Were deck guns really this powerful?

[Otto Heinzmeir]

I never used deck guns on my first 5 missions or so because I thought they were meant as a last resort if you could,'t dive or something. Apologies for my ignorance.
Once I started used them with a qualified gunner my tonnage average per mission more than doubled. From 25 tons to 51 tons per mission in the stock game.

Oddly I don't find the missions as much fun. Because whenever I use 2 torps to sink a ship I feel like I wasted the torps when I probably could have sunk it with 12 rounds of HE. I was surprised when I was able to sink a C2 with 10 to 12 rounds. I sunk a small merchant with 1 round. Possible bug perhaps. I hit it once in its a** and it went down in like 10 seconds.

Most of my strategy changed once I started using guns. Instead of lining up 500 to 700m off the targets track for a Fast 90, instead I line up as close to his track as I can figure. Staying submerged and pointing so as soon as he passed I can surface and angle a bit off to one side or the other. I have my gunner finish him in maybe 6-9 rounds for small merchant and 12-24 for a C2.

This can't be a historical type of attack. Plus the tonnage totals must be too high as well per mission compared to history and its just too dam easy to be fun. Yet I have problems not using them either because why are they there if not to be used.

For one thing they just seem to have too many rounds. I find myself asking why an early U -boot would carry torps at all if guns were this effective. Why not forgo the torps to make more room for HE rounds?

Then in GWX I was at first delighted that you could use guns in seas that were not calm, so I figured they would be less effective because of the roll of the sub in waves. Will for firing it myself it is less effective. But the gun crew is deadly again at 500 meters.

This really makes me want to use a TypeII for the entire war only I can't stand only having 5 torps after awhile.

Is this how effective deck guns were in which case I'll just use as they are but if they are over powered is there a cfg file that can be tweaked to tone down the damage or limit the rounds?

Post is a bit longer than I thought:88)

[casey.phobic]

I found the website you are looking for:

http://www.uboataces.com/weapon-deck-gun.shtml


Personally, I use the deck gun in every instance that I can. Gun shells are a lot cheaper than torpedoes and I think it's a lot of fun to dart around, circling and firing. The AI crewed deck gun IS pretty accurate, but I've found that I am usually more accurate, especially when moving at strange angles. I haven't put a qualified gunner on station yet, though.

I try to save my torpedoes for when silence and surprise are called for, or when I must take out two or more targets at once.

[Robert Fulton]

Actual patrol logs confirm that deck guns were used to sink ships to save torpedoes or when torpedoes were unavailable.

Here (http://www.uboatarchive.net/KTB123-7.htm) for example is the log of the 7th patrol of U-123. Skipper Hardegen affectionately refers to it as using his artillery.

[GREY WOLF 3]

Actual patrol logs confirm that deck guns were used to sink ships to save torpedoes or when torpedoes were unavailable.

Here (http://www.uboatarchive.net/KTB123-7.htm) for example is the log of the 7th patrol of U-123. Skipper Hardegen affectionately refers to it as using his artillery.


NICE READING thanks for the link:salute: :salute:

[Otto Heinzmeir]

Thanks for the replies. That Captain's log is really helpful. He used guns on a steamer as he had no torpedo ready. Sounds like he hit it hard with just 6 rounds. So guns were effective. But for 2 other ships in the area he was going back to torpedoes, only they were too fast and daylight was approaching.

My impression from reading his entire log is that guns were used mostly for mop up. His log is from late 1941 to early 1942 and he was operating off the U.S. coast. I noticed he made a number of references of trying to attack from range so he would have time to evade destroyers. Good stuff.

So before the escorts get armed Guns it is I guess :rock: Though I think I will forgo the gunner qualification. Thanks to the uboat aces site I learned how difficult it was to man a gun on deck. With rounds being passed up from below and the gunner crew having to be tied on a line so as not to get swept overboard.

[casey.phobic]

here's some specs on the 8.8cm naval gun:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_88mm-45_skc35.htm

a 20 pound projectile moving at 2,297 fps is going to do some serious damage. I have a .30-06 that travels about that fast at 200 yards and anything it hits is freakin' mince meat..and you measure its weight in grains!

factor in the HE round, and you've got a hell of a punch for such a little boat. a few hits at or below the waterline and you're history. I guess you could sort of look at he u-boat as a naval sniper in this role. Laying in wait, closing in fast and furious!

[mookiemookie]

One interesting bit from Hardegen's patrol log dated 1/22/42:

Rounded the Bermudas on a southerly course. There was a buoy with a flashing light on the Plantagenet Bank. Fired star shells twice in the direction of Hamilton harbor which illuminated the whole area as bright as day.
I suppose U-boats really did carry them.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Otto Heinzmeir: No, sinking a C2 with 12 rounds is not realistic. Are you playing the stock game? All the supermods take this into account.

Does Hardegen mention how many rounds it took to sink those ships?

The starshell reference is interesting, especially in light of the recent thread about the captured u-boat that says they didn't have any.

[GoldenRivet]

The starshell reference is interesting, especially in light of the recent thread about the captured u-boat that says they didn't have any.

perhaps some did and some didnt.

maybe it was one of those things that was up to the particular commander to decide.

[Heibges]

@ Otto Heinzmeir: No, sinking a C2 with 12 rounds is not realistic. Are you playing the stock game? All the supermods take this into account.

Does Hardegen mention how many rounds it took to sink those ships?

