Should I get SH4?

[Howard313]

Yeah guys, it's gonna be one of "Those" threads, just bare with me here, I'll go through this as fast as possible.

So, I've owned Silent Hunter 3 for a long time now, and while the experience has been golden so far, I'm starting to wonder what else this series has to offer. Plus I've noticed that despite now having played three WWII subsims, none of them let me play as the allies thus far (Something SH4 would easily remedy.)

My main concern is if it will run good on my PC, now I did a check on the canyourunit website and it said I passed the recommended requirements for it but here's the thing.....I experience some slowdown on Silent Hunter 3. Now for the most part the game runs smooth and fine on it's highest setting, but when I'm at port I notice that the framerate drops in the 20's and sometimes when i sink a ship in a large convoy I notice a drop as well. Advice?

Christmas is right around the corner, so now is the perfect time for me to consider expanding my subsim collection. My eyes are set on SH4, but I'd prefer to know for sure the thing will run before I get it, too many a-time i've purchased something thinking it would be fine only to find out that I don't have enough PC Power Juice to run it.

My Specs:

Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2220 @ 2.40GHz
Video Card - NVIDIA GeForce 7050 / NVIDIA nForce 610i
RAM Memory - 4.00GB
Operating System - Windows Vista Home Premium Service Pack 2
64-bit Operating System
Memory: 45.5GB free out of 298GB Total

Final Note: I would be purchasing the Steam version if that means anything to you guys.

I thank you for your help in advance. :salute:

[0rpheus]

Can't offer any real advice on your system specs, but the Gold Edition, which you'll need to update to version 1.5 contains both the Uboat Missions (which contain the 1.5 update) and the main game, and will be a lot cheaper on disc. I bought SH4 from Steam and ended up having to buy Uboat Missions that way as well, so I spent around £30 in total - on disc you can probably get it for half that!

[Ducimus]

Ive run and modded SH4 with the following system specs:

Intell Core 2 Duo E4500 @ 2.20 GHz
2GB RAM
Win XP Home SP3
Nvidia 9800 GT 1 GB RAM


With no problems what so ever.

[Sailor Steve]

SH4 is actually easier on the system than SH3 is. It loads faster, runs smoother and crashes less often. This is because it doesn't load the whole war, just the part you're in. It runs fine on my system, and your specs are a bit better than my old rig.

As for the Allies, there was SH1, but that's old. Compared to SH3, SH4 has better graphics, a much better crew management system, some old bugs and some new ones, but the supermods all fix those. And if you get the Gold version with U-boats, you can also run Operation Monsun, which is a killer mod in its own right. What you will lose is some of the graphics mods that have never been ported over (ports, bridges, blimps). I still long for those, but I think you'll find SH4 has everything you really need for both sides of the world.

Personally I would get the Gold edition on disc, but that's just me. I think you'll be fine either way.

[Renesco]

I was in the same boat (excuse the pun) as you OP, and my experience has been a mixed bag, silent hunter 3 is definitely a better game, more subs and more variety in the subs, better German subs and I might be alone in preferring the crew management in sh3 to the one in sh4, I've come across a lot of bugs in sh4 to the point of it being nearly unplayable until I got the U-Boat missions add-on which fixed quite a few but some serious bugs remain, I've spent as much time editing .cfg files and .upc files as playing the game itself but if you're a sh3 veteran you'll probably have gone through that already with sh3.

Overall the crew management needs less micromanagement, the graphics are very nice (but the animation is poorer in my opinion). Keep a lot of save games around because sometimes they get bugged and you'll need to reload several save games back to find an uncorrupted save, the voice acting is poorer and buggier, the subs you'll be using are not as good as German ones with much shallower depth and they're all pretty much the same except a few minor differences, on the plus side they carry more fire-power on average, 6 forward 4 aft torpedoes on most subs. The Japanese ships take more torpedoes to sink from my experience too.

If you can get over the bugs and put in the time to edit the .cfg files to get the game working the way you want it's fun, but it doesn't hold a candle to sh3.

[Ducimus]

SH4 has it's share of bugs, but it isn't THAT buggy. Now SH5... that's another story.

[Howard313]

Well, you guys have talked me into it. In fact I'm considering to just say "screw Christmas" and buy it tonight.

I would buy it on disc (Lord knows it'd be faster than steam's ungodly download times, and cheaper.)

But my cd-drive stopped working years ago, can't even get the darn thing to open, acts like it's jammed, piece of junk. :stare:

So Alas I'm forced to buy the $30 steam version (that's counting the U-boat missions add-on)

As for bugs Silent Hunter 3 has had quite a few on me so I know what's in store, like that lovely bug where the game crashes 70% of the time when you try to use one of the Auto-arrange crew buttons. Or maybe how the lighthouses in it have the ability to generate lights so strong that they can penetrate and shine right through your crew-members on deck. Don't even get me started on the time I saw a disembodied floating head manning the flak gun (I still have nightmares.:o)

Not hating on them, I'm just saying I'm used to Ubisoft's ability to seemingly miss out on what should be obvious and easily fixed bugs. And for the most part these glitches are not game breaking in any way, in fact they can be kind of humorous at times. (Except that bloody auto-manage crew button, that thing caused me lots of frustration back before I learned not to use it.)

If the bugs in SH4 are anything like the ones you can find in SH3, I'm sure I can handle it. (Seriously, I doubt SH4 has anything that tops disembodied floating heads running around on deck, prove me wrong.)

EDIT: Just bought it and the U-boat Mission expansion pack, can't wait to see how it goes when the download finishes 3 days from now. I'll keep you all updated.

[Ducimus]

Personally id start out using a mod. Playing the vanilla game isn't quite as exciting after playing a modded version of SH3 for a few years, and I haven't heard of anybody who plays vanilla SH3.

edit:
here's a list of known issues with SH4 that i wrote down in mod documentation awhile ago. Some of these were resolved by mod. Other issues and minor bugs not listed were resolved by mod.


1.Incorrect dates listed in the patrol log in the in port office. Often, it will cite all the ships in a single patrol having been sunk on the same day.

2.Transparent crewman on the bridge. The work around for this is to not enable the ***8220;environmental effects***8221; option in the graphics menu.

3.Deck gun crew bug. This occurs when the player moves their deck guns location. This has been worked around by limiting the players options to do so.

