PDA

View Full Version : OT:Silent Hunter 4 !



ytareh
02-16-2007, 12:23 PM
Not my cup of tea-bit too complex but know this is gonna get a lot of you guys hot n bothered!

silenthunter4 dot com to get all the details....Special 3000 unit limited edition on sale soon apparently

p-11.cAce
02-16-2007, 12:30 PM
SHIII is a must have- I'll check this out and see what the "new" sim does better.

ytareh
02-16-2007, 12:36 PM
...Think its might just be a Pacific expansion but its an original Ubi product not a small low key add on.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2007, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
...Think its might just be a Pacific expansion but its an original Ubi product not a small low key add on. Pacific would be cool!

That and I hope they open it up to allow anyone to host an online mission. That lame interface on SHIII was the pits! It would be nice if HL could host it!

p-11.cAce
02-16-2007, 03:26 PM
Oh man that would be cool - especially if you could command a destroyer and do a whole "The Enemy Below" scenario http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif If you played it real time with good, serious simmers it could literaly take DAYS. The thing is...there was little to no sub-on-sub action in WWII so to play online would require either a destroyer/sub simulation or allow wolf-packs to attack AI convoys...either one would be great imho.

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2007, 03:40 PM
First sim I ever played was "Silent Service" by MicroProse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VF-17_BOOM
02-16-2007, 03:45 PM
You can find some nice vids and screens here->
Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/silenthunter4/news.html?sid=6165125&om_act=convert&om_clk=newlyadded)

Charos
02-16-2007, 04:09 PM
SH3 was the first sub sim I played - just not enough substance.

If you can rely on advertising SH4 is SH3 with better graphics.

I was ready to go with 8 Books on german subs and original munition data on all the torps but ended up not needing any of it.

Its all in the graphics you know - I find that paradoxical for a sub sim where your ears are your eye's.

If Full switch on SH3 was any easier you could play Multi against your pet squirrel.

It would appear no demo will be forthcoming - best to see now good those fancy graphics are before laying out the
dosh.

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2007, 04:14 PM
I love your sig pic. I can't understand why you need to rain on the parade, but that's a great pic

So for you SH3 wasn't good enough. I like it. I liked Aces of the Deep, Red Storm Rising, and Silent Service too. I thought Aces of the Deep was fantastic, and I thought SH3 took everything I loved about AotD and made it more involved and better looking

Charos
02-16-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
I can't understand why you need to rain on the parade, but that's a great pic.


Sorry parade people - But us farmers love rain, sun without rain is unbalanced.

Rain is responsible for growth just as much as sun.

Now you will see Rain in an altogether different light - its not negative as you once thought.

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2007, 05:02 PM
Erm...I may have to change the text in my sig after I ponder all the credit you just took

Marcel_Albert
02-16-2007, 05:02 PM
If people here own Silent Hunter III , the Grey Wolves Expansion which is free is a MUST HAVE .

It changes the sim and makes it like it should have been since the beggining , because the problem of SH3 was that it was unfinished and released too early .

I will buy SH4 , because i waited for a pacific expansion since the beggining , can't wait to sail on those legendary Gato Class , they were extremely succesful with excellent performances , and with air-conditioned , gonna be great , hopefully , they'll model more different ship types and make the Japanese subs sailable too .

I just hope the Devs changed their philosophy too , and will support more their product instead of relying too much on the community to do their job , the vanilla SH3 is below average , but with the add-on and work of the community to improve it , it has become a must have sim if you are fond of submarines IMHO .

VF-17_BOOM
02-16-2007, 05:23 PM
Marcel Albert,I couldn't agree more GWX makes SHIII a new game,the Destroyers are relentless!!! it really is challenging.

I think my first subsim[first sim for that matter]was Aces of the Deep,floppy disk on a Macintosh,94'....graphics were,well you know 1994ish but it was highly immersive I stalked convoy's into the wee wee hrs,the only thing I sunk was a few to many PINTS!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Charos
02-16-2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
If people here own Silent Hunter III , the Grey Wolves Expansion which is free is a MUST HAVE .



Agreed Grey wolves is a step in the right direction - very nice mod. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

carguy_
02-16-2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
If people here own Silent Hunter III , the Grey Wolves Expansion which is free is a MUST HAVE .

Yeah maybe a must have but I had CDTs every 5minutes of game.Never found anybody willing to help,SH3 forums sux so bad too,no help from them completely so I uninstalled the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

badatit
02-16-2007, 06:36 PM
Sub, Surface, and Air...Dangerous Waters (http://www.scs-dangerouswaters.com/platform.html) be sure.

WTE_Googly
02-17-2007, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Charos:
SH3 was the first sub sim I played - just not enough substance.

If you can rely on advertising SH4 is SH3 with better graphics.

I was ready to go with 8 Books on german subs and original munition data on all the torps but ended up not needing any of it.

Its all in the graphics you know - I find that paradoxical for a sub sim where your ears are your eye's.

If Full switch on SH3 was any easier you could play Multi against your pet squirrel.

It would appear no demo will be forthcoming - best to see now good those fancy graphics are before laying out the
dosh.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Marcel_Albert
02-17-2007, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
If people here own Silent Hunter III , the Grey Wolves Expansion which is free is a MUST HAVE .

Yeah maybe a must have but I had CDTs every 5minutes of game.Never found anybody willing to help,SH3 forums sux so bad too,no help from them completely so I uninstalled the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What means CTD ? some crashes ?

Anyhow , try the Subsim.com forums , there are a lot of nice guys , hopefully , you will find people to help you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lucius_Esox
02-17-2007, 04:41 AM
Anyone here play Janes 688(i)..

Listening to Whales and shrimps on my sonar... for hours!

woofiedog
02-17-2007, 07:10 AM
Fully agree about the Grey Wolf Expansion... it makes some Excellent improvement's to SHIII.

Link for the addon's & more for SHIII... http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=96026

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/ScreenShot008.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/ScreenShot009.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/ScreenShot010.jpg

Sultan_of_Swing
02-17-2007, 07:19 AM
As you can see in woofiedog's post, the graphics are stunning. But I found game play off and online to be a bit of a snooze-fest. But loved to look at the thing!

Vipez-
02-17-2007, 07:39 AM
This maybe a stupid question, but how do the japanese destroyers manage with US subs, considering afaik they did not have any sonars or radars to aid them in sub hunting ?

I've allways found the Atlantic theater much more interesting, when talking about Sub combat...

Airmail109
02-17-2007, 08:07 AM
You guys should play Sub Command!

Its mental, a hardcore modern sub-sim

Its the Falcon 4 of sub sims.

http://www.subcommand.ea.com/images/sshots/sshot-11_large.jpg

http://www.subcommand.ea.com/images/sshots/sshot-10_large.jpg

Those screenys tells you everything you need to know. :P

I find its fun, its a mammoth electronic detective game to me. For all you know, that blip on the sonar could be a fishing boat or a blue whale until youve analyzed it properly.

It may have been superseded by a new sim called dangerous waters, im not sure though. Havnt looked at it yet.

I like games that have a mind boggling amount of buttons to press and commands to learn + lots of tactics!

ANother unreleased game which looks good is Shells of Fury, a world war one sub sim.

http://images.3dgamers.com/screenimages/games/1914shellsfury/screen-shot_01.jpg

Mr_Nakajima
02-17-2007, 09:13 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vipez-:
This maybe a stupid question, but how do the japanese destroyers manage with US subs, considering afaik they did not have any sonars or radars to aid them in sub hunting ?
QUOTE]

The Japanese had both sonar and later radar, but later and usually less effectively than their opponents. The IJN suffered from not having taken anti-submarine warefare seriously before the war and soon found itself struggling.

SH4 has the potential to be very good. SH3 suffered from the complete lack of wolf-packs, whereas USN submarines in the Pacific usually (not always) acted alone.

As for the game, I found SH3 to be disappointing when released, and it required a lot of patching before it became worthwhile. A typical case of nice graphics, shame about the game. So I'll probably wait for some in-depth reviews and see what the buzz is on the forums before investing in it. Here's hoping.

capt_frank
02-17-2007, 10:24 AM
I enjoyed my meet and greet with the Bismark http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/118/118940/pages/742807/18.1.jpg

Pirschjaeger
02-17-2007, 10:31 AM
I liked SH3 but had 2 complaints.

First, I spent 5 years on the real North Atlantic. I would expect to see much rougher seas than what is available.

Second, I decided to play fullswitch. After spending days I completed my mission, without even seeing one enemy ship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Other than that, I liked the game. I'd like to see more effort and variety put into the quick missions.

fordfan25
02-17-2007, 10:36 AM
does any one know if SH4 will be starforce free?

NAFP_supah
02-17-2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I liked SH3 but had 2 complaints.

First, I spent 5 years on the real North Atlantic. I would expect to see much rougher seas than what is available.

Second, I decided to play fullswitch. After spending days I completed my mission, without even seeing one enemy ship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Other than that, I liked the game. I'd like to see more effort and variety put into the quick missions.

The not running into opposition is something that pbb frustrated a lot of real life ww2 submariners too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
02-17-2007, 01:03 PM
I'm getting SH4 as soon as it's out---my father was on war cruises on sister-subs CHARR and BOARFISH.

SeaFireLIV
02-18-2007, 06:21 AM
I love the sub sims and used to play the microprose one quite a lot. It had a great Campaign that never made the game the same twice.

I loved the intense more realistic graphics and gameplay of SHIII.

Unfortunately, I wanted to fight for the Allies and every time I sunk an Allied ship for the Reich I felt less and less great. Silnet Hunter III is one of those games that lets you think a lot about what you`re doing and sitting in that sub in scapa flow waiting to sink another Allied ship just don`t sit right with me.

I`m sure plenty will disagree.

So I`ll be in heaven if SHIV has the same gameplay and graphics and allows you to play Allied. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Lewicide
02-18-2007, 06:27 AM
Mmmm Starforce



just what I needed

Pirschjaeger
02-18-2007, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I liked SH3 but had 2 complaints.

First, I spent 5 years on the real North Atlantic. I would expect to see much rougher seas than what is available.

Second, I decided to play fullswitch. After spending days I completed my mission, without even seeing one enemy ship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Other than that, I liked the game. I'd like to see more effort and variety put into the quick missions.

The not running into opposition is something that pbb frustrated a lot of real life ww2 submariners too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like almost "full real" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

sukebeboy
02-18-2007, 08:01 AM
I'll be buying it but only as a show of support in the hopes that Ubi will keep publishing sims. I have zero interest in sub operations in the Pacific.

leitmotiv
02-18-2007, 10:25 AM
The Japanese did have sonar, and did have radar after 1942. The big advantage the Americans had was that they knew the maximum depth at which Japanese depth charges worked, and they designed the BALAO class boats to dive beyond this depth. Even so, some of the best USN sub skippers and their crews were sunk. The USN Fleet Submarine was a big vessel, much larger than the German Type VII and IX boats. Thus, it was not as maneuverable. I hope Ubi revisits DESTROYER COMMAND so that there will be a state-of-the-art surface warship sim on the market. Would also be great to be able to operate the monster Japanese submarines.

willyvic
02-18-2007, 10:46 AM
Still have SH3 loaded up but can not get it to "like" any of the newer vid drivers. Always get a BSOD with anything higher than 91.47. Shame to as wanted to use the 96.89s to get rid of the black circle effect in IL2. Had to make a decision and IL2 won. So SH3 sits idle on the hard drive.

And I agree with Carguy, the "help" at the SH3 forums is quite sparse. A lot of talk and no substance. It's as if the mindset is "I got mine working, too bad about yours"

WV

leitmotiv
02-18-2007, 11:13 AM
Have you guys tried the Sub Sim SH3 forum?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=182

fordfan25
02-18-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I love the sub sims and used to play the microprose one quite a lot. It had a great Campaign that never made the game the same twice.

I loved the intense more realistic graphics and gameplay of SHIII.

Unfortunately, I wanted to fight for the Allies and every time I sunk an Allied ship for the Reich I felt less and less great. Silnet Hunter III is one of those games that lets you think a lot about what you`re doing and sitting in that sub in scapa flow waiting to sink another Allied ship just don`t sit right with me.

I`m sure plenty will disagree.

So I`ll be in heaven if SHIV has the same gameplay and graphics and allows you to play Allied. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif never botherd me....most were Brit ships lol j/k

Rood-Zwart
02-20-2007, 11:16 AM
playing SHIII without GWX is as playing the original IL2 without joystick.

Hoatee
02-20-2007, 01:58 PM
Playing SHIII in full campaign mode is no different to IL2 - it's just something I personally do in either game.

And then playing with UberDemon's UQMG is similar to SHIII's multiplayer mode (use it as a mission generator - you don't need to be hooked up to anyone to play the resulting mission). The only reason why 'the full mode' appears so daunting to many is that at sea, things take a wee bit longer (a ship is at sea on a voyage for weeks whereas planes are only in the air a few hours).

I'm looking forward to SHIV. It's a pity not more was made of SHIII though (thinking along the lines of SHII and DC with the addition of flyable aircraft - a missed oppurtunity methinks).

VF-17_BOOM
02-20-2007, 06:25 PM
They just released a new patch for GWX. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
GWX 102 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106040)

MrMojok
02-20-2007, 07:09 PM
As far as Starforce, UBI fired them. No more Starforce-protected games. I am sure the new protection scheme they choose won't be nearly as obnoxious as SF was.

Charos
02-20-2007, 09:02 PM
Did anyone else find this Quote extremely interesting?
Florin Boiter on SH3 (http://www.subsim.com/almanac/index_subsim.htm)

"Silent Hunter III Captain's Log by Florin Boitor, Executive Producer

I made a trip to San Francisco in November 2002 for some meetings about SH3. The meetings were not exactly what I expected. I soon realized that our excitement about the project was really not matched by the guys from the Ubi SF office. But, were we talking about a pure simulation? Not at that meeting. What was discussed was mainly how to develop an action simulation game with submarines. Well, "Gran Turismo on the sea" was the closest match. Their idea was to attract as many gamers as possible from outside the traditional sim fans pool because the conclusion was that "they (sim fans) will buy it anyway".

Florin not involved with SH4 (http://www.subsim.com/ssr/sh4/sh4_interview1.php)
"Producer Florin Boitor has struck out on his own now."

Those nice folk at UBI they shore know how to win friends and influence people.

Fool me once shame on me (Sim Fan) fool me twice ...... like thats going to happen.

pielkop
02-21-2007, 01:13 AM
I have Sh3 but i have not played it in ages so i want to know why is GWX so great what are the major changes that it makes to the game ,i just want to know before i download all 1000000megs of it .Thanks in advance

woofiedog
02-21-2007, 03:19 AM
VF-17_BOOM... Thank's for the info! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

pielkop... you might want to checkout these links to SubSim help you.

Links:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=96026

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?s=35fc...fa23e5a19e9a5a&f=195 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?s=35fcb1b0c7db8778d8fa23e5a19e9a5 a&f=195)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/ScreenShot007.jpg

Mysticpuma2003
02-21-2007, 03:49 AM
Awwww don't you just hate that.

Got all excited, went to the link in the first post....and you can't view the videos unless you sign up.....that really cheeses me off!

Ah well, just have to imagine how good it is!

Capt.LoneRanger
02-21-2007, 04:10 AM
I'm very much looking forward to SH4, especially since SH4 is settled in the PTO. The submarines were part of the fleet there, directly involved in all major battles and engagements, but especially used for hunting down specific task-groups and battleships/carriers.

Most people think there's not much interesting going on in the PTO and there's not much interesting about the submarines in the Pacific, but few people know US-subs had periscope-mounted radar by 1943 and a vast variety of special equipment for secret missions like infiltration, recon and evacuation.

The special edition also has some real nice features, with recognition manual, a nice handbook and other stuff.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-21-2007, 04:17 AM
After some confirmed edited screenies from the main page, here are some taken during presentations:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98532&page=15

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/6452/92697220070201screen005bx9.jpg

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6374/92697220070201screen002pf3.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/Otohiko/gato_screenshot_01.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/Otohiko/pclass_screenshot_01.jpg

More of those pics and some insight in the types of submarines represented in the game:

http://www.24flotilla.com/html/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=19511

Blutarski2004
02-21-2007, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Japanese did have sonar, and did have radar after 1942.

..... Japan also had deployed air-search radar and airborne magnetic anomaly detection (primitive) by late 1944.



some of the best USN sub skippers and their crews were sunk. The USN Fleet Submarine was a big vessel, much larger than the German Type VII and IX boats. Thus, it was not as maneuverable.

..... From my reading (mostly Clay Blair's "Silent Victory") US subs suffered a number of losses in the shallow waters around the Japanese home islands. I wonder if the terrible US torpedo problems (not solved til late 1943) will be modelled. I tend to doubt it.



I hope Ubi revisits DESTROYER COMMAND so that there will be a state-of-the-art surface warship sim on the market.

..... I personally would love to see a well-done Atlantic convoy sim playable from both sides.



Would also be great to be able to operate the monster Japanese submarines.

..... launching miniature subs, Kaiten, even seaplanes (would this make it the first submarine flight sim?)


Interesting related sites -
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-48.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-47.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-48.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/index.html

woofiedog
02-21-2007, 06:14 AM
Blutarski2004... Great reading in the interviews you have posted! Thank's

Capt.LoneRanger
02-21-2007, 07:54 AM
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/engineers_v1_1947.html

In case you want to be where the action is in SH4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Blutarski2004
02-21-2007, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
Blutarski2004... Great reading in the interviews you have posted! Thank's


..... Glad to help. BTW, the hyperwar site is a huge archive. Lots of interesting material in there.

Amazing what turns up on the web.

VF-17_BOOM
02-21-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Awwww don't you just hate that.

Got all excited, went to the link in the first post....and you can't view the videos unless you sign up.....that really cheeses me off!

Ah well, just have to imagine how good it is!
Hello MP,If you are talking about the Gamespot link you can view a trailer on the main screen without signing up[it is a small window though]or you can sign up[free]and download the trailer in fullscreen,....BEWARE THOUGH.....It's not a bit as good as your fine work!!!your last movie is fantastic!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Mysticpuma2003
02-22-2007, 12:04 AM
Dropped over to Gametrailers and found the video, along with developers diearies showing character animation, weather, environment and research for the game.

Looks like a real beauty.

Link here:

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=3155

cheers, MP.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-22-2007, 12:52 AM
The 4th diary explaining interfaces, screens and special commands, is due to be released very soon.

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Japanese did have sonar, and did have radar after 1942.

..... Japan also had deployed air-search radar and airborne magnetic anomaly detection (primitive) by late 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, I didn`t know that, being fairly ignorant of the PTO myself. The MAD thing certainly looks like advanced thinking, I am not sure any other combatant deployed such ASW detector.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> some of the best USN sub skippers and their crews were sunk. The USN Fleet Submarine was a big vessel, much larger than the German Type VII and IX boats. Thus, it was not as maneuverable.

