[Doolittle81]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

...Very interesting reply. Your resort to personal attack exposes the weakness of your argument. Personal attacks are unnecessary if you are right.

I didn't intend to "personally” attack you...although I am aware that in other threads on this Forum you have previously seemed to draw a similar conclusion when others have challenged your opinion/logic on assorted matters. My comments were directed to your 'logic' and statistical analysis, though I passed up the opportunity to elaborate...so I will do so now: your 1 chance out of 1,000 of a single event taking place, 500 days...etc...resulting in a statistical probably exceeding 1.0, etc. That simply doesn't hold water, sorry. Flip a coin one time, you have a 50% probability of it landing as a "Heads"; flip it 999 times, and let's just say that it lands "heads" 900 times or even all 999 times...On the one-thousandth flip, guess what the probability is that it will land as a "Heads"??...50-50. That's not really a critical mistake on your part, though, which is why I didn't belabor it in my earlier post......and it's certainly not a personal attack.

As for logic, non sequiturs abound. All the excerpts of your 'evidence' below are anecdotal, as LukeFF pointed out, with regards to selected accounts by surviving "skippers"...but you drift into total supposition when it comes to Submarines which went missing in action...with the exception of your Wahoo 'evidence' which seems relatively concrete. However, your conclusion from that Wahoo 'evidence' is a perfect and classic example of a non sequitur: The fact that the Wahoo may have been found to have been hit by an aircraft bomb means nothing with regard to the situation at the time of the 'hit'. The Wahoo could have been sitting on the surface with the crew sunbathing; it could have been starting a dive having spotted an attacking aircraft approaching (perhaps a mere 5NM distant); it could have been a foggy day in London town and the Wahoo caught completely by surprise; or, it could possibly have been surfacing (blindly), as you surmise. One cannot draw a conclusion from the evidence/proposition. The conclusion "does not follow"...the very definition of a non sequitur in Logic 101.




Note that empirical evidence is usually much more reliable than anecdotal:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

...sub jockeys were sitting below periscope depth all day and coming back home with a boatload of torpedoes. That is, if they came home, for their strategy unnecessarily endangered their boats and crews. On his first cruise, Eugene Fluckey lost both of his wolfpack hunting mates...

Mere supposition, by you, as to cause of those losses....and, in any event, irrelevant to your argument about yo-yoing to avoid enemy aircraft a mere 5 NM distant.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Nighttime planes were real. Surfacing at night was no security. One argument disposed of nicely with one torpedo.

I never said a word about the existence (reality), or lack thereof, of nighttime Japanese aircraft, nor of their radar capabilities...so who are you shooting your torpedo at? Obviously you must have some sort of long-standing argument with some other people on the Forum, not with me.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Fortunately, after dawn, aircraft contacts ceased, enabling us to charge batteries, patrol on the surface and get some badly needed sleep. With dusk, however, the night radar planes came after us again, forcing us to yo-yo, diving and surfacing.

[Totally anecdotal....where did this happen, when, how often, every day? every patrol?]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

"....Our Barb system (surely the book must say "our game trick!") was to stay on the surface, searching with high periscope up, covering a circle with a radius of more than 10 miles. The difference: 70 square miles versus 350. Surfaced, we also augmented our coverage by using as much speed as our diesel oil supply would permit.

As an aside, Fluckey's math(geometry) needs some work, but I guess he's close enough for gov'ment work: A five mile radius circle has an area of roughly 78.5 square miles, not 70 (Pie are square here in these parts, not round); a ten-mile radius circle has an area of 314 square miles, not 350.




Most importantly, however, you stated that your "strategy" (actually a tactic) was to begin a Dive when the Japanese aircraft being "watched/monitored" hit a point FIVE (5) NM from the Submarine.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I draw a 5 nm circle around my boat. When the plane nears the 5 mile radius I submerge. I'd estimate I probably begin submerging when the plane(s) are 7 to 8 miles away......[Elsewhere: ... If its path takes it within 5 miles of your sub, submerge just before he enters that radius ])

I explained that the time it would take for such a Japanese aircraft (real life, not game AI) to be "on" you from that range would be 60-75 seconds, likely before you could reach your declared "safe" depth. Again, in your very own Fluckey example, you quote him as saying that he would

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

...stay on the surface, searching with high periscope up, covering a circle with a radius of more than 10 miles.

From a distance of 10NM versus 5 NM, an aircraft would obviously take twice the time to reach the Sub...perhaps 2-2.5 full minutes...While risky, and relying upon the Sub's radar/lookouts to spot the aircraft first, that period of time would allow a Sub to dive to a safe depth. My challenge to your "Game" tactic was with regard to the implication that your 5NM circle would have also been adequate in 'real life' to guarantee safety. I expressed the opinion that such a down-to-the-wire tactic would be taking an unacceptable risk...in Real Life. (Again, no personal attack, whatsoever)

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

"I'll buy that," Tex said, "but you take more chances of being seen by planes—and convoys may avoid the area." "And we have a greater chance of being bombed, granted."

A direct acknowledgement, anecdotal, of the increased risk of the daylight yo-yoing tactic.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

The choice is to patrol either the coast and open seas submerged or the open seas surfaced. I believe that the most worthwhile targets come with escorted convoys and naval task groups that ply the high seas at some point in their movement. Thus we stay out unless watching a major port. ...Remember though that each sub must produce, or the admiral puts in a new skipper. He might accept an empty bag once, but never twice."

Okay....so he is talking about the 'strategy' of staying out in blue water...That is supportable as a tactic/strategy....But, that wasn't the subject of your initial posts...In terms of logic, therefore, this comment by Fluckey is totally irrelevant to your opinion/position about yo-yoing.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

...
I'd say I stand on solid ground. Looked down lately? I don't present half-baked, poorly researched strategy. But you see, it's not my strategy. Attacking me missed your target. And your target, Admiral Fluckey, was out of your reach anyway. Funny how that happens.

WOW! You certainly do have thin skin... I didn't say that you had presented half-baked, poorly researched "strategy". You've said it.

You pride yourself on your

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

... total destruction of a fallacious attack ...[and]...implications were that I was talking out of inappropriate parts of my anatomy

Once again, I didn't say anything about your anatomy,.... you drew that conclusion. By the way, in Logic 101 you'll learn more about "Logical Fallacies"...check it out.


.




Thanks for the intellectual challenge and the mature and objective, unemotional discussion.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

... and that dog wasn't going to be allowed to try to hunt. So I served it for dinner.

What’s on for dinner tonight, Mate?