I've been thinking too much

washishu · 02-28-15, 11:25 AM

Earlier this year, after assistance and guidance from members here, I got SHIII up and running again on my MacBook. Playing the game again after a long absence revived my general interest and I have been re-reading Michael Gannon’s Operation Drumbeat and this has also revived something I’ve puzzled over in the past in reading this and the other sub-books.

It is accepted understanding that the WWII torpedo could be an unreliable weapon and so sub skippers of all navies involved did what they could to minimise these problems. The particular ‘problem’ that has always puzzled me concerns the angle of approach and attack and the consequent angle at which the torpedo strikes the target. In all ‘analytical’ explanations I have come across it’s stated that sub skippers would try to manoeuvre for a position at or close to a right angle to the target’s course, so that the torpedo gyro-angle was zero or close to zero and the hit would be at an angle of 90º or beam-on. Fine; that makes complete sense.

My puzzlement comes from the descriptions of the attacks in Drumbeat (and similar in Iron Coffins etc.) Even when, according to the description, there appears to be ample time for manoeuvring the target course, relative bearing and the AOB and the sub course etc. given in the description often appear to indicate a fairly flat angle, increasing the risk of the torpedo being deflected off the ship’s side.

In a sort of playful mood one Saturday morning, I used the Happy Times mission in standard SHIII to experiment. I chose it because the convoy course is an easy due east and the sub is in a perfect position from the start. So in a 45º approach, firing four torpedoes at gyro-angles of 355º, 358º, 000º and 005º, the first three all missed, passing ahead of the target, the fourth (005º) was a bow hit, but only just. Two of the misses went on to strike other ships in the convoy and were deflected. I assumed that this was due to the coding in the software being such that if the angle is beyond certain parameters the probability of deflection is greatly increased

I re-started and tried again. Same approach angle, 45º, three shots at 355º, 000º and 005º gyro angles. The first (355º) hit but forward of the aiming point. The other two passed ahead, but this was understandable as after the hit the target slowed and began a turn away.

My ‘experiments’ appear to suggest that SHIII more-or-less conforms to the accepted understanding. So how come there seem to be so many successful, much flatter-angled attacks in the books? Also in Drumbeat the accounts of attacks often include, for example, an ‘offset’—which I take to mean the gyro-angle—in the order of 15º or more and this appears to be by choice rather than forced.

Can anyone throw any light on these apparent contradictions?

02-28-15, 11:25 AM	#1
washishu Mate Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: England Posts: 54 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I've been thinking too much Earlier this year, after assistance and guidance from members here, I got SHIII up and running again on my MacBook. Playing the game again after a long absence revived my general interest and I have been re-reading Michael Gannon’s Operation Drumbeat and this has also revived something I’ve puzzled over in the past in reading this and the other sub-books. It is accepted understanding that the WWII torpedo could be an unreliable weapon and so sub skippers of all navies involved did what they could to minimise these problems. The particular ‘problem’ that has always puzzled me concerns the angle of approach and attack and the consequent angle at which the torpedo strikes the target. In all ‘analytical’ explanations I have come across it’s stated that sub skippers would try to manoeuvre for a position at or close to a right angle to the target’s course, so that the torpedo gyro-angle was zero or close to zero and the hit would be at an angle of 90º or beam-on. Fine; that makes complete sense. My puzzlement comes from the descriptions of the attacks in Drumbeat (and similar in Iron Coffins etc.) Even when, according to the description, there appears to be ample time for manoeuvring the target course, relative bearing and the AOB and the sub course etc. given in the description often appear to indicate a fairly flat angle, increasing the risk of the torpedo being deflected off the ship’s side. In a sort of playful mood one Saturday morning, I used the Happy Times mission in standard SHIII to experiment. I chose it because the convoy course is an easy due east and the sub is in a perfect position from the start. So in a 45º approach, firing four torpedoes at gyro-angles of 355º, 358º, 000º and 005º, the first three all missed, passing ahead of the target, the fourth (005º) was a bow hit, but only just. Two of the misses went on to strike other ships in the convoy and were deflected. I assumed that this was due to the coding in the software being such that if the angle is beyond certain parameters the probability of deflection is greatly increased I re-started and tried again. Same approach angle, 45º, three shots at 355º, 000º and 005º gyro angles. The first (355º) hit but forward of the aiming point. The other two passed ahead, but this was understandable as after the hit the target slowed and began a turn away. My ‘experiments’ appear to suggest that SHIII more-or-less conforms to the accepted understanding. So how come there seem to be so many successful, much flatter-angled attacks in the books? Also in Drumbeat the accounts of attacks often include, for example, an ‘offset’—which I take to mean the gyro-angle—in the order of 15º or more and this appears to be by choice rather than forced. Can anyone throw any light on these apparent contradictions?