PDA

View Full Version : Escape Tactics



billclarke1
10-30-2004, 10:31 PM
In SH2 I dove my boat to nearly 200 metres and went silent and passed throught a thermal layer (according to my crew), yet the destroyer still got me with depth charges, how is this possible ? will SH3 model correct this ?

hauitsme
10-30-2004, 11:41 PM
How is this possible you ask?

Does the term 'cheating' come to mind? Game AI has always, and in the foreseeable future will always 'cheat'! That's why multiplayer is vastly superior to single-player. SH2's main draw to me(and many others), was it's connection to Destroyer Command, being able to fight against another person, NOT a computer. But they totally screwed that up, didn't they? Hopefully, this new team WON'T!!(please?)

Even though you happen to make it past a thermal layer, that's no guarantee you'll escape detection, but it definitely does help. Thermal layers were a very important part in the game 'Red Storm Rising', which I was addicted to for quite a while on both my C64 & Amiga. Sometimes they're there, sometimes not. They'll be there, and then suddenly disappear. They can be weak, or quite strong. The DevTeam has said they will be included, but they also said there will be NO WAY for us to detect them. Everything you do has an effect on being detected, for example:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>your speed<LI>thier speed<LI>their experience<LI>orientation(angle)<LI>internal noises<LI>thermal layers<LI>weather<LI>etc.[/list]

Redwine
10-31-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by billclarke1:
In SH2 I dove my boat to nearly 200 metres and went silent and passed throught a thermal layer (according to my crew), yet the destroyer still got me with depth charges, how is this possible ? will SH3 model correct this ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Install CB's DES5 V3, it is just wonderful, (CB is a genius) no more magic detection and laser guided depth charges............

If you want you can aditinaly install Historical Depth Charges Lethal Radius Mod......... depth charges lower lethal radius settings.........

You will obtain long time DDs hunt over you, some times overnight hunts up to 30 hours.........

With CB's mod you will be more vulnerable when rise up your periscope........... submerged you will be more stealth.......... of course, you can not sink ships submerged......... when submerged they have troubles to determine you position and correct depth......... some time they pass over you and loss contac, another times they pas over you and launch depth charges just over you, and you can see the depth charges passing touching your hull and exploding 20 or 30 meters under you......... just adrenalinic...........

No doubt about CB's mod, for me it is the best.........

Hiorical Depth charges Lethal Radius Mod reduce
depth charges lethal radius to historical technical data, originally the game has values incredibly higher than was in real life, plus this mod fix the hull resistence modeled by the game..

Originally in the game hull resistence is based on ship tonnage......... it is not correct, based on this, a Type IX is more resistent than a type VIIC/41, because type IX has more tonnage.......... it is wrong.

Max operative depth of a type IX is 200m, and for a last model of type VII was 270m.......... a 270m operative depth sub must to be more resistent............

This mod fix it putting the hull resistance in concordance with ship maximun operative depth..........

After mod, a 270m max operative depth sub hull will be more resistant than a 200m max operative depth sub hull........... disregarding their tonnage..........

Back-up you foles in case you dont like this behavior, and try it..........

billclarke1
10-31-2004, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Redwine:
Install CB's DES5 V3, it is just wonderful, (CB is a genius) resistent............
.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is CB and what is DES5 V3 ?

SailorSteve
10-31-2004, 02:19 PM
You'll find it here: http://www.ebort.com/index.html

Also additional good stuff here: http://207.44.164.159/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16443

SHII has so many good mods and fixes these days that it's actually quite fun to play.

Redwine
10-31-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by billclarke1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Redwine:
Install CB's DES5 V3, it is just wonderful, (CB is a genius) resistent............
.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is CB and what is DES5 V3 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi........

CB is one of the best realism mod developers........

I my modest opinion his mod is the best.......

Sailor Steve give you the link of his web page.........

http://www.ebort.com/index.html

You can found the Hist. Depth Charges Lethal Radius Mod here..........

http://www.iespana.es/rotteufel/base/mods_sh2.htm

Browse the site up to the page #5, or use the little pages at botom of the page........click on the #5 page.

Enjoy..........

king_cam
10-31-2004, 08:31 PM
ya lol game AI does cheat baad lol in half the RTS games i play the AI always has the best units to defeat the units i have.

SailorSteve
10-31-2004, 08:50 PM
Well, the above-mentioned mods do cut the SHII AI-cheating down considerably.

HeibgesU999
10-31-2004, 09:53 PM
If you evade according to unterseebootswaffe procedure, the so called "cheating" AI only gets you about 1% or the time, at the highest level of realism.

