Clear the Bridge! Dick O'kane method - Page 2

Rockin Robbins · 01-14-09, 10:16 AM

Nope, you're right. I can't see any evidence that O'Kane sought a right angle to the track. He might have had a preference for angles that were close, but I don't see any evidence for it.

I think you're right about him using the spread input to hit the bow and stern of the target in that instance. Please note that per the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual, this would have been a computed spread of about 80%. He wouldn't have been just fiddling with the spread dial and hoping the setting was good. That would have earned him a good roasting by his friend, Admiral Lockwood, when he got home.

Hey! That's not fair! I use the TDC. It computes my lead angle and dries my oilskins when I come below in bad weather!

XLjedi · 01-14-09, 10:23 AM

Now I do take a lot of 90° shots... but in those cases I also set the torps for magnetic detonation and try to swim them under the keel. I just got tired listening to the things bouncing off the sides of ships (an all too frequent occurance for right-angle impacts).

XLjedi · 01-14-09, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Please note that per the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual, this would have been a computed spread of about 80%. He wouldn't have been just fiddling with the spread dial and hoping the setting was good.

At what point did I say that he was, "just fiddling with the spread dial"?

I think he did exactly what he said he did in his book. He targetted midship, then looked at the rear stack, determined it was offset 2-3° and fired his spread accordingly.

Munchausen · 01-14-09, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronblood

I don't recall that Okane would necessarily line up on a 90° beam to the target. He took a standard 90° approach to the target bearing, but that's something different. There's more evidence in his books that suggests he (and Morton) preferred to fire after the target passed the 90° beam so the torpedos would 1) not impact at a right angle, and 2) the ship would have a harder time evading (never really studied this one, but I trust Morton knew what he was talking about).

O'Kane liked the night surface attack. Visually, a 90 AOB is one of the easiest to identify ... especially if the ship has side-by-side masts. A skipper could approach at 120 degrees (as Tater said) and, as long as the TDC was set for 90, send a final bearing when the target looked to have a 90 AOB ... then fire. He could then reposition on another target ... again waiting until seeing 90 degrees before sending a final bearing to the TDC.

XLjedi · 01-14-09, 10:56 PM

Just to clarify, since a couple people now appear to have commented on my statement about the 90° target bearing standard approach; it has nothing to do with a 120° approach to the target true course.

It's just the standard approach an XO would take by putting the target bearing on a 90° beam moving (presumably) in the same relative direction (at this point AoB is an unknown). Then the captain would be informed... and then perhaps after an observation (or several) an AoB determination can be made and then maybe a 120° to TC would be the prefered approach angle for attack.

Okane mentions in Wahoo that as the XO he puts the boat on a standard 90° approach and then informs Morton of the situation. It's a method that's also documented as the standard approach in the torpedo fire control manual. It doesn't mean that you're on any particular approach angle to the target true course.

It looks like this:

The standard 90° approach for target M1 or M2 is 330° and we don't really know what the true course is yet for either one.

This is a first contact (and probably at considerable distance) approach. Granted I've exagerated the M2 contact here because in this case we wouldn't actually be closing (approaching) on the target. I should probably redraw it with an acute angle, but I don't feel like doing it again...

XLjedi · 01-14-09, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchausen

Visually, a 90 AOB is one of the easiest to identify ... especially if the ship has side-by-side masts. A skipper could approach at 120 degrees (as Tater said) and, as long as the TDC was set for 90, send a final bearing when the target looked to have a 90 AOB ... then fire. He could then reposition on another target ... again waiting until seeing 90 degrees before sending a final bearing to the TDC.

I have to say though...

I'm not sure why it never dawned on me to try this before!

...seems so obvious.

RR you all might want to consider looking into this one and dubbing it the "Morton" with all appropriate credit to Munchausen of course. ...or dare I say it, a true Fast-90 for fleetboats?

01-14-09, 10:16 AM	#1
Rockin Robbins Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: DeLand, FL Posts: 8,900 Downloads: 135 Uploads: 52	Nope, you're right. I can't see any evidence that O'Kane sought a right angle to the track. He might have had a preference for angles that were close, but I don't see any evidence for it. I think you're right about him using the spread input to hit the bow and stern of the target in that instance. Please note that per the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual, this would have been a computed spread of about 80%. He wouldn't have been just fiddling with the spread dial and hoping the setting was good. That would have earned him a good roasting by his friend, Admiral Lockwood, when he got home. Hey! That's not fair! I use the TDC. It computes my lead angle and dries my oilskins when I come below in bad weather! __________________ Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks, Slightly Subnuclear Mk 14 & Cutie, Slightly Subnuclear Deck Gun, EZPlot 2.0, TMOPlot, TMOKeys, SH4CMS

01-14-09, 10:23 AM	#2
XLjedi Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Palm Beach, Florida Posts: 1,243 Downloads: 53 Uploads: 8	Now I do take a lot of 90° shots... but in those cases I also set the torps for magnetic detonation and try to swim them under the keel. I just got tired listening to the things bouncing off the sides of ships (an all too frequent occurance for right-angle impacts). __________________

01-14-09, 10:56 PM	#5
XLjedi Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Palm Beach, Florida Posts: 1,243 Downloads: 53 Uploads: 8	Just to clarify, since a couple people now appear to have commented on my statement about the 90° target bearing standard approach; it has nothing to do with a 120° approach to the target true course. It's just the standard approach an XO would take by putting the target bearing on a 90° beam moving (presumably) in the same relative direction (at this point AoB is an unknown). Then the captain would be informed... and then perhaps after an observation (or several) an AoB determination can be made and then maybe a 120° to TC would be the prefered approach angle for attack. Okane mentions in Wahoo that as the XO he puts the boat on a standard 90° approach and then informs Morton of the situation. It's a method that's also documented as the standard approach in the torpedo fire control manual. It doesn't mean that you're on any particular approach angle to the target true course. It looks like this: The standard 90° approach for target M1 or M2 is 330° and we don't really know what the true course is yet for either one. This is a first contact (and probably at considerable distance) approach. Granted I've exagerated the M2 contact here because in this case we wouldn't actually be closing (approaching) on the target. I should probably redraw it with an acute angle, but I don't feel like doing it again... __________________ Last edited by XLjedi; 01-14-09 at 11:46 PM.