..... From my reading (mostly Clay Blair's "Silent Victory") US subs suffered a number of losses in the shallow waters around the Japanese home islands. I wonder if the terrible US torpedo problems (not solved til late 1943) will be modelled. I tend to doubt it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I believe the numerous GATO class was quite comparable in all respects to the large Kriegsmarine Type IX boats in displacement and capabilities. Generally, PTO boats had a superstructure projecting much above the waterline compared to their Atlantic cousins. But then of course, both the IJN and USN fielded some extremely large boats of huge displacement, which just by looking at them look towering giants, compared to the hiding-behind-the-waves conning towers you`d see in the Atlantic.

I am gonna miss all those Falke et. co guided and other smart and semi-smart torps, though IIRC there was a FIDO-conversion appearing later in the PTO as well.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I hope Ubi revisits DESTROYER COMMAND so that there will be a state-of-the-art surface warship sim on the market.

..... I personally would love to see a well-done Atlantic convoy sim playable from both sides. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh! DC?!! Worst offense I`ve ever seen, esp. after SH2. The DM of DC was just laughable, hit point-based for capital shis, LOL. I`ve sunk Prinz Eugen and Scharhorst with a puny DD, just with the forward turrets, because I just stood out of range they`d open fire on me. Not to mention the fact that meeting Stukas in the Channel was generally end-of-sortie condition. They`ve always hit. Apart from the poor execution of DC, I don`t really think the whole scenario is worth the energy. Destroyer business is just extremely boring, spend 15 days at sea listening to sonar, which of course doesn`t tell in time when the sub is making it`s attack only to be awaken by the first torpedo explosions. Then 'the hunt' begins, which is largely about randomly dropping dozens of depth charges where you may think the sub is, `cos WW2 sonar won`t give you much of a clue. The depth charges themselves are quite useless, Jerry sub will be at 100+ meters below, or even triple as deeo as that, and by the time your depth charges reach him, even at 2 knots he will be hundreds of meters away from that, even with perfect aiming or your side. It`s like playing darts with your eyes covered, with another guy repositioning the darts board on the wall constantly. Extremely boring and frustrating. Surface to air combat, yep, you`re little more than a target. Surface to surface combat, the first to hit wins, DDs are basically fast, heavily armed and very vulnerable, unarmored vessels; as other naval vessels go, either you pawn the little boats below your class or you get hammered by a cruiser or capital ship. In reality I`d been blown away in seconds, and could do absolutely no harm to these heavily armed vessels with my puny 'common' gun rounds.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I sounded good, but it was execetuted extremely poorly, apart from perhaps MP experience, there`s little point in a seperate title. Perhaps if they do 1-2 of the most important IJN destroyers controllable for MP that would make some point.

What I`d miss though is SH2`s damage model system. Excellently done IMHO, much better than SH3. In the former, flooding was progressive, not instant-like as in the 3rd title, and it meant much more interesting results. Especially capital ships were much harder to sink, and would sometimes sink after only much struggle by the crew to save her from flooding. I`ve had torpedoed Renown at Norway, hitting it solidly with 3 good torps, only to see it leaving the scene and it`s destoyers bombaring me for half a day after. Doh, 3 good torps wasted on noting I`ve said - only that 3 days later, a message popped up that Renown had sunk, obviously due to flooding. In SH3, it would just sink immidiately after a 'sufficient' number of torpedo hits, but otherwise nothing would happen other than being lower in the water/listing somewhat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

SH3 was also utterly lacking in convoy battles and wolf packs. You were pretty much the only sub or KM vessel out there on the atlantic. How dull.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-22-2007, 05:09 AM
Actually I believe the numerous GATO class was quite comparable in all respects to the large Kriegsmarine Type IX boats in displacement and capabilities. Generally, PTO boats had a superstructure projecting much above the waterline compared to their Atlantic cousins. But then of course, both the IJN and USN fielded some extremely large boats of huge displacement, which just by looking at them look towering giants, compared to the hiding-behind-the-waves conning towers you`d see in the Atlantic.

Actually the size of the coning towers was largely changed during the war, depending on the missions. US-subs usually had the nerve-center splittet between the control-room and the coning tower. While basic operations were controlled in the main control-room, the periscopes were accessable in the tower-room, as well as most of the systems, like radar and TDC.

The coning tower also was used as an airlock in case of evacuation. With the US-subs operating in groups, this was a lot more common than for German submarines.


The US-subs are quite bigger than German boats. The Gato, for example, has 2,140ts of displacement, dived. The IX has 1,400ts.
The Gato has a crew of 60-70, the IX 48.

Also, the equipment was largely changed during the war. Looking forward to customize my boat in SH4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Actually the size of the coning towers was largely changed during the war, depending on the missions. US-subs usually had the nerve-center splittet between the control-room and the coning tower. While basic operations were controlled in the main control-room, the periscopes were accessable in the tower-room, as well as most of the systems, like radar and TDC.

The coning tower also was used as an airlock in case of evacuation. With the US-subs operating in groups, this was a lot more common than for German submarines.

Oh, I see. On Atlantic subs, typically the connnig tower would serve only as a nerve center for attacks, housing access to the periscope and torpedo FC systems.


The US-subs are quite bigger than German boats. The Gato, for example, has 2,140ts of displacement, dived. The IX has 1,400ts. The Gato has a crew of 60-70, the IX 48.

Actually it depends on which Type IX were are talking about. The early IXB and IXC were smaller as you note, the later type IXD, which I had in mind (with 30 commisioned from early 1942 onwards) were almost as big, ie, the IXD was displaceing 1616 tons surfaced, 1804 tons submerged and 2150 tons in total. 24 torpedoes could be carried with an economic range of 24000 nm. Crew varied between 48 and 63. Quite similiar to the Gato et co. as a matter of fact.

I wonder what the max dive depths of USN subs will be? Any good comprehensive site on PTO subs perhaps?


Also, the equipment was largely changed during the war. Looking forward to customize my boat in SH4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I hope we get NARWHAL Class though. Two big guns, boo-hoo! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
02-22-2007, 06:00 AM
Correct - but the IXD was also one of the few subs, that were designed to attack another continent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I was also looking forward to get some ships sunk with my favourite sub in SH1, the Narwhal or Nautilus, but we won't get it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

These are the subs we will get:
http://www.24flotilla.com/html/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=19511

Balao-Class
Gato-Class
P-Class
S-Class (at least one of the old fishes)
Salmon-Class
Sargo-Class
Tambor-Class

leitmotiv
02-22-2007, 06:02 AM
The largest Type IX boat was 26 feet shorter, and four torpedo tubes less than the standard U.S. Fleet Boat (GATO/BALAO classes). See pages 145 and 243 of CONWAY'S ALL THE WORLD'S FIGHTING SHIPS 1922-1946. Furthermore, the "gunboats", like the CHARR and BOARFISH, on which my father served, carried two low-velocity five-inch guns and two Bofors 40s, thus, giving them formidable AA and anti-ship firepower---far and above the gunpower of Kriegsmarine boats with their pitiful single 37mm and two twin-20mm mounts, which did not give them the hitting power to duke it out with bombers.

Despite its follies, DESTROYER COMMAND, remains the most advanced tactical simulator for surface warfare. I have experimented by attacking my own side's ships with destroyer guns/torpedoes and have never seen anything like you describe with destroyers able to crush capital ships with 5" gunfire. I certainly hope U.S. destoyers with Bofors 40s and Oerlikon 20s can rubbish Ju 87s. The great thing about DC is the opportunity for detailed surface warfare actions. With the mods available, at least one can fight WASHINGTON vs. KIRISHIMA or LION at Jutland as captain or gunnery officer in the director, and this is a huge kick. I would like a state-of-the-art DC or, preferably, CAPITAL SHIP COMMAND.

Blutarski2004
02-22-2007, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... I personally would love to see a well-done Atlantic convoy sim playable from both sides.

Doh! DC?!! Worst offense I`ve ever seen, esp. after SH2. The DM of DC was just laughable, hit point-based for capital shis, LOL. I`ve sunk Prinz Eugen and Scharhorst with a puny DD, just with the forward turrets, because I just stood out of range they`d open fire on me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If you had told me that the DD had sunk PE or Scharnhorst with torpedoes, I would have said "...OK, possible...". By gunfire???? That immediately puts DC into comic book status.




Apart from the poor execution of DC, I don`t really think the whole scenario is worth the energy. Destroyer business is just extremely boring, spend 15 days at sea listening to sonar, which of course doesn`t tell in time when the sub is making it`s attack only to be awaken by the first torpedo explosions. Then 'the hunt' begins, which is largely about randomly dropping dozens of depth charges where you may think the sub is, `cos WW2 sonar won`t give you much of a clue.


..... I agree that early fixed-head sonar/asdic was strictly directional, but certain educated guesses could be made as to depth, depending upon the range from the searcher at which the sub disappeared from the operator's scope. Later sonars featured tilting-heads, which generally enabled the sonar operator to keep the sub within the search beam and trigonometrically obtain reasonable depth estimates.

Also, the vast majority of U-boat attacks upon convoy targets were made at night on the surface. This tactic had been pioneered by Doenitz in WW1 and was carried over into WW2. Sonar was useless against such attacks. And, on an average night, a trimmed-down well-handled U-boat was not visible beyond about 500 yards (which incidentally was doctrinally about maximum U-boat night torpedo firing range). By comparison, merchant targets could be seen from several thousand yards. The tactic was highly effective until large number of escorts fitted with centimetric radar were available at sea. There are examples of U-boat captains taking their boats right into the middle of the convoy and torpedoing ships from the inside-out, so to speak, ... that would make for an exciting scenario situation IMO.



The depth charges themselves are quite useless, Jerry sub will be at 100+ meters below, or even triple as deep as that, and by the time your depth charges reach him, even at 2 knots he will be hundreds of meters away from that, even with perfect aiming or your side. It`s like playing darts with your eyes covered, with another guy repositioning the darts board on the wall constantly. Extremely boring and frustrating. Surface to air combat, yep, you`re little more than a target. Surface to surface combat, the first to hit wins, ...


..... Depth charges were pretty primitive weapons. And once detonated they temporarily blanked out sonar returns in a several hundred yard radius. But depth charges did evolve over time, becoming progressively larger and featuring much faster sink rates with streamlined teardrop shapes [ we can debate CDo of depth charges now ;-) ]. The great danger for a U-boat was being detected on the surface by a nearby escort. U-boat sink rate was only about 1 foot per second. It would only take about 2 minutes for an escort 1,000 yds distant to reach the U-boat's position; the U-boat could not reach more than about 150 ft within that time and the escort commander knew it. Like anything else, when investigated more deeply, a lot of interesting hardware and tactical issues emerge. If you're interested in the Atlantic convoy battles I recommend the book "Convoy", by John Winton - an excellent general history, and much easier reading than Clay Blair.

I do agree, however, that playing a sub commander real-time waiting out a 3 hour hold-down attack would be BORING



What I`d miss though is SH2`s damage model system. Excellently done IMHO, much better than SH3. In the former, flooding was progressive, not instant-like as in the 3rd title, and it meant much more interesting results. Especially capital ships were much harder to sink, and would sometimes sink after only much struggle by the crew to save her from flooding. I`ve had torpedoed Renown at Norway, hitting it solidly with 3 good torps, only to see it leaving the scene and it`s destoyers bombaring me for half a day after. Doh, 3 good torps wasted on noting I`ve said - only that 3 days later, a message popped up that Renown had sunk, obviously due to flooding. In SH3, it would just sink immidiately after a 'sufficient' number of torpedo hits, but otherwise nothing would happen other than being lower in the water/listing somewhat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

SH3 was also utterly lacking in convoy battles and wolf packs. You were pretty much the only sub or KM vessel out there on the atlantic. How dull.


..... Sounds like SH2 was a better piece of work than SH3. I suspect that the designers felt they needed to provide instant gratification to the multi-player people.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-22-2007, 07:01 AM
From what I read so far, it sounds really promissing to get a ship equipped like the USS BOARFISH.

Blowing up some sampans and small freighter with these arms would be really fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The largest Type IX boat was 26 feet shorter, and four torpedo tubes less than the standard U.S. Fleet Boat (GATO/BALAO classes). See pages 145 and 243 of CONWAY'S ALL THE WORLD'S FIGHTING SHIPS 1922-1946.

Having 4 extra tubes is of course, nice, since you can unleash more torps at a single time. Wheter it`s practical is dependent on the situation, wheter you can designate enough targets during your attack run (in the era when basically all bearing, range and type information was obtained via simply visual observation, moreover there was no such thing as 'real time' updates - ever wonder why the need to fire off a torpedo within as little as 1000 yards, when the thing run with 40+ knots? There was a huge MARGIN OF ERROR), the problems that arise with trimming the ship so it would not surface suddenly with about 20 tons of weight disappearing from the nose, and I do wonder though about the costs - the whole ship had to be build so tall that it towered well above the waterline, making it almost as easy to spot by either visual means or radar as a surface vessel. I am always amazed by the sheer size of these PTO boats when surfaced.

I can well see the advantages of having +2 tubes in front, much less of having +2 tubes in the stern, and I also understand the cost and declining gains with such configurations.

As for the Convay book, it`s pretty basic. Big disappointment to me at least.


Furthermore, the "gunboats", like the CHARR and BOARFISH, on which my father served, carried two low-velocity five-inch guns and two Bofors 40s, thus, giving them formidable AA and anti-ship firepower---far and above the gunpower of Kriegsmarine boats with their pitiful single 37mm and two twin-20mm mounts, which did not give them the hitting power to duke it out with bombers.

Oh I see, you think you daddy`s ship`s dik must have been bigger than Kraut dik.

Two Bofors firing at 160 rpm are Thor`s hammer when it comes to AA, but a 1x37mm autogun with much higher rate of fire (250 or 360/min cyclic depending on variant, M42 or the FlaK 43 based M43) than a Bofors and 4x2cm cumulatively putting up 2cm rounds into the air with an MG 42`s ROF (4x450 rpm) are pitiful. Whatever you say. In any case, the some 3-4 aircraft was lost for every U-boat, so I guess it wasn`t such an easy job to do as you suggest.

http://www.uboat.net/photos/flak1.jpg

Further education on the subject : http://www.uboat.net/technical/flak.htm

As far as deck guns go, they were aux. weapons to finish off unarmed merchantmen - which were increasingly absent from the seas as war progressed, making the deck gun increasingly useless, so much that the 2nd Generation subs like Type XXI starting to ommit them completely. There were a few oddball designs with more than one deck gun, of varying caliber, up to such nonsenses like 'submarine-cruisers' carrying battleship caliber guns. All were failures and dead ends. Not to mention the practical limitations o caliber. Say the Narwhal IIRC had two 6" guns on it`s deck, it sounds awesome fun. But then try to load a 100 lbs shell into the gun manually, on the slippery small deck of a submarine on the Atlantic or the North Sea. Sounds much less fun, and in any case, you`re still where you were : you can engage unarmed merchantment on the surface, and have no chance against DDs and DEs.

There`s a good reason why everyone settled with a medium caliber single deck gun, and later ommited it.



Despite its follies, DESTROYER COMMAND, remains the most advanced tactical simulator for surface warfare.

Perhaps for you, but not for me. The engine just DON`T take into account the silly fact the reason why DDs are meat on the table for cruisers and capital ships is that the latter are armored and can shrug off anything that the DD can send to them in the air. Not in Destroyer Command. In Destroyer Command, Destroyers have Hit Points. Bigger Destroyers have more Hit Points. Cruisers and Battleships have even more Hit Points. Almost as much as a Level 45 Character in World of Warcraft, and like in World of Warcraft, if you hit the Battleship enough times with a 20 mm pop gun, it will sink. Ditto in SH3. No armor is modelled at all. No TDS system. Nothing. Just more Hit Points. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

It doesn`t take into account ship armor at all, the % of hits in naval action are just ridiculusly high, in fact once you have the range you just stuck on the 'Fire'(!!!!) button and always hit.In reality, if in naval combat 5 out of 100 shells hit, that would be considered some exceedingly good shooting. Bismarck hit about 3% IIRC against it`s action against Hood and PoW, that is with the best surface FC you can find, ie. that`s belonging to a capital ship with 10-15 meter span rangefinders, not a puny DDs primitive FC.




I have experimented by attacking my own side's ships with destroyer guns/torpedoes and have never seen anything like you describe with destroyers able to crush capital ships with 5" gunfire.

Yet it happens. I sank both Prinz Eugen and Scharhornst with just 5" gunfire. It was awfully boring and took long, but it can be done. They run out of Hit Points. Very realistic.


I certainly hope U.S. destoyers with Bofors 40s and Oerlikon 20s can rubbish Ju 87s.

Bofors. Oerlikon. Magic words that when cast, make the enemy planes just fell down.
And I did believe it`s about weight of fire, saving for the fact that of course all these AAA on any ship could not prevent planes from attacking the ship, just shooting down a few in the best case.


The great thing about DC is the opportunity for detailed surface warfare actions.

Or me in a DD vs. a frigging 35000 ton German Battleship, firing 5" common rounds, not even armor piercing, in an arty duel with Scharnhorst. And I won. That`s what Destroyer Command is.


With the mods available, at least one can fight WASHINGTON vs. KIRISHIMA or LION at Jutland as captain or gunnery officer in the director, and this is a huge kick. I would like a state-of-the-art DC or, preferably, CAPITAL SHIP COMMAND.

Well, there`s an oldie called Fighting Steel out there. Not much of a thing, but at least it simulates squadron action, a simple form of the armor scheme (the pity that it does not model various layers, just generic 'Belt Armor' 'Deck Armor' and so on, but at least it`s something) , deck/belt penetration chance vs. range, and realistic hit %.
There are mods for it as well which let`s you play out say Montanas vs. Yamato.

leitmotiv
02-22-2007, 08:00 AM
The low-velocity 5" with proximity-fuzed shells and two 40mm Bofors trumped anything fielded by the Kriegsmarine's boats. The virtue of DC is that you are able to play as a gunnery officer, using the director, which you cannot do with any other naval "sim," and the tactical ship handling is very good for the age of the item. As a matter of fact, the bloody USN and RN were superior to the wretched Kriegsmarine, that's why they got their clocks cleaned rather nastily, and the sub arm was nearly annihilated, but such details would not be apparent to an amateur-bore-Germanofile-pest. G'day, twerp.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-22-2007, 08:02 AM
@tubes:
There are so many tubes, because the submarines were used against battleships, carrier-groups and task-forces. You usually don't have a second chance against those targets.
Remember: There were very few regular convoys in the PTO, compared to the Atlantic.


@guns:
The large guns on these boats were there, because these ships engaged in battlegroups against sampans and non- or minimal armed ships, sometimes even to support landing operations.

That seldomly happened in the Atlantic, so what use would large guns on subs have? From 41 on, German subs tended to remove the S/S-Guns completely.

Still, in SH3 it is actually quite easy to disable a destroyer or cruise with the deckgun, if you fire the guns manually. I also rendered a freighter immobile with the aa-gun. Just shooting at the bridge and the chimney. Can be done.

