SIDE OF WINNERS

[jorgegonzalito]

After testing the Silent Hunter III, whose missions end always the same, I uninstalled. Reading books on German submarines, especially "Coffins steel" Herbert A.Werner is no wonder that in the end the u-boats always lost. The first glory years (1939-1942) were followed by a dark period when the German submarine fleet was almost totally destroyed. In the period 1943-1945 the u-boats did not hunt but were hunted. 85% of the crew did not survive the war, and the delay in the commissioning of submarines as the type XXI, forcing crews to fight all those with obsolete submarines, marching almost certain death. In short: a suicide. As if this were not enough, some designed Mods that make it even more difficult game conditions. At the end of these missions only "Mandrake" survives. So far the reality, what follows is my view: a game is to entertain and defuse the player, but playing in such conditions results in the opposite. Nobody in their right mind would risk unless 50% chance of winning. I have therefore decided to install Silent Hunter IV and fight on the side of the Americans against the evil Empire of Japan. At least that submarine warfare was more balanced conditions, but we'll see about testing the game and missions.

[u crank]

So far the reality, what follows is my view: a game is to entertain and defuse the player, but playing in such conditions results in the opposite. Nobody in their right mind would risk unless 50% chance of winning. I have therefore decided to install Silent Hunter IV and fight on the side of the Americans against the evil Empire of Japan. At least that submarine warfare was more balanced conditions, but we'll see about testing the game and missions.

Since it is a 'game' and a simulation you have the freedom of choice in choosing sides. But pure realism would say you don't have a choice and even more so you would not know the outcome of the war. Personally I have always enjoyed playing SH3/GWX in the later stages of the war with the expressed goal of surviving. Sinking unescorted ships gets boring after a while. Sinking anything in 1944 is an accomplishment. To each his own. Good hunting in the Pacific. :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

You can always use a low difficulty setting which makes it much easier to "win".

After playing sub sims for more almost forty years I play for the history, not for the "winning".

[jorgegonzalito]

Thank you very much to you both for your answers. It's always good to read the views of other comrades. I think it's not bad to try to find a game where the odds are more equitable, and I think in the Pacific theater of war that occurs in much greater proportion. Of course it all depends on the skill that everyone can develop. From what I've read Silent Hunter IV incorporates some improvements over SHII and that makes it more interesting. There is another component of ideological character to be taken into account, I do not feel comfortable playing a German submarine commander. With everything honorable and professional that may have been the Kriegsmarine, fighting for the wrong cause whose aims were dark. My generation (1950) was educated in the belief that the Allies were the good, the bad and the shaft. In this regard I believe that Japan was a danger that had to be crushed, a country of bloodthirsty fanatics and they deserved everything they got in retaliation. So sink ships and send to back a few hundred children of the rising sun, it can make you feel better after each collapse, knowing he has helped to accelerate the fall of that dangerous regime for the civilized world.

[Zosimus]

Well, if you want to modify the game to make it easier, it's not difficult. Some people here, for example, have changed the explosive power of torpedoes. With extreme numbers, one torpedo could destroy an entire convoy. Alternatively you could accelerate the rollout of the new types of submarines or improved torpedoes. Imagine starting in 1939 with T5s.

It wouldn't take more than an adjustment or two to let your submarine dive to 500 meters without difficulty. At that depth, you would never be picked up by ASDIC, and depth charges wouldn't hit you either.

As for whether the Germans were evil (or the Japanese for that matter), I would say definitely not. There are a number of cautions available historically that American destroyers would fire on or depth charge German submarines. The submarines were under very strict orders to never retaliate against American aggression for fear of bringing the US into the war. At the beginning of the game, we are ordered not to fire on UK capital ships, and not to fire on French ships at all because any attempts along those lines may injure the attempts to negotiate the UK and France out of the war.

I can think of at least one incident in which a u-boat attacked a ship, only to find that it contained Italian POWs. The u-boat broadcast its peaceful intentions and began the humanitarian rescue of the survivors only to find itself attacked by American forces soon thereafter. German u-boats attempted to follow the prize regulations whereas US subs waged unrestrained sub warfare from day one.

I think it's also safe to say that no u-boat captains ever commanded any German concentration camps.

[Fahnenbohn]

I think it's also safe to say that no u-boat captains ever commanded any German concentration camps.

LOL :rotfl2:

[20000 Leagues]

Since it is a 'game' and a simulation you have the freedom of choice in choosing sides. But pure realism would say you don't have a choice and even more so you would not know the outcome of the war. Personally I have always enjoyed playing SH3/GWX in the later stages of the war with the expressed goal of surviving. Sinking unescorted ships gets boring after a while. Sinking anything in 1944 is an accomplishment. To each his own. Good hunting in the Pacific. :salute:

I'd have to second that! Some of my strategies changed as the war progressed. One of my first tactics to change when I switched to GWX was surface combat. No more duking it out with DD's or even ASW Trawlers. It did get very difficult, but I liked coming up with new tactics and modifying old ones. It would be nice now and then to just blow stuff up though! :haha:

[jorgegonzalito]

Zosimus: In your post you mean the so-called "Laconia incident" in which participated the U-156, I read about it, and I even saw a relatively modern film about the subject. In saying that Germany was fighting for the wrong cause and dark purposes, he had in mind the concentration camps but the simple fact that the country carried out a aggression war against other nations, so it was well demonstrated in Núremberg trials and is since then a crime, susceptible of being judged in any international court. With regard to improving the technical characteristics of the submarines and their weapons to play with advantage, I tried to accomplish missions in 1942 with a type XXI and the difference it is huge, but that is departing from the normal parameters. Nor can sink a convoy with atomic bomb, do not exaggerate. Anyway, we'll see how it goes in the Pacific Theater with the Americans. There are plenty of footage and even a TV series called "Silent Service".

[jorgegonzalito]

20000 Leagues:
Surfacing and cope with these gunboats or trawlers, it is an interesting idea, a little daring, but interesting. It is what the boat does not expect you to do. Emerges and shoot with the bow gun, even can run him since a type IX is much larger. Anything is better to stay submerged depth charges received for hours. Anyway if we will sink, we sink us fighting!

[Torplexed]

Anyway, we'll see how it goes in the Pacific Theater with the Americans. .

It's a big enough ocean. Plenty of room for everyone. :D

http://pyxis.homestead.com/SH4vsSH3.jpg

[jorgegonzalito]

Jajaja! Yes! They said that the Atlantic Ocean was a lake compared with Pacific size.

[jorgegonzalito]

I had the perception that the submarine war in the Pacific was more balanced, and I was not wrong. The statistics I consulted Internet have surprised me: 70% of 863 German submarines some who were in action in World War II were lost, while only 15.6% of the 314 American submarines the same fate . Another interesting statistic indicates that both the German and American submarines sank the same proportion of tonnage per unit. A very noticeable difference to the technology superiority of the US navy submarines, especially the "Gato" and "Balao" classes, larger and better equipped is added.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

It's a big enough ocean. Plenty of room for everyone. :D

http://pyxis.homestead.com/SH4vsSH3.jpg

Awesome cartoon! Very cool, Torplexed! :cool:

[maillemaker]

After testing the Silent Hunter III, whose missions end always the same, I uninstalled. Reading books on German submarines, especially "Coffins steel" Herbert A.Werner is no wonder that in the end the u-boats always lost. The first glory years (1939-1942) were followed by a dark period when the German submarine fleet was almost totally destroyed. In the period 1943-1945 the u-boats did not hunt but were hunted. 85% of the crew did not survive the war, and the delay in the commissioning of submarines as the type XXI, forcing crews to fight all those with obsolete submarines, marching almost certain death. In short: a suicide. As if this were not enough, some designed Mods that make it even more difficult game conditions. At the end of these missions only "Mandrake" survives. So far the reality, what follows is my view: a game is to entertain and defuse the player, but playing in such conditions results in the opposite. Nobody in their right mind would risk unless 50% chance of winning. I have therefore decided to install Silent Hunter IV and fight on the side of the Americans against the evil Empire of Japan. At least that submarine warfare was more balanced conditions, but we'll see about testing the game and missions.

If you play with the objective of surviving until the end of the war, it is very, very difficult to do in SH3+GWX.

But it was in real life. Only a handful of combat commanders survived the war.

I played SH3+GWX starting every career in 1939, and played 100% realism with no map contacts. I played "dead is dead", starting over in 1939 when I died. After many years and careers, I finally survived the war. Then I moved on to SH5.

In terms of bang for buck of game cost investment, SH3 was unbeatable for me. :)

The trick to survival in SH3 is this:

Never attack where there is a possibility of escort reprisal without enough depth under keel for dives to 200+ meters. Basically, stay out of shallow water.

Past 1941, never attack where there is a possibility of escort reprisal without 100% hull integrity enabling full-depth diving capability.

Once hedgehogs make the scene, never ever attack when you can be detected. You must now attack escorted targets from 5000m+ and hope your firing solution and FAT torpedoes score hits. It's basically "Hail Mary" shots on convoys at that point and then turn and dive for max depth while your torpedoes are inbound at that point.

With the advent of homing torpedoes you can basically pick off escorts at will if you let them chase you and you set up your shots right so that the torpedo doesn't chase a merchant instead. If you have enough homers, you can wipe out the escort screen and then rape the convoy with whatever you have left.

With the Type XXI it's fun times again. Between homing torpedoes and the ability to play underwater slalom inside convoys at 17 knots you are almost invincible.

