?

CAUTION


MEMO TO THE FLEET

IF YOU FIND YOURSELF THE TARGET OF ONE OF THESE THINGS . . . CRAZY IVAN! IMMEDIATELY!

These things can take out anything it chooses to. Most of the time, an LD won't even waste it's time on you. It has bigger fish to fry. Unless you're carrying an important cargo - material or biological, or part of a bigger prize.

But if an LD does decide to engage you, then you better zig zag buddy, because for some reason it wants you dead. And you can't see what it's shooting OR who's shooting it. But it can damn sure see you.

It'll be Cerberrus all over again with an exclamation point. The launch from these things make Apollo look like a toy. Because you don't know it's coming. If you're lucky to be alive after somehow finding out it's out there, don't just rest on your laurels or think you've won some lottery. Because you haven't won a prize until you survive to tell the tale. BTW, when these things range on you, they are constantly ranging until they see flaming datum in the periscope. Instead of thinking about localizing it, you should have been worried about the successive launches.


"ZIG! ZAG! ZIG ZIG! ZA⁠—"

There is something UNDER the water. You can't see it. But it can see you. And it's hungry.

Don't end up like Chin, who realized too late because she wasted too much time thinking. Think on the run. LOL

BuPers may really experience a shortage messing around in Shark infested waters. Right now, I only feel certain about sending kzt and Brigade XO out against these guys. The rest of you may end up treading water.

cthia wrote:Truly imagine the wet subs in WWII with the processing power of an Honorverse computer that is state-of-the-art even for Honorverse computers.

Okay, I can imagine that. They'd be not a whit more effective at targeting than the were historically. The TDCs are already capable of calculating the vectors to a higher accuracy than the torpedoes were capable of reliably following. More computational power wouldn't help a bit.

The inaccuracy of the TDC was due to low accuracy sensor input. For much of the war the variables it needed to have to calculate intercepts could only be provided by visual sights taken through a periscope. From that the sub's captain would attempt to determine range, target bearing and speed - and provide those to the TDC.
But doing that from only a few short observations was very error prone. And worse they interacted with each other, so if he got the target range wrong then that would screw up the calculation of the target's speed from its angular motion relative to your sub.

Later in the war the allied submarines started getting radar and those gave more accurate range, and some sets were even able to provide a possession fix - from a few of those you could get a decent estimate of speed and bearing - though you'd have to trade of the radar tracking time required against the risk your radar would be detected and the target would being evasive maneuvers. (The doppler radars able to directly measure speed, at least toward or away from you, were a later invention).

That same sensor limitation means that the most powerful computer wouldn't be able to effectively target multiple ships because it'd take so long for the captain to measure the variables for each that the data for the previous ships would have gone stale.

And of course if the targets are following a routine unpredictable zig-zag (a standard anti-torpedo tactic) then it isn't enough to measure the target's current range, speed, and heading - the captain also has to guess when/whether it'll change and of them over the couple minutes it takes a torpedo to reach the calculated future target location.

About the only thing a more powerful computer could do better than the TDC and captain is, with a very long radar track (10 - 20 minutes) of the target, it could attempt to "break" the zig-zag pattern if the target was actually following a deterministic one. That would let it accurately predict where the target would be. But a radar look that long is a hell of a risky thing to do - and totally not how most submarine attacks worked.

The biggest source of inaccuracy was bad inputs to the TDC. The next largest would be targets zig-zagging after the torpedoes were launched (causing them to avoid the calculated intercept point). The third is probably torpedo quality control - how well the torpedo would manage to follow the bearing and speed the TDC calculated. More powerful computers help with none of those when given access to only the same limited, and often flawed, information the captain could generate.

cthia wrote:Now weld that notion together with Honorverse targeting and accuracy. Honed and patented by the alpha minds of the MALign.

Now better sensors, those would help the WWII subs whether or not you gave them a better computer. An WWII sub skipper would probably give their left arm for a laser rangefinder attached to the periscope. And a modern low probability of intercept radar, small enough to also mount on the periscope so you don't need to stick a large antenna array above the surface, combined with a position plotting display? They'd be in heaven. But that's sensors, not computers. The probables with the TDC weren't it's ability to number crunch, nor the inability to handle multiple targets, it was GIGO.

Brigade XO wrote:Thrusters such as Honor used at Cerebus work- no heat or electronic signature there.

The thrusters Honor used at Cerberus had a massive optical and heat signature, she'd just positioned herself so that the plasma cloud was directly between the targets and the star behind her - from any other orientation her ships would have stood out like a road flare.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Truly imagine the wet subs in WWII with the processing power of an Honorverse computer that is state-of-the-art even for Honorverse computers.