4.Buoyancy issues with deep diving. When the player meets or exceeds 600 feet, depth keeping is next to impossible. This primary effects the Balao, Tench, and U-boats.

5.Crew does not change to wet weather gear in heavy seas. They do so, only if it rains.

6.CO2 not being vented while surfaced. It is my belief this bug is caused by alt tabbing SH4 while on patrol.

7.Deck and AA gun crewman being killed while submerged. This is due to a design flaw of the game. Place your crewman in ***8220;hogan's alley***8221; (after battery crew berthing) when not in use.

[Howard313]

I haven't heard of anybody who plays vanilla SH3.


Uhhh *Raises hand awkwardly* Guilty? :D

Honestly I did run a couple of mods back in the day, I don't know if you've heard of it or not, but I ran one called GWX for a few months. But recently I slapped a fresh unmodded copy back on to my computer in order to play online with a friend.....with the exception of an edited .cfg file in order to have a higher max time compression.

I'll surf around for mods after I get a good feel of the game's quirks and feel and see if anything catches my fancy :arrgh!:

[WernherVonTrapp]

I've never played any of the sims prior to SHIV so I have no baseline to compare it to. I notice that you have an integrated graphics system instead of a dedicated graphics card. This may be an area of concern, but not necessarily. Your CPU and RAM certainly should be able to handle the load. The only way to know for sure is to load up SHIV and run it for a while. If others have run SHIV on similar systems, you (theoretically) should have no problems. Everyone's rig is different. If you should run into any problems, you'll certainly find helpful hands here. If it is at all economically feasible, you may want to consider getting a dedicated graphics card, but that's for later, if you have problems getting SHIV to run.
Good luck mate.:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

the subs you'll be using are not as good as German ones
American subs were capable of winning. German subs were not. Which were the better subs? Just playing the games SH3 and SH4 leaves no doubt that the American subs were superior war machines by a large margin over the WWI designs of German U-Boats used in WWII. And the games give only an incomplete picture of how bad the comparison really was.

[Flaxpants]

I recently took the plunge and bought SH4 after playing SH3 for some time- I now play both, depends on my mood.

I would say that if you like sumarine simulations in general, then you can't put a foot wrong with SH4, and as has been mentioned, the performance is just as good, if not better.

Your system specs will run the game just fine, they are slightly better than mine. I also got some lag in Sh3 ports and around convoys (anywhere where there's a lot of other objects), SH4 is no worse.

Fast loading times are a bonus, as is the crew management and obviously the graphics.

I am currently using the Real Fleet Boat Mod with the RSRD Campaign, plus a few additonal bits and pieces. I plan to play the TMO mod and Operation Monsun mod (german subs again!) in the future.

Go for it.:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

For a long time SH3 and SH4 will be the best submarine simulators on the planet. There is a lot in the U-Boat war that is only in SH3 and all of the Pacific war that is only in SH4, so it makes sense to own them both.

SH4 is much more realistic than SH3 just by coincidence, because so much of the German submarine effort was oriented toward wolfpacks concentrating on a single convoy. Since wolfpacks don't exist in either sim, that is a near fatal blow to the authenticity of SH3, while since American boats acted singly, even when in "wolfpacks," SH4 is pretty authentic as far as tactics and strategy go.

There are a lot of differences between the U-Boats and fleet boats. Don't make the mistake of trying to make a fleet boat act like a U-Boat. They're different and need to be treated as you would two different languages. Thinking in U-Boat while speaking fleet boat will make you very dissatisfied, just as the reverse is true. If you go to the Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks thread and look at the Dick O'Kane method you'll find an analog of the Fast-90 U-Boat attack. This will help you discover how the American TDC works, while keeping you one pretty familiar ground as far as tactics go.

Even more than the U-Boats, the American subs are surface raiders that have the ability to submerge when absolutely necessary for the smallest possible amount of time to get the job done. With their 20 knot surface speed and very long range, they are optimized for staying on the surface and searching the maximum number of square miles per day. That is how you discover more targets and sink more tonnage. Lurking below the surface waiting for targets is wasting the superior abilities of the American boat.

While you're on the surface, if you are equipped with radar, run the darned thing! All the time! Here's the situation. With your radar you know the position, course and speed of everything that floats or flies to way beyond visual range. IF the enemy has radar detection he knows one thing: you are out there somewhere. Advantage you!

Use its strengths and ignore its weaknesses. A submarine at 1000' isn't fighting anyway. It's hiding. A hiding submarine is harmless. Don't be harmless!:D

[Ducimus]

. A submarine at 1000' isn't fighting anyway. It's hiding. A hiding submarine is harmless. Don't be harmless!:D


Probably why historians say that the Battle of the Atlantic was pretty much won by the Allies in late 1943. A submerged WW2 submarine (in pacific or atlantic) , is little more then a floating minefield, and only dangerous when something happens to blunder accross it's path.

[Howard313]

Well I got it up and running and I have to say, I see potential. Not that it doesn't have it's issues but there are some things about this one I can really get into.

For one I love how instead of them just giving you a designated sector and telling you to blow things up that you actually can have specific objectives, snapping photos, delivering secret agents, I like the variety.

I'm also enjoying the Allied submarines and their differences from my usual German U-boats, it's a very unique experience being able to get a vague idea on both sides of the war. They have a whole skillset to their own with their own strengths and weaknesses and I'm practically a rookie again (Which is something I wasn't expecting, I was assuming it would be the same old stuff in a shiny new package.)

Of course it's not all great, performance has taken a bit of a hit since SH3, it runs sure...... but at about 15-20fps. Ugh, disappointing but not exactly unexpected. Time to get the monkey wrench and see what kind of boosters I can put on this thing.

The graphics seem kinda choppy, even more-so than SH3's relatively low Screen resolution, but I'm willing to believe my video card is to blame for this and not the game itself, if some of the pictures I've seen on this site hold any merit, this game can be very beautiful to look at when you have the proper stuff to run it.

My final complaint is the controls, yeah I liked SH3's better, probably because I've had time to get used to them, I'm sure they'll grow on me, but as for right now....meh.

All-in-all? :yeah:


Oh and any tips to boost my FPS would be great guys, I'm working with an old dinosaur of a PC here. :shifty:

[Ducimus]

The graphics seem kinda choppy, even more-so than SH3's relatively low Screen resolution, but I'm willing to believe my video card is to blame for this and not the game itself, if some of the pictures I've seen on this site hold any merit, this game can be very beautiful to look at when you have the proper stuff to run it.

It might be hardware, driver, or something in vanilla that was fixed awhile ago. The game doesn't seem all that choppy to me and does look pretty sweet with the right stuff done to it.

I like this movie for a few reasons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2VpKJFVdmA

- First part of the movie is the mod earlier in development, with the second part of the movie showing the mod later in development after more environmental work was done to it. So in an odd way it kind of showcases some of what the game can do graphically, and how its improved over time.

- user created dramatic submarine youtube movies are almost always cool to watch, and the movie maker used TMO which put a silly grin on my fugly mug.



My final complaint is the controls, yeah I liked SH3's better, probably because I've had time to get used to them, I'm sure they'll grow on me, but as for right now....meh.

Yeah I can relate. The VERY first thing i did when SH4 was launched was to reconfigure the controls to SH3's. Which sort of bleed over into the TMO supermod, so in an odd sense, every user of TMO is using a SH3-esque keyboard layout. :har:



Oh and any tips to boost my FPS would be great guys, I'm working with an old dinosaur of a PC here. :shifty:

Try enabeling only volumentric fog and not enabeling environmental effects. What your really doing is preventing the ghostlike transparent crew from appearing when its foggy, while retaining the transparent water. What you lose is the cloud shadowing effect on the water.

[Howard313]

So I just updated my video card drivers lets see if that makes it run or look any better.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/573/wtfxh.jpg

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6762/wtf2ux.jpg


:o Uhh, I think it was better BEFORE I updated my drivers. :har:

I just hope that didn't do the same thing to my other games.

[shrapnle90]

Nope.avi

[shrapnle90]

Unless you are trying to create a new neon stealth Submarine

[Rockin Robbins]

The VERY first thing i did when SH4 was launched was to reconfigure the controls to SH3's. Which sort of bleed over into the TMO supermod, so in an odd sense, every user of TMO is using a SH3-esque keyboard layout. :har:

So true, to the point of using the SH3 keyboard card as your TMO key chart in the Documentation directory of TMO. Check this over and tell me if it needs any changes. Then you can use it if you wish.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Silent%20Hunter%204/TMO_Keyboard_layout.jpg


For accelerating operation of SH4 I recommend IoBit's Gamebooster 3.1 (http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html). This program shuts down unnecessary processes. It can actually look them all up, tell you if they're needed, let you choose which ones to shut down and remember that. When you launch a game from their Game Box (part of the program) it automatically shuts down the processes and starts your game. When you quit, Game Booster 3 automatically restarts all the processes! AND you can tweak machine settings during the boost, like increasing priority of foreground processes. I picked 40% (from 28%) and it made a huge difference. When you quit the game everything goes back to the condition of before you ran the game.

In the bad old days and until several weeks ago I used EndItAll. That was a model T. I'm driving a Ferrari now!:D

[Howard313]

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/2870/whoou.jpg

Performance has greatly been improved! (A little over 20fps on medium quality) And we are looking pretty good too. (Well at least the submarine is fully visible and not neon-green this time.)

One of the things that always bothered me about SH3 was the water surface, it's like a big blanket that you can't see through, as you can tell I'm liking this one just for it's water effects. :cool:

[Flaxpants]

For accelerating operation of SH4 I recommend IoBit's Gamebooster 3.1 (http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html). This program shuts down unnecessary processes. It can actually look them all up, tell you if they're needed, let you choose which ones to shut down and remember that. When you launch a game from their Game Box (part of the program) it automatically shuts down the processes and starts your game. When you quit, Game Booster 3 automatically restarts all the processes! AND you can tweak machine settings during the boost, like increasing priority of foreground processes. I picked 40% (from 28%) and it made a huge difference. When you quit the game everything goes back to the condition of before you ran the game.

In the bad old days and until several weeks ago I used EndItAll. That was a model T. I'm driving a Ferrari now!:D

I'm another fan of that Game Booster, I notice you've plugged it a couple of times now RR- do you work for Iobit? Does wonders for me too_ If you combine it with their advanced system care 'turbo mode' which shuts off even more stuff, then you can get a great performance increase. Been using it for years.

[Rockin Robbins]

Nope, no connection. By the way, they just upgraded to 3.1 and if you haven't it's twice as good as I described. It now has more customization than EndItAll, plus analytic ability and it will defrag your game directory. Defragging gave me a big boost in Unreal Tournament 3 yesterday. SH4 is similarly resource hogging, so it's worth a try.

Hey, I discover stuff, and if it works, I talk about it.:D

[Flaxpants]

Just downloaded it right now! :up:

[joea]

Gamebooster? Oh I'm going to download that little proggie as well.

[Renesco]

American subs were capable of winning. German subs were not. Which were the better subs? Just playing the games SH3 and SH4 leaves no doubt that the American subs were superior war machines by a large margin over the WWI designs of German U-Boats used in WWII. And the games give only an incomplete picture of how bad the comparison really was.

German subs had less striking power as the yank ones have mostly 6 forward 4 aft and superior radar, but German subs had a much deeper diving depth and snorkels, and were fighting an uphill battle versus airpower and a large enemy surface navy yet still nearly strangled England, also the XXI was the pioneer of most cold war subs. The Americans had it easy by comparison, with air power and surface naval power on their side.

Just because the soviet union won the war for you does not mean your subs were better than the German ones, correlation is not causation in this instance.

[Montray]

You should absolutely get it,
I was hesitant at first too, but If you liked III, You'll Love IV, I'd avoid V for a while, but that's just personal preference.

[Gerald]

:sunny:

[kylania]

You should absolutely get it,
I was hesitant at first too, but If you liked III, You'll Love IV, I'd avoid V for a while, but that's just personal preference.

Silent Hunter 5 is $6 from Amazon, so no reason not to get it. With the mods you can download from this website (for the German side at least) I'd say it's a far superior game compared to SH4, in my personal preference that is. :)

[Sailor Steve]

German subs had a much deeper diving depth and snorkels,
The Type VII had a deeper diving depth, but not "much" deeper. The Type IX was about equal. US boat builders were more conservative in their ratings, but more than one US sub survived a very deep dive.

The Americans had it easy by comparison, with air power and surface naval power on their side.
Tell that to all the US sub sailors who died.

