U-boat vs. aircraft

[sublynx]

I found this extremely detailed description of a aircraft vs. U-boat combat from August 1943. Having read it I realise that it is not at all unrealistic for a U-boat to have some chance of survival against aircraft even in a surface fight.

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-615ASW-6Crockett.htm

For the interested U-boatarchive also has all the war diaries of U-615. The fourth and last one reconstructed by BdU.

[Benti]

that read gave me some chills.
Thank you for sharing, I didn't know that u-boats were able to put up such a fight against so many aircraft.
In game I only risk a battle with an aircraft if it's late in war and my sub is equipped with two Flakvierlings and the double 3,7cm heeresflak.

benti

[Sailor Steve]

Part of the problem is that an aircraft downed can be replaced by a dozen more. A U-boat with a hole in the pressure hull is nothing more than a slow torpedo boat.

Aircraft shot down by U-boats - around 120.
http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

U-boats sunk by aircraft - around 250.
http://www.uboat.net/allies/aircraft/forces.htm

[Zosimus]

I think the concern over airplanes is overdone. Sure, they can damage you and sink you, but you can fire back and win. Destroyers are much more dangerous. When was the last time an airplane dropped more than 100 depth charges on you? Or rammed you? Or kept you under so long you thought you'd never shake him off?

[Vince82]

When surprised by an aircraft it's almost always better go full speed, take evasive maneuvers and fight. After the initial attack dive.

I'm sure it's in the GWX manual.

[scott_c2911]

The only time i have been surprised by an aircraft or a small formation is when ive missed the radar signals detected warning and even then I just dive. The only time an aircraft has caused damage is from its guns and not its bombs and thats if i choose to give it some lead out of boredom more than anything. Destroyers have accounted for all of my ingame deaths and I regard them as my most dangerous foes. I have homing torps now though so I can have a crack back. Its April 1945 in my career so its not long now before its all over. This is my last patrol. Ive been at it for nearly 12 months and have been going since August 1939. That report was a cracking read Ive got to say and thanx to the op

[Foggy]

I have an Officer that has multiple skills (one being cannon, another being torpedo, the third I think is Helmsman). He is always posted in either the torp room (giving a large bonus there) or on the top of the conning tower during surface runs. When I get alerted that we've spotted enemy aircraft, I make sure that he's on the conning tower, then I use a Petty Officer that has the Flak skill and I put him on the flak gun. With both of them present, the skill bar is full for the flak gun, and I tell him to engage targets at medium or long range and let him have at it. The guy never seems to miss. He'll take out 4 planes and we'll keep on trucking without a scratch. Sometimes I have to turn the boat to make sure the flak gun can still aim at where the planes are coming from, but his accuracy is ridiculous lol. His accuracy probably isn't realistic, but he sure keeps us safe from the birds lol.

[sublynx]

Thanks for the hint. I think I have fought against aircraft maybe twice during all the years I've played SH3. I'll try your specialisations in case I get into a situation where I have to fight.

[sharkbit]

Part of the problem is that an aircraft downed can be replaced by a dozen more. A U-boat with a hole in the pressure hull is nothing more than a slow torpedo boat.

Aircraft shot down by U-boats - around 120.
http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

U-boats sunk by aircraft - around 250.
http://www.uboat.net/allies/aircraft/forces.htm

I just recently read on uboat.net, concerning the Fight Back Order issued to the U-boats for a time, that Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, head of Coastal Command, said he would gladly trade an aircraft and its crew for a sunk u-boat.

http://www.uboat.net/history/fight_back_order.htm

I've gotten a little bored with aircraft in SH3. Same routine-aircraft spotted, crash dive, run submerged for a while, surface, repeat as necessary.

I've never really been surprised by aircraft. Not saying it will never happen though late war.

So with all that in mind, I've been experimenting with some randomness. Now when I get the aircraft spotted message, I pause the game, roll two dice, modify the roll by year, night, and/or radar warning. The result times 10 is the number of seconds before I can crash dive. Un-pause and start a timer and wait. If I get a "We're under attack!", I immediately crash dive or fight back, depending on situation.

It can be a little disconcerting watching a B-24 Liberator bearing down on you and not being able to do anything while the clock is ticking. :o

I think it nicely simulates the possibility of a surprise attack out of the sun or clouds, a lookout daydreaming, or a slow dive.

I'm still experimenting with the times though to find a happy medium. 15 seconds is waaay too long, and 5 seconds seems too short but it feels like 10 seconds may be too long as well. I've been noticing that with fighter type aircraft, they're on you really quick and attacking and then I've seen Swordfish coming and the bridge crew can finish their morning coffee before they have to crash dive. :O:

[Vince82]

simulates the possibility of a surprise attack out of the sun or clouds


@Sharkbit: Many don't understand, I think, that this is what actually happend a lot. And that is a big reason why planes where really feared by commanders.

I like that you use dice to simulate a more realistic outcome.

In game Metox and radar can be edited a using silent3ditor to make it less effective. Decreasing the Metox arc to say 270 for example. This simulates detecting less aircraft due to new secret 10cm radar which was introduced by the allies. I'm curious to know what you think of this.

[U-15]

I think the concern over airplanes is overdone. Sure, they can damage you and sink you, but you can fire back and win. Destroyers are much more dangerous. When was the last time an airplane dropped more than 100 depth charges on you? Or rammed you? Or kept you under so long you thought you'd never shake him off?

Zosimus,

http://www.uboat.net/boats/u570.htm (http://www.uboat.net/boats/u570.htm)

It's not a risk worth taking.
Stay deep, and hopefully stay safe.

I always tell my crew that if I wanted to shoot planes down I would have joined the Luftwaffe

[Vince82]

Recently posted by Armistead in the SH4 forum, same thing, they are also discussing air attacks:


depends on your mods, if playn stock you can survive a couple direct bomb hits, when in real life, that would be it for your sub. same with surface ships, one shell could easily be the end of your ship. a few mods give these results, so you don't mess with planes or gun battles with escorts on the surface....

[vanjast]

Read the book 'Conflict over the Bay' by Norman Franks, which covers RAF Coastal Commands hunt for Uboats during May-August 1943.
This is the critical time period where tactics on both sides were evolving wrt to UBoat-vs-Aircraft.

Essentially the Allies developed 'search blocks' in the Biscay Bay, where many aircraft would patrol. This area was wide enough so that a UBoat would not be able to cross it without surfacing to recharge batteries, thus a better chance of being detected by ASW - Aircraft as well as Hunter Killer groups.

Every one of Donitz's fight it out tactics brought only limited success and was quickly nullified by a change in allied tactics.

- If a single UBoat tried to fight on the surface, a single aircraft would attack. Invariably it meant a damaged or sunken UBoat. A damaged Uboat would have to return to port.
Allied aircraft usually carried only enough 'DCs' for one attack (sometimes they would use half their ordinance for a second attack to foil the Kaleun).
If the Uboat did not sink, if the aircraft wasn't badly damaged, it would circle the sub until other aircraft, hunter killer groups arrived, or had to leave for shortage of fuel.

- Eventually Donitz ordered 3 Uboat formations to transverse the search blocks on the surface.
What the allies did when discovering this, was to circle the sub group calling in more aircraft and HK groups. Up to five aircraft would be circling the 3 boats like vultures waiting to pounce.

Communication between aircraft, and between subs did not exist so neither in each group knew what the other was up to until they did something. Also keeping subs in formation while watching the vultures was a big problem and usually one sub went out of formation - the aircraft would nearly crash into each other descending on this unforunate sub.
With the ensuing chaos, the other subs would then try to submerge - very few got away unscathed.

If not enough a/c coulld be called in, a HK group could arrive within a few hours... and the Kaleuns definitely didn't want this. Some subs got away only to be hammered by HK groups that were guided in by the aircraft.

I'm not sure whether SH3 takes all these factors into account but one can confidently say that you should crash dive.. even for a seagull :D

[CCIP]

I think it's also important to remember the difference between individual crews and situations, and progress as a whole. It took hundreds of hours of patrolling by air to make a single sighting. Although trained and experienced, the vast majority of Coastal Command air crews had, in fact, never encountered a U-boat during the war. Those who did were far from guaranteed success - only a small number of attacks netted a hit, and the attack took an immense risk. There were no Coastal Command aces - so rare were their encounters. In actual duels between the aircraft and U-boat, the odds were slightly in favour of the U-boat. Even during the infamous Black May of 1943, a single U-boat sinking took more than 1250 flight hours of patrols by air. The probability of an airplane even making contact with a U-boat during a single (often grueling and lengthy) patrol was no more than 2%.

All that sounds bad for airplanes hopeful for the U-boats on an individual scale, but when you start looking at the strategy, the picture changes drastically. Put enough airplanes in the air, and they will find the U-boats. Run enough risks, and there will be kills. sharkbit's point about Slessor's view is right - losing a plane-U-boat duel means losing 6-12 crew and a machine that can be replaced in a matter of a few weeks or even days (or in the extreme case - even hours, as illustrated by the record assembly of a complete Wellington at Broughton in 1943 in less than 24 hours). Losing a U-boat is losing 45-55 crew, a number of them substantially more specialized and much harder to replace, and a machine that takes at minimum months to build and costs dozens of times more than the best bomber. Worse for Germany, it also requires hundreds of tons of high-grade steel which is already in short supply. The loss of a U-boat is many more times costly to Germany than the cost of 1250 hours of flying and several downed allied planes put together. The U-boats had nothing to offer to counter the threat - and it took mere days for Coastal Command airmen to see through the new group tactics and flak defenses in battle, to which they adapted right away by shadowing, calling for help, and attacking in groups.

The air crews up against the U-boats were good - really good - and you can't judge them by individual encounters or scores, because it was not a duel. It was a system of patrols that was, in a sense, designed to "fail" - it was known and calculated in advance (with impressive exactness) that most patrolling airplanes would never encounter a U-boat, most attacks would miss, and airplanes were at least as likely to be shot down as they were to score a hit. And with all that in mind, it was a system where even by pure attrition, the U-boats were doomed. And when technological advantages were thrown into the mix, well, they were really really doomed!

And with all that said of course, it's also important to remember that the U-boats had already lost the Battle of the Atlantic BEFORE the effective air efforts actually kicked in. But the air power was one heck of a finishing move, and can rightly be considered the most dangerous. I think the only real reason for disdaining a realistic approach to it that I see emerging in this thread is its randomness. It's like artillery in trench warfare of WWI - deadlier, more technologically-sophisticated and more significant than any other type of combat, but it doesn't make for tall tales most of the time. More often than not, it's just a bolt from the blue that kills you indiscriminately and without warning, and you have no control over it or fault for it whatsoever. It's a bitter truth - but from a gameplay or storytelling perspective, most people find it either bland or infuriating. It breaks the dramatic, heroic, tragic narratives that people love playing out in their heads in games like SH3. A random death breaks that kind of story completely and makes players feel bitter. But I actually think that when you stop focusing on your own story and look at what it means in a bigger context, what it means for the war and for history, that story becomes fascinating again. And when you play DiD and introduce some house rules - like that dice roll sharkbit mentioned - you really start appreciating it!

[Zosimus]

Zosimus,

http://www.uboat.net/boats/u570.htm (http://www.uboat.net/boats/u570.htm)

It's not a risk worth taking.
Stay deep, and hopefully stay safe.

I always tell my crew that if I wanted to shoot planes down I would have joined the Luftwaffe

WTF?

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-capture-of-u-570-and-its-enigma-cipher-machine/

"On the morning of Aug. 27, 1941, U-570, under the command of Kapitänleutnant Hans-Joachim Rahmlow, surfaced off the coast of Iceland and was immediately spotted by a British Hudson bomber on anti-submarine patrol. As the Hudson dove to attack, Rahmlow ordered a crash dive..."

As we said before, don't crash dive. Fire back, wait till the attack passes, and then dive.

"... but before U-570 could escape, it was bracketed with four depth charges. The U-boat suffered only minor damage, but the inexperienced crew, many suffering acutely from seasickness, panicked."

Second mistake. Don't panic. The boat was barely scratched.

"Rahmlow himself was new to U-boats and U-570 was his first operational command. U-570 surfaced and crew members unfurled a white sheet. Rahmlow, meanwhile, sent out a radio message to U-boat command stating what happened and that he had surrendered."

Don't surrender. What's the point?

[Zosimus]

My Most Dangerous Moment with Aircraft

I had been creeping up on a convoy in poor weather when I got pinged. I immediately went to 179 meters depth, but with three escorts circling me one of them always seemed to get in a lucky ping. Finally, after almost 3 hours, I shook them off.

The convoy was long gone, but I surfaced in 9 km (moderate) visibility and began following the escorts as they headed (medium speed) back towards the convoy. After two hours I had kind of located the convoy. I knew that it was somewhere to the southeast of me because I saw an escort come from that direction doing its little search dance. Meanwhile the three escorts were SSW of me as I was threading the needle trying to get close enough to the convoy to see a cargo ship and determine the exact course so I could go out and around to take it on.

It was at that moment that a fighter aircraft showed up heading towards me from south by south east. Obviously, as you know, the real danger was not the aircraft. The problem was all four escorts immediately made a beeline for my position.

I did not crash dive. We manned the flak gun and we fired at the onrushing plane as it strafed us. It didn't hit us, and we didn't hit it. As soon as it passed we crash dived. After another hour in the depths of the ocean they gave up on us and I surfaced to find it raining heavily.

I gave up on the convoy and went in search of better weather.

[sharkbit]

I think it's also important to remember the difference between individual crews and situations, and progress as a whole. It took hundreds of hours of patrolling by air to make a single sighting. Although trained and experienced, the vast majority of Coastal Command air crews had, in fact, never encountered a U-boat during the war. Those who did were far from guaranteed success - only a small number of attacks netted a hit, and the attack took an immense risk. There were no Coastal Command aces - so rare were their encounters. In actual duels between the aircraft and U-boat, the odds were slightly in favour of the U-boat. Even during the infamous Black May of 1943, a single U-boat sinking took more than 1250 flight hours of patrols by air. The probability of an airplane even making contact with a U-boat during a single (often grueling and lengthy) patrol was no more than 2%.

