target speed: the eighty-ten method

[Armistead]

Has no bearing on the thread or your method, but it states..

"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."

Seems he made visual contact and followed it by scope enough to get into position to attack by sonar. That statement in fact is the problem with your method, he had to put himself on course to attack to start with and did so with a visual.

His attack why well planned, was more luck and theory....I've sunk many ships by sonar alone with no visuals at all, but it was estimate info at best.
Here he had visuals to start with...


I use to have some respect for you, but this constant silliness trying to just jest at people is silly.

Thread needs to be lock and deleted, it has no merit at all.

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by 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!

impressive! i will show you a pic tonight, of something similar i posted, in 2005, you will note the date, december 2005

it was the begining picture of the hydrophone tutorial, by greyrider

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by greyrider

impressive! i will show you a pic tonight, of something similar i posted, in 2005, you will note the date, december 2005

it was the begining picture of the hydrophone tutorial, by greyrider

i dont think mister gutted was a member either, in 2005

[tater]

He instinctively ignores posts with any real meat to them.

[razark]

Originally Posted by greyrider

impressive! i will show you a pic tonight, of something similar i posted, in 2005, you will note the date, december 2005

it was the begining picture of the hydrophone tutorial, by greyrider

Can you post a link to the location you posted it?

By the way, what were the results of testing the mission posted in Post #221 that you asked someone to post for you?

[greyrider]

awww heck, why wait, ill post it now, and continue on with more pics of the tutorial tonight, does this look familiar rockin?

note the date it was uploaded



By null at 2010-09-15

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by tater

He instinctively ignores posts with any real meat to them.

more excuses comming from the howdy doody peanut gallery

[tater]

Originally Posted by greyrider

more excuses comming from the howdy doody peanut gallery

Why are the paths I posted not 90 degree intercepts, yet still constant bearing?

Why do an infinite number of them also fulfill the requirement to be within any given sonarman speed range (slow, medium, fast, etc)?

It's the same diagram (more or less) as the one that Nisgeis posted, and also never got a response to.

My diagram also works for whatever speed you throw at it for sub—which is why I put in in a (ballpark) % of sub speed, rather than the trig. It's easy to plug and play.

One (of infinite) example is 108% of sub speed. You claim that any 080, constant bearing contact held with speed 3 by the sub is moving 17 knots. My diagram shows that you can also hold that with the target at ~3.24 knots. Or a faster closing target at ~5.22 knots, or an even faster closer at 6.36 knots. In the special case of AOB 10, then you get your 17. Every speed and AOB combination is possible above the sub speed—and if the AOB is zero the speed can be anything at all.

Everything you say is predicated on reaching an angular arrangement that you can only achieve by accident, or by knowing something you should not know, or claim not to know ahead of time.

[tater]

Again, to be clear, just answer.

Do you think that all closing targets held at an 080 bearing have an AOB of 010?

It's a yes or no question.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

He instinctively ignores posts with any real meat to them.

Seems he has a crush on RR.....wants his attention, can't get it the right way, get it anyway he can...

[Pisces]

Yeah, and I'm dying for some smirks by Greyrider, and I'm not getting any.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by greyrider

awww heck, why wait, ill post it now, and continue on with more pics of the tutorial tonight, does this look familiar rockin?

note the date it was uploaded



By null at 2010-09-15

Greyrider, you're not fooling anyone - that screenshot has an advert for the upcoming move 'Easy A' starring Lindsay Lohan. Clearly this movie was not even in production in 2005, let alone cast and finished. Your screenshot is clearly a modern screenshot and not taken in 2005 at all - how else would a modern film be featured in it? This is, if you will, the 2010 question - how could a film made in 2010 be featured in an upload from 2005? Given the date is 2010, what is the Advertisement on the Board (or AoB for short)?

Plus, it was posted by null - and as we all know, that's no one - and how could no one post it?

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Greyrider, you're not fooling anyone - that screenshot has an advert for the upcoming move 'Easy A' starring Lindsay Lohan. Clearly this movie was not even in production in 2005, let alone cast and finished. Your screenshot is clearly a modern screenshot and not take in 2005 at all - how else would a modern film be featured in it? This is, if you will, the 2010 question - how could a film made in 2010 be featured in an upload from 2005?

Plus, it was posted by null - and as we all know, that's no one.

In all fairness, I think this is the thread that belongs to that image:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=87832

But this method relies on the hardcapped detection range to provide a specific location on a bearing line. And knowing a speed versus rpm table. Not my cup of tea because of the first 'cheat'. I can live with the second part, even though it isn't historically correct.

[EDIT] P.S. Well what do you know!!! The AOB starts out at 18 degrees at onset of detection.

BTW, the method Gutted used in that hydrophone plotter application, ... is incidentally first described by Nefelodam on this forum.

Mittelwaechter (I never know if it is "ea" or "ae") preceded it, but with a significantly different AOB measurement geometry method: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=110619 The wait-listen-then move part is the same.

[tater]

All this time and he cannot answer yes or no?

[Rockin Robbins]

Gutted was producing the piece of software, not the method. The method is based on standard US and other navy TMA and surely has nothing really unique about it.

Looks like greyrider is setting up to sue Aaronblood for half the profits from MoBo too! Again, failed magician greyrider posts a fraudulent, irrelevanct screenshot of a lousy roundrel having no bearing on sonar only TMA and makes the implication that he beat Gutted and the other two cited. That was predictable, as is my reaction.

Check out greyrider's horse squeeze about the 8010 technique and then read gutted's description of how his piece of software (The brilliant greyrider has produced no SH software of any kind! Note how when I claim something I link people to it so they can check it out to their own satisfaction. Greyrider has things to hide, so he doesn't do that.) works, then load up the .pdf file by yet another named and credited author which takes you by the hand and fulfills all ten characteristics of a valid targeting method except that it be popularly adopted.

8010: ten times a loser. Hydrophone Tracker software plus the TMA method it uses: nine and soon to be ten times a winner. And 8010 is only ten times a loser because we haven't thought too hard about what other necessary qualifications it lacks.

I invite everyone to compare the two to see the stark difference between buffoonery and valid method. Nobody will be left with a shadow of a doubt which is which. Even greyrider knows the truth. Everyone can learn to use the Hydrophone Tracker and most will shoot as well as gutted can. Not one person can successfully learn and use 8010. It is a waste of space, empty boasting substituting for teaching, a circular reference posing as applicable theory.