Camouflage
Ulo Melton
military personnel wear camouflage uniforms when assigned to duty on
city streets (or waterways, as the case may be)?
The obvious answer would be that those are all they have handy, but
wasn't there a time when olive drab fatigues were normally worn, with
camouflage reserved for those occasions when it would actually blend in
with the surroundings?
--
Ulo Melton
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
"Show me a man who is not afraid of being eaten by an alligator
in a sewer, and I'll show you a fool." -Roger Ebert
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Looking at pictures of the current disaster got me to wondering: why do
> military personnel wear camouflage uniforms when assigned to duty on
> city streets (or waterways, as the case may be)?
> The obvious answer would be that those are all they have handy, but
> wasn't there a time when olive drab fatigues were normally worn, with
> camouflage reserved for those occasions when it would actually blend in
> with the surroundings?
Yes, but why maintain multiple sets of service uniforms when one will
generally do fine?[1] The useful lifespan of a set of BDUs is less
than a year or two, and when you need to buy new clothes for people at
a couple hundred thousand a year for new people and more than half a
million suits a year for the people you already have, it's kinda silly
to buy twice that many just so soldiers can look nicer while they're
filling sandbags. There's much better places to spend an already
too-tight budget.
[1] The one exception is desert camoflage, which the Army generally
didn't need all that much of up until about 1990 or so. The rest of
the time, regular woodland camo is just fine.
--
Huey
John Gilmer
>
> The obvious answer would be that those are all they have handy, but
> wasn't there a time when olive drab fatigues were normally worn, with
> camouflage reserved for those occasions when it would actually blend in
> with the surroundings?
Yep!
Times change. Uniforms change.
During VN, the USMC had the camo uniform for "dirty" work. The US Army had
basic OD.
Greg Goss
>Looking at pictures of the current disaster got me to wondering: why do
>military personnel wear camouflage uniforms when assigned to duty on
>city streets (or waterways, as the case may be)?
>
>The obvious answer would be that those are all they have handy, but
>wasn't there a time when olive drab fatigues were normally worn, with
>camouflage reserved for those occasions when it would actually blend in
>with the surroundings?
There's actually an urban-rubble camo out there. Shades of gray with
straight lines betwen the colour patches. Most of the wingnuts wear
the jungle camo, appropriate to Vietnam. I'm not sure how many camo
patterns there are.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
David
Oh, there are tons....go to any army/navy surplus website....you'll see some
rather interesting variations.
Big David~wears ultraviolet camo to Ravens games
Lots42
Ulo Melton wrote:
> Looking at pictures of the current disaster got me to wondering: why do
> military personnel wear camouflage uniforms when assigned to duty on
> city streets (or waterways, as the case may be)?
Camo, nowadays, equals 'Trained millitary specialist'.
Seeing some guys in grey and black would be confusing. Seeing some guys
in camoflauge tells the person "These men can help me."
Peter Boulding
<1126314352.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>Seeing some guys in camoflauge tells the person "These men can help me."
Don't try this at home, folks.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
JRDelirio (Jose Diaz)
"Ulo Melton" <melt...@sewergator.com> wrote in message
news:qj34i1te6hibdi86d...@4ax.com...
> Looking at pictures of the current disaster got me to wondering: why do
> military personnel wear camouflage uniforms when assigned to duty on
> city streets (or waterways, as the case may be)?
>
> The obvious answer would be that those are all they have handy, but
> wasn't there a time when olive drab fatigues were normally worn, with
> camouflage reserved for those occasions when it would actually blend in
> with the surroundings?
>
Used to be. But it was not even universal for those who WERE in the jungle.
Used to be the Army had:
- Combat fatigues, some of them cammo depending on your ops, most of the
time plain green.
- "Utility" fatigues for work in-garrison
- A "winter" service-dress uniform in the form of a green suit-and-tie
outfit
- A "summer" service-dress uniform in the form of a khaki suit-and-tie
outfit
- A light-work "summer" uniform in the form of a khaki short-sleeve outfit.
- Various formalwear dress uniforms and specialized-task uniforms
In the eighties all this was consolidated into:
- The BDU, normally woodland pattern but also available in desert pattern,
for virtually every kind of non-dressup duty, and specially for all duty
involving physical work and the possibility of getting dirty or tearing up
the uniform. Replaced combat fatigues, utility fatigues, and the
shirtsleeve khaki in most applications.
- The Army Green "suit" type uniform, with the accessories and the shirts
redesigned so that by taking off the jacket you then had an "office
business" uniform, in turn made "summer" by using the short-sleeve shirt and
leaving off the tie.
- And the various formalwear dress uniforms and specialized-task uniforms
Now you issued the soldier quite fewer pieces of uniform than you did
before. $aving$!
The Army just started abandoning the BDU for the ACU, based on the
digi-cammo system already adopted as MARPAT by the Marines (you may have
seen Gen. Honoré wearing it).
Blinky the Shark
I was watching "We Were Soldiers" with a friend a couple of weeks ago.
It's supposed to be very realistic. The intro was a firefight
involving the French in SEA, and they were wearing camo. My friend
asked if that would've been the uni in 1954. I went with the film's
reputation and said "probably". Was I right?
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
End Of The Good GG Archive GUI: http://blinkynet.net/comp/gggui.html
Glenn Dowdy
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrndi4n6m....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
> John Gilmer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The obvious answer would be that those are all they have handy, but
>>> wasn't there a time when olive drab fatigues were normally worn, with
>>> camouflage reserved for those occasions when it would actually blend in
>>> with the surroundings?
>>
>> Yep!
>>
>> Times change. Uniforms change.
>>
>> During VN, the USMC had the camo uniform for "dirty" work. The US Army
>> had
>> basic OD.
>
> I was watching "We Were Soldiers" with a friend a couple of weeks ago.
> It's supposed to be very realistic. The intro was a firefight
> involving the French in SEA, and they were wearing camo. My friend
> asked if that would've been the uni in 1954. I went with the film's
> reputation and said "probably". Was I right?
>
early.
Glenn D.
Ulo Melton
wrote:
>I was watching "We Were Soldiers" with a friend a couple of weeks ago.
>It's supposed to be very realistic. The intro was a firefight
>involving the French in SEA, and they were wearing camo. My friend
>asked if that would've been the uni in 1954. I went with the film's
>reputation and said "probably". Was I right?
Possibly.
Blinky the Shark
>
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrndi4n6m....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
<chomp>
>> I was watching "We Were Soldiers" with a friend a couple of weeks ago.
>> It's supposed to be very realistic. The intro was a firefight
>> involving the French in SEA, and they were wearing camo. My friend
>> asked if that would've been the uni in 1954. I went with the film's
>> reputation and said "probably". Was I right?
>>
> The USMC wore camo in WWII in the jungle campaigns, so 1954 wasn't too
> early.
Hokay. I didn't remember that about the MC. Tnx.
John Hatpin
>Seeing some guys in grey and black would be confusing. Seeing some guys
>in camoflauge tells the person "These men can help me."
Seeing some guys in camouflage means the camouflage ain't working.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
paint schemes often used on WWII warships. Big diagonal stripes and
stuff. I think they're called "dazzle schemes".
Anyway, one day, looking at a set of those camo patterns, I tried
squinting. Viola! A battleship turned into two smaller ships.
Excellent!
Kurt Vonnegut wrote - perhaps in "Bluebeard"? - about an artist who
was employed as a camo expert. Maybe there's truth in that.
--
John Hatpin
Mark Steese
news:pjk5i1ln26vi82m0t...@4ax.com:
There is indeed. To cite but one instance, during the Second World War
artists such as Roland Penrose and Frederick Gore worked for the British
Army's Industrial Camouflage Research unit. (Penrose is also credited with
introducing surrealism to the U.K. -- he organized the 1936 International
Surrealist Exhibition in London -- and following WWII he and Herbert Read
founded the Institute of Contemporary Arts. He then wrote a well-received
biography of Picasso, and in 1966 he was knighted. Clearly a man with too
much time on his hands.)
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
Blinky the Shark
> Speaking of camouflage, I was baffled for a long time by the camo
> paint schemes often used on WWII warships. Big diagonal stripes and
> stuff. I think they're called "dazzle schemes".
>
> Anyway, one day, looking at a set of those camo patterns, I tried
> squinting. Viola! A battleship turned into two smaller ships.
> Excellent!
Seems to have been developed in 1917.
Nice comparison of two dazzled ships, two not dazzled, in upper-right
photo:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/galltiroperrosselsprung.html
Top photo: the Tirpitz dazzled:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/history/tiropersizilien.html
The French had their own ideas. This is cruiser Gloire:
http://www.gotouring.com/razzledazzle/images/dazzle3-600.jpg
It's been applied to at least one Fiat:
http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue4/images/camouflage3.jpg
HMS Furious:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h89000/h89134.jpg
Mundane USS Indiana:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015835.jpg
USS Independence, a somewhat more dazzly:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/100300903.jpg
Bismarck in Baltic camo, but note the camo on the guns of the ship the
photo was taken from. From the Attention To Detail Department <g>:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/gallery/pictures/gallbismrhein2/gallbismrhein27.jpg
False waves painted on the Admiral Graff Spee. Apparently supposed to
throw off enemy gunnery by making the ship appear to be moving fast even
when it's not:
LOTS of excellent shots here:
http://www.de220.com/Camouflage/DE%20Camouflage%20&%20Paint%20Patterns.htm
Les Albert
wrote:
> .....
>False waves painted on the Admiral Graff Spee. Apparently supposed to
>throw off enemy gunnery by making the ship appear to be moving fast even
>when it's not:
>http://www.deutschland-class.dk/admiral_graf_spee/gallery/pictures/gallgrafspeemontevideo/gallgrafspeemontevideo02.jpg
They could have used cartoon "whoosh" lines to show speed:
http://www.hitentertainment.com/artattack/drawingclouds.html
Les
Lots42
John Hatpin wrote:
> Speaking of camouflage, I was baffled for a long time by the camo
> paint schemes often used on WWII warships. Big diagonal stripes and
> stuff. I think they're called "dazzle schemes".
>
> Anyway, one day, looking at a set of those camo patterns, I tried
> squinting. Viola! A battleship turned into two smaller ships.
> Excellent!
In a latter issue of the Ostrander 'Suicide Squad', our anti-hero
Deadshot is confronted with a villian that can make holographic
duplicates of himself.
Deadshot ponders this, then shoots 'both' of them
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
>> Speaking of camouflage, I was baffled for a long time by the camo
>> paint schemes often used on WWII warships. Big diagonal stripes and
>> stuff. I think they're called "dazzle schemes".
>>
>> Anyway, one day, looking at a set of those camo patterns, I tried
>> squinting. Viola! A battleship turned into two smaller ships.
>> Excellent!
>
>Seems to have been developed in 1917.
[links to excellent photos and descriptions snipped for space]
ISTM that different camo schemes were designed for different purposes.
Most of the ones you linked to look as if they were meant to simply
break up the overall outline of the ship, making identification and
course mapping a tougher job.
That one of the Graf Spee is completely new to me - and as a submarine
simulator player, I can imagine that being effective, since estimation
of speed (an important and difficult factor in torpedo solution
calculations) often relied on quick analysis of the appearance of the
bow wave and stern wake.
This one you showed, though:
http://www.gotouring.com/razzledazzle/images/dazzle3-600.jpg
Now, that looks as if it's a deliberate attempt to disguise the
direction the ship's sailing in. Another vital factor in calculating
torpedo solutions: the AOB (angle off the bow), in other words the
relative angle you are to the target's course. That's bollocksed if
you don't know where the target is going.
Most of the others seem to be designed to draw the eye away from the
actual shape of the ship. In other words, the ship-shape. Heh. That
would be useful in preventing identification of the target, perhaps
making the attacking vessel or aircraft or shore gun or whatever
mistake a cruiser for a destroyer, and getting the distance bearings
confused.
There are many different intentions in camo, and some of those are new
to me, in particular that dazzle scheme I've re-quoted.
What's surprising is that none of the many photos you've linked to
show the the "I'm a smaller ship" type, still less the "I'm two small
ships" ones. I wish I'd bookmarked the ones I've seen online: the
"squint and you'll see a pair of small merchants" markings on a
battleship, for example.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
I'm going to be all boring here, and take what you've said at face
value. As always, please feel free to click 'Next'.
Your comparison doesn't apply in this circumstance (cue yawning
sounds). And I'm going to say why (cue snoring sounds):
If you're in a sub, and you see a battleship coming out of the fog,
and it belongs to the other guys, the ones you don't want to be
friends with, you're going to do different things from if it were,
say, a small merchant.
With a merchant, you'd be likely to launch a single torpedo at maybe
3m depth just forward of the smokestack, hoping to hit the fuel
bunkers or maybe the engine room. That way, your single torpedo
stands a good chance of blowing the whole ship up.
With a battleship, you've got a whole different approach. If you
tried to do the same thing, you'd hit the armoured 'torpedo belt' and
the ship would sail on, pretty much unaffected apart from some spilt
coffee and maybe an officer saying "gosh" and raising an eyebrow or
two.
So, for a battleship, you'd identify its class, look it up in the
register, find out the depth of its keel and launch a salvo of four
torpedoes at a couple of metres below the keel, with magnetic pistols
set. Say, 12m depth. Four fish aimed below the gun turrets (where
the ammo stores are), and you've got a good chance of doing some
serious damage.
So, it's in the interests of a battleship to look like a merchant, and
if it's a big BB, it might be better to look like two merchants with a
gap in-between.
It's OK, you can go back to sleep now.
--
John Hatpin
Ulo Melton
>They could have used cartoon "whoosh" lines to show speed:
>
>http://www.hitentertainment.com/artattack/drawingclouds.html
That car looks like it's farting mushrooms.
D.F. Manno
John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> Speaking of camouflage, I was baffled for a long time by the camo
> paint schemes often used on WWII warships. Big diagonal stripes and
> stuff. I think they're called "dazzle schemes".
>
> Anyway, one day, looking at a set of those camo patterns, I tried
> squinting. Viola! A battleship turned into two smaller ships.
> Excellent!
Must be because I'm a civilian, but I don't see how that helps any. Is the enemy
going to think, "Damn, it's not a battleship. What's the point?" Won't they just
fire on (what they think are) the two smaller ships?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm2a...@spymac.com
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often
very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit
to oppression.--H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" (1956)
Les Albert
<melt...@sewergator.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:41:16 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>They could have used cartoon "whoosh" lines to show speed:
>>http://www.hitentertainment.com/artattack/drawingclouds.html
>That car looks like it's farting mushrooms.
That made me laugh, but I have to say those are your dyspeptic
pictures.
Les
John Hatpin
>In article <pjk5i1ln26vi82m0t...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of camouflage, I was baffled for a long time by the camo
>> paint schemes often used on WWII warships. Big diagonal stripes and
>> stuff. I think they're called "dazzle schemes".
>>
>> Anyway, one day, looking at a set of those camo patterns, I tried
>> squinting. Viola! A battleship turned into two smaller ships.
>> Excellent!
>
>Must be because I'm a civilian, but I don't see how that helps any. Is the enemy
>going to think, "Damn, it's not a battleship. What's the point?" Won't they just
>fire on (what they think are) the two smaller ships?
Yes, and they'll do it wrong. That's the idea. Your attack tactics
for big ships and small ships vary greatly in several different ways -
I've given examples in another post very recently in this sub-thread;
we may have crossed each other.
I suspect that some camouflage schemes were on the lines of "well, we
can't hide this big motherfucker, so let's tempt them to use the wrong
tactics". Making a battleship look like two small merchants is a
really, really good plan in that way.
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
Misrepresentation of direction is an approach I've not thought of or
read about. Interesting, if true.
If they'd wanted to enhance directional misdirection even more, they
could've made the stripes get broader toward the stern, giving the
appearance of that end of the ship being nearer the observer than it
really is. That way, a broadside view would look like it the ship was
closing on the observer a bit when it wasn't, and if it *was* actually
closing a bit more broadside. If it was receding, it would appear to be
receding even more.
But I'm decades late with my innovative ideas. :)
> Most of the others seem to be designed to draw the eye away from the
> actual shape of the ship. In other words, the ship-shape. Heh. That
> would be useful in preventing identification of the target, perhaps
Agreed.
> making the attacking vessel or aircraft or shore gun or whatever
> mistake a cruiser for a destroyer, and getting the distance bearings
> confused.
Ayup.
> There are many different intentions in camo, and some of those are new
> to me, in particular that dazzle scheme I've re-quoted.
>
> What's surprising is that none of the many photos you've linked to
> show the the "I'm a smaller ship" type, still less the "I'm two small
> ships" ones. I wish I'd bookmarked the ones I've seen online: the
> "squint and you'll see a pair of small merchants" markings on a
> battleship, for example.
Here's one (that I didn't link in that other batch, for lack of
"dazzle") with a bow treatment definitely meant to make it look like a
smaller-class ship, complete with false wave at the mock bow:
http://www.admiral-hipper-class.dk/
As for "two-ship deception", I get some of that effect from the two
dazzled ships (Tirpitz and Admiral Hipper) in that one link I gave you
with the two noncamo'd ships for comparison. <digging> Squint a little
and see them break up:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/galltiroperrosselsprung.html
And remember, it's at distance that this stuff is for, not for the nice
close-ups at 1000 meters, so that photo is a better representation of
themes actually working than the portrait shots.
Also as for class deception, there are photos of one of the German
battleships with an added fake stack and an added fake turret. Let me
go hunting...<clickety>...not finding it, but SHALL, and will
separately post it for you.
Blinky the Shark
[stuff]
As promised, a German battleship with false stack and turret: the
Admiral Graf Spee in disguise:
http://www.deutschland-class.dk/admiral_graf_spee/gallery/gallgrafspeeindisquise.html
is
Lots42
Peter Boulding wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2005 18:05:52 -0700, "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <1126314352.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Seeing some guys in camoflauge tells the person "These men can help me."
>
> Don't try this at home, folks.
I don't get it.
Lots42
John Hatpin wrote:
> I suspect that some camouflage schemes were on the lines of "well, we
> can't hide this big motherfucker, so let's tempt them to use the wrong
> tactics". Making a battleship look like two small merchants is a
> really, really good plan in that way.
> --
> John Hatpin
Or if they manage to use the scheme for that disguised car linked to a
few posts back, they could give screaming migraines to the enemy
observers.
(I would have looked at the other pics but the car was the first one I
clicked on and it was the static equivalent of 'Samurai Seizure Robots')
E.I
"Ulo Melton" <melt...@sewergator.com> ...
> Looking at pictures of the current disaster got me to wondering: why do
> military personnel wear camouflage uniforms when assigned to duty on
> city streets (or waterways, as the case may be)?
>
> wasn't there a time when olive drab fatigues were normally worn, with
> camouflage reserved for those occasions when it would actually blend in
> with the surroundings?
Duhh... haven't you noticed how camouflage alwys looks good,
even when dirty ?
It's so their mams don't complain when they're on TV,
"Why didn't you change into the other uniform I sent you, all cleaned
with special softener..."
E.I
"Ulo Melton" <melt...@sewergator.com> ...
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I was watching "We Were Soldiers" with a friend a couple of weeks ago.
>>It's supposed to be very realistic. The intro was a firefight
>>involving the French in SEA, and they were wearing camo. My friend
>>asked if that would've been the uni in 1954. I went with the film's
>>reputation and said "probably". Was I right?
>
> Possibly.
Well... THANK YOU, Mr.Expert !
<g>
E.I
"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> ...
> "Lots42" <lot...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
>>Seeing some guys in camoflauge tells the person "These men can help me."
>
> Don't try this at home, folks.
YOU'RE one of those parents who bought his kids superman suits
when they were young, aren't you ?
E.I
"Les Albert" <lalb...@aol.com> ...
> Ulo Melton <melt...@sewergator.com> wrote:
>
>> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>They could have used cartoon "whoosh" lines to show speed:
>>>http://www.hitentertainment.com/artattack/drawingclouds.html
>
>>That car looks like it's farting mushrooms.
