A detailed KTB from 1944 - BdU: "Don't get cocky"

[sublynx]

A perfect war diary:

http://www.uboatarchive.net/KTB482-1.htm

A very detailed report on an astonishingly succesful patrol from late 1944 and thanks to that I got some confirmation on some things that have been a bit unclear to me so far.

Among them:
1. The U-boat assessed the speed of an escort by counting the revolutions per minute of the propellers
2. A homing torpedo was used with a non-homing setting
3. The U-boat that was depth charged used some kind of evasive action ("hakenschlagen" or "course changes") along BOLD launches

It's still unclear to me if that hakenschlagen is just random course changes or well thought-out evasive maneuvers.

U 482's first patrol was a huge success considering the overwhelming odds. The commander Matuschka got the German Cross in Gold while still at sea. BdU also sent a message about the need to "not get cocky".

Matuschka and his well-trainded but green men were all killed a couple of months after the writing of the report. A Norwegian Sunderland spotted them and the veterans of 17th Escort Group were directed to the boat and HMS Ascension had one or two hedgehogs landing on their obsolescent boat.

Reading Matuschka's detailed, energetic and smart report made me pause for a moment, thinking about what a waste his death was. If only his skillset and dedication could have been used for peaceful purposes.

[Mittelwaechter]

Hakenschlagen is available in SH3 - ask your LI for manouvers.

A small course correction enables the escort above to extrapolate your course from the previously assumed course and run the next depth charge attack close to you.
A Haken (hook) for 90° - or a Doppelhaken (double hook) for 180° shall get you out of the escorts sensors, blinded by the disturbed water due to the depth charges.

In SH3 you are in the deaf baffles after an attack run - and may stay there pretty long, dependent on the direction the escort takes after attacking you.

A homing torpedo had an additional sensor (two passive hydrophones) connected to the steering. Similar to the magnetic fuse connected to the pistol, it was easily to be switched off - by disconnecting a circuit.
Why should they want to carry a torpedo over thousands of miles - perfectly capable sinking a slow freighter with impact/mag fuse, but unable to do so? The homing device was an optional measure, to enhance the self defence capabilities of the U-Boot. Some torpedos were equipped with it.

The speed of an escort to attack was not to be estimated like the speed of a slow moving freighter. The correct speed setting is the most decisive factor in a torpedo attack. Even from a short distance, the few knots estimated wrong would sent the torpedo forward or behind the target.


Mankind could grant every member a full life. Enjoy family and friends, watch the kids grow and develop your full potential to contribute to the community.
But some interested entity teaches us war to be a necessity...

[bstanko6]

I read the KTB and I wonder what depth A was?

[Mittelwaechter]

It's a secret, not to be told to curious people like you...

:D

[bstanko6]

Wow!

[sublynx]

IIRC, A = 80, so in the KTB's 2A is 160 meters depth, A-80 = 40 meters.

[bstanko6]

I appreciate that

[Mittelwaechter]

They fixed a certain depth as A to have a common reference when talking/writing about (120 meters maybe).
As long as bstanko6 doesn't know what depth A has been defined to, he can't know what depth the German U-Boote could reach. 'A' was defined later in war, when the Germans built better U-Boote, able to dive deeper. The allies should not get that information.

If 'A' were 80 meters, A - 80 would be surfaced. 2A would be 160 meters - correct.

[20000 Leagues]

That was an interesting read. Thanks for posting. I was playing with some simmers who were of the opinion that attacking destroyers should be discounted as it wasn't historically accurate. Nice to see that taking shots at and sinking them was in fact, historically accurate!

[Mittelwaechter]

The job was to sink freighters.

But in favourable position they could/should attack destroyers and escorts. They shouldn't get after them, risk anything to attack them, but an escort at 12 kts merrily crossing the bow in calm waters?

Ready tube 3 - Eto - Impact pistol only - 2.5 meters depthsetting - distance 1200 meters - bow left - AOB 70 - revolutions for 12 Kts, Herr Kaleun - LOS!

The homing torpedos were designed to sink escorts - for targets doing 12 Kts or faster. A wolfpack sinking half the escort screen would have had a feast on the convoy.

There were some problems still to solve: the sensors were unreliable, could be easily distracted (by foxers - towed devices making noise), most of the time the weather conditions were not good enough to attack destroyers or escorts. They didn't even attack freighters in bad/unsuitable conditions.
(should be SH3 sea/wind state ~ 10/11 and above)

DDs/DEs/Other sunk by German Uboats:
USS Bristol (DD-453) - U371
USS Buck (DD-420) - U616
USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) - U578
USS Leary (DD-158) - U275
USS Reuben James (DD-245) - U552
USS Fechteler (DE-157) - U967
USS Fiske (DE-143) - U804
USS Frederick C. Davis (DE-136) - U546
USS Leopold (DE-319) - U255
USS PC-558 (Submarine Chaser) - U230
USCGC Alexander Hamilton (WPG-34) (Coast Guard) - U132
USCGC Acacia (WAGL-200) (Coast Guard - former Minelayer) - U161 (sunk by Gunfire!)
USS Eagle Boat 56 (PE-56) (Gunboat) - U853
USS Plymouth (PG-57) - U566 ((Gunboat)
USS YP-389 (Patrol Boat) - U??? (sunk by Gunfire!)

That's just the US Americans.

Here have the British:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II

__________________________________________________ _______________

EDIT: (06/30/16) Flower Class Corvettes attacked successfully by German Uboats:

Canadian
HMCS Alberni (K103) - U 480 (escort) (= while assigned to a convoy as escort)
HMCS Charlottetown (1941) - U 517
HMCS Lévis (K115) - U 74 (escort)
HMCS Regina (K234) - U 667 (escort)
HMCS Shawinigan (K136) U 1228
HMCS Spikenard (K198) - U 136 (escort)
HMCS Trentonian (K368) U 1004 (escort)

British Royal Navy
HMS Abelia (K184) - U??? (escort) T5/damaged/sold
HMS Arbutus (K86) - U 136 (escort)
HMS Asphodel (K 56) U 575 (escort)
HMS Bluebell (K80) - U 711 (escort)
HMS Fleur de Lys (K122) - U 206
HMS Gladiolus (K34) - U 553 (escort)
HMS Picotee (K63) - U 568 (escort)
HMS Pink (K 137) - U 988 (escort) damaged/loss
HMS Polyanthus (K47) - U 305 (escort)
HMS Salvia (K97) - U 568 4 Torps Fan
HMS Vervain (K190) - U 1276 (escort)
HMS Zinnia (K98) - U 564 (escort)

French Flower Class
FFL Alysse (K 100) - U 654 (escort)
FFL Mimosa (K11) - U 124 (escort)

Norwegian Flower Class
HNoMS Montbretia (K208) - U 262

These are only successful attacks! They probably tried more often!

__________________________________________________ _______

Edit2: (07/01/16)

Castle Class Corvettes
HMS Hurst Castle (K416) - U 482 (escort)
HMS Denbigh Castle (K696) - U 992 (escort)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frigates attacked by German Uboats, but not sunk (damaged beyond repair/all declared loss)

Canadian River Class Frigate
HMCS Chebogue (K317) - U 1227 (escort) (= attacked while assigned to a convoy as escort)
HMCS Magog (K673) - U 1223 (escort)

British River Class Frigate
HMS Cuckmere (K 299) - U 223
HMS Lagan (K 259) - U 270 (escort)
HMS Teme (K458) - U 246/U 315 (escort)

British Captain Class Frigate (ex US Evarts & Buckley)
HMS Goodson (K480) - U 984 (prob. escort)
HMS Bickerton (K466) - U 354 (escort)
HMS Whitaker (K580) - U 483 (escort)
HMS Mounsey (K569) - U 295 (escort)
HMS Affleck (K462) - U 486 (sank HMS Capel (K470) the same day)
HMS Manners (K568) - U 1051 (Hunter Killer)
HMS Redmill (K554) - U 1105 (patrol)
HMS Goodall (K479) - U 286 (escort)

Most have been attacked with G7es.

