Realistic sub tactics with aircraft

[rjmerit]

Ok, I'm patrolling off the coast of Japan and during the day I get alot of planes flying around. So far what I do is; pick up the contacts on radar, if it looks like they'll come within sight (often do) I'll go to PD for about 7-8 minutes then come back up and continue on. Of course this works well, I don't get shot at, but is it realistic? Was sub based air search radar that accurate and reliable? What would be the tactics of sub commanders back then when traveling that close to the coast of Japan?

[WitoldGritz]

what i would do, and do ingame, cruise surfaced only at night time with big precotions, day time submerged and cruise lowest speed.

how you pick plane contact on radar?

[rjmerit]

The air search radar works without you having to do anything. If you get surface radar and air radar you have to turn off the radar on the interface at the bottom of the screen; which is the surface radar and then the air search works automatically. The interface controls are just for the surface radar and only one works at a time so once your surface radar is "on" your air search is off.

[Pacific_Ace]

Ok, I'm patrolling off the coast of Japan and during the day I get alot of planes flying around. So far what I do is; pick up the contacts on radar, if it looks like they'll come within sight (often do) I'll go to PD for about 7-8 minutes then come back up and continue on. Of course this works well, I don't get shot at, but is it realistic? Was sub based air search radar that accurate and reliable? What would be the tactics of sub commanders back then when traveling that close to the coast of Japan?

An aircraft catching his sub on the surface was a skippers worst nightmare. The early SD radar was not too good. It only had a range of 6 miles or so and didn't have the ability to give range and bearing. You only knew a plane was there and whether it was closing on you BUT that was better than depending only on your lookouts. Later in the war a radar called SV radar was installed and it had much better range and could give range and bearing information.

As to the tactics of your situation, yes it is realistic in certain situations. I don't think a skipper would play day time hide and seek with aircraft so close to Japan under normal circumstances unless he had a good reason, like he was doing an end around on a convoy or TF he contacted during the night or was on his way to an intercept point provided by MAGIC intelligence.

and only one works at a time so once your surface radar is "on" your air search is off.

This is totally wrong. There is no way to turn air search on and off that I know of, but turning on your SJ does NOT turn off your SD and they both work fine together.

[rjmerit]

Pacific Ace, so for normal circumstances it would be more realistic to dive and cruise along at say one or two knots for the day and then come back up at night?

As for the in game radar, I'm using stock 1.4 and if I have SJ on, I will not get contacts from my SD. I wasn't talking about turning the SD off but turning off the SJ. If this works differently please let me know how, because as of right now if I'm running daylight on the surface I just flip on the SJ for a few minutes and then turn it back off because I won't get air contacts with the SJ turned on.

[Pacific_Ace]

Pacific Ace, so for normal circumstances it would be more realistic to dive and cruise along at say one or two knots for the day and then come back up at night?

As for the in game radar, I'm using stock 1.4 and if I have SJ on, I will not get contacts from my SD. I wasn't talking about turning the SD off but turning off the SJ. If this works differently please let me know how, because as of right now if I'm running daylight on the surface I just flip on the SJ for a few minutes and then turn it back off because I won't get air contacts with the SJ turned on.

Well as I said before, your tactics would fit your current situation. From a game standpoint I usually submerge in the day time in high air traffic areas because it irritates me to constantly dive and surface. From a real life standpoint it is a matter of mitigating your risks, which are already astronomical to start with. Keep in mind that a crash dive in real life was no easy task and carried high risk in and of themselves. It also disrupts your subs routine and peoples sleep.
Other factors come in play as well. What is the weather like? Is the sea glassy smooth? Skippers hated this as waves serve to break up their boat wake and periscope feather. What time in the war is it? Later in the war Japanese ships and aircraft began to be equipped with radar.

As for your SD/SJ issue, Ive never heard of it. Are you fully patched? I personally have never played stock SH4 I use the RFB or FotRS supermods and I have both radars on all the time and no problems.

[Armistead]

You air radar is always on regardless, unless dived or broken. It doesn't cut off. You can control you surface radar off and on, but it has no effect on air radar. Haven't played stock in so long, but sure you can raise the air radar at scope depth with the t key.

Why early war tactics they ran submerged during the day, most skippers quit that. They actually trusted their crew watches more than radar, but with both, most skippers stayed on the surface during the day.

You also want to always run at about 9-10 knots, anything else you're wasting fuel.

Problem with stock, too many planes at an unrealistic level, so almost forces you to stay submerged. Mod's fix all those silly stock bugs.

If you haven't read the SHIV guide yet I would do so. I'll have to go find a link, but will post it later.

[Rockin Robbins]

It would be absolutely unrealistic to follow the ostrich strategy and deplete your battery all day so you can be unable to fight all night, while you pointlessly burn up all your fuel, running engines wide open to charge your drained batteries, cutting your range by at least 50%. Admiral Lockwood replaced several dozen skippers for doing exactly that.

War is to be fought. That means willingness to take reasonable risk when the payoff is the ability to find and engage targets. On the surface at 9 knots, you search more than 10 times the area per day you can search as an ostrich. That means 10 times more contacts, 10 times more enemies on the bottom. I'm being very conservative here, the real ratio is significantly higher.

According to Bill Wolfe, editor of the United States Submarine Veterans of World War II's newsletter, Polaris, "During 1944, 14% of the CO's were relieved for non-productivity, 30% in 1942 and 14% in 1943." Ostriches were aggressively sought out and relieved of command. We didn't have enough submarines to waste even one trying to hide its head in the sand.