Steve

[Zosimus]

Zosimus: In your post you mean the so-called "Laconia incident" in which participated the U-156, I read about it, and I even saw a relatively modern film about the subject. In saying that Germany was fighting for the wrong cause and dark purposes, he had in mind the concentration camps but the simple fact that the country carried out a aggression war against other nations, so it was well demonstrated in Núremberg trials and is since then a crime, susceptible of being judged in any international court. With regard to improving the technical characteristics of the submarines and their weapons to play with advantage, I tried to accomplish missions in 1942 with a type XXI and the difference it is huge, but that is departing from the normal parameters. Nor can sink a convoy with atomic bomb, do not exaggerate. Anyway, we'll see how it goes in the Pacific Theater with the Americans. There are plenty of footage and even a TV series called "Silent Service".
I think you have a very unrealistic view of the history leading up to the war. There were no angels on any sides. Germany was prepared to go to war over Danzig, which had a German majority, and the Polish corridor, which did not have a German majority. Hitler, in fact, had the invasion all scheduled for 26 August, but halted the invasion a day earlier when the Brits and Poles agreed to return to the negotiating table.

Churchill's quotes after the war show amply that England cared nothing for Polish independence. It was merely a pretext to start a war with Germany. In the end the Poles were consigned lock, stock, and barrel to the Russians.

[Fahnenbohn]

Churchill's quotes after the war show amply that England cared nothing for Polish independence. It was merely a pretext to start a war with Germany. In the end the Poles were consigned lock, stock, and barrel to the Russians.

That's absolutely right. Churchill wanted to destroy the new Germany because it had become a new continental power, and especially because it was completely out of the capitalist logic. Hitler didn't want a war ! Germany wasn't ready for a war. Hitler only wanted the construction of a German highway between the two separated parts of Germany. This is England that made war inevitable between Germany and Poland by preventing successful negotiations about the Danzig Corridor. Poland was only a pretext.

[jorgegonzalito]

Thanks Steve "Maillemaker"
By sharing your experiences, and your sincerity in acknowledging that survive the game will it cost your good effort. In much I agree with your combat tactics related to the u-boats. However, the statistics presented above show that a vast difference between the loss of German submarines and the US, which I believe supports my theory that Silent Hunter IV "Wolves of Pacific" raises a more balanced naval warfare, and so much less stressful it is dealing with a virtual game.

[jorgegonzalito]

Thanks Zosimus:
Totally agree with you, I think my knees walking England and France could have stopped Germany began its war of aggression.

[Rambler241]

Fahnenbohn said:
That's absolutely right. Churchill wanted to destroy the new Germany because it had become a new continental power, and especially because it was completely out of the capitalist logic. Hitler didn't want a war !

The last sentence is correct - he (sensibly) didn't want a war, and neither did Britain and the British government. However, what Churchill said after the war is irrelevant - he didn't take Britain into the war, Chamberlain and the British Cabinet did. Poland was not any kind of pretext - Britain had no treaty with Poland to justify declaring war on Germany. Poland had a treaty with France, as had Britain. When France declared war on Germany, Britain honoured the treaty to assist the French. The invasion of Poland was a trigger for a chain of events - Churchill had nothing to do with it.

[Fahnenbohn]

Sorry, Britain declared first war on Germany, then France. And these 2 nations had a treaty to assist Poland in case of a german intervention.

[Sailor Steve]

Churchill's quotes after the war show amply that England cared nothing for Polish independence. It was merely a pretext to start a war with Germany.

Hitler didn't want a war ! Germany wasn't ready for a war. Hitler only wanted the construction of a German highway between the two separated parts of Germany.
So the trumped-up story of the Polish attack at Gleiwitz was actually true? Hitler didn't want to invade Poland? Hitler may not have wanted war, but he certainly wanted Europe.

Sorry, Britain declared first war on Germany, then France. And these 2 nations had a treaty to assist Poland in case of a german intervention.
Actually before either one declared war they issued an ultimatum for Germany to leave Poland. If Germany had done so there would have been no war. As in the First World War, Germany was the aggressor, and the nation who started the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_French_declaration_of_war_on_Germany

[Fahnenbohn]

Hitler wanted to link to the Reich all authentically german regions. Besides, it was the wish of the inhabitants of these regions. Germany was no longer a state enslaved by the Treaty of Versailles, but had become a nation free of its destiny.

Hitler only had peaceful proposals, and Poland, supported by Britain and the United States, didn't want to know anything. Poland therefore made war inevitable. Poland is the true aggressor according to the international law.

[Fahnenbohn]

[Churchill] didn't take Britain into the war, Chamberlain and the British Cabinet did. [...] The invasion of Poland was a trigger for a chain of events - Churchill had nothing to do with it.

This is not in contradiction with the fact that Churchill, and all pseudo-democracies' capitalist leaders, wanted the death of the third Reich.

[Sailor Steve]

Hitler only had peaceful proposals, and Poland, supported by Britain and the United States, didn't want to know anything. Poland therefore made war inevitable. Poland is the true aggressor according to the international law.
So, what was the reason for the invasion on September 1? Did Germany fire the first shots, or not?

[Zosimus]

As I said before, there were no angels on any side. Hitler blamed Germany's problems (rightly or wrongly) on Judaism itself rather than on any specific Jewish person. Plentiful anti-German Jewish sentiment can be found before World War 2. Still, who are we to say that some of it was not provoked by Germanic anti-Jewish sentiment? Hate breeds hate all around.

The information at http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html shows that the hate was not merely German/Jew but that considerble animosity existed between Poles and Germans. This animosity exists still today as shown amply by the quotes in the article.

On August 26th, 1920, the Polish pastor in Adelnau said in a speech: "All Germans residing in Poland ought to be hanged."7 And another Polish proverb: "Zdechly Niemiec, zdechly pies, mala to roznica jest" - "A croaked German, is a croaked dog, is just a small difference"

I am not prepared to take sides in this matter. What I will say, however, is that I firmly believe what Ben Franklin said:

There was never a good war or a bad peace.

[Fahnenbohn]

So, what was the reason for the invasion on September 1?

Because Poland and England refused all Hitler's peaceful proposals, making war inevitable. Why did they refuse ? Because England and the US wanted to destroy the third reich for ideological reasons. Hitler is not the aggressor.

[jorgegonzalito]

Interesting contrast of opinions, and it was all my fault! Jajaja! lol boys have departed us navy regulations for entering the field of politics, and the moderator can give us a reprimand!

[Sailor Steve]

The information at http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html shows that the hate was not merely German/Jew but that considerble animosity existed between Poles and Germans.
You might want to re-think that link, as its home website is in direct violation of Subsim's policy on hate groups:
Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_hate_groups

[Sailor Steve]

Because Poland and England refused all Hitler's peaceful proposals, making war inevitable. Why did they refuse ? Because England and the US wanted to destroy the third reich for ideological reasons. Hitler is not the aggressor.
What peaceful proposals were those? It is a fact that Germany invaded Poland, not the other way around, and started the war. Hitler was indeed the aggressor, just as the Kaiser was the aggressor when he invaded Belgium in 1914.

[Fahnenbohn]

What peaceful proposals were those?

After all the negotiations with Poland have failed, Hitler plans to invade Poland on August 26, 1939. England and Poland sign an unconditional mutual assistance pact on August 25. Hitler orders Keitel to stop the invasion preparations. He wants to negotiate to save peace. Its latest proposals are :

1. Danzig (a purely german town) returns to the Reich.
2. The corridor itself decides to belong to the Reich or to Poland (freedom of people to self-determination).
3. For this purpose, a plebiscite will be held in the concerned populations, under the observation of an international commission.
4. Gdynia harbour remains Polish.
5. If the corridor is for Poland, Germany gets an extra-territorial communication channel that will cross it.
6. If the corridor is for Germany, Germany is ready to make an exchange of population. Germans from Poland, and Polish from Germany will have some rights guaranteed by obligatory conventions.

On August 30, 1939, at midnight, the British ambassador in Berlin informed Ribbentrop (German Foreign Minister) that his government recommends to Poland no compromise with Germany...

[Zosimus]

You might want to re-think that link, as its home website is in direct violation of Subsim's policy on hate groups:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_hate_groups

Home website?

I went to the root of the website in question, but didn't find anything particularly pro-Nazi or anti-Semetic.

I googled "Neo-Nazi" and the website in question and found http://www.expatica.com/de/news/country-news/Neo-Nazi-in-Germany-gets-new-jail-term-for-denying-Holocaust_159705.html in which the website in question is mentioned only in the comments.

I went to whois to determine whether the accused neo-Nazi (Horst Mahler) was the owner of the website. The whois does not show this.

I googled "Horst Mahler website" but found no apparent links between him and the website in question.

I googled "list of Neo-Nazi organizations" and found the Wikipedia page and a second page on http://www.mathaba.net/ -- however, the website in question was not on that page. I found another page entitled Neo-Nazi websites on http://panoode.ga/ but again the website in question was not on that page.

Please provide a clear test that I can use to determine whether any future website I might want to quote from runs afoul of Subsim policy.

P.S. I also googled the website and "holocaust denial" but found no relevant hits. Then I googled the website and "hate group" and found no relevant links.

[Sailor Steve]

After all the negotiations with Poland have failed, Hitler plans to invade Poland on August 26, 1939. England and Poland sign an unconditional mutual assistance pact on August 25. Hitler orders Keitel to stop the invasion preparations. He wants to negotiate to save peace. Its latest proposals are :

1. Danzig (a purely german town) returns to the Reich.
2. The corridor itself decides to belong to the Reich or to Poland (freedom of people to self-determination).
3. For this purpose, a plebiscite will be held in the concerned populations, under the observation of an international commission.
4. Gdynia harbour remains Polish.
5. If the corridor is for Poland, Germany gets an extra-territorial communication channel that will cross it.
6. If the corridor is for Germany, Germany is ready to make an exchange of population. Germans from Poland, and Polish from Germany will have some rights guaranteed by obligatory conventions.

On August 30, 1939, at midnight, the British ambassador in Berlin informed Ribbentrop (German Foreign Minister) that his government recommends to Poland no compromise with Germany...
Save peace? The fact still remains that it was Germany who invaded Poland, and started the war. Nothing you've said so far changes that.

This is exactly the same as saying the US started the war with Japan. Yes, we did place embargoes on them in an attempt to stop the Japanese invasion of China. That doesn't excuse them for the Pearl Harbor attack, or mean the US started the war in the Pacific.

[Fahnenbohn]

Hitler just wanted to be free from slavery and end the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles. Nobody can blame him for that.

[Sailor Steve]

Hitler just wanted to be free from slavery and end the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles. Nobody can blame him for that.
To put it politely, I think you'll find the judgment of most honest historians to be against you in that thinking.

The fact still remains that Germany invaded Poland and started the war.

[Fahnenbohn]

To put it politely, I think you'll find the judgment of most honest historians to be against you in that thinking.

It is the winners who write history. And inevitably, they are NOT honest. They are lying much by omission !

And those who contradict the official version are treated as 'neo-Nazi'. That is pure intellectual terrorism !

[Sailor Steve]

A part of the problem is that all "neo-Nazis" say exactly the same things. If people who do not fit that category also say those same things, then it's bad that they get lumped in with the rest, but that's the risk they take. Here in America we have a modern Nazi movement. They all deny it, but they all say those exact same things.

And those who contradict the official version are treated as 'neo-Nazi'. That is pure intellectual terrorism !
Well, look at it from the other side. If you say that Germany was only defending themselves, say the Hitler was the hero, or at least a good guy, and agree with what he and his Nazi party did at the time, what does that say?

And none of this changes the fact that Germany was indeed the aggressor, invaded Poland and started the war.

[Fahnenbohn]

Sailor Steve, I'll stop to talk about this subject, because speech is not free on these sensitive subjects. There has never been a free debate among historians. There are only propaganda and insults. If you still want to believe in the version that gives you pleasure, free to you, although I believe in your honesty. You have just heard one version, and you can't have a true judgment on this subject. Always keep in mind that the important thing is not to know if what someone says is good or bad, but if it is true or wrong.

[BigWalleye]

Sailor Steve, I'll stop to talk about this subject, because speech is not free on these sensitive subjects. There has never been a free debate among historians. There are only propaganda and insults. If you still want to believe in the version that gives you pleasure, free to you, although I believe in your honesty. You have just heard one version, and you can't have a true judgment on this subject. Always keep in mind that the important thing is not to know if what someone says is good or bad, but if it is true or wrong.

Fahnenbohn, do you believe that the Holocaust took place?

[Fahnenbohn]

A last thing. Sailor Steve says that Germany is the aggressor because Germany invaded Poland. But it is very clear in the international law :

The aggressor is not necessarily the one who attacks first. It is primarily the one who makes war inevitable.

So Poland, by its intransigence, and England who had supported Poland in this direction, are the main responsibles for the World War II.

[BigWalleye]

A last thing. Sailor Steve says that Germany is the agressor because Germany invaded Poland. But it is very clear in the international law :

The agressor is not necessarily the one who attacks first. It is primarily the one who makes war inevitable.

So poland, by its intransigence, and England who had supported Poland in this direction, which are the main responsible for the World War II.

Since the timestamp shows that you saw my question, and since you chose to ignore it, I think we can infer that as a "No."

[Fahnenbohn]

@ BigWalleye :

The important thing is not to know if what someone says is good or bad, but if it is true or wrong.

[BigWalleye]

@ BigWalleye :

The important thing is not to know if what someone says is good or bad, but if it is true or wrong.

It is not merely what you say, but what you so carefully seek to avoid saying, that causes me to fear for your immortal soul.

[Fahnenbohn]

Maybe I'm a heretic in relation to the new religion ?

[BigWalleye]

Maybe I'm a heretic in relation to the new religion ?

Don't know about that. My religion is 2000 years old. And I will pray for you.

[Fahnenbohn]

Don't know about that. My religion is 2000 years old. And I will pray for you.

Thank you for this respect. Do you think one will try to hurt me ?

[BigWalleye]

Thank you for this respect. Do you think one will try to hurt me ?

In the eternal view (the only one that matters), no one can hurt you. You can only hurt yourself. I pray that you do not.

[jorgegonzalito]

It's amazing how sometimes a simple publication, you can trigger an interesting debate. In my case I can say that I like to read about the level of knowledge that show.

[Raptor_Pilot]

Okay, what just happened? Wait, stop, I don't even care. Wow! :-?

jorgegonzalito, by all means come over to SH4! I think you'll find it a refreshing change. I'd recommend you make sure you have game version 1.5, then put Game Fixes Only mod on top of that. It works great.

[Zosimus]

To me, it has zero to do with the Holocaust. The situation between the Poles and the Germans is (and has been) very complicated for centuries. A simple look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland shows that the problem started in 1309 when the Teutonic Knights took over Danzig. Now to take that much history and lay it entirely at the feet of Hitler and say that he was the one and only aggressor in the situation is supremely naive. As I said before, I am not prepared to take sides in this matter, and I'm shocked that all of you are so willing to rip into over 800 years of grievances and boil it down to a simple right and wrong. It's complicated, m'kay?

Did the Holocaust occur? Sure. Now here are my questions:

Did the Poles persecute ethnic Germans in the Polish corridor?
How many ethnic Germans were killed on Bloody Sunday 1939?
If the English declaration of war on Germany was because Germany invaded Poland, then why didn't Great Britain also declare war on Russia? It had also invaded Poland.
Did allies forces firebomb Dresden? Was Dresden a legitimate military target? How many civilians died?

Acknowledgement of historical events goes both ways, people. Atrocities were committed by all sides.

[UKönig]

Before one can truly understand the war(s) one must really look at all the politics of all the major players involved.

It wasn't world war two, as much as it was world war one, part two. You really have to go back and relearn the history of 1914-1918, to get a better picture. Keep in mind, that for countries like Turkey, the conflict continued to rage (although a lot of it had been replaced by religiously motivated 'ethnic cleansing' then) to 1923.

Yes, the treaty of Versailles was hardly a fair document. It would be sort of like if you, yes, you the reader, had gone to a house party by invitation, got drunk and passed out, and the next morning you had awoke to find that the place was destroyed, all the other guests are gone, and you are stuck with the bill for damages only because you're the last one there. How fair is that? I don't agree that it required Germany to go to war over, but...

Zosimus asks "did the holocaust occur?" To which I also apply, yes, it most definitely did. But I often broaden the scope to include the entire European theater. What rolled over Europe, courtesy of Germany, via a madman from Austria, was certainly a holocaust. The only way that destruction could be more pervasive or all encompassing, was if nuclear weapons were involved. It took years to get over, and countries and their economies and infrastructures were slow to bounce back. Nobody had dealt with war on this kind of scale before. Even today, it is a good idea, in some parts of Europe and Italy to not mention any German ancestry, should you have any, because the memories are still so bitter. (So much so that my wife lost a job because she let slip that she is half German. Only half mind you, and this Jewish employer still found it enough to toss my wife on out the street -and this is in Canada!)

We play SH3 on the side of Germany. But nazi politics never went very far into the Kriegsmarine. The U-boat crews found more loyalty and common cause with their fellow sailor, officer and enlisted alike, then they did with hitler. That's why you will never see (I hope) a 'nazi concentration camp simulator', where you manage the 'resources,' often to their great detriment. The national socialist policies that allow for such things would be too obvious and apparent. The subsim stays away from all that and just focuses on sinking ships. As should we. Let the record show that I am very anti-nazi. And I highly suggest that everyone else be, too.

[Sailor Steve]

Did the Holocaust occur? Sure.
Question asked and answered. Thank you.

Did the Poles persecute ethnic Germans in the Polish corridor?
I don't know, but I certainly believe it's possible.

How many ethnic Germans were killed on Bloody Sunday 1939?
According to German historian Jochen Böhler, between 100 and 300, vs just under 100 poles killed. Other estimates range as high as 450. After the Bydgoszcz fell the Germans held a mass execution in which between 600 and 800 Poles died.

If the English declaration of war on Germany was because Germany invaded Poland, then why didn't Great Britain also declare war on Russia?
It had also invaded Poland.
Germany had been waging a "peaceful" aggression against the rest of Europe for several years. In the 1925 Treaty of Locarno, Germany agreed that the Rhineland would be a demilitarized zone. On March 7, 1935, Germany violated that treaty and sent troops into that area. Britain and France protested but did nothing more. On March 12, 1938, German troops marched into Austria.

In September 1938 Britain, France, Italy and Germany signed an agreement stating that Germany could have the Sudetenland in exchange for a guarantee of peace. On March 15, 1939, German troops marched into Czechoslovakia. On March 23 they moved into Lithuania. It was following those acts that Britain and France made their treaty with Poland.

Russia had committed no such acts, and Britain and France were likely unsure exactly what to make of the Soviet attacks.


Did allies forces firebomb Dresden? Was Dresden a legitimate military target? How many civilians died?
Yes, no, and too many.

Acknowledgement of historical events goes both ways, people. Atrocities were committed by all sides.
Yes it does, and yes they were. You get no argument from me there. The argument comes from your claim that Britain and France started the war and Germany was apparently just an innocent victim. Yes, Germany got screwed at Versailles in 1919, but it's also true that Germany was the aggressor in 1914 as well, steamrolling through Belgium to get at France. The French also wanted that war, because they felt they had been cheated over Alsace and Lorraine. Britain promised to stay neutral in 1914 if Germany would guarantee Belgium's neutrality. Instead they chose to violate it, just as they did in 1939.

[Kapt Z]

Boy has this thread gone off the rails. :doh:

[UKönig]

You mean, "gone off the deep end?" :arrgh!:

[Kapt Z]

You mean, "gone off the deep end?" :arrgh!:

Off the rails, through the station rear wall and into the bay....

....the deep end of the bay, as you say.:haha:

[Torplexed]

Awww. All the poor put-upon Adolph ever wanted was peace. Peace, Peace, Peace

A piece of Poland, a piece of France, a chunk of Ukraine, a plot near Bryansk.

[CCIP]

Returning to the original topic, because this was at one point about SH3, and SH3 vs. SH4, let me try to break it down for you...

What I see in that perspective is a lot of mythology that surrounds uboats, and I'm sad to see it drive away players, because SH3 is a wonderful game and the Atlantic campaign is so worth playing and experiencing. And I say that as someone who is predominantly an SH4 player. The problems I see with that view of U-boats is that I think it comes with a misunderstanding of what the experience was actually about.

Over the years since WWII, the subject of U-boats has grown over with various myths. Perhaps the first of these were promoted by, ironically, Doenitz and Churchill in equal measure. The view of U-boats as "greatest peril" and "grey wolves" and a sort of scary opponent that was oh-so-close to succeeding comes largely from people like them, because their historical legacy stood to gain from that. The truth is that the U-boats weren't close, and they were beaten decisively far earlier than most would think. As a campaign, the U-boat war was effectively lost by early-mid 1941, much in the same way the war on land was lost by mid-late 1941 when Barbarossa failed to get to its intended objectives.

If SH3 was a competitive game where you played as the leader of Germany, yeah, it'd get pretty frustrating because the other players would have you beaten by that point and it's not a great sport after that. But SH3 is not a sport, and you're not playing Germany - you're playing an individual U-boat commander, and in that role, I'd argue that you have no less to experience than in a game that's about commanding troops on a tactical battlefield after Barbarossa, or about flying an airplane after the Battle of Britain. It's VERY worth playing and you can achieve some outstanding success on your own personal scale.

The second set of myths is that "Iron Coffins" view you mentioned, of U-boats as death-traps full of doomed men who are hopeless and painfully aware of their coming demise, but stuck and unable to do anything amid crumbling morale. But that, too, isn't really the truth, especially as applies to U-boat commanders - and Werner and to a lesser extent Buchheim had their own agendas when presenting that view. Werner in particular had been heavily criticized, by both historians and other U-boat men, for distorting facts to create that narrative of doom and victimhood. Yes, it's true that most U-boats were sunk, and that the costs were heavy. However there is little evidence that any of the gloom suggested by these heavily anti-war works actually existed in the Kriegsmarine. What's more, the deaths in the U-boat force disproportionately affected the ratings, while many more officers and the vast majority of U-boat commanders actually survived the war, including most of the successful ones. And again, I remind that your role in SH3 is not the role of a low-ranking sailor or of an anthromorphized submarine - you play as the commander of a boat, and as such, the truth beyond the myths is that at any point in the war, your chances of surviving a career are not actually that bad. And to the end, you would have a crew who were ready and willing to go to sea, contrary to what some of the myths say.

Finally, the third problematic perspective is that promoted by historians such as Clay Blair. Blair is an excellent researcher and his work presented some really important archival evidence - but Blair was also an American navy officer and a man with an agenda. His agenda came from the fact that he was bitter to see the U-boats getting so much post-war attention, while for quite some time, the US submarine effort was forgotten. He wasted no opportunity to impose his own interpretation on the U-boat war, looking for the smallest bits of evidence that the U-boat force was ineffective, unprepared, corrupted by Nazism, and otherwise not nearly as good as his contemporaries might've thought. He wanted to portray U-boat officers as, in effect, liars and braggarts - while taking a very generous perspective on US submariners in equivalent positions in his other work. In breaking down - quite justly - some of the original U-boat myths, he'd also helped build his own, which I think is very unfair and in many cases absolutely forced. The U-boat story is one that absolutely is significant and deserves to be heard - and experienced, through games such as SH3. It is not one bit tainted by "losing", and the actual history of the U-boat war shows that there are some very significant things worth knowing and understanding about it, at any time in the war.

So in the original post, I see elements of all three mythologized perspectives - the "greatest peril" of Churchill, the "iron coffins" of Werner, and the "no-good lying Nazis" of Blair. All three of them are highly inaccurate and I fear they've distorted the views of a lot of people. I recommend learning more about history while letting go of those preconceived notions - and, I absolutely recommend playing SH3!

[Admiral Halsey]

Honestly some of the most fun I have is late war. Surviving to 44 is my goal every time I start a new career and I've only done it once. I wanna get the Type XXI but I wanna do it legit so I just keep banging away running into the brick wall that is May of 43.

[Kip336]

This topic taught me more about the start of WW2 than anything else.
:smug:

[BigWalleye]

Returning to the original topic, because this was at one point about SH3, and SH3 vs. SH4, let me try to break it down for you...

What I see in that perspective is a lot of mythology that surrounds uboats, and I'm sad to see it drive away players, because SH3 is a wonderful game and the Atlantic campaign is so worth playing and experiencing. And I say that as someone who is predominantly an SH4 player. The problems I see with that view of U-boats is that I think it comes with a misunderstanding of what the experience was actually about.

Over the years since WWII, the subject of U-boats has grown over with various myths. Perhaps the first of these were promoted by, ironically, Doenitz and Churchill in equal measure. The view of U-boats as "greatest peril" and "grey wolves" and a sort of scary opponent that was oh-so-close to succeeding comes largely from people like them, because their historical legacy stood to gain from that. The truth is that the U-boats weren't close, and they were beaten decisively far earlier than most would think. As a campaign, the U-boat war was effectively lost by early-mid 1941, much in the same way the war on land was lost by mid-late 1941 when Barbarossa failed to get to its intended objectives.

If SH3 was a competitive game where you played as the leader of Germany, yeah, it'd get pretty frustrating because the other players would have you beaten by that point and it's not a great sport after that. But SH3 is not a sport, and you're not playing Germany - you're playing an individual U-boat commander, and in that role, I'd argue that you have no less to experience than in a game that's about commanding troops on a tactical battlefield after Barbarossa, or about flying an airplane after the Battle of Britain. It's VERY worth playing and you can achieve some outstanding success on your own personal scale.

The second set of myths is that "Iron Coffins" view you mentioned, of U-boats as death-traps full of doomed men who are hopeless and painfully aware of their coming demise, but stuck and unable to do anything amid crumbling morale. But that, too, isn't really the truth, especially as applies to U-boat commanders - and Werner and to a lesser extent Buchheim had their own agendas when presenting that view. Werner in particular had been heavily criticized, by both historians and other U-boat men, for distorting facts to create that narrative of doom and victimhood. Yes, it's true that most U-boats were sunk, and that the costs were heavy. However there is little evidence that any of the gloom suggested by these heavily anti-war works actually existed in the Kriegsmarine. What's more, the deaths in the U-boat force disproportionately affected the ratings, while many more officers and the vast majority of U-boat commanders actually survived the war, including most of the successful ones. And again, I remind that your role in SH3 is not the role of a low-ranking sailor or of an anthromorphized submarine - you play as the commander of a boat, and as such, the truth beyond the myths is that at any point in the war, your chances of surviving a career are not actually that bad. And to the end, you would have a crew who were ready and willing to go to sea, contrary to what some of the myths say.

Finally, the third problematic perspective is that promoted by historians such as Clay Blair. Blair is an excellent researcher and his work presented some really important archival evidence - but Blair was also an American navy officer and a man with an agenda. His agenda came from the fact that he was bitter to see the U-boats getting so much post-war attention, while for quite some time, the US submarine effort was forgotten. He wasted no opportunity to impose his own interpretation on the U-boat war, looking for the smallest bits of evidence that the U-boat force was ineffective, unprepared, corrupted by Nazism, and otherwise not nearly as good as his contemporaries might've thought. He wanted to portray U-boat officers as, in effect, liars and braggarts - while taking a very generous perspective on US submariners in equivalent positions in his other work. In breaking down - quite justly - some of the original U-boat myths, he'd also helped build his own, which I think is very unfair and in many cases absolutely forced. The U-boat story is one that absolutely is significant and deserves to be heard - and experienced, through games such as SH3. It is not one bit tainted by "losing", and the actual history of the U-boat war shows that there are some very significant things worth knowing and understanding about it, at any time in the war.

So in the original post, I see elements of all three mythologized perspectives - the "greatest peril" of Churchill, the "iron coffins" of Werner, and the "no-good lying Nazis" of Blair. All three of them are highly inaccurate and I fear they've distorted the views of a lot of people. I recommend learning more about history while letting go of those preconceived notions - and, I absolutely recommend playing SH3!

You seem to have formed your opinion from reading sources which are less biased than Werner or Blair. Which do you recommend?

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not really a gamer, at least not as I see it. I like the machinery. I play airwar games because I like airplanes and it's as close as I'm ever going to get to being a fighter pilot. I likewise play ship games because I like the ships and I like the history. I pretend to be a U-boat kaleun in both SH3 and right now SH4, and maybe I'll pick up SH5 again someday. I still have Aces Of The Deep and SH1 on my computer, and sometimes I take them out for a spin.

SH3 is still the best of the lot, immersion-wise, at least for me. It's funny but I've never felt that hopelessness. It gets harder, but that just means I have to work harder at it.

George, that was a great summation. :rock:

[CCIP]

The really easy answer to that is, read all of them :) I think they all have a bit to offer, and Blair is still a very important source - I respect his research, just not the conclusions he'd made. I don't mean to disrespect either him or Werner, but I have a lot of trouble taking either of them without a grain of salt.

