ManualTMA Solution in less than AutoTMA

[NavyUSA]

Hi commanders,
I am new in this great forum , are fond of submarines and I discovered DW but not for a long time. I was also in the dark the existence of so many forums regarding DW.

I have studied and analyzed TMA analysis systems over the years.
With DW I was pleased to have fun with the TMA manual and developing methods to determine solutions of shooting, in less time than Auto-TMA.
Conclusion I have developed two efficient methods.

Pure personal curiosity!!
There among you one who has done similar work?? let's talk!


Do you think it possible make a solution of fire in a few minutes without active sensors and triangulation?

[Gerald]

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Good God....you'd make a grand trawler Captain

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by NavyUSA

Hi commanders,
I am new in this great forum , are fond of submarines and I discovered DW but not for a long time. I was also in the dark the existence of so many forums regarding DW.

I have studied and analyzed TMA analysis systems over the years.
With DW I was pleased to have fun with the TMA manual and developing methods to determine solutions of shooting, in less time than Auto-TMA.
Conclusion I have developed two efficient methods.

Pure personal curiosity!!
There among you one who has done similar work?? let's talk!


Do you think it possible make a solution of fire in a few minutes without active sensors and triangulation?

Welcome

[Wildcat]

manual tma is faster than auto tma, and more accurate because you can discard bogus tma readings that the AI might try to include in its solution.

you can also make a 1 or 2 minute "snapshot" tma solution that will be more accurate than the AI can, good for a quick emergency shot or potshot.

that being said, i usually leave it on autocrew tma because in reality a sub skipper has a huge crew of people to do that kind of work for him, the skipper needs to be free to think about the mission at hand and not wasting time calculating where the enemy is.

[Pisces]

Tell me please, how can you come up with a solution based on less than 3 lines? (which are 2x2 minutes atleast) Considering that the 1st bearing of a tracker is not actually valid because of averaging. And without knowing any other information about the target to limit possible solutions.

First of all, I think this is mathematically impossible. (too many variables, not enough bearing data to solve them) Second, the Auto-TMA cheats by allready knowing the answer, yet it fudges it up a bit to hide this. (not my statement, it's been mentioned here in other threads.)

[Wildcat]

there is more to tma than just the dots showing up on the board

the strength of the sonar signal for example on the sonar screen can help determine the distance and if using demon, the speed of the contact well enough to get a reasonably aimed torpedo out of the tubes. i'm sure people who play the kilo submarine often are good at this kind of thing.

or in the case of active intercepts, even the slightest change in bearing between two pings instantly gives the exact position through triangulation.

[NavyUSA]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

manual tma is faster than auto tma, and more accurate because you can discard bogus tma readings that the AI might try to include in its solution.

that being said, i usually leave it on autocrew tma because in reality a sub skipper has a huge crew of people to do that kind of work for him, the skipper needs to be free to think about the mission at hand and not wasting time calculating where the enemy is.

If for you the TMA manual is advantageous, because then no exploits during games? this is strange.

there is more to tma than just the dots showing up on the board

the strength of the sonar signal for example on the sonar screen can help determine the distance and if using demon, the speed of the contact well enough to get a reasonably aimed torpedo out of the tubes. i'm sure people who play the kilo submarine often are good at this kind of thing.

or in the case of active intercepts, even the slightest change in bearing between two pings instantly gives the exact position through triangulation.

I think that Pisces speak of when it is not possible to use triangular or active sensors.

the strength of the sonar signal for example on the sonar screen can help determine the distance

Yes, this is a good start to analyze the target.Is more effective to evaluate the bearing rate. You may come across a target very close but the signal is very weak in the narrow band. (Example Kilo)

Tell me please, how can you come up with a solution based on less than 3 lines? (which are 2x2 minutes atleast) Considering that the 1st bearing of a tracker is not actually valid because of averaging. And without knowing any other information about the target to limit possible solutions.

First of all, I think this is mathematically impossible. (too many variables, not enough bearing data to solve them) Second, the Auto-TMA cheats by allready knowing the answer, yet it fudges it up a bit to hide this. (not my statement, it's been mentioned here in other threads.)

Correct. With only 3 lines bearing impossbile determine a solution is shooting.(at least 7)
The Auto TMA we can drive in 10 minutes but cheating.

But there are methods(be adopted only in DW) and not in reality (DW approximate model than reality), which allow you to get a good solution for shooting in less than 10 minutes, then lower the Auto TMA. All this by using information that does not offer DW directly to the player.
TMA is not just mathematics but mostly experience!!.

[NavyUSA]

Originally Posted by Pisces

Tell me please, how can you come up with a solution based on less than 3 lines? (which are 2x2 minutes atleast) Considering that the 1st bearing of a tracker is not actually valid because of averaging. And without knowing any other information about the target to limit possible solutions.

If you have the pleasure , i can demonstrate to you that you can get a good solution in less than 10 minutes.

[Wildcat]

nobody said a "good" solution. i said you can do TMA with less than three lines of bearing (and it certainly won't take 10 minutes). in a pinch you may not have 10 minutes, in such a case getting a general idea then letting your torpedoes do the final "tma" may be the best solution.

you guys are talking for extremely distant targets; of course the farther away a target is the more information you need, however when the target is for example, within visual range or only slightly beyond visual range, a reasonably useful position can be established simply using a combination of your sonar skills, common sense (i.e. taking geography/water depth into consideration), etc.

yes, you may only be able to determine the contact's heading to within 90 or 45 degrees but that's better than having nothing, especially if you're in a big hurry.

specific examples i can think of where this is useful is in a Kilo, after you've fired the first few torpedoes at a group of ships and they begin to scatter, but you can't come to the surface to check things out for fear of aircraft detection or cavitation or being too far from the layer, or any other number of threats.

[NavyUSA]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

nobody said a "good" solution. i said you can do TMA with less than three lines of bearing (and it certainly won't take 10 minutes). in a pinch you may not have 10 minutes, in such a case getting a general idea then letting your torpedoes do the final "tma" may be the best solution.

I repeat that with certain methods ''I show'' you can get a ''good solution'' using only the Towed Array, in less than 10 minutes.

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by NavyUSA

If you have the pleasure to ''demonstrate'' to you that you can get a good solution in less than 10 minutes.

I don't really understand what you are saying here. Probably because of language issues. I have to demonstrate to myself? And what happens then?

Anyway, if you are only willing to give your method, in exchange for mine, then sorry I have none. I rely mostly on zigzags, with lengths of 3 to 4 lines each. (MolonLabe's ASW Tutorial is prettymuch the same) So depending on how long the turn or acceleration and TA straigthening takes, I hardly get it under 10 minutes. And I never play in MP, so it's probably not player-proof either.

The 1st message said without triangulation or active sensors. I think 'triangulation' is meaning the TA and bow or hull sensors are displaced from one another so give slightly different bearings, that cross at the target's range. 'Active sensors' probably means active pining for range, as active intercepts would be using triangulation to come up with range. (the soundlevel bargraph cannot be accurately used for range, as it should depend on accoustic conditions changing over time) So far, I understood this to be about situations without prior target knowledge. You find a sound on the BB/NB displays, or ESM,active intercept and start tracking it. That's it, bearing only. If NavyUSA, or Wildcat, assumes to know other information about the target (that limits possible possition, range, speed, etc.) then that should be explained aswell.

And I try to play somewhat realistic. I do not like to make use of game-quirks. Are you implying you do?

[suBB]

Man, reading this thread made me realize just how much I really miss playing this game.

I've always been intrigued by the mystery of TMA when I played 688i / SC / DW. I really didn't understand it back in the days of 688i H/K, but started to appreciate it more in the days of SC / DW.

That said, once the true bearing is confirmed, I could cook up a manual solution with a single sensor(TA), with a minimum of 5 lines, with accuracy of up to 3000 yards, which is more than enough tolerance for a bracket spread(with a ASW missile system) and just enough information to consider an intercept course for a close range attack run.

The downside is after I make contact, then lose contact, I have to reset my analysis all over again. If you choose to plot an intercept course, then this method won't matter anymore as you'll be in position for an attempt at M1.

When I played SC / DW, I used this method but with limitations. The limiting factors are detection ranges due to SSP type and what platform I'm driving. I'd prefer the Akula-II, Oscar-II, Virginia class, EDIT: Sturgeon or the fast attack 688i for RA mod 1.33. The ideal situation would be a target loitering around in a convergence zone at the 30nm null.

For submarines that have ASW missile capability, you have opportunity of attack with reduced risk. For submarines that do not have ASW missile capability, or those that do but elect not to use them, then you have opportunity with much higher risk as you are forced to close the distance between yourself and the target.

And if it's going to be a knife fight, I rather try for the target's baffles as to maximize the target's reaction time, giving me more time to escape possible danger.

As for triangulation of active sonar prosecution, I can determine the range of the target with just the initial ping of the prosecution(if I'm alert); definitely by the 2nd consecutive ping.

If the target is staggering single pings over time, then there is the initial ping again, but this time with estimated current range and course. But common sense would tell the target to clear bearing after use of active sonar, so as the aggressor, with estimated range and course data, my counteraction would be depending on what platform i'm driving.

Gosh I miss DW. I finally found a life which is why I don't play as much as I used to.

@ Molon:

Long time no see and I hope all is well, but if you are reading this, you now know why the Akula-II has always been, and will always be.. my true love..

[NavyUSA]

Originally Posted by Pisces

I don't really understand what you are saying here. Probably because of language issues. I have to demonstrate to myself? And what happens then?

Sorry , incorrect language.

Anyway, if you are only willing to give your method, in exchange for mine, then sorry I have none. I rely mostly on zigzags, with lengths of 3 to 4 lines each. (MolonLabe's ASW Tutorial is prettymuch the same) So depending on how long the turn or acceleration and TA straigthening takes, I hardly get it under 10 minutes. And I never play in MP, so it's probably not player-proof either.

Then it is difficult to understand if you've never played a multiplayer.
The problem of timing analysis TMA , born in multiplayer matches. This is because it almost certainly will play with half the players in the Auto-TMA.
goal: to beat Auto-TMA.(10 minutes)-(max 5 bearing lines)

The 1st message said without triangulation or active sensors. I think 'triangulation' is meaning the TA and bow or hull sensors are displaced from one another so give slightly different bearings, that cross at the target's range. 'Active sensors' probably means active pining for range, as active intercepts would be using triangulation to come up with range. (the soundlevel bargraph cannot be accurately used for range, as it should depend on accoustic conditions changing over time) So far, I understood this to be about situations without prior target knowledge. You find a sound on the BB/NB displays, or ESM,active intercept and start tracking it. That's it, bearing only. If NavyUSA, or Wildcat, assumes to know other information about the target (that limits possible possition, range, speed, etc.) then that should be explained aswell.

Information about the target: (obtained during the game)
- Intensity frequencies Narrow Band.
- Type of LEG.
- Type of Target.
- Bearing Rate. (To calculate)
- Geographical Aspects combat scenarios.
- Lots of great experience.

And I try to play somewhat realistic. I do not like to make use of game-quirks. Are you implying you do?

Absolutely no makeup. The realism in the first place.
I follow the real procedures of analysis.

[NavyUSA]

to pisces:


Pisces, I've downloaded one of your files, just NOE Bearings-Only TMA.
I can not get the value, I have marked in the image. This value should be = 7966?
Can you help me to calculate it?

thanks