Hints for Torpedo Strategy

[TheDudTorpedo]

**Re-posted - sorry I posted incorrectly in someone elses thread **

Hi All,

Im now a veteran of 22 patrols under GWX3, so have a fair idea about the 90 degree AoB, ideal torpedo placement WRT to engine room, ammunition hold, fuel hold etc. I'm currently patrolling during May 1943 - and boy its a tough year to sailing a U-Boat, but so far Im still alive....! I'm still using the green triangle thing and am nowhere near attempting manual targetting.

Im after some extra torpedo tips/stratgey that I have possibly not yet considered - here are some scenraios and questions:

1. Bow Shot
Something I've been thinking about recently is firing my first torpedo (generally I will use two on anything larger than a coastal merchant - sadly I very rarely get the one hit wonders) to strike the bow of a target (for example a large merchant). During my very first patrol my very first time in SH3 vanilla, I did this more by luck than anything else, and got great satisfaction watching the C2 go bow heavy almost immediately and attempt to dive just like a U-Boat! I have never repeated that. So, is it a worthwhile strategy considering? Has anyone experienced much success or failure using this method?

2. Depth of strike
Generally, I will try to make my torpedo strike as low below the waterline as possible, without bouncing off the hull as it curves near the bottom of the ships draft. So, if a ship has a 10m draft, I'll typically try to place the running depth at say between 6m and 8m. My thinking is that a hole further below the water-line results in a greater risk of flooding, and hence a better probability of destroying the ship. Does that sound like a good strategy, or is it dependant on the ship type and what it is carrying? How does the fuel hold, ammo hold, engire room figure into this? Surely not all ships have these holds at the same depth (e/g/ 3m below waterline), or do they?

3. Locking on to the Green Triangle
I read somewhere that in SH3, the ideal striking point of a torpedo is not actually the green triangle when locking onto the target - its slightly infront or behind this triangle. Is that correct?

Any other advice on better torpedo usage would be welcome. :rock:

Thanks,
Dud

[A Very Super Market]

Yep, bow shots force more water into the ship, causing flooding.

I've only had a few ships explode completely, so forget hitting different compartments. GWX just doesn't do that. Under-keel shots are good for breaking the ship in two.

I'm fairly certain that the triangle is just the centre of the ship, without any special things in it.

[kdv]

Learn to use the depth setting on each torpedo with the known depth of the keel on the target. I run about 1m below keel, and always aim for the engine room. Bow hits are supposed to be effective, but I haven't noticed any real difference, the torpedo that hits the stern floods it as well, but probably at a slower pace.

I have found my torpedo's cover more targets, using ONE per target. It make take a bit of stalking after the hit to ensure it's going to go down, but I find alot of 'bigger' ships lose propulsion, and eventually sink. However, unless I'm freaked out by the tonnage of a perspective target, I'll fire all four forwards at one, hoping 2 will hit and cripple it allowing for a stern shot.

Had a 4 stacker ocean liner troop transport come up fast, and I was about 2000m away from where I wanted to be for my attack - all I could do was fire all 4, and yep - 2 hit, slowed it way down, and the stern fish finished it off :). Wasn't going to let that guy get away.

About the green triangle - you're talking about where it locks onto the ship? I rarely go by that, unless it's a really fast decision to fire.

[Murr44]

Have a look at the torpedo section in the Silent Hunter III Community Manual here: http://http://alexbret.perso.cegetel.net/index4875.php. There are some pretty good tips on setting torpedo running depth there.

[Sharkley]

Have a look at the torpedo section in the Silent Hunter III Community Manual here: http://http://alexbret.perso.cegetel.net/index4875.php. There are some pretty good tips on setting torpedo running depth there.

States that page can not be diplayed:timeout:

[mookiemookie]

Have a look at the torpedo section in the Silent Hunter III Community Manual here: http://http://alexbret.perso.cegetel.net/index4875.php. There are some pretty good tips on setting torpedo running depth there.
States that page can not be diplayed:timeout:

Corrected link: http://alexbret.perso.cegetel.net/index4875.php

[Puster Bill]

About the green triangle - you're talking about where it locks onto the ship? I rarely go by that, unless it's a really fast decision to fire.

Go full manual targeting and get rid of the targeting indicator. It's a crutch.

[Karl von Muller]

I have been ignoring the triangle for the reason that its position does not seem to vary for different ship types. For example a tanker's engines and fuel are aft, but a large freighter's are amidships. The triangle does not seem to care.

How does one "get rid of it"? Switch to manual targeting?

