GWX 3.0 - Ship Recognition Manual - Double entries? - Page 3

Pisces · 07-05-14, 12:15 PM

The 4 bearing method is a very valuable method, as it is totally passive and can give you all the necessary navigational parameters. But it should not be considered as the perfect solution for every situation. It has a significant drawback in that it relies on accurate bearings taken from the hydrophone and them being transferred as accurate as possible to the geometry plot. Also it doesn't work well in convoy situations. Most importantly, it takes quite a while of time to get a meaningful set of bearings if the bearing resolution is substandard. Or else the range of possible courses can get very wide. How you play makes a big difference here though. The way the game plots the sound bearings makes it a lot more precise to plot bearings (sub degree accuracy). As compared to plotting them by hand (considering realistic vocal transfer from hydro operator to plotting party: multiple degree in-accuracy)

This makes the method not very practical for close contact situations where visual contact is possible and things can change quickly. Taking a stadimeter range and AOB look is done quicker than the full extent of the 3/4 bearing method. It can be done also, as there is no difference between a periscope bearing and a hydrophone bearing in this regard. But I guess having a look at what you are up against is more preferable. Also, in the very end you need to know if the target is friend or foe or neutral. So some class ID and flag ID is eventually necessary. But maybe not the actual class when it comes to civilian ships.

I don't want to continue this topic into off-topic territory with my take on why an bearing-interval of say 10 minutes is improper. As it still is about the recognition manual itself. It's not about which method should be used regardless.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-05-14, 12:15 PM	#31
Pisces Silent Hunter Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: AN9771 Posts: 4,904 Downloads: 304 Uploads: 0	The 4 bearing method is a very valuable method, as it is totally passive and can give you all the necessary navigational parameters. But it should not be considered as the perfect solution for every situation. It has a significant drawback in that it relies on accurate bearings taken from the hydrophone and them being transferred as accurate as possible to the geometry plot. Also it doesn't work well in convoy situations. Most importantly, it takes quite a while of time to get a meaningful set of bearings if the bearing resolution is substandard. Or else the range of possible courses can get very wide. How you play makes a big difference here though. The way the game plots the sound bearings makes it a lot more precise to plot bearings (sub degree accuracy). As compared to plotting them by hand (considering realistic vocal transfer from hydro operator to plotting party: multiple degree in-accuracy) This makes the method not very practical for close contact situations where visual contact is possible and things can change quickly. Taking a stadimeter range and AOB look is done quicker than the full extent of the 3/4 bearing method. It can be done also, as there is no difference between a periscope bearing and a hydrophone bearing in this regard. But I guess having a look at what you are up against is more preferable. Also, in the very end you need to know if the target is friend or foe or neutral. So some class ID and flag ID is eventually necessary. But maybe not the actual class when it comes to civilian ships. I don't want to continue this topic into off-topic territory with my take on why an bearing-interval of say 10 minutes is improper. As it still is about the recognition manual itself. It's not about which method should be used regardless.