[TorpX]

Originally Posted by ColonelSandersLite

Actually, Check this out, it might actually answer the question but I suspect a big flaw

That's a pretty good analogy there.

The suspected flaw:
"Without prior knowledge to the contrary, we must also assume that traffic flow is statistical uniform."
When you move through an area, we know that no traffic moving at x speed can be in certain locations. For example, a 10 knot target could not have moved all the way through an area you searched with SJ-1 radar half an hour ago if you are cruising at 10 knots. This means that you do have some prior knowledge of where targets are not at any given time. Let's call these areas cavities.

I consider this the beauty of my solution. I've used vector addition to subtract the target ships' speed. (This sort of thing was done with a 'maneuvering board' for various problems.) Working the problem this way, the ships in diagram 2 (if there are any) do not move. We need not make any assumptions of how many, or where the ships are located. All that need to be done is compare the respective areas cut out, of the moving sub and the stationary one.


Here is another way to look at it. If the sub is going W and a ship is just far enough to the E to escape detection, it only needs to get through before the sub reverses course and can reach that area again. If the width of the search zone is very narrow, the sub will reach that area faster, and it will be hard or even impossible for the ship to get through here, but that also means there is more space on either side that is not being searched. Take this to it's logical conclusion and you are back to being stationary; no ship within your detection radius will get through, but every ship on either side will.

Originally Posted by aanker

I could have sworn it was in, 'Clear The Bridge', however I have read so many books - it could have been a different Skipper.

Yes, thank-you. It's on page 54. I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that. I think O'Kane did a good job of explaining it.

Sadly, unlike SH1, SH4 doesn't model the larger horizon gained by using 'high-scope' searches, although in real life many patrolled using the high-scope farther horizon advantage.

Yeah, Ubisoft sure could have done better.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I base my theories on those of Admiral Eugene Fluckey, who with the USS Barb found targets when nobody else did. He didn't know the shipping lanes because he couldn't open his game box and dig one up or do a Google search. In Thunder Below he goes into great detail explaining exactly what I've laid out. All things being equal, your number of contacts developed is proportional to the number of square miles of ocean surface you search in a day.

Not to criticize Fluckey, but iirc, he did run short of fuel on one patrol, and had to go home empty handed; the point being that roaming doesn't guarantee results, and may leave you low on fuel.

Because of hindsight, we might come up with better methods but they would be bogus, based on assumptions real sub skippers couldn't make.

Not sure what you mean here. None of the math I've used requires quantum mechanics, string theory, or black magic.


I wouldn't even say that I've come up with a new method. It's more along the lines of a guideline as to what one can expect from roaming, so one can decide if it is worthwhile. In any case, O'Kane did do stationary patrolling on at least one war patrol, so it is not a gamey-hindsight deal.