Under keel or into the ship... [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

LostDream

03-25-10, 06:38 AM

Hey guys a quick question.

To date I fire all of my eels under the keel, .5 or 1 meter, to good results. I have come across a site that uses the ships week spots, but they fire their torpedo's with a dept of 3 meters. Is there a major diff between the under keel shot an a impact shot?

I know that IRL, a under keel shot is more mean to push the explosion up into the ship. Water does not compress so the explosion seeks the path of least resistance, the ships hull, thus pushing the explosion INTO the ship and causing major damage. Im guessing an impact torpedo does the same, but with a shape-charge effect, where the explosion is pushed into the ship.

So what have you guys found to be better? Under keel or impact? I am also starting to target the ship's weak spots. Before I would just shoot at the 1st quarter of the ship and let the forward momentum of the ship push water into the compartment.

Paul Riley

03-25-10, 07:09 AM

I generally use impact exclusively in the early part of the war,and also in turbulent seas because magnetics have a tendency to prematurely detonate due to the current activating the sensitive warhead.
Magnetics are great for large ships and I reckon battleships,because you will want to cause massive damage as soon as possible in the latter case.And you are right about the force involved with mags,it is vented UP into the ship potentially breaking its back.
Like you ,I also prefer shots aimed at the ship's bow section allowing for forward momentum to HOPEFULLY cause the ship to flood.

Jimbuna

03-25-10, 07:20 AM

If you've gort the realistic torpedo setting enabled use impact until mid to late 41....otherwise magnetic (other than in heavy seas) because they tend to create more damage and are not dependant on angle on bow parameters.

Snestorm

03-25-10, 07:54 AM

I've got a Self Imposed Restriction. No changing the trigger once it's in the tube.
(They'd have to pull it partialy out to do this).

Partly due to this I keep everything set to impact.

Other reasons:
Impact is more reliable.
I can set, and leave, my depth setting at 3 Meters.
BDU forbid use of magnetics for a time.
In a convoy situation I don't want to spend time setting depths.

A further reason:
SH3 magnetics seem to have a very high success rate against warships.
The reality is ALL USN warships did and do undergo degausing (demagnification).
(Helpful against magnetic mines, as well as torpedoes).
I would have to assume that all RN warships underwent the same treatment.

Fader_Berg

03-25-10, 07:57 AM

I use G7a with magnetic pistol under the keel, with few exceptions in very rough sea. It is by far the most effective way to sink a ship as I see it. Generally you don't need to aim for a specific spot on the ship - though it helps if you do - cause it almost always make sufficient damage anyway. You've got a lot more opportunities too, since you can hit a ship in any angle.
The rumors about the magnetic being error prone are way overated, if you look at the effectiveness they've got.

Snestorm

03-25-10, 08:01 AM

The rumors about the magnetic being error prone are way overated, if you look at the effectiveness they've got.

In game, you're right.

Paul Riley

03-25-10, 08:05 AM

In reality the Germans had MAJOR problems with their torpedoes in the beginning,duds were apparently a nightmare :nope:

Jimbuna

03-25-10, 08:09 AM

In reality the Germans had MAJOR problems with their torpedoes in the beginning,duds were apparently a nightmare :nope:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_Notes.htm

Snestorm

03-25-10, 08:10 AM

In reality the Germans had MAJOR problems with their torpedoes in the beginning,duds were apparently a nightmare :nope:

That combined with prematures, and most notably . . .
faulty depth keeping.

Fader_Berg

03-25-10, 08:11 AM

In reality war sucks!

Snestorm

03-25-10, 08:14 AM

In reality war sucks!

Truth!

LostDream

03-25-10, 08:21 AM

Paul Riley

03-25-10, 08:25 AM

Truth!

Then we are all playing the wrong game if thats the case.Maybe Pokemon would be a better choice? hehe

Snestorm

03-25-10, 08:30 AM

Paul Riley

03-25-10, 08:31 AM

If your magnetic torpedo is effective, it should be much more devastating than an impact, regardless of location.
How would one do damage control on a hole the size of a house IN THE BOTTOM OF A SHIP?

hahaha! well said.

"captain! we are going down,FAST!"
"we are?,how did this happen?!"
"sir,we have no bottom to our ship"
"...s##t"
"shall we start with repairs sir?"
"yes,go and get the bandages from my first aid box"

edit: "and see Frau Kaleun on your way ,she has some duct tape"

frau kaleun

03-25-10, 08:33 AM

How would one do damage control on a hole the size of a house IN THE BOTTOM OF A SHIP?

You throw some duct tape at it on your way to the lifeboats.

Snestorm

03-25-10, 08:35 AM

Then we are all playing the wrong game if thats the case.Maybe Pokemon would be a better choice? hehe

I think as long as we remember that the game is so much better than actualy having to live it, all is fine.

May I be excused from Pokemon? I love my SH3.

Snestorm

03-25-10, 08:37 AM

You throw some duct tape at it on your way to the lifeboats.

Good thing for my computer that I didn't have any coffee in my mouth on reading that.

Good one, Frau Kaleun.

Jimbuna

03-25-10, 08:43 AM

May I be excused from Pokemon? I love my SH3.

LOL :DL

Fader_Berg

03-25-10, 09:09 AM

So keep it magnetic and dont worry "too" much about where I hit it. As stated earlier, I do like to hit the first 3rd of the ship and let the ships inertia help with the flooding of the compartment. Do I still keep a high percentage to get a one shot kill by using magnetic under the keel while aiming for the fuel tank / Ammo Storage or are those one BIG explosions only the domain of impact torpedoes?
I've tried different tactics in where to hit. And I have come to the conclution that I should go for the center of the target. That seems to be the best choice with magnetic pistol. So that's where you should aim.
You rarely need more than one hit on a merchant, if you hit in the middle of it. The big explosions will happen to a lesser extent.
Then we are all playing the wrong game if thats the case.Maybe Pokemon would be a better choice? hehe
Well, I couldn't say that pokemon in real life would be any better than war. Imagine how terrible I would look in manga. No, I would probably prefer war and that's why I'm here.

LostDream

03-25-10, 09:17 AM

War does suck, take it from some one that has seen it in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now Duck Tape is Gods gift to men!
I have seen Combat Engineers patch-up a M1A1 Abram with it, make nice and neat C-4 bundles with it, repair leaking lines on our Helos... Heck aside from using super-glue to glue a cut shut, duct tape is a great method to stop major bleeding...:yeah:

frau kaleun

03-25-10, 09:32 AM

Now Duck Tape is Gods gift to men!

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2006/DuctTape.jpg

Jimbuna

03-25-10, 09:42 AM

Never go near the stuff after you've been on a nightout with the lads :DL

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4794/duct20tape20prank.jpg (http://img180.imageshack.us/i/duct20tape20prank.jpg/)

sharkbit

03-25-10, 09:57 AM

http://media.canada.com/canwest/143/rgreen.jpg

"The Handyman's secret weapon."-Red Green

:)

Exakt

03-25-10, 11:04 AM

http://media.canada.com/canwest/143/rgreen.jpg

"The Handyman's secret weapon."-Red Green

:)

Damn I miss theses shows... they were hilarious...

Iranon

03-25-10, 11:17 AM

Biggest consideration for me is the AoB. If I can set up a nice 90° I'll use impact (it's at its most reliable then, while magnetics are at their worst since they don't spend much time below the ship).
Against large ships at 90°, impact torpedos at the keel (draft -1m or so) are a viable alternative to magnetic detonations, especially at long range where there is a large chance of a premature detonation.

Magnetic detonators are nice in calm weather (rough seas mean magnetic torpedos can miss, either by going below the keel or by crashing into the hull) at AoBs below 60° - plenty of time spent below the ship, and the angle is too steep for impact detonators to work reliably.

There is, unfortunately, no elegant solution for small AoB coupled with high waves. As a small consolation, an off-centre hit (bow or stern; the rougher the sea the more I'd favour the bow) will often end up sinking a ship in foul weather.

Steiger

03-25-10, 11:22 AM

Another advantage of 3m setting versus shooting for the keel, is that if you set keel depth, and your torpedo misses what you're aiming at, it can run too deep under the keel of any other ships it might cross paths with. If you set it to 3m then it will announce its presence to any ship it does happen to find.

Paul Riley

03-25-10, 11:32 AM

Its very rare I attack from angles other than 90 degrees and at close range,until later on in the war when long range firing is generally favoured against radar bearing ships,and I would say most of my attacks are reliable,the torpedoes however frustratingly arent.Other angles I use if engaged in a running fight with a fast ship ,and that is usually at no greater than 60 or 300 degrees,parallel to the target.