@DD-Command:
Not only armor, also different effects by ranges would be nice to be modelled in SH3 or DC, or anything. Also, different chambers were only rudimentary modelled in SH3. I hope this will also be improved.

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The low-velocity 5" with proximity-fuzed shells and two 40mm Bofors trumped anything fielded by the Kriegsmarine's boats. The virtue of DC is that you are able to play as a gunnery officer, using the director, which you cannot do with any other naval "sim," and the tactical ship handling is very good for the age of the item. As a matter of fact, the bloody USN and RN were superior to the wretched Kriegsmarine, that's why they got their clocks cleaned rather nastily, and the sub arm was nearly annihilated, but such details would not be apparent to an amateur-bore-Germanofile-pest. G'day, twerp.

Ignore +1.

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
@tubes:
There are so many tubes, because the submarines were used against battleships, carrier-groups and task-forces. You usually don't have

a second chance against those targets.
Remember: There were very few regular convoys in the PTO, compared to the Atlantic.

Good points.

Agreed, these boats were designed for very different enviroments and very different foes. Looking at the sheer distances and lack of

bases in the PTO one can understand the requirement for very large, relatively comfortable, self sufficient boats vs. the Atlantic,

where sea handling, manouveribility and tactical considerations (convoys and escorts were foreseen, something was atypical in PTO)

were more important.

Of course, for some, it is too difficult to differentiate between different operational enviroments calling for different

designs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



@DD-Command:
Not only armor, also different effects by ranges would be nice to be modelled in SH3 or DC, or anything. Also, different chambers were

only rudimentary modelled in SH3. I hope this will also be improved.

Very much agree. With all the partial destruction possible in SH3, I tend to feel it a backstep compered to SH2 in the DM area. I

still recall how flooding (it was rate of damage, which could be reversed) worked and slowly capsized ships, or they recovered if the

crew could overcome it. Hitting the ship at the same side was actually important for large ships, otherwise you'd simply achieve

counterflooding and trim out the ship! Ships would often keep sinking for hours after being dealt a fatal blow in SH2, not something

that really happens in SH3 and I fear it won`t in SH4 either. Armor was completely missing - looking forward to take out Yamato`s main

gun turrets with 5" guns. Something that was near-impossible to do IRL even with 16" guns...

Watertight compartments also seen to have been missing from large capital ships, whereas in real life they had as many as 21, meaning

just hammering the same point of the hull would be rather pointless.

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
@tubes:
There are so many tubes, because the submarines were used against battleships, carrier-groups and task-forces. You usually don't have a second chance against those targets.
Remember: There were very few regular convoys in the PTO, compared to the Atlantic.

Good points.

Agreed, these boats were designed for very different enviroments and very different foes. Looking at the sheer distances and lack of bases in the PTO one can understand the requirement for very large, relatively comfortable, self sufficient boats vs. the Atlantic, where sea handling, manouveribility and tactical considerations (convoys and escorts were foreseen, something was atypical in PTO) were more important.

Of course, for some, it is too difficult to differentiate between different operational enviroments calling for different designs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



@DD-Command:
Not only armor, also different effects by ranges would be nice to be modelled in SH3 or DC, or anything. Also, different chambers were only rudimentary modelled in SH3. I hope this will also be improved.

Very much agree. With all the partial destruction possible in SH3, I tend to feel it a backstep compered to SH2 in the DM area. I still recall how flooding (it was rate of damage, which could be reversed) worked and slowly capsized ships, or they recovered if the crew could overcome it. Hitting the ship at the same side was actually important for large ships, otherwise you'd simply achieve counterflooding and trim out the ship! Ships would often keep sinking for hours after being dealt a fatal blow in SH2, not something that really happens in SH3 and I fear it won`t in SH4 either. Armor was completely missing - looking forward to take out Yamato`s main gun turrets with 5" guns. Something that was near-impossible to do IRL even with 16" guns...

Watertight compartments also seen to have been missing from large capital ships, whereas in real life they had as many as 21, meaning just hammering the same point of the hull would be rather pointless.

BOA_Allmenroder
02-22-2007, 08:36 AM
I take it none of you has actually been on a Gato Class US sub?

The surfaced profile is no more than a VIIC boat at worst.

PB0_shadow
02-22-2007, 08:51 AM
Currently reading Iron coffins , a U-Boat Commander's war by Herbert Werner

ISBN0-3043-5330-2

Very interesting read for those interested.

Leitmotiv might avoid, as it was written by a German

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 08:54 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/USS_Paddle%3B0826305.jpg
USN Gato Class submarine.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type7.jpg
KM Type VII submarine.

Mr_Nakajima
02-22-2007, 11:54 AM
One of the things which annoyed me about SH3 was the ease with which submarine AA fire brought down attacking aircraft. In reality submarines were in dire straits if caught on the surface, yet I was usually able to bring down any attacking aircraft even with a single 20mm, let alone a quad 20mm.

The historical record in enlightening. Here's some examples, looking at U-boat sailings to America and the Indian Ocean in July 1943. I have looked through for all the incidents when the U-boats involved met aircraft.


July 1943 Patrols to America. Most of these boats had quad 20mm flak and other AA armament.

 3 July. U-628 & U-648: Attacked together by Liberator of 224 Squadron RAF. U-628 destroyed in a second pass, the Liberator was damaged.

 13 July. U-607, U-613 & U-455: Attacked by a Halifax of 58 Squadron and a Sunderland of 228 Squadron RAF. Tow U-Boats dived but U-607, confident in its 20mm quad, stayed and fought it out. After the guns jammed the Sunderland killed the gun crew and then sank the U-boat. The Sunderland dropped a life-raft.

 3 August. U-66: Attacked by a Wildcat and Avenger pair from the USS Card. The Wildcat caused heavy casualties by strafing and the Avenger badly damaged the U-Boat.

 7 August. U-66 (already damaged) and U-117: Attacked by an Avengers and Wildcats from the USS Card. U-117 destroyed.

 24 July. U-262. Reported it had been hit and damaged by an Allied aircraft.

 1 August. U-218. Attacked by Wellington from 547 squadron RAF. Six men wounded, forcing the U-boat to abort its mission.

 6 August. U-262, U760 and U-664: Attacked by a Wildcat Avenger team from the USS Card. Wildcat shot down, Avenger ditched and two crewmen recovered, several U-Boat crew were killed and injured.

 9 August. U-664: Attacked by a Wildcat and two Avengers from USS Card. U-Boat sunk after two attacks.

 12 August. U0760. Unidentified aircraft attacked and forced the U-boat to abort its mission through damage.

 6 September. U-760: Leigh-light equipped Wellington from 179 squadron RAF attacked. U-boat further damaged.


July 1943 patrols to the Indian Ocean. All of these boats had quad 20mm flak.

 July 8. U-514: Attacked by Liberator from 224 Squadron RAF. U-boat destroyed.

 12 July. U-506: Attacked by B-24 from USAAF ASW squadron 1. U-boat destroyed.

 15 July. U-509: Attacked by Wildcat-Avenger team from USS Santee. U-boat destroyed.

 13 July. U-487: Attacked by a Wildcat-Avenger pair from USS Core. Six other aircraft summoned. U-boat destroyed, one wildcat lost.

 14 July. U-487: Attacked by Wildcat-Avenger pair from USS Santee. U-boat destroyed.

 23 July. U648 and U-527: Attacked by Avenger from USS Bougue. U-527 destroyed.

 4 November. U-168: Bounced at night by a Catalina, thwarting an attack.

 16 October. U-533: Attacked by a Bisley of 244 squadron RAF and sunk.

The above comes from Clay Blair's very detailed book Hitler's U-boat War: The Hunted 1942-45'.

As can be seen the U-boats suffered greatly. The group sailing to the Indian Ocean is particularly interesting as all had quad 20mm and orders to fight aircraft on the surface, yet for seven U-boats destroyed only one aircraft was lost and needless to say a 1:7 loss ratio was simply unsupportable.

It is interesting to compare it with the view of a German author, Fregeattenkapitain Gunter Hessler. Hessler wrote an account post-war for the Royal Navy, which was for a long while a restricted document. It was declassified and published by MoD Navy as The U-Boat War in the Atlantic 1939-45'. If you can track down a copy, get it, as it's a fascinating read.

Hessler notes that the introduction of greater AA on U-boats initially caused Allied pilots to be more cautious, but that they rapidly adapted their tactics and pressed home their attack again.

The quad 20mm in which great hope had been placed often appeared to be ineffective, Hessler suggesting that this was due to the increasing armour carried by long-range patrol aircraft. Against carrier aircraft a U-boat could hold its own, but only if attacked singly. As can be seen from the examples quoted above, carrier aircraft usually operated in pairs, a fighter to suppress any AA fire and a bomber to kill the submarine.

The submarines problems was that if a bomber made a low pass over it then the resultant attack was likely to be lethal. Only AA fire which could down the attacker during its run in, or deter it from attacking, would save the U-boat. Aircraft could often loiter out of range while calling in reinforcements, speeding in to deliver an attack should the U-boat try to dive.

The situation was similar to that faced by the Allies in the Pacific when dealing with Kamikazes. The Allies found the 20mm ineffective even against lightly-built Japanese aircraft and much preferred the 40mm. The Germans similarly tried to up-gun their U-boats to use 37mm AA guns, but the guns were so unreliable at sea that they failed to provide an effective counter to Allied air power.

Marcel_Albert
02-22-2007, 12:07 PM
I had read in the past that more than 60% of Kriegsmarine lost submarines were due to aircrafts , so indeed , the plane was really the worst ennemy of the submarine statistically ahead of destroyers .

AAA on submarine was hardly any effective , even on perfect wheather conditions , i never read about a u-boat commander downing some planes with AAA although it might have happened a very few times . It was probably too risky for the 50 men crew , quite unstable and innacurate IMHO. But i remember about U-flak or something , but if my memory serves me right , it wasn't very succesful .

Blutarski2004
02-22-2007, 01:37 PM
The ASW aircraft versus U-boat campaign in the Bay of Biscay is a good example as well. U-boats fared badly when attempting to fight it out on the surface against opposing patrol a/c, even when their AA armament was drastically upgraded.

Bearcat99
02-22-2007, 01:39 PM
I would love to see a land/air/sea sim with the quality of SH/FB/&RTS........

msalama
02-22-2007, 02:27 PM
S! guys. Please check this (http://www.uboatarchive.net/) out if the U-boot war interests you. A highly informative site with lots of original documents about the war in the Atlantic...

AVGWarhawk
02-22-2007, 02:36 PM
I see a few here have played SH3. Probably put it away. Have you guys see the super mod for SH3 called GWX? Check out subsim.com and look it up. SH3 with GWX super mod is out of this world. SH3 is in a totally different league with GWX addition. The mod is free. Hell, the manual for it is 180 pages http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Tell me they did not add A LOT of content! I put the game away for a year, pulled it out and found GWX. Stopped messing with IL2 as a result.

AVGWarhawk
02-22-2007, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
If people here own Silent Hunter III , the Grey Wolves Expansion which is free is a MUST HAVE .

Yeah maybe a must have but I had CDTs every 5minutes of game.Never found anybody willing to help,SH3 forums sux so bad too,no help from them completely so I uninstalled the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go to subsim.com....you get more than enough help. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RocketDog
02-22-2007, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
I see a few here have played SH3. Probably put it away. Have you guys see the super mod for SH3 called GWX? Check out subsim.com and look it up. SH3 with GWX super mod is out of this world. SH3 is in a totally different league with GWX addition.


Good tip there, AVG. I've just downloaded GWX and it looks to be an excellent bit of work.

Cheers,

RD.

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I would love to see a land/air/sea sim with the quality of SH/FB/&RTS........

Battleground Europe is the closest you can get. Graphics sux big time though, and the engine is very old and past hope for optimalisation.

A completely new engine will come for it within a few months though, hopefully improving things.

Give it a try, 14 day free trials are always present.

Kurfurst__
02-22-2007, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:
The quad 20mm in which great hope had been placed often appeared to be ineffective, Hessler suggesting that this was due to the increasing armour carried by long-range patrol aircraft. Against carrier aircraft a U-boat could hold its own, but only if attacked singly. As can be seen from the examples quoted above, carrier aircraft usually operated in pairs, a fighter to suppress any AA fire and a bomber to kill the submarine.

The submarines problems was that if a bomber made a low pass over it then the resultant attack was likely to be lethal. Only AA fire which could down the attacker during its run in, or deter it from attacking, would save the U-boat. Aircraft could often loiter out of range while calling in reinforcements, speeding in to deliver an attack should the U-boat try to dive.

The situation was similar to that faced by the Allies in the Pacific when dealing with Kamikazes. The Allies found the 20mm ineffective even against lightly-built Japanese aircraft and much preferred the 40mm. The Germans similarly tried to up-gun their U-boats to use 37mm AA guns, but the guns were so unreliable at sea that they failed to provide an effective counter to Allied air power.

I don`t think it was 'armor'. Aircraft carried absolutely minimal armor, and are highly vulnerable - a single round in the engine, fuel tank, or crew stations will knock it off. The 20mm used as AA was a rather potent in this caliber, much more than any aircraft carried 20mm cannon - actually light armored vehicles used it and at close range it could penetrate up to 35mm armor - no aircraft carried even fraction of that. Armor was generally limited to some of the crew positions, cannon rounds and such. I guess the problem was that it could not just rip apart the plane on it`s attack before it was too late. Even if the plane was mortally wounded, the crew might just not notice it in those few seconds and press on the attack anyway. The 3,7cm rounds could do that, and IIRC there was even dual 3,7cm installations which would offer some serious firepower, but the problem was always that it was a schwarm that attacked you. You could defeat individual planes, but not the whole bunch. Could Yamato with all it`s bristling AAA defeat a single dive bomber? Sure. Could it stop all before they hit her - no. Other than that of course, hitting aircraft especially when the platform is a tiny sub is a difficult job. No aircraft is going to go down unless you actually hit it.

As for the examples you quoted, they`re interesting but it`s wrong to assume to much from them. Engagements tend to be one-sided, one side utterly destroys the other. Quoting those in which it was aircraft gives a false idea, it`s always the complete number one should go by :

http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

"Summary
123 aircraft shot down by 97 individual U-boats for the loss of 31 U-boats either sunk during the attack or due to being located by other forces shortly afterwards and sunk.

One source says that RAF Coastal Command (U-boat hunters) lost 700 aircraft (badly damaged, shot down and paid off - not all to U-boats of course) and sank 220 U-boats during the war. I've been unable to verify the RAF losses but the U-boat figure is about right it seems. These figures show the immense effort put out by the British to hunt down the U-boats and almost all the aircraft successes took place in 1942 and later.

Please note
There may be missing aircraft losses from this page, if you spot any missing or some data that is not 100% accurate please contact me. This page is based on the best available information at this time but mistakes or omissions are possible. "

That`s the general number of loss ratio I`ve seen, ie. 3 aircraft lost for every Uboat. Naturally, such trade was very worthwhile for the aircraft overall, trading a relatively cheap aircraft for a fully equipped 800-2000 ton submersible ship with 50 trained men on it. But to suggest attack subs was cakewalk or always successfull is just false.

Mr_Nakajima
02-23-2007, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The low-velocity 5" with proximity-fuzed shells and two 40mm Bofors trumped anything fielded by the Kriegsmarine's boats. The virtue of DC is that you are able to play as a gunnery officer, using the director, which you cannot do with any other naval "sim," and the tactical ship handling is very good for the age of the item. As a matter of fact, the bloody USN and RN were superior to the wretched Kriegsmarine, that's why they got their clocks cleaned rather nastily, and the sub arm was nearly annihilated, but such details would not be apparent to an amateur-bore-Germanofile-pest. G'day, twerp.

I'm sure Kurfurst will have condescendingly explained to you why you are wrong and German U-Boats were much superior, but I have him set up as blocked and so never see his posts unless I make a conscious effort to do so.

The way submarines evolved in the Pacific and Atlantic, at least in terms of guns, was in opposite directions. The Germans found fewer and fewer opportunities to use guns, and by the time they were designing the high-speed Type XXI and XXIII they no longer considered them useful. Potential targets were simply too well protected for a submarine to want to risk attacking them with a gun on the surface. Weather conditions in the Atlantic also played their part, as there were few days when a deck-mounted gun could be used.

The USN in the Pacific had a different set of conditions all together. There were numerous small ships to engage which did not justify the use of a torpedo, and the weather was often calmer. Additionally, the big USN boats made better gun-platforms and at least some classes had been built with 5" guns in mind, and so had the necessary deck strength to carry them.

The 5"/25 became the standard late-war submarine gun and a trail war patrol by the USS Sennet in January 1945, armed with 2 x 5"/25 and 2 x 40mm was so successful that this battery was authorised for any submarine whose CO wanted it.

The weapons initially lacked an adequate fire control and so one was added a plotting room continuously computed and transmitted gun elevation and train indicators to the guns; the TBT on the bridge gave target bearing and the radar gave range to a Mk 6 computer while an associated Mk 6 stable element corrected for ship roll and pitch.

Note that the 40mm were anti-surface weapons. USN submarines had effective air-search radar (unlike their German counterparts) and so were much better placed to avoid aircraft by diving before they closed. There was no intention to stay and fight it out on the surface as the Germans had briefly ordered their boats to do in 1943.

Info is from Norman Freidman's U.S. Submarines Through 1945: an Illustrated Design History'.

Mysticpuma2003
02-23-2007, 03:00 AM
GWX add-on sounds interesting for SH3, but what put me off, and I may be wrong with this, was the fact that you couldn't change the video resolution from 1024x768.....did they ever fix this?

Kurfurst__
02-23-2007, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:
Note that the 40mm were anti-surface weapons. USN submarines had effective air-search radar (unlike their German counterparts) and so were much better placed to avoid aircraft by diving before they closed. There was no intention to stay and fight it out on the surface as the Germans had briefly ordered their boats to do in 1943.

I love that part of fanboism which automatically assures itself, that since Our Guys had air search rader, Their Guys must have lacked anything similiar. It`s usually wrong, and arrogance just make their fall bigger. Buddying up with like-minden (ignorant and arrogant) fellows generally don`t seem to help it, it only makes the pain worse, when it`s getting corrected as below.

Via Emmanuel Gustin co-author of Anthony Williams of Flying Guns of WW2 etc.

"
U-boat Radars

prepared by Emmanuel Gustin

FMG 41G (gU) Seetakt
FuMO 29 Seetakt

The original version of the Seetakt radar was developed by Gema (Gesellschaft fu"r Elektroakustische Mechanische Apparate. A Navy-sponsored firm set up by admiral Mertens, by coincidence a WWI U-boat commander.) in 1935 as one of the first operational German radars. It operated on 82cm, and its antenna was an array of horizontal or vertical dipoles. Versions of Seetakt were used on land or carried by surface ships, such as the 'Graf Spee' and 'Bismarck'.

http://www.uboat.net/technical/images/fumo29.jpg

FuMO 29 After two abortive attempts to construct a radar small enough to be fitted in an U-Boot, Gema in 1941 produced a version of Seetakt small enough to be installed in the conning tower. Two horizontal rows of vertical dipoles were installed in a half-circle, following the curve of the conning tower, and the transmitter was installed next to the conning tower ladder -- a location which guaranteed that it was flooded with water nearly every time the hatch was opened! It had a maximum range of about 7km, with a field of view of 60 degrees.

It was fitted to U-156, U-157 and U-158, all Type IXC U-boats. It was generally unsuccessful.

In 1942 the antenna array was replaced with one fitted on a retractable, rotating mast. A reflector shield was installed behind the dipoles, and the "W-Anz. g2 (FuMB 9) Cypern II" radio detection system was installed on the other side. The mast was stored in a compartment on the side of the conning tower. Little is known about the effectiveness of this system.

FMG 42 G (gU)
FuMO 30

This was an improved version of the rotating mast version of FMG 41G (gU), with a direction finder added, ready in late 1942. It was built into all U-boats. However, it was easily disabled by depth charges or bombs, and the antennas corroded in the salt water. Commanders did not like to use it, because they feared that it gave away their position.

FuMO 61 Hohentwiel U
FuMO 65 Hohentwiel U1

Hohentwiel was developed for installation in aircraft, to be used against surface ships. The first working radar in this series appeared in September 1942, and from August 1943 onwards the radar was installed in naval reconnaissance aircraft such as the Fw 200 and He 177. Hohentwiel radars operated on 550MHz (55cm), and later models were tunable between 525 and 575MHz.

In 1943 Lorentz was instructed to adapt Hohentwiel for naval use, and soon Hohentwiel appeared on U-boats, small surface ships, and coastal installations. These Hohentwiel radars contained only 19 valves and, by the standards of the time, were easy to maintain and reliable. The U-Boat FuMO 61 version had a 1 by 1.4 meter rotating antenna (again an array of dipoles) on a mast. Size of the antenna and height of the mast were restricted by installation on an U-boot, and range was 10km against ships and 20km against aircraft; installations on surface ships had double that range. Resolution was about 3 degrees, and at short range its range accuracy was 100 meters. FuMO 65 replaced the traditional radar display, which had separate oscilloscope screens indicating range and azimuth, by a PPI (Plan Position Indicator) screen, known to the Germans as 'Drauf'. This is kind of radar display most familiar to us today, a circular display on which the position of a target is directly indicated as the radar beam sweeps round. FuMO 65 was installed in only a few Type XXI submarines. It was considered a very useful piece of equipment, especially for navigation in coastal waters.



U-boat Radar Detectors

prepared by Emmanuel Gustin

FuMB 1 Metox 600A

Installed in U-boats from August 1942 onwards, this was a receiver, tuned to pick up 1.5 meter ASV radar at a safe distance. It was named after its (French!) manufacturer. A Wellington equipped with ASV Mk.I fell into German hands in the summer of 1941, in North Africa, and this revealed the secrets of the radar.

However, the U-boats were soon receiving an excessive number of contacts, and the Navy asked Dr. Runge of Telefunken to investigate. He found that Metox did not sufficiently discriminate between signals. For example it would report a Luftwaffe transmitter on a base near Bordeaux, at distances up to 80km. Metox was modified, but it had already caused considerable trouble. (Sadly, Pritchard does not give dates for these events.)

Metox also emitted a weak signal, a property common to many radio receivers, especially superheterodyne receivers. In an indirect way, this had serious consequences. In the spring of 1943, the U-boats suffered badly because of the introduction by the British of a 10cm ASV radar. But a captured British officer told the Germans that their misfortunes were caused by the transmission of Metox, which were detected by Coastal Command aircraft. After verifying that this was technically possible, the Germans believed the story. This delayed the introduction of Naxos by some months, during which the U-boats suffered heavy losses.
FuG 350 Naxos I
FuG 350a Naxos Ia

Centimetric ASV radar was first used (in an experimental installation) against submarines on 17 March 1943. Metox did not detect these wavelengths, so that surprise attacks on U-boats were once again possible. Within a few weeks aircraft equipped with ASV Mk.III radar made the Bay of Biscay very unsafe for U-boats. By May 1943, Dnitz was aware of the seriousness of the situation, although he still believed that it was caused by emissions of the Metox receivers. Actually, clear evidence had been presented to the Germans when a Stirling bomber carrying a 10cm H2S radar crashed near Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, on 2 February; but apparently this information was slow to reach the Kriegsmarine.

http://www.uboat.net/flotillas/photos/toulon3.jpg
All excellent shot of the Naxos detector. Seen here on U-952 under
command of Kapitnleutnant Oscar Curio.

The Naxos radar warning receiver was built by Telefunken, using components of the FuG 25 Zwilling IFF equipment. It operated between 2500MHz and 3750MHz (wavelengths of 12cm to 8cm), with a detecting range against H2S and its ASV derivatives of about 8km, thanks to a sensitive detector and a multi-stage amplifier. Actually it was too sensitive and caused unneccessary dives by U-Boote. The first Naxos receiver was tested in an aircraft on 11 September 1943. Development had been delayed by an air attack on the Telefunken works.

The original Naxos I had a vertically polarized antenna, with poor results as the British radars initially used horizontal polarisation. (This seems to have been a case of the German designers being smarter than the British ones, with unfortunate consequences.) Naxos Ia had a triple antenna, with elements crossing each other at 45 degrees to avoid this problem. Over 1000 sets of Naxos I were produced, for U-Boot installations but also for the Luftwaffe, the original customer.

(Later versions of Naxos could indicate the approximate direction of enemy aircraft carrying the radar. But this was useful primarily for aircraft, and probably was not installed in submarines?)

The first Naxos equipment was ready in September 1943. In November 1943, the British became aware that U-Boot contacts were lost as the attacker approached, presumably because it detected the 10cm ASV radar. In reaction, ASV Mk.VI had an attenuator, so that the aircraft could limit the power it radiated and give the false impression that it was not approaching.

Also in late 1943 the development of the 3cm ASV Mk.VII radar was commissioned, in anticipation of the appearance of 'Naxos'. This was a development of versions of H2S radar that operated on 3cm. At the end of the war a 3cm version for the Luftwaffe of Naxos was ready, but only about 100 were constructed. If the war had continued, they could, and probably would, have been fitted to new submarines.
Aphrodite

Aphrodite was a decoy balloon. Filled with hydrogen, it floated a few meters above the water surface, anchored to a floating plate. Aluminium foils attached to the balloon gave a strong radar echo, similar to that of an U-boat on British radar screens.

Devices not covered here include Wanze, Fliege, Bali, Samon and others.
Sources

* The Radar War -- Germany's Pioneering Achievement 1940-45
David Pritchard, published by Patrick Stephens Limited, 1989.
* Avionics -- The Story and technology of aviation electronics Bill Gunston, published by Patrick Stephens Limited, 1990.
* The Tsetse and the U-boat
Roy Nesbit, in Aeroplane Monthly, May and June 1991.



In any case, the relative merits of USN and KM subs of WW2 can be adressed endlessly. What does not make much sense IMHO is the narrow minded, 'my guys were infinititely better' type of attitude displayed by this nakijama and leitmotiv fellas.

Suffice to say the boats were built for very very different circumstances, and displayed different qualities, fitting for their theatre of war. Plenty of technological gimnick was added to them during the war, but to compare a large cruising boat for small action with a boat designed to dodge destroyers in a large scale convoy war on heavy seas is pointless.

joeap
02-23-2007, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
I see a few here have played SH3. Probably put it away. Have you guys see the super mod for SH3 called GWX? Check out subsim.com and look it up. SH3 with GWX super mod is out of this world. SH3 is in a totally different league with GWX addition. The mod is free. Hell, the manual for it is 180 pages http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Tell me they did not add A LOT of content! I put the game away for a year, pulled it out and found GWX. Stopped messing with IL2 as a result.

You ain't kidding bud. I urge you all to check it out...for example, Kurfurst's and Marcel's comments/ criticisms have been addressed to a large degree by the modders. Planes are deadly and take a lot of damage...so are really hard to shoot down and you should not try!!! AI u-boot gunners are less accurate, especially the deck gun. AI is a lot smarter and you really have to think like a u-boot kaluen. Contrary to popular belief, it it possible to make early war night surface attacks with GWX, but you have to think, not barrel in at flank speed (speed low=small wake and keep profile head on). Great eye-candy too. In fact SH3 (and SH2 before) were saved by the modders IMHO. SH3 is much more of a sim now thanks to these guys. Ouch that typing hurt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Great thread btw.

Kurfurst__
02-23-2007, 06:39 AM
http://www.subsim.com/sh4/images/c_screen_sh4_9.jpg

I love this picture. Appearantly there will be missions involving putting commando guys ashore somewhere in a godforsaken jungle in the middle of no-where. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do hope that HQ will be a bit more active... I really hated SH3 with the communication with BdU being limited to :

- Go there, patrol 24 hours
- Be more agressive
- Good job, return to base.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

More here :

http://www.subsim.com/sh4/demo_sh4.php

Blutarski2004
02-23-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Planes are deadly and take a lot of damage...so are really hard to shoot down and you should not try!!! AI u-boot gunners are less accurate, especially the deck gun.


..... U-boat tactics changed Apr-Nov 1943 when it was decided to revert to daylight transit of the Bay of Biscay. U-boats were instructed to remain on the surface and fight it out with allied A/S aircraft. As a result, the likelihood of a U-boat kill per sighting by an A/S aircraft went from about 1-in-30 to about 1-in-4.

Basically, air patrols forced the U-boats to make their transits submerged. This lengthened their transit times out and back from 30 hours each way completely surfaced to 125 hours each way running submerged. Even running submerged, the U-boats were still obliged to spend 13 of those hours running on the surface in order to charge batteries. This effectively shortened their operational time on station by 7.5 days.

See "U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay: an Essay in Operational Analysis". Very interesting book.

RocketDog
02-23-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I love that part of fanboism which automatically assures itself, that since Our Guys had air search rader, Their Guys must have lacked anything similiar.

Come on then Kurfles, tell us about the German cavity magnetron.

RD.

fordfan25
02-23-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/USS_Paddle%3B0826305.jpg
USN Gato Class submarine.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type7.jpg
KM Type VII submarine. not a huge deff at all realy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

woofiedog
02-23-2007, 01:10 PM
A few photo's from Battleship Cove, Massachusetts... taken in 2005.

The USS Lionfish...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture110.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture028.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/Picture052.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/EngineRoom.jpg

BOA_Allmenroder
02-23-2007, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/USS_Paddle%3B0826305.jpg
USN Gato Class submarine.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type7.jpg
KM Type VII submarine. not a huge deff at all realy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


SSh don't tell him. If you look at the size of the humans in both pictures, and estimate that all of them are probably in the 5'6" to 5' 11" range, you see that the size of the boats are not widely different.

What was widely different were the crew 'amenities': The Gato class had airconditioning and generally seems 'bigger' in its interior that the German boats.

My source for this observation is personal tours in the U505 (type IXC)in Chicago, IL and the USS Drum (IIRC) at Battleship Park in Mobile, AL.

ploughman
02-23-2007, 05:26 PM
The American boat looks quite a bit larger to me.

fordfan25
02-23-2007, 05:28 PM
yea id say about 2x taller than german boat but considering that even at 2x as tall its still low. Not that any of it is at all important to me, its just i get alot of joy from Kurfurst post and like to keep adding wood for his flaming fanboism http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
02-23-2007, 07:22 PM
Length overall of GATO/BALAO class Fleet Submarines: 311'9". Length overall of German Type IXB U-boot (photo miscaptioned as Type VII): 251'---the longest, biggest U-boot sent to sea by the Germans was the Type IXD which was 287' overall (with only four tubes forward and two aft, the Type IX was not able to fire as lethal a spread as the Fleet Boats with six tubes forward and four aft or the redoubtable Japanese C Class submarines [346' overall, we are talking BIG here], which delivered the midget subs to Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941---they had eight tubes forward!!!!).

Scharnhorst1943
02-23-2007, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
I see a few here have played SH3. Probably put it away. Have you guys see the super mod for SH3 called GWX? Check out subsim.com and look it up. SH3 with GWX super mod is out of this world. SH3 is in a totally different league with GWX addition. The mod is free. Hell, the manual for it is 180 pages http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Tell me they did not add A LOT of content! I put the game away for a year, pulled it out and found GWX. Stopped messing with IL2 as a result.

I went there, downloaded the files, but it is asking for a CD?????? I can't install the bloody thing. Any advice?

Mr_Nakajima
02-24-2007, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
What does not make much sense IMHO is the narrow minded, 'my guys were infinititely better' type of attitude displayed by this nakijama and leitmotiv fellas.

Such as your good self and the Bf-109 perhaps?

Hello Kurfles, I thought I'd have a look at what you posted.

It does seem you have mis-read my post I wrote that Germany lacked EFFECTIVE submarine radars, not any radar at all. Also, note that Metox and Naxos, Aphrodite, etc. are passive receivers or countermeasures, and not radars.

In fact your quotes above fully support my assertion, that Germans U-boats lacked effective radar. This is hardly unsurprising at it is an accepted fact.

From Hessler's book quoted above, Hohentweil was introduced in April 1944 and was effective, but few U-boats were equipped with it.

To add a bit of detail to some you mention or omitted:
- Fliege it gradually replaced Naxos in the 8-12cm. It required manual training but had a much greater interception range up to 40-60km at times, and could also take a rough bearing on the emitter.
- Mucke was a similar device used to detect 3cm wavelengths.
- Tunis was a combined set to reduce bridge clutter, as by early 1944 U-boats had to carry Wanze, Borkum, Fliege and Munke to cover the full range of frequencies in use by the Allies.

You seem to think that I am partisan in this matter. I am not. I think you are seeing simply a reflection of yourself in other people. I am not terribly well read on U-boats, but from my little reading they were considerably superior to their British counterparts for example. And I agree completely that U-Boats and the big USN fleet boats were designed for, and employed in, very different theatres of war and evolved accordingly.

But it is simply a fact that German U-boats lagged behind their American counter-parts in the radar war. USN boats had better radar, earlier, and more of them were equipped with it. And radar is far, far from being a technical gimmick'.

Kurfurst__
02-24-2007, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:
It does seem you have mis-read my post I wrote that Germany lacked EFFECTIVE submarine radars, not any radar at all. Also, note that Metox and Naxos, Aphrodite, etc. are passive receivers or countermeasures, and not radars.

Define 'effective' radar - is that anything on USN ships isn`t it?

Apart from that, you seem to miss active radar sets entirely - the early FuMO 29 Seetakt from 1941, and the FMG 42 G (gU)
and FuMO 30 which was built in all U-boote.

Hardly "passive receivers or countermeasures, and not radars". Some Type VII and all IX boats had radar from 1941. All U-boots had radar from 1942 onwards. Hohentwiel came later, and was an improved radar, not the first radar.

[QUOTE]In fact your quotes above fully support my assertion, that Germans U-boats lacked effective radar. This is hardly unsurprising at it is an accepted fact.

I am puzzled how this could be a fact. All U-boote are equipped with radar from 1942. That`s a fact.


And I agree completely that U-Boats and the big USN fleet boats were designed for, and employed in, very different theatres of war and evolved accordingly.

Well at least there`s something we can agree on.


But it is simply a fact that German U-boats lagged behind their American counter-parts in the radar war. USN boats had better radar, earlier, and more of them were equipped with it. And radar is far, far from being a technical gimmick'.

Radar is pretty much a gimnick if it`s dangerous to use it as would immidietely gives away your position to the enemy`s passive receivers. This was definietely true in the Atlantic war, not sure to what extent the IJN perfected electronic counter measures, but I'd be willing to bet that radar simply because the much less stiff opposition, and less enemy ECM was far more useful for USN boats in the PTO, whereas it would be their death sentence in convoy battles on the Atlantic. Using radar is like a night ambush in which you search your enemy with a AA searchlight. He will know much sooner you`re being there. A sub is by default launch it`s attack by surprise, otherwise it`s hopeless, esp. if it has only straight-run torpedoes, no guided ones. Therefore it`s observation devices are of passive nature - passive sonar and passive radar sets, even though it may possess as well active sonar and active radar sets as well.



So what radars and when did USN boats carry, and how widespread it was? At least this is an on-topic question we can all learn from. What was their max diving depth, time to dive with those big boats? How good their passive sonar was? Did it have anti-sonar, anti-radar coatings applied? From when and from what extent it started to use guided acoustic torpedoes against escorts? What decoys were fitted? Was AAA limited to a single Bofors and two barrels of Tiger-killing .50s?

These are far more important questions for a submarine`s qualities than how many tubes it has, how much bigger target it presented or how much easier it was to spot on surface - where WW2 submersible boats would spend 90% of their time anyway - paper specs that little boys are appearantly so much fascinated with.

joeap
02-24-2007, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
I see a few here have played SH3. Probably put it away. Have you guys see the super mod for SH3 called GWX? Check out subsim.com and look it up. SH3 with GWX super mod is out of this world. SH3 is in a totally different league with GWX addition. The mod is free. Hell, the manual for it is 180 pages http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Tell me they did not add A LOT of content! I put the game away for a year, pulled it out and found GWX. Stopped messing with IL2 as a result.

You ain't kidding bud. I urge you all to check it out...for example, Kurfurst's and Marcel's comments/ criticisms have been addressed to a large degree by the modders. Planes are deadly and take a lot of damage...so are really hard to shoot down and you should not try!!! AI u-boot gunners are less accurate, especially the deck gun. AI is a lot smarter and you really have to think like a u-boot kaluen. Contrary to popular belief, it it possible to make early war night surface attacks with GWX, but you have to think, not barrel in at flank speed (speed low=small wake and keep profile head on). Great eye-candy too. In fact SH3 (and SH2 before) were saved by the modders IMHO. SH3 is much more of a sim now thanks to these guys. Ouch that typing hurt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Repeated for emphasis...guys get GWX and tell me SH3 is not a different sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Kurfurst__
02-24-2007, 04:44 AM
Where to download it.. ?

joeap
02-24-2007, 04:57 AM
Guys the page of links are here, there is a 1.02 patch too , I also recommend getting SH3 Commander it adds a lot too.

GWX d/l links (http://www.users.on.net/%7Ejscones/GWX/)

Warning, huge files you need a clean, unmodded SH3 patched with the official 1.4 patch

Subsim thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=102096)

GWX patch 1.02 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106040)
SH3 Commander, optional (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=101815)

Have fun, also the eye candy is great but pretty heavy, you can choose to use "lite harbour traffic" with the modswapper. Planes are much better, last night on patrol in March 1943 I moved slowly as I kept getting radar warnings in the Bay of Biscay and submerged at night.

Kurfurst__
02-24-2007, 08:20 AM
Thanks m8, I`ll give it a try, hopefully it will correct the vanila`s greatest failings! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RocketDog
02-24-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Radar is pretty much a gimnick if it`s dangerous to use it as would immidietely gives away your position to the enemy`s passive receivers.

