Bonus DVD!

[Dueydueck]

What did everyone think about the SH5 bonus DVD? It has nothing to do with the Atlantic it's about the USS "Largato" being sunk in the Gulf of Thailand. It sure made me want to boot up SH4 after watching it. What are your guy's thoughts?

[robbo180265]

There's a bonus dvd ?

[Nisgeis]

In the US only, there is a documentary on DVD. I liked it. It won three Emmy Awards.

[robbo180265]

Ahh that explains why I didn't get one.

[BlackSpot]

Ahh that explains why I didn't get one.

You got a manual didn't you? Jesus, some people ...

[SabreHawk]

I wondered when someone would bring this up, and I was tonite if no one else did. Yes I watched it and as I said elsewhere I always love a story like this, and brings tears to my eyes hearing the siblings and relatives of those lost lives in WWII talk about it.
I thank UBI for including it with my SH5 purchase, and it's inspired me to get SH4 which I passed up on when it released.
One such film that I viewed recently entitled "Gray Eagles" about the resurection of a WWII ace's(Jim Brooks) P-51 Mustang named "Febuary" brought tears to my eyes, and warmed my heart.
http://www.asb.tv/videos/view.php?v=1bf99434&a=feature

[ReallyDedPoet]

What did everyone think about the SH5 bonus DVD? It has nothing to do with the Atlantic it's about the USS "Largato" being sunk in the Gulf of Thailand. It sure made me want to boot up SH4 after watching it. What are your guy's thoughts?

Nice vid :yep: When folks think of submarines they think more the Atlantic Theatre, but much happened in the Pacific. Check out this documentary: Silent Service (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSjKT8JPQAc)

[Nordmann]

Nice vid :yep: When folks think of submarines they think more the Atlantic Theatre, but much happened in the Pacific. Check out this documentary: Silent Service (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSjKT8JPQAc)

That's true, but I think most people assume that an ATO game would come with an ATO documentary. The choice does seem somewhat odd.

[Madox58]

Odd?
:hmmm:
This would have been an "odd" Submarine Bonus DVD.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1444637107417806305#
:haha:

[Nordmann]

Odd?
:hmmm:
This would have been an "odd" Submarine Bonus DVD.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1444637107417806305#
:haha:

No, that's just outright insanity right there.

[Nisgeis]

That's true, but I think most people assume that an ATO game would come with an ATO documentary. The choice does seem somewhat odd.

It was part of a licensing deal. It's of interest to those who have a general interest in WWII submarine ops, but not to those only interested in U-Boats.

[Dueydueck]

It was a good documentary regardless of the Theater. Its always nice to have something new to sink your teeth into! Anyways it is amazing how long it took the US Navy to give some recognition to the importance of the site. How do you guys think she sunk (as far as you can tell from the evidence)?

[Placoderm]

What did everyone think about the SH5 bonus DVD? It has nothing to do with the Atlantic it's about the USS "Largato" being sunk in the Gulf of Thailand. It sure made me want to boot up SH4 after watching it. What are your guy's thoughts?

:salute:
I was going to start a thread like this too!!

It was actually a great DVD documentary, although I thought it was more than a little bit odd that Ubisoft would include a US Fleet Boat documentary in a German U-boat game. I do think though that it would have been so much more appropriate to have included one of the numerous documentaries covering the discovery of a lost U-boat, or at least something U-boat related...but I chalked this up to yet another monumental failure of the Ubisoft Marketing Team.

Like you, after watching the DVD I also had a sudden urge to play Silent Hunter 4...although I already have a copy of the game with the Battle of the Atlantic expansion, so thankfully I did not have to buy it again. Now that Ubisoft have done such a great job of attracting me back to SH4, I am now considering just returning the failure that is SH5 and saving my money for when it hits the bargain bin, at which time I can buy it and the documentary for a considerably lower price, and in the meantime I can play the game that apparently they really wanted to attract me to. (thanks Ubisoft!!)

I think it was a wonderful thing for Ubisoft to include this great documentary about the Pacific Theatre of Operations and the U.S. Fleet Boats so that I could re-discover how good the previous title was (with the U-boat expansion, too)!!

Somehow I have to wonder if that was their original intent, but trying to understand ANYTHING that they have done recently just plain boggles the mind...:doh:

Marketing and Promotion Gurus they definately are not. :hmmm:

[Nisgeis]

My Theory:

She was making a submerged down the throat attack, fired three torpedoes, then went full rudder and dived. Hatsutaka evaded and closed for an attack on the last position and layed a pattern. Torpedomen got the top two tubes closed and the third was in the process of being closed, when a DC from one of the Hatsutaka's throwers exploded in very close proximity to the hull, as the Lagarto turned hard to get out from under the DD's track. The DC caused the bow planes to jam and also due to the distortion of the pressure hull, a loss of buoyancy. Stern planes were set to full rise to try to regain attitude control, as a full dive was in progress, which accounts for the unusual positioning of the fore and aft dive planes. Possibly the watertight doors would no longer close due to distortion to the pressure hull and bulkheads.

[SabreHawk]

On just why they included this particular film is hard to say, but off hand I'd think it may have been the only one they could get their hands on and the licensing to redistrbute it in time for the game's release. Or may have already had on hand, and might have been originally planned to be included with SH4 but didnt have at SH4's release.

Yes, It's hard to say just what and how or why the ship went down. Even those who dived the wreck couldnt really compose and settle on the cause.
I mean there wasn't even an attempt to escape either, so that tells me that they were incapacitated in some way before they even hit bottom.
I think the only way to be sure is to enter the sub and inspect from inside, but that I dont think will ever happen or may not be possible as the hatches are likely frozen shut.

[Madox58]

Being as it came from a Historical Museum?
They bought the rights which went to the Museum.
Which I think is way Cool.
May as well use those rights.
And I found it to be a nice addition as I Love all Sub stuff.
Even though I'm a non-active ParaTrooper!

[PaulH513]

This was my thoughts on the DVD dated March 7th

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=163809

[gimpy117]

i liked it...gave me something to do

[badaboom]

As a Harley-Davidson owner/rider I found it very neat that the USS Lagarto's Skipper,Commander Frank D Latta loved his Harley so much he disassembled it and keep it aboard his boat ever time he left port! Quite a Character!!!

[SabreHawk]

Ae a Harley-Davidson owner/rider I found it very neat that the USS Lagarto's Skipper,Commander Frank D Latta loved his Harley so much he disassembled it and keep it aboard his boat ever time he left port! Quite a Character!!!

Arrrr, yes now there's a guy who really loves his Harley.

[Buddahaid]

My Theory:

She was making a submerged down the throat attack, fired three torpedoes, then went full rudder and dived. Hatsutaka evaded and closed for an attack on the last position and layed a pattern. Torpedomen got the top two tubes closed and the third was in the process of being closed, when a DC from one of the Hatsutaka's throwers exploded in very close proximity to the hull, as the Lagarto turned hard to get out from under the DD's track. The DC caused the bow planes to jam and also due to the distortion of the pressure hull, a loss of buoyancy. Stern planes were set to full rise to try to regain attitude control, as a full dive was in progress, which accounts for the unusual positioning of the fore and aft dive planes. Possibly the watertight doors would no longer close due to distortion to the pressure hull and bulkheads.

The stern planes are set for dive as I understand it and I'm not convinced the tube inner doors are that weak at that depth, even if a DC exploded close which is not indicated by any damage on the starboard bow. I would believe that with the forward ballast tanks damaged from the port side detonation, she was unable to rise. I saw nothing to prove the people tank was breached and flooded so I don't know why they believe water got in. Subs do not have much buoyancy reserve, like a surface ship, so ruptured ballast tanks are enough.

Anyway that's my take.

EDIT: After reading diving procedures, I see that the stern planes are used for controlling the "bubble" or angle. Diving fast in shallow water you would want to keep close to zero bubble so as to prevent plowing the bow into the seabed. The planes would be as they were found like this.
stern (\).........bow(\)

[Nisgeis]

The stern planes are set for dive as I understand it and I'm not convinced the tube inner doors are that weak at that depth, even if a DC exploded close which is not indicated by any damage on the starboard bow. I would believe that with the forward ballast tanks damaged from the port side detonation, she was unable to rise. I saw nothing to prove the people tank was breached and flooded so I don't know why they believe water got in. Subs do not have much buoyancy reserve, like a surface ship, so ruptured ballast tanks are enough.

Anyway that's my take.

EDIT: After reading diving procedures, I see that the stern planes are used for controlling the "bubble" or angle. Diving fast in shallow water you would want to keep close to zero bubble so as to prevent plowing the bow into the seabed. The planes would be as they were found like this.
stern (\).........bow(\)

I was referring to the outer torpedo door being partly open, which it was. The inner door was closed, but that was the only reason I can think of as to why the outer door would be half open or half closed and there being no torpedo inside. E.G. it had just been fired and was in the process of being closed.

As for the dive planes, generally speaking on a US sub, the bow planes control the depth and the stern planes control the dive angle. The normal procedure for diving is to set the bow planes with a downward angle on them and to lift the stern, an upwards angle is set on them, however much you want. As the axis of rotation of the sub is about the conning tower, which is about one third of the length back from the bow, as such, the stern planes exert a much greater leverage on the sub than the bow planes do. They are also directly behing the props, so they have even more influence. If you were to try to dive with the stern planes set hard rise (e.g. bow / stern /) then the stern would sink faster then the bow and it would be pointing upwards.

The external ballast tanks would all have been flooded - a sub cannot dive with any of them filled with air. Rupturing an external ballast tank would have no effect on buoyancy, but the damage to the pressure hull where it was stoved in would have and would have caused her to be heavy by the bow.

Perhaps this is one for DaveyJ's thread?

[Buddahaid]

I was referring to the outer torpedo door being partly open, which it was. The inner door was closed, but that was the only reason I can think of as to why the outer door would be half open or half closed and there being no torpedo inside. E.G. it had just been fired and was in the process of being closed.

As for the dive planes, generally speaking on a US sub, the bow planes control the depth and the stern planes control the dive angle. The normal procedure for diving is to set the bow planes with a downward angle on them and to lift the stern, an upwards angle is set on them, however much you want. As the axis of rotation of the sub is about the conning tower, which is about one third of the length back from the bow, as such, the stern planes exert a much greater leverage on the sub than the bow planes do. They are also directly behing the props, so they have even more influence. If you were to try to dive with the stern planes set hard rise (e.g. bow / stern /) then the stern would sink faster then the bow and it would be pointing upwards.

The external ballast tanks would all have been flooded - a sub cannot dive with any of them filled with air. Rupturing an external ballast tank would have no effect on buoyancy, but the damage to the pressure hull where it was stoved in would have and would have caused her to be heavy by the bow.

Perhaps this is one for DaveyJ's thread?

The ruptured ballast tanks would prevent any possibility to surface again, or hold depth for maneuvering was my thought. I agree ruptured tanks would not greatly effect a sub already in a negative buoyancy trim, but would certainly effect any control thereafter had they any time left. And I do think at least some aft compartments would not have been flooded by the limited visible external damage. Anyway, we will never really know.