Attack ships
 

Tried it in Sub school, it works on cruiser. thanks

When facing a convoy I never try to take down more than two ships at a time. I use a similar tactic to the OP, but with a different method. First thing is getting past the lead escort and get within 1km of the nearest merchant. This is done in one slow move.

Basically running silent at PD, bow facing lead destroyer until I reach 80' AoB on it (or more corectly to the course of the convoy). Then rudder amidship, and close in on the centerline of the convoys heading. All stop when between 500m - 1km of nearest ship. Since I'm somewhat off the 90' angle to the convoy, I get a better view of the convoy thus making it easier to determine the juicy targets whilst running a lower risk of my fishes hitting some ship that gets in the way of my intended targets, especially if said target is off on the farside.

I usually fire two spreads of two fishes. First spread on the furthest away target, and then wait approx 50 seconds (slow fish) or 30 seconds (fast fish) for each row closer to me the next target is (Spacing between rows is usually 800 meters. A fast fish (46kt) travels about 25m/s, a slow fish (31kt) about 16m/s, do the math :p ). Also I add or subtract about 10 seconds depending on whether target two is further back or ahead in a row relative to the first target.

After shooting, I'm left with two fishes still in their front tubes to finish off stubborn targets, alternatively pick a third if all goes well.

Say a convoy is 3x3 like this, moving left to right:

1 2 3
4 5 6 -------> DD
7 8 9


------|ME

and ship 2 and 9 is fish-worthy. After shooting two fast fishes on no. 2, I wait about 50 seconds and fire two fast fishes on no. 9.
(two rows closer, 2 x 30 secs :: one step ahead in the rows in relation to first target, minus 10 seconds)

Almost without fail this gives impact on both ships within 0-5 seconds of eachother. Depending on what happens next (and how many escorts are hovering around) I have quite the freedom of choice what to do next.

If I meet a smaller convoy, that is just one row of 2-3 ships (usually troop convoys) the tactic is similar. For example:

DD --> 1 2 3 --> DD


-----------|ME

Again my course is about 80' to the convoys course. As ship 3 is within 0' gyro, I target ship 2 and let two fishes go. Within the next 10 seconds, retarget ship 3 and shoot two fishes at the 10sec mark. Again, if all goes well, both ships are hit almost simultaniously and sink. Get ready to sink ship 1, if not send the finishing touches to ship 2 and/or 3.

[QUOTE] show us criticism of Silent Victory in that regard.[quote]

His facts on the British Navy were in relation to the war in the European Theatre. He told good stories in a historical sense which made it a narrative. It isn't a real telling of history nor is it a textbook to be used to understand events.

I was told this by my Naval history professor when I used him to cite a majority of information about tactics of U-boats against the British navy. It's not that he is untrustworthy....its that he is not a historian and cannot be accredited with historical fact.

It is a collection of stories molded into a historical narrative.

That certainly was not the case with Silent Victory.

JCC

we we here on the boards can sit back and talk about what we think is and is not history.

But I am a historian, and a professor. It is my duty to adhere to such understandings of logic and rationality (use of documented primary sources).

Unfortunately, there are few scholarly histories of the totality of US submarine operations in WW2. Roscoe (United States Submarine Operations in World War II, NIP) is one I know of, but it's also an internal Navy history, effectively. It includes JANAC information, but not any other post war analysis of japanese records (which is what Alden's book is, an attempt to improve upon the JANAC score-keeping). Other than that, most tend to be single boat narratives (though many are by the skippers or officers, so at least it's 1st hand).

Silent Victory is an excellent survey of US submarine operations in the PTO, IMO. That's what it is, a survey, and obviously you take those as such, it doesn't claim to be anything else.

When someone attacks the submarine war in a manner similar to Lundstrom's work on USN aviation in the first year of the war (the exceptional Firt Team books), or Chris Shores, et al and their work on Malaya/Burma/NEI (Bloody Shambles) I'll be the first one in line to get a copy. Until then, Roscoe and Blair are pretty much it short of taking a vacation to the archives to read raw patrol reports.

tater

If you go to a university those reports are not hard to obtain.

Yeah, well, have you read every single patrol report?

Rather a lot of work to answer the question "did US submarines usually fire spreads."

A quick look at any survey will show that they did as SOP. So would a look at Alden since it lists every single allied submarine attack in the PTO including the number of fish fired, and the number of hits (as well as the name and lat/long of the target wherever possible from US and japanese records).

tater

Which university? Just asking mind.

Currently at SBCC waiting to finnish my doctorate so I can start teaching at UCSB. I'm hired through the university, but they require professors who don't have doctorates to begin work at the city college.

I suppose you disparage primary sources
 

So you can attack historians based on arcane criterea which do not bear on their truthfulness, but toward some academic brownie point scale. War cares little for academia, unless it is a Military Academy.

But my sources are primary sources, not subject to academia's "qualifications." As most academics do, you merely ignore that which you cannot refute. The appeal to authority is one of the most egregious of logical fallacies. It certainly carries no weight in this forum.

To my list of primary historical sources, I have to add the novels of Edward Beach, which are veritable textbooks of WWII submarine strategy with lengthy discussions of the merit of one attack strategy vs. another. I would argue that for letting us into the mind of a sub skipper they are superior to any of the historical sources, as Beach not only tells you what was done, but why, and offers his commentary on the shortcomings of alternate schemes, even when they were official policy. Edward Beach, of course, was not just a novelist, but a premier WWII sub skipper of three subs who went on to command the USS Triton during her submerged circumnavigation of the Earth.

Beach comes down squarely on the attack of individual ships, not convoys. He is in favor of spreads in almost all circumstances, even after a lengthy, methodical approach with numerous checks for accuracy of projection vs. actual position.

There was one captain only whose motto actually was "one ship, one torpedo." Was it Fluckey or McCants? I'll have to check that when I get home and quote you chapter and verse. Whichever skipper this was, their results speak for themselves. My two candidates were two of the most outstanding skippers of the war. They also were willing and able to butt heads with Admiral Lockwood. But this deviation from policy (however rigid that policy may have been) implies that the policy of spreads was a true consensus of skippers, not merely obedience to orders. This would strengthen tater's point to the point of irrefutability. As such it would be an actual application of "the exception proves the rule" in the modern sense. That phrase was invented when "prove" meant to test with the purpose of showing something is false, a meaning quite different from our own.

Academic elitism carries little weight here but facts do.

How can a historian not know Woodrow Wilson's name? Something is rotten in Denmark. Methinks thine own words do betray you.

Furthermore, you engage in the fallacious strategy of requiring rigorous scrutiny of others' sources while citing none yourself, something a true historian would never do. No historian takes a non-falsifiable view such as you have. (hows THAT for internal contradiction! See? I can do it too):rotfl:But reading the entire thread shows more than you mean to reveal. Real historians are intrigued by differences and wish to understand them. They do not take an unsupported position and ride it to hell.

The shop is still trying to straighten out the dents in the Holy Grail. Monty Python is mightily upset with the situation and has threatened legal action against me as bailor. This is getting uncomfortable.

in theory that would work.. but the reality is that unlike a torpedo launcher on a DD, the torpedos on the sub would have to turn. that initial run before the turn might possibly throw off the solution if it has to turn too much.

actually i take that back. it seems to work really well. just make sure your crossing angles aren't too gross.


ok so here's how to try it out:

load up the torpedo attack tutorial with map contacts turned on. when it opens go silent running and turn left 20 degrees and stop. while turning setup your torpedos for fast (the enemy cruiser is going 9kts by the way).

go to your map screen and draw a line through his course. then pull out the angle tool. put the first point on yourself.. the second point on his course where it intersects yours.. and the third point somwhere on his courseline in the direction he is traveling. then move the center point along his course until it reads 90 degrees.

the bearing created from the line from your ship to the 90 degree point is your 0 point for your scope.

go to the scope.. and put it on that bearing and input it. now subrtract or add the firing angle from the table as needed and fire when he crosses it.

i can create a second video demonstration if needed.

Take out the escorts and the convoy is yours or select two big ones, wounding the enemy means no renown sink them and you get renown.

But everyone has there own tried and tested method. :yep: