"Die Schalen Des Zorns" [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

View Full Version : "Die Schalen Des Zorns"

JHS

12-14-2006, 10:42 PM

Sorry to bother you about this item. I was able to get it from Amazon Germany by sending it to a friend in the UK. I tried to play it but right after the title I received an error message followed by a CTD. My high school German (36 years ago) is rather inadequate for the German forums on this game. Would anybody happen to know what is causing this? I saw it had happened to another person in an English language forum on the game, but no solution was posted. Thank you very much!

Deamon

12-15-2006, 05:08 AM

dcb

12-15-2006, 07:04 AM

@Deamon

Sorry, I don't want to hijack your forum speaking about the competition, but I think I can answer JHS. If you think it appropriate, maybe you could ask the moderator to move this to the "other subsims" forum

I tried to play it but right after the title I received an error message followed by a CTD. My high school German (36 years ago) is rather inadequate for the German forums on this game.

@JHS
The problem with 1914 DSdZ is that it implements too strictly the shader model 2.0 standard. Until recently, I had a Radeon 1600 card (x1000 series) known to use a workaround the SM standard. And, of course, I was unable to open the game. It gave me only CTDs when I tried to load it. In brief, ati cards report they have SM2.0, but they do not. On the marinesims.de forum there are many people complaining about the same error, and the explanation was found here:
http://www.stevestreeting.com/index.php?s=tomfoolery&searchbutton=Go%21

My guess is your video card is not SM2.0/3.0 compliant.
Now I switched to an nvidia card and I can play the game on the same computer - just the card is different, nvidia instead of ati.
Hope this helps you.

Anyway, the game is lame, if you want my opinion. Even SH2 is better.

Deamon

12-15-2006, 09:10 AM

JHS

12-15-2006, 11:46 AM

No intention to hijack this site! And, I am glad I bought the game because it brought me here---otherwise, I might have missed the discovery of this magnificent and ambitious sim! WWI German submarine operations fascinate me---I am awaiting Deamon's design with keen anticipation! Thank you, dcb---what you wrote is, alas, the case! I'm scuppered, deep-sixed, and kaput!

Deamon

12-17-2006, 01:43 PM

JHS

12-19-2006, 06:56 AM

I await your design with great anticipation!

Deamon

12-19-2006, 07:26 AM

@JHS:

Hi,

tell me how do you come to your interest for WWI submarines ?

Are you at all from germany ?

And what concerns Shells of Fury. It have historicaly very correct missions. But i find this is the only realy good and addictive thing about it. Other wise it's a low budget game, with a quality standart below SHII. But some others find it not bad. So you better judge for your self.

JHS

01-08-2007, 05:08 AM

Sorry my reply is so late---holidays! I am from and still live in the United States. I am 54 years old. My interest in WWI German submarines goes back to my childhood when I looked at the WWI-era picture books, and the ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS in the libraries. Weddigen's sinking of ABOUKIR, CRESSY, and HOGUE in the tiny U-9 really captured my attention. I did some of my graduate work in college in the WWI British Royal Navy. My father was a submariner on the USS CHARR and USS BOARFISH during WWII---I had submarines in my blood you could say! I have been fascinated by the operations, tactics, and submarines of the WWI German navy. They and the navy's zeppelins were the most advanced weapons of the naval war. I have dreamed about a detailed WWI German submarine simulator for years. SILENT HUNTER III was interesting, but I am really more interested in WWI (and, for obvious reasons, in the WWII U.S. Navy fleet boats). When I saw SHELLS OF FURY, I was very excited---unfortunately, due to my Radeon graphics card, I was unable to play it, and had to pass it on to a former sailor! No loss. I am happy to have discovered your design through this website. Your design promises to be the comprehensive simulator of which I dreamed. Can't wait to be able to try my luck in DEUTSCHLAND off the U.S. coast! If there is anything at all I can do to help further your work, please let me know!

Deamon

01-08-2007, 06:45 AM

My interest in WWI German submarines goes back to my childhood when I looked at the WWI-era picture books, and the ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS in the libraries. Weddigen's sinking of ABOUKIR, CRESSY, and HOGUE in the tiny U-9 really captured my attention. This three cruisers had a bad day hadn't they ? :)

They not only came across a german submarine but accross the way of Otto Weddingen who was the aces of aces of the german u-boat weapon. They couldn't have picked a better one than him http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/Media/Images/smilis/Officer1.gif

I did some of my graduate work in college in the WWI British Royal Navy.
There aren't that many publications about german WWI submarines in english aren't there ?

My father was a submariner on the USS CHARR and USS BOARFISH during WWII--- Oh realy !? Great

I had submarines in my blood you could say! I have been fascinated by the operations, tactics, and submarines of the WWI German navy.
I got rather by accident into submarines and through some mysterious circumstances got dragged into german WWI submarines. I had absolutely no clue about WWI submarines as i have started with this project but as i started the research i got deeply fascinated and hungry for more. It puts an unexplainable mysterious attraction on me. It appears so familiar to me. Not like something new but rather like something i remember that i have forgotten a long time ago. Do you maybe feel the same ?

