View Full Version : Sinking destroyer with deck gun
lionn77
10-28-11, 05:34 PM
GWX manual says it is a suicide but I have managed to do so quite easily at naval academy convoy attack. No more than 10 shells and DD is gone.. What the hell?:damn:
Fish In The Water
10-28-11, 06:30 PM
I think what they're trying to say (albeit a little too enthusiastically), is that it's not recommended. I've played this game long enough to know that just about anything is possible, just not always advisable. Never say never and have fun! :sunny:
Howard313
10-28-11, 07:33 PM
I believe taking on a destroyer on the surface in SH3 is 60% luck and 40% strategy. It's definitely not the best way to take them on. (personally I find a Lined up Bow shot with a good magnetic detonator at about 1000m-700m followed by a quick crash drive usually does the trick for me.)
Although it is possible and I guess in some situations preferable to engage them with the deck gun. I sometimes surface and fire a few shots at them just to get their attention so they'll charge me and I can dive to do my bow shot.
I would never do that in a campaign as I have too much time invested for the risk. In reality, the risk would be death, so Kaleuns never took that chance. The issue with risk in most games is that your life isn't really on the line, so it's easy to make, and get away with, stupid choices.
But when bored during single missions, I have engaged destroyers with the deck gun. I will surface, get a range with the UZO, and fire away. Your best bet is to hit the bridge as afterwords it seems that the accuracy of their main guns go down a lot.
Once I managed to engage two destroyers at the same time and destroyed them both in this manner. :woot:
PT boats: Now those are hard to kill....too small, too fast, too maneuverable. :rotfl2:
Missing Name
10-28-11, 08:48 PM
A few months ago I would have commended you for your efforts. Now I say this is a most foolish thing to do.
That being said... If you're caught on the surface for some reason, hitting the depth charge racks will fill the screens with pretty explosions and will render the enemy unable to attack once you submerge. Same goes for the hedgehog.
First off- it's your game. Play as you wish. The point is to enjoy the game!
For me, it is just too unrealistic to bother with. I don't allow myself to do my own deck gun shooting so that makes it even more risky.
Fish In The Water
10-28-11, 11:27 PM
In reality, the risk would be death, so Kaleuns never took that chance.
Exactly. It's one thing to try it in a game, but quite another if you're actually responsible for the lives of a living-breathing crew. Sink the enemy while getting your crew home safe is the fine line any good Captain has to tread. :yep:
Jimbuna
10-29-11, 06:58 AM
GWX manual says it is a suicide but I have managed to do so quite easily at naval academy convoy attack. No more than 10 shells and DD is gone.. What the hell?:damn:
If your settings are at realistic levels (including reloading times) in a campaign you will most likely be destroyed 9/10 times.
If your settings are at realistic levels (including reloading times) in a campaign you will most likely be destroyed 9/10 times.
To make that 1 time where you sink the destroyer; you've got to be a gunnery master, able to make long shots at 3000m+ consistently with the deck gun so that every one counts. Once the destroyer get to 2000m and closer its shots get much more accurate; if you have taken out their guns or done some other kind of major damage (like crippled their engines so they only move at a crawl, or rudders) so that they're sitting ducks once you submerge and launch an eel at em; you'll end up as one of the 9 of the 10.
Though you could just fight it out with them on the surface and survive with 20% hull remaining, no captain would have ever intentionally let his boat get that damaged when it could have been easily averted. We may only wait a few minutes until the next patrol is ready, in such a situation it could have been 6 or 9 months before they were able to set to sea again. Unless you end up sinking 100k+ worth of merchant (as in the scenario below) the flotille commander isn't going to look well upon your return, with such a reckless act possibly costing you're command.
Unless you run into a convoy whose only escort is a single destroy no captains would have taken the risk (in such a position they'd likely use an eel instead) so that when they surfaced they could use their remaining eels and deck gun ammo to cherry pick targets and sink ships with impunity. Personally that's only happened once, and the escort was a BB in the middle of the convoy. It took some careful maneuver to finally get a good solution to fire and sink it, leaving the entire field open for a turkey shoot.
Shucks, run gwx and see how much fun it is trying to gun down a merchie after circa mid-1940.....:har:
papa_smurf
10-29-11, 12:54 PM
Shucks, run gwx and see how much fun it is trying to gun down a merchie after circa mid-1940.....:har:
It was a shock to me, now just sink with eels.
