Asthetics and U-boats

[pythos]

Sorry if I spelt that wrong, but anyways.

I was looking at profile pictures of american fleet boats, and U-boats. Comapared to the Fleet boat, the U-boat is just more pleasing asethetically, especially the early type VIIC boat.

But why is this so? The american fleet boat isn't all that bad looking really, most notably the later war conning tower boats. They have long gracefull lines, starting off with a deeply sloping bow. The U-boat has likewise. The bow of the four tube fleet boat is not all that different from it's german counter part.

So what is it? I then moved on to the conning tower. The U-boat's is just a neat almost half barrel arangement. Or a better description being a Roman chariot. Uncluttered, and simple. The American boats had a huge portalled block of metal, that had an open bridge in the middle, with a set of scope sheers behind it, this arangement gave way to a cleaner looking tower with AA nests forward and aft, but still had the exposed periscope sheers. The U-boat's scopes neatly tuck into the hull of the boat, and do not protrude about the line of the bridge when retracted. It also helps that the tower of the U-boat is pretty much in the center of the hull, wheras the fleet boat's is quite a ways forward, due to the four engines the boats had, giving an off center appearance.

Then I just moved onto the stearn, and there it was. Now this may sound strange but this is what makes the U-boat look much more like a machine meant for the business of war (let's face it, that is the sole purpose for the existance of any of these boats).

Take a look at your average kitchen knife from the side, the one's with the little bit that protudes just below the line of the handle. That little bit looks like the cutoff point of the keel box of a Type II U-boat, the type VII has something similar but not as defined as the type II.

In short, the German boats look like Knives. They look like something meant to bring the battle to the enemy. Much like the Stuka, and BF-109 looked like things meant to be mean. In others eyes, these things looked sinister. The airborn machines with not one graceful line to them. The stuka looked like some metal hawk tearing out of the sky with its legs extened out to grab some prey. The BF-109 was quite angular looking in all the right ways, especially the earlier versions with the cone shaped spinner within which was the barrel of a very unpleasant suprise.

George lucas could not have done better with the appearance of the allied and Axis machines of war. The allied machines are quite heroic if humble looking, look at the Lancaster, and Liberator. Compare that to the HE-111. Compare the Tiger tank to the shearman. Which one would you rather tangle with if you had to? Look at the Focke Wulf FW 190, compared to the Corsair F4-U. The BF-109 to the P-51, or P-47 thunderbolt, or Spitfire for that matter Or the ultimate (in my book anyhow), ME-262, to the Meteor. The German jet has a fuselage that has the same cross section of a shark, it looks like a freaking airborn shark, while the meteor just looks..Heroic, very humble looking, kinda fat actually. In almost every example, the german version of a fighting machine looked more sinister. Definitely fitting the part of the war they fought in.

That was quite a stream of consiousnous. Please feel free to add on.

[CCIP]

How can you objectively define that?

You know what, I used to think that way too. But lately I've grown to love the fleet boats far more. It's a very subjective, changeable thing. I think a large portion of it is dependent on positive/exciting memories of it.

I work in discourse analysis so I run up against this a lot. It's really how you package the thing that counts. Thinking about it objectively - both are actually HORRENDOUS, UGLY, OBSOLETE machines that were deadly to the enemy and almost as deadly to their own crews! You know, thinking about it objectively...

...WWII submersibles are some of the worst frickin' things on the planet one can imagine :rotfl:

Maybe that's why we love them :|\\

[Ducimus]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :D

Personally i prefer the late war fleet boat conning tower over a uboats any day of the week. For one, a uboat's AA guns can't really fire at anything in front of it very well, if at all, where a fleetboat doesnt have that problem. For two, the lookouts are much lower to the water, which limits how far they can view, where as a fleet boat the lookouts in the shears can see a bit father. For three, the periscope shears being how they are in a fleetboat, allows the boat to sit at a deeper depth while using the periscope (compared to a uboat which must be at a much shallower depth), and also allows the fleetboat to operate its radar with most of the boat still submerged.

[Torplexed]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :D
That sums it up well. One other trait of US subs that holds true to this day is the position of the conning tower on the deck. Most WW2 subs featured a conning tower about the middle of the sub. For the US after the 'S' class the towers were always placed well forward of the centreline with a long unbroken line to the stern. Always found that trait unique and it's still the case with modern boats.

In playing SH4, I've also developed an appreciation for Japanese warships. Especially the heavy cruisers of the Takao class with that massive bulwark of a superstructure, the unusual turret arrangements, the raked funnels, the taper of the bow. Nothing quite like them in the Western navies.:cool:

[V.C. Sniper]

The Fleet subs are the most beautiful sub in WWII.

[Ducimus]

That sums it up well. One other trait of US subs that holds true to this day is the position of the conning tower on the deck. Most WW2 subs featured a conning tower about the middle of the sub. For the US after the 'S' class the towers were always placed well forward of the centreline with a long unbroken line to the stern. Always found that trait unique and it's still the case with modern boats.


You know, i never realized that tell just now. Your right.

[tater]

I think u-boats are pretty ugly compared to fleet types, actually. Much clunkier.

I've seen US Fleet boats in person, too, as well as a captured U-boat. (505)

[Torplexed]

I must admit to a fascination with the appearance of German tanks too. The Tiger, the Panther, the King Tiger. However, they owe their existence to the German experience in 1941-42 of tangling with heavier Russian tanks like the T-34 and the KV-1 which although poorly handled on the battlefield, came as quite a shock to the Germans who thought they had the best tanks in the world. The only answer the Germans had to the thick-skinned KV-1 in 1941 was the 88mm AA gun pressed into use as an anti-tank gun. When you look at the early German tank models like the Pz II, III, and IV they don't quite have that ugly hulking deadly look of the late war models.

[theluckyone17]

All I can say is my opinions run this way: The A-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10) is one of the ugliest aircraft around. However, I do not want to be an enemy ground unit anywhere near it.

In other words, gimme function over form any day.

[Rockin Robbins]

Is vastly superior to the German. Especially important is the placement of radio and radar antennae, longer periscopes for greater periscope depth and greater ability to run shallower in high seas without exposing your submarine, and higher lookouts.

All these contributed to making the intact American fleet boat more beautiful than the destroyed U-Boat that resulted in part from those design deficiencies.

Now if you want to pull out the Type XXI, I'll slink away and hide, because it is a beautiful looking boat, form and function merged in a way that communicates deadly effectiveness.

[pythos]

I think you all missed my point (if there really was one).

This post concerned form.

