[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by greyrider

do you think that formula

OFFENSE! Undefined term! Fifteen yards, repeat the down. "That formula" is not referenced in your quote or the answer. You're talking to nobody about nothing. Makes sense to me! You don't intend to communicate or reason. You're trolling.

was inserted into the tfcm

OFFENSE! Fake undefined acronym that means means nothing. First down for tater at the point of infraction! You are trying to hit tater over the head with the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual and not even using all the letters of the name for your fake acronym! Communicate. Tell people what document you're about to misuse. If you're going to invent an acronym do it right! And make a link out of it so people can see for themselves that you don't know what you're talking about.

untested?
do you really think that? then you dont know anything about the united states military, to do something like that is like handing a soldier an untried weapon, like putting men in a submarine to dive, with no way of getting back up, it makes no sense.

so im still waiting!

Tater has proved over the years that he knows more about the US Military than you can even imagine. He understands the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual several layers better than you do.

You know, you just wasted a post making no points at all. Tater has met his burden of proof. You still haven't answered the questions put to you at the beginning of the thread. You still haven't demonstrated a method of determining AoB for an unseen target over the horizon using sonar only.

You still haven't answered one of my objections to the method:

That it works for only a 20º arc out of a possible 360º AoB range within which you can find targets. You choose to throw 94.4% of targets in the garbage as not able to be engaged. How do you defend that position?

That it demands long underwater runs which deplete your batteries, leaving you in no position to fight.

That a one knot difference in your speed makes an 8 knot difference in calculated target speed. The game can only tell you within half a knot how fast you are going. That's an error of plus or minus 4 knots in target speed, a range of 8 knots! How can you defend a method that multiplies any possible error on your part by 8 times and claim any ability whatever?

That it is impossible even cheating the system using the sonar operator's fairy tale ability to tell whether a target is approaching or receding and whether it is traveling in one of three precise speed ranges to determine AoB precisely enough to calculate target speed.

That while claiming 8010 is a targeting technique, at best it is a rendezvous technique to get you in the vicinity of the target, at which point you abandon the 8010 relationship altogether and shoot a 90 degree trial and terror shot, based on faulty information developed from a faulty 8010 technique.

These are specific questions, which have been asked in precise manner in previous posts, none of which has been replied to at all. You just wave your magic wand and say "It works for me." Then you pretend you are teaching something. You are not. Nobody has learned anything from you but that you will defend a conquered position with a limp spaghetti noodle. 8010 is a fraud.

Ten tests of a valid targeting technique

• A good targeting technique is easy to teach.
• It works for targets at any initial AoB.
• It is broken down into simple steps
• that can be concisely listed,
• not skipping any steps,
• not assuming any outside information.
• It can be used by the learner as well or better than it is by the teacher.
• Each step is able to be verified by graphical and
• mathematical proof that it takes into account all possible parameters of the attack.
• Other people adopt and use the technique, telling others about their success and helping them with misunderstandings.

Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! on each point of the ten in the proceeding paragraph for 8010. It cannot be considered a valid targeting technique. Others may be able to add to my list of tests but 8010 is already ten times a failure.