Hehehehehehe!!!! It works.

[Rockin Robbins]

I screwed the pooch bigtime. Somehow my course was the same as the plotted course but I was not following the plotted course. At 3072 TC this became apparent as I overshot a plotted turn and was barreling toward an island. Luckily the clutter caused my PC to stutter a bit and I hit the backspace button in time to avoid an unfortunate Dinsdale-like incident.

Hiding behind the island was a fleet of Jap warships led by the two coolest destroyers you ever saw. I shut down auto torpedo loading and damage repair, did not call general quarters and went to silent running. Talk about closing the barn door after the cows are all out! These guys saw me before I submerged to periscope depth. Two of them that I can definitely ID so far. Other warships far behind, so it most likely doesn't matter what they are. They're all in shallow water ajacent to the island and although one looks like a Mogami, I'm not going in there. Not on my career game.

Both of these guys are pinging! I hit the jets and one makes a run. I stay at periscope depth and run out from under. Back to silent speed. Lotsa booms back there. Now, as Ducimus said, one starts pinging and one is listening. I took one more run at periscope depth, pinged the bottom and found 600' of water. Time to give up the initiative (?????:doh: what initiative?!!!) and take the prudent course. Hate to do it by the book, take her deep anyway.

Thermal layer at 190' but sonar conditions are pretty good with a light chop on the surface and full sunlight, no wind. Went to 210 feet and then I got my crazy idea. Do you know the difference between the attack and observation scope? In RL the obs scope had a brighter image, and SH4 doesn't model that. But the difference I was reminded of was that the observation scope could be cranked all the way up to the vertical to look for planes. Hmmmmmm.....:hmm:

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Silent%20Hunter%204/Waterssurfacefrom300feetobsscope.jpg

Sonar said one of the tin cans was making a run. I raised the observation scope just out of the trunk, pointed it at the destroyer's bearing and scanned up and down. THERE HE WAS! I could watch the whole end of his run! Evasion was a lead pipe cinch.

I took her down to 300' and took a screenshot, which you can see above. Unfortunately, the destroyers have given up the chase, but you can clearly see the water's surface from this depth. Coordinating with sonar to acquire the target is easy. You can see just where they're aimed and turn away at the right time. I watched depth charges explode. For some reason I haven't seen the charges fall through the water before they explode, but these went off right near the surface.

So there you go! A new evasion technique that is as exciting as it gets. I was squealing like my teenage daughter. I hope to post some screenies, but since I run Trigger Maru, convoys with multiple escorts are historically rare, thanks to tater's mission tweaking. It may be awhile.

But give the observation scope a try next time you're deep avoiding the emporer's guard dogs. It's amazingly easy to use and sure is effective!

[MONOLITH]

I actually posted about using the scope underwater to dodge escorts, quite awhile ago.

And a lot of people just yelled at me saying it was too unrealistic. :cry:

But yeah, it works. ;)

[sqk7744]

Awesome Thread and cool idea Gents!

Just incase the sonar op wants a visual ;)

[Rockin Robbins]

I actually posted about using the scope underwater to dodge escorts, quite awhile ago.

And a lot of people just yelled at me saying it was too unrealistic. :cry:

But yeah, it works. ;)
It's using a tool available to a real submarine captain. Now if unrealistic means that we're seeing something impossible to see through a real periscope then I would have to grant the point.

However, if this is a decent representation of what you can see through the observation scope and just nobody thought to do this in RL, why then, BALDERDASH! :arrgh!:

Orchestra, start the Navy Hymn softly in the background...

The entire history us the US Submarine Service in World War II (especially under Admiral Lockwood in Pearl Harbor) was one of innovation by brave individuals who threw away the rulebook, established procedure and regulations themselves in the quest for victory in the Pacific. First, captains ignored their training and established practice of firing torpedoes by sonar from 100' and dared to expose their sub and crew by conducting "unrealistic" visual approaches and firing. This was actual disobedience to orders, putting their sub at unnecessary risk.

