Attack disk & RAOFB

[LCQ_SH]

Hi,

I've playing SH5 latley, but I wanted to retake my SH4 career (it's been a while since I played SH4) but I have forgotten how thinks work in SH4.

I don't remember if in TMO combined ith RSRD it is possible to have something like the RAOFB or any tool (within the game interface) which allows to calculate the AOB because the old fashion way with map contacts on, use the protractor on the map, etc is not a good nor realistic way to do it.

Also the attack disc? I think both are available in the uboat campaign in SH4 but can't remember if these tools (or any others) are available for US subs. Are they?

Any help will be appreciated.

[Rockin Robbins]

US subs are entirely different. I don't understand how measuring AOB from a protractor using the target track is somehow "unrealistic." Is there some reason that couldn't be done in the war?

American boats mostly relied on visual estimates of AoB. If you are practiced as they were you can be plenty close enough. You can certainly be as close as the periscope devices the U-Boats used, which depended on knowing ship length. Historically, way more than half the targets attacked were misidentified, and so the AoB derived from periscope wizardry would be very, very wrong. The visual eyeball estimate would be much closer, both in game and reality.

You also have to realize that the radar equipped American boats had plenty of accuracy to do the protractor method with complete accuracy, with positions plotted to plus or minus 30 feet regardless of range. That made American targeting magnitudes more precise than German targeting.

That doesn't really matter though. A well planned attack considers the magnitude of possible error and mitigates innacuracy so that bad information still results in hits.

[LCQ_SH]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

You also have to realize that the radar equipped American boats had plenty of accuracy to do the protractor method with complete accuracy, with positions plotted to plus or minus 30 feet regardless of range. That made American targeting magnitudes more precise than German targeting.

.

I agree with that maybe for night surface attacks and attacks on lonely ships in calm seas. But I can't figure it put how would you use radar attacking an escorted convoy or a taskforce in heavy seas where radar depth would be unlikely to work and you you could get easily spotted by escorts.

Are you saying then that while being at periscope depth, we are supposed to always calculate the AOB by eyeballing it?

[Hambone307]

I wouldn't say that you always have to "eyeball it" at periscope depth. You should use the method that will provide the best results with the given situation. If you are attacking a lone merchant, you can use the radar and protractor to determine AoB. If you are attacking an escorted convoy or taskforce, exposing your shears to get a radar contact would be unwise.

If you have time and good ears, you can even use the sonar to estimate the AoB. The sonar method would actually work better in your proposed situation with heavy seas and an approaching task force, in my opinion.

[LCQ_SH]

Originally Posted by Hambone307

I wouldn't say that you always have to "eyeball it" at periscope depth. You should use the method that will provide the best results with the given situation. If you are attacking a lone merchant, you can use the radar and protractor to determine AoB. If you are attacking an escorted convoy or taskforce, exposing your shears to get a radar contact would be unwise.

If you have time and good ears, you can even use the sonar to estimate the AoB. The sonar method would actually work better in your proposed situation with heavy seas and an approaching task force, in my opinion.

Do you know any thread in which determining AOB with sonar is explained? I would like to learn how to do it

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by LCQ_SH

I agree with that maybe for night surface attacks and attacks on lonely ships in calm seas. But I can't figure it put how would you use radar attacking an escorted convoy or a taskforce in heavy seas where radar depth would be unlikely to work and you you could get easily spotted by escorts.

Are you saying then that while being at periscope depth, we are supposed to always calculate the AOB by eyeballing it?

Yes, radar works against escorted convoys and in heavy seas. You can even extend the radar antenna from periscope or just go to radar depth to use it while submerged.

But yes, American sub commanders were very good at judging AoB by eyeball and trained extensively to get better at it. Since exact AoB was always available by the protractor method on the nav map, they were continually announcing observed AoB from the periscope and comparing it with actual.

All the other hocus pocus in those German periscopes presupposes perfect knowledge of what the target is and what its length is. Such fantasies of perfect knowledge are part and parcel of the German defeat. They were not superior. They were not infallible. They were utterly defeated by their betters.

Lets approach the use of radar against a convoy. With radar you know the course and speed of every ship in that convoy. You instantly know of any course changes and can react very quickly. They know somebody out there somewhere is using some kind of radio on that frequency, and that only if they are monitoring the radar frequency. Huge advantage to the submarine.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Originally Posted by Hambone307

If you have time and good ears, you can even use the sonar to estimate the AoB. The sonar method would actually work better in your proposed situation with heavy seas and an approaching task force, in my opinion.

Are you referring to the 4 bearing method?

[xXNightEagleXx]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Yes, radar works against escorted convoys and in heavy seas. You can even extend the radar antenna from periscope or just go to radar depth to use it while submerged.

But yes, American sub commanders were very good at judging AoB by eyeball and trained extensively to get better at it. Since exact AoB was always available by the protractor method on the nav map, they were continually announcing observed AoB from the periscope and comparing it with actual.

All the other hocus pocus in those German periscopes presupposes perfect knowledge of what the target is and what its length is. Such fantasies of perfect knowledge are part and parcel of the German defeat. They were not superior. They were not infallible. They were utterly defeated by their betters.

Lets approach the use of radar against a convoy. With radar you know the course and speed of every ship in that convoy. You instantly know of any course changes and can react very quickly. They know somebody out there somewhere is using some kind of radio on that frequency, and that only if they are monitoring the radar frequency. Huge advantage to the submarine.

RR, i kind agree and disagree with you. Your statement about having perfect knowledge about everything is totally right, it would be so silly to really believe on having all info exactly with a almost none to zero errors.

That said, first of all let's keep in mind that germans didn't have radars. So they had really to trust on numbers and feelings, mixing these together can really compensate any lack of each.

It is very very important to remind that we are talking about a simulation on a virtual scenario. In real life with experience, it is possible to estimate any variable (some easier with more accuracy and some harder with increased error). However, in the game, with today technologies, it is impossible to have the same perspective as in real life, that changes a lot the way we interact with the game by removing/limiting a lot of skills we would use ourselves if we were in real life.

If you can estimate the AoB, then you can find its course (as we know) and you could also estimate/find its speed using CBDR technique (i'm aware that react to any variation is almost impossible).

Moreover it would be possible to take notes (vertical periscope marks, magnification, time taken to impact, etc...) pre fire/post impact and from there, for example, find the mast height that you might use to fill your personal ship database and/or improve your eyeball estimation skill....i would go even further by saying that at this point you can find even the length.

I would not be surprised if any official tells me that germans relied a lot on the salve shooting to counterbalance any error.

What i'm trying to say is that this need to have perfect data from start is just wrong, it would be more realistic to have incorrect data with random amount of error or missing data that would requires the player to try to correct/add them by himself (maybe even something ingame).

However, somehow this hole between RL and virtual sim must be filled at least partially.

Using OTC, for example, it is like having a manual calculator that if you follow each step correctly it is impossible to miss the hit (incredible precise AoB, distance and speed and this without any plot but only numbers), which it is not ok for me.

In my life i have seen people be able to do things naturally that others really struggle to or not even able to have the same result with assistance. So i would not be surprised if officers used to rely mostly on their estimations and used the few known data, right or wrong, just as an addition to verify their estimations (or exclude for good in case of huge mismatch). I can even imagine the scene of them checking their book and cursing someone for the outrageous mistake.

These are just my opinions that might even be totally wrong, so please feel free to correct if i'm wrong.

NE

[Rockin Robbins]

Both Germans and Americans used the one error mitigation tool that works every time. Get DAMNED close.

The Germans, with an inferior targeting system, did that better than Americans, who early in the war, insisted in taking long shots just because the torpedoes could. The torpedo defects cancel out. The Mark XIV was such a perfect copy of the German torpedo that they even copied the defects. Even the American engineers of the 1930's labored under the myth of German superiority.

But the German command structure, much more decentralized, giving commanders in the field much more latitude, was far better able to react to and correct the torpedo problems. Where American sub commanders paid terrible prices for reporting the defects, German sub skippers were rewarded, listened to and trusted.

But the Germans were more conscious of the error magnitudes of a visual system but realized that they could be miles off and still hit the target. They just needed to close the range to extreme levels.

Although that will cost you some submarines, it works very, very well.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Both Germans and Americans used the one error mitigation tool that works every time. Get DAMNED close.

The Germans, with an inferior targeting system, did that better than Americans, who early in the war, insisted in taking long shots just because the torpedoes could. The torpedo defects cancel out. The Mark XIV was such a perfect copy of the German torpedo that they even copied the defects. Even the American engineers of the 1930's labored under the myth of German superiority.

But the German command structure, much more decentralized, giving commanders in the field much more latitude, was far better able to react to and correct the torpedo problems. Where American sub commanders paid terrible prices for reporting the defects, German sub skippers were rewarded, listened to and trusted.

But the Germans were more conscious of the error magnitudes of a visual system but realized that they could be miles off and still hit the target. They just needed to close the range to extreme levels.

Although that will cost you some submarines, it works very, very well.

RR, how you deal with a situation where you can't rely on radar and all you have is your eyeball? Would you use four bearing methods to try to gather the speed info? Would you try to guess the length thus calculate the speed with that value and for last fire 2-3 torpedoes just because you are aware that your estimations has error?

I'm asking this because i 100% agree with your idea of using ship database is just not the best. So since you are clearly more experienced than me, i would like to know/discuss others doctrine/methods.

[Rockin Robbins]

In the war, the prescription was get darned close and waste 50% of your torpedoes with spreads more than 100% of what you think the target length is.

When Tang's radar went out halfway through the patrol, O'Kane's snide message to Pearl amounted to "there goes over half my remaining torpedoes wasted!" As long as we're playing the game honestly and not using the precise optical positions plotted on our nav map, I don't see that we can improve much on O'Kane's little comment there...

[xXNightEagleXx]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

In the war, the prescription was get darned close and waste 50% of your torpedoes with spreads more than 100% of what you think the target length is.

When Tang's radar went out halfway through the patrol, O'Kane's snide message to Pearl amounted to "there goes over half my remaining torpedoes wasted!" As long as we're playing the game honestly and not using the precise optical positions plotted on our nav map, I don't see that we can improve much on O'Kane's little comment there...

So correct me if i understood it wrong, I guess you are suggesting a 0 gyro shot angle, thus regardless the range, use the standard lead angle rule (10 for less than 15 and 20 for more, thus regardless the real speed) and for last fire more torpedo manually or in salvo (although i prefer the manual mode over the salvo).

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by LCQ_SH

Are you saying then that while being at periscope depth, we are supposed to always calculate the AOB by eyeballing it?

This was the most often used method.



In the game, people often use the plot to determine AOB, but this wasn't really done in RL. I'll explain why.

The determination of AOB by plot only works if the plot is very accurate. The plot can only be useful in this way, if the range estimations are accurate. Generally, this was not the case. Even if you have a Radar plot, this would have been of limited value, as it would tell you more about where the target has been, than where it is going. In RL, ships zigged frequently, and by the time this could be fully developed in a plot, the next zig was likely to be at hand. [Base course was determined by plot, but this was not what we require for a firing solution.]

For these reasons, 'seaman's eye' was the usual method. There were also tools like Cap'nScurvy's omnimeter, or the prism mechanism in the periscopes, used to measure apparent target length, which permits calculation of AOB, provided the target's actual length is known (often it wasn't).

To put it in concise terms, the AOB was used to inform the plot, not the other way around. WWII sub skippers understood very well they had to be able to estimate AOB's, and the successful ones were probably good at doing so.