View Full Version : what were The Old Men thinking?
i was watching Das Boot - again!
i am also on patrol north of ireland in my own world.
i have 12.000 tons under the ocean.
i have a good and seasoned crew in mid 1940. there have been no tranfers, but i have lost one man to and aeroplane attack.
i got to the point in Das Boot were the old man - full of deadly frustration - tries it on with the destroyer and nearly gets in the neck.
for some reason it has only dawned on me now what a foolish move this was by him - he could have sacrifised his crew for a lousy destroyer.
i would never do that. but because i saw him do this in the film (and maybe this was done for dramatic purpose in the film) i went to my patrol after watching and went about my duties as a Kaleun.
i had recently sunk a local merchant for not very much and then proceeded for the Task Force i had been signalled about. then, out of nowhere came 'ship spotted.'
i came upstairs to take a look and sure enough it was a ship. clear blue sky flat calm what could be better. sneak in submerged and finish it off.
then i realised it was a destroyer that had not seen us, so i did the sensible thing a proceeded to attack with the deck gun ( ?????????WTH?????).
yes, the deck gun - just what you need on a flat calm day 7000 meters from potnetial death.
so, he saw me in the end - i made sure of that. shells dropping around him like children jumping in off a bridge.
then he came for me - and it was then at that moment i realised i was a knob.
i dived. ( oh, great, a sign of proffesionalism!)
he was on me in ten minutes. cans exploding all round. i had only 30 meters below me. i was sure i would die, having sacrifised my well seasoned crew for a paultry destroyer, several thousand tons.
i took damage. it was shallow. i was going to die. and there was no where to run. so i took another chance. i waited till he was over me and heading away. i climbed through the exploding cans to periscope depth always turning
towards him - hard to Port.
whe i saw him in my scope he was about 900meters away and closing, turning for a run in.
this time luck was with me.
as he came on to me straight i came on to him staight. i waited - tube loaded caps open.
then as he came to just under 500 meters, i let him have it with 23 seconds. he was turning in from his zig. and lucky for me on this occasion he got it
right under the bow. i dived to twenty pulling hard to starboard, checking him all the time untill my scope was under.
he had stoped quiet soon. i heard two sharp explosions. surface to periscope depth and he was sinking.
i let out a cheer, sat here. and then watched him go under..
all this time i couldnt help think, what was the Old Man thinking as he went for that destroyer. he must have known it was potentially useless - at worst fatal.
maybe it was done for dramatic effect or boredom or at worst frustration - but still.
look after the crew.
frau kaleun
10-06-11, 02:58 PM
I always wonder about the choice to attack the destroyer as well. IIRC the 2WO says something to Werner about the Old Man being crazy to try it.
OTOH - it's not like he starts lobbing shells at it with the deck gun, lol. :O: He goes to periscope depth and tries to set up a torpedo attack. My assumption has always been that *he* believes from the destroyer's behavior up to that point that the u-boat has not been detected on the surface, and that it's unlikely the periscope will be sighted in those heavy seas (afterward he expresses amazement and consternation that this is apparently exactly what happened).
There's also the fact that, IIRC, they and a bunch of other boats are in the process of trying to intercept a convoy reported by another u-boat in the area. I think there is some dialogue before that scene, when the weather is getting really bad, indicating that according to the info they were given, they should have found the convoy already - which they haven't. The visibility is so bad that they might well sail right past it and never see it. They submerge for a hydrophone check, hear a surface ship, and resurface. Then they spot the destroyer. So my assumption there is that he believes he has come across one of the escorts that is sweeping the area at some distance ahead of or around the convoy that the proposed wolfpack is supposed to be finding and attacking. Since that's the only enemy ship sighted so far, and it seems not to have noticed them, and a stealthy hit and run from periscope depth is not totally unthinkable, I suppose the reasoning might be: why not take out this guy, and make one less escort that we all have to deal with if and when we actually locate this convoy we're chasing?
Altho I will grant you, I think general frustration with their situation at that point did play some part in the decision to attack.
Herr-Berbunch
10-06-11, 03:18 PM
I'll risk a shot at a DD early years, if I'm unseen/unheard, my thinking is that it's one less to come after me. Problem is they're rarely on their own. :cry:
You were lucky. I don't know if L-GB on a real patrol was involved in an attack like this or it's just playing to the audience. :hmmm:
Hans Uberman
10-06-11, 03:29 PM
In the Director's Cut of the Director's Cut they put back in scenes showing the rivalry that Henrich Lehmann-Willenbrock had with a former friend in Britain. The captain of the destroyer stole his woman from him in 1936, and has since married her. From that day on, Henrich swore bloody vengeance against him... Ooooh, melodramatic subplot! Okay, maybe not. :P
I forget the year, but doesn't one of the GWX radio messages eventually tell you to go after destroyers?
It shouldn't be that foolish to go after a DD if you haven't been detected. Considering that the captain and crew in the movie were bored to death, it really wasn't surprising at all that they took that chance (on one mission, I was so bored that I took my 20mm flak gun against a tugboat. I eventually sank it, but I doubt I had any impact on shipping).
However, I have sunk destroyers with the deck gun before without getting so much as a scratch. I don't know if there are different skill levels to the AI because they seem to not know how to react at first when you start shooting.
If you do wish to be so bold, be sure to get a range estimation first through the scope or UZO. Then fire away, and follow the tracers :yep: Getting the first hits is critical. If you can destroy the bridge, it will be very easy after that.
This is something I wouldn't attempt during a campaign though. I've "invested" too much time to let myself die and start over from doing something too risky.
Sailor Steve
10-06-11, 03:58 PM
In the Director's Cut of the Director's Cut they put back in scenes showing the rivalry that Henrich Lehmann-Willenbrock had with a former friend in Britain. The captain of the destroyer stole his woman from him in 1936, and has since married her. From that day on, Henrich swore bloody vengeance against him... Ooooh, melodramatic subplot! Okay, maybe not. :P
1) Where does that story come from? I've never heard it.
2) I've seen the Director's Cut and the longer 'Uncut' version, and I don't recall any scenes like that.
I forget the year, but doesn't one of the GWX radio messages eventually tell you to go after destroyers?
I'm pretty sure there is, as well as a later message telling you not to.
Randomizer
10-06-11, 04:04 PM
While in SH3 I try to avoid destroyers like the plague there are a couple of ways of looking at the problem. If you can ambush a lone destroyer at minimal risk to your boat it can make some sense to try. Of course, like hitting a wasp nest with a stick, things can go dramatically wrong in a hurry.
In the U-Boot Waffe, being awarded the Knight's Cross brought honour to the crew as well as the Captain and early in the war it required some 100,000 GRT to qualify. However, successful attacks on warships, inherently far more risky, could facilitate nomination for the award much sooner, particularly since the KM tracked warship kills separately from merchants. An extreme example was KL Albrecht Brandi who shared the second highest level Ritterkruze (Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds) with Wolfgang Luth, who sank over 200k GRT. Brandi claimed a number of warships and actually sank a couple and these carried more weight than his otherwise meager merchant score. Of course he was a shameless self-promoter and his awards are controversial but they would have been common knowledge throughout the Fleet and it would have been miraculous if no other captains thought they couldn't emulate him.
http://www.uboat.net/men/brandi.htm
http://www.uboat.net/men/luth.htm
Another way of looking at it might be "The Destroyer you sink today cannot attack you tomorrow". This kind of strategic thinking has little scope in the game as it freely re-spawns sunken warships.
As for deliberately targeting escorts, deploying acoustic torpedoes seemed to indicate this might be a good tactic but the torpedoes failed to live up to their billing and ultimately, submarines attacking escorts would prove to be a zero-sum game. Overall adaption of this desperate measure was a good indicator that the U-Boats were beaten.
In late war SH3 even armed with homing torpedoes, very bad things can happen if you start hunting destroyers.
*snip*
I think this Scene with the Destroyer was that, where one of the Watch crew said "Freighter sighted!" and then the Kaleun went up and said "Thats no Freighter....thats a Destroyer" And since he though the Destroyer is around 6000meters away he tried to attack it. The 2WO said "He want to attack the Destroyer. Crazy at this sea (because of the high waves)" Then a wave is infront of the Periscope and the Destroyer is almost ramming the Boat. So i think he just tried to attack it because he though it was far away and didn't have him spotted, so it would be a good hit. But i think the british ships had already radar in that year. The Kaleun said "They really have spotted out Periscope"
frau kaleun
10-06-11, 04:25 PM
I think this Scene with the Destroyer was that, where one of the Watch crew said "Freighter sighted!" and then the Kaleun went up and said "Thats no Freighter....thats a Destroyer" And since he though the Destroyer is around 6000meters away he tried to attack it. The 2WO said "He want to attack the Destroyer. Crazy at this sea (because of the high waves)" Then a wave is infront of the Periscope and the Destroyer is almost ramming the Boat. So i think he just tried to attack it because he though it was far away and didn't have him spotted, so it would be a good hit. But i think the british ships had already radar in that year. The Kaleun said "They really have spotted out Periscope"
:yep: And then he says something about this being hard to believe, given the weather or sea state or whatever. At least according to the English subtitles altho my German dictionary would have me believe that the "hard to believe" part is pretty spot on. And there's a bit later on in the uncut version, when they are trying to make repairs after the Gibraltar disaster, where he remarks on the fact that the plane seemed to come right at them in the dark, the implication being that it already knew where they were. The 1WO says he's heard talk about the British having new and improved radar and der Alte says (again, according to the subtitles) that if the Tommies can find them in the dark there's not much left they can do except pray.
I think all of that stuff is a reflection of the already stated fact that the Happy Times are over, the Allied offense and defense in the war at sea are improving in ways the Germans never anticipated and for which they have no ready answer, and the men out there trying to deal with them are getting the first inklings of that unpleasant fact.
Hans Uberman
10-06-11, 09:38 PM
1) Where does that story come from? I've never heard it.
2) I've seen the Director's Cut and the longer 'Uncut' version, and I don't recall any scenes like that.
Sorry, to disappoint but the story was just a joke I made up. Sounds like something they'd do in a film though.
I always go for destroyers, one less bastard to worry about. and when I attack a convoy I try and eliminate the destroyers first so I can attack the relatively defenceless merchants with impunity.
Sailor Steve
10-06-11, 11:58 PM
Sorry, to disappoint but the story was just a joke I made up. Sounds like something they'd do in a film though.
Oh. :oops: Don't I feel silly.
In the Director's Cut of the Director's Cut they put back in scenes showing the rivalry that Henrich Lehmann-Willenbrock had with a former friend in Britain. The captain of the destroyer stole his woman from him in 1936, and has since married her. From that day on, Henrich swore bloody vengeance against him... Ooooh, melodramatic subplot! Okay, maybe not. :P
I forget the year, but doesn't one of the GWX radio messages eventually tell you to go after destroyers?
where do i get 'In the Director's Cut of the Director's Cut' from it sounds very interesting. i have never heard of this before?
EDIT: i ve just realised i have been conned - you have dashed my hopes of a longer than longer than version !
I always go for destroyers, one less bastard to worry about. and when I attack a convoy I try and eliminate the destroyers first so I can attack the relatively defenceless merchants with impunity.
i think this is a waste of resourses. as soon as you start attacking destroyers, surely the convoy breaks up and starts to zig-zag.
go in. find the biggest juicy ones. sink them and leave sharpish...no?
Herr-Berbunch
10-07-11, 09:57 AM
At least according to the English subtitles altho my German dictionary would have me believe that the "hard to believe" part is pretty spot on...
...(again, according to the subtitles)...
If only some kind German subsimmer would promise to make you a literal translation of the original language!
But not in .docx format! :rotfl2:
:yep: And then he says something about this being hard to believe, given the weather or sea state or whatever. At least according to the English subtitles altho my German dictionary would have me believe that the "hard to believe" part is pretty spot on. And there's a bit later on in the uncut version, when they are trying to make repairs after the Gibraltar disaster, where he remarks on the fact that the plane seemed to come right at them in the dark, the implication being that it already knew where they were. The 1WO says he's heard talk about the British having new and improved radar and der Alte says (again, according to the subtitles) that if the Tommies can find them in the dark there's not much left they can do except pray.
I think all of that stuff is a reflection of the already stated fact that the Happy Times are over, the Allied offense and defense in the war at sea are improving in ways the Germans never anticipated and for which they have no ready answer, and the men out there trying to deal with them are getting the first inklings of that unpleasant fact.
to attack the destroyer from the front - means magnetic - high seas too. i rekon this is worse than throwing a dart at a dart board blind aiming for the bulls eye. what ever the reasoning behind the attack or mixed messages, the idea that he - a seassoned Kaleun, should do this is just desperate. the destroyer, it would seem, knows that they are there hence the coming down on top of them.
to bother with such a small vessel for one torpedo is crazy. he may hit it -sure. but it would take only one can to destroy nearly 50 lives.
better to have stayed away and slunk into the cellar....but then the film may not be so exciting just more realistic.
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 10:11 AM
If only some kind German subsimmer would promise to make you a literal translation of the original language!
But not in .docx format! :rotfl2:
:haha:
I'm pretty sure when der Alte says the line about them spotting the 'scope, the first phrase is "kaum zu glauben" which does translate to "hard to believe" or " barely believable" or perhaps in more graceful English, "It's almost unbelievable that they spotted our 'scope in this weather" (or "these seas," whichever it is, I can't remember).
And, yes, this is how I'm learning German. By listening far too closely to little bits of dialogue in [I]Das Boot, using my knowledge of German phonetics to figure out how what they're saying is most likely spelled, and then looking for the words I think I'm hearing in my German-English dictionary until I stumble across a phrase that matches what I'm hearing and fits the context of what the characters are talking about.
At this rate I should be fluent in German in about, oh, 300 years or so. :O:
VONHARRIS
10-07-11, 10:14 AM
Taking into account the title of this thread I would like to put an other issue on the table.
After the initial attack on the convoy , the DCs that rocked the boat they finally surface next to that blazing tanker.
Why do they waste an other torpedo at a stationary undefented target instead of using the deck gun? IIRC it is night , the convoy is long gone and there is no sign of the RAF or the FAA.
Is our tactic in GWX wrong , finishing creapled merchants with the deck gun?
At this rate I should be fluent in German in about, oh, 300 years or so. :O:
Oh i speak already fluent German :D but therefor you a are far ahead of my english. :DL
Well as they dived in the Destroyer scene the first thing he says after coming down from the Coning Tower is "They really must have spotted our Periscope" Then he says "Hard to believe by this seas" (he means the high waves)
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 10:32 AM
Taking into account the title of this thread I would like to put an other issue on the table.
After the initial attack on the convoy , the DCs that rocked the boat they finally surface next to that blazing tanker.
Why do they waste an other torpedo at a stationary undefented target instead of using the deck gun?
Because by using a torpedo, they were able to shoot the entire scene indoors on a soundstage with a mock-up of just the bridge and half a dozen guys standing on it looking at a screen with previously-shot footage of a burning model tanker while people off-camera fanned smoke in their general direction and held up mirrors reflecting fiery light onto their faces so it looked like they were bathed in the glow from a nearby burning ship... instead of having to create a mock-up of the entire deck of the u-boat and film a whole bunch more guys manning and firing a gun, with all the special effects necessary to make it look like they were in fact firing shells at a burning ship that only existed on a huge screen a few feet away. :D
And also IMO because in terms of how that scene works emotionally for the characters (and thus the audience), or at least was meant to work. The emotional impact comes from the fact that the torpedo has been fired and has hit, it's a done deal, and *now* they realize that the survivors are still aboard and there is no hope for them because it's not like they can take back that torpedo or make the hit any less critical. It's not like the deck gun where they might've fired one or two shots and then seen survivors on board and - what? Stopped firing even though the ship was still afloat? Well, then it doesn't have the same kind of emotional punch and doesn't set you up for some of the tense interactions that follow. Or they keep firing anyway and then it looks like they're a bunch of heartless bastids and suddenly the audience is no longer able to sympathize with your protagonists. What they have to do in combat to get the job done and stay within their orders is terrible and gutwrenching enough without crossing that line.
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 10:34 AM
Oh i speak already fluent German :D but therefor you a are far ahead of my english. :DL
Well as they dived in the Destroyer scene the first thing he says after coming down from the Coning Tower is "They really must have spotted our Periscope" Then he says "Hard to believe by this seas" (he means the high waves)
Yep, that's it exactly! Thanks for the clarification. I'm afraid my memory of the exact order of the lines is somewhat obscured by the fact that I spend a bit more time there just looking and not listening, lol. One of my favorite Prochnow moments, when he comes down the ladder and walks toward the camera. *sigh*
Or they keep firing anyway and then it looks like they're a bunch of heartless bastids and suddenly the audience is no longer able to sympathize with your protagonists. What they have to do in combat to get the job done and stay within their orders is terrible and gutwrenching enough without crossing that line.
Well in one scene the Kaleun says "It had to be like this...." and after Lt. Werner asked "Why did it had to be like this?" he answers "Because we don't have the room for so many survivors. How many of them you would have rescued? 1? 10? 100? We have the order to sink ships, where we find them. All other things you can ask the guys which started this war!"
@ frau kaleun
...i am going to assume you may be a film critic or therapist or both!
on th whole, there seem to be inacuresies in the film, things that dont quite add up.
but then this is an action film in general - squeeezzing in the human condition when it can and quite well too, may i add.
so i guess for us subies the argument will rage on regarding beleivability or not.
still. makes great disscussion none the less!
soopaman2
10-07-11, 11:17 AM
Taking into account the title of this thread I would like to put an other issue on the table.
After the initial attack on the convoy , the DCs that rocked the boat they finally surface next to that blazing tanker.
Why do they waste an other torpedo at a stationary undefented target instead of using the deck gun? IIRC it is night , the convoy is long gone and there is no sign of the RAF or the FAA.
Is our tactic in GWX wrong , finishing creapled merchants with the deck gun?
Just an educated guess, but they may have circled around, being more interested in evasive maneuvers than going somewheres at the moment. Deep down they wanted to confirm it I believe, seeing as few Kaleuns had that pleasure, unless the sonarman heard it sink/release air/hit bottom.
I wondered the same thing about using them not using deckgun, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they wanted to finish it fast before the destroyer got a bearing on them again.
Then again I only saw the directors cut, so I don't know what kind of background or foreshadowing I may have missed.
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 11:45 AM
@ frau kaleun
...i am going to assume you may be a film critic or therapist or both!
Both. But on a strictly amateur basis! :haha:
on th whole, there seem to be inacuresies in the film, things that dont quite add up.
but then this is an action film in general - squeeezzing in the human condition when it can and quite well too, may i add.
so i guess for us subies the argument will rage on regarding beleivability or not.
still. makes great disscussion none the less!
There are definitely elements of literal "realism" that are sacrificed in order to, IMO, illuminate a deeper or higher truth about what those experiences might have felt like (or actually did feel like) to the people who went through them. Or simply because the filmmaker was trying to get something across or elicit a response on the part of the audience and the technical aspects of filmmaking required that something be done or shown *this* way as opposed to *that* way in order to accomplish that.
