Here's a whole bunch of theorizing about why both methods would work.
I don't have all the maths behind it but from calculating and sketching these are my theories (not proofs).
1) Derstosstrupp's implementation of the (ausdampfverfahren) method works by simulating that the target is at a 90° angle on the bow. If you draw the triangle from yourself to where the target would be at 90° AoB, the torpedo path passes through where the target actually is so you've shortened the distance that the torpedo has to travel but still along the same path and intersecting the target's path in the process. If that's accurate then the torpedo run times projected by SH should be wrong since the target isn't actually making the triangle that the TDC thinks it is. It's being shorted.
2) With what the article says about how it was in practice, it's the same methodology but for an isoceles triangle instead of a right triangle. Entering that the target is running at the same speed sets a factor of the triangle. If ownship and target truly had the same speed then ownship and target should also have the same AoB (ie. forming an isoceles triangle), but since you're setting the target bearing as AoB, then the triangle is adjusted accordingly either shortening or elongating the shot.
Method 1 above uses the math directly while method 2 is a natural implementation of the math. Both still use the basic formula.
Does that make sense or did I just go too geeky? lol -- Again, I haven't proved it out on paper... just theory as to why both methods work.
|