Identifying Ships

[Macgregor the Hammer]

Being stealth hunters, night is the optimum time for an attack. I have a hell of a time identifying a target at night. I've tried changing the gamma, but it ends up with a washed out looking image.

I usually end up with 2-3 choices of ships. Range and AoB are pretty easy to calculate. They are, for the most part not dependent on the ship type. Speed is the variable that I get stuck on and it's one of the most important. It's also where my shot misses the most. Without a correct ship length, I really can't get a solid speed. :k_confused:

If any of you have any tricks or techniques, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks,
MacGregor :Kaleun_Salute:

[bstanko6]

If it becomes too difficult identifying a ship, pick the one with a mast height in the middle (according to your situation).

If that is impossible, I use a simple rule of using 30m as a mast height for all ships I cannot identify. It’s just right for calculating, and worst case scenario, your timing will be off on torpedo impact.

Let me know how that works.

[Macgregor the Hammer]

If it becomes too difficult identifying a ship, pick the one with a mast height in the middle (according to your situation).

If that is impossible, I use a simple rule of using 30m as a mast height for all ships I cannot identify. It’s just right for calculating, and worst case scenario, your timing will be off on torpedo impact.

Let me know how that works.

Thanks Skipper.

I'm going to need to work with it. I might have to bite the bullet and turn 'Map Contacts' back on.

[derstosstrupp]

Do what the real skippers did at night and match course and speed. No one EVER needs the rec manual. Not historical to use anyway - their manuals didn’t deliver perfect data. The more you can wean yourself off of reliance on the rec manual, the better you will become.

You might not see details of the ship, but you can see how big it is in terms of how many marks it takes up horizontally or vertically in the binos or UZO, and you can determine relative motion.

So you have 2 options:

Option 1. Spend 15 min or so adjusting your own course and speed until a) the bearing stops moving and b) the target’s size in the optics appears the same. If he’s not getting any closer or further, and not moving ahead or falling behind, you’ve matched course and speed. Notice we don’t care about range as a quantity, only whether he’s growing or shrinking.

Option 2. Adjust course and speed until the bearing stops moving. Assuming you can accurately estimate an AOB, calculate the speed as -

Own speed x sin(constant bearing) / sin(AOB) = target speed

OR.... Use the reverse side of the attack disc if you don’t want to use a calculator:

Align ownspeed with the AOB on the outer red ring, and read off target speed at the bearing on the outer red ring.

[Macgregor the Hammer]

Do what the real skippers did at night and match course and speed. No one EVER needs the rec manual. Not historical to use anyway - their manuals didn’t deliver perfect data. The more you can wean yourself off of reliance on the rec manual, the better you will become.

You might not see details of the ship, but you can see how big it is in terms of how many marks it takes up horizontally or vertically in the binos or UZO, and you can determine relative motion.

So you have 2 options:

Option 1. Spend 15 min or so adjusting your own course and speed until a) the bearing stops moving and b) the target’s size in the optics appears the same. If he’s not getting any closer or further, and not moving ahead or falling behind, you’ve matched course and speed. Notice we don’t care about range as a quantity, only whether he’s growing or shrinking.

Option 2. Adjust course and speed until the bearing stops moving. Assuming you can accurately estimate an AOB, calculate the speed as -

Own speed x sin(constant bearing) / sin(AOB) = target speed

OR.... Use the reverse side of the attack disc if you don’t want to use a calculator:

Align ownspeed with the AOB on the outer red ring, and read off target speed at the bearing on the outer red ring.

This is quite the library of some very useful and applicable information. Thanks very much!! :salute:
You planned my weekend for me. I have a lot of reading and notes to write!

MacGregor :Kaleun_Salute: :Kaleun_Cheers:

[Macgregor the Hammer]

I have read through a considerable amount of the material you shared and it has made it’s way into my Captain’s Book. Thanks again!

I doubt if I will give up using the reference book. I disagree with your assessment of the use of the Reference Book. I’ve seen a considerable amount of pictures of both German and American Captain’s with the reference book in their hands, looking through the periscope. We all have read books about submarine warfare in WW 2 and the one’s I’ve read discuss the use of the reference book. The Office of Naval Intelligence rated the confidence of each image and it’s dimensions . The ONI was constantly updating it as new information became available. The German Abwehr did the same. Disinformation was created on both sides by camouflaging mast height. A great deal of money was spent on developing the stadimeter, precision telemeters, the RAOBF, the omnimeter, the attack disc, target data computers, etc to just be part of the scenery in a sub. The tools are useless without ship data.

The Reference Book is not the end all and be all, just one of many important tools available to a sub skipper.

[derstosstrupp]

I have read through a considerable amount of the material you shared and it has made it’s way into my Captain’s Book. Thanks again!