_________________________________________________

Edit4: (07/03/16)

Frigates directly sunk by German Uboats

Canadian River Class
HMCS Valleyfield (K329) - U 548 (transfer)

British River Class
HMS Itchen (K 227) - U 666 (escort)(Gefallener Engel - Aktungbby)
HMS Tweed (K 250) - U 305 (escort; patrol)
HMS Mourne (K 261) - U 767 (patrol)

Captain Class (ex US Evarts & Buckley)

HMS Blackwood (K313) - U 764 (escort; patrol)
HMS Capel (K470) - U 486 (patrol)
HMS Gould (K476) - U 358 (Hunter Killer)
HMS Bullen (K469) - U 775 (escort;patrol?)

__________________________________________________ ______

Edit3: (07/01/16)

Sloops sunk/attacked by German Uboats

British
HMS Penzance (L28) - U 37 (escort)
HMS Culver (Y 87) - U 105 (escort)
HMS Dundee (L84) - U 48 (escort)
HMS Puffin (L52) - Rammed a German Midget Submarine Seehund (midget torpedoes exploded/damaged/loss)
HMS Stork (L81) - U77 (escort) (Walker's Bittern Class Sloop - damaged/repaired)
HMS Woodpecker (U08) - U 256 (escort)
HMS Chanticleer (U 05) - U 515 (prob. escort) (damaged/loss)
HMS Kite (U87) - U 344 (escort)
HMS Lark (U 11) - U 968 (escort)
HMS Lapwing (U 62) - U 968 again (escort) (other patrol)

Australian
HMAS Parramatta (U44) - U 559 (escort)

__________________________________________________ ______

[sublynx]

Sunk by gunfire!? Now that is quite a surprise! I'll have to look for some more info on those sinkings.

[20000 Leagues]

Thanks for that info Mittelwaechter! I was surprised to see the sinkings by gunfire.

[KaleutKiwi]

:o Who says that? :o

EXACTLY!

destroyers are counted in DEF, i spent several days splitting tonnage so that naval tonnage is shown, and recognized! :)

[Sailor Steve]

On the other hand, American humorist Mark Twain made a saying popular, attributing it to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

The list posted by Mittelwaechter shows 15 small American ships sunk by u-boats. The link he posts says that 33 British destroyers were sunk by "enemy submarines", which would of course include sinkings by the Japanese. We'll include those, because after all they were still submarines. This doesn't include the 37 corvettes lost to all causes. I didn't go through each one, so we'll just say they were all sunk by u-boats.

This gives a total of 85 small warships sunk by submarines, over the course of the war. That's 85 escorts in 5 years 7 months. Eighty-five ships in 67 months. That's one escort sunk every month. That's by all u-boats, not just one. This means that 20000 Leagues is correct - while attacking escorts did happen, it is statistically insignificant. Realistic would be one escort sunk for every five careers. Total. Sinking one escort in every attack, or even every patrol, is not realistic at all.

[Mittelwaechter]

The Germans didn't attack US NAVY before Oct 31st 1941 (USS REUBEN JAMES).

The question was, if it was historically accurate for the Uboats to attack DDs/DEs.
Statistical relevance was not the issue.

Where are the lies?

[Sailor Steve]

Statistical relevance was not the issue.
Oh, but it very much is.

Where are the lies?
The argument that they did attack escorts has nothing to do with history. It has to do with the fact that gamers will use any justification they can find to play the way they want, whether it happened that way or not. I've been playing wargames for forty years now and I've seen this happen over and over. They want to do something, so they come up with reasons why they should.

The reality is that, as I said, a u-boat kaleun was unlikely to sink an escort in his entire career, much less one every patrol, even less one every attack. Citing the 85 escorts sunk by u-boats is the lie, because what you're trying to justify is sinking all the escorts so you can attack the convoy with impunity. This never happened in real life. Not once.

It's just a game. Play it the way that makes you happy. My objection is when you try to come up with an excuse to do so and twist history all out of proportion in the process.

[Aktungbby]

Interesting references to somewhat unreliable (not panned fast enough) 'tunis' FuMB-26 radar,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/FuMB-26_Tunis.png/120px-FuMB-26_Tunis.png not detecting aircraft; as opposed to an earlier reference Fu.M.B. "Tunis" is brought out and yields continuous detections in the 9 cm range. A lone bomber was present on the bearing when first seen by the operators. Trust in the gear is thereby established. dismounted antiaircraft guns or bad ammunition The anti-aircraft weapons were used for the first time on the penultimate day of the patrol on 24 September. All failed. The 2 cm weapons malfunction was due to rusted ammunition from the upper deck container, in the 3.7 to the jamming of cartridges in the cover and malfunction of the rammer and the safety and firing latch. Since the boat was only equipped with tracer ammunition and almost exclusively surfaced briefly at night, check firing was not carried out, instead only ever exchanged one 2 cm automatic and kept the weapons in order. The causes of the malfunctions could only be determined by check fire on arrival in calm. upon surfacing and sound buoys hampering operations. being forced to do night attacks underwater cannot have been optimal either as poor visibility was commented on:In the attack periscope only smooth shadow masses are distinguished. Switched over to the control room periscope. Here it is bright enough for a submerged attack. In fact the boat is again in the middle of an inbound convoy, ran along on the same course, the nearest steamers are easily distinguished, but failed to gain an overall view of the formation and strength of the convoy. Great stuff! learned new stuff... mostly that close calls and chronic surveillance required constant snorkeling at this point.

[Mittelwaechter]

The argument that they did attack escorts has nothing to do with history.

So you call me a liar, because you claim to know my motivation for providing some historical facts?

[Sailor Steve]

So you call me a liar, because you claim to know my motivation for providing some historical facts?
Not at all. Two different people have tried to do exactly that in this thread. You aren't one of them. I'm not even calling them liars, because they aren't. I do, however, think they are using partial facts to come to a mistaken conclusion, because that's the conclusion they want to see.

To reiterate: Yes, it is historically accurate for a u-boat to attack an escort. No, it is not historically accurate to do so even once in a career, much less every time you attack a convoy.

[Mittelwaechter]

Not at all. Two different people have tried to do exactly that in this thread. You aren't one of them. I'm not even calling them liars, because they aren't. I do, however, think they are using partial facts to come to a mistaken conclusion, because that's the conclusion they want to see.

To reiterate: Yes, it is historically accurate for a u-boat to attack an escort. No, it is not historically accurate to do so even once in a career, much less every time you attack a convoy.


Citing the 85 escorts sunk by u-boats is the lie, because what you're trying to justify is sinking all the escorts so you can attack the convoy with impunity.That was you, right?

Well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoys_ONS_18/ON_202

The Germans assumed to have sunk 12 escorts - as they attacked them with T5 homing torpedoes. They managed to sink only 3 escorts in this convoy attack, performed by a wolf pack.

HMCS St. Croix (I 81) - Canadian Town Class
HMS Itchen (K 227) River Frigate
HMS Polyanthus (K 47) Flower Class Corvette

http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3079.html
You may want to read the notes on event!

So far your statement "has never been done!"

Why do you talk about lies?

What exactly do you know about statistics?

[Sailor Steve]

So far your statement "has never been done!"
You're right. I made a mistake. Of course that means that you can attack try to sink all the escorts to get a free attack on the convoy.

Once.

Do you intend to do it only once? My point still stands. Now ask yourself this: how many u-boats sank more than one escort? Also my other point still stands, which is that by and large most u-boats never sank an escort. You're still trying to justify a style of gameplay that is not realistic.

Why do you talk about lies? I wasn't. I was using a famous old statement to explain how people misuse statistics to justify an argument, and that statistics can themselves be lies depending on how they're used.

What exactly do you know about statistics?A bit. Not as much as I'd like. Enough to recognize when somebody is trying to use them to convince themselves or somebody else that their course of action is the right one.

[Mittelwaechter]

Of course can I try to sink all escorts to slaughterv the convoy. It doesn't require any historical accuracy at all - thanks to all gods.

You consider the lack of wolfpacks in SH3 to be historically correct?

You consider yourself to be the authority over the game play style of other players?

