Ever pulled a Capt. Dodge?

[reignofdeath]

I was just wondering if all of you experienced Kaulens ever pulled a Capt. Dodge (Down Periscope) and pulled in underneath a huge slow moving tanker to avoid detection?? And would this help avoid detection?? seeing as how some one listening would hear the tankers screws and ASDIC would probably also pick you up as part of the keel of the tanker?? And if anyone has done it Id like to know how you did it. Especially if it was with no external camera

Just a thought because I just read a post about some one sneaking into Gibraltor that way.

And while we're on this topic, what all interesting /wacky tactics have you all used before that have worked??

[JokerOfFate]

1) yes I have pulled one of those and the escort rammed the cargoship while trying to DC me. :DL

2) That's sonar not a hydrophone ASDIC would pisk you up but a hydrophone wouldn't. :up:

3) I sailed through two halfs of a sinking cargoship to stop a destroyer from catching me. :woot:

[HW3]

The escorts know you are under there and will circle the ship dropping depth charges trying to get you.:yep:

[timmy41]

sat under a large tanker once after sneaking in to a convoy, but i was caught. it was going 6 knots so i was able to stay under, but not for long. destroyers were constantly zigzagging along side too. after about 10 minutes under it i let out a bunch of decoys and dove as far as i could.
i think theyd still be able to detect you, and no ships go slow enough that you can stay under them at silent speed.

[reignofdeath]

Dang, I really wish Ubi would just release the SDK already so you all could have a crack into turning the game into something greater than it is, Id love that feature (because I do believe in real life sitting under a ship would make you impossible to detect or at least almost because of the 'sound' of their screws and such) and the ability to bottom out and sit silent not being detected among other things.

[Weiss Pinguin]

As it is now, (as far as I know) if you try to sneak in under a ship, the escorts will hear you and ignore the cargo ship. I don't think they even hear the ship up top :hmmm: But, sitting under a ship will give you cover from attacking escorts as they can't get depth charges on you.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Whenever I've tried hiding under a vessel in a convoy it always seems to be able to go faster then me :cry:

[Sailor Steve]

Dang, I really wish Ubi would just release the SDK already so you all could have a crack into turning the game into something greater than it is, Id love that feature (because I do believe in real life sitting under a ship would make you impossible to detect or at least almost because of the 'sound' of their screws and such) and the ability to bottom out and sit silent not being detected among other things.
In real life it was theoretically possible, but you wouldn't be shielded from active sonar. Worse, they didn't have external view to confirm they were really right underneath, so it was a risky proposition at best.

[reignofdeath]

But possible to do. :up: thats all Id need

[JokerOfFate]

In real life it was theoretically possible, but you wouldn't be shielded from active sonar. Worse, they didn't have external view to confirm they were really right underneath, so it was a risky proposition at best.

*stops singing*
Periscope? slow cargo ship? dumb AI?
*continues singing johnny on the monorail* :arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

Periscope? slow cargo ship? dumb AI?

In real life you can't see very far underwater, and it's dark, and the periscope seals are not overly strong, so it's a bad idea to raise one at much deeper than periscope depth. Matching speed and course with a moving ship is difficult even on a good day.

[ralphnader23]

Just make sure the ship you are under isn't that one you put a torpedo into 10 minutes ago...You might get a nasty surprise when it finally sinks :doh::doh::doh:

[JokerOfFate]

If they don't know you're there, maybe it would be easier due to relaxed speeds.

What about 15m would that be too deep?


ralphnader23, you would be surprised to here the amount of times I've hit a sinking ship submerged. :dead:

[desirableroasted]

But possible to do. :up: thats all Id need

It's technically, though not practically, possible. And so what? You can stay under the ship until it (and the escorts) despawn, but so what?

Of course, at just under keel you will need that sweet magic external cam. And why would you stay just under a keel? Why not 160 below it? At 160, you don't need to hide.

[JokerOfFate]

Fun, mate
To use what a friend of mine said
"Why does a dog lick its nuts"

(Not sure if I can say that but what the heck)

[fastfed]

In real life you can't see very far underwater, and it's dark, and the periscope seals are not overly strong, so it's a bad idea to raise one at much deeper than periscope depth. Matching speed and course with a moving ship is difficult even on a good day.