I doubt if I will give up using the reference book. I disagree with your assessment of the use of the Reference Book. I’ve seen a considerable amount of pictures of both German and American Captain’s with the reference book in their hands, looking through the periscope. We all have read books about submarine warfare in WW 2 and the one’s I’ve read discuss the use of the reference book. The Office of Naval Intelligence rated the confidence of each image and it’s dimensions . The ONI was constantly updating it as new information became available. The German Abwehr did the same. Disinformation was created on both sides by camouflaging mast height. A great deal of money was spent on developing the stadimeter, precision telemeters, the RAOBF, the omnimeter, the attack disc, target data computers, etc to just be part of the scenery in a sub. The tools are useless without ship data.

The Reference Book is not the end all and be all, just one of many important tools available to a sub skipper.

I’ve seen these pictures too. But remember, they would’ve gotten their data by then. They’re most certainly not frantically thumbing through because the rest of their solution direly depends on them finding the right page. If you are waiting until you are that close thumbing through a recognition manual and haven’t started getting your data until that late in the approach, you’re getting a desk job. The commanders handbook stresses that all data is to be gather on the surface to the extent possible. And if you’re using other methods in game, only to use the rec manual anyway up close, that’s silly. If you’re going to use the manual, use just the manual, it delivers you perfect information that makes any other method superfluous. It’s not about tools in the toolbox, rec manual is all anybody ever needs to get the data they need if they choose to use it. It’s perfect.

We have the real rec manuals for Uboatsim project. We also have torpedo shooting regulations. I’ve also read all the KTBs that are available online. And I can tell you not once, not once, did I ever read “ship identified as X”. The data provided in them is limited. No mast heights. The commander’s handbook also does not recommend looking up any data from any ship in a recognition manual. What does it mention? The procedures I posted above. What I have also read a lot of, is surfacing trying to figure out by asking survivors what they just sank. Or using the manual to get the 4-letter identifier that was picked up by radio after hit. What they are likely doing in those photos is trying to identify an unmarked ship, with an aim to determine its nationality and whether it’s a valid target. Just because the ONI put out this information doesn’t mean the Germans had it all. It wasn’t like they could just go download the latest version. And even if they could have it, all of the contemporary documentation that I read (and that’s a lot) says they didn’t rely on it. I’d make an exception for warships, those are pretty well documented.

The scopes produced during the war (think the famous Standsehrohr C\2 attack scope where you are seated) did not have a stadimeter (we have that manual too), and the RAOBF was phased out early war. This is an area I’ve studied a lot. Attack disc has nothing to do with rec manuals. TDC of course has a purpose that extends past the existence of accurate rec manuals (?!). And an omnimeter, sure, they use similar slide rules, but as bstanko6 said, you can simply eyeball a mast height. Accurate range isn’t important anyway as long as you are shooting with low gyro angle.

So the tools (to the extent they existed) are not useless without this data. These guys estimated data, they used plotting on the surface based on eyeballed range, and matching. The attack disk allows you to visualize relative angles. The torpedo data computer allows for a flexible execution of the attack. None of these things are reliant on a rec manual. If you want to play historically, using the manual is a cheat. Plain and simple. The data is so perfect, that you might as well have map contacts on. With an extra step or two, using the rec manual will deliver you the exact same precise information. Use perfect mast height to measure a perfect range, do that three times, get three perfect plot points, presto, course and speed. Perfect length, simply do the timing exercise and the multiplication by 1.94, presto, perfect speed. Even a cursory readthrough of the KTBs will tell you that they were never that certain about the data they shot with unless it was matched on the surface (“ausgedampft”) or plotted (“erkoppelt”). That these methods were relied on makes it quite obvious that the data they had about ships was minimal.

You can get speed by the methods I mention. But if you want to use the manual, there’s no point in using those methods, because you already are relying on perfect information. That will soon cease to be fun and cease to be a challenge.

[Macgregor the Hammer]

I’ve seen these pictures too. But remember, they would’ve gotten their data by then. They’re most certainly not frantically thumbing through because the rest of their solution direly depends on them finding the right page. If you are waiting until you are that close thumbing through a recognition manual and haven’t started getting your data until that late in the approach, you’re getting a desk job. The commanders handbook stresses that all data is to be gather on the surface to the extent possible. And if you’re using other methods in game, only to use the rec manual anyway up close, that’s silly. If you’re going to use the manual, use just the manual, it delivers you perfect information that makes any other method superfluous. It’s not about tools in the toolbox, rec manual is all anybody ever needs to get the data they need if they choose to use it. It’s perfect.

