PDA

View Full Version : Reumatiib admits goofs



reumatiib
04-08-2005, 04:25 PM
€œAdmitting on is wrong is the first road to becoming right€¦€ And Reumatiib admits to being wrong about some things. And some things not so wrong.

TONAGES:
Specifically, the tonnage rates U-boat captains are coming home with (others have mentioned it too). But this report from U-34€s signal log just after it had moved its base to Lorient proves this worry to be wrong. From €˜The Sea Wolves€ by Wolfgang Frank, 1955 €" €œSomething of the general picture at this time may be gathered from the signal log of U 34.€ He then goes on to quote all the radio reports from other U-boats that were returning to Lorient €" it ran like this: 35,000 tons sunk €" 26,600 tons sunk €" 11,000 tons sunk €" 32,000 tons sunk and another probable 6,000 tons. And again later it reads: 15,000 tons €" 22,800 tons €" 30,000 tons and 23,000 tons. These were single missions. Thus SH3 seems about right.

PARKING SUBS:
As for my own contention that U-boats had to dodge around to survive D/Cs €" The case of Lieutenant Luth€s €œcanoe€ (U-9) when it was forced by damage to the bottom off Norfork (Britain) seems to suggest otherwise €" He played dead on the bottom by not moving at all. The DDs thought he was destroyed because of this and began to drop marker buoys over his spot for the Brit salvage crews €" the water was not all that deep.
He had survived many D/C attacks just laying on the bottom.

Other U-boats noted that DDs often seemed to quit their attack too quickly at the start of the war.

[This game has forced me to reopen all my old U-boat books (that I read decades ago) and see them in a new light €" after all €" in 1978 there were no real computer U-boat games.]

USING A DECK GUN IN ROUGH SEAS:
On Page 28 of the before mentioned book is the account of U-48 coming up on the €˜Royal Sceptre€ and it states €œHeedless of the heavy waves breaking over the decks, the gunners (of U-48) rushed to their stations and sent the first shell screaming over to the ship€¦€ It then mentions €œshot after shot€ was pumped into the ship until the ships crew got into life boats. Obviously U-boaters COULD use the deck gun in rough seas. I always say that in WWII men knew how to be men.

NEUTRALS:
Several accounts in my books reminded me that Neutrals (such as Norway and Sweden) were more afraid of Germany than Germany was afraid of them. At the start of the war some neutrals were stopped and if the German captain didn€t believe their paper work or story about where they were bound, they were told to get off the ship and it was sunk. After Oct. 4th 1939 any Neutral caught in company with Allies or any ship that was running without lights on was to be sunk. (In SH3 none of the ships run with lights on).

AN ODD THING I FORGOT:
The fist book I mentioned states on page 46 where it speaks about Norwegian campaign €" that one reason German magnetic torpedoes did not work was because €œ€¦the British had demagnetized many of their ships;€¦€ How this was done I have no idea.
ELECTRIC MOTORS USED ON SURFACE:
In the before mentioned case of Luth, he finally escaped at night by running on the surface for miles using his electric motors so as to be quiet enough to evade the DDs parked over him. SH3 should add that ability in.

I read all this stuff (actually many other books too) long ago and just forgot most of it. I think the U-boat games I€ve played for the last 15 years has indeed farked up my memory of these things. Too many games, not enough recent reading.

But I do want to see that the SH3 D/Cs at least match the before mentioned naval data.

The upshot is I am having LES AND LESS to complain about concerning SH3. Actually there is little to complain about €" since no game is ever going to be perfect. But I think SH3 really is so good that one just naturally wants it to be better.

reumatiib
04-08-2005, 04:25 PM
€œAdmitting on is wrong is the first road to becoming right€¦€ And Reumatiib admits to being wrong about some things. And some things not so wrong.

TONAGES:
Specifically, the tonnage rates U-boat captains are coming home with (others have mentioned it too). But this report from U-34€s signal log just after it had moved its base to Lorient proves this worry to be wrong. From €˜The Sea Wolves€ by Wolfgang Frank, 1955 €" €œSomething of the general picture at this time may be gathered from the signal log of U 34.€ He then goes on to quote all the radio reports from other U-boats that were returning to Lorient €" it ran like this: 35,000 tons sunk €" 26,600 tons sunk €" 11,000 tons sunk €" 32,000 tons sunk and another probable 6,000 tons. And again later it reads: 15,000 tons €" 22,800 tons €" 30,000 tons and 23,000 tons. These were single missions. Thus SH3 seems about right.

