Ahh well, I shoulda put "IIRC" on there I guess. At the very least I know Topp wanted to do just that. Maybe I'm remembering stuff wrong. At any rate, my point was that the XXI was a non-factor in WWII.

Mainly, I'm just sick and tired of everyone thinking that AI sensor perception and precision modding are simple to work with in the SH3 code... when much of the system is broken to begin with.

In stock SH3... DC's are laser guided.

This is loosened in GWX (having modded depth detonation precision and testing for best results literally hundreds of times.)

Either way... if you are near the surface, you are a stronger contact and the DC's are naturally more accurate. The deeper you are, the less accurate they are.

Is this for sure? I read sometime ago, I couldn't remember where but when the submarine is deeper then the pressure is higher and the hull is already under pressure and when DC's hit, the damage is bigger and hit are stronger. Or I maybe wrong?!

No, you are right. And I believe that is part of the game. But the comment was about how accurate the drops are, not their impact.

Thank You, now I understand what's the point!

As I said, I believe deeper DCs have more impact in the game, but I don't know for sure.

If anyone can confirm or deny this for me I won't stop you. :lol:

As far as in game is concerned, I'm not sure. However, thinking logically.....

In shallows - Less pressure on U-Boat Hull / Less pressure = larger blast radius of DC. This would mean that there is less of a chance that a DC would cause major structural damage however they would be more accurate in their placement.

In depths - More pressure on U-Boat Hull / More pressure = smaller blast radius of DC. This would mean that there is more of a chance that a DC would cause major structural damage even though the DC is less accurate in their placement.

It seems that the DC was an all purpose weapon but I don't know if this is modelled in SH3/GWX.

Is it possible that you do receive more damage from a DC when your are at depth? It would be awfully hard to test.:hmm:

I don't know if a DC does more damage in greater depths, but I think that the same amount of damage is far more serious if you are deep. Loosing 50% of hull integrity at periscope depth is not much of an issue, at 280 m it would probably lead to the hull being crushed a second later. Also at greater depths you have less time to repair the damage if the boat starts sinking and have to run the engines faster or blow balast to keep your depth.

Hi poor sailor,

I was describing what happens in the simulator. Unfortunately, the limitations of the simulator are problematic.

The effect of even a minor leak at deph is much worse at depth due to increase in water pressure - stopping it is much harder and the rate of flooding much higher... the only bonus is that the reduced lethal radius of the DC at depth means that accuracy is much more important.

IIRC at least one surviving U-boat skipper noted that once the allies had developed DC with hydrostatic fuzes which could detonate up to 300m there was little advantage in going very deep. Given the accuracy issues noted above though, the effects of thermal layers and the decreased efficiency especially of hedgehog at depth, it was still probably the safest tactic.

Didn't Allies (british) have troublke with deep-diving U-boats before they designed faster-sinking DCs ? I think I remember that standard DCs sunk too slowly even when fitted with deeper fuzing, enabling U-boat to travel way longer distance before DCs reached the depth.

Sink rate was a problem - the Mk VII (1939) terminal velocty was 9.9 f/s and the Mk VII heavy (end 40+) tv 16.8 f/s.

Note though that initial fuze settings were only 300 ft, later 600 ft and finally 900 ft or 1000 ft.

The US Mk 6 (standard in early war) tv 8 f/s (later 12 f/s), and the later Mk 9 (standard in late war) 14.5 f/s - some later 22.7 f/s.

Again though, fuze setting were originally only 300 ft, later 600 ft and even 1000 ft.

IIRC, SHIII has only one type of DC :-? and the modders have had to work wonders to get round this problem! :rock:

(Data from Campbell)

Look at this thread I found http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...th+charge+nygm
Maybe the GWX team can do it something similar. That's would be very interesting!