i normally fire 3 torps at merchants, unless its small or a tanker i might opt for 2.

uhm...ok. So I don't know how to spell Woodrow...wow. Amazing. You refuted my entire life's work with a single word.

My field is European History anyway. American history is filled with arrogant hub-bubs.

Ok kid. I can see you're getting hot headed and ego mined in your rant. But now you're just finding random ways to try and, I don't know...discredit me. Cite sources for what? That Blair is not a historian? Why don't you just look up the definition of a historian? Blair is a war novelist. He uses historical writings in his books, but his books themselves are not history textbooks. They are collections of information. This is what we call a secondary source. Blair's writings on his personal experience are minimal, and typically crowded around factual information brought by other writers.

I'd like you to find me a professor who disagrees with me on primary and secondary sources. Go calm down, drink a soda....maybe go play the game for a while.

Most typical argument from anyone faced with academic authority: "academics don't matter in x" (throw in any variable circumstance)

Interesting that you say that since being a primary source is the only qualification.

Obviously you forgot your Ying and Yang....because so is the rejection of authority.

We used to read documents from him in my old ww2 naval history class. His documents are primary sources. Blair's weren't...that was my original point.

No one likes academics because they show you rationality in the face of your idealism.

Ok men, how a tactics thread turned into an academia discussion is beyond me. At any rate, I believe we can safely say three torps (on average) were sent out in a spread as the order of the day. Skippers were advise to get in very close for the shot. Many torpedo firings were done at over 2000 yards and many successfully. Did I miss anything?

Nope I'm done with catering to childish antics. Sorry 'capin.

What's your source for it being rare (I'll assume you really didn't mean never by "but not beyond 2000 yards") to fire spreads past 2000 yards, BTW?

tater

just noticed that mark18 torpedos are like 29knots, making this table is useless for them. the table was made for the standard torpedo (31kts/46kts).

i'll update the table soon for other speeds.

any other torpedo speeds i need to be aware of? i dont have access to all torpedo types yet and the manual (if you can call it that) is sorely lacking.

I take a simple approach - I go for a max of 2 ships in front and 1 behind. I usually try to time it so that the torps all hit at roughly the same time eg. I shoot at the furthest first, then estimate when to shoot at the closer ship. I try to do this with the stern shot as well (if applicable). Otherwise, the rest of the convoy will start zig zagging immediately which will throw off your spread. I learned this the hard way when I fired all 6 torps (2 per ship), hit the first and watched the rest of the convoy commence zig zagging such that the other 4 torps have some watery grave somewhere in mid-pacific. :(

Doesn't always work (I roughly guess) but does most of the time. Sure there is a scientific approach ie. velocity = distance x time blah blah blah but meh...to much maths for me :P

it doesn't get much more arrogant than the divine right of kings. The only difference between American and European history in regards to "arrogant hub-bubs" is that in European history there are more of them owing to the longer time period.

And I would expect someone specializing in European history to know the name of the American president during WWI, especially considering the fact that the man was a prime mover in getting the League of Nations to be adopted into the Treaty of Versailles, which led to his Nobel Peace Prize.


As for Blair: nobody here ever asserted that Blair's opinions were made of gold. Yes, Silent Victory is a secondary source. But it contains an insane amount of primary source material in the form of dry patrol report excerpts. So much so that most people who pick it up put it right down if they aren't truly interested in the topic.

Why don't you refute the information instead of merely shrugging off the source. Skippers routinely engaged beyond 2000 yards, and spreads were SOP. This information comes from the patrol reports themselves, and from the excerpts as compiled by Blair among others.

Just because you don't care for his work or you find that he editorializes too much and is a poor researcher doesn't mean that Silent Victory is not to be taken seriously. But seeing as how you think he specialized in writing about U-boats when he did nothing of the sort should lead all of us to believe that your opinion on his work is somewhat less than informed.

did you even watch the SHIV video? that is exactly what i did.

ok. To clear this up. I wasn't trying to refute any of blairs comments. When I made my original comment about Blair I was also considering about 4 other posts I had read within about an hour citing Blair....So I was just generalizing that he was what most of you turn to for factual information.

I also never shrugged off his works. I just don't see them as primary sources, which it seemed to me some people were trying to assert.

And as far as my reputation, why don't you call up the University and ask for my extension?

Let me quote Shakespeare again, then
 

More of the same. To quote a European (sorry, characterization his, not mine) "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." You still have not supported a single claim. You still have not disputed a single cited primary source, or demonstrated any knowledge of any source whatever relating to American submarine warfare in WWII. Indeed you have engaged in not a single behavior such as would be exhibited by a history professor. A historian shows curiosity and exchanges information freely regarding controversy, seeking defensible rectification. You hold all information close to the vest and attack others' sources rather than seek the truth. It is your words and your methods which are your own star shell, illuminating yourself. It is you who refute yourself. There is no need for me or some professor you wish me to produce to do so.

Woodrow Wilson was a central figure in 20th European history, as you would know if you were indeed a true history professor, as you profess. Two Europeans, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau had extensive relationship with him in a major transaction affecting Europe for 40 years of the 20th century. Again you come up short on your claimed specialty. But I know your tactics now. You will claim to be a specialized scholar of Xth century European history.

I enjoy discussions where different positions are exchanged and different viewpoints honestly discussed. This thread is not one of those, because one participant is not participating in good faith. I am afraid it is likely I have forgotten more history than you will ever know.

I challenge you to demonstrate proficiency in submarine attack tactics, such as tater and ducimus have with great and helpful detail in post after post with the intent of helping, not taunting, fellow forum particpants. I challenge you to refute any of my list of sources for my truth claim that not only was it policy, it was a voluntary consensus of prominent submarine captains that the attack method of choice was to get close and fire a spread. I have participated in good faith by citing specific primary sources. They disagree with your position.

I make no claims of authority. I do not use age as a tool to disparage or to add credibility to a fallacious or a true position. I have cited the sources of my position and stated it clearly. I have shown you a straight flush. My cards are on the table for all to see while yours are clutched to your chest. Your claim of a royal flush will not win the hand. Only showing your cards is of any use. I call.

I invite you to drink some coffee yourself. Then let's have an honest discussion in good faith.

I'll take that pot now and use it to pay Monty Python for the damage you did to their Holy Grail.

Fantastic! See folks this is the way to contest an idea. Try it out and report results. Now we have a new tool that keeps us from having to do complicated setups in a crowded situation and lets us sink multiple ships targeting each individually without changing setups. Can you come up with a guideline of when the error gets significant, like 45º from perpendicular? It might also be possible to come up with a second table of corrections for angles greater than this critical angle. Hopefully we all take lower percentage shots when the reward is right.

I also have to try out the procedure in a single mission so I can work out the mechanical procedure of periscope setup. I'm a little hazy about how this would work in a manual setup mode. I'll post the procedure when I know what it is. :oops:

This is really cool! It's very close to U-Boat procedure, and they, with less advanced Torpedo Data Computers compiled a higher hit percentage than American skippers, who had the advantage of more refined equipment. Charts like this are cheap and work every time. They aren't subject to mechanical failure either!

a) it's long distance
b) I'm sure cali03boss is listed in the directory
c) I post on this forum because I'm at work and would rather do this than what I am actually paid to do. If I were to actually put some effort into this, such as looking up the number to call, what kind of slacker would I be?

i say range doesnt matter, range only matters when map plotting, my only concern about range is in trying to hit something that may be out of range of the torpedo.

this goes for a 90 degree target course rel to submarine

obstruse and acute angles is just a matter of timing, i never use the position keeper, nor the tbt.

with obstruse and acute angle shot, just apply alittle kentucky windage.