I have dreamed about a detailed WWI German submarine simulator for years. SILENT HUNTER III was interesting, but I am really more interested in WWI (and, for obvious reasons, in the WWII U.S. Navy fleet boats). When I saw SHELLS OF FURY, I was very excited---unfortunately, due to my Radeon graphics card, I was unable to play it, and had to pass it on to a former sailor! No loss. I am happy to have discovered your design through this website. Your design promises to be the comprehensive simulator of which I dreamed.
Wow :o

I hear this not the first time :)

Yes SHIII is pretty nice but it's still not what i would expect from a real submarine simulator.

Can't wait to be able to try my luck in DEUTSCHLAND off the U.S. coast! DEUTSCHLAND or U139 (http://www.nord-com.net/heinrich.lang/Forum%20pics/U139.jpg)

But man it will take a while!

You have a german heart beating in your chest eh ? :)

If there is anything at all I can do to help further your work, please let me know!
:hmm:

Have you any developement skills ?

JHS

01-10-2007, 02:08 AM

Unfortunately, I am a computer idiot. I am 1/4 German, 1/4 English, and half Swedish---since where I come from German-Americans and Swedish-Americans used to be at odds with each other---my 1/4 German-ness used to annoy my all Swedish-American mother! Well, if I had to command a big cruiser submarine, I should prefer the magnificent U-139 to the tubby DEUTSCHLAND/U-155 but the exploits of the latter's captain off the American coast I found to be fascinating (and harrowing). Yes, books in English about the WWI German submarines are few, but I read all of them, and the one which really excited me was RAIDERS OF THE DEEP by Lowell Thomas which was based on interviews with the German submarine skippers in the 1920s:

http://www.amazon.com/Raiders-Bluejacket-Books-Lowell-Thomas/dp/1591148618

http://users.skynet.be/RonSubCovers/Dieselsub/tn_U155.3%20H.%20Schwerdtfegerbmp.jpg

horsa

01-10-2007, 04:09 AM

I'd like to add a few notes to this thread about the three unhappy British cruisers. Case for the defence so to speak.

I believe thet were an accident waiting to happen. They were obsolete and manned by poor inexperienced crews. There had been pressure on the Admiralty to remove them from service because of their vulnerability. It was also at a time when the British Admiralty did not have a clear idea of how effective the submarine weapon was going to be in a real war situation ( often refered to as "Fischer's play things"). They had no idea how to react when the first cruiser was hit and made the cardinal error of returning to assist the stricken ship, thus lining themselves up to be attacked. Weddingen must have thought it was Christmas. The cruisers were indeed "having a bad day". The upshot was a splendid propoganda victory for the Germans and a wake up call for the British Admiralty.

Deamon

01-10-2007, 05:44 AM

Unfortunately, I am a computer idiot.
Would you like to become a tester ? :hmm:

I could need a couple more.

I am 1/4 German, 1/4 English, and half Swedish---since where I come from German-Americans and Swedish-Americans used to be at odds with each other---my 1/4 German-ness used to annoy my all Swedish-American mother! Ok then i wasn't that wrong with the german heart :)

Have your interest in german WWI submarines maybe to do something with it ?

Well, if I had to command a big cruiser submarine, I should prefer the magnificent U-139 to the tubby DEUTSCHLAND/U-155 but the exploits of the latter's captain off the American coast I found to be fascinating (and harrowing).
Have you maybe red Kpt Konigs report on his voyage to USA in the Deutschaland ?

Yes, books in English about the WWI German submarines are few, but I read all of them
Which do you know besides riders of the deep ?

and the one which really excited me was RAIDERS OF THE DEEP by Lowell Thomas which was based on interviews with the German submarine skippers in the 1920s:

http://www.amazon.com/Raiders-Bluejacket-Books-Lowell-Thomas/dp/1591148618
Ok that's the book i always recommend to english readers. German readers have of course a load more accessebly. I have approx 30 titles. :ping: I'm a happy man.

I guess raiders of the deep greatly fueld your interest eh ?

Deamon

01-10-2007, 06:09 AM

I believe thet were an accident waiting to happen. They were obsolete and manned by poor inexperienced crews.
Perfect victims :D

There had been pressure on the Admiralty to remove them from service because of their vulnerability.
Otto was faster :lol:

Luck for the admirality that this were old cruisers.

It was also at a time when the British Admiralty did not have a clear idea of how effective the submarine weapon was going to be in a real war situation ( often refered to as "Fischer's play things").
Similar to the german admirality. Altuough Scheer demanded from the beginning that they all should be build high sea capeable.

They had no idea how to react when the first cruiser was hit and made the cardinal error of returning to assist the stricken ship, thus lining themselves up to be attacked.
Haven't they thought on the first stroke that the cruiser ren on a mine ?