[Otto Heinzmeir]

For freighters I like to aim at the stack. If you hit the stack, you will kill the engines, if you miss slightly forward you hit the fuel cell. If you miss slightly aft you will cause the engine compartment to flood and this will eventually kill the engines as well. For tankers I aim at the cabin for the same reasons. I used to split some medium cargos and tankers in two with a center placed magnetic in the stock game. But in GXW havn't split a ship yet with one torp, which is probably more realistic.

[kdv]

I have managed to split a few with GWX3, mostly medium cargo's - and only with the magnetic exploding under their keel. Never seems to work with impacting the hull.

The 'lock' always goes to the center of the ship, which as stated above isn't the best spot to hit.

I go for engines, it's a no brainer - it's under the stack. Gauging where the fuel tanks are isn't as easy.

[Puster Bill]

I have been ignoring the triangle for the reason that its position does not seem to vary for different ship types. For example a tanker's engines and fuel are aft, but a large freighter's are amidships. The triangle does not seem to care.

How does one "get rid of it"? Switch to manual targeting?

Yes.

When you go to full manual targeting, it will disappear.

You could also try manual targeting with WO assistance, I think it disappears then also (but I'm not sure).

[TheDudTorpedo]

Thanks for all the helpful hints guys :up:

Tonight I had the chance to test the bow-shot theory. I was being chased (again!) by a V&W destroyer off the west coast of Ireland. I fired a stern torpedo at a magnetic setting 1m below her keel - I was a bit worried I hadn't selected a decent depth setting because the sea was very rough. Anyway, the V&W is steaming in at 15 knots and the torpedo actually impacts right on her prow as she dips into a wave! Well...she tried to dive just like my U-boat.....have a gander at these :D

On her way down....
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/goldenbollocks/SH3Img14-3-2009_1214_515.jpg

It's all over....
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/goldenbollocks/SH3Img14-3-2009_1223_531.jpg

The right bow-shot certainly delivers the goods. I love this game :yeah:

[Sharkley]

I have been ignoring the triangle for the reason that its position does not seem to vary for different ship types. For example a tanker's engines and fuel are aft, but a large freighter's are amidships. The triangle does not seem to care.

How does one "get rid of it"? Switch to manual targeting?

Yes.

When you go to full manual targeting, it will disappear.

You could also try manual targeting with WO assistance, I think it disappears then also (but I'm not sure).

I would love to see more detail on this from those who have tried it. I want to be as "real" as possible but still have a crew that "works" I am not at the stage yet where I want to go full manual but I want to feel the next step of realism soon..

[Henry Wood]

About the green triangle - I always understood it to be a guide as to how succesful your shot was likely to be and if not locked you could aim your shot using the crosshairs in the attack scope. I used to use it like that when starting out, no lock on the target and when the triangle turned green it meant I was just about certain of a succesful hit, then I'd move the crosshairs to the engine room, bow, midships or where I wanted the torpedo to strike. It always seemed to work.

[Threesixtyci]

The three times I tried shots underneath the keel, relying on magnitics. All 3 times the torpedo sailed right under the targeted ship and just kept on going....
I guess, under keel shots just don't work when you are perpendicular, or near perpendicular, to the target....

Anyway... it's caused me to not even attempt setting torps to run below drafts, anymore.


Cool pic though... too bad, SH3 doesn't simulate bending metal. Would have been cool to see it break in half with that much stress.

[Bosje]

yes, magnetic pistol can easily fail to explode if the torpedo runs at 90 degrees under a slender hull, which is why you will want to learn the various tactics at your disposal. magnetic is great when you are forced to shoot at, say, 30 degrees AOB. because the torpedo will spend a lot more time underneath the hull.

'critical' points besides the already mentioned engine room are: masts (specially forward) and guns. i sometimes get the huge secondary explosions and sinking because i got a torpedo in the ammo bunker for some gun (once took out an auxiliary cruiser with one impact shot right under her fore gun platforms. it made my graphics card go all laggy :)

WO assistance is a good way to upgrade your realism, you can start doing the calculations and 'check' them against your officer's solution

good luck :)

[Threesixtyci]

WO assistance is a good way to upgrade your realism, you can start doing the calculations and 'check' them against your officer's solution

However.... you'll likely fall into that trap of not checking how close you were to the solution, because you'll likely quit trying to remember how close your calculations are from the AI's. :o

[Bosje]

lol true
i remember not having nearly enough time to do any cross checking back when i tried to learn it. the best advice i can give you is to just master the art of fast 90 :)

[Puster Bill]

Fast 90 is fine, I use it whenever possible.

However, it isn't always possible.