Mush Morton ignored established procedure to go deep when attacked by escorts, and "unrealistically" remained at periscope depth to meet destroyers on their own turf. When he gained some confidence, Morton went whole hog, bullfighter style, by fully extending his scope and increasing speed to make a prominent wake feather so his foe could easily see and charge his boat. "A destroyer can easily avoid any torpedo fired at his bow. The bow cross-section is so small the chance of a hit constitutes unnecessary risk" was established procedure. Morton realized he was fighting men, not boats. These men in the heat of battle seeing a submarine right in front of them were so eager for the easy kill that they got tunnel vision, total focus on the coming kill that blinded them to offensive action by the submarine. When Morton invented the "down the throat" shot, it worked famously. It also threatened his career as a submarine captain for its "unrealistic" nature. But success will sometimes trump regulations.

Although under Admiral Christy you could definitely be crucified, under Admiral Lockwood enterprising captains "unrealistically" busted into their top secret torpedoes, disarming the magnetic detonator and going for much more difficult contact shots. Regulations and naval procedure said this was unworkable and even punishable conduct. We'll say "unrealistic". Then sank ships and kept their jobs long enough for far too many of them to die honorably in combat.

That is only three of the many more examples where individual daring and defiance of direct orders resulted in success, which was often adopted by other submarine captains at considerably less risk (once the innovator survived his blasphemy they were likely to do so also).

Success in battle is not the product of NASA-like rigid adherance to established procedures and blind obedience to orders. Success has always been and always will be due to the ingenuity of outstanding individuals who innovate much more freely than the US military was at first willing to tolerate. The German army realized this and put a high value on front line leadership, giving their officer corps much more latitude in action than our army. That is why the rule of thumb during operations planning was that one German division was worth three American ones. If we did not enjoy such odds, we did not conduct operations willingly.

It comes down to tater's assessment of what is realistic. He came from the Real Fleet Boat environment, where realism was making the capabilities of the submarine and enemy as close as possible to reality. Tater found that resulted in unrealistic action by the player. Since not many boats were sunk, Beery made it unlikely that the boat would be killed by a depth charge. Since our captains knew that, they took actions no submarine captain would have entertained in WWII, for instance, slugging it out with destroyers with their deck gun. For instance, waltzing into a convoy, taking on all the escorts and then finishing off the merchies at their leisure. Tater has concluded that the "unrealistically high" abilities of Japanese escorts in Trigger Maru result in much more realistic gameplay by the player.

Therefore I hereby and forthwith do declare that using the observation scope during an escort evasion is not only realistic, it is uber-realistic!!!! :arrgh!: imitation of the routine out of the box, on the spot, risky, individual "unrealistic" innovation that typified the successful submarine captain in both American and German submarine fleets. So I reverse the tables and say that if all submarine captains do not use this amazing innovation, it is THEY who bear the mantle of shame: they who are the real "unrealistic" captains!:up::up::up::up: or is it :down::down::down::down:?

Thank you orchestra. You may stop now.

Looking forward to all the love notes and encouragement you mentioned. I guess I raised my scope and increased speed to 5 knots. All destroyers may now charge to the attack. Please keep it fun!

[mrbeast]

I think the point is not whether RL skippers would have tried this but could they? Would the scope not have flooded by extending it a depth much below perisope depth? Would a RL skipper have been willing to try that if it mean't disabling his scope?

[Rockin Robbins]

I think the point is not whether RL skippers would have tried this but could they? Would the scope not have flooded by extending it a depth much below perisope depth? Would a RL skipper have been willing to try that if it mean't disabling his scope?

Excellent point. Although it is obvious that the scope must be built to stand the pressure, would the act of extending it a few inches out of the shears cause flooding? How could we ever determine that? Tater? Ducimus? Nuke sub vets? Diesel sub vets? Anyone? HELLLLLLLPPPPPPP!!!!!

[Fincuan]

That's a technique I first came across when starting to play SH3, but no doubt it could be older than that. IIRC there have been several debates over this, and the main argument against it was that the real life underwater visibility in most oceans is very limited. In SH3 and 4 that is never the case, which makes this technique very effective.

