This.

No one wants to see a video. We want a proof (mathematical) that the AOB is 10, and not some arbitrary number.

There is no there there. We don't even get popcorn with the movie. And the dancing girls were ugly...

thats a good drawing tater, and your on the right track, but you need to read the tfcm alittle bit more, it has the answer for you, i read it. thanks for your input, and ah tater, you might be waiting a long time for that math formula, im not a mathematician

i would like to address a complaint earlier, that i didnt hit the aiming point, the poster claimed that was one of the reasons to discard the method as useless,
in his pov.
i have said a number of times,
when the ship comes down the line , it will be a 90 or near 90 degree target track, r to sub, and what you saw there was not a true 90
in campaign 8010, but a near 90, if it was a true 90, i would of hit
where i aimed for.

which still works as good, as you could see, depending on the near 90, your torpedoes could arrive early, or late, but its still going to hit.
it brings me back to an old
post, and rr was part of that if i remember correctly, and now i think i do remember it was him, i thought at first it might have been
rosecrans, but it was rr, i demonstarted point and shoot, i believe he was skeptical at first, but then measuring my angles with the moboard program by
aaron blood, he in fact, according
to his calculations with mobo, told us that the tolerance for point and shoot at a near 90 was 30 degrees, so you could be off by 15 degrees , either
port or starboard, and still hit. think about that!
well, im not going to bother with the exact number, the point is it has a built in margin of error in it, and what more could you ask for.
in spite of the length and lack of narration, these movies are pretty good, the radar movie was great as a visual aid, in actually letting us see
the convoys aob, r to sub, on the radar screen.
when i timed and searched for speed the first time, i called it off and stopped after about 20 seconds, the convoy track was not at 10 degree aob, then submarine went to flank to correct that, to close the distance to the target track, and in so doing,
close the target aob, and when the disctance was closed enough, then submarine
turned inward, (toward the convoy), to get the target back on the 8010, after awhile, you will get to recognize what a 10 degree aob at la of 80 looks like, this movie
was excellent'
for that. and thats how you acquire an 8010, or reacquire one, close and turn in, because while your closing, the targets bearings are decreasing, the target aob is collapsing,
and the turning in after closing distance will put the 8010 back there, by increasing the target bearing back to an 80 offset.
eventually, your going to have to let the targets lead angle decrease, in order to shoot at it, this happens when you slow or stop, and to keep enough
arming distance for the torpedoes to work, and its this target movement that creates the 90 or near 90. if it was a near ninety, the margin of error
increases of range and aob, but its nothing to worry about, unless the movements are so grossly misapplied, as to be a non factor in shooting.

at least from rr's point of view, its a 30 degree margin of error, think about that!
i did make a couple of mistakes here tho, my 2nd search for speed was with the lead escort, after watching it, it looked steady for both speed and course,
i searched, and got 8.5 knots, and i was happy with that,and was going to go in with 8.5 knots as target convoys speed, and then i got lucky, my sonarman pick up a merchant
and called out its speed as slow. now, 8.5 knots had to be discarded, and a new search for speed conducted, this time with a merchant.
i knew i took a risk with the destroyer, in determining speed, 8.5 knots is not going to make that dd step out in range from the convoy that much,
there was only a knot and a half difference, and i think i timed it for 4 minutes, not enough time to see a range difference. i recovered from this mistake in time tho. my second mistake was when i was shooting,
i couldnt see the aiming wire, and it was after 2 in the morning, and i was just to tired, i think i fired off bearing to, very close but still off, and i shot late,
still got three hits, and this is because of the built in tolorances of point and shoot, created from the angular arangement.

so going back to u-boat commanders handbook, if there was no there there, lets see if the 8010 stands up to the u-boat commanders definition of audacious

au·da·cious /?'de???s/ Show Spelled[aw-dey-shuhs] Show IPA
–adjective
1. extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless
2. extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive
3. recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen.
4. lively; unrestrained; uninhibited

i think so.

heyy rr, how did you like that radar campaign 8010 shot, from 2100 yards, kinda destroys your arguement for closeness was the result of getting the hits,
dont be to impressed with 2100 yards, my farthest using radar was 6700 yards, with the hi res ppi mod

That diagram is, simply speaking, spot on. You cannot make any statement about target AOB based on holding it on a constant bearing unless the bearing is 0 regardless of sub speed, or the sub is not moving at all and it stays constant (in which case the target is going to run you over, and their AOB is 0).

Even with the caveat of a closing target, it doesn't work.

The trouble is you were using the law of sines, but treating the velocities as sides of the triangle (speeds). They are not the sides of the triangle, the actual path lengths are.

Take my constant bearing example above. You have a closing target, and you keep it on a bearing of 80 by not moving. The AOB is not 10. The AOB is ZERO. The speed? No possible way to tell. There you go, 8010 is disproved.

That's all it takes to disprove the geometry you propose, if it is disproved in any case, the method is faulty.

ok, tater, whatever you say, but still, the score is :

greyrider 3
opposition 0

you plug any variable into that formula with a zero, you can error, or 0.
this is a motion formula, more specifically , a velosity formula, you cant have zeros in it, it wont work, your points are disproved

remember i didnt make the formula, nor did the skippers, that came right from the scientists working with the submarine forces,

and your input, first input was something like "good thing ships in sh4 dont travel like they did in rl"

can you prove that statement?

i doubt it, with respect.

second , dont you think that would be a waste of diesel or coal, say, if a ship headed from san francisco to manila and zig zagged all the way, what do you think that would do to his navigation.

third, any military organisation conducts traveling movements determined by enemy activity. in the infantry, for example, when any unit
moves out, thier method of traveling depends upon enemy activity, and closeness, and there are three types of movement.

its called :

1 traveling

2 traveling overwatch

3 fire and maneuver

traveling is the method used when enemy contact is not expected, and its a technique they use, to deep to go into it here

traveling overwatch is a technigue used when enemy contact is probable
(this may be when a ship will zig zag)

fire and maneuver is used to close with and destroy the enemy after contact is made with the enemy.

see, the trouble with most of the posts here is that thier skpoken by people, with no, absolutely no training in military affairs, you dont know anything about the military, other than what you may read. this is not my problem, i have done traveling, traveling overwatch, and fire and maneuver, on the ground, not in a book, big big difference.

so the point now tater, getting back to your first post, ships only zigged, and zagged, when they thought submarines may be present, or thier was enemy submarine activity recently in that area. other than that, i think they would travel in a normal course. if you dont think this is true, at the navel historical society, there are tapes of sealion 2, with captain eli t reich commanding, taking out kongo, among the ships in this warship convoy was yamato, and she was tracking sea lion on radar, but thought she was a plane. that will be a good story to read, because those ships, as beat up as they was, heading back to japan for repair, was not zig zagging until contact was made with sea lion

you give to much credit to the enemy, like most here, you see danger and tripidation in everything, doubt, fear and uncertainty are your companions, and these are not my problem. would i follow anyone that had those problems? only if i wanted to get killed.

anyway, getting back to torpedo fire control manual, continue reading, about zig zagging ships and convoys, and if it cant be done, and until i come across a convoy that zigs, zags, then the jury is still out right?

you may or may not have mentioned where 8010 might not work, but so what, other methods have thier limitations to, and i didnt introduce 8010 for zig zagging ships, and if theres a problems using 8010 with a zig zag, then ill adapt, for what else can we do, but the jury is still out.

and, last but not least, if one method of acquiring target information is not applicable in one situation, then try another. its that simple.

The RL ships thing I did prove, those are wartime merchant instructions. Jap ships steamed with those patterns in war zones (meaning the entire Pacific).

So never more than 5-10 minutes in a straight line for most merchants (remember that about 2/3 of the jap merchant marine was commandeered by the IJN or IJA, the straight civie ships might not have ZZed all the time, but the IJN/IJA ships were far more likely to do so. Read sub PRs, and you will see them working out the ZZ pattern in advance of an attack in most cases.

The 2 closing ships in the diagram show the relationship. The bearing is identical, but their speeds and AOBs are different.

I was expecting that answer.

One, who told you velocities cannot equal zero in an equation? The target speed in that EQ can certainly be zero, and the sub speed in numerator. Also, you need to be able to understand WHY an equation becomes undefined at some value—in this case solving for target speed when AOB is zero (or 180). When the AOB is zero, solving for the ship speed is impossible because the geometry remains the same for ALL target speeds. The target could move towards, away, or be stationary.


Two, here's a non-zero scenario: The sub's speed is now infinitesimally greater than zero. The AOB is still effectively zero to maintain the geometry. As the sub speed increases, the target AOB to maintain collision increases. At some point the AOB will indeed be 10. A stopped clock is also right twice a day.

The opposition stopped keeping score very soon, since it was appearant that the score keeper didn't listen to reason. Or very one-sided.

The fallacy is that greyrider assumes wrongly that he is the scorekeeper. The members of Subsim are all scorekeepers, and the hundreds or thousands of them have not given greyrider a point in five years. I have never read one account of another player using 8010, point and shoot or any of greyrider's techniques. The real scorekeepers have given him a binding goose egg.

Paragraphs, if you can call them that, of self-backslapping, making veiled references to the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (using the improper abbreviation tfcm), setting up paper soldiers and knocking them down, claiming that knocking three of them down is some kind of accomplishment, all that is seen for what it is. Trolling.

A daresay tater understands the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual on every level better than greyrider does. Otherwise greyrider would use it, as we have, to show that 8010 and point and shoot are fallacies. Notice that I am not afraid to reference it directly and give every person a link so that they can check it out and prove for themselves that tater and I are correct. Instead, greyrider sought to conceal the source. That is a clue. Follow the link and verify what we have said. Then make your own conclusions about who does and who does not understand the manual. That directly follows to who does and who does not understand submarine targeting procedures and proper validations of those procedures. Greyrider is not the scorekeeper.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...tofacircus.gif

i guess now ill post for the last time here,on this subject, and ill make this my last attempt at
explaining the 8010 method. i think after this i will have provided enough " proof".
im done with 8010, and its time to move on into torpedo offsets.
but first this, and last this.
someone asked for a mathematic proof from me, well, i was lucky i could maintain a c in math in school,
my mind was on the babes, not school, so im lucky to know what i know, and sometimes understand it.
so the best i can do again, to explain, is to use the silent hunter mission editor map, to explain what happens in the 8010, and how the angle for 10 degrees was measured.
maybe looking at it from this point, instead of a radar screen will be more helpful, because all it is is a right triangle, thats all the 8010 is, a right triangle,
when you go into a 8010, your going into a right triangle with the target, the target track becomes one leg of the triangle, just what they taught in submarine schools in germany us, uk, italy, france, and anybody else
that had submarines. this is the standard and optimum attack angle, because the whole length of the target is exposed to the torpedo and submarine.

http://a.imageshack.us/img541/6373/87981948.jpg
By null at 2010-08-31

the first picture is what the start of the test mission looks like when viewed with the mission editor. the way points have been drawn, these are the courses, and the us tanker, (the target) is on a 90 target track, r to sub, its true course is also 90 degrees,
the submarine course is zero degrees, they are on a collision course, the target bears at 280, the submarine sees this as an 80 degree lead angle, the angle created from
its bow to the center mass of the target.

http://a.imageshack.us/img541/9191/8...eleadangle.jpg
By null at 2010-08-31

the 10 degree aob of the target is measured using the target track as one leg of the triangle, to the center mass of the submarine. from the center mass of the target, if a look out on the tanker looked toward 10 degrees, he will see the submarine, as the submarine bears 10 degrees
r to target.

http://a.imageshack.us/img541/4610/10aob.jpg
By null at 2010-08-31


these are how the angles were measured, if we are able to get ourselves in a situation like this, on a true 90 collision, even if only for a couple of minutes, we can calculate the targets speed with the formula,
using the submarine speed as one of the constants, and a lead angle of 80 degrees for another, and 10 degrees as another, "knowing" that the angle on bow is always going to be 10 degrees, because it is a right triangle, and the eighty ten is what both target
and submarine look outs would see, visual sighting!, submarine bearing 10 degrees, visual sighting! merchant, bearing 80 degrees to the port side.
If we are not in this angular arrangement, and want to get into one with a closing target, we have to close on the target track, not the target, and then when the range has been closed enough to allow the submarine to turn into the target, then turn into the target until
Your back on the 8010, a right triangle, think of this setup as a right triangle, it’s that simple, that’s all it is, and what was taught.
once your in a true right triangle, starting at 8010, the aob becomes known for every bearing the target will advance as it closes to the collision point,
if it goes to bearing 281, and starts its advance, then the aob for bearing 281, is 11, because both lead angle and aob are inverse angles in a right triangle, so while one increases, the other one decreases,
but they both have to add up to 90, the angle at the collision point is the another 90 of the right triangle, and therefore you have the total number of degrees in a right
triangle. told ya i wasnt a mathematician. if target is bearing 300, LA is 60, aob is 30, if target bears at 345, LA is 15 aob is 75, if it bears at 0, aob is 90.
both lead angle and aob have to add up to 90.
so i hope this explains it, im moving on to torpedo offsets, to exploit the weapon, the submarine has left markasser strait, refueled and rearmed at the tender west of halmahera, and heading for rabaul,
where i make a test mission using torpedo offsets, and then a real short movie, taking out 2 or 3 targets simultaneously.

more like, you dont have it, and cant get it,

one of the best days i had was last saturday with you, i laughed alot that day, every time you posted, you tried to cover your tracks, and the more you tried to cover the more you exposed

do you remember that post i was referring to when you measured the angle with mobo, then a few posts back on this tread, you said you never heard of point and shoot, so which is it rock, which statements the truth? want me to dig up that post for you? and put the link up, so that everybody can read it? just let me know, no problem!

The problem is that to take advantage of the geometry, the AOB must be known before hand.

Your example is of a special case. One possible arrangement of 2 ships out of a set of infinite possibilities.

Take your example above, and make the target AOB some arbitrary number.

You're arguing a special case where you get to know the AOB before hand. The target's bearing and the target's course are not related, they are independent.

Without knowing the target's course (and thus the AoB), how do you know you've got a right triangle when you encounter a ship in the wild?

Ok we are slowly getting there. So In your last posts you say that 8010 is valid for a 90° intecept angle which is of course true.

Next step: How to get into a 8010 collision course.

You said : "If we are not in this angular arrangement, and want to get into one with a closing target, we have to close on the target track, not the target, and then when the range has been closed enough to allow the submarine to turn into the target, then turn into the target until
Your back on the 8010, a right triangle, think of this setup as a right triangle, it’s that simple, that’s all it is, and what was taught."

Not clear what you mean exactly (for me at least) since we have no clue on the "target track".

I really think that there is a """method""" that can get you there (an 8010 collision course) under certain conditions. Hint: Check this Link
from one of my previus posts and observe how the sub closes in, towards the target's path while trying to keep the target at a 90° bearing. "Extrapolate" the situation and you may reach at a very interesting sitiuation indeed.


.

Meaning score? Or reason? Eitherway, I'm not in this thread for a pissing contest on who's better. The seas are wet enough allready. Be my guest though, I'll be out of your way.

If that is the same mission as the 2 you uploaded some weeks ago to your Filefront page then you provided the wrong one. In it there is no T3 tanker, or any possible target for that matter. 100% positive. If you did encounter a target while playing it must have coincidentally been spawned from the random campaign layer. (which I've seen happening before in SH3 custom-missions) Eitherway, it wouldn't have been of any use, since it wasn't reproduceable.

As for your explanation with the mission editor screenshots, I won't beat it to death anymore. Tater, Razark and Diopos have already said that this 80-10 is a special case. 80-30 is just as possible to encounter a target in. Infact, we have complained about this all along in the past 8 pages. What would have been more usefull for you showing how to use this method, would be a video of what happened before your encounter with the target. How did you manage to get in the 80-10 position? Was there any kind of intercept involved? How did you learn it's course? As that is the only way to be able to say you have, or can maneuver yourself into, a right triangle.