It's less about ideology and more about what holds people's attention. What fascinates me about naval warfare in DW is the sheer technical logic of it. I really enjoy doing TMA, estimating areas of uncertainty, calculating CPA distances, planning coordinated cruise missile strikes, etc. etc. For me, firing a salvo of torpedoes is the end of process. The whole of it fascinates me.

As for shooting salvos: You can believe whatever you want. I know what I know. All I can say is that they give you multiple torpedo tubes for more than just looking pretty. If all anyone ever did was shoot one, then nobody would care how many torpedo tubes any submarine had.

:lol: Salvos - Cant recall anyone discussing single torp shots. Two to three 48s max (exceptionaly 4) is my norm
with a judicous mix of Actives and Passives and where appropriate above and below any layer.

I consider your scattergun counterfire method injudicious, wasteful and potentialy suicidal. A back-up of 'ready'
torps in the tubes is in itself a safeguard against unexpected attack/counterfire. Empty the lot with no reserves
and you are a Patsy ! A sitting duck ! And if a silent Kilo lurks undetected nearby - what then for our tubeless one ?
''The King is in the altogether, the altogether...........'' (Lyric) :ping:

But seriously 'scatter' is your theory and the burden of proof lies with you. It behoves you to mount some evidence
and ,should the maths proof difficult for the general reader, I'm sure there are those amongst us more than capable
of rising to the challenge.

I remain totaly unconvinced. Forgive me I dont mean to be confrontational its just that to put it mildy
I'm gobsmacked that the scatter theory comes from such a respected contributor. :hmm:

SeaQueens theory that a target could be anywhere in a circle based on its maximum speed is correct but is similiar to saying that the winning numbers in the lottery will be six different numbers in the range of 1-48.It is just not specific enough!Anti-torpedo tactics depend on many things.I could spend a lot of time here just trying to list them.In a 688i I will never launch more than 3 torpedoes.I always have one ready for the unexpected snapshot.usually two weapons are enough to at least disable the target.I always try to update the solution before launching the second weapon so that if the target has moved you do not launch the weapon into oblivion.

I don't think it's suicidal, but it is definitely wasteful. I think I've said before, though, that after working out the numbers and experimenting a little, I decided that it wasn't a good counterfire tactic, but shooting spreads of multiple torpedoes over an angle is a very good deliberate fire tactic against certain types of targets.

Hence I say for deliberate fire shoot 2 or 3, but not 4. For counterfire shoot 1 or 2, but not more.

Have you just not read what I wrote in a previous post? I said I worked out the numbers and there's really only one case where it works, well. Unfortunately, that is actually what most MP scenarios that I've seen consist of. Once again, though, that's symptomatic of distance scale of the scenarios being entirely contrived.

In realistic scenarios, it shouldn't work as well due to a combination of the torpedoes snaking early, which increases their time late to any potential target. That allows the target to evade them much more effectively (although not perfectly). It would work a little better on the Seawolf due to it's larger salvo size.

Large salvos as counterfire is not a total killer though in a realistic scenario. Only in the contrived, close-in MP scenarios does it make sense, these are, of course, totally unrealistic. In any other case, it really doesn't pay off.

SQ: I certainly read what you wrote originaly in 'Surprise Torpedo evasion' about 'Scatter' and I recall
both Molon and I reacting with supressed horror. You suggested indiscriminate MP counterfire at ALL TIWs
so that is the 'scatter' effect not a salvo of torpedos counterfired at one TIW (2/3/4 = nit picking !)

Goldorak wrote: SeaQueen responded: That you have now trimmed your position is understandable. That you are still very bashful about
proving your MP 'Scatter' theory is noted. That you are able to demonstrate it in practical MP unlikely.

In the absence of the above my interest in this theory is rapidly withering on the vine.
But my stance remains receptive but unconvinced.

It's not the counterfire that I rethought. I still say one should always counterfire at a TIW. The pay off is more than worth it, particularly if the scenario is constructed realistically. The only time I wouldn't would be if for some reason I could tell it was from a Starfish. Even then I can't help but suspect it might, on the off chance flush the guy who shot a Starfish at you first out. It's worth it for that.

I just don't think firing a spread is worth it as counterfire, unless one is in one of these contrived scenarios where everyone is within maybe 8Nmi of each other. In that case, I'm unclear why people bother to even try to detect each other.


There's not a lot more I can do to prove it. Write your own Monte Carlo, or do the geometry. When several platforms are packed in an 8x8 Nmi box, you don't need to know where any of them are to shoot a maximum sized spread and probably kill at least one of them. That goes back to most MP scenarios being totally contrived.

On the other hand, in a realistic scenario, even a maximum sized spread from a Seawolf starts losing efficacy pretty quick. If you figure a torpedo has a search width of about 4Nmi, 4 torpedoes has a search with of 16Nmi. Suppose you just fired them in a 90 deg arc. Anything within about 16 Nmi / (Pi / 2) = 10Nmi will get homed on by at least one torpedo. That's neglecting the motion of the target, and countermeasures. After that, the probability of the torpedo acquiring a target falls off as about 1/R. That's just geometry. There's nothing complicated about it.

To a first approximation, the whole problem with the "shotgun torpedo" tactic is not the logic of the tactic, it's the scenarios which make the tactic make sense.

There's more things, though which make the tactic less effective. One of them is the motion of the target. That's actually pretty easy to calculate, though. The effect of that is to make the tactic even less effective. Even when you figure that out, though, it still leaves a good number of MP torpedo shootouts in a wholely unrealistic realm. Ideally the whole battle would have started well before one got in that situation.

Adding in countermeasures... you get the idea.

Using the same logic, though, against a target where you KNOW where he is, it is possible to calculate an optimized torpedo spread against him, so as to minimize the efficacy of a his evasion. That's a little bit different ballgame. In this case, what actually drives the salvo size and the firing range is the ratio of the torpedo speed to the speed with which you think he will evade.

This is a lot better tactic, PARTICULARLY in realistically scaled scenarios with realistic numbers of combattants. Now you're not just playing the odds, now you're working on ways to minimize the odds or the other guy by optimizing your firing ranges and salvo sizes to compensate for what you think he's able to do.

So... yeah... shotgun torpedo tactics... not a bad deliberate fire tactic if you can do the math. Rotten counterfire tactic in a realistic scenario. Cheese ball tactic in cheese ball scenarios. How's that?

Abit, excessit, evasit, erupit.' Cicero.

He is gone, he is off, he has escaped, he has broken away.