target speed: the eighty-ten method

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by tater

Love how you make a 70/20 example, then set it up the same way—on a 90 degree collision in the set up. Giving yourself a known angle is part of everyone's problem, can't you see that?

You need an example where the ONLY data you have is a closing target at some arbitrary bearing. Then you put in on 80, and tell us the AOB. You cannot get the speed without knowing the AOB.

The game does cheat and gives you a speed range (I don't even know what that range is in TMO or RFB, since I've never considered using it past its face value). That in fact does limit the future position possibilities for the target, but doe NOT force it to be 10. It means that there is an arc that the target could be in. If the speed is known to be 8-12 knots, and the underwater max of the sub is 7, then you can know for sure the closing target is within an angle such that the projection of speed on that right triangle is under 7 knots. assuming you can hold the bearing.

The AOB is still in a decent sized arc, and values are in fact infinite within that arc.

in your imagination tater, and your right, when i design a mission, how could i not know the values, im putting them in, its obvious.

but, and theres the but again, what explains me making it possible, in the movie, which were campaign encounters? what explains that?

that was random, you dont get it, or refuse to see it, i didnt plan that, those ships came at me from random, and it was made.

i gave you a challenge, dont cop out on me, if you want a mission that all i know is a that a closing target is closing, then make one, or pick one out,
simple man, just pick one out if your to lazy to make one, many missions have been made, thats the challenge that you refused, why?

i told you, anytime, anywhere, any mission, dont cop out, im waiting!

i'm waiting tater!


btw, you seem to think that the game cheats, maybe so, it give a speed range, so what!

have you ever listened to the sonar tapes at nha? i guess there just pulling numbers out of their hats to.

anyway, back up your perspective, and dont cop out or boob out on me and the community, i think they would like to see you back up your perspective, see if your right, me too! try me! im waiting!

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by greyrider

in your imagination tater, and your right, when i design a mission, how could i not know the values, im putting them in, its obvious.

but, and theres the but again, what explains me making it possible, in the movie, which were campaign encounters? what explains that?

that was random, you dont get it, or refuse to see it, i didnt plan that, those ships came at me from random, and it was made.

i gave you a challenge, dont cop out on me, if you want a mission that all i know is a that a closing target is closing, then make one, or pick one out,
simple man, just pick one out if your to lazy to make one, many missions have been made, thats the challenge that you refused, why?

i told you, anytime, anywhere, any mission, dont cop out, im waiting!

i'm waiting tater!


btw, you seem to think that the game cheats, maybe so, it give a speed range, so what!

have you ever listened to the sonar tapes at nha? i guess there just pulling numbers out of their hats to.

anyway, back up your perspective, and dont cop out or boob out on me and the community, i think they would like to see you back up your perspective, see if your right, me too! try me! im waiting!

do you think that formula was inserted into the tfcm untested?
do you really think that? then you dont know anything about the united states military, to do something like that is like handing a soldier an untried weapon, like putting men in a submarine to dive, with no way of getting back up, it makes no sense.

so im still waiting!

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

The interesting thing is that we are not saying that we are right. We are producing solid evidence from the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual of 1946, demonstrating mathematical proof of the concepts therein, sometimes even diagramming alternate possibilities using original 1946 graphs and relating that to 8010. It is not we who are claiming of ourselves that we have the right idea. We are only quoting proofs from other unimpeachable sources. It is not our credibility against greyrider. It is the credibility of the US Navy against greyrider.

We are no smarter, we work no harder, we are not more cultured than those men of 1946. They were in every way our equal in abilities and imagination. There is nothing that any of us have done that was not possible in 1946.

However, deriving information from a digital sonar operator that somehow knows the target is approaching or going away, at slow, medium or fast speed and who bins those speeds within certain 100% infallible speeds in knots is a ridiculous gaming of a flawed system. If this were Runescape, exploiting a game bug is punishable by banning. While that is a bit extreme for a single player game, using that impossible data is still cheating and does not qualify as part of a valid targeting method in a submarine simulation. As tater has demonstrated, even cheating cannot demonstrate a 10º angle on the bow, only a range of possible angles on the bow, each having a markedly different and equally invalid conclusion.

so am i,
i proved it happened, you didnt

what ever happened to the "proof" you posted, telling us that 8010 was useless, you said something like you threw it away, your reasoning being that it would cause to much arguement, yet you continue to argue, without showing the prooof,

smoke and mirrors rockin? hmmmmmmmmmm

laughing laughing laughing

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by greyrider

do you think that formula

OFFENSE! Undefined term! Fifteen yards, repeat the down. "That formula" is not referenced in your quote or the answer. You're talking to nobody about nothing. Makes sense to me! You don't intend to communicate or reason. You're trolling.

was inserted into the tfcm

OFFENSE! Fake undefined acronym that means means nothing. First down for tater at the point of infraction! You are trying to hit tater over the head with the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual and not even using all the letters of the name for your fake acronym! Communicate. Tell people what document you're about to misuse. If you're going to invent an acronym do it right! And make a link out of it so people can see for themselves that you don't know what you're talking about.

untested?
do you really think that? then you dont know anything about the united states military, to do something like that is like handing a soldier an untried weapon, like putting men in a submarine to dive, with no way of getting back up, it makes no sense.

so im still waiting!

Tater has proved over the years that he knows more about the US Military than you can even imagine. He understands the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual several layers better than you do.

You know, you just wasted a post making no points at all. Tater has met his burden of proof. You still haven't answered the questions put to you at the beginning of the thread. You still haven't demonstrated a method of determining AoB for an unseen target over the horizon using sonar only.

You still haven't answered one of my objections to the method:

That it works for only a 20º arc out of a possible 360º AoB range within which you can find targets. You choose to throw 94.4% of targets in the garbage as not able to be engaged. How do you defend that position?

That it demands long underwater runs which deplete your batteries, leaving you in no position to fight.

That a one knot difference in your speed makes an 8 knot difference in calculated target speed. The game can only tell you within half a knot how fast you are going. That's an error of plus or minus 4 knots in target speed, a range of 8 knots! How can you defend a method that multiplies any possible error on your part by 8 times and claim any ability whatever?

That it is impossible even cheating the system using the sonar operator's fairy tale ability to tell whether a target is approaching or receding and whether it is traveling in one of three precise speed ranges to determine AoB precisely enough to calculate target speed.

That while claiming 8010 is a targeting technique, at best it is a rendezvous technique to get you in the vicinity of the target, at which point you abandon the 8010 relationship altogether and shoot a 90 degree trial and terror shot, based on faulty information developed from a faulty 8010 technique.

These are specific questions, which have been asked in precise manner in previous posts, none of which has been replied to at all. You just wave your magic wand and say "It works for me." Then you pretend you are teaching something. You are not. Nobody has learned anything from you but that you will defend a conquered position with a limp spaghetti noodle. 8010 is a fraud.

Ten tests of a valid targeting technique

• A good targeting technique is easy to teach.
• It works for targets at any initial AoB.
• It is broken down into simple steps
• that can be concisely listed,
• not skipping any steps,
• not assuming any outside information.
• It can be used by the learner as well or better than it is by the teacher.
• Each step is able to be verified by graphical and
• mathematical proof that it takes into account all possible parameters of the attack.
• Other people adopt and use the technique, telling others about their success and helping them with misunderstandings.

Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! Fail! on each point of the ten in the proceeding paragraph for 8010. It cannot be considered a valid targeting technique. Others may be able to add to my list of tests but 8010 is already ten times a failure.

[tater]

Originally Posted by greyrider

do you think that formula was inserted into the tfcm untested?
do you really think that? then you dont know anything about the united states military, to do something like that is like handing a soldier an untried weapon, like putting men in a submarine to dive, with no way of getting back up, it makes no sense.

so im still waiting!

A mission was already posted above in the thread. Why should I make another?

Greyrider, I KNOW that the math does not support what you claim. Basic trig is something that I'm fairly comfortable with—it sort of came with the astrophysics degree.

You are proposing that your method is a generalized solution. It should be trivial to proove. No mission is even required. The knowns are "closing" constant bearing of 080, and some sub speed. Solve for AOB.

You cannot claim the intercept is 90, that is NOT a given unless you fabricate it in the mission, holding the bearing constant does not make the intercept 90, it just makes the bearing constant.

You're the one with your own method to prove, not me.

[Armistead]

Maybe this is the case of another beautiful mind.

[Rockin Robbins]

It is the case of a pitiful fallacy.

He bases the 90º intercept on the 10º AoB and determines the 10º AoB from the 90º intercept! There's a name for that............Excel slams me with it occasionally.............I'll think of it..........
Circular Reference!!! Two fallacies leaning on each other for proof. Fail.

Bet you didn't know that trees cause wind by waving their branches....

You know, if tater jumps into one of my threads (he has done that) and says "RR, there's a problem with your calculation there" I pay close attention, fix the problem and thank him. He doesn't say much, but when he does he has something valid to say.

[tater]

I gave the initial concept the benefit of the doubt as a possible "rule of thumb." The speed range given in game--medium as 8-12, say--without question narrows the solutions. Since his stated goal is finding the speed, the simple question is does assuming an AOB of 10 result in a better speed than just using the average in the range (10 in this case).

Once it was clear he thought the AOB was actually 10 at all times-or that the triangle MUST be right I posted.

[Rockin Robbins]

Wise people pay close attention to correction and are grateful for it.
Fools, sure of the rightness of their way, plunge straight to destruction.
A man with wisdom consults with others smarter than himself.
A fool consults only his own foolishness.

[tater]

Quick and dirty example. This is in effect the same diagram nisgeis posted.

Sub moves some distance in the period from observation 1 to 2. Let's say she's moving 5 knots.

The top target observed at bearing 280 in both cases has an AOB of 65. In the time interval of obs1 to obs2 she moves ~108% of the path length of the sub. That's 1.08*5 = 5.40 knots. This might well be ruled out by the sonarman's speed range.

The next target has an AOB of 35. Still at 280 on both bearings. So she must move ~174% of the sub's movement in the time period from obs1 to obs2. That means she has to go 8.7 knots. If the sonarman said 8-12 knots, this path is entirely possible.

The next has an AOB of 28. She'd have to move at 10.6 knots to keep the relationship. Still within the 8-12 as a valid solution.

Note that there are INFINITE solutions like this. Note also that all the above examples cross the sub's path at angles not equal to 90.

Greyrider's givens are 080/280 bearing. Closing target with sonarman speed range estimate. Submarine speed. All else is unknown. He seems to say that if it is possible to keep the target on 080 at >0 to max submerged speed, then the AOB must be 010, which, obviously, is nonsense.

[Armistead]

This thread ain't all bad. I've learned a lot here from tater and RR I didn't know...so don't count it all for loss. I actually even learned a tip from grey about attacking convoys sonar attacks only, but only workable with other provable tips provided.

not a total loss.

[Rockin Robbins]

It's been fun. I was gratified that others came to lend their insight and also that nobody descended into a total food fight. We continued to talk about the issues and ideas in spite of extreme provocation at times. Actually these issues have driven the real submariners crazy for 100 years.

Just recently we have developed methods of passive sonar motion analysis that are consistently good enough to shoot by, but that is well beyond the ability of SH4. It is possible with a real World War II submarine to do some bearing rate analysis and get a relative course and speed for a target that is good enough to shoot with if you are willing to waste enough torpedoes. They weren't in real life. I've never read a report of a World War II patrol where they shot by passive sonar.

They were dealing with handicaps that we are not in the game, because the game gives us impossible information:

• Whether the target is approaching or going away
• Whether the target is slow, medium or high speed, with these speeds in precise ranges of knots.
• A sonar that is perfectly accurate to one degree with exactly 10 degrees each side of the bearing where you can hear the target.

All this makes it possible for us to game the system enough to develop cheats to narrow down the possible solutions. But they will not allow us to shoot, only to get close to the target. Shooting is by other methods, not related to passive sonar tracking techniques. These methods are well known and do not include point and shoot whatever that may be. No definition of that has been forthcoming either!

But be that as it may we have all learned that we can go home and quit posting as greyrider invented all possible ways of shooting torpedoes from submarines. Everyone else, presumably including the brave sub sailors of World War II, are merely copying him (badly by the way. Nobody is as good as greyrider even when we are just stealing from him) and trying to steal the credit. All credit belongs to greyrider for all techniques. We all hail! I'll cut greyrider in for half the profits from Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell, vector analysis. and my analysis of the criticality of entering information into the TDC in a certain order if you use the PK. He doubtless figured that out many years ago and just forgot to teach it.

It's all good!

[Rockin Robbins]

Now if you are really interested in a non-WWII TMA analysis showing target course (a graphical application of the bearing rate method) and also triangulating the actual position, hence giving you a decently accurate firing solution, check this out by gutted.

Gutted is one of the primary sources for all my attack methods, along with many others, pointedly not including greyrider. Note that the Hydrophone Tracker has clear, unambiguous instructions and meets nine of the ten tests of a valid targeting technique, lacking only enthusiastic adoption by successful captains. That will change as it becomes used on a wider basis.

Unlike 8010, it meets the rigorous test of a real targeting technique. This is a passive sonar targeting technique that sinks your target without ever raising the periscope! It's a true shooting method. Check it out and enjoy the difference!

[greyrider]

this is not an 8010 shot, but what it is is the only known encounter in ww2 of one submerged submarine killing another submerged submarine,
by hydrophones alone.
this was not a spread shot, as the torpedoes were fired 17.5 seconds apart, at different depths, this was hms venturer taking down u-864, off the coast of norway.
unseen, purely underwater, kinda blows the oppositions pov, of needing to see the target, and that hydrophones alone cannot be used to destroy
another ship.
ah, i love it!

its a documentary, in 5 parts, on u-tube. the links are at the bottom of the post.
pay attention rockin, your going to learn something!


In late 1944, U-864 was dispatched from Germany under the command of Korvettenkapitän Ralf-Reimar Wolfram to take part in Operation Caesar.
This mission called for the submarine to transport advanced technology, such as Me-262 jet fighter parts and V-2 missile guidance systems, to
Japan for use against American forces. Also on board was 65 tons of mercury which was needed for the production of detonators. While passing through
the Kiel Canal, U-864 grounded damaging its hull. To address this issue, Wolfram sailed north to the U-boat pens at Bergen, Norway.
On January 12, 1945, while U-864 was undergoing repairs, the pens were attacked by British bombers further delaying the submarine's departure. With repairs
complete, Wolfram finally sailed in early February. In Britain, code breakers at Bletchley Park were alerted to U-864's mission and location through Enigma radio intercepts.
To prevent the German boat from completing its mission, the Admiralty diverted the fast attack submarine, HMS Venturer to search for U-864 in the area of Fedje, Norway.
Commanded by rising star Lieutenant James Launders, HMS Venturer had recently departed its base at Lerwick.
On February 6, Wolfram passed Fedje the area however issues soon began to arise with one of U-864's engines. Despite the repairs at Bergen, one of the
engines began to misfire, greatly increasing the noise the submarine produced. Radioing Bergen that they would be returning to port, Wolfram was told that
an escort would be waiting for them at Hellisoy on the 10th. Arriving in the Fedje area, Launders made a calculated decision to turn off Venturer's ASDIC
(an advanced sonar) system. While use of the ASDIC would make locating U-864 easier, it risked giving away Venturer's position.
Relying solely on Venturer's hydrophone, Launders began searching the waters around Fedje. On February 9, Venturer's hydrophone operator detected an
unidentified noise that sounded like a diesel engine. After tracking the sound, Venturer approached and raised its periscope. Surveying the horizon,
Launders spotted another periscope. Lowering Venturer's, Launders correctly guessed that the other periscope belonged to his quarry. Slowly following U-864,
Launders planned to attack the German u-boat when it surfaced.
As Venturer stalked U-864 it became clear that it had been detected as the German began following an evasive zigzag course. After pursuing Wolfram for
three hours, and with Bergen approaching, Launders decided that he needed to act. Anticipating U-864's course, Launders and his men computed a firing
solution in three dimensions. While this type of calculation had been practiced in theory, it had never been attempted at sea in combat conditions.
With this work done, Launders fired all four of Venturer's torpedoes, at varying depths, with 17.5 seconds between each.
After firing the last torpedo, Venturer dove quickly to prevent any counterattack. Hearing the torpedoes approach, Wolfram ordered U-864 to dive deeper
and turn to avoid them. While U-864 successfully evaded the first three, the fourth torpedo struck the submarine, sinking it with all hands.
The loss of U-864 cost the Kriegsmarine the U-boat's entire 73-man crew as well as the vessel. For his actions off Fedje, Launders was awarded a
bar for his Distinguished Service Order. HMS Venturer's fight with U-864 is the only known, publicly acknowledged battle where one submerged submarine
sank another.

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5

[tater]

And that is relevant how?