The starshell reference is interesting, especially in light of the recent thread about the captured u-boat that says they didn't have any.

I believe SailorSteve is correct. Using deckguns was the exception rather than the rule.

There were some great debates on this forum over the historical use of the deckgun.

I would say there are very limited situations and time periods where the deckgun would be used "realistically".

But it is a game, so folks should play the way they want to.

There is a chapter on "The Gunnery Raid" in the Uboat Commanders Handbook.

[Weiss Pinguin]

The starshell reference is interesting, especially in light of the recent thread about the captured u-boat that says they didn't have any.

perhaps some did and some didnt.

maybe it was one of those things that was up to the particular commander to decide.
Perhaps the captured U-boat had also simply expended all of its starshells? I really don't care much about SS rounds either way, just a thought.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

@ Otto Heinzmeir: No, sinking a C2 with 12 rounds is not realistic. Are you playing the stock game? All the supermods take this into account.

Does Hardegen mention how many rounds it took to sink those ships?

The starshell reference is interesting, especially in light of the recent thread about the captured u-boat that says they didn't have any.


Here is one of Hardegen's encounters ..... no torpedo, but I still have a deck gun. On battle stations for artillery attack, deck gun ready! I position myself directly in his wake. The other 4 steamers sufficiently away (distance 2000 m). I want to get closer from astern and ambush him when passing. 10.34 Open fire! Everything works fantastically, at least 6 hits aft in the engine room. Tanker stops and burns. Now I recognize that he is even bigger, about 4000 grt. He has a slight list to port and because he is on fire I believe he has enough for now and decide to attack the other steamers with torpedoes. Try to overtake a freighter, 6000 grt, but his speed is14-15 knots and I barely get ahead. Another one approaches me head-on on a course to the north. I’m changing target and try to get closer, but this one is also too fast and because the day is dawning soon I will not be able to fire on him before dawn. But I have others to choose from. My tanker reports by a radio message that he is still burning after being attacked by a U-boat with artillery and the “I. Naval Station” should be notified. It was the MALAY (8207 grt). I never would have guessed that he is so big. Well, then my last torpedo should be his coup de grace. First another shot on a freighter of 5000 grt, which is running towards me at 9 knots and I am ahead. One diesel engine broke down due to a rupture of the cooling water tube, so I continue with the other engine on maximum speed. 12.00 CA 7938
Fired torpedo. Distance 450 m, target angle 90°, enemy speed 9 knots. Hit aft of funnel and he breaks in two. He has had enough. Water depth 10 m
.........so he hurt it real bad with 6 shots up close and finished with torp.

Here is another excert from Hardegen on the same mission with not as good results using a gun, its a bit graphic as well................ Deck gun ready and opened fire. The first shots hit the stern, then one each under the bridge and in the engine room. Steamer mans the gun and fires. The firing pin of our MG C30 is broken, so we fired with the deck gun at his gun. Several hits underneath, but he continues to fire until a direct hit struck the pivot. Gun crew out of action, the barrel can’t be moved anymore. We received 5 hits, which did not penetrate the pressure hull. Because they hit very low, I assume that they fell short, burst on the surface and only the splinters hit our hull. Some shots passed between conning tower and deck gun, one could hear them whistling past. Ship is releasing steam, bridge is burning and the crew is abandoning ship in the lifeboats. Strangely they did not release the two big rafts that are intact on great slipways over the foremost and rearmost hatches. Perhaps because they were on the side we fired on. Replaced the firing pin of the 20 mm AA gun. We fire a single shot into the scenery to test the weapon. This shot exploded in the barrel, apparently due to a defect in manufacture of the round. Premature detonation. Special leader Art.Mt. Toelle is unfortunately hit by shrapnel on the back of his head and fell to the deck bleeding badly. MtrOGfr. Vonderschen has a 5 cm flesh wound on the left thigh, which is harmless. Not the fault of anyone. Vonderschen belonged to the AA gun crew, Toelle was standing near the aft periscope taking photos of the burning steamer. We were firing to right aft. Toelle lost very much blood and had to vomit several times


For my own game experience, I just started a GWX3.0 mod but havn't but only used 4 rounds with the deck gun to finish a ship that took two fish. All my experience with sinking ships solely via the deck gun was in the stock game. And the number of shells to sink varied some. I had always targeted the waterline and some C2's did hold up for 24+ shells. My personnal way I like to play is to at least put 1 torp in a ship first. Reserve the guns for finishing. But I think I may may 1 exception per mission for a ship that is in the 2 ton or less range. I just don't like half my tonnage being attributed to guns. SO looking forward to getting further into GWX and see how it goes. Maybe I won't have to hold back on the deck gun use at all. HAve to see.

[BasilY]

Almost through out WWI and early in WW2, a single deck gun shot may not sink a ship, but it is often enough to convince an unescorted merchant to abandon the fight.

In SH3, however, those merchants sailors has absolutely no regard for their own personal safety.:hmmm: (Neither does a lot of SH3 players...)

[magicsub2]

you can sink a ship if you hit it in one shot in the game but in real life the sailors would have used the hatches to stop flooding.

i think they should make an opptional mod that gives star shells but decreases HE rounds or something.