In real life, when Persicope was down.. I assume it has a door ontop of it, that closes?

Obviously in the game it just goes into a tube, but wide open to all the elements.

[Randomizer]

This technique was actually used by submarines of the Red Banner Soviet Fleet to evade Western ASW units during the Cold War but with very mixed results. In October 1962 the Project 641 (NATO codename Foxtrot) B-36 (Capt A. Dubivko) ran the Caicos Passage undetected in the wake of a 10,000 GRT tanker during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It wasn't a popular manuever, some time before another Northern Fleet boat practicing coat-tailing a merchant had been sliced up by the freighter's prop and was almost lost.

See Peter Huchthausen's book, October Fury.

[Sailor Steve]

In real life, when Persicope was down.. I assume it has a door ontop of it, that closes?

Obviously in the game it just goes into a tube, but wide open to all the elements.
No door. The seals which keep water from getting into the periscope well can only stand so much pressure. And pressure builds up fast. Maybe they could use them a little deeper - I'm not sure. But periscopes that don't work well at night aren't going to work well as the depth makes the water darker.

I think the biggest question is, are there any accounts of subs using the periscopes at greater depths to track ships from underwater?

[fastfed]

No door. The seals which keep water from getting into the periscope well can only stand so much pressure. And pressure builds up fast. Maybe they could use them a little deeper - I'm not sure. But periscopes that don't work well at night aren't going to work well as the depth makes the water darker.

I think the biggest question is, are there any accounts of subs using the periscopes at greater depths to track ships from underwater?


I once read where a sailor put on a mask and had a flashlight.. They put him into a torpedo tube and they opened the door. He used to look around for a bout 10 seconds then they would open the door again and let him in..

This tactic was very popular with this particular u-boat. They would do it all the time.. Then one time during a fight, they forgot to let him back in.. Thinking the torpedo tube was loaded because it triggered the load que, they fired him at a merchant.. The craziest thing... He ran straight hot and normal all the way to the merchant and banged on the hull with his flashlight for hours, till a hole began to form.. The merchant finally sunk 8 hours later with the entire crew (both sides) in total confusion..

:arrgh!:

[frau kaleun]

I once read where a sailor put on a mask and had a flashlight.. They put him into a torpedo tube and they opened the door. He used to look around for a bout 10 seconds then they would open the door again and let him in..

This tactic was very popular with this particular u-boat. They would do it all the time.. Then one time during a fight, they forgot to let him back in.. Thinking the torpedo tube was loaded because it triggered the load que, they fired him at a merchant.. The craziest thing... He ran straight hot and normal all the way to the merchant and banged on the hull with his flashlight for hours, till a hole began to form.. The merchant finally sunk 8 hours later with the entire crew (both sides) in total confusion..


:hmmm:

Pull the other one, it has bells on. :O:

[vienna]

Amen to that, frau kaleun!

I never tried the "Dodge" tactic in SH3, But once, in SH2, I needed a few more seconds to complete a reload while attacking from inside a convoy. I was about to be intercepted by an escort when I decided to come alongside, submerged, a large tanker I had hit. It was ablaze and still floating. The escort stood off and started to circle the tanker, waiting for me to come out of cover. That's when the tanker blew up in a massive explosion. Suddenly, I had all kinds damage and was dead in the water. To top it off, the tanker capsized and took me down with it. It was a spectacular and embarassing way to go.

[JokerOfFate]

Don't worry, time heals all (I should know I've done that way too many times:oops:)

[frau kaleun]

Amen to that, frau kaleun!

I never tried the "Dodge" tactic in SH3, But once, in SH2, I needed a few more seconds to complete a reload while attacking from inside a convoy. I was about to be intercepted by an escort when I decided to come alongside, submerged, a large tanker I had hit. It was ablaze and still floating. The escort stood off and started to circle the tanker, waiting for me to come out of cover. That's when the tanker blew up in a massive explosion. Suddenly, I had all kinds damage and was dead in the water. To top it off, the tanker capsized and took me down with it. It was a spectacular and embarassing way to go.