Err... the U-boats were wiped out as a military threat partly by Allied airpower which could catch the boats on the surface before they could dive. An effective radar would have enabled them to detect aircraft and dive before the aircraft could close to engagement range. Hardly a gimmick.

Any more thoughts on that German cavity magnetron I asked you about?

RD.

Kurfurst__
02-24-2007, 01:43 PM
Ignore +1


@Joeap,

I just tried out GWX. It`s just scary what it makes out of SH3.. 250+ page manual for a MOD.. impressive, to say at least, and it`s content is well written and researched. Thanks for noting.

Try it out guys. It`s really something.

Pirschjaeger
02-24-2007, 08:00 PM
I downloaded GWX but I can't use it.

I bought(yes,it's real, so I thought) SH3 EMEA 3 dvd set here in China, from a store, in box and complete. None of the patches will install. They claim the Mission.dll is unknown. I removed the mission.dll file thinking I could replace it after installing the patch. But that didn't work either. It claimed to not recognize another file.

Interestingly, for a product sold on the Chinese market, the readme is in German. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

You cannot install GWX unless you are patched up to 1.4b. The patch will not recognize my version. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

In the end I can only read what you guys write and accept that what is real in China is not real. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Scharnhorst1943
02-24-2007, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I downloaded GWX but I can't use it.

I bought(yes,it's real, so I thought) SH3 EMEA 3 dvd set here in China, from a store, in box and complete. None of the patches will install. They claim the Mission.dll is unknown. I removed the mission.dll file thinking I could replace it after installing the patch. But that didn't work either. It claimed to not recognize another file.

Interestingly, for a product sold on the Chinese market, the readme is in German. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

You cannot install GWX unless you are patched up to 1.4b. The patch will not recognize my version. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

In the end I can only read what you guys write and accept that what is real in China is not real. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Hey Pirsch!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Don't get discouraged. SH3 is WELL worth the money. A lot of people moan and complain, but I found a stock SH3 with a few select mods made it very enjoyable. I hope you can get the original game working. If you can get that figured out a whole new world will be opened to you. If you don't mind a large email, I could email you the patch file. I myself have downloaded this GWM, but I can't get the mod to install. Unfortunately I have not had time to tinker with it either.

Scharnhorst1943
02-24-2007, 10:39 PM
I cannot get the Grey Wolves addon to install.

Can anyone help me out. I installed all 6 files, put them in the same folder on my desktop, but when I run the installer, it asks for the location or CD of where the files are. When I point it to that folder it says it is invalid and to find the "correct" folder or insert the CD.

WTF???

Mr_Nakajima
02-25-2007, 02:47 AM
I thought it would be interesting to compare the radars used by the submarine arms of the Kreigsmarine and the USN to show the different levels of technology they possessed as different times.


Mid-1942
FuMO-30 GEMA' was the first rotating U-boat radar, introduced in June 1942 when thirty sets were installed in new U-boats. It could detect a ship at around 7 km maximum and a aircraft out to 15km if flying high enough. Its performance was poor as it used a long 80cm wavelength and so suffered greatly from reflections from the sea. Crews found that they would usually see a ship before the radar detected it. It was also distrusted as being something else the Allies could potentially home on to.

The USN had two separate radars available at the time. The first SD air-search radar had been available in October 1941. Its omni-directional antenna was a deliberate choice to reduce underwater resistance. Its performance was considered disappointing though, SD being only able to pick up a bomber at 20 nautical miles range (i.e. approaching twice that of the later German set) due to its long wavelength. SD-1 introduced a fixed-mast version and SD-2, first installed in the autumn of 1942, introduced IFF. 140 sets of these types were made.

SJ was a 10cm wavelength (and therefore highly directional) surface search radar, made possible by of the use of the cavity magnetron. The improved SJ-a was introduced in the summer of 1942. This drove a plan-position indicator, the common radar screen' view, and rotated through 360 degrees automatically. Speed was variable from 10 rpm down to 1/20 rpm, in both directions, or it could be rotated manually. Target range and bearing were fed automatically into the fire control TDC. Initially, the limited height of the radar mast reduced maximum range to about 5nm, equivalent to the GEMA set, though as a centimetric radar it did not suffer the confusion that GEMA did due to reflections from the sea. By the summer of 1943 its power had been increased in the SJ-1 to the point it could spot a surfaced submarine at that same distance.


Early/Mid 1944
The best German submarine radar was Hohentweil. Production difficulties delayed its arrival until March 1944 and even then only a few sets were initially available (by November 1944 only 64 had been installed across a U-Boat fleet by then numbering hundreds).

Hohentweil used a 43cm wavelength, could detect aircraft out to 12 km, and could give a bearing as well. It is credited with halting the declining morale and defensive nature shown by some U-boat captains at this time, and to quote Hessler brought great relief to the few boats equipped with it'. It suffered from poor reliability.

By early 1944 USN air search radars had evolved into the SD-4, of which 104 sets of this were delivered between June 1943 and July 1944. It could detect aircraft out to 60 km, now had a directional antenna and was being replaced by SD-5, which could detect aircraft out to 80 km. The last of 86 SD-5s were completed in December 1944.

The surface search SJ series had evolved into the SJ-1 with 50 kW rather than 30 kW power; 300 were delivered between August 1943 and February 1945. The 3 cm wavelength ST ranging radar was just about to be introduced (254 sets starting July 1944) which could also measure angles to an accuracy of 3 degrees and even transmit and receive voice signals at radar frequencies for secure communication. This radar was actually sited on the head of the night periscope, allowing submerged radar-directed attacks.


So it can clearly be seen that the USN submarine arm was significantly more advanced than the Kreigsmarine in its use of radars more powerful models were available, earlier, and in greater numbers to equip fewer submarines.

Radar was one of the key technologies of the war (and it still is). The Allied advantage in radar was key in defeating a submarine offensive in the Atlantic, and in its own submarine offensive being so successful in the Pacific.

EDIT - corrected mistake about FuMO 30, and sources are:
-Type VII U-boats by Robert C. Stern
-U-Boats by David Miller (an excellent general book)
-The U-boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45 by Hessler (MoD Navy)
-US Submarines through 1945: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, who gives details of US radars. Technical but very good.

Mr_Nakajima
02-25-2007, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Radar is pretty much a gimnick if it`s dangerous to use it as would immidietely gives away your position to the enemy`s passive receivers.

Oh Good Grief.

I do not believe you actually understand much of what you are posting.

As far as I'm concerned the argument over radar is over, and you have done nothing to convince me your view is correct. My sources differ in detail from yours, but you are still confusing radar detectors with radar itself. Others can make up their own minds.

I'm sure you will post something else, as you usually confuse having the last word with winning the argument.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-25-2007, 04:38 AM
Mr_Nakajima, you don't know much about RADAR and tactics used.

RADAR was and IS dangerous to use, for air, land and sea-units. The detection range, especially for a submarine is very limited, as the placement of the RADAR is not that high above the moving waves and with the rounded shape of the earth, there is not much range covered with the neccessary direct line of sight. This is especially true for German submarines with the lower turrets and the emitters/recievers mounted to the turret.
The distance at which the RADAR is detectable, is about 10-20 times larger than the own detection range, and even beyond the horizon, as it is also reflected by the atmosphere. Of course you'd only see the direction from which the signal is detected, but with 2 units receiving the signals, the position and even the speed and course is easily calculated.

The antennas used for radio-navigation could also be used to detect those signals. That was one reason why any major taskforce remained radio-silence unless it was neccessary to communicate.

For a submarine, which only advantage is the secret approach and the game of hide and seek, RADAR is nice, but can be a deathtrap. It should also be mentioned, that the early RADAR mounted to German sub was not to detect enemy ships, but to detect enemy planes. So, yes, German subs had RADAR before 1942, but they were not used to detect enemy ships. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Mr_Nakajima
02-25-2007, 04:54 AM
With respect Loan ranger, I do know a fair bit about radar.

Modern radar detectors tend to be frequency-agile, but in WW2 they covered set frequencies, and so knowledge of the enemies radar capabilities was very important in both the submarine and bomber wars. Unless a receiver covered the frequencies used then it was ineffective.

This is one of the reasons why U-boats suffered greatly from aircraft with centimetric radar; their detectors did not cover that band. RAF Bomber Command suffered similarly when the SN-2 radar was introduced which it could not detect and therefore jam.

The Germans sent two U-boats out to sea with scientists and engineers added to the crews to act as ferrets to gather such information, but both were sunk before they could report their findings.

A cursory glance at modern warships shows that even with modern passive detectors, radar is still considered quite useful.

So yes, radar can be detected, but doing so in the environment of WW2 was more difficult than today.


Regards,
Mr Nakajima

RocketDog
02-25-2007, 05:05 AM
I think the point being made is that surfaced U-boats operating in the Atlantic were incredibly vulnerable to aircraft. If the sub didn't get enough warning to dive it was in serious trouble. An aircraft search radar might give away the position of the boat (if the appropriate receiver was used), but even then if it enabled the boat to dive before an aircraft could get into range that would probably have been a price worth paying. As it was, U-boats suffered very heavy losses from aircraft because by the time they detected the aircraft it was often too late to dive. In fact, the acoustic homing torpedo was so successful precisely because even an alert boat would often only just be under the surface by the time the aircraft arrived and its position would still be marked by the boat's wake.

You should also bear in mind that because of HF/DF fixes and intelligence intecepts the Allies often knew where the boats whereabouts better than Doenitz. Not my area, of course, so I am open to be persuaded otherwise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Cheers,

RD.

RocketDog
02-25-2007, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima (re: Kurfles):
I'm sure you will post something else, as you usually confuse having the last word with winning the argument.

It's a mistake to think that Kurfles is playing the same game as everyone else. Kurfles starts from the assumption that all German weapons were super-weapons and then goes looking for data to support this conclusion. Almost everyone else wants to weigh up the evidence and make a good guess at the truth. The result is that Kurfles is almost compltely immune to reason. I can't actually remember him ever admitting to being wrong about anything. This also means that arguing with him in the forums is pretty pointless because there is nothing one could say or do that could make him change his mind. For this rason I don't usually read his posts anymore because I know in advance what he is going to say and life is just too short. But occasionally I read some for comedy value and post up an odd short reply, more in optimism than anything else.

I think the most interesting thing about Kurfles is his psychology. Sometimes I wonder if his obsessions come from the unfortunate history of his native Hungary. Who knows?

Anyway - don't wrestle with a pig in mud, you'll only get dirty and the pig will enjoy it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,

RD.

Pirschjaeger
02-25-2007, 06:03 AM
Hi Scharni,

I have both patch files but neither will install. I know SH3 is an awesome game but I also know it's software is full of flaws.

I did throw a few mods in which made things a little more interesting, especially the skins. But my biggest problem now is getting my torpedos into the boat. When I click on them they disappear and don't get loaded. I know the patch is supposed to fix that problem but the patch won't install into even a fresh out of the box install.

Thanks for the offer though.

As for GWX, from my understanding, you are best to reinstall SH3 and patch up to 1.4b, then install GWX.

Kurfurst__
02-25-2007, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:
I thought it would be interesting to compare the radars used by the submarine arms of the Kreigsmarine and the USN to show the different levels of technology they possessed as different times.

Mid-1942
FuMO-30 GEMA' was the first rotating U-boat radar, introduced in June 1942 when thirty sets were installed in new U-boats. It could detect a ship at around 7 km maximum and a aircraft out to 15km if flying high enough. Its performance was poor as it used a long 80cm wavelength and so suffered greatly from reflections from the sea. Crews found that they would usually see a ship before the radar detected it. It was also distrusted as being something else the Allies could potentially home on to.

The USN had two separate radars available at the time. The first SD air-search radar had been available in October 1941. Its omni-directional antenna was a deliberate choice to reduce underwater resistance. Its performance was considered disappointing though, SD being only able to pick up a bomber at 20 nautical miles range (i.e. approaching twice that of the later German set) due to its long wavelength. SD-1 introduced a fixed-mast version and SD-2, first installed in the autumn of 1942, introduced IFF. 140 sets of these types were made.

No, SD-1 had only a 6-10 nautical miles range. The same as the FuMO 29 and FuMO 30 introduced at the same time.

"This first set, SD, was a non-directional radar of six to ten mile range, which gave off powerful radiations that could be tracked by enemy RDF. PLUNGER left Pearl Harbour with one of the first of these sets on 13 December 1941, the first US sub to carry radar into action."

SS No.2, US Subs in Action.



SJ was a 10cm wavelength (and therefore highly directional) surface search radar, made possible by of the use of the cavity magnetron. The improved SJ-a was introduced in the summer of 1942. This drove a plan-position indicator, the common radar screen' view, and rotated through 360 degrees automatically. Speed was variable from 10 rpm down to 1/20 rpm, in both directions, or it could be rotated manually. Target range and bearing were fed automatically into the fire control TDC. Initially, the limited height of the radar mast reduced maximum range to about 5nm, equivalent to the GEMA set, though as a centimetric radar it did not suffer the confusion that GEMA did due to reflections from the sea. By the summer of 1943 its power had been increased in the SJ-1 to the point it could spot a surfaced submarine at that same distance.
[/QUOTE]

No, SJ was introduced indeed in mid-1942 and it did not have a PPI at all intitially. The first PPI on a sub appeared only as late as September 1943, and on one sub, the SNOOK.

It is noted that the 'first sets were notably unreliable and tricky to calibrate', though they improved later.



Early/Mid 1944
The best German submarine radar was Hohentweil. Production difficulties delayed its arrival until March 1944 and even then only a few sets were initially available (by November 1944 only 64 had been installed across a U-Boat fleet by then numbering hundreds).

Hohentweil used a 43cm wavelength, could detect aircraft out to 12 km, and could give a bearing as well. It is credited with halting the declining morale and defensive nature shown by some U-boat captains at this time, and to quote Hessler brought great relief to the few boats equipped with it'. It suffered from poor reliability.

Hohentwiel had a range of 20 km against aircraft and could give bearing with 3 degree accuracy. Same as the USN radar sets at the time.


By early 1944 USN air search radars had evolved into the SD-4, of which 104 sets of this were delivered between June 1943 and July 1944. It could detect aircraft out to 60 km, now had a directional antenna and was being replaced by SD-5, which could detect aircraft out to 80 km. The last of 86 SD-5s were completed in December 1944.

I really wonder how much time would a USN Fleet Sub survive on the Atlantic while searching with this thing, making it dead obvious to anyone within 60 mile range that a submarine is there inviting all the Hunter-Killer groups. One has to wonder what advantage it offered above the passive radar signal receivers like Metox et co, which would report the presence of enemy aircraft just as well from the same distance, but would not give away the positinion of the boat like radar did...



The surface search SJ series had evolved into the SJ-1 with 50 kW rather than 30 kW power; 300 were delivered between August 1943 and February 1945. The 3 cm wavelength ST ranging radar was just about to be introduced (254 sets starting July 1944) which could also measure angles to an accuracy of 3 degrees and even transmit and receive voice signals at radar frequencies for secure communication. This radar was actually sited on the head of the night periscope, allowing submerged radar-directed attacks.

Sounds like exactly the same as the Hohentwiel, which was also capable of 2 to 3 degrees of angle accuracy measurements only 3 monts earlier.



So it can clearly be seen that the USN submarine arm was significantly more advanced than the Kreigsmarine in its use of radars more powerful models were available, earlier, and in greater numbers to equip fewer submarines.

Well let`s see.

December 1941 :
USN has the SD-1, with 6-10 miles range. It`s non-directional.
KM has the FuMO 29, with 7.5-15 km range. It`s non-directional.

Mid-1942
USN has the SJ set, with 5 nm range. Omni directional.
KM has the FuMO 30, with 7.5-15 km range. It`s omni-directional.
KM has the METOX passive detector set for detection of 1.3 to 2.6 meter radar signals.

MArch 1944
KM has the Hohentwiel radar, range is 7 to 20 km,. It`s omni-directional. Capable of 2-3 degree accuracy.
KM introduced the NAXOS passive radar set for detection of 9-12 cm radar signals.

July 1944
USN has the SJ set, now in 3cm range, with 5 nm range. Omni directional.
KM introduced the Tunis passive radar set for detection of 3 cm radar signals.


Looking at the whole bunch, it`s quite obvious that none of these radars, either USN or KM had very short range, and the main limitation of that was NOT the quality of the radar sets (where the Allied late-war developments with their centrimetric wavelenght had obvious advantage). It was a limitatio resulting from the very basic fact that radar is a line-of-sight device, and thus is limited by the angle of the Earth surface. A low-mounted radar, such as on a submarine conning tower, would be very short ranged indeed, as it would not see behind 'the hill' of Earth spheric surface. Even modern ground radars have the same range as their WW2 counterparts, ca 2-300 km, for the very same reason (+ few countries are flat, hills blocking the LOS etc.). Of course, they have better resolution.

PS : I see Capt.LoneRanger adressed the issue very well already, I don`t think much needed to be added.

On the other hand, radar is simply dwarfed by passive sonar in range for a submarine. The best WW2 submarine radars, due to their low mounting position, had a detection range of about 10 km vs a surface vessel. Hydrophones, even those mounted on noisier surface vessels otoh could detect individual ship`s screw noise up to TWICE that range, ca. 20 km distance. Larger groups of ships, such as convoys, were detected out to 40 km distance. Bearing could be rather accurately given, though range not (could be estimated though if the operator was experienced). Plus, it would never give away your position.

Modern subs, which much improved radar and sonar system, rely almost exclusively on passive sonar.


Radar was one of the key technologies of the war (and it still is). The Allied advantage in radar was key in defeating a submarine offensive in the Atlantic,

True that radar ASW detection was intrumental, but that advantage was always timely countered by radar warning devices on the other side, which gave enough warning to the sub to dive and evade. What made the subs life difficult was the omnipresent long range maritime patrol aircraft. This was countered by the Schnorkel, eventually.

An interesting what-if is to stipulate how long those big, slow to dive, lacking radar warning systems, radar air-searching (=HERE I AM!!!) US Fleet boats, lacking potent AAA would survive in an Atlantic enviroment.


and in its own submarine offensive being so successful in the Pacific.

Compared to the claim that radar would have been so important for a sub to successfully operate, the U-boots managed to sink about 6 million GRTs alone in 1942, largely without radar. That`s actually more than what the Fleet boats would sink during the whole war in the Pacific, with radar and all.

As noted, passive and active sonar is way more effective for a submarine. As for the submarine offensive in the Pacific, it was rather despite the technological qualities of the USN boats - just happened to read about the insane troubles of their torpedoes which bugged them even towards the end of 1943. Magnetic pistons didn`t work. Contact pistons`s didn`t work either. Torpedoes running too deep. Torpedoes running in cirles, and coming back to you. Torpedoes blowing up prematurely, either blowing you up or giving away your attack. The warhead of the torpedoes themselves, even in the unlikely case of detonating correctly, was hopelessly small. There was no electronic torpedoesat, until they copy cated a German e-Torpedo, which was very buggy in service initially. No acoustic torpedoes against escorts until very late in the war. No anti-sonar or anti-radar coatings. No snorkel. AA of the boats was varied between joke (.30 MGs and .50s on the bridge, which had to be fitted first) to that of poor, comparable to the KM subs in 1940. Too much radio transmissions that were orders giving away Fleet subs to the Japanese. And so on.

Frankly, starting a campaign before 1943-44 in SH4 would be nothing but frustration, especically if the torpedo problems modelled as they were.

joeap
02-25-2007, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Frankly, starting a campaign before 1943-44 in SH4 would be nothing but frustration, especically if the torpedo problems modelled as they were.

I hope that UBI doesn't "game balance" it in that case, they better make torpedo reliability an option for the gamers and let us simmers enjoy the frustration. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

One comment, I think active sonar was/is also risky for subs.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-25-2007, 06:56 AM
Mrs Nakajima, I was a RADAR-operator during my service time, so I know quite a bit about the basics, the technology and the history myself first-hand.

In WW2, the scanned bands and the usage of new bands was always a hunt for the little advantage, just like the encryption-technology was.

For your advantage I assume you mixed up bands and frequencies. Transmitters and receivers had certain bands, not set frequencies. That would have been ridiculous, indeed, as wavelength can vary due to atmospheric interferences. Planes, however used such a technology and had preset available.

It is true, however, that you only can recieve frequencies which your receiver and your antenna are able to detect. You're making another little mistake here: You're speaking about history!

The ships and submarines at that time didn't use the RADAR, because they had no books to read which wavelength the enemy could detect in what month or by what unit and if this unit was in the area. Therefore your complete argumentation bites itself in the a$$.

BTW: Task-Forces for the NATO still have the doctrine to remain radio-silence in case of an unknown threat. That is true for sea, but especially for air-units. But there you make another mistake, as this doctrine is largely disregarded, as e.g. for the US-fleet in the middle-east, there is simply no threat for them, with evenly sophisticated hardware or dangerous stand-off-weapons.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-25-2007, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Frankly, starting a campaign before 1943-44 in SH4 would be nothing but frustration, especically if the torpedo problems modelled as they were.

It was allready confirmed the torpedo-problems were modelled in SH4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

joeap
02-25-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Frankly, starting a campaign before 1943-44 in SH4 would be nothing but frustration, especically if the torpedo problems modelled as they were.

It was allready confirmed the torpedo-problems were modelled in SH4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

RocketDog
02-25-2007, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
It is true, however, that you only can recieve frequencies which your receiver and your antenna are able to detect. You're making another little mistake here: You're speaking about history!

The ships and submarines at that time didn't use the RADAR, because they had no books to read which wavelength the enemy could detect in what month or by what unit and if this unit was in the area. Therefore your complete argumentation bites itself in the a$$.


Hang on, isn't that exactly what he said, that during WWII radar detectors were crude and the U-boats were caught out by the Allies using unexpected frequencies? From memory, wasn't centimetric radar used for some time by the Allies before the Germans twigged to its use? As for talking about history, I thought we were talking about WWII technology. Your post has left me a bit confused http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Cheers,

RD.

NIUEAN_WARRIOR
02-25-2007, 07:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
02-25-2007, 07:45 AM
I know, RocketDog. It is confusing, because he arguments, that U-Boats were safe to use RADAR, because they themselves had difficulties detecting the enemy RADAR, while Kurfurst and I try to make obvious, that each emission has the danger of being intercepted, especially in the fog of war.

leitmotiv
02-25-2007, 08:02 AM
The primary effect of Allied air/sea radar was to limit the tactical mobility of the U-boats by keeping them submerged and unable to search or catch discovered convoys. Sinkings were a big bonus. Since WWII submarines were merely submersibles rather than true undersea vessels, this imposed a huge liability on them until the appearance of the Type XXIs and XXIIIs in 1945. These boats still had to snorkel for high speed underwater and the snorkel was visible to radar.

Blutarski2004
02-25-2007, 08:39 AM
Let's be clear about what detection equipment could and could not do.

WW2 hydrophones (passive sonar) could only provide a broad general target bearing and no range estimate beyond a SWAG. They had good range though under proper listening conditions.

WW2 active sonars could provide good bearing and range estimates, but were limited to about 2,000 yards range - and often less in heavy seas.

radar detectors would provide either a general non-directional alert or a general threat quadrant, depending upon receiver/antenna design. They were band-specific and range-limited, depending upon the height of the patrolling a/c. In any case, 3 out of 4 alerts given by German submarine radar detectors proved to be false alarms.

Whatever the theories propunded here, sub-mounted surface search radar was an effective tool in the Pacific. Radar emissions make the emitter vulnerable only if the opponent is able to detect them. And if radar emissions make the presence of the sub known, the radar also alerts the sub to any approaching escorts.

Later in the war, US subs werew able to take a page from US DD tactics and successfully execute totally blind-fire torpedo attacks based strictly upon course/bearing data obtained by radar.

As for torpedo problems, keep in mind that the old US S-boats were still using the equally old Mk 8 torpedoes, which worked fine. It was the Mk 13/14/15 torpedoes which displayed the frustrating problems. To be sure, there were not vast numbers of S-boats at sea, but they did render good service in the early war years.

Kurfurst__
02-25-2007, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The primary effect of Allied air/sea radar was to limit the tactical mobility of the U-boats by keeping them submerged and unable to search or catch discovered convoys. Sinkings were a big bonus. Since WWII submarines were merely submersibles rather than true undersea vessels, this imposed a huge liability on them until the appearance of the Type XXIs and XXIIIs in 1945. These boats still had to snorkel for high speed underwater and the snorkel was visible to radar.

Snorkel was introduced in large numbers of the older VII and XI boats as well - in fact, first - not only the modern XXIs and xXIIIs.

Latern on, Schnorkel was painted with a sort of a radar absorbing paint, and passive radar warning devices were fitted to the Schnorkel to warn against aircraft radar.

Blutarski2004
02-25-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The primary effect of Allied air/sea radar was to limit the tactical mobility of the U-boats by keeping them submerged and unable to search or catch discovered convoys. Sinkings were a big bonus. Since WWII submarines were merely submersibles rather than true undersea vessels, this imposed a huge liability on them until the appearance of the Type XXIs and XXIIIs in 1945. These boats still had to snorkel for high speed underwater and the snorkel was visible to radar.

Snorkel was introduced in large numbers of the older VII and XI boats as well - in fact, first - not only the modern XXIs and xXIIIs.

Latern on, Schnorkel was painted with a sort of a radar absorbing paint, and passive radar warning devices were fitted to the Schnorkel to warn against aircraft radar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The "Schnorkel" valve device was first tested in Aug 43 (U57 & U58); the collapsible air-mast in Sep 43 (U235 & U236). 20 units for VIIC were ordered in Aug 43; 100 more for VIIC plus 40 for IXC/IXD in Sep 43.

In Sep 43 it was ordered that new construction be fitted with Schnorkel as quickly as possible, but production was very slow until summer of 44. As a result, it was decided in early 44 to give priority in fitting Schnorkels to operational boats, then other service boats, then lastly new production. U264 was the first operational boat to go to sea with the Schorkel in Feb 44.

As of Apr 44, the following boats had been fitted with Schnorkels:

St Nazaire - U264, U269, U575, U667.
Lorient - U107, U530, U543, U547.
La Pallice - U275, U953.
Brest - U984.
Bordeaux - U180, U195.
Toulon - U642.

Home yard GW - U235, U236, U237, U241, U1051, U1053, U1054.
Home yard DKW - U490, U719, U743, U191.

plus "a few boats at othr yards which had not submitted a report"

By mid-June 44, Home Yard B&V had received a total of 14 Schnorkel kits for VIIC, of which 6 kits had been installed into U978, U998, U1019, U1020, U1021 and U1022. Another 3 kits were destined for installation into U979, U1023, and U1024.

It was not until summer of 1944 that meaningful numbers of Schorkel-equipped U-boats were actually in operational service.

While it was a welcome development in certain respects, especially in avoiding air attack through continuous submerged operation, use of the Schnorkel had several important operational limitations: (1) it could not safely be employed in heavy seas; (2) the underwater cruising speed of the submarine was limited to about 5-6 knots.

Compared to a fully surfaced transit time to and from Atlantic patrol zones of 30 hours, transit time for a submerged Schnorkel boat was 75 hours. Although a large improvement over submerged transits by non-Schnorkel boats (125 hours each way), it still represented a loss of nearly four days from time on station. This was one subtle but nevertheless important effect produced by aircraft patrol over the Bay of Biscay.

Tactically, the Schnorkel was a defensively oriented system. So long as the boat was operating under Schnorkel, it was realistically immune from detection by radar. But the 6 knot speed of a boat cruising under Schnorkel made it impossible to act offensively. The U-boat still had to surface in order make sufficient speed to intercept a convoy or sprint ahead into a suitable attack position. When doing so, the boat once again became vulnerable to discovery and attack by patrol aircraft.

In sum, the Schnorkel was a valuable tool for survival, but did nothing to enhance the attack efficiency of the U-boat.

Scharnhorst1943
02-25-2007, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi Scharni,

I have both patch files but neither will install. I know SH3 is an awesome game but I also know it's software is full of flaws.

I did throw a few mods in which made things a little more interesting, especially the skins. But my biggest problem now is getting my torpedos into the boat. When I click on them they disappear and don't get loaded. I know the patch is supposed to fix that problem but the patch won't install into even a fresh out of the box install.

Thanks for the offer though.

As for GWX, from my understanding, you are best to reinstall SH3 and patch up to 1.4b, then install GWX.

Actually, I did this already and the bugger STILL won't install. Right now I don't care how good of a mod it is. IT does me no good with a broken installer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-25-2007, 05:49 PM
Hi Scharni,

did you download the program used for confirming the files were complete? On one site they offered this so it's possible there's been a lot of incomplete downloads.

I spent days downloading Gentoo. They offered a program to confirm the file was complete and fully intact. I didn't bother, thinking GetRight was enough. The results were days of downloading and a waste of time. I should've confirmed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-25-2007, 06:10 PM
Hey guys,

having spent 5 years on the sea, in the N.Atlantic, I have limited experience with modern radar.

Although I haven't read everything written in this thread I can simple add two points. First, there is no way a snorkel could be detected when there are white caps. You can have whitecaps with as little as half meter waves. I hated being at the helm at night in certain conditions involving white caps. Some of them seemed to be other small boats while sometimes small boat didn't really show up. Thankfully we have lights. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Secondly, a boat that stands 3 meters above the water been seen after about 10nm due to the curviture of the Earth. Of course a conning tower is much taller than 3 meters.

Something I may have missed but I think is totally logical, it that a destroyer can detect radar signals from a u-boat at a greater distance that a u-boat from a destroyer. Why? Simple, the destroyer is much higher our of the water. Because of the hieght difference the destroyer could be slightly out of detection range of the u-boat while the u-boat was inside the detection range of the destroyer. Consider this with the curviture of the Earth and you'll see the u-boats were taking a lot of risk by using their radar.

The destroyer could easily coordinate an air attack on the u-boat and catch them by surprise.

BTW, I recently read an article about modern sub accidents. After reading this thread I wonder if we have so many accidents with modern sub technology and so few subs, I wonder how many sub involved accidents happened during the war.

Just my 2 cents. Keep the change. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fork-N-spoon
02-25-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/USS_Paddle%3B0826305.jpg
USN Gato Class submarine.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type7.jpg
KM Type VII submarine.

I agree that the size difference is nominal. The German submarines are smaller, but the photos used deceptively cause the American boat to look much larger than the German boat.

Consider the following observations that I've made:

The American boat is photographed close to the water line looking up; this causes the subject to look larger.

The German boat is photographed from above looking down; this caused the subject to look smaller than what it is.

The American boat is photographed from a shallow oblique angle. This causes the subject to look taller and fatter.

The German boat is photographed from more of a right angle. This causes the subject to look long, shorter, and skinny.

Scharnhorst1943
02-25-2007, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi Scharni,

did you download the program used for confirming the files were complete? On one site they offered this so it's possible there's been a lot of incomplete downloads.

I spent days downloading Gentoo. They offered a program to confirm the file was complete and fully intact. I didn't bother, thinking GetRight was enough. The results were days of downloading and a waste of time. I should've confirmed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Nah, after a little toil I got it to work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. I have not played with it yet but it works and it looks INCREADABLE!!!!!
I can't wait to try out the campaign, however it may be awhile as I am horendously busy at the moment ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

RocketDog
02-26-2007, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Tactically, the Schnorkel was a defensively oriented system. So long as the boat was operating under Schnorkel, it was realistically immune from detection by radar. But the 6 knot speed of a boat cruising under Schnorkel made it impossible to act offensively.

Good stuff. It's also woth noting that running with a snorkel prevented the passive acoustic sensors on the boat from working effectively because of the noise of the diesel engines.

Cheers,

RD.

leitmotiv
02-26-2007, 02:19 AM
Allied radar could detect a snorkeling U-boat. The best tactics for late-war U-boats were to engage the escorts with homing torpedoes (and hope they were not deploying the countermeasure which decoyed the torp away from the ship's screws), try to sink or disrupt them, and then roar after the merchants. Only the Type XXI had the underwater snorkeling speed to do this.

joeap
02-26-2007, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Allied radar could detect a snorkeling U-boat.

I think radar on surface ships could.

Blutarski2004
02-26-2007, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by RocketDog:
It's also woth noting that running with a snorkel prevented the passive acoustic sensors on the boat from working effectively because of the noise of the diesel engines.


..... A point I had not been aware of. But it makes perfect sense to me. Thanks, RD.

Pirschjaeger
02-26-2007, 05:47 AM
Wouldn't the diesels be much louder than the electrics? If so, a hydrophone could easily pick up a snorkeling sub than a sub running on electrics.

Believe it or not there are many days that the sea is as calm and smooth as glass. I hated these days. Sound also travels quite well and uninterrupted. I believe this might have been a bit of a dangerous time to run the snorkel.

Another thing to consider. Do you guys think the snorkel would have created enough of a wake that could be detected by radar?

If I were a u-boat captain, I'd be more worried about being detected by planes.

Pirschjaeger
02-26-2007, 05:48 AM
Hi Scharni,

I'd be happy just to get the patches to install. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
02-26-2007, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RocketDog:
It's also woth noting that running with a snorkel prevented the passive acoustic sensors on the boat from working effectively because of the noise of the diesel engines.

..... A point I had not been aware of. But it makes perfect sense to me. Thanks, RD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like an armchair theory. The noise probably reduced their effectiveness, but I don`t see if it`s a real factor. If the sub was travelling on the surface in the casual manner, the surface waves etc. and that was also with a diesel engine working. Was already disturbing, reducing range etc. Still making detection was possible.Many KM surface ships, even capital ships carried acoustic sensors and were quite effective with it - Prinz Eugen detected Hood`s aircscres from 20 nautical miles away in 1941. I would believe that being a few meters below surface while schnorkeling the listeing conditions would actually improve compared to a surface cruise with the diesels working in both cases.

In either way, diesels and engines make a blind spot behind the ship, not in the front arc where the acoustic listeners were mounted (on the lower side of the sub, slightly behind the torp tubes on both sides, plus a seperate rotating device on the top of the sub bow.

Blutarski2004
02-26-2007, 07:18 AM
Two other Schnorkel operational issues -

Cruising submerged on diesels doubled fuel consumption.

Running submerged under diesels made the sub very noisy and therefore highly detectable by hydrophone (passive sonar).

These points both mentioned by C Blair in his "Hitler's U-Boat War", Vol 2.

Blutarski2004
02-26-2007, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RocketDog:
It's also woth noting that running with a snorkel prevented the passive acoustic sensors on the boat from working effectively because of the noise of the diesel engines.

..... A point I had not been aware of. But it makes perfect sense to me. Thanks, RD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like an armchair theory. The noise probably reduced their effectiveness, but I don`t see if it`s a real factor. If the sub was travelling on the surface in the casual manner, the surface waves etc. and that was also with a diesel engine working. Was already disturbing, reducing range etc. Still making detection was possible.Many KM surface ships, even capital ships carried acoustic sensors and were quite effective with it - Prinz Eugen detected Hood`s aircscres from 20 nautical miles away in 1941. I would believe that being a few meters below surface while schnorkeling the listeing conditions would actually improve compared to a surface cruise with the diesels working in both cases.

In either way, diesels and engines make a blind spot behind the ship, not in the front arc where the acoustic listeners were mounted (on the lower side of the sub, slightly behind the torp tubes on both sides, plus a seperate rotating device on the top of the sub bow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It seems that Schnorkeling did prevent hydrophone use. Got this from Hyperwar -

quote -

U-boat seeing and hearing:
Schnorchel cruising blinded and deafened the U-boat. At the same time it made the U-boat more dependent than ever upon periscope and hydrophones. It was necessary to interrupt schnorcheling, for frequent periscope and hydrophone sweeps.

- unquote


Go here -

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Ultra/SRH-009/SRH009-5.html

- for further details on an assessment of the Schnorkel. It was generally considered a quite useful device which rejuvenated the U-Boat arm to a considerable degree. But it did also have its drawbacks.

RocketDog
02-26-2007, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Sounds like an armchair theory. The noise probably reduced their effectiveness, but I don`t see if it`s a real factor.

I read about this in Blair's definitive histories, "Hitler's U-boat war", vols I and II. However, you are still partly right, in that I was sitting in my armchair when I did so.

Blair has a number of unflattering things to say about the snorkel that make it clear it did not live up to its promise.

IIRC, Blair argues that advances in Allied technology and operations completely overwhelmed the advances (like the snorkel) fielded by the U-boats. In fact, for most of the war the boats were not much more advanced than their WWI predecessors. Against this the key Allied advances were:

1. Radar. Various systems, but the cavity magnetron allowed high-powered centimetric radars ideal for hunting U-boats. The German decsion to concentrate on klystrons is one reason why German radar lagged behind Allied systems in capability throughout most of the war.

2. Code-breaking. Now famous, but perhaps over-rated.

3. Ship-based HF/DF systems. The Germans did not believe HF/DF sets could be mounted on ships, but the Allies did so and the U-boats did not adopt the tactics necessary to defeat them.

4. Acoustic sensors. Sonars got bettter and the marriage of acoustic detectors to an air-dropped torpedo proved very effective (the MK IV mine).

5. Operational analysis. This is often overlooked but was perhaps the most important of all. Essentially, the Allies harnessed the power of their scientific community to make the best use of existing weapons as well as to develop new ones. From memory, Blackett said he did not want to be involved in "technical midwifery". The armed forces always wanted better weapons. Blackett and Williams showed them how to better use the ones they had.

Against this the German advances were either largely reactive, such as various radar detectors, or did not arrive in time, as with the Type XXI boats. By the end of the war it had all become rather one sided.

RD.

Mr_Nakajima
02-26-2007, 02:57 PM
Thinking about U-boat radar made me go and have a look at some of my library or books on the subject of the Battle of the Atlantic, and I must admit that having re-read some of them I have been forced to revise my opinion of German U-boat radars somewhat.