If you are getting killed at a low depth regularly, you are probably doing something wrong.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
If you evade according to unterseebootswaffe procedure... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where can we find this? Is it available on the net? In a book?

diveplane
11-10-2004, 05:58 AM
shame sh2 wont run under new hardware
chewing nails here waiting for full sim
or even a demo off sh3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2004, 06:35 AM
It will be here in good time. The longer we wait the more we'll appreciate it when it arrives, especially if it means that it's one of those rare things - a game that's released in a truly finished state. Also, the extra time we wait is giving us a proper campaign, and that is definitely worth the wait.

I'm going to use the next two or three months to steep myself in U-Boat lore and tactics. After that I'll be good and ready to take to the simulated seas of the North Atlantic.

Coinshooter
11-10-2004, 12:03 PM
I wonder if CB's DES5 V3 will work with SH3.
Chuck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

SailorSteve
11-10-2004, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coinshooter:
I wonder if CB's DES5 V3 will work with SH3.
Chuck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. What he did was to change the parameters of destroyer lookouts and performance within the game. Actually, I've since learned that anyone can do this, since it's not a coding thing but rather written right into the folders. You can open up the different files in the Sim/Systems folder and change any parameters you like. Guys at SubSim have joked about making the sub go deeper, faster; one guy even made his sub go 200 knots and tried to hit airplanes by surfacing at that speed, leaping into the air and ramming them!

Possibly SHIII will have similar options, but with any luck we won't need it.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2004, 02:34 PM
These days every really good sim (i.e. those made by people who have respect for their customers) has text commands that allow players to adjust various aspects of a sim. It's essential to be able to adjust the single player version of the game for one's own limitations so that even a poor player can tweak a sim so that he can pretend to be a great ace (or, indeed, so that a player can create subs that move at 600kts and which fly - if that's what the player wants). The longevity of a game is measured by how much the developers leave uncoded. Red Baron 3D, although a horribly bugged game, was helped a great deal by its lack of complex code so that the players (myself included) could create their own patches for it to fix bugs and to adjust the game to suit their playstyle. Similarly, B-17 II had many parameters left completely uncoded, which allowed players to use 'realism patches' which enhanced the simulation for those who wanted to use them. On the other hand, IL-2 is almost impossible to adjust, and it remains to be seen whether this game will retain longevity after the developer stops supporting it.

munnst
11-11-2004, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by billclarke1:
In SH2 I dove my boat to nearly 200 metres and went silent and passed throught a thermal layer (according to my crew), yet the destroyer still got me with depth charges, how is this possible ? will SH3 model correct this ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reality it is not possible for a UBoat crew to detect a thermal layer so I think your crew were fibbing.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-11-2004, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by munnst:
In reality it is not possible for a UBoat crew to detect a thermal layer so I think your crew were fibbing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is possible to detect it. If you listen carefully to what Erich Topp is saying in his interview, and read between the lines of his slightly less than perfect English, it's clear that he's confused by what precisely the interviewer is asking, and so he gives a misleading response. I think what he was trying to say was that it was impossible to detect the presence of a thermal layer BEFORE you encountered it. But that doesn't mean you couldn't detect a thermal layer when one appeared and take advantage of it afterwards. After all, it doesn't take 21st century technology to be able to tell when the water surrounding a ship gets colder.

finchOU
11-11-2004, 09:03 AM
dude I though we covered this.....from what Everyone has gathered, the use of thermal layers was debunked. Sure they exsisted, but to find them and use them? In a tatical situation? I think it is wishfull thinking that we would be able to, in combat, A. detect layers, B. use them knowing where they are.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-11-2004, 09:05 AM
If you guys covered it and came to the conclusion that the use of thermal layers was debunked, then you guys came to the wrong conclusion, at least according to what one U-Boat commander says:

Oesten (sorry, it's not Erich Topp) is saying that they could be used if you found one. That's my whole point. You couldn't know where they were beforehand, but once you found one you could use it.

What Oesten was saying was that you couldn't know beforehand that there was a layer there. But he never said that you couldn't use one. There is a clear misunderstanding between him and the American interviewer (not the primary interviewer) on this. Look at the interview again. Oesten says clearly that you could use a layer if you found one, but that you couldn't tell where one was before you found it. The American then jumps in and says "so you never used one intentionally, that's interesting" - but that's not what Oesten said. In fact he goes on to say that if you found one you COULD use it, but the interviewers become confused and keep on assuming that there was no way to use a thermal layer.

Yarrick_
11-11-2004, 11:27 AM
billclarcke1 said that he went to 200 meters with his sub.

I am thinking that at 200 meters, maybe near to max depth of the sub, the bulk of the boat must do a lot of noise due to the pressure, and that was how he got detected.

