Sampans and Junks...to sink or not

[breadcatcher101]

do you guys attack these? They show up as red (hostile) and act so by their evasive actions.

Early in the war the Japanese used these, stolen from the natives, to supply small outposts and even for fishing and catching sea turtles. Many times natives came along for the ride just to get to where they needed to go. Commanders would sink these if they were not manned by native crews but as we drove the Japanese back many were once again used by their rightful owners and the policy of attacking them was stopped.

The game doesn't show if these are manned by Japanese other than the red target so I have not attacked them as of now.

Fishing boats and such in Japanese waters are a different matter. I attack on sight. When we invaded the Sea of Japan using FM sonar to transverse through the mine fields the order of the day was to sink anyting afloat no matter how small, but what about a sampan in the Java Sea in 1941?

What would you guys do?

[Raptor1]

Natives? Sampans and Junks are both of Chinese origin

Anyway, I would shoot them, after all, they do report your position to the nearest airbase (Or so I heard)

[Arclight]

Playing the new RFB, the deckgun is no longer stabilized. I might give it a go if it's 0 wind conditions, seas mirror flat. Else it's a waste of shells IMO.

[Raptor1]

Playing the new RFB, the deckgun is no longer stabilized. I might give it a go if it's 0 wind conditions, seas mirror flat. Else it's a waste of shells IMO.
Gun her down with the .50-cals (Or does that work in RFB?)

[Arclight]

Tried that a bit, emptied 3 "clips". Didn't seem to bother it too much. I don't know if it's possible to damage a hull beneath the waterline with the machinegun. If that doesn't work, you're not gonna sink it.:hmm:

[DeepIron]

As has been noted elsewhere, sampans were not primary targets, and as such were seldom sunk by US subs.... The only use for them in SH4 is "cannon fodder" for frustrated skippers who can't sink the "bigger targets" IMO... :lol:

Personally, I like having them around to provide another "challenge" to me. I act in the same manner as the real sub skippers did, using stealth and brains to avoid them and possibly be reported as "in the area"... thus spoiling my chance to sink bigger tonnage. YMMV.

Cheers!

[Goose_green]

I'm playing with the TMO mod and it takes me about a clip or two of HE ammo when using the AA guns, I don't aim at the water line as I have noticed it doesn't do much - I aim at the deck area.

[Ivan Putski]

I always sink them, they carry supplies to outpost such as Okinawa, you won`t get but little tonnage, but they are hostile. Toward the end of the war U.S. Subs sank anything including barges, junks, and sampans that could carry troops, or supplies. I just sank 9 of them bringing supplies to Okinawa on a night run in late 1944. Puts

[Webster]

Playing the new RFB, the deckgun is no longer stabilized. I might give it a go if it's 0 wind conditions, seas mirror flat. Else it's a waste of shells IMO.

i just cant help but to believe mods like RFB go too far in making guns unusable and ineffective in the game.

if they truely were that useless then they would be removed to improve speed and fuel performance. why have an elephant on your back if its only taking up space on your deck.

maybe the guns in stock are slightly more accurate than reality but they were far from being as useless as RFB has made them to be.

[DeepIron]

just cant help but to believe mods like RFB go too far in making guns unusable and ineffective in the game.Do the research... The RFB Team has done scores of hours on this subject and as with anything else, any mod is a compromise.

if they truly were that useless then they would be removed to improve speed and fuel performance. why have an elephant on your back if its only taking up space on your deck.They were changed a number of times throughout the war. Different calibers, different mounting positions, different number of guns... And no, during the war the kind of thinking you suggest about efficiency and space was not really considered. Fairings and cutwaters were reduced to lower radar image and to help get the sub submerged more quickly.

What I don't understand is this: RFB is a reality mod. As such, it follows, as well as possible, the doctrines of the US Navy for sub ops during the war. Simply put, US subs did not rely or use their deck guns in manner in which players of this sim think they should be. US subs didn't surface just to sink sampans, nor did they engage even smaller maritime vessels with them unless it was absolutely necessary. Subs DIVED to avoid aircraft knowing they were "ducks" on the surface...

Maybe the guns in stock are slightly more accurate than reality but they were far from being as useless as RFB has made them to be.
Instead of everyone grousing about the "gun issue" why not provide some substantial evidence to support a different side of the story? I keep reading about how ineffective the guns are but no one brings forth any contradicting facts or information to support their comments... When someone says they were "far from useless" please, bring any facts you have to bear so we can all benefit from them.

Cheers.

[FIREWALL]

I just run them over. :rotfl:

[Webster]

Instead of everyone grousing about the "gun issue" why not provide some substantial evidence to support a different side of the story? I keep reading about how ineffective the guns are but no one brings forth any contradicting facts or information to support their comments... When someone says they were "far from useless" please, bring any facts you have to bear so we can all benefit from them.

Cheers.

well this is purely my opinion so you can easily ignore it as such, but the navy was not stupid and they would not install deck guns on subs if as you say the facts prove you are not supposed to have any chance of hitting anything with them. the way i see it is the fact that deck guns were put on subs proves they were effective or they would not have them. i see no proof the guns were as useless as they are made to be but rather actual reports and documents instead show only that captains avoided any risk to thier boats by submerging. lack of use is no proof of them being useless to hit anything or do damage but more as showing them as being impractical to use because of the risk you take.

as a side note related to realism issues, at some point you cross a line with realism where you remove the "game" and the fun from the game and it turns into purely a naval training simulator. at some point when we mod the game we need to remember it is still supposed to be a game and IMHO we should remember not to lose that part of it.

[gimpy117]

Natives? Sampans and Junks are both of Chinese origin

Anyway, I would shoot them, after all, they do report your position to the nearest airbase (Or so I heard)

with what?? I guess the professor was on board making radios out of coconuts again...

[LukeFF]

well this is purely my opinion so you can easily ignore it as such, but the navy was not stupid and they would not install deck guns on subs if as you say the facts prove you are not supposed to have any chance of hitting anything with them. the way i see it is the fact that deck guns were put on subs proves they were effective or they would not have them. i see no proof the guns were as useless as they are made to be but rather actual reports and documents instead show only that captains avoided any risk to thier boats by submerging. lack of use is no proof of them being useless to hit anything or do damage but more as showing them as being impractical to use because of the risk you take.

And this is where you keep going off track, constantly giving nothing more than vague "well, in my opinion it was like this" arguments on this matter instead of actually bothering to do research on the subject.

-Fact: fleet submarine captains quickly found the 3"/50 (76.2mm) gun was highly ineffective as an anti-ship weapon. In fact, in its original role as an AA gun, it was neither looked upon all that highly, either. Almost from the outset of the war captains were clamoring for a deck gun that had more hitting power.

-Fact: the 4"/50 was a surface-ship weapon not well-suited to the submarine role, due to its very long barrel. The joke in the submarine fleet was that the 4"/50 functioned perfectly fine, so long as the submarine didn't submerge. :huh:

-Fact: even when the 5"/25 came into service, it still didn't come with a fire control system until the war was nearly over. Your fire control system for the majority of the war was one man looking through the site, waiting for the just the right moment to press the firing pedal and the gun captain watching for the fall of shot. No high-power rangefinders, no spotting aircraft, and while radar helped, the shell splashes would inevitably be obscured by the target ship, since the shell splash landed on the same bearing as the target, and radar of the time had difficulty in separating contacts on the same bearing.

-Fact: the accuracy of the deck guns in general was not that great, especially as sea conditions worsen. We're talking about boats with a low freeboard that already roll a lot as it is, and the guns have no gyro-stabilization.

Upon entering the war zone, commanders were offered the addition of a forward gun. Heading to Pearl Harbor, to get into the war, the Bergall had target practice against the vertical cliffs of an island near Panama. The men shot so poorly that Hyde, not being terribly impressed with their accuracy, told the base staff in Pearl that he didn't want a second gun and would prefer if they got rid of the aft one!!!

That's not my opinion, but the stated fact of a WWII submariner, who saw first-hand what the deck gun could and could not do. Now, if the accuracy with the "designed for submarines" 5"/25 was not all that hot, what should we expect of the older designs?

(From http://www.bergall.org/320/patrol/deckguns.html )

-Fact: after the "ready ammo" was expended, the shells had to be unpacked below decks and passed up by hand, one by one, to the crew on deck. This was a laborious, tiresome task. Again, that's not my opinion:

When those rounds were exhausted ammo was passed up from below the crew's mess. For the aft 5" gun, on some boats, there was an ammo hatch located in the after port side of the crew's mess, through the pressure hull, to the after 5". There would be a loading party passing ammo from the magazine, which is below the living deck level to the ammo handlers loading it through the hatch. The standard procedure was to have a guy drop down below the crew's mess deck into the ammo locker. He passed ammo up to guys in the mess who would pass it forward to the Control Room. In the forward section was access to the gun loading trunk, passing the ammo overhead, up through the hatch, guys on the deck could reach down through the hatch in the forward sail and then pass it around the sail and aft to the gun. The job of passing the ammo up from the ammo locker or from the control room up through the ammo hatch was the job of the VERY strong. It didn't take many 65 pound shells being shoved up over your head to wear down even them.

Those are the facts, and RFB will stick to them. I myself still find the deck gun perfectly fine and fun to use with the mod, but now I know what it is and isn't capable of. That to me is more fun that just surfacing and blindly popping away at targets, with my crew feeding in rounds as fast as I can fire.

[Te Kaha]

I never sink Sampans or Junks or anything similar, when I encounter them I submerge and pass by. I consider them a waste of time an ammunition - what use is it to sink a wooden ship by a x-Dollar shell, let alone a xx-Dollar torpedo, just for 50 tons or so worth of tonnage? Lost wooden ships can easily be rebuilt by cutting down a couple more trees, it's just not worth the effort sinking them.

Only once I sank a Sampan - being frustrated I couldn't find any worthy targets ;)

And the deck gun, I don't use that one either - if I could, I would remove it from my boat.

[Kruger]

Luke, I don't think anyone is trying to deny historical facts. It's just that you cannot take certain parts of the reality, implement them in the game without keeping track of scaling things down evenly, and pretend it's real. Cos' it's not.

So, as long as the game has limitations, and it can imitate the reality in a certain proportion, that proportion should be considered regarding every aspect of the game.

I don't have all night to shell a poor cargo to it's death until 3' o clock in the morning, because unlike a real skipper in ww2 who's job was exactly this, I have a real job to go to in the morning. If I have 2-3 hours every night to play end enjoy my home time, I like to play. Not to measure maps on my keyboard, manually reload some stuff, or wait for my deck gun incompetent crew to shoot harmless cannon rounds every 2 minutes until they reload as in reality.


So, please just take my idea out of this, and understand well that I respect everybody's opinions, work and passion. This is my point of view which I believe strongly in.

[tater]

In some old post about deck guns, I went through U.S. Submarine Attacks During World War II: Including Allied Submarine Attacks in the Pacific Theater by John D. Alden, and counted every single ship larger than small craft sunk by deck guns, or even finished off by deck guns. That book lists every single sinking, too.

The number was tiny. Literally a handful out of hundreds of sinkings, and even then, all but one were ~1000 tons or less.

Deck guns were very ineffective. If you have a whole career with more than maybe 1-2 small merchants sunk or finished off with the DG, something is broken. (actually, as I recall there were a couple boats that did extra well with their DGs compared to others, OTOH, that makes the average chances of sinking anything for all the other boats even lower).

[tater]

From a post I made in a deck gun rate of fire thread (long since locked) back in 2007:

Looking at 1945. Only a handful of DG claims over 1000 tons with the DG. Most unconfirmed, none more than 2000 tons, most 1000 to 1500 tons. One confirmed 1000 ton ship sunk was actually 200 tons.

Note that there were MANY DG attacks in 1945, more than 1944 looks like. There are ZERO confirmed DG sinkings for ships over 1000 tons in 1945. There are very few claims even made over 1000 tons, and none in '45 over 2000 tons for DG sinkings. Given the tonnage ratio for the confirmed DG sinkings (claimed tonnage vs actual) seems like an average would be to reduce the claim by 5-10 times, lol. 2000 tons? Maybe it was 500. (there were only 2x2000 ton claims anyway)

So, in my look at every single claim by a submarine (US Submarine Attacks During World War II, Alden, NIP), I found ONE confirmed DG sinking over 1000 tons, and it was by Narwhal, armed with 2x6" guns. There were a a fair number of claims over 1000 tons, but very very few were even as high as 2000 tons, and none were confirmed (I'm not saying they weren't sunk, I'm saying the tonnages were almost certainly off considerably based on the claims vs real tonnages for confirmed DG sinkings). Many of the 1000+ ton claims were for targets that were well under 500 tons in reality.

Note that the volume I used also (Alden's book I discuss above—tater, 2008) lists attacks for damage. I didn't pay a lot of attention to them, but there were hardly any damages claimed on >1000 ton targets with DGs either. Bottom line is that fleet boat skippers clearly did not think the DG was a good weapon for attacking such targets (>1000 ton merchants) otherwise they would have availed themselves of the weapon.

tater

This was part of a long conversation. When I say, confirmed, the context is important. There are USN scores that include larger ships, but Alden's analysis, which uses data unavailable (or unused) to JANAC downgrades many of the claims for DG sinkings seriously. If you look at actual ships known for a fact to have been sunk by DGs, the average is considerably smaller than what was claimed by the skipper at the time. They'd claim a 2000 ton small freighter, and it was in fact a steel sea truck of under 500 tons (many sea trucks looked remarkably like larger ships, simply shrunk—and there were MANY sea trucks built—this was part of the problem.

[DeepIron]

First let me state that I'm a diehard reality player so my comments might show that bias... :wink:

I don't have all night to shell a poor cargo to it's death until 3' o clock in the morning, because unlike a real skipper in ww2 who's job was exactly this, I have a real job to go to in the morning. If I have 2-3 hours every night to play end enjoy my home time, I like to play. Not to measure maps on my keyboard, manually reload some stuff, or wait for my deck gun incompetent crew to shoot harmless cannon rounds every 2 minutes until they reload as in reality.
This is certainly a valid point. We all have only so much "free time" to spend playing sims or any other recreational pursuit. That being said, perhaps this is not the best mod for those who have more limited time constraints to play it. I mean this in a "committed time vs sinking results" context. If a player wants to sink a maximum amount of tonnage in a shorter, fixed amount of time, RFB may prove to discouraging in this regard. It simply takes more time and effort to sink shipping in RFB than in the stock game or other mods.

In testing, I have played for literally hours on end stalking and sinking Japanese shipping. I've waited offshore, just like US subs did, for IJN or merchants, for days (at 2048 (and less) TC is still "felt" like days). I've had patrols later in the war where I simply couldn't find anything worth sinking (RSRDC is fantastic for its changes to the IJN and merchant shipping models).

All in all, when played in the context for which it was developed, that of as much realism as can be had within the constraints of the SH4 game engine, it provides an excellent "simulated" experience. Personally, I think the game elements are quite well balanced now and I don't think I could ever go back to playing the stock SH4 ever again.

As for the "deck gun issues" I think Luke and tater certainly have illuminated the facts and aspects of the integration into RFB in their posts and I can add nothing more of relevance.

Cheers.

[Kruger]

Of course, and I understand perfectly your point of view also. I realize that RFB is a very well done mod for the hardcore subsimmers, no doubt about it.

I like it also very much, but my kind request for the FRB team and for every modder around here, is to try to make every mod as scalable as possible.

So, for me a RFB version with an option for the new damage model would be really orgasmic. This being said, sorry if I offended anyone, this was not my intention in the first place.

[DeepIron]

Of course, and I understand perfectly your point of view also. I realize that RFB is a very well done mod for the hardcore subsimmers, no doubt about it.

I like it also very much, but my kind request for the FRB team and for every modder around here, is to try to make every mod as scalable as possible.

So, for me a RFB version with an option for the new damage model would be really orgasmic. This being said, sorry if I offended anyone, this was not my intention in the first place.No offense taken at all Kruger! Really! There are always issues to examine and discuss so please, don't stop giving feedback and opinion! I hope my response wasn't offensive to you either!

I think one way to handle this, while keeping the "integrity" of the RFB mod intact, would be to see an independent patch developed that could be applied "as wanted" by players. I don't think the RFB Team would be so inclined to produce it, but I'm sure some enterprising modder could whip something up. That way, individual players could select which "gun model" they wished without sacrificing the aspects of RFB they like.

Just a thought.

[tater]

While it's been hashed and rehashed many times, I have to admit I sorta like it. Having this conversation every so often reminds me of Beery :D

tater

[tomoose]

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/chap20.htm

Just one ref which indicates the Watch Standing duties;
The following rules apply generally, but in no way restrict the officer of the deck from acting as his judgment dictates:

Dive for all aircraft contacts, except as specifically directed by previous instructions of the commanding officer.
Turn toward a periscope forward of the beam and go to full speed. Turn away from a periscope abaft the beam and go to full speed.
Turn away from all fishing vessels or small craft unless ordered by the commanding officer to attack.
Turn away from unidentifiable objects.
Turn toward a target, but dive in sufficient time to insure that your ship is not sighted prior to firing torpedoes. Present the smallest target possible by turning toward or away from any type of contact as the situation dictates.

[Rockin Robbins]

Playing the new RFB, the deckgun is no longer stabilized. I might give it a go if it's 0 wind conditions, seas mirror flat. Else it's a waste of shells IMO.
i just cant help but to believe mods like RFB go too far in making guns unusable and ineffective in the game.

if they truely were that useless then they would be removed to improve speed and fuel performance. why have an elephant on your back if its only taking up space on your deck.

maybe the guns in stock are slightly more accurate than reality but they were far from being as useless as RFB has made them to be.
Webster, after the war they WERE removed. In fact today you can't find a submarine in a major navy with one of those useless things on board. Other than being useless, they did indeed hurt speed and fuel performance. They also made the submerged submarine considerably more noisy and easier to detect.

[SteamWake]

They also made the submerged submarine considerably more noisy and easier to detect.

Just an observation.. I'm not so sure they made the boats any more noisy but probably did increase their echo return signature considerably.

[DeepIron]

Turn away from all fishing vessels or small craft unless ordered by the commanding officer to attack. Spot on. Only in a very few cases, and the Barb was one of them if memory serves, were sampans attacked. And again, if I remember correctly, Fluckey wanted "intelligence" about the area so he needed a POW...

[tater]

There were also a few periods when boats were ordered to specifically attack any small surface vessels with the understanding that they were pickets, or possibly pickets. To sweep the seas clear of them in advance of invasions, etc.

[Diopos]

There were also a few periods when boats were ordered to specifically attack any small surface vessels with the understanding that they were pickets, or possibly pickets. To sweep the seas clear of them in advance of invasions, etc.

Mmmm ... maybe this was the basis for the " no sushi?- hit the bunkers " standing order for the Jap garissons in the Pacific! :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

Playing the new RFB, the deckgun is no longer stabilized. I might give it a go if it's 0 wind conditions, seas mirror flat. Else it's a waste of shells IMO.
i just cant help but to believe mods like RFB go too far in making guns unusable and ineffective in the game.

if they truely were that useless then they would be removed to improve speed and fuel performance. why have an elephant on your back if its only taking up space on your deck.

maybe the guns in stock are slightly more accurate than reality but they were far from being as useless as RFB has made them to be. Webster, after the war they WERE removed. In fact today you can't find a submarine in a major navy with one of those useless things on board. Other than being useless, they did indeed hurt speed and fuel performance. They also made the submerged submarine considerably more noisy and easier to detect.
The deck guns were removed for a few reasons. 1) Snorkel! Lets face it, the best weapon the submarine has is stealth. Popping to the surface to play with the pop gun was not very stealthy. Cannons removed! 2) Speed under water. Look at the guppy sails after the war. Streamlined. A cannon on deck does not help in achieving a faster submarine. 3) The cannon was quite useless during the war and post war was not much better. Why have it? Most have stated the gun is to weak and slow load times. Perhaps it is. However, if you have the Death Star mounted on the aft deck and arrived back to port with 200,000 tons of sunk vessels, most would be complaining this is not realistic. They are right. So, what to do, let the player have the Death Star mounted on the aft deck or make the player work for his kills like the real Captains did? Obviously, the player is forced to work for his sinkings thus making a game play that is rewarding. Trust me, if you could just blast around using your Death Star capabilities, you would grow tired of if quickly. Locating, tracking, planning and arriving to the best torpedo solution is very rewarding and self satisfying. Knowing if you flub up the solution and can surface with your Death Star capabilities leads a player to become a second rate torpedoman. No one wants that label:rotfl:Personally, if I were a capt back then, I would dump that anchor off the deck at my earliest opportunity. You have plenty of torps to bring back plenty of tonnage. No need to carry a cruch on the deck. If your target is still steaming after a few torp hits, end round the bugger and send him another calling card.

Also, for those that do not have a lot of time to play. The save game function is much better then SH3. I have saved in mid attack, reloaded and continued the attack without issue.

[Webster]

Webster, after the war they WERE removed. In fact today you can't find a submarine in a major navy with one of those useless things on board. Other than being useless, they did indeed hurt speed and fuel performance. They also made the submerged submarine considerably more noisy and easier to detect.

well thats why im having such a hard time with this topic, its hard to believe the US navy was that stupid enough to waste time and resources at a time of war by installing a deck gun that couldnt hit anything. as you guys have pointed out, they dont have records of any success using them so apparently in real life they were useless.

my personal preference is more in line with the way the devs made it a usefull weapon in the game so that it continues to be a game thats fun to play. too much reality can be boring.

[doulos05]

Webster, after the war they WERE removed. In fact today you can't find a submarine in a major navy with one of those useless things on board. Other than being useless, they did indeed hurt speed and fuel performance. They also made the submerged submarine considerably more noisy and easier to detect.

well thats why im having such a hard time with this topic, its hard to believe the US navy was that stupid enough to waste time and resources at a time of war by installing a deck gun that couldnt hit anything. as you guys have pointed out, they dont have records of any success using them so apparently in real life they were useless.

my personal preference is more in line with the way the devs made it a usefull weapon in the game so that it continues to be a game thats fun to play. too much reality can be boring.

I don't know if I'd trust the intelligence of a navy whose official stance on the torpedo problem of 1941-1943 was "There's nothing wrong with the torpedos, you're all just using them wrong." The US military made a lot of pretty stupid mistakes during WWII. You've got the torpedos, the Sherman tank (because let's be honest, the Sherman wasn't a match for the German tanks), the under-estimation of the Zero. The list goes on. Basically, we won because 1) quantity has a quality all it own, and 2) the people fighting in the war were stubborn, determined individuals who were willing and able to make sacrifices and adapt the crap given them by the government to accomplish the mission at hand.

[tater]

There is not NO record of them being useful, just very limited usefulness.

They were used on small craft, that much is sure. The other thing to remember is that at the time, they were thought to perhaps be more useful than they were. There were claims made, and even credited at the time of decent sized ships sunk with them, but after the war, looking at the japanese accounts it became clear than many vessels so attacked were far smaller than they were imagined to be.