Okay, I can imagine that. They'd be not a whit more effective at targeting than the were historically. The TDCs are already capable of calculating the vectors to a higher accuracy than the torpedoes were capable of reliably following. More computational power wouldn't help a bit.

The inaccuracy of the TDC was due to low accuracy sensor input. For much of the war the variables it needed to have to calculate intercepts could only be provided by visual sights taken through a periscope. From that the sub's captain would attempt to determine range, target bearing and speed - and provide those to the TDC.
But doing that from only a few short observations was very error prone. And worse they interacted with each other, so if he got the target range wrong then that would screw up the calculation of the target's speed from its angular motion relative to your sub.

Later in the war the allied submarines started getting radar and those gave more accurate range, and some sets were even able to provide a possession fix - from a few of those you could get a decent estimate of speed and bearing - though you'd have to trade of the radar tracking time required against the risk your radar would be detected and the target would being evasive maneuvers. (The doppler radars able to directly measure speed, at least toward or away from you, were a later invention).

That same sensor limitation means that the most powerful computer wouldn't be able to effectively target multiple ships because it'd take so long for the captain to measure the variables for each that the data for the previous ships would have gone stale.

And of course if the targets are following a routine unpredictable zig-zag (a standard anti-torpedo tactic) then it isn't enough to measure the target's current range, speed, and heading - the captain also has to guess when/whether it'll change and of them over the couple minutes it takes a torpedo to reach the calculated future target location.

About the only thing a more powerful computer could do better than the TDC and captain is, with a very long radar track (10 - 20 minutes) of the target, it could attempt to "break" the zig-zag pattern if the target was actually following a deterministic one. That would let it accurately predict where the target would be. But a radar look that long is a hell of a risky thing to do - and totally not how most submarine attacks worked.

The biggest source of inaccuracy was bad inputs to the TDC. The next largest would be targets zig-zagging after the torpedoes were launched (causing them to avoid the calculated intercept point). The third is probably torpedo quality control - how well the torpedo would manage to follow the bearing and speed the TDC calculated. More powerful computers help with none of those when given access to only the same limited, and often flawed, information the captain could generate.

cthia wrote:Now weld that notion together with Honorverse targeting and accuracy. Honed and patented by the alpha minds of the MALign.

Now better sensors, those would help the WWII subs whether or not you gave them a better computer. An WWII sub skipper would probably give their left arm for a laser rangefinder attached to the periscope. And a modern low probability of intercept radar, small enough to also mount on the periscope so you don't need to stick a large antenna array above the surface, combined with a position plotting display? They'd be in heaven. But that's sensors, not computers. The probables with the TDC weren't it's ability to number crunch, nor the inability to handle multiple targets, it was GIGO.

But you do realize that you're making my argument for me?

I'll have your testimony subpoenaed for the prosecution.

A sticker affixed to a MaLign tact console.

Objects in your rear-view mirror may
appear much much smaller.





****** *

Thinks markedly wrote:Sorry, this has been annoying me: why do you capitalise "MaLign" with a capital L and lowercase A? The name is "Mesan Alignment".

I can appreciate your annoyance. I'm sure it isn't a bit less than mine when someone puts the period AFTER the ending quotation mark.

"Messn Alignment".
"Mesan Alignment."

We all have quirks. Just for the record, I explained that before. The MALign are a malignant species IMO. They are disgusting. They are out of alignment. Misaligned. Malignant. Hence...MaLign(ant).

I admit guilt to taking literary liberties.

cthia wrote:

Thinks markedly wrote:Sorry, this has been annoying me: why do you capitalise "MaLign" with a capital L and lowercase A? The name is "Mesan Alignment".

I can appreciate your annoyance. I'm sure it isn't a bit less than mine when someone puts the period AFTER the ending quotation mark.

"Messn Alignment".
"Mesan Alignment."

We all have quirks. Just for the record, I explained that before. The MALign are a malignant species IMO. They are disgusting. They are out of alignment. Misaligned. Malignant. Hence...MaLign(ant).

I admit guilt to taking literary liberties.

Apologies if my comment sounded arrogant. But your capitalisation tickled a bit of my OCD and I wanted to know.

As for the period inside the quote, you're completely right that it should be as per the grammar rules. But again my OCD says that the quote is inside the sentence and therefore it should close before the sentence does...

Galactic Sapper wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:Thrusters such as Honor used at Cerebus work- no heat or electronic signature there.

The thrusters Honor used at Cerberus had a massive optical and heat signature, she'd just positioned herself so that the plasma cloud was directly between the targets and the star behind her - from any other orientation her ships would have stood out like a road flare.