When it comes to function The fleet boat wins hands down. Far more capable in defensive ability, a lot more punch when it came to artillary, and far better designed when it came to distance and speed.

As far as the A-10 is concerned. I LOVE THAT PLANE. Talk about function over form. I would much rather go into battle in that thing than an f-15, or f-16, or even B-2.

It can out manuver anything, including missles, it can shirk cannon shells,, and it can fly missing half of its control surfaces.

Oh and let's not forget, "the road to bagdad" mostly the work of a few A-10s, with some help from high flying f-15s.

Then there is the cannon...nuff said.

[Syxx_Killer]

When it comes to aesthetics of U-boats to fleet boats, I will take the fleet boat. All its features just make it look magnificiently graceful as it slices through the waves. The conning towers look so cool, too. When I first fired up SH4, I never really realized how different the fleet boat conning tower was compared to a U-boat's. I'm still getting used to looking up in the bridge view in SH4 and seeing that tall periscope housing behind me. :o:lol:

When it comes to the A-10, that is one of my favorite planes. A lot of people say it's ugly, but I think it is one of the most beautiful planes ever created. The design is unique to say the least. :lol: Additionally, I remember seeing a documentary about the A-10 where they said if it had enough ammo and could fire its gun continually, it would eventually stop and actually start going backwards due to the heavy recoil. :o

[Galanti]

... while the meteor just looks..Heroic, very humble looking, kinda fat actually.

Sadly, the Brits, with some notable exceptions (Spit, Hawker Hunter, Mossie) have had a hell of a time designing anything in the air that did not look either faintly ridiculous or outright grotesque from the early 30s to recent times. In my opinion, of course. To be fair, other nations have put some even more horrifying abombinations into the air, but not with with the consistency of the British.

As far as subs go, I would put order of lovliness and/or coolness factor as follows: Type XXI, any fleet boat, Skipjack/Permit/Barbel and then any Russki sub from the Foxtrot on.

[Syxx_Killer]

As long as we are talking about aesthetics, I forgot to mention that I absolutely love the design of Japanese warships! The Fuso and Ise look absolutely stunning! Their very tall superstructors look very unique to say the least. :cool:

[Galanti]

As long as we are talking about aesthetics, I forgot to mention that I absolutely love the design of Japanese warships! The Fuso and Ise look absolutely stunning! Their very tall superstructors look very unique to say the least. :cool:

They are indeed beautiful. Do a google search on this guys work: Takeshi Yuki.
He's produced some excellent prints of all the major units.

[Bewolf]

I really prefer the U-boats in looks. Sleeker, deadlier. When it comes to function the U boat wins hands down. Without a huge superstructure telling everybody around where you are. Far more capable when it comes to defensives, majorly in the crash dive and depths department. Far better constructed to their roles, the sleek Type and nimble VII for Atlantic duty, the larger Type IX for range. Radar aside, best sensors around by far, especially Sonar.

Yup, easy choice. The Fleet boats, though not exactly ugly, are just boring. And the tower located to the front really takes the balance out of the boat. It's way too head heavy from an artistic point of view. Looks like a Truck, really, not like a deadly warship. But that it shares with its modern cousins. During the cold war the russians really made the better looking subs.




But then again, everything is in the eye of the beholder and luckily we are able to judge objectivly just by our own tastes without any nationalistic bias ever coming into play.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

Who the heck cares how nice subs look. They weren't built to walk down a runway or pose in Playboy. They were built to kill. End of story. And killing is never beautiful.:know::yep:

[rebel5555]

Concerning the A-10 Thunderbolt-II, that plane is a flying tank. I've heard stories from my cousin who actually flies one saying that he got out of his after a mission and the wings and fuselage were covered in bullet holes, yet he said he hadn't noticed he was shot that badly and he said to me I'm glad I was in an A-10 and not a F-16.:huh:

[Captain Vlad]

I also prefer the fleet boats, looks-wise, with a few caveats. I'm not terribly fond of the Gato-classes original conning tower, and the functional but ugly cutting down of the stern part of it on the mid-war subs doesn't help. However, the late war towers render the whole boat sort of...mean, but pretty.

Overall, the Sargo/Salmons, with their portholes and such, are my favorite. More primitive looking in their way than the S-class, but sleek and predatory.

The German U-Boats aren't bad looking, but the Type VII especially just seems sort of...generic, to me. Like it's your basic stock footage submarine or something. The Type IX is much better; combines the lengthy grace of a fleet boat with the German style, and while I still like the American boats better, it's certainly prettier than the Type VII. The XXIII I actually don't find all that attractive. Too bulbous. The Type II you want to pat on the head and feed after it follows you home.

Keep in mind that looks aren't just about beauty. Sometimes, it's about the impression you make. That's why I think the A-10's design is...perfect.:D

[tater]

I find comments on u-boats looking "sleek," odd. They look far less streamlined than a fleet boat to my eye.

I'm a big fan of the aesthetics of the RN T-Class, too.

tater

[Rockin Robbins]

To me the Type VII has a primitive, raw look to it of a grown-up Hunley. It isn't sleek. It doesn't look sophisticated. Just boilerplate "put it together fast so we can make 'em faster than they get killed" Sherman tank-like expediency. It isn't tall enough, the lookouts are practically in the drink with a really short horizon and no ability to look over large seas.

It's like IBM's famous "It isn't necessary to be the best, just slightly good enough not to fail." Certainly, not enough thought was given to making the Type VII especially, but also the Type IX, a decisive weapon once it was delivered to the scene of battle successfully. What are those few torpedoes going to do against so many ships in a convoy? But how are you going to fix that in a submarine as small as the Type VII? How can you make a larger sub that can still dive as deep when you are shackled to riveted construction? How can a sub be beautiful without an ice cream maker?

You know you're expendable when your vessel gets a number instead of a name! Numbers are not aesthetically pleasing at all.:ping:

[howler93]

Although I am a fan of the sinister lines of a Type VII, the US fleet boats have seriously grown on me. :up: I too, am a fan of the A-10, and hope they're never retired.

Cheers, everyone,
Howler :arrgh!:

[Ducimus]

Hows this for asthetic.
http://www.maritime.org/tour/index.htm

[kylesplanet]

Hows this for asthetic.
http://www.maritime.org/tour/index.htm

That just says "Come get ya some jackass!" I love it:smug:

[CCIP]

I'm a big fan of the aesthetics of the RN T-Class, too.

tater

I'll drink to that! T-class subs did look absolutely badass and the nice curves on some of the variants of them make both U-boats and fleet boats look blocky!

[Ducimus]

>>nice curves on some of the variants of them make both U-boats and fleet boats look blocky!

Its interesting to note how prewar they tried to make fleet boats more hydrodynamic (IE, early conning tower, as it is alot more streamlined), and then later on after the war, went back to that streamlining.

[DS]

From an aesthetic perspective, I like the U-Boats and (ducking for cover) early fleet boats with the "bathtub". They look sleek.

From a practical perspective, the late war fleet boats are were probably the best thing out there (except the Type XXI, which on paper should take that title, but was never truly proven in battle).

U-Boats were basically built on WWI designs, with upgraded equipment installed and stretched and strenthened hulls.

Fleet boats were more of a departure from WWI/S-Boat designs, built from the start to operate at long ranges with heavy firepower in support of the fleet (hence "Fleet Boat"). I see them as the next step in submarine evolution, as the Type XXI was, but in different way. Post war submarines tended to blend the attributes of the Fleet Boats and Type XXI boats, probably giving a bigger nod to the XXI design.

Of course, all of that is off topic. The original post was about aesthetics, and in general, I concur with the original poster.

The most aesthetically pleasing submarine I've ever seen? Probably the Skipjack class. Pure tear drop (rather than later SSNs, which were more torpedo/cigar shaped) with sail mounted forward planes that do not disrupt the shape of the hull (not ideal for ice, but hey, this is about aesthetics).

[Keelbuster]

Generally speaking, I like the look of German WWII war machines better than allied machines. This goes for planes, tanks and subs. Maybe it comes from playing Close Combat, Panzer General and Combat Mission for years, but I just feel that the Allied tanks _look_ weak, like they're begging for an 88 shell to come crashing through their pathetic armour, whereas the German machines look strong, deadly, well-made. They are also more pleasing to my eye. So goes for the FW and ME class planes vs. the RAF planes (XVIII? etc). Though I do like the P-51 quite a bit - she's a hotrod. German subs look better in my eye. I haven't really enjoyed the look of american boats (though the Gato is growing on me). Mind you, I'm still playing SH3;)

[Captain Vlad]

Look at the Focke Wulf FW 190, compared to the Corsair F4-U. The BF-109 to the P-51, or P-47 thunderbolt, or Spitfire for that matter Or the ultimate (in my book anyhow).

Funny thing here is, to me, nothing on this list looks more intimidating than the P-47. It's like a big rowdy biker just looking for an oppurtunity to crack a pool cue over someone's head. The German planes look kind of underfed by comparison.

[CDR Resser]

>>nice curves on some of the variants of them make both U-boats and fleet boats look blocky!

Its interesting to note how prewar they tried to make fleet boats more hydrodynamic (IE, early conning tower, as it is alot more streamlined), and then later on after the war, went back to that streamlining.
It makes you wonder. The deck guns and AA guns certainly proved their worth. However, it would seem that the top hamper from these items probably would have reduced underwater speed and endurance, as well as contributed to overall underwater noise generated.

Respectfully Submitted;
CDR Resser

[rebel5555]

Although I am a fan of the sinister lines of a Type VII, the US fleet boats have seriously grown on me. :up: I too, am a fan of the A-10, and hope they're never retired.

Cheers, everyone,
Howler :arrgh!:

Unfortunately they plan on replacing the A-10s with the F-35 Lightning-II which has stealth capabilities and can go supersonic without using it's afterburners.

[pythos]

The P-47 is very intimidating looking. It looks "muscular" and "well fed". The FW 190 looks like a wolf, that has not eaten well, and is VERY hungry.

Now remember I am not poo pooing the Venerable "Jug". Heck, that plane to me is the penultamate fighter/attack aircraft from the war. The p-51 gets alot of attention, whereas the thunderbolt gets little, which is really a shame cause the "Jug" was really a superior aircraft when it came to ruggedness, and speed. The P-47 is credited with the fastest dive speed ever recorded for a propeller driven AC. It was also the first aircraft type to shoot down a Jet in combat. The A-10, is definitely blessed with the name of thunderbolt, conscidering it's predacessor is the P-47.

By the way, the poster that said the Type II looked like something that needs a pat on the head after following you home. I laughed for quite a while with images of a little type two hopping up and down out of the water, with its upper tubes looking like eyes, and the bottom tube like a little mouth. Really cute image.

[Ducimus]

>>Unfortunately they plan on replacing the A-10s with the F-35 Lightning-II which has stealth capabilities and can go supersonic without using it's afterburners.
>>


Ode to the USAF's "fighter Mafia". Its like a special interest group within the "Flying Air force". (yes theres two USAFs, the other one doesnt fly at all)

[Captain Vlad]

The P-47 is very intimidating looking. It looks "muscular" and "well fed". The FW 190 looks like a wolf, that has not eaten well, and is VERY hungry
The 190 is my favorite German plane...for both style and function. I usually fly Allied on sims, but if I do fly German, she's my ride.

I remember being terribly dissapointed when I switched from the T-bolt to the Mustang on Aces Over Europe. Both planes have so many good qualities, but damnit, the Thunderbolt was just so much more fun to fly....and it's great to watch 109's vanish whenever I opened up with all eight guns.

By the way, the poster that said the Type II looked like something that needs a pat on the head after following you home. I laughed for quite a while with images of a little type two hopping up and down out of the water, with its upper tubes looking like eyes, and the bottom tube like a little mouth. Really cute image.
Love to see what Torplexed could do with that.:D

[sideways]

Long time lurker - big fan of these forums.

Couldn't resist posting a reply to this one

:ahem:

1) Type XXI, and to a lesser degree, the Type XVIII
2) Sugar Boats. Call me crazy, those things look awesome.
3) Type VII
4) Most of the rest of the fleet boats, esp the Gato. Gotta love a classic like that.
5) Type II
6) Type IX
7) more or less everything else.

And that new Russki Borei class that's supposed to be replacing the Typhoons/Akulas? :rock:

Also - when I first fired up SH4 i'd never really seen many japanese naval ships from WWII - couldn't believe how sleek they look! The giant tall superstructures on the Battleships didn't really do it for me, but those funnels are S-E-X-X-X-Y.

[Rockin Robbins]

...but I just feel that the Allied tanks _look_ weak, like they're begging for an 88 shell to come crashing through their pathetic armour, whereas the German machines look strong, deadly, well-made. They are also more pleasing to my eye.
And in that case appearance was truth. In an analog of the Type VII U-Boat, our tanks were just 88 fodder. But unlike the U-Boats, which ended up on the bottom of the ocean, we just picked up the blasted toy tanks, towed them to a repair stations where we cleaned out all the guts we could from the remains of the pulverized last crew, patched up the tank, painted the inside to partially kill the odor of dead flesh, installed a new crew and sent it out to die again.

We won the tank war because we sacrificed good tank crews in inferior equipement that we could fix or replace fast enough to overwhelm superior equipment. Sherman tanks were lousy places to die. Their clunky appearance was nothing more than truth in advertising.

[Keelbuster]

we just picked up the blasted toy tanks, towed them to a repair stations where we cleaned out all the guts we could from the remains of the pulverized last crew, patched up the tank, painted the inside to partially kill the odor of dead flesh, installed a new crew and sent it out to die again.

Yeesh....:huh:

[Ducimus]

we just picked up the blasted toy tanks, towed them to a repair stations where we cleaned out all the guts we could from the remains of the pulverized last crew, patched up the tank, painted the inside to partially kill the odor of dead flesh, installed a new crew and sent it out to die again.

Yeesh....:huh:


It's true. Or at least, ive heard the same thing from historical accounts.

[Raptor1]

I heard Shermans would go up to a Panther or a Tiger, shoot a shell through the front armor that would bounce right off, while the German tank would demolish the Sherman easily, but for every Panther the Axis built the Allies had about 10 Shermans...

[Quillan]

The story I'd heard was that Patton was asked if he'd rather have 1 really good tank or 3 just OK tanks, and he preferred quantity. I suppose you could always put stovepipe over the barrel, loudspeakers on the turret, and shoot paint shells. :p


Edit - fixed typo: was supposed to say QUANTITY instead of quality.

[tater]

We also had gas for our tanks.

They were fast (with a great suspension). They were not as heavy (while the big panzer threads made the ground pressure similar, total weight matters a lot for little, european bridges).

Our tanks were also reliable.

In addition, the US had more cars than the rest of the world combined (or close). As a result, American GIs were familiar with cars. They were "shade tree mechanics." They could actually fix their own tanks in many cases because they were not different than the cars and tractors they were used to back home.

In many cases, the crews bailed out as well, it wasn't always a fight to the death. Tank gets hit, remaining crew gets out.

Not saying the Sherman was a great tank, but it was not designed to fight other tanks, really, it was primarily and infantry support unit. And yes, quantity has a quality all its own. Regarding 88s, nothing was gonna stop an 88 within normal engagement ranges. One possible problem with 88s is actually over penetration.

BTW, a good game for PvP ww2 tanking is Battleground Europe (WW2OL). They have pretty decent modeling of tanks, and the sherman actually does OK as long as they are smart enough not to get in a face to face slug fight. Flank, and try for the sides.

tater

[MGR1]

The Sherman Firefly did have a decent gun, and I believe the 76mm on the later US versions was none to shabby at killing panzers either.

I'd say the M51 Isherman had the best gun though - ask the Israelis...!

Going back to the asthetics thing, I'll side with DS about the early conning towers for the fleet boats. On the other hand, I like the extended wintergartens on the late U-Boats.

In SH4 I pretty much always play 1942-early 43, whereas In SHIII I played 1944-45. Nothing like a good challenge....;)

Mike.

P.S. Forgot to say I like the British T-Class too - then again, I may be biased!!!

[Keelbuster]

the sherman actually does OK as long as they are smart enough not to get in a face to face slug fight. Flank, and try for the sides.
tater

Going fairly OT here but yea - in all the WW2 tank sims i've played, if you're allied, you have to hide your tanks and wait for Jerry to expose the flanks of his armour - then track him if possible, and maneuver your tanks around for a shot up the ass. It's kinda fun - like it's more of a mulit-part operation to take down a King Tiger rather than a gun duel. You have to lure the beast out and trap it, and slowly bleed it out with many little jabs to the sides and back.

[Raptor1]

That was how it was in real life, one of the main problems with the Panther Tank (Aside from the fact that there we're too few of tem) was their weak flank and rear armor

[tater]

BTW, guys, ww2ol has a free trial without having to enter a credit card right now:

http://www.battleground-europe.com/scripts/wwiionline/be_info.jsp

the giga tv trial.

WW2ol can be pretty fun. The graphics are not at the level of shoebox games like COD, but the world is HUGE, and not instanced. Climb in a Spit in the UK, and fly to germany, buzzing battles in the towns below. The naval aspect... don't bother, it's an afterthought. I mostly play infantry (as "tater" allied).

[gimpy117]

Bueaty is 6 tubes fore and 4 tubes aft....

[TheSatyr]

As far as tanks go,I prefer the asthetics of the Russian T-34 and the IS models. The KVs were a bit klunky looking though. (The BT-7 wasn't too bad looking though.).

[Penelope_Grey]

U-Boats were better looking from the outside than the fleet boats were. Fleet boats are not ugly per se they are plain which in my view is worse than being ugly at least being ugly makes you distinctive. They all look the same.

That for me is one of the key reasons I prefer SH3 over 4. I know exactly which submarine I am sailing in without having to check. The fleet boats all look the bloody same, how do you know which is which without your F7 screen. lol

U-Boat's have this 'old school' meets new school appeal about them, the Type VII and type IX U-Boat's which formed the bulk of the German undersea fighting force just look that damn good.

Even the type II's look good! They just have the curves. Fabulous looking boats.

[Ducimus]

That for me is one of the key reasons I prefer SH3 over 4. I know exactly which submarine I am sailing in without having to check. The fleet boats all look the bloody same, how do you know which is which without your F7 screen. lol

If you'd take the time to read, the subs would make much more sense.

[Penelope_Grey]

I never said they didn't make sense.

I am also reasonably familiar with what class is what... I don't pretend to be an expert or nearly as clued in as yourself or some of the SH4 players here aree... My point Ducimus, is that from the outside to look at, fleet boats look the same.

[AVGWarhawk]

I never said they didn't make sense.

I am also reasonably familiar with what class is what... I don't pretend to be an expert or nearly as clued in as yourself or some of the SH4 players here aree... My point Ducimus, is that from the outside to look at, fleet boats look the same.

They are basically the same and good design that was improved upon. Such as thicker hull, lengthed or shorten to add or remove equipment. They simply made what was good, better. At first playing SH4 and getting a real good look at the Fleet Boats, I though they were no where near as good looking as the VII but over time, you see why they designed the bridge as they did. The sails on the Porpoise Class are cool and good looking. The Porpoise is my favorite to play with. The late war sails were quite the mix of radar masts and periscope tubes, etc. But I will tell you what, those toys spinning around up there are great when hunting, tracking and laying the attack course. :rock: After the war you will find they went back to the rounded smooth sail for less resistance under the water.


