Realistic modern sub tactic?

[Kurushio]

Is this scenario realistic?

Your target is a civilian surface vessel being escorted by one warship. There is civilian traffic close to your target. You only have one chance at a shot. At this point...do you raise the periscope and use that for targetting? Or do you still use TMA? Bear in mind, there is a small chance of the enemy spotting the periscope....though you know that as the sole escort, he wont be too bothered about hunting you and leaving his escort, unless you fire off a fish.

So would using the periscope (WW2 style) in this situation be realistic....?

[Bill Nichols]

Periscope. Definitely. Since you already know what direction to look (you did say you were doing TMA on the target), you need only put the scope up a couple of seconds to get a visual range, angle-on-the-bow and positive ID.

[Kurushio]

I'm still stuck on the SH3 way of thinking...hard to swallow that the periscope is nothing more than a viewing device on a modern sub...not an actual targetting device. :damn: Just feels very blind when firing from TMA...especially when you have to be accurate like in this case. Maybe it's cos I don't trust my TMA skills yet. :P

[TLAM Strike]

IIRC the HMS Conquer’s attack on the ARA General Belgrano was conducted using periscope observations (Sonar tagged them 1st though). So ya using the scope is realistic (it been done IRL!)

[Henson]

I'm still stuck on the SH3 way of thinking...hard to swallow that the periscope is nothing more than a viewing device on a modern sub...not an actual targetting device. :damn:

Ummm....you might be surprised.

All we can get from passive sonar is bearing and bearing rate. From the scope we get bearing and range...it's almost as good as radar when it's utliized correctly. If I was a sub skipper I'd use the scope every time.

[Camie Jarlson]

All we can get from passive sonar is bearing and bearing rate. From the scope we get bearing and range...it's almost as good as radar when it's utliized correctly.



Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm new to this, :88)

But I thought we were able to use passive sonar for ship identification in Narrow Band signatures also. Isn't that useful enough, so that you won't have to raise the periscope for positive ID at all?

[Kurushio]

Aha...so it is done in RL? That's good to hear....though is the periscope slaved to the firing computer? Or do you have to get the bearing on periscope, then change screen and input the bearing as a "snapshot"? Last time I tried it...I was looking at a bearing of 150 through the persicope, fired snapshot and the fish headed due south?? :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

All we can get from passive sonar is bearing and bearing rate. From the scope we get bearing and range...it's almost as good as radar when it's utliized correctly.



Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm new to this, :88)

But I thought we were able to use passive sonar for ship identification in Narrow Band signatures also. Isn't that useful enough, so that you won't have to raise the periscope for positive ID at all?

You certainly can detect, classify, and localize a target with enough accuracy to attack using only passive sonar. But, if you have the ability to get a range and course with the periscope nearly instantaneously, why not use it? Mistakes are costly; better to use the best tools you have when you can.

[Molon Labe]

Aha...so it is done in RL? That's good to hear....though is the periscope slaved to the firing computer? Or do you have to get the bearing on periscope, then change screen and input the bearing as a "snapshot"? Last time I tried it...I was looking at a bearing of 150 through the persicope, fired snapshot and the fish headed due south?? :hmm:

Snapshot bearings are set manually in fire control.

[Camie Jarlson]

I guess your right Molon Labe. I was just wondering if this was a possibility because I thought that's what I read in the game's manual. Thanx.

[SeaQueen]

But I thought we were able to use passive sonar for ship identification in Narrow Band signatures also. Isn't that useful enough, so that you won't have to raise the periscope for positive ID at all?

Maybe. The presence of other shiping in the area muddies the issue, though. There's a chance that his signature might be obscured by intervening traffic, or that you might confuse one target for another of a similar type. Also, depending on the acoustics, you might not be able to get enough tonals to really make that guess with enough confidence to shoot. There's also the fact that associated with one's firing solution there's always an area of uncertainty, which might be quite substantial.

One COULD make the shot just using their sonar, but it'd probably be better just to quickly make one check on the periscope before shooting.

[compressioncut]

I'm still stuck on the SH3 way of thinking...hard to swallow that the periscope is nothing more than a viewing device on a modern sub...not an actual targetting device. :damn:

Ummm....you might be surprised.

All we can get from passive sonar is bearing and bearing rate. From the scope we get bearing and range...it's almost as good as radar when it's utliized correctly. If I was a sub skipper I'd use the scope every time.

RISER, Bearing 213! Riser gone sinker, bearing 213. Dip gang, riser gone sinker bearing 213, range 4 from [own ship], time late zero.

Periscopes are radar detectable in real life, but unfortunately not in the game. Real dangerous against a modern surface search radar.

Passive sonar gives range, course, and speed of the target, using bearing, bearing rate, and doppler shift. The scope is obviously faster, though, although I've seen some pretty accurate WAGs in TMA.

[LuftWolf]

Aha...so it is done in RL? That's good to hear....though is the periscope slaved to the firing computer? :hmm:

Yes it is.

You can "Mark" the contact on the scope when you are looking at it as well as take a picture for use on the Stadimeter. The bearing is transmitted to the fire control and tma computers in a V# track. You can then lower the scope and use the statimeter to get posID and range, which you can then enter into the fire control/tma and the V# track will have bearing, range, and ID information recorded for it.

If you then merge it with your passive sonar contact, you will have the contact you have been tracking and doing TMA on merged with your visual information, at which point you can recalculate your TMA with the visual information to be very sure of your solution, now having reliable range, bearing, and speed information, or fire on the bearing and range information from the V# contact generated when you marked the contact at the periscope without redoing the TMA if you need to shoot quickly.

[TopTorp '92]

Is this scenario realistic?

Your target is a civilian surface vessel being escorted by one warship. There is civilian traffic close to your target. You only have one chance at a shot. At this point...do you raise the periscope and use that for targetting? Or do you still use TMA? Bear in mind, there is a small chance of the enemy spotting the periscope....though you know that as the sole escort, he wont be too bothered about hunting you and leaving his escort, unless you fire off a fish.

So would using the periscope (WW2 style) in this situation be realistic....?

Any Commanding Officer (and most Fire Controlmen) know that the persicope must be used to make ID on the intended surface target.

Also, depending on the vicinity of civilian traffic to the target, the CO may decide to avoid the attack altogether.

It is possible to fire using acoustic mode off. That way the torpedo cannot home to the wrong target. Problem is that we never trained to shoot a moving target without accoustics. Only time we ever trained to shoot without accoustics was for a DIW or at anchor.

[Kapitan]

id personaly use exactly the same as what bill suggested.

But as TLAM said the conquorer used its periscope although not as TLAM said but close.

Conquorer used sprint drift tactic go deep for a while listen on sonar pop up then back down it was only till the order to fire came.

[Henson]

Real submarines use the scope almost exclusively for ASuW, to the point of almost disregarding sonar...we don't need it. We can SEE the guy for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, a lot of the real functionality found in the persicope is not very well emulated in the game. In game, sonar is a MUCH better choice. IRL, not so much. The deal with the scope is that you have to have some knowledge of tactics and effective periscope employment methods to use it well, and you're not going to find that on the internet.


Would you rather fire a gun at a moving target you can only hear, or one you can see?

[Kapitan]

Nothing wrong with my sonar or perisope sometimes when im going slow i use it to spot other submarines too.

[Linton]

IT's HMS CONQUEROR!!

[Kapitan]

We know just because i am a billingual illiterate dislectic doesnt mean i dont know. :D

[sonar732]

IT's HMS CONQUEROR!!

It's Kaptain...no, I meant Kapitan. :-j :lol:

[Deamon]

Unfortunately, a lot of the real functionality found in the persicope is not very well emulated in the game.

What for example ?

Deamon

[Linton]

I found this brochure on periscopes by Thales Optronics.http://www.thalesgroup-optronics.com/pdf/Periscopes.pdf
I also found this one for USN
http://www.eo.kollmorgen.com/product_spec20.html

[Deamon]

I found this brochure on periscopes by Thales Optronics.http://www.thalesgroup-optronics.com/pdf/Periscopes.pdf
I also found this one for USN
http://www.eo.kollmorgen.com/product_spec20.html

Thanks mate

[Alex Nenadic]

i
Conquorer used sprint drift tactic go deep for a while listen on sonar pop up then back down it was only till the order to fire came.

Can you provide more details?

[XanderF]

I found this brochure on periscopes by Thales Optronics.http://www.thalesgroup-optronics.com/pdf/Periscopes.pdf
I also found this one for USN
http://www.eo.kollmorgen.com/product_spec20.html

The two bigs ones from that sheet would probably be:
- Magnification to 24x (and, specifically, quality of magnification. DW's 3d world is not as useful as the 'real' 3d world for spotting things.
- 'Workstation with image processing'. While "CSI:Miami/Las Vegas/whatever" levels of image processing are total bunk, you CAN do an awful lot to clean up an image nicely. And the stadimeter built into DW is also...less useful than I imagine the real model would be.

/me continues to wish for DW w/ SH3 level graphics. Would make using the scope (quite important for Kilo drivers) SO much nicer.... :(

[Deamon]

The two bigs ones from that sheet would probably be:
- Magnification to 24x (and, specifically, quality of magnification. DW's 3d world is not as useful as the 'real' 3d world for spotting things.

Thanks for the input.

- 'Workstation with image processing'. While "CSI:Miami/Las Vegas/whatever" levels of image processing are total bunk, you CAN do an awful lot to clean up an image nicely.

CSI:Miami/Las Vegas/whatever ? Is this levels used in US submarines ?

And the stadimeter built into DW is also...less useful than I imagine the real model would be.

/me continues to wish for DW w/ SH3 level graphics. Would make using the scope (quite important for Kilo drivers) SO much nicer.... :(

Yes especialy the flickering of the mastst are horrobly when you try to make a photo of the target for a stadimeter measure.

[Wim Libaers]

Yes especialy the flickering of the mastst are horrobly when you try to make a photo of the target for a stadimeter measure.

True, but that's not as disastrous as it might seem, as you don't really want the mast height anyway. No matter what the manual may claim, the highest structure usually seems to predict the range better than the highest mast. Still, a full-screen scope image would be nice.

[OKO]

Yep, that's true, Wim.

Why do you all (well ... not really all ... :hmm: ) have so much criticism against the DW periscope ?
It's a very usefull and efficient tool in this simulation !

Of course ... you need to know you MUST NOT use the highest mast, but only the highest structure, then you will start to live in an accurate periscope world :lol:

for the OHP, it's not exaclty the highest structure (but it is for 95% of the ship I tested) : to be really accurate, you need to use the black platform near the top of the radar mast, you could see it fine when you will be at range to work.

Range to work, one very interesting thing.
The range to work depend ... guess what ... on the size of your target ! :88)

You could find a very accurate range on a supertanker at 3 time the range you could do for the OHP !
Sounds logical huh ?!

what does it mean : as for TMA, there is time to wait before time to work.
Don't waste your time to try to range an OHP at 12 miles with the periscope => you just won't have anything accurate at less than 33 or 50 % of the real thing
But from 10 miles, you start to be quite accurate, and from 8 miles, you could be surgically accurate (5% of range error)

In fact, this periscope need skill
You need to train to know when it's time to work, and when it's time to wait.
So you need to know to evaluate roughly the range of your target even before ranging them.
it's really not that hard, and in a simple training session (on edited mission), you could learn a lot on this subject.

One other important thing : not only you need to put your upper mark on the higher structure and not the highest mast, but you need to put your down mark to the waterline and not on the sea level : the earth is not flat, and this is simulated in DW.

This mean you must "imagine" where is the waterline on a hull you just see half, or even less (because of earth curve) ! So, you need in fact to put the down mark into the sea, under the sea level you see on the picture !
Except, of course, for quite close targets, say closer than 3 or 4 miles, on which you could see the real waterline of the ship.

So,

1) you have to wait the right time to take your first picture (before, it's useless, too late, it's too dangerous for your stealth)

2) you need to put the upper mark at the highest structure for all ships except for OHP where you better aim at the black platform on the radar mast (easily detectable)
don't ask me why OHP need a special setting, I don't know (maybe because it's a small ship) but you just have to know that, to avoid any problems, and be accurate.

3) you need to put the down mark on the REAL waterline.
If you don't see it, you need to guess where it is on your picture

THEN, you have a fantastique tool, needless to say quite exciting also.

And last thing : as already mentionned by LW and Henson above => the stadimeter give you immediate range with a passive sensor!
You just need to record 3 track, at 1 minute from each others, then, in 2 minutes, you have 3 perfect position of your target.

Now switch to TMA screen, select the visual track, and your TMA is the easiest you could ever made => just have to put the 3 tick marks at the end of the 3 tracks !
you don't even need to know the target speed.
you need 5 seconds to make your TMA here, with only 3 tracks, and in 2 minutes ... who said periscope is not a good tool in DW ? :roll:

But it's clear you need to know what I just exposed above, if you want to find accurate ranges, or you could be very disapointed sometimes !

I must admit SCS did a really great job and improvment on the periscope during original beta test.
The one we have now have nothing to compare with the one we had at beta test ... you will tell me that's why there is beta tests ... but when I sometimes read people asking "what did they do during the beta test because they didn't saw this or that" I can tell you these guys don't have ANY idea on the enormous work we made there, SCS and beta testers ... but that's another story ...

Come back to periscope : now, I find this tool very efficient and accurate (when you know issues above), even if it needs a bit of training to handle it at full efficiency.
but that's also why it is great :|\
This is actually a really great tool for all subs, even if it's more crutial for KILOs than for nukes.

What is more exciting than to see a LHD at 20 knts exploding on your 53-65K from a KILO periscope you used to make his TMA ? huh ? :arrgh!:

One more thing: I often read "attacking targets at periscope like at WWII"
But there is nothing really comparable beetween WWII periscope use and nowadays :
- with the stadimeter, you don't need to use the bow angle at all (but you can if you are masochist ! :rotfl: )
- At WWII, there had not any TMA station
- WWII periscope targeting very rarely exceeded 1 miles, when modern could be made at near 15 miles on big platforms (say 8 to 15 on warships depending on the size, from the fregate to the carrier)


in fact, the actual use of the periscope, if using the same principles, is, nevertheless, completly different from WWII, when engaging.
This is mainly due to technological factors :
- magnification much better now (until X24 on latest periscopes)
- TMA station, to build quick and accurate solutions compared to bow angle so badly innacurate except at very short range (under 2 miles)
- range of detection, compelling you to keep a much bigger distance beetween you and your target
- torpedoes range, speed and seekers, much more capables and deadly than WWII ones

All of this make the use of periscope very different than the way it was used at WWII.
So you definitly can't say : lets use the scope as they did at WWII, because the only same thing you will do will be to put your eye in the reticle and that's all.
Everything else is different.

[TLAM Strike]

All I got to say about the Periscope is why does the speed on a contact have to get set to zero when I enter the solution at the standimeter. :damn:

Stupidist thing ever. Maybe thats why I only use the 'scope for bearing mesurements. :roll:

[OKO]

All I got to say about the Periscope is why does the speed on a contact have to get set to zero when I enter the solution at the standimeter. :damn:

huh ?
I don't get it TLAM
you mean when you go from stadimeter to TMA, speed is set at 0 ?
anyway, you don't care about, do you ?
I mean, once you have your 3 visual tracks, you just have to put the 1st tick mark on the first track and the last tick mark on the last track, and then you have the speed.
The second track is only here to help you to have a more accurate picture, using average beetween the 3 tracks and not only a starting track and ending track.
in fact it's not really needed, but give a more accurate solution.


Stupidist thing ever. Maybe thats why I only use the 'scope for bearing mesurements. :roll:

huh ?
I'm not sure I get your point above ...
but I really don't see what you are talking about ?!
One of the best thing with stadimeter is rightly it will give you the speed without using DEMON !

Well ... i'm not sure if I miss something or if you miss something :lol:
but I'm sure what i told above works perfect, periscoep is 80% of time my tool of choice for ASuW attack with the KILO.
because I love to see my target burning and sinking :gulp:

[OKO]

one more thing : as stadimeter measurment is only a bearing and range calculation, it's logical you couldn't find a speed with a measurment.
it's only when you compute 2 or more tracks you could find a speed.
And finding the speed is the job of the TMA, not of the stadimeter, do you agree with that ?

[Kapitan]

Can i provide more details sure

Just ask the commander who openly admitted he used these tactics in 1982 and has never denyed that even to this day watch any falklands war programme that features HMS Conquorer, and they will say something normaly like.

The captain took her deep and fast then slowed to get a periscope view, in essence this is sprint drift.

[Alex Nenadic]

Can i provide more details sure

Just ask the commander who openly admitted he used these tactics in 1982 and has never denyed that even to this day watch any falklands war programme that features HMS Conquorer, and they will say something normaly like.

The captain took her deep and fast then slowed to get a periscope view, in essence this is sprint drift.

I wasn't doubting you! I would just like to read a detailed account describing the attack. Everything I've found on goolge so far goes something like "HMS Conquorer torpedoed General Belgrano". No mention of tactics, nothing.

[Palindromeria]

I was just wondering if this was a possibility because I thought that's what I read in the game's manual. Thanx.

Dear CAMIE JARLSON :rotfl:

Everything one reads in the game manual is 100% accurate
and could not possibly be explained with any more clarity. :ping:

While there may be times one determines it simultaneously
superfluous ,vague, incorrect, and redundant( :damn: )
rest assured that is just an hallucination.

:-j

a man a plan a canal panama