All that sounds bad for airplanes hopeful for the U-boats on an individual scale, but when you start looking at the strategy, the picture changes drastically. Put enough airplanes in the air, and they will find the U-boats. Run enough risks, and there will be kills. sharkbit's point about Slessor's view is right - losing a plane-U-boat duel means losing 6-12 crew and a machine that can be replaced in a matter of a few weeks or even days (or in the extreme case - even hours, as illustrated by the record assembly of a complete Wellington at Broughton in 1943 in less than 24 hours). Losing a U-boat is losing 45-55 crew, a number of them substantially more specialized and much harder to replace, and a machine that takes at minimum months to build and costs dozens of times more than the best bomber. Worse for Germany, it also requires hundreds of tons of high-grade steel which is already in short supply. The loss of a U-boat is many more times costly to Germany than the cost of 1250 hours of flying and several downed allied planes put together. The U-boats had nothing to offer to counter the threat - and it took mere days for Coastal Command airmen to see through the new group tactics and flak defenses in battle, to which they adapted right away by shadowing, calling for help, and attacking in groups.

The air crews up against the U-boats were good - really good - and you can't judge them by individual encounters or scores, because it was not a duel. It was a system of patrols that was, in a sense, designed to "fail" - it was known and calculated in advance (with impressive exactness) that most patrolling airplanes would never encounter a U-boat, most attacks would miss, and airplanes were at least as likely to be shot down as they were to score a hit. And with all that in mind, it was a system where even by pure attrition, the U-boats were doomed. And when technological advantages were thrown into the mix, well, they were really really doomed.

And with all that said of course, it's also important to remember that the U-boats had already lost the Battle of the Atlantic BEFORE the effective air efforts actually kicked in. But the air power was one heck of a finishing move, and can rightly be considered the most dangerous. I think the only real reason for disdaining a realistic approach to it that I see emerging in this thread is its randomness. It's like artillery in trench warfare of WWI - deadlier, more technologically-sophisticated and more significant than any other type of combat, but it doesn't make for tall tales most of the time. More often than not, it's just a bolt from the blue that kills you indiscriminately and without warning, and you have no control over it or fault for it whatsoever. It's a bitter truth - but from a gameplay or storytelling perspective, most people find it either bland or infuriating. It breaks the dramatic, heroic, tragic narratives that people love playing out in their heads in games like SH3. A random death breaks that kind of story completely and makes players feel bitter. But I actually think that when you stop focusing on your own story and look at what it means in a bigger context, what it means for the war and for history, that story becomes fascinating again. And when you play DiD and introduce some house rules - like that dice roll sharkbit mentioned - you really start appreciating it!

Nice post CCIP. :up:

And when technological advantages were thrown into the mix, well, they were really really doomed.

Which includes the scientific study of the tactics used by the aircraft and the gathering of data. I remember reading somewhere how all that study resulted in the depths that the aircraft set their depth charges to explode to be changed to make them more effective as well as other changes in tactics used, not only by aircraft, but by the convoys and escorts.

The Allies used a huge number of "Back Room Boys"-scientists, analysts, mathematicians, etc to help win the Battle of the Atlantic. They didn't get the glory and the medals but their efforts helped send a lot of U-boats to their grave.

[U-15]

@15#

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570/U-570INT.htm (http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570/U-570INT.htm)
V. CAPTURE OF "U 570"
"At approximately 0830 on the morning of 27th August, 1941, "U 570" submerged in position about 62° 15' N. and 18° 35' W. to obtain some respite from heavy seas which had already caused much seasickness among her inexperienced crew. At 1050 the captain decided to surface again and brought the U-Boat up from a depth of approximately 90 ft. What happened next can only be attributed to the lack of training of the Commander. Rahmlow entirely forgot to make any observation for hostile aircraft before exposing his ship. It so happened that a Hudson aircraft "S" belonging to 269 Squadron, and piloted by Squadron-Leader Thompson, was almost immediately overhead. "U 570" perceived her danger too late and, while she was attempting to crash dive, the aircraft dropped a stick of four 250 lb. depth charges, at an angle of 30° to the U-Boat's track. These exploded close to her, the nearest being about 10 yards away. One minute after the water disturbance had subsided "U 570" surfaced again, bow down, and 10 to 12 of her crew came on deck. The aircraft attacked with guns until a white flag was waved from the conning tower. It was established by interrogation of prisoners that, at the moment of the attack, confusion reigned within the U-Boat. The detonation of the depth charges, the smashing of instruments, the formation of gas, thought by the crew to be chlorine gas, and the entry of a certain amount of water apparently convinced Rahmlow that his boat was lost, for her ordered the crew to don life-jackets and mount the conning tower."

Zosimus, if you have an elite crew and an experienced commander, I accept you may have a fighting chance in a one on one with an aircraft; but only if you are forced to fight it out, because you can't submerge in time.

However, as we both know, Rahmlow was inexperienced, this being his 1st war patrol and out of a compliment of 43, only 4 had completed a war patrol.
As you can see from the quoted text, after the initial mistake of surfacing before checking for aircraft, the situation became compounded by panic and inexperience amongst crew and officers.
The article goes on to say that the seas made it impossible to man the guns, so a fight was out of the question even if the crew had the will to do so.

1st mistake: Surfacing in broad daylight; irrespective that there are upset tummies all over the boat.
This mistake compounded by not carrying out proper air surveillance.

2nd mistake: Resurfacing after being attacked.
The Engineering Officer was one of the 4 that had patrol experience.
Rahmlow should have dived as deep as possible and used his EO's knowledge to assess the situation.
Repair the damage and carry on, or surface and surrender.

As I haven't being in a situation that has required me to make instant life determining decisions, I am certainly not going to criticize somebody for making the wrong mistakes in a real life situation.

From a strategic point of view this is a U-boat that was lost from its main purpose, i.e. the sinking of enemy merchant vessels.
This purpose requires the U-boat to be undetected to maximise its chances of success.
Something, that brawling it out on the surface with aircraft is not going to enhance those chances.

Ok, call me unadventurous if you like, I can take it. :stare:

[Zosimus]

I'm sorry, but if that's the best example you can come up with of why you shouldn't fight with planes, I'm going to have to give it a big :down:

"Don't fight with planes because you might be inexperienced and surrender the boat when you shouldn't."

:nope:

[U-15]

I'm sorry, but if that's the best example you can come up with of why you shouldn't fight with planes, I'm going to have to give it a big :down:

"Don't fight with planes because you might be inexperienced and surrender the boat when you shouldn't."

:nope:
That's a very incorrect assumption of my argument.
I maintain it is not worth risking the strategic importance of a U-boat just to engage enemy aircraft.

And as stated in my post, regardless of the experience of the crew, the sea conditions made it impossible to man the guns.


You can give me an even bigger thumbs down if you like.
It is of no consequence to me.

[CCIP]

Hindsight is 20/20!


As we said before, don't crash dive. Fire back, wait till the attack passes, and then dive.

While a bad idea on the face of it, it's hard to tell exactly what the situation was - and one of the real difficulties was that estimating the distance of an airplane was very hard, especially for an inexperienced crew not used to dealing with the danger. There is very little information that the commander has to make a decision, which has to be made instantly - no "distance to nearest contact" button that returns a reliable result. So it's likely that the dive was ordered based on a very imperfect estimate and poor situational awareness.


Second mistake. Don't panic. The boat was barely scratched.

Again, definitely a mistake - but very hard to gauge when you have an incomplete picture and a problematic information source. There is no damage meter on real U-boats, and crews were all too well aware of what would happen if they hesitated for even a few seconds on a seriously-damaged boat (everyone would die).

"Barely scratched" in that instance likely meant a huge boom, a lot of broken glass, knocked out instruments and lights, cracked batteries with toxic chlorine leaking out. Again, especially for a crew who had not experienced this before, this would look like the apocalypse. By the time accurate damage reports could be made, a seriously-damaged boat would have already imploded. So again, it was a mistake, but a totally understandable one - as I said, there's no damage meter on a U-boat.


Don't surrender. What's the point?

Now that one I really have to strongly disagree with - and if you read transcripts of conversations with U-boat survivors (including wartime prisoners), you will see that U-boat crews were not fanatics. There was no cult of "death or glory" in the Ubootwaffe, and even the most hardened crews (let alone fresh recruits) had a healthy will to live. For very good reasons, few of them believed in anti-British propaganda, and correctly expected humane treatment from the enemy. With a few exceptions, most U-boat crew who surrendered in a hopeless situation were treated with respect both by their captors, by their fellow POWs, and by the command and people back home. Kretschmer kept contact with BdU from the POW camp (with the allies' knowledge and tacit approval) and became a sort of "union leader" figure for U-boat POW's. The POW treatment was common knowledge - and though it certainly did not dent morale and make U-boats more likely to surrender, it certainly did make waving the white flag a very viable option when things looked grim. Although Rahmlow himself was not forgiven - an "honour tribunal" presided by Kretschmer found him guilty of cowardice - most of U-570s crew escaped any blame. Most importantly, they lived. That's no mean feat in war! So I think if you ask them (and most U-boat POWs), they'll very much tell you that there was a point to them surrendering - although admittedly, the case of U-570's surrender was a terrifically bungled one.

[banryu79]

"Don't fight with planes because you might be inexperienced and surrender the boat when you shouldn't."

Don't fight with planes (UYHNOC*) because it means you are allowing the enemy to keep contact with you and you, instead, should strive to make them lose contact with you as fast as possible.

*UYHNOC= Unless You Have No Other Choice

[Zosimus]

What a bunch of reading- and logic-impaired morons.

My strategy, as I have often said, is when confronted with an enemy aircraft to turn and run. Whenever possible, one should man the flak guns. Yes, I'm aware that flak guns cannot be manned in severe weather. However, that's entirely irrelevant to the question at hand because the supposed "example" of why "it's bad to fight it out with airplanes" is BS. An inexperienced captain who doesn't check for aircraft, surfaces, finds out a bomber is above him, and crash dives is NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A CAPTAIN FIGHTING IT OUT ON THE SURFACE and anyone who thinks that it is is a complete imbecile.

The sad fact of life is that by the time you see that airplane, it's already too late to dive. The airplane will almost certainly be in one of two states. The airplane may be on an attack run, in which case you need all the bullets in the air you can muster because airplanes that are being fired at are much less accurate than airplanes that are bearing down on a submarine with its butt sticking up in the air waiting to get its anal insertion. The other alternative is that the airplane hasn't seen you and is heading in some other direction, in which case getting out of there as fast as possible is still a good idea.

Once the aircraft has passed, you should dive. In case you're too stupid to understand this piece of advice, what I am saying is take the first SAFE opportunity to get underwater and get away. That's the key phrase: the first safe opportunity. In case you don't know, a confrontation with an onrushing plane with bombs and guns is not an example of a safe opportunity to take a leisurely trip to periscope depth.

In conclusion, no one here is suggesting that staying on the surface and fighting it out with planes is a good idea. Our job is to find merchant ships and sink them and dancing with planes is not conducive to that goal. The renown bonus for shooting down planes is minuscule.

Nevertheless, as I said before, destroyers are much more dangerous not to mention annoying. Unless, of course, one of you can relate a story in which an airplane circled you for hours pinging you long after it was out of depth charges and you were starting to wonder whether you would ever get a breath of fresh air again.

So anyone who says "I maintain it is not worth risking the strategic importance of a U-boat just to engage enemy aircraft" is a complete idiot who needs a remedial reading comprehension class. :down:

[vanjast]

Maybe you can tell us of the variety of seabed rocks you encounter. If you're playing 100% reality, I'd say all the UYHNOC thingy still applies :)

[Vince82]

What a bunch of reading- and logic-impaired morons.



Don't worry, they are just the ones having fun posting stuff...

I understand with what you're saying and I have to say that I agree.

The discussion whether aircraft are more dangerous than destroyers is not relevant to this thread. Because OP posted: uboat vs a/c.


uboat.net states 120 downed aircraft, but I think this is probably not the total number. It's just that they got details on 120 aircraft on their website. It's not the goal of a U-boat to down planes. They could sink more ships in only one month. Result was measured in tonnage.

[Jolierouge]

I have been playing SH3 without any mods on my old Computer and crossing Biskaya is hell.
First Chance to dive and down it was but....
the game started to slow down dramatically.

Then I found out that it had been the planes causing this.

Not one or two, it seemed to be all of them and they were tracking me even if submerged, I do not know how but they did.
I started a new career, trained as many of the Crew for Flak as possible and mounted the 20mm-quad on my turm.
The best combination was having one quad and two of the twin-37mm and then I wanted to know how many planes would come for me.

When this started there were around 20 from first contact to deeper Waters.

From the port of St. Nazaire this is a distance of 240km.

When the flotilla was sent to Norway there were 35.

I do not think that one should fight a plane with a Sub but if you are in shallow Waters and the planes can magically track you down submerged and the game almost stops so you know they are coming you have to fight.

First save opportunity to dive? None.

All I could do was zig-zagging like mad at flank and dodge the shot-down planes as they continued coming.

greetings

Jolie

[Sailor Steve]

Not one or two, it seemed to be all of them and they were tracking me even if submerged, I do not know how but they did.
This is one of the major bugs in the stock game. All of the major supermods deal with it.

When this started there were around 20 from first contact to deeper Waters.

When the flotilla was sent to Norway there were 35.
And almost ten years ago people were bragging about taking on that many planes and winning. One of the early comments about GWX was that you would usually only be attacked by one plane, and they were much tougher and would sink you as often as not. This is much more realistic, given the actual statistics involved.

[Jolierouge]

I should mention back then I had no Access to the web, so I did not know a Thing about mods and whatnot.

And with the game-slow-down fighting was a desperate measure.
Think I could brag about surviving?

greetings

Jolie

[Sailor Steve]

It wasn't meant as a slight to you. I was just pointing out how painfully unrealistic the stock game is. :sunny:

Back in those days there were also players who bragged about, and even had a contest over their insanely high tonnage scores. When you can score ten times the tonnage of the best real-life ace, you know something's wrong.

[sublynx]

According to this the u-boat crews had tops two weeks of flak training :https://books.google.fi/books?id=kaZPAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=u-boat+training+flak&source=bl&ots=dCcC0HRJ2_&sig=IXNjqEGluLY2SqUorPS8bgPDO40&hl=fi&sa=X&ei=kgjJVO_uNYO-ggSYiILwAw&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=u-boat%20training%20flak&f=false

U-615's war diary (http://www.uboatarchive.net/KTB615-1.htm) for its first patrol mentions the training they did in the months before their first war patrol. There is a mention of one day of "artillery- training", in German "artl.-schiessen" (literally artillery-shooting). I suspect that the u-boat crews knew very little about flak shooting and had next to no training of shooting against a moving target. Has anybody read something about the training of the U-boat crews?

[Jolierouge]

@Sailor Steve:

No harm done. If that was "Think I could brag about surviving?" then I will try to put it in another way : they bragged about winning in a smooth running game-Environment, while I had to do it the hard way. So, maybe, I could brag about surviving this instead of winning?

@sublynx:

I have a book "Geschichte des U-Boot Krieges 1939-1945",
this says at the beginning of the war the Crews and their officers had 6 month of Training in the south Baltic sea. They had 66 Training-runs before they were given real ammo. Training was day and night : periscope depth, crash-dive, deck-gun-attacks, no matter if it was pitch-black or raining or whatnot.

I think Training was shortened later in the war, Crews were needed and no time for Quality-drill.
Anyway I will ask some People, who should know about Flak-Training on submarines.

greetings

Jolie

[Sailor Steve]

@Sailor Steve:

No harm done. If that was "Think I could brag about surviving?" then I will try to put it in another way : they bragged about winning in a smooth running game-Environment, while I had to do it the hard way. So, maybe, I could brag about surviving this instead of winning?

I don't see talking about surviving as bragging at all. To me, bragging is "I retired with twelve million tons!" :dead:

[sublynx]

Thanks Jolie!

[Jolierouge]

Just sent the question to the People, who should know about Flak-Training.
The answer will take some time, will give you an update.

@Sailor Steve: so that matter is settled, we think the same about it.

greetings

Jolie

[Sailor Steve]

@Sailor Steve: so that matter is settled, we think the same about it.
You have my apology. I wasn't really trying to argue; just having fun. I guess it didn't come across as well as I had hoped. :sunny:

[Jolierouge]

As I said: no harm done.

Captain Solo! The possibility of successfully navigating an Asteroid-field is approximately 3720 to 1!

Never tell me the Odds!

greetings

Jolie

[Aktungbby]

I suspect that the u-boat crews knew very little about flak shooting and had next to no training of shooting against a moving target. Has anybody read something about the training of the U-boat crews?

The real key to the matter is found in Black May and Blacketts' War. The conning spotters on Uboats were ahead of the game early in the war with regard to aerial attacks and could crash dive with relative success. Then the math/science jocks, Patrick Blackett, got into it and by the simple expedient of applying math and science: Painting blue and white color on patrol aircraft shortened a spotting crew's abilities by 20%; decreasing that critical spotting time factor vs airspeeds considerably. The human eye simply could not discern an aircraft as readily. Throw in 'wizardry': DFing, Leigh Lights, 10 Centimetric radar, sonar and the hunt-to-kill tactics and the game changed. At no time did U-boat Flak affect counter this problem, although much time and expense was spent trying. Prayer and staying heavy at 5 to 6 meters in enemy air-cover'd seas are the best tactics. GrossAdmiral Doenitz already has a condolence letter to your next-of-kin in your Kaleun file....Viel Glück!:Kaleun_Wink:alongside your posthumous promotion recommendation to KorvettanKapitan for your selfless devotion to the Fatherland!:Kaleun_Salute:

[Sittingwolf]

Although the report is undoubtedly a prove of bravery of her men, it's a miracle that this boat stayed on the surface for so long.

[sublynx]

Interesting. Thanks Aktungbby! I always thought that the aircraft would have been painted to hide them from aircraft but there was of course no need for that in the Atlantic. A simple but clever way of making it that much harder for the U-boatmen.

[Vince82]

Although the report is undoubtedly a prove of bravery of her men, it's a miracle that this boat stayed on the surface for so long.

Yes, lucky. The report mentions several causes however e.g.: having to attack without a bomb sight and unintended dropping of bombs which completely missed.

U-615 and it's commander Ralph Karpitsky are actually somewhat famous for having fought this battle. It was important, because it enabled other u-boats to escape to the Atlantic.

The fight back order was in effect at this time of the war, but I doubt it U-615 could submerge as it was damaged already even before the battle started: "Another message reported sub damaged, with bow out of water making only 2 knots."

[sublynx]

I doubt it U-615 could submerge as it was damaged already even before the battle started: "Another message reported sub damaged, with bow out of water making only 2 knots."

You're right Vince82. Here's an excerpt from the POW's interrogation report:

Chapter IX. SINKING OF U-615

FIRST ATTACK.

U-615 was in the act of making a routine dive when she was attacked 6 August 1943 by a PBM from Squadron 204. The attack took place at 1721Z in 120 38' N., 640 15' W. Three or four depth charges were dropped and damaged the U-boat considerably. The electric motors and the port Diesel were put out of action. The lubricating oil gravity tank was damaged and oil ran into the bilges. High pressure air lines were broken and water entered through some of the glands. The U-boat surfaced at once, and the two 20-mm. anti-aircraft guns were manned. The portable machine guns were brought to the bridge, and the U-boat opened fire. The plane returned to attack, but was shot down by the heavy barrage laid down by the 20-mm. guns.




The whole report can be read here:

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-615INT.htm

[Jolierouge]

As I said I would do I just asked the People I mentioned and I hope we have an answer by the end of the week.

greetings

Jolie

[sublynx]

:up:

[Jolierouge]

This is what I got (original copy&paste):

"Das Handbuch für U-Bootskommandanten aus dem Jahr 1942 legt das Verhalten gegenüber Flugzeugen wie folgt fest:
„In besonders luftgefährdeten Gebieten stets die besten Leute auf Ausguck, Fla-Waffen klar und besetzt, Gefechtsbereitschaft der Waffen durch häufiges Auswechseln und Funktionsbeschuß sichergestellt.
267. Beim Marsch steht die Sicherheit des Bootes im Vordergrund, beim Operieren der Angriff. Aus dem Marsch daher bei festgestellter Flugzeugortung tauchen, beim Angriff nicht durch jede Flugzeugortung beirren lassen.
268. Feindliche Flugzeuge greifen nach vorheriger Ortung möglichst aus der Sonne oder in Fahrtrichtung bzw. auf Tauchkurs des Bootes an und leuchten bei Nacht kurz vor dem Angriff mit Scheinwerfer.
269. Grundregeln: Wird ein Flugzeug, das nicht im Anflug auf das Boot ist, auf größere Entfernung gesichtet, im allgemeinen nicht tauchen, sondern abdrehen, schmale Silhouette zeigen, mit der Fahrt heruntergehen, damit der Schaumstreifen verschwindet. Wird ein Flugzeug beim Anflug in größerer Entfernung gesichtet, sofort tauchen. Wird ein Flugzeug bei Nacht erst beim Aufleuchten der Schweinwerfer gesichtet, so daß es zum Angriff erneut anfliegen muss, sofort tauchen. Wird ein Flugzeug beim Anflug erst so spät gesichtet, daß das Boot vor dem Angriff nicht mehr auf Tiefe kommen kann, nicht tauchen, sondern mit Fla-Waffen abwehren. Nach dem ersten Angriff sofort tauchen, bevor das Flugzeug zum zweitemal anfliegen kann.
270. Bei allen Flugzeugangriffen nach dem Tauchen sofort auf Tiefe A gehen und Haken schlagen.“
Darüber hinaus enthält dieses Handbuch noch allgemeine Bestimmungen zum Verhalten gegenüber Flugzeugen, jedoch keine Ausführung über die Dauer der Flugabwehr-Ausbildung auf U-Booten. Trotz eingehender Literatur-Recherche konnte ich dazu auch in anderen Werken und Dienstvorschriften keinen Hinweis finden. "

In General this says best men on lookout and weapons and explains, what to do in certain situations and the safety of the boat has priority.
Point 269 says if an aircraft is spotted too late to dive, shoot back, then dive to depth A, whatever that is.


No hint on the length of Training has been found so far BUT another source is mentioned to me so I will continue asking questions and do it Columbo.

greetings

Jolie

[sublynx]

Thanks for tve trouble. Hope something turns up.

Depth A is explained here:
http://www.uboatarchive.net/KTB/KTBNotesDiving.htm

[Jolierouge]

No Trouble at all. It is an interesting Topic.
And fun nosing around.
Doing it Columbo :D.

greetings

Jolie

[Vince82]

Thanks Jolie, it's interesting information. "When a/c is spotted at long range, but there is no indication that the boat is spotted yet, turn away to and slowly dive to minimize wake and silhouette"

So A=80m.

[TorpX]

I thought this part was interesting:

When the desired down angle is achieved (normally 12-15° but can go as high as 30 ° in a crash dive - at more than 40° acid may leak from battery cells) vent valve for ballast tank 1 is opened.

[CCIP]

Thanks Jolie, it's interesting information. "When a/c is spotted at long range, but there is no indication that the boat is spotted yet, turn away to and slowly dive to minimize wake and silhouette"

So A=80m.

Just to be clear, A was not actually fixed at 80. It would change as per orders from patrol to patrol as part of disguising the depth measurements and tactics. For game purposes, keeping it at 80 is fair. From most reports I've seen, A was usually set for a round number somewhere between 20 and 80m.

[Admiral Halsey]

Only "plane" I ever think about engaging is the blimp you run into sometimes off the US coast. It's slow enough that I can hit it with the AA guns enough times at long range to down it before it can drop its load.

[Jolierouge]

Just sent the message, again it is waiting.....

greetings

Jolie