[mrbeast]

I think the point is not whether RL skippers would have tried this but could they? Would the scope not have flooded by extending it a depth much below perisope depth? Would a RL skipper have been willing to try that if it mean't disabling his scope?

Excellent point. Although it is obvious that the scope must be built to stand the pressure, would the act of extending it a few inches out of the shears cause flooding? How could we ever determine that? Tater? Ducimus? Nuke sub vets? Diesel sub vets? Anyone? HELLLLLLLPPPPPPP!!!!!

I'll have to do a bit of research into the plausibility of this.

[MONOLITH]

Here's the old debate; just for reference...


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116429&highlight=periscope

[dcb]

And here's a reference on the net about a technique of taking snapshots through a periscope while underwater. I have no time to research the technique right now, but this should be a hint for those interested by what can be seen through the scope.
http://www.theconservativezone.com/2005/01/oops_3.html

[don1reed]

IIRC during the original SH, the scope automatically retracted during dives below PD...and...when trying to raise the scope at depth, The XO or COB would warn you that you were too deep for it's use.

...but like others... I've been using this technique since SH2.

Cheers,

[SteamWake]

Yea I remember the previous thread. Still Its a "Fun" thing to do.

I'm not 'yelling' at anyone or telling them how to play, hell make your sub fly if you want.

But I think though (as I had said in the previous thread) that in real life you would be lucky to see the end of your boat much less the surface at 300 feet.

Also isnt there some kind of limitation at what depth the scope(s) could be raised without blowing out the seals ?

Oh and the running into land at high TC geee... Ive 'never' done that... heh no.... never... well okay maybe a couple of times. Usually after loading a saved game and forgetting I have to 'remind' the helmsman to follow a plotted course.

[Rockin Robbins]

So is water clarity a constant in SH4? How about with ROW?

Thank you mrbeast and dcb for shedding some light on the subject. SteamWake, yell if you wish, just do it in your normal good humor. After all I was a bit over the top on my second post. Was I abusive? Hope not.....NO! I WASN'T!!:rotfl:

Looking forward to the research on real submarines. This is getting interesting!:p

[SteamWake]

So is water clarity a constant in SH4? How about with ROW?

Thank you mrbeast and dcb for shedding some light on the subject. SteamWake, yell if you wish, just do it in your normal good humor. After all I was a bit over the top on my second post. Was I abusive? Hope not.....NO! I WASN'T!!:rotfl:

Looking forward to the research on real submarines. This is getting interesting!:p

Heh I was referencing Monolith's post. Bit touchy ? ;)

Im no submarine expert but my gut instinct is that it would be a bad idea to raise a scope at 300'.

[MONOLITH]

I'm not 'yelling' at anyone or telling them how to play, hell make your sub fly if you want.


Oh, I know. :D


I was exxaggerating a bit for effect. Poetic license and all that. :rotfl:

[Rockin Robbins]

Heh I was referencing Monolith's post. Bit touchy ? ;)

Im no submarine expert but my gut instinct is that it would be a bad idea to raise a scope at 300'.
No! (ahem) I mean not touchy at all....:cool: Actually if we get touchy AVG will be on us like rust on a conning tower and we'll all be sent to bed without supper. Luckily I have a laptop with SH4 on it hidden under the covers that he doesn't know about.:know:

I just raise the scope far enough to clear the shears, maybe 12 inches. And then there's rotation and elevation to consider with possible leaky seals. I hope someone comes back with some research showing whether that could be done. I'm going to check out the actual periscope manual when I get home to see if it has a clue. I also seem to remember that some field teardown and repair was possible at sea.

[mookiemookie]

I'll start by saying that I'm no scientist, but wouldn't the water pressure at 300 feet make it impossible for a hydraulically operated periscope to be raised? Not to mention the fragile glass lenses and optics. I doubt they'd be able to withstand the PSI at 300 feet.

Could be wrong, but that's my hypothesis.

[MONOLITH]

I'll start by saying that I'm no scientist, but wouldn't the water pressure at 300 feet make it impossible for a hydraulically operated periscope to be raised? Not to mention the fragile glass lenses and optics. I doubt they'd be able to withstand the PSI at 300 feet.

Could be wrong, but that's my hypothesis.

I don't believe the periscope gets sealed in a compartment free of the ocean pressure when it's down. It just drops below a shield, but is still exposed to the water and pressure.

Is this not correct?

[mookiemookie]

I don't believe the periscope gets sealed in a compartment free of the ocean pressure when it's down. It just drops below a shield, but is still exposed to the water and pressure.

Is this not correct?

http://209.144.27.3/forums/images/smilies/shrug2.gif

[Rockin Robbins]

I'll start by saying that I'm no scientist, but wouldn't the water pressure at 300 feet make it impossible for a hydraulically operated periscope to be raised? Not to mention the fragile glass lenses and optics. I doubt they'd be able to withstand the PSI at 300 feet.

Could be wrong, but that's my hypothesis.
I don't believe the periscope gets sealed in a compartment free of the ocean pressure when it's down. It just drops below a shield, but is still exposed to the water and pressure.

Is this not correct?

Yes, you are correct. The periscope is only protected from impact but not pressure by the sheath it is retracted into. At all times the head is exposed to full sea water pressure, even at full retraction. I think the potential problems would be confined to the seals and whether movement of the periscope shaft under high water pressure environment might provoke leaks, and whether these leaks would render the periscope unrepairable. It still leaves the question very open though.

[Sailor Steve]

No one seems to have addressed the real question here: not "could the scope handle the pressure?", or "how far could you see?"

The real question is "did they do it or not?" Has anyone looked at reports to see if any captain ever actually did it? I'm betting they couldn't, and didn't, but of course I don't know for sure either.:sunny:

[Kodaita]

Sometimes I prefer to think of it not so much as COULD they have done it, but WOULD they have? I am sure if they could have, they would have. As for the could have issue, I think at shallow depth they could have. Say 100 feet or less, past that the pressure and lack of light would have made it impossible.

[Rockin Robbins]

No one seems to have addressed the real question here: not "could the scope handle the pressure?", or "how far could you see?"

The real question is "did they do it or not?" Has anyone looked at reports to see if any captain ever actually did it? I'm betting they couldn't, and didn't, but of course I don't know for sure either.:sunny:
Thought I already disposed of the "did they do it" question with a brilliant ;) argument complete with Navy Hymn. You were not inspired???? Again, it is a corollary of tater's realism gambit: unrealistic AI by escorts results in much more realistic gameplay by the player. My corollary is that the normal behavior of the most successful sub captains was to throw the book away (including violating regulations and direct orders) to innovate and originate tactics never used before (I gave three examples and to that I add illegally removing a scuttling charge from the submarine and using it to blow up a Japanese train on the mainland of Japan). Since that was THEIR normal behavior, if we are to play the game realistically, we cannot be bound by what was actually used in WWII, as they were not either. Therefore innovation beyond the actual WWII practice is MORE REALISTIC than your position of "the real question is 'did they do it?'" The unassailable position meets the irresistable argument.:smug:


The only remaining question, then, is "did the capabilities of the periscope and water clarity ever render such a tactic plausible." The answer to that is complete justification for using this tactic realistically. Is that a troll or what?

Come on folks! I'm looking for variation of ideas. If you don't agree, don't just state your disagreement, support your position. I'm trying real hard to actually convince people I'm right with logic, examples, thought experiments, voodoo, inspiring music, etc. Steve, you can do better than that.:up:

Of course both our positions get squished if someone comes up with proof that "well, that scope was just fine as long as you didn't move it, but as soon as you turned or extended that puppy when you were below 100' the seals turned into jelly and your boat was toast."

[SteamWake]

If you don't agree, don't just state your disagreement, support your position.

