SUBSIM Radio Room Forums


SUBSIM: The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Silent Hunter 3 - 4 - 5 > SHIII Mods Workshop
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-16-2017, 01:25 PM   #31
jaxa
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Białystok, Poland
Posts: 1,460
Downloads: 407
Uploads: 0
Default

Good to hear that your work is in progress, padi
__________________



SHIII + GWX 3 Gold + V16B1 hardcode fixes + SH3Commander
SHIV + OM + OMEGU
jaxa is online   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 12:05 PM   #32
A6Intruder
Seasoned Skipper
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 663
Downloads: 22
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxa View Post
Good to hear that your work is in progress, padi
Copy that!
Best regards
A6Intruder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 02:48 PM   #33
the_frog
XO
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 415
Downloads: 17
Uploads: 0
Default

Hello padi,

in case you are looking for 3D models of the two basic types of British throwers, check the lastes version of the guns_UK library.

As for the Isaac Sweers, it was fitted out in the UK and had the standard outfit of fleet destroyers of 1941/42 (4 throwers, 2 rails).

The original French ships had an internal rail systems for heavy depth charges and Thornycroft-type throwers. All that is included in the models done by Texelbo and also in my Le Fantasque model.

The French ships serving with the Royal Navy had their equipment replaced by British material. So, try making educated guesses by comparing with similar British units.

The Italian used their very own type of throwers and also specific rails. A simple model of the Italian throwers was done by JapLance for his SH4 models. Just check the libraries he provided.

Cheers
the_frog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 04:36 AM   #34
padi
Sparky
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 154
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Wow that are really nice and useful informations!
I'm implementing that information into the files and I hope that I can upload a extended file in the next few days.

But I have two questions regarding your answers:

1. to the Frog: Which guns_UK do you mean? Is the file supplied with your last ship?

2. to gap: I would really like to implement the Models into the files. There is only one Question: Did the Mk7 Mod2 look different from the Mk7?
Sadly the Mk9 Mod2 is useless for the purpose of this mod, because the only advantage (that I have read about) was the deeper detonation depth...
But if the Mod2 had any implementable improvements I'm going to implement them.

Also thanks to all the replys which show me that the work isn't useless and nobody cares about it!

Like we say in Germany "das geht runter wie Öl"!
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 07:43 AM   #35
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,063
Downloads: 682
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
2. to gap: I would really like to implement the Models into the files. There is only one Question: Did the Mk7 Mod2 look different from the Mk7?
I don't have any information on the existence of a Mk7 Mod2, but there were a Mk9 Mod1 and a Mod2 if that's what you meant. IIRC, the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod1 were almost identical, the only difference consisting in construction details. The Mk9 Mod2, on turn, differed in many ways from the two previous mods:



Depth charge Mk9 on the left, MK9 Mod2 on the right

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
Sadly the Mk9 Mod2 is useless for the purpose of this mod, because the only advantage (that I have read about) was the deeper detonation depth...
But if the Mod2 had any implementable improvements I'm going to implement them.
I am going by memory, but I think the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod2 had slightly different explosive charges/blast radii, and I am pretty sure their sinking rates differed quite a lot. Conversely, the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod1 shared the same characteristics.

Detonation depths depended on detonators/fuzes fitted, and they can't be associated with any particular depth charge mark/mod, as they were interchangeable and new detonators were often retrofitted to older depth charge models. Information available on the web is often misleading on this point, but the US manuals that I pointed you to are quite clear on this respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
Also thanks to all the replys which show me that the work isn't useless and nobody cares about it!
Sure it isn't, quite the opposite. Depth charge's evolution, together with the improvement of detection technologies, was one of the key factors of WWII ASW. At the beginning of the war, DCs were more a deterrent than an actual threat, but by mid-late war, they had turned into deadly weapons. Unfortunately devs oversimplified these factors. Any mod addressing them, is of high interest
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is online   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 08:03 AM   #36
Kendras
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: below the surface
Posts: 1,513
Downloads: 18
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Depth charge's evolution, together with the improvement of detection technologies, was one of the key factors of WWII ASW. At the beginning of the war, DCs were more a deterrent than an actual threat, but by mid-late war, they had turned into deadly weapons. Unfortunately devs oversimplified these factors. Any mod addressing them, is of high interest
+1
Kendras is online   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 08:04 AM   #37
padi
Sparky
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 154
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

No, I mean the second modification of the Mk7, which I refer as Mod2.
Here is the corresponding text from Navweaps:

Quote:
A redesigned Mark 4. The redesign was to simplify the construction and took advantage of new production techniques developed since the end of World War I. This was the standard depth charge for USN ships early in World War II. Mod 1 (issued in August 1942) increased the maximum depth setting to 600 feet (183 m). A later version reduced the warhead to 400 lbs. (181.4 kg) TNT in order to add a lead weight which increased the sink rate to 13 fps (4 mps).
The part from "A later version..." I think is refering to the Mod2.

Quote:
I am going by memory, but I think the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod2 had slightly different explosive charges/blast radii, and I am pretty sure their sinking rates differed quite a lot. Conversely, the Mk9 and the Mk9 Mod1 shared the same characteristics.
I have never heard from that, but I will search about that.

I also haven't knew the information about the fuzes before...

Last edited by padi; 07-19-2017 at 08:07 AM. Reason: Quoting which is not possible on the mobile site.
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 09:21 AM   #38
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,063
Downloads: 682
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
No, I mean the second modification of the Mk7, which I refer as Mod2.
Here is the corresponding text from Navweaps:

[...]

The part from "A later version..." I think is refering to the Mod2.
Oh, you are talking about the British MkVII. The usage of the same mark numbers for different depth charges by the Americans and by the English, is a bit misleading. British DC's were designated with roman numbers though, whereas for US DC's arabic numbers were used instead.

Anyway, I think the official designation for the DC mod you are talking about was MKVII-Heavy, and yes, its lead weight protruding from the cylindrical casing, it brong some external differences compared to the 'regular' MkVII:



British depth charge MkVII (left) and MkVII-Heavy (right)

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
I have never heard from that, but I will search about that.

I also haven't knew the information about the fuzes before...
I am a bit busy now, but I will point you to the right information ASAP. Somewhere on my HD, I should have an Excel chart created by me, resuming all the characteristics of the main US/British depth charges and all the possible combinations of DC's, fuzes and detonators
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is online   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 09:28 AM   #39
padi
Sparky
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 154
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Oh, you are talking about the British MkVII. The usage of the same mark numbers for different depth charges by the Americans and by the English, is a bit misleading. British DC's were designeted with roman numbers though, whereas in the States arabic numbers were used instead.

Anyway, I think the official designation for the DC mod you are talking about was MKVII-Heavy, and yes, its lead weight partly protruding from the cylindrical casing, it brong some external differences compared to the 'regular' MkVII:



British depth charge MkVII (right) and MkVII-Heavy (left)



I am a bit busy now, but I will point you to the right information ASAP. Somewhere on my HD, I should have an Excel chart created by me, resuming all the characteristics of the main US/British depth charges and all the possible combinations of DC's, fuzes and detonators
No, I´m talking about the american Mark 7 DC and not the british Mark VII!
As written here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php the Mark 7 had at least two modification intervals and because of that I named the second modification interval Mod 2, even if this name is not written, but what should you name it else?
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 10:30 AM   #40
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,063
Downloads: 682
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
No, I´m talking about the american Mark 7 DC and not the british Mark VII!
As written here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.php the Mark 7 had at least two modification intervals and because of that I named the second modification interval Mod 2, even if this name is not written, but what should you name it else?
I am sorry: I have checked all the documents I know of, but I couldn't find any useful information on the topic. Data reported by John Campbell in his book that I mentioned in one of my previous posts, is more or less the same as in Navweaps:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Campbell - Naval Weapons of World War Two (1985)
"A redesigned Mk 4 and standard in the earlier part of the war. Total weight was 768lb (348kg), charge 600lb (272kg), sinking speed 9f/s (2.7m/s) and depth 30-300ft (9-91m) increased in Mod 1 (issued in August 1942) to 600ft (183m). Versions with lead weight had a sinking speed of about 13f/s (4m/s)"
That's all. I have also checked this ordnance pamphlet by the Bureau of Ordnance, but nowhere in it these 'lead weight versions' are mentioned. The document is dated December 1943. Either the heavy Mk7 entered service after that date, or it was seldomly used.
Let me know if you find any extra information. In the meanwhile we can only assume that, unlike the British Mk VII-Heavy, the US depth charge with the same number had the lead weight fitted internally, and that the heavy version of it had the same external appearance as its standard-weight mods. The lead weight being internal, seems to be confirmed by the fact that the explosive charge had to be reduced in order to make space for the extra weight, as reported by navweaps.
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is online   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 10:44 AM   #41
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,063
Downloads: 682
Uploads: 9


Default

For reference, this is how my version of the US Mk DC looks (more specifically a British-made version of it, as you can see from the markings):

__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is online   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 10:52 AM   #42
padi
Sparky
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 154
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
For reference, this is how my version of the US Mk DC looks (more specifically a British-made version of it, as you can see from the markings):

That models are so nice!

I can't wait to have that models implemented!

After the conversation I think that I will also implement the Mk 9 Mod 1 but for first with estimated ratings, but they are changed later.

The Mk 7 Mod 2 will also stay in the mod, because I think that it is implemented completely...
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 11:06 AM   #43
Anvar1061
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: on land,on air and on sea
Posts: 764
Downloads: 487
Uploads: 0
Default What happened to the date? 19.19.2017


What happened to the date? 19.19.2017

Last edited by Anvar1061; 07-19-2017 at 12:41 PM.
Anvar1061 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 11:11 AM   #44
padi
Sparky
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 154
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvar1061 View Post
What happened to the date? 19.19.2017
What do you mean?
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 11:53 AM   #45
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,063
Downloads: 682
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvar1061 View Post
What happened to the date? 19.19.2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
What do you mean?
Another prophecy on when the next end of the world is to be expected?

Now let's find which calendar has 19.19.2017 as a valid date
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is online   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
asw , depth charge , mod , real , realismn

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1997- 2017 Subsim