PDA

View Full Version : Depth Charges need vitamins



reumatiib
04-06-2005, 01:02 PM
Ok here's the scoop on the real depth charges:

"Even though the massive explosive power of the 600-pound charge was impressive to both the escort and the U-boat, highly unnerving to the latter even, the depth charge was not the answer to the U-boat threat. The pressure hull of the U-boat was strong enough to withstand anything but a charge exploding 10 or 20 feet from its hull. To place the weapon this close to the U-boat was extremely difficult to say the least, especially since the U-boat normally took drastic evasive maneuvers at the very last moment. Thus most U-boats that were sunk by depth charges alone probably sank due to accumulated damage from repeated depth charge attacks. Many U-boats survived as many as 300 depth charges over a period of many hours."

quoted from: http://uboat.net/allies/technical/depth_charges.htm

However the attacks mentioned in war records for the most part were dealing with attacks made in deep ocean water. Where is was hard to know the exact depth or a sub. Nevertheless, you note that at 10 to 20 feet a single depth charge could destroy a U-boat. As stated above, most U-boats were finished off by accumulated damage. A depth charge should cause some major damage to a U-boat when it goes off 20 to 50 meters from its hull. In SH2 this is the way it was. In SH3 its not.

I just played the Narvik mission, which in SH2 would have been a U-boater's nightmare! In SH3 my men were screaming something about being detected and yadda yadda yadda - and I just laughed them off, ran the U-boat at Flank, and even came up to the surface near the end to launch torpedos with the UZO - even though I was surrounded by DD - and sunk the Warsprite or what ever that was, and lived to sail away!!!! Now in any other U-boat game, or in SH2 that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. And in real life that would not have happened. U-boats dreaded being caught by DD in shallow waters.
In SH2 I'd have been killed in 2 minutes flat even had I been running silently. Most of my damage in SH3 was due to running aground in the shallow water!!! Nor did I dodge their depth charges - in fact I made little to no attempt to do so - I just let them make their POINTLESS runs on me. They are dropping jellybeans!

If they can't sink me in 20 meters of water, HOW COULD THEY EVER SINK ME IN 150 meters? This must be why that to date I have never been sunk ONCE in this game by DD. So far I have only been sunk by going too deep. THERE IS NO CHALLENGE. You guys keep coming on here bragging what super-duper U-boat captains you are, and now I see why you feel like you are such big men - the depth charges are made for p****s! Some one needs to find the 'depth charge power-o-meter' and ramp that baby up about 80%, then we'll see how many here are such Aces of the Deep.

Truth is, someone needs to port the graphics and AI from SH3 over to SH2. I'd like to know what political and big-money boy ideas went into going from SH2 to SH3 in the board room.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 01:02 PM
Ok here's the scoop on the real depth charges:

"Even though the massive explosive power of the 600-pound charge was impressive to both the escort and the U-boat, highly unnerving to the latter even, the depth charge was not the answer to the U-boat threat. The pressure hull of the U-boat was strong enough to withstand anything but a charge exploding 10 or 20 feet from its hull. To place the weapon this close to the U-boat was extremely difficult to say the least, especially since the U-boat normally took drastic evasive maneuvers at the very last moment. Thus most U-boats that were sunk by depth charges alone probably sank due to accumulated damage from repeated depth charge attacks. Many U-boats survived as many as 300 depth charges over a period of many hours."

quoted from: http://uboat.net/allies/technical/depth_charges.htm

However the attacks mentioned in war records for the most part were dealing with attacks made in deep ocean water. Where is was hard to know the exact depth or a sub. Nevertheless, you note that at 10 to 20 feet a single depth charge could destroy a U-boat. As stated above, most U-boats were finished off by accumulated damage. A depth charge should cause some major damage to a U-boat when it goes off 20 to 50 meters from its hull. In SH2 this is the way it was. In SH3 its not.

I just played the Narvik mission, which in SH2 would have been a U-boater's nightmare! In SH3 my men were screaming something about being detected and yadda yadda yadda - and I just laughed them off, ran the U-boat at Flank, and even came up to the surface near the end to launch torpedos with the UZO - even though I was surrounded by DD - and sunk the Warsprite or what ever that was, and lived to sail away!!!! Now in any other U-boat game, or in SH2 that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. And in real life that would not have happened. U-boats dreaded being caught by DD in shallow waters.
In SH2 I'd have been killed in 2 minutes flat even had I been running silently. Most of my damage in SH3 was due to running aground in the shallow water!!! Nor did I dodge their depth charges - in fact I made little to no attempt to do so - I just let them make their POINTLESS runs on me. They are dropping jellybeans!

If they can't sink me in 20 meters of water, HOW COULD THEY EVER SINK ME IN 150 meters? This must be why that to date I have never been sunk ONCE in this game by DD. So far I have only been sunk by going too deep. THERE IS NO CHALLENGE. You guys keep coming on here bragging what super-duper U-boat captains you are, and now I see why you feel like you are such big men - the depth charges are made for p****s! Some one needs to find the 'depth charge power-o-meter' and ramp that baby up about 80%, then we'll see how many here are such Aces of the Deep.

Truth is, someone needs to port the graphics and AI from SH3 over to SH2. I'd like to know what political and big-money boy ideas went into going from SH2 to SH3 in the board room.

Unikhorne
04-06-2005, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now in any other U-boat game, or in SH2 that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Implying that SH2 was not a U-boat game?

As i understand it, most people hated the scripted campagne in SH2.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 01:14 PM
I should point out that at Narvik and in other missions I have had depth charges going off right next to my sub and my sub just sprung tiny leaks - almost no hull damage if any at all.

At Narvik, in 20 meters of water I was depth charged over and over at close range - some even bounced off my sub I think. But as stated before - in 20 meters of water there is no guess work about my depth and a sub does not have time to evade the charges like it would in 80 meters of water. This explains why I have taken to just parking my sub when in deep water and just allowing the DD to hit my location until they give up. I don't even try to evade them anymore - because when I do they keep hearing something and coming back.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 01:27 PM
the scripted campagnes were really not all that different in actual play from SH3. I thought it was odd that SH3 would more or less take so much from SH2 and throw it into the SH3 missions. But I should reword it another way: SH3 should have corrected a FEW of the SH2 weapons and ship data charts, and then added the Bryce-like graphics and skys. It should have retained the depth info from the SH2 maps. I should have retained most of its sounds rather than taking Dwarf-base sounds from Morrowind. That said, I believe someone will find a way to make the needed changes to SH3. But, look - dodging depth charges IS some of the most important challenges of a U-boat game-commander. If the ships above can't really kill you, there's NO POINT TO IT ALL! While SH2 was weak in many areas, when you heard the DD coming over you were indeed crapping your pants if you were in 30 meters of water. And in SH2 or most other sub games, if DD catch you coming up to the surface 1000 meters from them or less, as I just did at Narvik, you will not live to re-submerge your sub again! I was just testing the game, trying to see just how stupid I could act and still live. And this hasn't been the only such test.

You should stick with SH3, but do yourself a favor - buy SH2, (it costs cheap now) and play its version of Narvik, and then tell me which game makes you **** your pants more.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 01:37 PM
Shell fire is something else. I've read others here who complained about it. When I surfaced at Narvik to finsih off the battleship, I took intense shell fire from about 3 DD at near point blank range. My sub was blackened. I lost about 40% hull integrity or more. But I could dive the ship and survive. In SH2 this is what would happen: the captain would hear: "Sir the hull has been breeched by shell fire! If we dive we will sink" or something to that effect. And if you then ignored that warning and submerged the boat, you would indeed sink in a short time.

SH3 needs this correction, and by the way, is their a FLOODING meter in SH3 that tells you how much flood water has filled your ship and the rate of flooding????

Fraukaputt
04-06-2005, 01:46 PM
dont try to compare SH3 to SH2. SH2 was a sub sim, while this one is something like arcade, but nothing like a sim

Kpt_Zig
04-06-2005, 02:26 PM
I suspect your weenie CPU is choking on all the data the depth-charges are throwing at it and just goes "Oh let the bugger escape, before I implode and take the mobo with me". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yes, there is a flood indicator. Go to F7 and you'll see the compartments slowly flooding (if they have also the little flood icon, to show they have sustained that type of damage).

Do you have all your realism options checked by the way? I've had no trouble being sunk by depth-charges. Repeatedly. Not in campaign mode though, I only let that happen in single missions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SH2 a sim?! Ya, that's why the guys went up on watch in a force-8 storm, wearing T-shirts, shorts and flip-flops and sipping on a Mint-Julip.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 02:33 PM
I almost used that dirty word "arcade" myself. But I think there is hope for SH3 once the mod makers and code breakers get going - or if the Dev Team wakes up. It reminds me of what happened to the Total War series - Shogun came out and it was somewhat primitive, but it was raw action, then came out the Medieval Total War, which only slightly improved the graphics, but really improved the fighting and AI. Then came Rome Total War, and that was "arcade-like" , in fact it even included a switch in the game that said: 'Arcade' as a choice method for playing the game! It had improved the 3D aspects of the game, but it had destroyed the raw realism.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 02:43 PM
You assume too much Zig. I'm using a top of the line machine - more than 3 times what the game makers suggest. In memory I using 1.5 gig. I am not the only one to mention the depth charge problem. If you are getting sunk by DD I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you are not such a good U-boat Ace huh? Try SH2 and tell me what you think then. Didn't you know the same company that made SH2 made SH3? Try SH2, its cheap and will run on even your little CPU.

As for realism, hello!!!!! most of those settings HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DEPTH CHARGE DANGER. Or can't you read? Using the outside camera does not make depth charges weaker.

What are you, a Ubi Dev Teamite in drag?

Or don't you like challenges? Or perhaps SH3 is really challenging to you. Perhaps your CPU is too small and you can't get your sub to move 3 feet away from the depth charges in time.

Kpt_Zig
04-06-2005, 03:42 PM
SH2 was made by SSI, and those guys are famous for buggy, shonky, half-arsed boxes of arcade crapola.

SH3 was made by a bunch of Romanian/Rumanian dudes who clearly have a great deal of talent. Except for the sub death-scene, which was obviously done by the cleaning lady at 4am after she'd found the vodka stash.

Ubi published both. The fact they published this one is something of a miracle, considering they were being hunted like rats after SH2.

I was joking about your weenie CPU. But maybe that's why the depth-charges don't do you in...the allied captains know what a bad temper you've got and are afraid to p*ss you off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, I did a test. I went into Narvik and parked in the shallows. You owe me a new U-Boot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reumatiib:
[quote]A depth charge should cause some major damage to a U-boat when it goes off 20 to 50 meters from its hull. In SH2 this is the way it was. In SH3 its not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just contradicted the passage that you quoted. A depth charge should only cause major damage if it explodes between 10 and 20 meters from the hull, after that the damage must drop considerably. How do you go from that to demanding a serious damage range of 20m to 50m? Sure, SH2 modelled depth charges as being lethal at 20 to 50m range, but SH2 was hardly a scion of historical realism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I just played the Narvik mission, which in SH2 would have been a U-boater's nightmare! In SH3 my men were screaming something about being detected and yadda yadda yadda - and I just laughed them off, ran the U-boat at Flank, and even came up to the surface near the end to launch torpedos with the UZO - even though I was surrounded by DD - and sunk the Warsprite or what ever that was, and lived to sail away!!!! Now in any other U-boat game, or in SH2 that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but that's hardly proof that the other games got it right. The fact is, U-Boats had it very easy in the first months of the war: destroyer crews were green, and anyway, depth charges were never the main sub-killer. Their use was in keeping a sub occupied and submerged, rather than in killing the sub.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And in real life that would not have happened. U-boats dreaded being caught by DD in shallow waters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Later in the war that was true, but early in the war a submarine was virtually undetectable and very hard to kill with the poor equipment that the ASW forces had at their disposal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In SH2 I'd have been killed in 2 minutes flat even had I been running silently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but I fear that is more a failing of SH2 than of SH3.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If they can't sink me in 20 meters of water, HOW COULD THEY EVER SINK ME IN 150 meters? This must be why that to date I have never been sunk ONCE in this game by DD. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clearly you haven't played the game after 1943.

The fact is, U-Boats were virtually invulnerable at the beginning of the war. Until the Allies got their air power focused on the U-Boat threat, nothing they did on the surface of the water with destroyers and depth charges made any real impact on the Ubootwaffe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some one needs to find the 'depth charge power-o-meter' and ramp that baby up about 80%, then we'll see how many here are such Aces of the Deep. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, it would be wise to make sure that depth charges should be as effective as you claim. The statistics show that depth charges were more of an annoyance than a real threat.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fraukaputt:
dont try to compare SH3 to SH2. SH2 was a sub sim, while this one is something like arcade, but nothing like a sim <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please! SH2 was a simulation? Don't make me laugh. Sure, a SCRIPTED campaign is REALLY realistic. I've seen the underwater rails that subs ride on from one mission to the next.

Where do you folks come from? Did the SH2 appreciation society just get bussed in?

Jeez!

Frederf220
04-06-2005, 05:58 PM
What's up with you clowns mentioning that SHII and SHIII differed in non-dynamic/dynamic campaign? Do you have a shred of intelligence to note that that fact has 0 relevance on the effectiveness of DCs?

I've had depth charges go off very close to me with no effect. It seems incorrect in my opinion and I do not fear them. Feb 1940.

malkuth
04-06-2005, 06:07 PM
This thread is funny. Some of the people that have posted in it make me smile.

Thanks for the laugh.

Frumpkis
04-06-2005, 06:15 PM
Well, it does happen if the circumstances are right.

On one mission where I messed up the timing of an evasive turn, a DD sailed right over me in about 90 meters of water depth, with maybe 30 meters under the keel. At least four (maybe more) depth charges exploded around the boat. In the external view I saw my sub violently rolled 360 degrees, followed by the "you're dead" screen. No explosion or breaking apart graphics, but the sudden roll was pretty cool.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frederf220:
What's up with you clowns mentioning that SHII and SHIII differed in non-dynamic/dynamic campaign? Do you have a shred of intelligence to note that that fact has 0 relevance on the effectiveness of DCs? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calling us clowns and unintelligent isn't exactly going to convince us (or anyone else) that you're right, or that we're wrong. In fact it's more likely to convince us that you're just another troll, much like a lot of other trolls that have emerged since this game was published.

If you have something to say, say it. But don't try to mask your incompetence in the art of discussion by calling people names. It doesn't work, and it makes you look like the very same sort of idiot that you're accusing me of being.

Now, did you have a point? If so, discuss it intelligently and respectfully, and preferably cite sources that back up your claims. If you can't do that, then there isn't much use exercising your typing fingers.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frederf220:
I've had depth charges go off very close to me with no effect. It seems incorrect in my opinion... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What statistics are you referencing in order to make that judgment?

Nukem_Hicks
04-06-2005, 06:26 PM
Apparently we have some novices of history on this forum. Depth charges were weak, and the deeper you went, the weaker they were. I've yet to be killed directly by depth charges, but have been killed indirectly, typically when they would destroy my dive planes and I'd be stuck at 200 m heading straight down. It would be virtually impossible for a depth charge to penetrate the sub's hull, however, even at 20 m. If you look through the facts (and the SHIII manual even states this), airplanes, not DCs, were the leading cause of death to U-boats. Bombs destroyed surfaced u-boats much more effectively than did depth charges on submerged u-boats.

As for the death by shelling: you are one of the rare cases in which I've heard of someone surviving a running gun battle with three destroyers. In the convoy training mission I surfaced and decided to duke it out with the destroyer. Despite hitting it several times with AP shells, I still lost. That sounds realistic to me.

Basically, quit playing in sissy mode and try out some patrols in 1944 or 1945 (and not in the XXI). You'll **** your pants, I'm sure of it.

NietzscheMadMan
04-06-2005, 06:26 PM
I've been killed by depth charges before. I took a barrage and suffered extreme damage in about 100 meters of water.

An armed trawler delivered coup upon me by dropping a DC right on the deck of my boat just forward of the deck gun. I had enough time to switch to the crew management view to see most of my boat turn black before the death screen came up.

Of course, I would like to experiment with the new patch, however now that I have installed it I keep getting crash afer crash where before it had only crashed once.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 06:33 PM
The problem here is that players are used to games that overstate lethality by a factor of around ten (because apparently realism isn't exciting enough). Until I played this game I've never lasted longer than two or three patrols in any sub game, yet in reality 75% of U-Boat commanders survived the war. If 75% of commanders survived, that should mean that a player should survive 3 out of every 4 campaigns.

People need to realise that being a sub commander was not a death sentence. Demanding that it should be is the same as demanding that a sub sim should be an arcade game.

malkuth
04-06-2005, 06:35 PM
Nukem, don't try to talk history with this fella. He read one article on Internet, so now he is an expert on the subject.

If you want to learn Subs from some experts, go to subsim.com.. Some freaking history buffs, and actual subdrivers on that forum. Learned alot from some of them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nukem_Hicks:
Basically, quit playing in sissy mode and try out some patrols in 1944 or 1945 (and not in the XXI). You'll **** your pants, I'm sure of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said! I don't always agree with you Nukem, but you're spot on in this case. I recently started a campaign in 1943 after playing through one in 1939 (I stop after 10 to 17 patrols since no U-Boat commander did more than 17) and the difference was amazing. You can sail surfaced all the time in 1939-40, but if you try that in 1943 you'll be dead on your first day of the patrol.

Redwine
04-06-2005, 08:13 PM
If i am not wrong..... Depth Charges in SH3 are more powerful than in real life.....

Today i was killed in 10 seconds by a depth chrge wich explodes at a distance equivalent to a half lenght of the submarine 3D model (a Type IXD2)...... it was not posible, and the depth charge can not be a 600lbs one, because DDs was british.... they do not use it, even it is too much for a 600lbs one.

I know the range of the explosion because i was enjoying watching by the external camera....... i do not go inside because i do not expect to be blasted by a far explosion, and suddently i had a "game over".

If i dont look bad today i was crushed by a long range depth charge blast wave, much more far than in real life.....

Dont flame me, i am not sure.....just what i watched.......

I need to made more checks........

Here some info i put in this forum time ago........

In real life, Depth Charges was not the most efficient method to kill a sub..........

Statistics shows, depth charges attacks was very unsucessful at early times of the war, about 1% to 3 %.......... increasing it effectivity along the war time to reach in the last year only 30% to 40 %.......... it was due the incorporation of high technology in that age............

Russians, wich has not access to this technology, can hunt only 5 or 7 subs in all the war.......... and expend 90.000 depth charges for it...........

There are historytells, about subs hunted by many hours.........

U744, a Type VIIC, 6 march 1944, attacking canadian convoy C2, under command of Kapitan Heinz Blischke, was engaged by escorts HMS Kenilworth Castle, Icarus, and HMCS Chilliwack, Fennel, Chaudiere, Gatineau and St Catharines..........

U744 was under attack during 36 hours, was forced to surface due to oxigen need, but was not destroyed after 36 hours of attack......

There are many histories like this.............

I DDs can not reach us, but they still preying on us, during 24 hours hours or more, up to we waste our oxigen and batteries..........., it can be interesting ( my opinion, do not flame me )

In SH2, with the mod made by CB, DES5 V3, and Historical Depth Charges Lethal Radius Mod we reach a similar behavior, and is too intersting, DDs can reach us with depth charges, but they are unacurrate in depth, this give a long way to be killed.

Many players feel it uninteresting but y like it, and i think so was the real behavior.

Just an opinion, nothing more.




About the lethal radius, depth charges lethal radius was very small.......... they need to explode very near to perforate the hull lethaly.

Plus take in account, the external surface we watch is not the pressure hull, is the external wall of the ballast tank or the deck......you have more than a meter to reach the pressure hull...... if a depth charge explodes at 4 meters of the external surface, may be it is at 5 or more meters of the pressure hull.......

Here some data i found for Lethal Radius Mod in SH2..........

Looking into the historical technical data, we can found in some places the Lethal radius for a 420 lbs./136 kg. TNT depth charge was between 5 and 6 meters.

In another places do the mention of the early 420 lbs./ 136 kg. TNT depth charges has a lethal radius of about 4.1 m.

In more detailed level places we can found the Lethal Radius of a Mark III, a 420 lbs. (136 kg. TNT) depth charge has a lethal radius of about 4.3 m.

A derivate of this was the Mark VII 420 lbs/130 kg, TNT wich had a lethal radius ofabout 6.1 m, (according as declared).

An d the Mark VII Heavy 420 lbs/132 kg TNT with moe sink rate, with a lethal radius of about 6.1 m, (according as declared).

This depth charge was filled with Minol high explosive, increasing its lethal radius up to 7.9 m, (according as declared).

As we can see........ lethal radius for a 420 lbs/ 130kg-136kg TNT vary between 4.1 m and 6.1 m.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 08:42 PM
First of all this source I quoted is not the end all of a historical study about depth charges. THE POINT WAS THAT I HAVE HAD DEPTH CHARGES GOING OFF AT 5 meters from my sub (about 15 feet) WITH ONLY SMALL DAMAGE. I should have been dead!!! The point is that U-boats dreaded shallow water and DD, and yet I can run around them with little fear in shallow water, and especially in deep water. The point IS that at 50 feet and up to 200 yards a depth charge should be knocking off hull integ-points, for as thew article states the damage should build up, but in SH3 IT DOES NOT. As for the Dev Team being historical researchers how could we explain all the subs having the wrong and same depth ranges???? Its just a bunch of Romanians - nothing very special - they were hired because workers in that area are CHEAP.

I've read my share of U-boat books since the 50s. Hollywood is what created the myth of firey depthcharges blowing up on top of subs not causing total destruction. Check out the pic on the front of the SH3 box? Duh...Hollywood. Now in point of fact few subs were sunk by a total destruction of their pressure hulls. The weak spot of subs are their communication ports and passages that connect the inside of the sub with the outside. Depth charges main effect (from a distance) was to weaken and break the seals of these ports. Subs usually leaked to death - very rapidly, rather than broke open.

Now are you bone heads going to argue about SHELLS punching holes in the U-boat hull??????????????????? In SH2 shells punching holes in the hull forced U-boats to remain on the surface. Pressure hulls were of ZERO value once they were holed by artillery. Yet in SH3 I took 3 minutes shell fire from 3 DD and could dive to safety later. NOT REALIST. Perhaps its Romanian real, but not real real.

You P****s can continue to play with jellybeans and pretending to be real Aces. I intend to juice up my depth charges to real values.

uncle_newt
04-06-2005, 08:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Ah.... I see reumatiib is showing his true troll colors. There is no need for name calling or insulting the developers.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reumatiib:
First of all this source I quoted is not the end all of a historical study about depth charges. THE POINT WAS THAT I HAVE HAD DEPTH CHARGES GOING OFF AT 5 meters from my sub (about 15 feet) WITH ONLY SMALL DAMAGE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Redwine:
In another places do the mention of the early 420 lbs./ 136 kg. TNT depth charges has a lethal radius of about 4.1 m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So reumatiib, since your example was from an early war patrol, that would seem to indicate that your experience may easily have been realistic. What you don't seem to appreciate is that as the explosion expands it gets RAPIDLY weaker. A lethal radius of 4.1m might very well translate into minor damage at 5m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I should have been dead!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Based on what data? You keep saying you should have been dead, but you haven't brought any solid data to the discussion that proves that. We're talking about a simulation here - we can't go off gut feelings, instinct, hairs standing up on the back of our hands, our horoscope, or a little voice that tells us things. We need hard facts if we're to get to the truth.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-06-2005, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reumatiib:
You P****s can continue to play with jellybeans and pretending to be real Aces. I intend to juice up my depth charges to real values. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one here is a 'real ace'. Not us with our 'jellybeans', nor you with your so-called 'real values'. You can insult us all you want, but if you were in a real U-Boat in the Atlantic in 1944 you'd be pissing your pants every time one of those 'jellybeans' went off. So just quit with the disrespect.

Nanuk66
04-06-2005, 10:00 PM
SH2 was a ****e game - nuff said!

'Its just a bunch of Romanians - nothing very special - they were hired because workers in that area are CHEAP.'

When do the Kids go back to school? Soon i hope...

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 11:36 PM
This source is from the DESA (Destroyer Escort Sailors Association)

Note that 30 yards = about 29+ meters and 10 yards = about slightly less than 10 meters or 30 feet. 30 feet = KILL on German U-boats, 90 feet = damage on them. This is about what I once read long ago in a German source about U-boats.

"The depth charge, with its 300 to 600 pounds of TNT, was the traditional antisubmarine weapon. However, a depth charge barrage required a high degree of accuracy to score, particularly against the double-hulled German U-boats. The "water hammer" effect of a 300 pound depth charge required an explosion within 30 yards of the submarine hull for damage and 10 yards for a kill. The 600 pound depth charge lethal area was considerably enlarged. They had a "teardrop" shape with tail fins, like aerial bombs, to make them sink faster. Depth charges were detonated by hydrostatic pressure, and depth was set before firing. Later models also had magnetic impulse detonators which would fire when in proximity to a submarine. Japanese submarines, lacking the hull strength and depth tolerance of their German counterparts, were more vulnerable to destruction by this weapon. A DE carried about 100 depth charges."

http://www.desausa.org/destroyer_escort.htm

More coming.....

But the point is: SH3 depth Charges are too weak.

reumatiib
04-06-2005, 11:37 PM
by the way 600 lbs. was the mid range for depth charges and it had a larger damage range than 30 yards. This very closely matches SH2.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-07-2005, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by the way 600 lbs. was the mid range for depth charges and it had a larger damage range than 30 yards. This very closely matches SH2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? Even if I was to believe the person who wrote that webpage got those figures from anywhere other than out of thin air, it proves nothing. SH2 is not a valid source for historical data, nor is the DESA. And what does 'damage range' mean? What sort of damage are we talking about. Does it mean that it can tear paper at 30 yards, or does it mean that it can tear open a pressure hull at 30 yards?

In short, WHERE ARE YOUR STATISTICS? Show me your STATISTICAL source (not just some Navy vets association website) and then we can debate this. If all you have is your 'instinct' and blind faith in your hunches, and one website that has a page full of vague opinion and vaguer numbers, you have nothing. So far, you're showing us NOTHING that supports your assertions beyond your own strong belief in them. That's not anywhere near good enough. If this was a matter of religion, your faith might be convincing enough, but this is a matter of physics.

Your source says:

"The "water hammer" effect of a 300 pound depth charge required an explosion within 30 yards of the submarine hull for damage and 10 yards for a kill."

That means that 30 yards could only slightly damage the sub. It doesn't mention percentage chances of a kill, and it doesn't come anywhere near your prior assertion that depth charges should damage a sub at 50 yards. Your source could mean that 10 yards had a slight chance of a kill, or it could mean a 100% certainty of a kill. We don't know because the article is too vague. When an article is this vague, it needs support. Basically, this source represents opinion. It might have a basis in hard data, but in and of itself it doesn't meet the standards required for reliable data. We can't rely on it because it isn't specific enough.

tomagabi
04-07-2005, 05:21 AM
Dear reumatiib, my experience with SHIII is somehow different.While avoiding some depth charges for example,(as you said) I took a close hit(it bounced on me basically before exploding) and then I was doomed.The sub sank immediately and ... death. I can not believe you survived such a hit. At least on a Type VII. Again, perhaps the explosions are small (in size), but if I take 2-3 at close range, I will go to the bottom for sure. I also took some shells (and the sub was not blackened as you mentioned - perhaps the shells were of different caliber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif) and when I dived, I realised that my dive turned into a sinking. So I fell the boat is not so invulnerable as you depict it. True, 300Kg of blasting material would be horrific and this is NOT quite the situation in the game, but the depth charge is still a killer.

tomagabi
04-07-2005, 05:28 AM
And besides, bringing in this discussion the nationality of the game makers has no relevance whatsoever. Should we start mentioning all the **** games made around the world!?What is the point of this? Try to be more useful to this community and tell us what you really want or think. Otherwise I am REALLY starting to believe you'll only be REAL happy when you will be REALLY blasted away by a REAL depth charge in you very own REAL submarine. Enough "REALITY SHOW"!?

Teddy Bar
04-07-2005, 05:52 AM
reumatiib,
Whilst I understand your point, hacking the depth charges to be unrealistic to make up for the AI is sort of donkey about face.

I hope that there will be another patch ot two as it is desperately needed for the AI and the Damage Model.

AnalysisMan
04-07-2005, 06:06 AM
Well, I had a bout with DD, going at it with my deck gun. Spotted him at about 7 kms...and I tried my luck. After the third shot it turned towards me, but only started firing at me when we were 4km apart. The first three shots missed me, then, it hit three in succession, but I was already diving - never the less, I had only 50% hull left. I think that's pretty realistic.

Depth charges - still to early in the war for them to detect me. They don't drop them no-where near where I am.

I did 'tell' a DD where I was as test though, it came from behind, put 4 down into the water and killed me. Only one came close as to touch. The others were behind and in front of me. I think it's pretty spot on.

Teurastaja_Gleb
04-07-2005, 07:34 AM
I think that damage modelling needs fixing. Atleast the naval guns. I played the single mission where you are to sink the well protected Illustrious-class (can't remember mission name). Realism 100%.

Just for fun, i stayed in the surface to test a bit and was a bit surprised when i could go toe-to-toe with 3 dd:s. I almost destroyed one with my deck gun and it still took them a few minutes to destroy the u-boat. I'm no expert in history of naval guns, but i have a feeling that a sub hit with naval guns - even once. Is finished. My sub took probably dozen hits plus massive fire from flak guns. Tho i can't say how many of the dozen hits were direct ones.

Considering the depth charge issue. It probably does not need a naval historian. Anyone good at math? I'm not but solving the following function should end this useless debate "what i think and read from source xyz".

lethal radius =
f(s, p, r) || {s = depth charge size, N;
p = water pressure at given depth, Pa
r = max. resistance of the pressure hull, Pa}

Redwine
04-07-2005, 08:48 AM
The most extensive used depth charge was 246/250lbs with 170lbs TNT.....

and 420lbs total with 300lbs TNT, later Minol later Amatol.

And 420lbs lethal radius comes from 4.1m TNT, up to 6.1m and 7.9m at end of the war.

This are "declared" values http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif from the depth charge builder company.....on a 3/4 inch hull ticknes and for periscope/30m depth according i read somewhere.

600lbs depth charges was not extensivelly used, and was used only by USA, i do not found any info about british used them.

When we check the behaviour of the depth charges in the game...... we need to take in account that i mentioned before..... that we see in the 3D model as external surface is not the pressure hull. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

When we watch a depth charge exploding just at our side, we need to take in account there is 1 or 2 meters of ballast tank befeore reach the pressure hull......the same happens with the deck over the sub...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Really depth charges must to explode very near of the sub to be lethal..... specially at high depths.

Real life statistics shows DDs attacks with depth charges was not too much successful, as i wrote befor only 1% to 3% in early time, rising up with the new detection technology up to 30% to 40% at final times of the war.

Planes was most dangerous for a sub than DDs.

Some interesting fonts of info.......

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMRussian_ASW.htm

http://uboat.net/boats/u427.htm

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/fourth_dimension/2003/mar03/06_fd_e.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMJAP_ASW.htm


Here from germans...... look lethal radius is only 8m-26feet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif but for old hulls of 12mm-1/2 hinch tick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMGER_ASW.htm



I think so the game is a little bit in favour to DDs.......

why for ?

Lethal raius appears a little bit high......

DDs can launch depth charge at any depth, without limits..... disregarding how depth you go.... it is histrorically unreal.

Crush depth in the game are not real, this enforce you to stay nearest of the surface and it improves the DDs accuracy.

Just an opinion, i am not owner of the truth, do not flame me...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SS.DJSatane
04-07-2005, 09:24 AM
I would agree that damage modeling/system to player U-Boat even on realistic settings is a bit off. You can get hit right in middle directly with torpedo(I have been hit few times by accident by teammate in multiplayer) and receive only moderate damage and survive. Ya ok.

However, on the opposite end, crush depth in SHIII is off, often you will die almost instantly without much warning going deeper and not even close to maximum depth of the sub than from any other dangers in the game.

Hopefully things can get tweaked in patches.

Mjollnir111675
04-07-2005, 09:38 AM
I think the charges are fine as is. I have had them explode right next to me. In fact three in sucession within a coupla' FEET. And no problem visiting D.J.'s locker fer me. Despite my darndest D.C. attempts. So my real beef I guess is that @ that close I surely expected my fore tube compartment to be completely folded but it was not so. Not on the D.C. screen nor modelled outside. In fact the bow received two of those that fell one on each side and one would think it would've been massive damage. But the damage that was sustained was all focused on the aft crew quarters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif with that?

I feel it is pitched towards the D.D.'s and merchants as well.
And heres why:

1) The D.D.s and all ships fer this matter have tugboat like manuevering @ any speed. They can "cut the oceanic rug" if you will.
I had 3 D.D.'s on my tail, I was @ bout 70 mtrs. and I would haul fer a moment in flank,perform a double knuckle and then cut motors and rig fer silence. They would sail by me but its the way they sailed right past. I stumped them be sure, as they were d.c'n way off bout 70 yrds. @ closest. But they were on a fatal collision course and once again bow thrusters to the rescue cuz they did a dance(some ballroom moves BTW) and averted imminent disaster.
So ya think the stories over huh, well hold on to yer hats..
So I eluded the "three stooges" and when bout 100 mtrs away I secure from s.r. and resume flank. I reach the convoy and dispatch two M.M. vessels with the quickness.
Oh no I am being pinged!
Back to 80 mtrs. but still @ flank to "git in where I fit in" amongst the convoy to try and perfect my "intra-Convoy E&E maneuvers".
So I pull in under,well try to pull in under, a fat tanker& what happens...they must be packin' ASW gear that eclipses the D.D.'s cuz they were jukin' and sidesteppin' every course change I made to keep under them. And when I say "jukin and sidesteppin'" I mean exactly that. Those crews,screws and rudders were of the highest speed and efficiency.I was @ 90 some odd mtrs below,rig fer S.R. ,ahead slow and that tanker knew waht my intentions were @ the very second I ordered them.Heck I evade D.D.'s easier. So I changed M.M. vessels to cruise under and the second has the blue laser as well.
And really it isn't the fact that they are knowing of my presence, but so quickly & even more aggravating that a heavy @r5e vessel does it with such ease and quickness. The D.D.'s I can somewhat understand but they do need the thrusters removed as well. But M.M. vessels as well?
Anyone have any FACTS on what ASW the M.M. vessels packed aboard? This I have to know.
Any links will be appreciated.

Thank You in advance,
Mjollnir

Pr0metheus 1962
04-07-2005, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
I think the charges are fine as is. I have had them explode right next to me. In fact three in sucession within a coupla' FEET. And no problem visiting D.J.'s locker fer me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

I think what people don't realise regarding this issue is that the game probably doesn't have definite figures for damage done by an explosion. If a depth charge explodes within 5 metres of a boat the program probably assigns damage based on range combined with some sort of a probability-based randomizer. If the range is short enough, there will be a very high percentage chance of a pressure hull breach, but there's also a small chance of no damage being done at all. I think this issue needs much more evidence than the one single experience that Reumatiib is using as a foundation for his argument.

Pr0metheus 1962
04-07-2005, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
But they were on a fatal collision course and once again bow thrusters to the rescue cuz they did a dance(some ballroom moves BTW) and averted imminent disaster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trust me, you don't want those thrusters removed. Most modern simulations have very poor avoidance AI. If you removed those reverse thrusters, we'd have a situation where the game's ships all collided with something before we ever got a chance to see them. Even if they got to you, you'd see destroyers colliding with everything as soon as they saw you. The thrusters are a small price to pay when we get reasonable collision avoidance as a result.

alanschu
04-07-2005, 02:21 PM
Since you are commenting on destroyer manouvering, I thought I would mention a quick story.


I decided to take a peek at Scapa Flow, and I came in from a small opening in th west. There's a little island to avoid, so I went south...but for some reason, my sonar detected a warship on the northside, right through the island!

I had surfaced for a bit, and I guess the destroyer had turned to get me (even though I couldn't see him across the island), but next thing I know I see smoke and explosions to the north......turns out he ran himself aground trying to chase me through the island http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nukem_Hicks
04-07-2005, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alanschu:
Since you are commenting on destroyer manouvering, I thought I would mention a quick story.


I decided to take a peek at Scapa Flow, and I came in from a small opening in th west. There's a little island to avoid, so I went south...but for some reason, my sonar detected a warship on the northside, right through the island!

I had surfaced for a bit, and I guess the destroyer had turned to get me (even though I couldn't see him across the island), but next thing I know I see smoke and explosions to the north......turns out he ran himself aground trying to chase me through the island http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had the same type of thing occur while sneaking into Scapa Flow during the opening month of the war. My enterance through the southern opening at night was fiercely contested and at one point I found myself being depth charged by approx. 5 DDs (judging from sound contacts). I made it in, found nothing, and then cruised around during daylight. What I found were 4 beached DDs. One of them couldn't even be sunk since my fish would explode on the seafloor even when set to 1m running depth. It was crazy. I ended up escaping on the surface since every escort in the area had beached itself during the confusion of the night.

deuces_wild
04-07-2005, 05:21 PM
My experience is that depth charges can be deadly enough with some bad luck or bad manouvers, and I have yet to play in the latter stages of the war.

Simulation issues set aside, what is brilliant about SH3 is the feeling of being on a ship. I had the honour of serving a year in the norwegian coastguard, and it feels great to roam about with a sub in the same waters that I sailed in once myself.

What does the game lack for my part? Harsher weather would be nice. Historically I think most subs fired torpedos from the surface at night? I dont know for sure, but I'm guessing water conditions must have made the periscope pretty much useless due to high waves w/froth? Atleast in northern waters.

As for surface warfare...as noted there were instances were submarines could surface for oxygen even while being hunted by other vessels. Now I probably can't the ship I served on as a historical version of those engagements, but I do remember that we needed quite a few shots in order to hit close to home.

And I can also imagine planes as being the big threat to submarines. After 6 days uneventful days in the sea, the watch can probably get...hmm...careless after a while.

Boredom, cramped living, the odd suicide and some times filled with moments of ****ting your pants are probably the horrific truth about serving on one of these submarines.

So this obviously isn't a simulation, since it is fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mjollnir111675
04-07-2005, 05:28 PM
Beery,

yer right about the clloision detection. I s'pose I never thought of it on the other side of the coin. It could be the polar opposite and we'd be in a world o' hurt.
But hey I also like to think that if I'm causin that much confusion & havoc just bein' underneath 'em well, they deserve to be slapped with a bag o' WTF every now & then. @least let me hear some collision alarms before they do the pirouette(sp?) together.

The island thing is wierd. I know the island so I am gonna check it out.

Nukem,
Man that isn't a bug. Thats a feature. Hey if they want to pull open ocean manuevers in a shallow narrow eviron so let 'em.
Now the question is were they considered destroyed? Cuz from where I am seein things you shoulda received alil renown fer that. I'll tell ya why:
Even if you cause a beachin' of an enemy vessel and say they can retrieve it it would still knock that ship out of action fer a few, if not several, months.
And if you happen to lead a couple destroyers flat out into each other than that is worth something as well.
Its not needed in anyones terms but it would be nice to every now and then maybe hear them slamming into each other. Silly sheeeot like that happened.



BTW:Anyone come up on any good info on Merchant Vessel ASW gear?

quillan
04-07-2005, 08:08 PM
Glass bottomed ships?

Maj_Solo
04-07-2005, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Unikhorne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now in any other U-boat game, or in SH2 that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Implying that SH2 was not a U-boat game?

As i understand it, most people hated the scripted campagne in SH2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is saying he want a ****ing sim that's all, he like the graphics, but thinks someone or several people took several shotguns, and blew the brains out of SH from all directions so it splattered over the whole place in all directions.

He is saying he accepted the quality of the SH2 ...... cal it "sim" perhaps. You gotta want to understand what people write.

Pentallion
04-07-2005, 10:54 PM
If you want to be able to dive to realistic depths, go here:

http://www.delraydepot.com/tt/sh3.htm

His Crush Depth mod also allows you to give your ship a random crush depth within historically correct range for each type. So you don't know exactly when she'll go 'pop'.

Unikhorne
04-08-2005, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You gotta want to understand what people write. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was joking. I just think this whole thing is funny because <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He is saying he want a ****ing sim that's all, he like the graphics, but thinks someone or several people took several shotguns, and blew the brains out of SH from all directions so it splattered over the whole place in all directions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
is basicly what people thought about SH2 when it came out, as i understood it.