PARKING SUBS:
As for my own contention that U-boats had to dodge around to survive D/Cs €" The case of Lieutenant Luth€s €œcanoe€ (U-9) when it was forced by damage to the bottom off Norfork (Britain) seems to suggest otherwise €" He played dead on the bottom by not moving at all. The DDs thought he was destroyed because of this and began to drop marker buoys over his spot for the Brit salvage crews €" the water was not all that deep.
He had survived many D/C attacks just laying on the bottom.

Other U-boats noted that DDs often seemed to quit their attack too quickly at the start of the war.

[This game has forced me to reopen all my old U-boat books (that I read decades ago) and see them in a new light €" after all €" in 1978 there were no real computer U-boat games.]

USING A DECK GUN IN ROUGH SEAS:
On Page 28 of the before mentioned book is the account of U-48 coming up on the €˜Royal Sceptre€ and it states €œHeedless of the heavy waves breaking over the decks, the gunners (of U-48) rushed to their stations and sent the first shell screaming over to the ship€¦€ It then mentions €œshot after shot€ was pumped into the ship until the ships crew got into life boats. Obviously U-boaters COULD use the deck gun in rough seas. I always say that in WWII men knew how to be men.

NEUTRALS:
Several accounts in my books reminded me that Neutrals (such as Norway and Sweden) were more afraid of Germany than Germany was afraid of them. At the start of the war some neutrals were stopped and if the German captain didn€t believe their paper work or story about where they were bound, they were told to get off the ship and it was sunk. After Oct. 4th 1939 any Neutral caught in company with Allies or any ship that was running without lights on was to be sunk. (In SH3 none of the ships run with lights on).

AN ODD THING I FORGOT:
The fist book I mentioned states on page 46 where it speaks about Norwegian campaign €" that one reason German magnetic torpedoes did not work was because €œ€¦the British had demagnetized many of their ships;€¦€ How this was done I have no idea.
ELECTRIC MOTORS USED ON SURFACE:
In the before mentioned case of Luth, he finally escaped at night by running on the surface for miles using his electric motors so as to be quiet enough to evade the DDs parked over him. SH3 should add that ability in.

I read all this stuff (actually many other books too) long ago and just forgot most of it. I think the U-boat games I€ve played for the last 15 years has indeed farked up my memory of these things. Too many games, not enough recent reading.

But I do want to see that the SH3 D/Cs at least match the before mentioned naval data.

The upshot is I am having LES AND LESS to complain about concerning SH3. Actually there is little to complain about €" since no game is ever going to be perfect. But I think SH3 really is so good that one just naturally wants it to be better.

Kpt_Zig
04-08-2005, 04:30 PM
Top post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RedTerex
04-08-2005, 04:40 PM
Yep, Good post !

I like the running surfaced with electric motors part.

Lovo_Kasistan
04-08-2005, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reumatiib:
ELECTRIC MOTORS USED ON SURFACE:
In the before mentioned case of Luth, he finally escaped at night by running on the surface for miles using his electric motors so as to be quiet enough to evade the DDs parked over him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, flying destroyers... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maybe they should include them instead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

blue_76
04-08-2005, 04:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

very observent of you reumatiib

reumatiib
04-08-2005, 06:53 PM
SH2 had flying DDs at Narvik. They'd beach at times and then climb the mountains, and then fly like Dutchmen.

alanschu
04-08-2005, 06:57 PM
I had a feeling that stopping while being Depth Charged should be an appropriate tactic.

If I was a destroyer captain I wouldn't keep pummelling a target I thought was dead.

Tyke909
04-08-2005, 07:36 PM
Does anyone have reliable figures for how many depth charges a destroyer carried? I assume they had some pre racked and others in the magazine.
From the films I have seen they appear to be fairly large objects (anything of 600lb would be) so logically there was a fairly small number before they ran out.
It would explain why destroyers would and could only persure for a while, plus of course their escort duties requird them to stay with their convoys or within reasonable range at speed.