Even the type II's look good! They just have the curves. Fabulous looking boats


Hubba hubba :lol:

All in all, I like the VII the best. Just a darn cool looking boat.

[tater]

Function trumps everything. What's the K/D ration of fleets to u-boats?

Ie: #fleet boats sunk by u-boats compared to u-boats sunk by fleets

:D

[V.C. Sniper]

LOL, were there any Fleet subs sunk by uboats at all? I've only heard of reports of Fleet subs sinking uboats.

[Torplexed]

LOL, were there any Fleet subs sunk by uboats at all? I've only heard of reports of Fleet subs sinking uboats.
No reason has ever been found for the mysterious loss of the Gato Class USS Dorado in the Carribbean in 1943 while en route to the Panama Canal. There has been speculation that she may have been torpedoed by a U-Boat, but no positive proof has ever been found.

There was only one instance of a fleet sub sunk by an Japanese I-Boat. USS Corvina also in 1943.

[V.C. Sniper]

Yes I've heard of these two incidents. There are even some speculations that the Dorado was sunk by friendly fire or possibly by a mine laid by a uboat, but it's inconclusive of what really happened.

[Rockin Robbins]

And it has nothing to do with the boat. It's that 20 knot acoustic homing torpedo the Germans had! If it had the capacity to dive to 60' or 100' in search of a target (don't know if it did) the contest would be a slam dunk.

The Fleet Boat's only chance would be to catch the U-Boat on the surface. The radar would be a great help with that, but the American torpedoes definitely were not good for hunting submarines.

On both sides, not a lot of thought was put into the methods and equipment necessary for sub vs sub battles.

[Torplexed]

I think this is one of the reasons why comparing the subs of different nationalities to figure out who's was the best is such a specious argument. Unlike tanks and planes and battleships where you can make a straight comparison, subs weren't designed to fight each other and rarely did. They weren't even designed to fight their primary adversary, the destroyer or escort. Their main prey is merchants and big lumbering warships. That's why so many 'who had the best WW2 sub' arguments devolve into putting US subs in the Atlantic to fight the British and vice versa.

[Bewolf]

And it has nothing to do with the boat. It's that 20 knot acoustic homing torpedo the Germans had! If it had the capacity to dive to 60' or 100' in search of a target (don't know if it did) the contest would be a slam dunk.

The Fleet Boat's only chance would be to catch the U-Boat on the surface. The radar would be a great help with that, but the American torpedoes definitely were not good for hunting submarines.

On both sides, not a lot of thought was put into the methods and equipment necessary for sub vs sub battles.

Check out the "Fido". The US had quite a good acustic torp themselves in 44/45, usually airdropped AND capable to go quite low. A nice piece of fascinating technology there. I have no idea if it was ever carried by subs, though.

[AVGWarhawk]

And it has nothing to do with the boat. It's that 20 knot acoustic homing torpedo the Germans had! If it had the capacity to dive to 60' or 100' in search of a target (don't know if it did) the contest would be a slam dunk.

The Fleet Boat's only chance would be to catch the U-Boat on the surface. The radar would be a great help with that, but the American torpedoes definitely were not good for hunting submarines.

On both sides, not a lot of thought was put into the methods and equipment necessary for sub vs sub battles.
Check out the "Fido". The US had quite a good acustic torp themselves in 44/45, usually airdropped AND capable to go quite low. A nice piece of fascinating technology there. I have no idea if it was ever carried by subs, though.

The subs carried a "cutie" acustical torpedo. In fact, the last ship sunk during the war a cutie was used. USS Torsk.

[AVGWarhawk]

The Fleet Boat's only chance would be to catch the U-Boat on the surface. The radar would be a great help with that, but the American torpedoes definitely were not good for hunting submarines.

The Batfish sunk three Japanese subs that were on the surface. I would venture a guess the "cutie" would find a submarines prop while submerged. :hmm:

[Bewolf]

The Fleet Boat's only chance would be to catch the U-Boat on the surface. The radar would be a great help with that, but the American torpedoes definitely were not good for hunting submarines.
The Batfish sunk three Japanese subs that were on the surface. I would venture a guess the "cutie" would find a submarines prop while submerged. :hmm:

Depends on the acustic refinement. The german toprs required quite a bit of noise to find their targets. A sub in silent running mode would be a very tough target indeed. No idea how good the US torps were in this regard.

[tater]

Looks like 4 u-boats were sunk by fleet boats, and maybe one fleet was sunk by a u-boat. 4:1 kill ratio or better!

Fleet Types FTW!

Fleet boats sank many jap subs, so their K/D vs them is better still.

Course the RN subs sank at least 13, not sure about their losses though.

[AVGWarhawk]

The Fleet Boat's only chance would be to catch the U-Boat on the surface. The radar would be a great help with that, but the American torpedoes definitely were not good for hunting submarines.
The Batfish sunk three Japanese subs that were on the surface. I would venture a guess the "cutie" would find a submarines prop while submerged. :hmm:
Depends on the acustic refinement. The german toprs required quite a bit of noise to find their targets. A sub in silent running mode would be a very tough target indeed. No idea how good the US torps were in this regard.

I was just venturing a guess on the cutie sinking a submerged submarine. You are probably right on the noise generated on a silent running sub and the sensativity of the torpedo itself. I will have to look further but I think the sub would stop all engines/motors before releasing the acoustic torp. I know I would:o if I were the skipper. Also, like the electric torps, the cutie would swim out of the tube and not need the compressed air to get it going. I wonder what the arming distance was for the cutie. Again, more things to look up :rotfl:

[Rockin Robbins]

I believe only one torpedo attack in history sank a submarine below the surface (aside from the Fido attacks, maybe two U-Boats for them, all air dropped). That was a British sub vs a U-Boat with the Brit getting the win.

In any event, sub vs sub design and strategy would have to wait for the US cold war submarine fleet. I'd say any K/D ratios based on WWII suffer from a too small sample error and are meaningless in determining which kind of boat is better.

My favorite is based on superior radar and ice cream maker, not necessarily in that order!:up:

[Bewolf]

I believe only one torpedo attack in history sank a submarine below the surface (aside from the Fido attacks, maybe two U-Boats for them, all air dropped). That was a British sub vs a U-Boat with the Brit getting the win.

In any event, sub vs sub design and strategy would have to wait for the US cold war submarine fleet. I'd say any K/D ratios based on WWII suffer from a too small sample error and are meaningless in determining which kind of boat is better.

My favorite is based on superior radar and ice cream maker, not necessarily in that order!:up:

Well, it was less a british sub vs. a german sub in the meaning of both beeing aware of each other and duking it out. The british sub just waited outside the harbor for the german sub to come out. (the way most sub kills were accomplished back then. Hardly ever was a boat aware of the other when it got sunk, no matter the side, so to compare boats on this basis is a bit dubious to begin with.) It actually managed to do so but then had to return for reasons I do not know anymore. The british sub spotted the german periscope and correctly anticipated the german subs course. Quite a feat really, and kudos to the british skipper.

Dedicated sub killers only arrived with the begin of strategic missle subs. Suddenly they actually got a reason to kill other subs.

[tater]

In terms of sub vs sub combat, sure, it was total surprise like the majority of air to air kills. That said, 22 u-boats were sunk by enemy subs vs maybe 1 fleet boat (could have been sunk by friendly air I suppose), and not sure how many RN boats (almost certainly far fewer than 22).

There will never be another statistical comparison other than that, it was the last, and likely only time statistical numbers of subs were sunk.

It certainly shows:

1. Better allied intelligence efforts, which are related to:

2. Better submarine doctrine (the chattiness of axis subs was a major factor in their downfall. Sure wolfpacks sunk a lot of ships, but constant radio commo was DFed if not outright decoded/read. Over the totality of the war, the number of ships sunk per u-boat lost was not all that great. Results matter, you must fault KM doctrine.

3. RADAR. Radar is a submarine system like any other. You can say one boat was better in some ways because it could dive deeper, or have better fish. Radar is such a major force multiplier it makes of for various fleet boat failings in spades.

4. Maybe the crews were better on watch. Many account I have read involved spotting a sub on the surface visually, and getting a shot off.

RN, then fleet boats FTW, sub vs sub :D KM is 3d, IJN last.


tater

[Rockin Robbins]

Do I dare say something about U-Boat strategy being built around their weaknesses? OK, I thought not. Going deep....:lurk:

[Ducimus]

3. RADAR. Radar is a submarine system like any other. You can say one boat was better in some ways because it could dive deeper, or have better fish. Radar is such a major force multiplier it makes of for various fleet boat failings in spades.

:yep:

On top of that, fleetboats can use said radar while submarged due to its conning tower design.

[Quillan]

Just curiousity on my part, but how much did that reduce the range, running the radar while submerged? The range of RADAR is largely based on the height of the transmitting antenna, and it would be a lot lower.

[tater]

According to a book I have on RN T-Class subs, the SJ set (the RN put a few on their boats as it was superior to what they had) could detect a BB at 12nm, and a DD at 8nm.

That may be with their mounting that might have been lower.

RADAR is LOS limited. For a DD, it's ~20,000 yards (10nm) from the sea surface to the masts of the DD. For a BB as far as maybe 38,000 yards (19nm). The shorter distances reflect the cross sectional area of the upper works available to reflect radio.

At longer ranges every foot above the water only buys you another 100-150 yards or so in LOS.


tater

[clayton]

U-Boats were better looking from the outside than the fleet boats were. Fleet boats are not ugly per se they are plain which in my view is worse than being ugly at least being ugly makes you distinctive. They all look the same.

That for me is one of the key reasons I prefer SH3 over 4. I know exactly which submarine I am sailing in without having to check. The fleet boats all look the bloody same, how do you know which is which without your F7 screen. lol

U-Boat's have this 'old school' meets new school appeal about them, the Type VII and type IX U-Boat's which formed the bulk of the German undersea fighting force just look that damn good.

Even the type II's look good! They just have the curves. Fabulous looking boats.

Penelope do you even play SH4?

The reason why I ask is that every post you submit on SH4 is always in the negative. I could understand this in the SH3 forums, but why here?

What gives? I think we get it that your a Uboat fan.

[Penelope_Grey]

I think that is a very unfair thing to say. Because its not totally 100% true. Yes, I have slagged off SH4 for a number of aspects with things I don't like... I am entitled to. Does that mean I don't enjoy it? Not at all. I actually have a healthy like for the US fleet boats and throughly enjoy a foray into the pacific now and again.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/Spider-Hulk/Penny/Sh4.jpg

I present you a screenshot of my JSGME for SH4. As you can see I have perused and picked out some of the finest stuff for the game.

I have these because, shock horrror... I actually play the game. And you, your good self came along to said thread (one I posted before) and replied to what I wrote....

Yes I am a U-boat fan. But...
Im not here to pick fights with people or to stir up negativity or unrest. I see SH4 for what it is... a massive opportunity for pretty much anything. I like to try it out and even though I admit SH4 is not sitting with me right where I want it to right now... I am confident it will some day.

[AVGWarhawk]

U-Boats were better looking from the outside than the fleet boats were. Fleet boats are not ugly per se they are plain which in my view is worse than being ugly at least being ugly makes you distinctive. They all look the same.

That for me is one of the key reasons I prefer SH3 over 4. I know exactly which submarine I am sailing in without having to check. The fleet boats all look the bloody same, how do you know which is which without your F7 screen. lol

U-Boat's have this 'old school' meets new school appeal about them, the Type VII and type IX U-Boat's which formed the bulk of the German undersea fighting force just look that damn good.

Even the type II's look good! They just have the curves. Fabulous looking boats.

Penelope do you even play SH4?

The reason why I ask is that every post you submit on SH4 is always in the negative. I could understand this in the SH3 forums, but why here?

What gives? I think we get it that your a Uboat fan.


Clayton,

Penelope is the most active uboat fan in the Pacific driving a fleet boat you will find in the forum. She likes the warm waters and dipping her toes! The ice cream machine in the fleet boat is her main attraction . I know Penelope had the game since it came out and she played the thing, bugs and all. A bit disgruntled with the bug but we all were. I even think she is modding in a pink WELCOME mat at the base of the conning tower ladder for her Gato! Fortunate for the entire forum Penelope gives her honest opinion whether negative or positive. Nothing wrong with that. Looking at her mods enabled....Penelope looks to be having a great time with it. :up:

Come on folks, lets clear the air of the negativity towards any theater of war. It is getting extremely tiresome.

[clayton]

I think that is a very unfair thing to say. Because its not totally 100% true. Yes, I have slagged off SH4 for a number of aspects with things I don't like... I am entitled to. Does that mean I don't enjoy it? Not at all. I actually have a healthy like for the US fleet boats and throughly enjoy a foray into the pacific now and again.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/Spider-Hulk/Penny/Sh4.jpg

I present you a screenshot of my JSGME for SH4. As you can see I have perused and picked out some of the finest stuff for the game.

I have these because, shock horrror... I actually play the game. And you, your good self came along to said thread (one I posted before) and replied to what I wrote....

Yes I am a U-boat fan. But...
Im not here to pick fights with people or to stir up negativity or unrest. I see SH4 for what it is... a massive opportunity for pretty much anything. I like to try it out and even though I admit SH4 is not sitting with me right where I want it to right now... I am confident it will some day.

"I am impressed..."

Glad to hear your not trying to pick a fight and/or that you really do like playing SH4.

So, we should start getting some constructive criticism from you in the future?

Thanks!

[Penelope_Grey]

Well I was under the impression my criticisms were valid...:shifty: ah well!

As it happens... I am planning on an Sh4 patrol in the coming week... provided I get all my GWX things sorted first... I have a few irons in the fire there see.

But yeah... look for my thread... it will have screenshots this time.:up:

Quite looking forward to sailing aboard USS Discovery. (Yep, I even named the boat in anticipation.)

[Captain Vlad]

Got to thinking about it while I was doing something tedious but productive, and one of the things that struck me about Fleet Boats versus U-Boats, appearance wise, is that the Fleet Boats actually appear more...alert?

We've commented on the lookouts being higher up and all that practical nonsense(:D) but I'm confining this to appearance...something about the way the US subs looks gives the impression that they're looking in every direction, while the German subs seem like they're hunkered down, hoping no one sees them...and not in a predatory way, really. More like they're ready to flinch at any noise.

The Type IX from some angles is a bit of an exception to this.

[Bewolf]

Got to thinking about it while I was doing something tedious but productive, and one of the things that struck me about Fleet Boats versus U-Boats, appearance wise, is that the Fleet Boats actually appear more...alert?

We've commented on the lookouts being higher up and all that practical nonsense(:D) but I'm confining this to appearance...something about the way the US subs looks gives the impression that they're looking in every direction, while the German subs seem like they're hunkered down, hoping no one sees them...and not in a predatory way, really. More like they're ready to flinch at any noise.

The Type IX from some angles is a bit of an exception to this.
Well, if you are facing an enemy that later in the war would use enigma code breaks to get a rough location on you, send out dedicated hunterkiller groups or long range sub hunter aircraft either finding you with their own centimeter radar or using your radars transmissions to get a fix, then drop sonar boys for a submerged location fix before sending an accustic homing torpedo up your "behind", then you better flinch at any noise for sure. A fleet boat, as good it was in the Pacific, would have had no chance against such odds. Not to degrate fleet boats in the slightest, really, no anti stance here, but they simply could allow themselves a bit more luxury when it came to visibility.

That said, purely personal preference, I love the hunkered down look. Reminds me of predators sneaking in before the final kill.

Still wished for an ice machine, though. :yep:

[AkbarGulag]

According to a book I have on RN T-Class subs, the SJ set (the RN put a few on their boats as it was superior to what they had) could detect a BB at 12nm, and a DD at 8nm.

That may be with their mounting that might have been lower.

RADAR is LOS limited. For a DD, it's ~20,000 yards (10nm) from the sea surface to the masts of the DD. For a BB as far as maybe 38,000 yards (19nm). The shorter distances reflect the cross sectional area of the upper works available to reflect radio.

At longer ranges every foot above the water only buys you another 100-150 yards or so in LOS.


tater

Does this take into account the larger unit size of a BB Radar set Tater? If it does not, it could dirty the examination.

After reading a bit on radar sets, the unit size (physical) and radar array size (physical) made a larger kit more effective than a smaller kit. So did subs carry the same type of unit of a larger vessel?

[tater]

No, the SUB could detect the BB at 12nm.

Not sure what you mean.

As for LOS, centimeter radio will be LOS limited, it's a function of wavelength, not antenna size or broadcast power. The distance you will see is a combo of the height above the water of the detector, and the height of the target.

You can look at the ONI range chart, put the height of the top of the sub in there, and the top of the BB, and it will giver to the range at which someone at those heights would be able to see the other guy (theoretically). The reality is that the smaller ship will almost certainly see the larger first due to the larger having more area visible at any given height of the ship. A sub should never be visually detected before a BB gets detected by the sub, for example. Never, it's completely implausible (particularly with smoke). When I was messing with visual nodes, I knew what I was working on was totally broken if my sub encountered a large warship by being fired on first, lol.

RADAR might allow for this,certainly in poor weather, but IJN radar vs a fleet boat's radar... the fleet wins I think. On top of that a search set on a BB looking down on a sub would face clutter issues, while the sub would be resolving the BB against sky.

tater

[Rockin Robbins]

Well I was under the impression my criticisms were valid...:shifty: ah well!

As it happens... I am planning on an Sh4 patrol in the coming week... provided I get all my GWX things sorted first... I have a few irons in the fire there see.

But yeah... look for my thread... it will have screenshots this time.:up:

Quite looking forward to sailing aboard USS Discovery. (Yep, I even named the boat in anticipation.)

Since we were kicked out of that other thread. Here, I'll share my good American ice cream with you gladly in exchange for sharing your great German popcorn.

Mmmmmmm! Marvelous pink welcome mat there! Discovery looks mighty shipshape. I think you're ready.

Why can't they all just get along?:sunny:

[Penelope_Grey]

Pass.... :)

I tell you one thing, its no surprise to me that when you ditch the politics, the "us vs them" malarky things are great round here. :)

[Captain Vlad]

A fleet boat, as good it was in the Pacific, would have had no chance against such odds.
The U-Boats stood no chance against such odds. That's why the cream of an entire German generation are resting on the bottom of the Atlantic.

War really does suck...

[tater]

Yeah, one thing to remember with the comparisons of boat quality weighted for enemy ASW capability. You cannot trade boats, but not trade DOCTRINES. That's crazy talk. U-boats were built and improved upon with very specific tactical doctrines in mind. Ditto fleet boats (even though the doctrine changed radically right after the war started).

So if you imagine Fleet Boats in place of u-boats, also imagine submarines operating with almost ZERO radio transmissions to give away their position. No ENIGMA failures since they'd not ever broadcast anything. That takes the allied codebreaking right off the table.

