Stadimeter: Where to put horizontal crossline?

[Drakken]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Congratulations, Drakken on your great success. I'm one who says that there can be no such thing as being too close to the target unless you are too close for your torpedoes to arm.

I suspect that, somewhere, the target slowed down.

When I first took the marks and compared to the nomograph it clearly showed 10 knots. That is the speed I computed in the TDC. However, when my solution was ready and I was in periscope immersion waiting in ambush, I clearly remember my sonar operator reporting that it was slowing. I should have immediately rechecked the target's speed, but as it stayed on course I thought there was no reason for it to slow down.

When it finally reached my targeted bearing I aimed below its chimney, but the two torpedoes hit its bow instead. Result, the torpedo were too fast for the target's speed. Probably slowed to 9 or 9,5 knots.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

And please, NEVER limit yourself to one technique and say that's the best. The best technique is the one that will put the enemy on the bottom of the ocean now. It could be conventional, down the throat, Cutie on a Leash (although Ducimus seems to have nerfed Cuties in his latest release, making them relatively deaf), Dick O'Kane, up the poop chute or yet another technique that gives your success in any given situation. The more tricks in your bag of trick, the more successful you will be.

I think that the Dick OKane is used best as a first attack approach against a lone target, especially when the weather makes it very difficult to use the TDC tools. Afterwards, it becomes difficult to use this technique as a second strike, but the closeness to the target makes it easier to use the stadimeter.

[CapnScurvy]

Sorry to be late to the discussion. As I have read the previous posts within this thread there seems to be particular bias towards one set of ideas as to what is realistic and what is not. I’m not surprised that RR and others feel that SCAF gives a player an unrealistic advantage. After all the idea behind it was to correct the inaccuracy of the stock range finding results when a manual Stadimeter reading was made. If you read the “Discussion” section of the SCAF thread you will have an idea what I found true within the game and what I did to correct this inaccuracy. What I find amusing is the logic behind a persons claim that a modification of accuracy is unrealistic to what would be true in real life, and this accuracy should be avoided.

When I was a police officer, if I found I had a weapon that shot to the left or right when I was calibrating it for accuracy, I would either fix the Damn thing or throw it out. A weapon is useless if it is inaccurate in its aim. When I checked the various mast heights within the stock game to the actual found distance a ship was positioned from the sub, I found 23 out of the 50 Jap nationality ships had mast heights off by greater than 1 meter in height. Several had mast heights differences much greater, like the Hiryu carrier having a stock mast height of 31 meters. The corrected mast height should be 36.3 meters. Or the Small Split Freighter with a stock mast height of 22.6 meters, when the accurate height of the mast should be 27.4.That’s a 4.8 meter difference. So what does a meter difference in mast height mean to range finding at a 1500 yard actual distance? The difference in range can be up to 50 yards +/- depending on the over or under measurement of the given mast height. It is little wonder that accurately placed firings can not be made with such figures.

When a point is made that this inaccuracy is “realistic”, I say BULL!!! Any Captain worth his salt wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual. If he found the “book” wrong he’d rewrite the thing because his life and the crew’s life depended on accurate decisions. When he returned to port, you can bet your front tooth his findings were made known to the proper authorities. If they failed to act, there wouldn’t be a skipper down at the Officers Club for a week that wouldn’t have heard the findings and changes needed to be made. That gentlemen is realistic!!

What I find to be contradictory to some of you is the Recognition Manual should be inaccurate for the game, yet the Sonar gleaned range which is always accurate when you manually find it, is just fine. People have even gone to the point of making a “How to” video for the Sonar attack procedures. Look, this game can be as complicated as you care to make it, but to make it deliberately inaccurate is wrong and totally unrealistic.

[Rockin Robbins]

Cap'n where do I begin?

Any Captain worth his salt wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual. If he found the “book” wrong he’d rewrite the thing because his life and the crew’s life depended on accurate decisions. When he returned to port, you can bet your front tooth his findings were made known to the proper authorities.

You hit the nail on the head there! They did. Admiral Lockwood requested that the Japanese rent us their vessels for accurate measurements so we could sink them properly. He relayed your policeman story and said that his captains refused to shoot any more torpedoes without accurate information. The Japanese replied that it sounded like the captains were on the right track.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Seriously, as a captain you would only know your torpedoes were missing. You would have no way of knowing if the masthead measurement in your recognition book were a meter off. Actually as an American sub captain in WWII, you wouldn't know what a meter was if it bit you. The reality of the situation was that the captains blamed themselves for their non-production and resigned in large numbers. Those who stuck it out found ways to hit targets in spite of the torpedo problems and inaccurate ONI information.

I’m not surprised that RR and others feel that SCAF gives a player an unrealistic advantage. After all the idea behind it was to correct the inaccuracy of the stock range finding results when a manual Stadimeter reading was made. If you read the “Discussion” section of the SCAF thread you will have an idea what I found true within the game and what I did to correct this inaccuracy.

You took Japanese ships out of the war zone to a carefully measured range and under perfect controlled conditions, measured the mast heights of each ship in the game. Some of them were grossly out of line. In that you are 100% correct.

To claim historical accuracy for the SCAF mod you have the burden of proving that the US military did exactly that with every Japanese ship. It did not happen. Our ONI ship recognition manuals were based on information released by the Japanese, reports of spies, overheard conversations (if any), rumor and conjecture. The Japanese knew what info was oficially released, so they took steps to ensure the information was no longer valid. Much of the information we collected was just plain wrong.

In our spoiled rotten society we are used to making a fuss and throwing a temper tantrum to demand what we want no matter how unreasonable or impossible that is. And our societies are so rich that for the most part we get what we demand. In World War II they realized that they were living under strict limitations and it was their personal responsibility to overcome any obstacles in their way with their own resources. They for the most part accepted that the information they got was the best they were going to get. They then found ways not to have to rely on the faulty data or just accepted the resulting misses as a cost of doing business, as O'Kane did when his radar broke. He didn't just run back to port because he had a boo-boo.

The captains who took their lumps and kept slugging are the ones we read about and admire today. The ones who wouldn't put up with the bad torpedoes or "wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual" are the ones deservedly lost in the dustbin of history. Life ain't fair. Tough toenails!

I don't have a problem with SCAF itself at all! Capn Scurvy did long research to correct every ship in the manual so it measured correctly, making your shooting as accurate as it can be. If you miss, you made a mistake.

I have a problem with it being in Real Fleet Boat, a mod which uses historical reality as its yardstick. If SCAF were plugged into TMO I'd be praising it. In Real Fleet Boat it belongs right next to the dilythium crystals and photon torpedoes.

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

You took Japanese ships out of the war zone to a carefully measured range and under perfect controlled conditions, measured the mast heights of each ship in the game. Some of them were grossly out of line. In that you are 100% correct.

To claim historical accuracy for the SCAF mod you have the burden of proving that the US military did exactly that with every Japanese ship.

What in the world are you ranting about? I have never said my figures are historically accurate. They are a correction to the game that has been flawed from day one. You may remember it was just about day two of it's American release that the first patch followed introducing the U.S Customary (should never had been called Imperial) measurement system, bringing new flaws to the game. But the fact remains this American Campaign game was put to press using the metric system!! Your right the metric system was hardly a thought in the minds of the American servicemen, but we are stuck with it within the game. But, at no time have I ever said or heard anyone else say (besides you) the SCAF figures are historically accurate

The SCAF figures will give greater accuracy when manually finding range but they are not guaranteed spot on. The Stadimeter uses the water line of the locked target ship to mark the reference point (mast top, funnel top, whatever) for figuring range. This reference point marked range can be greatly changed by just a couple of pixel lines off center. How wide is a pixel line? There are three to every vertical 'hash mark" on the scope's image, one at the top, center, and bottom of the hash mark. Just marking the waterline off by a couple of pixel lines can throw off the range to target by many yards (depending on where within the scope image the marked point is made, towards the top, center or towards the waterline of the view). Not to mention the variables of other inputs such as Speed or AoB. The mast height correction is far from "Cheating" as you have implied below.

So you can see that the SCAF mod is THE OPPOSITE of the way we should be going. We sit around grousing about how we can get 100,000 tons in a cruise when very few subs did that during the entire wartime. Well, there's a large part of the answer. We cheat.

I for one have always believed in using the game at its most realistic settings. Where you advocate using the map to give you a ship's position, I've pushed for turning off any map contacts with my High Realism Tutorial. To put the target at a 90 degree angle from the sub is called common sense, not exclusive to the "Dick O'Kane's" method.

The captains who took their lumps and kept slugging are the ones we read about and admire today. The ones who wouldn't put up with the bad torpedoes or "wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual" are the ones deservedly lost in the dustbin of history.

RR, you surely know that the only way you will every win a fight is by giving “lump’s” not taking them!! Any captain that didn’t learn by a near miss "lumping" didn’t last long enough to be written about.

[Rockin Robbins]

Capn, I have no problem with your mod. I have a problem with it being used in Real Fleet Boat. It is Real Fleet Boat that is supposed to be historically accurate. Your mod is under no obligation whatever to be historically accurate, or even, as the Dick O'Kane method is, historically feasible.

In a "gameplay" mod, such as Trigger Maru (which is my chosen mod as you know) your mod would be a great "table evener" in a mod filled with superman escorts and evil airplanes that bomb you at periscope depth. I'd applaud it and jump on my soapbox to sell it then!

My beef is not with you but with the RFB guys who adopted a great but inappropriate mod for their stated goal of historical accuracy. Playing RFB should be like shooting a pistol that has been bounced off concrete several times: wildly inaccurate and possibly dangerous.

My personal ideal for Trigger Maru would be very sharp teeth against very sharp teeth. My ideal of TM would be very receptive to using your mod and if you weren't so damned pissed at me right now and if I had anything to say about what was in Trigger Maru I'd be begging to use SCAF in it. I'd also eliminate torpedo problems with guidance, depth, circle runners, etc.

Now Ducimus is going to jump on me! I've got two of my friends ready to beat on me. Help!!!:rotfl::rotfl:

[joegrundman]

Miaow boys!
Anyway, you who need to know exact ranges are not real men. I've actually stopped using the recognition manual at all, and guesstimate the mast height and ship length from observation only.

You can obtain perfectly accurate targeting data with inaccurate range measurements.

If for any reason you strongly doubt the accuracy of your range estimate, just point your boat in such a direction that the gyro angle is roughly 0. This will render the range estimate unimportant.

Then fire a spread, longitudinally (Dick O'kane) or fan shot

And then quit complaining:p