[coronas]

Spanish Steam San Carlos was a 223 tons vessel:

"At 19.50 hours on 16 Dec, 1940, U-37 (http://www.uboat.net/find_boat.php3?find_boat=37) missed the San Carlos with one torpedo off Cape Juby and decided to attack the vessel at 20.00 hours from a distance of 800 metres with the deck gun and the 37mm AA gun, but the deck gun broke down after 21 shots. The 15 crew members and 13 passengers abandoned ship in two lifeboats, but one man was lost. The Germans rowed in a dinghi to the ship and placed scuttling charges on the vessel that later sank the ship. Doing so they noticed that the fired rounds had not been able to penetrate the 20cm strong wooden hull of the ship. "


From: http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/722.html

[Jimbuna]

@Coronas

Interesting....goes to show that wood (if thick enough) can be as strong as metal :hmmm:

[BasilY]

@ Otto Heinzmeir: No, sinking a C2 with 12 rounds is not realistic. Are you playing the stock game? All the supermods take this into account.


Wasn't the C2 only available in stock? I haven't come across any C2's in GWX2.1.

[BasilY]

Spanish Steam San Carlos was a 223 tons vessel:

"At 19.50 hours on 16 Dec, 1940, U-37 (http://www.uboat.net/find_boat.php3?find_boat=37) missed the San Carlos with one torpedo off Cape Juby and decided to attack the vessel at 20.00 hours from a distance of 800 metres with the deck gun and the 37mm AA gun, but the deck gun broke down after 21 shots. The 15 crew members and 13 passengers abandoned ship in two lifeboats, but one man was lost. The Germans rowed in a dinghi to the ship and placed scuttling charges on the vessel that later sank the ship. Doing so they noticed that the fired rounds had not been able to penetrate the 20cm strong wooden hull of the ship. "


From: http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/722.html
What a magnificent waste of torpedo and deck gun ammo! Why didn't they just come along side the vessel and rake it with machine gun fire? That should convince everyone on board that the open sea is the safer place to head to. Then you can send some sailors to man the boat and operate it as a scout or a bait.

This is what I would have done in GWX2.1 as well.

And the San Carlos is a Spanish ship minding her own business near the Spanish Cannery Islands, not moving tanks to Plymouth. What was the captain thinking?

[A Very Super Market]

C2s are medium cargoes in GWX

[Jimbuna]

NKLS and NLLS

[Faamecanic]

I never used deck guns on my first 5 missions or so because I thought they were meant as a last resort if you could,'t dive or something. Apologies for my ignorance.
Once I started used them with a qualified gunner my tonnage average per mission more than doubled. From 25 tons to 51 tons per mission in the stock game.

Oddly I don't find the missions as much fun. Because whenever I use 2 torps to sink a ship I feel like I wasted the torps when I probably could have sunk it with 12 rounds of HE. I was surprised when I was able to sink a C2 with 10 to 12 rounds. I sunk a small merchant with 1 round. Possible bug perhaps. I hit it once in its a** and it went down in like 10 seconds.

Most of my strategy changed once I started using guns. Instead of lining up 500 to 700m off the targets track for a Fast 90, instead I line up as close to his track as I can figure. Staying submerged and pointing so as soon as he passed I can surface and angle a bit off to one side or the other. I have my gunner finish him in maybe 6-9 rounds for small merchant and 12-24 for a C2.

This can't be a historical type of attack. Plus the tonnage totals must be too high as well per mission compared to history and its just too dam easy to be fun. Yet I have problems not using them either because why are they there if not to be used.

For one thing they just seem to have too many rounds. I find myself asking why an early U -boot would carry torps at all if guns were this effective. Why not forgo the torps to make more room for HE rounds?

Then in GWX I was at first delighted that you could use guns in seas that were not calm, so I figured they would be less effective because of the roll of the sub in waves. Will for firing it myself it is less effective. But the gun crew is deadly again at 500 meters.

This really makes me want to use a TypeII for the entire war only I can't stand only having 5 torps after awhile.

Is this how effective deck guns were in which case I'll just use as they are but if they are over powered is there a cfg file that can be tweaked to tone down the damage or limit the rounds?

Post is a bit longer than I thought:88)

Here is a post from like 3 years ago where I had a "animated" discussion about Deck guns use and fire rates. Keep in mind here that the only reason the Kaleun stated below used his deck gun was that he was out of torps.

The book is "U-Boat War Patrol" The Hidden Photographic Diary of U 564 ISBN: 1-85367-575-X. Got it from amazon.com and it is a GREAT book. Its like Iron Coffins with 400+ pics. of the actual war Patrol

U564 was a Type VII-C under the command of Reinhard 'Teddy' Suhren.

The incident I was referring to starts on page 150 - 157.

U564 engaged a Large Tanker (8,176tons) with its last pair of torpedos. One hit, but the other got hung up in the tube (hot running!) due to damage to the external torpedo door linkage being bent by a Depth Charge attack earlier.

Teddy surfaced the Uboat and waited for the lifeboats with 39 sailors and 2 British gunners to get clear of the tanker. They then commenced firing on the tanker. This was approx. in August 1940.

From the book (pp. 156-157)

"Within the hull, the ammunition was broken out of its store beneath the decking next to the commander's cabin, unloaded from each individual metal container and passed laboriously by hand through the conning tower hatch and out to the waiting gun crew. As each round slid down the small chute that folded down from the conning towers front, it was taken and held in readiness for use by the two loaders on hand for the task.

Over the next twenty five minutes, fifty shells streaked across the narrow gap that seperated the two vessels, thirty five of them impacting on the Vardaas..

So.... it seems this Type VII-C with a experienced crew could fire 2 shells a minute, with a 70% hit rate.

Now...back to the 60 seconds between shells in RuB... I still feel that realisitic. Here is why. First U 564 had a crew that had all worked together for at least 4 patrols. This was VERY unusual. Most crews rotated frequently. There were only THREE people on U564 that had not been on 4 patrols together (1 Officer Engineer in trianing, 1 photographer, 1 seaman).

Realistically we would never have a combined crew that would have worked with eachother this long. Especially in the latter years (1942 and out).

Just thought you guys would like to know what at least one primary source says... that a 2 shell per min rate wouldnt be unrealistic. But not likely. Im sure there are other primary sources out there that say something different.

[Sailor Steve]

Perhaps the captured U-boat had also simply expended all of its starshells? I really don't care much about SS rounds either way, just a thought.
An excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.

Almost through out WWI and early in WW2, a single deck gun shot may not sink a ship, but it is often enough to convince an unescorted merchant to abandon the fight.
On the other hand I've read several accounts of one shot from a merchant being enoough to convince a u-boat to break off the attack and dive.

In SH3, however, those merchants sailors has absolutely no regard for their own personal safety.:hmmm: (Neither does a lot of SH3 players...)
Both true.

Wasn't the C2 only available in stock? I haven't come across any C2's in GWX2.1.
Just to back up what AVSM and Jimbuna said, in the stock game there were Coastal Merchant, Small Merchant, C2 Cargo and C3 Cargo. Several of us complained that the latter two were American-specific, and no other freighters were represented. The only logical solution at that time was to rename them. C2 and C3 became Medium and Large Cargo respectively. With all the new models available these days I've been giving those particular ones only their actual names in the Ship Names mod, and campaigning to have them become C2 and C3 again.

@ Faamecanic: good description.:sunny:

[RoaldLarsen]

[quote=Otto Heinzmeir]Over the next twenty five minutes, fifty shells streaked across the narrow gap that seperated the two vessels, thirty five of them impacting on the Vardaas..

So.... it seems this Type VII-C with a experienced crew could fire 2 shells a minute, with a 70% hit rate.
There is no way you can correctly conclude from this that that max rate of fire for an experienced crew was no more that 2rpm. You can only reasonbly conclude that the max rate of fire was no less than 2rpm. The description given here leaves open the possibility that the max rate of fire is much greater.

Does he say anywhere that he was firing as fast as he could? No. Does the situation indicate any urgency? No. Just as likely that he fired a few rounds, waited to see what their effect was, repeated until target sank.

Does the book describe the weather, the location, and the commander's concern about attack by enemy forces? If the seas were moderately high and the victim isolated, this would explain the number of misses, and indicate a reason for a slower than max rate of fire.

Did this U-boat have pressurized ready-use cannisters for deck gun ammunition? Many did. If this boat did have them, the fact that they were not used gives another indication that they were in no hurry.

[Jimbuna]

Here is a source that suggests 15-18 rounds per minute:


The rate of fire with a good crew was 15 to 18 rounds per minute.


http://www.uboataces.com/weapon-deck-gun.shtml

[Sailor Steve]

Here is a source that suggests 15-18 rounds per minute:


The rate of fire with a good crew was 15 to 18 rounds per minute.


http://www.uboataces.com/weapon-deck-gun.shtml
There's no question the gun could fire that fast. The hard part would be hitting anything while doing it. I used SH3 Commander to set my guns to 10 seconds (6 rpm) for the 8.8cm and 12 seconds (5 rpm) for the 10.5cm. It's slower thant the gun could fire in a test situation but faster than they could probably fire unless the sea was flat calm and the boat not moving.

The game doesn't account for motion interfering with aiming and loading. Does gun crew fatigue affect rate of fire? I know experience does.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

Here is a source that suggests 15-18 rounds per minute:


The rate of fire with a good crew was 15 to 18 rounds per minute.

http://www.uboataces.com/weapon-deck-gun.shtml There's no question the gun could fire that fast. The hard part would be hitting anything while doing it. I used SH3 Commander to set my guns to 10 seconds (6 rpm) for the 8.8cm and 12 seconds (5 rpm) for the 10.5cm. It's slower than the gun could fire in a test situation but faster than they could probably fire unless the sea was flat calm and the boat not moving.

The game doesn't account for motion interfering with aiming and loading. Does gun crew fatigue affect rate of fire? I know experience does.

Glad you posted about changing the rate of fire in SH3 commander. I just started using SH3 commander and somehow missed that option. I have to say I do like how deck guns are applied in GWX versus the stock game. It did take 22 rounds to sink a small merchant and 40 or so for a medium cargo ship.

Rate of fire isn't a factor yet in my campaign because the merchants I fired at were unarmed and unescorted. So I could take as long as necessary. I think I'll set mine to 10 secs also for the 8.8cm. Things don't always go ideally in combat situations. Then if a merchant is armed I can man the flak gun myself to try to take out the merchant gunner.

[Jimbuna]

The game doesn't account for motion interfering with aiming and loading. Does gun crew fatigue affect rate of fire? I know experience does.

TBH I don't really know :hmmm:

[Freiwillige]

I have doubts about how loading faster would affect the accuracy, Common sense tells me that the loader will load the gun at what ever angle the aim guy has it at, It isnt like the loading of the gun is going to change where the fire controll team is aiming it! So from that point of view I am going to have my gun pointing at the target and waiting for the loader, If anything I would think that faster loading would increase my accuracy because It gives me more shots per minute, that is if the first shot or shots are off target I can compensate and be firing on target faster.