Tankers do tend to be full of things that go boom in a very big way. :D

[desirableroasted]

I think the biggest question is, are there any accounts of subs using the periscopes at greater depths to track ships from underwater?

This website is where scuba divers report visibility around the UK (often around WWII wrecks).

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/viz/latest.php3

As you can see, you pretty much wouldn't be able to see anything more than 20 meters away, and certainly not far enough away to do a valid firing solution.

[Sailor Steve]

I once read ...

This tactic was very popular with this particular u-boat.
When posting a story as wild as that you need to show something a little more specific than "I once read".

[JokerOfFate]

This website is where scuba divers report visibility around the UK (often around WWII wrecks).

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/viz/latest.php3

As you can see, you pretty much wouldn't be able to see anything more than 20 meters away, and certainly not far enough away to do a valid firing solution.

Some say that the Viz was pretty good, other than that it depends on temp., depth, amount of life, time and weather.

[Sailor Steve]

Some say that the Viz was pretty good, other than that it depends on temp., depth, amount of life, time and weather.
True. Just outside of Subic Bay looking down from our destroyer's signal bridge I could see the bottom, and the dolphins swimming under our ship.

But I'm always less concerned with arguing about "could they do it" than finding confirmation of "did they do it".

[JokerOfFate]

I think they would if they could mostly because imagine what they could do.

[fastfed]

This website is where scuba divers report visibility around the UK (often around WWII wrecks).

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/viz/latest.php3

As you can see, you pretty much wouldn't be able to see anything more than 20 meters away, and certainly not far enough away to do a valid firing solution.


Actually.. That website shows me that they "COULD" of used the scope to see.. I would like to see the depth on some of those subs.. I am willing to bet on a good day (DURING THE DAY OF COURSE) a captain could see 30+ feet.. Still wouldn't do any good, other then making sure they don't surface on a vessel :)

[JokerOfFate]

Actually.. That website shows me that they "COULD" of used the scope to see.. I would like to see the depth on some of those subs.. I am willing to bet on a good day (DURING THE DAY OF COURSE) a captain could see 30+ feet.. Still wouldn't do any good, other then making sure they don't surface on a vessel :)


Dodge depth charges maybe or even iding ships under water :DL

[reignofdeath]

I think it wouldnt have helped. Any depth charge within 30 ft and youd be pretty f'd I think. Not sure though so dont take my word on that one.. question realistically, what was the damage radius of the Depth Charges?

[frau kaleun]

Wouldn't having the 'scope extended during a DC attack make it even more vulnerable to damage? Don't think I'd want to risk that. Also as far as evasive maneuvers go, I'd think it would severely limit your speed in making them, because isn't there a limit to how much the extended scope can withstand before it bends or breaks?

[Puster Bill]

Wouldn't having the 'scope extended during a DC attack make it even more vulnerable to damage? Don't think I'd want to risk that. Also as far as evasive maneuvers go, I'd think it would severely limit your speed in making them, because isn't there a limit to how much the extended scope can withstand before it bends or breaks?

Generally, when I do this, I use the observation periscope, and it's only extended far enough out of it's housing so that I can see.

I have used it at shallow depth to 'run under' a ship in an attempt to avoid escorts, or to give my crew some time to reload in relative safety, but it is a major pain to try and match heading and speed to any real degree.

As for the objections that you can't see that far, that's true to a point, but when you have something as large as a ship casting a shadow, you can see that much farther down than you could see the actual ship.

Oh, and while the 'scopes back then might not have been up to it, taking pictures of other ships, including other submarines, with the periscope was a reasonably common enough intelligence activity during the Cold War, so it *COULD* have been done, even if it wasn't IRL.

[Puster Bill]

I was half expecting this thread to be about getting your genitalia tattooed.

[Sailor Steve]

"COULD" of
First, there is no such phrase as "could of". It's "could have".

Second, as I said before, arguing about whether they could have done it is pointless. To prove it was actually done one needs to find a single account of them actually doing it.

