SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)
-   -   Static Search Vs. Dynamic Search (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=191746)

Rockin Robbins 02-05-12 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorpX (Post 1833296)
Pardon for the double post.
Look, I can see your just a bit skeptical. ;) I am not trying to convince you to do it my way, but the math is the math.

The bottom line is a moving search is not as big a help as you like to think. When you are moving to the east, targets can slip by to the west, when you move to the west, targets might slip by to the east. If you go farther to the east to "cover more ground", a target could go past in the center or the west. You cannot be in two places at once, nor can you hasten or delay their arrival.
You're confusing yourself by uncalculable random effects. If you are standing still they can miss you in any direction. If you are moving the same is true. You can't count the ones you miss. That's the defect in your method of calculation.

It is much better to think of searching in the same way Eugene Fluckey of the Barb did. He spent a lot of time explaining the situation, so I'm going to condense it.

The fact is, we don't know the disposition of the enemy on the ocean. If you are static in the middle of the horde, you're going to be successful. If you're static in a vacuum, you're coming back with a goose egg.

So you say, if you get a goose egg in 24 house, move! That's fine. Murphy's Law says you just moved from the next hot spot.

The only thing we can say for sure is that in any moment in time, the enemy is distributed in an unknown array over the surface of the ocean.

According to Fluckey, and I agree, the odds of finding a target approach unity when the distance between your sub and a target is within sensor range. So your job is to get within sensor range of as many targets as possible in a 24 hour period.

The corollary of that statement is that the number of targets you encounter is directly proportional to the number of square miles of ocean surface you search each day.

Let's do the math! You're static with a visual search radius of about 5 miles and a sonar search range of 20 miles on a good day. So you're searching a circle 20 miles in radius. The area you've searched is 3.14*20^2 square miles or 1,256 square miles.

Let's move out! We'll assume a 20 mile range for our radar and we're moving on the surface for 24 hours at our best fuel economy speed of 9 knots. Now your searched area approximates a rectangle 40 miles wide and 216 miles long. That's 8,640 square miles.

Since the enemy is moving and the effect of that movement is random we can safely ignore any effects on our results. Our movement will bring as many targets in range as it will leave beyond range. Therefore the comparison in the number of targets we develop can be expressed as the ratio between the two numbers of square miles searched.

So you are 8640/1256 times more likely to develop a target when moving. That is 6.88 times more likely. Another valid way to interpret the data is that a patrol during which you are actively searching at 9 knots, you will develop 6.88 times more targets in the same number of days as you would be searching statically.

But that is not the entire story. There are monstrous advantages to searching on the surface as opposed to searching submerged. Of most importance is the value of fully charged batteries. They can save your life, you know!

gi_dan2987 02-05-12 03:45 PM
Therefore I choose to surface patrol :)

TorpX 02-05-12 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 1833622)
You're confusing yourself by uncalculable random effects. If you are standing still they can miss you in any direction. If you are moving the same is true. You can't count the ones you miss. That's the defect in your method of calculation.
Not true.

It is much better to think of searching in the same way Eugene Fluckey of the Barb did. He spent a lot of time explaining the situation, so I'm going to condense it.
Fluckey did a lot of unorthodox things. As I recall part of his efforts involved probing/ raiding coastal anchorages where enemy ships were hiding out during the night. Is this what you are refering to? Looking for anchored ships or raiding coastal locations is not quite the same as searching for ships moving thru an area.

The fact is, we don't know the disposition of the enemy on the ocean. If you are static in the middle of the horde, you're going to be successful. If you're static in a vacuum, you're coming back with a goose egg.
How does this invalidate anything I said?

So you say, if you get a goose egg in 24 house, move! That's fine. Murphy's Law says you just moved from the next hot spot.

The only thing we can say for sure is that in any moment in time, the enemy is distributed in an unknown array over the surface of the ocean.

According to Fluckey, and I agree, the odds of finding a target approach unity when the distance between your sub and a target is within sensor range. So your job is to get within sensor range of as many targets as possible in a 24 hour period.



The corollary of that statement is that the number of targets you encounter is directly proportional to the number of square miles of ocean surface you search each day.
This is only true if you are searching for things that are not moving. While you are searching one end of your area, targets can move through the other and you'll never know it. Moving from one part of an area is not the same as being in both places at once.

Let's do the math! You're static with a visual search radius of about 5 miles and a sonar search range of 20 miles on a good day. So you're searching a circle 20 miles in radius. The area you've searched is 3.14*20^2 square miles or 1,256 square miles.


Let's move out! We'll assume a 20 mile range for our radar and we're moving on the surface for 24 hours at our best fuel economy speed of 9 knots. Now your searched area approximates a rectangle 40 miles wide and 216 miles long. That's 8,640 square miles.
Again, the square area is not what is important. If you were trying to find sea shells on a strip of beach, this would work ok. You could search an area, cross it off your list and move on to the next section. However, if the "sea shells" have the ability to move out from the water to the beach, and back into the water again, you will not be able to find nearly as many. They would be moving about in sections that you had "cleared". Your search efforts are only effective if there is a target nearby at the moment you are there. If the target moves thru either before or after you go by, you won't find it. Based on your analysis, it doesn't matter how fast enemy targets move, or if they move at all! An enemy cruiser moving at 30 kts could be found as easily as a drifting barge. You should see this is obviously not the case.
Since the enemy is moving and the effect of that movement is random we can safely ignore any effects on our results.
This is patently absurd if you think about it for two seconds.
Our movement will bring as many targets in range as it will leave beyond range. Therefore the comparison in the number of targets we develop can be expressed as the ratio between the two numbers of square miles searched.
If the first statement were true, it suggests there would be no difference.


So you are 8640/1256 times more likely to develop a target when moving. That is 6.88 times more likely. Another valid way to interpret the data is that a patrol during which you are actively searching at 9 knots, you will develop 6.88 times more targets in the same number of days as you would be searching statically.
OK, if this was really true, then you would get 2*6.88 times the number of targets in two days and 7*6.88 the number in a week. Do you really think just by moving at 9 kts this will get you 48 targets for every one I get in a single week? At this rate you could sink nearly 200 times as many targets in a month. Nice try, but your math does not hold up. Assuming that the number of contacts found will be proportional to the sq. area is a gross oversimplification.

But that is not the entire story. There are monstrous advantages to searching on the surface as opposed to searching submerged. Of most importance is the value of fully charged batteries. They can save your life, you know!
I never suggested submerged searching was better than surfaced searching. In fact the opposite is implied. Anything which increases your detection range (visual or otherwise), will improve your number of contacts by the same proportion. People seem to be reading things into this that I didn't write and don't intend. I never said it was better to drop anchor and remain motionless as if in a coma, or hide on the bottom of the ocean. Please, if you want to criticise what I've written, at least read it a little more carefully.


Ughh, too much typing. I'll try to find the relevent page in O'Kane's book.

Stealhead 02-06-12 01:10 AM
I am not sure how the surfaced vs. submerged argument got into this.:hmmm:


@gi_dan2987 I would generally use a more active searching method while in open waters such as you find yourself and to use a more static approach if you find yourself in a choke point really though you should try every tactic find what works best for you.Sometimes also you can just have a dry patrol.

The sonar man being able to make passive contacts while on the surface is a game bug you could not do this in a real WWII sub so it is sort of a cheat(ever notice that spinning device of the deck of your sub that is the passive sonar head)

To me it depends if you use an active search but try to cover too large an area or use to high a speed I can agree that you are actually reducing the odds of making contact.

magic452 02-06-12 01:43 AM
I'm not doubting your math, it's the tacit I'm questioning.

1 to 1.49 Your objective is to interdict enemy shipping in the Marshalls.
A 10 kn. search will give you more contacts in a given period if time.
Weather you get 12 contacts or 2 or 3 isn't all that important. If they aren't there they aren't there. What is important is to interdict as many as you can in the most efficient way possible and in the shortest time.

According to the math that is a 10 kn. search. There will be another boat along to replace yours. The objective is to cut off supplies to the Marshalls not stay on patrol longer. If I come home with torpedoes in the tubes but have 6 kills in three weeks patrolling I have done my job. Someone else comes homes with the same results but stayed 4 and a half weeks, not so good, at least one ship that I sank the other guy didn't and the Marshalls got resupplied. My patrol wasn't cut short costing contacts but the most efficient way to conduct business. My short patrol will be followed up by another boat to continue the operation and he will get the ship I didn't get in the next week and a half.