Also, there are thermal layers AND THERMAL LAYERS. Let me explain, it is not the same a thermal layer which changes maybe 2 or 3 degrees to one that changes in maybe 8 degrees, so there are more usefull layers than others.

bertgang
11-12-2004, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
Also, there are thermal layers AND THERMAL LAYERS. Let me explain, it is not the same a thermal layer which changes maybe 2 or 3 degrees to one that changes in maybe 8 degrees, so there are more usefull layers than others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...and some thermal layers are useful against the subs, increasing sound detection.
A thing pointed in subsim forum.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 01:40 PM
From the U-Boat Commander's Handbook, dating from 1942:

"What to do in case of Pursuit by ASDIC.

254 b) Go low down, and during the dive carry out consecutive measurements of the density and temperature of the water, with a view to ascertaining which stratum of water affords protection against the enemy ASDIC operations - a condition characterized by a weakening of the echo impulses. The weaker the reception of the echo impulses in the hydrophone of the submarine, the weaker, and therefore the more inaccurate, the echo returning to the enemy's submarine detecting gear."

So it seems that U-Boats did use thermal layers to avoid detection by ASDIC, and were told to use such layers by the operations manual in use as early as 1942.

HeibgesU999
11-17-2004, 02:14 PM
But the question still remains is how did the uboats use thermals.

From studying the U.Kdt.Hdb it seems that they continually took measurements to see if there were thermals in the area, but had no way to use them like modern subs do.

Knowing thermals were in the area contributed to the kalue's overall tactical planning.

It would be interesting to find out exactly what the instruments were that took these measurements.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
But the question still remains is how did the uboats use thermals.

From studying the U.Kdt.Hdb it seems that they continually took measurements to see if there were thermals in the area, but had no way to use them like modern subs do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you mean by 'use them like modern subs do'. I'd expect they used them just like modern subs do - dive under them and use them to lower the efficiency of the enemy's ASW. That's what the manual says, so that's what they would do. What else could they do?

They aren't really taking measurements of thermals 'to see if there are thermals in the area'. All they can do is find thermal layers in the immediate vicinity of the sub. This is what I'm assuming modern subs do, and it's what WW2 subs did. What you do when you find one isn't exactly rocket science.

HeibgesU999
11-17-2004, 02:46 PM
I doesn't appear that german uboats, unlike there american counterparts, had any kind of apparatus to measure them in real time.

The measurements the Germans took seem to have been taken while the boat was in the operational area, but not in the heat of combat.

That is why the U.Kdt.Hdb stresses the need to continually take these measurements.

US wwii fleet subs had bathothermagraph which gave more real time information. Modern subs can use thermal layers with a high degree of precision due to advances in technology.

But information on this has been spotty.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
The measurements the Germans took seem to have been taken while the boat was in the operational area, but not in the heat of combat.

That is why the U.Kdt.Hdb stresses the need to continually take these measurements. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's not what the manual says. The manual says:

""What to do in case of Pursuit by ASDIC.

254 b) Go low down, and during the dive carry out consecutive measurements of the density and temperature of the water, with a view to ascertaining which stratum of water affords protection against the enemy ASDIC operations "

That's not measurements 'taken while the boat was in the operational area, but not in the heat of combat'. It is written right there in black and white: take measurements during the dive. I'm not sure how you can interpret that as meaning that the measurements aren't taken while the boat is under threat. It's quite clear from the passage that REAL-TIME measurements were taken, and that they were ONLY taken during an attack. There's no point taking measurements at any other time - usually if you're not under threat you're surfaced - these are WW2 subs we're talking about, they didn't dive routinely, so they can't have measured thermal layers if they weren't under threat.

When the manual says "What to do in case of Pursuit by ASDIC" it doesn't mean 'what to do in case ASDIC shows up at some point in the future'. What it means is 'what to do when you're already under ASDIC attack'. The wording can be misleading, but its common usage for military handbooks to say 'in case of' when they mean 'when it's happening'.

Jose.MaC
11-17-2004, 03:17 PM
If you don't have bathitermographer, you can say that the temperature has changed testing it directly on the hull. since the sub has double hull, is quite hard to say it with a good aproximation. Unless you're using seawater for cooling the machinery, in such case you'll have better chances to get a quite inacurate but efficient sistem to get temperature.

We should need to know if was possible -for what is said in the video, is unclear wether they get a way to know directly, ala batithermograph, or indirectly: DD missing contact.

To keep this discussion without further material is just useless.

finchOU
11-17-2004, 03:24 PM
"But that's not what the manual says. The manual says:"

Its hard to assume that they Followed "the book" exactly, especially in the heat of battle.

"these are WW2 subs we're talking about, they didn't dive routinely"

I would assume, being a Naval Vessel, and its defining characteristic was to submurge, that subs would dive a couple of times a day

Navy's love Drills and making sure everything works is priortiy one most of the time!...oh and most importantly paint everything....then paint somemore! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by finchOU:
Its hard to assume that they Followed "the book" exactly, especially in the heat of battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think that would be the time when it was most important to follow the book, especially if doing so will improve your chances of escape. I very much doubt that sub skippers said 'oh what the heck, let's not bother measuring for temperature changes - it can only help us evade the ASDIC'.

As for a sub having a defining characteristic to submerge, well that's not entirely true. These were not submarines in the modern sense of the word (except for the Type XXI, and only then partially - you couldn't cruise for days at 150 metres even in a Type XXI). If a Type VII (or a Type IX) submerged it used up battery power that might be essential if it was attacked. Given that, I would dive the boat as infrequently as possible while in dangerous waters. I'm sure boats got plenty of chances to dive when aircraft were spotted.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jose.MaC:
since the sub has double hull, is quite hard to say it with a good aproximation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Can't they put measuring equipment on the outer hull and read the result inside? Remember, these were only partially double-hulled boats. At some points the pressure hull was the outer hull.

I don't think we need more info on this. What is said in the video directly supports my point - that you could take direct measurements. Herr Oesten says so. Why are we making the same mistake that the American interviewer makes. Oesten never said that measurements couldn't be taken - the American interviewer misunderstood what he was saying (watch the interview again - watch what Oesten actually says, and not what the American interviewer thinks he says - you'll see what I'm talking about). There is no contrary position on this. ALL the evidence we have says that measurements were taken, that commanders could use the measurements in battle, and that subs could hide under (or rather 'in as the next post points out) thermal layers. Where does any source say anything different?

codmander1
11-17-2004, 03:46 PM
more important to stay in a thermal layer not threw a layer as seen on any fishfinder a thermal layer is just that aaa layer so many feet deep/wide

HeibgesU999
11-17-2004, 03:54 PM
The problem is that no one has been able to come up with the piece of equipment that the uboats used to measure water temperature.

Also I think due to the translation (which is spotty in places throughout the U.Kdt.Hdb) the measurements referred to in 254, b) are the soundman's interpretation of the echo impulses through the hydrophones.

If you referr to:

57. a) Continual observation and measuring of water densities and temperatures are therefore important and indispensible, for establishing the presense of "stratification" when submerging to considerable depths as a means of evading pursuit by direction finding.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
The problem is that no one has been able to come up with the piece of equipment that the uboats used to measure water temperature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure why we need to know that. Why would the official handbook for U-Boat commanders lie? Clearly there was some method used to measure the water temperature. The handbook tells commanders to measure the temperature. Unless the handbook meant that they should guess it, there had to be some sort of measuring device.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
I think due to the translation (which is spotty in places throughout the U.Kdt.Hdb) the measurements referred to in 254, b) are the soundman's interpretation of the echo impulses through the hydrophones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you come up with that interpretation? It clearly says "measuring of water densities and temperatures are therefore important". I'm not sure how that can be confused with measuring sonar sounds, which cannot tell you the water temperature. The translation would have to be more than spotty to confuse the word 'temperature' with the word 'ASDIC' or 'sound'.

I must admit I'm a bit puzzled by this almost Nelsonian refusal to see what's right in front of us. It's about as clear as the sky is blue, that the German U-Boats had the ability to measure water temperature. I'm not sure how much more evidence we need. The manual says it, Herr Oesten says it. No one says they didn't measure it. Honestly, this is beginning to look like there's some ulterior motive involved on the part of those who can't or won't see the facts here.

Redwine
11-17-2004, 04:45 PM
No confusion, they had a rudimentary method, a water trap to measure water density and temperature, the characteristic of this method is it is slow to accomplish.

I soupose they take a mesure in example each 10 or 20 meters when they surface the boat, with this mesurement they ensure to know an aproximate position of the thermal layer and if after 2 or 3 or 5 hours they had the need to dive in an emergency procedure......... they know the aproximate position.

Procedure is specially reccomended at the U-boat Commanders Hand Book, but may be the experience and skill of some crew give them an aproximate depth, and may be they consider they was able to pass too low under the thermal layers depth in determined zone, and do not perform the procedure.

They had the know about the thermal layers, they had the equipment to mesure it, and they have speciphics instructions into the manual, if they done or not done it............ is just another busines........

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 06:13 PM
I would think that if they were being hunted with ASDIC it might be just as effective to adjust depth according to the ASDIC ping strength anyway: if the ping became significantly quieter at a certain depth it would mean that the return signal would be that much quieter too. This would indicate the presence of a cold spot just as effectively as measuring the water temperature, and would be a more effective way of measuring the most important thing, which is how much sound the boat is receiving. If you hear a low-strength ping the return ping must also be low-strength.