Weddingen must have thought it was Christmas. The cruisers were indeed "having a bad day".
Otto Wddingen was the torpedo referee of the u-bot fleet. He was the top expert in torpedo attacks. On one occassion during a fleet manouver he shot a fan shot of four torpedos and "sunk" three battleships at once. And that were angle shots :o

My hat is off to Otto Weddingen. Angle shots weren't that favoured at that time. I'm just woundering how he managed to keep the depth.

The upshot was a splendid propoganda victory for the Germans and a wake up call for the British Admiralty. It was a wake up call for the german admirality too!

Deamon

JHS

01-10-2007, 11:45 AM

I would consider being a playtester an honor and a privilege, Deamon! This would give me an opportunity to learn much more about WWI German submarine tactics and technology. Other than the Thomas book, I read one published by the U.S. Naval Institute about the DEUTSCHLAND class and their history as merchant submarines and cruiser submarines. Much of the rest came from articles and chapters in books.

Admiral Fisher thought the submarine would be the most devastating weapon of any future war when he was First Sea Lord several years before the war. Not only did he predict unrestricted submarine warfare, but he encouraged it, and he even lectured on the wisdom of killing survivors without mercy as a means to paralyze the foe with terror. A very good book is available on the lamentable understanding of the submarine by the highest echelons of the Royal Navy, civilian and in the service (except Fisher, of course): THE KING'S SHIPS WERE AT SEA by a serving (1984) naval officer, James Goldrick:

http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Ships-Were-Sea-February/dp/0870213342/sr=8-1/qid=1168450321/ref=sr_1_1/103-5577118-5633404?ie=UTF8&s=books

When you read about the technology he was using, the quirky torpedoes, the vicissitudes of the U-9 itself (a rather unstable vehicle for launching torpedoes), and the small torpedo complement he had to use, the destruction of the CRESSYs was not exactly "shooting ducks in a barrel," but, rather, a genuine triumph of the infant submarine by a superb expert. Further, there was always the chance Weddigen might have been run down by one of them as he was later by DREADNOUGHT.

http://cgi.ebay.com/German-U-Boat-Commander-Otto-Weddigen-RP-Memorial_W0QQitemZ180065247325QQcmdZViewItem

Deamon

01-11-2007, 06:09 AM

I would consider being a playtester an honor and a privilege, Deamon! I will PM to you soon.

This would give me an opportunity to learn much more about WWI German submarine tactics and technology. Then you are most propably at the right place. :)

Other than the Thomas book, I read one published by the U.S. Naval Institute about the DEUTSCHLAND class and their history as merchant submarines and cruiser submarines. Much of the rest came from articles and chapters in books. Any interesting photos there ?

Admiral Fisher thought the submarine would be the most devastating weapon of any future war when he was First Sea Lord several years before the war.Fisher was a british Admiral right, as the title Sea Lord suggest ?

Not only did he predict unrestricted submarine warfare, but he encouraged it, and he even lectured on the wisdom of killing survivors without mercy as a means to paralyze the foe with terror. A very good book is available on the lamentable understanding of the submarine by the highest echelons of the Royal Navy, civilian and in the service (except Fisher, of course): THE KING'S SHIPS WERE AT SEA by a serving (1984) naval officer, James Goldrick: There were sometimes very prospective individuals.

When you read about the technology he was using, the quirky torpedoes, the vicissitudes of the U-9 itself (a rather unstable vehicle for launching torpedoes),Hey, did he gave a detailed description why this boat was so ?

and the small torpedo complement he had to use, the destruction of the CRESSYs was not exactly "shooting ducks in a barrel," but, rather, a genuine triumph of the infant submarine by a superb expert. Yes, that's absolutely true and supports what i have said above. Not only was he a top expert but his crew was as well. It was maybe his special position in the u-boat weapon that allowed him to always keep his original crew on his boat, which is very unusual, cause usually when a new boat gets commissioned part of the crew of another boat gets transfered to it and a seasoned watch officer became the new commander, which were replaced then with newbs that need all the training first.

But Otto could prevent this from happening to his boat a long time and this way he grew an elite crew by the time. But then Otto got his ankle strained and was replaced temporarily by one of his officers Johannes Spieß because he knew well the technical flaws of U 9, who finaly became the new official commander of U 9 a while later. Otto Weddingen got a new boat U 29 assigned whose prior commander had to be replaced because he lost his nerves. So Otto took command of this new boat without taking a single men of his old battle proofen crew. Although U 29 was a much newer boat its main improvement were the new diesel engines which gave it a much bigger range. But for submerged operations it wasn't much improved over U 9. He couldn't have expected the same performance of his new crew as of his old one and i would also speculate that Otto wasn't used to handle new crews since all his service time he could keep his original crew and over time pushed their performance to the limit.