Capt. Morgan
10-29-11, 02:04 PM
The convoy attack scenario takes place before the war starts, so those escorts are neutral - you can run circles around the them and they won't attack you (until you initiate an attack).
In war time you would find it very difficult to get that close to a R.N. destroyer on the surface. At longer range, a destroyers gunfire will be much more accurate than your subs, and Also, a destroyer can bring between four to six guns to bare whereas you only have one. Hence the reluctance you see here to attack destroyers on the surface in wartime.
Deck guns are for sinking small vessels not deemed worthy of one of your precious eels, finishing off crippled, unarmed mechants, and last ditch "Hail Mary" self-defense against attacking warships when you can not submerge or otherwise escape.
Because of their larger size, warships make a far more stable gun platform than does your u-boot. They also have more and usually larger guns than you do. All that translates into greater accuracy for them and more damage for you.
SH3 appears to have taken that into consideration for the AI, and you can get sunk pretty fast gunning it out with a DD or DE.
I've sunk Corvettes and armed trawlers with my deck gun, but never without taking serious damage to both boat and crew. I loose more watch officers that way.
Unnecessary gunfights with surface vessels, especially warships, is at best foolhardy and at worst suicidal - especially after 1940.
DIVE!
DIVE!
DIVE!
:rock:
Shucks, run gwx and see how much fun it is trying to gun down a merchie after circa mid-1940.....:har:
Most can't hit anything if you're beyond 2000m. Would much rather stay further away and go through 20 shells and sink the stupid armed merchant that doesn't know how to use their gun (for awhile longer) and save my eels for a more fitting target like a flat top or BB in a task force.
Most can't hit anything if you're beyond 2000m. Would much rather stay further away and go through 20 shells and sink the stupid armed merchant that doesn't know how to use their gun (for awhile longer) and save my eels for a more fitting target like a flat top or BB in a task force.
True, but it is still a shock the first time you realize that sucker is popping at you. NOT FAIR!!!!:rotfl2:
Hinrich Schwab
10-30-11, 05:17 PM
Attacking a destroyer on the surface is crazy. I have had the misfortune of being in this situation twice. I used similar tactics both times, but neither kill came from the deck gun. Both times I duped the destroyer into playing chicken. Both my boat and the destroyer running Ahead Flank guns blazing, I would get occasional hits, but the one gun focused on me usually overshot (the main reason for the rundown was to avoid a broadside attack from all the destroyer's guns). When I got around 800 meters, I would snapshot one or two torpedoes and crash dive, hoping to clear his keel before losing my conning tower. While I was successful both times, it is not an experience I would want to repeat. The best way to beat a destroyer is to light up whatever he is protecting and let him return home to tell his superiors that he didn't protect squat.
The trouble for the game, of course, is that destroyers just have HP. Run it down and you win. Subs also just have HP, and can take hits easily. In reality, the chance that you would do any serious damage to a destroyer charging you head on is miniscule. The chance that a single hit in the pressure hull would kill you is very high. He also has much more accurate, faster-loading and deadly guns. So what would actually happen is that even if the sub was still in one piece after a few shots, the average destroyer is 2x faster - so you'd get rammed and that'd be the end of it.
Sub vs. destroyer showdowns like that never historically happened. Showdowns between subs and corvettes and gunboats did, but even then subs have a pretty poor record in those (afaik they never did better than a draw in those situations, and that's against ships whom they matched in surface firepower and exceeded in tonnage).
Torplexed
10-30-11, 06:20 PM
Showdowns between subs and corvettes and gunboats did, but even then subs have a pretty poor record in those (afaik they never did better than a draw in those situations, and that's against ships whom they matched in surface firepower and exceeded in tonnage).
About the only situation in WW2 where I can recall where a submarine outfought escorts on the surface was the October 1944 battle between the USS Salmon and two circling Japanese Kaikoban escort vessels. Forced to surface, she managed to overwhelm one of them with gunfire at close range and make a break for it. Even that was a bit of a fluke as the Japanese thought there were other US subs submerged and angling for an attack and broke off the engagement when Salmon entered a rain squall.
http://todayshistorylesson.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/depth-charges-fail-to-cook-up-salmon-patties/
Hinrich Schwab
10-30-11, 06:28 PM
The trouble for the game, of course, is that destroyers just have HP. Run it down and you win. Subs also just have HP, and can take hits easily. In reality, the chance that you would do any serious damage to a destroyer charging you head on is miniscule. The chance that a single hit in the pressure hull would kill you is very high. He also has much more accurate, faster-loading and deadly guns. So what would actually happen is that even if the sub was still in one piece after a few shots, the average destroyer is 2x faster - so you'd get rammed and that'd be the end of it.
Sub vs. destroyer showdowns like that ever historically happened. Showdowns between subs and corvettes and gunboats did, but even then subs have a pretty poor record in those (afaik they never did better than a draw in those situations, and that's against ships whom they matched in surface firepower and exceeded in tonnage).
That is also the beauty of the game. As good as the AI can be, it is also unbelievably stupid. Any destroyer captain worth the hot seat would maneuver around a sub to avoid presenting any target to the fore or aft of the boat because of the torpedoes. The game, conversely, can be a bit single-minded.
Sailor Steve
10-30-11, 07:00 PM
That is also the beauty of the game.
Only if you just want to play a videogame with submarines. To those of us who play it for the simulation factor that is no beauty at all.
Hinrich Schwab
10-30-11, 08:38 PM
Only if you just want to play a videogame with submarines. To those of us who play it for the simulation factor that is no beauty at all.
I do believe I have just been insulted. :cry: I doubt you intended this, but your statement insinuates that I am inferior because I lucked out in a couple of encounters because I was willing to exploit the game engine.
I am happy to draw the line between game and simulation at a certain spot. I do not want to burn myself out. I am satisfied with my manner of play and the fact my interest in submarines allowed me to easily write my bachelor's thesis on the subject. My work as an academic keeps me grounded enough with reality to where I am happy with certain aspects of the game because it is a game.
If I seem to be taking this too harsh or reading too much into your statement, I apologize for that. However, I do not like being judged simply because I got away with stunts that only work in a game. I do not need to be told they do not work in real life because I have crammed enough books to drive that point home.
No biggie, we all get away with something that might not be historically accurate. As to above intent, I cannot speak for any one else but me.
Have fun and good luck on your bags. :salute:
Sailor Steve
10-30-11, 11:02 PM
I do believe I have just been insulted. :cry: I doubt you intended this, but your statement insinuates that I am inferior because I lucked out in a couple of encounters because I was willing to exploit the game engine.
Inferior? Not at all. I just disagree. On the other hand I've been playing subsims since Silent Service back in 1986, and I've kind of burned out on just sinking ships. My idea of a good time is to leave a well-modelled harbor in real time and enjoy the sights. The actual hunting and sinking of ships is almost an anticlimax to me.
I am happy to draw the line between game and simulation at a certain spot. I do not want to burn myself out. I am satisfied with my manner of play and the fact my interest in submarines allowed me to easily write my bachelor's thesis on the subject. My work as an academic keeps me grounded enough with reality to where I am happy with certain aspects of the game because it is a game.
My hat is off to you; you're a better man than I am. Everybody should play the way that suits them.
If I seem to be taking this too harsh or reading too much into your statement, I apologize for that. However, I do not like being judged simply because I got away with stunts that only work in a game. I do not need to be told they do not work in real life because I have crammed enough books to drive that point home.
No, I probably was being judgemental. I tend to do that sometimes, and I apologize. That said, I do love a good discussion on what is or isn't valid in a game, mainly because for me it's so much more, and so much less. You see, I'm also extremely anal about the way I actually play, to the point of being obsessive/compulsive about it. As I said, I love the idea that there are so many different ways to play the same game. Part of it is that I've been doing it too long, and I've seen too many threads started about sinking a million tons in a patrol and acting like doing that on the easiest settings is something special. You didn't do that, but I did react to the idea, not of exploiting the game's idiosyncrasies, but of praising the game for having them.
So, as usual, I find myself explaining myself and apologizing, mainly because you're right.
Hinrich Schwab
10-30-11, 11:46 PM
Inferior? Not at all. I just disagree. On the other hand I've been playing subsims since Silent Service back in 1986, and I've kind of burned out on just sinking ships. My idea of a good time is to leave a well-modelled harbor in real time and enjoy the sights. The actual hunting and sinking of ships is almost an anticlimax to me.
My hat is off to you; you're a better man than I am. Everybody should play the way that suits them.
No, I probably was being judgemental. I tend to do that sometimes, and I apologize. That said, I do love a good discussion on what is or isn't valid in a game, mainly because for me it's so much more, and so much less. You see, I'm also extremely anal about the way I actually play, to the point of being obsessive/compulsive about it. As I said, I love the idea that there are so many different ways to play the same game. Part of it is that I've been doing it too long, and I've seen too many threads started about sinking a million tons in a patrol and acting like doing that on the easiest settings is something special. You didn't do that, but I did react to the idea, not of exploiting the game's idiosyncrasies, but of praising the game for having them.
So, as usual, I find myself explaining myself and apologizing, mainly because you're right.
I didn't think you were intentionally insulting, but your apology is most certainly accepted. :) I do play with some degree of realism. I am around 75% in that respect as well as use SHIII Commander. The only real "cheat" I keep is the map auto-update. I also keep automatic targeting because I am not a 'one-man crew'. My examples, as I said, were flukes. I also understand about seeing the ludicrous tonnage counts. In my current campaign, I am a T3 away from tying Kretschmer's tonnage record. Yet I also know that the game has ships pop up in the same spot with some degree of regularity, which is hardly realistic. If I had to estimate what a realistic tonnage amount would be, I would cut my numbers by about 40%. Like I stated earlier, I take a somewhat lighter approach to the game because I spend way too much time worrying about actual history, now that I am working on my master's in the subject. I certainly respect your dedication for absolute realism. However, as you have stated, there is more than one way to enjoy the game with a reasonable amount of realism involved.
Sailor Steve
10-31-11, 12:08 AM
I have no degrees, but I have spent years reading up on Renaissance history, early American history, aviation and naval history, a special favorite being the late nineteenth and early twentieth century development of the modern warship. I have an extensive detailed collection of books on the subject, and spent the greater part of the last decade slowly working on my own World War 1 tabletop minieatures game. I might have more detailed information on armor layouts than anyone I'll ever meet.
I spent a year-and-a-half homeless, and used my time at the local library. Besides catching up on the early mystery masters (Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler) I also had fun with a huge amount of biographies (well, probably not more than 10), including seven books on Jefferson, including Dumas Malone's 6-volume, 3500-page epic. Not trying to brag (well, a little), I just like to talk about it. So I'm not suffering from education, just a serious lack of credentials.
Fish In The Water
10-31-11, 12:31 AM
There's a huge gulf between education and wisdom. Education is what you get in a classroom. Wisdom is what the truly wise garner from life. I'll take someone who views life as a constant learning experience ahead of someone with a few letters after their name any day of the week. :know:
Hinrich Schwab
10-31-11, 12:39 AM
There's a huge gulf between education and wisdom. Education is what you get in a classroom. Wisdom is what the truly wise garner from life. I'll take someone who views life as a constant learning experience ahead of someone with a few letters after their name any day of the week. :know:
Thank you for the insult. I had planned on making a bigger contribution once I had become more comfortable in what I know, but I see no reason to do that now.
Fish In The Water
10-31-11, 12:41 AM
Thank you for the insult. I had planned on making a bigger contribution once I had become more comfortable in what I know, but I see no reason to do that now.
Sorry you took it that way, as there was no insult intended. Please do contribute as I would certainly value your input. :sunny:
Hinrich Schwab
10-31-11, 12:47 AM
Sorry you took it that way, as there was no insult intended. Please do contribute as I would certainly value your input. :sunny:
That comment stung, man. I am like many people here. The only difference is I chose to go to college to make my military history hobby a full-blown career. One cannot do that without the sheepskin.
Fish In The Water
10-31-11, 01:04 AM
That comment stung, man. I am like many people here. The only difference is I chose to go to college to make my military history hobby a full-blown career. One cannot do that without the sheepskin.
In that case, apologies for the sting. Please don't take it personally as the comment was not directed at you. No doubt you take a certain amount of pride in your accomplishments and you're entitled to, as I'm sure you worked hard for it.
I never suggested that 'educated' people can't also be wise, merely that a piece of paper is not always a guarantee of wisdom. If that hurts, then I'm sorry you feel that way. In any event, kindly do us all a favor and continue to learn and grow even after the 'sheepskin' is in the rear view mirror. That way we all win. :sunny:
Hinrich Schwab
10-31-11, 02:06 AM
Water under the bridge. Forgiven and forgotten. :) I am probably a bit too sensitive as I have always perceived society at large as fairly anti-intellectual and the people I label as "ivory tower" scholars don't help matters. I do take pride in my work, but I know the value of practical experience. I guess that pride also makes me more sensitive than it should.
Time to move on, sink more merchantmen and simply "Be more aggressive".:salute:
Fish In The Water
10-31-11, 02:23 AM
Water under the bridge. Forgiven and forgotten. :) I am probably a bit too sensitive as I have always perceived society at large as fairly anti-intellectual and the people I label as "ivory tower" scholars don't help matters. I do take pride in my work, but I know the value of practical experience. I guess that pride also makes me more sensitive than it should.
Time to move on, sink more merchantmen and simply "Be more aggressive".:salute:
Very good, glad to have you with us and happy hunting! :arrgh!:
Dogfish40
10-31-11, 09:28 AM
Getting back to the destroyer subject, After trying many tactics in SH4 and SH3 and finding out the hard way that if I got lucky with sinking a destroyer, if I let that lucky shot influence my caution, I most certainly would get hit in the nose.
Destroyers, (the ones programmed into SH4 anyway) are not all the same. Like us, they have differing speeds, armament, and sometimes skill. If I got lucky and ambushed one or two, I have to make sure that as a Captain, the safety of my ship comes first. Even in the game, I've put a lot of "Life" hours into making the Boat what she is. Choosing the best Crew, ship emblem, Armament ect...only to have a momentary lapse of Caution and get the boat all smashed up. Getting sunk is bad enough, but I get angry when my deck gun gets blown off or (God forbid) I lose a crewman. Even though it's a game, if I lose a AI crewman it's usually a favorite, one who has many talents. That's half of the fun, knowing when to be the Captain and save the fish for the blockade, or a bigger warship.
I've played many CP Games but have never hung on to a Sim for so long, and I'm just getting started...
Good Hunting fellow Kaleuns! :salute:
D40
soopaman2
10-31-11, 11:24 AM
In 75% of cases with GWX, the destroyer will mess you up good.
I would say you got the jump on him, and your initial shots knocked out its guns (just proposing, of course I don't know)
Luck is a huge factor as well as skill, I would say you were blessed by both, sir.
Just don't think that is going to work every time. :)
Gwx is cool like that. Too many times I got cocky and got sunk.:D
Sailor Steve
10-31-11, 02:00 PM
Thank you for the insult. I had planned on making a bigger contribution once I had become more comfortable in what I know, but I see no reason to do that now.
I think you're being too sensitive this time. Fish is known for his honesty and forthrightness, as well as his friendliness. He wasn't trying to offend you, he was defending me, mostly against myself.
Take your time, post at your own rate, contribute what you want, but most of all have a good time. We're actually much better than we come across sometimes.
[edit] Once again I started earlier and wrote before I saw your post on this page. Apologies.
Sailor Steve
10-31-11, 02:03 PM
I never suggested that 'educated' people can't also be wise, merely that a piece of paper is not always a guarantee of wisdom.
Even you haven't been around long enough to have seen it, but some years ago we actually had a guy in General Topics who tried to end an argument by saying "I'm smarter than you, and better educated than you, so don't you dare challenge me!" And this was to someone who actually has degrees (and is a nice guy, by the way).
Now there was a guy with an education (assuming he was telling the truth) but no brains at all.
Fish In The Water
10-31-11, 06:56 PM
I think you're being too sensitive this time. Fish is known for his honesty and forthrightness, as well as his friendliness. He wasn't trying to offend you, he was defending me, mostly against myself.
Aw shucks... :oops:
Thanks Steve the check's in the mail. :D
But seriously, that was very perceptive of you in discerning my original motive. I'm just glad that everything is ironed out. :yep:
Fish In The Water
10-31-11, 07:11 PM
...some years ago we actually had a guy in General Topics who tried to end an argument by saying "I'm smarter than you, and better educated than you, so don't you dare challenge me!"
:rotfl2:
Not much of a clinching argument. Seems to boil down to I know because I know and I know more than you. :D
Can't recall ever having used that one to get out of a jam, as in all honesty it seems more than a tad desperate. :yep:
Missing Name
10-31-11, 07:26 PM
Can't recall ever having used that one to get out of a jam, as in all honesty it seems more than a tad desperate. :yep:
But desperation is the mother of recklessness!
Hinrich Schwab
10-31-11, 07:33 PM
[edit] Once again I started earlier and wrote before I saw your post on this page. Apologies.
It's cool. I am already past what has happened. No big deal. :DL
troopie
11-06-11, 08:17 AM
Back onto destroying destroyers; It may not be smart or realistic but it sure is a blast when you have a win!
I've been playing this game for years and now only play on %100. When things are getting a bit mundane, I find there's nothing much else (in the game) that can compare to the thrill of taking a out a dd (if your'e luky) or corvette with your guns.
Later war with a good crew I'll even leave 'em to look after the big gun an I'll man the heavy flak;).
Just a bit of fun to take a big risk now and then to keep your interest. Like, testing the actual crush depth of your boat just to watch your helmsmens reactions:DL.
Sailor Steve
11-06-11, 11:15 AM
Back onto destroying destroyers; It may not be smart or realistic but it sure is a blast when you have a win!
And that is an argument that cannot be countered. I'm a realism nut myself (within my own limitations of course), but as you say sometimes you just have to cut loose.
Fish In The Water
11-07-11, 01:34 AM
And that is an argument that cannot be countered. I'm a realism nut myself (within my own limitations of course), but as you say sometimes you just have to cut loose.
Well said. :salute:
Sailor Steve
11-07-11, 10:08 AM
Well said. :salute:
I have a friend who is a gun collector, and loves to take his friends shooting. One day at the range he got tired of being accurate, reloaded his Bursa and dumped the whole magazine into the target in a couple of seconds. When the guy next to him gave him a dirty look he shrugged and said "Sometimes you just gotta." Suddenly all up and down the range we heard pretty much everybody doing the same thing. So yeah, sometimes you just gotta.
I encountered a lone destroyer at about 5 Km, and I was not yet spotted. instead of periscoping, I hopped on the deck gun, fired a few rounds, then went flank to periscope depth, let him start running in a strait line at me, fired a magnetic. BOOM!
Fish In The Water
11-07-11, 11:33 AM
I have a friend who is a gun collector, and loves to take his friends shooting. One day at the range he got tired of being accurate, reloaded his Bursa and dumped the whole magazine into the target in a couple of seconds. When the guy next to him gave him a dirty look he shrugged and said "Sometimes you just gotta." Suddenly all up and down the range we heard pretty much everybody doing the same thing. So yeah, sometimes you just gotta.
Interesting how sometimes it takes just one person to break the ice and then everybody realizes, ya that's just what we needed. It's true though, people who work hard at honing their skills still need to blow off a little steam now and then.
It might be apples and oranges but I feel the same way about SH3. I take my modding pretty seriously, but if I've been hard at it for two or three weeks then I'll take the game out for a spin just for fun. On the other hand, if my modding has been light, then I tend to take a more serious approach to my patrol.
For me, it's all about balance, enjoying the challenge and having fun. But not necessarily in that order. :D :O:
Sailor Steve
11-07-11, 12:06 PM
Interesting how sometimes it takes just one person to break the ice and then everybody realizes, ya that's just what we needed. It's true though, people who work hard at honing their skills still need to blow off a little steam now and then.
It might be apples and oranges but I feel the same way about SH3. I take my modding pretty seriously, but if I've been hard at it for two or three weeks then I'll take the game out for a spin just for fun. On the other hand, if my modding has been light, then I tend to take a more serious approach to my patrol.
For me, it's all about balance, enjoying the challenge and having fun. But not necessarily in that order. :D :O:
:yep:
As I say, I'm a stickler for my version of realism, and expect low or even no tonnage most patrols. Once in a while I'll load up the Happy Times single mission, turn off all the realism options, turn on auto reloads and just trash that convoy, ignoring my own rules about low speeds only for periscopes and external views during combat etc.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.