In Thunder Below, Eugene Fluckey goes into excruciating detail about why the yo-yo strategy is absolutely necessary to fight the war, and that submergence is only to be used when absolutely necessary and for the barest minimum possible time. Every second you are below, you should be thinking "why can't I surface NOW?" Guess who took over Admiral Lockwood's command on his retirement? What does that tell you?

[AVGWarhawk]

I stay up as along possible. The fleet type submarine is a boat that is able to submerge for a time. Day or night, I'm on the surface. If a plane is spotted I dive for about 30 minutes. However, close inshores I stay submerged during the day. Stay surfaced as long as possible and most did from what I have read.

[Wilcke]

@AVGWarhawk,

That pic in your sig, you have an announcement to make? Hee, hee, hee, its cute, I get it duuuuuh!

[Bubblehead1980]

Staying under all day and surfacing at night to charge batteries(both the subs and the crew's) was the standard tactic when the war started and many used it for the first part of the war.

Mid to late war some bold skippers decided the yo-yo method was best, and it is.Yo-Yo meaning diving only when have to, to avoid planes or to attack.They also began using night surface attacks from 1943 on, using the submarine as a torpedo boat that could submerge.

Think is, when you stay under all day, you hamper yourself but burning fuel, recharging batteries consumes a lot of fuel, you do this day after day, your time on patrol will be cut short.Also, you can't cover the miles and cant see as far with periscope only, thus wont spot target earlier, so may miss a chance to attack because spotted them too late.

I know this because in early war, I use historic tactics(for the challenge) and stay under all day, surface at night.In mid to late war, I use the yo-yo method and can just see the difference.

Only exception is say if I am near the coast of Japan during day, stay under, because planes will be on fast, plus even the top late war subs like the Tang etc patroled submerged when really close to shore.

Of course, I use mods...TMO 1.9 in particular, in stock I stayed under a lot because of the ridiculous amount of planes.Stock was almost unplayable at times due to the planes.

[Rockin Robbins]

There is some evidence that submarines close to land were caught by surprise when airplanes used the cover of terrain features to sneak up in the radar shadow to plaster submarines. The evidence is sunk submarines. That also shows that captains were willing to take risks to gain tonnage.

[tomoose]

RJ;
I essentially follow your method in that I cruise on the surface as much as possible and dive if there's a perceived threat (usually an air radar contact). Even after a radar contact I'll generally push my luck and wait for a visual sighting before crash diving. Having said that, with the TMO mod, the crash dive takes me deep as the aircraft can still see you at periscope depth.

As RR states, cruising on the surface, even in the daytime, allows me to cover more of my patrol area and saves my batteries for when I need them. As soon as I dive I'm very conscious of what's happening to my batteries and when I need to recharge.

:salute:

[abclkhan]

Playing TMO 1.9 I prefer to close to straits. This way you can stay submerged and since the targets course is almost the same you only have to employ quick runs and get to afiring point. I use to sink 2-4 ships in an interval of 24 hours submerged. I hope not to be replaced!
lol:D:D

... Does it exists any recording of battery endurance and battery level x speed?

[Rockin Robbins]

Yes, it is possible to hang out in a strait submerged, and so long as it is a choke point in a shipping lane, you will find targets. The problem is that you're submerged, burning up your batteries and you'll need those batteries when you get in combat with an escorted target. So you are crippling your ability to fight.

Then when you surface, you have to stay surfaced for very long amounts of time to recharge. Your risk of being spotted is about the same as if you stayed on the surface and just submerged when forced to. But you are not ready to fight because your batteries are always below full charge. There's no peace like knowing you can hit the jets at ahead emergency for 30 minutes and not worry about your battery! It'll save your tail!:salute:

[Armistead]

Stay on the surface you cowards....and dive only when you must...You're surface raiders, be brave and get it done.

[G2B]

Aye, Surface Raiders we be http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae228/g2banything/11piratas-pirates.gif Curse the flying thingies, forcing us to dive upsets the Grog. Keep a weather eye on em they be tricky, depending on the weather they can spot ya from quite a ways when it be clear. And do NOT repeat do NOT use the RADIO when they are near. Stay out of the shallows during the day as well, they will see you submerged if your running shallow, got caught this way once when ordered to patrol area that was mostly shallow :nope:

[Rockin Robbins]

Arrrrrr! :arrgh!: Pirated! http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae228/g2banything/11piratas-pirates.gif

[abclkhan]

Ok :up:


Anyway... it is much more easy to kill aircraft in mid war and late war since the new conning towers have more and better machine guns.
Eat my bullets!:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

[vanjast]

There's nothing worse for a convoy commodore, flagship admiral to suddenly have ships torpedoed seemingly out of nowhere. No warnings from ASW aircraft of any enemy subs in the area.. nothing!!

A submarine as it was built to do, Silent and Stealthy
:D

[Rockin Robbins]

OK, kill some cheap easy to replace little airplane thingies with your large, expensive and difficult to replace submarine. Even if you kill dozens of them, the exchange can never be a good "buy." And the little airplane thingies call their buddies, more cheap expendable airplane thingies with bomb thingies aboard to swarm you before they attack and you ever get a chance to shoot them down.

