|
this morning i sat down, i had the mission editor opened so that i could see the map of the test mission, just staring at it,
not thinking of anything in particular. i thought, well we know course , aob, and speed in a 8010, the only thing missing was range, if we had range, we would have all four parts of a torpedo solution, plugged into the tdc, miles before we see the target, so just staring at the triangle in the test mission, it almost blew my mind, there in front of me was a way to determine target range, but it depends on the captains estimation of how far away the collision point is for the target and submarine. if your on an 8010, you can draw the right triangle on the map, or use radar to estimate target track, then range to the collision point. but what ever the submarines speed is, and the disctance to the collision point is known or estimated, target speed and range can be known, because in a 8010, the ratio of target distance to submarine disctance to the collision point is 5.4 to 1. this is because of the proprtions of the 8010 right triangle, its a 5.4 to 1 ratio of range and speed to the collision point, this is the ratio of the test mission, so the submarine is at 2 knots, times 5.4 = 10.8 knots, might as well call that 11, its more than, 10.5, target speed was 11 knots in test mission. range of the submarine to the collision point is 5.4 km, or 2.9 nm, in this test mission, range of the target is 5.4 times greater for the target, so range of the target would be 5.4 km times 5.4, or 29.16 km or 15.7 nm. at least this is the ratio of this test mission, i dont know what other submarine speeds ratios are at this point, i think it will be the same ratio for all speeds of the sub, but alittle work with the calculator will prove that. 5.4 is the ratio in km 2.9 is the ratio in nm |
You can't develop AoB in an unseen target. You have no solution.
|
You can't develop target course in an unseen target. You still have no solution. If you're going to use radar you don't need the 8010 formulation. You'll never get it anyway without a high speed surface run.
If you do that you might as well put the target on a zero AoB so you don't have to move 10 miles submerged to attack. He's not going to run over top of you anyway because he'll change course before he gets there. But at least you are covered with an equal run to engage no matter which direction he zigs. If you set up the 8010 and he zigs 10º away it's game over. You can't get there and he's gone. 8010 is a terrible and self-defeating strategy that eliminates the vast majority of contacts from ever being attacked. The Japanese love you. Proper strategy is to be able to engage long range targets at the largest possible angle on the bow so that you engage more targets, scoring more tonnage per patrol. 8010 is the analog to the ostrich strategy of running submerged all day, cutting your contacts by 90% so you can feel "safe." You've found a way to eliminate 80% of the 10% they had left. Just think of the payoff from combining Ostrich with 8010! Eliminate 98% of potential targets! Enhance your career! 8010 Ostrich! Guaranteed or your money back. Proper strategy is to develop targets while surfaced, maneuver at high speed while surfaced to achieve an attack position ahead that will minimize battery use during the attack, submerge on or very close to the track, waiting for the target and then attacking with a real targeting method. You then have full batteries at the time of attack and can evade with confidence that you can exercise those batteries with gusto to break contact, surface and repeat the end-around. In this way you can engage even a convoy detected at a 180º AoB. Instead of restricting yourself to a 20º wedge, you now can engage targets on any course, anywhere in the 360º search range. Why would your strategy be to cripple your ability to fight? Why would you then actually brag about that? On every level 8010 is a loser. There is NOTHING in it of value except in how to put yourself on a collision course by passive sonar. Is there a single person who understands 8010, thinks it's a viable strategy, uses it and is willing to post about it? If so I'm asking them to come forward. Let's see who this amazing development has benefited. |
Quote:
your whine is getting old, i cant? i did! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's the entirety of what I got from his arguments. Maybe it's just so convoluted I'm missing something, cause if his point was that IF you can get yourself into that geometry, it begs the question we're all asking: how do you know you are in the right geometry if you cannot tell the target what to do? |
I have an office at Fort Meade, a parking pass for Langley, and have taken courses at Maxwell and in Carlisle. I have a junk drawer full of metal, and enough paper on the wall to train a sled team of dogs not to crap in my shoes. With that said, I have followed this thread from its inception and I can see no merit in putting the lives of sailors on the line based on the thin premise provided herein.
|
Ok I think we are over-killing it here.
Personally I like the collision course thingy and will continue to """work""" on it. In the end I think that it will turn out be a "good to know" thing, implementable with in-game (nav map) tools. But as is, the 8010 method is limited. I still maintain it is salvageable with "addons" (:DL) namely trying to establish the targets course (at least). For an example of a potentially useful method of acquiring target info, based on collision course(s), have a look at this . More variants of the method proposed are on the way. Hope people will test it and comment on it. (Ok now I'll stop highjacking the thread :oops:). ... and going deep again ...:lurk: |
Wow, after reading this whole thread i can only say that i am glad i use the auto-targeting option. Trying to figure this out made my head hurt and i'm still not sure whos right or wrong but it sure was fun to read! I have used realistic targeting in SH1, but these days i play for fun and let my crew (Auto) do the work. After all, I'm the Captain LOL!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
i have a solution for you, you can use the dick okane method, you dont have to take risks with it, and it sounds like that would be the method for a timid personality like yours to use, so knock yourself out. rr vows its safe, he understands submarine warfare about as much as you, he says to fire at long range is what submarine warfare is all about, that way your "safe" , , ignoreing the fact that german u-boat were mixing it up with convoys, escorts right in the mist of them, on the surface, i would of loved to have him say that to those german commanders, they would laugh him right off the boat, like im laughing you right in this post. you see, you can join the opposition if you like, for you people, you feel safety in numbers, but let it be said right here right now, i stand alone!, i do not ask nor do i want help from anyone here, i will accomplish the mission, with or without you, understand ? |
Quote:
You seem to be saying that holding any contact @ 80 degrees makes his AOB 10, which is nonsense. If you require a right triangle, you must know his AOB in advance. |
Next thing we know here people will be dropping britches and comparing the sizes of their members....
Of course someone here may figure out how to make 3 inches 8...and think he's right because he's looking at it underwater and never cease at thinkings he's correct. |
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore, if the bearing is 80 degrees, the AoB _must_ be 10. You know you are intercepting the target track at a 90 degree angle because... :06: |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 AM. |
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.