PDA

View Full Version : U-boats again!?



E.Thang
09-06-2004, 10:41 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love any sub-sim, but can we do the american pacific campaing in SH4? I've done the U-boats in Aces and SH2. Although I love the Type VII/C41, I'm really itching to get into a Tench or Balao class off Formosa or Honshu and sink some flat tops!

E.Thang
09-06-2004, 10:41 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love any sub-sim, but can we do the american pacific campaing in SH4? I've done the U-boats in Aces and SH2. Although I love the Type VII/C41, I'm really itching to get into a Tench or Balao class off Formosa or Honshu and sink some flat tops!

julien673
09-06-2004, 10:54 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Xanthippus
09-06-2004, 12:23 PM
Fair enough, but the German submarine campaign really is significantly more playable as a simulation then an American campaign, which was after all against a foe that really did have limited resources devoted to the submarine war.

The reality of the Atlantic War could hardly have provided a better 'script' to a simulation game, apart from the omission of the fact that commanding a boat from May '43 to end of the war in anything other then an entirely new boat is a near certain insurance of death.

I tell you what, we should have a competition on these boards when SH3 comes out, the first to survive the entire War, i wonder how long it would take before that happened? and another competition (given the first is so open to abuse - i.e. you could go to sea but avoid any danger) of who can survive the entire war with the most sinkings.

Again, the competition would to be based around an honour system, after all, how are we to know if people have modified screen shots or re-loaded games, but if the spirit is kept to, it would be good fun.

ParaB
09-06-2004, 01:45 PM
I actually started an AOD campaign and posted my war diaries in the german forum. Until real-life forced me to take a break I had survived 6 patrols, recieved the Ritterkreuz and just got transferred to a new type VII U-Boat.

I played under the "dead is dead" rule, which really helps you playing the game in a realistic manner. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bausbis23
09-06-2004, 02:03 PM
oh the pacific theatre discussion again . how may we had now? three ? four? . just live with it we all love the german u-boats . like the devs team stated allready long ago " the german u-boat war provides the biggest theathre for a simulation and the most intense one! and i agree all the way!

E.Thang
09-06-2004, 06:09 PM
bausbus23,
No reason to get bent, I love u-boats too, I've played Aces, and SH2 to death. I don't think any of you would be saying that the Amercian Campain in the Pacific is boring if you have played the original Silent Hunter. I think geographically speaking it is much better, than the Atlantic campaing.
I just watched the demo video, and I can tell you, I am can't wait to get my hands on SH3. My wish is simply that SH4 will switch back to the Pacific, thats all. There are a bunch of U-boat sims, but the original silent hunter, is the only american WWII sim I know of. It would be nice to have an update, thats all.

SailorSteve
09-06-2004, 07:28 PM
E.Thang, have you played Pacific Aces?

______________________________

The poster said "Join The Navy, See The World". So I did, and I'm here to tell you, the world is flat and blue.

ParaB
09-06-2004, 09:09 PM
E.Thang, you obviously missed Silent Service I and II. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My first subsims, and truly great games they were.

Although my interest is more with the german U-Boat campaign in WW2 I'd be more than happy to once again sail the Pacific in my Gato-class sub. If SHIII will indeed be as mod-friendly as the devs promised we might be in for a nice surprise sometime after the release... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Revolver Held
09-07-2004, 03:00 AM
OK, to get it clear, after the game what they r working the compny from silent service will 80% release SILENT SERVICE 3, and the PACIFIC ACES r gotta go to release this MOD for SILENT HUNTER 3!!!

Xanthippus
09-07-2004, 09:32 AM
Have those Pacific submarine games included the ability to control Jap boats?

Now, if you could take control of both American and Jap boats that would interest me, trying to do some damage against well organised American ships/convoys and then possibly having to do dangerous supply runs (where commander planning could really come to the fore).

ParaB
09-07-2004, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Revolver Held:
OK, to get it clear, after the game what they r working the compny from silent service will 80% release SILENT SERVICE 3, and the PACIFIC ACES r gotta go to release this MOD for SILENT HUNTER 3!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hu? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Versuch's nochmal auf deutsch, vieleicht versteh' ich's ja dann...

ParaB
09-07-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xanthippus:
Have those Pacific submarine games included the ability to control Jap boats?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Silent Service I/II was only about US subs.

But then the japanese used their subs in a very different way than the allies and Germany, that is mainly as "fleet subs" that should engage enemy warships and not as a weapon primary to be used against merchant shipping.

IXD2
09-07-2004, 03:27 PM
In fact the Japanese didn`t consider entering a sub offensive agains the Allies until... summer 1945. Before that they used it during certain fleet operations, as additional force / reckon with primary objective to search and attack the warships.
In fact Japanese subs were quite effective in such operations until 1943/4 when their role has been reduced to supplying the cut-off garrisons.
In addition to that, the Japanese commanders were given very strict and in some cases, as prooved dumb rules of engagement. One of these dumb rules was an order to avoid sinking merchant ( and in general all non-warships ) unless there were absolutely NO other targets in sight and sinking of the merchant could not disrupt the currrent tasks.
That`s the main reason why the Japanese subs destroyed ca 130 merchants throughout the war.
Another example: after August of 1942 the Japanese subs did`n patrol the Pacific between the Western Coast and Havaii - even though sending just few subs there could cause problems to the Allies.

IXD2
09-07-2004, 03:34 PM
Well just in case there were some subsims to emerge, subsims that don`t bother with American nor German WWII subs, I wish I could play a subsim of WWI. Just imagine one of these tiny boats fighting on the mediterranean agains the entente, or a Russian sub agains Turkish vessels http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hey, there were some aces and great commanders in WW I as well, even though they`re almost forgotten, if compared to the WW II aces.

ParaB
09-07-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IXD2:
Hey, there were some aces and great commanders in WW I as well, even though they`re almost forgotten, if compared to the WW II aces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I doubt that there will EVER be a more succesful submarine captain than Lothar von Arnauld de la Peri√¬®re, the german U-boat ace that sunk 194 ships totalling 454,000 tons in WWI.

hauitsme
09-07-2004, 07:22 PM
And why did he have such numbers? Because there was almost no ASW, and what there was is to be laughed at.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/beatnik.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-2.jpg

ParaB
09-07-2004, 08:19 PM
Exactly. That's why the german navy lost 180+ subs in WWI out of a force of 375. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

There weren't as advanced ASW techniques available to the allies as later in WW2 for sure but their mission was still a highly risky business, as these very high casualty numbers show. The crew casualties (KIAs) within the U-Boat arm exceeded 50%...

With these numbers in mind I doubt the threat by allied forces was something "to be laughed at".

[This message was edited by ParaB on Tue September 07 2004 at 07:30 PM.]

hauitsme
09-07-2004, 08:43 PM
Quote from uboat.net/WWI section:

"The variety of bizarre plans concocted to counter U-boats during World War I boggles the mind; training sea lions to detect U-boats and seagulls to spot periscopes; fouling periscopes by coating them with various substances; and covering a periscope with a paper bag and then smashing the lens with a hammer were all considered seriously at one point or another."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/beatnik.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-2.jpg

ParaB
09-07-2004, 09:01 PM
Definately bizarre. Like the US experiments to use frozen bats with firebombs to drop onto japanese cities in WW2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But that doesn't change the fact that your statement that the resistance faced by the german u-boats in WWI was something to be "laughed at" is simply wrong, as the actual historical data shows.

hauitsme
09-07-2004, 09:48 PM
Have you seen the list of 'how' they were lost?U-boat Losses 1914-1918 (http://uboat.net/wwi/fates/losses.html)

How many of those were sunk by ASW forces? How many sank THEMSELVES??

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/beatnik.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-2.jpg

ParaB
09-07-2004, 10:42 PM
I know the site very well. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A quick browsing through the list shows that by far the majority of subs seem to have been sunk by enemy gunfire, torpedoes, depth charges, mines or ramming, followed by unknown circumstances, which could've been a mine or a simple accident. The actual numbers of subs who sunk by accidents seem to be small compared with the number of total losses.

These numbers still to me show quite another picture than what you try to paint, namely that the u-boats' opossition in WWI was "laughable".

hauitsme
09-07-2004, 11:24 PM
Read my answer again and count the losses again. By way of 'ASW'(destroyers/Qship gunfire, torps, depth charge), how many were sunk? Not self destruction. Not running aground. How many were 'hunted down' and sank by forces dedicated to Anti-Submarine Warfare? The u-boat 'opposition' was laughable, and I don't have the time to count how many were 'mined'. And 'mines' were not used as a ASW weapon, they were to be used against the main threat of that war (surface ships), but that's beside the point.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/beatnik.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/KillerTomato-2.jpg

IXD2
09-08-2004, 05:01 AM
It`s true the ASW during WWI was not that effective. But on the other hand there was still significant risk of technical problems, troubles caused by the sub`s limitations. Notice, for example, that quite many subs have been rammed due to high amount of time needed to submerge. I can`t say that during WWI silent service was much easier and less dangerous than in the WWII. Actually does it make such a difference, being rammed and depth charged ? The result was usually the same.

DSK_Hawkes
09-08-2004, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by E.Thang:
Don't get me wrong, I love any sub-sim, but can we do the american pacific campaing in SH4? I've done the U-boats in Aces and SH2. Although I love the Type VII/C41, I'm really itching to get into a Tench or Balao class off Formosa or Honshu and sink some flat tops!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The American or British sub war was simply boring. the subs were weak, bad and only for coast manoveurs. BORING!!!

Xanthippus
09-08-2004, 07:12 AM
ASW tactics during WW1 is an interesting subject of debate.

It was repeatably shown that the best way to hunt U-boats (even with the advent of advanced radar and aircraft capability from 1943 onwards) was to fight them while they were going for their targets (i.e. merchantmen in convoy).

Any other significant ASW which did not centre around convoy operations was revealed to be on the whole a significant expenditure of resources for little gain. (Note the significant failure of the ASW offensives taken early in World War 2).

The fact that convoys were not introduced in World War 1 until the very last moment kind of means as a matter of course that ASW efforts in World War 1 were bound to 'fail'.

Yet, when you consider that it was a new form of warfare, technology was significantly limited and that the other two armed forces (Airforce and Army) were a major drain on resources and attention then the non convoy methods of controlling U-boats was in some ways quite successful.

I would include the mine in ASW efforts BTW, as it is well known that the Dover barrage during World War 1 had a huge investment put into it so that U-boats could not use this route to menance shipping. Equally a similar effort was made to create a barrage from Greenland to Scotland i believe (naturally less successful given the vast distance involved).

ParaB
09-08-2004, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hauitsme:
And 'mines' were not used as a ASW weapon, they were to be used against the main threat of that war (surface ships), but that's beside the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree again. Mines were definately used in an ASW role as some of the larger minefields were specifically dedicated to restrict the movement of the subs, especially those of the Flandern Flotilla that suffered heavy by them.

E.Thang
09-08-2004, 07:57 AM
DSK,
I don't think you know your history too well. The American Sub campain was far from boring. Geographically it's more interesting too, with all the island chains to patrol ect. Read the new biography on Archerfish that's out...excellent book.

E.Thang
09-08-2004, 08:02 AM
If you guys want a good history on ASW efforts during World War II, pick up the book 'Black May' by Michael Gannon, published by Dell. Failry well detailed and interesting to read. He also wrote 'Operation Drumbeat' which is also very interesting.