I know it's come up before about how, in the exterior shots of the submerged boat under attack, it seems like the depth charges are going off way too close for them not to have done more or even critical damage to the boat in many of those scenes. Well, that's probably true, but in order to communicate visually the peril the boat was in, and the effect that had on the men inside, AND fit the boat itself and all the exploding charges into the frame, the charges in those scenes had to explode within a certain distance from the boat (or more precisely the model they were using). You can't have an image of a charge exploding underwater at a greater distance from the boat, and then put a footnote on it that tells the audience "well what you have to understand is that the blast wave created by this even at that distance is still enough to shake the boat and be really loud and make it seem like your world is coming to an end because inside the boat you can't really tell exactly how far away the charges are, just trust us on this one." :O:
Another thing was the interior paint job of the boat, from what I've seen the interior surfaces were painted in lighter colors to maximize the effect of what limited lighting they had. Not so in the movie, because 1) having surfaces that constantly reflected all the lighting needed to film a scene would have been a technical nightmare and 2) the dark interiors, while perhaps not historically accurate, are more effective in communicating to the audience (and probably to the cast during filming as well) the sense of having to live for weeks in a dank, dark, dirty and claustrophobic environment. The literal truth is sacrificed for one that better serves the larger emotional and psychological truth that is being conveyed.
desirableroasted
10-07-11, 12:09 PM
There are definitely elements of literal "realism" that are sacrificed in order to, IMO, illuminate a deeper or higher truth about what those experiences might have felt like (or actually did feel like) ....
I wish they would give Petersen a low-budget movie again with a script that is more than 50 pages. I simply cannot believe that the guy who made Das Boot went on to make Air Force One and Outbreak.
soopaman2
10-07-11, 12:24 PM
I wish they would give Petersen a low-budget movie again with a script that is more than 50 pages. I simply cannot believe that the guy who made Das Boot went on to make Air Force One and Outbreak.
He also made The Perfect Storm and the remake of The Posiedon Adventure, as well as Troy, all pretty good flicks in my humblest of humbles .
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000583/
Wolfgang is amongst one of the greats with his resume.
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 12:42 PM
Most of what I've seen of Petersen's Hollywood output has been watchable and entertaining enough, although none of it comes close to Das Boot as a - *puts pretentious film snob hat on* - genuine work of cinematic art.
I enjoyed Air Force One, not least because it has a) Harrison Ford, b) Gary Oldman, and c) a Prochnow cameo. It's no Citizen Kane but it's a fun ride. Poseidon Adventure didn't really do much for me, altho I didn't *hate* it. Probably it's not much worse than the original even if the original did feature a somewhat more stellar cast... I can't even remember who was in the remake.
I'd have to look at a list of everything he's done just to remember what Petersen films I've seen, it's probably more than I realize - wouldn't have thought of Outbreak if it hadn't just been mentioned here. (Saw that on TV once... not bad enough to turn off at the time, but, generally: meh.)
The only thing that stands out as a real perennial personal favorite is Troy, but that movie has so many things going for it where I'm concerned that it would take a lot to make me *not* like it.
But overall, I agree that I would love to see Petersen get his hands on, and be allowed to make, something that has the potential to be the kind of film Das Boot turned out to be. I feel the same way about Prochnow, Hollywood has pretty much wasted a great talent there. He always seems to give it everything he's got in whatever part he plays, and heaven knows it seems like he takes darn near any job he's offered, but this guy is clearly capable of giving an Oscar-worthy performance and it doesn't look like he's ever going to get that opportunity in LA-LA-land. :nope:
soopaman2
10-07-11, 01:16 PM
But overall, I agree that I would love to see Petersen get his hands on, and be allowed to make, something that has the potential to be the kind of film Das Boot turned out to be. I feel the same way about Prochnow, Hollywood has pretty much wasted a great talent there. He always seems to give it everything he's got in whatever part he plays, and heaven knows it seems like he takes darn near any job he's offered, but this guy is clearly capable of giving an Oscar-worthy performance and it doesn't look like he's ever going to get that opportunity in LA-LA-land. :nope:
You touched on something that bugged me as well. As soon as I see a film worthy of high praise from me I look up the cast and see if they managed to take the triumph further.
I was suprised Prochnow didn't achieve further success as he was the "glue" that held the movie together. There was heroic moments by others, of course. He just seemed as fatherly yet stern as I would envision a Kaleun would be. After all he was willing to shoot Johann when he went a little batty, yet showed true gratitude and brotherly love towards him when he stopped the leaks at the bottom of the strait.
Underappreciated big time!:down:
VONHARRIS
10-07-11, 01:28 PM
He also made The Perfect Storm and the remake of The Posiedon Adventure, as well as Troy, all pretty good flicks in my humblest of humbles .
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000583/
Wolfgang is amongst one of the greats with his resume.
Troy stinks!
It has nothing to do with Greek mythology , and trust me I know MY mythology.
Sorry , I couldn't help it.
Troy stinks!
It has nothing to do with Greek mythology , and trust me I know MY mythology.
Sorry , I couldn't help it.
In Troy there are MANY things messed up. I think they wanted to put a lot of action into it.
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 02:12 PM
Troy stinks!
It has nothing to do with Greek mythology , and trust me I know MY mythology.
Sorry , I couldn't help it.
I've been reading and studying Greek mythology for 40 years. Does Troy stick to the story of the Trojan War and its myriad characters as told in the most wellknown (to us) versions of the story (i.e. the Iliad and Odyssey)?
Nope. But:
Did the Iliad and Odyssey stick to the story of the Trojan War and its myriad characters as told in every previous version of those events that ever existed?
The odds are against it. They probably weren't even written down in the form we have now until generations after the death of the man who supposedly composed them, and we don't even know if he really existed or is more myth than man himself.
In short, the only reason we think of the Homeric version of those events as being the "right" version is because at some point one version of that version got written down and the tale became static instead of fluid and the shaping and reshaping of those stories stopped. To dislike Troy simply because somebody decided to reshape the story of those events again after two and a half millennia (give or take a century) is, to me, just silly. :DL
And what else were they supposed to do? The Trojan War lasted for years. How do you convey that in a ~3 hour feature film? Or do you start, like the Iliad does, with the wrath of Achilles and his withdrawal from the fight, and then fill in all the necessary backstory through clunky voiceovers or extended flashbacks? Because I'm telling you, the average movie-goer is gonna need that backstory to understand what's going on.
And what about Agamemnon, the villain of the piece? Do you want to have to show him sailing all the way back to the Argolid to get what's coming to him? Rather anticlimactic, after the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy and all of that business. And wait, what's coming to him has nothing to do with the bit of the story that we actually just saw here in Troy, it has to do with what happened at Aulis ten+ years ago before he ever got to Troy. There's those pesky flashbacks again... :doh:
Troy isn't about "Greek mythology." I don't think it's even *supposed* to be about Greek mythology. If it were, I think we'd see a lot more of the Olympians hanging about and interfering in things, which actually makes up quite a bit of the classical and pre-classical versions of the tale. Except for Achilles' mother, there's none of that, and I don't even know that they specifically indicated whether she was really some type of immortal being or just a mortal with a gift for divination of the future.
What it is IMO is simply another retelling of a story that has fascinated a good part of the human race for over 2000 years, and an attempt to tell it in a way that will provide maximum dramatic impact given the time constraints of a feature film production. And they did a much better job of it than I expected, I must say.
Edit: What REALLY gets under my skin is that no one has ever made a good, reasonably (given what we know and what has been passed down) accurate movie about Thermopylae. I'm willing to grant some license but, seriously. I enjoyed 300 but it went way too far "out there" in many respects, IMO at least. And of course now it's unlikely that anyone will ever tackle that subject matter again in my lifetime.
And don't talk to me about The 300 Spartans. I tried to watch that once. UGH. :O:
And don't talk to me about The 300 Spartans. I tried to watch that once. UGH. :O:
Oh thats....creepy. Always if such a movie appears everyone says "Spartans were the best soldiers" or you will find so many Topics "Roman Legions vs Spartans, who would win" and then all kids try to obtrude the other kiddys with their opinion. The movie was really WAY over the top. :nope: I enjoyed the parody of that movie much more then the original. :rotfl2:
Sailor Steve
10-07-11, 02:39 PM
Well in one scene the Kaleun says "It had to be like this...." and after Lt. Werner asked "Why did it had to be like this?" he answers "Because we don't have the room for so many survivors. How many of them you would have rescued? 1? 10? 100? We have the order to sink ships, where we find them. All other things you can ask the guys which started this war!"
That is actually a very polite change from the incident in the book. What happens in the book could never be put into a German-made movie.
That is actually a very polite change from the incident in the book. What happens in the book could never be put into a German-made movie.
There are non-german Authors who make german WW2 soldiers into bloody beasts. ;)
soopaman2
10-07-11, 02:49 PM
Troy stinks!
It has nothing to do with Greek mythology , and trust me I know MY mythology.
Sorry , I couldn't help it.
I understand, alot of creative Hollywood liberties were taken. But you look at the content of the acting and script, as well as the overall mood and feeling it stands up, once again..In my opinion :)
I was simply mentioning more distinguished hits he made. Das Boot didn't get the deserved attention in America, though most his other films have.
Sailor Steve
10-07-11, 02:50 PM
As for Troy, I have a love/hate relationship for the same reasons Frau Kaleun expounded on. Likewise with the one-year-earlier British miniseries Helen Of Troy. They did a much better job of telling the whole story, and at least saying it lasted ten years. That said, it's not nearly as good a piece of filmmaking. That said, I own copies of both, and watch them both fairly regularly. Also The Trojan Women and Electra (1962 Greek film based on the play by Eurypides, with Irene Papas).
To add to Frau K's post, and partially disagree with it, we only have Homer's word that the war lasted ten years, and we don't know for certain that it happened at all, which makes this a case of the movie varying from the book, not from history. I highly recommend Michael Woods' documentary In Search Of The Trojan War. Excellent show, and very enlightening. It starts with Heinrich Schliemann and works backwards, discussing everything that's known.
Randomizer
10-07-11, 02:52 PM
An eminently readable novel about the Trojan Wars is Lindsey Clarke's The War at Troy. I quite enjoyed it.
http://www.amazon.com/War-at-Troy-Lindsay-Clarke/dp/0312336578/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318015943&sr=1-11
I grew up on the Iliad and the Odyssey, Dad used to read a Greek version to me as a kid and translate it into English in the hopes that I might learn the language.
The 300 Spartan's is pretty grim but the historical treatment is slightly better than in 300. Part of the problem is that the story tries to be all things to all people and the actual history won't match the legend in many peoples eyes.
It is generally forgotten that there was, in addition to Leonidas 300 body guards there were at the final battle, hundreds of helot auxiliaries and several hundred Thespian hoplites that stayed with the Spartan's but that the legend usually forgets. The helots certainly were not there voluntarily since they were mere slaves, unworthy of remembrance while the death of the Thespian contingent alongside their Spartan allies was always an inconvenient truth and incompatible with the common mythology about the battle. See Tom Holland's Persian Fire for an excellent account.
And in any case, there were no destroyers at Salamis to be torpedoed he wrote, in a futile attempt to get back on topic.
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 03:11 PM
To add to Frau K's post, and partially disagree with it, we only have Homer's word that the war lasted ten years, and we don't know for certain that it happened at all, which makes this a case of the movie varying from the book, not from history.
Oh, absolutely. I was referring to the story as it has been passed down since the time that it was committed to writing primarily in the Iliad/Odyssey, which most people would agree is the definitive literary version. The actual history involved is a matter for the archaelogists to sort out as best they can. In that respect, we do know that there was a major city in the "right" spot at the "right" time and that it was sacked/burnt/destroyed/suffered some catastrophe and was rebuilt many times over during its long history. IIRC though the jury is still out on which "Troy" is the likeliest candidate for the Homeric one, i.e., the one that could have been besieged and sacked by a Bronze Age army from the Greek mainland.
I highly recommend Michael Woods' documentary In Search Of The Trojan War. Excellent show, and very enlightening. It starts with Heinrich Schliemann and works backwards, discussing everything that's known.
Yep, I hadn't even read that far when I started to reply to the first part of your post and that doc was gonna be the next thing I mentioned.
Oddly enough my Grecophilia (is that a word?) started with Schliemann and grew from there. When I was around 6 or 7 years old I found a little book in the children's section of the local library called "Great Stories Of Archaeology" or something like that. Funny how those things stick with you - I can still see the cover in my mind, bright yellow clothbound with a picture of the famous King Tut sarcophagus staring right out at you. But it was the story of Schliemann's search for a real, historical Troy that sucked me in. From there I went to the card catalog and looked up "Troy" and "Trojan War" and I never looked back. :DL
Herr-Berbunch
10-07-11, 04:16 PM
@FK - thank you for not writing myriad of... :up:
That is actually a very polite change from the incident in the book. What happens in the book could never be put into a German-made movie.
What did happen in the book? I'm curious now...
Sailor Steve
10-07-11, 05:20 PM
@FK - thank you for not writing myriad of... :up:
A mistake I probably would have made, though I should know better.
What did happen in the book? I'm curious now...
Are you absolutely sure? I'm not going to put a spoiler that important up here, but will send you a PM. I suggest you should read the book, though, and not read my PM in case you change your mind.
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 06:16 PM
@FK - thank you for not writing myriad of... :up:
You'll never how close I came to it. Twice. :D
frau kaleun
10-07-11, 06:17 PM
Are you absolutely sure? I'm not going to put a spoiler that important up here, but will send you a PM. I suggest you should read the book, though, and not read my PM in case you change your mind.
PM me, then, cuz I can't remember. And I've read the book. :damn: :O:
i think this is a waste of resourses. as soon as you start attacking destroyers, surely the convoy breaks up and starts to zig-zag.
go in. find the biggest juicy ones. sink them and leave sharpish...no?
when I attack a convoy at night I use my torps on the merchants, and if my watch officer spots an escort I train my deck gun on them and try to sink them before the get within firing range for their guns(wich I have proven to be quite sucesful at.).
Sailor Steve
10-07-11, 08:56 PM
PM me, then, cuz I can't remember. And I've read the book. :damn: :O:
Done.
when I attack a convoy at night I use my torps on the merchants, and if my watch officer spots an escort I train my deck gun on them and try to sink them before the get within firing range for their guns(wich I have proven to be quite sucesful at.).
Be thankful the game is flawed. If it worked properly you'd be dead every time.
Done.
Be thankful the game is flawed. If it worked properly you'd be dead every time.
I can take on single destroyers with ease but get several of them together then thats a different story.
Sailor Steve
10-07-11, 09:49 PM
I can take on single destroyers with ease but get several of them together then thats a different story.
I used to dogfight destroyers back in the Silent Service days, but in the present the thrill is gone for me. I have to pretend I'm really there, and that involves doing things as historically as I can. Just getting old, I am. :sunny:
Sorry to put this here, but have you been getting my PM's Steve? My sent box is empty...
VONHARRIS
10-08-11, 01:38 AM
@FK
I see you know your way around Greek mythology.
If I have undrestood well , it all comes down to the limitations of putting the story on film and making it presentable to the public.
BUT , that story is part of my country's history (or mythology if you prefer) and I can't stand it seeing events being described wrongly.
Achilles never entered the Trojan horse nor he died inside the city of Troy and many others.
In "300" many mistakes were made. The Spartan Hoplite of the 5th century BC was heavily armored , the phalanx didn't work as shown etc.
The only correct thing of the 300 is that it shows the fighting spirit of the Spartan Army and the ultimate sacrifice of those 300 soldiers (in fact 1000 = 300 Spartans + 700 Thespians) for Greece herself!
As far as the "The 300 Spartans" I agree.
CherryHarbey
10-08-11, 01:42 AM
I used to dogfight destroyers back in the Silent Service days, but in the present the thrill is gone for me. I have to pretend I'm really there, and that involves doing things as historically as I can. Just getting old, I am. :sunny:
Me too! i loved silent service
firing torps down their throats as they came arrow straight towards you and taking advantage of when they circled (in perfect circles) to torp them on manual, wait til they got to 10 o'clock and fire. get rid on the escorts and then take advantage of the unlimited deck gun ammo.
my excuse is that I was only 14...... :)
when I attack a convoy at night I use my torps on the merchants, and if my watch officer spots an escort I train my deck gun on them and try to sink them before the get within firing range for their guns(wich I have proven to be quite sucesful at.).
...in reality the u boats were too slow submerged. in the early days of the war they could basically 'dissapear' underwater - like a mystery. detection was in its infancy but grew up very quickly in a few years. things had changed dramatically from 39-41 in technology.
(the allies learned fast allowing scientists to work directly with the military. where as in germany there was arrogance and mistrust between similar departments, this way of thinking took longer to catch on.)
in reality it would be frowned upon to engage destroyers: the risk of losing your whole boat and crew to one depth charge; madness.
as SS states, be grateful for the game flawes. and to engage with a deck gun - as i have foolishly done on my present patrol and got away with it - again is not good boat safety. as soon as you put the safety of your crew first the dimensions and psychology of the game changes - yes, it may sound heavy:D
...but this gives the game some of its longevity because it becomes more real and when you start reading the history it becomes allll to clear how awful it must have been, so the idea of challenging a destroyer with superior manouverability just becomes folly - and the tonnage gained minimal.
but this is all because i am immersed................i've finished now! :zzz:
Sailor Steve
10-08-11, 08:03 AM
Sorry to put this here, but have you been getting my PM's Steve? My sent box is empty...
Yes, I got them fine. I wonder what's wrong.
Sailor Steve
10-08-11, 08:06 AM
Me too! i loved silent service
firing torps down their throats as they came arrow straight towards you and taking advantage of when they circled (in perfect circles) to torp them on manual, wait til they got to 10 o'clock and fire. get rid on the escorts and then take advantage of the unlimited deck gun ammo.
my excuse is that I was only 14...... :)
Well, it helped that you could see where every ship was, even when at 300 feet, and could eyeball where they would be and just shoot, and hit nine times out of ten.
:rotfl2:
U-Falke
10-08-11, 09:24 AM
...in reality the u boats were too slow submerged. in the early days of the war they could basically 'dissapear' underwater - like a mystery. detection was in its infancy but grew up very quickly in a few years. things had changed dramatically from 39-41 in technology.
(the allies learned fast allowing scientists to work directly with the military. where as in germany there was arrogance and mistrust between similar departments, this way of thinking took longer to catch on.)
in reality it would be frowned upon to engage destroyers: the risk of losing your whole boat and crew to one depth charge; madness.
as SS states, be grateful for the game flawes. and to engage with a deck gun - as i have foolishly done on my present patrol and got away with it - again is not good boat safety. as soon as you put the safety of your crew first the dimensions and psychology of the game changes - yes, it may sound heavy:D
...but this gives the game some of its longevity because it becomes more real and when you start reading the history it becomes allll to clear how awful it must have been, so the idea of challenging a destroyer with superior manouverability just becomes folly - and the tonnage gained minimal.
but this is all because i am immersed................i've finished now! :zzz:
NIce topic guys
Its not dificult to sink a destroyer... but...
I am using a mod that makes the u-boat more fragile...
Took a mine hit his week trying to sneak into Dover and got
red damage in all compartments... end of career.
Now (also) with a IXB and a seasoned crew in 1940, I just dive to 240m and
wait until they leave. They are so deaf in this year...
Something I don't understand in Das Boot... didn't the sonarman hear the DD in that scene? I would be hitting the "follow nearest.." like an animal if I were that guy.:rock:
...in reality the u boats were too slow submerged. in the early days of the war they could basically 'dissapear' underwater - like a mystery. detection was in its infancy but grew up very quickly in a few years. things had changed dramatically from 39-41 in technology.
(the allies learned fast allowing scientists to work directly with the military. where as in germany there was arrogance and mistrust between similar departments, this way of thinking took longer to catch on.)
in reality it would be frowned upon to engage destroyers: the risk of losing your whole boat and crew to one depth charge; madness.
as SS states, be grateful for the game flawes. and to engage with a deck gun - as i have foolishly done on my present patrol and got away with it - again is not good boat safety. as soon as you put the safety of your crew first the dimensions and psychology of the game changes - yes, it may sound heavy:D
...but this gives the game some of its longevity because it becomes more real and when you start reading the history it becomes allll to clear how awful it must have been, so the idea of challenging a destroyer with superior manouverability just becomes folly - and the tonnage gained minimal.
but this is all because i am immersed................i've finished now! :zzz:
well I am not a realism junkie so I have a mod that makes my sub invunerable to damage(though subsystems cand compartments can still be damaged it's relitivly minimal).
U-Falke
10-08-11, 09:54 AM
well I am not a realism junkie so I have a mod that makes my sub invunerable to damage(though subsystems cand compartments can still be damaged it's relitivly minimal).
Nice, I should do like this one day... that's why I never complete a carreer :D:D:D
Nice, I should do like this one day... that's why I never complete a carreer :D:D:D
I could post a copy of my "godmode" file here mabey.
soopaman2
10-08-11, 10:26 AM
Nice, I should do like this one day... that's why I never complete a carreer :D:D:D
Heh, no more than 2 years for me. it seems once America jumps in they bring heat seeking depth charges with them:D
I suspect with both of us it is our tactics. We can afford to be sloppier and more daring when the blood shed is pixels and not breathing men with families.
We both try harder:rock:
frau kaleun
10-08-11, 10:37 AM
@FK
I see you know your way around Greek mythology.
If I have undrestood well , it all comes down to the limitations of putting the story on film and making it presentable to the public.
BUT , that story is part of my country's history (or mythology if you prefer) and I can't stand it seeing events being described wrongly.
Achilles never entered the Trojan horse nor he died inside the city of Troy and many others.
I agree that Achilles' death is one element of the story where they probably could have stuck with the Homeric version and still not strayed outside the limitations of trying to fit all the major necessary plot points into what time they had. OTOH, the way they handled it did provide what felt to me like a very satisfactory and necessary resolution to the romantic subplot of Achilles and Briseis.
In "300" many mistakes were made. The Spartan Hoplite of the 5th century BC was heavily armored , the phalanx didn't work as shown etc.
The only correct thing of the 300 is that it shows the fighting spirit of the Spartan Army and the ultimate sacrifice of those 300 soldiers (in fact 1000 = 300 Spartans + 700 Thespians) for Greece herself!
As far as the "The 300 Spartans" I agree.
One of the BIG things that was left out of "300" and IMO should be included in any proper telling of that tale, was the whole bit about the Delphic oracle being consulted and sending back the response that, to paraphrase, either Greece (or Sparta, I forget which) would be conquered or a Spartan king would die. If you're going to tell that story in a way that emphasizes Leonidas as the protagonist *and* focuses on the idea of the few sacrificing themselves for the greater good, HOW ON EARTH DO YOU LEAVE THAT OUT?
Assuming that Leonidas was a man who took the oracle seriously - and from what I've read, there's every indication that this would have been the case - here you have someone going into what already looks like a hopeless battle knowing that no matter what the outcome overall, his *own* death is a prerequisite to Sparta's and Greece's survival.
Instead they just have him consult the local oracle (and don't even get me started on how they portrayed the ephors, because: ugh) and he gets told not to go by a bunch of crooked... er... whatever they were suposed to be... who've already been paid off by Persia.
Most of my issues with "300" no doubt stem from the fact that they were essentially doing a movie version of the graphic novel. I've been told they stayed pretty faithful to that, so they weren't even looking at making a movie based on what we know or can surmise to be fact or all the long-accepted anecdotal parts of the story that have been handed down. Still, I think the "original" story is compelling enough to be told "as is" by a talented group of people and now it will probably never get done.
But at least they didn't totally forget about the part the Athenian fleet played in the enterprise, so I guess that's something.
Sailor Steve
10-08-11, 12:20 PM
You have to remember that 300 was based on a comic bo...graphic novel. They added some to the story, but Frank Miller was their only source.
One of the things I liked about Troy was the fact that during his fights Achilles occasionally stops, and every time he stops it's in a pose seen on an ancient Greek urn. that made my eyes pop out. The rest of it? Meh. They got enough right to make me buy a copy, and enough wrong to make me complain about it every time I watch it. Still, seeing the thousand ships onscreen was pretty cool.
I agree that Achilles' death is one element of the story where they probably could have stuck with the Homeric version and still not strayed outside the limitations of trying to fit all the major necessary plot points into what time they had. OTOH, the way they handled it did provide what felt to me like a very satisfactory and necessary resolution to the romantic subplot of Achilles and Briseis.
I like the idea that Achilles was shot with several arrows, but the one in his heel was the only one left. From my readings of The Iliad I felt like Achilles' anger over Agammemnon's taking of Briseis was less love than petulant anger over who was in control. My personal feeling is that Achilles never loved anyone but Achilles (and maybe Patroclus). Also my feeling from the Iliad is that Helen herself was a spoiled brat. In the original she doesn't say "I'd rather have a live coward than a dead hero", she berates him badly as a coward, and says she wishes she had Menelaus back, as he was twice the man Paris would ever be. His answer? "Come, sit with me. Let us make friends."
frau kaleun
10-08-11, 12:35 PM
I like the idea that Achilles was shot with several arrows, but the one in his heel was the only one left
Yep, and IIRC it was that one that finally made it impossible for him to keep moving and fighting and so sealed his fate. Granted, he might have been well and truly dead anyway given how many times he'd already been hit, but like you I appreciated the fact that they still used the idea of him having that as his one and only truly weak spot while still making it less literal than in the mythology.
Since they emphasized the human aspects of the story and pretty much left the supernatural aspects out of it (except for references by the characters to their gods and beliefs), that seemed like a well done compromise IMO. If they had made Achilles take one shot to the heel and croak it would've stretched the required suspension of disbelief way too far... but if they'd left the idea of his one legendary fatal weakness out altogether, it would've just seemed equally wrong.
VONHARRIS
10-08-11, 12:50 PM
FK and Sailor Steve,
I really would like to congatulate you both on your knowledge of the Greek mythology.
Achilles was "almost" immortal.
His mother had bathed him in the waters of a secret spring making him immortal. BUT she was holding him by his heel, so this was the only part of his body that was not got wet by the "holy" water. Apollo , the god of the Sun ,who was in favour of the Trojans revealed the secret to Paris and guided the only arrow that could kill Achilles.
FK , the Delphic oracle , Pythia , had predicted that either Sparta will fall or one Spartan king will die. Sparta was the only city-state that had two kings at any given time: One would march to war , the other would stay behind.
Sailor Steve
10-08-11, 01:00 PM
FK and Sailor Steve,
I really would like to congatulate you both on your knowledge of the Greek mythology.
I owe it all to Edith Hamilton. :sunny:
BaldyBoy25
10-08-11, 01:04 PM
Is this part in the book, as ive just started reading it again and dont remember reading that part!
frau kaleun
10-08-11, 01:16 PM
I owe it all to Edith Hamilton. :sunny:
I owe it "all" to a wide variety of sources, but I owe my initial interest to the card catalog of the Lane Public Library. :yeah:
We also have a wonderful archaeology dept at the Univ of Cincinnati, one of the best and most active in the US. They had ongoing digs at Troy under Carl Blegen in the 1930s and again from 1998-2002 in partnership with a group from Germany. The professor here who ran our part of it used to give open lectures at UC every year when he came back. They were awesome. I was on the mailing list for the classics dept then, and somehow it followed me through a couple different address changes... now that I think about it, they've either discontinued the lectures or I got booted from the list somehow because I haven't gotten anything in while. I should probably look into that, altho I don't think they have anything going at Troy any more.
OTOH I think they've moved on to Knossos and Pylos and that would probably be equally interesting.
Achilles was "almost" immortal.
His mother had bathed him in the waters of a secret spring making him immortal. BUT she was holding him by his heel, so this was the only part of his body that was not got wet by the "holy" water.
Wasn't she bathing him in the underword river Styx? :hmmm:
Sailor Steve
10-08-11, 03:24 PM
Is this part in the book, as ive just started reading it again and dont remember reading that part!
Which part? Which book. I'm so confused (and that's not your fault).
I owe it "all" to a wide variety of sources, but I owe my initial interest to the card catalog of the Lane Public Library. :yeah:.
I meant my interest, of course, not my whole knowledge, though Hamilton is the best place to start. She was a foremost translator and scholar, and her book won her an honorary citizenship to Athens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Hamilton
Wasn't she bathing him in the underword river Styx? :hmmm:
Ayup. Thetis was also indirectly responsible for the war itself, since she was a lesser goddess and when she married Peleus invitations were sent to all the gods except Eris (Discord, which should make the reason obviious). Eris showed up anyway with the golden apple with "For The Fairest" inscribed on it, which caused the fight between Hera, Athena and Aphrodite, which led to them asking Paris to judge, which led to Paris judging not on beauty but on bribes, and Aphrodite's bribe was Helen.
Oh, one other thing about Troy that made me grind my teeth, though it's a small thing. At one point in the movie Priam says "These walls have stood for a thousand years." I had to clench my teeth to keep from shouting "Except when you were a teenager and helped your father rebuild them after Heracles tore them down with his bare hands!"
frau kaleun
10-08-11, 04:34 PM
At one point in the movie Priam says "These walls have stood for a thousand years." I had to clench my teeth to keep from shouting "Except when you were a teenager and helped your father rebuild them after Heracles tore them down with his bare hands!"
:rotfl2:
Also: I feel your pain. :D
...its all greek to me...
GZ3.141593_Man
10-11-11, 06:40 AM
I started off playing Silent Hunter 2, on a Dell PC from 2002, and I found out that you can sink a destroyer by going "Rudder Amidships Ahead Flank" and charging straight at the bow of the destroyer. I would have to get within 600m:D, or the damn destroyer will out flank the torpedo!:damn:
I have since moved on to a Intel Mac that I run SH3 and SH4, and it does work, but you have to be almost suicidal. Ram that torpedo down the bow of that destroyer, double knuckle under and dive deep. If the torpedo misses, then you end up chasing each other around till you batteries run out:nope:.
Herr-Berbunch
10-11-11, 06:52 AM
...its all greek to me...
And according to a quote from Father Ted, the Greeks invented...? ;)
Sailor Steve
10-11-11, 08:28 AM
I started off playing Silent Hunter 2, on a Dell PC from 2002, and I found out that you can sink a destroyer by going "Rudder Amidships Ahead Flank" and charging straight at the bow of the destroyer. I would have to get within 600m:D, or the damn destroyer will out flank the torpedo!:damn:
I played a lot of SH2 and DC multiplay back in the day (we had a huge club here). The better tactic was to run away from the destroyer, with your periscope up. He would see it and charge up your stern, and he wouldn't evade when you shot him. Back it the Silent Service days you could see the position of every ship while submerged, so dogfighting with destroyers was easy and fun.
These days I've grown jaded and play as historically as I can, thinking that if I lose I'll die, and so will 40+ other men I'm responsible for.
I also don't use any of the 'knuckle' commands, as those weren't orders they really used. :sunny:
Fish In The Water
10-11-11, 08:31 AM
I have since moved on to a Intel Mac that I run SH3 and SH4, and it does work, but you have to be almost suicidal. Ram that torpedo down the bow of that destroyer, double knuckle under and dive deep. If the torpedo misses, then you end up chasing each other around till you batteries run out:nope:.
A little too risky for my blood, but welcome all the same! :sunny:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.