John P. Cromwell attack technique on order

[Lexandro]

Usually I try the full realism settings in a sim game and can get to grips with the after a bit of practice. In falcon 4.0 I have mastered the full realism settings of air-combat in an F-16 and I know exactly what every button and switch does and when and how to use it.

In SHIV however, its less instinctual than say flight is. Its more calculatory based combat, and to be frank I really cant get to grips with doing lots of math just to play the game. No doubt as some point I will get my head around it in a simple fashion, its just that for the time being manual aim is beyond my grasp.

If there was a proper tutorial mission just for working an easy shot, with lots of guide and tips on how to do so in the mission itself I might be able to learn it easier. Doing it hands on its a much more powerful learning tool for me than learning from study.

[Rockin Robbins]

Nisgeis, why don't you pop in here and tell your story of how you thought up this attack method and what you told me that made me wrestle with all those nasty numbers?

[XLjedi]

So, I see you're coming in on a 45° to the target TC.

Is that it? ...or is there something more to it? :hmm:

So far, I'm not really seeing any need to name it anything...

[Rockin Robbins]

Aaronblood, not to be sarcastic (on the other hand, why not?), but there is one reason to name anything. Human beings have a weird psychological need to label things. Sometimes we even conclude that we know the name of something, so that means we understand it.

You're looking at a strange looking animal you've never seen before. "What in hades is that?" you say. "It's a flobberbitimous compressiceps" I say. You're perfectly happy, although you know nothing more about that strange looking animal than you did a minute ago.:rotfl:But you can tell your girlfriend you saw a flobbergitimous compressiceps and she will get that serious look that tells you she's impressed.

But more than anything names are handles for a collection of behavior directed at a desired goal. How do you find the location of a submarine by listening to it from two radio receivers? Triangulation. The word is shorthand for a complex procedure, usually performed by a team of different people.

In a similar manner, Dick O'Kane attack is a handle for a collection of actions including a course at right angles to the track, AoB being equal to 90º minus the number of degrees from the shoot bearing to zero bearing, turning the position keeper off, yada, yada, yada. I can say, do a Dick O'Kane attack here and you know the steps to take.

John P. Cromwell Attack will be the same kind of handle, encompassing a specific sequence of steps including a course at 45º from the track from ahead of the target, AoB being 45º minus the bearing, position keeper off, yada, yada, yada.

We name things because that is how our brains work. It helps us to remember. In these two cases they also help us to remember great submarine captains of World War II. Every time we pull off one of these tactics we remember them.

What could be bad about that?

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Aaronblood, not to be sarcastic (on the other hand, why not?), but there is one reason to name anything. Human beings have a weird psychological need to label things. Sometimes we even conclude that we know the name of something, so that means we understand it.

You're looking at a strange looking animal you've never seen before. "What in hades is that?" you say. "It's a flobberbitimous compressiceps" I say. You're perfectly happy, although you know nothing more about that strange looking animal than you did a minute ago.:rotfl:But you can tell your girlfriend you saw a flobbergitimous compressiceps and she will get that serious look that tells you she's impressed.

:rotfl::rotfl:

[peabody]

Originally Posted by RR

(refering to Nisgeis) Does he ever have great instinct.

Yes, he does!! I think I understand the consant bearing, decreasing range concept. I think I understand where you are headed, but don't have any idea yet how you are going to get there, eargerly awaiting that part. :hmm:

Just for discussion purposes , isn't a 45 degree shot going to cause problems with duds? In the torpedo .sim file the dud chance is 1% at 0 to 35 degrees, but from 35 degrees to 70 degrees it increases to 35%. (Unless I misunderstand the data.)

Peabody

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by peabody

Yes, he does!! I think I understand the consant bearing, decreasing range concept. I think I understand where you are headed, but don't have any idea yet how you are going to get there, eargerly awaiting that part. :hmm:

Just for discussion purposes , isn't a 45 degree shot going to cause problems with duds? In the torpedo .sim file the dud chance is 1% at 0 to 35 degrees, but from 35 degrees to 70 degrees it increases to 35%. (Unless I misunderstand the data.)

Peabody

Well, I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that the attack method works fabulously, both using the TDC and not using the TDC and I'll teach it both ways at once! The bad news is I'm about the worst movie maker in history and I screwed up four takes in a row tonight for technical reasons. I have put 16 of 16 torpedoes into various targets. This is just as deadly as Dick O'Kane and just as easy.

I spent a lot of time trying to talk Nisgeis out of drawing triangles on the nav map to aim the torpedo, tried it myself and I love it! It does require you to keep several pieces of information straight, but if your TDC ever breaks and you can keep your facts straight, you'll never miss the missing TDC.

Some might say that a 45º shot might not be as accurate as a 90º shot because of the lesser error tolerance and the smaller angular size of the target. Don't believe it. I hit 4 of 4 at 3000 yards with no problem.

But I don't have a good tutorial movie yet. Tomorrow will have to do. I think you'll enjoy it. It will be so simple that most of you will be better at it than I am in 24 hours. But I can't believe it. I filmed and talked myself silly for two hours and have nothing to show for it!:rotfl:

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

So, I see you're coming in on a 45° to the target TC.

Is that it? ...or is there something more to it? :hmm:

So far, I'm not really seeing any need to name it anything...

I never really understood the Dick O'Kane method. I could never relate the instructions to the maths behind the technique. It just seemed a bit like a rough guess, which worked because you were very close to the target. I had a look on your tutorial thread, but that's a very brief snippet talking about a 7 knot target, with no details. Can you point me to the log behind it?

This new method came out of me trying to create a rule of thumb for a 45 degree attack, without using the TDC at all. I thought the Dick O'Kane method was a non TDC method to attack a target with a zero gyro angle, but it turns out the TDC is used and is more complicated that I thought.

My aim is to present a simple method people can use who want to do manual targetting, but don't want to use the TDC.

As it happens, I could not get an easy rule of thumb for 45 degree attack and after investigating, I found that the old speed plus three rule of thumb is also not satisfactory at all. I came up with a way to get the correct bearing of the target to fire at to hit with any torpedo track angle, with a zero gyro angle, by just using the map drawing tools. Just one protractor drawing and two rule drawings are enough to easily calculate the correct lead angle for a zero gyro angle shot at any intersecting courses for any given target speed or torpedo speed. It's essentially a constant bearing solution for torpedo and target, making the range irrelevant.

[SteamWake]

But the bearing is not constant due to the targets speed and its AOB also any movement by your own boat.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

But the bearing is not constant due to the targets speed and its AOB also any movement by your own boat.

Constant bearing, decreasing range is when two objects are on a collision course. The bearings of the two objects relative to each other stay constant and the range closes, until it reaches zero and you have a collision. The two objects will always collide, making range irrelevant.

[Rockin Robbins]

There are three main methods of using the periscope to shoot torpedoes:

The check bearing method, where you take a series of quick observations to set up and confirm TDC inputs. Each periscope exposure is as short as possible . The periscope bearings are checked against the TDC to predict a good solution. We can do this and most do in Silent Hunter 4.

The continuous bearing method, where the periscope operator keeps the scope up and the assistant periscope operator calls out the bearings continuously to be entered into the TDC to keep it continuously updated during the firing of torpedoes. We can't really do this one. I suppose we could stab the send bearing/range button every several seconds, but that would reset the range to the last one we measured with the stadimeter.

Finally, the constant bearing method. Here the TDC is set for a predetermined solution. The periscope is aimed at the bearing determined by the solution and held on that constant bearing. As juicy parts of the target cross the wire you send fish their direction. All torpedoes follow the same path to the target in a longitudinal spread. The Dick O'Kane technique is a constant bearing technique, as is the John P Cromwell.

So with the constant bearing method the only thing constant is the bearing on which you hold the periscope.

It is true that from the point of view of the torpedo the target maintains a constant bearing until collision, but that is a factor shared by all three shooting methods and is irrelevent to the discussion.

Comprendé?