yes, magnetic pistol can easily fail to explode if the torpedo runs at 90 degrees under a slender hull, which is why you will want to learn the various tactics at your disposal. magnetic is great when you are forced to shoot at, say, 30 degrees AOB. because the torpedo will spend a lot more time underneath the hull.

'critical' points besides the already mentioned engine room are: masts (specially forward) and guns. i sometimes get the huge secondary explosions and sinking because i got a torpedo in the ammo bunker for some gun (once took out an auxiliary cruiser with one impact shot right under her fore gun platforms. it made my graphics card go all laggy :)

WO assistance is a good way to upgrade your realism, you can start doing the calculations and 'check' them against your officer's solution

good luck :)

However.... you'll likely fall into that trap of not checking how close you were to the solution, because you'll likely quit trying to remember how close your calculations are from the AI's. :o

lol true
i remember not having nearly enough time to do any cross checking back when i tried to learn it. the best advice i can give you is to just master the art of fast 90 :)

Fast 90 is fine, I use it whenever possible.

However, it isn't always possible.

My advice is to go to hitman's Kriegsmarine Whiz-Wheel thread
(here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114351 ) and build one for yourself. It's pretty easy: You simply print out the three wheels, and pin them together:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5185/dsc00013ym5.jpg

If you want to get fancy, you can make the reverse side also.

Then download klh's instructions for how to use it, found in this thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126824

With a little practice, it's pretty intuitive to use and it helps you become deadly accurate.

Heh, I remember lurking and downloading that... and then noticing all the picture files in there and saying to myself.... "Um... this looks like a lot of work."

At the time I was really searching for the AOB one that's on that Wazoo page. But the link left on the Wazoo's page is basicly broken. It links to here: http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=30852
And that link gives you a 404. Basicly, was when I registered into the forum and noticed all the mods and such here....

I evenually found one, on my own... Although, I don't remember how I found it.
http://hosted.filefront.com/PFunkadelic/1948680

I did make that version of a wheel and I used it for a while. But, the game started given me migraines via the math of converting periscope angles to bearing and such. It turned the game into work and I ended up losing interest.

I just play for fun, now, and let the AI do all the real calculating work.

I don't understand the need for the AOB wheel. It seems to make things more complicated than necessary. I don't use nav updates. What I do is shadow the target and plot its track on the chart. Then I draw a line for its track. Mark the targets location and draw the angle back to my sub. That angle is the AOB. Then its simple to point the scope at the target and add in the angle, range and speed.

Maybe that method isn't the method that was used in real life. But it could have been and its faster for me than using a wheel, probably cause I just got used to it that way.
I might make a wheel though just because it looks cool.:up: More immersion!

The problem with your method Otto is that for a significant number of situations, it just doesn't work.

Here are a few that I can think of:
1. Fast warships
2. Medium or heavy fog
3. Later war where you are limited to submerged attacks from longer ranges (if you want to live)

The beauty of using whiz-wheels is that there are really no situations with the exception of snap-shots where they aren't appropriate. Plus, you aren't locked into choosing a certain course (parallel, or a 90 degree course), or a certain speed.

I tend to either use the "two distance/bearing observations at very slow speed" method, or if I'm in a hurry the "aspect ratio" method for target AOB, and "fixed wire" for target speed.

Um, my method would work as long as you can plot the target. If you have plotted it in fog for 15 minutes and have a reliable track for the target. You will know the targets current position, its tracks and its speed. Ideally you want to keep the target in sight but with the above info you can predict its location 1 minute later if it moved into fog.

I have yet to fire at a target that I didn't see though. Are you saying that with the AOB wheel you fire at targets that are no longer visible? This could be done using either method, however, once that target is no longer visible you have no way of knowing if it changed its course or speed since last contact.

Submerged at range is no different with either method. Its just a matter of having an accurate plot. Warships are no different that other targets except that there apt to change direction so your plot info may suddenly become irrelavent. This would be the case no matter which method you used.

I just put up a tutorial for the method I use. Maybe that will help clarify what I do.

This simply isn't true. The method I use does not lock you in to a parallel or 90 degree course. In my tutorial I use a parallel course but the method I describe would work for any AOB.

There are a few reasons why a parallel course is preferred. I think these reasons may applied to any method used. For one, your TDC settings do not become outdated as quickly at a parallel course.

We both know that the AOB of the target changes over time. A parallel course at matching speed, minimizes these changes so you can enter them quickly into the TDC and fire.

If your approach is making the AOB angle change constantly, you can compensate by plotting the targets position 1 minute into the future and entering your TDC settings for the shot 1 minute from now. Again this would apply to either method.

I think you should try the method I use before you come to erroneous conclusions about limitations that simply do not exist. I never would say what the AOB wheels limitations might be without first testing it.

OK, I went back and looked at your tutorial.

It's the standard 3:15 plotting method, the only real wrinkle is that you do it from roughly parallel courses. It's a good method. I used to use it myself before I stopped plotting everything.

There are times, especially in medium to heavy fog, or with a very fast high value target, like a carrier or a battleship (or perhaps even a fast tanker sailing alone) when you don't have the luxury of waiting 3 minutes and 15 seconds to do your plotting. The target will either be too close for a torpedo, or they might be out of visual range due to adverse weather or because they are cranking along at 20+ knots.

For example, a target doing 25 knots will travel about 2,500 meters in 3 minutes and 15 seconds. If you only have 3 km visibility because of adverse weather, the target will likely be past the optimum firing point before you get a chance to do your plots.

A slower target, like a merchant doing only 7 knots, will only travel about 700 meters in 3:15, so you'd likely be able to get enough plots to target them in the same conditions, but perhaps not in heavy fog where the visibility is around 400 meters or so.

In all those cases, though, you'd likely have enough time to figure AOB and speed using a wheel (with practice, of course). You could even just use it to figure speed for lesser plotting times: Let's say because of target speed, you can't wait the whole 3 minutes and 15 seconds. You can only do 1 minute, and you plot it out and find he's moved 775 yards in that one minute. Whip out the wheel, place the 1 minute mark at the 775 mark (actually, 7750), and read the speed at the cursor, 25 knots (actually, 2.5).

Well I can't comment about the wheel. But I have sunk ships at times just by visually eyeing them up, leading them and firing out my 000. Did in a T3 tanker with 1 magnetic that way. In that situation I wouldn't have even had time to get out the AOB wheel, let alone move the dials around.

I don't ever go after any of the task forces as BDU's directive was to sink merchants.

That's true.

That didn't stop Otto Schuhart, Hans-Dietrich von Tiensenhausen, Helmut Rosenbaum, Friederich Guggenberger, Ottokar Paulssen, Gerhard Bigalk, Adolph Piening, Franz-Georg Reschke, Johann Jebsen, Horst-Arno Fenski, or Jürgen Kuhlmann from sinking the warships they came across.

I didn't mention Günter Prien because his mission in Scapa Flow was to sink warships. I picked those commanders off the top of my head that sank cruisers, carriers, and battleships, ignoring those that sank lesser ships like corvettes, destroyers, and other escort-type vessels.

I think that if you were presented with an opportunity to sink a major warship and shied away from it because your mission is to "sink merchant ships", Uncle Karl might give you a dressing down.

The top tonnage ace of the war only sunk one warship out of the 44 ships he sunk.
I get the feeling that you specifically seek them out. This is easy to do 60 plus years later when you know where they will be and at what time. Play the game you want. Use your AOB wheel. I'll play the game the way I feel like playing it.

btw - it seems that your giving me a dressing down for whatever reason. Frankly I don't care if I don't play to your standards.

Remeber gents, it is just a game.

I dont think any one or the other is the right way. Just use the method you feel most comfortable and then pass it on to the nub's, let them decide.:DL

First, I am truly sorry if you feel that way, it was definitely not my intention! Like Oneshot/Onekill says, at least for us, it's only a game.

Second, I don't go out of my way to engage major warships, for the most part. If I get a report of a Task Force within a reasonable distance, I will go after it though. That "reasonable distance" is often much shorter than I would go for a convoy, and if I find it's all destroyers, I generally won't waste a torpedo on them unless I have to. Cruisers and up are a different story: If I can, I try to sink them.

Third, sinking capital ships, while not a stated priority, was an activity that was pretty heavily rewarded by BdU: Guggenberger received the Knights Cross for sinking the fleet carrier HMS Ark Royal, Bigalk received it for sinking the escort carrier HMS Audacity, Tiesenhausen received it for sinking the battleship HMS Barham, and Rosenbaum received it for sinking the carrier HMS Eagle. I'm sure there are a few more examples.

So yes, the focus was on merchant traffic (as it should have been), but major warships were considered fair game also.

At any rate, have a beer on me in atonement: :()1: