Manual Plotting

[Bilge_Rat]

In terms of manual plotting, my favorite system was in the Sonalyst series. In "Dangerous Waters", the crew will identify and plot target bearing/range/speed but only based on currently available data from sonar/radar/periscope, so the estimate will be grossly off at the beginning, but will be gradually refined as more info is collected.

Your job as captain was to help collect the info and judge how accurate was your crew's target solution.

I had always hoped the SH series would eventually adopt that method rather than the current choice between GPS Auto-plotting or no plotting whatsoever.

[Hitman]

I want to know the U-boat submerged (surfaced) attack process in detail from a crew member role and process point of view. Who stood where, when were measurements taken, how often, who took them, who operated what machinery, how was target data deduced, etc.

See if this helps. Also sent it to you by PM, in case you miss this thread

When an uboat sighted a ship (mast tip, smoke column) the captain would be called to the bridge inmediately, while the officer in command at the deck would order the uboat to put his bow to the contact bearing. This served two purposes: A) Determine if the target is moving left or right, B) Minimize own ship silhouette. As the captain arrives to the bridge, he ascertains the contact with his 8x60 binoculars. Those are more powerful than the crew ones (7x50s), because they are conceived to see better details of something already detected, and not to scan a wider area. By then the contact will have moved either left or right, and the captain will have decided -based on the area he is patrolling, possibility or air cover, etc- his course of action. Asuming he is decided to stay surfaced, he will put the boat on full power in the direction of the contact, seeing it grow above the horizon. When mast heads are clearly visible, and before the superstructure appears, the captain will have enough data to know wether it is a merchant or warship, and a rough idea of his angle on the bow (Bsed on mast separation). The next step is to order the helmsman (On the conning tower interior) a course which he considers is paralell to the target, and the navigator (Also on the conning tower) to keep a log. The captain will then watch on regular, 5 minutes intervals, wether the ship is coming closer or dissapearing below the horizon, and as such will correct the uboat's course and speed to ensure he steers a paralell course, while overtaking the enemy. Each time an observation is done, he will shout to the navigator the result of it, bearing (Obtained from the graded scale of the UZo by the IWO and called out), rough distance and AOB. Knowing that the horizon is at a distance of 9 km from the uboat's bridge, the captain will be able to estimate roughly distance to target by making a guess about the mast heigth of the enemy ship, and calculating with a simplified formula how far behind the horizon it is. It will also allow him to note how much closer/distant the ship came each 5 minutes. Comparing how fast he overtakes the target with own ship speed, he will also be able to make an estimate of enemy ship speed (Like when you overtake another aumobile in the highway slowly, you know he is in paralell course to you, and more or less how much slower than you)

Comparing own uboat course log and the bearings to target, the navigator will determine the zig-zag pattern of the enemy ship, and its speed and base course.

Once determined, the commander will accelerate as fast as the uboat permits and gain attack position in the front quarter of the enemy. Outside 45º left or right from the bow of the enemy, the uboat has the less chances to get close enough for a torpedo attack, specially if he needs to approach submerged. Depending on the hour of the day, the captain will decide wether to make a surfaced night attack, or a submerged day attack.

SURFACED NIGHT ATTACK:

The uboat will gain position in the front quarter of the enemy, and reverse course to approach from approximately 60-45º AOB using a dog-leg curve. This means that the uboat will proceed at moderate speed (5-8 knots) to prevent a large, phosphorescent bow wake, and will be constantly making small turns to point its bow to the target, presenting the smallest silhouette. The captain will direct the attack from the bridge, while the IWO will direct the shooting from the UZO. A petty officer will man the TDC in the conning tower, and the navigator will keep a log from the attack, as well as follow the compass repeater to give the commander an idea of the uboat's position. When the uboat approaches the target, captain and IWO will discuss its details and determine wether friend or foe, as well as its dimensions (Using naval construction porportions for ships, counting number of cargo bays and multiplying with average tonnage, etc.). Up from then, and if the attack is continued, the IWo will be constantly calling the estimated AOB, range and speed to the petty officer, who will be making inputs in the TDC so as to have a ready solution in all moments. He will make his estimates of range based on the amout of lense covered by the target (A 125 metres target wll cover the full optics at 1000 metres, half the lense at 2000 and so on), AOB based on naked eye, and speed also on naked eye, and guided by the bow and stern wake, and the general speed of movement of the enemy. He might double check his speed estimates using a chronometer and the fixed vertical line in the UZO. If the night is too dark or data are deemed not reliable, he will resort to the ones gathered during the day time end-around. The commander will be looking constantly in all directions, keeping the best situational awareness possible, specially of any possible threats, and will plan the route of escape after the shooting, while the IWo will concentrate in the firing solution.

When the IWO is ready to shoot, he will ask the commander for a constant course, a constant turn for a fan shot, or an abort of the attack, and the commander will decide the most apropiate course of action. The IWO will also instruct the petty officer the type of shooting he will do, and the fan spread if applyable. If the commander presses the attack on, he will give the IWO authorization to commence shooting, and the IWO will then shout at the TDC petty officer his last instructions and train the UZO some metres before the target. This will alow the TDC's analogic mechanism to turn all dials and compute the solution (Our modern computers do it instantly, but WW2 analog technic required some seconds before teh cascade of dials moved) The operator will shout "ready", and the IWO will wait till the target's juicy parts cross the wire for shooting. He will press the handle in the UZO column each time a torpedo has to be released. When all torpedoes have been discharged, the commander will conn the uboat out of the zone through the best route, and at maximum speed. The TDC operator will keep a log of the time to impact because the TDC shows in a partition the estimated torpedo run (And knowing the torpedo speed, he will use the chronometer to estimate the moment of impact)

SUBMERGED DAY ATTACK:

The procedure is very much the same until the moment the uboat has gained attack position, but this time it will submerge and have the captain conn and direct the attack from the periscope. He will do it from the attack one in bright light conditions, and from the observation one in low light/twilight ones. Estimates of distance, AOB, speed can no longer be done by naked eye easily, because the monocular periscope causes to lose a lot of depth perception, and therefore the captain has auxiliary tools like stadimeter or graded reticle for distance, and fixed line for speed.

VARIATIONS:

In the surfaced night attack, if the uboat found the target at night and was not able to follow it for a while in daytime, the commander will conn the uboat on paralell surfaced course and speed, at night visibility limit for the enemy, to ascertain enemy speed and course. Then he will accelerate and turn to the target to proceed as described.

In the daylight submerged attack, if the uboat had to submerge before ascertaning the target data, the commander will conn the uboat at right angles to the enemy, progressively turning to it if the bearing moves backwards, until a constant one is achieved (collision course), and will have the navigator plot the enemy course by giving him regular estimates of distance and bearing. He might however also decide to base the firing solution purely in naked eye estimates, if the situation does not allow enough plot to be done.

EDITED to correct some typos and some info.

[frau kaleun]

^^ = awesome.

@Hitman: Awesome post indeed!

[Georg_Unterberg]

thanks hitman - great! I haven't seen that detailed procedures before.

The best thing I read in this forum so far!

[Frederf]

Pah, me not seeing the thread. That's slightly more specific info than I had before but it's still very "soft" compared to the U.S. Navy documents. In places where the "Kaluen would use a certain formula" and the German info leaves it at that, the U.S. Navy equivalent info would actually show you the formula, give you a diagram, and examples. Instead of "shout to the Petty Officer (which?) corrections" the U.S. Navy documents give very exact quotes and phraseology. No explanation on how certain things are done.

This info gives a good feel for "how it was generally done" but not good enough to do it yourself from the description; or better yet, mod Silent Hunter 5's design so it more accurately matches historical.

Compare: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm#chap05

The difference in detail between any German info I've found and the U.S. Navy info above is staggering. The German info is always a "guide" or "tips" or an "overview" while the U.S. Navy info is assuredly a manual/textbook. What I'm trying to tickle out is if these differences in information mean that the German U-boat attack was more "fluid, casual" and the Fleet Boat attack was more "process, rigid" or if no one has found the truly detailed German info.

[Hitman]

I know that US manual, and have readed it through several times

If you are looking to the german equivalent, then good luck. I have been researching this matter for YEARS in a lot of different sources, and still haven't been able to find such stuff, probably because it simply never existed (As I haven't found references to it either). German officers went to a common naval school, where they were taught all matters common to all type of ships, and that included artillery and torpedo shooting. I know there were official text books, but I have NEVER seen mentions of specific phraseology to the level of detail in the US manual for submarines.

What I'm trying to tickle out is if these differences in information mean that the German U-boat attack was more "fluid, casual" and the Fleet Boat attack was more "process, rigid" or if no one has found the truly detailed German info.

In uboats at least it was like that, and there are good reasons for it. From the procedures I have described, you notice the enormous difference between the approach to the matter in US and german submarines. German submariners relied way much more in intuitive, fluid procedures, with the commander playing a key role. In the US subs, you had a big amount of people assiting the commander, and such chaos had to be rigidly organized. The TDC operator gave info to the plotter, the radar operator also did, and the plotter had to compare them and provide results to the captain, who directed the approach at the periscope. If you don't create a procedure and phraseology to organize such amount of input, it is easy to cause a chaos. But in german subs the captain stood alone in the tower with the TDC operator. The sonar man was down in front, in the sonar station, as well as the navigator in the control room (Like the helmsman and diveplanesmen). Everything was done in a more intuitive way, based on seaman's eye, and not in rigid procedures and sophisticated electronic devices (radar, TDC with position keeper), and communication was mostly in one direction: The captain or IWO provides data for the TDC operator or conning orders to the engoneer. Of course there were certain words and phrases for such orders, but the communication and double-checking of information with other crewmen was almost inexistant. Let me give you a good, representative example: In the US periscope (Find a picture of a museum boat conning tower and see it for yourself) the captain would peer through the ocular and move the stadimeter handwheel BUT the results in bearing and distance was not readed by him through the ocular, but instead by an assitant who placed himself at the back of the scope, and whose only function was, when the captain shouted "Mark" to red the bearing vernier on the roof, and the wiz-wheel indicator for distance, which is placed in the back of the scope! (Where its operator would never see it). In contrast, the uboat commander peered through the ocular and saw in a partition the bearing indicator, and the resulting range measurement if stadimeter was available. Thus he had no need to communicate with anybody or follow any procedure at all. All he did was issue firing data orders to the TDC operator and ask him to switch between "Lage laufend" or "Lage nicht laufend" (With these words, on those I'm positive) when he wanted to do a look around (i.e. telling him to lock/unlock the TDC to the optics).

[Steeltrap]

One thing I wonder about this 'new' system in SH5: how do I set it up so that, after setting AoB and speed, I can just point and shoot for ANY target?

Remember the great 'fast 90' method? I used to set up all my solutions in SH3 using the mathematics i.e. compare the target course with my own, work out difference hence set a dummy 90 AoB when the periscope was pointing at the right bearing; the only thing that mattered then was speed and torp depth.

How do you do that in SH5?

[derblaueClaus]

Very interesting Information Hitman, thank you.

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by Thomas Kenobi

I think the absurd thing here is not the tonnage required for success, but the fact that there is a quota in the first place. Imho, in a true simulator there can be only one absolute objective: Get home alive.

That was certainly the objective of many of the US Captains during the early part of the war.

Of course, the downside was that they didn't remain in command very long.

They were quickly replaced by younger, more aggressive commander who understood that the objective of the patrol was (in the immortal words of Adm. Lockwood) "Sink enemy shipping".

JCC

Originally Posted by John Channing

That was certainly the objective of many of the US Captains during the early part of the war.

Of course, the downside was that they didn't remain in command very long.

They were quickly replaced by younger, more aggressive commander who understood that the objective of the patrol was (in the immortal words of Adm. Lockwood) "Sink enemy shipping".

JCC

You misunderstand. I'm not referring to the objectives handed down by the HQ or the mentality of the captains. I'm referring to the absolute objectives set down by the game, i.e. Sink xxxxx tons of enemy shipping or the mission is failed and you have to repeat it.

In those terms the only objective is to stay alive.

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by Hitman

haven't been able to find such stuff, probably because it simply never existed (As I haven't found references to it either). German officers went to a common naval school, where they were taught all matters common to all type of ships, and that included artillery and torpedo shooting. I know there were official text books, but I have NEVER seen mentions of specific phraseology to the level of detail in the US manual for submarines.

I'm coming to the same conclusion as well. I'm trying to get a good hold on what makes a good Silent Hunter 5 targeting interface; what is too automated vs. what is too clinical vs. what is too "off the hip."

In the US periscope (Find a picture of a museum boat conning tower and see it for yourself) the captain would peer through the ocular and move the stadimeter handwheel BUT the results in bearing and distance was not read by him through the ocular, but instead by an assitant who placed himself at the back of the scope, and whose only function was, when the captain shouted "Mark" to red the bearing vernier on the roof, and the wiz-wheel indicator for distance, which is placed in the back of the scope! (Where its operator would never see it).

I'm aware that was normal procedure, the "periscope dancing partner" but if you look at SH4's periscope the stadimeter whizwheel is on both sides back and front.

through the ocular and saw in a partition the bearing indicator

Wait, big deal! The ocular view was partitioned such that the bearing was visible through the eyepiece? And stadimeter result?


---

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

One thing I wonder about this 'new' system in SH5: how do I set it up so that, after setting AoB and speed, I can just point and shoot for ANY target?

Remember the great 'fast 90' method? I used to set up all my solutions in SH3 using the mathematics i.e. compare the target course with my own, work out difference hence set a dummy 90 AoB when the periscope was pointing at the right bearing; the only thing that mattered then was speed and torp depth.

How do you do that in SH5?

Having the AoB update with the periscope bearing (like SH4's EasyAOB and I believe real life German U-boat) effectively makes the AoB wheel a "target course wheel." In other words, when you turn the periscope the AoB changes such that the target course doesn't change.

Watch http://www.youtube.com/user/Subsim#p/u/5/t3sOA-UWk74 at 1:25, 2:50. Notice how the AoB changes as the periscope is moved. I think that when "Bearing: Follow my Periscope" mode is on, AoB updates in this way. This way Fast90 and similar "Auto AoB compensation" works just fine.

Originally Posted by Thomas Kenobi

You misunderstand. I'm not referring to the objectives handed down by the HQ or the mentality of the captains. I'm referring to the absolute objectives set down by the game, i.e. Sink xxxxx tons of enemy shipping or the mission is failed and you have to repeat it.

In those terms the only objective is to stay alive.

You say that if you don't meet objective X you "fail" and have to retry the mission/campaign segment? Are you sure? Maybe it is a branching question. Play Campaign A, if score>X then goto Campaign B, if score<x then goto Campaign C.

This is OK right? Even if it is very hard to goto Campaign B it is not as though your "failed" by going to Campaign C... just a different path.

[Hitman]

Wait, big deal! The ocular view was partitioned such that the bearing was visible through the eyepiece? And stadimeter result?

Yes, while looking through teh ocular, in the upper part you could see a small window showing the current bearing. That is 100% sure in observation scopes, and in attack ones also for those not of the fixed-heigth type.

I'm trying to get a good hold on what makes a good Silent Hunter 5 targeting interface; what is too automated vs. what is too clinical vs. what is too "off the hip."

I can't provide more details for procedures and specifically phraseology, but I can provide many details regarding the optics, TDC, and Torpedo shooting/parameter devices.

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Frederf

Watch http://www.youtube.com/user/Subsim#p/u/5/t3sOA-UWk74 at 1:25, 2:50. Notice how the AoB changes as the periscope is moved. I think that when "Bearing: Follow my Periscope" mode is on, AoB updates in this way. This way Fast90 and similar "Auto AoB compensation" works just fine.

Ah, thanks. Didn't know they had a "Bearing: FMP" mode.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Frederf

You say that if you don't meet objective X you "fail" and have to retry the mission/campaign segment? Are you sure? Maybe it is a branching question. Play Campaign A, if score>X then goto Campaign B, if score<x then goto Campaign C.

This is OK right? Even if it is very hard to goto Campaign B it is not as though your "failed" by going to Campaign C... just a different path.

I was speaking in the abstract about sims in general. I don't have any specific information about how the game handles this, but I would be surprised if it actually forced you to repeat a mission. That would be a return to SH2 days.

The point I was initially trying to make was that being given an objective of the sort "sink xxxxx tons of shipping" detracts from realism and game immersion.