|
...and to further add fuel to the fire as the Anti-Shipping war continued in the Pacific the Silent Service' statistics for torpedoes used per sinking went up for '44 and '45 due to the end of the torpedo shortage and restrictive orders on one torpedo per ship. So many skippers were firing all six forward tubes at targets just to make sure.
So you kind of have to work that into how you historically play the game versus skimping on the torpedoes. Remember as a simulated skipper you are privy to much history on the tech and disposition side of the PTO and how the IJN carried out their side of things. Playing SH4 with RFB brings about a very melancholy feel to the whole experience punctuated by short times of intense preparation for a tactical approach, plotting and development of a feasible and high percentage of hit fire control solution. The actual firing of the torpedo is anti-climactic at best when all goes well. That is not to often. The depth charge attacks are just sheer terror and agony. I don't post a lot about how I play the sim. I have read quite a lot to capture the feel of what it was like and try to emulate the experience. Sorry I drone on. |
Quote:
Breaking in half seems quite rare, actually. Regarding tankers, they were actually quite hard to bring down in RL. I checked vs most of the war (to end of 44), and 0% of attacks that hit with 1 torpedo sank an AO/XAO of the size we have in SH4 (Nippon Maru). Looks like Nippon should go down about 2/3 of the time with 2-3 hits, and get away safe the other 1/3 (based on RL). Now, if you add in tankers we DON'T have, above 10k, things get far different. It starts taking whole spreads assuming all fish hit to take down a big tanker. Since Nippon has to fill in for others, I suppose she should be a little harder than RL to sink. Note also that a great number of tanker claims were grossly overclaimed in terms of size. The japs used many small tankers that looked just like larger units, but were under 2k tons. Quote:
39 confirmed sunk (various hits in spreads, so who knows if it took 1 or 2+) 9 survived 1 hit. 3 survied 2 hits. 1 survived FOUR hits (a Matsu DE, no less) So a fair bet is that around 1/3 should survive 1 hit. |
Quote:
OK, we both may have messed game installations. Otherwise I wait for your real data about six torps needed to sink those ships because I do not believe my CPU goes mad during RFB play! Quote:
|
Quote:
My game installation was screwed. Once reinstalled. Everything worked fine. Again, 2 torps in the midsection of a T-3 and she went down in about 3 minutes. Using RFB and RSRD. Nothing more. |
Quote:
So far, my three sinkings with the patch seem to suggest that the sailing away bit is nicely fixed. so well done on that :up: The one thing I can not understand is this: my 2 supposedly accurate books and my handful of other books (fact-based fiction) about the Atlantic side of things are all full of ships going down from a torpedo hit. With those books in mind I was getting a nice 'realistic' feeling from SH3 GWX2.1. I can only assume that more people had this experience and that's where the last few pages of bitching come from. only bringing this up as an aside, the point being that it all looked terribly wrong. From now on I will assume that it is, in fact, terribly right. shutting up now on this topic and moving on to my other questions, lol i'll repeat that i am meanwhile having a blast with RFB 1.52 :arrgh!: |
I see absolutely nothing wrong with RFB and the T3.
Test setup was me in a IXD2 with the T3-tanker at about 800 meters. I fired two TIIs and one TI. 1st TII just under the stack, 2nd TII halway between the forward and aft bridges and the TI just forwards of the forward bridge. 1st try the tanker went down after approximately 60 minutes of game time. Second try with same setup, tanker down in about 45 minutes. Not included is the unofficial first try where the TI circled and sunk my u-boat :lol: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
mate, if you quote me then please don't rip it out of context :know:
|
I'll admit I know very little about the details in the ATO.
That said, it could be a different mindset of the crew. Japanese crews expected that if attacked, they might get picked up by friendly ships (it happened frequently), but that such an effort would not be certain. Also, ships were scarce, they started the war with a shortage in merchant shipping just to barely survive back home. Because of this, japanese mariners might well have been willing to stay with a ship longer than allied merchant mariners. A US MM sailor knows there are more ships, and he knows his life isn't worth losing over some stuff. So maybe they got hit, and abandoned ship in order to maximize chances of rescue. Just a thought (assuming that any detail statistics actually exist of hits vs sinkings in the ATO. |
Quote:
The 4 fish survivor was very likely a cutie attack, it was late in the war. For 41-43, the DD numbers were running pretty close to 50% sunk, 50% surviving, though. |
Quote:
Quoting myself.... but i just have to after reading the latest discussion... Keep up the good work RFB-team :up:! Just downloaded the patch and heading to harbour... |
Quote:
Around noon, another frigate appeared, apparently a reinforcement which had been called in. Continuing her aggressive action, Torsk fired a Mark 28 torpedo at the frigate which had already detected the submarine's presence. Commander Lewellen then initiated deep submergence procedures and ordered the crew to rig for silent running. After a tense five minutes, she reached 400 feet (120 m) and there she launched another torpedo, this time the new acoustic Mark 27. Almost immediately, a loud explosion announced that the first torpedo had found its mark, and a minute later a second explosion sounded, followed by strong breaking up noises. The secret new torpedoes had proven their worth in battle and Torsk was credited, not only with two enemy warships, but also with sinking the last Japanese warship sunk in World War II. Held down by enemy planes and patrol vessels, the submarine remained submerged more than seven hours. Then, she surfaced and headed for the Noto peninsula. |
423 Torsk (patrol 2)
August 14, 1945 11:00 hours lat/long given (too lazy to type it) Claimed Tgt:PF est tonnage: 1500 1 torpedo fired, 1 hit Daylight Underwater Periscope attack Claimed: SUNK Actual Unit Type: PF Name: CD 47 Actual tons: 810(800 in another source) Damage: SUNK corrected lat/long later that day: 423 Torsk (patrol 2) August 14, 1945 12:00 hours lat/long given (too lazy to type it) Claimed Tgt:PF est tonnage: 1500 2 torpedoes fired, 2 hits Daylight Underwater Sound attack Claimed: SUNK Actual Unit Type: PF Name: CD 13 Actual tons: 810(800 in another source) Damage: SUNK corrected lat/long So the attack AVG mentions is the 2d one. Note that it has 2 hits to sink, where the 1st might have actually done the job for all anyone will ever know. Sorting out such data is tricky. Note that all the data above is entirely from Alden. That book has this data for every single US (and many UK) sub attacks in the Pacific. There are a few entries without as much data, particularly on a last patrol of a boat that was sunk. PS—as far as I know, none of the warships have altered DMs yet in RFB, so any complaints there are not really on topic. RL data, would likely help them out, however. |
Correct, the warships have not been worked on yet in RFB. Heck most of my torps under-run the darn things :damn: anyway......
|
Quote:
Today i had free day and a very fine patrol on SH4 with RFB+Patch. My last candidate on patrol was a small freighter which i stopped with 1 torpedo near the stern and he was sunk with 20 shots under the waterline from the middle to the bow. After this great patch: I am OK with all aspects of the damage model, i love it. :|\\ |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.