Search Patterns

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

I wanted to know how u-boats made their serches for targets. Does anyone know what technique they used?

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ormstomorrow.informs.org/archive/spring03/.../carl_paper.pdf)

[jwells0504]

I thought the game had it pretty close. Subs were assaigned patrol locations where there was a high probability of convoy traffic and once they picked up contacts they would report to BDU so they could coordinate attacks.

I don't think they had a whole lot of "searching" they relied mostly on sensors and contacts from other subs this was likely because of their limited fuel supply.

I got this of WIKI.

I might be dead wrong so please don't quote me on this.

Bye.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

I was talking about specific search patterns..Wiki?...urghhh!:dead:

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Wiki is a reliable source of information as long as you think when using it, it can also serve as an excellent index of sources (if you still insist on not trusting Wiki itself). No need to make fun of anyone only because he _quoted_ Wiki.

You just discredited Wiki (as an internet source), but what you do is asking "us" (the anonymous guys you met on the internet) to give you reliable info.

jwells0504 got it right. U-Boot relied heavily on data received from other U-Boot and from BdU, especially when working in wolf packs. When sailing independently all they had was their own ability to find targets: they hanged out around enemy ports and close to known transport lanes, as close as they could without risking too much, rarely they even took prisoners in hope to get some useful information from them. BdU orders were to actively seek battle, pursue and destroy enemy whenever he could be found, by all means. So they used all means available (not much).

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source from most of the research I did on campus. If you want to use Wiki that's your business. But don't tell me to look up anything there. And what are you telling me I don't think?:-?

[Sailor Steve]

it can also serve as an excellent index of sources
:sign_yeah:

If nothing else a properly-researched Wiki article will have an excellent list of books to look at, and if you're lucky a good list of web sources as well.

[sergei]

it can also serve as an excellent index of sources

This.

Whilst one should not rely on it as a sole arbiter of what is true, it is a very good starting point.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia), are the claims that the principle of being open for editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editing) by everyone makes Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)), that it exhibits systemic bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias), and that its group dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics) hinder its goals. The Seigenthaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_biography_controversy) and Essjay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy) incidents caused criticism of Wikipedia's reliability and usefulness as a reference. Wikipedia has also been the subject of parody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody) and other humorous criticism.

The above is actually from Wikipedia.:D:har: Although I can't really blame the creators of Wikipedia but the whole idea that material could be alterd by users is what my main beef with them is all about.

[Sailor Steve]

As opposed to other online sources, which are usually carefully controlled by a creator who manages to get it wrong anyhow. I even see 'official' sources that make me pull my hair.

The point here is that there is no online source that you can trust without following the source links, and if a Wiki article provides source links you can at least use them as a reference without having to rely on the article itself.

[Takeda Shingen]

I usually regard Wikipedia as insufficient for academic research, but adequate along the lines of the Guiness Book of World Records. The publication was originally intended to settle bar bets and disputes. As such, I consider Wikipedia a reliable enough source to cite as part of an internet forum argument, a la General Topics. However, if a simulation enthusiast is seeking absolute historical accuracy, you'll have to go to other sources. Uboat.net is widely considered the authority on the internet, but the print media is still king when it comes to this subject matter.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

Agree @ Takeda and Sailor.:yeah:

[Kazuaki]

i don`t know the real life mode... i just take my U-Boat go to the patrol area and start zig-zag

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

I find the best search pattern now is to pick a spot where I think heavy traffic is and submerge 30m and wait. I sank 6 ships at the mouth of Gibralta in 2 days.:DL

[Zedi]

...
I don't think they had a whole lot of "searching" they relied mostly on sensors and contacts from other subs this was likely because of their limited fuel supply.

I got this of WIKI
....

I don't need uboat.net to figure out that in the middle of Atlantic there is just enough fuel to make spiral or whatever search pattern. So yeah, I use the same tactics. Daylight and good weather conditions I travel on surface and rely on reports, at night on sensors. Related to the game, finding convoys is not an issue, but finding those damn ships from the BB missions that are all over in the sh5 campaign.. is a nightmare. Pride of Navy, Force A, H, XZY, carriers etc

Wish that someday somebody will mod out these stupid missions from SH5, worst of them all is the one called Winston's Special. Now that's a huge search pattern, starting from UK down to S-Africa. More chance to find a needle in a hay field than those damn ships :/