Additionally, she nearly exhausted her propellant mass supply to accomplish her manoeuvre, bearing in mind she was flying heavy warships that had huge bunkerage and had just topped off. You can't do that unless you're certain that the threat board will be clear after your operation or you have a nearly infallible exit strategy. Or you're desperate.

cthia wrote:Truly imagine the wet subs in WWII with the processing power of an Honorverse computer that is state-of-the-art even for Honorverse computers.

Jonathan_S wrote:Okay, I can imagine that. They'd be not a whit more effective at targeting than the were historically. The TDCs are already capable of calculating the vectors to a higher accuracy than the torpedoes were capable of reliably following. More computational power wouldn't help a bit.

I agree, but with conditions. More processing power COULD have helped, if the programmers would have been adept enough at using it. They couldn't use the coefficient of drag the ship encountered as it toppedled on the sea, losing speed. Etc. Otherwise, you're right. More processing power wouldn't have helped, for the most part. Except, the upgrade from the Mk III to the Mk IV TDC was significant. Therefore, more computing power DID help, tremendously.

Jonathan_S wrote:The inaccuracy of the TDC was due to low accuracy sensor input. For much of the war the variables it needed to have to calculate intercepts could only be provided by visual sights taken through a periscope. From that the sub's captain would attempt to determine range, target bearing and speed - and provide those to the TDC.
But doing that from only a few short observations was very error prone. And worse they interacted with each other, so if he got the target range wrong then that would screw up the calculation of the target's speed from its angular motion relative to your sub.

Later in the war the allied submarines started getting radar and those gave more accurate range, and some sets were even able to provide a possession fix - from a few of those you could get a decent estimate of speed and bearing - though you'd have to trade of the radar tracking time required against the risk your radar would be detected and the target would being evasive maneuvers. (The doppler radars able to directly measure speed, at least toward or away from you, were a later invention).

That same sensor limitation means that the most powerful computer wouldn't be able to effectively target multiple ships because it'd take so long for the captain to measure the variables for each that the data for the previous ships would have gone stale.

That is inaccurate. The Mk III TDC had the limitation of only being able to give an instantaneous firing solution after variables are fed into it. The Mk IV not only gave instantaneous firing solutions, it automatically tracked the targets. The MK IV was a very capable computer. The weakness in the system was the Mark 14 torpedo, which were many.

Jonathan_S wrote:And of course if the targets are following a routine unpredictable zig-zag (a standard anti-torpedo tactic) then it isn't enough to measure the target's current range, speed, and heading - the captain also has to guess when/whether it'll change and of them over the couple minutes it takes a torpedo to reach the calculated future target location.

True. (IF). My overarching point is that the GA will NOT be zig zagging during the beginning of the LDs maiden voyage. When the GA gets itself back on balance, yes.

Jonathan_S wrote:About the only thing a more powerful computer could do better than the TDC and captain is, with a very long radar track (10 - 20 minutes) of the target, it could attempt to "break" the zig-zag pattern if the target was actually following a deterministic one. That would let it accurately predict where the target would be. But a radar look that long is a hell of a risky thing to do - and totally not how most submarine attacks worked.

Well, a more powerful computer could have tracked several targets, all else being equal. Sadly, it was not.

Jonathan_S wrote:The biggest source of inaccuracy was bad inputs to the TDC. The next largest would be targets zig-zagging after the torpedoes were launched (causing them to avoid the calculated intercept point). The third is probably torpedo quality control - how well the torpedo would manage to follow the bearing and speed the TDC calculated. More powerful computers help with none of those when given access to only the same limited, and often flawed, information the captain could generate.

I've studied submarine warfare as a hobby. I gave a book report on it in grade school. A long long time ago.

The biggest problem of the whole system was the Mk 14 torpedo. It had lots of problems. First, the damn thing cost as much as a fighter plane. And production was only a half dozen -- of all types (torps for bombers, PT boats and subs) -- in a week. One launch was 3 torpedos. A spread. A second launch and a week's worth of ordnance is gone. A subs allotment was always lacking. There were only enough torpedos for two major missions during the war.

But the Mk 14 torpedo itself was a letdown. The depth setting was plagued with problems throughout most of the war, causing it to track over ten feet deeper than it's setting. As a result, it completely flew under the target. The reason stemmed from the cost of the damn torpedo, the cost prohibited live firings to test it. It was never tested until much later into the war. A lighter dummy warhead was used when it was finally test fired. But the lighter warhead confused the sensor, causing to to be improperly calibrated. The torpedo also had a tendency to explode short of the target spraying it with water. When the torp DID hit, it wouldn't explode. The sub crew would hear a series of loud clangs as the torpedo impacted the ship. There were stories of Japanese ships entering port with a torp sticking out of it.

cthia wrote:Now weld that notion together with Honorverse targeting and accuracy. Honed and patented by the alpha minds of the MALign.

Jonathan_S wrote:Now better sensors, those would help the WWII subs whether or not you gave them a better computer. An WWII sub skipper would probably give their left arm for a laser rangefinder attached to the periscope. And a modern low probability of intercept radar, small enough to also mount on the periscope so you don't need to stick a large antenna array above the surface, combined with a position plotting display? They'd be in heaven. But that's sensors, not computers. The probables with the TDC weren't it's ability to number crunch, nor the inability to handle multiple targets, it was GIGO.

Indeed they would. But if they had the total stealth of the LDs, they wouldn't be in heaven before their time. The concept was solid. The technology wasn't up to snuff. The TDC consistently put a torpedo at a perpendicular impact on the target. Submarine warfare was solid. When the problems of the Mk 14 were ironed out, they began to sink their share of ships.

In the Honorverse there is no drag on the torp. For the most part the range is unlimited. Nowadays the torp itself has a very capable computer.

IOW, the time for submarine warfare has come. The technology is ready for the tactic. It humors me to think about an LDs spread pattern.

Don't forget, LDs are sometimes pack hunters.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The inaccuracy of the TDC was due to low accuracy sensor input. For much of the war the variables it needed to have to calculate intercepts could only be provided by visual sights taken through a periscope. From that the sub's captain would attempt to determine range, target bearing and speed - and provide those to the TDC.
But doing that from only a few short observations was very error prone. And worse they interacted with each other, so if he got the target range wrong then that would screw up the calculation of the target's speed from its angular motion relative to your sub.

Later in the war the allied submarines started getting radar and those gave more accurate range, and some sets were even able to provide a possession fix - from a few of those you could get a decent estimate of speed and bearing - though you'd have to trade of the radar tracking time required against the risk your radar would be detected and the target would being evasive maneuvers. (The doppler radars able to directly measure speed, at least toward or away from you, were a later invention).

That same sensor limitation means that the most powerful computer wouldn't be able to effectively target multiple ships because it'd take so long for the captain to measure the variables for each that the data for the previous ships would have gone stale.

That is inaccurate. The Mk III TDC had the limitation of only being able to give an instantaneous firing solution after variables are fed into it. The Mk IV not only gave instantaneous firing solutions, it automatically tracked the targets. The MK IV was a very capable computer. The weakness in the system was the Mark 14 torpedo, which were many.

The Mark III already had continuous target tracking (though neither really did in the way we'd mean it now with a computer locking onto a signal and using that to track the target - what both actually had was continuously updated target position prediction; with ability for manual feedback based on additional inputs).

The Mark II was made up of two main parts, a position keeper and angle solver (technically semi-separate fore and aft angle solvers; for the fore and aft torpedo tubes).

The position keeper did the target "tracking". Quoting from its manual

In operating the Position Keeper, estimates of Target Speed, Angle on the Bow, and Initial Range, and a measure of Initial Relative Target Bearing are made by observation and introduced into the instrument manually [via hand cranks]. Own Course and Own Speed are received continuously in the Position Keeper by syncro transmission. A Time Motor will then continuously generate value of Present Range, Relative Target Bearing and Target Angle based on the inputs. These values are continuously changing with the motion of Own Ship and Target, and are continuously indicated on dials on the instrument.
If the initial estimates were correct, new values obtained from a second observation will agree with the values shown on the instrument. If the initial estimate were incorrect a more accurate setting of the Position keeper may be made based upon new estimates as well as the amount and direction of the error which was found. Subsequent observation will allow still more accurate setting of the instrument, until, finally, further observations will agree with the generated values of the instrument, and show that the Position Keeper is maintaining the position of the Target. The position Keeper will continue to maintain the position of the Target as long as Target Course and Target Speed to not change. If either Target Course or Target Speed changes, new estimates will have to be introduced and corrected by subsequent observations until the Position Keeper against maintains the position of the Target.

It also had a sound bearing converter, but that just automated the task of adjusting the bearing provided by the hydrophone operator by shifting it forward 1/2 target length (sound assumed to emit from the props at the rear) and for target motion due to sound propagation delay over estimated target range.


So yes, what I'd pulled from my memory was over simplified. But it still relied on manually provided data from multiple observations - which could be compared to its continuous target position estimates (and corrections entered based on the differences). But still very sensitive to GIGO. However against targets moving at constant speed or bearing, where you can afford the risks of large numbers of observations, you'll eventually converge on correct data as long as your errors are fairly consistent.


Then then differences between the Mark III and Mark IV weren't target tracking, which as you can see the III already had. Instead they were:
1) support for programming the slower but less visible MK18 electric torpedo and
2) a receiver module stuck between the position keeper and the angle solver which allowed radar operators to manually input bearing and range from their radar scopes. (As I understand it by manually dragging cross-hairs across their radar scope until they rested over the blob or spike of the radar return. The X and Y coordinates could them be automatically read from the location of the movable support bracket the cross-hairs were attached to) So nothing like the target tracking of later digital computers). And to let the periscope operator enter bearing by centering the scope on the target and pressing a button to tell it to read the scope's angle. Rather than having the read off the bearing for input on the hand cranks.

The additional sensor inputs from radar definitely helped, and being able to read bearing and range from operator inputs on those sensors sped up the data input into the computer (and eliminated errors in human communication of them). But the position keeper portion wasn't really changed, and still had exactly the same capability of predicting the target's future position (from which the angle solver figured out the gyro heading to set for each torpedo - though the Mk IVs angle solver also had to support solving that for the even lower speed of the Mark 18 torp)

But even if you squeezed radar into an older sub with the Mark III TDC you could still use that - you'd just have to have the radar operator manually announce range and bearing and feed that in via the appropriate hand cranks - supplementing or replacing the same estimated range and bearing data announced by the periscope operator. The ability to calculate future target position, assuming correct inputs and no change to target course or speed, was the same. So again, a better computer isn't going to help when the limits are sensor accuracy (estimated or measured by human operators)



Still, I've always agreed with David Weber's characterization that the spider drive ships are pretty analogous to submarines; and therefor to submarine warfare and tactics. I merely try to point out that not every analogy to a WWI or WWII submarine or submarine tactic necessarily applies.
So when a tactic is suggested that the Honorverse technologies and situation doesn't seem to support I'm going to try to explain why that tactic or analogy isn't applicable. But that is not in any way a rejection of the idea that Lenny Dets are sub-like; and like subs will tend to focus on ambush hunting.

Royal Manticoran Astro-Control Service

The Royal Manticoran Astro-Control Service, commonly abbreviated to just ACS, was a civilian agency of the Star Kingdom of Manticore, responsible for the operation of the various termini of the Manticore Wormhole Junction. It had uniforms and a rank structure similar to the that of the Royal Manticoran Navy. (HH1, HH8)

In 1905 PD, the ACS was directing a wormhole transit through the Junction once every three minutes. By 1920 PD, following the discovery of the seventh terminus, it was handling one transit every eighty-five seconds.[1](SI1)

Organization
Termini detachments

ACS had a detachment operating in each of the termini's systems. They directed traffic in and outbound from their particular terminus, in coordination with the central control in the Manticore System. (SI1)

Survey Command

ACS Survey Command was responsible for conducting junction and terminus beacon surveys. Until the Royal Manticoran Astrophysics Investigation Agency was established by the High Ridge government, Survey Command also conducted research into the existence of the seventh terminus of the Manticore Wormhole Junction. (HH10)

Search and Rescue

As a secondary responsibility, ACS also controlled intrasystem civilian search-and-rescue craft for any space-based emergency response. (Companion)

Queues

Each terminus had an inbound and outbound vector, and so had an arrival and departure queue. Ships requesting permission from ACS to transit were assigned a queue number, based on priority, which would count down as ships entered/exited the Junction. When the number reached 10, ships were given "readiness clearance", which allowed them to enter the outbound lane, aligned with the entry vector for that termini. Ships progressed along the outbound lane at a slow fifteen gravities. When the number reached 1, the ship was first in line, and could approach the Junction.

In 1905, ACS was handling a transit every three minutes. In 1920 it was every eighty-five seconds. That's ~ 30 warships per hour. I maintain, the area around the junction is the perfect place for the MaLign to set up an ambush. And yes, I still maintain they can get that close.

At any rate, I'm looking for a few incidents to occur at ACS. A lot of ships can be targeted while they are waiting in line. Like ducks all in a row.

Pear Harbor all over again.

"ALL FLIGHTS ARE GROUNDED."

@ThinksMarkedly

Apologies if my comment sounded arrogant. But your capitalisation tickled a bit of my OCD and I wanted to know.

It didn't sound arrogant, or disrespectful, at all. Again, I understand OCD and annoyance. I got a heaping helping of it myself, but I also realize I'm the cause of many other people's OCD acting up. LOL