Cling on thight!
I once sank a convoy with ~ 20 freighters and 4 escorts - all by myself, running Vanilla SH3. I made it through the war in a VIIb with snorkel. I downed 21 Short Sunderland over the Biscaya - in a row. I modified my deckgun to act like a gatling cannon.

I even used a Weapons Officer telling me all firing data instantly - like you do it. Cheater! History Cheater!

[Aktungbby]

^ Peace Hombres! Sailor Steve is simply misusing an olde English expression: "gives the lie" to show that something is not entirely true as with the use of escort sinking statistics. This does not mean someone is an outright liar so much as misrepresenting all the facts slanting his particular argument. Ie: excluding exculpatory facts not supporting a side of an argument. Sailor Steve does not permit name calling offences in the forum and would not indulge in it gratuitously himself;:timeout:
In English, we used to have an expression for that very constative that has since fallen from common usage, leaving us with only circuitous paths to get at what might be happening (or not happening) between disbelief and refutation: to give the lie (to) : to accuse (a person) to his face of lying, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/108036?rskey=S4O2EG&result=1&isAdvanced=false). Today, to give the lie to has been subsumed by its derivatives, “to belie” or “to prove to be false.” If heard at all now, the phrase is usually devoid of human agents: evidence gives the lie to claims; new studies give the lie to former scientific beliefs. To call out on (or, basically, to rebuke) performs a more generalized and colloquial function in our language. To call (someone) a liar is rarely done outright—normally in the second person interrogative, “Are you calling me a liar?”—and then only in a mode of disbelief and negative suggestion. With the decline of giving the lie, the artistry and etiquette of lying—conjoined to its complement, the ritual of giving someone (back) the lie—have fallen into the obscure territory of the unnamed. And there U have it in an obfuscated semantic Nutschell :arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

You consider the lack of wolfpacks in SH3 to be historically correct?
Have you ever heard me say anything of the kind? Of course not.

You consider yourself to be the authority over the game play style of other players? Did I say anything like that? No, I didn't. What I did say was It's just a game. Play it the way that makes you happy. My objection is when you try to come up with an excuse to do so and twist history all out of proportion in the process.Cling on thight!
I once sank a convoy with ~ 20 freighters and 4 escorts - all by myself, running Vanilla SH3. I made it through the war in a VIIb with snorkel. I downed 21 Short Sunderland over the Biscaya - in a row. I modified my deckgun to act like a gatling cannon. Good! I'm glad you're having fun. I wouldn't want it any other way.

I even used a Weapons Officer telling me all firing data instantly - like you do it. Cheater! History Cheater!I freely admit that I do it, because I'm no good at manual targeting. I also lament that he's too perfect, and I use H.sie's mod that makes him less so. What I don't do is tell people (as I've seen some others do) that I'm doing it because the captain didn't do all the calculations himself. He didn't, so the game doesn't allow for a real fire-control team. I compromise, and I admit doing so. I don't try to justify my compromise to myself or to others.

I freely admit that I do not play at 100%, but I also don't try to justify it. I was also once accused of the same things you're saying now, because I supposedly criticized a player for playing at the lowest possible settings. I didn't criticize him for playing that way. I criticized him for bragging about the huge amount of ships he'd sunk while playing that way.

It's the same thing here. I never would have said a thing, but when someone else said it wasn't accurate you started citing "facts", proving that it was done that way. I pointed out that your facts are correct, but that you come to a different conclusion than I think you should. Yes, it's a fact that escorts were attacked, and sunk. It's also a fact that compared to the amount of u-boats in the war and the amount of escorts, it happened so rarely as to be for practical purposes non-existent. It happened less than once per hundred encounters. Maybe less than one in a thousand. That is what I mean by "statistically insignificant".

As I said, play the way you want. it's a game and it's none of my business anyway. But when you go public trying to justify it with facts that don't support your argument, I feel the need to say something.

[Mittelwaechter]

Statistics were not relevant in my listing of facts. The only question was - did Uboats attack escorts? And they did, as the list shows.

You made up the statistics - your own statistics - so much months only so much sunken ships - to support your statement some players only try to justify attacking escorts anytime.
You are clever enough to recognize exactly this behaviour, you've said. So are you?

No one but you came up with this accusation and no one but you activated his oh-so-stressed-out-war-game-veteran-authority-caring-for-historical-accuracy-in-other-players-gaming-style warrior and started to accuse others to lie, cheat and justify.

I showed the true 'liar' - the statistics abuser - the proven 'cheater' - and you start to justify your cheating yourself.

I guess we are through with this...

[Sailor Steve]

You made up the statistics - your own statistics - so much months only so much sunken ships - to support your statement some players only try to justify attacking escorts anytime.
You are clever enough to recognize exactly this behaviour, you've said. So are you?
That wasn't statistics. That was simple math.

No one but you came up with this accusation and no one but you activated his oh-so-stressed-out-war-game-veteran-authority-caring-for-historical-accuracy-in-other-players-gaming-style warrior and started to accuse others to lie, cheat and justify.
No, I didn't criticize the way you play. I went out of my way to show that, and the example I provided was to show that I try not to do that. I also didn't accuse you of lying or cheating. I've also gone out of my way to repeat that several times. You don't need to take it that way, and you don't need to be so hostile.

As for justifying, According to Miriam-Webster's dictionary, to justify is "to provide or be a good reason for (something) : to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable". It seems to me that is exactly why you showed the facts that you did. Someone disagreed with you. You brought up your references to prove you were right in playing the way you do. Why need to prove it at all?

So I disagreed with your conclusions, and said so. My choice of the quote I used seems to have been unfortunate, but my point was that facts can be used to support whatever we want them to. I tried to show that while the facts you quoted were indeed true, they also disguised the truth that this happened only rarely, and not all the time as they happen in the game.

I showed the true 'liar' - the statistics abuser - the proven 'cheater' - and you start to justify your cheating yourself.
Again, I never called you a liar, or a cheat.

I guess we are through with this...
I'm sorry you took all this so personally.

You see, until you got so angry I thought we were having fun.

[Catfish]

If i learned anything in my virtual u-boat careers, you would try to not alarm the escorts, but sink as many freighters as possible and get away fast, to reload, and further shadow the convoy for a further attack. Depending on the time of the war also calling in other boats.

If you manage to sink one escort, the others will be alarmed. And they usually do not run in a straight line, so observing and find out a zigzag pattern is mandatory.
Six torpedoes to sink an entire escort screen at once is.. highly unlikely. Real torp. reloading times assumed, you would have to dive, and at least lose a lot of time. Even more when forced to run silent. Torpedos would have to be loaded later and so forth.

The difference to reality in all sims i played is that the sensors of the escorts are usually much too good. They "visually see" you in the densest of fog, they use their hydrophones in the midst of a convoy and detect you surfaced using them, where the sound of 20 or more props would completely screw up (lol) detection.
In rl they mostly did not even see you when you were running parallel at 50 meters distance, at night, let alone at an ideal attack position at 090 degrees, at 300 meters.

Radar was useless under 1000 meters, so in a convoy you would have been relatively safe, unless the freighters had guns. Also radar back then was not what it is today, not even marginally, and often unusable due to weather, salt water and resulting shorts.

As far as i read the "Reuben James" tried to shield a freighter and ran into the torpedo path. Topp did not intentionally sink the american destroyer, but had aimed for the freighter. As can be read in his KTB, he then observed through his periscope how other escorts threw depth charges between the shipwrecked swimming sailors of the Reuben James.

So german U-boats did attack escorts, and of course bigger warships (see carriers, and battleships), but their main task was to destroy resources on their way to England. If they did significant damage to escorts .. the people on the appropriate ships probably thought so.

[sublynx]

To me this is really simple. The actual orders BdU gave during the war varied according to time, situation and sea area. JFO mod or reading BdU's KTB's gives the idea what was expected. I just then try to follow the orders if I can.

[Kendras]

Interesting thread. It shows that sometimes U-Boots sunk some destroyers. So that's not so unrealistic ! But yes, it was not very frequent. A torpedo was precious, and it was much more useful to spend it against a 10.000 tons cargo full of vital freight for the tommies or the bolchevists ! :cool: