Const. Bearing: Divergent Spread

[KlassenT]

After some time ago reading RR's theory on how O'Kane may have feasibly combined a constant bearing solution with maximum divergent spread [Post], I've been considering the merits of this attack method, or more precisely, when it's prudent to use. Common sense says that this technique is most justified in clear visibility conditions when your target has a better chance of torpedo detection, and thus evasion. Does it hold true, though, when the chances of that happening are more limited?

My first approach to a constant bearing solution for Aft-Mid-Bow was to use it primarily at long range against well-guarded TFs, when the fish are going to have a nice, long run-up during which they could be detected. I don't know, though, whether to chalk my particular problem up to poor acquisition speed or distance of approach: about 25% of the time, the spread would be wide enough that given an early detection, mid-sized vessels would have enough maneuverability to turn into the spread and cut between the volley. The likelihood is obviously reduced when you use more fish, but it also means you stand to sacrifice more ahead-of-target misses if they turn early, in spite of the fact they end up taking a torp that was intended for aft/MOT right up the nose.

At this point, the theory and execution of a divergent spread using constant bearing doesn't leave much unexplained, but the real crux is when it's wise to give it a try. For point of reference, my 'long-range' attacks range anywhere from 2.5-4k yds, and of course only when heavy escort cover prohibits inching any closer. Less maneuverable targets like a nice juicy Kongo are still pretty susceptible, so is my big flaw really just in trying to take out the accompanying cruisers from this range, or is there something else underlying my tactics that needs improvement?