Paul Riley

03-25-10, 11:33 AM

Dont forget also that setting an impact to run TOO deep has a chance of hitting the hull curve near the keel causing it to bounce off,this has happened to me before :nope:

maillemaker

03-25-10, 01:33 PM

The largest consideration for me was angle on the bow. If I was shooting at a ship not 90 degrees to me, I'd use a magnetic shot so that it would explode.

Magnetics don't work well in high seas - they prematurely detonate.

Now that I am doing manual targetting with the fixed-wire method, the only shots I know how to take are 90 degree.

Still, I have "guestimated" magnetic shots at circling escorts by playing with the knobs on the TDC until I have a good lead on the god-mode contact udpate. Without map updates that would not work, though, so it's kind of cheating.

When shooting at stationary ships (harbor raiding) sometimes you have to use magnetics to hit ships sitting in slips.

I have, with magnetics, even with manual targetting, nailed escorts chasing me at 180 degrees.

Steve

Paul Riley

03-25-10, 01:59 PM

I shouldnt worry about only doing 90 degree shots,these were the most common and ideal positions to be in ,in real life,due to the fact that the 90 degree angle gives a better contact surface for the torpedo and practically elmininates the chance of it bouncing off.Plus it is a better angle for observing a ship by being able to see its entire beam.

Sailor Steve

03-25-10, 02:14 PM

I use magnetics early on, and stop using them when the radio messages tell me to. They ceased to exist from mid-1940 until December 1942, so I don't use them at all in that period.

I just wish they had the same failure rates they did in real life.

Oh, and a quote I read somewhere:
Duct Tape is like The Force: It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

Jimbuna

03-25-10, 02:32 PM

Good grief noty that bad a failure rate surely :o

Sailor Steve

03-25-10, 02:33 PM

Good grief noty that bad a failure rate surely :o
:yep: Heck yeah! I like my realism real.:D

Jimbuna

03-25-10, 07:41 PM

:yep: Heck yeah! I like my realism real.:D

Such a glutton for punishment...macho man :D

Sailor Steve

03-25-10, 08:35 PM

Such a glutton for punishment...macho man :D
Not macho at all.

Just masochistic. :damn::sunny:

Paul Riley

03-26-10, 04:13 AM

Youre scaring me here Steve ;)

KL-alfman

03-26-10, 06:38 AM

Paul Riley

03-26-10, 07:24 AM

I think you are taking a risk going for the keel all the time,as early torpedoes had depth keeping problems.I would stick to impact for most of your shots and try and aim for the bow or at the very least the fore section,this could have 2 benefits,a shot to the bow has more chance of hitting than nearer the stern due to his already forward momentum carrying him into the path of the torpedo,and 2 the forward momentum could increase the rate of flooding.As far as depth?,I think to set your torpedoes probably no more than 1 metre of the target ship's keel would be sufficient.Also,dont forget that doing this in rough sea is a mistake,due to the heavily fluctuating depth of the target's keel.
Dont be overly concerned with angle on bow,there is a very simple and VERY effective way to do all this.

THIS IS FOR MANUAL TARGETING

1- if you going for a 90 degree shot and you are on the same course as your target set the AOB to say 270 for this shot,that is 90 deg port side on the dial.
2- next set the bearing dial to 90 deg.
3- make sure all your other settings are correct
4- at this point you want to have the scope unlocked
5- now lock the TDC from manual to auto,until the green light goes red
6- now lock the scope to the target
7- if you want to hit amidships leave the scope locked and the TDC should already aim for the centre
8- if you want to aim for parts yourself,unlock the scope and point the crosshair at the section you want,the TDC will STILL update everything for you,SO LONG AS THE TDC IS LOCKED!CHECK THE GREEN LIGHT IS RED!

Now the TDC will update the torpedo release angle for you,you dont need to do a thing,just make sure you release it in good time at the bearing you have decided on,eg 270 or 90.

Dont forget,firing your torpedoes shouldnt require you to be an expert at maths or geometry,we want to keep it as simple and effective as much as possible (this is what the TDC was designed for,IT does all the calculations for you,so long as the basics are already inputted) because some situations require speed and quick thinking instead,and you must use your own judgement then.

Hope SOME of this was useful,works a charm for me,and I can attack from any angle and in almost any condition...most times ;)

LostDream

03-26-10, 07:27 AM

hmm, I really need some advice from my fellow Kaleuns.
mostly I just use the default settings of my TDC:
depth: 4.5m
pistol: magnetic
speed: slow
I just change the solutions if I have to conduct convoy-attacks when a fast speed of the last eels is needed.

recently though I tried for keel-shots as they are supposed to sink vessels with only one shot. when I approached a target with a mean draught (found in the recognition-manual) of let's say 9.2m, I set the depth of eel to 9.8-10.2m?
is that correct?
and the angle on the bow isn't that important like in impact-pistol solutions?

thx in advance for your help to clearify this question!

Im calm seas, what works for me is to add .5 meters to the keel depth. now since we can only use a dial and not direct input, there are times when i just round up to the nearest tenth and "eye ball it".

Kinda like "Kentucky Windage" for when I was in the Marines, when shooting at a unknown distance target.

Paul Riley

03-26-10, 07:28 AM

Good point,your own eye can tell how much he is pitching,at least approximate.In any case,I would NEVER use a mag tip in seas rougher than about 4mps.

pickinthebanjo

03-27-10, 11:39 AM

I almost always come in aft of my target, trying to mask my engine noise with their own. Then if my target is over 6000 tons I set my torpedo depth accordingly for a keel shot, the resulting explosion cripples their engine room.
I then set up for the final shot (usually 90 degrees port, impact 4' depth).
If my target is under 6000 tons I just use whatever is most likely to strike a hit in whatever the situation calls for.

I use this tactic in convoys to great success for the fact that I can immobilize 4-6 large freighters/tankers, dodge some destroyers for while then surface a few hours later and finish the job.

I play on 89%(I think) realism the only thing i left on is the camera (F12 I think)
Iv'e been busy so i can't remember the exact realism i use but it's pretty high.

Oh yeah I use:
1939-1941 - Type VIIB Stock
1941-1944 - Type IXB Stock
1945-1945 - Type XXI Stock
I can't remember the name of the torpedoes, I use that first one G7(steam) I think

Sailor Steve

03-27-10, 12:33 PM

I think you are taking a risk going for the keel all the time,as early torpedoes had depth keeping problems.
But they didn't know that until after the fact.:sunny:

sharkbit

03-27-10, 12:50 PM

But they didn't know that until after the fact.:sunny:

I've always had that niggling in the back of mind while playing SH3/4-hindsight is 20/20.

Our knowledge of WWII events may lead us to play somewhat unrealistically. We sometimes put ourselves in a position to take advantage of our knowledge-be it historic events or knowledge of different tactics/equipment issues.

EXAMPLE-I was patrolling near Norway in April 1940. I worked my way up to Narvik because I knew what would take place there. I rationalized with the idea that Bdu ordered me there during the operation. Of course I knew the Warspite would be cruising thru there eventually.

I try to avoid that though. I go where ordered and take advantage of any mission orders, but sometimes, it is hard.

Just my 2 cents.

:)

Jimbuna

03-27-10, 12:54 PM

I've always had that niggling in the back of mind while playing SH3/4-hindsight is 20/20.

Our knowledge of WWII events may lead us to play somewhat unrealistically. We sometimes put ourselves in a position to take advantage of our knowledge-be it historic events or knowledge of different tactics/equipment issues.

EXAMPLE-I was patrolling near Norway in April 1940. I worked my way up to Narvik because I knew what would take place there. I rationalized with the idea that Bdu ordered me there during the operation. Of course I knew the Warspite would be cruising thru there eventually.

I try to avoid that though. I go where ordered and take advantage of any mission orders, but sometimes, it is hard.

Just my 2 cents.

:)

I think what your describing is a phenomena experienced by many SH3 players.....a balance between historical accuracy and the inevitability of knowing what that brings.

Sadly, the tradeoff is sometimes a lowering of the immersion factor.

To each their own I suppose.

pickinthebanjo

03-27-10, 02:48 PM

Just Hit A 2000ton merchant:
1 g7e under keel at 4600m, hit the port side about the middle of the ship
then I fired a g7 Steam, forgot to set to impact (blew up not 50' from the tube)
so I surfaced and nailed it with the 105

Jimbuna

03-27-10, 02:57 PM

BE MORE AGGRESSIVE!! http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

Fader_Berg

03-27-10, 03:19 PM

But they didn't know that until after the fact.:sunny:
Good point... I never thought of that.

Sailor Steve

03-27-10, 05:18 PM

I've always had that niggling in the back of mind while playing SH3/4-hindsight is 20/20.

Our knowledge of WWII events may lead us to play somewhat unrealistically. We sometimes put ourselves in a position to take advantage of our knowledge-be it historic events or knowledge of different tactics/equipment issues.
I'm the weird one, I guess. When I got the historical message ordering U-29 to the area off Iceland, I went and stayed there for two weeks, even though I was pretty sure I would see nothing. One patrol report I filed complained of seeing no traffic at all, and another player told me where to find the good targets. I had to explain to him that I stay in my assigned grid for a month, whether I see anything or not, then move to another grid and stay there until my fuel dictates a return home.

I guess I played SH1 so much that the thrill of the kill is the least intriguing thing for me these days.

EXAMPLE-I was patrolling near Norway in April 1940. I worked my way up to Narvik because I knew what would take place there. I rationalized with the idea that Bdu ordered me there during the operation. Of course I knew the Warspite would be cruising thru there eventually.
That's a rationale I can understand. After all, it's reasonable that they would order a couple of boats to be in the area.

sharkbit

03-27-10, 11:39 PM

I'm the weird one, I guess. When I got the historical message ordering U-29 to the area off Iceland, I went and stayed there for two weeks, even though I was pretty sure I would see nothing. One patrol report I filed complained of seeing no traffic at all, and another player told me where to find the good targets. I had to explain to him that I stay in my assigned grid for a month, whether I see anything or not, then move to another grid and stay there until my fuel dictates a return home.

No 100k+ patrols for you huh?
I'll bet your tonnage totals are a lot more in line with real life patrols.

Your way is probably a lot more realistic than how many others play(including myself). Real life commanders had a certain amount of freedom but Bdu controlled the boats with a pretty tight leash for the most part.

I freelance to a point-I patrol my area for 24 hours and head to another patrol area fairly close. No freelancing to the other side of the Atlantic though.
I just added WB's Mid-patrol Mission Orders that gives you a new patrol area after sending in a status report, but I've yet to get to that point yet in my current patrol. That should alleviate some of my freelancing. :up:

I'm curious how SH5's campaign handles it.
I haven't read enough of the SH5 forums to really find out, but from what I've read, it seems the campaign is somewhat scripted and you follow "orders". I may be wrong though.

My apologies to the OP for any hijacking of the thread going on. :hijacked:

:)

sergei

03-28-10, 05:22 AM

I freelance to a point-I patrol my area for 24 hours and head to another patrol area fairly close. No freelancing to the other side of the Atlantic though.

I have started doing something similar.
I stay in my assigned grid ref for 2 or 3 days.
If I have not spotted any targets by then I assume that BDU would have started moving me around. So I then consider the 4 boxes directly adjacent to me, plus my original, to be my new AO.
Gives me a bit of freedom to decide where would be best to patrol, without me just deciding to head for a known hotspot.

Also my apologies to the OP for my thread hijacking.

pickinthebanjo

03-28-10, 11:58 AM

Just hit a Black swan class destroyer with a keel shot. Set depth to shallow, torpedo skimmed the hull untill it blew up in their prop. Sunk

Hit a large cargo with an impact shot. Must have had ammunition or fuel aboard, made a nice bang

desirableroasted

03-30-10, 02:11 PM

So... is the game reality (I run GWX 3.0) that the magnetic torps do NOT suffer the tirgger problems? And that no eels suffer the depth-keeping problems alluded to in the game?

Because I have been sailing around for 3 years assuming mag shots wouldn't work until after Norway and that I needed to enter an artificially shallow depth. :damn:

maillemaker

03-30-10, 02:28 PM

I have used magnetics from 1939 on for some shots.

I don't think the game models their flaws as bad as they seem to have been in real life.

In-game, the magnetics seem to prematurely detonate, especially in rough seas. But it seems this only happens on long range shots. That is, the longer they are running the more chance they have of pre-detonating. If you shoot at 500m or less, I don't see many problems with the magnetics, even early into the war.