last percentage of use out of your speed. You can't expect the AOB to be near 10 degrees so why expect that you'll be crossing his bow perpendicular (which is what I expect you're expecting ;) )

So, now I assume you set course to beam the sound bearing, so sound on 90 or 270. Now make a record of the starting position. Very important!!! Now, set whatever speed you need to keep that bearing steady. That means accelerating and decellerating a bit as the bearing changes 1 degree forwards or backwards. Since you are perpendicular to the sound you automatically will do this with the least speed neccesary. Avoiding excessive noise. Do not turn your sub but keep it steady on course. Eventually you should still have the bearing on your 90 or 270 after a long time. Infact you could do this the entire time until you are about close enough to fire. Now you figure out your average speed during this time, which could be really accurate if you do it right until the end. You've moved a certain distance over a certain time and calculate with whatever tool the average speed(authentic with a nomograph ;) ) Ok, you may ask, but then I need to measure with the Super-Duper-GPS-Map-localiser. Surely that is not realistic. No, you are right in that, .... but ships can have a very simple speed measurement system that counts the revolutions of a small propellor as it flows through the water, known as a speed-log. If it is connected to a tachometer then you can sum up all revolutions and get a distance. Give or take a bit current-drift, but let's assume that to be equal to both vessels. Atleast, that's how I make it credible to myself.

Ok we measured our average speed, with the bearing kept steady, thus approximately in pure intercept. Let's now assume he has an AOB of 90 to the sound bearing (for lack of anything better), so we think he is going parallel to us. He probably is not, as he is probably faster and closing, but the rest of his speed is now pointed along the bearing and we can't measure that. But we do not need to either. He may come as quickly as he wishes, infact the quicker the better.

We are in pure intercept, but we want a torpedo to be in pure intercept.

In comes the intercept formula:

sine(ownsub_leadangle)= sine(targetAOB)*targetspeed/ownspeed

or how we are going to use it as torpedo-equivalent:

sine(torpedo_lead)=sine (assumed_targetAOB=90)*assumed_targetspeed/torpedospeed

Now you have enough data to setup the shot. Or feed the TDC. Assuming he is on a imaginary course perpendicular to the given bearing, and so appearing to move at the same speed as we did. (that's as much as a Blind's Man intercept can tell) And eventually being on top of us, so just a matter of waiting not too long with firing because of arming distance.

I'm not saying this is accurate, because you have no idea how far he is, so if you fire too soon you're probably going to miss. (As objects in the distance look much smaller angularly than when they are near) Also, the gyroangle is probably significant and you need a range figure to correct for parallax aiming error. But if you let him get close enough his length makes him vulnerable anyhow. Anyway, the geometry of the speed triangle should be correct. What you are really interested in is matching the speed vector components that are perpendicular to the bearing, so inside the triangle, as in this image:

http://ricojansen.nl/image/intercept_angles2.JPG

You just have to have patience when matching your speed to the steady bearing, and hope your batteries last that long.

Rockin Robbins

08-11-10, 01:22 AM

If you let him get close enough you don't need the mumbo jumbo. And just because you are on a collision course does NOT mean his AoB is 10º. As Pisces said, it could be just about anything. The only thing we know is that it is under 180º! We do know whether it is port or starboard also.

I'm coming up with a brainstorm but I can't quite put my finger on it. Pisces' diagram is the beginning of it though...

The only problem is that I'm coming up with another visual or radar technique, at least partially. You do have to know whether the torpedo can reach and you really should shoot well under 2000 yards for your average merchie.

Once I get my software back in order I'll work on it.

joegrundman

08-11-10, 04:46 AM

sure, using the sonar man to get a rough speed estimate significantly reduces the range of possible aobs.

But in fact, greyrider, all due respect, this is broadly speaking a rehash (and a limited one at that) of what i was writing about 3 or 4 years ago.

And in any case, the USN more or less already solved the problem from the other way round(for finding speed, when AOB is known, and in reality being able to eyeball AOB is a skill that is more or less assumed to come with practice)

OK you can do it without markings on the map, whereas the thing i wrote about several years ago used markings to help the procedure.

This is the article i wrote several years ago, but it took advantage of the speed omnimeter side of the ISWAS tool:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=115587

it was rewritten better subsequently, can be downloaded from my ff, but in fact someone else rewrote it again even better.

But a better idea is to read the original USN document detailing the use of the ISWAS, written between the wars, when such techniqes were a staple of submarine attack doctrine, before PKs and radar appeared. Has the advantage over conventional plotting in that the operation occurs while making a normal approach.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attackfinder/index.htm

Still, if you want to popularise the method, that's cool with me.

greyrider

08-11-10, 08:42 AM

if you have been reading this post, you know that a good speed estimation can be obtained by using the angular arrangment of 80-10, miles before you even see the target.
we can also get a fix on the targets course, and know pretty much what course the target is on as well. theres only one problem tho, because we wont know the range of the target,
we might know the course its on, but we wont know just where it begins, how far away it is, unless we are able to estimate range with the hydrophones, and that im going to try to show you is possible.
after listening to the sonar training records of the naval historical society, i have identified at least 2 ways sonarmen estimated target range by passive sonar.
one is by the loudness of the targets propellers, and the other way by the width of the targets sound signal, which i will show in another thread at some point.
but getting back to target course, once you have set up the 80-10 arrangment between target and submarine, if you worked with the AOB trainer, there was an explanation with it that described
how to determine target course, from either a visual contact, or sound contact.
to determine target course in the 80-10, you must remember that the target course is relative to the submarine. so using the original example, in the 80-10,
we have a target bearing 280, relative to submarine, since the targets bearing is 280, its more than 180 degrees, so you subtract 180 degrees from 280, and you
have a general direction now of the targets course. but we havent factored in the aob yet. so lets figure that in as well, so we can have a somwhat accurate target course line.
the target has a starboard aob, and since its a starboard aob, we have to subtract the aob, after subtracting 180 from the 280 target bearing, if the target is
being held constant at 280, it has a 10 degree aob, so we subtract 10 degrees from 100 degrees, and the result is the targets course relative to the submarine, 100 - 10 = 90 .
so the target has a 90 degree course relative to submarine, the only problem tho is what i stated at the begining of the post. it really doesnt matter tho, because if you keep the 80-10 arrangment, and continue to close the target,
your going to see it anyway, but i just wanted to show you that.
even if the aob is not ten degrees, you can still get target course, just like speed because you only have only a few courses that the target can be on, in the 80-10.

joe, i have download your info, i will check it out later, thanks

one thing joe, im a lazy captain, i dont wanna plot, i love it and hate it all at the same time, and becuse im lazy, i just want to drive the submarine to the target, shoot it, and then go away. :)

greyrider

08-12-10, 12:49 PM

http://www.filefront.com/user/greyrider
ok, well to put all doubt to rest about 8010, the link above is the original mission i used to test out the 8010.
if your going to try the mission, as soon as it starts, make sure you put 2 knots on the sub knot meter, and dont do any turns,
this is a real easy misssion, in order to see how the 8010 works, all you will have to do is make the sub go forward at 2 knots asap after the mission starts..
since i cant upload the movie, and no one wants one that large, youll will have to prove to yourselfs that it works.
one thing i wont do is make a claim, without proof, so here it is.
im kinda surprized by you rr, calling this smoke and mirrors, i thought if anyone could understand the trig involved in this, it would have been you,
no matter tho, prepare to eat those words rr,
just an added note to all the newer guys looking for a way to get a targets speed, you can still use this method even if your using auto tdc.
and if you are able to grasp the concept, and apply it correctly, you will be doing one of the most advanced techniques to date here at subsim.com, and be among the elite,
i dont care if you started playing this game last week, learn this, and no one can put you down.
the formula is from the torpedo fire control manual, but the concept for 8010 is mine, i still havent worked the handbook for the cic mod, so im attaching the chart for the 8010 here, for now.
caution: you will collide with the target if you dont shoot it first.

Submarine Speed Lead Angle Target AOB Target Speed|
.05 knot 80 10 2.8
.06 knot 80 10 3.4
.07 knot 80 10 3.9
.08 knot 80 10 4.5
.09 knot 80 10 5.1
1.0 knot 80 10 5.6
1.1 knot 80 10 6.2
1.2 knot 80 10 6.8
1.3 knot 80 10 7.3
1.4 knot 80 10 7.9
1.5 knot 80 10 8.5
1.6 knot 80 10 9.0
1.7 knot 80 10 9.6
1.8 knot 80 10 10.2
1.9 knot 80 10 10.7
2.0 knot 80 10 11.3
2.1 knot 80 10 11.9
2.2 knot 80 10 12.4
2.3 knot 80 10 13.0
2.4 knot 80 10 13.6
2.5 knot 80 10 14.1
2.6 knot 80 10 14.7
2.7 knot 80 10 15.3
2.8 knot 80 10 15.8
2.9 knot 80 10 16.4
3.0 knot 80 10 17.0
3.1 knot 80 10 17.5
3.2 knot 80 10 18.1
3.3 knot 80 10 18.7
3.4 knot 80 10 19.2
3.5 knot 80 10 19.8
3.6 knot 80 10 20.4
3.7 knot 80 10 20.9
3.8 knot 80 10 21.5
3.9 knot 80 10 22.1
4.0 knot 80 10 22.6

Rockin Robbins

08-12-10, 07:09 PM

greyrider, you cannot establish an 8010 relationship without seeing the target, either visually, with active sonar or radar unless you cheat in your mission setup and build it into the situation.

tomoose

08-13-10, 07:14 AM

I don't get it either. I've read the above but there seems to be a leap of faith involved plus "situating the estimate" (as RR has implied). Getting a good AOB is a bit of an art at the best of times using the VISUAL method! Despite the method described above I still can't see how one can possibly "assume" the 10D AOB just by placing the target at 80D when the target is completely out of sight with range/speed unknown and given that the degree of error varies with the range (i.e. the further away the target the greater any error or assumption will compound the situation, if you get my meaning).:06::06::06:

I'm trying to understand the method but can't get past the distance and AOB aspect. For example; as indicated above, I detect a target at 120D starboard, range unknown, and sonar says he's closing, fine. I turn my boat to put the target at 80D bearing. Target is still closing. I adjust speed to keep target on 80D. Target is still closing but regardless of my speed, how do I know he's at an AOB of 10D? He could be at 0D AOB and proceeding at .5knots or at 25D AOB proceeding at 4knots (I'm exagerrating to make my point). I can adjust my speed to keep him at 80D but I don't see how that means he's definitely at 10D. He's still closing and depending on his approach angle to me it would take quite some time to determine his speed but that would still not give me his range (which 'could' be 19nm but then again could be 25nm etc ad naus). With a lot of sonar hits I should be able to determine his course (over time) which in turn would give me a rough AOB but I'm still not sure how that could definitely be 10D!?!?
Perhaps some still map shots with the trig etc could clarify things?

Armistead

08-13-10, 01:08 PM

In theory, if all variables are correct, maybe it's possible, but I see too many issues where it is impossible to get correct data. Plus, there are too many easier ways to go about it.

What happens with a convoy with many ships and escorts in a protecting zig pattern?

greyrider

08-14-10, 08:53 AM

guys, your just not seeing it, thats all i can say, but ill tell you this, i have been doing this since the earliest days of sh3,
this is the point and shoot method i always wrote about.
did anyone download this mission and try it out yet?
because if you did, you would see that it works.
its a mathematical relationship, of proportions, and keeping those proportions intacct, while closing on the target, and you only need to keep those
proprtions long enough in order to calculate speed, as i said, the torpedo fire control manual asks that you time it for 2 to 3 minutes.
then you can do what you want, if you want.
its mathematical trueism, please dont take my word for it, im invited all doubters to try it, if you dont, then your really talking out of your hats, with all due respect to you guys, you should keep an open mind.
dont be close minded, because you miss things that could help you, in my posts above, i told you guys how you could verify a 10 degree aob,
this method is only for closing targets, targets moving away is not what its for.
this mission to test is anaseptic, i build it to test the formula, but i have keep the target constant on a 80 degree offset many many times with sh3 and sh4,
only i didnt get speed this way, because i didnt know the formula until about a year and a half ago, i always got speed in other ways, then i tried this, and it does work.
working with this formula and angular arrangment, i was able to change a variable into a constant, because of the mathematical relationship of the 8010, and that variable is a constant now,
when the target is held constant at a bearing, and does mot advance or decrease in bearings.
pieces brought up somethings such as using other bearings like 270 or 90, if someone were to do that, and try that way, their going to find the target going behind them instead of in front of them, and now will have to turn again,
and start over.
as far as convoys are concerned, im going to make the claim that you can still do it, and i could tell you how, and i will at some point.
i have done it!
just because someone doesnt know how to do it, doesnt mean that it cant be done, all you have to do is learn.
you cant see the wind, but you know it exists right?
try the mission, see how it works, you guys are the captains of your own submarines, once you see it works, its up to you to verify, from what i wrote, if the target has
a 10 aob.
remember the verification process to determine 10 aob is a constantly held bearing, if the bearing of the target advances no matter how much you adjust sub speed, its not 10, if it decreases in bearings, its going to go behind you, and you
will have to turn and readust the bearing to 80 offset.
not only did i learn this from experience, its also in the TFCM.
the whole point of this post is an attempt to take the concepts of the TFCM, and apply them to the game.
to say that a varible can only be a variable at all times is wrong, because it can be changed to a constant, under certain conditions, this is one of them,
and ther could be more, i havent worked them, so i cant say.

im also not twisting anyones arm to try it, that decision is up to you to either use it, or drop it and count it as useless.
but if you dont use it, im the only one who knows, and im one up on you, you can change that status
but i did show not only how to determine speed in the 8010, i also demonstrated that you could know AOB, and target course r to sub, using this method,
whats left? only range, and you have all four parts of a torpedo solution

i didnt write this to keep to myself, i wrote it to share with all of you.

Armistead

08-14-10, 10:18 AM

I'm all for learning any new method that would help me with contacts off. I tried the single mission. If I played with it enough I think I could get it to hold close, the problem for me is all the variables, but the bigger issue is I seldom attack singles, usually let them go unless a biggy. It also seems very limiting for faster ships, plus taking a lot of time tracking.

The other issue is it's just more work than needed for me. Maybe I'm use to easier methods. The bigger issue is sonar, why it may have some success with a single, can't see how you work it with a convoy. Not only that, often sonar won't pick up a ship until you can see it, unless you listen yourself and then you have no clue if it's coming or going.

For me as of now the better tool is the new radar mod. I can perfectly track ships far behind visuals.

When you desire, would love to hear the convoy explanation.

greyrider

08-14-10, 11:00 AM

np amistead, ill get that up for you soon, im going to have to play the campaign, to come in contact with a convoy, and then ill show you. im not going to make it a movie, ill do pics this time.

just a general explanation, i have done this before so i know, when a convoy is approaching, before the sonarman tells you he has contact, the contacts in the hydrophones will all be writeen on the notepad as unkowns. this is when your able to do it, point the hydrophones at the unkown that is on the far right, that has merchants screws, ask the sonar man to id it, he will id the target as merchant, then turn to get that merchant word on the notepad to the 80 degree offset, all others contacts will still be unknown, track the known merchant, and get its speed before the other contacts become identified.

thats it in a nutshell

only one or two minutes constant bearing needed to get convoy speed is needed

ask the sonar man to follow the contact as you turn, until its on 80 offset

Pisces

08-14-10, 02:29 PM

...
when the target is held constant at a bearing, and does mot advance or decrease in bearings.The problem is that in alot of cases you encounter the target with a speed and AOB that does not allow you to keep it on a steady bearing with only 2 knots. When you have encountered the target the AOB may have advanced to well over 30 degrees. Assuming you look on his bow with 10 degrees and make speed determinations of that is just silly. And in those situations I still want to know where he is going.

I have not tried the mission as I have no SH4 installed at the moment. But maybe I'll try to recreate it on paper.

...
pieces brought up somethings such as using other bearings like 270 or 90, if someone were to do that, and try that way, their going to find the target going behind them instead of in front of them, and now will have to turn again,
and start over.You misunderstood. Yes the target's sound may go beyond 270 or below 90 degrees. (or in a backwards direction) But then you should accelerate if the sound crosses towards your bow, and decellerate or stop if it crosses towards your aft. The trick is trying to keep him on 90/270 'on average', and thus your speed wil be an 'average'. You definately should not turn. This messes up the attempt to keep a steady bearing. If you cannot get his sound to come back to the 90/270 degree and you are at maximum speed all the time then you have to give up. He is simply too fast with an AOB near 90. But since US subs can use the hydrophone when surfaced I don't see this happening with most merchants.

piecesBecause the astrological symbolism of my starsign sometimes actually makes me feel like that, I won't hold this against you! ;)

greyrider

08-14-10, 05:27 PM

im really sorry for mispelling your name pisces, but you made me laugh, that was funny.
listen i have the answers to your questions, i just cant answer them now, ill try to
get them for you late tonight.
i wish i could upload the movie, really, all you need to really see is the first two parts, and the last two parts,
the rest is just a long ride to the target and nothing changes, the first 2 parts shows the sub getting the targets speed, the last 2 parts shows the kill.
its so long because it had to be played in rt, in order to see it work.
i will definitely stick with this post until everybody who wants to learn it has it down pat.
guys when ever we learn something new, it takes awhile to really understand it, but thats what training is all about,but i know
once you have it down, your going to like it alot.
amistead, here i go again mispelling someone name, sorry amistead, said something like its limited, its not really, i just used a medium speed for the test mission, i might make a slow and fast speed mission,
to show its not limited to just a med speed,
the chart i posted, can handle a target going over 20 knots. i know this method can handle any speed, but i stopped there because most targets we encounter
in the game travel less than twenty knots

Rockin Robbins

08-16-10, 10:57 AM

I for one, see it completely and in excruciating detail. Determining the AoB in any of the situations you have described is impossible. The only facts that can be found by putting the target on a fixed bearing is whether the AoB is under 180º and if that AoB is starboard or port. By cheating and using the sonar operator's speed estimate, knowing the game's precise speed range for each of three possible speeds, you can game the system and narrow down the possible AoB range somewhat. In the real war, your sonar man would be completely unable to give you that information, including whether the target was going away or approaching.

If you look at my tutorials on the Dick O'Kane method, the John P Cromwell method or the vector analysis method you can find the pattern for properly presenting an attack technique. It has to be easy to understand, without ambiguity and possible for the average person to use successfully.

This is nothing but smoke, mirrors and half-constructed thoughts describing a technique based upon an unwarranted assumption of an 8010 relationship that will almost never exist.

Nisgeis

08-16-10, 05:42 PM

The only facts that can be found by putting the target on a fixed bearing is whether the AoB is under 180º and if that AoB is starboard or port.

I can say with certainty that the AoB will always be under 180 degrees.

Stealhead

08-16-10, 06:18 PM

Have you guys heard of the wet finger in the wind method?:03:

Rockin Robbins

08-16-10, 07:40 PM

I can say with certainty that the AoB will always be under 180 degrees.

Well, no, it could BE 180º! hehehehehe!:D

But then your speed to keep it on a constant bearing would be zero or infinitely variable without restriction, depending on your course.

greyrider

08-17-10, 12:17 AM

ok, i have uploaded the movie to u-tube, the combined time is about 21 minutes,
in 3 parts. what the movie does is prove that the method works. i have writted a small explanation for
all three individual parts to let the viewer know what going on, for the part thier watching.
but whats happening is the submarine has aligned itself with the target in an 8010
angular arrangment, after about 8 or 9 minutes holding the target at a constant bearing of 280 degrees,
(way longer than i had to, but to show that a target can be held constant for a long period of time),
the approach looks at the combat information chart to fire the torpedoes at the proper firing bearing, for a 0 degree gyro angle,
for the targets course and speed r to submarine, for an mk-14 torpedo set for high speed.
the target is held at 280, and has a starboard aob, so im lisening mostly at bearing 290 and 291, to detect acute bearing change of the target,
which if occurs, either the target has a larger aob than 10 degrees, or submarine speed is not enough to keep target at a constant bearing.
at 290, i can still hear target screws, and hydrophone amplifiers can pick up sound from the target and display it as a green visual indicator
light, because the target sound is diffused 10 degrees on either side of its true bearing, ( not to be confused with its polar bearing), but its real bearing.

eventually the sub closes to short ranges that the sub has to slow to 1 knot, than half knot, and then to all stop in order not to collide with the target and maintain enough arming distance for the torpedoes. firing bearing for target making 11 knots and course 90 degrees r to submarine is 347 degrees for a 0 decgree gyro angle, using mk-14 set for high speed. part 3 shows the kill.

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzjXvApt1WU
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_KaezvILg4
part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MQiLfdtJY

Rockin Robbins

08-17-10, 11:48 AM

There is no there there. At no time did you establish the AoB of the target. Therefore at no time did you establish the speed of the target. You set up the scenario in the mission editor, erected your straw man and then knocked him down pretending to accomplish something else entirely. This is evidenced by the fact that you started out the video at 2 knots and course North, never having to adjust either. Why? You already knew the answer.

In a career encountering targets is nowhere near that convenient. Therefore the entire technique is unusable unless used only with your mission.

Useful stuff which is actually contained within the video:

1. Putting yourself on a collision course with an approaching target will definitely put you in a position to shoot. Actually, best approach turns out to be putting the target at your beam, 90º or 270º. You actually should increase speed to arrive ahead of the target so that you have time to set up the shot.

2. Getting close as you can makes any targeting system work, including your by guess and by golly zero bearing shots. In a real life situation you would have had no idea of the target's course or speed, but you were close enough to hit 'em anyway. This is the most important key to success. If you are close enough nothing else matters.

Unuseful, misleading stuff in the video:

Deax ex machina! You pull out an unannounced and unexplained tool which is nothing but a vector analysis substitute bearing lookup tool. After all the hocus pocus, you do a standard vector analysis attack having nothing to do with 8010! However, a target approaching at AoB 10º starboard, unless you change your course, which you never did, will never cross at 90º. You only hit because you were so close. You blew the 90º attack totally unless you did some maneuvering that did not take place in the video.

Diopos

08-17-10, 12:13 PM

For a Bearing-Only estimation of target course and speed (assuming target at constant speed and course) check:
http://www.archive.org/details/maneuveringboard00unit (http://www.archive.org/details/maneuveringboard00unit) (you' ve got to download it) and go to "Case XI".

.

Barkhorn1x

08-17-10, 12:20 PM

guys when ever we learn something new, it takes awhile to really understand it, but thats what training is all about,but i know
once you have it down, your going to like it alot.

I've really tried to follow the methodology here and find myself;
a.) Scratching my head
b.) Wondering why I would bother learning it when a combination of the 3 minute rule coupled with the Dick O'Kane targeting method give you all you need to hunt/position/hit/sink targets successfully.

They have the added advantage of being intuitive - this method is not - at least IMO.

Diopos

08-17-10, 12:57 PM

greyrider
Ok, if I succeed (say via sonar) to keep a distant target at a relative bearing of 80° while my speed is 2.5 Kts, why am I to suppose a AOB of 10 and a target speed of 14.1 kts and not other solutions (sample on following table)? Even if the sonar man or a contact report states a "slow" target the solutions are more than one. (Not to mention the possibility of the target running parallel and at equal speed with the sub)
OwnShip Speed (kts) ____"Lead Angle" (°) _____AoB (°) _____Target Speed (kts)
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________10 _______________14.2
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________15 ________________9.5
__________2.5 _________________80 __________20 ________________7.2
__________2.5 _________________80 __________25 ________________5.8
__________2.5 _________________80 __________30 ________________4.9

What you're proposing (trying to keep target at a fixed bearing) has its merits in conjuction with other available information, but not limited to the 80-10 case though.

sergei

08-17-10, 01:05 PM

why am I to suppose a AOB of 10

And that's the thing that has me scratching my head.

How can one assume an AOB of 10 on a target we neither plot nor eyeball?

What if when we first make contact with the target the AOB happens to be say 45?
Do we run ahead at speed until we get a 10 AOB, then start the approach?

It looks to me like this attack method will only work in a very limited set of circumstances.

greyrider

08-17-10, 01:40 PM

hey rr, this is a picture from the TFCM, says we can,

http://a.imageshack.us/img834/8706/platexvi.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-17

i put up a mission, that says we can,
i made a movie, that shows we can.
now show me yours, that says we cant.
and why would i read the cromwell method, or anything else you wrote, which i consider inferior, when its just a step child of point and shoot, which is highly flexible, and where your things
come out "AFTER", and the key word is after, someone elses. check the dates of when posts by rr came out, verses dates for point and shoot by me,
or the sound trainer or hydrophone tutorial from sh3. i have only posted alittle over 200 times, and most of my posts have dealt with tactics, so im easy to trace.
you say you got inspired by a microflash diagram gutted made, where do you think he got that from?
from point and shoot, he either understood very well what i was talking about, or he read and saw pictures i posted of patrol reports, when i was part of the atlantic campaign
at wpl, and i demonstrated point and shoot by hitting four targets as they crossed the firing bearing at 0 gyro, check the dates i posted the torpedo data sheets
for the point and shoot technique in sh3, you discover the gutted's diagram post came out "after".
now i dont care if you believe it or not rr, im not here to impress you, got that? you dont impress me, as i said, your a derivable, not original.
no ones twisting your arm.

funny how point and shoot keeps on getting better and better, while cromwell and company are not
improving over time as point and shoot does, that proves to me that you dont have any originality,
and that whatever you write about is derivable, from somebody else!
you know, if i was to do a cromwell type shot, i do any angle i feel like, if im not developing a deliberate attack, then im making a hasty attack, ill go
in with no solution, because i have a real good eye for speed over the water, and a even better eye for torpedo speed in the water,( kentucky windage ) thats another skill you dont have!
thats a skill i havent written about yet, but when i do, im sure youll come out with something that youll derive from it.
you said earlier in this tread that you had a brainstrom, and it all of a sudden was inspired by pices post, well where is it? im hoping
you do use 90/270, im inviting you to try and show us what you come up with, im really looking forward to that!
this is excately what im trying to say about you, and your own words prove it.

barkhorn, do you know the reason why you would want to learn, because in rl, not all methods will work at all times, not even this one, so it behooves you to learn as much as you can,
just my opinion, and you can use elementary tactics all you want like dick okane method, and 3 minute rule, as i said, im not twisting anyones arm.
it isnt hard, i do it automatically, its part of my standand attack method, it comes natural for me to turn a closing target to an eighty offset, whether port or starboard,
because i know hes coming down the line on a 90 or near 90 r to sub, you can sit there if you want, and take the time to plot its course using the methods
you described, and then all i do is turn, and dont plot, which is easier? you decide.

Armistead

08-17-10, 02:10 PM

And that's the thing that has me scratching my head.

How can one assume an AOB of 10 on a target we neither plot nor eyeball?

What if when we first make contact with the target the AOB happens to be say 45?
Do we run ahead at speed until we get a 10 AOB, then start the approach?

It looks to me like this attack method will only work in a very limited set of circumstances.

That's still what doesn't make sense to me. Watched the youtubes and basically it's set up.

Say I'm going north and I get a sonar contact at bearing 170. Say it's a group of merchants, but running in a row at 12kts. I can't see it, so do you hit the gas until you have it in the correct position coming towards you. If contacts are off and if this works it would only be a tool for contacts off, you would have to track it by other methods until it's on a perfect path, but by then I would already have my setup.

It just doesn't make sense unless it's one ship and all factors are perfect.

The bigger problem is I'm not going through all this when they're much easier ways for a single ship. I still see no way it could work with a large convoy or TF with ships in a zig pattern with escorts constantly making zigs. Your sonarman will tune into different ships, giving different commands.

The real tool is radar, not the blind use of sonar. This appears to be using your elbow to scratch your arsehole.

sergei

08-17-10, 02:32 PM

greyrider
Ok, if I succeed (say via sonar) to keep a distant target at a relative bearing of 80° while my speed is 2.5 Kts, why am I to suppose a AOB of 10 and a target speed of 14.1 kts and not other solutions (sample on following table)? . . .

OwnShip Speed (kts) ____"Lead Angle" (°) _____AoB (°) _____Target Speed (kts)
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________10 _______________14.2
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________15 ________________9.5
__________2.5 _________________80 __________20 ________________7.2
__________2.5 _________________80 __________25 ________________5.8
__________2.5 _________________80 __________30 ________________4.9

I've quoted this again Greyrider, because this is the question I really want you to answer.

Until I am given a convincing answer to this question, I remain extremely sceptical of the viability of this method except in very specific circumstances.

Diopos

08-17-10, 03:27 PM

...
The real tool is radar, not the blind use of sonar. This appears to be using your elbow to scratch your arsehole.

Well not exactly, developing tools and methods that allow you to estimate the target's vector via PASSIVE sensors is always a plus (even more so for a sub).

.

Nisgeis

08-17-10, 03:38 PM

You aren't explaining this very well greyrider, it would help if you answered some of the questions, instead of going on a rant about the plagurism of mathematical concepts that have been around for centuries.

Are you sying that this method only works if the AoB is ten degrees? If it isn't then this method won't work and you just have to try it to see if it does work and then you'd know if it worked (if your torpedoes hit)? If that's NOT what you're saying, how can you just assume that the AoB is ten degrees when you turn to have the target at a relative bearing of 80 degrees? That's a very specific setup, where you would have to be in a very specific place, e.g. very small distance to track and you'd need to be at right angles to his track.

Nisgeis

08-17-10, 03:47 PM

Well not exactly, developing tools and methods that allow you to estimate the target's vector via PASSIVE sensors is always a plus (even more so for a sub).

That would be useful, but this method is apparently only for determining the magnitude of the vector (target speed), for which you already need to know the vector direction (target's course (AoB)) and be in a very specific position ahead of the target, just off the target's track. I'm still unclear how the OP is saying that we will be in that position, in order for this to work.

Diopos

08-17-10, 04:01 PM

Guys lets give the man some breathing space, eh!
As I said the fact that the method is based on keeping the target on a constant bearing while the same time your sub is keeping constant course and speed is a very good starting basis. It signifies that you're either running parallel to the target or that you're on "collision/post collision" course (converging or diverging). It is the mathematical part of it that needs expansion and the fact that suplamental target information/estimations are required (to narrow down the set of probable solutions) IMO.

.

Munchausen

08-17-10, 04:54 PM

Well, no, it could BE 180º! hehehehehe!:D
But then your speed to keep it on a constant bearing would be zero or infinitely variable without restriction, depending on your course.

:cool: By now I'm sure you realize your speed could be most anything equal or below target speed if you're following in his wake.

Pisces

08-17-10, 05:29 PM

Rockin Robbins

08-18-10, 12:49 PM

hey rr, this is a picture from the TFCM, says we can,

http://a.imageshack.us/img834/8706/platexvi.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-17

That diagram says nothing of the kind. You do not understand the diagram or the trig calculation. To use it you need angle on the bow. Your method does not develop angle on the bow. Lacking one of the necessary parameters, you cannot solve the trig equation. That is elementary. Actually this diagram has nothing to do with your method. It simply is a method to calculate target speed based on the other parameters if you have established a collision course. It would be very useful if you understood it.

i put up a mission, that says we can,
i made a movie, that shows we can.
now show me yours, that says we cant.Your mission says nothing of the kind. Your movie proves nothig of the kind. I Don't need a mission. Just use my Dick O'Kane targeting mission (puts the target at a random position within limits and lets you hunt and kill it). Using only the methods revealed in your movie and posts, you'll be able to do nothing to develop an attack there! Why? Because unless you luck out and begin with an 8010 relationship, you have not developed a technique to acquire one. In contrast, the Dick O'Kane technique similarly depends on a unique 90º relationship between target track and own course, and achieving that relationship is part and parcel of the attack process! AND it does not abandon that relationship at the end of the attack to set up a completely different approach in order to land the torpedoes. You totally gloss over the fact that you ditch the 8010 to achieve a 90º approach and do a by guess and by golly lead the target by eye and shoot attack. Your 8101 hocus pocus served only to get you close to the target and had nothing at all to do with the shot itself, which you did not explain at all. Not one single person learned how to operate their submarine better from your three videos, many posts and claims of being first and best. Face it. Neither one of us is first by over seventy years.