There are places where a static patrol is good, Tawi Tawi is one. Others have been mentioned.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the zig zag thing. The contacts are now moving through the area at a reduced speed overall and I would think that would increase to ratio in favor of a dynamic search?


@ gi_dan If I'm in the Marshalls, I'd do my time and head to Truk or Rabaul as soon as I could.

Magic

magic452 02-06-12 02:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead (Post 1833883)
I am not sure how the surfaced vs. submerged argument got into this.:hmmm:


@gi_dan2987 I would generally use a more active searching method while in open waters such as you find yourself and to use a more static approach if you find yourself in a choke point really though you should try every tactic find what works best for you.Sometimes also you can just have a dry patrol.

The sonar man being able to make passive contacts while on the surface is a game bug you could not do this in a real WWII sub so it is sort of a cheat(ever notice that spinning device of the deck of your sub that is the passive sonar head)

To me it depends if you use an active search but try to cover too large an area or use to high a speed I can agree that you are actually reducing the odds of making contact.
Stealhead please correct me if I'm wrong but at least Gato and above had some surface sonar capability as the sonar heads were mounted on the keel. As I understand it the game bug is that it works too good, above 10 kn. If I'm wrong I will have to change some of the way I play.


Magic

Stealhead 02-06-12 11:39 AM
I am fairly certain it is even mentioned in "Thunder Below" and some others that it was not possible to use passive sonar(hydrophones) on the surface for the obvious reason that the head is on top of the hull and therefore not in the water.Now a ping using the active sonar was possible of course these are on the keel more or less so they are always in the water they could be retracted in real life as well.

The rotating device near the bow is the JT head and the man operating this actually sat in fore torpedo room later in the conning tower.The previous design was JP which I believe was located somewhere inside the upper hull I am not sure because my reference "US Submarines Though 1945" does not go into much detail about the older WCA/WDA sets nor the JT but goes into much better detail on the later war gear.But it seems that the passive part of sonar systems always where located on top of the hull and the active on the bottom(later war some times two on bottom one on top for active) excluding the S-boats where it was all on the deck.Later in the war they also had WFA which could also detect mines with great accuracy and was also much more accurate against ships but this is not included in the game.

In other words if you want to play more realistically then you cant use the passive sonar on the surface and in an S-boat you cant use any sonar at all fully surfaced.In a fleetboat you can use active sonar on the surface though it was done commonly I am pretty sure I recall its use being mentioned in "Thunder Below" and "Wahoo" of course it wold be used with great care and very briefly something the game does not really simulate is how the density of water effected the active and passive sonar of the submarine sometimes very strongly in a negative manner.(reducing range and accuracy) What helps you hide from the IJN also hinders your sonar or it should.

look at this a little about the JT.You like math?Click on the Sonar home page at the bottom ans start from the first page of the manual you'll see tons of it.
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/sonar/chap13.htm

Sailor Steve 02-06-12 12:20 PM
I've always had a problem with sonar, even active sonar, working on the surface. The problem I have is that if sonar works for a surfaced submarine then it should also work for a surface ship against other surface ships. I served on a destroyer and I don't recall ever hearing of anything like that. Of course I wasn't a sonarman, so maybe they just didn't tell me about it. If there is information that they used it and it worked, then they did use it and it worked.

I'm just sayin'.

Bilge_Rat 02-06-12 12:53 PM
The issue with sonar not working on the surface is not where the heads are located, but basically a problem of ambient noise and the limitations of the SH engine.

To simplify the issue, to be able to hear sounds which are far away, you must not be close to a source of noise which is loud enough to cover far away noises. For example, if you are standing next to a noisy engine, then that is all you will hear. If you turn off the engine, you will be able to hear fainter noises which are farther away. The noise of the engine nearby masks fainter noises which are farther away.

The same in a sub, if you are travelling at 2 knots 100 feet deep using electric motors, you generate relatively little noise and are able to hear sounds from farther away. If you are travelling at 10 knots on the surface using Diesel engines, you generate a lot more noise. In addition, you also have the turbulence caused by the ship moving at the surface which will also render the heads less effective. The noise is the reason why U-Boats running their diesels on Snorkel were unable to hear anything on sonar even though they were underwater.