My advice is to go to hitman's Kriegsmarine Whiz-Wheel thread
(here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114351 ) and build one for yourself. It's pretty easy: You simply print out the three wheels, and pin them together:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5185/dsc00013ym5.jpg

If you want to get fancy, you can make the reverse side also.

Then download klh's instructions for how to use it, found in this thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126824

With a little practice, it's pretty intuitive to use and it helps you become deadly accurate.

[Threesixtyci]

Heh, I remember lurking and downloading that... and then noticing all the picture files in there and saying to myself.... "Um... this looks like a lot of work."

At the time I was really searching for the AOB one that's on that Wazoo page. But the link left on the Wazoo's page is basicly broken. It links to here: http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=30852
And that link gives you a 404. Basicly, was when I registered into the forum and noticed all the mods and such here....

I evenually found one, on my own... Although, I don't remember how I found it.
http://hosted.filefront.com/PFunkadelic/1948680

I did make that version of a wheel and I used it for a while. But, the game started given me migraines via the math of converting periscope angles to bearing and such. It turned the game into work and I ended up losing interest.

I just play for fun, now, and let the AI do all the real calculating work.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

I don't understand the need for the AOB wheel. It seems to make things more complicated than necessary. I don't use nav updates. What I do is shadow the target and plot its track on the chart. Then I draw a line for its track. Mark the targets location and draw the angle back to my sub. That angle is the AOB. Then its simple to point the scope at the target and add in the angle, range and speed.

Maybe that method isn't the method that was used in real life. But it could have been and its faster for me than using a wheel, probably cause I just got used to it that way.
I might make a wheel though just because it looks cool.:up: More immersion!

[Puster Bill]

The problem with your method Otto is that for a significant number of situations, it just doesn't work.

Here are a few that I can think of:
1. Fast warships
2. Medium or heavy fog
3. Later war where you are limited to submerged attacks from longer ranges (if you want to live)

The beauty of using whiz-wheels is that there are really no situations with the exception of snap-shots where they aren't appropriate. Plus, you aren't locked into choosing a certain course (parallel, or a 90 degree course), or a certain speed.

I tend to either use the "two distance/bearing observations at very slow speed" method, or if I'm in a hurry the "aspect ratio" method for target AOB, and "fixed wire" for target speed.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

The problem with your method Otto is that for a significant number of situations, it just doesn't work.

Here are a few that I can think of:
1. Fast warships
2. Medium or heavy fog
3. Later war where you are limited to submerged attacks from longer ranges (if you want to live)



Um, my method would work as long as you can plot the target. If you have plotted it in fog for 15 minutes and have a reliable track for the target. You will know the targets current position, its tracks and its speed. Ideally you want to keep the target in sight but with the above info you can predict its location 1 minute later if it moved into fog.

I have yet to fire at a target that I didn't see though. Are you saying that with the AOB wheel you fire at targets that are no longer visible? This could be done using either method, however, once that target is no longer visible you have no way of knowing if it changed its course or speed since last contact.

Submerged at range is no different with either method. Its just a matter of having an accurate plot. Warships are no different that other targets except that there apt to change direction so your plot info may suddenly become irrelavent. This would be the case no matter which method you used.

I just put up a tutorial for the method I use. Maybe that will help clarify what I do.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

Plus, you aren't locked into choosing a certain course (parallel, or a 90 degree course), or a certain speed.



This simply isn't true. The method I use does not lock you in to a parallel or 90 degree course. In my tutorial I use a parallel course but the method I describe would work for any AOB.

There are a few reasons why a parallel course is preferred. I think these reasons may applied to any method used. For one, your TDC settings do not become outdated as quickly at a parallel course.

We both know that the AOB of the target changes over time. A parallel course at matching speed, minimizes these changes so you can enter them quickly into the TDC and fire.

If your approach is making the AOB angle change constantly, you can compensate by plotting the targets position 1 minute into the future and entering your TDC settings for the shot 1 minute from now. Again this would apply to either method.

I think you should try the method I use before you come to erroneous conclusions about limitations that simply do not exist. I never would say what the AOB wheels limitations might be without first testing it.

[Puster Bill]

OK, I went back and looked at your tutorial.

It's the standard 3:15 plotting method, the only real wrinkle is that you do it from roughly parallel courses. It's a good method. I used to use it myself before I stopped plotting everything.

There are times, especially in medium to heavy fog, or with a very fast high value target, like a carrier or a battleship (or perhaps even a fast tanker sailing alone) when you don't have the luxury of waiting 3 minutes and 15 seconds to do your plotting. The target will either be too close for a torpedo, or they might be out of visual range due to adverse weather or because they are cranking along at 20+ knots.

For example, a target doing 25 knots will travel about 2,500 meters in 3 minutes and 15 seconds. If you only have 3 km visibility because of adverse weather, the target will likely be past the optimum firing point before you get a chance to do your plots.

A slower target, like a merchant doing only 7 knots, will only travel about 700 meters in 3:15, so you'd likely be able to get enough plots to target them in the same conditions, but perhaps not in heavy fog where the visibility is around 400 meters or so.

In all those cases, though, you'd likely have enough time to figure AOB and speed using a wheel (with practice, of course). You could even just use it to figure speed for lesser plotting times: Let's say because of target speed, you can't wait the whole 3 minutes and 15 seconds. You can only do 1 minute, and you plot it out and find he's moved 775 yards in that one minute. Whip out the wheel, place the 1 minute mark at the 775 mark (actually, 7750), and read the speed at the cursor, 25 knots (actually, 2.5).

[Otto Heinzmeir]

Well I can't comment about the wheel. But I have sunk ships at times just by visually eyeing them up, leading them and firing out my 000. Did in a T3 tanker with 1 magnetic that way. In that situation I wouldn't have even had time to get out the AOB wheel, let alone move the dials around.

I don't ever go after any of the task forces as BDU's directive was to sink merchants.

[Puster Bill]

I don't ever go after any of the task forces as BDU's directive was to sink merchants.

That's true.

That didn't stop Otto Schuhart, Hans-Dietrich von Tiensenhausen, Helmut Rosenbaum, Friederich Guggenberger, Ottokar Paulssen, Gerhard Bigalk, Adolph Piening, Franz-Georg Reschke, Johann Jebsen, Horst-Arno Fenski, or Jürgen Kuhlmann from sinking the warships they came across.

I didn't mention Günter Prien because his mission in Scapa Flow was to sink warships. I picked those commanders off the top of my head that sank cruisers, carriers, and battleships, ignoring those that sank lesser ships like corvettes, destroyers, and other escort-type vessels.

I think that if you were presented with an opportunity to sink a major warship and shied away from it because your mission is to "sink merchant ships", Uncle Karl might give you a dressing down.

[Otto Heinzmeir]

The top tonnage ace of the war only sunk one warship out of the 44 ships he sunk.
I get the feeling that you specifically seek them out. This is easy to do 60 plus years later when you know where they will be and at what time. Play the game you want. Use your AOB wheel. I'll play the game the way I feel like playing it.

btw - it seems that your giving me a dressing down for whatever reason. Frankly I don't care if I don't play to your standards.

[Oneshot/Onekill]

Remeber gents, it is just a game.

I dont think any one or the other is the right way. Just use the method you feel most comfortable and then pass it on to the nub's, let them decide.:DL

[Puster Bill]

The top tonnage ace of the war only sunk one warship out of the 44 ships he sunk.
I get the feeling that you specifically seek them out. This is easy to do 60 plus years later when you know where they will be and at what time. Play the game you want. Use your AOB wheel. I'll play the game the way I feel like playing it.

btw - it seems that your giving me a dressing down for whatever reason. Frankly I don't care if I don't play to your standards.

First, I am truly sorry if you feel that way, it was definitely not my intention! Like Oneshot/Onekill says, at least for us, it's only a game.

Second, I don't go out of my way to engage major warships, for the most part. If I get a report of a Task Force within a reasonable distance, I will go after it though. That "reasonable distance" is often much shorter than I would go for a convoy, and if I find it's all destroyers, I generally won't waste a torpedo on them unless I have to. Cruisers and up are a different story: If I can, I try to sink them.

Third, sinking capital ships, while not a stated priority, was an activity that was pretty heavily rewarded by BdU: Guggenberger received the Knights Cross for sinking the fleet carrier HMS Ark Royal, Bigalk received it for sinking the escort carrier HMS Audacity, Tiesenhausen received it for sinking the battleship HMS Barham, and Rosenbaum received it for sinking the carrier HMS Eagle. I'm sure there are a few more examples.

So yes, the focus was on merchant traffic (as it should have been), but major warships were considered fair game also.

At any rate, have a beer on me in atonement: :()1:

[Otto Heinzmeir]

Thanks don't mind if I do.:()1:

[Pepe le Moko]

When the sea is rough with big waves, do you set the depth deeper or shallower for the torpedos?

[RoaldLarsen]

When the sea is rough with big waves, do you set the depth deeper or shallower for the torpedos?

I set my magnetics deeper. I have heard arguments for both deeper and shallower. I think if you go to 2 metres below keel you will have a small chance of missing entirely if the boat happens to bob up just as the torpedo arrives, but with shallower than 1 metre there is just too much of a chance of a dud impact on the curved part of the hull.