Expermiting with Scope SH4

[Captain_AJ]

In sh4 no matter the angle you can hit your target from 270, 180, 90, 0, using the bow tubes. the solution for firing of fish at 270 for example optimal track is to have the target ship at 6 knots and AOB from 90-98 when shooting from the bow tubes and your boat is heading east , you will need to aligin the scope at 270 and set your paramitters .. AOB at 98 , speed at 6knts , the range at 1300 -- you will than align your scope at 260. your torpedo settings , will be contact and speed set at high . you can only allow the Sub speed at 1 knt , once the bow of the ship hits the 260 mark fire at points as the ship passes , the bow , amidships , stern .. this also can be used for the stern tubes ,, I have found out that a 10 degree lead will hit the ship at the 0 spot from were you have aimed , reading Old Is US Navy manuels and practising formulas I have found this works effectivly . Using Manuel targeting is so much more fun .. Since the scope in Sh4 different than SH5 . I had to figure out a way to measure the ships speed using the scope ... Look at fig 1 below.
http://i.imgur.com/v5pxMn3.jpg fig 1

I found out using sh4 scope that if you count the gradients from the stern of the ship to bow of the ship by 5 (scope has to be in the close up view )

you count the stern from the centerline of the scope to the lenght of the ship , multply that by how many marks .. thus if you see 7 mark's, 7 x 5 = 45, 45 x2 = 90 ft you than take the bow of the ship and start your clock and count how many seconds it takes for the centerline to reach the stern. if it took 45 secs than muliply .45x 90 = 40.5 divide that by 3 than you will get your speed 13.5 knts , take this and divide that by 2 and you will get your true speed of 6.75 knts

So far this has been working .. Any suggestions of caculating legnth and speed withSH4 besides the plotting map method would help .. Thanks , happy hunting

[Rockin Robbins]

In sh4 no matter the angle you can hit your target from 270, 180, 90, 0, using the bow tubes. the solution for firing of fish at 270 for example optimal track is to have the target ship at 6 knots and AOB from 90-98 when shooting from the bow tubes and your boat is heading east , you will need to aligin the scope at 270 and set your paramitters .. AOB at 98 , speed at 6knts , the range at 1300 -- you will than align your scope at 260. your torpedo settings , will be contact and speed set at high . you can only allow the Sub speed at 1 knt , once the bow of the ship hits the 260 mark fire at points as the ship passes , the bow , amidships , stern .. this also can be used for the stern tubes ,, I have found out that a 10 degree lead will hit the ship at the 0 spot from were you have aimed , reading Old Is US Navy manuels and practising formulas I have found this works effectivly . Using Manuel targeting is so much more fun .. Since the scope in Sh4 different than SH5 . I had to figure out a way to measure the ships speed using the scope ... Look at fig 1 below.
http://i.imgur.com/v5pxMn3.jpg fig 1

I found out using sh4 scope that if you count the gradients from the stern of the ship to bow of the ship by 5 (scope has to be in the close up view )

you count the stern from the centerline of the scope to the lenght of the ship , multply that by how many marks .. thus if you see 7 mark's, 7 x 5 = 45, 45 x2 = 90 ft you than take the bow of the ship and start your clock and count how many seconds it takes for the centerline to reach the stern. if it took 45 secs than muliply .45x 90 = 40.5 divide that by 3 than you will get your speed 13.5 knts , take this and divide that by 2 and you will get your true speed of 6.75 knts

So far this has been working .. Any suggestions of caculating legnth and speed withSH4 besides the plotting map method would help .. Thanks , happy hunting
Looks elegant but 7x5=35 not 45 so your solution depends on you making an error in calculation. I would suggest this is not a method that works because errors are random. Why do you arbitrarily change a unit of time, 45 seconds, into a fractional parameter, .45, for your calculation? You don't establish any logic to the method. And why divide by 3? Why then divide again by 2? And why not just divide by 6? And where does the 6 come from and why is it used?

I don't see math, I see black magic. I don't see method, I see superstition. Personally I use my shoe size.:D:D:D

How about deriving your numbers and explaining why your method works? Start with how your speed has anything to do with the length of the ship you are measuring with your telemeter marks. Then I'll bring in CapnScurvy to explain how and why you can't use the telemeter marks in stock SH4.

[yubba]

A mod wish,, a way to adjust range, angle on bow and speed,, in the attack map screen ,, I've gotten the input into the torpedo solution close with about 4 trips back en forth to the periscope to get where I can fire.. or is that to much of a cheat

[Rockin Robbins]

Adjusting parameters on the attack map screen is a kludge from SH3. It isn't realistic there either. The attack map simulates the check that was made between actual target position and the position in the TDC, which was made before every shot. If they were not in agreement the sub didn't shoot.

But the man responsible for that check did not set AoB, target speed, range or bearing into the TDC. He was the independent observer that kept the TDC team honest. This was true on US and German boats.

I have no idea where the SH3 kludge came from. But it's wrong. We shouldn't imitate it in SH4.

[gumbeauregard]

You can estimate speed if you know the range by measuring the time to traverse 10 degrees (or any other number of degrees).

However, this method requires some trigonometry so a prepared table of values is the best way to employ this method.

[Rockin Robbins]

You can estimate speed if you know the range by measuring the time to traverse 10 degrees (or any other number of degrees).

However, this method requires some trigonometry so a prepared table of values is the best way to employ this method.
Good luck with that....

[yubba]

Good luck with that....


Is there another way to put input into the TDC other than in the periscope ,and the sonar station ????

[propbeanie]

"Up periscope!"... "Bearing - Mark! Down scope!" start the stop watch... three minutes fifteen seconds later: "Up periscope!... Bearing - Mark! Down scope!"... calculate... position boat for intercept, set torps, etc. Follow sonar trace lines... "Up periscope!... Bearing - $#!+, dad-blame... Down scope!"... smack XO. Duck... Re-do... :salute:

[yubba]

Actually I like Rockin's Intercept and 3min rule,, he had a nice video on how to very effective,, I do alot with the radar to set up but of late I've been using the TDC turned on and trying to take the shot that way but going back an forth to attack map is a pain.., what is one to do for realism

[Rockin Robbins]

Is there another way to put input into the TDC other than in the periscope ,and the sonar station ????
Nope, that's it, just like the real submarine. It was the torpedo men who manually put the numbers in or the TDC operator who ran the automatic inputs. Sonar also could enter range and bearing only.

[gumbeauregard]

Good luck with that....

It works well enough within its limitations.

Personally, I like the math part of SH so I tend to mess around with that a lot.

I especially enjoy a sonar only approach and firing. Handy when the visibility is zero off the Japanese coast.

[Rockin Robbins]

The time to traverse 10 degrees, even with range known, is insufficient information by itself to hit any target except by pure coincidence. Lacking valid methodology, good luck is your only friend.

[gumbeauregard]

The time to traverse 10 degrees, even with range known, is insufficient information by itself to hit any target except by pure coincidence. Lacking valid methodology, good luck is your only friend.

The only information required for a zero gyro angle firing solution is the target speed and the torpedo speed. You generate a firing bearing from these two numbers.

The arctangent of the (target speed divided by the torpedo speed) generates the deflection required at any range.

Time to transit X degrees is most useful when firing using sound bearing only in SH4 because there is a gap in sound bearings.

As an example, if I have determined target speed to be 10 knots and plan to fire 29 knot electric torpedoes, I know my deflection is 19 degrees. Firing bearing is 19 (Port AOB) or 341(Starboard AOB) for bow torpedoes.

I close to my planned firing range of 1000 yards.

From my prepared table, I know that the target will traverse 10 degrees at 1000 yards in 31 seconds or about 1 degree every 3 seconds.

When I get a clean sound bearing 20 degrees or less from my firing bearing I note the second hand and do the math to the firing bearing. I fire when the time expires.

If my firing bearing is 19 degrees and I get a clean sound bearing of 25 degrees, I time 18 seconds (3 seconds per degree for 6 degrees) and push the fire button)

The limitations of this, of course, are that the target course must be nearly perpendicular to your line of sight for this method to have accuracy but this fits the minute before firing well.

Dick O'Kane refers to his "seaman's eye" referencing one of Tang's misses where he did not update target speed based on what he saw in the periscope, instead relying on the solution developed by plot and the firing party. His experience determining speed by rate of bearing change is "seaman's eye".

Hard to do in the game but not impossible and, of course, shooting from in close forgives speed errors to a large degree.

If your torpedo does not hit precisely where the wire is at firing then you made a speed error somewhere when shooting zero gyro angle.

[yubba]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k5yJI6Z5AU

[gumbeauregard]

Here is a film of my Zero Gyro Angle attack method.

https://youtu.be/gOFROfDUhRc

Notes:

If you take positions every three minutes the yards moved divided by 100 =knots of speed for the target. You will see a series of 3 minute positions showing 1000 yards each interval for a target speed of 10 knots.

All bow torpedoes are set to run at 46 knots. The old Mark 14's must be set to high to do this (Tubes 1 through 4) Tubes 5 and 6 have Mark 23's which only have the 46 knot speed setting.

Deflection angle for 10 knot target with 46 knot torpedo can be found on the Wiki chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Data_Computer#/media/File:DeflectionAngle.png

Or you can use this calculator
http://www.couscouscrabcakes.com/okane.html

Or you can make your own table of values in Excel using =DEGREES(ATAN Target Speed/Torpedo Speed)

https://s10.postimg.org/7skqmalgp/torpedo_table.png

Notice there is no need to put anything into the TDC with this method.

Once I know the target speed all I do is get to my shooting position, 1000 yards or less from target track and 100 degrees Torpedo track angle (The angle formed by the target track and the torpedo track)

The calculated firing bearing in the film is 12 degrees starboard which is a bearing of 12 degrees. If the target where approaching from submarine port side (Starboard AOB) the firing bearing would be 12 degrees port or 348 degrees.

Range is unnecessary for this method as the ratio of the target speed to torpedo speed remains the same, thus the angle does not change with range to target.

[Rockin Robbins]

The only information required for a zero gyro angle firing solution is the target speed and the torpedo speed. That is absolutely false and because you build your entire attack method on this fiction it too is absolute fiction. You generate a firing bearing from these two numbers.
No, you don't. The rest is irrelevant. Logic, built upon fallacy, is a bigger fallacy.

Please watch my Dick O'Kane video to find out what pieces of information you are missing for a true target solution. And your tables are ridiculous. What's easier than in the heat of the moment, picking the wrong number from a table? Not much. Tables are tossing predictable human error into the targeting process. If you then start multiplying and dividing, introducing more error-prone steps into the targeting process you get many more misses. Build all that upon the fallacy that all you need is target speed and torpedo speed and you have an invalid method crammed with human error.

Why in the world would you use a trig table when you have an analog trig computer on board? It boggles the mind...

There are two possible ways of improving existing targeting methods: Simplifying and making more accurate. Both may be accomplished by mitigating predictable human error. You have complicated the task and made it less accurate by far, guaranteeing many misses.

[gumbeauregard]

That is absolutely false and because you build your entire attack method on this fiction it too is absolute fiction.
No, you don't. The rest is irrelevant. Logic, built upon fallacy, is a bigger fallacy.

Please watch my Dick O'Kane video to find out what pieces of information you are missing for a true target solution. And your tables are ridiculous. What's easier than in the heat of the moment, picking the wrong number from a table? Not much. Tables are tossing predictable human error into the targeting process. If you then start multiplying and dividing, introducing more error-prone steps into the targeting process you get many more misses. Build all that upon the fallacy that all you need is target speed and torpedo speed and you have an invalid method crammed with human error.

Why in the world would you use a trig table when you have an analog trig computer on board? It boggles the mind...

There are two possible ways of improving existing targeting methods: Simplifying and making more accurate. Both may be accomplished by mitigating predictable human error. You have complicated the task and made it less accurate by far, guaranteeing many misses.

I can't help you if you don't understand the math behind the true zero gyro angle shot.

Right triangles and trig functions are immutable. True Zero Gyro shots only require target speed and torpedo speed.

I watched your video. You are mostly guessing. My video removes your guesswork for a better understanding of Dick O'Kane's Zero Gyro method.

[Rockin Robbins]

I can't help you if you don't understand the math behind the true zero gyro angle shot.
:haha::har:https://image.ibb.co/fKXfPa/a6121671_45_triple_facepalm_zpscafe38c0.jpg

Okay, pal, conversation over. You're not worth my time. Everybody on this board understands that I have an intimate knowledge of trigonometry and VALID methods of targeting torpedoes with a submarine. Yours is INVALID. Doesn't work. Can't work because you are ignoring crucial elements of the very definition of a target solution.

Much worse than those who can't be helped is those who are so deluded that they WON'T be helped. You're like talking to a flat earther.

Oh, the Dick O'Kane method IS NOT a zero gyro method. It's a close enough to zero gyro not to matter method. There is no guessing in the Dick O'Kane method at all, not even a LITTLE bit. Hundreds have used the Dick O'Kane method to become great shots with manual targeting who failed previously with other methods. Then the Dick O'Kane method, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, helps you to understand other valid methods. Yours is not one of those.

https://image.ibb.co/i8G4Za/Dick_OKanetargeting.png
THAT's a valid targeting method.

https://image.ibb.co/fsu8ua/Vector_Analysistargeting.png
THAT's a valid targeting method. By the way this is a true zero bearing attack method without all your mumbo-jumbo and invalid assumptions. Trig tables need not apply.

The only information required for a zero gyro angle firing solution is the target speed and the torpedo speed. You generate a firing bearing from these two numbers.
Anything built on that statement is a totally invalid targeting method and I advise any new players seeking to learn to ignore anything you've said in this thread.

[gumbeauregard]

Since there is disagreement about Zero Gyro Angle shots I thought i would provide some background.

The Submarine Fire Control Manual has a hint to the math involved

BLANK 840. DEFLECTION ANGLE FOR STRAIGHT FIRE:

The deflection angle for a straight shot of any torpedo run for target speeds less than one-half the torpedo speed, may be approximated as follows:

Torpedo
Track Angle 46 Knot Torpedo 29 Knot Torpedo
1. 90 degrees 1 1/4 x Target Speed 2 x Target Speed
2. 60 degrees 75% of (1) 75% of (1)
3. 40 degrees 50% or (1) 50% of (1)
4. 18 degrees 25% of (1) 25% of (1)
5. Optimum 1-1/3 x Target Speed

In my example I use a 10 knot target and 46 knot torpedo. The approximation suggested in the STFCM is 1.25 times the target speed for a 90 degree shot or a 12.25 degree deflection angle.

The Arctangent of 10/46 is 12.26477 degrees.

All of this is based on well known trigonometric functions.

A torpedo shot is a simple time and distance problem.

You choose an impact point on the target course line. You position the boat at a firing position within range of the torpedo. You must fire the torpedo so that it arrives at the impact point when the target is occupying the impact point.

That time is determined by the ratio of the torpedo speed to the target speed.

A 46 knot torpedo travels 4.6 times as far as a 10 knot target for ANY given distance.

For any time (T) the sides for this triangle are 10(T) and 46 (T). Thus we can ignore the T.

http://i61.tinypic.com/xbjl8z.jpg

So far ANY target range the ratio of target speed to torpedo speed is constant, thus the firing angle is constant for any range.

From the STFCM you can see the rule of thumb applies to any shot within 30 degrees of "Normal" (The course 90 degrees off the target course)

So any time you can get into a firing position that allow a nearly 90 degree torpedo impact to target course the trig table I posted is extremely accurate ASSUMING you develop an accurate target speed and use the correct torpedo speed.

No messing with the TDC is required for Bow tubes in SH4.

[gumbeauregard]

:haha::har:https://image.ibb.co/fKXfPa/a6121671_45_triple_facepalm_zpscafe38c0.jpg

Okay, pal, conversation over. You're not worth my time. Everybody on this board understands that I have an intimate knowledge of trigonometry and VALID methods of targeting torpedoes with a submarine. Yours is INVALID. Doesn't work. Can't work because you are ignoring crucial elements of the very definition of a target solution.

Much worse than those who can't be helped is those who are so deluded that they WON'T be helped. You're like talking to a flat earther.

Oh, the Dick O'Kane method IS NOT a zero gyro method. It's a close enough to zero gyro not to matter method. There is no guessing in the Dick O'Kane method at all, not even a LITTLE bit. Hundreds have used the Dick O'Kane method to become great shots with manual targeting who failed previously with other methods. Then the Dick O'Kane method, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, helps you to understand other valid methods. Yours is not one of those.

https://image.ibb.co/i8G4Za/Dick_OKanetargeting.png
THAT's a valid targeting method.

https://image.ibb.co/fsu8ua/Vector_Analysistargeting.png
THAT's a valid targeting method. By the way this is a true zero bearing attack method without all your mumbo-jumbo and invalid assumptions.


Anything built on that statement is a totally invalid targeting method and I advise any new players seeking to learn to ignore anything you've said in this thread.

All that messing with the TDC is totally unnecessary for Bow Tubes.

Your 10 degrees for >15 knots and 20 degrees over 15 knots is an error prone simplification of the trig involved.

You can easily create a very accurate table of firing bearings such as the one I posted and know EXACTLY what bearing to fire on for any target ship speed without ever touching the TDC for bow tube shots in SH4.

It accounts for all the required variables (torp spd, target spd ) and isnt a WAG.

I can post videos all day long demonstrating how accurate and easy it is.

[Rockin Robbins]

Anybody can cherry pick irrelevant parts of the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual. Where does it say that the only two pieces of information you need to shoot a torpedo are target speed and torpedo speed?

Knowing how to read is not the same as having comprehension. Rote copying of material you do not understand does not bolster your case.

From time to time people pop into Subsim with crazy ideas that they are the only people in the history of mankind to come up with a completely new method of shooting torpedoes. They make grandiose statements and outlandish claims, then make themselves appear sane by quoting the 1946 Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual.

Of course it does NOT support your method. Your method is invalid and cannot be used to accurately aim a torpedo. Those guys seventy odd years ago were way ahead of you.

And you don't understand either the vector analysis method or the Dick O'Kane method. I use the accurate analog trig computer built into the TDC to eliminate inevitable human error and PRECISELY pick the gyro angle, which the selection of lead angle by rule of thumb, not guessing, ensures will be well under 10 degrees. Any gyro angle of under 20 degrees is considered straight shooting where range error is not going to result in missing the target. There's nothing magic about fussing with getting a perfect zero gyro angle shot. Read the freakin' manual you so love to quote! A little understanding would lead you to sheepishly withdraw all you've said. Any fool can retype irrelevant passages. You sure have.

Now either support your foundation statement, "the only two pieces of information you need to shoot a torpedo are target speed and torpedo speed." or go away.

There was another equally deluded guy who claimed that putting the enemy on your 80 degree or 280 degree bearing guaranteed his course was at right angles to your own.... He loved to quote the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual in invalid ways too. Hint: the STFC manual does not depend on Black Magic.

[gumbeauregard]

Anybody can cherry pick irrelevant parts of the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual. Where does it say that the only two pieces of information you need to shoot a torpedo are target speed and torpedo speed?

Knowing how to read is not the same as having comprehension. Rote copying of material you do not understand does not bolster your case.

From time to time people pop into Subsim with crazy ideas that they are the only people in the history of mankind to come up with a completely new method of shooting torpedoes. They make grandiose statements and outlandish claims, then make themselves appear sane by quoting the 1946 Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual.

Of course it does NOT support your method. Your method is invalid and cannot be used to accurately aim a torpedo. Those guys seventy odd years ago were way ahead of you.

And you don't understand either the vector analysis method or the Dick O'Kane method. I use the accurate analog trig computer built into the TDC to eliminate inevitable human error and PRECISELY pick the gyro angle, which the selection of lead angle by rule of thumb, not guessing, ensures will be well under 10 degrees. Any gyro angle of under 20 degrees is considered straight shooting where range error is not going to result in missing the target. There's nothing magic about fussing with getting a perfect zero gyro angle shot. Read the freakin' manual you so love to quote! A little understanding would lead you to sheepishly withdraw all you've said. Any fool can retype irrelevant passages. You sure have.

Now either support your foundation statement, "the only two pieces of information you need to shoot a torpedo are target speed and torpedo speed." or go away.

There was another equally deluded guy who claimed that putting the enemy on your 80 degree or 280 degree bearing guaranteed his course was at right angles to your own.... He loved to quote the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual in invalid ways too. Hint: the STFC manual does not depend on Black Magic.

Trigonometry is not black magic.

Here you go.

27 knot Yamato
46 knot torpedoes

From my table 30 degree firing bearing.

I never touch the TDC or develop a range, AOB or any of that other unnecessary stuff.

As long as you are in a firing position with the head of the boat 70 to 110 degrees off the target bearing, the table of values works like a charm.

https://youtu.be/BjGOLOZqUAU

[gumbeauregard]

To come at the issue from a different perspective imagine that your torpedoes can only run straight out the tube and develop a method to fire them accurately under those constraints.

You will arrive where I am if you do that.

If two cars are approaching an intersection, one at 10 mph (Car A) and the other (Car B) at 46 mph there is only ONE triangle of starting points that makes a crash happen at the intersection.

The triangle may have sides that are longer or shorter but the ratio between the two will always be 4.6 to 1.

If Car A is 10 miles from the intersection and Car B is 46 miles and they start towards the intersection at the same time, they will arrive there at the same time. The angle between Car B's line of sight to the intersection and his line of sight to Car B is precisely 12.26477 degrees at start.

That angle does not change as long as neither speed changes.

Car A at 20 miles and B at 92 miles is still a 12.26477 degree angle at the start and they collide 2 hours after start. Change either speed and the angle changes but range does not matter.

[Rockin Robbins]

Trigonometry is not black magic.

Here you go.

27 knot Yamato
46 knot torpedoes

From my table 30 degree firing bearing.

I never touch the TDC or develop a range, AOB or any of that other unnecessary stuff.

As long as you are in a firing position with the head of the boat 70 to 110 degrees off the target bearing, the table of values works like a charm.

https://youtu.be/BjGOLOZqUAU
You did not support your foundational statement. In fact, you contradicted it.

[Rockin Robbins]

To come at the issue from a different perspective imagine that your torpedoes can only run straight out the tube and develop a method to fire them accurately under those constraints.

You will arrive where I am if you do that.

If two cars are approaching an intersection, one at 10 mph (Car A) and the other (Car B) at 46 mph there is only ONE triangle of starting points that makes a crash happen at the intersection.

The triangle may have sides that are longer or shorter but the ratio between the two will always be 4.6 to 1.

If Car A is 10 miles from the intersection and Car B is 46 miles and they start towards the intersection at the same time, they will arrive there at the same time. The angle between Car B's line of sight to the intersection and his line of sight to Car B is precisely 12.26477 degrees at start.

That angle does not change as long as neither speed changes.

Car A at 20 miles and B at 92 miles is still a 12.26477 degree angle at the start and they collide 2 hours after start. Change either speed and the angle changes but range does not matter.

Again, you did not defend or support your foundational statement. Irrelevant banter does nothing to support your method. Get relevant and support yourself. Why are target speed and torpedo speed the only two inputs you need to determine a firing solution? That's all that counts. Everything else is noise.

https://preview.ibb.co/nAY7nv/John_PCromwelltargeting.png

If you'll establish your method graphically, like I do here with a third valid targeting system, the John P Cromwell targeting system, you'll see that target speeds and torpedo speeds alone are not sufficient to aim a torpedo and have it hit the target. By making your shot straight shooting, gyro angle between 340 and 20 degrees you can toss out range, but there are other parameters which are absolutely necessary in any valid firing solution. Think man! You can't teach anyone if you don't understand your own method.

I'm not going to hand you the solution on a silver platter. You're going to have to work it out yourself, and the solution does not involve my lack of knowledge about the mathematics and application of trigonometry. Clue: your illustrations above include what you are not considering in your solution. You have the answer but don't know you have it.

Just use geometry and quit thinking about the trigonometry aspect. You want to draw a triangle. There are several ways to describe a specific triangle: ASA, SSS or SAS, that's angle/side/angle, side/side/side or side/angle/side are three of them. You need three pieces of information to define a triangle. You're telling me you can define a triangle only by specifying the lengths (speeds) of two sides. Can't be done. I can construct an infinite number of triangles from torpedo speed and target speed and every one of them will have a different gyro angle. Therefore you can't make a solution knowing only target speed and torpedo speed.

I know you can do it. Think.

You have committed the same mistake as the other great thinker who posited that by putting the target at your 80 or 280 bearing, your course HAD to be 90 degrees from his. But that target has absolute free will, not subject to his bearing from your sub, to be headed any direction he wants and only one of those infinitely possible directions brings him across your bow 90 degrees from your course. That guy never understood he was requiring black magic or voodoo to make his method work. You are in the same position. He had You Tube videos by the dozen. They were all a crock.

[gumbeauregard]

Are you bothering to watch the videos I am posting?

Here is another one.

Target speed is 27 knots
Torpedo speed is 31 knots because the firing range exceeds 4500 yards (we dont care how much it exceeds 4500 yards just that it is past the 46 knot torpedo range)

The Arctangent of 27/31 is 41 degrees.

https://s10.postimg.org/7skqmalgp/torpedo_table.png

I dont touch the TDC, fire on the 41 degree firing bearing and put 4 torpedoes in a 27 knot target at 8000 yards.

I think I have the better grasp of the math here and can prove it over and over.

https://youtu.be/WXCZ2mwRaF4

[Rockin Robbins]

No, I'm stuck on your statement that all you have to do is have enemy speed and torpedo speed to hit your target. After you say that, no You Tube videos or other explanation matters.

You still haven't supported your foundational statement and until you do your Videos are really don't matter. Anybody can set up a canned situation fire blindly and hit in a You Tube video. It doesn't prove a thing. That's what the other deranged guy did with his 80-10 farce. Had dozens of videos up there that proved nothing. Claimed he never missed. Didn't have a targeting method at all. He could sink 'em in his videos though, just like you. It's a shame his targeting method was trash and not one single Subsim member profited from the prophet.

Have you bothered to check out a single thing I've been telling you about? Or are you just focused on being the Apostle of the New Way? Have you found a way to violate the laws of geometry? Without geometry there is no trigonometry, which is only analytical geometry. When the geometric base is fallacy, the trig is misapplied.

Final thought. There is a difference between empty bragging and instruction. Nobody ever learned a thing from empty bragging. The appearance of knowledge is not the same as knowledge. Understand the Dick O'Kane method. Understand the vector analysis method. Understand my paragraph about how to define a triangle and its application to your foundational statement that you can define a triangle by only specifying two sides alone. Fix your method. Quit defending fallacy and ask for help and I'll be glad to get you on solid ground, but you aren't ready for that. You Tube videos of booms won't do the job.

I'll give you until tomorrow morning and then I'll go with exposing the problems of your method. It'll be very simple graphical representation that will be self-validating and everyone will agree with. Except, presumably, you. That doesn't matter. I'm here to warn off the newbies.

[gumbeauregard]

No, I'm stuck on your statement that all you have to do is have enemy speed and torpedo speed to hit your target. After you say that, no You Tube videos or other explanation matters.

You still haven't supported your foundational statement and until you do your Videos are really don't matter. Anybody can set up a canned situation fire blindly and hit in a You Tube video. It doesn't prove a thing. That's what the other deranged guy did with his 80-10 farce. Had dozens of videos up there that proved nothing. Claimed he never missed. Didn't have a targeting method at all. He could sink 'em in his videos though, just like you. It's a shame his targeting method was trash and not one single Subsim member profited from the prophet.

Have you bothered to check out a single thing I've been telling you about? Or are you just focused on being the Apostle of the New Way? Have you found a way to violate the laws of geometry? Without geometry there is no trigonometry, which is only analytical geometry. When the geometric base is fallacy, the trig is misapplied.

Final thought. There is a difference between empty bragging and instruction. Nobody ever learned a thing from empty bragging. The appearance of knowledge is not the same as knowledge. Understand the Dick O'Kane method. Understand the vector analysis method. Understand my paragraph about how to define a triangle and its application to your foundational statement that you can define a triangle by only specifying two sides alone. Fix your method. Quit defending fallacy and ask for help and I'll be glad to get you on solid ground, but you aren't ready for that. You Tube videos of booms won't do the job.

I'll give you until tomorrow morning and then I'll go with exposing the problems of your method. It'll be very simple graphical representation that will be self-validating and everyone will agree with. Except, presumably, you. That doesn't matter. I'm here to warn off the newbies.

Its plain to me you don't have a clue what you don't know.

If you do not understand the basic relationship of torpedo speed to target speed and how it determines the firing angle, you don't understand torpedo firing.

Zero Gyro Angle shots are the simplest shots of all. It is a simple matter of having the torpedo arrive at the impact point while the target occupies that point.

Target motion analysis to determine the target speed is critical to the equation but in SH it is much easier than in the real world. And one develops the target course in order to position for the shot.

The method I use is EXACTLY the same as the one in your tutorial video but since I understand the relationship of target speed and torpedo speed, I remove the unnecessary steps of entering AOB, speed and range into the TDC and simply calculate the firing bearing using simple trigonometry. I also remove the inaccuracies you introduce by not precisely determining firing bearing using accurate torpedo speed and target speed.

No WAG of 10 degrees for target speed less than 15 knots and 20 degrees for speeds higher.

It is a precise firing bearing.

Show me your method hitting a 27 knot target at 8000 yards with 4 consecutive torpedoes.

If it is so easy to "can" that scenario, show it to me.

I will give you a hint. Do all of your TDC inputs on that 27 knot target with the periscope on 41 degrees deflection with Mark 14's on low speed and you will hit it with a straight torpedo run.

I look forward to your video of the easily canned 8000 yard quadruple hit on a 27 knot target.

[Barkerov]

gumbeauregard. mate.
Along with target speed and torpedo speed, you also need to know which direction the target is going. :03:

[gumbeauregard]

gumbeauregard. mate.
Along with target speed and torpedo speed, you also need to know which direction the target is going. :03:

I won't disagree :Kaleun_Cheers:

[Rockin Robbins]

In order for trigonometry to work, the geometery must be right. Your method doesn't constrain the geometry at all. Trig only works for triangles which contain a right angle. As you can see by this diagram, built on your foundational statement that you only need two parameters, target speed and torpedo speed, your method will only work once in a great while, missing the vast majority of intstances in which it is employed.

Remember, when the two arrowheads meet, there is a boom. When they do not there is no boom:
https://image.ibb.co/mrPa45/gumbeauregard_svg.png

Your main impediment is your focus on the fantasy that I don't understand your great intellectual breakthrough. First of all I started with this method handed to me by another Subsim member back in 2008, tables and everything. However, his tables were better. There's nothing new here, even after you fix your instructions. Fantasy can be motivating, and it can be an impediment. In this case it separates you from being of any use at all to Subsim members.

You can easily see how he can set up 100 scenarios where the enemy course is 90 degrees from him and sink every one in a blockbuster You Tube video. He wouldn't have to mention the fake setup at all and he would hit every time proving.......nothing. Anybody can do that and frequently they do on You Tube.

Now that I've handed you the solution you can fix your method. Thank me.:har::har::har:

[jldjs]

At best, G's targeting method is just an observation.

[gumbeauregard]

In order for trigonometry to work, the geometery must be right. Your method doesn't constrain the geometry at all. Trig only works for triangles which contain a right angle. As you can see by this diagram, built on your foundational statement that you only need two parameters, target speed and torpedo speed, your method will only work once in a great while, missing the vast majority of intstances in which it is employed.

Remember, when the two arrowheads meet, there is a boom. When they do not there is no boom:
https://image.ibb.co/mrPa45/gumbeauregard_svg.png

Your main impediment is your focus on the fantasy that I don't understand your great intellectual breakthrough. First of all I started with this method handed to me by another Subsim member back in 2008, tables and everything. However, his tables were better. There's nothing new here, even after you fix your instructions. Fantasy can be motivating, and it can be an impediment. In this case it separates you from being of any use at all to Subsim members.

You can easily see how he can set up 100 scenarios where the enemy course is 90 degrees from him and sink every one in a blockbuster You Tube video. He wouldn't have to mention the fake setup at all and he would hit every time proving.......nothing. Anybody can do that and frequently they do on You Tube.

Now that I've handed you the solution you can fix your method. Thank me.:har::har::har:

In your desperate quest to avoid learning from others you have truly embarrassed yourself.

[Rockin Robbins]

Gutted also sent me this, which explains graphically, in a way that is entirely self-validating, why a zero gyro shot can totally disregard range so far as the torpedo will run long enough to hit the target. It's brilliant and he deserves a shout-out, nine years later!
https://image.ibb.co/eN1WU5/OKanemethodanimation.gif
So there you have it from Gutted in 2009, the explanation with no words of how a zero gyro shot results in a boom regardless of range because as range opens up your lead automatically increases as well as you fire then the ship crosses the wire.

Also note a really cool thing: if you're shooting at a formation which is line abreast with a constant bearing technique and a zero gyro, you automatically fire at the further ship first then in order down the line. Note, however that all the booms happen simultaneously! It's quite useful.

Gutted also had a superior version of your chart that was a bit less error prone, but still bad enough that I decided to abandon it for the Dick O'Kane method. Remember, part of making an attack method more deadly is to mitigate inevitable human error. Errors picking numbers on two dimensional charts and mathematical errors are public enemy one and two. Get rid of them all and you more than double the effectiveness of the technique.

Stuck on board, with terrible things being said about it, some of them fully justified, is a satan-possesed instrument called the Torpedo Data Computer. Because of problems with properly using the stadimeter and inaccuracies in our ship recognition manual, people have cursed at the TDC a lot. You love to brag that you don't use it.

Well, there are things the TDC does extraordinarily well. First, it never makes a mistake regarding the speed of the selected torpedo. In fact you can select a Mark 10 if you want and the TDC just slaps the correct numbers in all its calculations without a fuss. It effectively eliminates inevitable human error in working out a solution for the wrong speed torpedo. You have done that by requiring the use of only one speed. Is it daytime? Would a Mark 18 make sense. Sucks to be you because the gumbeauragard method forbids it. Dick O'Kane method doesn't care what torpedo you use.

The second thing the TDC does really well is compute precise gyro angles. You don't need a table, you don't need a calculator, you need nothing outside the game itself. If you enter enemy course, speed and a range the TDC sets the angle and no charts, no trig tables, no real world computers or devices need apply. Everything gets done in the game. Now, in the decision to use the TDC, the Dick O'Kane method sacrifices the option of getting a perfect zero gyro shot unless you have extraordinary luck.

But the rule of thumb to pick a lead angle of 10 degrees for target speed of 10 knots and under and a lead angle of 15 degrees for greater, guarantees your gyro angle will be much less than 10 degrees. Gyro angles of 20 degrees or less in both directions from zero are considered straight shooting and range is inconsequential. You might have a 20' difference in where the torpedo strikes the target but it will still effectively go boom.

The point is that the Dick O'Kane method uses no guessing. The torpedo is aimed PRECISELY for your aim point on the target. It isn't a perfect zero gyro shot and that is entirely non-consequential. It is an intentional part of the technique. Not having a perfect zero gyro shot plus a dollar will not buy you coffee and the Seven-Eleven.

Central to evaluating the effectiveness of an attack method are two things: understanding its error envelope and understanding its versatility and adaptability.

The error envelope of a properly constructed gumbeauregard method is large. Picking the wrong number off the chart certainly results in a miss. Picking the wrong number is going to happen a percentage of the time. The error envelope of a Dick O'Kane attack is small. We're eliminating math and 2 dimensional charts by entering two numbers into the TDC as much as a half hour before we shoot. We have plenty of time to check the solution with the attack map and all we're worried about is positioning the boat so that we're at right angles to the target track and he has not yet crossed the wire. At that point, the only operations left are opening the torpedo tubes and shooting. EVERYTHING error prone is set up at leisure and checked, repeatedly if necessary, long before time pressure is a factor. The instructions of the Dick O'Kane are complete with no steps left out and each step easily understandable. My cat can shoot torpedoes with that method.

And the gumbearegard method is not flexible. If you find out the enemy is on another course than what the method requires (remember you don't check that in his method) there's no fallback. You MUST reposition your boat to get a boom. That takes time. And the method leaves your entirely abandoned when you don't have the precious right angle the trigonometry requires. Contrast that with the vector analysis attack, which combines the error mitigation features of the Dick O'Kane attack with the absolute flexibility of not caring what the angle the target track is with owncourse. So we're contrasting an attack which, unannounced, absolutely requires a course 90 degrees from the target track and uses guaranteed human error trig tables to an attack which requires no tools outside the game, is graphically self-validating and which can be changed in an instant to yield a new solution when situations change. No boat repositioning necessary, perfect zero gyro shot and works all the time, not a small minority of the time.

So is beauregard Apostle of the New Way? Properly framed, and presently it is not, it is A way. For lovers of precision for its own sake and not for its effectiveness it might be an appealing way. But it has problems because predictable, inevitable human errors and lack of flexibility hamper its effectiveness.

Here's Gutted's lead angle chart from 2009, much easier to use and less error prone than gumbeauregards, but still not as effective in error mitigation as the Dick O'Kane method.

https://image.ibb.co/g9pPZa/OKane90_Firing_Angles.png

Note that his formula is not retarded, it's in spreadsheet language.

[gumbeauregard]

Gutted also sent me this, which explains graphically, in a way that is entirely self-validating, why a zero gyro shot can totally disregard range so far as the torpedo will run long enough to hit the target. It's brilliant and he deserves a shout-out, nine years later!
https://image.ibb.co/eN1WU5/OKanemethodanimation.gif
So there you have it signed, dated, from Gutted, the explanation with no words of how a zero gyro shot results in a boom regardless of range because as range opens up your lead automatically increases as well as you fire then the ship crosses the wire.

So now you realize I am right because you found someone else who confirms what I said?

Range doesn't matter when shooting with zero gyro angle if you precisely calculate target speed and torpedo speed.

You now appear to be arguing about date of discovery. I never claimed to have invented trigonometry or this firing method. The credit for those things stretch back a few thousand years in one case and over a hundred in the other.

However, I did work all of this out for myself when SH4 was brand new software and firing in manual mode was very buggy.

[Rockin Robbins]

In your desperate quest to avoid learning from others you have truly embarrassed yourself.

You really are a great comedian. How about defending your position? Personal attack is not the same as not being totally wrong. You are totally wrong. Fix it.

By the way, you are not teaching something badly that Corey Harwell didn't teach very well nine years ago and which I knew before you ever thought about the method. If I learned, and I did, it was from Corey. Refining his method led to the even better Dick O'Kane method and later to the more flexible Vector Analysis Method. Graphical solutions beat numeric solutions every time. They're quicker and self-validating. The first step in eliminating 100% predictable human errors is to ditch the tables and calculations completely.

Now fix your method so, defective as it is, it can actually be used by someone not fudging the game setup so it automatically works, while everyone working in the dynamic game environment misses on 90% of their shots! My graphical representation of the consequences of your foundational statement shows inarguably that is perfectly true and every person reading this thread knows I am correct. I am decidedly not embarrassed.

[Rockin Robbins]

So now you realize I am right because you found someone else who confirms what I said?

Range doesn't matter when shooting with zero gyro angle if you precisely calculate target speed and torpedo speed.
You STILL don't get it. You also need that completely unspecified perfect 90 degree angle to the target track. Trigonometry ONLY WORKS for a right triangle. Leave that crucial piece of information out and precise target speed and torpedo speed alone won't hit the broad side of Hawaii! Buy a vowell and have Corey Harwell explain the situation to you.

Your inability to understand perfectly illustrates why I pick graphical solutions every time over numerical solutions. Inappropriate use of trigonometry, inappropriate use of apparent precision in carrying out calculations to four decimal places, and the inherent lack of error checking in numerical calculations and charts are just unnecessary. Calculations all have unstated preconditions for their validity. Those are not obvious when you are just working the numbers.

Graphical solutions are self-correcting. Put a starboard AoB in there instead of port and it's immediately obvious that you've made a mistake. That's why the attack map is a crucial step in setting up an attack. Just work the numbers and the error is undetected until the torpedo goes somewhere completely different than where you intended. Even if your calculations and table lookups are correct you can't tell when they are inappropriately applied.

Now defend your position that all you need is target speed and torpedo speed to make a valid solution (I've already snuffed that one), fix your method so it works, or go away.

[gumbeauregard]

You STILL don't get it. You also need that completely unspecified perfect 90 degree angle to the target track. Trigonometry ONLY WORKS for a right triangle. Leave that crucial piece of information out and precise target speed and torpedo speed alone won't hit the broad side of Hawaii! Rent a set of eyes if necessary and have Corey Harwell explain the situation to you.

Your inability to understand perfectly illustrates why I pick graphical solutions every time over numerical solutions. Inappropriate use of trigonometry, inappropriate use of apparent precision in carrying out calculations to four decimal places, and the inherent lack of error checking in numerical calculations and charts are just unnecessary. Calculations all have unstated preconditions for their validity. Those are not obvious when you are just working the numbers.

Graphical solutions are self-correcting. Put a starboard AoB in there instead of port and it's immediately obvious that you've made a mistake. That's why the attack map is a crucial step in setting up an attack. Just work the numbers and the error is undetected until the torpedo goes somewhere completely different than where you intended. Even if your calculations and table lookups are correct you can't tell when they are inappropriately applied.

Now defend your position that all you need is target speed and torpedo speed to make a valid solution (I've already snuffed that one), fix your method so it works, or go away.

You do not need a precise 90 degree AOB, which a clear understanding of the firing geometry makes plainly obvious. In fact the ideal torpedo track angle is between 100 and 120 degrees as shown on this convenient Wikipedia chart. (Valid only for 46 knot torpedoes)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/DeflectionAngle.png

A understanding of the math involved allows zero gyro angle shots with ANY target AOB. One need only reduce the 90 AOB bearing by the appropriate amount for the AOB situation.

25% reduction for 60 degrees

50% for 40 degrees

75% for 18 degrees.

I still haven't seen your video demonstration of hitting a 27 knot target at 8000 yards with four consecutive torpedoes.

I can see why you are reluctant to post it. It seems you are prone to errors and reluctant to use any method that requires you to accurately determine precise values under pressure.

PS I think it is hilarious that the method you posted by Gutted and mine are identical and in your haste to be "right" you can't even see that.

[Rockin Robbins]

You do not need a precise 90 degree AOB, which a clear understanding of the firing geometry makes plainly obvious. In fact the ideal torpedo track angle is between 100 and 120 degrees as shown on this convenient Wikipedia chart. (Valid only for 46 knot torpedoes)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/DeflectionAngle.png

A understanding of the math involved allows zero gyro angle shots with ANY target AOB. One need only reduce the 90 AOB bearing by the appropriate amount for the AOB situation.

25% reduction for 60 degrees

50% for 40 degrees

75% for 18 degrees.

I still haven't seen your video demonstration of hitting a 27 knot target at 8000 yards with four consecutive torpedoes.

I can see why you are reluctant to post it. It seems you are prone to errors and reluctant to use any method that requires you to accurately determine precise values under pressure.

PS I think it is hilarious that the method you posted by Gutted and mine are identical and in your haste to be "right" you can't even see that.
First of all, there is no AoB in your method, which uses only the velocities of torpedoes and targets. And if you don't have a 90 degree angle, your fancy arccotangent has less meaning than the back of a cereal box. You can't hit the broad side of Hawaii. Trigonometry only works for right triangles. Your method is busted. It's a ruse.

I already explained how you can set up missions in SH4 where the target track is 90 degrees from your course (coincidence! No need to even mention it! Just an insignificant detail unworthy of note!) and with your bogus dog and pony show, put dozens of ships on the bottom and claim victory. Another clown has done that long before you got the idea. I can do it to and refuse. My proof of concept is in the hundreds who have, after frustration with other methods, used my methods and succeeded. I don't have to make any claims. They do it for me. The Sub Skippers Bag of Tricks thread is full of them over a nine year period.

I teach complete methods, methodically, in simple language. No outside tools or calculators, every detail can be done completely within the game with tools provided by the game. I don't use tables or calculations that can't easily be done in your head. I don't skip any steps. If your cat follows the recipe he will sink ships in the game with no cheater setups needed to supply missing details. My methods work all the time for random encounters.

It seems like that's a pretty simple recipe for success and many others on Subsim have done as well, but you, sir, are not one of them. Nobody, following your instructions alone, will have much success so long as you stick to the use of only two factors, target speed and torpedo speed, to generate a "solution." Once in a hundred shots where the tracks are at right angles, they will get a hit. But they will quit using it long before then. Leaving out parameters and steps spells doom to your method.

Gutted specified that the target track be 90 degrees from your course. You claimed it wasn't a factor and didn't need to be considered. They are not the same. You can't seem to see that. Let's quote you again and graph the consequences of your statement, just for fun. You never backed off your foundation statement and it is so wrong that anything after it is garbage.
https://image.ibb.co/mrPa45/gumbeauregard_svg.png

The conclusion is inescapable. Only by rigging the mission in the game and making a fake video claiming that your factors were the only ones considered can you hit the broad side of Hawaii. Your method is a fraud.

Your only defenses available are you've been quoted wrong (easily refuted), somehow setting up according to your scheme forces the opposition to assume a course 90 degrees from yours (deja vu from the other fraud), or fixing your method to account for the missing necessary parameter in order to have a valid firing solution at all. To describe a specific triangle you need three sides, two sides and one angle or two angles and one side. All demand three parameters, not your two. You have described an infinite number of triangles, as my graph plainly and irrefutably shows. That is why you have refused to engage it. You can't. So like a Flat Earther, you distract with an impressive pile of irrelevant stuff that means nothing: accusations, spouting formulae and numbers, hey, look at your videos, general statements that mean nothing like "understanding the math makes it possible to shoot straight", hey, check out this Wikipedia article, claiming 100% correspondence with a method entirely different......it will go on and on as it does for anybody admitting defeat. All those behaviors are those of someone who knows they're in the wrong but is unwilling to do anything to fix it. It's sad, but common.

I probably said it before, but you haven't done it yet: defend your position. I say that in addition to torpedo speed and target speed, owncourse and target track are necessary parts of a solution. You say "The only information required for a zero gyro angle firing solution is the target speed and the torpedo speed." Show me and everyone else you're right. I proved my side more than once in the thread.