So what is the proper, real life way to aim torpedos and get a firing solution?

[ChaosDuck7]

The way i have been doing it is marking the position of my target on the map. Then I run the stopwatch for 3 minutes and 15 seconds, mark their new position and estimate knots. Then, based on their trajectory I preplan where I want them to be in my periscope when I shoot. Usually I will make it something easy like 0 degrees. So I plug in the estimated speed and the 0 degrees in the firing computer. Then I go back and trace their trajectory till they get to the 0 degree mark. From there I measure the bow angle and distance to my ship and plug that stuff in. After that, its just a matter of waiting till they cross the 0 in my attack periscope.


However, this is kind of annoying and takes a little too much brainpower. Not to mention I am pretty much assuming the ships are maintaining speed and course.


But I am a guy that likes to play his games realistically. Is this how a WW2 sub captain would have found a firing solution? Or is the seemingly more "gamey" method of pulling up the target identification booklet and estimating range based on their mast height and just arbitrarily running the stopwatch while locked on to get speed the more realistic way of doing it?

I have watched a lot of lets plays and I have never seen anyone do it the way that I do it. They all do the target identifiaction book way.

[NeonSamurai]

Well real uboats did have stadimeters, and they did actually use mast height to estimate range, and had books that indicated mast height for common ships. Experienced captains though probably guesstimated mast height or range, and even speed. Also certain ships tend to go at certain speeds on given situations.

I'm guessing since you are using 3:15 trick, that you are familiar with Wazoo's manual targeting guide. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=206381 That trick is more a game trick then one in reality per say, though they may have have used the same sort of trick based on the measuring instruments they used for charting

I think in reality they would measure it on the chart and then compare the time and distance to a book that had pre-calculated estimates. That way you would not have to do complex calculations or be required to count to a certain time between observations.

Ultimately though they did do a lot of targeting calculations by plotting. Plotting is even still done today in modern submarines, but with computers and software to help.

Back then you really did only have a handful of ways to figure out speed. Guessing from experience, hydrophones, radar, or the stadimeter. With experience you can manually set up shots on the fly though, and in the early part of the war uboats would often just charge in under the cover of night, fire a spread, and submerge, hoping one of the fish would hit.

[ChaosDuck7]

I see thanks for the response.

So it is "realistic" to play with weapon officer assitance? Kinda like emulating the captains experience and the crew working in tandem instead of doing annoying math by yourself?

[Sailor Steve]

That's the way I do it. My only complaint about the WE is that he's perfect. Never makes mistakes. On the other hand I still manage to miss often enough. :dead:

[BigWalleye]

First of all, according to Hitman's thorough and documented PDF "German Optics," U-boats commissioned during the war did not have a stadimeter, only a graticle for angle measurement. You can find "German Optics" in the documentation for the Hitman's Optics mod, available at Plissken's site. (ftp://hartmuthaas.no-ip.org/public/Sharing/SH3COMMUNITYMODS). Username and password can be found on this thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171019. Hitman has done quite a bit of research, including actually looking at existing WW2 U-boat periscopes. His work is sometimes ignored, but I have never seen it disputed.

As to the question of which method is historically accurate, I believe the answer is "Neither." My sources are largely first-person accounts from USN fleet boats, but they are supported by the descriptions in Herbert Werner's "Iron Coffins" and the approach and firing procedures seem to have been very similar.

The first thing to remember is that the approach party consisted of, all told, perhaps a dozen officers and senior ratings, all with specific jobs to do. Much of what the gamer is asked to do was not done by the boat commander. The two methods OP describes were actually both used simultaneously. From the moment of first contact, the plotting party would be updating the attack plot with the most current information and generating course, speed, and zig-zag pattern estimates. Some of the plotting party's function is built into the automatic map updates, but not all. Of course, the plotting party was neither perfectly accurate nor instantaneous. But they did derive a target speed, for example, which is a task left to the gamer.

The approach officer would feed visual data to the identification party, which would try to determine the target's identity. But this was frequently not resolved in real time. Ned Beach describes an engagement where the target identification was decided 24 hours after the target had been sunk! So target ID was not needed for a successful attack. And agian, while there was a team to make the ID, they were neither infallible nor instantaneous.

The Approach Officer was usually, but not always the boat commander. Doctrine in both USN and KM called for the skipper to make all periscope observations, but that was sometimes ignored in both navies. And KG doctrine called for the 1WO, not the Kaleun, to make all target observations with the UZO during a surface approach.

The Approach Officer would estimate range, aspect, and speed independent of the plotting party data. (Hitman describes how these measurements were made.) The observations were fed into the TVR (TDC in USN parlance) and used to generate a solution. This was then checked against the plotting party's results. If there was a discrepancy, the skipper would determine what to do - make more observations, use the calculated data, or use the plotted data. A wrong decision would lead to a failed attack. There are plenty of descriptions of these in the first-person accounts.

So what do we have? If you do not use full automatic targeting, the gamer is asked to perform tasks the Approach Officer never had to do. The gamer usually has tools the Approach Officer did not have or did not use - stadimeter, 10x scopes, speed measurement function. When the gamer uses crew assistance, that assistance is much too accurate and much too prompt. And there is often no opportunity to determine the firing solution by multiple means and compare the results before attacking. The game is a game, and even with 100% "realism" (sic) and mods to enhance the fidelity, it is a surprisingly inaccurate simulation of the role of the submarine commander during an attack.

So, what approach procedure should you use? Whichever floats your boat. None are historically appropriate. I'd suggest reading some first-person accounts to get a feel for the activities and the atmosphere. Then pick out the elements you feel best recreate that feel, and use them. Experiment and choose what you like. There is no best answer and certainly there is no correct answer.

Nowadays, the Navy has what they call a "position trainer" which allows you to perform all the tasks of a designated position with the trainer doing the work of all other positions in real time. SH3 (SH4 and SH5, too) is not such a creature.

[ChaosDuck7]

Wow thanks for the interesting information.


Really clears a lot up. Kinda disappointing how unrealistic the game is in this regard but then again it is a game.

[LGN1]

That's the way I do it. My only complaint about the WE is that he's perfect. Never makes mistakes. On the other hand I still manage to miss often enough. :dead:

H.Sie's great fixes change this. See here (item 2):

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174225

Regards, LGN1

[BigWalleye]

H.Sie's great fixes change this. See here (item 2):

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174225

Regards, LGN1

There is a lot more to Weapon Officer Assistance than range estimates. There is target identification and firing solution calculation. h.sie's patch introduces uncertainty into visual range estimates only. And, if you are submerged and making periscope observations yourself, you aren't using the Watch Officer (not the Weapons Officer) to give you range estimates anyway. If you have auto plotting updates active, you will get exact positions on the attack plot, not estimates.

I could wish that someone would tackle the task of introducing uncertainty into Target ID, assisted speed estimation, plot position, etc. But since I am not willing to undertake this challenging task myself, I can't in good conscience ask anyone else to do it. So I live with the limitations Ubisoft programmed into the game.

[GoldenRivet]

So what is the proper, real life way to aim torpedos and get a firing solution?

when i first read this i thought "meet me at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry with about a dozen of your strongest friends and 3 or 4 of your smartest friends and we can go through learning the whole procedure"

:haha:

[Tigershark624]

I've used this method with some measure of success. It eliminates the problem of finding range completely. First, ID the target vessel. Note the length in the ID book. The place the vertical cross hair in the periscope slightly ahead of the target. When her bow crosses the cross hair, start the stopwatch. Stop the stopwatch when her stern crosses the line. Divide the length of the vessel by the time it took it to cross the cross hair. Multiply the result by 1.95 (assuming the length of the vessel was listed in meters) and that gives you its speed in knots.

I use Makman's excellent GUI, which provides the indispensable chart shown below:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/IlyaBorisovich/chart.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/IlyaBorisovich/media/chart.jpg.html)

Eyeball guesstimate the AOB and reference the vessel's speed with the anticipated AOB at impact, making sure to use the correct chart for your torpedo's speed. Set the periscope cross hair at the bearing indicated on the chart and fire your salvo when the target's bow crosses the cross hair. Lower your periscope and wait for the sweet sound of collapsing bulkheads, diving to evasion depth if applicable.

It actually takes less time to complete this sequence of steps than it took for me to type it. I don't know if it's historically accurate, but I know it works for me and is far simpler than any other method I've tried. Hope this helps.

Tigershark

Edited to add: I forgot to mention that your scope must be set to 12x magnification to get the target's speed accurately. D'OH!

To quote someone much wiser than I, "BE MORE AGGRESSIVE!"

[Kanzler_Bismarck]

That's the way I do it. My only complaint about the WE is that he's perfect. Never makes mistakes. On the other hand I still manage to miss often enough. :dead:
Mine does about 1 and 10 shots it seems goes wide... then one has to hope that they actually detonate... I normally have to fudge the WO's calcs just a touch if I want a one fish kill.

[maillemaker]

In my last go at making it through the war (I'm in April 1944 and have just gotten my Type XXI last night) I decided to play on 100%+ realism. I say "+" because it is possible with GWX to have it read "100%" realism even with map updates turned on.

For this last go at the war, starting from 1939, I checked every option. I now have no map updates. This totally changes the simulation.

I like BigWalleye's account of things and it sounds reasonable to me. They had a crew to help collect and plot target information.

With no map updates, I find that normally I just guess.

It's amazing in hindsight how easy it is when you have map updates. Which is why this last go around I decided to up the ante and turn it off. With updates, all you have to do is drive up to a ship or a convoy, wait for your watch crew to spot the targets, and then look at your map.

There they all are, laid out for you. It's like having satellite reconnaissance. You can see which ships are big and which are small. You can even pick out the profile of warships from the merchants. And you can draw a line along the axis of the ship hull(s) to plot a perfect course.

When I was stalking a convoy, I'd even draw projected course lines for each row of the convoy, so during my approach I could get right where I wanted to be in the perfect position to hit the juiciest targets.

Likewise, speed determination was simple and dead-accurate. Just raise the scope, make a mark on the map where the contact magically appeared, drop the scope, wait 3:15, raise the scope and make another mark, then draw a line. Presto! You know the speed of the target.

Then all you have to do is approach at 90 degrees, set your TDC for a 90 degree shot and dial in the target speed, zero out the TDC and fire as the target crosses your vertical reticule. Piece of cake.

With no map updates, all this changes.

First of all, you get much better at having a mental picture of the orientation of your submarine on the compass and where the targets are relative to you. No longer can you look at the map to figure out exactly what angle to turn to follow parallel to a target or to approach at 90 degrees. You have to be able to look at a target and estimate its heading relative to yours based on the profile it shows you. This alone makes interceptions difficult.

It is true that you can ask your watch officer the range to closest target and (unless you mod it) this will give you a precise range and bearing which you can then plot on the map. But since both you and the target are moving by the time you have actually gotten to the map and drawn your line (often you have to zoom out and extend the line to the right range since you were zoomed in to be able to see the compass wheel around your sub) both the target and your sub have moved! So even with WO assistance your plot lines probably are +/- 200 meters and +/- 5 degrees. They are only estimates.

As for speed determination, I largely estimate it. 7 knots has become my "default" TDC input speed. The only way you can cheat this is if you get a radio contact report about a convoy in which case it will report its true speed, and you can use that. Otherwise you will have to eyeball the target and based on its nose wake size and how quickly it is moving across your scope you will have to estimate the target speed. The usual speed for merchants is between 5 and 10 knots. If you close to within 500 meters and use 7 knots on a 90 degree approach, you will probably hit the target most of the time. Within 1000 meters you'll probably hit it 80-90% of the time.

Of course the idea of bullseying certain areas of a ship for "critical hit damage" is a thing of the past. You'll be pleased to hit the ship at all. And you should plan on two torpedoes per target if you want a guaranteed sinking. In GWX it seems like about 60% of the time a single torpedo hit will not sink a ship unless you want to hang around two days for it to finally go under. In a convoy that ship is gone and you have wasted a torpedo. A damaged ship is the same as a miss. Most ships will go down with two torpedoes.

Also with no updates it makes escort evasion and hunting a lot harder. With updates on, you can run at periscope depth while being pursued by escorts and stick your scope just above the water and then move to the tactical map and watch, video-game-like, the little icons of the destroyers as they circle, in real time, around your sub. With this method I have gotten quite good at manually dialing the TDC to a torpedo intercept and have successfully many times sunk circling escorts from the TDC map without even using the periscope. Not very realistic.

I suspect that range and angle perception was easier in real life than in on a two-dimensional computer screen. This probably made spacial perception of the relationship between the sub and target easier.

But if you really want to stretch your capabilities, try SH3 with no map updates. You will have to rely entirely on what you can see from the bridge or your scopes and what you can visualize in your head. In this regard, I think it makes the game very real to what real uboat men had to be able to do. They had to be masters of visualizing and solving geometric problems in their heads.

Steve