Question of the day. Surprise torpedo evasion.

[Sgian Dubh]

Hi all,

After a long hiatus form SC, I am really enjoying coming ramping back up with DW.

I am running DW 1.03 + the L????? mod.

I have what I think are pretty good procedures for torp evasion, contact prosecution, etc.

The one procedure that I feel is insufficient is what to do when you get a TIW on a bearing for which you have no current contact information?

I always find myself waffling between immediate evasion, waiting a bit to see if I can track the torpedo to see if I am the target and any mixture of the above.

So I want to solicit opinions:

Here is the situation.

You get a TIW bearing 315 and the torp goes active almost immediately Up to that moment, you have no contact (other that the torpedo) with any of your sensors on that bearing. Checking now, you can't even get a whiff of a sonar contact on 315 or anything close.

The rub is, of course, that reacting blind is a very bad thing. But if you take the time to try and resolve the torpedoes track, and it is close and acquires you - then it may be too late to evade.

So you are completely blind. No range, no contact, no platform SWAG, and an active torpedo in the water.

What would you do?

And yes, I know the first answer - Never let yourself get caught in this situation. But it will happen to most, if not all of us, at some point.

I'll start:

I would assume the worst. I've been caught with my pants down and the hositle it close and has a good TMA on me. I would drop CMs, turn to put on an opening perpendicular course (say 115 degrees off the TIW bearing) and perhaps crank up to 10 or 12 knots. Enough that I am clearing datum as a reasonable pace, yet can still listen with the TA for the torpedo at the moment. If I have the room I might consider changing depth. I would definitely prepare two Snapshots torpedos, Active, initially set to 10 degrees on each side of the TIW bearing, flood and equalize the tubes. Since I have nothing on the TA on the bearing of the TIW, I would bet enable range to about 9 kYards. I would then hope that in the next few minutes I get some kind of data to refine the range SWAG and then consider shooting the Snapshots.

This question arose from an experience I had in DW. Here are the particulars:

Single Player quick battle in the Bering Sea. Ice cover. No layer as too shallow. I don't think there was 150 ft of water to play in.

I was in the game in a 688i moving at 4 kts. I had deployed my TA as much as the water/speed/iceberg situation seemed to safely allow. I initially had Autocrew on sonar, then switched it off to do my own sonar workup. After about 20 min game time, I got a TIW from 230. I had no sonar contact on that bearing other than the torpedo. The torpedo went active almost immediately. I dropped a CM and changed course apporpriately and increased speed to 6 kts. Maneuvering was hampered by icebergs.

Initial torpedo passed astern and was lost. I assumed the CM confused it and it never found me.

about this time I get another TIW from roughly the same bearing. Again I have not sonar contact on the bearing except the torpedo. Again the torpedo went active almost immediately.

I launched CM and changed course to what I SWAGed was an opening course while avoiding ice flows.

This time the torpedo acquired me and I was unable to shake it. I could not go to flank bells due to the icebergs being thick in the area I had to maneuver through.

After it was all over I turned truth on. I had been nailed by a diesel sub that was only about 11 kyards away. I never got so much as a hint of a trace on him on sonar, yet he had locked me up quite nicely.

So I was expending this to what if this happened in open water where you had more room to maneuver? In general, what else might I have done had I been able to do so.

I never fired a Snapshot in the game because I was a bit busy with the icebergs to do it.

[Kapitan]

If you play under ice and your playing a guy who doesnt know the canopy or topography too well then you got a good advantage normaly the torpedo will smash into an ice berg.

Hear a TIW warning under ice then 99% it is where the contact is, as they cannot fire missiles under ice.

So go to nav map click your sub then push and hold R then drag that range and bearing line out to about 15 miles place manual contact then snap shot at it with two torpedos one bearing slightly one way one slightly the other and enable them at around 8 miles.

So snap shot to a contact at 315 id shoot one torp 317 and one 313.

[SeaQueen]

I never fired a Snapshot in the game because I was a bit busy with the icebergs to do it.

Always shoot a snapshot. You'd be surprised how often they'll hit SOMETHING. They may be a shot in the dark, but they they're sufficiently dangerous that the bad guy has to at least think about them. I'm convinced that fact alone makes your torpedo evasion much more effective, because while they're avoiding your torpedo they're NOT concentrating on where you are.

[goldorak]

Always shoot a snapshot. You'd be surprised how often they'll hit SOMETHING. They may be a shot in the dark, but they they're sufficiently dangerous that the bad guy has to at least think about them. I'm convinced that fact alone makes your torpedo evasion much more effective, because while they're avoiding your torpedo they're NOT concentrating on where you are.


