Question of the day. Surprise torpedo evasion.

[Deathblow]

Just to throw in 2cents toward the original topic.

Most times when I don't have a contact on the TIW bearing its most times out of naught a helo/P3 drop in my experience and most times I regret it if I don't start an immediate evasion routine. Those precious seconds are what count. I start with some basic evasive maneuvers at the highest non-cavitating speed permitable. If there's no immediate homing ping then it means there's time to analyze the torp motion a bit and go from there. But if that ping shows up within a minute or 2 then all bets are off and flank speed ahead it is.

But to be honest, my track record against helo-dropped torps is pretty poor... I still don't have a good way to be a close in drop that works most of the time.

[Kapitan]

The russian navy so ive heard are now starting to implement water fall displays on thier submarines, apparently the Akula 2's have them installed but i cannot confirm this as of yet.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Yes, we heard that 10 times before. What we want to know is why didn't they start doing it 10-15 years ago. Once they implemented even partially digital rather than analogue processing, they can go beyond direct, instantaneous signal conversion (which limits you to displays like SSAZ, FRAZ, A-scope and the like because they have no memory) to raster display modes (which allows for waterfalls).

The DEMON itself is a waterfall. It has to store the time factor to have made the display it did, which means the tech to store time data is there - if you believe the display is more or less representative of what is available.

As for performance, even if you don't count the transient logging the difference is huge. I've managed to lock in DEMON at ranges that the SSAZ basically shows no signal! Imagine the extra BB sensitivity to be had if they skipped the DEMON processing when providing a waterfall! If the Russians even tried a waterfall once, the difference will be so massive there won't be an argument, at least from what I've seen. The difference will be like the shock the Sovs had when they found out the West could easily track their submarines because they actually worked on sonar and silencing.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Sgian Dubh

And that's why in any MP game of this kind (where patience is required or where there is a part of the community that enjoys the execution of the game as much or more than the final last few minutes if frantic explosions) needs to have a way to penalize people for using, for instance, the "shotgun torpedo approach".

I have no problem with the shotgun torpedo tactic. It's real, kids. That's part of why they gave more torpedo tubes to the Seawolf. Bigger salvos means more dead stuff. That's the bottom line in Capt. Wayne Hughes, Fleet Tactics. It's a fact of contemporary naval warfare.

Here's my issue with these scenarios:

The essential problem with all of the scenarios I run across, though, is that they begin at the time when in a real ASW operation which they intend to mimic, the search problem is either over or is almost solved. In the name of making a scenario more exciting, everyone is right on the edge of being detected. They do this by making the distance and time scales are all wrong.

The shotgun torpedo tactic works. There's nothing wrong with it. Maximum salvo size is not a bad way of thinking at all. I'd argue that the kiddies have discovered what it took Wayne Hughes a whole book to argue in favor of. Once you find the bad guy, the scenario SHOULD be about countermeasures and weapons effectiveness. The problem is, that they choose distance scales for the scenario which simplify the search problem unrealistically.

The other thing is that let's suppose you shoot a maximum sized torpedo salvo at every TIW call. If you choose the distance scale right, the travel time required for the torpedoes to arrive at your location will be sufficiently large that if you employ a smart evasion tactic, you should be able to avoid almost all of these attacks unless you are very unlucky. It won't totally negate it (and it shouldn't) but it will make it a lot less effective.

[Bellman]

Well, whilst I share SQs distaste for premature ejaculation type MP games, SAS may hope to expand their
coffers a little by adding ''kids'' and ''ding dongers'' to their customer basis.

I suspect many old SCX divers will continue to enjoy the fruits of success if 'scatter-gun' becomes the norm !
However many appreciate some of the subtler tactics and techniques that MP situations often
demand for success. That is not to say that 'shotgun' tactics are not appropriate to specific situations.
But I would distinguish 'shotgun' as salvo/s from 'the scatter-gun' SQ suggests is a successful MP modus !!

Hughes is discrete about submarine warfare - ''Perhaps open discussion is not yet necessary
and may never be particularly desirable.'' But in modern tactics and operations (Missiles and maxims) he states
with some reserve -''The answer hinges on the correlation of scouting potentiaities.'' ''The dual notions that
govern modern tactics are - (1) aggregating ENOUGH force and (2) using scouting .....to strike effectively first with it.''
Its hard to square specific scouting and stealth requirements with SQs approved generalised indescriminate 'scatter' !

I am sure that SQ would not offer the 'scatter' theory without a strong mathematical basis and it may
prove challenging to translate that for those of us less well endowed in that area. However it would be
interesting to have some fleshing out of the bones of the proposition.

I'm sure many folk here appreciate the striving of SAS and modders to achieve a semblance of reality.
Such players tend to seek each other out (sic) for simulation games leaving the splashy noisy paddling-pool
for the deep-end. There lurking stealthily, if we are extremely skilful we might find SQ before he deploys his shotgun.

[Bellman]

Whilst above I make a genaralised objection to the claimed success of 'scatter' torp deployment in DW,
there are many specific situations in which this tactic is highly undesirable.

It is counterproductive to expose your position in counterfiring a distant unthreatening torp :
(1) An unseen opponent may be within range working up a final TMA or worse still completely unaware of you
until you counterfired. Your scatter will induce his shotgun response !
(2) Mind games - why put your cards face up ? Opponents must not 'know' the operational situation until its too late ! (A trade-off )
(3) Range - Stalking steatlhily working-up NB trying to achievie a launch point with reasonable
odds of success v opponents avoidance. Scatter and you blow it !!
(4) Tactics - positional play. Kara with 'controllables' - the mission objective kill the Boomer but screening SSNs.
Can you get the Boomer in range without alerting the SSNs letting her possibly slip quietly away. SSN launches
- is it a probe, is it v ally ? An auto counterfire may blow the mission completely particularly where
time constraints apply ? Try 'scatter' in Okhotsk 2 !!

Breakfast and cooling croissants interrupt, but I can think of countless other situations where scatter
will not deliver the goods. But I remain tantalised by the MP FFA mathematics ! :hmm:

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Hughes is discrete about submarine warfare - ''Perhaps open discussion is not yet necessary
and may never be particularly desirable.'' But in modern tactics and operations (Missiles and maxims) he states
with some reserve -''The answer hinges on the correlation of scouting potentiaities.'' ''The dual notions that
govern modern tactics are - (1) aggregating ENOUGH force and (2) using scouting .....to strike effectively first with it.''
Its hard to square specific scouting and stealth requirements with SQs approved generalised indescriminate 'scatter' !

Using his kind of logic is actually pretty common with torpedoes as well as cruise missiles. The idea is the same, there's just no defensive missiles. He's a pretty influential guy in that whole realm of thinking.

The problem with most MP scenarios, is that the distance scale is all wrong, so the scouting problem is overly simplified. Like I said before, everyone is piled on top of each other, in the hopes of creating an exciting game. Exciting in this case means, "a massive torpedo melee in which the outcome is determined largely by whoc can shoot best." You don't have to spend hours searching ("scouting") for your opponent. Most of the time, he's right there. Long ranged shots are rare. The probability that a torpedo will hit SOMEONE is fairly decent just by random chance. In essense, these types of scenarios skip over the very thing that makes ASW difficult, really.

Since the scouting problem is essentially solved for you, the only thing left to do is STRIKE EFFECTIVELY FIRST. In the first few minutes of a game, usually someone has been detected and has been shot at. That means you should snapshot down the TIW bearing, since a maximum sized salvo stands a pretty good chance of hitting someone.

The trade off is that if people want to play a realistic ASW scenario, they're going to have to be willing to invest a lot of time.

[Sgian Dubh]

I have no problem with the shotgun torpedo tactic. It's real, kids. That's part of why they gave more torpedo tubes to the Seawolf. Bigger salvos means more dead stuff. That's the bottom line in Capt. Wayne Hughes, Fleet Tactics. It's a fact of contemporary naval warfare.

The shotgun torpedo tactic works. There's nothing wrong with it. Maximum salvo size is not a bad way of thinking at all. I'd argue that the kiddies have discovered what it took Wayne Hughes a whole book to argue in favor of. Once you find the bad guy, the scenario SHOULD be about countermeasures and weapons effectiveness. The problem is, that they choose distance scales for the scenario which simplify the search problem unrealistically.

The other thing is that let's suppose you shoot a maximum sized torpedo salvo at every TIW call. If you choose the distance scale right, the travel time required for the torpedoes to arrive at your location will be sufficiently large that if you employ a smart evasion tactic, you should be able to avoid almost all of these attacks unless you are very unlucky. It won't totally negate it (and it shouldn't) but it will make it a lot less effective.

There are, I think, two different meanings being ascribed to "Shotgun".

I have no problem with someone putting multiple torpedos into the water for a single, detected and resovled contact. I have a big problem with some one in a Seawolf launching 8 ADCAPS in 4 equidistance bearings away from ownship and hopings that one of them latches onto something.

You'll have a hard time presenting a case where a board of inquiry would absolve a skipper for firing torpedos across the compass spread because "They had to be out there somewhere.".

That is not a tactic in any sense of the word.

It is a problem, to be sure. I guess the bottom line is to learn who to dive with that matches your style and preferences for the game. This is the single issue which make me skeptical about spending too much time in MP play.

[Kapitan]

Correct firing in every direction because you simply can is not a tactic at all, in fact its a rather stupid move, if you have a half decent skipper he could work backwards from all them torpedos and work out where you are.

So now you have 8 torps in the water and some one has fired at you, instead of waiting for a pure contact you have given yourself away and now your open to be sunk.

[Bellman]

You are both right in identifying the two principle problems of MP !
The challenge is to find like minded people who accept the constraints of achieving realism.
A very noble attempt was made in this direction by TimmyG00 and Sub Command HQ and its a great pity that
due to RL commitments he was unable to continue. The project floundered by the lack of anyone big enough
to fill his shoes. I sincerely hope that he may return some day !

That said it is difficult for a scenario designer to cater for broad tastes. Last night I dived 2 v 2 subs(Stock 1.03)
One player asked host to choose a 'close-in' scenario - possibly the Kilo diver , there were 2 Aks and I took the SW.
In error host chose a wide platform dispersion, large area, scenario. We were 2 West 2 East with
over a 30 nm separation.

One Ak killed the other but then did his knitting, the Kilo diver had no chance as his request failed and in the
absence of any merchants or neutrals I listened to some nice whale music on my new soundcard. Thats it
not a glimmer of a suggestion of any meaningful 'action' if you exclude 2 exchanges of single out of range torps.
But facing 3 missile platforms not one responded to my two MK48 launches :hmm: My useless UUVs were silent.

The lesson was that the Kilo and I were trying like heck to find and probe each other so for us it was a tense absorbing
time. I was'nt bored and nor am I sure was he. The Replay was 'disappeared' so its not possible to
analyse the action. It was the host who requested termination.

A good dive ? Yes - you take the hand thats dealt ! Enjoyable and taxing - Yes siree

[Kapitan]

Bellman when are you going to stop gassing and start playing im still waiting for that dam game.

[Oberon]

My advice...is that if you're in an MH-60 and you have to evade a torpedo...adjust your altitude.

[Bellman]

PM - see u in GS.

[Bellman]

:rotfl:

O - remember the flying sub days in SC ?

[Oberon]

Remember them well
Hundreds of knots and heading straight up

How did the game against Kap go? Did he ram you and sink you?