We have the real rec manuals for Uboatsim project. We also have torpedo shooting regulations. I’ve also read all the KTBs that are available online. And I can tell you not once, not once, did I ever read “ship identified as X”. The data provided in them is limited. No mast heights. The commander’s handbook also does not recommend looking up any data from any ship in a recognition manual. What does it mention? The procedures I posted above. What I have also read a lot of, is surfacing trying to figure out by asking survivors what they just sank. Or using the manual to get the 4-letter identifier that was picked up by radio after hit. What they are likely doing in those photos is trying to identify an unmarked ship, with an aim to determine its nationality and whether it’s a valid target. Just because the ONI put out this information doesn’t mean the Germans had it all. It wasn’t like they could just go download the latest version. And even if they could have it, all of the contemporary documentation that I read (and that’s a lot) says they didn’t rely on it. I’d make an exception for warships, those are pretty well documented.

The scopes produced during the war (think the famous Standsehrohr C\2 attack scope where you are seated) did not have a stadimeter (we have that manual too), and the RAOBF was phased out early war. This is an area I’ve studied a lot. Attack disc has nothing to do with rec manuals. TDC of course has a purpose that extends past the existence of accurate rec manuals (?!). And an omnimeter, sure, they use similar slide rules, but as bstanko6 said, you can simply eyeball a mast height. Accurate range isn’t important anyway as long as you are shooting with low gyro angle.

So the tools (to the extent they existed) are not useless without this data. These guys estimated data, they used plotting on the surface based on eyeballed range, and matching. The attack disk allows you to visualize relative angles. The torpedo data computer allows for a flexible execution of the attack. None of these things are reliant on a rec manual. If you want to play historically, using the manual is a cheat. Plain and simple. The data is so perfect, that you might as well have map contacts on. With an extra step or two, using the rec manual will deliver you the exact same precise information. Use perfect mast height to measure a perfect range, do that three times, get three perfect plot points, presto, course and speed. Perfect length, simply do the timing exercise and the multiplication by 1.94, presto, perfect speed. Even a cursory readthrough of the KTBs will tell you that they were never that certain about the data they shot with unless it was matched on the surface (“ausgedampft”) or plotted (“erkoppelt”). That these methods were relied on makes it quite obvious that the data they had about ships was minimal.
,You can get speed by the methods I mention. But if you want to use the manual, there’s no point in using those methods, because you already are relying on perfect information. That will soon cease to be fun and cease to be a challenge.

I am certainly not going to argue your knowledge of U-Boat standard operating procedures. It's quite obvious that you're extremely well read! I guess what it boils down to is style of play. My goal is not absolute authenticity. My goal is to have FUN using minimal cheats. I do make a large number of zero gyro shots. The only data need in a zero gyro shot is accurate speed. The only time range comes into play is in shots over 2 km. Everything else is lead angle. I like using all the tools available because they're geeky.

I keep disable cheats when I'm ready to move to the next step of authenticity. I did the same in SH4 Trigger Maru Overhauled which is a challenge to any sub captain. The one mod I added to TMO is an optical correction mod with an omnimeter. Corrected optics and an accurate telemeter
along with the omnimeter has really dialed in my effectiveness.

Once again, I appreciate your knowledge and I'm going to keep perusing the informantion you passed on.

:Kaleun_Salute: :Kaleun_Cheers:

[derstosstrupp]

I am certainly not going to argue your knowledge of U-Boat standard operating procedures. It's quite obvious that you're extremely well read! I guess what it boils down to is style of play. My goal is not absolute authenticity. My goal is to have FUN using minimal cheats. I do make a large number of zero gyro shots. The only data need in a zero gyro shot is accurate speed. The only time range comes into play is in shots over 2 km. Everything else is lead angle. I like using all the tools available because they're geeky.

I keep disable cheats when I'm ready to move to the next step of authenticity. I did the same in SH4 Trigger Maru Overhauled which is a challenge to any sub captain. The one mod I added to TMO is an optical correction mod with an omnimeter. Corrected optics and an accurate telemeter
along with the omnimeter has really dialed in my effectiveness.

Once again, I appreciate your knowledge and I'm going to keep perusing the informantion you passed on.

:Kaleun_Salute: :Kaleun_Cheers:

Oh yes, absolutely fair. And by no means do I want to force one play style or another, but I am always very keen on keeping the historical record in line with my research.

Semper Fi by the way, former Marine myself (0313 LAV crewman 2002-2006)! :Kaleun_Salute:

[Macgregor the Hammer]

Semper Fi by the way, former Marine myself (0313 LAV crewman 2002-2006)! :Kaleun_Salute:

Cool, your stock went way up: I was a 6412-6417 comm/nav technician for the A6E aircraft 1976-82. Being a tech, I love all the tweeky-geeky stuff. Hard to put aside.:doh::doh:

Thanks for serving with the best!!! :Kaleun_Salute::Kaleun_Cheers: