The real wartime recognition manual

[LukeFF]

Thought I'd start a little something here and show you guys what the ships we have in SH4 looked like to the submariners during the war. All of these pics were compiled in a 1944-dated manual:

(Note: an "A" rating meant the intelligence information on this particular ship was excellent, a "B" so-so, and "C" was very sketchy).

Kasasigan Maru (aka "Small Old Split Freighter"):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/Merchant1.jpg

Taihosan Maru (aka "Small Modern Composite Freighter"):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/Merchant2-1.jpg

Haruna Maru (aka "Small Old Tanker"):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/Merchant3.jpg

Zinbu Maru (aka "Medium European Composite Freighter"):
(Note the date of construction on that thing! :D)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/Merchant4.jpg

[Schroeder]

Nice.:sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

Been there. Seen that. Bought the thing. Got the kimono.









:rotfl: :sunny:

[Rockin Robbins]

Neat! And surprise!!!! Height measurements on stacks and cabin tops sometimes. It would be interesting to see how accurate those measurements are. For instance, on the Taihosan Maru (aka "Small Modern Composite Freighter") there are two height measurements, the top of the stack and the crosstree of the crane that show 40'. But they are clearly by inspection two different heights above the water! Either one or both of those 40' measurements is wrong.

It reinforces my view that stadimeter readings should remain very inaccurate in order for the game to be accurate. It also shows that it is way too easy to identify ships in SH4. I would estimate our conventional targeting accuracy is too good by a factor of two. If you implement a mast height rectification mod, such as that by a modder I admire greatly, you make SH4 into an arcade game with no connection to reality.

[Hitman]

Yeah, I agree partially with you :up: I myself do not use normally the recognition manual, I just try to estimate the mast or funnel heigths and use the rangefinder tool manually by setting myself the base heigth to be used. I love that SH4 allows to do that and miss it a lot in SH3 and the UBM Add-On :down:

Fact is, after some trial and error I have become quite proficient at it and my ranges & bearings use to match what the Position Keeper shows. Playing this way is much rewarding :D

[LukeFF]

It reinforces my view that stadimeter readings should remain very inaccurate in order for the game to be accurate. It also shows that it is way too easy to identify ships in SH4. I would estimate our conventional targeting accuracy is too good by a factor of two. If you implement a mast height rectification mod, such as that by a modder I admire greatly, you make SH4 into an arcade game with no connection to reality.

I'm making (as you've probably seen) a Mast Height and Draft Mod for RFB where the mast heights given for each ship are based on the data from the recognition manuals. I've found that some measurements come out pretty close, while others are off by a decent margin. Just goes to show how much the fog of war can play a part in games like this if modeled correctly.

[Suicide Charlie]

Didn't somebody develop a recognition manual for SHIII that used adapted information and pictures from actual manuals?

[Petur]

Nice :D

[virtualpender]

Those are excellent! Where did you come by an original of ONI 208-J?

[Sailor Steve]

I'm making (as you've probably seen) a Mast Height and Draft Mod for RFB where the mast heights given for each ship are based on the data from the recognition manuals. I've found that some measurements come out pretty close, while others are off by a decent margin. Just goes to show how much the fog of war can play a part in games like this if modeled correctly.
You know you're gonna get a lot of complaints: "Some of your heights are WAY off! My research shows that!"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Those are excellent! Where did you come by an original of ONI 208-J?
http://www.history-on-cdrom.com/id167.htm

[Rockin Robbins]

Dick O'Kane! Dick O'Kane! Dick O'Kane!

Heh, heh, heh! This is the best thing that ever happened for the Dick O'Kane targeting method. Think I'll double the price.:up:

[Hylander_1314]

Why not just use those in the book? They look close enough to the models in the game, and would really add to the immersion. Especially if there was a set for the IJN ships too.

[LukeFF]

Why not just use those in the book? They look close enough to the models in the game, and would really add to the immersion. Especially if there was a set for the IJN ships too.

Ehm, read my post above. ;) All ships, including warships, will use the mast heights from the recognition manuals.

[LukeFF]

Couple more for you guys:

Nippon Maru (aka "Large Modern Tanker"):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/NipponMaru.jpg

Buzyun Maru (aka "Medium Old Tanker"):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/BuzuynMaru.jpg

Horai Maru (aka "Large Old Passenger Carrier"):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/HoraiMaru.jpg

[joegrundman]

Neat! And surprise!!!! Height measurements on stacks and cabin tops sometimes. It would be interesting to see how accurate those measurements are. For instance, on the Taihosan Maru (aka "Small Modern Composite Freighter") there are two height measurements, the top of the stack and the crosstree of the crane that show 40'. But they are clearly by inspection two different heights above the water! Either one or both of those 40' measurements is wrong.

It reinforces my view that stadimeter readings should remain very inaccurate in order for the game to be accurate. It also shows that it is way too easy to identify ships in SH4. I would estimate our conventional targeting accuracy is too good by a factor of two. If you implement a mast height rectification mod, such as that by a modder I admire greatly, you make SH4 into an arcade game with no connection to reality.
and

Yeah, I agree partially with you :up: I myself do not use normally the recognition manual, I just try to estimate the mast or funnel heigths and use the rangefinder tool manually by setting myself the base heigth to be used. I love that SH4 allows to do that and miss it a lot in SH3 and the UBM Add-On :down:

Fact is, after some trial and error I have become quite proficient at it and my ranges & bearings use to match what the Position Keeper shows. Playing this way is much rewarding :D
I've been playing a GWX campaign lately with the new Community Units Mod. ( I play on 100%, without weapon officer assistance or map contact updates.)

Why this is pertinent is that the huge number of new units and new ship dimensions basically makes the use of the recognition manual much less convenient than it used to be.

I've been relying much more heavily on estimates of target length and mast height. I use telemetry scales and of course the AOB finder we made for U-jagd for range (AOB itself i now judge by eye with near enough 100% accuracy), but usually in fact, i just estimate range visually - since i never actually plot this is plenty good enough for me.

Basically i think this approach would work well with SH4 - increasing the number of merchants by 3 or 4 fold would encourage estimate and inaccuracy for target ID. The merchants need not even be radically different from one another, and some need not have ID book entries at all! (I don't know if this would screw up the system or not)

[Hylander_1314]

Why not just use those in the book? They look close enough to the models in the game, and would really add to the immersion. Especially if there was a set for the IJN ships too.

Ehm, read my post above. ;) All ships, including warships, will use the mast heights from the recognition manuals.

Sorry if I wasn't more concise Luke, what I was curious about, was the use of the entire pages themselves, not just info alone ( unless there are copyright issues), especially seeing the "Restricted" notations on the pages. Can't wait to see the finished product though:up:

[LukeFF]

Sorry if I wasn't more concise Luke, what I was curious about, was the use of the entire pages themselves, not just info alone ( unless there are copyright issues), especially seeing the "Restricted" notations on the pages. Can't wait to see the finished product though:up:

I guess that could be done at some point if I really wanted to do it. The "Restricted" text, by the way, just means that during the war it was a classified document and so its use was, as you might guess, restricted to those who really needed it.

[Mav87th]

Mast heights in the ONI-208-J is not from the top of the mast to the waterline. Its from the top of the mast to the deck. If you take the Zinbu Maru as an example. The ONI states the mast head height to be 82 ft. And the funnel to be 42 ft. But to the waterline those measurements are 91.2 ft. and 63.5 ft. You can check that by looking at the scale under the boat witch is 100 ft. long divided into 25 ft. pieces.

Measure the 100 ft. with a ruler and figure out how many ft. there is pr. ruler division, then measure the mast from top to water and multiply for the correct ft.


I have done that for all merchants in SH-4 that are presented in the ONI and made a small SH-4 ONI manual out of that and combined it with edited ship dat files that contains these values. So you may download that and use the manual from that if wanted.

http://files.filefront.com/ONI+208+J+dimension+fix7z/;10735099;/fileinfo.html

[LukeFF]

Mast heights in the ONI-208-J is not from the top of the mast to the waterline. Its from the top of the mast to the deck. If you take the Zinbu Maru as an example. The ONI states the mast head height to be 82 ft. And the funnel to be 42 ft. But to the waterline those measurements are 91.2 ft. and 63.5 ft. You can check that by looking at the scale under the boat witch is 100 ft. long divided into 25 ft. pieces.

Yep, you're right. I could've found that out if I had just read the "Instructions for Use" section of the manual (1940s lingo for "Read the Readme!" :D) No worries, though - I can fix it easily enough on my own.

[Feltan]

Most wartime accounts of which I am aware place less emphasis using the ONI for assisting with targeting ranges than I think what is being suggested. As far as I understand things, after the action was over the ONI was primarily used to identify the victim of the attack.

Wasn't a simple ballpark estimate used most often for mast height when determining stadiameter ranges?

Regards,
Feltan