So engaging cheap fly thingies isn't going to get you any medals. It isn't going to help win the war. Nobody will think you are courageous. The admiral will make an example of your sorry carcass and you'll spend the rest of the war peeling spuds....if you survive your foolishness.:D

[Armistead]

Well, you're not gonna get hit with a torp from anything in this game but you're on

There is no reason to stay submerged in this game until in attack mode.
Your radar won't fail you, nor will your crew. The only thing I do since I play TMO is when the crew actually spots a plane, I crash dive. I want to get deep enough, because those bombs can go deep.

[Hitman]

I can offer another good reason for the yo-yo: If you are detected by an aircraft, and even if you evade him, staying below at slow speed is the best way of not being too far from where you were spotted when the nasty airdale tells his tin-can friends what he saw and where :D

[Ducimus]

I can offer another good reason for the yo-yo: If you are detected by an aircraft, and even if you evade him, staying below at slow speed is the best way of not being too far from where you were spotted when the nasty airdale tells his tin-can friends what he saw and where :D

That is one of the "beauty's" about Aircraft seeing shallow submerged targets. :D


I was just thinking, it's a shame we can't get the negative boyancy mod from NYGM in SH3 to work in SH4. One thing that has never been modeled in SH3 or SH4 was the need to use propulsion while submerged in order to maintain depth. The reality is, once your batteries run low, you MUST surface. If this was in game, youd see people running submerged a lot less. (I'd also lay odds that this sort of improvement you wont see in SH5 either)

[vanjast]

If you think of it.. military people, most of the time are not the sharpest pencils in the box. There are a minority that shine through.

This game has it's AI limitations, and combined with the blunt pencils with 'political clout', you have a strategy engraved in rock, no matter how non-sensical it might be.

My guidelines - :yeah:
---------------------
Look for choke points or points of current interest.
Feel free to travel on surface until danger areas
Passive sonar is your best friend.

Danger Areas
Daytime - sit at 250 feet @ 1 knot
Nightime - Orf you go at standard speed

In patrol area
Sit for 48 hours max - if no contacts move 100-200Nm elsewhere
Daytime - sit at 250 feet @ 0 knot - Passive sonar scan
Nightime - On surface (0 kt) , submerge to scope depth every 3 hours or so - Passive sonar scan

sinking ships
When sinking a ship, move to another area for a few days.
About 200Nm away, you can go back later, no more than 2 strikes in the same area.

:D

[sergei]

In patrol area
Sit for 48 hours max - if no contacts move 100-200Nm elsewhere
Daytime - sit at 250 feet @ 0 knot - Passive sonar scan
Nightime - On surface (0 kt) , submerge to scope depth every 3 hours or so - Passive sonar scan


Surely not.
Patrol means patrol.
More area covered means more contacts generated.
Regardless of whether you are searching by radar, sonar or eye, the more area you cover, the better chance you have of spotting something.

[Apocal]

I was just thinking, it's a shame we can't get the negative boyancy mod from NYGM in SH3 to work in SH4. One thing that has never been modeled in SH3 or SH4 was the need to use propulsion while submerged in order to maintain depth. The reality is, once your batteries run low, you MUST surface. If this was in game, youd see people running submerged a lot less. (I'd also lay odds that this sort of improvement you wont see in SH5 either)

They didn't know how to trim back in WW2?

[G2B]

Never try to take on flying thingies, way to many of em. Like RR said your boat is more valuable than they are, just have to deal with a bit o spilled Grog on your way to 160 feet. Otherwise spilled Grog is the last thing on your mind when the boat is passing crush depth cause you thought this guy http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae228/g2banything/hunter.gif could shoot them down. End result you and your boat do the lawn dart into the bottom :nope:


http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae228/g2banything/SH4Img2009-10-27_193907_718.jpg



Sit and wait submerged:doh: Only if the contacts are coming towards me and its daylight, even then you gotta move to get into position :arrgh!:

[Rockin Robbins]

Oh! The cute widdew boat seem to have a pwobwem! :haha:

Is it something you ate?

[Rockin Robbins]

They didn't know how to trim back in WW2?

Under normal circumstances, as the specific gravity of water changes with salinity and temperature, buoyancy conditions are in a constant state of change. Therefore there is no stable trim configuration. You are continually pumping water in and out of ballast tanks to maintain neutral buoyancy. Then people moving around in the boat make fore and aft trim changes necessary to keep the boat level. If the hull leaks at all (they all do) this also contributes to the out of balance situation. These necessary trim adjustments take electricity. So the short answer to your question is no, they didn't and we still don't know how to trim.

The long answer contains a notable exception to the rule and that is "floating on the layer." It was very possible to trim the sub so that it sank in the less dense and warmer water on top and floated on the colder and denser water below. There had to be enough difference so that the trim was stable over time, but on occasion a WWII sub was able to float on the layer for a whole day without running a pump or using any battery at all.

And they all lived happily ever after...

[G2B]

Oh! The cute widdew boat seem to have a pwobwem! :haha:

Is it something you ate?



Crew got into the chili, the head backed up, along with the gas levels, then somebody lit a match. It was horrible http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae228/g2banything/poop-in-pot.gif

[vanjast]

Patrol means patrol.

Yup.. but it makes sense to let the target come to you, if you know where to find it - A little comon sense works wonders here.
More area covered means more contacts generated.
A 50/50 chance, because your sub can only travel at the same speed of the merchants. You might be patroling away from a target, or towards one. If you were in a vehicle (patrol aircraft) who speed is much greater, I'd say yes.
Here.. you also conserve fuel for the chase.