During his first patrol with U 29 where he could sink several merchant ships and used up most of his torpedos he decided to march back to base around the north tip of england in the hope to encounter british warships. His wish was fulfilled as he saw smoke from a bigger group of large british warships appear from the north to him, comming his way. He crashdived and turned north towards the battle goup. This goup however, which ran in several parallel division columns, moved from the northern attack sector to the west, heading to pentland firth. Weddingen tried to catch up running flank. Despite that he could attack only the last ship of the southern clumn, the "Neptune". His torpedo however barely missed the stern of the ship. The path of the torpedo was spotted on the Neptune, what caused the british battle group
turn at flank to north east.

However the 4th battle squadrone that was located further north turned coincidentaly to south west directly towards Weddingens boat. One of the ships in the column was the "Dreadnought". He wanted to fire his last torpedo in one of the stern tubes and for
that he had to cross the path of the ship running flank and the following maneuvers made highest demands to the planes operators.

Anyway here's where **** hits the fan for U 29. Maybe the helms crew failed or they had a trimm error or the planes jammed or something happened during opening of the stern tube hatch or maybe the periscope motor failed(we will never know) at that moment cause 13:30 the Dreadnought spotted the periscope of U 29, went flank and turned hard after it. Weddingen tried to go deep but the boat didn't seem to obey, they must have lost the control over it. The "Dreadnought" overran U 29 and rammed it's stern. The bow of U 29 sticked far out of the water and then it went down, leaving only oil and bubbles on the surface, with all hands lost. What is not clear to me however is whether the boat have broached the surface. Or whether it was only the periscope sticking out all the time. :hmm:

In this context it is interesting to mention that after firing a torpedo it was often difficult to get the boat down again and sometimes a u-boat would broach the surface after firing a torpedo but i see no mention that U 29 fired a torpedo at this point since it also was apparently not in a firing position yet, cause else that could have been a possible explanation why that happened.

JHS

01-11-2007, 10:38 AM

Fisher was the genius behind the DREADNOUGHT, the use of turbines in British capital ships, the development of the British submarine force, and many other things. The best book on his contribution to the British submarine is: SIR JOHN FISHER'S NAVAL REVOLUTION by Nicholas Lambert:

http://www.amazon.com/Fishers-Revolution-Studies-Maritime-History/dp/1570034923/sr=1-1/qid=1168533085/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5577118-5633404?ie=UTF8&s=books

My info on U-9 was from Thomas's book and other sources I can't recall. Wasn't the boat inclined to broach unexpectedly? U-9 was really a prototype rather than a proven type wasn't it? I wish I could recall the title of the book about the DEUTSCHLAND. It was published by the U.S. Naval Institute Press about 1995. It had photographs. Right now it is out of print, and they have published the WWI German account of DEUTSCHLAND's voyage.

Looking forward to being "drafted" into the submarine service! I had four years of German in high school but my skills are very rusty now (graduated 37 years ago!).
Cheers! :up:

Deamon

01-11-2007, 01:32 PM

Fisher was the genius behind the DREADNOUGHT, the use of turbines in British capital ships, the development of the British submarine force, and many other things.
That's good to know. That's the guy we should have taken out early :-j

The best book on his contribution to the British submarine is: SIR JOHN FISHER'S NAVAL REVOLUTION by Nicholas Lambert:

http://www.amazon.com/Fishers-Revolution-Studies-Maritime-History/dp/1570034923/sr=1-1/qid=1168533085/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5577118-5633404?ie=UTF8&s=books Thanks i would be interested in british submarine accounts as well. You surely have read some ?

My info on U-9 was from Thomas's book and other sources I can't recall. Wasn't the boat inclined to broach unexpectedly? U-9 was really a prototype rather than a proven type wasn't it?I think the real prototypes were U1-4. But in some ways many of the boats were prototypes in their own way, or maybe gap filller would be the right term here, since it took a while till definite design standarts took shape. All boats were under a constant change. During each dockyard period the boats received new divices, more safety installations, which were later removed again(because they made the handling to complicated and thus added to the risks), the boats were upgraded with a crashdive vent system. U 9 took 5 minutes to dive and after the upgrade 2-2,5 minutes. This is btw the main reason why almost all paraffin boats got lost. They took too long to dive and when they operated in enemy waters, like the british coast in bad visibility and a destroyer would suddenly appear, they couldn't dive fast enough to get away. With the loss of most of the paraffin boats the whole u-boat elite that served already long before the war broke out, got eradicated!

U 9 didn't even had an alarm bell. They had to propagate the commands verbally to all compartments. The flooding vents were scattered throughout the boat in all compartments. Confusion could easily happen, someone could easily overhear the command if there is haste and hurry in a dangerous situation. An electrical signal system to give the dive order was been rejected because of the costs. So then it happened that U 9 under Spieß got almost lost because of such a diving accident where the stern compartment didn't hear the flooding command in the heat of a hasty crash dive. After that it was granted asap. But after the crashdive upgrade the wheels for the flooding vents were all installed in the controlroom, greatly reducing the danger and enhancing the control over the boat. Since U63 this system became a design standard. It is worth to mention that you couldn't allow yourself steap inclinations. At the beginning of a patrol when the batteries were full they would spill over, already when the boat inclines more than 35°.

