Some questions regarding real navigation

[Compans57]

I've reached the point whereby I'd like to implement this into the game. The whole idea of working 'blind' seems like it'd add a rawness and realism to the whole thing. I have a few reservations though. I'm wondering if anyone could give me their opinion:

- The 4 bearing method seems very involved and quite complicated. Is it necessary to go through the whole sequence for every contact? I'm thinking that much of the time the contact is a warship or warship group that you're trying to leave at a distance. Is there a simplified method to determine where they are that doesn't involve so many marks and compasses etc?

- I have the annoying bug a lot, whereby a warship or several will attach itself to my sub at a distance and follow, in a circle pattern also at a distance. The only way to stop this is to save and reload the game. As it's obvious when this happens with symbols on, I would imagine it's far less so with real navigation. How do players deal with this?

Thanks.

[derstosstrupp]

I've reached the point whereby I'd like to implement this into the game. The whole idea of working 'blind' seems like it'd add a rawness and realism to the whole thing. I have a few reservations though. I'm wondering if anyone could give me their opinion:

- The 4 bearing method seems very involved and quite complicated. Is it necessary to go through the whole sequence for every contact? I'm thinking that much of the time the contact is a warship or warship group that you're trying to leave at a distance. Is there a simplified method to determine where they are that doesn't involve so many marks and compasses etc?

- I have the annoying bug a lot, whereby a warship or several will attach itself to my sub at a distance and follow, in a circle pattern also at a distance. The only way to stop this is to save and reload the game. As it's obvious when this happens with symbols on, I would imagine it's far less so with real navigation. How do players deal with this?

Thanks.

Don’t bother with the 4-bearing method. Not only is it anachronistic, having been developed in the 1950s in the US, it just doesn’t make any sense to do it in World War II submarine combat. The German doctrine stressed having eyes on the surface, because your eyeballs can provide you all the information you need. WW2 hydrophones were nowhere near as reliable and accurate as they are in the game anyway (hence the doctrine of surfaced whenever possible).

If you want to do things historically, and also relatively simply with some practice, take a look at my post below, specifically the three methods in there in quotes:

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2737563&postcount=2

As for the “sticky escort” bug, once you get used to looking at things on the horizon vs looking at the map, it will become obvious to you when this is happening. Just execute a couple of zig legs that are somewhat lengthy, and watch what he does. It will become clear when what he is doing doesn’t make any sense.

[Compans57]

Don’t bother with the 4-bearing method. Not only is it anachronistic, having been developed in the 1950s in the US, it just doesn’t make any sense to do it in World War II submarine combat. The German doctrine stressed having eyes on the surface, because your eyeballs can provide you all the information you need. WW2 hydrophones were nowhere near as reliable and accurate as they are in the game anyway (hence the doctrine of surfaced whenever possible).

If you want to do things historically, and also relatively simply with some practice, take a look at my post below, specifically the three methods in there in quotes:

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2737563&postcount=2

As for the “sticky escort” bug, once you get used to looking at things on the horizon vs looking at the map, it will become obvious to you when this is happening. Just execute a couple of zig legs that are somewhat lengthy, and watch what he does. It will become clear when what he is doing doesn’t make any sense.


Thankyou!

I'm not so bothered about attack once the targets are sighted. More gathering information at long range to determine the course of the target once picked up on the hydrophone. How do you do this (as well as determining how many kilometres away the target is) without all the 4 bearings calculations? At present, with symbols on it's fairly easy to place a mark on each sucessive hydrophone point and get a good idea of heading.

Thanks for the information.

[derstosstrupp]

Thankyou!

I'm not so bothered about attack once the targets are sighted. More gathering information at long range to determine the course of the target once picked up on the hydrophone. How do you do this (as well as determining how many kilometres away the target is) without all the 4 bearings calculations? At present, with symbols on it's fairly easy to place a mark on each sucessive hydrophone point and get a good idea of heading.

Thanks for the information.

You basically do what the real guys did, surface and turn toward the bearing at high speed and watch for mast tips and smoke. It just doesn’t make any sense to try to figure out the course prior to spotting it, because once you spot it, you have way more (and better) information visually. Now, I can understand the concern about possibly missing it, and knowing the course would help intercept it most definitely. So I would say, at best, turn toward it underwater and ascertain the bearing change, and then estimate an intercept course based on how quickly the bearing is changing. You will very seldom miss the mark doing this.

It was much more common to spot something before it was heard on hydrophones, it works backwards in games than in reality. Convoys possibly could be heard from further out, but single ship traffic was certainly spotted before it could be heard on hydrophones. Smoke and the tips of masts could be spotted almost 30 km away in real life.

[Compans57]

Are there risks using this method with allied radar late war? I'm not sure of the range of radar. Also does anyone have an idea of what constitutes close, medium and long range in the hydrophone? I think maximum hydrophone range is 30K? I'm then assuming 'close' would be 0=10K, 'medium' = 10-20K and 'long' 20-30K.