No, fire a snapshot only when you're pretty sure the torpedo has been fired at you.
No sense in giving out your position if you're not in danger.

[TopTorp '92]

Hi all,

After a long hiatus form SC, I am really enjoying coming ramping back up with DW.

I am running DW 1.03 + the L????? mod.

I have what I think are pretty good procedures for torp evasion, contact prosecution, etc.

The one procedure that I feel is insufficient is what to do when you get a TIW on a bearing for which you have no current contact information?

I always find myself waffling between immediate evasion, waiting a bit to see if I can track the torpedo to see if I am the target and any mixture of the above.

So I want to solicit opinions:

Here is the situation.

You get a TIW bearing 315 and the torp goes active almost immediately Up to that moment, you have no contact (other that the torpedo) with any of your sensors on that bearing. Checking now, you can't even get a whiff of a sonar contact on 315 or anything close.

The rub is, of course, that reacting blind is a very bad thing. But if you take the time to try and resolve the torpedoes track, and it is close and acquires you - then it may be too late to evade.

So you are completely blind. No range, no contact, no platform SWAG, and an active torpedo in the water.

What would you do?

And yes, I know the first answer - Never let yourself get caught in this situation. But it will happen to most, if not all of us, at some point.

I'll start:

I would assume the worst. I've been caught with my pants down and the hositle it close and has a good TMA on me. I would drop CMs, turn to put on an opening perpendicular course (say 115 degrees off the TIW bearing) and perhaps crank up to 10 or 12 knots. Enough that I am clearing datum as a reasonable pace, yet can still listen with the TA for the torpedo at the moment. If I have the room I might consider changing depth. I would definitely prepare two Snapshots torpedos, Active, initially set to 10 degrees on each side of the TIW bearing, flood and equalize the tubes. Since I have nothing on the TA on the bearing of the TIW, I would bet enable range to about 9 kYards. I would then hope that in the next few minutes I get some kind of data to refine the range SWAG and then consider shooting the Snapshots.

This question arose from an experience I had in DW. Here are the particulars:

Single Player quick battle in the Bering Sea. Ice cover. No layer as too shallow. I don't think there was 150 ft of water to play in.

I was in the game in a 688i moving at 4 kts. I had deployed my TA as much as the water/speed/iceberg situation seemed to safely allow. I initially had Autocrew on sonar, then switched it off to do my own sonar workup. After about 20 min game time, I got a TIW from 230. I had no sonar contact on that bearing other than the torpedo. The torpedo went active almost immediately. I dropped a CM and changed course apporpriately and increased speed to 6 kts. Maneuvering was hampered by icebergs.

Initial torpedo passed astern and was lost. I assumed the CM confused it and it never found me.

about this time I get another TIW from roughly the same bearing. Again I have not sonar contact on the bearing except the torpedo. Again the torpedo went active almost immediately.

I launched CM and changed course to what I SWAGed was an opening course while avoiding ice flows.

This time the torpedo acquired me and I was unable to shake it. I could not go to flank bells due to the icebergs being thick in the area I had to maneuver through.

After it was all over I turned truth on. I had been nailed by a diesel sub that was only about 11 kyards away. I never got so much as a hint of a trace on him on sonar, yet he had locked me up quite nicely.

So I was expending this to what if this happened in open water where you had more room to maneuver? In general, what else might I have done had I been able to do so.

I never fired a Snapshot in the game because I was a bit busy with the icebergs to do it.

Turning perpendicular to the incoming torpedo will only increase the probability of acquisition. In this case you are giving the torpedo too much broadside to work with. Generally, you want the torpedo about 30-45 degrees abaft the beam. You don’t want to cross the torpedo’s track while evading.

You must drive the boat above or below the nearest sonar layer.

All ahead flank.

Snapshot down the bearing of the incoming torpedo.

Not necessarily in this sequence.

You may:
1. get a sonar report about a TIW. At a minimum speed to FULL. Meanwhile get bearing and bearing rate data. Is the torpedo drawing left or right? Which side of the beam is it on? Is it opening or closing range.

2. Check the Active sonar repeater. It will tell you the bearing to the active intercept. You must watch this for bearing drift information. Also check the broadband display for bearing drift. Be sure to turn in the opposite direction.

3. Get movin, start using CMs. Fire snapshot.

4. don’t forget to find that layer.

[Deathblow]

I never fired a Snapshot in the game because I was a bit busy with the icebergs to do it.

Always shoot a snapshot. You'd be surprised how often they'll hit SOMETHING. They may be a shot in the dark, but they they're sufficiently dangerous that the bad guy has to at least think about them. I'm convinced that fact alone makes your torpedo evasion much more effective, because while they're avoiding your torpedo they're NOT concentrating on where you are.

What would also help would be if we had a "launch transient" and never the TIW to clue into whether a torp is sub or air dropped. That would be a nice additon. It would also help to know whether a sub is firing off ASW/ASM launches, because we don't detect their launches, just the results after the payloads delivered. Always a source of soreness in gameplay personally. Maybe in a future patch. *Fingers crossed*

[MaHuJa]

What would also help would be if we had a "launch transient" and never the TIW to clue into whether a torp is sub or air dropped. That would be a nice additon. It would also help to know whether a sub is firing off ASW/ASM launches, because we don't detect their launches, just the results after the payloads delivered. Always a source of soreness in gameplay personally. Maybe in a future patch. *Fingers crossed*

Sounds like you'd want lwami :)

Missiles launched from underwater with the mod installed will make a lot of noise, unfortunately there's no automatic notification like for torpedoes.

[Sgian Dubh]

I am using Lwami and the launch transient of ASW missiles was next on my list of things to sort out. I am disappointed that this was not corrected from SC days. But having them make a good deal of noise is better than nothing.

[sonar732]

The only problem with launch transients is if you're in SP you're hosed because the chance of you looking at BB the exact moment that it is launched is slim. However, if in MP and assigned the BB and your only job is to watch for transients the chances get better. If I remember right, either Fish or Xabb has posted screenies of what it looks like. Trust me, the transient warning is high on everyone's wish.

[SeaQueen]

No, fire a snapshot only when you're pretty sure the torpedo has been fired at you.
No sense in giving out your position if you're not in danger.

I used to think that too, until I wrote a little toy Monte Carlo to see what mattered. If you always shoot a snapshot, you do better on average.

I'm pretty convinced that if it's not shot at you, then you're actually in better shape than if it had been shot at you, because now you've attacked the badguy first. It's like a page from Fleet Tactics. The bottom line is that if you hear a TIW, you've either been detected first and are being shot at (therefore you should shoot back), or someone else was detected first and is being shot at (therefore you should shoot at the guy shooting at them), or someone else is dumb and shot before they had a good shot at anyone, thus revealing their position needlessly (therefore you should shoot them).

The more torpedoes you can shoot at a badguy the better off you are. What's the worst that can happen? Someone else shoots another ill-aimed torpedo at you down his LOB to you? Either way, nobody's torpedo is likely to hit anything. The only thing you can do to skew the statistics in your favor is to increase the salvo size, ultimately. Probably the best tactic is to fire all tubes and not just one. Maximum salvo size is a killer.

I believe it is much better to shoot lots of torpedos, whiff ten times and get the bad guy on the eleventh, than to spend so much time setting up a shot with a silver bullet that you get wacked in the process.

More is always better. The truth is, if you watch how people play this game, they rarely do more than shoot what essentially amount to snapshots anyhow.

[Molon Labe]

I beg to differ. :x :stare:

[Bellman]

With respect SQ - these are not MP procedures that I am able to endorse ! :nope:

[OneShot]

I agree to disagree ....

Since I favour the Airplattforms, one of my principles is to carefully set up my shots and make em count. This is especially important on the Helo where you might have only 2 torps and reloading (if you can do that at all) takes ages. The drawback on this ... often enough my opponent got me while I was in the process of gettin in the right position. Depending on your loadout the lack of torps to shoot is less emphasized on the P-3, still for the airborne platforms all torps are Fire-and-Forget weapons, no chance of resteering or whatever.

[SeaQueen]

I agree to disagree ....

Since I favour the Airplattforms, one of my principles is to carefully set up my shots and make em count. This is especially important on the Helo where you might have only 2 torps and reloading (if you can do that at all) takes ages. The drawback on this ... often enough my opponent got me while I was in the process of gettin in the right position.

Air is different. The total area searched by lightweight torpedoes is insufficient to make this effective. In that case a TIW helps you to cue your search, though, although if you can pick up the torpedo shortly after it's launched, that's probably a good place to mark and drop on.


Depending on your loadout the lack of torps to shoot is less emphasized on the P-3, still for the airborne platforms all torps are Fire-and-Forget weapons, no chance of resteering or whatever.


Yeah... that's another big factor.

I've noticed that a lot of submarine people tend less to depend on the the torpedo just searching out a swath of space on it's own, and instead prefer to "walk it in" by activating it, seeing if it homes on anything, inactivating it, letting it go for a while, activating it again. How many times do you see people activating torpedoes WAY early doing exactly that? They haven't the foggiest clue where you are, they just have a line of bearing. It's the same as a snapshot. They're just shooting down a line of bearing with little or no effective TMA.

Almost everyone I've seen in MP is shooting what amount to snapshots, and then wire guiding them in when they get a sniff of someone, or else not even necessarily having a clear idea where anyone is at all. They just develop a feel for the torpedo and let it home when it homes, adjusting it so that it stays along the line of bearing they have on their sonar.

It seems to work as a tactic. It goes back to the whole "shoot effectively first..." argument. They use the wire guidence as a way of compensating for what's ultimately a lack of sufficient skill to spend the time to develop an accurate firing solution. They don't need to do TMA. In these multiplayer free-for-alls, who cares ultimately who you hit so long as you hit someone? The Seawolf is especially cheesy in this respect. In many cases, theoretically, you don't have to even know which direction the guy is in, just have to know he's there. You can cover 360 degrees out to a fairly good range by firing tubes 1-8, and have a decent change of hitting someone.

I think it's actually kind of annoying, because the only way I've figured to counter the tactic is to break contact and start all over again. Even then, probabilities start to accumulate. Let's suppose there's only a one in ten chance of a torpedo hitting you. After seven torpedoes there's a better than 50/50 chance of at least one of them hitting. Now imagine multiple salvos!

What I have also noticed is that frequently they don't react to counterfire. They just keep wire guiding their torpedo intently and rely on the fact that it has slightly less distance to travel than yours do.

The thing is, this is an unrealistic tactic, because in truth, it doens't matter if you kill the other guy if you get killed in the process. Frequently, that's precisely the situation they set up, only they quit the game before that happens. Even so, if that's the name of the game.. maximum salvo size along the line of bearing. Get as many torpedoes in the water as you can as fast as you can.

[Wim Libaers]

In some situations, it may also be useful to check if the torpedo was fired by a friendly or a hostile platform.

[SeaQueen]

In some situations, it may also be useful to check if the torpedo was fired by a friendly or a hostile platform.

Friends? What friends? Why are they in MY op area?

[Kapitan]

Friendly Nutrel or enamy i dont care i fire if threated, i set a 20 miles cicle around my boat thats the threash hold any thing even a whale comes to close il either use evasive monovers or sink it.

In submarine warfare there is no such thing as friendlys everyone is you enamy.

[Sgian Dubh]

The only problem with launch transients is if you're in SP you're hosed because the chance of you looking at BB the exact moment that it is launched is slim. However, if in MP and assigned the BB and your only job is to watch for transients the chances get better. If I remember right, either Fish or Xabb has posted screenies of what it looks like. Trust me, the transient warning is high on everyone's wish.


I think I remember seeing these a long time ago. Anyone know if these images are still available?

[Kapitan]

I have seen some screen shots of the broad band sonar picking up outer doors opening or something like that cant remember exactly, but it was taken from an american submarine, its very difficault to see any signs of opening outer doors or flooding in a russian submarine very hard.

[Molon Labe]

SQ, sounds like you need to find some opponents that take the game seriously and aren't just taking a break from Doom.

[MaHuJa]

As a general rule, I do the tma to get a reasonable solution before I fire. At some point he's gonna begin maneuvering evasively, and by then, all bets are off as far as TMA and me are concerned. Then, it's guidance and bearing differences all the way.


My answer to the original post, is more or less documented in the ffg guide I wrote; generally speaking, the first thing I do on getting the TIW warning is to maneuver so as to invalidate the solution it was fired on (presuming it was fired on me, etc etc) then to determine the type and direction of the torpedo. Location is also important, but not to ownship survival.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

its very difficault to see any signs of opening outer doors or flooding in a russian submarine very hard.

Ok, I have to ask.

Why is this so? What do they do so different?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

its very difficault to see any signs of opening outer doors or flooding in a russian submarine very hard.

Ok, I have to ask.

Why is this so? What do they do so different?

Display. A transient shows up in a waterfall because it records the time factor, though signal strength representation is only by glow strength and thus more approximate (doesn't matter if you have a SW style SNR reader though).

The Akula uses an instantaneous display. The transient flashes by and is gone.

It also produces negative effects on effective broadband sensitivity because the waterfall can "accumulate" the signal better.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Display. A transient shows up in a waterfall because it records the time factor, though signal strength representation is only by glow strength and thus more approximate (doesn't matter if you have a SW style SNR reader though).

I must be getting old, I mistook his question that we could not detect it. Yes, the waterfalls will miss such a short lived transient.

[Sgian Dubh]

Which is why I have always wondered why Russian subs in the game (and in real life?) don't have a waterfall display for the history of contacts. For SONAR signal analysis it seems like such a "must have".

[SeaQueen]

SQ, sounds like you need to find some opponents that take the game seriously and aren't just taking a break from Doom.

Hey, if it's 3am and I'm bored... I take what I can get. I think a lot of this is also driven by the fact that the time and distance scales on which most MP games are played are totally contrived.

[Bellman]

MLs SQ 'Doom' torpedo is on target regretably. Even Homer sleeps ?

I join the 'Ides' as I hope SQs 'shotgun' tactics statements will be taken with a large pinch of salt !

ML is better 'briefed' to mount the case for the prosecution

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Which is why I have always wondered why Russian subs in the game (and in real life?) don't have a waterfall display for the history of contacts. For SONAR signal analysis it seems like such a "must have".

The even funnier thing is that if you buy the game's story, the DEMON has a perfectly good waterfall - so much for saying they can't make one or don't get the concept.

[SeaQueen]

MLs SQ 'Doom' torpedo is on target regretably. Even Homer sleeps ?

I join the 'Ides' as I hope SQs 'shotgun' tactics statements will be taken with a large pinch of salt !

ML is better 'briefed' to mount the case for the prosecution

No... if you are in most of the MP games, the worst thing in the world you can do is sit there trying to develop a solution while 4 ding dongs have already shot torpedoes that are so ill aimed as to hit ANYTHING at all. Those ill-aimed torpedoes are just as dangerous as well aimed ones if you don't treat them as if they were well aimed. It's much better to just let loose with the maximum salvo size as soon as you see a line of bearing (a TIW is the same thing). On average you'll do better. It doesn't even really matter who you hit, just as long as it's SOMEONE. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that more torpedoes = more dead opponents.

From it's conception, the whole scenario is about countermeasures, evasion, and weaponry. There's no thinking to it at all. You don't have time to think. Most of these kiddies won't PLAY a scenario where there's too much time they have to spend searching. The scenarios they favor are the ones where everyone is almost on the verge being detected by everyone else anyway. The results at that point depend entirely on firepower and countermeasures effectiveness. A single ping before shooting would actually give you the instamatic range you need to make a torpedo shot a tiny bit more effective than his, thus giving you another slight edge in a situation whose results are essentially random.

In fact, it's probably better to just go active immediately after being shot at too. Since by most people's standards in MP, a line of bearing is all that's necessary to shoot, it's best to just assume you've been detected immediately after the first torpedo is fired.

[Sgian Dubh]

And that's why in any MP game of this kind (where patience is required or where there is a part of the community that enjoys the execution of the game as much or more than the final last few minutes if frantic explosions) needs to have a way to penalize people for using, for instance, the "shotgun torpedo approach".

Each weapon should cost you points. So even if you get a "kill", then you should still be able to lose on a points basis. Of course, even this still doesn't solve the problem because the people that were looking forward to a nice game of "sneak about" still have to deal with weapons in the water, one or more losses and a "rogue" element.

The bottom line is that a way needs to be found to remove the reward for such tactics (and I think it should be toggle-able because there are people who enjoy playing a faster, FPS-type game).

[Deathblow]

Just to throw in 2cents toward the original topic.

Most times when I don't have a contact on the TIW bearing its most times out of naught a helo/P3 drop in my experience and most times I regret it if I don't start an immediate evasion routine. Those precious seconds are what count. I start with some basic evasive maneuvers at the highest non-cavitating speed permitable. If there's no immediate homing ping then it means there's time to analyze the torp motion a bit and go from there. But if that ping shows up within a minute or 2 then all bets are off and flank speed ahead it is.

But to be honest, my track record against helo-dropped torps is pretty poor... I still don't have a good way to be a close in drop that works most of the time. :dead: :damn:

[Kapitan]

The russian navy so ive heard are now starting to implement water fall displays on thier submarines, apparently the Akula 2's have them installed but i cannot confirm this as of yet.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Yes, we heard that 10 times before. What we want to know is why didn't they start doing it 10-15 years ago. Once they implemented even partially digital rather than analogue processing, they can go beyond direct, instantaneous signal conversion (which limits you to displays like SSAZ, FRAZ, A-scope and the like because they have no memory) to raster display modes (which allows for waterfalls).

The DEMON itself is a waterfall. It has to store the time factor to have made the display it did, which means the tech to store time data is there - if you believe the display is more or less representative of what is available.

As for performance, even if you don't count the transient logging the difference is huge. I've managed to lock in DEMON at ranges that the SSAZ basically shows no signal! Imagine the extra BB sensitivity to be had if they skipped the DEMON processing when providing a waterfall! If the Russians even tried a waterfall once, the difference will be so massive there won't be an argument, at least from what I've seen. The difference will be like the shock the Sovs had when they found out the West could easily track their submarines because they actually worked on sonar and silencing.

[SeaQueen]

And that's why in any MP game of this kind (where patience is required or where there is a part of the community that enjoys the execution of the game as much or more than the final last few minutes if frantic explosions) needs to have a way to penalize people for using, for instance, the "shotgun torpedo approach".



I have no problem with the shotgun torpedo tactic. It's real, kids. That's part of why they gave more torpedo tubes to the Seawolf. Bigger salvos means more dead stuff. That's the bottom line in Capt. Wayne Hughes, Fleet Tactics. It's a fact of contemporary naval warfare.

Here's my issue with these scenarios:

The essential problem with all of the scenarios I run across, though, is that they begin at the time when in a real ASW operation which they intend to mimic, the search problem is either over or is almost solved. In the name of making a scenario more exciting, everyone is right on the edge of being detected. They do this by making the distance and time scales are all wrong.

The shotgun torpedo tactic works. There's nothing wrong with it. Maximum salvo size is not a bad way of thinking at all. I'd argue that the kiddies have discovered what it took Wayne Hughes a whole book to argue in favor of. Once you find the bad guy, the scenario SHOULD be about countermeasures and weapons effectiveness. The problem is, that they choose distance scales for the scenario which simplify the search problem unrealistically.

The other thing is that let's suppose you shoot a maximum sized torpedo salvo at every TIW call. If you choose the distance scale right, the travel time required for the torpedoes to arrive at your location will be sufficiently large that if you employ a smart evasion tactic, you should be able to avoid almost all of these attacks unless you are very unlucky. It won't totally negate it (and it shouldn't) but it will make it a lot less effective.

[Bellman]

Well, whilst I share SQs distaste for premature ejaculation type MP games, SAS may hope to expand their
coffers a little by adding ''kids'' and ''ding dongers'' to their customer basis.

I suspect many old SCX divers will continue to enjoy the fruits of success if 'scatter-gun' becomes the norm !
However many appreciate some of the subtler tactics and techniques that MP situations often
demand for success. That is not to say that 'shotgun' tactics are not appropriate to specific situations.
But I would distinguish 'shotgun' as salvo/s from 'the scatter-gun' SQ suggests is a successful MP modus !!

Hughes is discrete about submarine warfare - ''Perhaps open discussion is not yet necessary
and may never be particularly desirable.'' But in modern tactics and operations (Missiles and maxims) he states
with some reserve -''The answer hinges on the correlation of scouting potentiaities.'' ''The dual notions that
govern modern tactics are - (1) aggregating ENOUGH force and (2) using scouting .....to strike effectively first with it.''
Its hard to square specific scouting and stealth requirements with SQs approved generalised indescriminate 'scatter' !

I am sure that SQ would not offer the 'scatter' theory without a strong mathematical basis and it may
prove challenging to translate that for those of us less well endowed in that area. However it would be
interesting to have some fleshing out of the bones of the proposition.

I'm sure many folk here appreciate the striving of SAS and modders to achieve a semblance of reality.
Such players tend to seek each other out (sic) for simulation games leaving the splashy noisy paddling-pool
for the deep-end. There lurking stealthily, if we are extremely skilful we might find SQ before he deploys his shotgun. ;)

[Bellman]

Whilst above I make a genaralised objection to the claimed success of 'scatter' torp deployment in DW,
there are many specific situations in which this tactic is highly undesirable.

It is counterproductive to expose your position in counterfiring a distant unthreatening torp :
(1) An unseen opponent may be within range working up a final TMA or worse still completely unaware of you
until you counterfired. Your scatter will induce his shotgun response !
(2) Mind games - why put your cards face up ? Opponents must not 'know' the operational situation until its too late ! (A trade-off )
(3) Range - Stalking steatlhily working-up NB trying to achievie a launch point with reasonable
odds of success v opponents avoidance. Scatter and you blow it !!
(4) Tactics - positional play. Kara with 'controllables' - the mission objective kill the Boomer but screening SSNs.
Can you get the Boomer in range without alerting the SSNs letting her possibly slip quietly away. SSN launches
- is it a probe, is it v ally ? An auto counterfire may blow the mission completely particularly where
time constraints apply ? Try 'scatter' in Okhotsk 2 !!

Breakfast and cooling croissants interrupt, but I can think of countless other situations where scatter
will not deliver the goods. But I remain tantalised by the MP FFA mathematics ! :hmm:

[SeaQueen]

Hughes is discrete about submarine warfare - ''Perhaps open discussion is not yet necessary
and may never be particularly desirable.'' But in modern tactics and operations (Missiles and maxims) he states
with some reserve -''The answer hinges on the correlation of scouting potentiaities.'' ''The dual notions that
govern modern tactics are - (1) aggregating ENOUGH force and (2) using scouting .....to strike effectively first with it.''
Its hard to square specific scouting and stealth requirements with SQs approved generalised indescriminate 'scatter' !


Using his kind of logic is actually pretty common with torpedoes as well as cruise missiles. The idea is the same, there's just no defensive missiles. He's a pretty influential guy in that whole realm of thinking.

The problem with most MP scenarios, is that the distance scale is all wrong, so the scouting problem is overly simplified. Like I said before, everyone is piled on top of each other, in the hopes of creating an exciting game. Exciting in this case means, "a massive torpedo melee in which the outcome is determined largely by whoc can shoot best." You don't have to spend hours searching ("scouting") for your opponent. Most of the time, he's right there. Long ranged shots are rare. The probability that a torpedo will hit SOMEONE is fairly decent just by random chance. In essense, these types of scenarios skip over the very thing that makes ASW difficult, really.

Since the scouting problem is essentially solved for you, the only thing left to do is STRIKE EFFECTIVELY FIRST. In the first few minutes of a game, usually someone has been detected and has been shot at. That means you should snapshot down the TIW bearing, since a maximum sized salvo stands a pretty good chance of hitting someone.

The trade off is that if people want to play a realistic ASW scenario, they're going to have to be willing to invest a lot of time.

[Sgian Dubh]

I have no problem with the shotgun torpedo tactic. It's real, kids. That's part of why they gave more torpedo tubes to the Seawolf. Bigger salvos means more dead stuff. That's the bottom line in Capt. Wayne Hughes, Fleet Tactics. It's a fact of contemporary naval warfare.

The shotgun torpedo tactic works. There's nothing wrong with it. Maximum salvo size is not a bad way of thinking at all. I'd argue that the kiddies have discovered what it took Wayne Hughes a whole book to argue in favor of. Once you find the bad guy, the scenario SHOULD be about countermeasures and weapons effectiveness. The problem is, that they choose distance scales for the scenario which simplify the search problem unrealistically.

The other thing is that let's suppose you shoot a maximum sized torpedo salvo at every TIW call. If you choose the distance scale right, the travel time required for the torpedoes to arrive at your location will be sufficiently large that if you employ a smart evasion tactic, you should be able to avoid almost all of these attacks unless you are very unlucky. It won't totally negate it (and it shouldn't) but it will make it a lot less effective.

There are, I think, two different meanings being ascribed to "Shotgun".

I have no problem with someone putting multiple torpedos into the water for a single, detected and resovled contact. I have a big problem with some one in a Seawolf launching 8 ADCAPS in 4 equidistance bearings away from ownship and hopings that one of them latches onto something.

You'll have a hard time presenting a case where a board of inquiry would absolve a skipper for firing torpedos across the compass spread because "They had to be out there somewhere.".

That is not a tactic in any sense of the word.

It is a problem, to be sure. I guess the bottom line is to learn who to dive with that matches your style and preferences for the game. This is the single issue which make me skeptical about spending too much time in MP play.

[Kapitan]

Correct firing in every direction because you simply can is not a tactic at all, in fact its a rather stupid move, if you have a half decent skipper he could work backwards from all them torpedos and work out where you are.

So now you have 8 torps in the water and some one has fired at you, instead of waiting for a pure contact you have given yourself away and now your open to be sunk.

[Bellman]

You are both right in identifying the two principle problems of MP !
The challenge is to find like minded people who accept the constraints of achieving realism.
A very noble attempt was made in this direction by TimmyG00 and Sub Command HQ and its a great pity that
due to RL commitments he was unable to continue. The project floundered by the lack of anyone big enough
to fill his shoes. I sincerely hope that he may return some day !

That said it is difficult for a scenario designer to cater for broad tastes. Last night I dived 2 v 2 subs(Stock 1.03)
One player asked host to choose a 'close-in' scenario - possibly the Kilo diver , there were 2 Aks and I took the SW.
In error host chose a wide platform dispersion, large area, scenario. We were 2 West 2 East with
over a 30 nm separation.

One Ak killed the other but then did his knitting, the Kilo diver had no chance as his request failed and in the
absence of any merchants or neutrals I listened to some nice whale music on my new soundcard. Thats it
not a glimmer of a suggestion of any meaningful 'action' if you exclude 2 exchanges of single out of range torps.
But facing 3 missile platforms not one responded to my two MK48 launches :hmm: My useless UUVs were silent.

The lesson was that the Kilo and I were trying like heck to find and probe each other so for us it was a tense absorbing
time. I was'nt bored and nor am I sure was he. The Replay was 'disappeared' so its not possible to
analyse the action. It was the host who requested termination.

A good dive ? Yes - you take the hand thats dealt ! Enjoyable and taxing - Yes siree :yep: :rock:

[Kapitan]

Bellman when are you going to stop gassing and start playing im still waiting for that dam game.

[Oberon]

My advice...is that if you're in an MH-60 and you have to evade a torpedo...adjust your altitude. :up:

[Bellman]

PM - see u in GS. :yep:

[Bellman]

:rotfl:

O - remember the flying sub days in SC ? :o :huh: :doh: :roll: :lol:

[Oberon]

Remember them well :up:
Hundreds of knots and heading straight up :D

How did the game against Kap go? Did he ram you and sink you? :o

[Bellman]

Russian ambushers totaly immobilised by intimacy with ice !

Trying to think of the Western it reminded me of - '' Ambush at Deadmans Gulf'' ? :lol:

Lucky to survive with my 3 48s enroute as the plug was pulled ! :o

[Oberon]

Man I'm looking forward to getting stuck into this....should only be a matter of weeks now...then you guys get a new target to sink :up:

[Kapitan]

1) bellman was out of range by a fair few miles think the distance was around 34 miles.

2) i was already dead before he fired a thing lol i ran aground the depth went 12m to 0 in a second. :x :x

[Sgian Dubh]

Correct firing in every direction because you simply can is not a tactic at all, in fact its a rather stupid move, if you have a half decent skipper he could work backwards from all them torpedos and work out where you are.

So now you have 8 torps in the water and some one has fired at you, instead of waiting for a pure contact you have given yourself away and now your open to be sunk.

I agree, but there seems to be a certain presence that is satisfied with sinking something, anything and is not overly concerned with ownship survival.

In fact, that is really the point in a number of ways. You shouldn't "win" in MP if ownship is sunk, regardless of how many you sink yourself. I don't want to go into the mechanics of how to correct this because I only have a few vague ideas myself.

I think it is ironic that I have diverted my own thread :roll:

[SeaQueen]

I have no problem with someone putting multiple torpedos into the water for a single, detected and resovled contact. I have a big problem with some one in a Seawolf launching 8 ADCAPS in 4 equidistance bearings away from ownship and hopings that one of them latches onto something.

You'll have a hard time presenting a case where a board of inquiry would absolve a skipper for firing torpedos across the compass spread because "They had to be out there somewhere.".


I spent some more time thinking about it today, and the problem is actually fun to work out. Let's suppose you just had a bearing to a target (ex. TIW call). Let's also suppose that you knew the search rate of your torpedo. Let's also suppose you knew about what speed the bad guy would try to evade at (for example, his maximum silent speed). What spread of torpedoes would exclude the target's possiblity of escape (neglecting countermeasures)?

It's actually a pretty easy problem to solve. Using reasonable inputs and making different assumptions about the target evasion speed, it turns out that the Seawolf in DW firing a full spread of torpedoes can have perfect coverage all the way out the first convergence zone! FABULOUS!

But that's neglecting countermeasures.... It also assumes that you make an assumption about how fast your bad guy is going to evade at. He might surprise you. That can work both for or against him. Outside of the "no escape" zone, where at least one torpedo is guaranteed to home on you neglecting countermeasures, the torpedo effectiveness falls off as 1/R.

If you have a little bit better idea of where the guy is than just a bearing, maybe you don't need perfect coverage all the way out to the first convergence zone. Maybe you'll double up torpedoes and along the different bearings you calculated so that his countermeasures are less effective.

I'd argue that this is actually an EXCELLENT tactic, particularly since you know your target will detect your launch (he'll get a TIW call too) and evade.

So... I'm not saying that shooting a single spread of torpedoes in a 360 degree pattern is optimal. It's cheesy and fun (everyone needs to try it at least once in their life), but Kapitan is right, it's not the best tactic in the world.


It is a problem, to be sure. I guess the bottom line is to learn who to dive with that matches your style and preferences for the game. This is the single issue which make me skeptical about spending too much time in MP play.

Like I said, I feel like most of the problems with MP realism are driven by the fact that the scenarios themselves are contrived. It's mostly because the distance scales are all wrong. They're just bizzare to me.

I remember one person argued that a good scenario should be designed entirely with the 10Nmi scale on the map. Anything larger was wrong. What? In the game, people detect each other on the order of tens of miles. So now the search problem is massively simplified so the whole thing is about torpedoes and countermeasures. Exciting? Sure... but it's not realistic. Then they do things like pack as many playable platforms as they can into that same distance scale. So... now it's not just with no search problem, but it's utter chaos.

The outcomes of these scenarios are unindicative of anyone's skill level. Anyone is as likely as anyone else to win or lose, regardless of skill. It's just that particular roll of the dice.