I disagree and Im sitting :smug:

Just kidding I ran accross this with a quicky nexus. I dont have time to browse it now but it looked like some interesting reading and you might just find an answer there.

http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/eyes.htm

[Rockin Robbins]

If you don't agree, don't just state your disagreement, support your position.
I disagree and Im sitting :smug:

Just kidding I ran accross this with a quicky nexus. I dont have time to browse it now but it looked like some interesting reading and you might just find an answer there.

http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/eyes.htm

A great article and magazine worth a bookmark. Unfortunately, it shed no light on this situation. Looked promising too!

[SilentOtto]

I had always read the problem there is water visibility, this issue was discussed apropos the Mediterranean campaign, talking about planes spotting submerged subs. Seems the Med was a unique case for the conditions there sometimes allowed visibility of more than 30-40 meters, unheard of in other seas.
I didnt do a big research but I found this data (http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/viz/latest.php3) from scuba divers in north atlantic. You can see there the usual visibility is around 4-6 meters, clearly not enough for observations.

[mrbeast]

If you don't agree, don't just state your disagreement, support your position.

I disagree and Im sitting :smug:

Just kidding I ran accross this with a quicky nexus. I dont have time to browse it now but it looked like some interesting reading and you might just find an answer there.

http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/eyes.htm

I looked at this too. Couldn't find anything useful in the online periscope manual either plenty on how to purge the priscope barrel of moisture or dismantle various bits and bobs but nothing about extending the scope below periscope depth.

I've ever encountered this tactic in accounts from RL veterans so my preliminary conclusion is that it wasn't done and there are probably qite a few reasons for this.

[Rockin Robbins]

I had always read the problem there is water visibility, this issue was discussed apropos the Mediterranean campaign, talking about planes spotting submerged subs. Seems the Med was a unique case for the conditions there sometimes allowed visibility of more than 30-40 meters, unheard of in other seas.
I didnt do a big research but I found this data (http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/viz/latest.php3) from scuba divers in north atlantic. You can see there the usual visibility is around 4-6 meters, clearly not enough for observations.
This is all littoral data: breakwaters, piers, on-shore locations mostly in the UK. I'd expect waters close to shore to have poor visibility because of wave action stirring up the bottom. Offshore, however, could be a very different situation. We need more data on that, as well as follow-through on the periscope situation. Good job though, Silent and mrbeast. It's too bad we haven't heard from some real subvets on this one yet.

[Fincuan]

From the Undersea Warfare magazine linked above:

Once submerged, submarines are essentially blind to the visual world above the surface. Windows and portholes are more or less useless, since they provide only the minutest view of the submarine’s surroundings, especially at depths where the sun’s light never penetrates.


WW1 and 2 subskippers weren't stupid, and the naval periscope was over 50 years old by the time US subs went to war against the japanese. It seems inevitable that using the periscope to avoid a surface combatant would not have been done sooner or later in real life, since Silent Hunter players started doing it immediately when they laid their hands on SH3 :)

[SteamWake]

From the 'magazine' article... last paragraph page 2


In a hundred years, submarines have progressed from having to porpoise at the surface to see outside, through crude viewing devices fixed in height and direction, to today’s hull-penetrating, multi-purpose, camera-equipped scopes, which allow the boats to get a clear view of the outside world from up to 60 feet below the surface,


Does that mean that contemporary 'periscope depth' is up to 60 feet ? Or does it mean they can literally see from 60' deep ?

Here is another interesting article "The virtual periscope" http://www.onr.navy.mil/obs/reports/docs/06/obflacc1.pdf
edit: Im an idiot and posted the quote twice ;)

[Sailor Steve]

Thought I already disposed of the "did they do it" question with a brilliant ;) argument complete with Navy Hymn. You were not inspired????
:rotfl: Of course I was inspired; just not convinced.

Again, it is a corollary of tater's realism gambit: unrealistic AI by escorts results in much more realistic gameplay by the player. My corollary is that the normal behavior of the most successful sub captains was to throw the book away (including violating regulations and direct orders) to innovate and originate tactics never used before (I gave three examples and to that I add illegally removing a scuttling charge from the submarine and using it to blow up a Japanese train on the mainland of Japan). Since that was THEIR normal behavior, if we are to play the game realistically, we cannot be bound by what was actually used in WWII, as they were not either. Therefore innovation beyond the actual WWII practice is MORE REALISTIC than your position of "the real question is 'did they do it?'" The unassailable position meets the irresistable argument.:smug:
I agree, to a point. My own point wasn't whether they were willing to do it or not; my real point was that if they never did it, it was probably because they couldn't.

The only remaining question, then, is "did the capabilities of the periscope and water clarity ever render such a tactic plausible." The answer to that is complete justification for using this tactic realistically. Is that a troll or what?
What I just said.

What you just said.

Or something.

Come on folks! I'm looking for variation of ideas. If you don't agree, don't just state your disagreement, support your position. I'm trying real hard to actually convince people I'm right with logic, examples, thought experiments, voodoo, inspiring music, etc. Steve, you can do better than that.:up:
I wouldn't be so sure. My irrefutable answer this week is a definite "I don't know". I was just tossing out ideas.

Of course both our positions get squished if someone comes up with proof that "well, that scope was just fine as long as you didn't move it, but as soon as you turned or extended that puppy when you were below 100' the seals turned into jelly and your boat was toast."
That reminds me of the "Five torps or six for the Type II" argument. There may not be a definitive answer. If I say "yes, you're cheating", you can easily reply "no, I'm not. Prove me wrong". I still think that if they did it, they would have mentioned it.


So there.:p

[Rockin Robbins]

From the 'magazine' article... last paragraph page 2


In a hundred years, submarines have progressed from having to porpoise at the surface to see outside, through crude viewing devices fixed in height and direction, to today’s hull-penetrating, multi-purpose, camera-equipped scopes, which allow the boats to get a clear view of the outside world from up to 60 feet below the surface,

Does that mean that contemporary 'periscope depth' is up to 60 feet ? Or does it mean they can literally see from 60' deep ?

Here is another interesting article "The virtual periscope" http://www.onr.navy.mil/obs/reports/docs/06/obflacc1.pdf
edit: Im an idiot and posted the quote twice ;)

Congratulations on a superb piece of information, complete with a picture of a ship's hull taken from 100' of water showing the hull even clearer than it appears in Silent Hunter 4! Obviously for the virtual periscope project they were able to find water clear enough to see the sun clearly as a disk from 600' and a ship's hull clearly from 100'. You can see the clouds in the 100' shot!

This site proves that in one place at one time there was this kind of water clarity. The fact that they are proceeding with this expensive research shows that they have reason to believe this will be a useful technique for a significant proportion of time a submarine spends submerged. Certainly we can say that water clarity necessary to see a ship's hull at 100' depth isn't considered rare.

I'll be the first to say sure, sometimes the underwater periscope technique would be useless due to limited visibility. But the photos on the website you found prove that sometimes it could be VERY useful.

That's step one! Now, is the WWII periscope capable of being used in such conditions.

@Steve: well, at least you were inspired:sunny:

I waded my way all the way through the periscope manual and I suppose I could take one apart and put it back together again (with a hardcopy of the manual beside me) but I still don't have a clue about functionality of the thing at 100' or deeper.

@finquan: the article in Undersea Warfare quoted above makes it clear that the first modern periscope that could be retracted and was of the two telescope design was not until after 1916 when Kollmorgen Corporation was formed to manufacture the new design. 1942-1916<>50 years. And remember that pre-war strategy was to minimize use of the periscope and fire torpedoes by sonar from 100' depth. Innovation was severely punished in pre-war military service. Tradition was king, and to the extent you honored tradition, you advanced your career. It was stagnation with teeth!:88) So there were 26 years of experience, not all of which were particularly productive ones for developing new techniques. You bring up a brilliant point that SH3 players are doing it. Wonder if any U-Boat skippers (real ones) did it?