>
> That made me laugh, but I have to say those are your dyspeptic
> pictures.
Carter's Little Liver Pills.
The gases are there to assist in pushing out the solids ...
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Overheard on the loudspeaker from the next gate over while
waiting at the Juneau airport Sept. 3rd:
"Superman may now board the plane".
[Said in a Russian or east-european accent, which is irrelevant.]
Charles
Tim Wright
--
Tim W
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
>
>[stuff]
>
>As promised, a German battleship with false stack and turret: the
>Admiral Graf Spee in disguise:
>
>http://www.deutschland-class.dk/admiral_graf_spee/gallery/gallgrafspeeindisquise.html
>
>is
>
>http://tinyurl.com/drqu6
Thanks - I'd not seen that before on a battleship.
--
John Hatpin
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > Now, that looks as if it's a deliberate attempt to disguise the
> > direction the ship's sailing in. Another vital factor in calculating
> > torpedo solutions: the AOB (angle off the bow), in other words the
> > relative angle you are to the target's course. That's bollocksed if
> > you don't know where the target is going.
> Misrepresentation of direction is an approach I've not thought of or
> read about. Interesting, if true.
That's supposedly the biggest deal with a dazzle scheme: the angles of
light and dark and so forth are supposed to make a stern look like a bow a
vice versa.
> Here's one (that I didn't link in that other batch, for lack of
> "dazzle") with a bow treatment definitely meant to make it look like a
> smaller-class ship, complete with false wave at the mock bow:
> http://www.admiral-hipper-class.dk/
Nifty.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Mean People Suck - It takes two deviations to get cool.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Greg Goss
There's a lot of nutcases out there. One class of them habitually
wears camo as a statement of something. You don't want to trust them
any further than you can throw them.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
John Hatpin
Indeed. I used to know one such, tangentially, and he always wore
camo, and always had a survivalist magazine with him (I think it was
called "Survivalist", to avoid any confusion with "Vogue") for light
reading on the bus.
Once, out of naive curiousity, a friend and I asked him if we could
borrow a copy of the magazine, expecting to find it full of articles
on building rough shelters, making fires from found wood, which wild
plants are safe to eat and how to prepare them, and so on. No, it
wasn't.
Apart from one very small article, buried in the back, which described
how to skin a rabbit, it was all about weapons. Reviews of knives,
handguns, assault rifles, machine guns, even a grenade launcher, for
goodness' sake.
Even the article on skinning and cooking a rabbit spent more column
inches on the selection of a weapon to kill the animal than it did on,
well, how to actually skin and cook a rabbit.
--
John Hatpin
Justin
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:cln6i11k8kqqfromd...@4ax.com...
> http://www.gotouring.com/razzledazzle/images/dazzle3-600.jpg
>
> Now, that looks as if it's a deliberate attempt to disguise the
> direction the ship's sailing in. Another vital factor in calculating
> torpedo solutions: the AOB (angle off the bow), in other words the
> relative angle you are to the target's course. That's bollocksed if
> you don't know where the target is going.
Exactly. You can't really conceal the general direction of steaming,
primarily because the motion can be observed relative to a fixed point, plus
the direction of smoke and that sort of thing. What dazzle schemes did was
try to confuse the angle on the bow and the speed. A couple of degrees off,
the torpedoes miss.
The ship in the photo, IIANM, is the French cruiser Gloire, in her somewhat
unique WW2 "zebra" dazzle scheme, which was primarily an anti-sub measure.
> Most of the others seem to be designed to draw the eye away from the
> actual shape of the ship. In other words, the ship-shape. Heh. That
> would be useful in preventing identification of the target, perhaps
> making the attacking vessel or aircraft or shore gun or whatever
> mistake a cruiser for a destroyer, and getting the distance bearings
> confused.
Yessir. The primary goal was to get the operator of the Mk I eyeball to
give bad information to the weapons. Rangefinding was done by techniques
familiar to manual SLR users, bringing the image into focus or lining up a
split image. If the ship's outline was broken up in an unfamilar way, the
rangefinder would hopefully get a bad read. In addition to paint, things
like triangle shaped baffles in the superstructure were used for
anti-rangefinder measures.
Also, the lengths of enemy warships were pretty well known, so you could
easily figure out that if a 600-foot battleship fits between these two lines
it's x-number of yards away. If you put up a dummy funnel and make them
think it's a different ship, you mess up the range. This didn't work too
well in practice.
By WW2 the issue of ship camouflage had been very well studied, and highly
developed, especially by the US Navy. There was more emphasis on
concealment, making the ship blend into its surroundings (which still could
use geometric and irregular patterns). These were attuned to the area the
ship would be operating in and the duties it would be performing. Low
visibility from the air became a major consideration, of course. There were
a great number of dufferent schemes and specially developed colors, like
"haze gray" and "Mountbatten pink."
--Justin
Justin
"E.I" <fa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43249b66$0$163$a3f2...@nnrp1.numericable.fr...
>
> Duhh... haven't you noticed how camouflage alwys looks good,
> even when dirty ?
>
> It's so their mams don't complain when they're on TV,
> "Why didn't you change into the other uniform I sent you, all cleaned
> with special softener..."
Indeed, the US Navy is testing camouflage uniforms for everyday wear at
sea. One would think that a dull gray would be best for lo-viz aboard ship,
but the concealment of grease and paint smudges seems to be the primary
consideration for the blue and gray patterns:
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=18218
--Justin
John Hatpin
>The primary goal was to get the operator of the Mk I eyeball to
>give bad information to the weapons. Rangefinding was done by techniques
>familiar to manual SLR users, bringing the image into focus or lining up a
>split image.
ISTR that both methods were found wanting, and most range calculations
through periscopes were done simply by using a reticle scale on the
eyepiece and estimated target height in combination to produce a
range.
The thing that always surprises people about rangefinding in torpedo
solution calculations is that it's actually not important to know the
exact range to the target, as long as you can get a vague idea. Your
torpedo solution at 2000yds will be the same as if the target is at
400yds. It's the angles and speeds that count, and it looks to me as
if that Gloire dazzle pattern is designed to confuse the angles.
That doesn't mean that you don't want to estimate the range, though,
since you can then check:
1. That you're not too close, in case the fish doesn't have time to
arm. Usually, 300yds or so minimum.
2. That you're not too far away, in case the fish can't make the
distance. Varies, but normally 3000yds - 5000yds maximum.
3. The estimated running time to impact, which is useful for
observing the effects of a hit, but otherwise not essential.
With an accurate rangefinder and a target keeping a straight course,
you can, over several observations, calculate the angle on the bow and
the speed from repeated range calculations. Mostly, it was
impractical to do that - for a start, the targets usually zig-zagged,
and also an experienced aimer could get a good idea of the AOB and
speed from visual observation.
--
John Hatpin
ra...@westnet.poe.com
The gun-toting survialist or militia member is what the public perception
is. And they're friggin camera magnets, so whenever you have a pro-gun
demonstration, you could have 500 people in three piece suits, but if two
guys show up in cammo, they're the one's who's picture will be in the
paper and _that_ will be the public's perception of the nature of the
demonstartion. Thus for any such demonstration, when the call goes out,
it'll generally have a warning: _no cammies_.
Justin
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> Justin wrote:
>
> >Rangefinding was done by techniques
> >familiar to manual SLR users, bringing the image into focus or lining up
a
> >split image.
>
> ISTR that both methods were found wanting, and most range calculations
> through periscopes were done simply by using a reticle scale on the
> eyepiece and estimated target height in combination to produce a
> range.
>
Yes indeed. Optical rangefinders depended upon having two "inputs" with
some distance between; the greater the width, the more accurate the range
estimate. Obviously this wouldn't work for a periscope, but was essential
for gunnery until FC radar became effective and widely installed (~ 1943).
US periscopes used a sextant-like system that split the image. If the
right target masthead height was dialed in and the second image was brought
to rest on the masthead of the other image, the angle measured would give a
good range estimate. Did U-boats use something similar?
BTW, have you read "Run Silent, Run Deep"? Besides being a ripping sub/war
story, it has a lot of great "procedurals" on periscope and surface attack
in the fleet boats.
--Justin
John Hatpin
>"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ecaci1tv3k0o4cu61...@4ax.com...
>> Justin wrote:
>>
>> >Rangefinding was done by techniques
>> >familiar to manual SLR users, bringing the image into focus or lining up
>a
>> >split image.
>>
>> ISTR that both methods were found wanting, and most range calculations
>> through periscopes were done simply by using a reticle scale on the
>> eyepiece and estimated target height in combination to produce a
>> range.
>
>Yes indeed. Optical rangefinders depended upon having two "inputs" with
>some distance between; the greater the width, the more accurate the range
>estimate. Obviously this wouldn't work for a periscope, but was essential
>for gunnery until FC radar became effective and widely installed (~ 1943).
>
> US periscopes used a sextant-like system that split the image. If the
>right target masthead height was dialed in and the second image was brought
>to rest on the masthead of the other image, the angle measured would give a
>good range estimate.
>
>Did U-boats use something similar?
A prismatic system was used, but not in the attack scope, just in the
sky scope. In the attack scope, you just had the reticles, but since
range-finding was of secondary importance to speed and AOB, that was
enough.
Probably redundant information for you (you seem to know your stuff),
but U-boats and other larger subs had two scopes: the attack scope was
a smaller device which was operated from the conning tower. A
completely separate scope, the sky (aka observation) scope, was
operated from the control room below, and had features such as a much
larger vertical angle of tilt and better light resolution. That was
more for distant observation, such as checking that the area was clear
before surfacing, or long-range observations of targets.
The attack scope, OTOH, had a small shaft and head, and was used when
the target was nearby. Its only advantage was that it was small. I'm
pretty sure that they lacked range-finding prisms in order to keep
that small size, which in turn meant that they were less visible,
especially in terms of producing a wake, but had the more primitive
reticle arrangement for range-finding.
By the time you'd got close enough to switch to the attack scope,
manual estimates of range, aided by the reticle, were accurate enough
to ensure that you had the target in the sort of range you wanted,
that being by far the least important factor in aiming.