Regardless of whether you are searching by radar, sonar or eye, the more area you cover, the better chance you have of spotting something.

- You'll see a lot more aircraft, advertising your presence.

- With Air radar you see a/c a long way off. If you've ever been up in an a/c you can see a lot further than those early radars - Some anecdotes of skippers relying more on the watch crews to spot planes.

- Surface radar can only see slightly beyond the horizon

- Depending on your speed passive sonar is about 50% more effective than surface radar.

I'd imagine most people who talk of the YoYo method are running fleet boats - jump into an S18/43 and feel the difference at the hardest reality settings, as it should be.:03:
This boat teaches you how to be stealthy, and sink as many ships.
:)

[Rockin Robbins]

Yup.. but it makes sense to let the target come to you, if you know where to find it - A little comon sense works wonders here.A 50/50 chance, because your sub can only travel at the same speed of the merchants. You might be patroling away from a target, or towards one. If you were in a vehicle (patrol aircraft) who speed is much greater, I'd say yes.
Here.. you also conserve fuel for the chase.
A little common sense is exactly what Eugene Fluckey used when developing the yo-yo strategy. He began his career in the middle of 1944, when boat after ostrich boat was returning to port empty handed and full of torpedoes because they followed your version of "common sense." They were wrong. Fluckey's results, and our results if we follow his advice from Thunder Below, will be that we don't just develop a few percentage points more targets, we will develop a conservative 10 times more targets staying on the surface using our radar to develop more targets. Whether targets are moving or not, they are distributed in a random manner that makes their relative motion irrelevant.


- You'll see a lot more aircraft, advertising your presence.
The only important thing is that I see the aircraft first. That is where the submerged policy is lousy. Not only do you have to cheat by leaving the engines off, something impossible to do with a real submarine, but you have to surface sometimes. When you do, you do so blind, even if you look around with your periscope. Even if you raise your radar antenna while submerged, that plane can see you at periscope depth and plaster you every time you take your head out of the sand. Because you insist on operating your boat without a valid situational picture you endanger your crew unnecessarily every time your surface.

With radar, I see every airplane several minutes before he gets to 5 miles from me, the furthest distance from which he can see me. I can leave the throttle on ahead standard, just hit the "d" button, crash diving is not necessary, and be below periscope depth before he has any possibility of seeing me. Knowing his worst case path, straight overhead, I can surface without pausing for a radar or periscope check if I just remain at 100' for five minutes and hit the "s" button. At that time, I know he is at least five miles the other side of me and no other plane can be within my danger zone of five miles away. I surface every time in complete safety, while you foolishly endanger your crew. When I submerge due to an airplane I do so knowing without a doubt that I have not been spotted. Every time I surface, I do so with 100% knowledge that I cannot be spotted.

- With Air radar you see a/c a long way off. If you've ever been up in an a/c you can see a lot further than those early radars - Some anecdotes of skippers relying more on the watch crews to spot planes.

Actually, in real life, crew watch crews were much more effective than our game crew watches. Fluckey had full confidence he could operate at will on the surface without radar with about the same safety that he had using radar. His standing orders that on sighting an airplane they were to stay on the surface, reduce speed and aspect ratio and observe the behavior of the plane before making any decisions on avoidance. And of course, he never engaged an aircraft. If there was danger of being seen, he submerged.

- Surface radar can only see slightly beyond the horizon

Surface radar can see about fifteen miles to an airplane. Sonar has no clue where the airplane is. The plane has to be five miles away to see you. What part of that equation gives you any doubt that no airplane can possibly ever see you? In over two years of real gameplay, I've never been seen by a single plane. I'd call that safe. You may call it coincidence if you wish to compete with Jay Leno. You don't have the jaw for it.:haha:

- Depending on your speed passive sonar is about 50% more effective than surface radar.

Then why do you develop more than 10 times more targets using said radar? This is a bait question, requiring your convoluted logic to be refuted by a real life admiral (who took Lockwood's place upon Lockwood's retirement) and and easy mathematical and thought experiment proof by me. Be very careful. Both arguments are irrefutable and their validity will be beyond question by everyone else reading our logical evidence. I've posted it before so you may want to research my position before losing. You'll find that I have significantly understated the advantage of yo-yo here and that when the real ratios are revealed you will look foolish.:D

With airplanes, surface radar can see about fifteen miles to an airplane. Sonar has no clue where the airplane is. Advantage: radar.

I'd imagine most people who talk of the YoYo method are running fleet boats - jump into an S18/43 and feel the difference at the hardest reality settings, as it should be.:03:
This boat teaches you how to be stealthy, and sink as many ships.
:)

In my S-Boat it is MORE important to use yo-yo, not less important, even though due to the ineffectiveness of game watch crews there is more danger of being spotted by a plane. That S-boat has the advantage of a slightly quicker dive time and better maneuverability underwater, so I feel confident in my avoidance strategy.

It is necessary to take on this additional risk because of the excruciatingly slow charge times for S-Boat batteries. Again, operating the boat realistically means you must keep some way on the boat. When you surface, you surface with already inferior batteries at partial charge. You are in no shape to fight. You again unnecessarily endanger your crew while reducing contacts by a significant factor.

War is to be fought. Fighting it entails absorbing some necessary risk. Brave men are assaulting beaches every day, taking entirely random chances of being killed every second. Captain, they don't have the option to be a coward and stick their head in the sand. They unselfishly bear their share of the risk so as not to endanger their buddies, knowing full well that each moment can be their last.

You, on the other hand, with much more control of your fate, choose to hide, and not only hide, but FOOLISHLY hide, actually INCREASING the chance that cowardly you and your brave crew of 90 or more others will die. Even worse than that, they will die in VAIN as you willingly have given up the possibility of 90% of your opportunity to attack the enemy and make a difference in the outcome of the war. Much more important than your personal survival is how many die every day this war continues! Last week at Tarawa we lost 1687 killed and 2296 wounded. When you do not bear your part of the sacrifice of war you kill our boys with as much guilt as our Japanese enemies bear. Your offense is not just an offense of ineffective cowardice, it is dereliction of duty bordering on treason.

Real captains who used your strategy were abysmally ineffective and were replaced just as quickly as men who were willing to do their duty could be trained. When they were replaced they were put in much more dangerous situations where they were not in any control of their own fate. I understand Iwo Jima is next on the dance card. You might just get a chance to cut a rug there...

[Randomizer]

vanjast wrote:
I'd imagine most people who talk of the YoYo method are running fleet boats - jump into an S18/43 and feel the difference at the hardest reality settings, as it should be.:03:
This boat teaches you how to be stealthy, and sink as many ships.
:)
Wonder what could be the draw of running hard reality settings while ignoring actual USN tactics and doctrine in the game?

RR has repeatedly demonstrated around here that Cdr Fluckey's techniques worked in combat and they also work in SH4.

[Apocal]

Both arguments are irrefutable and their validity will be beyond question by everyone else reading our logical evidence. I've posted it before so you may want to research my position before losing.

What are some good keywords? You post a lot and my search-fu is weak.

[Hitman]

Yup.. but it makes sense to let the target come to you, if you know where to find it - A little comon sense works wonders here.I'd like to throw another 2 cents in here :D

Stiebler did an excellent analysis of the efficiency of staying static vs. patrolling at different speeds in your patrol area (should be still available in pdf at his downloads web) and concluded that cruising around at 9 knots surfaced produced the best chances of detecting targets vs fuel economy, etc.,

BUT, BUT, BUT ... :DL

the very same Richard O'Kane mentioned in his books (Specifically the one about USS Tang IIRC) that in his opinion, the results were the same if he stayed static in the proper point or patrolled around; only that he could conserve fuel and battery much better when being static.

Of course, NOT SUBMERGED, but static and surfaced.

I just wanted to throw this in, as this is not specifically about being submerged/surfaced, but it touches a sensible factor that has to do with them, and that is cruising speed vs area covered and battery depleted.

[abclkhan]

the stuff about the usage of energy from batteries to trim the boat and keep functional any other vital systems is interesting. I wonder if those expenditures weren´t already accounted in the underwater range of submarines in the game. If not, maybe someone could build a mod to drain energy while the sub is stopped.

I can imagine why yo yo strategy is more effective in late war. Targets were becoming fewer day after day. For realism purposes, I think its use is pertinent.

RR is correct about being kept underwater by planes while batteries are low and CO2 is high. We can easily experiment this situation playing OM in 1944-45.
But did the ostrich skippers stayed underwater until depleting completely its batteries? As Mr Spock would say , "that would be unwise".
But that is just talking.. I am far from knowing even 10% on this topic. Is there any online sources about the issue?

[sergei]

the very same Richard O'Kane mentioned in his books (Specifically the one about USS Tang IIRC) that in his opinion, the results were the same if he stayed static in the proper point or patrolled around; only that he could conserve fuel and battery much better when being static.

Really? That is interesting.
I have read quite a few books about the sub war in the PTO recently, but I have not read any by Dick O'Kane.
Well that's my next book purchase sorted!

[vanjast]

The funny thing is that I always have >75% battery power, and plenty fuel to do anything I want. Maybe I'm just more efficient at my energy usage, and thus use different tactics.

I also don't think you'll find anything in contravention to the orders, on paper.
If I was a sub skipper in WW2, I'd still use the same method, but lie in my patrol log to make it look like I was following orders. I'd would entrust this info only to few fellow skippers, as their lives and the crew are more important.
:)

[Rockin Robbins]

If I was a sub skipper in WW2, I'd still use the same method, but lie in my patrol log to make it look like I was following orders. I'd would entrust this info only to few fellow skippers, as their lives and the crew are more important.
:)
Your non-productivity would result in your removal from command anyway. If you lived through your foolish tactics. All you're doing is gaming the game, proving nothing about the real subs. Many dozens of captains who felt as you do were removed from command. I have the figures.

[vanjast]

:D Presumptious non-the-less... but when the results prove otherwise..well, even admirals have been removed from service. ;)

[Armistead]

To keep that amount of battery power you must be running at 1kt submerged. The results of this will be less targets. Certainly, it will mean less range you can travel overall in the game regardless of what formula you try to use.

Your going to cover more ground using less fuel on the surface. You'll also have more chances to find target using radar, visuals, than passive sonar alone.

Not to mention, you may find yourself in a position that even if you do surface, you'll not be able to get in attack position soon enough for fast TF's.

Patch up that bath plug and rise to the surface. Results that matter are number of ships sunk and I bet a skilled surface runner will outscore a bottom dwelling catfish anyday.:03:

I remember O'Kane about to lose his mind aboard the Wahoo with his first skipper who refused to surface to get in attack positions. This Skipper stuck in WW1 tactics almost broke down several times, refusing to attack, afraid of death...........

[vanjast]

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.

The surfaced boat spotting the ship, visual or surface radar has to do the same thing.

---------------------------
As you can see, it's about 50/50 and luck also plays a part, and one method is not all together better than the other. But a good skipper who uses a bit of common sense is likely to be the one who scores.

BUT the submerged boat preserves his fuel for the chase/positioning phase where he'll charge his batteries at the same time.
The surfaced boat, has 100% battery power, but will be using fuel at a faster rate.

The end result, is that the submerged boat will be on station longer, therefore possibly account for more ships - you didn't think of this :03:
The surfaced might also possibly account for the same amount of boats in a shorter time period, but ..

Starting Odds approx 50% for either method.
Time on station favours sumerged tactics = Higher contact possibilities.
Damaged/sub sinkings favour submerged tactics = Means Less subs sunk = more subs in the force = more enemy ship sinkings.
----------------------------------------------

It'll be interesting to see if this was even considered by that admiral you keep mentioning. Tell me this doesn't make sense !! (Wait for it :har:)
:03:

[Apocal]

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

Care to actually explain your conclusion?

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.

The surfaced boat spotting the ship, visual or surface radar has to do the same thing.

Except radar also gives you accurate range, so your intercept solution is more or less automatic unless the target changes course.

[vanjast]

Care to actually explain your conclusion?
Surface sub sails away from target and misses it (but will pick up the other ship which the submerged ship won't), Target sails towards submerged sub, which picks it up on passive sonar.



Except radar also gives you accurate range, so your intercept solution is more or less automatic unless the target changes course.
Depending on weather, which effects both radar and passive sonar ranges - Yes, but both have to get into strike position ahead of the target.
This usually requires a bit of flank/full surface speeds, using up a lot of fuel.

Any target course changes can ruin the setup phase, unless the course is towards the sub.
:)

[Sailor Steve]

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.
US boat had the sonar array located where it could operate while the boat was surfaced.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.
1) At flank speed you're using all your power. The batteries won't be charged.

2) Charging the batteries uses more power than driving the boat, even at Ahead Flank.

BUT the submerged boat preserves his fuel for the chase/positioning phase where he'll charge his batteries at the same time.
The surfaced boat, has 100% battery power, but will be using fuel at a faster rate.

The end result, is that the submerged boat will be on station longer, therefore possibly account for more ships - you didn't think of this :03:
The surfaced might also possibly account for the same amount of boats in a shorter time period, but ..
See (2) above. Using the batteries does not conserve fuel. Best time-on-station will be achieved by running surfaced at Ahead Slow, or about 5 knots.

[Rockin Robbins]

:D Presumptious non-the-less... but when the results prove otherwise..well, even admirals have been removed from service. ;)

Yes, but I have a cushy retirement plan!:haha:

[Apocal]

Surface sub sails away from target and misses it (but will pick up the other ship which the submerged ship won't), Target sails towards submerged sub, which picks it up on passive sonar.

This kind of hypothetical really demands a picture to reference. At anyrate, the conclusion that a submerged submarine that a submerged sub will find a target using a sensor with a lower effective search radius is... bizarre at best.

Unless you're cherry-picking your hypothetical to support the idea that searching at a slower speed with lower effective search radius will get you more contacts.

Depending on weather, which effects both radar and passive sonar ranges

Radar, even old-school sets like the SJ, is far less affected by weather in general. Sonar just flat doesn't work in some conditions. In-game sonar definitely has shorter range, regardless of weather. Surfaced, moving faster (using as much or less fuel), with a larger effective search radius... I'm not sure how this would lead to less contacts under any equivalent circumstances.

- Yes, but both have to get into strike position ahead of the target. This usually requires a bit of flank/full surface speeds, using up a lot of fuel.

Nah, I can usually close up a slow convoy with nothing more than standard bell. I never use flank unless I'm absolutely hauling ass away from some flaming datum.

[Rockin Robbins]

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.

The surfaced boat spotting the ship, visual or surface radar has to do the same thing.

---------------------------
As you can see, it's about 50/50 and luck also plays a part, and one method is not all together better than the other. But a good skipper who uses a bit of common sense is likely to be the one who scores.

BUT the submerged boat preserves his fuel for the chase/positioning phase where he'll charge his batteries at the same time.
The surfaced boat, has 100% battery power, but will be using fuel at a faster rate.

The end result, is that the submerged boat will be on station longer, therefore possibly account for more ships - you didn't think of this :03:
The surfaced might also possibly account for the same amount of boats in a shorter time period, but ..

Starting Odds approx 50% for either method.
Time on station favours sumerged tactics = Higher contact possibilities.
Damaged/sub sinkings favour submerged tactics = Means Less subs sunk = more subs in the force = more enemy ship sinkings.
----------------------------------------------

It'll be interesting to see if this was even considered by that admiral you keep mentioning. Tell me this doesn't make sense !! (Wait for it :har:)
:03:

You are positing odds of finding a single target. Actually your odds must be extended to encompass all the targets on the ocean at any given time, which are, as far as you are concerned and as you agree above, randomly distributed and moving in random directions. Then you take the odds of encountering any one target times the number of targets in the area you search for your total targets developed.

By moving at 9 knots on the surface, you are giving yourself 50% odds (according to your figures) on many many more targets. Suppose submerged you might encounter five targets. You have a 50% chance (according to your figures) on each so you will develop 2.5 targets.:D

However, on the surface, I have 50% odds on 50 targets and will develop 25 viable targets to shoot at, ten times more.

So there is your own logic extrapolated to the conclusion that you hide. That is why Eugene Fluckey garnered one of the top scores of the war when his career didn't start until the middle of 1944. He alone sank targets at a rate unparalleled by any captain at any point in the war, while fellow skippers playing ostrich returned to port full of torpedoes and finding no targets. You really need to read Thunder Below and remember who took Lockwood's place after the war. Was it because Fluckey used inferior strategy? Was it because he foolishly had several boats shot out from under him? Was it because his strategy was not MUCH more productive than the ostriches?

The answer to all those questions is no. Fluckey revolutionized submarine warfare by following and extending the tactics of Morton, Kane and his own personal hero, Sam Dealey. He believed in aggressively taking the fight to the enemy and that the best defense is to quit fearing for your life and concentrate on making your enemy fear for his.

[Sailor Steve]

Surface sub sails away from target and misses it (but will pick up the other ship which the submerged ship won't), Target sails towards submerged sub, which picks it up on passive sonar.
That's assuming both hypothetical subs are in the same position. If the merchant comes along severl hours after your scenario starts then

A) The surfaced sub will be miles beyond where the target is, and will never see it, or

B) The submerged sub will be miles behind where the target is, and will never know it's there.

Either way, it's only theoretical, and it ceases to be a valid test.

This usually requires a bit of flank/full surface speeds, using up a lot of fuel.
How much is "a bit" of flank or full speed? Five hours at flank speed doesn't mean a lot to a submarine carrying enough fuel for a 60-day patrol at standard speed, even if fuel consumption is doubled.

[Nisgeis]

Best time-on-station will be achieved by running surfaced at Ahead Slow, or about 5 knots.

How about surfaced, but at 0 knots. Wouldn't that be better? O'Kane did that.

[Hitman]

Eugene Fluckey garnered one of the top scores of the war when his career didn't start until the middle of 1944

Actually, according to JANAC in its post-war revision, Fluckley ranked 1st skipper in confirmed tonnage sunk, surpassing O'Kane :up:

[G2B]

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.

The surfaced boat spotting the ship, visual or surface radar has to do the same thing.

---------------------------
As you can see, it's about 50/50 and luck also plays a part, and one method is not all together better than the other. But a good skipper who uses a bit of common sense is likely to be the one who scores.

BUT the submerged boat preserves his fuel for the chase/positioning phase where he'll charge his batteries at the same time.
The surfaced boat, has 100% battery power, but will be using fuel at a faster rate.

The end result, is that the submerged boat will be on station longer, therefore possibly account for more ships - you didn't think of this :03:
The surfaced might also possibly account for the same amount of boats in a shorter time period, but ..

Starting Odds approx 50% for either method.
Time on station favours sumerged tactics = Higher contact possibilities.
Damaged/sub sinkings favour submerged tactics = Means Less subs sunk = more subs in the force = more enemy ship sinkings.
----------------------------------------------

It'll be interesting to see if this was even considered by that admiral you keep mentioning. Tell me this doesn't make sense !! (Wait for it :har:)
:03:



Lets throw a flying thingy in this set up.

Your boat running on the surface detects a plane, now depending on weather conditions and the course of the aircraft you may not have to dive to avoid detection, perhaps just slowing down a bit to eliminate your wake. Even if you have to dive your only down for a few minutes, again depending on weather conditions to determine your depth to avoid detection (any way to save a % of batteries) surface and go on your way. I learned the hard way about planes a foolish mistake that cost my boat and crew. Lesson learned, DON'T MESS WITH THE FLYING THINGIES :yep: If it says HOT don't touch it.

Now submerged boat, lets say your running at P depth with radar up looking for planes. Suddenly you get a ship contact but to intercept you have to surface and run flank to get into position, five minutes into your surface run you have a plane contact, again depending on weather conditions and course of the plane you may either have to slow down or dive to avoid detection :damn: (burning more batteries) now your losing time to get into position. Now lets say the ship contact is a TF or convoy with escorts, you get into position sink a couple ships and the escorts are on you like bee's on honey, DC's raining everywhere :shifty: and your batteries are starting to run low. Flank speed is not what it was so its getting harder to avoid explosions, now your taking damage :nope: the crew is getting injured and panicky, WE HAVE FLOODING SIR :o how much time till batteries are done? Could have used that 25% more power about now.

[vanjast]

Hypothetical as mentioned, once on the surface you are inviting trouble (the point of my tactics), but one has to way up the odds of a successfull attack.

At this point, you might get a lucky break, but if not you have to run and hide. I rarely use more than 25% battery power in this situation. Again .. evasion tactics an efficient power usage
:D

[Apocal]

Hypothetical as mentioned, once on the surface you are inviting trouble

From what exactly? You've failed to demonstrate anything contrary to RR's original reasoning regarding why aircraft pose very little threat to a radar-equipped sub. Perhaps you are taking bad habits from SH3?

[vanjast]

Perhaps you are taking bad habits from SH3?
Perhaps, but I play the game at 100%+, no map updates and real navigation (No sub icon - nothing).

The attack map is actually useless in this situation, and from what I've seen on most demo videos, ie: O'Kanes's method is run on the attack map.

No such luxuries in my game :03: And I take a educated guess that most are not at 100%+..+..+, so of course my method of play/reasoning makes no sense - which doesn't actually bother me, but I enjoy trying to explain to everybody that they do not have to be 'sheep', and try develop their own methods and tactics. Had I been in that admirals place in WW2 I most probably would have been the most successful sub-admiral around.

You can argue till you're blue in the face - I know my tactics work for this game, and will stick to it. A different game might require different tactics and I'm flexible to recognise that - Some are not.
:)

[vanjast]

From what exactly? You've failed to demonstrate anything contrary to RR's original reasoning regarding why aircraft pose very little threat to a radar-equipped sub. Perhaps you are taking bad habits from SH3?
Whoops off on a limb on the previous post... wrong answer - but read it anyway.

Radar-vs-Mk1 eyeball with naval binocs - have you ever looked through naval binocs, then at ~10000 ft ?. I'm not sure whether the game simulates this properly, probably not...buuut MK1 eyeball + binocs gives you better range than those early radars. also looking from the sub upwards.

Perhaps you didn't see this in the previous post.
:)

This is mostly irrelevant as RL is different from the game, but people tend to try relate the game to RL. Some get it wrong, and others get incredibly wrong :D

[Apocal]

Perhaps, but I play the game at 100%+, no map updates and real navigation (No sub icon - nothing).

The attack map is actually useless in this situation, and from what I've seen on most demo videos, ie: O'Kanes's method is run on the attack map.

No such luxuries in my game :03: And I take a educated guess that most are not at 100%+..+..+, so of course my method of play/reasoning makes no sense - which doesn't actually bother me, but I enjoy trying to explain to everybody that they do not have to be 'sheep', and try develop their own methods and tactics.

Whether you play at 100% or something like 70% realism doesn't matter; larger search radius - more contacts - more attacks - more ships sunk. I'm not sure of how this could be wrong and you keep avoiding addressing it directly.

Had I been in that admirals place in WW2 I most probably would have been the most successful sub-admiral around.

Then why didn't the early-war submarine skippers, some who held multiple commands, outscore late-war ones? Simple question.

You can argue till you're blue in the face - I know my tactics work for this game, and will stick to it. A different game might require different tactics and I'm flexible to recognise that - Some are not.
:)

Then why are you hiding from aircraft that, for the most part, cannot harm you?

[Apocal]

Whoops off on a limb on the previous post... wrong answer - but read it anyway.

Radar-vs-Mk1 eyeball with naval binocs - have you ever looked through naval binocs, then at ~10000 ft ?. I'm not sure whether the game simulates this properly, probably not...buuut MK1 eyeball + binocs gives you better range than those early radars. also looking from the sub upwards.

Yes, I have actually. I'm a Fire Controlman in the US Navy right now, although my last while has been spent in a boots-on-ground billet.

Anyway, that you can see aircraft further away with Big Eyes or whatever subs had is pretty much irrelevant; both it and radar can see aircraft before they see you, with enough time for you to dive to evade detection.

This is mostly irrelevant as RL is different from the game, but people tend to try relate the game to RL. Some get it wrong, and others get incredibly wrong :D

I do exactly this in real life.

The variables regarding effective search radius, the tradeoff against aircraft threat and the compromise solutions regarding such is presented well enough in the Silent Hunter series you can see why aircraft we're such a critical part of an effective ASW campaign... and why subs operating without an effective aircraft threat to offset their capabilities would run roughshod through your merchant marine.

I'm sure pedants have such and such system X or capability Y they wish was simulated, but the overall flavor of such things is shown quite well.

[vanjast]

I'm a qualified ground/airborne electronic engineer, originally in military radar systems, but diversified into other electronic fields as time has gone by.

Anyway.. I'd hope that I could pass on some relevant info regarding the (dis)advantages of early radar systems, plus done a bit of flying, I'd hope I could pass a leetle bit of experience on too. :D

You know what I mean...:arrgh!: But that's up to those who might be interested in RL.

[Armistead]

I play 100% with no contacts or cams about 50% of the time. I use to do it all the time, but with limited time I alter patrols.

With no contacts it's a must to run on the surface to figure the track, because you need speed and if it's a TF you'll be left behind if your not on the surface. With contacts off running on the surface is a must to do a proper end around and figure track. One problem is with contacts off we actually have less tools than they did in real life and it can be a task to figure out the base course and speed. It's quite rewarding when you do it right, but anyone that's honest will admit with contacts off you'll often be off track taking long shots or having TF coming down on you.

In real life in many area's many skippers did stay undewater good parts of the day, moreso when they were close to air bases, Japan ect. That doesn't hold true in the game. Our radar doesn't fail us unless it's damaged or broken. Also, the crews visuals don't fail. I can always get below the surface in plenty of time without contacts. If we dealt with real human and equipment failure we would all be more careful. Not only doe's our radar work our PC's slowdown before a contact, which is a dead give away. Anyone that get's caught on the surface by a plane contacts on or off need to dock their subs.

However, each has to play how they enjoy it, but that doesn't change the facts of the game for more success. It might shock you if you knew what all you were missing.

[vanjast]

Maybe I too cautious, but I play 'for real' - something like Armistead says.

To me it's not a game but survival.. but a game none-the-less :yeah:

[G2B]

Anyone that get's caught on the surface by a plane contacts on or off need to dock their subs.




:har: I guess that means me and you :salute: