Allied Depth Charges and patterns

[elcid]

Depth charges were the primary ASw weapon at the beginning of WWII. The USN and RN had somewhat different
philosophies and designs, although apparently they had common ancestry at the end of WWI Even so DC were
dropped in patterns - and somewhat blindly - around what is called a datum point - the point the submarine was
estimated to be in from various forms of detection. The time delay to reach the drop point and the time delay for
the DC to sink both gave the submarine a chance to move from the datum point - even if it was perfectly determined
to begin with. And it was virtually never perfectly determined to begin with. So the pattern covered an area - to
have a statistical chance of damaging the target regardless of the sum of errors in estimating the datum point plus
whatever distance it had moved between when the estimate was made and the DC detonated.

Granted that ASW attacks are three dimensional, even so the problem is essentially one of geometric area. This
is mostly because the DC energy is directed upward - and any submarine above it is in trouble - even if it
is not at the same depth as the DC Further - for AE purposes - depth is in the game properly: both submarines
and DC are rated for depth. If the sub is below the DC - they will not have any effect - and code is perfectly able
to handle that situation.

What that means is that the AE system is fundamentally right for depth - but wrong insofar as it treats DC as if they
are gun mountings - firing only those on the correct side of the ship - instead of firing all at once in a pattern. Here
we will look at DC defined in terms of patterns - rather than single charges. This is more complex for the USN because
it was normal for many ships to use two different sizes of DC in the same pattern - larger ones off stern racks -
smaller ones off throwers. But older ships and smaller vessels only used small ones on the racks - so we have two
different kinds of patterns (mixed and small) to consider.

The difference between DC otherwise are defined by differences in depth of fusing, and size of charge. It turns
out there was a progression of DC over time. This involves rather more types in than were included in the game.
These will be defined below, and then the patterns will be defined.

The base reference is Naval Weapons of World War Two - because it represents a consistenat standard of documentation
for all navies. Additional material for USN comes from US Submarines Through WWII.

[elcid]

The initial small USN DC is the Mark 6. It has a charge of 300 pounds and a max depth of 300 feet.
It is estimated to have a lethal radius of 21 feet. This becomes the base for relative calculations of
the area at risk by a pattern: Number of DC times area divided by the area for this charge.
That area is 21x21x3.1416 = 1385 sq feet in the absolute danger zone (that will crack a 22 mm hull).

This is modified to the Mark 6 Mod 1 in July, 1942, when the max depth increases to 600 feet.
The pk is identical, only the depth changes.

It is replaced by the Mark 9 in March, 1943. The charge is reduced to 200 pounds, and the depth
remains 600 feet. Probably the pk is identical because Torpex is used as the explosive.

It is replaced by the Mark 9 Mod 1 in August 1943, when the max depth increases to 1000 feet

It should be replaced by the Mark 14 about August 1945. This was similar to the Mark 9 but
with a practical and effective acoustic sensor as well as a depth fuse set to 1000 feet. Because
it can sense a submareine, it is about 3 times as likely to detonate in effective range.

This series - Mark 6/9/14 - can be thrown from throwers - and it is on racks of older and smaller vessels.

The initial heavy series is the Mark 7. It has the same max depth as the Mark 6 = 300 feet,
but twice the charge = 600 pounds. Its lethal radius is about 32 feet (29-36 feet). It was introduced
on modern destroyers in the 1930s and continues to be used on DC racks for full size destroyers
and destroyer escorts through out the war. More on this under DC patterns

It is replaced by the Mark 7 Mod 1 in July 1942 when the max depth is inreased to 600 feet -
corresponding to the new settings for Mark 6 DC.

It is replaced by the Mark 7 Mod 2 in July 1943 when the max depth is increased to 1000 feet,
corresponding to the Mark 9 Mod 1.

It might have been replaced by the Mark 14 about August 1945, if the war had gone on long enough
to see the introduction of the smart DC. This assumption permits ASW to increase in effectiveness
for games that last long enough

[elcid]

US ASW ships with stern racks only are rare except at the beginning of the war. They would
use small patterns of 2 to 4 DC - and to keep it simple I assume the base case is 3. Thus
we have 3xMark 6 or 3xMark 7 DC from such ships. In the few cases such vessels never get
any throwers, they upgrade over tome to Mark 6 Mod 1 or Mark 7 Mod 1. Later Mark 9 and
Mark 7 mod 2 replace them - so the max depth increases from 300 feet to 600 feet to 1000 feet.

Most US ASW ships eventually appear with K guns or Y guns - and the standard wartime
patterns are 9 DC when there are 3 throwers per side and 14 DC when there are 4 throwers
per side. In both cases, there are three lines of DC in the pattern - one astern, one to port
and one to starboard. If the ship is old and/or small, all the DC are small Mark 6 (later 9) size.
If the ship is large and new, the centerline row is large Mark 7 DC, but the side ones remain
small.

For a pattern of 9, you get three DC in each row.

For a pattern of 14, you get 4 DC on the side rows and 6 in the center row. That is,
one heavy DC drops early (before throwers throw) and one more late (after all the side
throwers throw).

Regardless of details, I calculated the total at risk area for the pattern. But in the case of the
composite patterns - where you have many smaller DC and a few larger ones - I used
a composite charge value. For example, in a pattern of 9, with 3 large DC (charge = 600)
and 6 small DC (charge = 300) I use an effect value of 400 (3x600 + 6x300 = 3600 divided
by 9). Similar methods were used for other patterns.

[elcid]

RN used a different concept - never adopting the large DC for the racks Their Mark VII DC is
simlar to a USN Mark 6 - except it has a depth setting of 600 feet - due to more experience
with ASW by 1941. It is used in patterns of 5 (off racks), or 10 (with 3 throwers per side) or
14 (with 4 throwers per side) for most of the war. Late in the war patterns of 26 are used -
very similar to Japanese ideas - simply making the pattern longer because range is less certain
than bearing is.

Another dimension of RN DC is to change the nature of the charge. Originally 290 pounds,
it has a lethal range of 20 feet. This is increased to 26 feet without increasing the chage size
by using amatol. I introduce an upgrade set of Mark VII called Mark VII Amatol to account for
this. At the same time, the depth setting is increased to 1000 feet.

There is also a peculiar Mark X DC rarely used. Gigantic, intended for use off torpedo tubes
and in fact used off special rails - they are 3050 pound monsters with a 2000 pound charge.
I am still working on how to deal with this weapon.

Both USN and RN tried magntic DC and failed to perfect them. A promising acoustic DC by RN
was not developed in time for the war - and the USN one only ready for service when the war ended.
There were also special very small DC which may not be worth including - and DC and ASW bombs
for aircraft - which will be treated separately.

[Dili]

Y guns i think are a WW1.
The problem here is that probably it is difficult to account in game terms for difference in tactics* . If we look at paper values there some axis ships with equal or even superior ASW capability.
So only crew/commander capability might change things within the game.

* I don't know any study that quantified the success of Allied ASW vs Axis ASW so that another known unknowns.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
Y guns i think are a WW1.
The problem here is that probably it is difficult to account in game terms for difference in tactics* . If we look at paper values there some axis ships with equal or even superior ASW capability.
So only crew/commander capability might change things within the game.

* I don't know any study that quantified the success of Allied ASW vs Axis ASW so that another known unknowns.

Yes, Y-guns were a War-I development.

Yes, it not possible to account for tactics in the game engine. It is also not possible to account for detection technology, per se.
For the past year or so, Babes has been doing as much of this as possible, on an abstract basis, with Data; understanding the ASW algorithm, Babes has adapted the weapon slot listings in a manner that conforms 'somewhat' to national tactical norms (abstractly). Babes has 'finessed' the technology issue with certain data tweaks on certain device parameters.

We've all known about this for years but the game engine was not amenable to the extent of modification that would be required. And besides, we could model it acceptably in data. Don Bowen and michaelm were instrumental in developing the code hooks that allow the Babes data to work, while maintaining stock values transparently.

[elcid]

Most submarine and ASW concepts were indeed pioneered in WWI, the first serious submarine conflict. In fact,
the submarine sinking rate of one month, April 1918 if I remember correctly, was never exceeded in WWII
(or later). Nevertheless, in practice, the DC rack was the standard ASW weapon when WWII began,
and this is well reflected in the AE data set. Early in the war a few Y guns appear, and then numbers of K
guns - which do not require valuable centerline space. The research on DC suites was so well done I have
not actually taken the time to change it, and have kept it as was. I only am translating the extant data into
different format.

I completely agree that major strides can be made by using the data to model ASW tactics. That is why this
effort - which regretfully takes a great deal of data entry time simply because there are so many classes
and individual ships to modify. But a critical aspect of that is to change the model used in the data as entered:
DC are not directional weapons in the sense, say, guns or torpedoes are. To that end, a proper ASW vessel
is probably better modeled by rating its DC suite as "all sides" - because the vessel determines the location of
the target and engages on that bearing with an area attack. [The case of non-ASW vessels armed with DC
is a special case]

I do not agree that we cannot model tactics to some degree in the data. This is in fact inherent in some respects
because the system well includes DC max depth ratings. So one of the tactical differences - and advantages on
the Allied side - is they have DC with greater settings - and these keep increasing throughout the war. The Japanese
do make a slight improvement as well - but in the end only approximate where the Allies are at the beginning.
Another difference is with ahead throwing weapons - not addressed in this thread but I will do one bye and bye.
Here most of them simplly do not exist on the Japanese side - but to the extent they do exist - they can be better
modeled in the data. The effect value of the 3 inch ASW mortar, for example, is vastly too high - as indeed is its
accuracy. Both the numbers and the quality of the ATW are a way to model differences inherently available. But
here in this thread I am proposing a more important difference which applies to all DC armed ships - a vastly greater
number of classes. That is the introduction of the concept of the DC pattern.

This is a realistic and IMHO critical concept, with two major impacts. First, a ship with a larger pattern has a better
chance per shot. Second, the total number of ASW attacks per vessel is no longer grossly exaggerated. In the
existing data set, only some of the DC fire per attack, and for that reason, the number of attacks is vastly too large.
At the same time, such small numbers of DC have nothing like the statistical chance of a hit that is credited to them -
so it is a mechanism to get the PK into a reasonable range. By firing a pattern, we get to have pk per pattern in the
right range (which it is not with these tiny attacks) - and we reduce the number of "salvos" to a realistic number.
Note that even if a Japanese vessel has a large pattern - not very common - it is NOT as effective - because the
DC used have small charges and they have a lesser depth rating. The small charge has two different data impacts
as I use them: it not only has less effect in the case of a hit - it also has less chance of a hit (because the lethal radius
is smaller - and my pk is defined by the lethal radius - the area per DC times total number of DC in the pattern).

I have, however, had to modify this slightly because there is a flaw in the model. While effect is weight of charge -
with US small DC, the charge was reduced for technical reasons (to get better underwater trajectory behavior)
with Mark 9 and later DC - but the explosive was changed to Torpex - which is 150% of the value of TNT - resulting
in a perfect duplication of the previous lethal radius with 2/3 of the charge. This I model by not changing the lethal
radius - but I think also properly means I should over state effect as 300 vice 200 - so the code sees the same
explosive value when there is a hit.

Another thing I have taken the opportunity to do is to model more kinds of DC - including those widely used - and those
that were ready for service when the war ended and would have been widely used had it continued (here referring to the
Mark 14 - which more or less is a Mark 9 small DC with a successful acoustic detection head). I ignored magnetic
detection heads which were not successful in RN, USN and IJN - because they were not successful and not introduced.
But I am also considering the use of the RN Mark X - which was introduced as early as 1943 - and is a completely different
approach to DC. And I am looking at modeling air DC/ASW bombs - having found there is at least one in the AE set -
assuming I can prove it works in testing. If we can have one, we can have em all. But I am getting ahead of myself.
For now- massive data entry - then testing - so see how the concept works in practice?

To the extent that code actually uses direction to resolve an ASW attack run, presumably an "all sides" weapon definition
is more likely to shoot than a "rear only" weapon definition. As an attempt to make it less likely a PT boat or gunboat
or auxilary MS that happens to have a DC weapon rack will actually engage, I define these weapons as "rear" facing -
while a ship with a proper sensor suite is rated as "all sides" - a crude but hopefully statistically significant distinction in
addition to the fact the auxilary has a tiny pattern and only 1 or 2 shots.

What I have not been able to correct is the problem that even an ASW TF will not "sit on" a datum point for a realistic time -
24 hours - usually meaning the sub must come up for air. I am toying with the idea of having ASW TF follow each other with
offsets - so a player can then order the one followed to a datum point - to see if the effect is that the sub has small chance
of escaping the entire force? Another and larger problem is that surface ASW forces do not seem to be aided by aircraft -
see for example the film at the Museum of Science and Industry on the capture of U-505. Fighter planes - FIGHTER planes
- "told" the ships where the sub was by firing into the water - they did not even use radio (and possibly did not have it).
If I could write code, I think it is air ASW I would address first - directly and indirectly by impacting ship ASW - because I
see no way to model that in data - while standard (no air present) ASW I think can be well modeled - by the methods proposed
here (combined with some ATW concepts not yet described - because they are different).

I am here honoring a principle laid down by Joe Wilkerson years ago - which is that things ought to be publically defined and
described - not only for the sake of credibility - but also because sometimes that generates good feedback that improves them.

[JWE]

Reading every 20th word, it's pretty clear;
You have no clue how the AE algorithm functions;
You have no clue how modders have adapted the data constraints to work within the algorithm;
You have no clue even what the modders did, much less why.

btw, I would lose the "Joe Wilkerson told me" thing. Those of us on the development team, who understand the communication flow, and whose checks (small as they may be) Joe signs, know very well what Joe knows and what he doesn't, and who he is able to talk to (and it sure as heck ain't you). That claim is a losing proposition; the more you make it, the more credibility you lose. Just fyi.

[DuckofTindalos]

He doesn't have any more credibility to lose.

[JeffroK]

I thought this was a new guy and knew al about ASW[:'(]

[Nikademus]

I thought big heavy rocks were the primary ASW weapon of WWII.

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah, and Zeros only killed allied aircraft in the landing pattern...

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, and Zeros only killed allied aircraft in the landing pattern...

You got this game mixed up with Bombing the Reich!

[elcid]

The AE file set included four kinds of other Allied DC - 2 each for Russia and France - on
some ships - while others were armed with UK Type VII (and presumably US types on lend
lease ships). These DC were understated in depth - because of improper conversion of 100
meters to English measure - and gain about 10%. They are truly chrome, present on very
few ships most of which are not active most of the time, but there is no reason not to define them
properly.

The weights of Allied DC generally were not carefully entered. For example, the British Type VII
is recorded at its original weight of 340 pounds - but this was changed in 1940 (before WITP begins)
by adding a 150 pound weight. I am not sure why load cost is present for DC - and not for ATW ?
But if we are going to define load cost - we might as well use the right data.

Japanese DC will get a thread of their own. Fewer in number, and more difficult to research,
these present a clear contrast with Allied DC - never mind they are more or less copies of British
concepts. The differences are sufficient to mean that even a similar number of DC on an escort do
not equate to it being as likely to succeed in an ASW fight - even if one disregards ATW with all the
Allied advantages associated with them.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Reading every 20th word, it's pretty clear;
You have no clue how the AE algorithm functions;
You have no clue how modders have adapted the data constraints to work within the algorithm;
You have no clue even what the modders did, much less why.

btw, I would lose the "Joe Wilkerson told me" thing. Those of us on the development team, who understand the communication flow, and whose checks (small as they may be) Joe signs, know very well what Joe knows and what he doesn't, and who he is able to talk to (and it sure as heck ain't you). That claim is a losing proposition; the more you make it, the more credibility you lose. Just fyi.

Every 20 th word ! Wow. That sounds like a formula to miss 95% of what is said - even if one did not need whole sentences to give meaning to that 20th word.

I am beginning to wonder if you actually know Joe yourself? I have never falsely reported what was said - almost always in writing - and I am not out of communication with him. His attitude about negative and hostile comments in the Forums cannot be overstated - and I am disregarding his advice never to comment in response to such things because it only feeds the irrational fires of those who feel compelled to make them. In no case will I fail to say something that is both true and germane. But please - if you think otherwise - simply do not read anything I write at all. I write for those who do not already know everything - especially every negative thing by assumption.

Now as to how the algorithms work - it is safe to assume that they must use the data we present to them to work with. To which add the Forum discussions revealing the concept that the model is weapons on target aspect. Then too there is the revelation of how the game actualy functions. ASW ships get vastly too many shots, of vastly too great an effectiveness rating. It may be that many players are surface ship oriented, and might be content if submarines are sunk early and easily, and I have no problem with anyone who does not wish to think about this subject. But my current test opponent - who doubted there was any merit to my concerns - changed his view when he visited his son in law - a sumariner. The system can probably be improved. This thread is for constructive comments by those who are interested in that - and I do not intend to debate wether that is a good idea with anyone who does not want to do that.

If you actually know something you think I manged to get wrong - feel free to explain how you think whatever it is really works? I value pointing out where I am wrong - if ever it is done with a view to helping me get something right. Please explain what you have against the concept of expending DC in salvos in the way they really were expended? Or any other error you can see. I do not require your agreement or approval - but I am way to wise to ignore any well meaning feedback.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He doesn't have any more credibility to lose.

My my - I did not realilze I had any in the first place - with you? Your consistent attitude makes it an honor to be in the club of those you do not respect. Thank you sir! I remember once hearing Teddy Kennedy say something that sounded right: I immediately restudied the issue to see if I was entirely wrong about it? If you said something in agreement with me - I might have to do the same thing.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I thought this was a new guy and knew al about ASW[:'(]

Nope. I am an old guy. One who served on a destroyer and studied ASW officially - before assembling a strategic
studies library one librarian once called "the largest West of the Mississippi."

But I am not quite old enough to remember WWII - however. I have to read - just like everyone else.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He doesn't have any more credibility to lose.

I thought you had him on a "Green button" status?? Guess not, maybe it is just me.

[elcid]

The RN developed a gigantic (3050 pound) Mark X depth charge - originally designed
to be used from 21 inch torpedo tubes on destroyers. Introduced in March 1942,
in the Atlantic only, it was almost never used by five ships. The setting of the
hydrostatic fuse was then only 220 feet - and there was real concern that the
launching ship might be damaged by the one ton charge.

A variant, Mark X* - was designed in July 1942 and accepted for service in April
1943. In this the depth was set to 640 feet. It was found to improve the
sea-keeping of certain captain class frigates, and it was decided to fit all of them
with special over the stern racks. Unusually, the "pattern" is only one -
and the radius of cracking a 22 mm hull was at least 43 feet (it might be 46 feet
but I used the more conservative value) - rendering the pk for a "pattern of
one" as in the same range as a normal pattern of 4 Mark VII would be.

Late in the war a Mark X** was developed with a minimum depth set at 900 feet
(it was able to be set as deep as 1500 if German subs appeared able to dive
deeper than 900 feet). It was not introduced - because the war ended and
because ahead throwing weapons were effective. But I will upgrade ships with the
Mark X* to using the Mark X** from August 1945. This will include all the captain
class frigates.

One or two could be carried. For game purposes I will use 2 - all DC fitted
vessels get at least 2 shots - most get 3 to 5 - and some get more than that.
The problem with game code wanting to use surface TT for surface targets
combines with the unsuccessful application of the Mark X in that role - and we
won't use it that way. Instead - we will only use the special stern tracks (like
a tiny RR) that was successful - and not put it on DD at all - just dedicated ASW
frigates.

It appears that Fido was almost exclusively an air launched weapon - never mind
it could probaby swim out of submarine tubes (a post war concept apparently).
So I will treat it as air ordinance and probably a special kind of bomb. Fido is
the first successful ASW acoustic homing torpedo - although it was called a mine -
probably in part as a deception. The other semi-intelligent ASW weapon I am looking
at is Squid - called Limbo post war - a special DC throwing mortar system firing a
pattern of 3. The intelligent part is on the ship - it measured the target depth - so the
DC were set for the right depth. The RN liked it a great deal more than the USN did
- and didn't like the Hedgehog as much as the USN did - both being British imports but
USN never adopted Squid - so it will only appear on RN ships. In a later less strictly
historical mod USN might adopt it - if players want to. It will be treated as a pattern of 3
DC with higher accuracy than normal - on its own weapon mounting. Apparently it
uses Mark VII DC - so the max depth setting will be 600 feet unless better data appears.
I suspect it was able to be set deeper - because of concern about German submarines
being able to go deeper near the end of the war.

Got it - never mind it is absent from most references - it had a max depth of 900 feet.
The DC was a special one weighing 390 pounds with a 207 pound charge - but it was
minol - as in the modified Mark VII - and so it was about as effective as a 300 pound charge
and about the same effective radius to crack a 22 mm hull. The minol has two different
effects - it provides oxygen for the TNT - but even so - by replacing TNT it reduces the
amount of TNT in the charge - simply making that TNT more efficient (otherwise TNT
does not completely burn and leaves black smoke residue). The other effect is to slow
down the pulse of the explosion - and that is decisive for underwater weapons - making them
more destructive - so it was popular for DC and other underwater weapons of the British.
Today - other explosives have replaced the TNT/minol combination - except in commercial
applications which are not identical in the ratios used (probably to render stealing for
military uses less attractive - otherwise probably to make them cheaper). But at the time,
a 207 pound minol charge was quite state of the art - and had an effective radius greater
than using 300 pounds of TNT in the original Mark VII - allowing TNT to also be used in
more weapons (since you need less per weapon).

[YankeeAirRat]

The first successful acoustic torpedo was a couple of German torpedoes that were developed and entered service with the Kriegsmarine in 1933 was the Falke T-4 and Zaunkoenig T-5. However the Mk24 aerial mine was specifically developed to give ASW combat aircraft a better ability to target and attack Axis submarines beyond the then standard aerial depth bomb. The Mk24 was designed specifically to fit on the same mounts as a standard 1000lb HE bomb. So that meant it could be carried by just about everything except for the Civil Air Patrol aircraft that were flying close shore ASW patrols during the war. So the TBM, PBY, PB4Y, PBJ, PV-2's etc all could potentially carry the Mk24; now how many of them besides the TBM actually carried the weapon in war time considerations? What I have in front of me and what I could find at the library isn't sure. Yet, all of my sources state that the Mk24 could fit to any aircraft capable of carrying a 1000lb bomb since it had all the lug spaces for a rack that could support that weight.

It is also well known that the Office of Naval Research and Harvard Underwater Research labs had designated the Mk24 as an aerial mine to hide the true function of it from Axis Spies (and other spies like the Soviets) so instead of being called a torpedo it was referred to as an Aerial Mine. This information has been well published and completely accepted in most historians reporting on ASW weapons or tactics from WW2. There was a later verision of the same sort of sensor head developed for the Mk18 torpedo, however this FIDO version called "Cutie" with an acoustic seeker head was called Mk27 in US Navy Inventory and it was introduced in 1944 with the first successful use by the USS Sea Owl (SS-405) the Mk27 was introduced so late into the War that it is statistically insignificate as it relates to submarine combat. This is again well known and well published fact in specifically themed books about the subjects of Torpedoes and Submarines in the war. Also post war there was testing of the Mk24 on surface ships as it relates to use in the ASW role, however since the Mk24 was larger then the standard 21in torpedo tube standardized in the fleet at the time. This lead to torpedo throwers being tested and installed on some destroyer escorts so they could carry the Mk24. The Mk24 was later replaced by the Mk44 through out the service as the standard non-submarine ASW torpedo in the US Fleet. This occurred in the early 1950's.

Squid and Limbo are two radically different weapons. Though they share some of the same path of being developed, how they are operated is different as well. Limbo evolved from what was Squid. So they are not similar weapons and should not be compared to each other. Squid was only fitted to 70 ships in all of Royal Navy and only counted for 17 attacks. Against statiscally insignificate to be a game changer in the combat. I would also bet dollars to donuts that the list of those 70 ships would show heavy use in the Atlantic Theater with only a few of them being called up for service with the British Pacific Fleet and those didn't show up to have employed the weapon in any numbers against the Japanese before the war was over. The RCN had Squid being fitted to thier thier CASTLE class, PRESTONIAN class and TRIBAL class of ships. Again most of the research that I have available to me via my local library states that most of these ships like thier RAN and RNZAN sisters didn't recieve Squid until after the war or were fitted first to the ships in the European theater first since the German Submarines were a higher threat.

If your going to go Ahistorical as it relates to ASW weapons why not have Weapon Alfa introduced a full year earlier then it was into the US fleet.

Some of your research appears to be lacking and you might want to double check your sources and gather sources that are specific to the this research your putting out. You appear to be causing some of your own confusion and it also appears that your not fully developing what is useful information to be applied to the database.