One of my favourite reads lately have been Michael Gannon's books on the U-boat war ("Black May" and "Operation Drumbeat"). And as far as books for general knowledge, there's a lot of really good stuff here: http://www.uboat.net/books/index.html/new_readers.html

The other great thing is that thanks to sites like uboat.net, these days you have access to an impressive amount of raw historical records. Even just reading through those can be really informative, which I've done a lot of (both for modding work and research, and just for fun).

[Zosimus]

The argument comes from your claim that Britain and France started the war and Germany was apparently just an innocent victim. Yes, Germany got screwed at Versailles in 1919, but it's also true that Germany was the aggressor in 1914 as well, steamrolling through Belgium to get at France. The French also wanted that war, because they felt they had been cheated over Alsace and Lorraine. Britain promised to stay neutral in 1914 if Germany would guarantee Belgium's neutrality. Instead they chose to violate it, just as they did in 1939.
Please link me to the post in which I said that Britain and France started the war whereas Germany was just an innocent victim.

[Sailor Steve]

My apologies. I confused you with the other guy. It happens when you argue with two people at once.

[Raptor_Pilot]

I did read an interesting book called 'Midway of the Atlantic' it was about the battle for convoy ONS 5, and it also had a good analysis of the evolution of convoys, asdic, and aircraft antisubmarine operations.
It was a darned good book, but I can't seem to find it on the google.

[BigWalleye]

The really easy answer to that is, read all of them :) I think they all have a bit to offer, and Blair is still a very important source - I respect his research, just not the conclusions he'd made. I don't mean to disrespect either him or Werner, but I have a lot of trouble taking either of them without a grain of salt.

One of my favourite reads lately have been Michael Gannon's books on the U-boat war ("Black May" and "Operation Drumbeat"). And as far as books for general knowledge, there's a lot of really good stuff here: http://www.uboat.net/books/index.html/new_readers.html

The other great thing is that thanks to sites like uboat.net, these days you have access to an impressive amount of raw historical records. Even just reading through those can be really informative, which I've done a lot of (both for modding work and research, and just for fun).

Thank you.

uboat.net really has a mixed bag: everything from Van Der Wat to Werner to Buchheim. A novice would need to read quite a few of the references there or he could come away with a rather distorted view. The primary source reports are, as you say, the most illuminating.

I confess that I don't see nearly so much of the bias in Blair that you do. Early war, he seems to emphasize the scrupulously ethical behavior of many of the U-boat skippers. But then, I tend to agree with John D. Campbell: "I prefer to read authors whose work reinforces my own historical prejudices." :D

[Fahnenbohn]

I tend to agree with John D. Campbell: "I prefer to read authors whose work reinforces my own historical prejudices." :D

Historical prejudices are contrary to justice, thus contrary to peace.

[BigWalleye]

Historical prejudices are contrary to justice, thus contrary to peace.

It's a joke, my man!

[Sailor Steve]

It's a joke, my man!
Or, as a friend of mine once said, the definition of Genius: Someone who agrees with you.

[BigWalleye]

Or, as a friend of mine once said, the definition of Genius: Someone who agrees with you.

Brilliant, Steve, Simply brilliant!:har:

[jorgegonzalito]

This debate has perhaps gone a little branch directly to the historical and political implications of submarine campaigns of World War II, but it has been a great deal of teachings about which I have taken due note. My original approach is based more than anything in the law of mathematical probabilities, focus most preferred not to mention -especially enthusiasts German U-boats- but the statistics are there and make a clear difference. A good player is to have the odds in your favor, 70% German submarines lost against 16% of Americans, it is a strong contrast to figures given for reflection. It goes without saying which likely attracts me, because as I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Besides that I like well equipped American submarines, large, comfortable and informal and refreshingly sympathetic me seemed to be in war US Navy.

[BigWalleye]

This debate has perhaps gone a little branch directly to the historical and political implications of submarine campaigns of World War II, but it has been a great deal of teachings about which I have taken due note. My original approach is based more than anything in the law of mathematical probabilities, focus most preferred not to mention -especially enthusiasts German U-boats- but the statistics are there and make a clear difference. A good player is to have the odds in your favor, 70% German submarines lost against 16% of Americans, it is a strong contrast to figures given for reflection. It goes without saying which likely attracts me, because as I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Besides that I like well equipped American submarines, large, comfortable and informal and refreshingly sympathetic me seemed to be in war US Navy.

If only SH4 received the modding support which has made SH3 the wonderfully immersive and adaptable experience it is now. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes the ideal gaming experience for them, and the vast set of SH3 mods allows each of us to tailor the game to our tastes. SH4 not so much.

[CCIP]

And yet again, I want to remind that in Silent Hunter games, one plays the commander of a submarine, not the sub itself - usually geared towards the more successful ones, at that. While it's undeniable that U-boats had it a bit tougher by the end, among commanders, particularly the more successful ones, the casualties were not all that high. In fact, out of the top 10 U-boat commanders, only one died on patrol during the war (Prien) - out of the top 10 US submarine commanders, that number was two (Morton and Dealey). The number of U-boat combat losses is about 11-12 times higher than US combat losses, but the number of patrols made by U-boats is some 5 times greater, so again, the difference is not as huge as it initially looks. What's more, because so many of the U-boat losses are concentrated in the last 25 months of the war, it's actually statistically true that serving on a U-boat between 1939 and early 1943 was actually "safer" than on a US submarine at any point in the war. So there's something about mathematics - conclusions from stats, as with everything, also very much depend on the perspective you take on them.

[BigWalleye]

And yet again, I want to remind that in Silent Hunter games, one plays the commander of a submarine, not the sub itself - usually geared towards the more successful ones, at that. While it's undeniable that U-boats had it a bit tougher by the end, among commanders, particularly the more successful ones, the casualties were not all that high. In fact, out of the top 10 U-boat commanders, only one died on patrol during the war (Prien) - out of the top 10 US submarine commanders, that number was two (Morton and Dealey). The number of U-boat combat losses is about 11-12 times higher than US combat losses, but the number of patrols made by U-boats is some 5 times greater, so again, the difference is not as huge as it initially looks. What's more, because so many of the U-boat losses are concentrated in the last 25 months of the war, it's actually statistically true that serving on a U-boat between 1939 and early 1943 was actually "safer" than on a US submarine at any point in the war. So there's something about mathematics - conclusions from stats, as with everything, also very much depend on the perspective you take on them.

Interesting analysis. Did you factor in the duration of patrols? One would anticipate that the USN boats spent more time at sea and more time on station than their KM counterparts. If so, we could expect per-patrol statistics to be somewhat skewed compared to losses per patrol day. And an even greater difference would be expected if we looked at losses per day on station in a combat zone, although the transit zone was likely far more dangerous for the German boats. (I'm just speculating here. I certainly haven't done the research you have.)

[CCIP]

Well, you'd expect that, but actually from what I've seen the opposite was true - US submarines were designed for patrols of 45-60 days and I can't recall any examples of patrols that went much longer than that. U-boats were designed for 30-45 days on patrol at the outset, but in wartime often far exceeded this by necessity and had beaten pretty much all records. By 1942 I would say the average patrol length for a U-boat exceeded that of US submarines. It's not unusual to find even Type VII patrols of longer than 90 days in '42-43. This is partly because US submarines cruised at higher speeds over long distance, and partly because there wasn't the same necessity to push the patrol times.

And yes, more U-boats were lost in transit than in patrol zones, by quite a long shot actually - in part because patrol zones were deliberately set in air gaps and other relative "safe zones". This was yet another reason why patrols were longer - they had to stretch their endurance to get to hunting grounds, and to avoid having to run the gauntlet into open sea more than they needed to. US submarines didn't need to stretch their operating range that much, and didn't have much to risk by returning to base regularly - it actually simplified logistics and kept the subs and crews in much better fighting shape.

One of the really big differences between the U-boats and US submarines: the U-boats were purpose-built for a very specific role, with only slightly more than the bare minimum capabilities needed to fulfill that role. The US submarines were not built for the role they ended up performing at all, but they were much more technologically advanced and versatile, with lots of room to grow in their capabilities. The German U-boats basically spent the course of the war squeezing out every drop of performance they could from the limited capabilities they had. The US boats in the Pacific, conversely, grew in capability and performance proportionally as the war went on. Both are very interesting challenges from a game perspective. It's like learning to drive a brand new car to go on a road trip you've never been on, vs. fine-tuning an old (German-made) car to its limits for winning in a high-stakes rally!

[BigWalleye]

Well, you'd expect that, but actually from what I've seen the opposite was true - US submarines were designed for patrols of 45-60 days and I can't recall any examples of patrols that went much longer than that. U-boats were designed for 30-45 days on patrol at the outset, but in wartime often far exceeded this by necessity and had beaten pretty much all records. By 1942 I would say the average patrol length for a U-boat exceeded that of US submarines. It's not unusual to find even Type VII patrols of longer than 90 days in '42-43. This is partly because US submarines cruised at higher speeds over long distance, and partly because there wasn't the same necessity to push the patrol times.

And yes, more U-boats were lost in transit than in patrol zones, by quite a long shot actually - in part because patrol zones were deliberately set in air gaps and other relative "safe zones". This was yet another reason why patrols were longer - they had to stretch their endurance to get to hunting grounds, and to avoid having to run the gauntlet into open sea more than they needed to. US submarines didn't need to stretch their operating range that much, and didn't have much to risk by returning to base regularly - it actually simplified logistics and kept the subs and crews in much better fighting shape.

One of the really big differences between the U-boats and US submarines: the U-boats were purpose-built for a very specific role, with only slightly more than the bare minimum capabilities needed to fulfill that role. The US submarines were not built for the role they ended up performing at all, but they were much more technologically advanced and versatile, with lots of room to grow in their capabilities. The German U-boats basically spent the course of the war squeezing out every drop of performance they could from the limited capabilities they had. The US boats in the Pacific, conversely, grew in capability and performance proportionally as the war went on. Both are very interesting challenges from a game perspective. It's like learning to drive a brand new car to go on a road trip you've never been on, vs. fine-tuning an old (German-made) car to its limits for winning in a high-stakes rally!

Thanks for sharing your analysis.

"Veddy interesting!"

[Zosimus]

And yet again, I want to remind that in Silent Hunter games, one plays the commander of a submarine, not the sub itself - usually geared towards the more successful ones, at that. While it's undeniable that U-boats had it a bit tougher by the end, among commanders, particularly the more successful ones, the casualties were not all that high. In fact, out of the top 10 U-boat commanders, only one died on patrol during the war (Prien) - out of the top 10 US submarine commanders, that number was two (Morton and Dealey). The number of U-boat combat losses is about 11-12 times higher than US combat losses, but the number of patrols made by U-boats is some 5 times greater, so again, the difference is not as huge as it initially looks. What's more, because so many of the U-boat losses are concentrated in the last 25 months of the war, it's actually statistically true that serving on a U-boat between 1939 and early 1943 was actually "safer" than on a US submarine at any point in the war. So there's something about mathematics - conclusions from stats, as with everything, also very much depend on the perspective you take on them.
:up:

I completely agree. Many of the losses of German u-boats were due to inexperienced commanders. At this point most of us are more experienced than even the most experienced u-boat captains. I've had more than 40 patrols, including fatal ones, and I've learned a lot. Unfortunately real u-boat captains never got the chance to learn from fatal patrols.

[BigWalleye]

And yet again, I want to remind that in Silent Hunter games, one plays the commander of a submarine, not the sub itself - usually geared towards the more successful ones, at that. While it's undeniable that U-boats had it a bit tougher by the end, among commanders, particularly the more successful ones, the casualties were not all that high. In fact, out of the top 10 U-boat commanders, only one died on patrol during the war (Prien) - out of the top 10 US submarine commanders, that number was two (Morton and Dealey). The number of U-boat combat losses is about 11-12 times higher than US combat losses, but the number of patrols made by U-boats is some 5 times greater, so again, the difference is not as huge as it initially looks. What's more, because so many of the U-boat losses are concentrated in the last 25 months of the war, it's actually statistically true that serving on a U-boat between 1939 and early 1943 was actually "safer" than on a US submarine at any point in the war. So there's something about mathematics - conclusions from stats, as with everything, also very much depend on the perspective you take on them.

I was strruck initially by the absence of Schepke from your list. Then I checked and realized that he was not in the Top 10. (Ranked 11)

If we consider the Top 50 U-boat aces, the picture is a little more sanguine:

9. Prien KIA 1941
11. Schepke 1941
17. Mohr 1943
23 Endrass 1941
30 Rollman 1943
31 Rostin 1942
35 Hartenstein 1943
36 Lemp 1941
44 Folkers 1942
45 Kuppisch 1943
50 Rosenstiel 1942

That's over 20% of the top 50 in tonnage credited. And most of those were lost early-war, none after 1943.

I don't have comparable figures for the top 50 US skippers, although I plan to post them when I track down the data.

The Nazi government liked to use their submarine aces for propaganda purposes, keeping them ashore for morale-building tours. That helped with longevity - for commanders, if not for crews. The Silent Service based withdrawal from front-line service primarily on other criteria, contributing to the loss of Morton and probably others as well.

[UKönig]

The irony is, the OP said he was changing his games because he did not want to play on the side of the losers. That's sort of like saying "I won't take part in a civil war re-enactment because the South lost". Well, yes, it's true, Germany did not win the conflict it started, and if you play as a Luftwaffe pilot or a U-boat captain or even a Panzer Hauptmann, then yes, your side automatically lost. I guess then it becomes a matter of "what would it be like if I could have done my part?". That's why I never write "happy endings" to my U-boat campaigns. There are no happy endings. Just endings.
Personally, I don't care that Germany lost. I play in the U-boat campaign for a whole host of reasons, none of them having anything to do with nazism. I like the challenge of the game. I know my side lost. I know I have all the odds stacked against me. That just raises the stakes and makes me have to work harder to succeed. And as Zosimus said - we have the advantage of learning over and over from the simulation, real captains and crews got one ride on the learning curve and rarely more. Even if they were not killed outright, it's unlikely that any would ever escape from PoW camps to become front line officers again. I am already more experienced than I have ever been partly from playing the game over and over, and partly from studying (in depth :up: ) the history and technologies of the Parties involved. It's made a huge difference.

[jorgegonzalito]

CCIP: impeccable analysis covering aspects that I had not thought. The raw statistics are not sufficient in themselves to determine preferences but must take into account other factors such as those that have arisen. You have also provided interesting data which demonstrates the technological superiority of US submarines, above peers Germans. A comparison between using the example cars would not be so farfetched: the U-Boat are Volkswagen and American submarines are a Ford Crown Victoria!

[BigWalleye]

The irony is, the OP said he was changing his games because he did not want to play on the side of the losers. That's sort of like saying "I won't take part in a civil war re-enactment because the South lost". Well, yes, it's true, Germany did not win the conflict it started, and if you play as a Luftwaffe pilot or a U-boat captain or even a Panzer Hauptmann, then yes, your side automatically lost. I guess then it becomes a matter of "what would it be like if I could have done my part?". That's why I never write "happy endings" to my U-boat campaigns. There are no happy endings. Just endings.
Personally, I don't care that Germany lost. I play in the U-boat campaign for a whole host of reasons, none of them having anything to do with nazism. I like the challenge of the game. I know my side lost. I know I have all the odds stacked against me. That just raises the stakes and makes me have to work harder to succeed. And as Zosimus said - we have the advantage of learning over and over from the simulation, real captains and crews got one ride on the learning curve and rarely more. Even if they were not killed outright, it's unlikely that any would ever escape from PoW camps to become front line officers again. I am already more experienced than I have ever been partly from playing the game over and over, and partly from studying (in depth :up: ) the history and technologies of the Parties involved. It's made a huge difference.

Word.

[Kapt Z]

The irony is, the OP said he was changing his games because he did not want to play on the side of the losers. That's sort of like saying "I won't take part in a civil war re-enactment because the South lost". Well, yes, it's true, Germany did not win the conflict it started, and if you play as a Luftwaffe pilot or a U-boat captain or even a Panzer Hauptmann, then yes, your side automatically lost. I guess then it becomes a matter of "what would it be like if I could have done my part?". That's why I never write "happy endings" to my U-boat campaigns. There are no happy endings. Just endings.
Personally, I don't care that Germany lost. I play in the U-boat campaign for a whole host of reasons, none of them having anything to do with nazism. I like the challenge of the game. I know my side lost. I know I have all the odds stacked against me. That just raises the stakes and makes me have to work harder to succeed. And as Zosimus said - we have the advantage of learning over and over from the simulation, real captains and crews got one ride on the learning curve and rarely more. Even if they were not killed outright, it's unlikely that any would ever escape from PoW camps to become front line officers again. I am already more experienced than I have ever been partly from playing the game over and over, and partly from studying (in depth :up: ) the history and technologies of the Parties involved. It's made a huge difference.

Well said!!:salute:

[Kapt Z]

I was strruck initially by the absence of Schepke from your list. Then I checked and realized that he was not in the Top 10. (Ranked 11)

If we consider the Top 50 U-boat aces, the picture is a little more sanguine:

9. Prien KIA 1941
11. Schepke 1941
17. Mohr 1943
23 Endrass 1941
30 Rollman 1943
31 Rostin 1942
35 Hartenstein 1943
36 Lemp 1941
44 Folkers 1942
45 Kuppisch 1943
50 Rosenstiel 1942

That's over 20% of the top 50 in tonnage credited. And most of those were lost early-war, none after 1943.

I don't have comparable figures for the top 50 US skippers, although I plan to post them when I track down the data.

The Nazi government liked to use their submarine aces for propaganda purposes, keeping them ashore for morale-building tours. That helped with longevity - for commanders, if not for crews. The Silent Service based withdrawal from front-line service primarily on other criteria, contributing to the loss of Morton and probably others as well.

Was thinking the same thing.

Another interesting tidbit I found while reading interrogation reports of U-boat crews on Uboatarchive.net.

1)Several accounts give the impression that not all uboatmen were volunteers, but may have been 'assigned' to the uboat arm. One medic was apparently given a simple choice of Russian front or uboats. He chose the "...lesser of two evils, uboats.". Another was in surface ships before being transferred to uboats AGAINST his personal wishes.

2)Some crews revealed that morale in their boat/flotilla was poor and fatalistic. There was comments to the effect that serving in uboats had become akin to 'suicide-squads'. Now of course this feeling may not have been shared by all or even most, but when you look at some of the photos taken of uboat men being marched to prison camps the number of men who are grinning ear-to-ear is a little startling. You would think they would be angry and resentful of 'losing', but it is not hard to imagine that they knew they had dodged a bullet and were more than happy to live out the war as POWs of the Allies.

[CCIP]

2)Some crews revealed that morale in their boat/flotilla was poor and fatalistic. There was comments to the effect that serving in uboats had become akin to 'suicide-squads'. Now of course this feeling may not have been shared by all or even most, but when you look at some of the photos taken of uboat men being marched to prison camps the number of men who are grinning ear-to-ear is a little startling. You would think they would be angry and resentful of 'losing', but it is not hard to imagine that they knew they had dodged a bullet and were more than happy to live out the war as POWs of the Allies.

I think that also depends on the point in the war we're talking about - Germans are always a fatalistic lot, but fatalistic isn't always the same as poor! Towards the end of the war the biggest problems were the loss of most of the experienced ratings, and the dropping ages of recruits along with training standards. The loss of experienced NCOs will hit any military force really hard, and the U-boats had it especially bad since the ratings didn't have the same luxury of being pulled back from the front like the successful officers were. Worse, a lot of technical personnel like machinists weren't usually rotated and mostly stayed on the same boat - so basically once they got to frontline service, they never left. Most of them were dead by the end of the war as a result.

There's a chapter in Gannon's "Black May" which is basically just dedicated to recordings gathered by the British by "bugging" POW cells - really interesting stuff! At least at that point in the war, there definitely wasn't a real breakdown in morale or crew quality - a lot of healthy skepticism and indeed relief at being captured instead of the alternative, but no sign of collapse. I think as long as the core of the professional sailors and career NCOs (rather than wartime volunteers) was there, things were okay. The tragic thing is that from what I understand, as many as 90% of those were dead by the war's end, and it's very hard to even find many surviving accounts of their experience. Partly as a result of that, most of what we learn about U-boat life comes from the perspective of officers, and that of the late-war volunteer (or "volunteer") crews.

And as for playing the German side, hey, I used to be one of those people who didn't want to play as the Nazis - in part because I was born in Leningrad and I didn't need a lot of special reminders of why I didn't want to be on the "wrong side" of WWII. But Silent Hunter III was one of the games that helped change my mind, and I have to say I'm very grateful that it did :yep:

[Kapt Z]

I think that also depends on the point in the war we're talking about - Germans are always a fatalistic lot, but fatalistic isn't always the same as poor! Towards the end of the war the biggest problems were the loss of most of the experienced ratings, and the dropping ages of recruits along with training standards. The loss of experienced NCOs will hit any military force really hard, and the U-boats had it especially bad since the ratings didn't have the same luxury of being pulled back from the front like the successful officers were. Worse, a lot of technical personnel like machinists weren't usually rotated and mostly stayed on the same boat - so basically once they got to frontline service, they never left. Most of them were dead by the end of the war as a result.

There's a chapter in Gannon's "Black May" which is basically just dedicated to recordings gathered by the British by "bugging" POW cells - really interesting stuff! At least at that point in the war, there definitely wasn't a real breakdown in morale or crew quality - a lot of healthy skepticism and indeed relief at being captured instead of the alternative, but no sign of collapse. I think as long as the core of the professional sailors and career NCOs (rather than wartime volunteers) was there, things were okay. The tragic thing is that from what I understand, as many as 90% of those were dead by the war's end, and it's very hard to even find many surviving accounts of their experience. Partly as a result of that, most of what we learn about U-boat life comes from the perspective of officers, and that of the late-war volunteer (or "volunteer") crews.

And as for playing the German side, hey, I used to be one of those people who didn't want to play as the Nazis - in part because I was born in Leningrad and I didn't need a lot of special reminders of why I didn't want to be on the "wrong side" of WWII. But Silent Hunter III was one of the games that helped change my mind, and I have to say I'm very grateful that it did :yep:

The reports bear you out in many respects. It seems that the morale of the crew often depended more on their confidence in their boat's commander, officers and po's.

This quote is from the POW report for U-468, sunk August '43.

" ...Consequently the morale of 3rd flotilla is extremely bad according to prisoners and everyone now feels he is sailing to his death on leaving port. The U-boat arm is frequently referred to as the 'suicide squadron' (Totekommando) or as a 'dog's death' (Hundsmord)."

Even that was from a boat who's commander was experienced and respected by his men.

There is a book out there written by a woman(will see if I can remember title/author) where she interviewed everyone from commanders down to lowly ratings about their experiences in uboats during the War. Very interesting, no politics, no grand strategy just men's memories.

Playing as the BAD guys....

What I have always enjoyed about playing combat computer sims/strategy games and the old board games that came before is the challenge of playing the 'losing side'. What would I have done in that situation? It is like acting. I have no sympathy for Nazism or Imperial Japan or the Confederacy yet I have played uboat commanders, Zero pilots, and Southern generals. At those moments I put myself in their shoes. I am a uboat commander, Zero pilot, Stonewall Jackson, my orders are to sink the ships, shoot down the planes, rout the brigades of my enemies. I will do that to the best of my ability. I am not thinking of myself as an American defeating/killing Americans.

[BigWalleye]

I was strruck initially by the absence of Schepke from your list. Then I checked and realized that he was not in the Top 10. (Ranked 11)

If we consider the Top 50 U-boat aces, the picture is a little more sanguine:

9. Prien KIA 1941
11. Schepke 1941
17. Mohr 1943
23 Endrass 1941
30 Rollman 1943
31 Rostin 1942
35 Hartenstein 1943
36 Lemp 1941
44 Folkers 1942
45 Kuppisch 1943
50 Rosenstiel 1942

That's over 20% of the top 50 in tonnage credited. And most of those were lost early-war, none after 1943.

I don't have comparable figures for the top 50 US skippers, although I plan to post them when I track down the data.

The Nazi government liked to use their submarine aces for propaganda purposes, keeping them ashore for morale-building tours. That helped with longevity - for commanders, if not for crews. The Silent Service based withdrawal from front-line service primarily on other criteria, contributing to the loss of Morton and probably others as well.

As promised, I have just completed a survey of the survival rates of the top 50 US submarine commanders. From Blair, Appendix G, these are ranked by number of confirmed ships sunk, rather than by tonnage sunk. That shouldn't change things too much.

I searched the Allied Commanders pages of uboat.net for the fates of the top 50. There is not always a clear indication of whether an individual survived the war, but the major events of each war patrol as commander are listed, including dates of departure and return to port. Those submarines which did not return to port on their final patrol I assumed were lost.

The results:

3. Morton KIA 1943
5. Dealey 1944
22. Moore 1944

That's it. 3 of the top 50. Entries for all of the rest provided at least reasonable evidence that they survived the war. It's possible that I got one or two incorrect. If so, I apologize. I could not find a source for the data as concise at those for U-boat commanders.

The survival rate for the top US skippers was more than 3.5 times the survival rate for the top 50 U-boat commanders. The causes of this very significant difference may provide further interesting discussion on this thread.

[Torplexed]

The survival rate for the top US skippers was more than 3.5 times the survival rate for the top 50 U-boat commanders. The causes of this very significant difference may provide further interesting discussion on this thread.

I think it mostly boils down the the quality of the opposition. The U-Boats were eventually fighting the most lethal anti-submarine force in the world. The Royal Navy, backed up by the USN and the combined technological and industrial capability of both nations The US Submarine Service faced off against a radar-deficient navy woefully unprepared for defensive warfare. The Japanese didn't take ASW seriously until too late in the game and trained its destroyers and escorts pre-war mostly for use in the battle line, not dropping depth charges.

[padi]

I'm playing the german side mostly because of patriotism and I have dedicated it to our men, women and childs who lost their lives in the war.

And also because of the fact, that the american tincans are very low tech compared to the german subs.
They could only dive to 60 meters, the germans at that time could dive to 250 meters.
And in the pacific you have no challenge because the japanese ASW is almost not existent.

And I'm happy that Morton was killed. He deserves nothing else!

[Fahnenbohn]

I'm playing the german side mostly because of patriotism and I have dedicated it to our men, women and childs who lost their lives in the war.

And also because of the fact, that the american tincans are very low tech compared to the german subs.
They could only dive to 60 meters, the germans at that time could dive to 250 meters.
And in the pacific you have no challenge because the japanese ASW is almost not existent.

And I'm happy that Morton was killed. He deserves nothing else!

:agree:

edit : for Morton, i don't know ...

[Jimbuna]

Nothing wrong with being patriotic but let us all steer clear of using it to cause offense.

[Fahnenbohn]

It is much more exciting to play on the german side. You have to defend your homeland face to the greatest powers in the world, and do the impossible to save new Germany from destruction. You incarnate the high mind of free men who refuse to surrender and prefer death to defeat and slavery. It's like the Spartans face to the Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae. The struggle seems hopeless, but ... you did what you had to do, and with panache !

[UKönig]

Now, it might make for a more interesting game if you could alter the balance of the war if you had an extremely successful campaign, let's say.

Combat flight simulator 3 has a dynamic campaign system whereby the German pilot can alter the flow of the war through successful actions, or cause setbacks by player failure to complete specific objectives.

Personally, I think that I would enjoy the game more if the ending was not so 'fixed'.
oh well, que sera, sera...

[BigWalleye]

Now, it might make for a more interesting game if you could alter the balance of the war if you had an extremely successful campaign, let's say.

Combat flight simulator 3 has a dynamic campaign system whereby the German pilot can alter the flow of the war through successful actions, or cause setbacks by player failure to complete specific objectives.

Personally, I think that I would enjoy the game more if the ending was not so 'fixed'.
oh well, que sera, sera...

YMMV. Mine does.

[Raptor_Pilot]

Now, it might make for a more interesting game if you could alter the balance of the war if you had an extremely successful campaign, let's say.

Combat flight simulator 3 has a dynamic campaign system whereby the German pilot can alter the flow of the war through successful actions, or cause setbacks by player failure to complete specific objectives.

Personally, I think that I would enjoy the game more if the ending was not so 'fixed'.
oh well, que sera, sera...

Now there's something I can agree with. I love a game that lets me rewrite history.

[Kapt Z]

Now, it might make for a more interesting game if you could alter the balance of the war if you had an extremely successful campaign, let's say.

Combat flight simulator 3 has a dynamic campaign system whereby the German pilot can alter the flow of the war through successful actions, or cause setbacks by player failure to complete specific objectives.

Personally, I think that I would enjoy the game more if the ending was not so 'fixed'.
oh well, que sera, sera...

Whether pilot or U-boat commander we are at the tactical level not strategic. It's a given that one plane or one submarine, no matter how successful, would have little impact on the overall course of the war.

What we CAN do is try our hardest to survive and as uboat men in the Battle of the Atlantic that is about as challenging as you can get. That's where my enjoyment comes from.

[Zosimus]

Whether pilot or U-boat commander we are at the tactical level not strategic. It's a given that one plane or one submarine, no matter how successful, would have little impact on the overall course of the war.

What we CAN do is try our hardest to survive and as uboat men in the Battle of the Atlantic that is about as challenging as you can get. That's where my enjoyment comes from.
Not necessarily. If a u-boat had managed to, for example, save the Bismark or sink the Queen Mary, this could have had a profound effect on the war. The Queen Mary could make up to 32 knots, was painted grey, and simply sailed as fast as she could to move troops. She transported 765,429 troops.

Perhaps this wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome of the war, but it certainly might have delayed D-Day months or years.

[Sailor Steve]

If the Bismarck had been saved she would have gone to Brest, been under repair for months if not years and ultimately met the same fate as Tirpitz. No change in the outcome there.

Yes, Queen Mary hauled a lot of troops. So did a lot of other ships. The loss of one transport, no matter how big or how fast, wouldn't have made any difference at all.

A very long time ago I used to play LucasArts' Their Finest Hour: The Battle Of Britain. It had a campaign option that allowed you to change the outcome of the battle depending on your own performance. I played the German side once, and paved the way for the German invasion. If it was a strategy game I might have believed it. It wasn't, and I wasn't a commanding general but a simple fighter pilot. It was fun - once. Then it was boring.

If you want to change the outcome of the war, there are plenty of strategy games that let you do just that. The point of Silent Hunter is to be a U-boat captain.

[Admiral Halsey]

Steve about the Queen Mary. IIRC she hauled something close to a million troops during the war herself which is a pretty significant number and one that can't easily be replaced.

[Sailor Steve]

IIRC
Rather than try to recall, why not just read the post I responded to, where he gives a precise number.

Granted, that number means that Queen Mary hauled roughly 10% of all the troops moved during the war, and 15% of all Atlantic movements. Still, as with the people who want Type XXI U-boats in 1939, any change made along those lines would have been countered by other technologies. If QM was not available, other means would have been found.
http://www.usmm.org/armycargo.html

Note that the total number may have been much larger, as the site I linked may only include American ships. I haven't been able to find a reliable number so far for total troop movements.

[Admiral Halsey]

Rather than try to recall, why not just read the post I responded to, where he gives a precise number.

Granted, that number means that Queen Mary hauled roughly 10% of all the troops moved during the war, and 15% of all Atlantic movements. Still, as with the people who want Type XXI U-boats in 1939, any change made along those lines would have been countered by other technologies. If QM was not available, other means would have been found.
http://www.usmm.org/armycargo.html

Note that the total number may have been much larger, as the site I linked may only include American ships. I haven't been able to find a reliable number so far for total troop movements.

Oh didn't notice that. Still it's not just the number of troops she hauled it's the speed she hauled them with. Sure if one or both of the Queens gets sunk that just means a higher priority for troop transports to fill the void but no of them will have her speed. And while it won't spell doom for the allies it could easily mean the difference between the Russians ending in Berlin or them ending on the Rhine.

[Kapt Z]

IMHO once the Allies were determined to defeat the Axis with all the means at their disposal the war was decided. It was only a matter of how much blood and time it would take.

[Zosimus]

If the Bismarck had been saved she would have gone to Brest, been under repair for months if not years and ultimately met the same fate as Tirpitz. No change in the outcome there.

Yes, Queen Mary hauled a lot of troops. So did a lot of other ships. The loss of one transport, no matter how big or how fast, wouldn't have made any difference at all.

A very long time ago I used to play LucasArts' Their Finest Hour: The Battle Of Britain. It had a campaign option that allowed you to change the outcome of the battle depending on your own performance. I played the German side once, and paved the way for the German invasion. If it was a strategy game I might have believed it. It wasn't, and I wasn't a commanding general but a simple fighter pilot. It was fun - once. Then it was boring.

If you want to change the outcome of the war, there are plenty of strategy games that let you do just that. The point of Silent Hunter is to be a U-boat captain.
First of all, you are making calculations in a vacuum. Yes, it's true that any fluke attack on the Queen Mary would have had little true impact, ultimately, on the war. However, had the Queen Mary been spotted and sunk on her maiden voyage, the British High Command might well have modified the procedure for troop transports. For example, had it been judged too likely that u-boats could find and intercept the ships -- even at high speeds and escorted, the number of escorts might have been increased. I don't know how many escorts protected the Queen Mary, but let's say 4 and that this number would have been increased to 6 or 8. That would have drawn escorts away from other vital missions.

As for what would have happened had the Bismarck survived, I needn't speculate because it's already at http://www.historynet.com/what-if-the-bismarck-had-escaped-destruction.htm

[Sailor Steve]

However, had the Queen Mary been spotted and sunk on her maiden voyage, the British High Command might well have modified the procedure for troop transports.
Affecting the way different commands adapt to setbacks is a valid dynamic for a game. At 2008 Houston Subsim meet Dan said he wanted to have SH5 respond to a lot of sinkings in one place by assigning more destroyer patrols to that area. I think that's a good thing.

On the other hand this discussion started with the statement from UKönig that "Personally, I think that I would enjoy the game more if the ending was not so 'fixed'." A single player being able to change the outcome of the war is what I disagree with the most.

For example, had it been judged too likely that u-boats could find and intercept the ships -- even at high speeds and escorted, the number of escorts might have been increased. I don't know how many escorts protected the Queen Mary, but let's say 4 and that this number would have been increased to 6 or 8. That would have drawn escorts away from other vital missions.
Again, that is something I agree with. The game should be able to make those command decisions.

As for what would have happened had the Bismarck survived, I needn't speculate because it's already at http://www.historynet.com/what-if-the-bismarck-had-escaped-destruction.htm

The author of the article states:
First, the Bismarck would have had to elude detection—an unlikely possibility. Second, the warship would have had to escape damage in the Battle of the Denmark Strait—a possibility, since historically the Bismarck had damage minor enough that Admiral Lütjens could have continued the mission. Third, and most likely, the Bismarck would have had to reach safety at Brest, where it would have joined two smaller battleships, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, that had just completed a successful though limited raid against British shipping. Within weeks of Bismarck arriving, all three battleships would have been able to put out to sea in another strike against the Atlantic convoy lanes.
It specifically talks about Bismarck not being damaged at all. You, on the other hand, said "If a u-boat had managed to, for example, save the Bismark..." To me this implied that Bismarck was damaged as actually happened. The damage taken at Denmark Straight was only to the fuel tanks, and would have been repaired quickly. My statement was based specifically on the predication that Bismarck had also taken the damage to the steering room from the Swordfish's torpedo. That is what would have taken months to repair, if it ever was done.

So I was responding directly to your statement about a u-boat saving the battleship. Not a vacuum at all.

[Fahnenbohn]

As for what would have happened had the Bismarck survived, I needn't speculate because it's already at http://www.historynet.com/what-if-the-bismarck-had-escaped-destruction.htm

Good article.

[BigWalleye]

However, had the Queen Mary been spotted and sunk on her maiden voyage....

The Queen Mary's maiden voyage began May 27, 1936 and ended long before the war began.

As for what would have happened had the Bismarck survived, I needn't speculate because it's already at http://www.historynet.com/what-if-the-bismarck-had-escaped-destruction.htm This sort of counterfactual history is what the historian E. P Thompson called Geschichtswissenschlopff.:D

[Zosimus]

The author of the article states:

It specifically talks about Bismarck not being damaged at all. You, on the other hand, said "If a u-boat had managed to, for example, save the Bismark..." To me this implied that Bismarck was damaged as actually happened. The damage taken at Denmark Straight was only to the fuel tanks, and would have been repaired quickly. My statement was based specifically on the predication that Bismarck had also taken the damage to the steering room from the Swordfish's torpedo. That is what would have taken months to repair, if it ever was done.

So I was responding directly to your statement about a u-boat saving the battleship. Not a vacuum at all.

I understand the article different from the way you do. First of all, had the Bismarck managed to go undetected, it would never have encountered resistance and would have escaped into the Atlantic no problem. This did not occur, and really this is the least likely scenario. As the article points out, no sooner did it hit Bergen but the Brits knew about it.

Second, the Bismarck might have gone completely undamaged in its first skirmish. Had this happened, the Bismarck would have stayed with the Prinz Euge and continued on its mission. This was a valid possibility, but it was not the possibility I suggested.

Finally, the Bismarck might have made it to Brest. This is the possibility that the article labels "...Third, and most likely, the Bismarck would have had to reach safety at Brest." If a u-boat captain, in the game, had managed to intercept the Bismarck within an hour or two after the damage, it could have just simply provided the Bismarck with the equipment necessary to repair the damage. As noted at http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm the divers reported that they could enter to make repairs "Only if we had the diving apparatus issued to submariners." (see http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm ).

[Sailor Steve]

All true. My point is that if even if a temporary repair is effected Bismarck makes Brest, she's still going to need an overhaul to be ready for sea again, and that's going to take months. The steering room and the armor plate will have to be replaced, and those parts will have to be shipped from elsewhere if they are available at all. If not, new ones will have to be manufactured.

My real challenge, though, is to people who want their one submarine to change the end of the war.

[Zosimus]

Just sink the Queen Mary while she's carrying Winston Churchill. That will change things.

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2:

Good point! :sunny:

[Fahnenbohn]

As noted at http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm the divers reported that they could enter to make repairs "Only if we had the diving apparatus issued to submariners." (see http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm ).

Yes, maybe, but how much time would the repairs have taken ?

[UKönig]

I know, they had to strike a balance between historical accuracy and a playable game. Not an easy thing to do well.