![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#13 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: AN9771
Posts: 4,904
Downloads: 304
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
The target being far or close does not help in determining a proper solution. For bearing-only methods to work well you need precisely defined bearing angle in reasonable time frames. You can do with less precise bearing if the time interval is increased. Or else it just tells you the target is going N-E-S-W-ish/in a wide arc/halfway omni-directional. The knowledge of sound propagation physics and technology level just was't so cooperative as in this digital/electronic age. Though I would guess it possible for them in that time to make a mechanical analog calculator for it. It's the input part that makes it unreliable. I supposed the constant bearing method comes closest to '0-gyro angle' as that is how Dick O'kane's method is usually executed. But it doesn't have to. As long as the visual 'firing cue' bearing of the periscope is offset from the chosen torpedo track or gyro angle by the right amount of lead (generally speaking it only depends on target speed, AOB and torpedo speed), then it should hit despite the range of the target. (caveat any parallax correction due to the torpedo track curve and periscope offset from the torpedo tubes) If the target is further away, it also has farther to travel to the impact point. And so does the torpedo have the same time to get there! With the lead set up properly you only have to wait for the target to pass the periscope cue line. That is the concept of 'constant bearing'. The fact that 0-gyro angle makes setting this up more easily and avoids the torpedo-track-curve correction is the reason that this is the popularly choice of doing so. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|