Torpedoes homing in on sunken ships

[Awac]

Anyone knows if its possible to mod something together so sunken ships has no signature until its patched?

Attacking a convoy is really annoying since the enemy can simply hide in the area of the sunken ship and be immune to torpedos.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

The only ships my torps home in to are the ones sinking. They don't hit the ones on the seafloor. Then again, the wreck does make a lot of noise breaking, the engines could still be working.

[Sunshine]

Originally posted by The Cunning Fox:

They don't hit the ones on the seafloor.

Yes they do. Active and passive ones.

[ramjbjb]

A wreck is a sunken ship, but it still is a metallic big structure a sonar can hook on to. Wrecks don't suddenly go silent either....reportedly the wreck of Andrea Doria "whines" strongly all the time because of bottom currents moving through the sunken ship structure. If the wreck of a ship sunk in the late 70s is still emitting noise nowadays go figure the wreck of a ship that just went down and has all those bulkheads giving in, closed spaces imploding, structures collapsing, etc.


Bottom point, is not the torpedo's fault that it hooks to a dead target. Is your own fault for not routing them around, or activate past, those dead targets.

I had three of my torpedoes slamming themselves against a sunk Kashin in my last mission (and that one is going up in an upload to my channel in a couple hours). And I didn't blame the game for making torpedoes behave like real weapons and not "switching off" a vessel deleting it as a factor, just because I sank it.
I blamed myself for poor planning at the time of pathing my weapons, as you have to account for that kind of "false" targets the torpedo might go for instead of the one you were actually aiming for.

TL:DR: you're seeing expected behavior. Wrecks give active sonar returns, so active torpedoes can home onto them. Wrecks emit very strong noises, so passive torpedoes can home onto them too. Adjust to it, instead of asking the devs to magically remove wrecks from the game the second you sink them.

[Awac]

Hmm fair enough. I was just convinced the passive homing knew the difference between a ship/sub and random craking noises. But i might be wrong.

[ramjbjb]

a passive homer just tracks the stronger noise source he can hear. And sinking vessels are tremendously noisy things. Last time I checked on one I was getting a 96db signal on my towed array. Go figure.

[Sunshine]

Meh, this isn't how it works.
Modern torpedoes don't just go for "hey there's noise, let's hit that!", they go by broadband frequency patterns. Older ones sure are more basic, but in the ´84 campaign, at least the Mk48 should be able to differentiate between a wreck just making noise (that has nothing in common with the BB frequency) and an actual target.

[ramjbjb]

If that was true ,then modern torpedoes from the 1984 block version of the MK48 onwards wouldn't get spoofed by pretty simple bubble-producing noisemakers, which pretty much emit white noise, nor become distracted by water disturbances such as knuckles.

Yet they do, up to the point that modern torpedo homing logic software includes reaquiring instructions to handle the problem of the weapon being spoofed by decoys and losing acquisition. That software would be not needed if the weapon couldn't be spoofed.


So something in your explanation doesn't add up. If homing torpedoes were as smart as you say, spoofing them with those countermeasures wouldn't work (and it does). And if they aren't as smart as you say, then them getting hooked to a sinking wreck is a perfectly believable outcome for an active weapon travelling close to one.

[Sunshine]

Uhm, yes, it works -> in a video game... but reality?
If you think a silly "knuckle" shakes off a Mk48, you are mistaken.

Also, torpedoes are usually used in active mode, especially against submerged targets, for obvious reasons which is why countermeasures still work - though less and less efficiently as modern torpedoes do have software upgrades that help them distinguish between a bunch of bubbles and the shape of a target.

I don't know how sophisticated Torpedoes were in 1984, but I know the Mk48 was always a quite advanced weapon, better than what the Soviets had at the time at least.
Did they already have the software to handle CM better? I wouldn't know, but I assume so and seeing them go for anything making noise, just doesn't feel right.

[Darkstar]

Originally posted by ramjbjb:

A wreck is a sunken ship, but it still is a metallic big structure a sonar can hook on to. Wrecks don't suddenly go silent either....reportedly the wreck of Andrea Doria "whines" strongly all the time because of bottom currents moving through the sunken ship structure. If the wreck of a ship sunk in the late 70s is still emitting noise nowadays go figure the wreck of a ship that just went down and has all those bulkheads giving in, closed spaces imploding, structures collapsing, etc.


Bottom point, is not the torpedo's fault that it hooks to a dead target. Is your own fault for not routing them around, or activate past, those dead targets.

I had three of my torpedoes slamming themselves against a sunk Kashin in my last mission (and that one is going up in an upload to my channel in a couple hours). And I didn't blame the game for making torpedoes behave like real weapons and not "switching off" a vessel deleting it as a factor, just because I sank it.
I blamed myself for poor planning at the time of pathing my weapons, as you have to account for that kind of "false" targets the torpedo might go for instead of the one you were actually aiming for.

TL:DR: you're seeing expected behavior. Wrecks give active sonar returns, so active torpedoes can home onto them. Wrecks emit very strong noises, so passive torpedoes can home onto them too. Adjust to it, instead of asking the devs to magically remove wrecks from the game the second you sink them.

I'm not trying to be harsh or anything, but I see you in thread after thread calling literally every complaint people have regarding expected behavior of vessels, aircraft and weapons wrong and giving tortured explanations as to why. I'm starting to wonder if you have any issues with the game at all. I strongly support CW and have since the beginning, but I think you're almost an apologist at this point for even the most bizarre behavior of weapons and enemy units.

A wreck at 1000+ feet should NOT distract even an active Mk-48 at 400 or less feet that has a perfectly good target in front of it, active or not, and yet I have seen this happen. If that fish was set to passive, I find it very hard to believe that breakup noises (which seem to last perpetually in CW), would distract it to the point of deciding "yes this is, in fact, my target, 600 feet+ below where I was ordered to search for targets". This is not expected behavior for such a weapon. Period.

[Sunshine]

Originally posted by Darkstar:

I'm not trying to be harsh or anything, but I see you in thread after thread calling literally every complaint people have regarding expected behavior of vessels, aircraft and weapons wrong and giving tortured explanations as to why. I'm starting to wonder if you have any issues with the game at all. I strongly support CW and have since the beginning, but I think you're almost an apologist at this point for even the most bizarre behavior of weapons and enemy units.

A wreck at 1000+ feet should NOT distract even an active Mk-48 at 400 or less feet that has a perfectly good target in front of it, active or not, and yet I have seen this happen. If that fish was set to passive, I find it very hard to believe that breakup noises (which seem to last perpetually in CW), would distract it to the point of deciding "yes this is, in fact, my target, 600 feet+ below where I was ordered to search for targets". This is not expected behavior for such a weapon. Period.

+1

[MadBirdCZ]

What I find odd in CW is, that a wrecked ship emits an exactly the same passive signature as if it was fully operational.

[Shadrach]

Originally posted by MadBirdCZ:

What I find odd in CW is, that a wrecked ship emits an exactly the same passive signature as if it was fully operational.

Yeah, that's my biggest gripe with this at the moment, granted it's basically a superficial issue but it really should just make a lot of random noise.

[ramjbjb]

Originally posted by Darkstar:

I'm not trying to be harsh or anything, but I see you in thread after thread calling literally every complaint people have regarding expected behavior of vessels, aircraft and weapons wrong and giving tortured explanations as to why. I'm starting to wonder if you have any issues with the game at all. I strongly support CW and have since the beginning, but I think you're almost an apologist at this point for even the most bizarre behavior of weapons and enemy units.

funny. In almost every game forum/debate/Discussion I take part of I'm usually seen as the negativist who always points out the faults in the games.

And now I'm being called an apologist. Seems trying to be objective is not popular :).

Look, I know my fair deal about weapon platforms, phisics, and submarine tactics. Obviously I'm no expert on hte matter because all experts have access to classified information I don't. But beyond that, I do have a fair share of knowledge. Which I think it shows in my posts, but whatever.

The thing is - if something has a reasonable explanation for a given complaint, I give it. Some things had no explanation and made no sense, and I also said so (for instance with the ever-present ASW planes up to the update).

I don't claim the game is perfect. I claim that if it replicates expected behavior of real weapons, then the game is doing a good job. And torpedoes being attracted by wrecks -IS- expected behavior.

A wreck at 1000+ feet should NOT distract even an active Mk-48 at 400 or less feet that has a perfectly good target in front of it

Torpedo homing logic is designed to hook on the strongest/most likely target. Not the target you think it's best back in the ship. That's why submarines are extra careful to ensure their torpedoes won't come back at them. Because torpedos choose their own targets once activated and off the wire. And if it turns out that the torpedo decides his best target is the ship that fired it in the first place, things will get ugly.

You obviously have a lot of misconceptions. A Mk48 set to operate on active is operating on both active and passive level at the same time. It relies on the active sonar for guidance, but also uses it's passive sonar set to home on targets and for target discrimination assistance.just by telling it to ping you're not telling it to ignore whatever it's passive suite hears. The torpedo is doing both.

If the weapon has been activated, then the torpedo is told "go hunt and hit any targets you find". It's that simple. That the target it went for isn't the one you wanted it to hit is not the weapon's fault. Is your fault for shooting it in a dogdy scenario, for not activating it within the proper parameters when the weapon is well clear of possible distractions you don't want the torpedo to home into, and for not keeping a wire active to override a target selection you don't like (though this last one is not always possible, that's why you choose carefully when you fire, from where, and the proper weapon activation point, to account for the chance of the wire breaking or you being forced to cut it)


And whining about it won't change a thing.



For the record: ASW helicopter operation doctrine states clearly that near even old wrecks (and those don't do much collapsing noises anymore...they do however usually emit noise because of currents passing through the structures) the usage of ASW torpedoes is highly discouraged if the use of depth charges is possible, because of the high chance that the torpedo will home on the wreck rather than on the intended submarine contact.

But I guess people who write ASW practices of actual people who do the job don't know wtf they're talking about, and also are apologists.

[ramjbjb]

Originally posted by Lethargo:

Uhm, yes, it works -> in a video game... but reality?
If you think a silly "knuckle" shakes off a Mk48, you are mistaken.`

And you know this because....?

Also, torpedoes are usually used in active mode, especially against submerged targets, for obvious reasons which is why countermeasures still work - though less and less efficiently as modern torpedoes do have software upgrades that help them distinguish between a bunch of bubbles and the shape of a target.

False. Active homing mode is dual mode. The torpedo is still listening to it's passive listening devices, even while the homing logic gives priority to the active input. Is one of the reasons why submarines that get out of the active sonar acquisition cone tend to want to go silent again - so the passive guidance on the torpedo (which has a broader aquisition cone) doesn't home on them.

Antitorpedo contermeasures operate on two levels, not just one. They produce a wall of bubbles that reflects active sonar pinging. AND, they make a lot of white noise while doing so. Their purpose is to confuse both the active and passive homing of an incoming torpedo. No reason to call them "noisemakers" if noise wasn't an important function when doing their purpose.

I don't know how sophisticated Torpedoes were in 1984, but I know the Mk48 was always a quite advanced weapon, better than what the Soviets had at the time at least.
Did they already have the software to handle CM better? I wouldn't know, but I assume so and seeing them go for anything making noise, just doesn't feel right.

So you don't even know too much about the weapon you're talking about ,but you go ahead and make wild affirmations as "if you think a silly "knuckle" shakes off a Mk48 you're mistaken".

Something doesn't add up. Either you know the Mk48 very well or you're not entitled to write the phrase I just quoted. You admitted not knowing too much about it and the way it operates, yet you wrote that phrase.

My advice to you would be: talking out of ignorance leads you (and those talking to you) nowhere. Specially if you're going to make cathegoric affirmations like that one (which, btw, is false at least in what respect to 1984 weapons).

Listen to those who know what they're talking about and stop making assumptions if you're not informed about the topic you're debating. If you don't like the answers it doesn't mean the answers aren't right.

[ramjbjb]

Originally posted by MadBirdCZ:

What I find odd in CW is, that a wrecked ship emits an exactly the same passive signature as if it was fully operational.

yeah the narrowband display should stop showing the same frequencies as if the target was uner normal operation, I totally agree with that.

Though that's more a cosmetic thing that anything else, it doesn't really impact gameplay, I think.