Ideally, the guns would be:

1. destabilized; rolling and pitching with the deck, shots fired when the sight was on the horizon line, distance set by elevation.

2. would have 2 ROFs. A "ready ammunition" ROF (along with a time to get the gun into action in the first place), and a "sustained ROF" which would be after ready rounds were expended.

That would give us far more control.

[DeepIron]

my personal preference is more in line with the way the devs made it a usefull weapon in the game so that it continues to be a game thats fun to play. too much reality can be boring.
Why Webster, I'm surprised! RFB... Boring? This from the man who brought us the "Improved Torpedo Power" and "Upgraded Deck Gun" mods (among others)... :lol: BTW, I do respect your mods and I mean this post in good humor...

Personally, I prefer the difficulty RFB plays to simply being able to surface and lob shells at something I'm too unlucky or inexperienced to hit with torpedoes. To wit, after playing quite a few games in beta testing, I started on a new career just to play the sim for fun. And what is the first thing I screwed up? A beautiful "down the throat" shot on a small composite freighter! :lol:

The bottom line I guess: To each his own and in his own measure.

Good Hunting!

[Diopos]

oops ! false post! please continue...

[Arclight]

The deck gun isn't that bad, you just need the right conditions. Also, keeping your target at bearing 180 (stern mounted DG) minimizes the effect the rolling of the boat has on accuracy; instead of the barrel moving up and down a lot, it just sways side to side a bit.

On calm seas and without presenting a broadside, but the stern instead (or bow for bow-mounted DG), I think you'll be impressed by your gunner's accuracy and the effect a few well placed shots can have. :yep:

[Task Force]

Myself, Playing RFB, I just go at ahead flank and ram them.:yep:

[Arclight]

Yeah, FIREWALL shares your attitude towards sampans and such. :lol:

Doesn't it damage the sub? Never tried it myself. :-?

[LukeFF]

So, for me a RFB version with an option for the new damage model would be really orgasmic.

It's not going to come from us. I am firmly against and will not devote time to creating different flavors of RFB with bits and pieces picked out here and there.

[Kruger]

I did not expect you to do it anyway Luke, I know very well your point of view.

It's very interesting how some things can be interpreted in such a personal way.

[kiwi_2005]

I use to sink every Sampan i came across after a while its gets boring where i now just let them sail pass. When im in a realistic mood i will always dive in case of been spotted to avoid the Sampan captains radioing IJN intelligence of my whereabouts. :lol:

[tomoose]

The bottom line I guess: To each his own and in his own measure.

There you have it. The "realism" crowd are never going to agree with the "I just wanna have fun" crowd and vice versa. This discussion could go on and on and on and on.......;)

For the record: I prefer the "boring" reality/authenticity to the arcade "fun"!!!:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

Webster, after the war they WERE removed. In fact today you can't find a submarine in a major navy with one of those useless things on board. Other than being useless, they did indeed hurt speed and fuel performance. They also made the submerged submarine considerably more noisy and easier to detect.
well thats why im having such a hard time with this topic, its hard to believe the US navy was that stupid enough to waste time and resources at a time of war by installing a deck gun that couldnt hit anything. as you guys have pointed out, they dont have records of any success using them so apparently in real life they were useless.

my personal preference is more in line with the way the devs made it a usefull weapon in the game so that it continues to be a game thats fun to play. too much reality can be boring.
One good use of the pop-gun was to detonate mines. I've seen several accounts of deck gun disposals of floating mines.

But I find RFB's implementation of the deck gun VERY exciting. If you're out there with your non-radar S-boat and have a wounded freighter out there with no topedoes left, first, you have to satisfy yourself that the freighter is not armed. Then if he IS armed, maybe you can find a firing position that masks his gun. Now it's time to surface. Better be DARN close to get any accuracy at all. It's going to take 45 minutes minimum to sink him (you COULD get better than that depending on his amount of damage and you can never be sure of that).

Now we risk the whole cruise: SURFACE! Let 'em have it! Double the lookouts, the odds aren't exactly overwhelming in our favor. Aim for the superstructure first and try to knock out that radio. Then switch the the waterline and hope we can sink him before one of his plane buddies forces us down. We have a part of the horizon masked by the target, so a plane could "come out of nowhere" and kill us, too. "Nobody fall asleep now! WEBSTER claims this is boring!" Do you think the crew's attention is totally on the task at hand? Somehow I think nobody's having a problem with that!
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/what.gif

Excitement or boredom is often a matter of viewpoint. Luke doesn''t have to change anything becasue people like WEBSTER make mods to satisfy anyone who wants something different. I like to load up a mission once in awhile with my slightly subnuclear Mark 14 and blast 'em myself!:up:

[tater]

Why would anyone want RFB or RSRD and also want the gyro-stabilized death star beam that the stock game offers, or indeed, anything remotely close?

[Kruger]

Because other than the new damage model, I find RFB to be a perfect mod. The damage model as I said in the RFB topic, is not historically correct anyhow. So, I prefer to have a non historical damage model that takes 10 minutes to sink a ship, than a non-historical one that take 60 minutes to sink a ship.


Apart from this, I said it over and over again, my last thought is to disregard someone's work. I can only imagine the hundreds of hours of work involved in developing a mod such as RFB. But, as much as I respect this and all the hardcore subsimmers, I demand the same back. And when I ask a question (may it be out of ignorance, it doesn't matter) I find it highly abnormal to be responded in a patronizing way, and be sent to some historical documentation without further explanation.


So, if even my daring to question some aspects of RFB and the possibility of taking out NSM of this version hurts some egos, it;s ok. I can play this game in many other ways.

[Rockin Robbins]

Here you go Kruger <<[DANGER: Slightly Subnuclear Mark 14 Torpedo Mod]>> (http://files.filefront.com/Rockin+Robbins+Mk14+Torpzip/;8561674;/fileinfo.html). This will send a little message to the RFB new damage model with a minimum 5000 and maximum 50000 hitpoints of damage. Hit the Shinano in the rudder and skeletonize the entire carrier, guaranteed.