[Deamon]

@ Otto Heinzmeir: No, sinking a C2 with 12 rounds is not realistic. Are you playing the stock game? All the supermods take this into account.

Does Hardegen mention how many rounds it took to sink those ships?
How many rounds it takes to sink a ship depends on the internal arrangements of the compartments and bulkheads, imo, armor maybe too if it has any. I remember in WWI the ships were often sunk with just a few scuttling charges(but took then time to sink of course). And in various cases with only few shells. But WWII might be a bit of a different situation, especially with ships that were particularly build for war time transports. I imagine they would be subdivided in to many smaller compartments.

The starshell reference is interesting, especially in light of the recent thread about the captured u-boat that says they didn't have any.
Do they mean a starshell fired by the gun at all or rather a hand fired start shell like thous that you shoot from the star shell pistol or tube ?

[RoaldLarsen]

Agreed that reload rate shouldn't have a significant negative impact on accuracy. Actually, a high reload rate probably increases accuracy, by reducing the need for correction due to displacement.

I would also point out that Rate of Fire (ROF) and reload rate are not exactly the same thing. Reload rate is how quickly you can get a new round into the gun after you fire the last one. Rate of fire is how often the gun fires. While reload rate puts a limit on ROF, it doesn't necessarily constitute the only limit. It is not always possible to fire effectively the moment the breech block is slammed home, especially on an unstable gun platform.

It is because of the distinction between reload rate and ROF that I don't like those mods which try to approximate all delays to ROF by slowing down the only parameter they can control: reload rate.

I would suggest that we ought to expect the following impacts:

Sea state affects accuracy and/or rate of fire. With an experienced crew, the accuracy impact would decrease, but the ROF impact might actually get worse. This is because the experienced crew would only fire at those points during the boat's motion when they had temporary stability. OFC, sea state also affects reload rate, which affects rate of fire.

Reload rate can also be affected by whether the ammunition is coming from ready-use storage or from inside the hull.

Range affects accuracy. Increased range can also have an impact on ROF. At long range, the flight of a shell takes longer, and thereore if one is correcting fire by observation of fall of shot, you have to wait longer before you know how to correct. Range has no effect on reload rate.

Wind speed, as opposed to sea state, should have little impact on the accuracy of an experienced crew. What could have a greater impact on accuracy is something that is not modelled by SH3: gustiness - IOW the amount of rapid change of wind speed and/or direction.

[RoaldLarsen]

Do they mean a starshell fired by the gun at all or rather a hand fired start shell like thous that you shoot from the star shell pistol or tube ?I doubt that the effects in the description could be achieved by something fired from a handheld launcher. But I don't really know how effective pistol fired illumination rounds were.

[Oneshot/Onekill]

@RoaldLarsen, I would agree with most of what you said. I woyld have to say that your not completely correct with your take on wind. When it comes to ballisitc charataristics wind, any and all wind, humidity, barametric pressure, all of these elements MUST be taken into effect when talking about round accuracy!

I was a former sniper, so im speaking from first hand experience.

[Sailor Steve]

I have doubts about how loading faster would affect the accuracy, Common sense tells me that the loader will load the gun at what ever angle the aim guy has it at, It isnt like the loading of the gun is going to change where the fire controll team is aiming it!
It's not how fast the gun is loaded, it's the waiting for the aim point to come back around. The gun isn't sitting still - it's part of the pitching, rolling u-boat, and even if it's loaded instantly the gun captain has to wait until the gun is pointed at the part of the target he wants to hit. In even a 1-meter sea there is a chance he will miss entirely if he doesn't shoot 'on the roll'.

@ RoaldLarsen: Great summary. I wish the game did take all these things into account.

@ Oneshot/Onekill: True, especially in long range naval gunnery, which is never accurate even on a good day. However, a u-boat isn't designed for long-range exchanges, and usually waits until they are at fairly close range, which of course for these guns is about 2000-3000 meters.

[RoaldLarsen]

@RoaldLarsen, I would agree with most of what you said. I woyld have to say that your not completely correct with your take on wind. When it comes to ballisitc charataristics wind, any and all wind, humidity, barametric pressure, all of these elements MUST be taken into effect when talking about round accuracy!

I was a former sniper, so im speaking from first hand experience.
Hi O/O,

I agree with you. Perhaps I did not express myself with sufficient clarity. The wind, (and the other factors you list, plus barrel wear) will affect where the shot goes. And even an expert will never be able to be quite as precise in a steady wind as in no wind at all. However, the expert knows how to take into account the effect of the wind. You know from your sniper training that you can adjust for the effects of a steady wind when you set up your shot. The inexperienced shooter will not be as successful in correcting for wind.

So, yes a shot fired in windy conditions will not be as accurate as a shot fired in calm air. However, the degree of inaccuracy introduced will be partly mitigated by the corrections the crew make. An experienced crew will be more able to make the right corrections, so their inacuracy will be reduced relative to an inexperienced crew.

There are a few differences between snipers' shooting and u-boat crews' shooting. A sniper rarely gets to take several repeated shots at an exposed, relatively immobile target. This means that all the corrections to a shot need to be made before the first shot is taken. U-boat crews usually have the luxury of being able to make corrections for subsequent shots based on the fall of earlier shots. While a good u-boat gun crew will make adjustments for windage before their first shot, it is their adjustments from observation of the fall of shot that will make a greater difference.

A second contrast is in the degree of precision required. A sniper shooting for centre of mass has an allowable error radius of about 25cm. A u-boat crew, shooting at a similar range, has an allowable error radius a few times larger.

So what I am saying is that an experienced crew will be able to compensate for a steady wind to a degree that the wind will not have a significant impact on whether a shot eventually hits the target. It might not be the first shot, but an experienced crew will be able to hit with regularity despite a steady wind.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

I have noticed that the subs pitch and roll much more in GWX3 than in stock. When I man the deck gun myself it seems to work best to fire when the gun reaches its lowest point as the sub pitches down from close range. Since I cant man the gun and steer the sub at the same time, the first shot doesn't help locate a second shot if the target is zig zagging. If I fire as the sub pitches up the shot usually sails over the target. So timing the shot is critical unless the sea is like glass. The actual gunner was tied in so he didn't get swept overboard. I imagine there were a few wild shots if a wave pitched the sub just as the gunner fired.

[Oneshot/Onekill]

@RoaldLarsen. Excellent synopsis, and clarafication. Your pretty spot on in the differences of sniping, and naval gunnery! I do also understand that there is a significant difference between small and large calliber ballistics, especially when your firing from an unstable platform without the aid of radar, or any type of electronic range finding, such as a U-boat. :yeah:

[Oneshot/Onekill]

There is one more element that i almost forgot to add from my earlier post, in listening to some of these quote's from actual patrol's, the missing element i think that most of you are forgetting is delection angle. Whether a ship is armored or not doesnt have as much impact as to WERE the armor is located, and at what deflection the round is impacting. The bottom line is there is no set formula as to how many rounds on average it would take to cause catastrophic damage to a MERCHANT ship. There are just way too many variables involved, The ship that was some 8000tons might of only taken 6-12 rounds to sink because it may have had a extremely long service life which has weakened it superstructure. No one will ever truly know for sure.:up:

[Sailor Steve]

Whether a ship is armored or not doesnt have as much impact as to WERE the armor is located, and at what deflection the round is impacting.
Here is one thing I do know: there was no such thing as an armored merchant. Even an Armed Merchant Cruiser only had armor plating on the guns themselves, and it was pretty light - splinter protection only. Also you won't find any record of a destroyer having any armor anywhere, including the magazines (excepting, again, the turret face). This is because single-piece ammunition is hard to detonate, so armor was considered unnecessary.

The bottom line is there is no set formula as to how many rounds on average it would take to cause catastrophic damage to a MERCHANT ship. There are just way too many variables involved, The ship that was some 8000tons might of only taken 6-12 rounds to sink because it may have had a extremely long service life which has weakened it superstructure. No one will ever truly know for sure.:up:
No, there is no average, but a game can't afford to be too random. What's needed is to read all the reports - every last one. I've been hoping to do this for some time, but I've been tied up with other research, and will be for the next year or more. If you've read an actual report of an 8000 ton merchant being sunk with 12 rounds I'd love to see it. The only thing I know for sure is that more study is needed.

[Hanomag]

"Were deck guns really this powerful?"


In one word ... YES!

Look at the new shell thrower Jimbuna's installing on my IXD2...


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/MakoStreak/DeckGun.jpg

MUHUHUHAHAHA.... :haha:

[Otto Heinzmeir]

"Were deck guns really this powerful?"


In one word ... YES!

Look at the new shell thrower Jimbuna's installing on my IXD2...


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/MakoStreak/DeckGun.jpg



MUHUHUHAHAHA.... :haha:

:rotfl:Good luck trying to surface with that baby mounted!:D Then again maybe you won't need to dive.

[Jimbuna]

"Were deck guns really this powerful?"


In one word ... YES!

Look at the new shell thrower Jimbuna's installing on my IXD2...


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/MakoStreak/DeckGun.jpg

MUHUHUHAHAHA.... :haha:

ROFLMAO :rotfl:

[Oneshot/Onekill]

Whether a ship is armored or not doesnt have as much impact as to WERE the armor is located, and at what deflection the round is impacting.
Here is one thing I do know: there was no such thing as an armored merchant. Even an Armed Merchant Cruiser only had armor plating on the guns themselves, and it was pretty light - splinter protection only. Also you won't find any record of a destroyer having any armor anywhere, including the magazines (excepting, again, the turret face). This is because single-piece ammunition is hard to detonate, so armor was considered unnecessary.

The bottom line is there is no set formula as to how many rounds on average it would take to cause catastrophic damage to a MERCHANT ship. There are just way too many variables involved, The ship that was some 8000tons might of only taken 6-12 rounds to sink because it may have had a extremely long service life which has weakened it superstructure. No one will ever truly know for sure.:up:
No, there is no average, but a game can't afford to be too random. What's needed is to read all the reports - every last one. I've been hoping to do this for some time, but I've been tied up with other research, and will be for the next year or more. If you've read an actual report of an 8000 ton merchant being sunk with 12 rounds I'd love to see it. The only thing I know for sure is that more study is needed.


Sorry if i wasnt clear on my earlier quote Sailor. In my limited naval knowledge i do know there were no armoured merchant ships, i was just generalizing.:)

As far as my comments on the 8000 ton ship, i believe i read an earlier post above that referenced that. I do wholeheartily agree with you, and i do appreciate your comment about destroyers not having an armoured belt of anykind, other than their main guns. Learned something new there. I was under the mistaken ignorance that all warships had some armor to different varying thicknesses depending on class of warship.:salute:

[Sailor Steve]

...i do appreciate your comment about destroyers not having an armoured belt of anykind, other than their main guns. Learned something new there. I was under the mistaken ignorance that all warships had some armor to different varying thicknesses depending on class of warship.:salute:
I served on a WW2-era destroyer for the better part of a year, and I still didn't know that either!:DL It wasn't until I read Whitley's German Destroyers of World War Two and a couple of book on the Sumner/Gearing classes (mine was a Gearing) that I found that out! I always assumed the magazines at least would be armored; but no, they just didn't think it was that important. Or maybe they didn't think they could carry enough armor to make it worthwhile.:doh:

[Steeltrap]

I've posted a number of times about the deck gun. It's clearly one reason why people are able to achieve what I consider to be stupidly high tonnage levels in single patrols.

I don't use the DG unless I have hit a target with a torp OR the target is so small it's not worth a torp. Once I'm out of torps I go home. Usually I have tons of DG ammo, as I tend not to use it much. If I encounter an unescorted and unarmed merchant while heading home I'll use DG on it, but I don't hang around on patrol acting as some kind of submersible gun platform, which I believe plenty of people do (based on their tonnages).

Dick O'Kane referred to the DG in both Wahoo and Clear the Bridge.

he stated the view that a DG was, under normal circumstances, a pretty pointless wepon for a sub. The Jap merchants were often armed, and he (rightly) had healthy respect for their gunnery skills.
a single shell from a merchant could destroy/cripple/render unable to dive a sub. Surface gunnery just wasn't worth it unless target was unarmed.
O'Kane mentions they achieved a r.o.f. of around 6-7rpm.
2 ships were sunk exclusively by gunfire...I'm pretty sure they took around 70-90 rounds fired to sink them (from a 3.5" DG, and an 88mm is 3.46" technically).The DG in SHIV was even more absurd, like you were firing a 16". A few shots could take down a liner.

I use 10 seconds in SHIII Cmdr (although NYGM defaults to this, I think).

The point about transverse bulkheads is critical. You sink ships through flooding, and that requires holing sufficient compartments. If a ship has only 2-3 compartments, that's not so hard. Putting repeated hits into a single compartment won't do nearly as much as spreading the damage. GWX and NYGM seem to model this; get 5-6 hits below waterline aft, midships and in the bow and you're on the way to causing grief.

In short, I think DGs are too powerful and it is too easy to 'abuse' this weapon. S has been stated, however, this is just a game so people are free to do as they wish. For me, I try to act in a way I think is roughly consistent with general tactics adopted bu u-boats, but that's just my preference.

cheers

[Otto Heinzmeir]

You make some good points SteelTrap. I have been trying to find my personal balance with the deck gun in game. I now have the reload minimum time set to 10 seconds. In GWX 3 it took me 52 rounds to destroy a 9 ton freighter (not sure of ID until I finish the mission and review log) There are several reasons why I prefer it to take much longer to destroy a ship with a DG than in the stock game (which seems kinda cheesy). For one firing 52 rounds with 10 second reloads took almost 9 minutes. Which means there is a risk of taking too long and having escorts arrive before your done or just after. This had to be a real concern in using a DG. I did have an escort arrive just as I was leaving on one occasion.

Even with it taking more rounds to sink a ship, the tonnage acruid is still higher than historically. It probably just wasn't used during the day in real life because the target would have time to radio for help and planes could show up at any moment. So during the day I limit my use to targets of 2 tons or less. Submarines often did not do torpedo attacks during the day if the conditions were unfavorable, so it doubtless wasn't the norm to rely on DG attacks during the day.

When the merchants start carrying guns in GWX I will only use the DG to finish a ship crippled by torpedoes.

In real life its true a steamer that had seen a lot of service could be sunk with less rounds. Its just hard to model the DG into the game allowing it to sink a ship with 4 to 6 rounds because if it starts happening too often then its not a simulation anymore.

[BasilY]

I disagree with the opinion many express here that:

1. the deck-gun is some how being over used in SH3/GWX3.0 as compared to the real war, and
2. that this is the main reason for the high tonnage players here experienced.

For point number 1;

Through out WW2, Deck gun only kills account for 158 out of 2919 kills, or 5.4% of total sinking; See table.

http://uboat.net/special/analysis.htm

I am a avid deck gunner in SH3/GWX2.1 (Just had 4 patrol in GWX3.0). I using the deck gun on every occasion possible (6 knots or less, unarmed merchant) and being quite good at it (10-30 shots per kill, some out-liners). In the first 4 patrol in my current GWX3.0 career, I sink 16 ships using gun fire alone, out of a 59 Total. (During one patrol I didn't use the deck gun at all because of foul weather). That's 27%. Seems high, but this is 1939 we are talking about. When the merchant become armed, and convoys became norm, the average felt off sharply. In my last 2 career with GWX2.1, (Von Liebe (1939-1944) and Heinz(1939 to 1945)), I estimate deck-gun only kills are about 6-8% of total kills (even less if you are talking about tonnage, since fat targets are usually well protected). Which is consistent to real war stats. (Some real war captains are more likely to use deck gun than others, captains who started earlier in the war had high deck-gun usage ratio, etc. etc.)

For point 2;

When playing DiD, High tonnage is best attributed to predictable merchant behavior.

One main reason that in the real war uboats couldn't sink as many ships as could be was the fact that many shipping are simply routed around known areas of uboat activity. Many ships, such Aquitania, were never in the cross hairs of any uboat.