They were actually worse than I gave them credit for, and much fewer in number.

The following two pages are taken from The Battle of the Atlantic 1939-1945', which is a series of 36 papers presented at a conference in Liverpool marking the 50th anniversary of the campaign. Niestle holds a technical PhD from the University of Berlin and, at the time of the conference, had already produced several monographs on Type VIIC and Type IXC U-boats.

The previous sentence mentions how no thought had been given to radar initially as the U-boats had been so successful without it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/U-boatradar1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Mr_Nakajima/U-boatradar2.jpg

Mr_Nakajima
02-26-2007, 03:14 PM
Gunter Hessler, in the study quoted some way back, mentions the first two operational boats to use the snorkel. U-264 was lost before she could report. U-575 radioed back a report before she to was sunk. Her commander...

considered that it was impractical to operate schnorkel in an area where a submarine hunt was in progress, because the din of the diesels made listening impossible. There was also a danger that the schnorkel exhaust fumes might be located, or the sound of the boat itself picked up at long range'.

fordfan25
02-26-2007, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/USS_Paddle%3B0826305.jpg
USN Gato Class submarine.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type7.jpg
KM Type VII submarine.

I agree that the size difference is nominal. The German submarines are smaller, but the photos used deceptively cause the American boat to look much larger than the German boat.

Consider the following observations that I've made:

The American boat is photographed close to the water line looking up; this causes the subject to look larger.

The German boat is photographed from above looking down; this caused the subject to look smaller than what it is.

The American boat is photographed from a shallow oblique angle. This causes the subject to look taller and fatter.

The German boat is photographed from more of a right angle. This causes the subject to look long, shorter, and skinny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>also that apears to be a type Vll . to be fair the larger ocean going german boats should be compaired to the gato. but a nice attempt anyway

Marcel_Albert
02-26-2007, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
GWX add-on sounds interesting for SH3, but what put me off, and I may be wrong with this, was the fact that you couldn't change the video resolution from 1024x768.....did they ever fix this?

MysticPuma , sure mate , you can play in high resolutions like 1680X1050 or more with Silent Hunter III , but it is quite complicated to do so , you have to use the Microsoft Compatiblity Toolkit 4.1 , install a file named d3d9.cfg and follow a procedure .

The problem here , is that i don't recall this procedure with Toolkit 4.1 , i've done it a long time ago , i had found it on a french forum and now the thread is impossible to find among the tons of infos in that hardware.fr huge forum .

I hope someone can tell if he knows it , that would be kind .

RocketDog
02-27-2007, 03:59 AM
(my original reply seems to have vanished)

Here is how to change the resolution. It took me about 5 minutes and the instructions in the link are idiot-proof. Running it in 1600 x 1200 makes it look so much better. Add in all the new ships etc from GWX and it's like a new game. The only mod I have made is to restore the water to its original transparency. It's unrealistic but very cool to be able to watch the Hedgehogs rain down on your head.

http://www.communitymanuals.com/shiii/index.php?title=Display_Resolution

Cheers,

RD.

woofiedog
02-27-2007, 04:39 AM
RocketDog... Thank's for the link... some Very Good information at the site for SHIII.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-27-2007, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/USS_Paddle%3B0826305.jpg
USN Gato Class submarine.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type7.jpg
KM Type VII submarine.

I agree that the size difference is nominal. The German submarines are smaller, but the photos used deceptively cause the American boat to look much larger than the German boat.

Consider the following observations that I've made:

The American boat is photographed close to the water line looking up; this causes the subject to look larger.

The German boat is photographed from above looking down; this caused the subject to look smaller than what it is.

The American boat is photographed from a shallow oblique angle. This causes the subject to look taller and fatter.

The German boat is photographed from more of a right angle. This causes the subject to look long, shorter, and skinny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>also that apears to be a type Vll . to be fair the larger ocean going german boats should be compaired to the gato. but a nice attempt anyway </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Honestly, even the Type IXD2 42 is about 5m shorter than the Standard-Gato, the typical Type IX is only 76m long, which is about 15m shorter than the Standard-Gato. The Type VIIc above is 66m long, making it 25m meters shorter than the Gato on the picture, which is surely not due to different camera positions. Besides that, the Gato comes further up out of the water than the VIIc, also nicely shown on the pictures above.

So, any of Type VII or Type IX are smaller than the Gato and we're also not speaking of the largest US sub here. That is probably the Narwhal-Class, with a 113m length and 4050 displacement tons dived. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Of course you might also say, that the turret is the largest part of the boat and compare the VII C 41-Turret with 2xVierlingsflak with the Gato, as it was done before, but this is not really fair, either, as this was no standard-turret. With the same reasoning, you could name the Whale-Turret for the Gato, which basically looked like modern turrets, completely enclosed and longer and higher than the standard Gato-turret.

Besides that, I still don't understand what the length of the boat and the diameter of the guns say about the quality of the boat? They had completely different operational aims and were equipped very differently. I just don't get this 'mine is better than yours'-thing on this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Marcel_Albert
02-27-2007, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by RocketDog:
(my original reply seems to have vanished)

Here is how to change the resolution. It took me about 5 minutes and the instructions in the link are idiot-proof. Running it in 1600 x 1200 makes it look so much better. Add in all the new ships etc from GWX and it's like a new game. The only mod I have made is to restore the water to its original transparency. It's unrealistic but very cool to be able to watch the Hedgehogs rain down on your head.

http://www.communitymanuals.com/shiii/index.php?title=Display_Resolution

Cheers,

RD.


Thank you Rocket Dog , that's kind of you , hopefully , people that own the game and couldn't figure out how to get it work at high rez will read your post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mr_Nakajima
02-27-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
It is true, however, that you only can recieve frequencies which your receiver and your antenna are able to detect. You're making another little mistake here: You're speaking about history!

The ships and submarines at that time didn't use the RADAR, because they had no books to read which wavelength the enemy could detect in what month or by what unit and if this unit was in the area. Therefore your complete argumentation bites itself in the a$$.

Hello Capt. LoneRanger,

I happily bow to your knowledge of modern radar as I have not worked with the Navy for a few years now.

But I am, as you point out, speaking about history, and historically I think you are wrong on a number of points. I also think that you are projecting modern capabilities backwards to a period when they were far less practical, such as triangulating received radar signals at sea or calculating a speed and course from received signals the usual tactic was to send an escort running down a bearing given by Huff Duff to see what it could find. I do not know of any examples of the Allies doing this, but I could be wrong.

Ships and submarines in WW2 did use radar, and often, especially escorts in the Atlantic. During this period radars and their detectors were frequently mis-aligned. For example, German radar receivers were effective only for the periods August 42 - February 43 and March - June 1944, at all other times much of the Allied radar spectrum was invisible to them. So Allied warships were quite safe using theirs, and, given their role, using radar to detect submarines was more useful than staying silent with it even if it was being detected.

The Americans showed what use could be made of submarine radar in the Pacific even after Japanese capital ships and escorts were equipped with radar detectors. Radar could still be used very effectively, but it would be used for short periods and then switched off while the submarine acted according to what its radar had told it. This is why the USN increased the amount of radar carried by its submarines as the war progressed rather than decreasing it.

Effective German submarine radar could have been useful in at least two ways.

Firstly, especially during the long transits to and from the front it would have given them sufficient warning of approaching aircraft to submerge. Numerous U-boats were caught on the surface and destroyed because the first thing they knew of an approaching aircraft was when it roared overhead, an aircraft which their passive sensors had failed to detect but a effective radar would have done, even if the radar had lured the aircraft to the U-boat I the first place. Allied aircraft never carried radar detectors but instead relied on radars. American air search radar gave their submarines that ability and comparatively few were thus caught.

Radar also gave submarines better information than passive detectors. When the Germans introduced Hohentweil in 1944 they found that that the radar detectors, which only gave a bearing, were if anything too sensitive. U-boats were crash-diving and staying underwater for some time to avoid aircraft which the active radar showed were flying past, having failed to detect the U-boat.

Secondly, a good search radar would have expanded the horizon in which a U-boat could detect ships, especially at night. Had the Allies then fitted radar detectors to their escorts (my information is that they never did due to the paucity of German submarine radars) the Germans could have used the same tactics as the Americans successfully used to avoid being caught. The advantage of knowing exactly what is around you, where and how far, is a huge one and it also allows you to take avoiding action. Remember that in WW2 being detected did not mean that a few seconds later a missile would be heading towards you; weapons were much shorter ranged and aircraft much slower. A submarine that gave its position away by using its radar to a destroyer, say 12 nm away, could either switch off its own radar and run at high speed on the surface (the preferred USN tactic) or dive and be very deep by the time that the escort arrived at its original position.

As an aside, note that contrary to your initial post that German radars were intended to detect surface targets the limited arc of the FuMo 29 made it suitable only for that - see Niestle's article which I posted.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-27-2007, 04:29 PM
God, please not again...

1st misconception:
I never stated it was dangerous for allied convoys to use radar. Infact I stated the exact contrary: For the superior force, it is always easier to use radar. I named the example of DesertStorm or some war like that, where radar is of course and advantage. Same is for the convoys, as they could start countermeasures as soon as a submarine was detected.

BUT! For a submarine to use this, it's a completely different thing. The ships in a convoy were better equipped and larger, thus able to house a different array of equipment.


2nd misconception:
I think you expect a great deal of electronics to be neccessary to detect radar. That is not true. It does not take much more than a receiver equipped with an antenna and a circuit to receive the bands used. For a small example: Look at the P38 modell in IL2. On the P38 you'll see small antennas on the right tail-section. These are radar-warning-receivers and they were introduced quite early - this is no SciFi or something.


3rd misconception:
To detect position, speed and course of a target, you need 2 receivers, a clock and a pencil - no Cray-super-computer or F16-TWR-Radar. If a singal is received from 2 positions, you draw 2 lines for each direction for each receiver. Where the lines cross, is the emitter. If you receive the signal again, you repeat it. Now you just need the time between the signals and have the course and speed and using the standard tactical-navigation-charts, which are basically almost 100 years old, you even can just read off interception course at given speeds. No magic, no missiles, just a little trigonometry.
The same technique was the dangerous part of the Wolfpacks - when reporting the contact, the boats gave away their own position. The same system was modelled in SH2 and DC and it gave me a lot of free sub-kills in my DD, as the sub-skippers didn't realize chatting was modelled as radio signals - LOL.


Well, if you think EloKa (German for EW) was invented in modern times, I suggest you go here for a short read. Gives you a little insight in how easy it was to detect radar and how easily it was deceived and used against the emitter:
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz_08.html#m4



Sorry, don't get that last sentence. Are you saying I said it was used only for aircraft detection? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

RocketDog
02-28-2007, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
2nd misconception:
I think you expect a great deal of electronics to be neccessary to detect radar. That is not true. It does not take much more than a receiver equipped with an antenna and a circuit to receive the bands used. For a small example: Look at the P38 modell in IL2. On the P38 you'll see small antennas on the right tail-section. These are radar-warning-receivers and they were introduced quite early - this is no SciFi or something.

You're getting mixed up here. The point isn't the physical size of radar detectors. The point is that the German U-boats didn't realise that the Allies were using centimetric radar at all. In fact, during the Bay of Biscay campaign the RAF actually flew missions with aircraft carrying the earlier 1.5 m radar precisely because they knew the boats would detect it continue to think that was all they faced.

Cheers,

RD.

Blutarski2004
02-28-2007, 09:44 AM
The success of HF/DF (high-frequency direction-finding) was founded upon several factors -

1. The Germans did not believe that high frequency direction finding equipment could be successfully adapted for ship-borne use.

2. They Germans did believe that their highly compressed and therefore extremely short burst-transmission techniques made it impossible for their communications to be DF'ed.

3. Since transmissions were being made by surfaced U-boats, sending a DD or escort vessel down the DF azimuth vastly improved the chances of obtaining either a radar contact.

As for German sub-borne radars, their detection ranges under service conditions were much less than those obtained under test conditions. The early versions had fixed antenna arrays on the face of the conning tower, making it necessary to physically turn the boat through 360 degrees in order to obtain a complete sweep. Later antennae still required manual rotation. And German subs (like their surface ship counterparts) were leery of operating their radar for fear that its emissions would reveal their presence to the enemy.

It is my opinion that effective surface and air search radars would have greatly enhanced both the combat effectiveness and the survivability of the German U-boat fleet.

joeap
02-28-2007, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

2. They Germans did believe that their highly compressed and therefore extremely short burst-transmission techniques made it impossible for their communications to be DF'ed.



Didn't know about this, could you elaborate Blutarski?

Mysticpuma2003
02-28-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by RocketDog:
(my original reply seems to have vanished)

Here is how to change the resolution. It took me about 5 minutes and the instructions in the link are idiot-proof. Running it in 1600 x 1200 makes it look so much better. Add in all the new ships etc from GWX and it's like a new game. The only mod I have made is to restore the water to its original transparency. It's unrealistic but very cool to be able to watch the Hedgehogs rain down on your head.

http://www.communitymanuals.com/shiii/index.php?title=Display_Resolution

Cheers,

RD.

Excellent Post, thanks for taking the time to post the info. and also Marcel_Albert.

I will have to try it again (SH3), as I dearly loved it when I installed it, but the graphics just disappointed me too much.

I know, it should be gameplay that games are for, but it's a bit like looking at a female version of Steven Hawking....you know the programming is good, but you wouldn't want to look at it all day!

I must have missed the info on the GWX mod, even though I saw it quoted, does it increase textures and models? If not, what does it actually do?

Cheers, MP.

BTW, was amazed that it can be bought for 5 now, if that's not a bargain, what is?

Capt.LoneRanger
02-28-2007, 11:47 AM
You're getting mixed up here. The point isn't the physical size of radar detectors. The point is that the German U-boats didn't realise that the Allies were using centimetric radar at all. In fact, during the Bay of Biscay campaign the RAF actually flew missions with aircraft carrying the earlier 1.5 m radar precisely because they knew the boats would detect it continue to think that was all they faced.

Cheers,

RD.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ?


The initial point was, that Kurfurst stated radar was more or less a "gimmick" for submarines, as they were not sure wether it was more helping them to detect a ship or convoy, or if it rather gave away the submarines position.

It was then stated, that this kind of detection was rather difficult and very rarely done, due to lack of systems to detect these emissions and after a length discussion, I posted the link above, with historical data, that it was very well possible to detect enemy radar, as they even shared frequency bands.

The thing about the size was only a reply to that "impossible to do due to lack of complex RWR-systems", as it was stated they were unpracticable, etc.

Blutarski2004
02-28-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

2. They Germans did believe that their highly compressed and therefore extremely short burst-transmission techniques made it impossible for their communications to be DF'ed.



Didn't know about this, could you elaborate Blutarski? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The longer the duration of a radio transmission, the better the chance of obtaining a good directional fix. The Germans developed a method of tapping out a message, then transmitting it out at a very accelerated rate (like playing a 33rpm record at 78rpm) which greatly reduced transmission time. It was also unintelligible to the unprepared ear as a message unless recorded and played back at the normal slower speed.

joeap
02-28-2007, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:


I must have missed the info on the GWX mod, even though I saw it quoted, does it increase textures and models? If not, what does it actually do?



I posted the links and you can download the manual separately, in a nutshell yes many graphic improvements but also gameplay and realism (including very realistic AI).

RocketDog
02-28-2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
It was then stated, that this kind of detection was rather difficult and very rarely done, due to lack of systems to detect these emissions and after a length discussion, I posted the link above, with historical data, that it was very well possible to detect enemy radar, as they even shared frequency bands.

Radar detectors were indeed possible, but since the Germans didn't initially believe that they were facing centimetric radar they initially built no detectors for centimetric radar. Even when the threat was recognised, there were significant delays in fielding a working detector. The use of 10 cm airborne radar played a key part in the Bay of Biscay campaign of May 1943, but IIRC it wasn't until November that the boats began to receive the Naxos-U centimetric radar detector.

RD.

Vipez-
03-04-2007, 10:46 AM
Check this out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0CZNMtrhoM)

msalama
03-04-2007, 11:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yeah, someone's into modifying their SH3 a bit it seems...

R_Target
03-04-2007, 11:39 AM
!

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3065/flyfishsf8.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

leitmotiv
03-04-2007, 01:23 PM
That was truly hilarious.

VF-17_BOOM
03-04-2007, 02:35 PM
Haaaahaaaaaaa......gives a whole new meaning to blowing the tanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
btw...SHIV went GOLD!!!

Lucius_Esox
03-04-2007, 03:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The soundtrack fitted perfectly,, gotta love the net..

BillyTheKid_22
03-04-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Check this out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0CZNMtrhoM)



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Lol!!!

woofiedog
03-04-2007, 03:25 PM
Cool flick! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/ScreenShot008-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/ScreenShot002.jpg

capt_frank
03-04-2007, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_BOOM:
btw...SHIV went GOLD!!!

That is most excellent news!!! Confirmed over at SUBSIM!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Tater-SW-
03-04-2007, 03:56 PM
I might actually get this one (I had no desire to sink allied ships so I didn't buy sh3). OTOH, the PTO might be a poor setting because the USN SS force actually did what the KM wished they could do. They utterly destroyed japanese commerce (vs the 1-2% convoyed ship losses the allies faced to the -boats).

The IJN had poor ASW doctrine and almost no ASW capability. They didn't convoy ships til late in the war, and a large japanese convoy might have 10 ships (vs hundreds in the atlantic).

As a result, to be accurate SH4 needs to have the vast majority of targets unescorted---fish in a barrel.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-04-2007, 04:13 PM
Honestly, the US subs in the PTO didn't sink that much freighters. Over 80% were sunk by aircraft.

But that is no wonder, as the submarines were tasked to attack battleships and taskgroups and for other missions like recon, rescue-missions and to drop and pick up special forces.

Besides that, the IJN had some great capabilities against submarines. Besides the quite early introduced sonar- and radar-systems, the IJN had the leading role in detecting and locating radio-(and radar)-transmissions.

While you are correct about the unprotected targets, SH4 is confirmed to be sending you out against well armed and protected task-forces and to participate in all major sea-battles and landing operations. Of course it is up to you, wether you prefer to sink Shampans, though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


While the KM had an easy task at the beginning and a hard time later in the war, the USN had a hard start, with largely inferior submarines (most of the early-war-subs were not rated to cross high seas), lousy torpedo-quality and vague recon-data, it will grow easier with the USN winning the upper hand.

rcocean
03-04-2007, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Honestly, the US subs in the PTO didn't sink that much freighters. Over 80% were sunk by aircraft.



Actually, US Subs sunk 60% of all merchant men. Almost 5 million tons of shipping.

The difference between KM and US Subs was the amount effort US subs spent attacking large IJN Battleships, CVs, CA, and even DDs.

One US Sub went after Japanese DD's & sunk 6 of them before going MIA.

SH4 should be more interesting since there an incredible diversity of missions and capabiliites as the war progresses.

SH3 basically had only 4 phases, Happy time 1939-1941, Hard Convoy Battles 1942- April 1943, Trying to stay alive May 1943-44, and the XXI - 1945. The XXI phase is somewhat ahistorical.

leitmotiv
03-04-2007, 07:59 PM
You, bet, and, of course, the main difference was that the USN Fleet Sub submarine blockade actually worked, unlike both of the German attempts in World Wars I and II. The submarine blockade, combined with the massive mining program of the B-29s, absolutely cut Japan off from the mainland.

MrMojok
03-04-2007, 08:14 PM
There's more:

Outgunned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUkKWxN8Sq4)

BillyTheKid_22
03-04-2007, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
There's more:

Outgunned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUkKWxN8Sq4)



Great video!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tater-SW-
03-04-2007, 08:58 PM
Not sampans. Subs likely wouldn't go after even Sugar Dogs with more than a deck gun. Fox Tare, Sugar Charlie Sugars (maybe), Sugar Baker Sugars, and bigger, sure.

Stuff like this:
http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/55MKMFK.jpg

Or this (one that got away ;-)
http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/11_MKFMK.jpg

leitmotiv
03-04-2007, 11:30 PM
Another hilarious video---reminded me of playing the demo for PANZER ELITE ACTION and blowing up dozens of German tanks with a Sherman 75!

AnaK774
03-04-2007, 11:45 PM
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3065/flyfishsf8.jpg

Hostile Sub at 3 a clock high... erm, make it 9 o clock

nice

joeap
03-05-2007, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I might actually get this one (I had no desire to sink allied ships so I didn't buy sh3). OTOH, the PTO might be a poor setting because the USN SS force actually did what the KM wished they could do. They utterly destroyed japanese commerce (vs the 1-2% convoyed ship losses the allies faced to the -boats).

The IJN had poor ASW doctrine and almost no ASW capability. They didn't convoy ships til late in the war, and a large japanese convoy might have 10 ships (vs hundreds in the atlantic).

As a result, to be accurate SH4 needs to have the vast majority of targets unescorted---fish in a barrel.

Well not so easy...Capt.LoneRanger is wrong about the number of merchants sunk and I think the problem was the dud torps used at first. Look at these links though

Japanese Escorts (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/857101043/m/6581072435)

Triangulation attack (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/857101043/m/1631005735)

True the IJN was not advanced as the RN or USN in ASW, but even so, the US submarine service was not a walk in the park.

leitmotiv
03-05-2007, 05:08 AM
The USN submarine triumph was far from a walkover---see the standard history: SILENT VICTORY by Clay Blair. Bad torpedoes until late 1943, danger of getting caught in shallow water in lucrative shipping areas, dangerous rescue patrols off Japanese-held coasts, etc. It was a risky billet. My father's boat, CHARR, was severely depth charged in 1945 by the supposedly ineffective Japanese ASW.

Vipez-
03-05-2007, 08:02 AM
Thanks for the info. I guess I have seriously underestimated Japanese DDs.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

joeap
03-05-2007, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Thanks for the info. I guess I have seriously underestimated Japanese DDs.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Don't forget, while they were not as good as the Anglo-Americans in ASW, and poor AA besides, they were without peer especially early on in surface warfare. The deadliest torpedoes of the war, the Type 93 Long Lance, and among the first to have enclosed double gun mounts.

Doug_Thompson
03-05-2007, 08:50 AM
My favorite book on the subject of the PTO sub campaign is "The Japanese Merchant Marine" which I have at home. Very descriptive.

Lousy torpedoes and bad doctrine gave U.S. submariners a bad start. Another big problem was very conservative tactics. Trained to attack very well escorted targets like battleships, American sub commanders were trained to make very safe approaches with sound bearings and minimal periscope use.

Sub skippers couldn't be retrained overnight to use surface attacks and such. Sadly, many were sacked for a lack of agressiveness. Often it was justified. Often, though, it was for fighting the way they were trained.

Aircraft did sink a lot of ships and aerial mining was extremly effective. However, that's a skewed view. By the time those attacks really achieved amazing effectiveness, the Americans had bases in range of Japanese home isles. Even coastal shipping in the home islands was in range of air attack.

A very significant exception to that was the massacre of shipping by air in New Guinea and the Solomons from about 1943 on. Damaging as that was, however, it was destructon of open ocean freighters that really made the Japanese position hopeless, and that was done by submarines.

Tater-SW-
03-05-2007, 10:01 AM
Parillo's Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2 is an awesome book, I agree.

As for their excellent DDs, that is true, but DDs were considered offensive platforms to make TT attacks, not "escorts" in the ASW sense. They were virtually never used with merchant shipping---partially because the japanese almost never convoyed merchants. If the merchants are all running alone for their lives, how can you "escort" them at all?

The majority of the ASW ships employed were not DDs or DEs, but PCs ("subchasers"):

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/PC1.jpg

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/PC4_13.jpg

Also whaling ships ("whale killers") were also pressed into service as subchasers:

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/whale_killers.jpg

I'm not saying SS duty was a walk in the park in the PTO, particularly early in the war, but compared to the ASW capability of the USN and RN, the IJN had virtually no capability at all.

If the game uses fleet DDs escorting convoys of japanese shipping, it will show a serious lack of research.
tater

Blutarski2004
03-05-2007, 11:56 AM
As in many other things, the IJN suffered from a shortage of destroyers. Their industrial base was unable to keep up with war losses. Since the heavy units of the fleet could not sail safely without DD escort, the DDs were retained for that purpose. Few were employed for convoy excort of A/S patrol.

To compound the problem, the pre-war IJN had not really paid much attention to A/S escort craft. When merchant losses became alrming, they implemented a crash program to design and construct an inexpensive A/S-oriented escort. They came up with a pretty decent design, but were never able to build enough of them to meet requirements.

BTW, the pre-war IJN basically led the world in DD design. They designed and built some very impressive ships in that warship category.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-05-2007, 01:32 PM
I'm not saying SS duty was a walk in the park in the PTO, particularly early in the war, but compared to the ASW capability of the USN and RN, the IJN had virtually no capability at all.


Apart from a whole fleet of sub-hunting submarines.

Tater-SW-
03-05-2007, 01:38 PM
Sub hunting submarines? Without homing TTs, very little they could do.

ASW was not part of IJN doctrine. Needing the DDs for the fleet was partially necessity, but again, ASW wasn't part of their doctrine. It wouldn't have occurred to them, it wasn;t in the play book.

leitmotiv
03-05-2007, 03:34 PM
Since WWII submarines were mere submersible torpedo boats, not true submarines, they spent most of their time on the surface, and were, thus, fair game like any surface ship. Sub on sub kills by skulking subs in patrol areas happened. Americans were able to arrange "hits" on Japanese subs through their access to Japanese Navy codes.

WWII USN submarine losses:

http://www.caseyspm.com/images/cpm.AcrobatDownloads/WWII.pdf

Doug_Thompson
03-05-2007, 04:56 PM
Re: Hunter subs and code-breaking

The first Japanese warship sunk by U.S. Navy submarines was another sub. The U.S. navy boat was tipped off by code breaking and sank it's victim while it was cruising on the surface in daylight.

Japanese anti-sub submarines had a notable lack of success, just like the rest of the submarine force. They should have gone after merchant shipping as a priority, but that's pretty clear in hindsight.

Early 1942 had a well-known massacre of shipping on the American Atlantic coast. A similar effort on the American West Coast -- assuming that was possible with the enormous range and so forth -- would have stretched the allies hard.

Doug_Thompson
03-05-2007, 04:58 PM
Parillo's Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2 is an awesome book, I agree.

That's the one. First-rate.

Tater-SW-
03-05-2007, 05:02 PM
Yeah, I bought that book as a reference, only to be sucked in. It was very well written, and thoroughly enjoyable. Who'dve thought?

It's out of print, but can be pretty easily found on amazon, I strongly reccomend it.

BTW, I'm aware subs sank other subs, but I'd not expect that many were lost that way as a % of total losses. The notion that a fleet of sub-hunter subs was somehow a major threat to US SS operations is pretty silly, IMO. I imagine mines killed more US subs than IJN submarines.

Feathered_IV
03-05-2007, 06:52 PM
I guess there is no provision to play as IJN? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Call me crazy, but I'd very much like to pilot a Kaiten manned torpedo. Or at the very least, try to sneak a sub in close enough for the AI to use them...

leitmotiv
03-05-2007, 09:41 PM
Yes, I'd like to control a big Japanese C boat which carried the midgets to Pearl Harbor---they had eight 21" tubes forward---nice spread!

Doug_Thompson
03-06-2007, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Call me crazy, but I'd very much like to pilot a Kaiten manned torpedo.

OK.

You're crazy.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

But seriously, folks.

I'd like to play the Japanese too. Their torpedoes worked.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-06-2007, 08:32 AM
Tater-SW-

Submarines were a valid target for other subs in the Atlantik, as they either was on the surface (remember, these were no submarines in the literal sense, they were merely dive-boats) and even on periscope-depth it's not difficult to guess the actuall depth, especially if you IDed the boat while surfaced.

In the Pacific, the war between the submarines was even more tense, as on both sides submarines were attached to task-forces, as well as they were assigned to secure certain areas and watch for subs.

It was allready stated, though, that subs for Japan were not modelled in SH4, which is a real pitty, IMHO.

Tater-SW-
03-06-2007, 10:14 AM
I'm well aware that "fleet submarines" were attached to fleets. I'm even aware that submarines sometimes engaged one another. It was still a sideshow compared to commerce raiding for the USN SS force.

Seriously, what % of US subs were likely lost to enemy submarines?

Not sure you could even get a decent estimate as I'd not trust japanese records in the least (they claimed to have sunk Lexington shortly after Pearl Harbor with a sub, but she was never even hit assuming they actually attacked anything at all). Youy'd need to have a USN sub lost in the same area at the same time as a IJN SS claim on a USN sub. I'm sure it happened, but I'd wager it was a small % of total losses.

It is sad that they didn't model them, though, the IJN needs every possible ASW capability to make SH4 challenging and realistic at the same time.

Wow, I just looked at the SH4 screenshots on their site.

Low alt B-24s over a large group of surface warships? Don't think so.

How about the group of warships themselves: they are WAY too close together. Looks like the same guy who thought the PF CV groups in the single missions should have escorts a few hundred yards away did SH as well, lol. Typical spacing, particularly when not in line of battle formation for surface action, should be on the order of 1000s of meters between ships. Far enough that ships can do evasive circles under air attack without concern of collisions.

tater

leitmotiv
03-06-2007, 10:49 AM
One Fleet Sub was officially acknowledged as having been sunk by a Japanese submarine out of the 52 lost in the war.

http://www.caseyspm.com/images/cpm.AcrobatDownloads/WWII.pdf

Doug_Thompson
03-06-2007, 11:02 AM
Re: Accuracy of sinking claims.

Neither side has much to brag about there.

A Japanese submarine did torpedo the Saratoga, the Lexington's sister ship, shortly after Pearl Harbor. IIRC, it was in January. The Sara was out for months and missed the Coral Sea and Midway battles because of it. Missed Midway by a couple of days, as it turned out, arriving in Hawaii shortly after the battle.

She was torpedoed by a sub again near Guadacanal, cementing her nickname: "Hard Luck Sara."

leitmotiv
03-06-2007, 11:10 AM
The B-24s look absurd, and the only excuse for the proximity of the warships to each other would be a general chase situation as in the Battle Off Samar. I hope the ships are correctly spaced in the final product as they were in SH3, otherwise, it will be an arcade game---can't miss.

Tater-SW-
03-06-2007, 12:06 PM
So of 273 SSs, 52 were lost. 19% lost, at least 2% of losses to enemy subs (figure most subs would be lost with no trace, so it is likely higher than just 1).

The germans lost ~780 of the 1160 or so built. That's 67% losses. They sunk on the order of 14 million tons. That's ~18,000 tons per sub lost.

The USN sank ~5.6 million tons for 52 losses. That's over 107,000 tons per boat lost.

Clearly it was less dangerous in the PTO.

tater

Capt.LoneRanger
03-06-2007, 12:09 PM
Tater-SW-, the submarines of the KM were not bound to that strict doctrine, yet allied subs sank about 30 German subs during the war.

There were active members on the SH3-boards, posting some very interesting links about that, when SH3 was released and there was still hope, this would be added either for Sh3, but at least for SH4.

Tater-SW-
03-06-2007, 12:12 PM
30 of 780 losses. 3.8%

So for the USN in the PTO double the official losses to subs and you get about the same %.

USN (and KM?) subs had surface search radar, as well, not sure about IJN SS forces.

tater

leitmotiv
03-06-2007, 12:50 PM
I think arguing levels of danger in WWII submarine warfare is absurd---just diving in a submarine took crazy bravery---even today you could not get me near one of those things. Clay Blair's SILENT VICTORY suggests many losses were due to American sub skippers who pushed their luck too far. Going after convoys in shallow water, going head-to-head with destroyers, mined---there were many of the ways to get killed. One of the top 109F aces managed to get himself killed by a I-153 because he pushed it against the inferior airplane. In war or in peace there are any number of extremely unpleasant ways to die in submarines.

Doug_Thompson
03-06-2007, 05:22 PM
Re: Subs killing subs

Ultra intelligence guided many Allied sub kills of U-Boats.

In fact, there was one crazy operation where two U-Boats were set to rendezous at a very remote, uninhabited atoll in the South Atlantic and the British sent a submarine there to try and torpedo both. It was crazy. There was no way to diguise the fact that the chances of a British submarine showing up at that atoll on its own, without codebreaker intelligence, were just astronomical " especially since the British boat missed both U-Boats, IIRC.

leitmotiv
03-06-2007, 08:21 PM
The first vessel sunk by the Royal Navy in WWII was a British submarine sunk by another British submnarine!

Tater-SW-
03-06-2007, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I think arguing levels of danger in WWII submarine warfare is absurd---just diving in a submarine took crazy bravery---even today you could not get me near one of those things. Clay Blair's SILENT VICTORY suggests many losses were due to American sub skippers who pushed their luck too far. Going after convoys in shallow water, going head-to-head with destroyers, mined---there were many of the ways to get killed. One of the top 109F aces managed to get himself killed by a I-153 because he pushed it against the inferior airplane. In war or in peace there are any number of extremely unpleasant ways to die in submarines.

I'm not diminishing their bravery in the least. My point is simply as a game the PTO lacks challenge compared to the Atlantic if it is anything like realistic. Your chance of survival through the whole war in a U-boat was very poor. You chances of survival as a US N submariner in WW2 were considerably better (though 19% losses means 19% death rate, which is pretty bloody poor).

tater

leitmotiv
03-06-2007, 11:29 PM
Never fear, I see your point. Even though my father was on one in WWII, I hate the bloody things---I went to the bottom of San Francisco Bay in an amusement park diving bell, and was paralyzed with dread! I found just playing SH3 and getting sunk by depth charges gave me the creeps, and gave it up. No doubt the USN had an easier time of it (for example, Japanese were reduced to using mortars since they couldn't make "Hedgehogs"!). I'll still give SH4 a try. To me, one of the most interesting technical achievements of the big US subs was how they managed to shave off diving time until the giant beasts dived nearly as fast as the much smaller German Type VIIs.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-07-2007, 01:54 AM
Tater-SW-, again, you got to see the environment. Of course 19% is lower than the loss rate of the KM, but hey, fighting in a submarine alone in the Atlantik and regulary going out in 3-5 submarines or fighting together with surface units and fighting primarily near the coast, it's only natural there is a lower death-rate.

That does in no way mean, your job is more easy, though!

Infact without the chance of being rescued by another sub in your area or a surface vessel will make it much harder than it was in RL.

leitmotiv
03-07-2007, 10:50 AM
http://www.hyperscale.com/reviews/books/ubootimfocusreviewgp_1.htm

Tater-SW-
03-07-2007, 11:37 AM
US submarines didn't "usually" operate with surface units to kill the huge % of merchant shipping they did to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, the coast is more dangerous, not less dangerous in the PTO I'd think. Aside from shoaling, the vast majority of japanese ASW assets were only operated in coastal waters.

The reason USN submariners were sunk less often was that they had good equipment, excellent crews, good doctrine, and that the japanese ASW assets had poor equipment (quality AND numbers), abysmal organization (both on the ASW and merchant marine sides) and poor doctrine.

Actually I forgot to mention a huge reason, perhaps even the largest reason, why the rate of loss was far lower in the PTO than the Altlantic: it was code breaking. The allies on the "defensive" side of the submarine war in the Atlantic could and did steer convoy traffic around where they knew the u-boats to be. Escorts are not 100% effective, but not being where the sub are IS 100% effective. Allied losses of CONVOYED shipping in the Atlantic was under 2% averaged over the entire war.

rcocean
03-07-2007, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
US submarines didn't "usually" operate with surface units to kill the huge % of merchant shipping they did to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, the coast is more dangerous, not less dangerous in the PTO I'd think. Aside from shoaling, the vast majority of japanese ASW assets were only operated in coastal waters.

The reason USN submariners were sunk less often was that they had good equipment, excellent crews, good doctrine, and that the japanese ASW assets had poor equipment (quality AND numbers), abysmal organization (both on the ASW and merchant marine sides) and poor doctrine.

Actually I forgot to mention a huge reason, perhaps even the largest reason, why the rate of loss was far lower in the PTO than the Altlantic: it was code breaking. The allies on the "defensive" side of the submarine war in the Atlantic could and did steer convoy traffic around where they knew the u-boats to be. Escorts are not 100% effective, but not being where the sub are IS 100% effective. Allied losses of CONVOYED shipping in the Atlantic was under 2% averaged over the entire war.

No, the real reason for the difference in loss rates can stated in one word, RADAR. By 1943 every DD had radar long along with large numbers of radar equipped ASW aircraft. The Germans meanwhile couldn't even equip their subs with adequate radar detector let alone Radar sets.

US subs meanwhile could use their RADAR to sink unwary Japanese merchant ships/warships while warning them of approaching aircraft.

Certainly, the codebreakers made it easier for the US Subs to find Japanese ships, but the difference in loss rates is due to RADAR.

Tater-SW-
03-07-2007, 05:38 PM
True, radar was critically important. You missed my point about codebreaking entirely, though. The loss rate of allied shipping was lower per u-boat killed because the convoys were steered around the u-boats diue to code breaking.

We'd know a pack was at some coords, so we'd send the convoy over the horizon from it, then send ASW assets in instead.

rcocean
03-07-2007, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
True, radar was critically important. You missed my point about codebreaking entirely, though. The loss rate of allied shipping was lower per u-boat killed because the convoys were steered around the u-boats diue to code breaking.

We'd know a pack was at some coords, so we'd send the convoy over the horizon from it, then send ASW assets in instead.

Depends on what part of the war you're talking about. After June 1943, we had such an advantage in Radar, especially Radar equipped ASW aircraft, we didn't have to steer convoys around the U-boats. We'd usually pick up the U-boats miles before they even got within 10 miles of a convoy and force them down or attack and sink them.