Generally, when I do this, I use the observation periscope, and it's only extended far enough out of it's housing so that I can see.
And if you see a depth charge, do you go to flank speed to avoid it? "IRL", as you put it, this would bend or even break the periscope.

I have used it at shallow depth to 'run under' a ship in an attempt to avoid escorts, or to give my crew some time to reload in relative safety, but it is a major pain to try and match heading and speed to any real degree.
And reloading torpedoes in a combat situation is something else they never did "IRL", since if you saw trouble coming you would need to change depth rapidly, which would mean suddenly having a ton of steel and explosives possibly breaking loose inside your submarine.

As for the objections that you can't see that far, that's true to a point, but when you have something as large as a ship casting a shadow, you can see that much farther down than you could see the actual ship.
And the objection that the pressure would break the seals and flood the periscope well, and possibly the boat?

Oh, and while the 'scopes back then might not have been up to it, taking pictures of other ships, including other submarines, with the periscope was a reasonably common enough intelligence activity during the Cold War, so it *COULD* have been done, even if it wasn't IRL.
They used the periscope to take pictures during the war as well, but only of things on the surface. Can you show documentation (i.e. pictures) of other submerged submarines taken even with modern technology?

You can play any way you want, however unrealistic, but please don't try to justify it by what you think they *COULD* have done. If you want to rationalize it, please show that it *WAS* done, even if only once.

[Puster Bill]

First, there is no such phrase as "could of". It's "could have".

Second, as I said before, arguing about whether they could have done it is pointless. To prove it was actually done one needs to find a single account of them actually doing it.


And if you see a depth charge, do you go to flank speed to avoid it? "IRL", as you put it, this would bend or even break the periscope.

I don't think 7 or 8 knots would bend or break a barely extended periscope. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Generally they didn't use the periscope above 6 knots, but that was more due to vibration problems than potential damage, AFAIK, and that was with a fully extended periscope.

And no, I don't use it like that. I've *TRIED* it in the past, but depth charges sink faster than the boat will react.


And reloading torpedoes in a combat situation is something else they never did "IRL", since if you saw trouble coming you would need to change depth rapidly, which would mean suddenly having a ton of steel and explosives possibly breaking loose inside your submarine.Errmm, yes they did, just not while under direct attack. An excerpt from Schepke's KTB:

We are now in the middle of row 2 of the convoy, close behind row 1. Lots of steamers in front, beside and behind us. Closest distance is 500 to 600 meters. Steamers are now beginning to get closer to each other so our freedom of movement is restricted. There were about 8 to 10 ships in a row. During the whole time torpedoes were reloaded. At about 24.00 hours 3 tubes are ready to fire
...
The major thing was that the torpedoes were constantly reloaded and that this fact was only achieved by the excellent job of the crew led by the second watch officer, LtzS Böning.

So, yeah, they did reload in combat conditions. And it could have easily worked out that they would have been still reloading had they been attacked, and the crew would have had to scramble to secure the torpedoes while depth charges were being dropped.


And the objection that the pressure would break the seals and flood the periscope well, and possibly the boat?Perfectly valid. Using them past a certain fairly shallow depth would have resulted in them flooding. Though I imagine that they could withstand at least twice normal periscope depth, which would put you under the draught of most vessels.

They used the periscope to take pictures during the war as well, but only of things on the surface. Can you show documentation (i.e. pictures) of other submerged submarines taken even with modern technology?
No pictures, which I imagine are still classified, but there is this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MdtiFUVvlkC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=uss+greenling+underhulling&source=bl&ots=PR0QQcnNJr&sig=1NKoolYCOrDmkxY2KU5aPAOTCZs&hl=en&ei=f3-bTOm0G4SBlAf_sOS0Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=uss%20greenling%20underhulling&f=false

I can't point you to the raw transcripts of targets I copied as a morse interceptor 20+ years ago for the same reason, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.


You can play any way you want, however unrealistic, but please don't try to justify it by what you think they *COULD* have done. If you want to rationalize it, please show that it *WAS* done, even if only once.Why? I've heard whining about how raiding harbors was *NEVER* done, outside of Prien's Scapa Flow mission, and yet a reading of both volumes of "Hitler's U-boat War" turns up numerous examples, even if you exclude mining missions.

The point is taken, however: There is no documented instance of it happening that I am aware of, and in fact it would have been exceedingly difficult and recklessly dangerous.

/We should discuss this over a beer.

[fastfed]

I think it wouldnt have helped. Any depth charge within 30 ft and youd be pretty f'd I think. Not sure though so dont take my word on that one.. question realistically, what was the damage radius of the Depth Charges?


Everything I read, it was anything 30 feet from the sub, would do damage, how much depends.. Anything 20 feet from the sub or less and the sub is pretty much a goner..

[fastfed]

Hey Mrs. Sailor Steve.. I didnt NO we were HAVING Class today... THANKS you for being the proper GRAMER police.

Please correct my PUNCTUATION again..

:) don't be a smart ass for no reason.. WERE JUST HAVING A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION!

[desirableroasted]

The link I uploaded indicated that 20-30 meters of underwater visibility is pretty fantastic. But let's assume it's average.

Even then, since a VIIC is 67 meters long, you'd still be extraordinarily lucky to see your own bow. And at 6 knots, which is about the speed you'd have to have under a merchant, (and you have to assume he is not zigging), you are eating up 3 meters a second. You'd never avoid anything in front of you... the math doesn't allow it.

So I suspect the reason there is no documentation from wartime is that U-boat captains -- who, as a rule, probably forgot more physics and mathematics than most of us will ever learn -- never even considered it.

[Puster Bill]

The link I uploaded indicated that 20-30 meters of underwater visibility is pretty fantastic. But let's assume it's average.

Even then, since a VIIC is 67 meters long, you'd still be extraordinarily lucky to see your own bow. And at 6 knots, which is about the speed you'd have to have under a merchant, (and you have to assume he is not zigging), you are eating up 3 meters a second. You'd never avoid anything in front of you... the math doesn't allow it.

So I suspect the reason there is no documentation from wartime is that U-boat captains -- who, as a rule, probably forgot more physics and mathematics than most of us will ever learn -- never even considered it.


I've been at least 25 meters deep in the ocean, and it seems to me that during daylight hours you could look straight up and be able to see if there was a ship above you under almost all but the very poorest visibility. When there is a large contrast (light surface, dark ship) like that, you don't have to be able to see details in order to perceive that something is above you.

Provided the periscope could handle being unhoused at 25 meters, of course. Anyone remember how deep U-977 was when her observation scope was busted due to being left up during a dive?

[reignofdeath]

He has a point, try it out in GWX go down to a depth where your sub dissapears in free cam, then twist the cam so youre looking up at the surface, ive done this and the sub became immediately visible in close to 70m of water (not for sure on the depth just using a number) now at night, its darn near impossible even at P depth.

I've been at least 25 meters deep in the ocean, and it seems to me that during daylight hours you could look straight up and be able to see if there was a ship above you under almost all but the very poorest visibility. When there is a large contrast (light surface, dark ship) like that, you don't have to be able to see details in order to perceive that something is above you.

Provided the periscope could handle being unhoused at 25 meters, of course. Anyone remember how deep U-977 was when her observation scope was busted due to being left up during a dive?

[desirableroasted]

He has a point, try it out in GWX go down to a depth where your sub dissapears in free cam, then twist the cam so youre looking up at the surface, ive done this and the sub became immediately visible in close to 70m of water (not for sure on the depth just using a number) now at night, its darn near impossible even at P depth.

Yeah, in the game it is possible. I think we are trying to figure out if it was possible in real life and, if not, making a note to not exploit the game in the future.

To take another example, clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not

[desirableroasted]

I've been at least 25 meters deep in the ocean, and it seems to me that during daylight hours you could look straight up and be able to see if there was a ship above you under almost all but the very poorest visibility. When there is a large contrast (light surface, dark ship) like that, you don't have to be able to see details in order to perceive that something is above you.

Provided the periscope could handle being unhoused at 25 meters, of course. Anyone remember how deep U-977 was when her observation scope was busted due to being left up during a dive?

I am not a diver, but diving friends tell me the difference between a sunny, clear day and a cloudy one is enormous even at fairly shallow depths (and not being a diver, I don't know how deep that is, but certainly not more than we are talking about).

It certainly seems plausible that you could look up with the scope at a fairly shallow depth and see the shadow of a ship, if the sun was right. Makes sense. But keeping it in sight while you align your boat and match its speed (especially if it is weaving) seems a whole 'nother problem.

[JokerOfFate]

I agree with Roasty here on a lot of stuff but heres my case,

"So I suspect the reason there is no documentation from wartime is that U-boat captains never even considered it."

I agree with most of that but not many people came back, so the likelihood of their being any documentation is small.

"clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not"
Not true, the smoke from some ships can be seen from miles away, making it possible.

"And at 6 knots, which is about the speed you'd have to have under a merchant, (and you have to assume he is not zigging), you are eating up 3 meters a second. You'd never avoid anything in front of you... the math doesn't allow it."

What about the variables there, was the merchant hit, sabotage or a malfunction.

Now, I know for a fact that if things are not going your way on a battlefield then you'll use every trick and break every rule/restriction to get your boys out alive, so maybe it did happen, heck maybe it worked but they just didn't make it back to spread the news

[JokerOfFate]

So as far as I see it, there's no way to prove whether or not they did do it.

So I think we should just call it a matter of debate and do what you see fit because no matter what its a 50-50 of being real or fake.

[Puster Bill]

I am not a diver, but diving friends tell me the difference between a sunny, clear day and a cloudy one is enormous even at fairly shallow depths (and not being a diver, I don't know how deep that is, but certainly not more than we are talking about).

It certainly seems plausible that you could look up with the scope at a fairly shallow depth and see the shadow of a ship, if the sun was right. Makes sense. But keeping it in sight while you align your boat and match its speed (especially if it is weaving) seems a whole 'nother problem.

Well, for the purposes of a reload, you don't have to be under there for very long, and you don't have to be *RIGHT* underneath a ship, just close enough that the escorts can't effectively get to you.

If you had done your work correctly, you know the course and speed of the convoy, and unless they zig or the convoy breaks up, you know direction and speed of any individual ship within the convoy.

On considering this, though, I won't attempt it using the obs scope anymore (not that I commonly did it anyway), when I do it I'll do it by sound only. You should be able to tell when you are close enough by a rapid bearing change on the hydrophones, and you should be able to get close enough to avoid a destroyer attack by sound alone.

[Sailor Steve]

INo pictures, which I imagine are still classified, but there is this:
Good enough. I stand corrected.



We are now in the middle of row 2 of the convoy, close behind row 1. Lots of steamers in front, beside and behind us. Closest distance is 500 to 600 meters. Steamers are now beginning to get closer to each other so our freedom of movement is restricted. There were about 8 to 10 ships in a row. During the whole time torpedoes were reloaded. At about 24.00 hours 3 tubes are ready to fire
...
The major thing was that the torpedoes were constantly reloaded and that this fact was only achieved by the excellent job of the crew led by the second watch officer, LtzS Böning.

So, yeah, they did reload in combat conditions. And it could have easily worked out that they would have been still reloading had they been attacked, and the crew would have had to scramble to secure the torpedoes while depth charges were being dropped.
My point here was that having a torpedo swinging from hoist change and suddenly changing the dive angle would be exceedingly dangerous. But in this case I also have to use my own criterion against myself - while the source you provided doesn't say it was done while being depth-charged, it also doesn't say specifically that they weren't, so I'll gladly concede that point.

[Sailor Steve]

Hey Mrs. Sailor Steve.. I didnt NO we were HAVING Class today... THANKS you for being the proper GRAMER police.

Please correct my PUNCTUATION again..

:) don't be a smart ass for no reason.. WERE JUST HAVING A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION!
If you are using written language to emphasize or prove a point, you should at least learn to write properly. It's like trying to make a verbal point while speaking in Ebonics.

[fastfed]

If you are using written language to emphasize or prove a point, you should at least learn to write properly. It's like trying to make a verbal point while speaking in Ebonics.


You're obviously oblivious to the BS I wrote.. Difference is.. Regardless of a debate I don't act like Mr.grammar Police.. I understand this is a forum, not a writing club, people are talking about "GAMES" here.. Maybe you take this to far, but if someone (and many people do) mis-spell things, or don't type proper.. I usually know its by accident, your little comment was a little... low.. That being said, I know how to write.. But again, I am not typing for a newspaper who have ( I would of said "HAS" but I'm addressing you ) editors.. Yea even professionals need people to look over their work.. I am replying to a GAME forum.. If you want to be an editor, well, I am sure there are many positions somewhere where you live..

[desirableroasted]

"clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not"
Not true, the smoke from some ships can be seen from miles away, making it possible.

Obviously, I wasn't clear enough.

Even in dense fog, when using the UZO or periscope, and clicking "lock" as you look around, you can detect ships out to the horizon (actually, far over the horizon). This is clearly impossible, and using it is a "game exploit."

You simply cannot see that far unless the conditions are perfect.

I live on a cliff overlooking the ocean. On a clear day, with excellent conditions, I can spot ships 9-10 nm out. I can promise you that the least bit of haze reduces that by half, and fog brings it down to 100 m.

[Draka]

One of the very first things any sailor learns is that height above water equals sighting distance to the horizon - the view from the deck of nearly any ship is far better than from the conning tower of a Uboote, much less from the periscope only barely above water. I lived on a sailboat in the Bay Area (San Francisco, CA) for seven years - and the fog there is infamous. Trust me, there were many days I couldn't see the bow from the helm position - a matter of 20 feet! Haze/fog is a killer for any Mark I eyeball visuals ....

[Sailor Steve]

You're obviously oblivious to the BS I wrote.. Difference is.. Regardless of a debate I don't act like Mr.grammar Police.. I understand this is a forum, not a writing club, people are talking about "GAMES" here.. Maybe you take this to far, but if someone (and many people do) mis-spell things, or don't type proper.. I usually know its by accident, your little comment was a little... low.. That being said, I know how to write.. But again, I am not typing for a newspaper who have ( I would of said "HAS" but I'm addressing you ) editors.. Yea even professionals need people to look over their work.. I am replying to a GAME forum.. If you want to be an editor, well, I am sure there are many positions somewhere where you live..
I make mistakes all the time. People correct me. I thank them for the correction and make a point to do better in the future. It's all part of being an adult.

But you're right, and I apologize. It is just a gaming forum, and people should be allowed to show their lack of education without comment.

[JokerOfFate]

Maybe I just have good eyesight :hmmm:.

Other than that I spot ships that the game doesn't sometimes even in dense fog, I can make out their shapes in the fog, not all that hard if you're paying attention. (But not at a great distance)

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe I just have good eyesight :hmmm:.

Other than that I spot ships that the game doesn't sometimes even in dense fog, I can make out their shapes in the fog, not all that hard if you're paying attention. (But not at a great distance)
It's partly a game thing. Sometimes they don't see things that are obvious. Same with sound - on one hand they don't hear things that you can easily hear, but on the other they hear things right through solid land.

[timmy41]

"clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not"
Not true, the smoke from some ships can be seen from miles away, making it possible.


you can see a ships smoke 6-7 km away in thick fog?

[JokerOfFate]

you can see a ships smoke 6-7 km away in thick fog?

I was referring to normal conditions and some weathers But not in thick fog.

Please use common sense its a wonderful gift :yeah:

[stoneys-nutz]

But you're right, and I apologize. It is just a gaming forum, and people should be allowed to show their lack of education without comment.


OUCH !!!!!!!


:rotfl2: :har: :haha: :salute:

[desirableroasted]

Other than that I spot ships that the game doesn't sometimes even in dense fog, I can make out their shapes in the fog, not all that hard if you're paying attention. (But not at a great distance)

Well, you have been playing the game since it came out, as you say. So you must have learned years ago that the player is always better than the watch crew at spotting ships, and is always better than the hydrophone operator at hearing them.

However, in dense fog, I guarantee you aren't seeing them at the 300+ meters required to arm the torpedoes, unless you are using the "x-ray vision" exploit.

But, hey, you've already established that you have a, shall we say, remarkable playing style.

[timmy41]

I was referring to normal conditions and some weathers But not in thick fog.

Please use common sense its a wonderful gift :yeah:
The situation being discussed was thick fog.

Please learn comprehension of semantics, its a wonderful gift. :yeah:

[JokerOfFate]

"x-ray vision" exploit makes no sense in Rl you can see an objects shape before it fully appears so the game is accurate there but they aren't more than about 400m+ and my watch can only spot them at 200m.


timmy41
"Even in dense fog," the topic moved on after that post but we were not discussing just thick fog at that point in time.

[desirableroasted]

"x-ray vision" exploit makes no sense in Rl you can see an objects shape before it fully appears so the game is accurate there but they aren't more than about 400m+ and my watch can only spot them at 200m.

You obviously don't sail, and aren't around fog or the sea very often. If you are able to detect a ship at 400 meters, then the fog is thin enough to allow you to do that. If it thickens, you might only be able to see a ship at 200 meters or 50. Visual acuity has zero to do with it.

And no, you cannot see the object's shape; you can only perceive contrasts. If you are walking up to your house in a fog, and know it is your house, you will "see" your house. Doesn't work that way out on the water.

If you are shooting at ships in fog at 400 m, you're either using the exploit, or are firing torpedoes a) without knowing what you are shooting at and therefore just guessing at keel depth and b) have little idea what the AOB is.

But hey, it's one way to play.


timmy41
"Even in dense fog," the topic moved on after that post but we were not discussing just thick fog at that point in time.

Actually we were : "To take another example, clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not."

But maybe your flak guns took out that part of the sentence.

[timmy41]

But maybe your flak guns took out that part of the sentence.
maybe the thread was foggy too!

[Puster Bill]

Good enough. I stand corrected.


My point here was that having a torpedo swinging from hoist change and suddenly changing the dive angle would be exceedingly dangerous. But in this case I also have to use my own criterion against myself - while the source you provided doesn't say it was done while being depth-charged, it also doesn't say specifically that they weren't, so I'll gladly concede that point.

I think you are correct: When actually under attack, they would have secured the torpedoes as best they could. But during a convoy battle, unless they were actually getting depth charged or being shot at, they would have been reloading, which is what my point was: trying to find a way to reasonably safely reload torpedoes. Getting under the convoy helps because it limits the ability of the escorts to maneuver into attack position. Getting under a specific ship helps even more, even if it is 'cheating'.

I believe that attack, btw, was a night surface attack, something I often have *ZERO* luck with, especially after the first hits.

[Sailor Steve]

I believe that attack, btw, was a night surface attack, something I often have *ZERO* luck with, especially after the first hits.
I'll bet 'their' luck wasn't too good after the first hits, either. You know - searchlights, starshells, everybody and his brother looking for whoever fired those eels... :rotfl2:

[reignofdeath]

A) Lets keep the thread on topic please

and

B) Stop getting in a pissing match with Joker, Im tired of just about every post you have insulting him and vice versa, if you two have some sort of beef do it over PM or in your own thread, I dont want to see it in mine.

You obviously don't sail, and aren't around fog or the sea very often. If you are able to detect a ship at 400 meters, then the fog is thin enough to allow you to do that. If it thickens, you might only be able to see a ship at 200 meters or 50. Visual acuity has zero to do with it.

And no, you cannot see the object's shape; you can only perceive contrasts. If you are walking up to your house in a fog, and know it is your house, you will "see" your house. Doesn't work that way out on the water.

If you are shooting at ships in fog at 400 m, you're either using the exploit, or are firing torpedoes a) without knowing what you are shooting at and therefore just guessing at keel depth and b) have little idea what the AOB is.

But hey, it's one way to play.



Actually we were : "To take another example, clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not."

But maybe your flak guns took out that part of the sentence.

[reignofdeath]

I'll bet 'their' luck wasn't too good after the first hits, either. You know - searchlights, starshells, everybody and his brother looking for whoever fired those eels... :rotfl2:

Yeaah that usually complicates stuff a bit XD