In SH3/GWX, however, merchants behave as if there isn't a war going on.

1. Merchant ships keep entering into areas of known uboat presence without any precaution (speed alteration and/or zigzagging). Which allows multiple kills in a short span of time.
2. Even when under attack, single merchants and small convoys maintain their heading (albeit plus zigzag), making follow-up attacks fairly easy.
3. Convoys, too, maintain their general heading, which make it easy for the uboat to regain contact after an attack and reload.
4. Inadequate pressure are being applied to uboats by escorts and Hunter-killer groups. For example, I will sink the escort carrier inside a Hunter/Killer group, and the accompanying DD's will leave 30 minutes after losing contact with me. I am then free to fall upon another prey. In real war, they would have stay a lot longer even after contact lost, waiting for a uboat to surface for air or recharge.

Secondly, the best way to rack up tonnage in SH3 is not having one long patrol going for record (I tried that, 1 patrol, 250GRT in 90+ days IXB), but many short patrols from a nearby base. For Captain Von Liebe, he rack-up 470k GRT (in 5 1/2 patrols VIIB GWX2.1 100%) in February 1940 http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147006. Even the unfortunate Basil (flying Studebaker) Jahn had 48k in 22 days in 1942 (in a type IID no less).

Quick turnaround is the Key. Therefore, it makes no sense (if tonnage is your goal) to continue a patrol without torpedo.

A third reason for the high tonnage is the availability of large number of trophy ships in SH3. How many whale factory ships, 10K+ tankers have you encounter in your typical career? And how many of them existed in the real world, total? Sadly, GWX3.0 has chosen to add more tonnage by making the Large merchant 10k GRT compared to 6-8k in GWX2.1.

The way to address the astronomical tonnage number in SH3 is to address how merchants behave after the presence of a uboat is known (after an attack, or a air or surface sighting). Smarter merchant behavior could force a uboat to spend more time and ammo per kill (through zigzagging and frequent speed change), and to travel greater distances, (exposed to greater danger) to find another kill (through re-routing).

In my opinion, SH3/GWX has modeled the effectiveness as well as the limitations of the deck gun well (In fact, one can also make an argument that torpedoes in this game function better compare to the real world, no circle-back, for example.). And it's up to an individual player to choose whether or not to include this instrument in their play.

GWX3.0 100%
Mods:
English Nav Map
Lite Harbor Traffic
No Medals On Crew
Mission Orders Lite
No modification to any configuration files

[Otto Heinzmeir]

Well yea its just a game and the merchants do behave like there is no war. I'm starting to lose interest because of this. I believe the merchant behavior is hard coded. So not sure anything can be done about it. I just get put off by finishing the 1st mission of the war and realizing that I would have accounted for 1/4 of the total tonnage sunk by subs in Sept 1939. So this makes it more of a game that I had hoped for.

I really would like to see a software developer nail the sim aspect. I think maybe there afraid to make it too realistic because they worry that it would be too hard or boring (from spending a week at sea and not running across anything)and then not so many would play it. I think they would be surprised. They may also have been limited by what computers were capable of processing in 2005.

Has anyone had a merchant go out of there way to try to run them over? This was something that they would try if they spot you off there track but I haven't seen it.


The stock game has way too many merchants, the mods address this quite well though they seem to have a few too many high tonnage targets available. I just ran into a convoy where the DD ran out of DC's. Maybe I just need to start a campaign in 1942 for a change of pace.

As far as the escorts leaving to early. I don't really mind that. Two and 1/2 hours of dodging attacks in real time is good enough for me. Since sometimes saving while submerged creats an unstable save I really wouldn't wat to have to play 4 hours or more waiting to surface to save my game.

[Sailor Steve]

I think Steeltrap said it best that, arguments about rates-of-fire aside, the real complaint is that we sink way too many ships in the game.

My solution is to go to my assigned patrol grid and stay there for the entire patrol. I've had a few great patrols, but I've also had a few that were empty, or at least only one or two ships sunk.

But then I like just sailing the boat around, so I'm probably the weird one.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

You make sense to me Sailor Steve. I would buy a non combat game of life on the Mississippi aboard a tug boat :D The atmosphere would be awesome if they add all the details that the modders in these forums do.

I am going back to a type II and just putz around. Less time away from the family you know.

[Oneshot/Onekill]

I completely agree with both of you. I think that the deck gun in Sh3 and 4 are way too arcadesh. My general rule is i only use it to finish off targets or i engage targets 1500 tons or less with it.:)

[Sailor Steve]

You make sense to me Sailor Steve. I would buy a non combat game of life on the Mississippi aboard a tug boat :D The atmosphere would be awesome if they add all the details that the modders in these forums do.

I am going back to a type II and just putz around. Less time away from the family you know.
I'm using GWX3 and the Keil Locks mod. My favorite thing to do is just sail from the dock out of the harbor and through the locks into the canal, looking at the ships coming and going.

[Jimbuna]

You make sense to me Sailor Steve. I would buy a non combat game of life on the Mississippi aboard a tug boat :D The atmosphere would be awesome if they add all the details that the modders in these forums do.

I am going back to a type II and just putz around. Less time away from the family you know.
I'm using GWX3 and the Keil Locks mod. My favorite thing to do is just sail from the dock out of the harbor and through the locks into the canal, looking at the ships coming and going.

The last of the true romantics :03: