Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aaronblood
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Feltan
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aaronblood
I think he's referring to holding the aiming wire constant, ie constant bearing attack...
|
I was, and also not necessarily at 90 degrees to the target track, but re-reading what I wrote above I didn't make that very clear. Sorry if I caused confusion.
Regards,
Feltan |
Actually the real O'Kane method involved using the PK and calling the AoB to determine target true course... confirming the PK track and then just as he was ready to fire... turn the PK off and fire at points of interest as they passed the wire.
We've dumbed it down quite a bit...
O'Kane followed the standard approach course procedure target bearing 90° abeam (that's different than a 90° approach to the target true course) and used 3 second scope peeks to true up the PK track to the target.
If you follow this attack strategy then all inputs to the PK are indeed important, the order of importance is as follows:
1) Speed
2) AoB
3) Distance
You should prioritize your data gathering with the above order in the back of your mind. AoB and distance are very forgiving... speed is a solution killer.
The closer your gyro track is to 0° the less distance will have influence. The error that distance introduces is ONLY related to the torpedo advance. After the torpedo makes it's turn, and providing you're staying inside of a 20-30° gyro angle it's not too bad.
If you you've got speed and distance close AoB allows a lot of room for error... I think you're pretty safe in the +-15° to 20° range provided your within 1000yds. |
Thanks for that summary -- all of it quite familiar to me. Eugene Fluckey was my Godfather, and my father was a classmate of his. Had an opportunity to talk to him at length about this sort of thing before his health failed.
Regards,
Feltan