In short, one large, indiscreet, scope for long-distance viewing,
which was used for establishing a direction of sailing relative to the
target, and another, smaller and more discreet, close-up scope lacking
the optical complexity, for last-minute, minor course changes and,
crucially, torpedo aiming.
In even shorter, prismatic scopes weren't used for calculation of
torpedo data, and I'll bet the same was true of US subs.
>BTW, have you read "Run Silent, Run Deep"? Besides being a ripping sub/war
>story, it has a lot of great "procedurals" on periscope and surface attack
>in the fleet boats.
I've got the film version on DVD, and the book version on a wish-list.
Some day soon ...
--
John Hatpin
Greg Goss
>U-boats and other larger subs had two scopes: the attack scope was
>a smaller device which was operated from the conning tower.
Why did the "conning tower" turn into a "sail"? I've always thought
that calling it a "sail" was absurd, but I've been ridiculed for
calling it a "conning tower".
But John Hatpin, our local CM on submarines, calls it a "conning
tower".
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>U-boats and other larger subs had two scopes: the attack scope was
>>a smaller device which was operated from the conning tower.
>
>Why did the "conning tower" turn into a "sail"? I've always thought
>that calling it a "sail" was absurd, but I've been ridiculed for
>calling it a "conning tower".
>
>But John Hatpin, our local CM on submarines, calls it a "conning
>tower".
I think "sail" is a USN term, a kind of slang, based on the fact that
it sticks up into the air from the deck. I also get the feeling that
it's a Cold War usage, and might even be a nuke sub thing.
I've read a fair amount about USN subs in WWII, and I've never come
across "sail" in them, IIRC.
If anyone tells you you're wrong for using "conning tower", it's
likely that there's an inverse snobbery going on. It's always been
the correct term - most navy types seem to abbreviate it to "the
tower".
--
John Hatpin
Glenn Dowdy
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> Greg Goss wrote:
>
>>John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>U-boats and other larger subs had two scopes: the attack scope was
>>>a smaller device which was operated from the conning tower.
>>
>>Why did the "conning tower" turn into a "sail"? I've always thought
>>that calling it a "sail" was absurd, but I've been ridiculed for
>>calling it a "conning tower".
>>
>>But John Hatpin, our local CM on submarines, calls it a "conning
>>tower".
>
> I think "sail" is a USN term, a kind of slang, based on the fact that
> it sticks up into the air from the deck. I also get the feeling that
> it's a Cold War usage, and might even be a nuke sub thing.
> I've read a fair amount about USN subs in WWII, and I've never come
> across "sail" in them, IIRC.
>
Glenn D.
Justin
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> In short, one large, indiscreet, scope for long-distance viewing,
> which was used for establishing a direction of sailing relative to the
> target, and another, smaller and more discreet, close-up scope lacking
> the optical complexity, for last-minute, minor course changes and,
> crucially, torpedo aiming.
>
> In even shorter, prismatic scopes weren't used for calculation of
> torpedo data, and I'll bet the same was true of US subs.
US subs were pretty much the same, but there was a range finding prism
(something-meter, I forgot the name) in the attack scope, and it was often
used. US pre-war doctrine had emphasized the submerged sonar attack and
used a sophisticated Torpedo Data Computer. The sonar attack turned out to
be much inferior to the scope attack, but the full TDC solution remained an
important component and gave good results. Unlike the German computer, the
US TDC, once set, kept a continuous estimate of the target position, and a
good range input was part of the picture. A single ping sonar ranging could
also be fed directly to the TDC, and, later, there was periscope mounted
radar.
> >BTW, have you read "Run Silent, Run Deep"? Besides being a ripping
sub/war
> >story, it has a lot of great "procedurals" on periscope and surface
attack
> >in the fleet boats.
>
> I've got the film version on DVD, and the book version on a wish-list.
> Some day soon ...
I'm glad it's on your list. The movie is good, but the book is on a whole
'nother level. There are a bunch of good submarine books, but this one was
written by an officer from one of the fighting-est boats of the war, one of
the very few executive officers to get the Navy Cross. He also happened to
be a hell of a writer. Beach's non-fiction "Submarine!" is great, too, if
you can find it.
--Justin
Justin
"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:3opfvbF...@individual.net...
> John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> Why did the "conning tower" turn into a "sail"? I've always thought
> that calling it a "sail" was absurd, but I've been ridiculed for
> calling it a "conning tower".
>
> But John Hatpin, our local CM on submarines, calls it a "conning
> tower".
Back in WW2-vintage USN subs the CT was a small cylinder atop the main hull,
giving a periscope height advantage. By the nuclear sub generation, there
was no pressurized CT compartment, and the "sail" was just a free-flooding
fairing for the periscope sheers, antennas, and the ladder trunk to the
bridge. "Fin" and "fairwater" are also acceptable.
--Justin
Justin
"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn...@commiecast.net> wrote in message
news:0vSdnWlfvZh...@comcast.com...
> >
> When did they stop 'conning' from the tower?
>
As long as there was one, the captain or officer of the deck could conn from
it. But he could also conn from the control room, or the bridge if
surfaced.
--Justin
Blinky the Shark
> Justin wrote:
<chomp>
>>BTW, have you read "Run Silent, Run Deep"? Besides being a ripping
>>sub/war story, it has a lot of great "procedurals" on periscope and
>>surface attack in the fleet boats.
>
> I've got the film version on DVD, and the book version on a wish-list.
> Some day soon ...
There's also a condensed version: Star Trek first year episode "Balance
Of Terror". :)
<q>
Who can forget "Balance of Terror", which was Trek's rendition of the
movie classic "Run Silent, Run Deep", which tells the story of two
seasoned commanders playing a deadly game of cat and mouse in in deep
space? This episode features Mark Lenard, who would also act the part of
Spock's father in several future TV episodes and the feature film, "The
Search for Spock".
</q>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002JJBZY/103-7719952-4602233?v=glance
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:32:35 +0100:
Not in the T class boat I went to sea in. Both scopes were operated
from the control room. The attack scope has to be there as the boat is
fully submerged when it is in use and there is no access to the conning
tower.
Nick Spalding
Kevin
wrote:
>John Hatpin wrote:
>> Justin wrote:
>
><chomp>
>
>>>BTW, have you read "Run Silent, Run Deep"? Besides being a ripping
>>>sub/war story, it has a lot of great "procedurals" on periscope and
>>>surface attack in the fleet boats.
>>
>> I've got the film version on DVD, and the book version on a wish-list.
>> Some day soon ...
>
>There's also a condensed version: Star Trek first year episode "Balance
>Of Terror". :)
>
><q>
>
>Who can forget "Balance of Terror", which was Trek's rendition of the
>movie classic "Run Silent, Run Deep", which tells the story of two
>seasoned commanders playing a deadly game of cat and mouse in in deep
>space? This episode features Mark Lenard, who would also act the part of
>Spock's father in several future TV episodes and the feature film, "The
>Search for Spock".
>
></q>
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002JJBZY/103-7719952-4602233?v=glance
This was the episode that hooked me on ST as a yoof, back in the day.
You can imagine my surprise a few years later when I was allowed to
stay up late to watch RSRD...
--
Kevin
John Hatpin
>"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>news:m1jei15utritn4i0r...@4ax.com...
>
>> In short, one large, indiscreet, scope for long-distance viewing,
>> which was used for establishing a direction of sailing relative to the
>> target, and another, smaller and more discreet, close-up scope lacking
>> the optical complexity, for last-minute, minor course changes and,
>> crucially, torpedo aiming.
>>
>> In even shorter, prismatic scopes weren't used for calculation of
>> torpedo data, and I'll bet the same was true of US subs.
>
>US subs were pretty much the same, but there was a range finding prism
>(something-meter, I forgot the name) in the attack scope, and it was often
>used. US pre-war doctrine had emphasized the submerged sonar attack and
>used a sophisticated Torpedo Data Computer. The sonar attack turned out to
>be much inferior to the scope attack, but the full TDC solution remained an
>important component and gave good results. Unlike the German computer, the
>US TDC, once set, kept a continuous estimate of the target position, and a
>good range input was part of the picture. A single ping sonar ranging could
>also be fed directly to the TDC, and, later, there was periscope mounted
>radar.
I've read Jim Calvert's 'Silent Running' a few times - if you don't
know it, it's a wonderful book written by an ace WII TDC operator
about his patrols in the Pacific.
Anyway, when I first read it, after years of reading about U-boats, I
was surprised at the tracking capabilities of the US TDC, which, as
you say, was lacking in the German boats. I just wish he'd given more
technical information about how the TDC worked, but I can understand
why he didn't - it's just not that sort of book.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote, in <m1jei15utritn4i0r...@4ax.com>
> on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:32:35 +0100:
[...]
>> Probably redundant information for you (you seem to know your stuff),
>> but U-boats and other larger subs had two scopes: the attack scope was
>> a smaller device which was operated from the conning tower.
>
>Not in the T class boat I went to sea in. Both scopes were operated
>from the control room. The attack scope has to be there as the boat is
>fully submerged when it is in use and there is no access to the conning
>tower.
It shows how little I know about postwar subs: until this thread, I
didn't know that the towers were no longer part of the pressure hull.
At the moment, I restrict my CM factor to WWII subs, especially the
German ones.
--
John Hatpin
Les Albert
wrote:
>
>"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>news:m1jei15utritn4i0r...@4ax.com...
>
>> In short, one large, indiscreet, scope for long-distance viewing,
>> which was used for establishing a direction of sailing relative to the
>> target, and another, smaller and more discreet, close-up scope lacking
>> the optical complexity, for last-minute, minor course changes and,
>> crucially, torpedo aiming.
>> In even shorter, prismatic scopes weren't used for calculation of
>> torpedo data, and I'll bet the same was true of US subs.
>US subs were pretty much the same, but there was a range finding prism
>(something-meter, I forgot the name) in the attack scope, and it was often
>used. .....
Stadimeter. I have not been following these threads too closely, so I
don't know if you and the other submarine mavens have seen this web
site:
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/periscope.html
It describes the use of WWII U.S. submarine periscopes in illustrated
detail.
Les
John Hatpin
I don't think I've seen that before - it's a good explanation.
However, unless the Americans did things differently, the bit at the
bottom of the page about firing the torpedo isn't strictly accurate,
since it's forcing the torpedo to fire at an angle (and also omits the
initial straight run before the turn, but that would maybe confuse).
Normally, the torpedo would be launched before the target reached a
zero-degree bearing, so that the fish itself could run straight,
reducing the risk of errors in the turn.
Caveat: early in the war, US subs found that hitting the target nearly
straight on, as in a perfect solution, would cause the torpedo pistol
to fail to detonate, so in that particular case, the last diagram is
probably accurate. Later on, the pistols were modified, and a
90-degree AOB solution became optimal.
--
John Hatpin
Les Albert
Here's another interesting submarine web page with a WWII document
from the U.S, Navy Department. As it says, the information is
elementary and deliberately non-technical:
"..... designed primarily for the masters and seamen of our merchant
marine and for armed guard crews. This publication is elementary in
text and deliberately nontechnical. Its purpose is to acquaint
seafaring men with some of the characteristics and tactics of the
raider which approaches unseen and strikes without warning."
I found this while I was looking for information about how a torpedo
pistol works.
Les
Les Albert
<no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
Follow-up: I forgot to include the web address on my previous
message, so here it is:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/AxisSubs/
Les
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Greg Goss wrote:
<snip>
> >But John Hatpin, our local CM on submarines, calls it a "conning
> >tower".
> I think "sail" is a USN term, a kind of slang, based on the fact that
> it sticks up into the air from the deck. I also get the feeling that
> it's a Cold War usage, and might even be a nuke sub thing.
> I've read a fair amount about USN subs in WWII, and I've never come
> across "sail" in them, IIRC.
Maybe it's becuase the con is no longer located in the conning tower/sail?
Although, according to this site they're diffrent things:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warship/wordlog_subs_print.html
Conning Tower
Based on the nautical term "con" ( "to navigate"), the conning tower is
quite literally, a tower for navigation. Based on the nautical term "con"
( "to navigate"), the conning tower is quite literally, a tower for
navigation. On submarines, this is a low observation tower that serves as
the entrance to the interior of the sub. On surface ships, the conning
tower is a protected command area, near the top of a vessel, often
equipped with operational controls and weaponry command for use during
battle.
Sail
The submarine mast that contains periscopes, radar, antenna and other
communications devices. The term comes from the days when submarines were
modeled more on surface ships and had to surface to make an attack. Also
called fairwater.
Hmm, but investigating the cross sections at the bottom of this page:
http://www.subnetitalia.it/nuclearhome.htm that thing sticking up may _be_
more properly considered a mast that contains perscopes and antennnas and
stuff rather than an elevated platform for navigation.
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:07:19 +0100:
The T class were introduced in the late '30s and served throughout WWII.
You must have heard of the Thetis (which Agent wants to change to
Testis) disaster which happened just before the war. I have also been
round an A class that is at Gosport now and it is the same. I don't
believe the tower was ever part of the pressure hull in any British
submarine.
--
Nick Spalding
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> Greg Goss wrote:
><snip>
>> >But John Hatpin, our local CM on submarines, calls it a "conning
>> >tower".
>
>> I think "sail" is a USN term, a kind of slang, based on the fact that
>> it sticks up into the air from the deck. I also get the feeling that
>> it's a Cold War usage, and might even be a nuke sub thing.
>> I've read a fair amount about USN subs in WWII, and I've never come
>> across "sail" in them, IIRC.
>
>Maybe it's becuase the con is no longer located in the conning tower/sail?
Sounds likely.
>Although, according to this site they're diffrent things:
>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warship/wordlog_subs_print.html
>
>Conning Tower
>Based on the nautical term "con" ( "to navigate"), the conning tower is
>quite literally, a tower for navigation. Based on the nautical term "con"
>( "to navigate"), the conning tower is quite literally, a tower for
>navigation. On submarines, this is a low observation tower that serves as
>the entrance to the interior of the sub. On surface ships, the conning
>tower is a protected command area, near the top of a vessel, often
>equipped with operational controls and weaponry command for use during
>battle.
>
>Sail
>The submarine mast that contains periscopes, radar, antenna and other
>communications devices. The term comes from the days when submarines were
>modeled more on surface ships and had to surface to make an attack. Also
>called fairwater.
>
>Hmm, but investigating the cross sections at the bottom of this page:
>http://www.subnetitalia.it/nuclearhome.htm that thing sticking up may _be_
>more properly considered a mast that contains perscopes and antennnas and
>stuff rather than an elevated platform for navigation.
Yabbut, in WWII days, and before, 90% of the time you'd be running on
the surface, and an elevated platform for navigation is exactly what
you'd want. The nav would stand up there with his sextant and take
readings, or they'd be looking for landmarks, etc, etc.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>Follow-up: I forgot to include the web address on my previous
>message, so here it is:
>
>http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/AxisSubs/
That looks interesting - thanks, Les. I've bookmarked it, and I'll
look through that when I've got more time.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
Shows how little I know about the submarine arm of my own country's
Navy. I'd not heard of the Thetis disaster, but I'll look into it.
We learn stuff here (second time I've said that today).
--
John Hatpin
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:58:08 +0100:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northwest/series7/thetis.shtml
--
Nick Spalding
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote, in <u0pgi1thlcis8g9gi...@4ax.com>
> on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:58:08 +0100:
>
>> Nick Spalding wrote:
>>
[...]
>> >The T class were introduced in the late '30s and served throughout WWII.
>> >You must have heard of the Thetis (which Agent wants to change to
>> >Testis) disaster which happened just before the war. I have also been
>> >round an A class that is at Gosport now and it is the same. I don't
>> >believe the tower was ever part of the pressure hull in any British
>> >submarine.
>>
>> Shows how little I know about the submarine arm of my own country's
>> Navy. I'd not heard of the Thetis disaster, but I'll look into it.
>>
>> We learn stuff here (second time I've said that today).
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northwest/series7/thetis.shtml
Thanks. This is the page I've just been reading about the disaster.
It has personal accounts, and quite a few photos:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6680/subs.htm
--
John Hatpin
Justin
"Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:1imgi1hosd89kdscr...@4ax.com...
>
> The T class were introduced in the late '30s and served throughout WWII.
A very sharp looking submarine, for my money. One of the class was the
Dutch Zwaardvisch, which sank U-168 near Java. The U-boat was on a special
mission to deliver radar and submarine information to Japan.
> You must have heard of the Thetis (which Agent wants to change to
> Testis) disaster which happened just before the war. I have also been
> round an A class that is at Gosport now and it is the same. I don't
> believe the tower was ever part of the pressure hull in any British
> submarine.
AFAIK none of the wartime RN subs had a separate pressurized CT compartment.
It was a matter of preference, the RN felt that the captain should be able
to run the attack from the control room, with the "driving" and "shooting"
teams all together. The US had the fire control party in the CT and the
helm/planesmen in the control room. Both ways seemed to work out okay.
Although the CT compartments were carried pretty low, US subs generally had
a larger bridge and superstructure than the British, which made for longer
diving times. This was not a problem in the vast Pacific, but the extra
seconds would probably have been trouble in the Med.
--Justin
Justin
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrndif9d6....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
> There's also a condensed version: Star Trek first year episode "Balance
> Of Terror". :)
>
> <q>
>
> Who can forget "Balance of Terror", which was Trek's rendition of the
> movie classic "Run Silent, Run Deep", which tells the story of two
> seasoned commanders playing a deadly game of cat and mouse in in deep
> space? This episode features Mark Lenard, who would also act the part of
> Spock's father in several future TV episodes and the feature film, "The
> Search for Spock".
>
> </q>
"Balance of Terror" may have some nods to RSRD, but it's about nine-tenths
lifted from "The Enemy Below," with Enterprise as Robert Mitchum's DE. RSRD
doesn't have anything from the enemy POV, but "The Enemy Below" has plenty
of scenes on the U-boat. Mark Lenard doubles for Curt Jurgens' honorable
enemy commander, with one trusted confidante officer and one idealistic pain
in the ass officer. Each captain tires his best tricks, and ends up
respecting the other.
The cloaking device, which became such a part of Star Trek lore, was just a
means to "submerge" a spaceship and move a sub story into space. Likewise
the dust cloud in "Star Trek II," which is something of a rehash of
"Balance of Terror."
--Justin
Justin
<ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
news:5SYVe.1797$Qq1.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
> > I think "sail" is a USN term, a kind of slang, based on the fact that
> > it sticks up into the air from the deck. I also get the feeling that
> > it's a Cold War usage, and might even be a nuke sub thing.
> > I've read a fair amount about USN subs in WWII, and I've never come
> > across "sail" in them, IIRC.
>
> Maybe it's becuase the con is no longer located in the conning tower/sail?
>
At least in US parlance, "the conn" is simply the authority to give helm
orders. The officer of the deck (in charge of the ship for that watch)
normally "has the conn," but the captain or XO can take it if they want.
They can still conn from the bridge, at the top of the sail, when on the
surface.
--Justin
Justin
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> However, unless the Americans did things differently, the bit at the
> bottom of the page about firing the torpedo isn't strictly accurate,
> since it's forcing the torpedo to fire at an angle (and also omits the
> initial straight run before the turn, but that would maybe confuse).
>
> Normally, the torpedo would be launched before the target reached a
> zero-degree bearing, so that the fish itself could run straight,
> reducing the risk of errors in the turn.
Yes, I think he's trying for keep-it-simple there. US skippers would
normally maneuver to decrease the gyro angle as much as possible. When they
got radar ranges, though, the "curve" shots were about statistically even
with the "straight."
> Caveat: early in the war, US subs found that hitting the target nearly
> straight on, as in a perfect solution, would cause the torpedo pistol
> to fail to detonate, so in that particular case, the last diagram is
> probably accurate. Later on, the pistols were modified, and a
> 90-degree AOB solution became optimal.
Though a number of captains strongly suspected, the contact pistol problem
was not known for sure until the fall of 1943, after tests involving
shooting warhead-less torpedoes against a sea cliff and dropping them from a
crane. Until then, commanders were still usually trying for a right-angle
broadside shot.
The failure to address the torpedo problem is a really scandalous black mark
on the US Navy.
--Justin
E.I
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> ...
>
>
> A prismatic system was used, but not in the attack scope, just in the
> sky scope. In the attack scope, you just had the reticles, but since
> range-finding was of secondary importance to speed and AOB, that was
> enough.
>
> but U-boats and other larger subs had two scopes: the attack scope was
> completely separate scope, the sky (aka observation) scope, was
> operated from the control room below, and had features such as a much
> larger vertical angle of tilt and better light resolution. That was
> more for distant observation, such as checking that the area was clear
> before surfacing, or long-range observations of targets.
>
> The attack scope, OTOH, had a small shaft and head, and was used when
> the target was nearby. Its only advantage was that it was small. I'm
> pretty sure that they lacked range-finding prisms in order to keep
> that small size, which in turn meant that they were less visible,
> especially in terms of producing a wake, but had the more primitive
> reticle arrangement for range-finding.
>
> By the time you'd got close enough to switch to the attack scope,
> manual estimates of range, aided by the reticle, were accurate enough
> to ensure that you had the target in the sort of range you wanted,
> that being by far the least important factor in aiming.
>
> which was used for establishing a direction of sailing relative to the
> target, and another, smaller and more discreet, close-up scope lacking
> the optical complexity, for last-minute, minor course changes and,
> crucially, torpedo aiming.
>
> In even shorter, prismatic scopes weren't used for calculation of
> torpedo data, and I'll bet the same was true of US subs.
>
>>sub/war
>>story, it has a lot of great "procedurals" on periscope and surface attack
>>in the fleet boats.
>
> I've got the film version on DVD, and the book version on a wish-list.
> Some day soon ...
"Das Boot" is coming back here to TV in a week or so ...
E.I
"Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> ...
>
> The T class were introduced in the late '30s and served throughout WWII.
> You must have heard of the Thetis (which Agent wants to change to
> Testis) disaster which happened just before the war. I have also been
> round an A class that is at Gosport now and it is the same. I don't
> believe the tower was ever part of the pressure hull in any British
> submarine.
Having lived and worked in Havant, I've been to Pompey and Gosport many
times
What a pity I missed that one!
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:30:47 +0200:
It is there behind HMS Dolphin along with Holland 1 and one of the X
boats.
--
Nick Spalding
John Hatpin
>"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>news:guigi1le310t8h4t9...@4ax.com...
>
>> However, unless the Americans did things differently, the bit at the
>> bottom of the page about firing the torpedo isn't strictly accurate,
>> since it's forcing the torpedo to fire at an angle (and also omits the
>> initial straight run before the turn, but that would maybe confuse).
>>
>> Normally, the torpedo would be launched before the target reached a
>> zero-degree bearing, so that the fish itself could run straight,
>> reducing the risk of errors in the turn.
>
>Yes, I think he's trying for keep-it-simple there. US skippers would
>normally maneuver to decrease the gyro angle as much as possible. When they
>got radar ranges, though, the "curve" shots were about statistically even
>with the "straight."
Why the difference? In both cases, surely you're trying to reduce the
margin of error in the gyro turn.
>> Caveat: early in the war, US subs found that hitting the target nearly
>> straight on, as in a perfect solution, would cause the torpedo pistol
>> to fail to detonate, so in that particular case, the last diagram is
>> probably accurate. Later on, the pistols were modified, and a
>> 90-degree AOB solution became optimal.
>
>Though a number of captains strongly suspected, the contact pistol problem
>was not known for sure until the fall of 1943, after tests involving
>shooting warhead-less torpedoes against a sea cliff and dropping them from a
>crane. Until then, commanders were still usually trying for a right-angle
>broadside shot.
Nitpick: the torpedo that was launched against a cliff was actually a
live one - the diver who attached the cables to retrieve it later got
an award for bravery, and rightly so, since it was an extremely
hazardous job. The ones that were dropped from the cherrypicker crane
were dummies, though.
What astounds me about this episode is that the testing, diagnosis,
solution and modification of the torpedoes wasn't done by the
manufacturers - it was done by the guys out in the field (in Hawaii).
who officially had no business doing it.
They found that the main rod in the contact pistol was slightly too
long, so that a head-on impact would actually destroy the detonator
instead of activating it. Shortening the rod got rid of the problem -
in the meantime, captains already on patrol were advise to strike at a
45-degree angle, and newly-supplied torpedoes were dismantled and
modified in the field.
Only when they'd demonstrated through a greatly increased number of
90-degree AOB sinkings did the top brass (and the manufacturers)
acknowledge their errors and modify the original design according to
what those unsung, angry guys out in Hawaii had found out for
themselves with a crane and a sheet of metal. Bizarre.
>The failure to address the torpedo problem is a really scandalous black mark
>on the US Navy.
Agreed. If it's any comfort, the German navy had a very similar
experience, although reversed in that the impact pistols wouldn't
detonate unless close to 90 degrees, and there was no Hawaii for the
lower echelons to test and correct the pistols.
Again, the higher authorities poo-pooed the captains' claims that
torpedoes were failing to detonate, and again, blaimed the aiming:
human error rather than the hardware. In that case, though, it was
simply the overwhelming evidence of failure that caused them to
re-test and redesign the impact pistols.
The Germans also had major problems with magnetic detonators failing
to activate, or activating prematurely in heavy seas or due to the
Earth's magnetic field. Again, this was paralleled in American
torpedo experience; captains of both navies were forced to go against
the rules and disable the magnetic detonators.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>"Das Boot" is coming back here to TV in a week or so ...
It is? Which channel?
Mind you, I've no need to watch it. You'll be very surprised to learn
that I've got both the Director's Cut and the full "uncut" miniseries
on DVD. Who'da thunk it?
--
John Hatpin
Dhubghall
> Sounds likely.
I've had a question for a couple weeks and i keep forgetting to ask it on
the subsim site so I may as well ask it here.
It looks like most of the us Fleetboats had an elevated mast on which the
watchmen would stand (higher than most german types for example). This
had the bonus of better visual range but the offest of making the sub
slightly more visible to the enemy.
Was there any analysis done either at the time or post-war about if there
was any disadvantage or advantage to having a larger mast?
Dougall
John Hatpin
>I've had a question for a couple weeks and i keep forgetting to ask it on
>the subsim site so I may as well ask it here.
>
>It looks like most of the us Fleetboats had an elevated mast on which the
>watchmen would stand (higher than most german types for example). This
>had the bonus of better visual range but the offest of making the sub
>slightly more visible to the enemy.
>
>Was there any analysis done either at the time or post-war about if there
>was any disadvantage or advantage to having a larger mast?
I don't know for sure, but I think the Americans had the right idea
for the Pacific theatre, and the Germans had the right idea for the
Atlantic and North Sea theatres.
I'm assuming (yeah, I know) that the Pacific tends to have clearer
weather than, say, the Atlantic. In the Pacific case, you can see a
long way, and your profile doesn't matter much, since you've got
plenty of time to dive before you're spotted.
In the Atlantic, however, you've got more fog banks and squalls and
goodness-knows-what from which you might emerge, and keeping a low
profile is more important, lest you suddenly confront a destroyer at
2000 metres.
Another factor is streamlining - for example, the German type XXI sub,
which was designed to operate submerged, had a fairly low and
streamlined tower compared to its surface-oriented predecessors such
as the II, VII and IX series. Since many post-war diesel subs were
equipped with snorkels, and designed on the basis of the XXI, that
probably is a major factor.
When you get to the nuke subs, I'd imagine the whole paradigm shifts
(sorry for that awful term), and you end up with these massive towers
located near the front of the boat. Nuke subs make me yawn
aggressively, so I'll leave it at that.
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
> It looks like most of the us Fleetboats had an elevated mast on which
> the watchmen would stand (higher than most german types for example).
> This had the bonus of better visual range but the offest of making the
> sub slightly more visible to the enemy.
I know you're talking about masts on subs, but you're talking about mast
heights, and I've been thinking about mast heights -- in a different
vein.
I this thread someone posted a link to a very nice page on how
periscopes work and how between the scope and a rudimentary mechanical
computer torpedo firing solutions are derived.
Visual rangefinding was done by means of a double image in the 'scope
with which the user placed one image of the target visually atop the
other image, aligning the waterline of one image with the mast tip of
the other.
The missing piece was the height of that mast, and that was provided by
a book of known ships and types and their mast heights.
To make rangeginding harder, why not vary the height of masts within a
class?
I posted a link showing photos of the Admiral Graf Spee with a false
funnel and a false turret added for camouflage purposes.
While those didn't involve realistic materials/structure (they seem to
have been wood and canvas), they still took some effort to accomplish.
It seems like, while not being camouflage in a strict sense (though
certainly misleading), some added false masting could have been
effective in bollixing the firing solutions gained by periscope ranging,
and not been prohibitively costly in time and materials.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
End Of The Good GG Archive GUI: http://blinkynet.net/comp/gggui.html
S. Checker
> Dhubghall wrote:
>
>>I've had a question for a couple weeks and i keep forgetting to ask it on
>>the subsim site so I may as well ask it here.
>>
>>It looks like most of the us Fleetboats had an elevated mast on which the
>>watchmen would stand (higher than most german types for example). This
>>had the bonus of better visual range but the offest of making the sub
>>slightly more visible to the enemy.
>>
>>Was there any analysis done either at the time or post-war about if there
>>was any disadvantage or advantage to having a larger mast?
>
> I don't know for sure, but I think the Americans had the right idea
> for the Pacific theatre, and the Germans had the right idea for the
> Atlantic and North Sea theatres.
>
I agree with much of what you say but I feel you should also consider
the awful losses that the Jerrys suffered when they were experimenting
with tall masts in their development area in Kurzschluss-
uberkophensmackenhaus.
--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
John Hatpin
>Visual rangefinding was done by means of a double image in the 'scope
>with which the user placed one image of the target visually atop the
>other image, aligning the waterline of one image with the mast tip of
>the other.
>
>The missing piece was the height of that mast, and that was provided by
>a book of known ships and types and their mast heights.
>
>To make rangeginding harder, why not vary the height of masts within a
>class?
>
>I posted a link showing photos of the Admiral Graf Spee with a false
>funnel and a false turret added for camouflage purposes.
>
>While those didn't involve realistic materials/structure (they seem to
>have been wood and canvas), they still took some effort to accomplish.
>
>It seems like, while not being camouflage in a strict sense (though
>certainly misleading), some added false masting could have been
>effective in bollixing the firing solutions gained by periscope ranging,
>and not been prohibitively costly in time and materials.
1. Ranging wasn't essential for torpedo solutions, but the angles and
target speed were.
2. Yes, changing the mast height to confuse was done, but it was
rare, and fairly easily detectable. Funnel height was often used
instead of mast height for that reason. I think both figures were
included in the identification book.
3. Mast height was only a rough guide anyway, since the target ship
could itself be at different heights, depending on cargo and/or
ballast being carried at the time.
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>Visual rangefinding was done by means of a double image in the 'scope
>>with which the user placed one image of the target visually atop the
>>other image, aligning the waterline of one image with the mast tip of
>>the other.
>>
>>The missing piece was the height of that mast, and that was provided
>>by a book of known ships and types and their mast heights.
>>
>>To make rangeginding harder, why not vary the height of masts within a
>>class?
>>
>>I posted a link showing photos of the Admiral Graf Spee with a false
>>funnel and a false turret added for camouflage purposes.
>>
>>While those didn't involve realistic materials/structure (they seem to
>>have been wood and canvas), they still took some effort to accomplish.
>>
>>It seems like, while not being camouflage in a strict sense (though
>>certainly misleading), some added false masting could have been
>>effective in bollixing the firing solutions gained by periscope
>>ranging, and not been prohibitively costly in time and materials.
>
> 1. Ranging wasn't essential for torpedo solutions, but the angles and
> target speed were.
Ranging wasn't essential? How do you get ship's speed if you don't know
range and angular speed relative to your position? Are you just
estimating it by bow wave? That seems clunky.
> 2. Yes, changing the mast height to confuse was done, but it was
> rare, and fairly easily detectable. Funnel height was often used
> instead of mast height for that reason. I think both figures were
> included in the identification book.
Ah.
> 3. Mast height was only a rough guide anyway, since the target ship
> could itself be at different heights, depending on cargo and/or
> ballast being carried at the time.
Good point.
Justin
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> >Yes, I think he's trying for keep-it-simple there. US skippers would
> >normally maneuver to decrease the gyro angle as much as possible. When
they
> >got radar ranges, though, the "curve" shots were about statistically even
> >with the "straight."
>
> Why the difference? In both cases, surely you're trying to reduce the
> margin of error in the gyro turn.
I'm talking very late war/post war. By then the gyros themselves were good
enough that the bad shots were more the result of bad estimated data than
anything else. The radar bearing and range, tied directly into the TDC,
gave such good solutions you could shoot
> Nitpick: the torpedo that was launched against a cliff was actually a
> live one - the diver who attached the cables to retrieve it later got
> an award for bravery, and rightly so, since it was an extremely
> hazardous job. The ones that were dropped from the cherrypicker crane
> were dummies, though.
You're right about that, I recalled incorrectly.
> What astounds me about this episode is that the testing, diagnosis,
> solution and modification of the torpedoes wasn't done by the
> manufacturers - it was done by the guys out in the field (in Hawaii).
> who officially had no business doing it.
>
And the manufacturer, of course, was the Navy itself. The torpedo story is
an example of everything that is bad with an insulated, self-sustaining
bureaucracy and lack of competition.
The Navy Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island, was the sole supplier.
Local political patronage and the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance resisted any
attempt to open another facility or outsource. BuOrd was a powerful agency,
normally outside the Navy chain of command, that was very much a "club" run
by line officers without much contact with the seagoing forces. The
Bureau's testing procedures were ridiculously inadequate, Depression
penny-pinching eliminated most live-fire testing, preferring dummy torpedoes
that could be re-used.
Besides the contact detonator, the torpedoes depth controls were faulty,
they ran about ten feet deeper than set. And the magnetic detonator was
very erratic. All these defects were identified and first addressed at sea.
And besides these issues, torpedo production was way behind wartime usage,
and development of an electric fish was hitting dead ends. Westinghouse had
a promising design, but Newport wanted nothing but in-house development.
As captains' action reports began to question, then actively criticize the
torpedoes, BuOrd steadfastly held that it was the crews' errors that were to
blame. When admirals in the Pacific rotated sub officers to duty with
BuOrd, they were dismissed as complainers and excluded from the club.
Even in-theater, the Bureau's influence was felt. Ralph Christie, the
admiral commanding US submarines in Australia, had been a torpedo expert
with BuOrd and done a lot of work on the magnetic influence exploder. He
refused to believe that it didn't work, even when the submarine admiral at
Pearl Harbor, Charles Lockwood, ordered his captains to deactivate the
magnetic feature. But any boats transferred from Submainres, Pacific Fleet
to Submarines, South West Pacific Force had to reactivate their magnetic
pistols when they crossed into Christie's command. (Christie did other
questionable things: When radio intelligence indicated that a boat had a
particularly succesful patrol, he would be waiting pierside in Fremantle
when they returned to hand out medals then and there. This gave the
codebreakers fits.)
> They found that the main rod in the contact pistol was slightly too
> long, so that a head-on impact would actually destroy the detonator
> instead of activating it. Shortening the rod got rid of the problem -
> in the meantime, captains already on patrol were advise to strike at a
> 45-degree angle, and newly-supplied torpedoes were dismantled and
> modified in the field.
Interestingly, I have read a few different versions of what was wrong with
the contact pistol. One as above, another that it was a "whiplash" effect
that would cause the cap to not be struck hard enough, and another that the
guide rails in the detonator were too soft and deformed.
> Only when they'd demonstrated through a greatly increased number of
> 90-degree AOB sinkings did the top brass (and the manufacturers)
> acknowledge their errors and modify the original design according to
> what those unsung, angry guys out in Hawaii had found out for
> themselves with a crane and a sheet of metal. Bizarre.
"Uncle Charlie" Lockwood at first questioned whether the torpedoes were at
fault, but was finally convinced and began to complain loudly to whomever he
could. After he got "Swede" Momsen (inventor of escape breathing apparatus
and leader of the Squalus rescue/salvage) to run his tests, Lockwood went to
the very top. Admiral King, considered by many to be the toughest SOB in the
Navy, listened and commenced to kick asses in BuOrd.
> >The failure to address the torpedo problem is a really scandalous black
mark
> >on the US Navy.
>
> Agreed. If it's any comfort, the German navy had a very similar
> experience, [...]
> The Germans also had major problems with magnetic detonators failing
> to activate, or activating prematurely in heavy seas or due to the
> Earth's magnetic field. Again, this was paralleled in American
> torpedo experience; captains of both navies were forced to go against
> the rules and disable the magnetic detonators.
IIRC there was another problem with ventilating torpedoes causing a pressure
buildup that fouled up depth control, also identified by a U-boat crew.
--Justin
Justin
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
[...]
> To make rangeginding harder, why not vary the height of masts within a
> class?
[...]
> It seems like, while not being camouflage in a strict sense (though
> certainly misleading), some added false masting could have been
> effective in bollixing the firing solutions gained by periscope ranging,
> and not been prohibitively costly in time and materials.
>
Yes, and that was certainly done. Because of the possibility of deception,
the captains were encouraged to try and verify by counting decks, figuring
eight feet per deck, and then using that as a gauge for the mast. And of
course one got a feel for it with experience.
--Justin
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
[...]
>> 1. Ranging wasn't essential for torpedo solutions, but the angles and
>> target speed were.
>
>Ranging wasn't essential? How do you get ship's speed if you don't know
>range and angular speed relative to your position? Are you just
>estimating it by bow wave? That seems clunky.
This is hard to describe, but I'll give it a go.
There are three factors to take into account when aiming a torpedo:
the target's relative bearing, its speed, and its distance. Believe
it or not, the distance itself is irrelevant except for making sure
it's not too far away or too close for the torpedo's range. As long
as you've got the angles and speed right, and the target is within the
capable range of the torpedo, you'll get a hit.
Non-intuitive, but true. It always baffles me when I think about
that, until I've thought about it enough for it to make sense.
Distance really doesn't matter.
But that's not what you're asking. I think you're saying that if you
have the bearing and distance to target, and you take multiple
bearings and distances, you've got enough data to calculate the speed.
(We're assuming that the speed and bearing of the sub itself is known,
which certainly was the case with all decent WWII TDC machines).
Now, your question boils down to this: is it easier to measure
distance or speed? Sampling distance over several minutes will give
you the speed (combined, of course, with relative bearing).
The answer is, you can do it both ways. With the advanced TDCs the US
Navy used, and the stadimeters in the periscopes, you could calculate
the whole thing, and even predict the position of the target. Without
that - as in the case of the U-boats - you couldn't. But U-boat
commanders became extremely good at predicting speed visually. They
had plenty of practice at estimating a ship's speed by eye.
Also, the hydrophone operator was useful in determining speed. He'd
do that by counting the revolutions of the target ship's screws, and
this was surprisingly accurate. You identify a ship as a type X, and
you can be pretty certain that its screws would be size Y and pitch Z,
so forty thrums a minute (as measured through the hydrophones) gives
you a its speed of W knots.
Another factor is the likely speed of a ship. Once you've identified
your target as, say, a Victory ship, you know its optimal speed for
fuel consumption, and you can safely assume that its speed will be
around (say) 7kts, since that's its most efficient speed.
And if you get close enough, and your angle is right, you're not
obliged to get the speed absolutely perfectly right. In torpedo
aiming, the angle is the king.
I'll finish by pasting something I wrote for a U-boat forum - if I've
pasted/posted this before, apologies:
______________________________________
A guide to torpedo attack tactics, in the style of the late Stanley
Unwin:
If Sonarman or Watchman sings, notify the bearings and directionness.
First plot an endy-roundy for the meeting, which has to be
perpendicularised for the optimum banging of your fishes.
When the enemies are closest, dive dive dive and get the angles of the
bowies. Subtract 360 if ported, and add 270 if starboarded. Enter
TDC, and keep periscoped periodically. Angly off the bow keep around
180, but watch the speediness of the merchantmen. Your speed is
shallowy, so flank it, but take much care of any waking. Spotting by
looks-out is gruesome.
Add the sine of the anglies to the tangent of the bowies, adjust your
courseness, and launchitude should be semi-kilometric. For distance,
you need mastication from the reticules in the periwinkle. Tubes must
be dragged open one by one, and don't forget distances for torpedo
armies.
Torpedoids have two sets: magnetron and impacted. For one, depth-set
for a couple of metres or two below the krill for the larger
explosions and quickest sinks. Big frothy plumes: deep joy.
But, many dodos. Especially early-warsome, many bangs with wrong
timeliness, or no booms at all! Kapitans, use a spreader and
maximagnificate your chances with numerous torpedations. Fore and
aft, spreaded left and right, and don't forget the angly-bowy. The
glanced blowing is just bouncy-bouncy and it's 'goodbye' to bang-bang
and fishy depths.
So, the lining-up - just add 180 to the position, get the gyro and
take away 90 less 360 for leading.. Then turn flankwards into bow and
stern, and wait, wait for zero angle on the gyroscopic. Then,
shouting loudest 'torpedo los!' and stopcheck time for hitting.
'Treffer' makes men leap all ways for lifeboats, and makes angry
destroyers too, so check your cautiousness.
Now the sailor-men on the tinny cans have the deep, deep chargies they
hurl at the briny and drop, drop, boom! So, hush-hush, turn many
degrees and lower, lower. No knocking-spanners or shouting your
thinking; keep ultra-no-noise. Lavatory out; use Heinz. Whisper
necessarily, and with hopefullness up, destructioners will go away
soonest. Back upwards for freshest of air and toppy-uppy the
batteries.
All again, chaps! More tonnies ahead!
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>John Hatpin wrote:
> [...]
>>> 1. Ranging wasn't essential for torpedo solutions, but the angles and
>>> target speed were.
>>
>>Ranging wasn't essential? How do you get ship's speed if you don't know
>>range and angular speed relative to your position? Are you just
>>estimating it by bow wave? That seems clunky.
>
> This is hard to describe, but I'll give it a go.
>
> There are three factors to take into account when aiming a torpedo:
> the target's relative bearing, its speed, and its distance. Believe
> it or not, the distance itself is irrelevant except for making sure
> it's not too far away or too close for the torpedo's range. As long
> as you've got the angles and speed right, and the target is within the
> capable range of the torpedo, you'll get a hit.
Okay. You're the sub pro.
> Non-intuitive, but true. It always baffles me when I think about
> that, until I've thought about it enough for it to make sense.
> Distance really doesn't matter.
>
> But that's not what you're asking. I think you're saying that if you
> have the bearing and distance to target, and you take multiple
> bearings and distances, you've got enough data to calculate the speed.
No, my main problem was with the idea that range wasn't needed.
> (We're assuming that the speed and bearing of the sub itself is known,
> which certainly was the case with all decent WWII TDC machines).
>
> Now, your question boils down to this: is it easier to measure
> distance or speed? Sampling distance over several minutes will give
> you the speed (combined, of course, with relative bearing).
> The answer is, you can do it both ways. With the advanced TDCs the US
> Navy used, and the stadimeters in the periscopes, you could calculate
> the whole thing, and even predict the position of the target. Without
> that - as in the case of the U-boats - you couldn't. But U-boat
> commanders became extremely good at predicting speed visually. They
> had plenty of practice at estimating a ship's speed by eye.
'Kay.
> Also, the hydrophone operator was useful in determining speed. He'd
> do that by counting the revolutions of the target ship's screws, and
I read that in the how-it-works link.
> Another factor is the likely speed of a ship. Once you've identified
> your target as, say, a Victory ship, you know its optimal speed for
> fuel consumption, and you can safely assume that its speed will be
> around (say) 7kts, since that's its most efficient speed.
I think that was in that link, too.
John Hatpin
I think that last sentence sums it up very well. Those guys just
knew, through intense training and practice, what to expect.
One thing I've never understood, though, is the almost ubiquitous
overestimates of the size of the target. Reading through U-boat
patrol reports, correalated with later data, you almost always get
something like this:
0304: Torpedoed and sank 11,000-ton supply ship at 43N, 76W (actually
the 3,450-ton coastal freighter Albion Mywaythen).
It crops up again and again, in both German and US accounts, and I
don't believe that the captains' intentions were to deceive. They
genuinely and routinely overestimated the size of their targets.
There's some sort of psychological factor here, and it baffles me.
--
John Hatpin
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
<no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> There are three factors to take into account when aiming a torpedo:
> the target's relative bearing, its speed, and its distance. Believe
> it or not, the distance itself is irrelevant except for making sure
> it's not too far away or too close for the torpedo's range. As long
> as you've got the angles and speed right, and the target is within the
> capable range of the torpedo, you'll get a hit.
Pretty much the same, except for speed, is true for air-to-air
missiles. Angles and range are all you need to get a kill.
I used to have one of the great maxims of air combat, "Turn to kill,
not to engage" in my .sig; I once got e-mail from a submariner who
said that it was a similarly important maxim in submarine combat. He
was fascinated to find out that it applied elsewhere.
Except for not going vertical, sub combat is just like air combat,
only much, much slower. There's a sub battle in one of the Clancy
books, maybe "Red Storm Rising", that could have had airplanes and
missiles substituted for the subs and torpedoes without any other
changes.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
John Hatpin
[Snip loads of very interesting, well-informed stuff to which I have
no reply except "that's very interesting and well-informed - many
thanks"]
>IIRC there was another problem with ventilating torpedoes causing a pressure
>buildup that fouled up depth control, also identified by a U-boat crew.
This is another IIRC, but in the case of the U-boats, the
depth-control problem was mainly because the torpedoes had been
developed and tested in calmer waters such as the Baltic. Once in the
rough waters of the Atlantic, of course, they behaved differently.
Again, this factored against the use of magnetic pistols, since a
torpedo running at an incorrect depth would be useless. It would
either run too high, and strike the hull - at an angle that would fail
to detonate the impact pistol - or it would run too low and the
magnetic detector wouldn't be activated.
Another factor was premature detonation, which sounds like the sort of
thing Dr Ruth would want to discuss. I don't know why (do you?), but
the German magnetic pistols tended to detonate en route in high seas,
which was doubly bad: not only did you waste a torpedo, but you also
gave away your position. Scary.
Then there was the whole element of sabotage. German torpedoes were
almost exclusively made by German workers, but even then there were
some anti-Nazi, brave people who deliberately sabotaged them. Not
very easy to do in something like a torpedo, which could be (and often
was) dismantled completely for inspection prior to deployment, and
often at sea.
Whenever I think of the courage of the saboteurs, or of any resistance
operatives in Axis-occupied countries, I get goose-pimples. I wish I
had one-hundredth of their bravery and determination.
Side-fact: it was customary for U-boats in France, after repair and
refitting and a shake-down cruise, to be given a last maintenance by
an all-German team before embarking on a patrol. Even then, there was
sabotage. Not all Germans supported the war.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>Except for not going vertical, sub combat is just like air combat,
>only much, much slower. There's a sub battle in one of the Clancy
>books, maybe "Red Storm Rising", that could have had airplanes and
>missiles substituted for the subs and torpedoes without any other
>changes.
Yes, much, much slower. That's why I play subsims rather than
flightsims - I don't have the quick, teenage reactions you need for a
Falcon or even a Spitfire. Oh, and I can't grok 3D enough to play
combat flightsims - too much "where the hell has he gone? which way
is up?"
Subsims are very calming, mostly, waiting twenty minutes for that big
freighter to come to the right position. Turn left 5 degrees, make
your speed 3kts - very soothing.
I'm in awe of you for flying planes, and they're the real things.
--
John Hatpin
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:29:55 +0100:
And if it's in convoy once you've figured out the speed of one you have
the lot.
Nick Spalding
John Gilmer
> >
> > But that's not what you're asking. I think you're saying that if you
> > have the bearing and distance to target, and you take multiple
> > bearings and distances, you've got enough data to calculate the speed.
>
> No, my main problem was with the idea that range wasn't needed.html
I'm not 100% convinced but I can add a little more fuel to the fire (whether
it adds heat or light is TBD.)
If a "missile" (torpedo) is to hit the target, the relative bearing of the
target will be constant. (BTW: the implication of this is that when
boating or flying, you will MISS other boats or aircraft that appear to move
but will HIT those which appear to be stationary.)
Frankly, I'm too lazy to "do the math" unless I'm being paid, but it seems
to me that even if you have a solution for a given speed of the missile (the
sub), without extra information (essentially target range) it would be
impossible to get a solution when you change speed (i.e.: fire the torpedo.)
John Hatpin
I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll attempt a reply.
The variables you need for an accurate solution are:
1. Your speed
2. The target's speed
3. The target's relative bearing
4. The speed of your torpedo once launched
5. The desired point of impact
You know (1) because the sub has a kind of speedometer linked to the
TDC. You know (4) because torpedoes run at a constant speed, or at
one of a preset number - three, normally - of speeds. That can be
dialled into the TDC.
So, all you need is (2) and (3), and there's a guy with a hat and a
periscope whose job it is to estimate them. He's called the Captain.
Astute readers will have noticed that I've forgotten to mention (5) -
in U-boats, that's also the job of the captain when submerged, since
he's got the periscope. Firing surfaced, the job falls to the First
Watch Officer, who, under the direction of the captain, operates an
UZO, which is a kind of specialist mounted binocular on the bridge
whose bearing is transmitted to the TDC.
Eeeeh - I could go on all day.
--
John Hatpin
E.I
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> ...
Fr; cable. I think it is for tonight (first run)