Priority message from Kruger to RFB damage model: Hasta la vista, baby!

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/watchitbub.gif

THEN tell me you can't have fun with RFB. Heh, heh, heh!:arrgh!:

[Seminole]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon1.gif Sampans and Junks...to sink or not
do you guys attack these?

It depends on the mood I'm in sometimes and how much of a hurry.

[LukeFF]

The damage model as I said in the RFB topic, is not historically correct anyhow.

Prove to us how the damage model is not historically correct, and we'll fix it.

[Webster]

Why Webster, I'm surprised! RFB... Boring? This from the man who brought us the "Improved Torpedo Power" and "Upgraded Deck Gun" mods (among others)... :lol: BTW, I do respect your mods and I mean this post in good humor...

The bottom line I guess: To each his own and in his own measure.

Good Hunting!

let me say this loud and clear:

i think RFB is great mod. it was built with dedication and skill and lots of thought and planning went into it.

while i love realistic fixes that make the game better and add more realistic aspects to it, i dont share the opinion that making the game harder is necessarily a good thing. for this reason i have at times commented in posts about my lack of enthusiasm for things that add realism but as a result may cause it to reduce the "game action" and made the game harder.

i did not and am not saying RFB is boring, please dont put those words to my name.

but sometimes people do like a little faster paced action for a quick game or single mission here or there and thats all im saying.

[Captain Vlad]

\
Deck guns were very ineffective. If you have a whole career with more than maybe 1-2 small merchants sunk or finished off with the DG, something is broken. (actually, as I recall there were a couple boats that did extra well with their DGs compared to others, OTOH, that makes the average chances of sinking anything for all the other boats even lower).

The last sentence brings up an interesting questions: Why were the deck guns ineffective? Was it because it was difficult to sink a ship with one, or because most sub captains didn't drill their crews extensively with it, didn't engage in much target practice, etc.? If some subs did substantially better with their guns than others, it stands to reason that, by being more aggressive with its use, other subs could've done the same.

[Webster]

WEBSTER claims this is boring!"

i said too much realism can be boring, i did not say RFB was boring.

since you dont understand i will give you an example:

reports show that some subs went through the entire war and never saw action, shall we make this into the game so you go 2 or 3 carreers before you see an enemy ship? :arrgh!: would that be boring or fun?

[tater]

"Doing better" meant sinking ANYTHING, even just one merchant above 1000 tons.

The reality is that the number of attacks was higher than the number of sinkings as I recall. Bottom line is that a real skipper would not risk his crew needlessly.

[Te Kaha]

Contradicting my earlier post, last night I spotted 4 junks in the South China Sea, Nov 1943, and decided to give it a go with the deck gun. I sank all 4 of them, fired a total of about 50 shells. Each junk took about 10 hits to go down. No planes were spotted afterwards, even though I deliberately stayed in the area just to see what happens.

I was credited with the colossal total of 94 tons :o

[Arclight]

You beat me to it. :lol:

Nothing like running into a group of tiny wooden vessels on a misty morning.
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/SH4Img2008-11-05_025342_750.jpg
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/SH4Img2008-11-05_025756_562.jpg

Needless to say, we left none afloat. :arrgh!:

[Kruger]

The damage model as I said in the RFB topic, is not historically correct anyhow.
Prove to us how the damage model is not historically correct, and we'll fix it.

Having read the manual, I get it that at this point the ships sink when a critical number of watertight compartments flood.This part is of course authentic, but it's not enough. This is because ships sink not only form flooding alone, but the flooding can be an effect of major structural damage (from munitions, fuel, etc) that can occur from a torpedo hit.

Also, in reality when a torpedo hits the same spot as the previous one, hitting an already damaged portion of the ships, it is MOST LIKELY to cause proportional additional damage, unlike in RFB.

Myself not being familiar with technical aspects of the game, I think that a damage model combining both HP (so simulate structural damage) and also flooding, would be closer to reality more that both stock damage model, and also RFB damage model. Maybe this is not possible.

I know that in RFB there is a feature that simulates catastrophic failure of the hull, but I think is is not enough, for this happens scarcely.

Trying to overcome this, I made some tests with Webster's more powerful torpedoes, but as you said it the effect is not satisfactory. (warships take much to great damage, and merchantmen don't seem to be bothered by these powerful torpedoes).

Since in reality there are cases of skippers that managed to sink all kinds of vessels with one torpedo, in RFB this is practically impossible.

There are some discussions about the deck gun (it;s too slow in reloading, too inaccurate, etc). On this, I really don;t want to comment, because really deck guns were inaccurate, and if someone is bothered by the slow reloading times, this is easily modifiable.

So, everyone realizes that in reality, the damage model is far too complex to be modeled in the game, and many factors contribute to a success in sinking something or failing miserably. Maybe SH12 in 2023 will have it fully modeled, although it is highly unlikely to be.

The fact remains that only taking a part of this reality fact, and modelling it to real parameters, it not going to offer a real experience.

As a conclusion, RFB is not commercial, it is a mod worked hard out of pasion and willing to offer something for gamers. Therefore, nobody is in the position to tell you what you should do, I can merely tell you what my opinion is. If I did not give a damn about RFB, I wouldn't struggle to write this. But as it is, it is a great mod, and the damage model is the only aspect that I find to be wrong.

[Rockin Robbins]

WEBSTER claims this is boring!"
i said too much realism can be boring, i did not say RFB was boring.

since you dont understand i will give you an example:

reports show that some subs went through the entire war and never saw action, shall we make this into the game so you go 2 or 3 carreers before you see an enemy ship? :arrgh!: would that be boring or fun?
Quiet sir, I was motivating my men!:arrgh!:

Captains do that all the time. Was just a little white lie or false characterization like when a football coach says the opposing quarterback said your defensive cornerbacks even drop babies, don't worry about them catching his passes. I was firing up the crew and saving me own skin!

If you think about it I was needling them a bit too. You're all scared and WEBSTER says this is boring. What's wrong with you? Get to work and don't screw up. The life you save may be mine.:doh:

[Captain Vlad]

The reality is that the number of attacks was higher than the number of sinkings as I recall. Bottom line is that a real skipper would not risk his crew needlessly.

The number of torpedo attacks was also higher than the number of torpedo sinkings. Not the same proportion of failure as deck gun attacks, I'm sure, but....

...the fact is that, deck guns were used to engage targets that one might, from a logical point of view, be seen as a 'needless' risk, even to the point of engaging shore targets located on Japan itself (Yes, RR, I'm talking about Fluckey, who was also a serious 'small boat' killer, if I recall correctly). Was this the norm? No. Was it done? Yes, and fairly successfully.

So...which seems more real to you? Accurately reflecting the potential capabilities of the deck gun, which would allow it to be useful to captains willing to use it, if not as destructive as it is in the stock game? Or reducing it's capability enough that players are forced to adopt patterns of behavior which were common in the war...but not universal?

[tater]

I'd say it has to be fudged until the gun is modeled accurately: proper destabilization with firing on the roll when the horizon is level, and 2 reload speeds; ready ammo, and bucket brigade sustained fire.

The bottom line is that it is entirely possible to use them effectively within historical precedent. Look back at Beery's posts from ages ago. For the limited engagements with rounds expended, and total time of engagement (plus estimated number of hits), his old 20-23 second (whatever it was) reload time was entirely historical averaged over engagements.

Yes, in RL, the gun was certainly fired at a higher ROF (reloaded faster, anyway), then there was a pause between groups of shots, but none the less, during X minute of game time, you could deliver a similar number of rounds to the target as RL engagements.

I did a number of experiments with kv29's gun destabilization mod, and I decided that his mod (only worked for the one gun) was fine with a ROF very close to textbook numbers (I figured slightly lower for sustained vs ready rounds). My actual ROF, OTOH, was pretty close to Berry's numbers since I ended up waiting for the roll about as long or longer sometimes than the time it took to reload.

Bottom line is that there is only one model possible in game for gunnery. There is no real variability. So, if the model allows players to sink several merchies per patrol, they will, surprise, sink several per patrol.

tater

[Captain Vlad]

Bottom line is that there is only one model possible in game for gunnery. There is no real variability. So, if the model allows players to sink several merchies per patrol, they will, surprise, sink several per patrol.

The gun destabilization and other such sounds fine to me, but I'm the type who'd prefer the real potential of the weapon be modelled, as opposed to gearing it to produce the results actually achieved.

On the other hand, I won't be happy until I can land infiltration parties to kill sentries and take prisoners, set fire to sampans with molotov cocktails, bombard bauxite factories with my deck gun, and launch rocket attacks on Japanese towns. Releasing fire-bomb laden bats off the Japanese coast would be cool too.

I'm not arguing, btw, I'm mostly hashing out what your philosiphy was when it came to how you modelled the gun on RFB. I've yet to try the mod, and am curious to see some of your thoughts on what was done.

[tater]

I had nothing to do with the guns on RFB, just to make it clear. I'm just well aware of the history of the arguments.

I don't disagree with modeling the potential of weapons, either. It's just that the DGs are the poor stepchildren in SH4. They are a cartoonish afterthought.

[Captain Vlad]

I had nothing to do with the guns on RFB, just to make it clear.

What about the bats, damnit?:D

[Observer]

Having read the manual, I get it that at this point the ships sink when a critical number of watertight compartments flood.This part is of course authentic, but it's not enough. This is because ships sink not only form flooding alone, but the flooding can be an effect of major structural damage (from munitions, fuel, etc) that can occur from a torpedo hit.

Also, in reality when a torpedo hits the same spot as the previous one, hitting an already damaged portion of the ships, it is MOST LIKELY to cause proportional additional damage, unlike in RFB.
I think you need to go back and check your basic physics. Ships sink when the upward force on the object (the buoyant force, caused by the differences in pressure on the bottom of the object vs. the top of the object) is reduced to zero, or in other words when the the average density of the object is equal to or greater than the density of the fluid.

I think you continue to confusing flooding rate with the effect on the average density of the object due to flooding. Structural damage is only a factor if it causes significant deformation to the compartment such that it significantly changes the volume of the compartment and therefore the average density of the object.

Let's take an example. Using the Biyo with a beam of 15 meters and a displacement of ~5500 tons, let's assume a compartment of 10 x 15 x 10 meters (this by the way is about the typical size of the compartments in RFB). This compartment has a volume of 1500 cubic meters and would hold about 1540 metric tons of water (assume seawater density of 1.025 g/cm). Let's assume a torpedo causes 1 meter of structural deformation increasing the compartment volume to 1650 cubic meters and therefore increasing the mass of water to about 1690 metric tons. This is an increase of 10%, or about 150 metric tons of water. 1 meter of structural deformation is quite a bit (remember, we didn't add any material to the compartment, only "stretched out" what was already available), and it adds only 150 metric tons of water, or about 3% of the ship's displacement. Bottom line is I think you over estimate the effects of structural deformation on ship's average density.

Furthermore, as shown in the example above, hitting the exact same spot with another torpedo makes it impossible to cause additional changes in the ship's average density unless the compartment volume is changed. Keep in mind, in the example, I have only accounted for the additional mass of water, and not the mass lost due to the conversion of matter into energy from the torpedo detonation.

First the change in the ship's average density is supremely well modeled in SH4. Second, ship loss due to catastrophic structural failure is modeled in the RFB ship damage mod in the form of critical chance, however it is rare, as catastrophic structural failure is a rare event. Finally, it is not possible to model any compartment deformation in SH4 because the zone boxes are static. This is handled differently due to the way the zones are separated such that a torpedo hit that would cause bulkhead rupture from one compartment will also cause damage to the adjacent compartment. This may or may not be enough damage to cause flooding and will vary based upon a number of variables.

Additional torpedo hits to the same location will cause the flooding rate to increase. This is explained in the manual and modeled very well in SH4.

Myself not being familiar with technical aspects of the game, I think that a damage model combining both HP (so simulate structural damage) and also flooding, would be closer to reality more that both stock damage model, and also RFB damage model. Maybe this is not possible.
The manual explains, ad nauseum, why the the model you propose is undesirable. Understanding the technical aspects of damage modeling is fundamental to understanding why this is the case. Simply, if you were to simulate structural damage to the extent you apparently believe important to ship sinking, you end up with two extremes: (1) So few HP so that compartment flooding becomes irrelevant, or (2) so many HP that it takes an extreme number of torpedoes to sink a ship from HP loss alone thus rendering the concept of structural damage irrelevant.

I know that in RFB there is a feature that simulates catastrophic failure of the hull, but I think is is not enough, for this happens scarcely.
By design. Catastrophic failures were rare.

Trying to overcome this, I made some tests with Webster's more powerful torpedoes, but as you said it the effect is not satisfactory. (warships take much to great damage, and merchantmen don't seem to be bothered by these powerful torpedoes).

Since in reality there are cases of skippers that managed to sink all kinds of vessels with one torpedo, in RFB this is practically impossible.
It is not impossible and is in fact quite possible with proper torpedo deployment.

There are some discussions about the deck gun (it;s too slow in reloading, too inaccurate, etc). On this, I really don;t want to comment, because really deck guns were inaccurate, and if someone is bothered by the slow reloading times, this is easily modifiable.

So, everyone realizes that in reality, the damage model is far too complex to be modeled in the game, and many factors contribute to a success in sinking something or failing miserably. Maybe SH12 in 2023 will have it fully modeled, although it is highly unlikely to be.

The fact remains that only taking a part of this reality fact, and modelling it to real parameters, it not going to offer a real experience.
Also not true. In fact, the damage modeling potential of SH4 is superb. It does have a few areas that could be improved, but overall, 15 years worth of advancement in computer technology will not change the fundamentals, instead it will only serve to make it more sophisticated and complex.

As a conclusion, RFB is not commercial, it is a mod worked hard out of pasion and willing to offer something for gamers. Therefore, nobody is in the position to tell you what you should do, I can merely tell you what my opinion is. If I did not give a damn about RFB, I wouldn't struggle to write this. But as it is, it is a great mod, and the damage model is the only aspect that I find to be wrong.
You continue to state your opinion that the damage model is wrong. Please offer definitive proof it is wrong rather than state unsupported opinions. As I said above, the damage model in RFB is based upon the laws and principles of physics. Prove where we have done something physically wrong and we will be happy to evaluate the issue and correct as necessary.

[Death]

Death guns them.

[Rockin Robbins]

OK. Slightly Subnuclear Real Deck Gun (http://files.filefront.com/600+Slightly+Subnuclear+Nun7z/;12275222;/fileinfo.html). Never settle for half measures.

Not for use with 5" gun. Take only with doctor's advice. May cause nausea, lightheadedness, disorientation, rapid heartbeat, tremors, seizures, loss of consciousness or death, just like a sugar pill.

[Kruger]

:up: Great post observer. I admit I've never been good at physics, I studied languages. Even latin and chinese. But if you're telling me that a DD hit in the bow will forever sail the seven seas vertically in the water (or a sampan too), or any kind of ship crippled will just go on (except when hit in the machineries), I'll get a glass of milk and grab a physics book.

I rest my case, there's absolutely no point in debating this matter. If you like it to be a realistic sub simulator it's ok, I enjoy it as a game.

[Observer]

:up: Great post observer. I admit I've never been good at physics, I studied languages. Even latin and chinese. Thank you.

:lol: And by the way, I stink at other languages. Everyone has their specialty I suppose.

But if you're telling me that a DD hit in the bow will forever sail the seven seas vertically in the water (or a sampan too), or any kind of ship crippled will just go on (except when hit in the machineries), I'll get a glass of milk and grab a physics book.
I'm not suggesting this at all. First, none of the warships are currently modeled. Second, there is a problem with damage to the propulsion spaces on the currently modeled ships. This will be corrected in an upcoming patch. Finally, when a merchant's main deck is submerged underwater it will eventually sink, although if there is no damage to the engine room or machinery space it may be able to continue making way. This is a limitation of the SH4 engine that has more to do with drag than the damage model. A keen observer may have noticed that all ships accelerate unnaturally fast. This behavior is related.

I rest my case, there's absolutely no point in debating this matter. If you like it to be a realistic sub simulator it's ok, I enjoy it as a game.
I'm not sure I understand this last statement. In any event the RFB design philosophy is articulated in the RFB manual.

[Dakar23]

I rest my case, there's absolutely no point in debating this matter. If you like it to be a realistic sub simulator it's ok, I enjoy it as a game.

Which is odd as it's sold as a "realistic sub simulator", and the statement also contradicts your ealier statement about wanting a ship to sink "Realistically" i.e. in a non vertical manner. Either you have it or you don't. You seem to be on the fence on this one.

[Diopos]

I rest my case, there's absolutely no point in debating this matter. If you like it to be a realistic sub simulator it's ok, I enjoy it as a game.

Which is odd as it's sold as a "realistic sub simulator", and the statement also contradicts your ealier statement about wanting a ship to sink "Realistically" i.e. in a non vertical manner. Either you have it or you don't. You seem to be on the fence on this one.

A "realistic sub simulator" would never be sold in a pc-game shop. Believe me!:yep:

[Arclight]

It's more a game that's marketed (somewhat) as a sim. It's the mods that make it a sim, not the marketing.

Anyway, it's not that strange to find a sim in a games shop, is it? I mean, I bought FSX in a games shop as well.