In theory, a motionless sub could use its sonar on the surface, but then we run into the limitations of the SH engine. In SH, Sonar is an on/off switch: when ships are within a certain range you hear them, when they are outside you don't. In SH 3/4, this range is not affected by speed, although in SH5, speed will degrade the effectiveness of Sonar. So modding the Sonar so you cannot use it on the surface is a practical solution to place the player in a similar situation to a WW2 sub skipper.

Stealhead 02-06-12 12:58 PM
That sir makes absolutely no sense if the passive sonar head is above the water then there is no way on this earth that it is gong to be able to hear anything the same would apply to the S-boats all of the sound gear is on the deck so if you are on the surface and you can see the gear in the air then it can not possibly be in the water to enable it to hear anything the location of the gear 100% has an effect if said gear is on the deck on the surface and not in the water.In fact a sub on the surface trying to use sound gear which is above water will hear nothing.

I agree that there are limitations in the SH4 simulation but it makes perfect sense for a piece of sound gear not actually being submerged in the water not to be able to hear what might be in the water so the SH4 sound man is evidently Kent Clark and has super hearing.You seem to be confusing various things causing interference in a situation where the sound gear actually is in the water.I am talking about sound gear actually not being in the water and with US Navy subs the passive gear was above the water while the sub was on the surface but the active gear exluding the S-boats was below the water while surfaced.So active sonar while surfaced yes passive sonar no though I doubt the active sonar would be very accurate in such a setting.


EDIT: ok I found this in the very extensive US Navy Sonar manual from HNSA the manual Bilge Rat posted is also from HNSA but is from a different manual from US Navy Sonar pg.241;

"Submarine listening equipment is designed to receive and reproduce underwater sounds-both sonic and ultrasonic-for the purpose of identifying the sounds and locating their sources. Sonic sounds (below 15,000 cycles per second) are made by propellers, engines, rudder motors, pumps, gear wheels, and many other devices. Ultrasonic sounds originate mostly from high-speed propellers. The bearings of the sources of sounds usually can be determined, so that targets can be located without the use of echo-ranging gear."


"Model JP Listening Equipment

DESCRIPTION
Models JP-1, JP-2, and JP-3 equipments are used on submerged submarines to obtain bearings on other vessels by directional detection of underwater

sounds. They can be used also to listen for own ship's noise. Models JP-2 and JP-3 differ from JP-1 in the amplifier circuits. Models JP-2 and JP-3 are alike except for the method of mounting the hydrophone."

Which basically means that if you are only using the keel mounted ultrasonic heads you will not hear slower props in the sonic range as well or at all so you will hear something with a fast screw like a DD but not a slower screw or perhaps not as far or clearly.So in other words we are both wrong and both right though to get the full sonar picture the sub would need to be submerged.

Nisgeis 02-06-12 01:12 PM
The early war fleet boats with the WCA gear had four sonars underwater:

QC/JK - QC for echo ranging and the JK for passive listening. I believe the JK was ultrasonic and not so good for long distance (but quite good on bearing accuracy). Could not be used at the same time as they are mounted on the same head on reciprocal bearings.

QB - echo ranging with a wider frequency band than the QC

NM - Echo sounding equipment.


Note 'Q' is for a range projector/listener and 'J' is a passive listening device and 'N' is an echo sounding device (for depth).

They also had JP in the Forward Torpedo Room and the head was above the waterline and was in the sonic range. JT sonar, which was a later version had better bearing precision as it received both sonic and ultrasonic and a few extra features. Need to be submerged to use these.

EDIT: The sonar manual, advises the operator to continue listening when on the surface when conditions permit, e.g. weather and speed - as has been said previously water rushing over the sonar head drowns out other noise and also sea state plays a part too.

Bilge_Rat 02-06-12 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead (Post 1834140)
That sir makes absolutely no sense if the passive sonar head is above the water then there is no way on this earth that it is gong to be able to hear anything the same would apply to the S-boats all of the sound gear is on the deck so if you are on the surface and you can see the gear in the air then it can not possibly be in the water to enable it to hear anything the location of the gear 100% has an effect if said gear is on the deck on the surface and not in the water.In fact a sub on the surface trying to use sound gear which is above water will hear nothing.

I agree that there are limitations in the SH4 simulation but it makes perfect sense for a piece of sound gear not actually being submerged in the water not to be able to hear what might be in the water so the SH4 sound man is evidently Kent Clark and has super hearing.You seem to be confusing various things causing interference in a situation where the sound gear actually is in the water.I am talking about sound gear actually not being in the water and with US Navy subs the passive gear was above the water while the sub was on the surface but the active gear exluding the S-boats was below the water while surfaced.So active sonar while surfaced yes passive sonar no though I doubt the active sonar would be very accurate in such a setting.
well obviously I was not talking about sonar equipement which is outside the water, many fleet boats had their sonar heads located under the hull.

Stealhead 02-06-12 01:53 PM
You did say location had no effect though which is not correct if that position was out of the water.Like wise when they went to the WCA set from the older QC/JK as on the S-boat there was some concern about use of the active heads while near the bottom which was not an issue with the QC/JK deck location.The WCA and later heads where retractable but it was not uncommon for them to get damaged anyway.The other thing to take into consideration is that the sub would have to be fully submerged to get full use of any one of the various systems to get an accurate picture using sonar they needed the full ensemble and there fore had to be completely submerged.

The sonar heads you mention are the active ones the ones that ping they are not the passive "hydrophone" type that allow you to listen to screws in the water.If you look at that link I posted you'll see that there where two active heads on the keel and one for sounding depth and the passive head is above the deck the JT head.

Nisgeis 02-06-12 02:33 PM
JK is a passive hydrophone.

Bilge_Rat 02-06-12 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead (Post 1834203)
You did say location had no effect though which is not correct if that position was out of the water.
I presumed that I did not have to point out that a receiver in the air cannot hear noises under water, that is after all, pretty basic.


Quote:
The sonar heads you mention are the active ones the ones that ping they are not the passive "hydrophone" type that allow you to listen to screws in the water.If you look at that link I posted you'll see that there where two active heads on the keel and one for sounding depth and the passive head is above the deck the JT head.

no, the JK/QC and QB heads located on the bottom of the hull are receivers.


http://www.hnsa.org/doc/fleetsub/sonar/chap5.htm

joegrundman 02-06-12 03:27 PM
Interesting discussion TorpX (your part of it, anyway)

I'd been wondering about that very thing actually.

Stealhead 02-06-12 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1834234)
I presumed that I did not have to point out that a receiver in the air cannot hear noises under water, that is after all, pretty basic.





no, the JK/QC and QB heads located on the bottom of the hull are receivers.


http://www.hnsa.org/doc/fleetsub/sonar/chap5.htm
I am referring to the S-boats not the fleetboats on the S-boats the QC/JK is all mounted on the deck.If you would please view the 23rd 40th and 45th pictures on this link you will see a large transducer below it is a bar this is part of the system this is the JK/QC that you are trying to tell me is on the keel but not on any S-boat is not. http://pigboats.com/subs/s-boats4.html.







To be entirely honest I am getting different answers as to what is possible from different sources which makes me fell as though one cant say for certain what was possible but seesm that in order to get the full spectrum of passive sonic and supersonic sound gear the sub has to be completely submerged.In my onion this is a good question ask DaveyJ576 the most knowledgeable member on Subsim when it comes US Navy Sub technology this question What exactly was a WWII US Navy sub capable of dong with its sound gear on the surface and below for that matter? The problem with military technical manuals (I know from personal experience) is that can be overly optimistic and do not always represent what is done in the field for all we know the Chief of the boat may have tossed it overboard often they are written by engineers not by those actually using the gear in the field and truly knowing the in and outs.


Edit:
I did find on this HNSA page of US Navy Sonar; http://www.hnsa.org/doc/sonar/chap13.htm

"Submarine listening equipment is designed to receive and reproduce underwater sounds-both sonic and ultrasonic-for the purpose of identifying the sounds and locating their sources. Sonic sounds (below 15,000 cycles per second) are made by propellers, engines, rudder motors, pumps, gear wheels, and many other devices. Ultrasonic sounds originate mostly from high-speed propellers. The bearings of the sources of sounds usually can be determined, so that targets can be located without the use of echo-ranging gear.
The original J-series listening equipment was designed for use on submarines. Most modern listening equipment, such as the JP and JT, is designed for patrol craft, picket boats, and submarines. The JP-series listening equipment is now in use on submarines as a unit of the JT equipment."

To me this seems to say that we are both wrong/both right as one could use the part of the passive system but only the super sonic(which would now be called ultra sonic) side of the system would be usable on the surface and you would be unable to hear slower speed screws very well and the supersonic range was very short only a few thousand yards at best so you would only be getting half the picture on a good day.

Bilge_Rat 02-06-12 09:48 PM
Stealhead,

We may be talking at cross purposes, I agree with you that a WW2 Fleet Boat would not be able to use its sonar on the surface, except in very limited ideal conditions.

Stealhead 02-06-12 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1834456)
Stealhead,

We may be talking at cross purposes, I agree with you that a WW2 Fleet Boat would not be able to use its sonar on the surface, except in very limited ideal conditions.

I was thinking this as well.I actually found a very interesting page on the HNSA site that has a whole mess of recordings of subs some of them are recordings of different ships screws and there is a sound recording from the conning tower of the USS Sealion as her crew attacks the IJN Kongo.

http://www.hnsa.org/sound/

TorpX 02-07-12 12:53 AM
I found the relevent pages in O'Kane's book. I've quoted him at length because I consider him to be very knowlegable and so the reader can understand he put a good deal of thought into his strategy. This is from p54 of CLEAR THE BRIDGE, (I marked the most relevent parts in blue):



[QUOTE]... Dawn came and we continued our search, now augmented by the search periscope, with Tang still on the surface, lying to and maintaining quiet.

This was a far cry from accepted submarine doctrine, which dictated having way on the boat, but what is doctrine anyway? I believe it is a set of procdures, established through experience, that provides a guide. But doctrine should be flexible, never rigid, for circumstances often dictate complete departures. Our situation that day was an example of such curcumstances.

In order for us to utilize speed in searching, it was first necessary to know the general direction of the enemy's movement. We could then proceed on a very wide zigzag ahead and thus cover a broader front as the enemy overtook. But we were presently in an open-sea area, and enemy ships might be on any track, though the northwest-southeast courses passing through the western part seemed more likely. No amount of running around at our available speeds would increase the probability of sighting the enemy. In fact, to do so would only make us a target for a submerged enemy submarine and would blank out our sound gear with our own screw noises.

Tang was lying to in the center of a circle some 20 miles in diameter that we had searched by radar and sound during the three hours before daylight. It was clear of any enemy. The only planes that could reach our position were patrol bombers. We could sight them and dive before they sighted us, for our diving time when lying to was only five seconds longer than when proceeding at 15 knots. The only real danger was from a submarine, but she would first have to come into the area undetected by our sound, radar, scopes, and lookouts. Then she would have to conduct a many-mile submerged approach. This would call for considerable submerged speed. Our soundman, with no interference from our own propeller noises or from other machinery, would detect her screws before she reached an attack position. The foregoing was not just conjecture or we would not be staking our lives on it.

In addition, lying to while in this open-sea area would use only the diesel fuel necessary for normal living, just a fraction of that consumed when cuuising at one-engine speed. The oil we saved would be available when it might really be needed in persuing the enemy.

There were, of course, the alternatives of a submerged patrol with high periscope searches or of periodic surfacing. Neither of these would insure the coverage we wanted, nor would they save the fuel, as we would then be charging batteries nightly.

We shifed our patrol station 20 miles each evening so that if we were detected, shipping could not just be routed clear of a single spot. At the same time we were working south near the western boundary of our assigned area. ...
[/QUOTE]




From what O'Kane said, I think it is clear that he either worked out some of these search problems mathematically, or learned from intructors who did. Possibly, someone will find some USN charts/manuals/documents that deal with this issue.


From joe grundman:
Quote:
Interesting discussion TorpX (your part of it, anyway)

I'd been wondering about that very thing actually.

Thanks.
I read OK's technique just as I started getting into subsims, and have used his tactics. I'm sure it is possible to have good patrols with other methods, but I still think OK's method is the best for searching in open-seas, where you have no assurance of finding plentiful contacts. I haven't read all the available literature by any means, but I believe at least a few others made use of similer strategies.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.