Just because the soviet union won the war for you does not mean your subs were better than the German ones, correlation is not causation in this instance.
First, the Soviet Union didn't "win the war for us". Their contribution was as great as any, their loss greater. That said, if the other Allies hadn't been tying up the Germans on the other fronts, and sending the Russians supplies, they likely wouldn't have faired so well either.

Second, no one mentioned any causation, or even correlation, so why are you implying they did? While I disagree with RR's summation that US boats were greatly superior, he said they won "their" war, not "the" war.

Third, talking down to people doesn't mean you're right.

[Arlo]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=11&pictureid=28

[Ducimus]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=132&pictureid=802
Fanboys..... ughh....

[Rockin Robbins]

German subs had less striking power as the yank ones have mostly 6 forward 4 aft and superior radar, but German subs had a much deeper diving depth and snorkels, and were fighting an uphill battle versus airpower and a large enemy surface navy yet still nearly strangled England, also the XXI was the pioneer of most cold war subs. The Americans had it easy by comparison, with air power and surface naval power on their side.

Just because the soviet union won the war for you does not mean your subs were better than the German ones, correlation is not causation in this instance.

Well, let's dismantle this fantasy one step at a time, shall we? First up, your first claim: that the German subs had much deeper diving depth and snorkels.

What is the function of a submarine? Is it to remain submerged, hiding all the time? Is it to lower its search radius and speed to the point that it is incapable of fighting at all? Then you love U-Boats! Hiding at periscope depth, running two knots, they could search a tiny portion of the search range of a nine-knot cruising American submarine with search radar blazing a search zone 20 miles across! Let's compare, shall we?

U-Boat, 2 knots, horizon 4 miles away (actually much less from periscope view 2 or 3 feet off the water surface). So, he's searching an 8 mile wide path 2x24 or 48 miles long during the day. That's 8x48 or 384 square miles a day.

American submarine, radar blazing, a 20 mile wide path 9x24 or 216 mile long path, for a total ocean surface searched of 4,320 square miles per day. Actually the comparison is much worse, as the U-Boat was likely traveling at more like 1 knot and the American boat could patrol much faster if it needed to.

Can you see that by that comparison alone, the U-Boat is entirely dependent on its communication with Admiral Doenitz? A hiding U-Boat is not killing anything. But that is what they were built for. Unfortunately for them, a submerged submarine on a snorkel is blind. Airplanes can see it but it has no way to detect the airplanes and a snorkel is a great radar reflector. Huge advantage airplanes. The boat hides its head in the sand, pretending its adversary does not exist. This is a non-productive war strategy.

Claim #2, deeper diving. Deeper diving is a useful tactical weapon for what? A submarine below periscope depth is not an offensive weapon, it is a large, slow moving target. Deploying targets is not a legitimate function of war. If you are malingering around at 1000' reveling in your superiority over an American submarine, you are just where the enemy wants you, defenseless, toothless and in fear for your life. As a submarine your job is to attack and make your enemies fear for THEIR lives. Merely diving deeper than periscope depth is surrender of your ability to function. Every second you are below periscope depth a proper commander's urgent and constant question is "why cannot I get back to periscope depth or the surface NOW and fulfill the only reason I am out here!" You see, survival is only a secondary goal, made necessary because your first goal, being dangerous, is only possible if you are alive. Dead people are not dangerous at any time.

This does not mean that the proper sub commander never dives below periscope depth. There are reasons not modeled in the game that he may wish to do so for a high speed submerged run during an attack. There are times where survival dictates that the boat dive below periscope depth for the shortest possible amount of time before regaining the initiative. The instant you surrender your initiative, your chances of survival plummet! In my submarine, I almost NEVER dive to 400'. Most of my fighting is at 200' or above. I am on the surface every possible second.

Claim #3: the Type XXI was the pioneer of post WWII subs. Yes I know you had another claim there, but I choose to kill it last, because it is the most ridiculous. What was the Type XXI? It was a submarine optimized for best performance while submerged, giving up surface handling and performance in the bargain, just like the World War I American S-Boats.

Yes, it was larger than the S-Boats so had better performance overall, but there was in reality nothing at all revolutionary about the Type XXI except for the snorkel, which wasn't revolutionary because it was an idea copied from the Dutch inventors. Put together, the Type XXI was a buggy, untested boat that could hide twice as fast as any submarine on earth. That merely meant that Admiral Gallery, aboard his jeep aircraft carrier needed a larger compass to draw a larger circle to search in order to kill the large, slightly faster moving target.

The characteristics that established the post World War II submarine as uniquely capable was nuclear power and computer power. For the first time a submarine became a lethal offensive weapon while submerged, able to find, identify and kill a target without ever having sighted it or using active sonar. The Type XXI? Not invited to the party.

It was no accident that the United States abandoned the underwater optimized S-Boat design and adopted the surface optimized fleet boats. They very intelligently analyzed what the purpose of a submarine is and defined it as a surface raider which could submerge for the shortest possible length of time when it absolutely had to. Surface performance was a hundred times more important than submerged performance for a diesel-electric submarine, a fact that the Germans never were able to contemplate.

Which brings us directly to claim #4, "were fighting an uphill battle versus airpower and a large enemy surface navy yet still nearly strangled England...Americans had it easy by comparison, with air power and surface naval power on their side." First of all that is no evidence for superiority of the U-Boat.

While certainly American submarines fighting on the side of the Germans in the Atlantic could easily have lost, German submarines, fighting in the Pacific for the Americans could not have won. They had too-short a range, did not have enough torpedoes per boat to do any damage and were too slow to significantly outperform our S-Boats, which were phased out for reasons of non-production.

But I said that American submarine could not have won the Battle of the Atlantic, fighting on the side of the Germans. That is the important argument. Why would I say such a thing?

I maintain that the very use of submarines by the Germans was inappropriate and certain to result in the defeat of the Third Reich. Although Britain was an island nation, and hence tactically vulnerable to having supplies sunk, that was where German thinking stopped, when they should have considered the entire strategic situation.

From a strategic, not tactical, point of view, there is a huge flaw in using submarines against Britain. First of all, unlike Japan, which supplied its island nation with supplies shipped on Japanese bottoms, Britian had supplies coming into it on ships of most nations of the world, not its own! That terminally affected the appropriateness of using submarines against her.

You see in order to strangle Britain, Germany had to declare unrestricted warfare, not sinking British ships, but American and Canadian shipping as well. This could not be done without inviting the United States and Canada to the party. However, it was abundantly clear that neither the US nor Canada was vulnerable at all to submarine warfare.

How can you sink a factory in Kansas? A submarine production facility at Manitowac? A wheat field in Sascatchewan? There was no way to strangle the US with any size blockade of submarines. US and Canadian production facilities were completely immune to Axis attacks, while the Germans were pounded to the point that getting the Type XXI to war was a fantasy.

Merely producing and using submarines in the only way they could guaranteed the defeat of Nazi Germany because it was a terribly sophomoric strategic blunder which could not be overcome by any means. Once the submarines were unleashed in 1939 the war was inevitably lost whether Britain temporarily surrendered or not. After all, the French temporarily surrendered and the Axis still lost.

I also contend that Britain was never in the danger that has been portrayed. Churchill was a very smart man. There is no advantage like letting the word leak out that you are minutes away from awful defeat at the hands of those terrible U-Boats. Surely the US must come and help poor defenseless Britain in their hour of need, eh? Making claims of near defeat had less to do with reality than with speeding up the United States' entry into the war.

You see, while the Germans were strategically deaf, dumb and blind (that's how totalitarian strong-man governments operate), Britain was strategically on solid safe ground with the outcome just about guaranteed as Churchill cried about how afraid he was of the U-Boats. He knew that. You don't.

I have, of course, held back other important reasons that your argument is entirely without merit, just in case you remain unconvinced. It might be fun to speculate on what they are.

[Arlo]

A very reasonable and well delivered reply, in my opinion. No offense to U-Boat fans (though I've always been more the fleet boat fan) - but this was indeed an enlightening moment for me. Kinda like zen sub.

[Rockin Robbins]

Certainly no offense to U-Boats. They were the best Germany could provide, their crew were the finest in the German Navy and they produced results far greater than could be predicted. That their political leadership and top brass screwed up royally does nothing to discredit the men inside the people tubes who served admirably and honorably against insurmountable odds.

[WernherVonTrapp]

@Rockin Robbins:
He also seems to have conveniently omitted that, unlike the Soviet Union who was fighting a one front war, The United States was fighting both the Germans and the Japanese on two vastly opposing theaters. Stalin was begging the allies to open a second front to relieve the pressure on his own. Contrastingly, he didn't enter the war with Japan until the final few days of the war when Japan was already defeated. He also fails to mention the Military aid rendered to the Soviets by the American Arsenal of Democracy (Tanks, Jeeps, Trucks, Oil, Planes, Artillary, Samll Arms, etc., etc.). During the early phases of Operation Barbarossa, the United States sent millions of tons of supplies to the Soviets.

The Soviet Navy was non existent. By the end of 1943, the United States Pacific Fleet alone was bigger than the navies of all the warring powers combined. In order to invade Normandy, the United States stocked all of it's supplies in England. In the Pacific, we carried the equivalent of England on ships, from one island invasion to another. The Soviets could never, ever, equal the industrial/technological might of the United States. Their rusting, idle, hazard ridden, hulks of cold war era subs is in stark contrast the the most advanced subs now roaming the oceans, compliments of the USN.:yep:


Just because the soviet union won the war for you does not mean your subs were better than the German ones, correlation is not causation in this instance.
:har:

[Randomizer]

It is also worth mentioning that the Kaiser's U-Boats came far closer to winning their tonnage war than Hitler's ever did. By May 1917, the remaining stocks of some strategic commodities held in the UK was measured in weeks, something never achieved by Doenitz vaunted wolf packs.

The USN's war against commerce was wholly effective, that of Germany's an ultimate failure. The Fleet Boat was ideal for its role but one could argue that Doenitz was wrong in his dogmatic belief in the Type VII as the best boat for the Atlantic. 12 of the twenty top scoring boats were the larger Type IX and derivatives although they represented a comparative minority of frontboots. Here at SubSim however, questioning the infallibility of Onkle Karl is generally a bad idea, usually requiring NOMEX suits and thick skins.

RR's arguments are largely unassailable but the "common knowledge" mythology of U-Boat superiority, particularly as it relates to the Type XXI (that never sank one single GRT) ensures this discussion will never die out.

[Howard313]

Didn't know this would turn into a "Who's subs were better?" thread when i started it.

[Kongo Otto]

Certainly no offense to U-Boats. They were the best Germany could provide, their crew were the finest in the German Navy and they produced results far greater than could be predicted. That their political leadership and top brass screwed up royally does nothing to discredit the men inside the people tubes who served admirably and honorably against insurmountable odds.

To be honest, i wasn't a great fan of Fleet Boats at all, well until i bought SH4 and later played it with RFB and RSRDC.
This was the point were i bought me first books about the topic Fleet Boat and Subwarfare in the PTO. Ok i have to confess that i have to learn very much more about the PTO at all.
But also to be honest IMHO comparing U-Boats with Fleets boats is comparing apples with oranges.
You cant say the U-Boats were better than the Fleet Boats and vice versa because IMHO this are two totally different strategic directions.

[Rockin Robbins]

What exactly WAS the strategic direction of the U-Boat? I've never seen any evidence that there was one. At best they had tactics and rules of engagement. Stragegy? None.

Any strategic treatment of the U-Boat question would have resulted in scrapping the entire idea as totally inappropriate and the reallocation of resources to land warfare. At best the only strategic role of a German navy was coastal defense. They didn't even try THAT! The entire expensive in money and men apparatus was just willy-nilly thrown to destruction.

[Kongo Otto]

What exactly WAS the strategic direction of the U-Boat? I've never seen any evidence that there was one. At best they had tactics and rules of engagement. Stragegy? None.

Any strategic treatment of the U-Boat question would have resulted in scrapping the entire idea as totally inappropriate and the reallocation of resources to land warfare. At best the only strategic role of a German navy was coastal defense. They didn't even try THAT! The entire expensive in money and men apparatus was just willy-nilly thrown to destruction.

Well the strategic direction was unrestricted Tonnagewar against the suplly lines of the UK, the problem was that this strategy only would have worked with many Hundreds of U-Boats at the beginning of the war and U-Boats which much more modern design as they had it.
That this concept wasnt to work, was not the Problem from the U-Boat Men it was a Problem because the Kriegsmarine leadership (Raeder and Dönitz) were men deep entangled in WW1 Thinking and backed up by some Austrian private which was solely a Land War Man. That was an mixture for failure right from the start.
The kriegsmarine Leaders were blind for new tactics and strategy and 1943 when the battle was definfitly lost, at least then they should had the guts to speak it out loud, but they hadn't and Hitler wasn't really interested anyways with the known results.

I have to disagree with you, because that the strategic concept Tonnagewar performed by U-Boats can be appropriate and very succesful was shown by the US Silent Service, but to do so you need a great industrial capacity not an overstretched industry like germany and you need leaders which are open for new things, which we also never had in anykind of Miltary or Civilian Branch.

But at least the German U-Bootwaffe showed how to fight gallantly and die with dignity against an also gallant enemy.

[Torplexed]

The Soviet Navy was non existent. By the end of 1943, the United States Pacific Fleet alone was bigger than the navies of all the warring powers combined. In order to invade Normandy, the United States stocked all of it's supplies in England. In the Pacific, we carried the equivalent of England on ships, from one island invasion to another. The Soviets could never, ever, equal the industrial/technological might of the United States. Their rusting, idle, hazard ridden, hulks of cold war era subs is in stark contrast the the most advanced subs now roaming the oceans, compliments of the USN.:yep:

:har:

Some German sources, in noting the lack of offensive spirit shown by Soviet naval commanders in the Second World War, have speculated as to whether it was Stalin's intention to husband his warships in order to be in a better position to challenge the naval supremacy of the Anglo-Americans after the war. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is more probable that the sea war was of no interest to Stalin, except that he wanted war supplies delivered to Murmansk, Archangel and Vladivostok. It is more likely that, even if the Soviet Navy had the ability and means to undertake the task, which it obviously had not, he saw no reason why the USSR should exert itself to sweep the Arctic Sea of German bombers and U-boats for the benefit of allies whom he deemed to be well provided with a plethora of top notch warships and aircraft.

It is doubtful whether Stalin's interest in the Soviet Navy ever went much beyond cynically seeing it as a ready reserve of manpower to provide bayonets for the land fighting. Between June and September 1941 six marine infantry brigades, each about 5,000 men strong, were formed from the Baltic Fleet crews to fight in the Siege of Leningrad. This was later increased to nine, and in the end the Baltic Red Banner Fleet gave up 13,000 officers and ratings to fight on dry land. Eventually, thinned by causalities, many of these marines infantry brigades were marine only in name, since they were by then commanded by Red Army officers and received their reinforcements from Central Siberia, from men who had never seen the sea. It points out the difference between the two dictators, Stalin and Hitler. Unlike the czars, Stalin was never much swayed by the prestige of seapower, or deceived into thinking his war would be won on the sea.

[Rockin Robbins]

Well the strategic direction was unrestricted Tonnagewar against the suplly lines of the UK, the problem was that this strategy only would have worked with many Hundreds of U-Boats at the beginning of the war and U-Boats which much more modern design as they had it.
Pretty much my point, except that you are ignoring that in order to do unrestricted Tonnagewar (what a great term!) they had no choice but to go to war against Canada and the US. The only way for Germany to win was to keep the US and Russia out of the war. Keeping Britain out of the war would also have been possible and desirable had those nasty submarines not been immediately deployed, spoiling any potential diplomatic moves. Britain did not hate the Germans and in fact had much in common with them.

That this concept wasnt to work, was not the Problem from the U-Boat Men it was a Problem because the Kriegsmarine leadership (Raeder and Dönitz) were men deep entangled in WW1 Thinking and backed up by some Austrian private which was solely a Land War Man. That was an mixture for failure right from the start.
The kriegsmarine Leaders were blind for new tactics and strategy and 1943 when the battle was definfitly lost, at least then they should had the guts to speak it out loud, but they hadn't and Hitler wasn't really interested anyways with the known results.
A brilliant and exact summation of German lack of strategy. Raeder and Dönitz were primarily interested in advancing their own personal positions. Of course the use of the Navy was appropriate, THEY were the leaders of the Navy. The Austrian private, we'll not talk about his lack of vision and zeal for his people's well-being.......

I have to disagree with you, because that the strategic concept Tonnagewar performed by U-Boats can be appropriate and very succesful was shown by the US Silent Service
Not shown by the US Silent Service. They sank Japanese cargoes in Japanese bottoms, not risking drawing any other country into the war against them. The US followed a STRATEGY not a TACTIC. In the Pacific, use of the submarines was appropriate and could result in victory. In the Atlantic, use of the submarine was inappropriate and its very use guaranteed defeat. How well it was used could make no difference in the outcome of the war. Had they sunk three times more tonnage in the cross-Atlantic convoys, they STILL would have sunk less than 3% of the tonnage. That's a failure in anyone's book

, but to do so you need a great industrial capacity not an overstretched industry like germany and you need leaders which are open for new things, which we also never had in anykind of Miltary or Civilian Branch.

But at least the German U-Bootwaffe showed how to fight gallantly and die with dignity against an also gallant enemy.

Totally agree. The German Navy, by taking vital resources and the best men Germany had from their war machine, worked feverishly and died gallantly to ensure Allied victory. That was not the aim of the men in the boats. They were merely being loyal to their motherland, fighting in whatever circumstances they were put in the highest and finest manner.

No military unit ever, anywhere in the world has maintained fighting spirit faced with the losses the U-Bootwaffe faced. Their dedication was a tribute to mankind, just about the only one to come out of Germany in World War II. I understand that Rommel's Afrika Korps was similarly high-minded, professional and effective.

It seems to me we agree totally, except that you harbor some lingering feeling that using the U-Boats in the Atlantic was a tactic which could have avoided losing the war. My position is that their use guaranteed defeat, all by itself, with or without the Russians, because of the expense in materials and men, plus causing the entry of the US into the war, making Canada ten times more effective in the process.

[Arlo]

War strategy in the European theater had many more shortcomings than German U-Boats. Honestly, Hitler's greed and impatience lost that war before it started. The whole set-up from the start was against the German submariners. The U-Boat may have been trying to see how far WWI successful (for it's day) design could be stretched but there were technical advances within the flawed direction that the Allies benefited from later. And the U.S. had it's own dragon to slay, what with BuOrd and the Mk 14.

Yes, 2 different worlds - 2 different wars - 2 different games.

But sunnabeech, I'm damned thrilled to see SH4+the mods offer me a decent Pac War fleet boat sim and really couldn't care less bout the debate over uber. :D

[Kongo Otto]

Pretty much my point, except that you are ignoring that in order to do unrestricted Tonnagewar (what a great term!) they had no choice but to go to war against Canada and the US. The only way for Germany to win was to keep the US and Russia out of the war. Keeping Britain out of the war would also have been possible and desirable had those nasty submarines not been immediately deployed, spoiling any potential diplomatic moves. Britain did not hate the Germans and in fact had much in common with them.

As Canada declared war on Germany at 10th of September 1939 as member of the Commonwealth that was allready the case, and the only reason why he declared war to the usa was his alliance with the Japanese, which was also totally idiotic to say at least.
No one in the High ranking Nazi Bunch around Hitler ever thought that the UK and the French will really fight for Poland, another idiotic missinterpretation.
The Kriegsmarine was in no way prepared for an war, IIRC Hitler mentioned to Raeder there would be no war before 1943, well the guy didnt took it to serious with the truth anyways.
And keeping Russia out of the war was never an option because the whole war was an war for "Living space in the east" just read "Mein kampf" its all in there. The declaration of war from France and the UK was a disruption from the Original Plan Hitler had for his war.


It seems to me we agree totally, except that you harbor some lingering feeling that using the U-Boats in the Atlantic was a tactic which could have avoided losing the war. My position is that their use guaranteed defeat, all by itself, with or without the Russians, because of the expense in materials and men, plus causing the entry of the US into the war, making Canada ten times more effective in the process.

No nothing could have avoid losing the war, the war was lost with the first round fired at September 1st 1939. Neither the Kriegsmarine nor the German Industry was prepared for an war in 1939 and if the French and the BEF would have moved their asses and attacked while almost the entire Wehrmacht has overun Poland, the Battle of the Atlantic most probably never would have happened.
The only point in which we are disagreeing is that the U-Boot Waffes use quaranteed the German defeat, i think that teh U-Boots and their use are just a small part in the much bigger picture of an foreseeable defeat.

[Rockin Robbins]

Oh, yes, there were plenty of fatal mistakes to go around, any one of which spelled a well-deserved doom for the Third Reich and a tragic loss for the German people, who did not deserve any of this. I am only saying that the use of U-Boats was one of them.

Canada was not really able to contribute to the war until they jumped into the British/US convoys after the US entry. The US entering the war made Canada able to be a consequential participant instead of just giving moral support to the Commonwealth.

You are 100% correct. The entire war was an act of insanity, sure to result in no good for Germany or anybody else. It was all about the Austrian private seeking a place in history. Well, he got it, just not what he envisioned.

If a script writer had tried to sell the story in the 1920's he would have been laughed out of town. Unfortunately the real thing was in no way funny. There was plenty of tragedy that everyone participating had more then their fair share...:shifty:

[WernherVonTrapp]

Some German sources, in noting the lack of offensive spirit shown by Soviet naval commanders in the Second World War, have speculated as to whether it was Stalin's intention to husband his warships in order to be in a better position to challenge the naval supremacy of the Anglo-Americans after the war. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is more probable that the sea war was of no interest to Stalin, except that he wanted war supplies delivered to Murmansk, Archangel and Vladivostok. It is more likely that, even if the Soviet Navy had the ability and means to undertake the task, which it obviously had not, he saw no reason why the USSR should exert itself to sweep the Arctic Sea of German bombers and U-boats for the benefit of allies whom he deemed to be well provided with a plethora of top notch warships and aircraft.

It is doubtful whether Stalin's interest in the Soviet Navy ever went much beyond cynically seeing it as a ready reserve of manpower to provide bayonets for the land fighting. Between June and September 1941 six marine infantry brigades, each about 5,000 men strong, were formed from the Baltic Fleet crews to fight in the Siege of Leningrad. This was later increased to nine, and in the end the Baltic Red Banner Fleet gave up 13,000 officers and ratings to fight on dry land. Eventually, thinned by causalities, many of these marines infantry brigades were marine only in name, since they were by then commanded by Red Army officers and received their reinforcements from Central Siberia, from men who had never seen the sea. It points out the difference between the two dictators, Stalin and Hitler. Unlike the czars, Stalin was never much swayed by the prestige of seapower, or deceived into thinking his war would be won on the sea.Well, I tend to agree to a great extent. Most of his reserves that fueled his offensive drive came from Siberian and Asian divisions. Not sure what bearing this has on my previous comment but, yeah, I tend to agree. I think a lot of it had to do with the vast land areas that made up the country. Much more conducive to ground, rather than, naval forces. My point was industrial/technical might, and yeah, there are reasons for that too but, nevertheless, they could not have matched our industrial/technical abilities. Besides, the Soviet Union/Russia wasn't really known (historically) as a successful naval power, aside from some very brief periods of world history. The Japanese Navy defeated them as recent as (I think) 1905. Then, we defeated the Japanese Navy (and army).:yep:

[Daniel Prates]

It is doubtful whether Stalin's interest in the Soviet Navy ever went much beyond cynically seeing it as a ready reserve of manpower to provide bayonets for the land fighting. Between June and September 1941 six marine infantry brigades, each about 5,000 men strong, were formed from the Baltic Fleet crews to fight in the Siege of Leningrad. This was later increased to nine, and in the end the Baltic Red Banner Fleet gave up 13,000 officers and ratings to fight on dry land. Eventually, thinned by causalities, many of these marines infantry brigades were marine only in name, since they were by then commanded by Red Army officers and received their reinforcements from Central Siberia, from men who had never seen the sea. It points out the difference between the two dictators, Stalin and Hitler. Unlike the czars, Stalin was never much swayed by the prestige of seapower, or deceived into thinking his war would be won on the sea.

I think there is more to it. Russia was a great power by then (it still is, but that's another subject), and it simply could not allow itself to fall back on the current advances on any field. Even if you do not want to fully develop a fighting navy, as a great power you must mantaing at least a few ships on each class for technology and doctrinary reasons. If Russia had completely forfeited its fleet, there would be no training grounds for recently developed technologies and docrines, and a whole generation of tech/doctrinary thinking would be forfeited. Picking it up again, should it happen a revolution in doctrinary thinking over a decade or two, would be impossible if the soviet navy had been completely abandoned in the previous period.

First-rate countries are always investing heavily on every single field - even it it is just a skelleton army, if concerning a field you are not particularly interested in, just for the sake of not falling out to date on what your counterparts are doing. This is a concept that will be familiar to Hearts of Iron 3 players (:oops:). Another example of this kind of thinking was the (useless?) investments made by the germans on developing heavy bombers during WW2. They never planed to put them into wide producion, but they were being developed anyway.

The same thing happened to russia during the cold war. Their strategic plans demanded a lot of subs on every single class you could think of, but no CVs, and still they would always have at least one modern CV, just to avoid falling behind american tech advances on that field. I think they were aiming at the same kind of investment during the 30s - the soviet navy was kept small as it could be, with a couple of BBs, escorts and subs, but without being mothballed completely.

[Torplexed]

I think there is more to it. Russia was a great power by then (it still is, but that's another subject), and it simply could not allow itself to fall back on the current advances on any field. Even if you do not want to fully develop a fighting navy, as a great power you must mantaing at least a few ships on each class for technology and doctrinary reasons. If Russia had completely forfeited its fleet, there would be no training grounds for recently developed technologies and docrines, and a whole generation of tech/doctrinary thinking would be forfeited. Picking it up again, should it happen a revolution in doctrinary thinking over a decade or two, would be impossible if the soviet navy had been completely abandoned in the previous period.

First-rate countries are always investing heavily on every single field - even it it is just a skelleton army, if concerning a field you are not particularly interested in, just for the sake of not falling out to date on what your counterparts are doing. This is a concept that will be familiar to Hearts of Iron 3 players (:oops:). Another example of this kind of thinking was the (useless?) investments made by the germans on developing heavy bombers during WW2. They never planed to put them into wide producion, but they were being developed anyway.

The same thing happened to russia during the cold war. Their strategic plans demanded a lot of subs on every single class you could think of, but no CVs, and still they would always have at least one modern CV, just to avoid falling behind american tech advances on that field. I think they were aiming at the same kind of investment during the 30s - the soviet navy was kept small as it could be, with a couple of BBs, escorts and subs, but without being mothballed completely.

I have no doubt that the prewar USSR of the 1920s and 30s would have loved to have a large oceangoing fleet. However, practical reality dictated a primarily coastal defensive one. The sad state of the Soviet fleet at this time was a function of many factors. The complete collapse of the country's fledgling industrial infrastructure in the wake of the Russian Civil War was one. Concern about the Navy's political reliability as a result of the 1921 uprising of dissident Baltic Fleet sailors at Kronstadt was another. Concern about the Red Navy's reliability probably also stemmed from it's exposure to foreign 'contagion' as it went about visiting foreign ports. That was always a sore spot with the super-paranoid Stalin.

However, the biggest factor was the need to switch from the czarist agrarian economy to an industrial one and build up the country's steel, metallurgical and electrical industries first. In the end that proved to be the correct decision as it laid the groundwork for Soviet industry to overwhelm the invading Germans with a nearly inexhaustible supply of tanks, artillery and Strumoviks. In fact it was only after extensive shipyard development in the early 1930s that the Soviets were able to begin construction of the first large submarines and destroyers since the czarist era. When the Germans invasion came in 1941 this process had only recently started to turn out a few large modern cruisers. It's important to remember that a lot of the former Russian Imperial Fleet warships were purchased (or designed) abroad from foreign builders like the French, British, or even the Germans. So Revolutionary Russia had to start from square one in many respects.

Probably the biggest boost to Soviet naval technology came after the war. The defeat of the Axis powers allowed the Soviets to increase the size of their postwar fleet with former Japanese and German ships. Scores of advanced German submarines fell into Soviet hands as well as the naval shipyards that helped build them. The not quite finished German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin also became Soviet war booty. Additionally, warships transferred from the Western allies during the conflict introduced new technologies such as radar and sonar. That's really when the construction of a 'bluewater' Soviet Navy began.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I think a lot of nations would jump at the prospect, if feasible, of having a powerful blue ocean navy. I think the problem has more to do with expense, than anything else. A large surface navy is extemely expensive to maintain and operate, especially aircraft carriers. By now, the technologies are certainly in place for the building of carriers for any country, but the United States is the only country that can afford to absorb the immense costs of their continuous maintenance, operation and inherent upgrades. Even as far back as WWII, a blue ocean navy would cost a huge sum of money to build, operate and maintain. Throughout history, the few countries with thriving economies were the ones capable of maintaining large powerful fleets during specific eras.
The Soviets did have a large CV for a time, but what they didn't have was practical experience in wartime applications of it's use. You can only learn so much from observing or reading the successes or failures of it's use by other countries. One aircraft carrier is more a novelty item than a deployable tactical or strategic advantage.
Cost seems to have been the defining factor for large powerful navies. The English experienced this when the Dutch Fleet entered the port of (I forget) and sank the moored British fleet in (again, I think) the 16th century. (Gee, growing old is great, isn't it?:nope:) After which, due to lack of funds to rebuild it's fleet, the English lost the upper hand (for a time) in it's control of commerce in the English Channel. The means are always there, the monies aren't.

[Daniel Prates]

I have no doubt that the prewar USSR of the 1920s and 30s would have loved to have a large oceangoing fleet. However, practical reality dictated a primarily coastal defensive one.

That is not what I am saying. My point is, even if a major power does not intend to develop some branch of it's armed forces - a large ocean going, blue water fleet in this case - it will still invest on a few exemplars of it, just to keep up with the most up-to-date advances on its field. If you have no battleships whatsoever, you have no way of knowing what are the current advances on its fabrication, use, deployment etc.

So a major power as the SU was then, necessarily would have to invest in things they did not plan on using even in a remote future. If you see what Russia had in the 30s and 40s, you see not a fleet but a backbone for a future fleet, should it become necessary some day.

[Arlo]

That is not what I am saying. My point is, even if a major power does not intend to develop some branch of it's armed forces - a large ocean going, blue water fleet in this case - it will still invest on a few exemplars of it, just to keep up with the most up-to-date advances on its field. If you have no battleships whatsoever, you have no way of knowing what are the current advances on its fabrication, use, deployment etc.

So a major power as the SU was then, necessarily would have to invest in things they did not plan on using even in a remote future. If you see what Russia had in the 30s and 40s, you see not a fleet but a backbone for a future fleet, should it become necessary some day.

http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/sem7.html

[Daniel Prates]

http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/sem7.html

Reminds me of "the tournesol affair".

[Jasiuz]

I strongly recommend it, one of my all time favorites and I never get tiered of it