Diopos already posted the chart that completely invalidates your method, proving that you establish neither target speed or course. In fact he shows that you could be on a perfectly parallel course affording no chance at a shot at all!

and why would i read the cromwell method, or anything else you wrote, which i consider inferior, when its just a step child of point and shoot, which is highly flexible, and where your things
come out "AFTER", and the key word is after, someone elses...blah, blah, brag.First of all gutted has more understanding and ability to teach in his little toe that in all your posts combined, which rely on smoke and mirrors to confuse, not clearly instructing people who desperately need to learn how to shoot a torpedo. These people are frustrated with a very complicated game! Learning to hit a target is the difference between a happy player and someone who abandons SH4 forever. Confusing them pushes them over the edge of the cliff, convincing them they can never learn to shoot. Poppycock! I can teach a six year old to shoot as well as I can.

Second of all, Cromwell, O'Kane and vector analysis don't develop because they are complete within themselves, needing no improvement either in technique or explanation. With three methods of instruction, video, written and flash cards, ANYONE, possibly including my cat, can use any of the three techniques successfully the very first time they try. The instructions are completely clear, don't depend on any specially set up conditions and work perfectly in the random encounters of real life or a SH4 career. Hundreds of people have been successful using these and I wasn't the only one to develop them. They were developed in cooperation with many other similarly minded people.

The keys to success are simplicity and clarity neither are present in 8010.

funny how point and shoot keeps on getting better and better, while cromwell and company are not
improving over time as point and shoot does, that proves to me that you dont have any originality,
and that whatever you write about is derivable, from somebody else!
you know, if i was to do a cromwell type shot, i do any angle i feel like, if im not developing a deliberate attack, then im making a hasty attack, ...etc, etc, brag, bragAgain, Cromwell and O'Kane do not improve because they are self-contained special circumstance methods that work perfectly, are easily explained. There are no improvements to be made, any more than the equation "1 plus 1 equals 2" can improve or develop. In fact improvement or development would not prove that they are not derivative. It would prove that I got them wrong to begin with. Of course the techniques I teach are derivative, but not from anything of yours! They are derivative from techniques actually used in World War II submarines. At all times I explain this, document it with screenshots from the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual of 1946 and other period sources establishing the historical reasonableness of using the techniques I teach. I have never claimed the originality, nor do I see its necessity as you do. And I have never based any technique on your work.

The vector analysis method is a more general purpose method adapting to any relationship between target course and own course. But it also is self-contained, concise, easily understood and taught, needing no further development or improvement. Like "2 plus 2 equals 4" it is slightly more complicated than "1 plus 1" but equally complete, needing no "improvement" or "refinement."

I contend that you have no instructions here that anyone can imitate beyond how to establish a collision course with a target. Oops, you don't have that either because you purposely set up the 8010 relationship in the scenario and began the whole shebang with your submarine on the correct course and at the correct speed, which you didn't adjust even once! So you have not even taught how to get your sub on that collision course.

Greyrider, let me toss you a bone. In astronomy we often can't establish target course at all and have no way to calculate an "AoB" type measurement. We use a term called proper motion. This is assuming a course at 90º to us, how many degrees per unit time is the target moving? We can then predict its arrival at any other bearing, assuming it moves in a straight line. Since all constant bearing attacks cancel range out of the equation and therefore only guarantee a hit at any range on a particular bearing, can't we apply that to a random targeting situation, normalizing it to a 90º approach?

Just thinking here and not using any diagrams or experiments, we see a target out there. We take a bearing, finding that he bears 340º. Just for fun, we estimate a range of 2000 yards and draw a line at range 2000 yards at right angles to our course. Using our bearing, we plot a position on that line. Three minutes later, we plot another bearing on the line. Our course is wrong and our speed is wrong, we know that. But let's go with it. Enter the speed using the 3 minute rule for the two points. Enter AoB at 90º (we'll shoot at bearing zero). Send the zero bearing to the TDC and leave the PK off. I say that no matter what the angle really is, the shot will hit. Now THAT could be used with sonar instead of visual measurements, the only important factor being whether the torpedo has the range to reach the target. Of course, the closer the range, the more likely the hit, but here is a clear set of instructions, adaptability to a wide variety of encounters, and no smoke and mirrors.

Hint: combine your "technique" with the principles I explained above to arrive at a real targeting technique. Do you see the profound difference between my approach at teaching and yours? I thought not. I'll let you founder in your own maelstrom.

Pisces

08-18-10, 03:46 PM

...

Just thinking here and not using any diagrams or experiments, we see a target out there. We take a bearing, finding that he bears 340º. Just for fun, we estimate a range of 2000 yards and draw a line at range 2000 yards at right angles to our course. Using our bearing, we plot a position on that line. Three minutes later, we plot another bearing on the line. Our course is wrong and our speed is wrong, we know that. But let's go with it. Enter the speed using the 3 minute rule for the two points. Enter AoB at 90º (we'll shoot at bearing zero). Send the zero bearing to the TDC and leave the PK off. I say that no matter what the angle really is, the shot will hit. Now THAT could be used with sonar instead of visual measurements, the only important factor being whether the torpedo has the range to reach the target. Of course, the closer the range, the more likely the hit, but here is a clear set of instructions, adaptability to a wide variety of encounters, and no smoke and mirrors.I'd still like to see a drawing to go with this, if you please. Since I don't understand how or why that line at 2000 yards is plotted. You state it is perpendicular to own course. Are you sure it's not supposed to be perpendicular to the bearing of 340? Or is it perpendicular to own course because the bearing is set to 0 in the TDC when you set the AOB to 90. Well, I'm probably just having trouble understanding because I'm tired as a dog.

Nisgeis

08-18-10, 04:37 PM

Rockin Robbins

08-18-10, 08:01 PM

I'd still like to see a drawing to go with this, if you please. Since I don't understand how or why that line at 2000 yards is plotted. You state it is perpendicular to own course. Are you sure it's not supposed to be perpendicular to the bearing of 340? Or is it perpendicular to own course because the bearing is set to 0 in the TDC when you set the AOB to 90. Well, I'm probably just having trouble understanding because I'm tired as a dog.

I'll work it up in another thread. Nisgeis could be correct about the rate of degrees per unit time changing as the range changes, lending some inaccuracy to the plot. That was simply a thought experiment, not backed up by any real analysis. You have to remember that in astronomy, stars essentially have infinite range and zero size. The situation is much simpler than with a submarine in some respects. The important thing will be to analyze how tolerant the method is to angles not exactly 90º. In other words are you pretty okay 30º off in either direction? 45º? At what point does the angle become a deal-killer? If plus or minus 30º would give you a 60º slop factor with a pretty guaranteed success wouldn't you take that as useful? You could pretty well visually narrow it down that far without measurement. But if the tolerance is only plus or minus 15º we might not be so happy.

By the way folks, Nisgeis is primarily responsible for popularizing the vector analysis method. He originated the concept and chose the name of the John P Cromwell method. Many times he has set me straight when I got something regarding the TDC slightly (or greatly:D) wrong. Please take a bow sir!

Barkhorn1x

08-19-10, 08:13 AM

By the way folks, Nisgeis is primarily responsible for popularizing the vector analysis method. He originated the concept and chose the name of the John P Cromwell method. Many times he has set me straight when I got something regarding the TDC slightly (or greatly:D) wrong. Please take a bow sir!

Hey Rockin', where can I find the vector analysis write up for the John P. Cromwell method? Your link goes to your vid and your basic write up. I want to get a step by step rundown on on the vector work seen in the vid.

Thanks in advance.

(Cancel this request. Found it. Good stuff. Now, armed w/ the JPC and DO methods, what can go wrong? :) )

Barkhorn1x

08-19-10, 01:28 PM

OK - another - related request. Can anyone point me to the link that describes - in a step-by-step manner - how to do a Stern/MOT/Bow distribution w/ the JPC method?

Thanks.

Rockin Robbins

08-19-10, 06:03 PM

Please take it to the Bag of Tricks thread. This thread isn't for that.

greyrider

08-19-10, 10:12 PM

amistead, you asked how we could track convoys using this method, i dont have time to do a mission or make a movie, but i did
draw a couple of things, to show you how you can track certain ships in a convoy, for whatever purpose you want to.
first you have to understand the width of the sound signal is twenty degrees, in the first drawing you see the sub pointing north,
well, i forgot to make a sub icon, but its down at the point where all the lines meet.
the red thing is the target heading south, the green line is zero degrees, and the target is on bearing zero.
you lay your hp needle on 0 and you hear the sound signal and it has the strongest amplitude, as you move the needle away
from zero , the sound begins to drop off in decibles, its really noticable on more than one bearing as you sweep away from the true bearing,
on either side of the true bearing of the target.
finally, at 350, and 10 degress, the sound drops off entirely, and you cant hear the targets screws, so really, at bearing 349 and 350, and at 10 and 11 degrees, is where we should be
listening, to detect acute bearing changes, and direction of movement,
if we are to man the sonar station ourselfs, it applies to all bearings.
if the target is on zero degrees, we can hear the target on bearing 350, very faintly, and at bearing 349, we wont be able to hear it, same on the other side
at 10 we will hear it, at 11 we wont.
if the target goes to 359, then you will hear it on 349, on 348 you wont. on the other side it will be heard at 9, and not at 10., this indicates bearing change
and a port aob, because if it continues, the target will pass you on your port side with port aob. the same will happen with the other side, but will have a starboard aob.
this is not the sound width i use to estimate range tho, just direction of travel and bearing change, r to sub, acute bearing changes.
the one for range is different, its the same signal, but instead of using the weakest part of the signal for direction and change, your using the strongest part of the signal for range
and how it defuses over multiple bearings, how it overcomes ambient sound, and defuses wider and wider as it draws closer and closer.
the sonobuey records at nha are great for learning passive sonar, you hear an instructor, describe a sound that he wants you to hear, and then plays it.
anyway, appling this to a single merchant to target is easy, but a convoy is another story. but you can still do it, in the bulk of the convoy,
you hear many screws, and you cant figure out what sound belongs to whom, but on the other edges of the convoy, you can get credible sound signals from
a couple of ships, to track, estimae bearing changes and direction of movement. theres two ships in particular, you could put on a 80 offset to track speed,keep constant bearing,
remenbering the 20 degree sound signal, look at the second drawing, see the convoy heading east, sub pointing north.
staring from 0 degrees, the sonarman sweeps west, the first screws he gonna hear will be the first ship in the first column, the farthest one away on the first row,
with the leading edge of the hydrophone needle,
so if the green indicator light comes on and you hear screws at bearing 26, that far merchant is at bearing 16, the closer you sweep your needle toward the far ships true bearing,
you will get interfernce from another ship, and the signal will be useless for anything, so you would have to use the bearing where sound is heard as far away from its true bearing on its right.
in the drawing you see this ship with a green 1 on it, this is the ship i mean, and the brown line is the leading edge of the hp needle.
the other ship that can be tracked for speed, as well as the other stuff, is the last ship in the column thats closest to the submarine, here you listen with the trailing edge of the hydrophone needle, letting the hp
needle pass by the true bearing of the target, and listen to the fringe bearing to its left, and avoid interference with another ship.
this ship has a 2 on it, in the drawing.
these are the only two ships in the convoy that we have a chance to track, and gather information from, but once we have thier numbers, we have the convoys numbers.
http://a.imageshack.us/img251/8450/soundsignalwidth.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-19

http://a.imageshack.us/img251/3962/convoytracking.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-19

Rockin Robbins

08-20-10, 05:03 AM

That's a great method because our sonar guy is worthless when we're trying to track a convoy!

Diopos

08-20-10, 05:46 AM

I like sonar work :yep:

"Visualising" the situation "atop" via passive sonar is a "must" if you approach for the kill from the "deep" rather than periscope depth. I do.

greyrider :up: for bringing up the "art"...

.

Rockin Robbins

08-20-10, 09:34 AM

Greyrider, you ought to do a video on single ship and convoy tracking by passive sonar.

Diopos

08-20-10, 01:16 PM

Although the 8010 method as presented here seems to be a "no-go", Grayrider introduced a solid base to use the sub as a "navigation tool" to establish a target's speed and course. This is not a a "how to ..." presentation. I will only give a rough description and explain why it is doable.

The main element: Attaining a collision course.

When the sub and the target are at a (converging) collision course the bearing under which the target is observed remains constant. (Valid for constant course and speed.)

As analysed in previous posts in the this thread attaining a collision course by itself is not enough but a more "compound" approach is completely doable.

Outline of the """method""" (for a converging target):
- Attain a collision course and note target bearing (b1) and sub's speed (u1). Sub is at Target's AoB ...well AoB1 (unknown)
-Stop sub or lower its speed
-After a while start increasing speed (incrementally) until target bearing stabilises again note target bearing (b2) and sub's speed (u2).Target's AoB is AoB2 (unknown)
Note: sub has not changed course.
if the target moves at speed v (unknown) and the intercept angle between target and sub's course is w (unknown) then the following are true:

AoB1+b1+w=180° (eq. 1)
AoB2+b2+w=180° (eq. 2)

___u1_____________v
------------- = -------------- (eq. 3)
sin(AoB1)_______ sin(b1)

___u2______________ v
------------- = -------------- (eq. 4)
_sin(AoB2)_______ sin(b2)

So 4 equations, 4 unknowns the problem is solved (theoretically).
Plus the required maneuring is completely doable with fairly clear-cut criteria (stabilizing the target's bearing).

For people that have fiddled around Target Motion Analysis this may seem elementary but hey I'm an amateur :D

I remind you this "analysis" just shows that the method is doable.
BTW if u1=u2 it means that you're running parallel to the target (and that v=u1=u2).

Fire away now guys!.

.

EDIT: here is a link with a diagramm for the above: link (https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1W_RbfkTmryfgbJrqqjU72CNoSOfN7Jhj6jPPXR7E6 W8&hl=en&authkey=CPnxmN8I)

.

Diopos

08-21-10, 02:27 AM

One way of salvaging Greyrider's method is the following:

The 80/10 method implies an intercept angle of 90°.

Many players, including myself, try to "bring" the target at a 90°/270° bearing while the sub at 0 speed. In this situation you have the target's course (perpendicular to your heaging) but no clue about its speed.

After attaining the above situation go to reverse (without changing heading). After a while you can go forward (again without changing heading) and use Greyrider's method to obtain target's speed.

So 8010 with a twist (:DL) is a usable method.

.

Armistead

08-21-10, 04:30 AM

But don't you still have to track it and get it into that basic position before you dive. I'll look at the rest of the thread, but his last explanation on convoys seems to have some merit if you can get yourself into position before you dive.

My problem is once in position it's just easier using other methods, as I still like some TC, but maybe something workable here.

Diopos

08-21-10, 07:25 PM

Yeap!
The """method""" I present is what to do after you get on a collision course with the target.
How do I get there?
Trial and error. The only thing that helps me is that if I succeed in stabilizing the targets bearing and the subs speed is "appreciable" then chances are that I'm moving parallel to the target, if my speed is low then I'm probably near a non steep collision course to the target. Plenty (x2) room of error, much more so if the target is "ziging".

Other option is doing it by the book (see link in my previous post). Sometimes I don't do the procedure correctly, but I'll tell you this, proper data collection to implement "official" methods can be time consuming (at least for me :)) as in: the target is passing in front of you while you're are drawning lines on the Maneuvering Board (had that happened too!:oops:).

Of course with radar things can get mush easier.

If you get dead ahead of the convoy, I totaly agree there are more straight forward methods to estimate the target's speed. I was just proposing a "maneuver" with which you can use grayrider's work as it is now.

.

greyrider

08-23-10, 04:09 PM

success! i just got thru playing a mission in the campaign, using 8010 on a single merchant.
i have it on film, and i will upload the film to u-tube later on tonight.
yea!!!!

greyrider

08-24-10, 06:39 AM

well, if there is anyone that still doubts this method, i invite you to view the movie,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re7fJrQ63dA

its up on u-tube, in 8 parts, the total time is like one hour and seventeen minutes,
each part is on average 12 to 13 minutes long.
over the weekend i decided that i would have to film an engagement using this method, and prove it would work in campaign mode,
after watching the test mission work, i had no doubt it could work, but others still didnt believe it could.

in the test mission, i made, i knew all the parameters, speed, course, etc, of both target and submarine,
so i knew what speed to give both sub and target, and align a collision course for them, in order to prove the formula, and it worked!
but in a campaign, every thing is random, like real life. i didnt know target speeed or course, a random encounter as i was heading to the makasser straights
after refueling at the tender south of the philippines, figuring this method would work very well in straights, well i got my encounter in open sea,
beautiful! couldnt ask for more.
theres no narration with the movie, i will narrate it here but i may add voice later because it could really be a great tutorial.
if you watch the movie, you will probably say its looks so easy, its really not, and yet is, one thing it is is immersive, and can only be played in rt.
the target in this movie, is a single merchant, and the movie starts with the campaign loading screen, so that theres no doubt its from a campaign, and ends
with the kill, by point and shoot and 8010 combined, no maps, radar, radio reports, pk, tdc, pings, nothing! nothing but hydrophones, periscope, timepiece, and submarine knotmeter
as tools to work with.
submarine fired 3 torpedoes, with 2 explosions, one dud, all three hit, from 500 to 700 yards away. the ship doesnt look like any stock ship, so it had to have been added by ducimus.

http://a.imageshack.us/img375/9522/sh42010082316301000.png
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-24

the engagement opens with the submarine at pd, forced down by aircraft radar contacts, i dont remember how long i have been down, but night is approaching,
its getting dark, but still there is light in the sky, the ocean is black, and the sea is alittle high.
there is a sound contact bearing 331, single merchant, medium speed, closing. the first thing the submarine does is wait, and monitors the contact for bearing change and relative movement,
once thats determined, the sub will know what way the target is going, and what way to turn, and what aob it has, whether port or starboard.
the submarine monitors bearing 320 and 321, the fringe bearings of the target for direction and bearing change, sound is heard on 321, but not on 320, if sound moves to 320, its indicating target has port aob, and will pass on the port side of the submarine.
after determining the target has port aob, submarine turns to port at 1/3, turning hard to port, monitoring sound contact with leading edge of hydrophone needle as it attempts to get the sound contact on bearing 80. sonarman using fringe bearings of the sound,
one where sound is heard, and the other where sound is not heard. the targets sound is approaching bearing 80, and submarine comes to a 15 degree port turn now, to slow the turn and get sound contact at 80, slowly, precisely.
with the target now on bearing 80 degrees, the sub straightens the rudder, and monitors for any change in bearing as it begins to adjust submarine speed higher, to search for the targets speed.
during this time adjusting speed with submarine knot meter in control room, approach is constantly asking sonarman for target bearing, and its always the same, target bearing 80.
submarine has adjusted own speed for 1.8 knots, when speed is steady, contact bearing verified at 80 degrees, and now is timed, with sonarman calling out target bearing every 15 seconds. for 1 1/2 minutes, target is held constant at 80 degrees, then begins to move off bearing eighty to bearing 81.
this movement away was not caused by bad aob or by too much submarine speed, it was caused by the submarine starting to move directly in front of the target,
but i didnt know that until later. the target was held constant for a minute and one half, so reading the submarine knotmeter at 1.8 knots, with a lead angle of 80 degrees, with a 10 degree aob, the target speed was found to be 10.3 knots, looked up in a chart from the combat information library.
3 torpedo doors where opened, torpedo depth set for 12 feet, torpedo speed set for high.
sound is then again monitored by sonarmen, checking target bearing, and target now is moving behind submarine on bearing 82, submarine lowers speed, getting ready to verify, with another search for speed, when target comes back on bearing 80. submarine adjusts submarine speed to 1.4 knots,
to let the target "catch up " to bearing 80 again, a look thru the scope, smoke! bearing 82. submarine then comes to all stop. target needs to come back on bearing 80, and target course will now provide that movement.
while the submarines waits for the target to come back on bearing 80, the approach looks up the chart in combat information library, for correct firing bearing, for a tagret making 10 knots, and that will be bearing 12, to fire, and torpedo impact with be 0 degrees.
after quite awhile, the target comes back on bearing 80, and the submarine moves out straight at 1.4 knots, it will now try to verify target speed with a second search.
at 1.4 knots, the target begins to fall back to bearing 82, submarine is slowed again to 0.8 knots, target will not come back on bearing 80, and now
i realize that its the movement on the submarine that causing the bearing change on the target, as the submarine is now moving into the path of the target, and creating a smaller aob on the target.
the submarine comes to all stop, and waits, it will go with its original accessment of target speed of 10 knots.
target has now come back on bearing eighty, solution solved as far as the submarine is concerned, target bearing eighty, 10 degree aob, course 90 r to sub, target speed 10 knots, firing bearing for 0 gyro, is 12 degrees, now its just a long wait as the target moves to bearing 12.
all periscope view now, watching target close, the approach begins to look for and see the bow wave, and approach likes it, he thinks hes in the ball park with the speed estimation.
target continues to close on the firing bearing, and its time for action, periscope is set to 12 degrees, when target begins to approach 20 degrees.
target now comes on bearing 12, and approach waits until the first mast is in line with vertical aiming wire, then begins to fire the three torpedoes.
twenty three seconds later, the first torpedo explodes, second torpedo is a dud, third torpedo explodes, target range at torpedo impact, 595 yards,
target destroyed, and 8010 is vindicated in campaign mode, where it counts. now i think im going to celebrated with a beer, and jimi hendrix playing red house!
hope you all enjoy it, if you look at it.

Pisces

08-24-10, 08:46 AM

greyrider

08-24-10, 10:56 AM

campaign 8010 part 2 is missing from your list on youtube.

Also, please respond to my question earlier over the testmission that you supplied. It doesn't seem to work. It's a SubmarineSchool mission but I can't get it to show in the list there. And doesn't seem like your earlier experiences when opened in the mission editor.

I see plenty of points in your narrative that I could sink your method with but I'll wait until I've seen all the parts of the movie. But it would also be a repeat of my first message in this thread.

part 2 of campaign 8010 has been reloaded up, is visible for viewing, also im sending the link for the test mission to you, its the same one that works for me,
i dont know why its not for you.

test mission http://www.filefront.com/user/greyrider
member, i m not twisting arms, :) but next time it will be with a convoy, in campaign mode. i have already chased two, that was not engageable, one was a convoy
where i had to drive on it at flank speed, and could not get close enough at night, the other was an anti submarine patrol, dd and armed trawler,had good position on them, but was detected because how
could he miss my entire length, which i was way out in front of. the other convoy had the other problem of an interfering escort at the flank, and possibly the rear guard as well, tracking last ship in column closest
the jurys still out.
:D

there are two types of closing targets, the ones you can engage, and the ones you cant, i also now consider the submarine function in the 8010 as making a search for target speed, it is searching, as much as a dd conducts a search for a submarine with active and passive sonar.

greyrider

08-24-10, 12:47 PM

you know, i cant understand guys that want to subtract from this method, when im ready to add even more to it.
and what im going to add to this is that once you get the target on lead angle of 80, with 10 aob, you are then able to tell what the aob is for the target, no matter what bearing your looking at, just like the tdc does, as long as the target is on that bearing, also the course known at any bearing.
if after you wait until after the search for speed, the submarine stops, coasts to stop completely, and 8010 reaquired, from that point on, the course and aob can be known on any bearing.
for instance back on 8010, aob is 10 degrees, sub is not moving, target is moving , and goes to bearing 79, aob become 11, bearing 78, aob 12, all the way down to bearing 0, where aob will be 90 degrees.
the two angles of the triangle have to add up to 90 degrees, to be a right triangle, so therefore, as the lead angle decreases, the aob increases, since that happens on any change in bearing, course, bearing by bearing, blow by blow, can be determined,
the accuracy of this, is only as good as your initial 8010, or the reacquired one, sub can also be moving, and adjust tactic accordingly as needed

Pisces

08-24-10, 12:55 PM

I figured out why the missions would not show up in the SubmarineSchool list. It seems that is is required to name the folder of the mission exactly the same as the files that are in it. You named the folder "SS09 Ten Eighty Method" but forgot to add the "SS09 " to the filename of the mission.

Now that I am able to run it, I haven't found a way to detect the target. Is it supposed to be there allready at the mission start, or do I nead to approach that starsymbol on the map. Either way I tried and found nothing.

Rockin Robbins

08-24-10, 01:31 PM

I see plenty of points in your narrative that I could sink your method with but I'll wait until I've seen all the parts of the movie. But it would also be a repeat of my first message in this thread.

Ditto. the method is already toast, proved that way many times in many ways by several people detailed above. The AoB of 10 has never been established, therefore the method fails. Only by infinitessimally unlikely coincidence would a random target be detected at AoB 10. If you were not at AoB 10, Then getting there from an over the horizon position would in almost all cases mean a long high speed forced surface jaunt that would blow the attack by making you obvious to the approaching target. However since you CANNOT establish AoB from the long distance, you have to idea where to make that fruitless high speed surface charge to. The best you can do is establish a collision course with the target, regardless of his AoB (which is irrelevant) and plug him by the method of your choice when he gets in eyeball range. 8010 has nothing to do with it.

What you really did was a standard visual approach with your scope hanging out of the water for 20 minutes, followed by a Dick O'Kane without using the TDC but with the speed calculated wrongly. The target was traveling slower by a knot or two from what you figured, as both hits were substantially forward of your aiming point. You were saved only by the fact that you used killer rules #1, #2 and #3: get close, no, get closer, NO! EVEN CLOSER!!!! That's the best advice ever published. 3000 yard shots have no place in a war where the object is to sink the enemy. Get close enough and a harvest of errors don't matter.

Another point making this attack method less than desirable: you are submerged, chasing your target before he ever comes over the horizon. You are running down your battery, taking your boat out of the fight and making it vulnerable to counterattack when you should be conserving your batteries on the surface. Only after visually acquiring your target should you maneuver ahead of your target and submerge in such a position that you can use minimal battery power to develop the attack. Granted, if you are extremely lucky you are only 10 degrees off his track, but at a distance of 20 miles, that is a long way to have to abuse your batteries to get close enough to shoot.

tater

08-24-10, 05:32 PM

Armistead

08-24-10, 05:49 PM

Pisces

08-24-10, 08:03 PM

Ditto the ditto-ing. Greyrider, you must have the uncanny ability to be in the right place at the right time to find them like this. The only way I can think of that makes this happen is if you are on a chokepoint or moving along a frequently traveled enemy route. That's the way to get targets with near-bow AOB to you. Any by the looks of your position on the map that seems to be the case this time. I don't know which campaign mod you used but it seems likely. Coming out of the Celebes Sea in between the islands, going straight for the port on a course around 130 degrees. (at the time of detection you were on course 325-ish, the relative bearing-to-target being 330, so true bearing to target is 295-ish, The AOB eventually appears to be 10-20 ish port, suggesting course 130-ish)

Risky port/starboard AOB assesment

However you got lucky determining the direction of bearing drift. Your bow was pointed at the opposite side of the bearing compared to the direction of the AOB of the target. This is known as a lag-line-of-sight (sound), meaning you moved to a lagging position behind the target. This wasn't a problem if you were stationary, but you moved at 1/3rd or between 1 and 2 kts. Your lag angle of 30 degree means you effectively helped the target to drift the bearing to the left by adding 1 knot or so across the line of sight/sound. Instead you should have turned directly towards the target and put it on bearing 0, or come to a complete stop, before you determine if the bearing is moving either left or right. This way only the target is responsible for the bearing drift. Your lead or lag is eliminated.

How constant is constant bearing?
Ok, you start turning the target and put it on bearing 80. No problem here. Following, you take 1 and a halve minute to determine that the target bearing is stationary while you are moving 1.8 knots and leading with 80. Because the bearing report doesn't change during it you consider it constant. Too short!!!! Time for some numbers.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the target was approaching head-on to us. We are dead ahead of him. Our speed of 1.8 knots (at 80 degree lead, but might as wel be perpendicular) is then the single cause that could make the bearing drift. (I admit it would turn to the right, instead of to the left) But how quickly? This is dependent on range. I am not sure if your contacts.cfg file is different from stock SH4 but in mine a long contact is between 3km and 20 km, or 1.62nm and 10.8nm. At these ranges 1 degree of drift is 0.0283nm and 0.1885nm wide. The speed of 1.8 kts means 0.03 nm per minute. So it takes us between 1 minute (0.0283/0.03=0.94 for minimum long-range targets) and 6.28 minutes (0.1885/0.03=6.28 for max long-range targets) to notice 1 degree of drift. And the hydrophone doesn't get much sharper than that. So you couldn't have reasonably noticed the drift of a far-away target in 1 minute that happens to come headon to you.

Infact you notice this yourself during the later parts of the video. Although, from the opposite perspective. It takes ages for the target to catch up that approximate 1 degree bearing back to 80 degrees visually, while you are stationary.

If the target did indeed have an AOB near 10 degrees port and speed 12 knots, then the speed components across the line of sight/sound would be on par. And the slight difference would increase those minutes to show 1 degree drift immensely. More like taking hours than minutes. 12kts*sin(10)=2.08kts; difference with 1.8 kts= 0.28 kts, and that is 0.0047nm per minute. You do the math how long it takes to notice 1 degree of drift at the minimum and maximum long-range edges. Had it started out beyond long range it would take even longer to show. (I'll spill the answer: 6 minutes and 40 minutes respectively)

If the target was moving 12 knots and did infact have a considerably bigger AOB, contrary to your beliefs and in-line with the expectations of many poster in this thread, then it's considerable speed across the line of sight/sound would force the bearing to drift much stronger to the left. You would soon notice that the target drifts ahead of you, and you are not able to keep up at 1.8 kts. But this never happend in your situation. So let's ignore this possibility conveniently. :down:

Gee, this bearing isn't so constant at all!!!

...
target is held constant at 80 degrees, then begins to move off bearing eighty to bearing 81.
this movement away was not caused by bad aob or by too much submarine speed, it was caused by the submarine starting to move directly in front of the target,
but i didnt know that until later. the target was held constant for a minute and one half, so reading the submarine knotmeter at 1.8 knots, with a lead angle of 80 degrees, with a 10 degree aob, the target speed was found to be 10.3 knots, looked up in a chart from the combat information library.First appears constant, then begins to move. Funny how that happens! So does the minute-hand on my watch!

Not caused by bad AOB, or too much submarine speed, but submarine moved directly infront of the target. Huh? The first 2 are po-tey-toes, the last one is a po-ta-tow.

If it is still not clear that that 10.3 knot figure is meaningless then I don't know what else to say. You're NOT capable of judging speed this way if the numbers clearly do not hold. Unless you like to fool yourself.

Missed oportunity to determine your average speed

Granted, this wasn't part of your method but suggested by me in my first response. So I'll just take this as an opportunity to explain my reasoning.

The kind of real-life 'distance moved' dial or speed-log I was talking about is actually looking right at you in the face on that big 3d speed dial. Huge numbers showing nautical miles moved since some past datum. Unfortunately it doesn't work. This image is static. So use the ruler on the map as an alternative solution from the location where you started the steady bearing check. Or the end of the turn to get the target on 80 degrees initially.

You noticed that you drifted ahead of the target. And decide to wait while stationary until the target catches up with the 80 degree bearing. Which is about a degree away. Since the initial hydrophone bearing is crude to begin with, 1 degree wide, this is a bad kind of reference line to measure a distance of 1 degree from. Ideally for the sake of accuracy I would wanted to have drifted atleast 10 degrees ahead. Hence my earlier advice to move at higher speed than 2 knots.

Once the target caught up with the (80 degree) bearing line then you'd know with more confidence how much the line of sight/sound moved sideways during that time (on average), or the speed across the line of sight/sound that you both had in common. Hence the need to keep track of time, and the distance since you started the straight path. Since all points on the steady line of sight/sound during an intercept course move in the same direction (perpendicularly) at the same speed, including you and the target.

However, your course of action seemed to have been guessing the speed needed, and wait for it to catch up again. Atleast, I can't think of what made you choose one over the other numbers in that table. I see no method in this. It's trial an error. According to my method you could have known an empirical measure of the required speed after the first catchup with the bearing line. And could refine it as soon as you notice more residual drift. All the way until the target reached minimal firing distance. If you care to wait that long.

However, I would not have come to a halt and let the target pass infront of me to fire as you did. I would have to live with a sizable amount of gyro angle. Since I cannot determine the actual target speed, or it's course, without other means, I can't be sure which is the right bearing that makes an AOB of 90 degrees. It could be done visually, but neither did you make use of it's appearance. Instead I assume the target to remain on a constant bearing course with me (and rightly so, since it has been proven overtime), and imagine him as having a course perpendicular to the still steady bearing. His speed is what my speed is, provided the constant bearing is on our beam. If not, then multiply your speed by the sine of your leadangle.

I want the torpedo to collide with it, not me. So I set the periscope to the steady bearing. Set the AOB to 90 degrees at that bearing. Port or starboard ought to be evident now. Enter a 'best guess' or 'ball park' range in hope the gyroangle is corrected appropriately. Open the torpedo doors, and let it fly.

Why does it work? All the torpedo needed to know was how much that steady bearing line shifted sideways. We established that by our own movement. The TDC calculates a lead angle that keeps this speed component across the line of sight/sound the same, and puts every knot left over to close the distance, so along the line of sight/sound.

Similarly if you determined the speed well enough, but the target doesn't wan't to come close to you fast enough, you can take matters into your own hands. Like when it's having an actual AOB near 90 degrees (meaning it hardly closes distance at all), or is just very slow. Then you can increase speed and adjust your own lead angle according to keep the speed across the line of sight the same. new_leadangle=arcsin(speed_across/speed_submarine). Now you bring more of your own effort in closing the gap quickly. Your course is now different so the steady bearing is now not anymore along the same relative bearing. Instead you have to remember along which true bearing it was. And consider the drift along that. I know, this makes it trickier. But it is just a suggestion if you are impatient for a kill.

I'll end here now. It's getting way past bedtime. And actually I'm brainflushed right now. Looks like a huge extensive reply. I'm sorry if this is a too surgical dissection of your movie. Showing the flaws in it are meant to improve understanding, not bashing. And I passed for my driverslicense today, so I kinda feel on top of the world today.

:yeah:

Pisces

08-24-10, 08:07 PM

All I can say is that it's a good thing that ships don't move even remotely like they did in RL:

(photo links Japanese tracks snipped)

;)How does your understanding of Japanese characters hold these days. Any idea on what they mean?

tater

08-24-10, 09:26 PM

I have no japanese, lol. Cept enough to say thatnk you to the itamae.

Those are japanese zig-zag patterns.

The number in the circle is the leg (serial from the start). The angle numbers are obvious. The 1st (really the last, the Japanese read from right to left) labeled P and U (the pattern has different letters for port vs starboard patterns) has a 20° turn to port, then moves 5 minutes before turning 30° farther to port. Steams another 5 minutes (minute count is now shown as the "10"), then turns 40° starboard, then goes 5 more minutes (total now 15 minutes).

So it shows a 1 hour pattern with 12 legs of 5 minutes.

It's amazing to me that the SH series doesn't have zig-zagging. No, what they do when they detect you is NOT zig-zagging.

Diopos

08-25-10, 12:57 AM

Pisces,
really good post there (and to be read more than once)!
This thread turned out to be really interesting after all :yep:.

Attaining and establishig collision courses to estimate or reafirm target speed and course via passive sensors can be a valid technique and maybe even the method of choice under certain conditions. But the 8010? ...

I often use the "keep him at bearing 90°" empirical approach to get an approximation on target course or just plain get perpendicular and in front of the target. And many a times have "lost" the target, thinking I was trying to bring the AoB to 0° while it was actually in the ~90° area. When trying to "keep them" at a constant bearing you compensate for both speed and course to stabilise the bearing, not only speed.

.

greyrider

08-25-10, 09:09 AM

Ditto. the method is already toast, proved that way many times in many ways by several people detailed above. The AoB of 10 has never been established, therefore the method fails. Only by infinitessimally unlikely coincidence would a random target be detected at AoB 10. If you were not at AoB 10, Then getting there from an over the horizon position would in almost all cases mean a long high speed forced surface jaunt that would blow the attack by making you obvious to the approaching target. However since you CANNOT establish AoB from the long distance, you have to idea where to make that fruitless high speed surface charge to. The best you can do is establish a collision course with the target, regardless of his AoB (which is irrelevant) and plug him by the method of your choice when he gets in eyeball range. 8010 has nothing to do with it.

What you really did was a standard visual approach with your scope hanging out of the water for 20 minutes, followed by a Dick O'Kane without using the TDC but with the speed calculated wrongly. The target was traveling slower by a knot or two from what you figured, as both hits were substantially forward of your aiming point. You were saved only by the fact that you used killer rules #1, #2 and #3: get close, no, get closer, NO! EVEN CLOSER!!!! That's the best advice ever published. 3000 yard shots have no place in a war where the object is to sink the enemy. Get close enough and a harvest of errors don't matter.

Another point making this attack method less than desirable: you are submerged, chasing your target before he ever comes over the horizon. You are running down your battery, taking your boat out of the fight and making it vulnerable to counterattack when you should be conserving your batteries on the surface. Only after visually acquiring your target should you maneuver ahead of your target and submerge in such a position that you can use minimal battery power to develop the attack. Granted, if you are extremely lucky you are only 10 degrees off his track, but at a distance of 20 miles, that is a long way to have to abuse your batteries to get close enough to shoot.

ok napoleon , what? are you freaking kidding me? dick okane? your funny ! you want credit from something that isnt yours soooooooooooooooo bad, its killing you isnt it?

i told you, i dont read your things, haver not and will not, your dick o kane, is a step child of p and s

the only good tactic you come up with is how to carry and stow a c-bag on board,
thats all i could trust you for.

Diopos

08-25-10, 09:38 AM

greyrider

08-25-10, 10:16 AM

uhmm greyrider,
can you forget RRobbins for a while and try to answer/comment at what other posters (besides RR) have said about 8010? Yes, people have been critical to what you propose, and have raised very specific questions. Please focus on that for a moment. It's the method we are questioning, not you!

This thread has brought up very interesting aspects of the game.

Hope it won't also bring up the lesser interesting aspect of us ... :hmmm:

,
God knows ive ignored alot on this tread, someone says something, i have ignored it, and continue to drive on, show more, im figuring the people here have some intelligence, and sooner or later they ll see it, but it seems im getting no where , so im about to abandon the post,
not the method, ill use it, i know its value.

Diopos

08-25-10, 10:37 AM

God knows ive ignored alot on this tread, someone says something, i have ignored it, and continue to drive on, show more, im figuring the people here have some intelligence, and sooner or later they ll see it, but it seems im getting no where , so im about to abandon the post,
not the method, ill use it, i know its value.

I'm sorry you feel like that, but some of us asked very specific things (myself included). Did you read Pisces last post? The man obviously watched your vids and took the time to write a very detailed post. Doesn't he (and the rest of us for that matter) deserve some kind of answer on what he wrote?

,

greyrider

08-25-10, 11:49 AM

Still not making sense to me.

Grey, help me out.

Say I am heading east and I get a sonar contact dead bearing zero, about 9NM's away heading SE away, speed 11kts.

It's obvious I have to surface, speed up and do a long end around and put the target in position for your method to have any merit. Even in your video it seems the target is in the right position. That may happen so often, but rare.

Again, if I have to do all the work to put myself in postion, by then I have all the basic info I need and no need spending all the time required by 8010, when they're much easier methods.

It's possibly a good place to start for a sonar attack in a storm once you are in position.

ill try to help out, but think again for a minute about what you said about simpler ways. radar is simpler, but can you use radar when aircraft are present, lots of convoys had aircover, especially when passing japanese held islands, after moving away from that base, aircover for the convoy would be handed off to another enemy held base, thats what they mean when thaey say mutual supporting bases. this game is not even close when it comes to air cover, and the altantiic was covered by planes, so could you use radar in that imvironment? i wont! so now what do you have to acquire target information?

how could tarawa and saipan be mutual supporting? certainly not with rifles and genades, how could okinawa and iwo jima be mutually supporting? these bases were hundred of miles awawy from each other.

you can read accounts of lionfish on her first and second patrol, thats all they found was planes, when they had contact with aircraft, they went down and stayed down, trying to figure out what they could do, what tactic they could use in order to still be an effective combat unit.

in the meantime, while staying down, and trying to figure tactics out, they were ineffective as a combat unit, for the most part, they did get a japanese sub tho, and a schooner.

i dont want to be ineffective, my scopes can be blown away, my tdc could be damaged and useless, radar junk from damage, my active sonar can be junk, but i can still be an effective combat unit, killing, taking out ships, with or without aircraft present, as long as my hydrophones are working, when thier gone, then ill go home for repair.

what i do is try to maintain the submarines invisibility, for surprise and survival, not bad things to consider, considering the subs weaknesses.

as of now, i consider myself one up on everyone here, if im the only one using 8010, im not trying to throw my chest out, and think im better than anyone else, but i always keep an open mind in sub warfare, because theres always room to learn. one that refuses to learn have the same mindset as the idiots that commanded the sub force at the begining, or the people who refused to believe that the torpedoes were junk

reread every thing, watch the movie again, remember there are two kinds of closing targets, ones you can engage, ones you cant, the ones you cant get to will change bearing faster than the ones that you can engage, they will have a larger aob, and they will be at very long ranges, impossible to keep constant and track down.

concider birds of prey, do they get the prey evrytime they attack?

but, if you find you cant get to your target without getting on the surface, and moving to another position, thats good to, ill do that, if i really want the target, then when you go down after moving, just realign to 8010.

i mentioned i chased 2 convoys that were not engageable, but only because i wanted to get proof, so i went after anything that moved, i get the proof, like i did twice, then i can move on from proving something, and into other things.
as long as people are keeping me in proving mode, the longer i will have to stay in proving mode. it works!

ill keep working with you amistaed, of all the people who posted here, your mind is the only one opened, it might just be you and me

greyrider

08-25-10, 11:54 AM

I'm sorry you feel like that, but some of us asked very specific things (myself included). Did you read Pisces last post? The man obviously watched your vids and took the time to write a very detailed post. Doesn't he (and the rest of us for that matter) deserve some kind of answer on what he wrote?

,

i have time today, im doing the best i can, hold on

Nisgeis

08-25-10, 12:44 PM

remember there are two kinds of closing targets, ones you can engage, ones you cant, the ones you cant get to will change bearing faster than the ones that you can engage, they will have a larger aob, and they will be at very long ranges, impossible to keep constant and track down.

That answers a lot (almost all) of the questions.

Rockin Robbins

08-25-10, 12:51 PM

ok napoleon , what? are you freaking kidding me? dick okane? your funny ! you want credit from something that isnt yours soooooooooooooooo bad, its killing you isnt it?

i told you, i dont read your things, haver not and will not, your dick o kane, is a step child of p and s

the only good tactic you come up with is how to carry and stow a c-bag on board,
thats all i could trust you for.
I didn't know who you were when I and others who have been named and with whom I am unreserved about sharing credit with originated Dick O'Kane and the others. Everyone knows that and I don't have anything to prove to you.

We have asked specific questions and received no answers because you HAVE no answers.

How do you measure the AoB of 10º? You don't. In none of your posts, in none of your too many videos have you EVER derived an AoB. Not once. And never have you provided an explanation of how you get that 10º AoB. You just miraculously snatch it out of the air every time and gesticulate wildly as if you were some kind of genius that none of us simpletons can understand. We understand what is happening.

How do you get the target speed? You don't because it's based on an AoB that you don't know. You only hit because you are so darned close to the target that an eyeball lead is all you need. I also watched your last movie, every last second of it and noticed that there was no 8010 there at all, just a visual approach with a 20 minute plus periscope exposure for stealth. Then you did a constant bearing attack with the speed calculated (OK, not even calculated) wrongly as evidenced by the fact that both torpedoes hit halfway toward the bow forward from where they were aimed. If I took the time to time the length of the torpedo run I could derive the exact error you had there. I'm not going to do that.

You continually brag about some point and shoot method, undefined, undescribed, unknown, unused by anyone. Never in all my years of Subsim membership have I read of any person using that technique or seen any third party reference to it. Yet somehow all the methods I teach are claimed to be based on it. The sound you hear is the community laughing at you. They know better.

Greyrider, braggin is not teaching. Techniques that are not taught properly benefit no one. Not one Subsim member can derive any benefit from a technique which cannot be executed according to instructions.

Fake instructions for a bogus technique should be harmless. But they are not. There are dozens of new players every day without the ability to evaluate chicanery, who rely on what they find at Subsim to learn how to play Silent Hunter. When they encounter snake oil and it does nothing to help them, there is a real danger that they will conclude the problem is their inability to understand the game. They have a high likelihood of quitting because they were tricked into trying a fraud. So like James the Amazing Randi I call fraud. You can't bend those spoons with your mind, you are just performing a vacuous, unentertaining, unresponsive to legitimate questions conniption fit of conspicuous foolishness.

I invite anyone with doubts to research my work here at Subsim. Tour the Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks thread. See that I do not claim origination of every technique in the known universe, that I continually and consistently share credit with those who are worthy of the credit, mentioning them without prompting every time I have the opportunity, not just if someone specifically asks. Notice that you do not share credit because you have contributed nothing to the family of constant bearing techniques in that thread which dominate Silent Hunter 3 and 4. Notice that I always, for several years, have asked others to contribute their methods and emphasized that no one method is the best in every circumstance. Notice that when someone points out something I have wrong or have not explained clearly that I immediately thank them fix the problem and credit them from then on for improving people's understanding of how to shoot a torpedo in the Silent Hunter games.

Based on four years of easily verified records, your claims expose themselves as insanity. Someone who knows the truth says it. Someone who does not know the truth hides that fact by doing the exact same things you are doing here. How many times have you sidestepped a laundry list of legitimate questions? What reasonable conclusion will EVERYONE make from that misdirection? When a magician does it, it is entertaining because the audience is in on the joke. Here it is just pathetic.

greyrider

08-25-10, 12:51 PM

All I can say is that it's a good thing that ships don't move even remotely like they did in RL:

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/tatersw/ZZF-1.jpg

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/tatersw/ZZM.jpg

;)

interesting tater, that you brought up ziz zag.

now since you brought it up, we would like to know what your take on this is, i would definitely like to know your take on this.

i have the answer, but i want to hear yours, because as far as i can see, you tried to put a torpedo midship into 8010 with your post.

spot light on you now, when you answer, then i will answer.

also, i posted a long time ago, with pictures, a zig zagging warship convoy, where i took out a cv, again by point and shoot, 8010 wasnt known to me at the time. so my post history will answer, the statement you posted. but i still have the answer, and ill be waiting for you to post your take.

Armistead

08-25-10, 01:03 PM

ill try to help out, but think again for a minute about what you said about simpler ways. radar is simpler, but can you use radar when aircraft are present, lots of convoys had aircover, especially when passing japanese held islands, after moving away from that base, aircover for the convoy would be handed off to another enemy held base, thats what they mean when thaey say mutual supporting bases. this game is not even close when it comes to air cover, and the altantiic was covered by planes, so could you use radar in that imvironment? i wont! so now what do you have to acquire target information?

how could tarawa and saipan be mutual supporting? certainly not with rifles and genades, how could okinawa and iwo jima be mutually supporting? these bases were hundred of miles awawy from each other.

you can read accounts of lionfish on her first and second patrol, thats all they found was planes, when they had contact with aircraft, they went down and stayed down, trying to figure out what they could do, what tactic they could use in order to still be an effective combat unit.

in the meantime, while staying down, and trying to figure tactics out, they were ineffective as a combat unit, for the most part, they did get a japanese sub tho, and a schooner.

i dont want to be ineffective, my scopes can be blown away, my tdc could be damaged and useless, radar junk from damage, my active sonar can be junk, but i can still be an effective combat unit, killing, taking out ships, with or without aircraft present, as long as my hydrophones are working, when thier gone, then ill go home for repair.

what i do is try to maintain the submarines invisibility, for surprise and survival, not bad things to consider, considering the subs weaknesses.

as of now, i consider myself one up on everyone here, if im the only one using 8010, im not trying to throw my chest out, and think im better than anyone else, but i always keep an open mind in sub warfare, because theres always room to learn. one that refuses to learn have the same mindset as the idiots that commanded the sub force at the begining, or the people who refused to believe that the torpedoes were junk

reread every thing, watch the movie again, remember there are two kinds of closing targets, ones you can engage, ones you cant, the ones you cant get to will change bearing faster than the ones that you can engage, they will have a larger aob, and they will be at very long ranges, impossible to keep constant and track down.

concider birds of prey, do they get the prey evrytime they attack?

but, if you find you cant get to your target without getting on the surface, and moving to another position, thats good to, ill do that, if i really want the target, then when you go down after moving, just realign to 8010.

i mentioned i chased 2 convoys that were not engageable, but only because i wanted to get proof, so i went after anything that moved, i get the proof, like i did twice, then i can move on from proving something, and into other things.
as long as people are keeping me in proving mode, the longer i will have to stay in proving mode. it works!

ill keep working with you amistaed, of all the people who posted here, your mind is the only one opened, it might just be you and me

Well, you admit you do have to get into the correct position before using your method.

Still, sounds like you're doing things backwards, using the harder tactics first. Sure, if my radar is out, visuals not possible, periscope destroyed, I would use only passive sonar, but those are the better tools. All of these I would be using to get into position if I were to use 8010, but then why quit using the better tools after you get into position. I would say 90% of my targets are not coming directly at me enough to just dive at the bearings you require, so why quit using the better tools that got you to the spot.

Do you actually use this only method? That's fine, but why limit yourself to such a low percentage of targets.

Also, if so much of my equipment is damaged that passive sonar is all I have left, usually the sub is damaged enough that I'm heading home.

Planes never stopped WW2 skippers from running on the surface to get into position if they could. Dive as needed, then surface. No doubt planes can be a problem, but why they're more in the game than real war, they are rather predictable and easy to deal with. However, later war in Formosa planes can be many and deadly, most convoys have several and they can drop deep charges. So I may attack using sonar.

I have chased large TF going 19 kts away zigging for over 1000nm's to get into position to shoot, slowly gaining. To me that's the fun of the game. I'm not gonna let anything go by that I can attack.

The other issue, more with mods like TMO, unless you have perfect hunting, high winds, fog, ect...you'll be dang lucky to pull off an attack before getting found. Many times you're caught before you want to shoot and all factors change and a new setup is required.

Again, this is a game. The best methods in the end will be those that players can use to be successful shooters, simple, quick and accurate.
We all want as many methods of shooting possible for every situation.
Are you there yet....I don't think so as Pisces points out. Still, you've opened up some possible ideas, so I hope this doesn't turn into just a war of words.

You gave some helpful tips I never thought of about sonar and convoys that I've combined more with other tactics. I'll explain later.

greyrider

08-25-10, 01:16 PM

I didn't know who you were when I and others who have been named and with whom I am unreserved about sharing credit with originated Dick O'Kane and the others. Everyone knows that and I don't have anything to prove to you.

We have asked specific questions and received no answers because you HAVE no answers.

How do you measure the AoB of 10º? You don't. In none of your posts, in none of your too many videos have you EVER derived an AoB. Not once. And never have you provided an explanation of how you get that 10º AoB. You just miraculously snatch it out of the air every time and gesticulate wildly as if you were some kind of genius that none of us simpletons can understand. We understand what is happening.

How do you get the target speed? You don't because it's based on an AoB that you don't know. You only hit because you are so darned close to the target that an eyeball lead is all you need.

You continually brag about some point and shoot method, undefined, undescribed, unknown, unused by anyone. Never in all my years of Subsim membership have I read of any person using that technique or seen any third party reference to it. Yet somehow all the methods I teach are claimed to be based on it. The sound you hear is the community laughing at you. They know better.

Greyrider, braggin is not teaching. Techniques that are not taught properly benefit no one. Not one Subsim member can derive any benefit from a technique which cannot be executed according to instructions.

Fake instructions for a bogus technique should be harmless. But they are not. There are dozens of new players every day without the ability to evaluate chicanery, who rely on what they find at Subsim to learn how to play Silent Hunter. When they encounter snake oil and it does nothing to help them, there is a real danger that they will conclude the problem is their inability to understand the game. They have a high likelihood of quitting because they were tricked into trying a fraud. So like James the Amazing Randi I call fraud. You can't bend those spoons with your mind, you are just performing a vacuous, unentertaining, unresponsive to legitimate questions conniption fit of conspicuous foolishness.

I invite anyone with doubts to research my work here at Subsim. Tour the Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks thread. See that I do not claim origination of every technique in the known universe, that I continually and consistently share credit with those who are worthy of the credit, mentioning them without prompting every time I have the opportunity, not just if someone specifically asks. Notice that you do not share credit because you have contributed nothing to the family of constant bearing techniques in that thread which dominate Silent Hunter 3 and 4. Notice that I always, for several years, have asked others to contribute their methods and emphasized that no one method is the best in every circumstance. Notice that when someone points out something I have wrong or have not explained clearly that I immediately thank them fix the problem and credit them from then on for improving people's understanding of how to shoot a torpedo in the Silent Hunter games.

Based on four years of easily verified records, your claims expose themselves as insanity. Someone who knows the truth says it. Someone who does not know the truth hides that fact by doing the exact same things you are doing here. How many times have you sidestepped a laundry list of legitimate questions? What reasonable conclusion will EVERYONE make from that misdirection? When a magician does it, it is entertaining because the audience is in on the joke. Here it is just pathetic.

laughing laughing laughing:D,

you didnt know me? you became a member in mar 2007, i became a member in april 2005, and the first thing i posted back then was the sound trainer, with harms way, and capt nautilas, in 2005, 2 years before you came on scene. as far as knowing someone, i think its the other way around, i didnt know you

point and shoot was out before you even became a member, that will be in sh3 forums

i have also been a member of wolfpack league, which is a part of subsim.com, 3 or four months before sh2 was released, ive been around a long time.

you should check dates, before posting, these expose you, its not a brag rr, its finally being fed up with an imposter

another point, p and s works with both german subs, and american subs, i believe your dick okane bs, works only with us subs

tater

08-25-10, 01:43 PM

My take on what?

My point was that in RL, ships would not obligingly move at a constant rate of speed and direction for that long.

As an aside, making this some sort of personal thing doesn't really make me want to bother with this thread, frankly. Who posted what, when doesn't concern me in the least. I certainly know next to nothing about what happened on SH3 forums (except a few forays to ask questions regarding technical matters for modding).

Nisgeis

08-25-10, 01:49 PM

as of now, i consider myself one up on everyone here, if im the only one using 8010, im not trying to throw my chest out, and think im better than anyone else, but i always keep an open mind in sub warfare, because theres always room to learn. one that refuses to learn have the same mindset as the idiots that commanded the sub force at the begining, or the people who refused to believe that the torpedoes were junk

Most people here will head straight for a target, to determine which direction the target is going, then put themselves onto a normal approach course, in order to give them the best chance of catching the target, then start working on the plotting. When that's done you can adjust your course to suit to put you on an optimum approach course.

OPTIMUM APPROACH COURSE: The Normal Approach Course with an imaginary target moving along the same course, and at the same speed as the actual target, but on the beam of the actual target at a range equal to the limiting torpedo run on the side closest to the submarine. Symbol: OAC.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attack/img/pg01-06a.jpg

The Optimum Approach Course will bring the submarine to a firing position against the Widest possible range of target actions by virtue of successfully closing targets which would be lost with any other approach course.

It should be used until there is no longer any doubt about being able to close the target to within limiting torpedo run.

Usually the Optimum Approach Course lags the Normal Approach Course by about 10 degrees.

When contact is made with the masts or smoke of a target on the horizon no angle on the bow can be visually obtained. The submarine must then determine the direction of the angle on the bow (port or starboard) by some other means. This should be done by observing the direction of change of the target's true bearing. In order to obtain the maximum effect of change of true bearing due to the target's movement the submarine should be turned to head directly at the target or directly away from the target. Once the angle on the angle on the bow has been established as either port or starboard the submarine should assume that the target is presenting a moderately large angle on the bow and is using high speed. An Optimum Approach course which lags the Normal Approach course by 10 degrees should be taken at high speed. The Contact Phase is then completed and the Approach Phase is started.
This attack method is well known and makes sense.

What you've done is taken a very good way of attacking a ship, renamed it, crippled it by diving and reducing speed to one third your maximum whilst trying to maintain a collision course, made erroneous claims that this method can be used to calculate speed and AoB (of ten degrees), then explained the whole thing quite badly.

sergei

08-25-10, 02:10 PM

another point, p and s works with both german subs, and american subs, i believe your dick okane bs, works only with us subs

As far as I am aware, the Dick O'Kane is the same basic technique as the fast 90, just modified slightly to accommodate the difference between the German and American targeting systems.
Therefore the technique itself is valid regardless of what type of boat you are in.

And reducing the argument to name calling and accusations convinces no-one of the validity of the 8010.

If you could please answer some of the questions asked of the 8010, rather than get into a willy waving contest about who has been the longest member? (eh, nudge nudge wink wink :03:)

Rockin Robbins

08-25-10, 02:54 PM

To Nisgeis' reply I would add that you are depleting precious battery charge, endangering your boat and crew unnecessarily. Bad technique. Inadequate explanation. No help for even a single Subsim member. This stuff is madness personified.

If you want to know how to maneuver into attack position, forget 8010. Just read the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (http://hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm) and follow the seventy year-old instructions. The authors had no idea who greyrider or I are but they copied point and shoot and were third rate plagiarists.:D:D:D

By the way, the true father of all constant bearing attack procedures was Wazoo, not greyrider, who garnered no references, posts of gratitude or continuation of any work he ever performed. In 2005, Wazoo laid out a brilliantly explained, completely falsifiable set of instructions on how to execute a constant bearing attack from a U-Boat in his Wazoo's Manual Charting & Targeting Tutorial [v 2.3]. (http://www.paulwasserman.net/SHIII/) It has never been improved for U-Boats. However the differing equipment in American submarines meant that methods had to be adapted to their unique capabilities and limitations, just as Wazoo's methods were distinct to U-Boat TDC and periscope equipment. The underlying concepts were equally applicable to any submarine and greyrider is being facetious when he claims that they do not. He is distracting you with one hand while he performs mischief with the other. Then he claims preposterously that he has proved that Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell and vector analysis, containing all the work of aaronblood, gutted, WernerSobe, Nisgeis, tater, Rocks n Shoals, Wazoo, Tale, Ducimus, The US Navy, the Kriegsmarine (edit: darn! I forgot hitman! there may be others to be inserted later) but not greyrider are inferior, bad copies of a technique nobody uses and nobody has even heard of.

If point and shoot is anything, and there is no evidence that it is used by a single person other than greyrider himself, it is nothing but a poorly executed analog of Wazoo's great work. If you can slug through Wazoo's finely detailed explanation and procedure, you can do the equivalent of the Dick O'Kane attack and the vector analysis attack in a U-Boat. You don't need point and shoot or 8010. They are irrelevant. If they really work they are so poorly explained that they cannot be executed by anyone but greyrider. That is why there are no posts quoting his work or thanking him for saving their investment in a Silent Hunter game.

By the way, if there were any there there, I would be the first to jump in, properly explain the procedure and make sure that everyone could understand how to use it themselves. And I'd do it using greyrider's name front and center to make sure he got all the credit. Unfortunately, there is nothing to explain. All he has is a rudimentary technique for establishing a collision course by passive sonar. Over the weekend I made a video to explain it and discarded it as a waste of time. It's not worth putting up with the inevitable criticism that I was trying to steal greyrider's idea.

Greyrider's done this hocus pocus song and dance before. Check this out (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1040401&postcount=1). I THOUGHT this all seemed a bit familiar... Don't bother looking for his instructional videos. They don't exist. I'm still checking further back in his illustrious history to discover how I've done nothing but copy his original brilliance.

Well it seems greyrider is chasing his old chimera from February of 2009 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1050777&postcount=30) when he also claimed to telepathically know the course of a distant target by passive sonar only. Notice how much rope I gave him at that time before he finally just flamed out, having run out of fuel. In fact, there is no way to establish the course or AoB of a target by passive sonar alone from long distance.

And here he is in 2007 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=629115&postcount=9) claiming that if you put a target on an 80º bearing that automatically means he must (mind control?) cross your course at a 90º angle......yawn! Here's the post:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Silent%20Hunter%204/screenshot93.jpg

greyrider

08-25-10, 03:37 PM

how do i get target speed and aob in 8010, heres how, before i made the test mission for 8010, i sat down with my calculator,
with the formula,
target speed = ss X sin la / sin aob
i had an idea, i have seen it hundreds of times in game , the angle on the targets bow, as it came over the horizon, while playing the game,
i could see how small it was, i set up a test mission using sh editor, it was almost the same as the test mission for 8010,
with my gta 5-2-12, department of the army coordinate scale and protractor, i measured the aob of the target in the map area of the editor,
r to sub with la of 80.
and i found it to be 10 degrees, this is not new, i wrote about it amost 2 years ago in tread, TARGET SPEED, SEARCHING FOR THE MAGIC BULLET.
once i found that out, i new that variable could be changed to a constant, if the proportions of the triangle could be kept constant.
it doesnt have to be held constant forever, the torpedo fire control manual would like it to be held constant for 2 or 3 minutes, and as far as the tfcm is concerned,
the average submarine speed that holds the target contant over 2 to 3 minutes is good enough, it states this clearly, and the pic i posted of its diagram here clearly shows that
so now, i began to plug in numbers for submarine speed to the formula, starting at 1/2 knot submarine speed, with 80 la, and 10 degree aob, the lead angle and aob numbers i would kept constant, the only thing that would change would be submarine speed,
which i increased by tenths, because i wanted to make a chart for target speeds, in an 8010 angular setup, of submarine speed to target speed.
then i would put that chart in the cic mod, and use it.
i filled in the chart to cover target speeds from 2 knots to 24 knots, that covers most target speeds in sh4.
now with a chart made, and a mission made, its time to test the theory, not from out of my hat, but from mearsurments, using the same protractor i used to land navigate, and call for and adjust indirect fire in the army.
the aob trainer is something i made from my experience in map reading and land navigation, and most things i talk about here have been grounded in military service, and what i have been taught by them.
by using the calculator and formula, i found that for every tenth of a knot of submarine speed, in 8010, produces a target speed that increases to a half knot, sometimes 6/10 of a knot.
so with a mission, a formula and an idea, 8010 was born.
i have proved it twice, i have explained this more than once, and if you cant understand it, if you cant believe the movies, these are your problems, not mine, im not responsible for anyones inability to learn,
if someone wants to learn and i can help them, ill go all out for that person, if someone is gonna spit at me, they better be able to run fast, i might turn the other cheek, but i can only do it for so long.
if someone wants to use the easy way, i say go for it, play the game the way you like, but dont tread on something you cant understand, it says more about you than it does about the method.
im like tired of defending 8010, it works, i proved it twice, no need to prove any more, but i probably will.
and for those that think that you cant get target speed from angular arrangments, then page 56 of the maneuvering board manual will blow you away,
because it states and shows how you can not only get target speed from bearings only, but course and position.

greyrider

08-25-10, 03:54 PM

To Nisgeis' reply I would add that you are depleting precious battery charge, endangering your boat and crew unnecessarily. Bad technique. Inadequate explanation. No help for even a single Subsim member. This stuff is madness personified.

If you want to know how to maneuver into attack position, forget 8010. Just read the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (http://hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm) and follow the seventy year-old instructions. The authors had no idea who greyrider or I are but they copied point and shoot and were third rate plagiarists.:D:D:D

By the way, the true father of all constant bearing attack procedures was Wazoo, not greyrider, who garnered no references, posts of gratitude or continuation of any work he ever performed. In 2005, Wazoo laid out a brilliantly explained, completely falsifiable set of instructions on how to execute a constant bearing attack from a U-Boat in his Wazoo's Manual Charting & Targeting Tutorial [v 2.3]. (http://www.paulwasserman.net/SHIII/) It has never been improved for U-Boats. However the differing equipment in American submarines meant that methods had to be adapted to their unique capabilities and limitations, just as Wazoo's methods were distinct to U-Boat TDC and periscope equipment. The underlying concepts were equally applicable to any submarine and greyrider is being facetious when he claims that they do not. He is distracting you with one hand while he performs mischief with the other. Then he claims preposterously that he has proved that Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell and vector analysis, containing all the work of aaronblood, gutted, WernerSobe, Nisgeis, tater, Rocks n Shoals, Wazoo, Tale, Ducimus, The US Navy, the Kriegsmarine but not greyrider are inferior, bad copies of a technique nobody uses and nobody has even heard of.

If point and shoot is anything, and there is no evidence that it is used by a single person other than greyrider himself, it is nothing but a poorly executed analog of Wazoo's great work. If you can slug through Wazoo's finely detailed explanation and procedure, you can do the equivalent of the Dick O'Kane attack and the vector analysis attack in a U-Boat. You don't need point and shoot or 8010. They are irrelevant. If they really work they are so poorly explained that they cannot be executed by anyone but greyrider. That is why there are no posts quoting his work or thanking him for saving their investment in a Silent Hunter game.

By the way, if there were any there there, I would be the first to jump in, properly explain the procedure and make sure that everyone could understand how to use it themselves. And I'd do it using greyrider's name front and center to make sure he got all the credit. Unfortunately, there is nothing to explain. All he has is a rudimentary technique for establishing a collision course by passive sonar. Over the weekend I made a video to explain it and discarded it as a waste of time. It's not worth putting up with the inevitable criticism that I was trying to steal greyrider's idea.

Greyrider's done this hocus pocus song and dance before. Check this out (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1040401&postcount=1). I THOUGHT this all seemed a bit familiar... Don't bother looking for his instructional videos. They don't exist. I'm still checking further back in his illustrious history to discover how I've done nothing but copy his original brilliance.

again, i have to laugh, wazoo? i remember wazoo, i did look at his stuff, like maybe 2 or 3 paragraphs, when i realized that i had been there and done that, i read no more, i commented of how he arranged it tho, i called it a masterpiece, not for substance, but for stlye, only one thing really caught my eye with wazoo, and that was as i was paging his tutorial, and i came across something he called a fast 90, so i began to read that, but after about two sentences , i dropped it, read no more, it was something i would do in sh2, so to be honest, wazoo never entered into my equation, because again, its elementry BS, and i believe he also made his measurments with map contacts on, which means a ship icon moving on the map, very realistic, you dont see enemy icons on my map, i have played 100 percent, since day 1 of sh3,

to continue on with rr BS, there was nothing i could do with filefront, they erased all my videos, torpedo data sheets, everything,
awhile ago, filefront went threw management change or something, and they cleared out alot of stuff on thier computers, they erased my things without my knowledge, and thats why subsim now has a download section, because filefront, eff'ed everybody,

so people at subsim stepped in, made a download section, that we all download from now, '

also, why would i ever read such amaturist writings, when i can read the real deals, i was taught navigation using FM 21-26, and i adapted lots of things from this manual into the game, now you can see where i am verses you rr, you read wazoo, i read FM 21-26,

its right here, i own this, now you can own it to

http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/fm-21-26-map-reading-and-land-navigation.shtml

anything else rr?

Nisgeis

08-25-10, 04:18 PM

greyrider

08-25-10, 04:27 PM

This would work if the lead angle were 80 degrees and the AoB was indeed ten degrees, but it won't be in most cases. There is nothing that says that the relationship is always 80-10, as the lead angle does not influence the AoB (e.g. 80-10 doesn't become 70-20 if you change your course). This is where your method breaks down and you fail to intercept due to the low own speeds involved.

If the target always had a very low AoB then the speed wouldn't matter as your distance to track is going to be minimal already, so you are already sitting pretty with him coming to you and you don't need great speed. With higher AoBs the distance to track is much greater, consequently the bearing rate change is much higher and you will be unable to intercept at that low speed, as there will be much more ground to make up. This is made worse by higher speeds needing smaller AoBs to cause a failure to intercept at low speed.

did i say that Nisgeis, that the relationship is always the same in 8010?

i said that if, and the key word if, it can be held constant, thats the proof

greyrider

08-25-10, 04:30 PM

Nisgeis

08-25-10, 04:36 PM

did i say that Nisgeis, that the relationship is always the same in 8010?

As I said, you haven't been clear in what you have said and as others have said, you haven't answered many of the specific questions that people asked to clear up what you did mean, so it's hard to determine what it is you actually meant when you posted. You seem to have missed off a key proof.

i said that if, and the key word if, it can be held constant, thats the proof

That's not proof at all. It can be held constant at other AoBs as well. Constant bearing is no proof that the AoB is 10, therefore you cannot derive any target speed information from your own speed, as you still don't know the AoB is 10 degeres. The only thing you can determine is if you can hold the bearing constant, then at some point you will collide with the target and therefore achieve an interception at some point. You still won't know what the target's course or speed is however.

If you have proof that constant bearing always means the AoB is ten degrees when the lead angle is 80 degrees, then I'd be pleased to see it.

Diopos

08-25-10, 05:09 PM

And just to cool things down a bit, let's have a drink, :DL

But don't you still have to track it and get it into that basic position before you dive. ....

This an example (diagram) of the the kind of trial and error procedure I use when I'm not in the mood for more proper nav work. As I said in a previus post, plenty of room for error. Also has some relevance with the ongoing discussion as to how far (or not) you can go while trying to keep a target at a constant bearing at larger than 10° AoBs. Link (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B02tqepvya5KYWZjNDAxMTItNGRmNS00NDdlL TlmMDktNTEyYjMwNzc3OTZj&hl=en&authkey=CNC0qLsL)

Kinda funny really, when you see it plotted like that ...:yep:

.

Rockin Robbins

08-25-10, 05:36 PM

Hung by his own noose. Let the body rot where it hangs. This guy is not only a phony, he's a BAD phony.

greyrider

08-25-10, 05:45 PM

As I said, you haven't been clear in what you have said and as others have said, you haven't answered many of the specific questions that people asked to clear up what you did mean, so it's hard to determine what it is you actually meant when you posted. You seem to have missed off a key proof.

That's not proof at all. It can be held constant at other AoBs as well. Constant bearing is no proof that the AoB is 10, therefore you cannot derive any target speed information from your own speed, as you still don't know the AoB is 10 degeres. The only thing you can determine is if you can hold the bearing constant, then at some point you will collide with the target and therefore achieve an interception at some point. You still won't know what the target's course or speed is however.

If you have proof that constant bearing always means the AoB is ten degrees when the lead angle is 80 degrees, then I'd be pleased to see it.

nisgeis, your one of the reasons im back here, i i read about your mod, and i wanted to use it, and have it installed, you and the guy that made the FM sonar mod, you both have brought me back to the game, these are the things i want to work with, and you have done an outstanding job, but i have to clear away some unfinished hydrophone work, your bringing to the game things that were not here before, im really grateful to you for that, and why i refuse, and dont even miss sh5. i want all us sonars and radars on my boat, like in the time it was introduced, and working like the real thing, or as you have done, your conpensation. its a beautiful thing, im going to eat, ill be back to answer your post

Diopos

08-25-10, 05:47 PM

The irony of the thing is that if you're on an actual 8010 situation the ideal shot would be to pull a "Dick O'Kane" ...

:doh:

.

Rockin Robbins

08-25-10, 06:07 PM

Rockin Robbins

08-25-10, 06:11 PM

The irony of the thing is that if you're on an actual 8010 situation the ideal shot would be to pull a "Dick O'Kane" ...

:doh:

.
You can't do that because it's only a badly executed forgery of point and shoot, whatever that is.:D Do a Subsim and Google site search for "point and shoot" technique, method, whatever, see what you get. It's not pretty.

Why would you want to do that when all you have to do is put the target on an 80º heading. He's telepathically commanded to be at a 10º AoB then, and a quarter knot error in your speed only MULTIPLIES to a 1.44 knot error in determining his speed, but who needs an accurate method when you have mental telepathy? Then you leave your periscope up for 20 minutes for stealth, take an optical shot from 90º (carefully not calling it Fast-90 or Dick O'Kane and basing it on a bad speed estimate)and call it a new targeting technique!!!! Who needs that Dick O'Kane tripe anyway?

greyrider

08-25-10, 07:03 PM

You can't do that because it's only a badly executed forgery of point and shoot, whatever that is.:D Do a Subsim and Google site search for "point and shoot" technique, method, whatever, see what you get. It's not pretty.

Why would you want to do that when all you have to do is put the target on an 80º heading. He's telepathically commanded to be at a 10º AoB then, and a quarter knot error in your speed only MULTIPLIES to a 1.44 knot error in determining his speed, but who needs an accurate method when you have mental telepathy? Then you leave your periscope up for 20 minutes for stealth, take an optical shot from 90º (carefully not calling it Fast-90 or Dick O'Kane and basing it on a bad speed estimate)and call it a new targeting technique!!!! Who needs that Dick O'Kane tripe anyway?
i got news for ya, i did do it, twice! periscope up, yes, know why, he couldnt see it if he tried, and when im showing a technique, what do i care if the scope is up or not, to me , that was a training mission, nothing more, i finished my campaign long ago, i even posted end screens, one shows my tonnage for that last patrol, 274, 000 tons, thats what point and shoot is, but you knew that.

rr writes "To Nisgeis' reply I would add that you are depleting precious battery charge, endangering your boat and crew unnecessarily. Bad technique. Inadequate explanation. No help for even a single Subsim member. This stuff is madness personified.
""

ive had some good laughs today, but i totally missed this one, rr! theres nobody here but me,

rr writes ''No help for even a single Subsim member" try as you might, to turn members against me, i believe the way you are carring on is evident enough and people are smart enough to know when they are getting used, but it doesnt matter anyway, because when the world takes a right, i take a left, my individuality is maintained

Nikeleye

08-25-10, 10:36 PM

As a (relatively speaking) forum newcomer I have to side with the opposition to your theory, greyrider.

At no stage during this thread have you explained how you determine the 10 degree AoB which is crucial to the firing solution you present. And my mind boggles because even if you COULD figure that out, then a Vector Analysis attack using the 3-minute rule becomes the far safer option for actually hitting your target where you want.

I also take issue with you suggesting RockinRobbins' guide on the Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell or Vector Analysis attacks is somehow related to Point and Shoot (which is, incidentally, what you've done on every one of your training videos) - all three of those attacks are based on solid facts on the way the real skippers did it, modified so we can apply the same principles in-game: find target course + speed, find own course, plot intercept, shoot using either TDC or own 3-minute rule result. They are all both much more complex than any manual guesstimation ("point and shoot") and also involve actual math, either done by the virtual skipper (Vector Analysis) or the TDC (Mssrs O'Kane + Cromwell).

From an unbiased party viewing this thread: let it die now (relatively) quietly. The idea to develop another attack method is applaudable, but this particular one just doesn't work unless witchcraft or a custom mission is used, despite how much effort you've put into trying to make it effective. :up:

sergei

08-26-10, 03:08 AM

i had an idea, i have seen it hundreds of times in game , the angle on the targets bow, as it came over the horizon, while playing the game,
i could see how small it was, i set up a test mission using sh editor, it was almost the same as the test mission for 8010,
with my gta 5-2-12, department of the army coordinate scale and protractor, i measured the aob of the target in the map area of the editor,
r to sub with la of 80.
and i found it to be 10 degrees,

And if you make contact with a target that is crossing you with an AOB much higher, say for example 50 degrees?
What happens to the method then? Does it still work?
Or do you give up trying to intercept the target on the grounds that it doesn't happen to be heading almost directly towards you?

2 videos of you sinking a ship that is coming straight at you is not proof of the viability of this method.

Maybe if you could answer some of the questions posed?

I'll ask my question again.

If I make contact with a target at an AOB of 50 degrees, where does the 8010 stand?

Nisgeis

08-26-10, 04:13 AM

greyrider, here's why you can't use the fact that a constant bearing is achievable as proof that the target has a specific AoB.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg307/Nisgeis/SubSim/8010Method.jpg

As you can see, the question mark is the initial bearing and from that you can draw on as an example three different target courses. Each of them can be held on a constant bearing by travelling at the same speed, but this cannot be used to work out what speed the target is going at or what course (AoB) they are on.

However, as a method of interception whilst submerged, this method does work, in that it will get you to a point where your track and the target's track will intercept as long your distance to track is not too great, giving you a close range firing position. The downside is that you can't intercept high speed targets and you also know very little about the target's speed or course.

As you can see from the diagram, the closer the target's AoB is to zero, the higher the target speed can be an an intercept achieved using low speed. This makes sense, as at an AoB of zero, the target is steaming directly towards you and no speed is needed for your sub in order to intercept. If you are paralleling the target's course, then your own speed would need to match the target's speed in order to keep it at a constant bearing. Using a maximum submerged speed of 7 knots, you could work out all situations where you could intercept a target. You would find that the targets that you can intercept will primarily have low AoB.

Armistead

08-26-10, 05:57 AM

I think this has become so painfully obvious it's silly to continue to argue it. Sometimes it's better to just admit an attempt, than to keep using rather silly set up video's.

These guys here are too smart for this.

Rockin Robbins

08-27-10, 04:23 AM

i got news for ya, i did do it, twice! periscope up, yes, know why, he couldnt see it if he tried, and when im showing a technique, what do i care if the scope is up or not, to me , that was a training mission, nothing more, i finished my campaign long ago, i even posted end screens, one shows my tonnage for that last patrol, 274, 000 tons, thats what point and shoot is, but you knew that.

rr writes "To Nisgeis' reply I would add that you are depleting precious battery charge, endangering your boat and crew unnecessarily. Bad technique. Inadequate explanation. No help for even a single Subsim member. This stuff is madness personified.
""

ive had some good laughs today, but i totally missed this one, rr! theres nobody here but me,

rr writes ''No help for even a single Subsim member" try as you might, to turn members against me, i believe the way you are carring on is evident enough and people are smart enough to know when they are getting used, but it doesnt matter anyway, because when the world takes a right, i take a left, my individuality is maintained

Show me one post that thanks you for saving their investment in Silent Hunter. Show me one post that says they use point and shoot at all, ever. Show me one post re-explaining any of your "techniques" so that others can understand them further. You can't. There's nothing to explain. Nobody uses your point and shoot or 8010. You've been obsessing over this 8010 thing for over three years that I have demonstrated and have done nothing but repeat fallacies.

Time to man-up, admit that the technique is worthless, take the valid principles you've developed and work out something with some merit. I've done that publicly several times. Mistakes are the portals to genius. But only if you're willing to abandon mistaken hypotheses, learn from the errors, reformulate new hypotheses, and allow them to be tested to the breaking point. Sometimes you end up looking pretty ridiculous. That's just the price of success. Pay it with a smile!

You've obsessed over a disproved technique since before 2005. Move on and do something useful.

greyrider

08-28-10, 07:38 AM

preliminary observations; u-boat commanders handbook.

in war, only submarine commanders who possess distinctive tactical knowledge and ability
will be successful in the long run. in order, however, to understand and master the tactics (i.e., of submarine warfare),
it is necessary to be thoroughly familiar with the weapon, and its characteristics and peculiarities; for it is on these
that the tactics depend.
in addition, complete success as a result of a thorough exploitation of the possibilities of the weapon can only be achieved
if all the officers in charge of it think along the same lines.
the theoretical knowledge of the weapon, and of the appropriate tactics, must be supplemented , in the last resort, by the
requirement of a war-like spirit and an audacious outlook. the essence of submarine warfare is the offensive! for the commander
of a submarine, the maxim:
"he who wants to be victorious on the sea must always attack".

the above statement comes from the u-boat commanders handbook.

6 And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do;
and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them".

the above statement from Genesis 11, verse 6

i will be posting another movie on u-tube later on today sometime, in the 8010, this time, by radar.

sergei

08-28-10, 09:51 AM

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Rockin Robbins

08-28-10, 04:04 PM

A fool's way is right in his own eyes, but whoever listens to counsel is wise.
Proverbs 12:15

Armistead

08-28-10, 05:47 PM

(http://www.biblestudytools.com/asv/proverbs/21-9.html)

Proverbs 21:9 ASV

"It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, Than with a contentious woman in a wide house."

Diopos

08-28-10, 06:31 PM

"Thou shall not overdo it"

Moderator 1:01

.

Pisces

08-28-10, 06:37 PM

I know people find all sorts of clues in the Big Book, but come on, targeting techniques???? :03:

tomoose

08-28-10, 07:26 PM

George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building!
Blackadder: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think we can be entirely absolved from blame on the imperialistic front.
Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
Blackadder: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.
Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.
Blackadder: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.
George: By Gum, this is interesting! I always loved history. The Battle of Hastings, Henry the Eighth and his six knives and all that!
Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent a war in Europe, two super blocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side; and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast, opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Baldrick: Except, well, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
George: Oh, and what was that?
Blackadder: It was bollocks.
Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing, then!

greyrider

08-29-10, 08:30 AM

radar campaign movie for the 8010 is now up on u-tube, no one needs to view it, because i just put it up as proof, 8010 is a reality.
its a convoy, at night, very dark, couldnt see the aiming wire, and only the bow wave and wake stood out. i fired late,
four torpedoes were fired in a deliberate attack, 3 hits from 2100 yards.

cant say more now, gutta go see my daughters first game as a cheerleader

tater

08-29-10, 09:11 AM

Rockin Robbins

08-29-10, 08:51 PM

There is no there there. We don't even get popcorn with the movie. And the dancing girls were ugly...

greyrider

08-30-10, 10:54 AM

thats a good drawing tater, and your on the right track, but you need to read the tfcm alittle bit more, it has the answer for you, i read it. thanks for your input, and ah tater, you might be waiting a long time for that math formula, im not a mathematician

i would like to address a complaint earlier, that i didnt hit the aiming point, the poster claimed that was one of the reasons to discard the method as useless,
in his pov.
i have said a number of times,
when the ship comes down the line , it will be a 90 or near 90 degree target track, r to sub, and what you saw there was not a true 90
in campaign 8010, but a near 90, if it was a true 90, i would of hit
where i aimed for.

which still works as good, as you could see, depending on the near 90, your torpedoes could arrive early, or late, but its still going to hit.
it brings me back to an old
post, and rr was part of that if i remember correctly, and now i think i do remember it was him, i thought at first it might have been
rosecrans, but it was rr, i demonstarted point and shoot, i believe he was skeptical at first, but then measuring my angles with the moboard program by
aaron blood, he in fact, according
to his calculations with mobo, told us that the tolerance for point and shoot at a near 90 was 30 degrees, so you could be off by 15 degrees , either
port or starboard, and still hit. think about that!
well, im not going to bother with the exact number, the point is it has a built in margin of error in it, and what more could you ask for.
in spite of the length and lack of narration, these movies are pretty good, the radar movie was great as a visual aid, in actually letting us see
the convoys aob, r to sub, on the radar screen.
when i timed and searched for speed the first time, i called it off and stopped after about 20 seconds, the convoy track was not at 10 degree aob, then submarine went to flank to correct that, to close the distance to the target track, and in so doing,
close the target aob, and when the disctance was closed enough, then submarine
turned inward, (toward the convoy), to get the target back on the 8010, after awhile, you will get to recognize what a 10 degree aob at la of 80 looks like, this movie
was excellent'
for that. and thats how you acquire an 8010, or reacquire one, close and turn in, because while your closing, the targets bearings are decreasing, the target aob is collapsing,
and the turning in after closing distance will put the 8010 back there, by increasing the target bearing back to an 80 offset.
eventually, your going to have to let the targets lead angle decrease, in order to shoot at it, this happens when you slow or stop, and to keep enough
arming distance for the torpedoes to work, and its this target movement that creates the 90 or near 90. if it was a near ninety, the margin of error
increases of range and aob, but its nothing to worry about, unless the movements are so grossly misapplied, as to be a non factor in shooting.

at least from rr's point of view, its a 30 degree margin of error, think about that!
i did make a couple of mistakes here tho, my 2nd search for speed was with the lead escort, after watching it, it looked steady for both speed and course,
i searched, and got 8.5 knots, and i was happy with that,and was going to go in with 8.5 knots as target convoys speed, and then i got lucky, my sonarman pick up a merchant
and called out its speed as slow. now, 8.5 knots had to be discarded, and a new search for speed conducted, this time with a merchant.
i knew i took a risk with the destroyer, in determining speed, 8.5 knots is not going to make that dd step out in range from the convoy that much,
there was only a knot and a half difference, and i think i timed it for 4 minutes, not enough time to see a range difference. i recovered from this mistake in time tho. my second mistake was when i was shooting,
i couldnt see the aiming wire, and it was after 2 in the morning, and i was just to tired, i think i fired off bearing to, very close but still off, and i shot late,
still got three hits, and this is because of the built in tolorances of point and shoot, created from the angular arangement.

so going back to u-boat commanders handbook, if there was no there there, lets see if the 8010 stands up to the u-boat commanders definition of audacious

au·da·cious /?'de???s/ Show Spelled[aw-dey-shuhs] Show IPA
–adjective
1. extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless
2. extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive
3. recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen.
4. lively; unrestrained; uninhibited

i think so.

heyy rr, how did you like that radar campaign 8010 shot, from 2100 yards, kinda destroys your arguement for closeness was the result of getting the hits,
dont be to impressed with 2100 yards, my farthest using radar was 6700 yards, with the hi res ppi mod

tater

08-30-10, 11:14 AM

That diagram is, simply speaking, spot on. You cannot make any statement about target AOB based on holding it on a constant bearing unless the bearing is 0 regardless of sub speed, or the sub is not moving at all and it stays constant (in which case the target is going to run you over, and their AOB is 0).

Even with the caveat of a closing target, it doesn't work.

The trouble is you were using the law of sines, but treating the velocities as sides of the triangle (speeds). They are not the sides of the triangle, the actual path lengths are.

Take my constant bearing example above. You have a closing target, and you keep it on a bearing of 80 by not moving. The AOB is not 10. The AOB is ZERO. The speed? No possible way to tell. There you go, 8010 is disproved.

That's all it takes to disprove the geometry you propose, if it is disproved in any case, the method is faulty.

greyrider

08-30-10, 01:14 PM

ok, tater, whatever you say, but still, the score is :

greyrider 3
opposition 0

you plug any variable into that formula with a zero, you can error, or 0.
this is a motion formula, more specifically , a velosity formula, you cant have zeros in it, it wont work, your points are disproved

remember i didnt make the formula, nor did the skippers, that came right from the scientists working with the submarine forces,

and your input, first input was something like "good thing ships in sh4 dont travel like they did in rl"

can you prove that statement?

i doubt it, with respect.

second , dont you think that would be a waste of diesel or coal, say, if a ship headed from san francisco to manila and zig zagged all the way, what do you think that would do to his navigation.

third, any military organisation conducts traveling movements determined by enemy activity. in the infantry, for example, when any unit
moves out, thier method of traveling depends upon enemy activity, and closeness, and there are three types of movement.

its called :

1 traveling

2 traveling overwatch

3 fire and maneuver

traveling is the method used when enemy contact is not expected, and its a technique they use, to deep to go into it here

traveling overwatch is a technigue used when enemy contact is probable
(this may be when a ship will zig zag)

fire and maneuver is used to close with and destroy the enemy after contact is made with the enemy.

see, the trouble with most of the posts here is that thier skpoken by people, with no, absolutely no training in military affairs, you dont know anything about the military, other than what you may read. this is not my problem, i have done traveling, traveling overwatch, and fire and maneuver, on the ground, not in a book, big big difference.

so the point now tater, getting back to your first post, ships only zigged, and zagged, when they thought submarines may be present, or thier was enemy submarine activity recently in that area. other than that, i think they would travel in a normal course. if you dont think this is true, at the navel historical society, there are tapes of sealion 2, with captain eli t reich commanding, taking out kongo, among the ships in this warship convoy was yamato, and she was tracking sea lion on radar, but thought she was a plane. that will be a good story to read, because those ships, as beat up as they was, heading back to japan for repair, was not zig zagging until contact was made with sea lion

you give to much credit to the enemy, like most here, you see danger and tripidation in everything, doubt, fear and uncertainty are your companions, and these are not my problem. would i follow anyone that had those problems? only if i wanted to get killed.

anyway, getting back to torpedo fire control manual, continue reading, about zig zagging ships and convoys, and if it cant be done, and until i come across a convoy that zigs, zags, then the jury is still out right?

you may or may not have mentioned where 8010 might not work, but so what, other methods have thier limitations to, and i didnt introduce 8010 for zig zagging ships, and if theres a problems using 8010 with a zig zag, then ill adapt, for what else can we do, but the jury is still out.

and, last but not least, if one method of acquiring target information is not applicable in one situation, then try another. its that simple.

tater

08-30-10, 02:44 PM

The RL ships thing I did prove, those are wartime merchant instructions. Jap ships steamed with those patterns in war zones (meaning the entire Pacific).

So never more than 5-10 minutes in a straight line for most merchants (remember that about 2/3 of the jap merchant marine was commandeered by the IJN or IJA, the straight civie ships might not have ZZed all the time, but the IJN/IJA ships were far more likely to do so. Read sub PRs, and you will see them working out the ZZ pattern in advance of an attack in most cases.

The 2 closing ships in the diagram show the relationship. The bearing is identical, but their speeds and AOBs are different.

this is a motion formula, more specifically , a velosity formula, you cant have zeros in it, it wont work, your points are disproved

I was expecting that answer.

One, who told you velocities cannot equal zero in an equation? The target speed in that EQ can certainly be zero, and the sub speed in numerator. Also, you need to be able to understand WHY an equation becomes undefined at some value—in this case solving for target speed when AOB is zero (or 180). When the AOB is zero, solving for the ship speed is impossible because the geometry remains the same for ALL target speeds. The target could move towards, away, or be stationary.

Two, here's a non-zero scenario: The sub's speed is now infinitesimally greater than zero. The AOB is still effectively zero to maintain the geometry. As the sub speed increases, the target AOB to maintain collision increases. At some point the AOB will indeed be 10. A stopped clock is also right twice a day.

Pisces

08-30-10, 04:35 PM

ok, tater, whatever you say, but still, the score is :

greyrider 3
opposition 0
...The opposition stopped keeping score very soon, since it was appearant that the score keeper didn't listen to reason. Or very one-sided.

Rockin Robbins

08-30-10, 06:17 PM

The fallacy is that greyrider assumes wrongly that he is the scorekeeper. The members of Subsim are all scorekeepers, and the hundreds or thousands of them have not given greyrider a point in five years. I have never read one account of another player using 8010, point and shoot or any of greyrider's techniques. The real scorekeepers have given him a binding goose egg.

Paragraphs, if you can call them that, of self-backslapping, making veiled references to the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (using the improper abbreviation tfcm), setting up paper soldiers and knocking them down, claiming that knocking three of them down is some kind of accomplishment, all that is seen for what it is. Trolling.

A daresay tater understands the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (http://hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm) on every level better than greyrider does. Otherwise greyrider would use it, as we have, to show that 8010 and point and shoot are fallacies. Notice that I am not afraid to reference it directly and give every person a link so that they can check it out and prove for themselves that tater and I are correct. Instead, greyrider sought to conceal the source. That is a clue. Follow the link and verify what we have said. Then make your own conclusions about who does and who does not understand the manual. That directly follows to who does and who does not understand submarine targeting procedures and proper validations of those procedures. Greyrider is not the scorekeeper.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/clownsshortofacircus.gif

greyrider

08-31-10, 10:13 PM

i guess now ill post for the last time here,on this subject, and ill make this my last attempt at
explaining the 8010 method. i think after this i will have provided enough " proof".
im done with 8010, and its time to move on into torpedo offsets.
but first this, and last this.
someone asked for a mathematic proof from me, well, i was lucky i could maintain a c in math in school,
my mind was on the babes, not school, so im lucky to know what i know, and sometimes understand it.
so the best i can do again, to explain, is to use the silent hunter mission editor map, to explain what happens in the 8010, and how the angle for 10 degrees was measured.
maybe looking at it from this point, instead of a radar screen will be more helpful, because all it is is a right triangle, thats all the 8010 is, a right triangle,
when you go into a 8010, your going into a right triangle with the target, the target track becomes one leg of the triangle, just what they taught in submarine schools in germany us, uk, italy, france, and anybody else
that had submarines. this is the standard and optimum attack angle, because the whole length of the target is exposed to the torpedo and submarine.

http://a.imageshack.us/img541/6373/87981948.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-31

the first picture is what the start of the test mission looks like when viewed with the mission editor. the way points have been drawn, these are the courses, and the us tanker, (the target) is on a 90 target track, r to sub, its true course is also 90 degrees,
the submarine course is zero degrees, they are on a collision course, the target bears at 280, the submarine sees this as an 80 degree lead angle, the angle created from
its bow to the center mass of the target.

http://a.imageshack.us/img541/9191/80degreeleadangle.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-31

the 10 degree aob of the target is measured using the target track as one leg of the triangle, to the center mass of the submarine. from the center mass of the target, if a look out on the tanker looked toward 10 degrees, he will see the submarine, as the submarine bears 10 degrees
r to target.

http://a.imageshack.us/img541/4610/10aob.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-08-31

these are how the angles were measured, if we are able to get ourselves in a situation like this, on a true 90 collision, even if only for a couple of minutes, we can calculate the targets speed with the formula,
using the submarine speed as one of the constants, and a lead angle of 80 degrees for another, and 10 degrees as another, "knowing" that the angle on bow is always going to be 10 degrees, because it is a right triangle, and the eighty ten is what both target
and submarine look outs would see, visual sighting!, submarine bearing 10 degrees, visual sighting! merchant, bearing 80 degrees to the port side.
If we are not in this angular arrangement, and want to get into one with a closing target, we have to close on the target track, not the target, and then when the range has been closed enough to allow the submarine to turn into the target, then turn into the target until
Your back on the 8010, a right triangle, think of this setup as a right triangle, it’s that simple, that’s all it is, and what was taught.
once your in a true right triangle, starting at 8010, the aob becomes known for every bearing the target will advance as it closes to the collision point,
if it goes to bearing 281, and starts its advance, then the aob for bearing 281, is 11, because both lead angle and aob are inverse angles in a right triangle, so while one increases, the other one decreases,
but they both have to add up to 90, the angle at the collision point is the another 90 of the right triangle, and therefore you have the total number of degrees in a right
triangle. told ya i wasnt a mathematician. if target is bearing 300, LA is 60, aob is 30, if target bears at 345, LA is 15 aob is 75, if it bears at 0, aob is 90.
both lead angle and aob have to add up to 90.
so i hope this explains it, im moving on to torpedo offsets, to exploit the weapon, the submarine has left markasser strait, refueled and rearmed at the tender west of halmahera, and heading for rabaul,
where i make a test mission using torpedo offsets, and then a real short movie, taking out 2 or 3 targets simultaneously.

greyrider

08-31-10, 10:15 PM

The opposition stopped keeping score very soon, since it was appearant that the score keeper didn't listen to reason. Or very one-sided.

more like, you dont have it, and cant get it,

greyrider

08-31-10, 10:24 PM

tater

08-31-10, 11:15 PM

The problem is that to take advantage of the geometry, the AOB must be known before hand.

Your example is of a special case. One possible arrangement of 2 ships out of a set of infinite possibilities.

Take your example above, and make the target AOB some arbitrary number.

You're arguing a special case where you get to know the AOB before hand. The target's bearing and the target's course are not related, they are independent.

razark

08-31-10, 11:28 PM

Without knowing the target's course (and thus the AoB), how do you know you've got a right triangle when you encounter a ship in the wild?

Diopos

08-31-10, 11:35 PM

Ok we are slowly getting there. So In your last posts you say that 8010 is valid for a 90° intecept angle which is of course true.

Next step: How to get into a 8010 collision course.

You said : "If we are not in this angular arrangement, and want to get into one with a closing target, we have to close on the target track, not the target, and then when the range has been closed enough to allow the submarine to turn into the target, then turn into the target until
Your back on the 8010, a right triangle, think of this setup as a right triangle, it’s that simple, that’s all it is, and what was taught."

Not clear what you mean exactly (for me at least) since we have no clue on the "target track".

I really think that there is a """method""" that can get you there (an 8010 collision course) under certain conditions. Hint: Check this Link (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B02tqepvya5KYWZjNDAxMTItNGRmNS00NDdlL TlmMDktNTEyYjMwNzc3OTZj&hl=en&authkey=CNC0qLsL)
from one of my previus posts and observe how the sub closes in, towards the target's path while trying to keep the target at a 90° bearing. "Extrapolate" the situation and you may reach at a very interesting sitiuation indeed.

.

Pisces

09-01-10, 03:56 AM

more like, you dont have it, and cant get it,Meaning score? Or reason? Eitherway, I'm not in this thread for a pissing contest on who's better. The seas are wet enough allready. Be my guest though, I'll be out of your way.

...
the first picture is what the start of the test mission looks like when viewed with the mission editor. the way points have been drawn, these are the courses, and the us tanker, (the target) is on a 90 target track, r to sub, its true course is also 90 degrees,...If that is the same mission as the 2 you uploaded some weeks ago to your Filefront page then you provided the wrong one. In it there is no T3 tanker, or any possible target for that matter. 100% positive. If you did encounter a target while playing it must have coincidentally been spawned from the random campaign layer. (which I've seen happening before in SH3 custom-missions) Eitherway, it wouldn't have been of any use, since it wasn't reproduceable.

As for your explanation with the mission editor screenshots, I won't beat it to death anymore. Tater, Razark and Diopos have already said that this 80-10 is a special case. 80-30 is just as possible to encounter a target in. Infact, we have complained about this all along in the past 8 pages. What would have been more usefull for you showing how to use this method, would be a video of what happened before your encounter with the target. How did you manage to get in the 80-10 position? Was there any kind of intercept involved? How did you learn it's course? As that is the only way to be able to say you have, or can maneuver yourself into, a right triangle.

greyrider

09-01-10, 10:46 AM

this morning i sat down, i had the mission editor opened so that i could see the map of the test mission, just staring at it,
not thinking of anything in particular. i thought, well we know course , aob, and speed in a 8010, the only thing missing was range,
if we had range, we would have all four parts of a torpedo solution, plugged into the tdc, miles before we see the target, so just staring at the triangle
in the test mission, it almost blew my mind, there in front of me was a way to determine target range, but it depends on the captains estimation
of how far away the collision point is for the target and submarine.
if your on an 8010, you can draw the right triangle on the map, or use radar to estimate target track, then range to the collision point.
but what ever the submarines speed is, and the disctance to the collision point is known or estimated, target speed and range can be known,
because in a 8010, the ratio of target distance to submarine disctance to the collision point is 5.4 to 1. this is because of the proprtions
of the 8010 right triangle, its a 5.4 to 1 ratio of range and speed to the collision point, this is the ratio of the test mission,
so the submarine is at 2 knots, times 5.4 = 10.8 knots, might as well call that 11, its more than, 10.5, target speed was 11 knots in test mission.
range of the submarine to the collision point is 5.4 km, or 2.9 nm, in this test mission,
range of the target is 5.4 times greater for the target, so range of the target would be 5.4 km times 5.4, or 29.16 km or 15.7 nm.
at least this is the ratio of this test mission, i dont know what other submarine speeds ratios are at this point, i think it will be the same ratio for all speeds of the sub, but alittle work with the calculator
will prove that.
5.4 is the ratio in km
2.9 is the ratio in nm

Rockin Robbins

09-01-10, 12:41 PM

You can't develop AoB in an unseen target. You have no solution.

Rockin Robbins

09-01-10, 12:47 PM

You can't develop target course in an unseen target. You still have no solution. If you're going to use radar you don't need the 8010 formulation. You'll never get it anyway without a high speed surface run.

If you do that you might as well put the target on a zero AoB so you don't have to move 10 miles submerged to attack. He's not going to run over top of you anyway because he'll change course before he gets there. But at least you are covered with an equal run to engage no matter which direction he zigs.

If you set up the 8010 and he zigs 10º away it's game over. You can't get there and he's gone. 8010 is a terrible and self-defeating strategy that eliminates the vast majority of contacts from ever being attacked. The Japanese love you.

Proper strategy is to be able to engage long range targets at the largest possible angle on the bow so that you engage more targets, scoring more tonnage per patrol. 8010 is the analog to the ostrich strategy of running submerged all day, cutting your contacts by 90% so you can feel "safe." You've found a way to eliminate 80% of the 10% they had left. Just think of the payoff from combining Ostrich with 8010! Eliminate 98% of potential targets! Enhance your career! 8010 Ostrich! Guaranteed or your money back.

Proper strategy is to develop targets while surfaced, maneuver at high speed while surfaced to achieve an attack position ahead that will minimize battery use during the attack, submerge on or very close to the track, waiting for the target and then attacking with a real targeting method. You then have full batteries at the time of attack and can evade with confidence that you can exercise those batteries with gusto to break contact, surface and repeat the end-around. In this way you can engage even a convoy detected at a 180º AoB. Instead of restricting yourself to a 20º wedge, you now can engage targets on any course, anywhere in the 360º search range. Why would your strategy be to cripple your ability to fight? Why would you then actually brag about that? On every level 8010 is a loser. There is NOTHING in it of value except in how to put yourself on a collision course by passive sonar.

Is there a single person who understands 8010, thinks it's a viable strategy, uses it and is willing to post about it? If so I'm asking them to come forward. Let's see who this amazing development has benefited.

greyrider

09-01-10, 05:48 PM

razark

09-01-10, 06:06 PM

i cant? i did!
Please show where you posted the method of determining the target's course without seeing it. Either I missed seeing it, or you've completely forgotten to post it (and missed several requests for same), or you don't have a method of doing it.

tater

09-01-10, 07:37 PM

Please show where you posted the method of determining the target's course without seeing it. Either I missed seeing it, or you've completely forgotten to post it (and missed several requests for same), or you don't have a method of doing it.

Isn't his very premise that the act of holding the target on an 80 degree bearing means the target AOB is 10?

That's the entirety of what I got from his arguments. Maybe it's just so convoluted I'm missing something, cause if his point was that IF you can get yourself into that geometry, it begs the question we're all asking: how do you know you are in the right geometry if you cannot tell the target what to do?

NorthBeach

09-01-10, 08:20 PM

Diopos

09-01-10, 10:58 PM

Ok I think we are over-killing it here.

Personally I like the collision course thingy and will continue to """work""" on it. In the end I think that it will turn out be a "good to know" thing, implementable with in-game (nav map) tools. But as is, the 8010 method is limited. I still maintain it is salvageable with "addons" (:DL) namely trying to establish the targets course (at least).

For an example of a potentially useful method of acquiring target info, based on collision course(s), have a look at this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174133). More variants of the method proposed are on the way. Hope people will test it and comment on it. (Ok now I'll stop highjacking the thread :oops:).

... and going deep again ...:lurk:

WarlordATF

09-02-10, 06:10 AM

Wow, after reading this whole thread i can only say that i am glad i use the auto-targeting option. Trying to figure this out made my head hurt and i'm still not sure whos right or wrong but it sure was fun to read! I have used realistic targeting in SH1, but these days i play for fun and let my crew (Auto) do the work. After all, I'm the Captain LOL!

greyrider

09-02-10, 12:07 PM

greyrider

09-02-10, 12:18 PM

I have an office at Fort Meade, a parking pass for Langley, and have taken courses at Maxwell and in Carlisle. I have a junk drawer full of metal, and enough paper on the wall to train a sled team of dogs not to crap in my shoes. With that said, I have followed this thread from its inception and I can see no merit in putting the lives of sailors on the line based on the thin premise provided herein.

well, mister northbeach, i dont care about your paper, your shoes, or anything else you have, im not impressed by your military pencil pushing job in "snievel affairs".
i have a solution for you, you can use the dick okane method, you dont have to take risks with it, and it sounds like that would be the method for a timid personality like yours to use, so knock yourself out. rr vows its safe, he understands submarine warfare about as much as you, he says to fire at long range is what submarine warfare is all about, that way your "safe" , , ignoreing the fact that german u-boat were mixing it up with convoys, escorts right in the mist of them, on the surface, i would of loved to have him say that to those german commanders, they would laugh him right off the boat, like im laughing you right in this post.

you see, you can join the opposition if you like, for you people, you feel safety in numbers, but let it be said right here right now, i stand alone!, i do not ask nor do i want help from anyone here, i will accomplish the mission, with or without you, understand ?

tater

09-02-10, 12:25 PM

reread razark, i havent got time to hold your hand

Readable prose might be a good start on your part.

You seem to be saying that holding any contact @ 80 degrees makes his AOB 10, which is nonsense.

If you require a right triangle, you must know his AOB in advance.

Armistead

09-02-10, 12:38 PM

Next thing we know here people will be dropping britches and comparing the sizes of their members....

Of course someone here may figure out how to make 3 inches 8...and think he's right because he's looking at it underwater and never cease at thinkings he's correct.

razark

09-02-10, 12:38 PM

Readable prose might be a good start on your part.
:up:

You seem to be saying that holding any contact @ 80 degrees makes his AOB 10, which is nonsense.
Three angles of a triangle. Add them up, get 180 degrees.

Therefore, if the bearing is 80 degrees, the AoB _must_ be 10. You know you are intercepting the target track at a 90 degree angle because... :06:

Nisgeis

09-02-10, 01:00 PM

:up:

Three angles of a triangle. Add them up, get 180 degrees.

Therefore, if the bearing is 80 degrees, the AoB _must_ be 10. You know you are intercepting the target track at a 90 degree angle because... :06:

Because if you overshoot the bearing then you are going too fast and need to turn in and allow the target to catch up. If you can't match the bearing, then the target is too fast to be intercepted.

razark

09-02-10, 01:06 PM

Because if you overshoot the bearing then you are going too fast and need to turn in and allow the target to catch up. If you can't match the bearing, then the target is too fast to be intercepted.
But this was posted as a method of determining target speed, based on your own speed. You vary your speed to hold the target on the 80 bearing, and use your speed in the formula to calculate the target's speed.

So, do you turn to keep him on the 80, or speed up/slow down to determine his speed?

sergei

09-02-10, 01:20 PM

i have a solution for you, you can use the dick okane method, you dont have to take risks with it, and it sounds like that would be the method for a timid personality like yours to use

I don't understand this statement greyrider.
Is the 8010 inherently a riskier attack method than the O'Kane?
How so?
Is the 8010 superior to the O'Kane because it is riskier?
Please explain.

Nisgeis

09-02-10, 01:21 PM

But this was posted as a method of determining target speed, based on your own speed. You vary your speed to hold the target on the 80 bearing, and use your speed in the formula to calculate the target's speed.

So, do you turn to keep him on the 80, or speed up/slow down to determine his speed?

The method that greyrider has put forward is not a hard rule type of method, it's more of a variable method that you do different things in different situations. You put the target on an 80 degree bearing (so at 080 or 280 relative bearing after determining which way the target is moving), then you try to keep the target on a constant bearing for a few minutes. If you can't keep the bearing constant, then the target is too fast and is one of the ones that you have to let go using this method. If you can match bearings, then you can use the chart he gives to work out a target's speed (although there is no gurantee that the AoB is 10, so the speed may not be accurate enough). If you find when trying to match bearing that your own speed is very low, then you need to wait to allow the target to 'catch up' (the details behind this would be that the target is either at very long range or has a very slight AoB and either situation would mean you would run accross his track and be on the wrong side).

greyrider

09-02-10, 01:30 PM

theres been about 3000 views on this post, yet only a few have posted, so this post has certainly generated interest, but of those that did post, and not all, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere,
if it has been because of me, and the way i have explain it, then its my fault, guess im not a good explainer, but i did the best i could with it, in a number of ways.
then there are some that say there trying but there having trouble understanding, i understand, but im not!
those movies, sonar and radar, are campaign episodes, and cant be fudged, at least as far as i know, and i was able to do it, so the question is, if i can do it, how come you cant, if its easy for me, how come its hard for you.
most here have posted nothing but mud, so i consider them mudslingers, not gunslingers, and sometimes, i just couldnt resist throwing alittle myself, i had some fun to.
these people have posted the 8010 as junk, useless crap, ok, ill bite, it is useless, so why do you keep on coming back? if i thought something was useless, id be long gone, yet why do those people keep coming back?
because its intriguing isnt it?
i have one more thing to add to 8010,and then i will be done, and that is target position known. im working now to find the targets position along that right triangle, but if you use proportions, you wont need this way that im working on.
because proportion will put the target position right where its supposed to be.
you know what the 8010 is shaping up to be? example 25 of the maneuvering board manual, just in a different way.
below is example 25 from the mbm, notice the heading!
COURSE, SPEED, AND POSITION DERIVED FROM BEARINGS ONLY

and now, take a look at the range that was solved for this problem,
(2) Position of M at 1830: 274°.5 at 61 miles.
61 miles away,
but we cant do that i keep hearing here,
so im getting impatient with the bs, and if anyone wanted to try to work it out, they are going to be knee deep in negativity, thats not mine,
and so they will probably give up, nevertheless, ill use it, and im using it well with success, and to those that would be willing to try, i apoligize,
for the bs in this post, i tried to avoid alot of it, but it just keeps coming, and so the post is destroyed now. i would not want to try to read this now,
so i wont blame you for not reading any further either.
they threw every kind of diversion and cami they could at it, lies, bs, irrelevence, and ignorance, of something they knew little about didnt stop em.
a guy asks for help, then in his last sentence, spits, he then expects me to help him after that? sorry, not on his best days after that.
so if anyone is willing to learn, all i can say now, is good luck, and put your boots on, theres alot of poop on the floor.

EXAMPLE 25
COURSE, SPEED, AND POSITION DERIVED FROM BEARINGS ONLY
Situation:
Own ship is on course 090°, speed 15 knots. The true bearings of another ship
are observed as follows:
At 1600 own ship changes course to 050° and increases speed to 22 knots. The
following bearings of ship M are then observed:
Required:
(1) Course and speed of ship M.
(2) Distance of M at time of last bearing.
Solution:
(1) Draw own ship’s vector er1.
(2) Plot first three bearings and label in order observed, B1, B2, and B3.
(3) At any point on B1, construct perpendicular which intersects B2 and B3.
Label these points P1, P2, and P3.
(4) Measure the distance P1 to P2 and plot point X at the same distance from
P2 towards P3.
(5) From X draw a line parallel to B1 until it intersects B3. Label this intersection
Y.
(6) From Y draw a line through P2 until it intersects B1 at Z.
(7) From head of own ship’s vector er1, draw a line parallel to YZ. This establishes
the DRM on the original course and speed. The head of the em vector of
shipMlies on the line drawn parallel to YZ. It is now necessary to find the DRM
following a course and/or speed change by own ship. The intersection of the two
lines drawn in the direction of relative movement from the heads of own ship’s
vector establishes the head of vector em.
(8) Following course and speed change made to produce a good bearing drift,
three more bearings are plotted; the new direction of relative movement is obtained
following the procedure given in steps (3) through (7). The lines drawn
in the directions of relative movement from the heads of vector er1 and er2 intersect
at the head of the vector em. Ship M is on course 170° at 10 knots.
(9) From relative vector r2m, the SRM is found as 28.4 knots during the second
set of observations.
(10) Compute the relative distance traveled during the second set of observations
(MRM 56.8 mi.).
(11) On the line ZY for the second set of observations, lay off the relative distance
ZA. From A draw a line parallel to B4 until it intersects B6. Label this point
B. This is the position of M at the time of the last bearing.
Answer:
(1) Course 170°, speed 10 knots.
(2) Position of M at 1830: 274°.5 at 61 miles.
Note:
These procedures are based on bearings observed at equal intervals. For unequal
intervals, use the following proportion:
Time Bearing
1300 010°
1430 358°
1600 341°
Time Bearing
1630 330°
1730 302°
1830 274°.5
Time difference between B1 and B2
Distance from P1 to P2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time difference between B2 and B3
Distance from P2 to X
= --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

greyrider

09-02-10, 01:44 PM

I don't understand this statement greyrider.
Is the 8010 inherently a riskier attack method than the O'Kane?
How so?
Is the 8010 superior to the O'Kane because it is riskier?
Please explain.

no sergi, it is not, thats what the bs people would like you to think.

i will still help those willing to learn, im not turning my back on you,

sergei

09-02-10, 01:47 PM

And yet your previous statement implies that the 8010 is riskier, and superior because of it.

i have a solution for you, you can use the dick okane method, you dont have to take risks with it, and it sounds like that would be the method for a timid personality like yours to use

greyrider

09-02-10, 01:54 PM

Readable prose might be a good start on your part.

You seem to be saying that holding any contact @ 80 degrees makes his AOB 10, which is nonsense.

If you require a right triangle, you must know his AOB in advance.

you said this tater, i didnt, take another look at the sh4 editor map, this is the 80 im talking about, not what your implying, and not zig zagging ships either. when i said something about deversions, your posts came to mind.

if your befuddled, its not my bag, not mine, you wanted to interject bs and deversions into the mix, now you can find your way out yourself, you put words in my mouth that i didnt say, dont expect me to help you now.

Rockin Robbins

09-02-10, 02:11 PM

Not one person practicing this method. Not one person who can explain it. No "method" at all. When one aspect is shot down, no problem, just bring radar into it! 8010 is a moving target. When pinned down it reveals itself as nothing but hot air built around its only valid principle, achieving a collision course based on a bearing, however the bearing is obtained doesn't matter.

He won't explain how he arrives at a 10º AoB, he won't hold our hand. He's really not interested in teaching. He's confined his diatribe to useless, self-serving bragging. He profits no one. He is a loss to his own reputation and standing in the community. Let's just let this thing die and put him on ignore. Done.:D

I won't miss you greyrider.

tater

09-02-10, 02:25 PM

I've not mentioned ZZing WRT to the method, sorry. My typing shows up in proper paragraphs, I think it's pretty clear.

If I am attributing something to your method that is not what you mean, just explain it. It should take a couple sentences at most. By all means, correct me.

What are the "givens" for an 8010 approach?

As I see it, you have allowed for the game giving you the fact that a contact is "closing" so we'll take that as a given (without comment on how reasonable the game is in that respect). We move the SUB so that the bearing is 080 or 280.

That's IT. Bearing 80, closing target. We have NO other information.

You seem to make the assumption that this will result in a 90 degree intercept. The future position of the target, however, is described by an infinite number of radial lines from the initial target point that eventually cross the path of the sub. If his AOB is 20, then the intercept is at 80 degrees, and so forth. For each possible path, there is a speed that will keep him on the same bearing to the moving sub (sub at constant speed).

sergei

09-02-10, 02:46 PM

most here have posted nothing but mud

No.
Most people have posted questions about the method.
Questions that you have avoided or ignored altogether.

so why do you keep on coming back? if i thought something was useless, id be long gone, yet why do those people keep coming back?

In the vain hope that maybe, just maybe you'll take a few minutes to answer some of these questions.

Pisces

09-02-10, 06:01 PM

...
you know what the 8010 is shaping up to be? example 25 of the maneuvering board manual, just in a different way.
below is example 25 from the mbm, notice the heading!
COURSE, SPEED, AND POSITION DERIVED FROM BEARINGS ONLY
...
For those that want to read the original, this is the 2 page excerpt of the maneuvering board manual:

http://www.filefront.com/13598315/bearingsonly_TMA.pdf

P.S. Greyrider, I'd love to read from you where you find commonalities in both your method and this example 25. Or how they mix. I don't think there is any commonality, aside from the fact that they both deal with bearings. For example where does a constant bearing fit into all this. It's not in example 25. Infact, constant bearings breaks it.

But I suspect I will never read it since I'm probably part of the BS people. It's ok, I've got a thick skin. I forgive peoples mistakes. I hope you will soon notice this long thread isn't an attack on you personally (atleast not by most that have responded) but questions the technique. If you can't seperate the two, you'll find only frustration.

Pisces

09-02-10, 06:02 PM

No.
Most people have posted questions about the method.
Questions that you have avoided or ignored altogether.

In the vain hope that maybe, just maybe you'll take a few minutes to answer some of these questions.Amen

NorthBeach

09-02-10, 06:02 PM

greyrider- Why the personal attack upon me? You make a lot of assumptions about who I am and what I did and do. You know nothing of my job (nor will I tell you). Nor do you know anything of where I've been or what I've done and in what capacity. You know nothing of my personality. I merely laid out a couple of qualifications that may, or may not, lead the reader to understand that I have an understanding of logic and risk management, military and intelligence doctrine, and tactics. I did not besmirch your character. I simply made a bottom line assessment based on the explanation provided, to date.

Irrational personal attacks do not clarify an argument. Nor, do they prove the conclusion of an equation.

Armistead

09-02-10, 06:07 PM

Let assume it works, why would anyone use it?

First, you have to let most targets go by or surface, get set up in the correct position then dive and start the procedure. Again, if I have to do a end around to put myself in position, I already have all the info I need.

For TF or convoys it's very limited. The escorts are zigging. If you're found out, the method is useless. The bigger danger with a convoy or TF with many escorts is staying dived and not knowing what the escorts are doing, something a scope would tell you. You can't set up on the capital ships you want, your limited to basically one attack

You may have to use speed to keep yourself on the correct bearing, speed is one of the biggest ways to be caught...very dangerous, it all goes out the window, plus a waste of battery that you may need.

It takes a lot of time. Few people are going to use all this time chasing singles which is all is would work on...if it worked.

If it worked it would still be the last option a skipper would pull out of his bag of tricks....

tomoose

09-02-10, 08:16 PM

Your last para is what I was trying to say way back on "page" 1 a while back, LOL. I still don't see how an AOB of 10 can be extrapolated by putting an unseen closing target at 80 degrees.:-?

One thing that jumps out at me here in Example 25 (unless I missed something) is the use of the word "observed" as in: the target can be seen.:hmmm: From that perspective it makes sense but not necessarily a requirement/need for 80 vs 10 so to speak.

Rockin Robbins

09-03-10, 03:26 AM

"Observed" is a requirement because that is the only way to establish AoB, whether through radar, active sonar or periscope. Without that no target course/AoB (they are equivalent) can be established. Establishing AoB for a target 40 miles away, as greyrider postulated in that last post of his that I could read, or from any range beyond that of the sensors referenced above, is impossible.

Also completely ignored was my observation that a 10º AoB from 20 miles gives an underwater run of way too far to justify. By the time you engage your batteries are too depleted to call your submarine combat ready.

Too many problems. No explanations to questions or problems. "I won't hold your hand" is not instruction. Reference to a little known publication by abbreviation only and no links is only baffling with bullschnitzel, not clarification. When one has nothing to explain, one dissembles, relates irrelevant stories and distracts with some fancy dancing. Greyrider is doing that. The reason is that he knows that he does not have a viable attack method. If he did, he would move heaven and earth to ensure it was clearly understood. His continued evasion and obfuscation reveals his underlying attitude. That is not a personal attack, it is objective fact.

My objective in this thread was to call bullschnitzel so that new players wouldn't be sucked into the vortex of apparent "knowledge" and conclude that the problem wasn't the method but their ability to understand. One poster (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1483252&postcount=129) in this thread already came to that completely wrong conclusion. To the best of my ability that has been accomplished. For clear targeting information go to the Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=146795) thread. (Note that I did not refer to it as SSBT and that I did supply a link for you to check it out yourself. That is what people do when their motive is communication) That's where my cat learned to shoot and he's better than I am. Manual targeting is easy and you can do it! Most likely you can do it better than I can.

Carrying on a conversation with one whose objective is not to communicate is irrational. We should let the thread die.

joegrundman

09-03-10, 06:15 AM

Rockin Robbins

I am pleased to see how far your understanding has developed of the principles in this sort of problem, since greyrider last brought up this subject 18 months ago here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=148065

however i'd like to clarify this point here:

Also completely ignored was my observation that a 10º AoB from 20 miles gives an underwater run of way too far to justify. By the time you engage your batteries are too depleted to call your submarine combat ready.

With my handy-dandy replica Submarine Attack Course Finder, in a two second operation i can tell you that on a normal approach at a target 20 nm away and a 10degree AOB, you are less than 4 nm from target track.

If the merchant target is going at a brisk pace of 10 knots, it will take 2 hours to get to the intercept point. You can be there at the same time at just 2 knots. This is easily manageable underwater without depleting your batteries.

And i'd say approaching underwater from 20 nm is a reasonable thing to do if in daylight, with clear visibilty and in an area known to have large concentrations of air cover. For example off the coast of japan, where i understand submarines tended only to surface at night.

greyrider

09-03-10, 06:49 AM

on the dark night in gale force winds, uss sealion engaged a japanese warship convoy,
taking out battleship kongo, and a destroyer. the destroyer was a lucky shot, because the torpedo
that killed it was meant for someone else.
im not going to tell the story, i have copied the story here for you to read.
but my point here for doing it, is to show this attack, and how i think this was a point and shoot type shot
that killed the battleship.
there was no other way captain reich could do it, because the look outs could barely see the ship superstructure,
so periscope shooting was out of the question as far as acquiring target information.
the shot had to be from radar bearings.
sealion had radar, and she determined target spped and course with radar, overhauled the convoy, turned into the convoy when she got to her attack position,
and waited to shoot. sealion was in a position to shoot, just like the map of the test mission.
its this attack that makes me believe captain reich took a p and s shot, so if you want, you can read the story below, and draw your own conclusions.
sealion did not get target speed and course using a 8010, he did that by conventional radar plotting, but its how he shot and under the circumstances sealion was in,
that makes me believe it was p and s.
so without anymore delay and explanations, i give you the story to read.

During the ongoing struggle to reinforce and preserve Suzuki's 35th Army on Leyte, the First Striking Force had spent all it's time hovering at Brunei Bay. Apart from it's sortie in its vain diversion attempt during the TA IV and III transportations, it had scarcely moved from there since returning from the great battle of Leyte Gulf

The warships of the fleet had spent all this time making what emergency repairs and overhauls that they could, while awaiting final instructions on who was to go where from Tokyo. Actually, that had already been decided, but had yet to be put into effect. As early as 4 November an inspection team led by Radms. Yagasaki Masatsume and Iwasaki Wasaburo of the Manila Technical Department had made its recommendations to Kurita and to Tokyo. Intervening urgent needs, like the need to support the TA Operations, had prevented its earlier implementation; now the damage states of the individual ships basically determined their ultimate destination. Of the battleships, YAMATO, NAGATO, and KONGO must all go home to Japan for repairs to their damages suffered at Leyte Gulf. Only HARUNA was fit for duty and to proceed to Singapore.
[KONGO had to return because of oft-unreported damage: the text from the Samar chapter says in part :"On 25 October 1944, during the air attacks of TF 38, the heretofore charmed KONGO had in fact suffered notable damage. At 1330 she was bracketed by six very near-misses that heavily shook the old lady. A gash was torn in the blister on the starboard side abreast the bridge, opening fifteen oil tanks to the sea. Another bomb off the starboard quarter damaged the blades of both starboard propellers. As a result of these shocks, KONGO lost 307 tons of fuel and had three 25mm mounts wrecked. Casualties included 12 killed and 36 wounded from flying fragments. This damage, overlooked in prior credits, can almost certainly be credited to the flyers of McCain's TG 38.1, and proved sufficient to force the return of the KONGO to homeland in November. By so doing, resulting in the fatal encounter with USS SEALION II to be described later." Thus, it was simply a case of the three damaged BBs going home, and the shipshape BB remaining on duty - Tony].
Among the cruisers, the TONE had heavy damage to stern and starboard engines; her hull seriously strained. She had to go home to Japan, as did YAHAGI. MYOKO and TAKAO were even worse off, and immobilized at Singapore. ASHIGARA was fit for action and were earmarked for Singapore.
Of course, since this report had been issued circumstances had made some of it's statements past-tense. Some of the vessels involved had already gone--either home or to the bottom. TONE for example, had departed for the homeland on the 8th with JUNYO. Essentially the recommendations remained unchanged and on the 15th of November Combined Fleet ordered a major fleet reorganization effective that date. It's structure reflected the changed situation and the increased emphasis on the Second Striking Force as the major operational fleet from now on.
Vice Admiral Ugaki Matome's First Battleship Division was abolished completely, with YAMATO designated flagship of the 2nd Fleet, and the NAGATO reassigned to join Vice Admiral Suzuki's Third Battleship Division of KONGO and HARUNA. Also eliminated was Ozawa's shredded Mobile Fleet and his extinct Cardiv 3, as well as Crudivs 4 and 7. DesRons 1 and 10 were deactivated, and their survivors incorporated into a vastly expanded DesRon 2 five days later on 20 November. The Second Striking Force would go to Singapore, while the bulk of First Striking Force would return to Japan.
This last part was to be carried out immediately. In fact, Kurita himself was to take the YAMATO, NAGATO, and KONGO home for repairs the moment refueling was finished, which meant by the afternoon of the next day. Since YAMATO was going home anyway, Vice Admrial Ugaki, though no longer in command of ships, decided to ride her home as a passenger. It appears that Rear Admiral Kimura Susumu made the same decision on YAHAGI.
The next day, Saturday the 16th, Vadm Shima arrived off Brunei aboard HATSUSHIMO in company with ASASHIMO and TAKE. Before they could catch their breath the air-raid alarm sounded at 1100. The Japanese warships hastily got underway, as the long-feared air attack on Brunei arrived at last in the form of forty B-24s and 15 P-38s. Not caught by surprise, the big ships were underway and maneauvered at high speed in the roomy waters of the vast bay. The great YAMATO was an impressive sight as she looped around at 24 knots, her great 18in guns joining the barrage of anti-aircraft fire. The enemy planes broke formation and scattered when the first San-shiki exploded, but none of them were seen to fall.
After YAMATO's guns had belched forth ten salvos the attackers drew away. The long-feared air raid on Brunei had finally occurred but had turned out to be largely a no-show. Of course the story might have been different had they been Halsey's carrier planes, trained and equipped for such a task. That very option had been denied the fighting admiral by his commitments to Leyte's support.
The only damage inflicted had been slight fragment and bullet damage on cruisers HAGURO and OYODO and killed a man on destroyer YUKIKAZE. But Kurita was anxious to depart knowing full well, that next time, they might not be so lucky. His opinions were shared by the Chief of Staff of the 5th Fleet, Rear Admiral Takeshi Matsumoto. He had just arrived in Brunei with Admiral Shima and had too vivid a memory of narrowly escaping the sinking of NACHI. That flagship's destruction had taken place in a wide bay much like this one. After leaving Manila late on the 13th Shima had arrived at Brunei just as the air raid was breaking and had waited outside till the all clear. For a few hours the fleet at Brunei was swollen to considerable strength.
It didn't last long, because at 1820, right on schedule, YAMATO blinkered the orders for the designated home-bound ships to weigh anchor. Light cruiser YAHAGI led the way, then battleships KONGO and NAGATO, with graceful YAMATO bringing up the rear. Screening them was all four ships of DesDiv 17; flagship URAKAZE, the ISOKAZE, YUKIKAZE, and HAMAKAZE.
The fleet set course northwest past the Pratas and toward Formosa Straits, and beyond it Japan. Left behind was the HARUNA, now assigned to Shima. The KONGO's and HARUNA's crews regarded this separation with some unease. The lucky pair had been constant companions since the beginning and this may have been the first time KONGO and HARUNA parted company in a combat zone. If so, it was as if some tenuous invisible thread of fortune had been severed. The two sisters would never see each other again.
Karma notwithstanding, the separation had a simple practical reason. RADM Shigenaga Kazutake's HARUNA was still in fighting shape, and so had been assigned to accompany Shima's 2-YB south to Singapore. She would serve as the southern fleet's main strength, her big guns and speed making her ideal to keep company with the cruisers and destroyers.
Shima's preparations for sailing did not take very long, and having broken his flag on heavy cruiser Ashigara he followed Kurita to sea at 0400 the 17th with HARUNA, HAGURO, and OYODO. Screening them were HATSUSHIMO and ASASHIMO. Escort destroyer TAKE proceeded independently to Shinnan Gunto, under orders to return to Manila and escort the Fifth Transport Operation.(See Chapter 12)
Before proceeding to Lingga they moved north to the Pratas Islands (SE of Hong Kong). Arriving 1300 18 November, they found KASUMI and USHIO waiting. Also present was Matsuda's Cardiv 4 (HYUGA; ISE) which had arrived that day accompanied by SHIMOTSUKI. The rendezvous with Matsuda's battleships effected and their supplies for Manila transhipped, Shima was ready to lead his much expanded command to Lingga. Departing the Pratas on the 19th, his force of three battleships, two heavy and one light cruiser, plus five destroyers headed southwest for Lingga.
The voyage was made without incident until the very last day at sea. At 0705 22 November the OYODO reported sighting a submarine and opened fire. With smoke streaming from their stacks HATSUSHIMO and SHIMOTSUKI charged the submarine and laid down a depth charge attack, but no results were observed. After this the fleet hurried into Lingga, arriving at 1500 later that day. It apparently hurried too fast, for as the ships moved toward their assigned anchorages the HARUNA ran suddenly aground sixty miles out with an unnerving grinding and lurch.
Anxious moments passed, and it was seen that the battleship was stuck fast. At length she was finally pulled loose, but not before the tide and her weight did much damage to her underwater hull on the port side forward of the bridge. The Lingga harbor masters hastened to offer apologies of the deepest sympathy and shame that their navigation aides had proven faulty. That brought Shima little comfort. The severity of the damage had in effect deprived him of his best capital ship---she would have to return to Japan for docking, no question about it. The heretofore charmed HARUNA's luck had turned unaccountably sour. What her disgusted captain and crew did not know, was just the day prior, Fortune had already more harshly withdrawn her favor from their sister battleship.

Since leaving Brunei, Kurita's section (including YAMATO) had proceeded northward toward Formosa without incident. At lunchtime on 20 November, the first section of the once proud First Striking Force was passing through the straits between the Pescadores Islands and the southern part of Formosa. Ugaki scanned the seas, but noted with pleasure that the current, as usual, was quite strong, and that no enemy submarines frequented this area, apparently for that selfsame reason.
For a while the escort-destroyers UME and KIRI had joined the screen, to bolster the coverage in the sub-infested waters south of Formosa. It is unclear if they were intended to transit the strait with 1-YB, for the KIRI suffered a casualty of some kind, and she and UME had to sheer off for Mako, where they arrived 21 November. Other than this, nothing disturbed the force, and in any case four days would see all back home in the Inland Sea. With a nod of approval, Ugaki let his eyes once more take in the view of the other ships. His own ship YAMATO, on which he was a mere passenger, albeit an illustrious one, was still last in line of the four ships. Ahead, he could see his beloved NAGATO, and in front of her, the tall pagoda of the veteran KONGO, with the lead ship YAHAGI occasionally coming into view as the fleet zigged and zagged.
On the flanks, ever vigilant, patrolled the four destroyers, ISOKAZE and HAMAKAZE to port, ComDesDiv 17's URAKAZE and the YUKIKAZE to starboard; all veterans of countless voyages like this one. The fleet steamed on, making a steady 16 knots. Though Ugaki might have wished for more speed, the economics of fuel made this pace a necessity. For his part, Admiral Kurita Takeo probably didn't mind. He was surely in no hurry to face the moment of explanation before his superiors in Tokyo. No trace of reprimand had been issued, but still, there were rumors. Assumptions.
After sundown, the night turned out to be dark and cloudy, with moonlight shining dimly through silvery wisps of clouds in a black sky and sea. Shortly before midnight, disturbing news brought Ugaki to the bridge of the YAMATO. Enemy radar waves had been detected: Anywhere at some spot between a bearing of 0 and 70 degrees. There was some consternation.
Was it an enemy plane, shadowing the battle fleet by night, or more dangerous, an enemy submarine? No one knew. As YAMATO's C.O. RADM Mori****a stared with silent concentration into the black expanse beyond the windows of the bridge, it was observed that the waves seemed to be shifting; more like a night spotter would do. The question was, what action to take?
Ugaki was party to the short midnight discussion that followed, as the officers studied the bearings and leaned over their charts in the subdued light. After a moment, the decision was made. Course would be set to 050 degrees, and the battle group would seek to break past whatever lay ahead, plane, or sub, at 16 knots by minimal zigzagging.
The signal went out to YAHAGI, KONGO, and NAGATO, and the destroyers were instructed to maintain a vigilant watch for signs of submarine activity. Soon those aboard could just feel YAMATO's huge hull swinging to starboard to the new course, with scarcely any heel. The minutes ticked by steadily, as Tuesday 21 November 1944 arrived and drew on. Visibility was still dim, with the horizon just discernible from the black sky. To starboard, loomed the brooding bulk of Formosa, some 60 miles distant. As the fleet pounded on, it was seen that the enemy radar waves were now swinging left, drawing around to port and astern as the fleet turned and steered northeast.
Heads nodded in satisfaction. By 0230 it seemed pretty clear that it was a shadowing aircraft, for if it was a submarine, the signal would have ceased abruptly, as it dived for the approach to attack. Ugaki was considering this, and took yet another peering look out YAMATO's windows into the night where the dark shape of NAGATO and the wakes of the ships ahead were just visible. It was perhaps high time to leave the bridge and turn in. It would be dawn in about four hours.
Unbeknownst to Kurita and Ugaki, the contact being tracked was not an airplane, but indeed a submarine. She was the USS SEALION II(SS-315) under command of the thirty-four year old Captain Eli T. Reich. He had been on patrol near the northern tip of Formosa when at 0020 his radar had detected three and unusually strong pips off the starboard quarter at the incredibly long range of 44,000 yards.
At first, Reich was convinced he was somehow bouncing off Formosa, but at 0048 radar reported that the range had closed to 32,000 yards and the following electrifying report was passed: "Two targets of battleship proportions and two of large cruiser size! Course 060 True! Speed 16 knots! Not zigging!"
Reich got off a contact report to Pearl immediately, and came about for an end-run. The night was overcast and moonless, the sea fairly calm though with rising wind, and visibility was some 1,500 yards. Nevertheless, Reich decided to chase and attack on the surface. This was an unusual decision in a situation with heavy fleet units, for SEALION II would be running the grave risk of being detected by Japanese radar (in fact, already had been, apparently, by YAMATO!) and would be on the receiving end of a devastating potential of salvos if discovered. Nevertheless, Reich realized he would need all the surface speed he could achieve if he was to get around and ahead of the task force for an attack position.
He stepped up to full speed and commenced his end run. By 0146, in increasing winds and seas, SEALION was parallel on the enemy's port beam, and radar showed four heavy ships in line of column, cruiser, battleship, battleship, another cruiser; escorted by apparently three destroyers - one 1,800 yards off either bow of the first battleship, with a third on the BB's starboard quarter. The Japanese fleet still was not zigzagging, and was steaming blissfully unaware on course 057 as the submarine gradually edged out in front.
Unaware of the mighty guns he was in fact challenging, Reich at 0245 was in perfect attack position. He slowed SEALION, and turned in to make the run at the enemy's port bow. Selecting the second ship in line, ie the first battleship, as target, Reich kept his bow pointed at the nearest destroyer [ISOKAZE] which the conning tower watch could now dimly make out some 1,800 yards away. This was the first visual contact with the enemy in a chase that had been till then entirely conducted by radar.
Noting the tendency of the destroyers to overlap on the radar with the BBs, Reich set his torpedo depths forward at eight-feet. This way, he just might hit a destroyer too. The choice was to have an interesting consequence. At 0256, Reich came to heading 168 and fired all six bow electric torpedoes from the tubes on a 90 degree port track, at a range of 3,000 yards. As they did, the bridge quartermaster reported that he could make out a high, pagoda-like outline on the target, definitely a battleship.
Reich came right with full rudder to a westerly heading for a stern shot, and at 0259:30 fired three stern tubes (the fourth, No. 8, was out of order) at a range of 3,100 yards at a ten-foot depth setting, keeping it shallow like the first. Target was the third ship, the second battleship (NAGATO). As the last fish left the tubes, Reich ordered flank speed due west to clear the area.
The Japanese ships had been fighting the same worsening weather as the SEALION. On the destroyers the seas were so stormy that water flooding into the bridges constantly so that some men on watch took their shoes off. Still, this weather made enemy attack less likely and all had silently relaxed. Aboard the YAMATO, Ugaki was just about to turn in himself. He took a final glance out of the red-lighted bridge into the night. Suddenly, at 0301, there was a sudden burst of light, a flash of dim flame, and a waterspout climbed the side of KONGO near the head of the line. Alarms sounded, even as another flash and column of water followed, and perhaps more.
When she saw the waterspouts on KONGO, the NAGATO, followed by YAMATO astern, instinctively and instantly threw her helm hard to port to comb any more torpedoes that might be approaching. By doing so, she successfully deprived Reich of a double-battleship score, with SEALION's second salvo crossing ahead of NAGATO and continuing on to the west.
This salvo did connect anyway, for the torpedoes went straight on to intersect the path of the first destroyer of the starboard screen, DesDiv 17 flagship URAKAZE herself. At 0304, probably just as she was rigging her depth charges and preparing anti-submarine action, the flagship was hit in the port side by the third torpedo of Sealion's salvo aimed at NAGATO. There was a brilliant "circle of light" and a series of "lesser detonations" as URAKAZE was blown apart. Perhaps the torpedo had caught her forward magazine, or exploded her torpedo tubes amidships, as often happened. In any case, within two minutes, she had vanished into the black waters, the "lesser detonations" perhaps her own depth charges exploding with fatal effect among what survivors had managed to get off her.
Her sudden disappearance was not well understood and was misinterpreted by her comrades. Since URAKAZE had been to starboard of KONGO when she blew up, the other destroyers at first assumed the attack had come from the east, and YUKIKAZE astern immediately charged out to depth charge the sea there. This spawned both Sealion and post-war (and slightly unfair) claims of Japanese anti-submarine incompetence. As it was, perhaps not having observed the hits on KONGO clearly, the mistake was natural. And the loss of the division leader could only have added to the confusion.
Nor was that the only confusing thing. At the moment of impact, some of KONGO's fantail 25mm batteries had opened fire, shooting blindly into the sky for a few seconds. Some officers apparently believing the strikes had come from the suspected shadowing bomber. It seems that no one immediately guessed a submarine.
Two of Sealion's six torpedoes had caught the KONGO . One in the port bow chain locker, the other aft of amidships, port side, under the No.2 stack jarring the great battleship and causing spouts visible two ships astern on YAMATO. The hits came with two loud booms followed by a `low grinding sound which vibrated the whole body of the ship'. The bugle blared over the speakers, sounding the crew to action stations. Loudspeakers called for emergency teams to proceed to the inner anchor deck and effect shoring procedures. The torpedo hit there had torn a large gash in the bow. The second hit had flooded KONGO's Nos. 6 and 8 boiler rooms, but the remaining boilers could provide adequate steam pressure, and despite the loss of fuel, enough remained to continue onward at fleet speed of 16 knots. However, the KONGO did begin to assume a slow list to port and stayed there.
The NAGATO and YAMATO completed their evasive circles to port and seeing that KONGO was still underway, resumed formation. While still in the turn the YAMATO had seen a burst of light where URAKAZE was supposed to be, and contact had now been lost with her. The Japanese suspected the worst, but there could be no stopping now with a damaged battleship to look after. Gradually order returned and encouraged by KONGO's reports, returned to the base northeast course.
Though a considerable section of the port side and machinery spaces amidships aft were flooded, there was little initial concern among KONGO's veteran crew. The men were well trained, and there was no panic, or even much excitement. Many returned to their stations, and some even to bed, as the battleship pounded onward. ComBatDiv 3 Vice Admiral Suzuki Yoshio was on the bridge and after hearing the report from the BB's C.O. RADM Shimazaki Toshio, signaled CinC Kurita and his friend Ugaki aboard YAMATO the details. Once it was learned that KONGO's damage appeared manageable, the decision was made to maintain speed and attempt to escape any pursuit by the enemy.(At the time it appears that URAKAZE had not even been missed yet).
The enemy was indeed pursuing. From the conning tower of the SEALION II, now 8,000 yards west of the fleet, Reich was chagrined to learn that the enemy force was continuing on at 16 knots and that apparently his low depth setting had only dented the battleships. No more aware than the Japanese were that he had already sunk URAKAZE, Reich feared he had blown his shot by being greedy with the shallow setting and clearly, another attack was necessary.
He rushed a reload of his bow tubes and set off in hot pursuit at full speed into the teeth of a steadily mounting gale. Calling for more speed, he plowed his submarine through the seas at 16.8 to 17 knots, under increasing strain on the engines and the worsening seas that were now about Force 5 or 6. The winds were caterwauling and solid water was coming over the bridge and water down the conning tower hatch, but Reich drove onward.
The KONGO and the other battleships knew Sealion was in pursuit. They had detected Reich's radar waves and at about 0405 begun to zig-zag. The YAMATO was tracking the enemy submarine and if necessary could open fire, but the best chance of avoiding harm was to maintain course and speed. However the increasing gale complicated things for the Japanese too. It was true that the torpedo hits had inflicted moderate to severe initial damage that seemed under control, but since Shimazaki continued to maintain KONGO's speed after the hits, the pressure of the inrushing water steadily buckled and crushed other bulkheads one after another. This aggravated the damage, and made damage control's task harder. As the battle fleet drove northeast in the heavy seas, the opened portion of KONGO's bow was constantly shipping water. The hole in the bow was being wrenched wider, as had happened to MUSASHI at Sibuyan Sea the past month.
Divers assigned to the task fearlessly donned their gear and despite the heavy seas and danger, proceeded to the damaged area to try to seal the hull. But each pitch of the battleship brought more flooding. The DCO speculated that the enemy torpedoes had been set a depth where they gashed the torpedo bulge, thus causing the hole to tear bigger over time. The high speed was in fact acting as a damage multiplier. Despite the danger of second attack, there was no choice: first KONGO had to suspend zigzagging, then she had to slow to 14 to 12 knots.
As she did, the NAGATO overtook her and blinkered encouragement and assurances as she sailed by and KONGO assumed the rear position. The mood indeed remained guardedly optimistic. KONGO's list had been checked at 12 degrees and her navigator reported that other than the water flooding the chain locker and speed reduction, they were holding station. Up in the HA gun director forward, Heicho Takahashi Masahiko saw that the port rail was inclined toward the sea, but it seemed only slightly worse than prior times off Samar. KONGO had survived that action, and would this one as well. But there was a catch. Though it appeared that damage control had stabilized the heel, that was not the only danger. He and the others were well aware the enemy was continuing to pursue the task force.
On the bridge, Shimazaki eyed the inclinometer with growing concern. His ship was continuing a slow, but steady heel to port, indicating that the flooding was not being adequately checked. Damage control soon confirmed the bad news: progressive flooding was spreading through leaks, fractured bulkheads, sprung seams and pipes throughout the old lady. The listing had resumed and the situation was becoming unsettling. Still, no thought was given that the KONGO might actually sink. The Secondary Battery Officer LtCdr. Yutaka Takahata pointed out that KONGO had listed more than 5 degrees from the near-misses at Samar, but had recovered. It was more a question of whether she remained with the formation, or make for Formosa for temporary repairs.
In fact, at 14 degrees the listing slowed, then checked once more. The good news was reported to YAMATO. Nonetheless, it was now one and a half hours since the hits and Shimazaki's mind was made up. He was worried enough to signal Kurita that he had better consider heading for the nearest port. After consultation, and signals exchanged with Kurita and Ugaki aboard YAMATO, Vice Admiral Suzuki concurred in the assessment, and ordered Shimazaki to separate from 1-YB and make for Keelung, Formosa some sixty-five nautical miles distant. After emergency repairs, she would resume the voyage to Japan, perhaps with the AOBA also limping home at Formosa at the time. Two ships of Desdiv 17, HAMAKAZE and ISOKAZE, would be detached to protect and screen her, and to standby should the worst case scenario eventuate.
At 0440, KONGO sheared out of formation to the east, heading for Keelung, followed by the two destroyers in flanking positions. The rest of 1-YB, screened only by YUKIKAZE, would proceed at flank speed for Japan as planned. At the time, KONGO's list to port was holding at 15 degrees and aboard YAMATO, Ugaki watched with some relief as the battleship turned away. He had been worried about her staying with them, but felt she would be alright now, and thus assured, went to grab some sleep. His friend, Vice Admiral Yoshio Suzuki, had declined to transfer BatDiv 3's flag and elected to remain aboard the KONGO for the trip to Keelung. It was a fateful decision.
Still making 10 knots the KONGO headed for Keelung as angry seas continued to surge into her torn hull. At this speed the Chief Navigator reported they would arrive in approximately six hours. This was far too optimistic. Though Ugaki thought she might be alright if she made emergency repairs at Keelung, it seems he and everyone else underestimated the spread and pace of the leakage. KONGO did not have six hours left; she didn't even have one. Despite heroic efforts by damage control teams and even sacrifices of divers, they were unable to shore up the gashes in the port side. Thus, not long after separating from 1-YB, KONGO's listing to port began to resume, this time heeling over beyond 20 degrees.
To compensate, Shimazaki ordered that all hands who could move to the high starboard side to help check the list. The bow was dipping deeper into the sea, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain her heading. To make matters worse, the destroyers reported that the enemy waves were closing faster now. Vice Admiral Suzuki understood: the enemy had decided to make a sure kill rather than pursue the main force. The one good thing was that the stormy weather made pursuit difficult and there was some chance KONGO might yet escape. HAMAKAZE and ISOKAZE maneuvered to stay between, to foil the enemy's approach. Still, they wondered why the enemy had not already attacked?
It did not matter. SEALION's pursuit was not the greatest menace. Fifteen minutes after heading for Keelung, the list increased to 45 degrees. Still in his director, the previously confident Takahashi saw with consternation that the normally 30 meter drop to the sea had shrunk to almost jumping distance and the port rail was coming awash. Hasty flooding of starboard voids either came too late, or the valves did not work well. The engine rooms were now flooding, speed crumbled, and by 0518 KONGO was going dead in the water. She became unnavigable. A suggestion that HAMAKAZE and ISOKAZE attempt a tow was swiftly quashed; the seas were too heavy and the battleship too waterlogged. On the bridge, to Suzuki and Shimazaki the grim truth was now clear. The KONGO was, in fact, sinking , and damage control had lost the battle to prolong her life. If any confirmation was needed, it was provided when they heard the Chief DCO had committed suicide in frustration at the failure.
Reluctantly, Suzuki and Shimazaki passed the order to have all hands lay up on deck and prepare to Abandon Ship. Shimazaki ordered the ensign lowered and the crew gathered and saluted as the battleship's heel became acute. An orderly was sent for the Imperial Portrait but there would be no time for a transfer.
At about 0522 Shimazaki gave the order to Abandon Ship. With singular calm and discipline, the men began to go over the side. Isokaze and Hamakaze both moved in on the high starboard side, ignoring for the moment the danger of a second attack. The urgency now was to rescue the men from the sinking leviathan in the unfavorable conditions of heavy seas and pitch dark. Yet the danger of a second attack was very real, even imminent. At that exact moment, the breathless submariner's were watching with gratified amazement as the battleship they had damaged was seen to slow down, and then at 0520 stop dead in the water. The BB's pip seemed to be shrinking. This was puzzling, but irrelevant: this was the break they had been praying for! Unable to see the state of the enemy, Reich eagerly closed for a third attack. It was not required.
KONGO began to roll onto her beam ends as officers and crew sought to scramble and slip off her sides into the dark seas. But as the list accelerated past 60 degrees, calamity struck. At 0524 without warning, the forward 14-inch magazines exploded with four horrifying detonations and a brilliantly bright red flash. Reich wrote "sky brilliantly illuminated - it looked like a sunset at night". Pieces of metal, guns, and men were flung skyward in all directions in a fiery cauliflower of mayhem. There came a second wracking explosion, but no others followed. Within a minute, the shattered remains of KONGO were swallowed by the sea, even as HAMAKAZE and ISOKAZE pitched and rolled, having narrowly escaped slaughtering fragmentation as they approached the high side. The thunderclap of the detonation ended, and with it the illumination, with a stygian dark slamming a curtain over the disaster with a suddenness as terrifying as the explosion had been. All that was left was one of KONGO's float planes left burning on the water.
When the shock of the catastrophe had passed, the numbed destroyers signaled to YAMATO the terrible news, and set to the desperate task of seeking out any living that might yet remain in the heavy seas. It was feared that given the suddenness of the capsize, and the horrendous blast, the loss was bound to be heavy, if not total. The only bright spot was that dawn was now just over an hour away, and the sky at last already beginning to lighten. Finding survivors would be easier then. Steadily, tenaciously, the HAMAKAZE and ISOKAZE combed the sea, seeking and fishing out the bobbing forms wherever they appeared. As it happened, the destroyers were unmolested during their efforts, for the ever-professional Reich had not tarried, but immediately set course north in dogged pursuit of the YAMATO group in a chase which was not abandoned until 0742.
Unaware of this reprieve, the destroyers worked through the whole morning. When they finished, the harvest was indeed pitiful, yet perhaps, given the circumstances, better than might be expected. The HAMAKAZE rescued the larger number, seven officers and 139 petty officers and men, but it was the ISOKAZE that found KONGO's senior ranking survivor. That proved proved to be Secondary Battery Officer, LtCdr. Takahata Yutaka, whom with five other officers and eighty-five petty officers and men ISOKAZE plucked from death. Only a total of thirteen officers and 224 petty officers and men survived KONGO's catastrophic sinking. Some 1,250 perished, among them ComBatDiv 3 VAdm Suzuki Yoshio and her commanding officer, RAdm Shimazaki Toshio.
After rescuing KONGO's survivors, effort was made to ascertain the condition of the squadron commander, URAKAZE. She might even still be afloat, but unnavigable and unable to use her radio. Such had happened before, and fairly often. The Desdiv 17 men had hopes they would yet find their flagship in just such a state. Perhaps missing stern or bow, but afloat and alive, drifting down Formosa Strait. However, a long search found only a large oil slick at the site of the torpedo attack, and nothing more. Hope died and was replaced by regret. The URAKAZE had been blown into oblivion, and ComDesDiv 17 Captain Tanii Tamotsu, veteran skipper LtCdr. Yokota Yasuteru, and all hands - some fourteen officers and 293 men - lost.[See: Note 3]
The saddened remnant of the First Striking Force continued on its way, joined by FUYUZUKI and SUZUTSUKI of Desdiv 41 sent down by Combined Fleet to backup YUKIKAZE in her solo screening of the task force. They were followed soon by the HAMAKAZE and ISOKAZE. The rescuing destroyers passed through Bungo Straits and at 1400 on the 23rd arrived at Kure. There was to be little rest for the weary men of Desdiv 17. At 1215 the next day, Combined Fleet ordered Desdiv 17 to proceed with NAGATO to Yokosuka. There they were to escort the new super-carrier SHINANO from Yokosuka to the Inland Sea.
The NAGATO, Hamakaze, Isokaze, and YUKIKAZE arrived at Yokosuka on 25 November. For NAGATO, when she tied up to a buoy at 1445, life's journey was all but over. The destroyers however were, as said, assigned to escort the SHINANO. In a matter of days, they would be going right back the way they came, back to Kure.

But that is of course, another story...
All Rights Reserved,
Copyright@2001, Anthony P. Tully 2001

joegrundman

09-03-10, 06:57 AM

tater

09-03-10, 08:51 AM

Sealion made radar contact at 44,000 yards.

From combindfleet.com's Kongo TROM (note that combinedfleet, quite sensibly uses these things called "paragraphs"):
21 November 1944:
Formosa Strait. At 0020, LtCdr (later Vice Admiral) Eli Reich's USS SEALION II (SS-315) makes radar contact at 44,000 yards. The sky is overcast with 1,500 yards visibility and the sea is calm. Reich begins an approach. He goes ahead flank on four engines. By 0043, he has four radar contacts at 35,000 yards. Reich identifies the targets as two battleships and two heavy cruisers. The targets are moving in column with the "cruiser" (actually, KONGO) ahead followed by two battleships (NAGATO and YAMATO) and a cruiser astern ( YAHAGI). All are on course 060 (T), speed 16 knots and not zigzagging.

At 0146, three escorts become visible on radar at 20,000 yards. The seas and the wind's speed increase. At 0245, SEALION turns in and slows for a surface attack. At 0256, Reich sets his Mark 18-1 electric torpedoes' depth at 8 feet to hit any destroyer that may pass in front of his target. From SEALION's bridge, KONGO's high pagoda superstructure is visible. At 3,000 yards, Reich fires his six bow tubes, then comes right full rudder to set up his stern tubes.

At 0300, after circling, SEALION stops and fires three stern torpedoes at the third ship in the column ( NAGATO) at 3,100 yards. At 0301, SEALION sees three hits on the KONGO. YAMATO's crew reports seeing two hits, flames and waterspouts. At 0304, SEALION observes a large explosion and sudden flames on the second "battleship", but these may be the hit(s) that sink destroyer URAKAZE (a veteran of the attack on Pearl Harbor) with all hands.

Regardless, the Sealion post answers none of the quite simple questions asked.

Pisces

09-03-10, 10:43 AM

This text of yours, while interesting, has no bearing at all on the discussion in this threadQuite literally. From the text Greyrider quoted, you can deduce that the angle between the tracks is 111 degrees ( enemy course= 57, Sealion course= 168 -> difference 111 degrees angle on the targets starboard bow, 69 degrees port towards Sealiom target's bow. Not quite 90.

Nisgeis

09-03-10, 10:47 AM

Quite literally. From the text Greyrider quoted, you can deduce that the angle between the tracks is 111 degrees ( enemy course= 57, Sealion course= 168 -> difference 111 degrees angle on the targets starboard bow, 69 on the port bow. Far from a 90 degree angle.

Ah but the average of the track and the AoB is 111 + 69 /2 = 90, so there's the ninety degree angle.

Or, this is post number 157, so subtract the enemy course from that and you get 100. Difference in angle of 111 - 100 = 11. 11 + 69 AoB = 90. You can get 90 from anywhere if you try.

tater

09-03-10, 10:49 AM

LOL

Pisces

09-03-10, 10:57 AM

Ah but the average of the track and the AoB is 111 + 69 /2 = 90, so there's the ninety degree angle.

Or, this is post number 157, so subtract the enemy course from that and you get 100. Difference in angle of 111 - 100 = 11. 11 + 69 AoB = 90. You can get 90 from anywhere if you try.So your number system goes like this ... 5,6,7,9,10?

Now that I think of it, post 10 of this thread has the answer. It is also required to be added. ;)

p.s. cr@p, I made slight refrasing modifications in that post, but you beat me to it. wasn't anything major.

Nisgeis

09-03-10, 11:16 AM

Nisgeis

09-03-10, 11:18 AM

Now that I think of it, post 10 of this thread has the answer. It is also required to be added. ;)

OMG! What's in post 80? :o This is like a Dan Brown novel.

tater

09-03-10, 11:30 AM

joegrundman

09-03-10, 12:37 PM

tater

09-03-10, 12:49 PM

it seems that greyrider has been long labouring under a misunderstanding of what the angles really represent.

Nonetheless, he alludes at the beginning to using the hydrophones to narrow down the possible speeds - especially if medium speed is reported, which in the game gives an upper and lower limit.

From a position of a collision course intercept, knowing the upper and lower speed limits can significantly reduce the possible range of AOB, and therefore target course.

Yeah, it does reduce the "future position arc" of the target. That said, there are still infinite straight-line paths within that arc, and only one with AOB=10 :)

Still, he seems to think all intercepts are at 90 degrees as far as I can tell. He talks about it only being useful if you are in the 8010 arrangement, but doesn't seem to realize that it is impossible to tell if ytou ARE in that arrangement until you can either visualize him, or use radar to get his course (or actually collide, and it happens to be at exactly 90 degrees, instead of the infinite other angles possible).

greyrider

09-04-10, 10:11 PM

i think i have worked out the proportions of the triangle in 8010, so that a targets position can be known.
the ratio distance, of target distance and submarine distance to the collision point, is 5.4 to 1.
so whatever the distance the submarine has to travel to get to the collision point, the target distance is 5.4 times greater.
this will be true, no matter what range the target is at.

and the distance to the collision point for the submarine are:

5.4 in km ( kilometers )
5400 in m ( meters )
2.91 in nm ( nautical miles )
5900 in yards ( yards )
these numbers above are for a target 29.16 km or 15.74 nm away

those numbers are not a long distance for the submarine to close, in fact, it would hardly show up in the battery indicator at a low speed, the arming distance of a u.s. torpedo is 250 yards, dont forget to keep at least 250 yards between the submarine and collision point.
shoot short, medium, or long range, it doesnt matter, you will hit the target.

you might say after looking at those numbers, what if the target on an 8010
is even closer than 5905 yards, or at an unknown range.
well, the overall ratio between target and submarine distance to collision point in 8010 is 5.4 to 1, so if a target was 2000 yards away in 8010, the collision point is up ahead at
366.3 yards.

2000 / 5.4 = 370
370 x 5.4 = 2000

if target has range of 5.4 km, or 2.94 nm, then you would divide 5.4 km by 5.4, and the collision point is ahead at 1 km, for 2.94 nm it would be 1 nm ahead.

so to determine target position in a 8010, you would just have to estimate and measure the submarine distance to the collision point, draw an 80 degree bearing line to the target, from submarine center of mass, on the map,
and build the triangle.
extend a line from the collision point to where the eighty degree bearing line is, and where they intersect, thats where the target is.
this will hold true for any target speed, because any increase in target speed has to correspond with an increase in submarine speed in proportion, in order to keep the integrity of the 8010 intact.

another way is to work it backwards, draw an eighty degree bearing line from the submarine to the target on the map, the target is along that line somewhere, then with the map angle tool, draw a line over the eighty degree bearing line, extending it to the collision point, a (90) degree angle,
back to the collision point, where ever the ten degree aob line fits along that bearing line, is where the target is.
thats for an unknown range, on an unseen target, not really scientific, but it will work, you just have to play with it to find it, its not that hard,
and you can use the four numbers above as a guide, so that your in the ball park.
even so, we dont need to know or worry about target range in a right triangle, as long as our torpedoes can hit, and its within torpedo range.
i havent given you torpedo data sheets yet, and with those, you will know what bearing to fire the torpedos at, for a zero degree gyro angle hit.
the date sheets will complete the whole picture of the 8010.
there has to be math formulas for this types of measurements, but i dont know them.
you have three angles known, but not the distance between them, there has to be a formula that takes care of that.

shooting like this, with a convoy that has four ships in a row, and 3 or 4 columns, i take the first
row ,and all ships of that row get fired upon, the first ship being the farthest, then the next, then next in range, then finally, the closest one in that row, as they cross the firing bearing,
because they cross the firing bearing in that order, all get hit at zero degrees, damage and sinkings depends on where it was hit,

remember, the hydrophone listening radius is 18.35 nm, or 37182 yards, its probably maximum range for radar to, so even if you had everything known of the 8010 even at maximum range, the distance to close to the collision point is not a problem if submerged,
the submarines travel distance would be 3.39 nm, or 68882 yards.

greyrider

09-04-10, 10:26 PM

It's been over a month since this tread was started and since that time greyrider has failed to address the central issue that ha been asked about, namely the problem of 'knowing the AoB is 10 degrees'. He just refers us to other posts which don't contain the answer either and posts with increasing length and reducing content. I don't think we should hold our breath.

Greyrider, if you are interested in getting people to use this method, you need to answer the simple question of 'How do you know that the AoB is 10 degrees, or what problems will you have if the AoB is not 10 degrees.' It's been asked many times and you have never answered it.

maybe i have failed in getting it thru, for that im sorry, ill try to say it again, the torpedo fire control manual states it only has to be held constant for 2 or 3 minutes, if it said it had to be held indefinitely, it would have said so, but it doesnt, so in the eyes of the tfcm, 2 or 3 minutes of the target being held at a bearing, any bearing, is good enough for an accurate speed estimation. i put up some pics of the angles as they are seen on the sh4 editor map, didnt you see them? you could put them in paint, rotate them, measure the angles with a compass from a pencil box, and see they are. and ive done it thousands of times, only for the most part of playing this game, i never new the sizes of the angles, because i never measured them before.

greyrider

09-04-10, 10:47 PM

i've listened to the sinking from the kongo - it's available from hnsa. it was indeed tracked by radar. There was i believe no overhaul, since a submarine overhauling Kongo and some DDs at full speed, if even possible, would be overhauling at about 1 knot per hour.

It took an hour if i recall for the kongo to sink, refusing at first to drop below 15 knots for fear of further torpedo attacks. 15 knots after being hit 3 times suggests that an overhaul was not likely before the attack.

This was not a point and shoot attack, nor an 80/10 attack (not that such a thing exists). All the data was gathered from radar, and a spread was fired scoring 3 hits. The insertion of the data was into the TDC which calculated the lead angles, and the shots were made. No magic, no special techniques.

This text of yours, while interesting, has no bearing at all on the discussion in this thread

joe, thanks for the imput, i was wondering where you were.
i read that story to, and i listened to those records a couple of times, thats where i heard them mention width, target width, but i never heard or read anything about a spread. my post on sealion, i said it was pretty obvious it was a radar plot, they had everything worked out by 32000 yards.
however, it says alot about risk, and zig zagging, reich took a big risk,
one near miss from yamoto, and sealion was gone, reich didnt know yamoto was there, but he knew 2 ships of battleship proportion and two of large cruiser size were there, hes a navy man, and knows the power of those guns on those bb's. and then he had to worry about destroyers,
and the sea going down the hatch short circuiting every thing, it was solid water, in a storm of wind, at night.

a spead is a lucky shot,when the solution is in doubt and that is like calling reich a lucky man that night, i like to think him better than lucky, engines straining, solid water down the hatch, gale winds, formidable enemy formation, luck could be said for sealion, but hears the thing, at present theres no proof, one way or another about that.

i guess he must of thought the risk was worth it.
dont think any of the crew complained.

greyrider

09-05-10, 12:05 AM

i dont want to get off topic, especially since the complaints about me not being clear to you, still has you confused. remember what i said, no arm twisting here,
do as you wish, in fact, i would like you to forget it, its useless to anyone but me. i use it with success.
im not trying to get anyone to use 8010, im just showing a tactic, that i use. i now think you will never understand it. its your loss guys, not mine,
theres nothing like the feeling of tracking this way, and killing, and ill put my map skills against anyone here, but this is alot better in my opinion, but sometimes the map is needed, plotting is needed sometimes.
8010 is a simple procendure, the turn takes care of course and aob. at a certain angular arrangement speed can be taken accurately, its that simple for me, i dont know how simple it will be for you,
but i know one thing, its a matter of skill, you either have it or you dont, that simple, theres no other excuse.
When a submarine submerges, radar becomes useless and no lookouts remain on deck. The periscope and the sonar gear are now the eyes and ears of the submarine. But in the vicinity of enemy ships, it may be dangerous to use the periscope very often. Then the submarine must depend chiefly on listening. The sonar operators become the main channel of
information about the maneuvers of the enemy
The fact that the speed of sound varies, especially with temperature, explains why sound waves are bent out of their normal paths. This bending is called refraction. Usually water is warmer near its surface than at lower depths. As shown in the diagram at the right, the upper part of a sound wave in the warmer water travels faster than the lower part in the colder water.
This makes the sound wave bend downward. the bending you could say is vertical, not horizontal. sound travels in a three sixty.
on american submarines, they had whats called the magic eye.
the Magic eye indicator lets the operator's eye see what his ears hear. The eye closes when current is strongest,
on american submarines, with a magic eye, there was never any doubt about what bearing the target was on.
in this picture of the hydrophone electronics, you have two stages of amplifiers, that amplify the sound signal, its then wired to five filters, in which, one, two, 3, 4 or all five filers can be turned on separately or all at once.
these filters pass certain freguencies, and block others.
the voltage is then adjusted by a potentiometer, current is proportional to voltage, into two more amplifiers, coming out to a propeller counter, to another amplifier, to a speaker or headphones for listening.
another circuit from the output amp, goes to another potentimeter, for voltage adjustment, into another amplifier, another filter, probably to attenuate noise, to a rectifier, to drive the magic eye. this rectifier is probably
rectifing the alternating current signal, since sound is ac, into direct current or dc, to drive the magic eye indicator that would let u s sonarmen, know exactly what bearing the target was on. they didnt have to do it like i did in the movie,
because us sonar is misrepresented in the game. what i did was conpensate for not having a magic eye.
http://a.imageshack.us/img715/8823/fig16a.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-04
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/sonar/chap4.htm

tater

09-05-10, 12:55 AM

You still have not answered the question; How do you know the AOB is 10?

What you are doing is making an assumption about the AOB of the target, which then gives you a speed for that assumption. If the AOB happens to be within some small range of 10 by accident, then you'll get an estimate of speed commensurate with the difference. Pick narrow seas to hunt, and maybe you can limit their courses so that the estimate won't be crap.

Your triangle is a projection of the target's path onto an arbitrary line perpendicular to the path of the sub. In simple terms, it's a shadow.

Pisces

09-05-10, 07:01 AM

maybe i have failed in getting it thru, for that im sorry, ill try to say it again, the torpedo fire control manual states it only has to be held constant for 2 or 3 minutes, if it said it had to be held indefinitely, it would have said so, but it doesnt, so in the eyes of the tfcm, 2 or 3 minutes of the target being held at a bearing, any bearing, is good enough for an accurate speed estimation. i put up some pics of the angles as they are seen on the sh4 editor map, didnt you see them? you could put them in paint, rotate them, measure the angles with a compass from a pencil box, and see they are. and ive done it thousands of times, only for the most part of playing this game, i never new the sizes of the angles, because i never measured them before.This comes down to a bearing rate that has to be below 0.333 degrees per minute to be considered on a constant bearing. If you do the math, a target running circles around you at the edge of hydrophone range at 6.4 knots would also be considered to be on a collision course. Surely you see the error in the assumption that it is colliding, right? If it is written in the Torpedo Fire Control Manual (and it is, I read it), then it is writing BULL. (Yes, I know sacrilege :arrgh!:) ANY target will appear to be not drifting in bearing if it is sufficiently distant. At some distance the drift will not be measurable, like the 1 degree limit of the hydrophone. Yet it still moves with some speed across the line of sight. Even if it is at the point where it has 90 degrees AOB, where the bearing drift is at maximum. Even if it moves at light-speed across the line of sight. Holding onto the 3-minute constant-bearing rule you'd start to wonder when the minor-planet Pluto starts crashing onto us. It's not drifting (it takes 248 years to go around the sun), so collision is inevitable! Wrong. Long distance hides the fact that it is drifting in bearing.

If we take your 80-10(-90) triangle as given, and assume the target is detected at maximum long-range (10.8nm). And the drift stays under 1 degree in 3 minutes. It may have a speed-advantage across the line of sight (meaning over your speed*sin(80)) of 3.77 knots to still be considered constant bearing. This could be a 12 knot target that really has an AOB of 18.3 degrees if you are not moving. Or it has an AOB of 28.5 when you think you have a constant bearing and while you are moving 2 knots with 80 degrees lead. So, assuming the AOB is 10 degrees is very questionable at best. But no matter, as those will get eliminated pretty soon from the target-pool.

Why? Well, the closer the target comes, the more their bearing rate increases. So quite quickly those 3.77 knots across the line of sight will appear to be a target that is either going too fast or has to high AOB. The targets that have a smaller AOB, more akin to 10 degrees, will last longer under your presumption of a constant bearing. But eventually are evicted too

At minimum-longrange (1.62nm) the target may not have a bigger speed advantage across over yours of 0.56 knots to comply with the 3 minute constant bearing rule. This means an AOB of 2.67 degrees if you are not moving yourself. Or an AOB of 12 degrees if you think you have a constant bearing and are moving with 2 knots and 80 degrees lead. The conclusion is that only those targets that already conform to your 10 AOB rule survive until the end. Those that are not, and I'd think A LOT, get discarded before hand. Well, you allready stated in one of the earlier replies to us that many are left alone. But I really wonder how many you let go, before you find one that matches your presumptions. Please give us some (rough) statistics.

Either-way, this method turns out to be nothing but a filter for 10 AOB. You get what you want to see. Everything else gets thrown out. Don't be fooled into thinking 10 AOB is a rule.

joegrundman

09-05-10, 07:27 AM

3 minutes to determine a collision course is ok at medium range. at long range you need much longer. In the torpedo fire control manual, for this technique (which is really a pre-ww2 technique) it already assumes you have visually determined AOB, and so is most likely at medium range.

But in general the tolerance of error was much greater than is expected in this game. They made up for it with firing torpedoes in a wide spread (see above with the kongo where 6 were fired, 3 hits, by definition it was a spread covering a wider area than the target) and getting close to the target.

See also the TFCM section on early TMA based on bearing rate analysis - they estimated 2 mins was sufficient for a new solution!!

Finally, misses were more likely when radar was not employed.

Also: i don't know how often i have to say this until somebody here decides to study this further, but read the 1922 guide to the Submarine Attack Course Finder, which is designed to be used with the correct collision course technique that Greyrider has failed so far to replicate.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attackfinder/index.htm

Pisces

09-05-10, 10:45 AM

3 minutes to determine a collision course is ok at medium range. at long range you need much longer. In the torpedo fire control manual, for this technique (which is really a pre-ww2 technique) it already assumes you have visually determined AOB, and so is most likely at medium range.I suspected that visual contact made was implied. And wondered why it wasn't explained to be bounded by that condition. Surely they must have known better. But I guess I missed it being described as part of the "Approach and Attack" phase. In this context I can agree that it is 'constant enough', but Greyrider's use of it is not warranted.

On a side note. Is there a pdf version of these manuals that do not waste so much paper space in the margins. Or does not have continuous pages. The hnsa.org layout is much to slender to print out. And I'd love to read it on paper. I know these things are for sale somewhere but I'm not that eager.

greyrider

09-05-10, 11:33 AM

ok, where theres a will, theres a way, and i have the will,
so you ask for proof its a ten degree aob in 8010, coming right up!
im going to show you 3 pictures, of a mission, this time at 0 percent realism,
im going to make auto-tdc prove its a ten degree aob, with lead angle of 80 degrees.
the first picture is what you see if you open this mission in sh4 editor map.

http://a.imageshack.us/img521/1870/checkangles.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-05

one ship is on bearing 271, another ship is on bearing 280, since this is auto tdc,]
you should be able to read the aob, on the dial in the upper right corner.
in picture number 1, the target is at 271, it has a 1 degree aob, i tried to get it on 270 for a zero degree aob, but i was alittle off.
it doesnt matter, the aob is 1 degree, plainly seen in the dial.

http://a.imageshack.us/img521/408/88099779.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-05

in picture two, the target is in an 8010, it bears on 280, notice the aob in auto tdc, whats it say?
10 degree aob.

http://a.imageshack.us/img521/6550/59232177.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-05

enjoy!

greyrider

09-05-10, 11:47 AM

one more pic, this time from the merchant pov
http://a.imageshack.us/img819/5972/sh42010090512402583.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-05

Nisgeis

09-05-10, 11:57 AM

I only have one face and two palms. I never before had the feeling that wasn't enough.

razark

09-05-10, 12:13 PM

Yes, you've once again shown you know the property that the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.

You have yet to prove the triangle is a right triangle, based only on knowing that one angle is 80 degrees.

The submarine is on a heading of 0 degrees. It's a right triangle only because you've set it up that way.

If the target were heading 90 degrees, as in your example, and the submarine was on a heading of 45 degrees, and the bearing to target were 80 degrees, find the AoB.

tater

09-05-10, 12:20 PM

I only have one face and two palms. I never before had the feeling that wasn't enough.

BTW, you owe me a keyboard (or a way to get coffee out of it ;) ).

Pisces

09-05-10, 12:31 PM

I only have one face and two palms. I never before had the feeling that wasn't enough.Ok, please explain that to non-native american (and I do not mean 'indians') readers. I'm missing your point, ... though I probably agree.

joegrundman

09-05-10, 12:37 PM

for pisces:

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg

greyrider:

no one is doubting you can set it up this way. the problem is the assumption that any encounter will necessarily conform to this pattern. It will not, unless you know already the true course of the target.

If you are able to eyeball the aob than that is enough, but you can't know aob in advance from this method.

part of the problem greyrider is that you are a highly experienced player with a lot of ability to visually estimate speed, range and aob, and it is my guess that you rely on visual estimates to correct errors in your theory, without appreciating you are doing so.

joegrundman

09-05-10, 12:54 PM

On a side note. Is there a pdf version of these manuals that do not waste so much paper space in the margins. Or does not have continuous pages. The hnsa.org layout is much to slender to print out. And I'd love to read it on paper. I know these things are for sale somewhere but I'm not that eager.

you can copy and paste into a word document then save as pdf and print. should only take a few minutes to remove the unwanted stuff

sergei

09-05-10, 01:09 PM

I only have one face and two palms. I never before had the feeling that wasn't enough.

Funniest.
Post.
Ever.

EDIT:
For Pisces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facepalm

Pisces

09-05-10, 02:58 PM

for pisces:

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpgOk, never considered that. Thank you so much for explaining it with a picture of my favourite captain. :up: Yes, I told you I'd agree.

Rockin Robbins

09-05-10, 03:50 PM

8010 teaching method: a bit lonely
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/lonely.gif

Another view of this thread: actually the horse was stillborn.
No actual ideas were harmed in the making of this illustration.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/beathorse.gif

Leaving the 8010 method:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/hangin.gif

greyrider

09-06-10, 12:29 PM

as i said, i am using it with success, so not only has it been proved, its been used with success, the oposition still fails to prove otherwise, except with assumptions, not scientific, not anything but opinions, and like a-holes, everybody has one.

love how you just blow off pics, movies, math, diagrams, whatevr that has proved it. love how you dont even try, thats probably a skill factor:rotfl2:

anyway, bs like that doesnt stop me, a right triangle is a right triangle, the opposition likes to make it a circle, square, cylinder, whatever, anything but what it is. theres nothing that can be known about a right triangle.

the proportions of a right triangle are the same, no matter what its size,
basically im saying this part to joe.

i dont know joe, but i dont see a date on that formula, if you have proof it is pre ww1, then i would like to see it,
other than just, its just an opinion again.

the pics of auto tdc, did anyone look at those, or did you all just look the other way, that was at 2000 yards, i brought that in from 15.7 nm in the test mission, still the same proportions, 2000 yards, 15.7nm, and i guess this is the stuff that shoots rockets and spaceships into space, to the moon, and to mars, or wherever, but thier just assuming the moon and mars and the angles will be there to just let the spacecraft land there all by themselves.

lets put it this way, a trip to mars is alot farther way than 15.7 nm,

maybe they use telescopes to visualize the trip, and thats how they steer the spacecraft, because im told we need to visualize a target in order to hit it.

i guess the opposition is really not part of the MIT brain pool they think they are.

addressing jjoe again, i have used those things, thier not really anything that could be called a magic bullet, i have and have used kim ranoff's,
its no big deal, and no magic bullet joe, it sits on my desk and collects dust, i just dont use it.

and thats a good point you brought up about ww1, when there was no tdc's available, ships were still sunk, how did they do that, especially when you yourself stated that those is /was's were invented after ww1.

those atttack couse things your talking about are nothing but calculators, nothing it can do cant be done with pencil, paper, and math.

the american tdc was invented in 1936,
and all that is is a calculator for all the angles and distances, nothing super about that, and i might add, only as good as the information given to it, the information still has to come from a human being with a brain to think, try putting in bad info, or nothing into the tdc, see how good it works for you.:rotfl2:

i like it the way it stands right now, i be the only one, it makes me different, and i like the difference.:cool:

and whats so wrong about visualizing, or adjusting, or whateer was said i dont even remember, useless information flows in and out of me fast, like pieces posts, long on wind, short on substance. i have failed to read an entire post by him, its boredom, after the first sentence. and why would i ever listen to a man who names himself after an astrology sign, maybe thats how he get his solutions, he reads his horoscope in the newspapers everyday, whats your horoscope for today pieces?:rotfl2:

below is from the sonar manual.

What the TDC is
TDC stands for torpedo data computer. It is located in the conning tower usually close to the WCA sonar stack. it has many dials. Six of these dials show six main types of data: own ship's course, own ship's speed, target's course, target's speed, target's range, and target's bearings. The TDC takes in all these pieces of data and shows on its face a solution, in terms of relative bearings. Since some of the dial settings can be only approximate (like target's course and target's speed), the TDC operator checks the TDC solution with the bearings reported by sonar. As long as the sonar bearings and the bearings of the TDC solution agree, he assumes that his other settings are correct. But as soon as they begin to differ, he tries changing the settings on some of his dials, until the two bearings agree again.

if you didnt understand that paragragh, then you better read it again and again until you do, because most here posting think the tdc is infallible.
surprise, surprise.

i have nothing more to prove about 8010, nothing! i will post the torpedo information, your free to use it, or discard it, whatever your fancy, i dont care.

i will be done after that, and ill move on to torpedo offsets, where the opposition is invited to come, but next time, leave your drama at the door.

tater

09-06-10, 12:44 PM

You keep setting up right triangle test missions, then "prove" to us that if you know two angles, the third can be found. My 6 year old could do that. You entirely fail to understand that you keep setting up a special case, then you generalize that since you can solve a known triangle, that ALL trinagles are therefore identical to your test case.

Scenario:
Target on 80 degree bearing has an AOB that is very likely not 10, but is held at constant bearing by your sub moving at 4 knots. It is a closing target.

You don't know the range, and you are NOT on a 90 degree intercept (look, I made it easy, you can discount one angle!).

What is the target's speed and AOB?

You should be able to do this using your method, right?

razark

09-06-10, 01:04 PM

YWhat is the target's speed and AOB?
Duh, the AoB is ten, of course.:know: And I figured that out without using any magic TDC, too! Its because all triangles are right angles.

:nope:

tater

09-06-10, 01:06 PM

It's because NONE OF YOUR DIAGRAMS/MOVIES/POSTS HAS PROVED IT.

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're just entirely clueless. Really.

Nisgeis

09-06-10, 01:15 PM

Duh, the AoB is ten, of course.:know:

This should be renamed the 'tenuous method'. Greyrider doesn't seem to want to see the problem. It really can't be that difficult to see can it? He seemed fairly switched on and it seemed he knew what he was on about in that link that Rockin' Robbins posted, so I'm having trouble understanding just why it can't be explained to him. I can only conclude that he either doesn't want to see the problem, or is deliberately ignoring it.

Rockin Robbins

09-06-10, 02:47 PM

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/Worf_is_Frustrated.gif
Words fail to explain the stupidity....

Hold it! Here it is! Here's how it works!
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/9fd4dc7464eb3e9f6ed51e5fd1f277e9-1.gif

He was right all the time. This video proves it!:up:

He's on a collision course with himself. Eventually he'll poke himself in the keister!

NorthBeach

09-06-10, 03:02 PM

RR- Point succinctly and brilliantly taken! :up:

Pisces

09-06-10, 03:51 PM

i like it the way it stands right now, i be the only one, it makes me different, and i like the difference.:cool:He absolutely right. He's living in his own world made up with nothing but right triangles. Maybe even worse, just 80-10-90 ones. I pitty the fool, for never being able to see a bee's work, a snowflake, or the five-fold symmetry of the pentagon.

Also, how stupid of me to forget! You can prove one's own point by making ridicule of others, completely ignoring what they say. Just because you don't want to. For a fact, I do not consult the newspapers for my today's experiences. Or those of tomorrow. I learned myself how astrological predictions are generated to claim it's validity. (Which is more than you are able to claim. Brass statement huh?) And it didn't involve glass spheres. (which I can't say for the 8010-90 method) Do not resort to the stereotypical behavior of the ignorant. It says more about you than it does about me. Now, can we please get back on the subject?

How do we force the 90 degree to appear?

Also, what's up with that test mission you once uploaded? How come nothing enters hydrophone range within over an hour? How are we to replicate what you did in it?

John Channing

09-06-10, 04:16 PM

Nisgeis

09-06-10, 04:16 PM

I didn't read the whole of your post Pieces, because it was too long, but I'm sure you're right.

I mean Pisces. I don't think you'll get an answer - no one else has and it's been asked about ten times, or maybe 80 times.

Rockin Robbins

09-06-10, 04:24 PM

Let it die. We've had our fun.:D

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/ORly.gif

Note the right angle of the lines on the end of the table proving the cats use 8010 to properly hit the ball.

Diopos

09-06-10, 04:33 PM

Well gentlemen... this has been fun, but all good things...

So seeing as you have broken just about every rule there is here on Subsim I am going to have to finally throw out a flag on this play.

Argue all you want and keep the name calling out or agree to disagree. Either way I'm fine. But let's not go on like this, K?

Thanks

JCC

Actually the thread should be kept open. What I would very seriously propose is all of us "naysayers" to stop bringing up questions about the method (we're already bordering mazochism here anyway). Let the thread open, so as people who try to implement 8010 can come forward and share with the rest of us their successes or failures and ask questions or seek guidance on how to improve their technique, from grayrider.

.

John Channing

09-06-10, 04:58 PM

It was never closed, nor was it in any danger of being closed. I just wanted everyone to play nice(r).

JCC

greyrider

09-08-10, 11:37 AM

the last part of the 8010, is shooting, its always done with 0 degree gyro angle, and this alone makes it extremely accurate and lethal.
a torpedo that bends increases the chance for a miss, verses one that doesnt.

in this example, the target has advanced in bearings from the 8010, its moving at 11 knots, on course 90,
the firing bearing for a target making 11 knots on course 90, r to sub, is 343 degrees.

the torpedo is fired at bearing 343, leading the target by 17 degrees, the torpedo will impact against targets hull at zero degrees.
this is the lead angle for the torpedo thats traveling at 36 knots, the MK-10 torpedo, target speed 11 knots.

for a MK-14 @ 31 knots, same course and speed for target, the firing bearing would be 340.5 degrees, for a 0 degree gyro impact at zero degrees.
for a mk-14 @ 46 knots, same course and speed for target, the firing bearing would be 347 degrees, for 0 degree gyro impact at 0 degrees.

different torpedo speeds and different target speeds produce different firing bearings, but all hit at 0 degrees, in p + s and 8010.

below i have attached a link to filefront which has folders for both american torpedoes and german torpedoes, all torpedo speeds, and all target speeds that will produce a zero degree gyro angle impact and attack, the firing bearings for 0 degree torpedo
impact, bow and stern torpedoes, on courses 90 or 270 degrees r to sub.

http://www.filefront.com/17274236/torpedo attack angles.rar

this completes the 8010 method.

http://a.imageshack.us/img833/6577/shooting.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-09-08

tater

09-08-10, 11:47 AM

The mission-editor set up 90-80-10 triangle continues to be a 90-80-10 triangle, what a surprise.

How again, did you determine that this one case out of infinite other AOB arrangements was the one the target happened to be in---oh, wait, you set it up that way in the editor. Well, within a degree or two.

Great method, and will work for any missions published by greyrider!

razark

09-08-10, 12:12 PM

this completes the 8010 method.
Nah, it was finished a long time ago.

Either that, or it never got started.

Armistead

09-08-10, 01:00 PM

It appears Grey had proved his one valid point. This works well for him in the missions he set's up for them to work. If he likes to play that way, that's his choice. Maybe he can create a bunch of single missions for those that wish to play this way.

For others, it's time to walk away...

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/old-lady-1.jpg

sergei

09-08-10, 01:02 PM

Good God man. :o
There was absolutely no call for that.

NorthBeach

09-08-10, 05:07 PM

Putting a thong on a POW is just wrong :eek:

:nope:

Armistead

09-08-10, 06:30 PM

Good God man. :o
There was absolutely no call for that.

You offend my wife, I thought she looked good for 47...oh well, you young men don't know a real woman when you see one.

tater

09-08-10, 06:31 PM

Putting a thong on a POW is just wrong :eek:

:nope:

I'm pretty sure there is a specific Geneva Convention being violated here.

Can someone pass the eye-bleach?

greyrider

09-12-10, 06:08 AM

some of you keep saying over and over again, that i set up special case missions to prove my point, now tell me, how do i set up campaign missions?

thats what those movies are, campaign encounters, (except for the test mission) and i wouldnt know how to manipulate them, at all.

so being campaign episodes, its completely random,

so again, your points are mute.

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.

listen opposition guys, i am up to proving it anyway you like, any time, anywhere, any mission,

i have in the past, i will continue to do so in the future, and any way you choose, just to satisfy you

you want to challange me? i am up for it, put up!

it doesnt even have to be a closing target, let it be miles away, going in the opposite direction, let me persue it, then ill get into the 8010, after chasing it, make it as tough as you can, i have my confidence i can take down whatever you put up.

tater, if i remember, you made a campaign awhile ago, im going to give this a direct challenge to you, since you know how to make a campaign, you make the mission, or you pick one out, collaborate with all your opposition friends, do whatevr you can do,
try with all your might, to have me fail, even multiplayer! try me!

challenge me! i have no fear. i will be waiting!

so theres the challange boys, take it or leave it.

and to the guys with the open mind, if you try, and you fail, dont give up, ill help you as best i can, there isnt another known method on the forums that gives so much information about the enenmy disposition as 8010, i will help you, thats a promise!

greyrider

09-12-10, 06:47 AM

Re: the magic bullet--a thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyrider
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
Double-check me but I believe you'll find that if you put yourself on a collision course so that your bearing to target doesn't change, his speed is ownspeed*sin(180-target bearing-AoB). Of course if you take 180 and subtract the Aob and then subtract the target bearing, you have subtracted two of the three angles of the triangle and have calculated the angle between his course and your course. Check out the trig function because without a way to diagram this I could be picking a sin instead of a cosine or other trig function by mistake.

rock, i copied and pasted this message to notepad and saved it to desktop, ill see what you are saying in it when i can, ill get back to you on it, thanks buddy
grey

No problem. The problem with thinking online is that lots of people go negative on you. Hope I've helped to shut down the naysayers and given you guys some room to work.
__________________

this was an email send to me by rocking robin, almost two years ago, when i first posted the magic bullet post, it seems there has been a complete reversal in thinking,:yawn:

tater

09-12-10, 08:27 AM

Bothersome

09-12-10, 08:50 AM

Greyrider, I use a somewhat similar approach after getting the lead on my targets. I like it more in the 70/20 instead but there are some variables that need to be solved before you find the absolute AOB.

I'm using vector analysis to determine AOB from and educated guess and past experiences on speed of target. A Victory Cargo or Liberty Cargo ship usually is traveling at 10 knots when sailing alone. So on a 70/20 approach, my sub at 4 knots (2/3rd) I draw a line straight up on the map 4km long. Then measure a bearing line at 70 going out more than 15km. Then draw a new line from the top of my 4km line going out to the angle and where it intersects at 10km on the bearing line, I lock it down. Then a draw a new angle bearing line in that corner where my target should be. This gives me the AOB if the ship is doing 10 knots.

I'm just wondering if there is an easier way to calculate AOB vs speed. Suppose I have a target on my 80/10 like you suggest. My boat must go 3 knots to keep it at 80. How do you calculate speed and AOB from that? The clues are "closing" and "medium speed". What is the process that should be done to get him on an 80 with a 2 knot speed to make him be on a 10 degree AOB (or close enough)?

In the above situation, assuming 10 knots target speed, 80 degree bearing to me, he should be at an AOB 27.5 degrees. In your precess, should I speed ahead more to get more in front of the target and then reset to 80 degrees and see if it holds at 2 knots? Because staying at 3 is not going to gain. If I stay on course and current speed then AOB is not good enough for a shot from the hip (in my opinion).

In my process, I would simply do the calculations and determine the real AOB and just put that into the TDC and when the target gets to about 3000 yards/meters, then stop the boat and wait for optimum firing angles and take the shot using the TDC suggested angles. Seems to work dead on most of the time.

Granted on my last patrol, I missed some shots because of laziness starting to set in and a little over confidence on the captain's part. Trying to shoot a 10 knot moving away target at 3000 yards ain't easy to do. But I thought having the correct speed, bearing, and close enough AOB would be enough. It landed one shot, but 2 missed, and AOB was no longer the same. Shooting from the hip on a zigging target wasted my last 3 torpedoes. So one Victory Cargo got away because I was too lazy to do a run-around.

Rockin Robbins

09-12-10, 01:53 PM

Any method, including the one grey thinks trumps me when he quotes my pm, depends on knowing the target course. That is where the AoB determination comes from unless you can see the target clearly enough to use the Mark 1 Eyeball method.

Yet grey continually says that by some black magic he can determine the AoB of an unseen target. Can't be done. No demonstration can refute that. It must be refuted with mathematics and explanation. That which cannot be explained is clearly false because the truth is always explainable. And the truth can always be taught so that others can duplicate the results. There is no truth in 8010.

Grey, what is angle on the bow? How about an explanation of that first of all? Are we all talking about completely different things based on a misapplication of the term?

greyrider

09-12-10, 02:57 PM

None of the points are "mute" (sic).

I gave you a "random" scenario above, actually, with no need for the game to be started up. Target bearing 080 (closing), bearing is constant and your sub is going 3, say. Range: unknown.

What is his AOB?

(hint: I won't use 10)

You say things like "I'll get it into the 8010." Great, that is certainly possible: if you know the target's heading (and hence AOB). That's the problem, you must know this in advance to place your sub on a right-angle intercept.

tater, honestly you guys have thrown so much at me, that i am totally confused as to what your talking about.
but ill take your most recent post, and try again, you have said:
"Target bearing 080 (closing), bearing is constant and your sub is going 3, say. Range: unknown.
What is his AOB?"
"(hint: I won't use 10)".

the answer is 10 degrees aob!
the reason i say this is because the way you described the scene.
you said closing for one, you said bearing is constant for 2.
the reason im saying its 10 is because its being held constant at 80 and its closing, submarine is moving forward at 3 knots.
if there was another angle on it beside 10, then your sonar men would have said either "constant distance", (if you where on a paralle course to it",
which would make it a 90 degree aob.

or moving away, if it was larger than a 90 degree aob.

if target is held as you say, then its 17 knots target speed. (held at 80/10), rated as fast.
if target had 15 degree aob, then target speed would be 11 knots, and rated by sonarman as a medium speed.
if target has a 14 aob on it, scene as you described, target speed will be 12 knots, still rated as fast.
if 13 aob , target speed is 13 knots, the closer you get to 10 degrees the closer the target speed resembles the rated speed reported by the sonarmen.
see, you only have from 10 to 15 degrees before the rate of speed changes from fast to medium speed, rated by sonar.
once the rate changes, you realize that target aob is not 10 degrees.
if the target had a 9 aob, then target speed is 18 knots, still rated as fast, so the rate is right on, but, the target would now decrease in bearings, and start to go behind the submarine, which means it will change bearings,
could not be held constant, because the sub is moving forward, and target is moving to its rear.

you dont say the speed of the target, (slow, medium, or fast), but you do say 3 knots is holding the target constant, so the target speed would be 17 knots.
this would be rated as fast speed by the sonarmen, and we have to work with sonarmen in this method to at least get the target speed rated.
we could do this ourselves if the game had a true propeller pitch for the ships, we could rate it ourselves, but we cant because of the way the propeller pitch is in the game.
so because of that, we have to depend on the sonarman for a rate of speed, and this is not my fault, we have to go with what the game gives us to work with.
the answer to a target that cant be held constant is to close on target course , then turn in when into the target and establish 8010, closing this is a judgement call,
nothing is handed to us, we have to makes judgements and estimations of the tactical situation, and we hold the iniatitive, its up to us.
in an 8010, you only have a very few angle on bows to work with, before somethings changes from the rate of speed that the sonar will rate target for.
thats kinda like one of the beauties of 8010 angular setup. something will change, something will be obvious to the skipper soon,
and this is why a 10 aob can be judged pretty accurately.
tater, i know you have a calculator, and you know the formula, try plugging different values of aob, while keeping sub speed and lead angle constant,
and you will see what i mean, about only having a few aob angles to work with before something changes, whether the speed rate, or target direction, something will change, and it will be obvious to the skipper.

i hope this helps, if not, ill stick with it until it does.
and i just want to say, theres no hard feelings on my part, hope not on your part either, for what was said.

greyrider

09-12-10, 02:58 PM

sergei

09-12-10, 03:02 PM

greyrider, here's why you can't use the fact that a constant bearing is achievable as proof that the target has a specific AoB.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg307/Nisgeis/SubSim/8010Method.jpg

why am I to suppose a AOB of 10 . . . and not other solutions (sample on following table)?
OwnShip Speed (kts) ____"Lead Angle" (°) _____AoB (°) _____Target Speed (kts)
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________10 _______________14.2
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________15 ________________9.5
__________2.5 _________________80 __________20 ________________7.2
__________2.5 _________________80 __________25 ________________5.8
__________2.5 _________________80 __________30 ________________4.9

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

tater

09-12-10, 03:43 PM

Seriously, greyrider, you are clueless, the answer is NOT 10. It can be ANY AOB that closes range. ANY. The AOB is independent of the bearing.

I did NOT say that the submarine was going to intercept the target at 90 degrees. You realize that you can intercept a target at some angle other than 90, right? You cannot be that clueless.

I'm beginning to think this guy actually believes that intercepts are by definition at 90 degrees.

His answer to my scenario proves without a doubt he doesn't understand the geometry at all.

tater

09-12-10, 03:47 PM

tater, honestly you guys have thrown so much at me, that i am totally confused as to what your talking about.
but ill take your most recent post, and try again, you have said:
"Target bearing 080 (closing), bearing is constant and your sub is going 3, say. Range: unknown.
What is his AOB?"
"(hint: I won't use 10)".

the answer is 10 degrees aob!
the reason i say this is because the way you described the scene.
you said closing for one, you said bearing is constant for 2.
the reason im saying its 10 is because its being held constant at 80 and its closing, submarine is moving forward at 3 knots.
if there was another angle on it beside 10, then your sonar men would have said either "constant distance", (if you where on a paralle course to it",
which would make it a 90 degree aob.

No, the target can close, and the bearing stay the same, it's a matter of hat SPEED he is making and what AOB.

Your ENTIRE premise is based on the SHADOW of the target path on an infinite background. You are looking at an APPARENT motion, but not the ACTUAL motion.So the ship can be JUST closing, for example, say 1 degree of a parallel heading, and be moving just a fraction above the sub's 3 knots. It is STILL closing.

Look again at the diagram nisgeis posted and sergei just quoted. That tells you all you need to know.

Bothersome

09-12-10, 03:47 PM

In my example above, I made an error for calculating the AOB on the target.

Using the game and plotting lines and angles on the map, it is 17 degrees angle on the bow for:

80 degree bearing.
3 knot sub speed.
10 knot target speed.

But while I have it up. Let me give some other figures.

80 degree bearing, 4 knot sub speed, 10 knot target speed = 23 degree AOB.

80 degree bearing, 4 knot sub speed, 8 knot target speed = 30 degree AOB.

80 degree bearing, 2 knot sub speed, 8 knot target speed = 14 degree AOB.

80 degree bearing, 2 knot sub speed, 11 knot target speed = 10 degree AOB.

80 degree bearing, 3 knot sub speed, 11 knot target speed = 16 degree AOB.

As we see from a few samples from above, and I *think* this is what greyrider is trying to get at, is that when you have a target reported to you by your sonar man, that a target is going *medium* speed, then it becomes very useful information on building a window for AOB. This is a window small enough that shouldn't throw off the timing for the torpedoes to make a successful hit. This is with the 80 degree bearing approach. But as you decrease the bearing approach like in a 70 degree approach, then the window widens and opens more room for error. But on an 80 degree, it may be tolerable to shoot from the hip if you don't want to mess with the AOB setting on the TC. However, it still would be easier to set the AOB to 12 degrees and the speed to 9.5 (middle of the road for medium speed targets) and shoot from the TC. When the range is close enough, you can't hardly miss, provided they don't have escorts.

New people trying to shoot from an American sub need to be aware that as you rotate the target bearing (periscope) and send in or set a new bearing on the TC, it does not update the AOB. This causes many a missed shot. This is why shooting from the hip became popular here. If you didn't take the time to set up the PK to simulate the target position, you were constantly fighting that TC.

The German U-Boat TC is way better and simpler. When you turn the periscope, the bearing setting changes too as you turn the periscope. And, the AOB setting is geared with it to change at the same rate. So as your target is changing on your bearing, the TC is adjusted automatically to the correct AOB as you go. When the speed is set correctly, you can't miss (well you can, see one of my previous posts). Which means, the only time you have to change the AOB is if the target changes it's physical course, or you change yours. Speed is the same if you're moving or not.

tater

09-12-10, 03:56 PM

Except he thinks that ALL AOBs are 10 if the bearing is 80 as far as I can tell, when in fact all are possible (half if you add "closing" as a given).

Everyone questioning him has asked the same question, how do you know the AOB is 10, when you have no idea what the intercept angle is. He seems to assume as given that his sub will cross the target at 90 degrees—if that was true, all USN torps would have failed every hit, since they'd all intercept the target at 90 degrees, lol.

Bothersome

09-12-10, 04:10 PM

Yeah, I understand you're going after a very specific statement of his.

It was my understanding that because the torpedoes had a firing pin problem hitting at 90 degrees like you said. I also understand that the best depth for most damage is right under the keel. This way, the power of the punch has to go through the ship. And as such, don't most hulls have an angle down to the keel. And that most ships had stronger sides than bottoms (even though that would seem to be backwards for best design)? So if the ships have angled hulls to the keel, then shooting at keel + 2 feet should yield nice results. Or does even SH4 model such things?

I usually do the magnetic setting unless forced to (bad weather, excessively long shots, very early war, bad luck).

Diopos

09-12-10, 04:17 PM

Bothersome,
8010 as presented here is a "method" of calculating target's speed. It is not a firing method. If I rely on a logical estimate of speed based on the fact that the sonar man reports a "medium speed" and that the target is a merchant which in games term usually means somewhere between 9 and 12 Kts, than what's the use? I can live with a rule of thumb that states for most merchants reported at medium speed a rough speed is 10.5 kts. Please go through the original post to understand how the "method" was initially presented. Many people recognize that there is a potential in the use of "collision courses" but not as implemented here.

.

tater

09-12-10, 04:57 PM

A rule of thumb is an entirely different issue. Saying "we'll assume her AOB 10 be 10, then calculate what the speed would be for that AOB" is one thing---assuming that you'd get a better estimate than just the average of the "medium" speed range.

He keeps presenting the AOB as certainly 10, since he knows (how?) that the collision is at 90 degrees, and knows the bearing.

He's not saying it's a ballpark figure, he's saying the AOB is actually 10.

Pisces

09-12-10, 05:19 PM

...
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.

...Start digging your grave buddy. ;) I was allready on it. I was testing the past few days, almost finished. Some how I can't get the later hydrophone improvements to get enabled. And some weirdness with the detection range is going on. You detect when it reaches 34km, but after that it can extend away for 40km before loosing it. Weird. But unpredictability in this mission is something you can count on!

[EDIT] I mean, it's still the same type of contact, on a constant course for most of the time, but you won't get the same course and speed at each attempt.

Pisces

09-12-10, 07:03 PM

Here it is. It's JSGME ready. Just like yours it's a Subschool mission (SS10, US only). You'll have to do with the WCA hydro, but stock SH4 still gives you plenty of detection range.

The probability of a certain target course isn't evenly spread out. There is a higher probability to get a target course around 45 or 135 degrees, because of how the random waypoints work. (more points lie in front an behind the center of a waypoint area, compared to courses tangent to the edge of the waypoint area) But that certainly isn't a reason to expect it to be just 45 or 135. It can be made with more even probability, but the waypoint patern is allready complex enough.

http://ricojansen.nl/downloads/RNDapproach_Subschool.rar

Mission description:
Happy New Year !!! ;)

A Japanese Large Tanker is approaching from the west near true bearing 270.
It has unknown course, and unknown speed. Though it is for certain eastwards. It should maintain it's course and speed for atleast 2h45m, but probably does so longer. When it has accelerated to 20 knots you can ignore it and you should reposition to the start location for a new attempt.
The target should respawn every 12 hours since New Year. Make sure you are back at your start location in time:

Longitude: 155* 41' East
Lattitude: 25* 48' North

Try to catch it using whatever manual targeting or tracking method you desire.

Location reports to confirm your tracking assesments will be given every 30 minutes.
Do not act upon these to cheat.

Good luck

Rockin Robbins

09-12-10, 08:47 PM

tater, honestly you guys have thrown so much at me, that i am totally confused as to what your talking about.
but ill take your most recent post, and try again, you have said:
"Target bearing 080 (closing), bearing is constant and your sub is going 3, say. Range: unknown.
What is his AOB?"
"(hint: I won't use 10)".

the answer is 10 degrees aob!
the reason i say this is because the way you described the scene.
you said closing for one, you said bearing is constant for 2.
the reason im saying its 10 is because its being held constant at 80 and its closing, submarine is moving forward at 3 knots.
if there was another angle on it beside 10, then your sonar men would have said either "constant distance", (if you where on a paralle course to it",
which would make it a 90 degree aob.

or moving away, if it was larger than a 90 degree aob. blah, blah, blah

There's your answer, tater. He has no idea what an angle on the bow is! All this time he's been talking standard US Navy terms and inserting his own meaningless private meaning into it. He sees the 80 degree bearing, he assumes the 90 degree intersect and calculates the AoB from that.

But he has not calculated AoB at all, just the other angle in the triangle that describes the two positions plus the assumed right angle intersection of courses. His entire house of cards is built upon ignorance of his basic terms. Conclusions built upon false premises are fallacious. 8010 falls.

Rockin Robbins

09-12-10, 08:58 PM

The other fallacy here is the sonar man's calling out the speed. In reality no such thing was possible. Neither was the declaration that the target was closing or going away. The only way to obtain that information was active sonar.

In World War II there were no speed curves, there was no doppler data (which relies on having a recording of the target without doppler shift). We proceed here as if this were a nuclear submarine with a passive sonar capability that can often tell you the name of the target, pull up a complete speed/rpm curve and do a sophisticated motion analysis of the data. That was science fiction then. I don't even think they had conceived of the idea for it to be fiction. They would have laughed at the notion of identification of individual ships by sound signature.

The entire 8010 system is built around gaming the system. In my book that's an invalid procedure. It's nothing short of cheating. And even at all that it tells you little except that you have established a collision course with the target, a useful but not sufficient piece of data for sinking your opponent. It is no technique for putting a torpedo into the side of a target. It is only a way to get close enough to do so IF and only if it is in a narrow 20º cone of the 360º possible for acquired contacts. It rejects 94.44% of contacts (assuming random courses of sub and target) as unworthy of action. That alone is dereliction of duty and would result in a real sub commander losing his command. Just think, 340º of a possible 360º rejected as not engagable! That's worthy of court martial and 20 years hard labor busting rocks.

tater

09-12-10, 10:29 PM

Ruhe mentions the sonarman giving them the turns on the contact and having that match the speed they had worked up (or guessed). In both cases I think the contact was a sub, though.

Diopos

09-12-10, 11:18 PM

...
In World War II there were no speed curves, there was no doppler data (which relies on having a recording of the target without doppler shift). We proceed here as if this were a nuclear submarine with a passive sonar capability that can often tell you the name of the target, pull up a complete speed/rpm curve and do a sophisticated motion analysis of the data. That was science fiction then. I don't even think they had conceived of the idea for it to be fiction. They would have laughed at the notion of identification of individual ships by sound signature.
...

I am almost certain that in the '40s they had already "envisioned" everything that was incorporated in the later decades in varius devices and procedures regarding Combat Information. The scientific concepts were known, their use and uselfuness in a combat situation aknowledged. The element that was missinig was "computing power". After the "diode" was invented, after WW2, high speed computing devices start to pop up and ... well you know what happened from thereon.

.

makman94

09-13-10, 01:00 AM

.....

im working on the 70/20 for you, i will get an answer for you tonight....

hello Greyrider,

don't waste your time on this .... you can not understand basic things Greyrider.
no offence to you ....but i am thinking that all you need is just some time to get what people are telling you and they are right Greyrider,absolutely...right...
so, just let it go for the moment and give some time to your mind to 'handle' these...'data'.i am sure that ,at the end, you will see the 'problem' .
just...let it go for now....

Rockin Robbins

09-13-10, 08:51 AM

I doubt that spectrum analysis of sound signatures was even a gleam in its mother's eye!:D

Forget about having a database of signatures encompassing thousands of surface ships. All their computers were electro/mechanical analog. Before you can dream of methods you must have the tools and concepts necessary.

I think it's clear that using turn counts to measure target speed was a goal of theirs then, but they were only in the data acquisition phase of that. And that is the long and hard part, with no immediate rewards. Data acquisition is always the most difficult part of any scientific query.

We spent hundreds of years acquiring astronomical data before the first hint of the nature of a galaxy emerged. Even then limited imagination and experience ensured that our conclusions were entirely wrong. In 1900 nobody was able to see spiral structure in an external galaxy. Now I can do it easily with my 13" telescope. I've actually seen spiral structure in a 50mm spotter scope. If you have no concept of what you are looking for you cannot find it until it is forced upon you. Just look at greyrider's response to concise, precise and unambiguous proofs that 8010 is invalid from sources he prides himself in carefully quoting. If you have no concept of what you see, you cannot see it. We see with our brains, not with our eyes.

greyrider

09-13-10, 09:09 AM

bothersome,

i have uploaded a 7020 mission for you, link is below.
jsgme installed to single missions folder.

the target bears 290, with 20 degree aob, target speed is 10.16 knots, course 90 degrees.
submarine speed to keep constant bearing of target is 3.7 knots, target range from collision point is 11.3 nm.
submarine distance to collision point is 4.15 nm.
mission time is approx 1 hour.
submarine is balao, 1945, two choices of torpedoes MK-14, MK-23.
mission is daytime.
radar and sonar available for tracking, when target becomes visible, periscope available for tracking.
when mission opens, you will have to go to control room knotmeter, and adjust sub speed to 3.7 knots, to keep target constant at
bearing 290, for a collision course. this will be a piece of work as you will see, because the knotmeter is usually about 4 tenths of a knot lower
than the speed you try to click for,
so try to click for 4.1 knots, and it should bring the speed of sub near 3.7 knots, the speed you need.
cant think of anything else thats mission essential.

http://www.filefront.com/17286966/seventy-twenty.rar/

greyrider

09-13-10, 09:11 AM

hello Greyrider,

don't waste your time on this .... you can not understand basic things Greyrider.
no offence to you ....but i am thinking that all you need is just some time to get what people are telling you and they are right Greyrider,absolutely...right...
so, just let it go for the moment and give some time to your mind to 'handle' these...'data'.i am sure that ,at the end, you will see the 'problem' .
just...let it go for now....

thanks for the advice, but thats my discision, not yours, dont read it if its upsets you, there are many posts here, dont waste my time and yours, move on.
it works for me, under any and all circumstances.

Rockin Robbins

09-13-10, 09:37 AM

The interesting thing is that we are not saying that we are right. We are producing solid evidence from the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual of 1946, demonstrating mathematical proof of the concepts therein, sometimes even diagramming alternate possibilities using original 1946 graphs and relating that to 8010. It is not we who are claiming of ourselves that we have the right idea. We are only quoting proofs from other unimpeachable sources. It is not our credibility against greyrider. It is the credibility of the US Navy against greyrider.

We are no smarter, we work no harder, we are not more cultured than those men of 1946. They were in every way our equal in abilities and imagination. There is nothing that any of us have done that was not possible in 1946.

However, deriving information from a digital sonar operator that somehow knows the target is approaching or going away, at slow, medium or fast speed and who bins those speeds within certain 100% infallible speeds in knots is a ridiculous gaming of a flawed system. If this were Runescape, exploiting a game bug is punishable by banning. While that is a bit extreme for a single player game, using that impossible data is still cheating and does not qualify as part of a valid targeting method in a submarine simulation. As tater has demonstrated, even cheating cannot demonstrate a 10º angle on the bow, only a range of possible angles on the bow, each having a markedly different and equally invalid conclusion.

tater

09-13-10, 10:18 AM

Armistead

09-13-10, 11:10 AM

You know what bothers me, been losing sleep over it. Grey actually seems very smart, seems to understand trig, ect, but even in my limited brain I can see the failure here without great brains like RR explaining.

How can one be so smart and not see the simple problems here. It appears when one thinks they've worked something out, they just defend it to the death.

Rockin Robbins

09-13-10, 11:31 AM

I'm a long ways from a great brain, but I am a great translator between miltiarese, scienticese and English so that anyone can understand concepts that seem deliberately to be left without a handle for someone not in those fields.

The further breakdown of 8010 is that even if you COULD (you cannot) establish the AoB of the target perfectly precisely using passive sonar, the multiplying effect of a small change in your speed resulting in a large difference in target speed at a 10º AoB means that the accuracy necessary in determining your speed is way beyond the accuracy of your measuring devices. That leaves you unable to measure target speed better than a range of plus or minus five knots. That is an entirely meaningless measurement, rendering 8010 impotent.

You know, there are two times during the day that if I consult a broken analog non-military clock, it will reflect the correct time. It would be foolishness for me to contend that meant that any other time I consulted it I would get the correct time. Greyrider is making that claim without laughing! He hasn't even cracked a smile. Everyone KNOWS that he is aware that he is peddling snake oil but he lacks the magician's flair to turn embarrassment into entertainment. Johnny Carson was at his best with a blown joke. Greyrider is no Johnny Carson but his joke is blown.

Greyrider's stunt is a version of the old rolling runway riddle. What if you had a conveyor belt for the runway of an airplane. And you had a motor and sensor arrangement that could at all times move the runway backwards at the exact speed the plane's wheels were rotating. Could the plane take off? All kinds of mayhem breaks out and weird cockamamie twisted logic flies in all directions. And all the time nobody analyzes what happens on a normal runway.

A plane takes off not from any thrust generated by its wheels. In fact they can turn like crazy (hold the airplane still while the runway moves underneath it) without the plane moving at all! Let's take the case of taking off from a normal runway. The speed of the wheels is always equal to the speed of the runway plus the speed of the plane through the air. Move the runway and that remains true. If takeoff speed is 90 mph and you rotate the runway under the plane in the same direction as the motion of the plane (a negative 90 mph speed) you can actually take off with 90 mph plane speed minus the 90 mph runway speed and take off without the wheels rotating at all!

In the case above where you hold the airplane still with wheels in contact with the rolling runway, the rolling speed of the wheels is still the speed of the plane (zero) plus the speed of the runway, isn't it?

Now lets move the runway opposite the speed of the plane at 90 mph. Our plane can still roll forward without restriction because there is no mechanical connection between the wheels and the plane that ties the two speeds together. Our plane travels in 90 mph in one direction, the runway travels in 90 mph the other direction, our formula says the wheels are rolling at 90+90 or 180 mph. All that is possible and clearly understood without confusion. The rotational speed of the wheels is ALWAYS the speed of the plane plus the speed of the runway.

What the original riddler has not told you is that they have made a ridiculous change in the rules of engagement! They are saying "Assume the speed of the runway equals the rolling speed of the wheels." Well we've already experimentally proved that the rolling speed of the wheels always equals the speed of the runway plus the speed of the plane. The premises themselves are a farce! The conditions posited by the riddle are impossible! Any reasoning based on the false premises is itself ridiculous.

8010 isn't quite impossible. 8010 is more like the stopped clock than the rolling runway gimmick. it is just very, very unlikely and impossible to determine those few times when the relationship is true, way too limited in its application and we have no way to achieve the precision necessary to measure target speed. Other than that it's the cat's meow!:har:

tomoose

09-13-10, 12:34 PM

RR;
I don't know if you watch the program "Mythbusters" on Discovery Channel but they had an episode based on your aircraft and treadmill idea and proved exactly your point. They even went full-scale with a very, very long "carpet" pulled by a truck to simulate the treadmill concept and a small plane sitting on it. The truck pulled, the plane looked to be standing still on the moving carpet, despite the wheels spinning away, the speeds matched etc, the plane took off and jaws dropped. Even the pilot was surprised. The Mythbusters explained exactly as RR has done in that the engine is pulling the plane NOT the wheels pushing, which throws everybodies expectations completely off,LOL. If you haven't seen Mythbusters, I highly recommend it.

Rockin Robbins

09-13-10, 12:51 PM

Oh, but the tellers of the riddle (who know the thing is a farce so they can handle themselves very well) can twist your mind into a pretzel with their tangents and implications. They are very good at what they do. Unfortunately, in order to be good at selling snake oil it is very helpful to know it doesn't work. That way when they figure out one irrelevant distraction you can be ready with others. 8010 has been quite like that.

Pisces

09-13-10, 03:43 PM

Groundspeed versus Airspeed debate ... I remember I had a 'Deja Vu' when I started reading this thread. (8010)

Please don't make it into a real groundhog-day experience with that Mythbusters example:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=172783

Nisgeis

09-13-10, 04:35 PM

So, what would happen if you put a helicopter on a conveyor belt going backwards? :timeout:

Capt. Morgan

09-13-10, 04:53 PM

You know what bothers me, ... Grey actually seems very smart, seems to understand trig, ect, but even in my limited brain I can see the failure here ...

Highly intelligent people sometimes have trouble believing that they are capable of being wrong.

Bothersome

09-13-10, 05:43 PM

How can one be so smart and not see the simple problems here. It appears when one thinks they've worked something out, they just defend it to the death.

[raising hand and shaking it vigorously]
Ooohh! Ooh! Ohh! Pick me! Pick me!
[/lowers hand]

We/I see this all the time in just about everything nowadays. Common sense is no longer common.

Latest great example of this... Bought myself a new car stereo. One of the high end ones. No CD or DVD. Those come as add-ons now. Has a SD chip that can hold 16GB of MP3 and WMA songs... But the menu sucks. It's hard to navigate and make settings. And it won't play songs seamlessly. Makes you wonder how people that are smart enough to design and make such a compact computer playing stereo that fits in a car dash can't figure out the simple stuff. It's like they don't use the product themselves to know what is needed. It surely boggles the mind.

I see this in most software too. There is always something wrong that common sense would have said "do it another way."

makman94

09-13-10, 07:13 PM

thanks for the advice, but thats my discision, not yours, dont read it if its upsets you, there are many posts here, dont waste my time and yours, move on.
it works for me, under any and all circumstances.

i am not upset with you Geyrider ...not upset at all !

in fact i have moved on... long time ago from this thread.

you will remember my advice at the future and will understand ....but you will not understand now...becuase,atm, you only 'see' me as an 'intruder' of your thread (which is not true)

anyway, do as you wish...i hope not to take long for you....

greyrider

09-13-10, 07:16 PM

Love how you make a 70/20 example, then set it up the same way—on a 90 degree collision in the set up. Giving yourself a known angle is part of everyone's problem, can't you see that?

You need an example where the ONLY data you have is a closing target at some arbitrary bearing. Then you put in on 80, and tell us the AOB. You cannot get the speed without knowing the AOB.

The game does cheat and gives you a speed range (I don't even know what that range is in TMO or RFB, since I've never considered using it past its face value). That in fact does limit the future position possibilities for the target, but doe NOT force it to be 10. It means that there is an arc that the target could be in. If the speed is known to be 8-12 knots, and the underwater max of the sub is 7, then you can know for sure the closing target is within an angle such that the projection of speed on that right triangle is under 7 knots. assuming you can hold the bearing.

The AOB is still in a decent sized arc, and values are in fact infinite within that arc.

in your imagination tater, and your right, when i design a mission, how could i not know the values, im putting them in, its obvious.

but, and theres the but again, what explains me making it possible, in the movie, which were campaign encounters? what explains that?

that was random, you dont get it, or refuse to see it, i didnt plan that, those ships came at me from random, and it was made.

i gave you a challenge, dont cop out on me, if you want a mission that all i know is a that a closing target is closing, then make one, or pick one out,
simple man, just pick one out if your to lazy to make one, many missions have been made, thats the challenge that you refused, why?

i told you, anytime, anywhere, any mission, dont cop out, im waiting!

i'm waiting tater!

btw, you seem to think that the game cheats, maybe so, it give a speed range, so what!

have you ever listened to the sonar tapes at nha? i guess there just pulling numbers out of their hats to.

anyway, back up your perspective, and dont cop out or boob out on me and the community, i think they would like to see you back up your perspective, see if your right, me too! try me! im waiting!:D

greyrider

09-13-10, 07:23 PM

in your imagination tater, and your right, when i design a mission, how could i not know the values, im putting them in, its obvious.

but, and theres the but again, what explains me making it possible, in the movie, which were campaign encounters? what explains that?

that was random, you dont get it, or refuse to see it, i didnt plan that, those ships came at me from random, and it was made.

i gave you a challenge, dont cop out on me, if you want a mission that all i know is a that a closing target is closing, then make one, or pick one out,
simple man, just pick one out if your to lazy to make one, many missions have been made, thats the challenge that you refused, why?

i told you, anytime, anywhere, any mission, dont cop out, im waiting!

i'm waiting tater!

btw, you seem to think that the game cheats, maybe so, it give a speed range, so what!

have you ever listened to the sonar tapes at nha? i guess there just pulling numbers out of their hats to.

anyway, back up your perspective, and dont cop out or boob out on me and the community, i think they would like to see you back up your perspective, see if your right, me too! try me! im waiting!:D

do you think that formula was inserted into the tfcm untested?
do you really think that? then you dont know anything about the united states military, to do something like that is like handing a soldier an untried weapon, like putting men in a submarine to dive, with no way of getting back up, it makes no sense.

so im still waiting!

greyrider

09-13-10, 07:41 PM

Rockin Robbins

09-13-10, 08:02 PM

do you think that formula

OFFENSE! Undefined term! Fifteen yards, repeat the down. "That formula" is not referenced in your quote or the answer. You're talking to nobody about nothing. Makes sense to me! You don't intend to communicate or reason. You're trolling.

was inserted into the tfcmOFFENSE! Fake undefined acronym that means means nothing. First down for tater at the point of infraction! You are trying to hit tater over the head with the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (http://hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm) and not even using all the letters of the name for your fake acronym! Communicate. Tell people what document you're about to misuse. If you're going to invent an acronym do it right! And make a link out of it so people can see for themselves that you don't know what you're talking about.

untested?
do you really think that? then you dont know anything about the united states military, to do something like that is like handing a soldier an untried weapon, like putting men in a submarine to dive, with no way of getting back up, it makes no sense.

so im still waiting!Tater has proved over the years that he knows more about the US Military than you can even imagine. He understands the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual several layers better than you do.

You know, you just wasted a post making no points at all. Tater has met his burden of proof. You still haven't answered the questions put to you at the beginning of the thread. You still haven't demonstrated a method of determining AoB for an unseen target over the horizon using sonar only.

You still haven't answered one of my objections to the method:

That it works for only a 20º arc out of a possible 360º AoB range within which you can find targets. You choose to throw 94.4% of targets in the garbage as not able to be engaged. How do you defend that position?

That it demands long underwater runs which deplete your batteries, leaving you in no position to fight.

That a one knot difference in your speed makes an 8 knot difference in calculated target speed. The game can only tell you within half a knot how fast you are going. That's an error of plus or minus 4 knots in target speed, a range of 8 knots! How can you defend a method that multiplies any possible error on your part by 8 times and claim any ability whatever?

That it is impossible even cheating the system using the sonar operator's fairy tale ability to tell whether a target is approaching or receding and whether it is traveling in one of three precise speed ranges to determine AoB precisely enough to calculate target speed.

That while claiming 8010 is a targeting technique, at best it is a rendezvous technique to get you in the vicinity of the target, at which point you abandon the 8010 relationship altogether and shoot a 90 degree trial and terror shot, based on faulty information developed from a faulty 8010 technique.

These are specific questions, which have been asked in precise manner in previous posts, none of which has been replied to at all. You just wave your magic wand and say "It works for me." Then you pretend you are teaching something. You are not. Nobody has learned anything from you but that you will defend a conquered position with a limp spaghetti noodle. 8010 is a fraud.

Ten tests of a valid targeting technique

A good targeting technique is easy to teach.
It works for targets at any initial AoB.
It is broken down into simple steps
that can be concisely listed,
not skipping any steps,
not assuming any outside information.
It can be used by the learner as well or better than it is by the teacher.
Each step is able to be verified by graphical and
mathematical proof that it takes into account all possible parameters of the attack.
Other people adopt and use the technique, telling others about their success and helping them with misunderstandings.

Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! on each point of the ten in the proceeding paragraph for 8010. It cannot be considered a valid targeting technique. Others may be able to add to my list of tests but 8010 is already ten times a failure.

tater

09-13-10, 08:26 PM

do you think that formula was inserted into the tfcm untested?
do you really think that? then you dont know anything about the united states military, to do something like that is like handing a soldier an untried weapon, like putting men in a submarine to dive, with no way of getting back up, it makes no sense.

so im still waiting!

A mission was already posted above in the thread. Why should I make another?

Greyrider, I KNOW that the math does not support what you claim. Basic trig is something that I'm fairly comfortable with—it sort of came with the astrophysics degree.

You are proposing that your method is a generalized solution. It should be trivial to proove. No mission is even required. The knowns are "closing" constant bearing of 080, and some sub speed. Solve for AOB.

You cannot claim the intercept is 90, that is NOT a given unless you fabricate it in the mission, holding the bearing constant does not make the intercept 90, it just makes the bearing constant.

You're the one with your own method to prove, not me. ;)

Armistead

09-13-10, 08:28 PM

Maybe this is the case of another beautiful mind.

Rockin Robbins

09-13-10, 08:30 PM

It is the case of a pitiful fallacy.

He bases the 90º intercept on the 10º AoB and determines the 10º AoB from the 90º intercept! There's a name for that............Excel slams me with it occasionally.............I'll think of it..........
Circular Reference!!! Two fallacies leaning on each other for proof. Fail.

Bet you didn't know that trees cause wind by waving their branches....:haha:

You know, if tater jumps into one of my threads (he has done that) and says "RR, there's a problem with your calculation there" I pay close attention, fix the problem and thank him. He doesn't say much, but when he does he has something valid to say.

tater

09-13-10, 09:46 PM

I gave the initial concept the benefit of the doubt as a possible "rule of thumb." The speed range given in game--medium as 8-12, say--without question narrows the solutions. Since his stated goal is finding the speed, the simple question is does assuming an AOB of 10 result in a better speed than just using the average in the range (10 in this case).

Once it was clear he thought the AOB was actually 10 at all times-or that the triangle MUST be right I posted.

Rockin Robbins

09-14-10, 08:57 AM

Wise people pay close attention to correction and are grateful for it.
Fools, sure of the rightness of their way, plunge straight to destruction.
A man with wisdom consults with others smarter than himself.
A fool consults only his own foolishness.

tater

09-14-10, 05:39 PM

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/tatersw/SH4/bearings.jpg

Quick and dirty example. This is in effect the same diagram nisgeis posted.

Sub moves some distance in the period from observation 1 to 2. Let's say she's moving 5 knots.

The top target observed at bearing 280 in both cases has an AOB of 65. In the time interval of obs1 to obs2 she moves ~108% of the path length of the sub. That's 1.08*5 = 5.40 knots. This might well be ruled out by the sonarman's speed range.

The next target has an AOB of 35. Still at 280 on both bearings. So she must move ~174% of the sub's movement in the time period from obs1 to obs2. That means she has to go 8.7 knots. If the sonarman said 8-12 knots, this path is entirely possible.

The next has an AOB of 28. She'd have to move at 10.6 knots to keep the relationship. Still within the 8-12 as a valid solution.

Note that there are INFINITE solutions like this. Note also that all the above examples cross the sub's path at angles not equal to 90.

Greyrider's givens are 080/280 bearing. Closing target with sonarman speed range estimate. Submarine speed. All else is unknown. He seems to say that if it is possible to keep the target on 080 at >0 to max submerged speed, then the AOB must be 010, which, obviously, is nonsense.