Furthermore U 9 had this unfortune rudder and aft plane configuration that were not installed in the prop wash, thus the prop wash couldn't work on them and this reduces the maneuverability significantly. U 9 and many other early boats had no motors for bow planes, they had to be operated manually, what was physicaly hard work and the planes man had to be replaced often if the boat had to operate for long at PD, particularly in rough seas, during an attack for example(i think it was mentioned in Raiders of the Deep). I can't recall however whether it was upgraded later with one, some boats received motors for testing purposes though. And yes U 9 was one of the boats that had the tendency to broach after a torpedo launch. When it was about to fire a shot from the bow tubes then after a the shot a group of man had to be ready in the stern compartment and on a command they were sprinting to the bow carrying weights, to get the bow down again. But i think all boats had this tendancy. Until the torpedo compensating tanks were not filled the boat had to be forced down somehow. This was a special probelm on the tiny coastile boats where you had to do an all hands to the bow manouver after a fan shot :)

So my hat is of to U 9 for it's four torpedo fan shot during that one fleet manouver :)

The paraffin on U 9 was stored in a freaken way. It wasn't floating on the water in a ballast tank but was stored in real tube like tanks. This way the space in a ballast tank could not be fully exploited and to compensate the weight loss of the fuel consumption they had a second set of slightly smaller tanks that were kept empty as the petrolium tanks were full and filled them slowly according to the fuel consumption. That way reducing the space for fuel down to 50% LOL That was the reason why the range of it was relatively short.

Paraffin engines were problematically by nature. Every start of them contained a high risk of a break down. What happened several times on every patrol. So they had to carry anough spare parts with them. The exhaust vents had to be grounded-in before the dive or they would leak( But i think that is a common thing with all oil type engines on submarines.)

It must have been very difficult to operate the boat in higher sea states because of the inefficient plane configuration and the missing bow rudder engine. The widely flat deck of U 9 would cause the boat to be dragged to the surface by the rough waves. You would need negative buoyancy to counterballance it but this of course complicates things further. The periscopes were somewhat to short, making it even harder to operate at PD in rought seas. The same flaws were the reason why U 3 under Max Valentiner failed to attack the two russian cruisers in a bold operation in the east sea in a rought sea where a german cruiser lured them over U 3.

U 9 was at the beginning of the war equipped with a one gyro compass. In heavy seas it freaked out and they had to orient themself by coast, stars and sun.

On some other boats it has been experimented with up to three bow plane pairs to increase their efficiency but i don't know what the results were. Many boats had a second rudder on the stern to counterballance the rolling caused by the rudder under the stern when moving submerged.

Deckguns caused a lot of problems especially on the smaller boats. The shocks of the recoil rattled the boat to much and untitened the neats of the fuel bunkers and oil leaked out. The boat was dragging a thin oil slick behind it if it shot to much. This is maybe the reason why the old boats got only a 50mm deck gun.

Oh that were times! To operate such a boat you needed a damn professional crew that knew the boat well.:)

Weddingen had it on U 9. If he just could have sticked to it. But Spieß had a lot of luck with it.

Oh i could tell you so much more. Anyway properly simulated it would be a challange just to operate this boats savely in different situations. But i will cover all of this stuff in my academy curriculum. There will be quite something to learn! This is supposed to become a u-boat SIMULATOR!!!

Did i made my homeworks or what ? :88)

I researched my ass off actualy. But still there is so much more to learn for me. I'm working hard to become the prime WWI u-boat source. Oh this simulator will be fun one day.

A longer time back i got some documents that Ulrich Gabler(the german u-boat constructor during the cold war period who also serverd on a type VII during WWII if my memory serves me right) had possessed. So much new stuff, hmmm yummi :ping:

I wish I could recall the title of the book about the DEUTSCHLAND. It was published by the U.S. Naval Institute Press about 1995. It had photographs. Right now it is out of print, and they have published the WWI German account of DEUTSCHLAND's voyage. Were there any interiour shots ?

Looking forward to being "drafted" into the submarine service!LOL check your PM ;)

I had four years of German in high school but my skills are very rusty now (graduated 37 years ago!).
Cheers! :up: Sufficient german skills would be veeeeeeeery nuch to your favour. Cause that way all the informations and accounts that exist only in german would be accessably to you ;)

I'm mesmerized over and over again where all i meet germans from. Germany seem to be scattered all around :lol:

Deamon

JHS

01-11-2007, 04:39 PM

Incredible. Had no idea the mechanisms were so unsystematized! When you see this you begin to realize getting a hit was a major success, and not getting sunk was, too, and not sinking in the ordinary course of operating was a major success, as well.
I can't recall if the USNI book had interior photographs. I don't know about the translation of the WWI German book about the DEUTSCHLAND because I haven't seen it. Wish I could recall the title of the '95 book. It was very interesting. There are some good books by British submariners who operated in the Baltic and Med in WWI. I'll have to dig around. According to one source I've seen, Fisher and von Tirpitz were friends and exchanged private correspondence! Both were masters of political manipulation! Jellicoe made himself an expert on German naval architecture prior to the war, and the more he learned, the more concerned he became about British dreadnoughts. After the war, he was involved in a friendship society with Germany, and worked for good relations between Britain and Germany.

Deamon

01-11-2007, 05:53 PM

Incredible. Had no idea the mechanisms were so unsystematized! Oh yeah and prior to the crashdive upgrade a complicated system was used where a pipe led from each tank to a vent station in the bridge and turbo ventilation was switched betwin and a low pressure was induced with it in the tanks to make them fill faster. Later Max Valentiner who was pissed off of this system invented the crashdive system as we know it from WWII.

When you see this you begin to realize getting a hit was a major success, and not getting sunk was, too, and not sinking in the ordinary course of operating was a major success, as well. Pretty much yes. At least it required alot of practice to get some safety in to the operations. And it's maybe more clear now why there was such a reluctance to dive deep.

There are some good books by British submariners who operated in the Baltic and Med in WWI. I'll have to dig around.
I would like to see the other side too.

According to one source I've seen, Fisher and von Tirpitz were friends and exchanged private correspondence! After the war ?

Jellicoe made himself an expert on German naval architecture prior to the war, and the more he learned, the more concerned he became about British dreadnoughts. After the war, he was involved in a friendship society with Germany, and worked for good relations between Britain and Germany. German ingenuity is hard to top :ping:

Juttland showed it in action. But a fine gentlemen this Jellicoe.

Deamon

JHS

01-12-2007, 08:21 PM

More amazing information! Incredibly complicated those early boats! Supposedly v. Tirpitz and Fisher were corresponding before WWI. I found this in a book about the sinking of LUSITANIA written by a London TIMES reporter published about 1971. I have tried to corroborate this for years. I did much reading about Fisher in graduate school, but I never came across reference to this. If true, the correspondence would be fascinating.

The most appalling fact about Jutland is that the cause of the loss of the British battlecruisers was due to the insane piling up of cordite in the open from the magazines to the turrets in order to allow extremely rapid fire by the heavy guns. Even the magazine doors were removed! Beatty knew this to be the case and expected Jellicoe was going to sack him, but Jellicoe made a "for the good of the service" decision to protect Beatty and the facts were hidden until the 1990's. The British naval historian, Nicholas Lambert, revealed the facts in an article. Beatty rewarded Jellicoe post-war by establishing the myth that the Grand Fleet let down the Battlecruiser Fleet and doing everything he could to defame him.

Deamon

01-14-2007, 02:23 AM

More amazing information! Incredibly complicated those early boats! More cumbersome and difficult to control, riskier to control, with subtle treacherous risks that caused loses and this boats got much easier out of control. This boats were technically not made to deal with difficult confusing situations. It had to be counterballanced with a really experienced crew and even that could be not enough in certain situations.

The early boats were designed with hardly any practical experience. And they are designed by people who do not drive them. Also a designer have a thousand things on his mind and will often not notice which implications this or that design decission will have. Only during the war with a lot of feedback from the crews and sometimes crews own inventions the designes really refined, as the crash dive invention of Max Valentiner has shown. He made during the war even more inventions. No one of the designer came to the idea to directly open the tanks for vent as it happens with flooding and simple make them bigger in order to flood faster. I just remember that one hilarious KuK design where the ballast tanks had to be filled and drained with pumps :)

The designer sometimes tended to overcomplicate a system by the attempt to make it work simpler. The same happened as they tried to make the boat operate more safely. But at the end of the day the attitude prevailed that a german submarine is in the first place a weapon that is supposed to attack an enemy in most effective way instead of being an installation that gives a maximum on safety to the crew.

This was also the reason why the place of the commander during an attack is in the conning tower and not the controlroom. Where being in the controlroom would give more operational safety to the boat. When the commander is in the bridge the periscope can be extended much higher, what makes it to a more effective weapon.

As i said in antoher post diving in thous early days was more of a special and risky event rather than a routine. And no one of the crew knew how the boats would withstand greater depths.

I also must think on the UB I and UB II designes. They were designed for fastest possible manufacturing thus strongly simplified, without all the safety caboodle. The result was an easy to operate and easy to control boat, thus safer, what was very appreciated by its crews, especially by thous who came from boats that were build in the safetymania era.

Supposedly v. Tirpitz and Fisher were corresponding before WWI. I found this in a book about the sinking of LUSITANIA written by a London TIMES reporter published about 1971. I have tried to corroborate this for years. I did much reading about Fisher in graduate school, but I never came across reference to this. If true, the correspondence would be fascinating.

The most appalling fact about Jutland is that the cause of the loss of the British battlecruisers was due to the insane piling up of cordite in the open from the magazines to the turrets in order to allow extremely rapid fire by the heavy guns. Even the magazine doors were removed! Beatty knew this to be the case and expected Jellicoe was going to sack him, but Jellicoe made a "for the good of the service" decision to protect Beatty and the facts were hidden until the 1990's. The British naval historian, Nicholas Lambert, revealed the facts in an article. Beatty rewarded Jellicoe post-war by establishing the myth that the Grand Fleet let down the Battlecruiser Fleet and doing everything he could to defame him. Now this is a very interesting bit of information!

What do you mean with let down the battle cruisers ? Sorry my english.

JHS

01-14-2007, 12:46 PM

"Let down" means to fail or disappoint. Beatty carefully created the myth the Battlecruiser Fleet wanted to fight and that Jellicoe, with the battleships of the Grand Fleet, was a coward who ran from the Germans. In truth, Jellicoe perfectly positioned the GF to shoot at the Hoch See Flotte and truly gave Scheer a fright and a pounding. Jellicoe refused to run the fleet into a smoke screen which might have had thirty or more torpedo boats waiting on the other side. This was common sense. He maneuvered around the flank of the HSF and cut them off from home. Only Scheer's decision to crash through the GF in the night, when the HSF had a huge training advantage, saved the HSF.

Thanks for all the background. I would have been a nervous wreck in one of those boats. I don't know how my father did it in the much safer WWII submarines. I am at home on the water (never been sea sick even in huge storms), but not under (I once went down in a diving bell!).

Deamon

01-15-2007, 12:14 AM

"Let down" means to fail or disappoint. Beatty carefully created the myth the Battlecruiser Fleet wanted to fight and that Jellicoe, with the battleships of the Grand Fleet, was a coward who ran from the Germans. In truth, Jellicoe perfectly positioned the GF to shoot at the Hoch See Flotte and truly gave Scheer a fright and a pounding. Jellicoe refused to run the fleet into a smoke screen which might have had thirty or more torpedo boats waiting on the other side. This was common sense. He maneuvered around the flank of the HSF and cut them off from home. Only Scheer's decision to crash through the GF in the night, when the HSF had a huge training advantage, saved the HSF.
Now this is realy interesting. :hmm:

So that's why they blew up faster. Didn't knew that. You mean the HSF was better trained for night operations ?

Thanks for all the background. I would have been a nervous wreck in one of those boats. I don't know how my father did it in the much safer WWII submarines. I am at home on the water (never been sea sick even in huge storms), but not under (I once went down in a diving bell!).
I guess you have to be of a special kind for submarine service.

JHS

01-15-2007, 02:14 PM

The HSF had trained intensively in night fighting prior to Jutland. The German ships had perfected coordination between searchlights and guns so that when the lights snapped on the guns were trained on the same bearing ready to shoot. The British were astounded to be suddenly illuminated, followed by a devastating volley of gunfire, and abruptly, the lights snapped out, and the German warship disappeared into the dark. German searchlights were much bigger than British searchlights, and they could be remotely controlled. Thus, the night belonged to the HSF. The British were not well-trained in night fighting. British destroyers understood night torpedo tactics, though. An old German battleship was sunk by a British destroyer flotilla which fired torpedoes from the dark, unseen. Without these superior tactics it was possible the HSF would never have been able to crash through the destroyers of the Grand Fleet in the night in order to escape the wall of warships Jellicoe had placed in the way of the German ports.

Deamon

01-16-2007, 02:35 AM

JHS

01-16-2007, 01:39 PM

The British destroyers largely got beaten up in the night battle---rather ironic for battleships to be beating up destroyers at night! NASSAU was the hero ship. Led the line in the break out from the Kessel. Shot her way through the British destroyers over and again. Another thing which helped the Germans enormously---a German warship observed two British warships exchanging the night's searchlight recognition signals (the Germans used a complicated system of colored lights which the Britsh could not have imitated) early in the evening, recorded them, and signalled them to the fleet. Thus, several times British ships exchanged recognition signals with strange ships, were satisfied the ships were friendly, and caught a blast of shells at point-blank range!

Deamon

01-16-2007, 04:40 PM

JHS

01-16-2007, 06:50 PM

I will have to do a careful count of the British night destroyer losses from JUTLAND: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FIGHTING by John Campbell, which is the best tactical analysis of the fighting at Jutland. If you can find it, THE FIGHTING AT JUTLAND by Fawcett and Hooper is the best collection of eyewitness accounts from the British side. The authors were in the Grand Fleet and right after the war they collected photographs, drawings, and accounts from sailers throughout the fleet, and it remains to this day the best way to get a sensory impression of the fighting. The photographs are priceless. I am surprised so few have been used in books on Jutland since this book was printed.

Deamon

01-18-2007, 09:33 AM

Thanks. Do you also know how this communication system with colored lights of the HSF worked ?

ABBAFAN

01-21-2007, 09:45 AM

having viewed the trailer i thought the game looked ok perhaps dated or not as advanced as sh3 etc but it reminded me a bit of older games which i liked such as silent service and games like that.Has anyone played this game yet?
where can it be gotten from?will a amd xp3400 64bit processor work it?

Wings_of_Wrath

01-21-2007, 03:47 PM

ABBAFAN

01-21-2007, 04:16 PM

how about an 80's druggy uboat game where the fella who p[layed micky in the equalizer gets hold of a wwi uboat from a museum and totally goes mental in new york blowing up moored resteraunt boats full of yuppies.

Deamon

01-22-2007, 07:12 PM

Deamon

01-22-2007, 07:15 PM

Last I heard, this game is very picky about the graphic accelerator card, not the processor... (rather perplexing, considering the unimpressing graphics, but we're talking about budget developping here, right?)
Haven't played it yet, but I guess it's the best (read "only") game about WW1 subs we can play until IUF comes out.

It has problems with ATI cards, cose it uses shader 2.0. But due to a bugs in the ATI cards they don't fully support shader 2.0 so game devs have to patch around it, what the SOF devs haven't do.

Wings_of_Wrath

01-24-2007, 04:26 AM

Deamon

01-24-2007, 08:09 AM

In the meantime I got the game on loan from a friend, and, running against my instincts and my friend's good intentioned advice, I decided to give it a whirl...
See my full review here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=395433#post395433

But playing it gaved me alot of courage and dispersed my concerns :yep:

I can curtainly do it better, that's for sure. :yep:

OS1Mac

08-11-2007, 08:23 AM

Hi, Deamon, thanks for developing a WW1 u-boat sim. I think that period of u-boat warfare was very fascinating. I periodically check this forum to determine the status of your game.

This is an old thread, but Shells of Fury is supposedly going to be released next week in the US. So, I was curious about SubSim users' impressions of the German version of the game. While waiting for the dinner's main course, your game, I could use an appetizer :) . And even though Shells of Fury, from what I've read here and elsewhere, fits the budget game category, it might be worth a look (only $20 here). Despite the fact that this game presents competition for you, the way I see it is this: the more WW1 u-boat sims on the market the better. Hopefully, it'll generate some interest in that period of warfare and, thus, increase the interest in your game.

By the way, earlier in this thread you asked for the names of WW1 u-boat books in English. Besides "Raiders of the Deep" by Lowell Thomas (an outstanding book since he actually interviewed famous u-boat skippers, such as von Arnauld de la Periere and Hersing in 1928), there is "The U-boat War, 1914 - 1918" by Edwin Grey, published in 1972 and reprinted in 1994. It's a very thorough and interesting history of the development of the u-boat arm of the German navy and of the German u-boat campaign in WW1. Grey also wrote a book entitled, "A Damned Un-English Weapon", a history of WW1 British submarine warfare (another excellent book), but I think it's' out-of-print.

Good luck developing your game and I look forward to its release. :up:

Deamon

08-12-2007, 10:51 AM

Hi, Deamon, thanks for developing a WW1 u-boat sim.
Hi OS1Mac,

thanks for your interest and encouragement. It's an ambitious undertaking though and will take its time.

I think that period of u-boat warfare was very fascinating.
Oh yes!

And very inspiring. I was an cold war nut but this subject fascinated me beyoned comprehension as i got in touch with it. But it's a serious challenge to treat it in the level of detail that it deserves. But i guess someone have to do it.

I periodically check this forum to determine the status of your game.

Well once a year(to christmas usually) i make a major update on the site. Maybe more often in the future.

This is an old thread, but Shells of Fury is supposedly going to be released next week in the US. So, I was curious about SubSim users' impressions of the German version of the game.
There is a thread already with many oppinions: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94508

Check it out.

the more WW1 u-boat sims on the market the better. Hopefully, it'll generate some interest in that period of warfare and, thus, increase the interest in your game.

Sure it will. And as this i welcome it :)

By the way, earlier in this thread you asked for the names of WW1 u-boat books in English. Besides "Raiders of the Deep" by Lowell Thomas (an outstanding book since he actually interviewed famous u-boat skippers, such as von Arnauld de la Periere and Hersing in 1928), there is "The U-boat War, 1914 - 1918" by Edwin Grey, published in 1972 and reprinted in 1994. It's a very thorough and interesting history of the development of the u-boat arm of the German navy and of the German u-boat campaign in WW1. Grey also wrote a book entitled, "A Damned Un-English Weapon", a history of WW1 British submarine warfare (another excellent book), but I think it's' out-of-print.
Thanks for the info, however i particularly asked for first hand accounts like riders of the deep. I have a few dozens of such accounts and almost non of them seem to exist in english.

Good luck developing your game and I look forward to its release. :up:
Many thanks!

Regards,
Deamon