Well, no, it could BE 180º! hehehehehe!:D

But then your speed to keep it on a constant bearing would be zero or infinitely variable without restriction, depending on your course.

ok, i have uploaded the movie to u-tube, the combined time is about 21 minutes,
in 3 parts. what the movie does is prove that the method works. i have writted a small explanation for
all three individual parts to let the viewer know what going on, for the part thier watching.
but whats happening is the submarine has aligned itself with the target in an 8010
angular arrangment, after about 8 or 9 minutes holding the target at a constant bearing of 280 degrees,
(way longer than i had to, but to show that a target can be held constant for a long period of time),
the approach looks at the combat information chart to fire the torpedoes at the proper firing bearing, for a 0 degree gyro angle,
for the targets course and speed r to submarine, for an mk-14 torpedo set for high speed.
the target is held at 280, and has a starboard aob, so im lisening mostly at bearing 290 and 291, to detect acute bearing change of the target,
which if occurs, either the target has a larger aob than 10 degrees, or submarine speed is not enough to keep target at a constant bearing.
at 290, i can still hear target screws, and hydrophone amplifiers can pick up sound from the target and display it as a green visual indicator
light, because the target sound is diffused 10 degrees on either side of its true bearing, ( not to be confused with its polar bearing), but its real bearing.

eventually the sub closes to short ranges that the sub has to slow to 1 knot, than half knot, and then to all stop in order not to collide with the target and maintain enough arming distance for the torpedoes. firing bearing for target making 11 knots and course 90 degrees r to submarine is 347 degrees for a 0 decgree gyro angle, using mk-14 set for high speed. part 3 shows the kill.


part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzjXvApt1WU
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_KaezvILg4
part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MQiLfdtJY

There is no there there. At no time did you establish the AoB of the target. Therefore at no time did you establish the speed of the target. You set up the scenario in the mission editor, erected your straw man and then knocked him down pretending to accomplish something else entirely. This is evidenced by the fact that you started out the video at 2 knots and course North, never having to adjust either. Why? You already knew the answer.

In a career encountering targets is nowhere near that convenient. Therefore the entire technique is unusable unless used only with your mission.

Useful stuff which is actually contained within the video:

1. Putting yourself on a collision course with an approaching target will definitely put you in a position to shoot. Actually, best approach turns out to be putting the target at your beam, 90º or 270º. You actually should increase speed to arrive ahead of the target so that you have time to set up the shot.

2. Getting close as you can makes any targeting system work, including your by guess and by golly zero bearing shots. In a real life situation you would have had no idea of the target's course or speed, but you were close enough to hit 'em anyway. This is the most important key to success. If you are close enough nothing else matters.

Unuseful, misleading stuff in the video:

Deax ex machina! You pull out an unannounced and unexplained tool which is nothing but a vector analysis substitute bearing lookup tool. After all the hocus pocus, you do a standard vector analysis attack having nothing to do with 8010! However, a target approaching at AoB 10º starboard, unless you change your course, which you never did, will never cross at 90º. You only hit because you were so close. You blew the 90º attack totally unless you did some maneuvering that did not take place in the video.

For a Bearing-Only estimation of target course and speed (assuming target at constant speed and course) check:
http://www.archive.org/details/maneuveringboard00unit (you' ve got to download it) and go to "Case XI".



.

I've really tried to follow the methodology here and find myself;
a.) Scratching my head
b.) Wondering why I would bother learning it when a combination of the 3 minute rule coupled with the Dick O'Kane targeting method give you all you need to hunt/position/hit/sink targets successfully.

They have the added advantage of being intuitive - this method is not - at least IMO.

greyrider
Ok, if I succeed (say via sonar) to keep a distant target at a relative bearing of 80° while my speed is 2.5 Kts, why am I to suppose a AOB of 10 and a target speed of 14.1 kts and not other solutions (sample on following table)? Even if the sonar man or a contact report states a "slow" target the solutions are more than one. (Not to mention the possibility of the target running parallel and at equal speed with the sub)
OwnShip Speed (kts) ____"Lead Angle" (°) _____AoB (°) _____Target Speed (kts)
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________10 _______________14.2
__________2.5_________________ 80 __________15 ________________9.5
__________2.5 _________________80 __________20 ________________7.2
__________2.5 _________________80 __________25 ________________5.8
__________2.5 _________________80 __________30 ________________4.9


What you're proposing (trying to keep target at a fixed bearing) has its merits in conjuction with other available information, but not limited to the 80-10 case though.

And that's the thing that has me scratching my head.

How can one assume an AOB of 10 on a target we neither plot nor eyeball?

What if when we first make contact with the target the AOB happens to be say 45?
Do we run ahead at speed until we get a 10 AOB, then start the approach?


It looks to me like this attack method will only work in a very limited set of circumstances.

hey rr, this is a picture from the TFCM, says we can,

http://a.imageshack.us/img834/8706/platexvi.jpg
By null at 2010-08-17

i put up a mission, that says we can,
i made a movie, that shows we can.
now show me yours, that says we cant.
and why would i read the cromwell method, or anything else you wrote, which i consider inferior, when its just a step child of point and shoot, which is highly flexible, and where your things
come out "AFTER", and the key word is after, someone elses. check the dates of when posts by rr came out, verses dates for point and shoot by me,
or the sound trainer or hydrophone tutorial from sh3. i have only posted alittle over 200 times, and most of my posts have dealt with tactics, so im easy to trace.
you say you got inspired by a microflash diagram gutted made, where do you think he got that from?
from point and shoot, he either understood very well what i was talking about, or he read and saw pictures i posted of patrol reports, when i was part of the atlantic campaign
at wpl, and i demonstrated point and shoot by hitting four targets as they crossed the firing bearing at 0 gyro, check the dates i posted the torpedo data sheets
for the point and shoot technique in sh3, you discover the gutted's diagram post came out "after".
now i dont care if you believe it or not rr, im not here to impress you, got that? you dont impress me, as i said, your a derivable, not original.
no ones twisting your arm.


funny how point and shoot keeps on getting better and better, while cromwell and company are not
improving over time as point and shoot does, that proves to me that you dont have any originality,
and that whatever you write about is derivable, from somebody else!
you know, if i was to do a cromwell type shot, i do any angle i feel like, if im not developing a deliberate attack, then im making a hasty attack, ill go
in with no solution, because i have a real good eye for speed over the water, and a even better eye for torpedo speed in the water,( kentucky windage ) thats another skill you dont have!
thats a skill i havent written about yet, but when i do, im sure youll come out with something that youll derive from it.
you said earlier in this tread that you had a brainstrom, and it all of a sudden was inspired by pices post, well where is it? im hoping
you do use 90/270, im inviting you to try and show us what you come up with, im really looking forward to that!
this is excately what im trying to say about you, and your own words prove it.


barkhorn, do you know the reason why you would want to learn, because in rl, not all methods will work at all times, not even this one, so it behooves you to learn as much as you can,
just my opinion, and you can use elementary tactics all you want like dick okane method, and 3 minute rule, as i said, im not twisting anyones arm.
it isnt hard, i do it automatically, its part of my standand attack method, it comes natural for me to turn a closing target to an eighty offset, whether port or starboard,
because i know hes coming down the line on a 90 or near 90 r to sub, you can sit there if you want, and take the time to plot its course using the methods
you described, and then all i do is turn, and dont plot, which is easier? you decide.

That's still what doesn't make sense to me. Watched the youtubes and basically it's set up.

Say I'm going north and I get a sonar contact at bearing 170. Say it's a group of merchants, but running in a row at 12kts. I can't see it, so do you hit the gas until you have it in the correct position coming towards you. If contacts are off and if this works it would only be a tool for contacts off, you would have to track it by other methods until it's on a perfect path, but by then I would already have my setup.

It just doesn't make sense unless it's one ship and all factors are perfect.


The bigger problem is I'm not going through all this when they're much easier ways for a single ship. I still see no way it could work with a large convoy or TF with ships in a zig pattern with escorts constantly making zigs. Your sonarman will tune into different ships, giving different commands.

The real tool is radar, not the blind use of sonar. This appears to be using your elbow to scratch your arsehole.

I've quoted this again Greyrider, because this is the question I really want you to answer.

Until I am given a convincing answer to this question, I remain extremely sceptical of the viability of this method except in very specific circumstances.

Well not exactly, developing tools and methods that allow you to estimate the target's vector via PASSIVE sensors is always a plus (even more so for a sub).


.

You aren't explaining this very well greyrider, it would help if you answered some of the questions, instead of going on a rant about the plagurism of mathematical concepts that have been around for centuries.

Are you sying that this method only works if the AoB is ten degrees? If it isn't then this method won't work and you just have to try it to see if it does work and then you'd know if it worked (if your torpedoes hit)? If that's NOT what you're saying, how can you just assume that the AoB is ten degrees when you turn to have the target at a relative bearing of 80 degrees? That's a very specific setup, where you would have to be in a very specific place, e.g. very small distance to track and you'd need to be at right angles to his track.

That would be useful, but this method is apparently only for determining the magnitude of the vector (target speed), for which you already need to know the vector direction (target's course (AoB)) and be in a very specific position ahead of the target, just off the target's track. I'm still unclear how the OP is saying that we will be in that position, in order for this to work.

Guys lets give the man some breathing space, eh!
As I said the fact that the method is based on keeping the target on a constant bearing while the same time your sub is keeping constant course and speed is a very good starting basis. It signifies that you're either running parallel to the target or that you're on "collision/post collision" course (converging or diverging). It is the mathematical part of it that needs expansion and the fact that suplamental target information/estimations are required (to narrow down the set of probable solutions) IMO.


.

:cool: By now I'm sure you realize your speed could be most anything equal or below target speed if you're following in his wake.

Greyrider, I opened that mission in the mission editor but I don't think it's the right file. (8010mission.rar) There is only a (german) IXD2 in the south atlantic with a waypoint set towards an objective area to arrive. But nothing in the area to attack. And in the Indian Ocean 2 US destroyer escorts, a US Escort Carrier and a US divebomber. Nothing that compares to your video.

That diagram says nothing of the kind. You do not understand the diagram or the trig calculation. To use it you need angle on the bow. Your method does not develop angle on the bow. Lacking one of the necessary parameters, you cannot solve the trig equation. That is elementary. Actually this diagram has nothing to do with your method. It simply is a method to calculate target speed based on the other parameters if you have established a collision course. It would be very useful if you understood it.

Your mission says nothing of the kind. Your movie proves nothig of the kind. I Don't need a mission. Just use my Dick O'Kane targeting mission (puts the target at a random position within limits and lets you hunt and kill it). Using only the methods revealed in your movie and posts, you'll be able to do nothing to develop an attack there! Why? Because unless you luck out and begin with an 8010 relationship, you have not developed a technique to acquire one. In contrast, the Dick O'Kane technique similarly depends on a unique 90º relationship between target track and own course, and achieving that relationship is part and parcel of the attack process! AND it does not abandon that relationship at the end of the attack to set up a completely different approach in order to land the torpedoes. You totally gloss over the fact that you ditch the 8010 to achieve a 90º approach and do a by guess and by golly lead the target by eye and shoot attack. Your 8101 hocus pocus served only to get you close to the target and had nothing at all to do with the shot itself, which you did not explain at all. Not one single person learned how to operate their submarine better from your three videos, many posts and claims of being first and best. Face it. Neither one of us is first by over seventy years.

Diopos already posted the chart that completely invalidates your method, proving that you establish neither target speed or course. In fact he shows that you could be on a perfectly parallel course affording no chance at a shot at all!

First of all gutted has more understanding and ability to teach in his little toe that in all your posts combined, which rely on smoke and mirrors to confuse, not clearly instructing people who desperately need to learn how to shoot a torpedo. These people are frustrated with a very complicated game! Learning to hit a target is the difference between a happy player and someone who abandons SH4 forever. Confusing them pushes them over the edge of the cliff, convincing them they can never learn to shoot. Poppycock! I can teach a six year old to shoot as well as I can.

Second of all, Cromwell, O'Kane and vector analysis don't develop because they are complete within themselves, needing no improvement either in technique or explanation. With three methods of instruction, video, written and flash cards, ANYONE, possibly including my cat, can use any of the three techniques successfully the very first time they try. The instructions are completely clear, don't depend on any specially set up conditions and work perfectly in the random encounters of real life or a SH4 career. Hundreds of people have been successful using these and I wasn't the only one to develop them. They were developed in cooperation with many other similarly minded people.

The keys to success are simplicity and clarity neither are present in 8010.


Again, Cromwell and O'Kane do not improve because they are self-contained special circumstance methods that work perfectly, are easily explained. There are no improvements to be made, any more than the equation "1 plus 1 equals 2" can improve or develop. In fact improvement or development would not prove that they are not derivative. It would prove that I got them wrong to begin with. Of course the techniques I teach are derivative, but not from anything of yours! They are derivative from techniques actually used in World War II submarines. At all times I explain this, document it with screenshots from the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual of 1946 and other period sources establishing the historical reasonableness of using the techniques I teach. I have never claimed the originality, nor do I see its necessity as you do. And I have never based any technique on your work.

The vector analysis method is a more general purpose method adapting to any relationship between target course and own course. But it also is self-contained, concise, easily understood and taught, needing no further development or improvement. Like "2 plus 2 equals 4" it is slightly more complicated than "1 plus 1" but equally complete, needing no "improvement" or "refinement."

I contend that you have no instructions here that anyone can imitate beyond how to establish a collision course with a target. Oops, you don't have that either because you purposely set up the 8010 relationship in the scenario and began the whole shebang with your submarine on the correct course and at the correct speed, which you didn't adjust even once! So you have not even taught how to get your sub on that collision course.

Greyrider, let me toss you a bone. In astronomy we often can't establish target course at all and have no way to calculate an "AoB" type measurement. We use a term called proper motion. This is assuming a course at 90º to us, how many degrees per unit time is the target moving? We can then predict its arrival at any other bearing, assuming it moves in a straight line. Since all constant bearing attacks cancel range out of the equation and therefore only guarantee a hit at any range on a particular bearing, can't we apply that to a random targeting situation, normalizing it to a 90º approach?

Just thinking here and not using any diagrams or experiments, we see a target out there. We take a bearing, finding that he bears 340º. Just for fun, we estimate a range of 2000 yards and draw a line at range 2000 yards at right angles to our course. Using our bearing, we plot a position on that line. Three minutes later, we plot another bearing on the line. Our course is wrong and our speed is wrong, we know that. But let's go with it. Enter the speed using the 3 minute rule for the two points. Enter AoB at 90º (we'll shoot at bearing zero). Send the zero bearing to the TDC and leave the PK off. I say that no matter what the angle really is, the shot will hit. Now THAT could be used with sonar instead of visual measurements, the only important factor being whether the torpedo has the range to reach the target. Of course, the closer the range, the more likely the hit, but here is a clear set of instructions, adaptability to a wide variety of encounters, and no smoke and mirrors.

Hint: combine your "technique" with the principles I explained above to arrive at a real targeting technique. Do you see the profound difference between my approach at teaching and yours? I thought not. I'll let you founder in your own maelstrom.

I'd still like to see a drawing to go with this, if you please. Since I don't understand how or why that line at 2000 yards is plotted. You state it is perpendicular to own course. Are you sure it's not supposed to be perpendicular to the bearing of 340? Or is it perpendicular to own course because the bearing is set to 0 in the TDC when you set the AOB to 90. Well, I'm probably just having trouble understanding because I'm tired as a dog.

Think of it as drawing the target's track, where your distance to track is 2,000 yards and you are on a normal course (your course is at right angles to the assumed target course in the direction to close the distance to track). You plot the points where the target's bearing intersects the (theorhetical) target's track, so you only need to worry about the bearing and not the range.

I don't believe it will work though in every case though, as the rate of bearing change won't be constant as it will change with the range, as the target is moving in a straight line (hence the TMA methods working), whereas with astronomy it's bearing movement due to rotation, which is going to be fairly constant.

I'll work it up in another thread. Nisgeis could be correct about the rate of degrees per unit time changing as the range changes, lending some inaccuracy to the plot. That was simply a thought experiment, not backed up by any real analysis. You have to remember that in astronomy, stars essentially have infinite range and zero size. The situation is much simpler than with a submarine in some respects. The important thing will be to analyze how tolerant the method is to angles not exactly 90º. In other words are you pretty okay 30º off in either direction? 45º? At what point does the angle become a deal-killer? If plus or minus 30º would give you a 60º slop factor with a pretty guaranteed success wouldn't you take that as useful? You could pretty well visually narrow it down that far without measurement. But if the tolerance is only plus or minus 15º we might not be so happy.

By the way folks, Nisgeis is primarily responsible for popularizing the vector analysis method. He originated the concept and chose the name of the John P Cromwell method. Many times he has set me straight when I got something regarding the TDC slightly (or greatly:D) wrong. Please take a bow sir!