Any boat to boat commo would be super low powered, with short, 3 letter code groups to avoid DF. Even then, you'd err on the side of not transmitting. You'd miss some convoys, but also miss getting sunk.

So in the Atlantic, you'd have silent u-boats prowling around. The Allies would still have their superior ASW, but they'd NOT steer convoys around u-boats, and they'd NOT be steering hunter killer groups AT u-boats. Encounters would be more random.

A fleet boat without good radar is like a u-boat without torpedoes. The Fleet u-boats, free from DF/codebreaking would now have better radar. This would be far less effective than vs the IJN, though, since the allies would DF your radar. Might come out in the wash.

Not saying that the fleets would have been better in the Atlantic, I have no idea. That said, they'd not be as poor as you'd expect if our scenario was to use a Fleet boat exactly the same way you'd use a u-boat. To be fair, as was suggested, the u-boats couldn't have done worse overall, they were virtually wiped out.

[tater]

BTW, I believe the sail position on the USN subs was very intentional, and for visual reasons, not streamlining, or balance. The idea was to make them visually distinct from other nation's subs to prevent fratricide (largely from friendly aircraft).

That is also why they chose the streamlined sail of the early fleet boats. The downside of the cut down sails was the visual similarity to u-boats, etc.

[Ducimus]

The doctrine difference really makes it a BIGTIME "what if" , if one was to wonder how'd they do. In terms of doctrine, Uboats acted as pack animals. Fleet boats generally acted as lone corsairs. Which is to say, uboats were alot more "chatty", and with their code broken, their tactical doctrine turned out to be part of their own undoing.

Radar differences are also huge. I think a fleet boat, skillfully using its SD and SJ radar with DF'ing in mind, has a far greater situational awareness, and could probably avoid HK groups and other dangers much easier then a uboat could. However once pinpointed, would have faired no better then a type 9D2.

[tater]

No, agreed, once detected, the usual pro/con arguments you hear here come to the fore (max depth, turn radius, etc).

I'd be interested in the number of bad DC attacks (meaning they were actually found) each boat had on average before being sunk. I wonder if perhaps it was more normal for a boat to make X sinkings without actually having to deal with enemy ASW, then the first time they meet it is the last.

[AVGWarhawk]

Pass.... :)

I tell you one thing, its no surprise to me that when you ditch the politics, the "us vs them" malarky things are great round here. :)

I thought I was the only one who noticed :hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

BTW, I believe the sail position on the USN subs was very intentional, and for visual reasons, not streamlining, or balance. The idea was to make them visually distinct from other nation's subs to prevent fratricide (largely from friendly aircraft).

That is also why they chose the streamlined sail of the early fleet boats. The downside of the cut down sails was the visual similarity to u-boats, etc.

That is darn insightful Tater. Even with the IFF identifier, it was still not safe on the surface concerning planes.

[CCIP]

That is darn insightful Tater. Even with the IFF identifier, it was still not safe on the surface concerning planes.
Yea, just think of the USS Seawolf :dead:

I'm with Ducimius on this whole doctrine thing. Big deal, that. This is one thing I always liked about the PTO - unlike the Atlantic, where patrol lines were set in stone and boats constantly chatted back and forth, the Silent Service was really silent from the start and you can end up literally anywhere in the theater at any time in the war - no patrolling the air gap with your wolf pack, the Japanese could quite literally be attacked by a US sub anywhere, anytime. This encouraged, rather than discouraged, clever and unexpected exploits by US captains - the more places the Japanese could be hit, the better. In the Atlantic it was a tonnage war to the end. The Germans could fan out, and did, but only so much. Their boats were doomed to feel a concentrated counter-effort in their primary operational areas. There were holes that Type IXs superbly exploited, especially in '42, but these were closed off to them quite quickly. Fleet boats meanwhile were everywhere Japanese ships could be.

You've gotta admire the Atlantic battles of course - running the gauntlet out of friendly waters just to be slammed against superbly-defended convoys. But from a doctrinal point of view, in all actuality a Type VII is a pawn in that conflict. IX's are perhaps a rook or a bishop. The Fleet Boats got to be more of a queen. I think that makes them quite cool in their own right.

[Ducimus]

I recently picked up a new book from Barnes and noble, "The bravest Man". Its another O'kane and Tang novel. Havent read it yet, but the afteword is a rather intresting followup to CCIP's post:


We were the corsairs in the Pacific conflict, and I believe we were the last of the corsairs. We were granted what may have been the last taste of individuality in modern warfare.

War has been hell through the centuries, but until the single unit was lost in the masses of groups, squadrons, fleets, and army corps there was still something bearable about it, an opportunity to see the conflict in personal terms, a chance to hang on to some shred of romance in a sea of hatred.

When you think of yourself as a lone wolf staking the seas, searching down the enemy and engaging him in a personal combat, it is a thing you can grasp. It is man-sized rather then incredibly colossal; an element of sanity remains. The cavalry had it in the Civil War, this feeing that the individual still amounted to something. The war birds, my father among them, had it in World War I. And we in the Submarine Service had it during those grim years in the Pacific.

But the submarine of the future will be too big, too important, too throughly intergrated into overall strategy, for corsairs. In a world of nuclear physics, it is unlikely that any new element of romance, weither by land, or sea, or air, will temper the wars of he future. We were the last of the corsairs.

George Grider, Submarine Captain,
From War Fish



of course to me this further drives home one stanza in that Trigger maru poem i love so much. "In far off lands, there are no friends on hand, to answer a call of distress." From the moment you cleared midway, you were pretty much in no mans land wherever you went, but the opportunies were many!

Next time i go on patrol, i think im gonna try and sneak into the sea of Japan. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Yea, just think of the USS Seawolf :dead:

Read about the Guardfish and the Extractor. A plethora mistakes by both Guardfish and the Extractor. Guardfish sunk her!

[Quillan]

Next time i go on patrol, i think im gonna try and sneak into the sea of Japan. :D

Go in via the La Perouse Straits. I had my first TMO/RSRDC patrol send me there. I've gone in via the Korea Strait before, and I like La Perouse better.

[AVGWarhawk]

Next time i go on patrol, i think im gonna try and sneak into the sea of Japan. :D
Go in via the La Perouse Straits. I had my first TMO/RSRDC patrol send me there. I've gone in via the Korea Strait before, and I like La Perouse better.


Mines! Watch for mines! :o

[Ducimus]

Yeah i know about the mines...

Infact, i just made the minefields in TM thicker in density.

[Quillan]

There's merchant traffic through the Straits, so I just followed their path. Radar is wonderful!