Wikipedia to the rescue :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splice_the_mainbrace

This is a list I made some time ago for a diferent message. It shows the number of airplanes and ships that were sighted by the USS Cod during its patrols;

First patrol: [Oct 22 1943 - Dec 16 1943] 10 ships 14 aircraft
Second patrol: [Jan 11 1944 - Mar 13 1944] 16 ships 13 aircraft
Third patrol: [Apr 6 1944 - Jun 1 1944] 24 ships 19 air
Fourth patrol: [Jul 3 1944 - August 25 1944] 55 ships 54 aircraft
Fifth patrol: [Sep 18 1944 - Nov 20 1944] 54 ships 117 aircraft
Sixth patrol: [Mar 24 1945 - May 29 1945] 4 ships >170 aircraft
Seventh patrol: [June 26 1945 - August 13 1945]:33 ships Aircraft not mentioned as number but reported as 'few in number'

As you can see a substantial number...

groetjes,

I'm not calling Gene Fluckey's competance or integrity into question here; my point was general. You have to view accounts with a certain degree of scepetcism, regardless of who they were written by. For example, Winston Churchill just about out ranks Gene Fluckey as someone who was there, but his accounts of what happened during the war aren't always particularly accurate. So because someone was high ranking or decorated doesn't neccesarily make their version of events correct.

The main thrust of my earlier post was that its pointless saying that because O'Kane didn't encounter many aircraft SH4 is unrealistic, or because Fluckey encountered so many, SH4 is realistic. Unless you make an analysis of all the evidence you can't say for sure either way.

An account from one source can't be used alone as evidence to support a general point. What was the norm for Gene Fluckey on that patrol quite probably was not the norm for most boats, as you rightly point out. IMO I think you're probably right about the numbers of air contacts. :up:

Gino, thats what I'm talking about, good stuff!:up:

Thunder Below is written by Captain Fluckey, based on his ship contact logs, which consolidate several sources (different officers making the entries), hundreds of independent sighting incidents over an extended length of time at a wide variety of geographic datum points:doh:. As source material, it must be considered superior to a secondary source, which is often one person reaching a conclusion, then seeking data to "prove" his point after the fact.

You seem to imply that fact is determined by merely counting opinions, with all opinions equally valid. On that basis, Britain doesn't exist, as most Americans can't find it on the map!:rotfl: Of course the United States does not exist because most Americans can't find that on a map either. I would maintain that the existence of Britain or the United States is not subject to opinion. Certainly some evaluation of the likelyhood that a given source is credible should be part of the historical process. Otherwise the result is pure madness.

Just to break up the debate, I did, in fact, check out the Wikipedia entry and found this:

If the mainbrace was shot away it was usually necessary to repair it during the engagement; the ship was unmaneuverable without it and would have to stay on the same tack. Even repairing it after the battle was a difficult job; the mainbrace ran through blocks, so it could not be repaired with a short splice or a knot. Splicing in a large run of hemp was strenuous work, and generally the ship's best Able Seamen were chosen to carry out the task under the supervision of the Bosun (Boatswain).[1] On completion of the task it was customary for the men to be rewarded with an extra ration of rum. The Bosun would take a sip from the ration of each of the men he had selected for task. Eventually the order "Splice the mainbrace" came to mean that the crew would receive an extra ration of rum, and was issued on special occasions.



I was rather curious about the origins of the term after reading Thunder Below. I love the fact that Fluckey would splice the mainbrace after sinkings, as well as enjoy a custom-made cake to mark the event. When I occasionally write my own SH4 patrol logs (incredibly geeky, I know) I try to get in a few cakes and "depth charge" rations of whiskey :D

Sorry for the "off-topic" nature of these posts, so please continue the debate over how many planes we should be seeing in SH4...

Good hunting,
Howler :arrgh!: (splicing the mainbrace)

A primary source can be just as unreliable as a secondary one. BTW I would probably class Thunder Below as a secondary source, its the patrol logs that are the primary source. Fluckey's account is not given validity because he 'was there' but because it draws on corroborating evidence. The fact that Fluckey was the captain of the USS Barb might go some way to determinding how much validity his account should be given but its not definative.

But I am talking generally here. I'm not picking on Fluckey and saying his work is unreliable or incorrect (actually it sounds pretty good, will have to look it up on Amazon;)).

Perhaps I could have worded my post better:hmm: but I'm not implying that fact is a matter of counting opinions. It is indeed a case of evaluating sources.

howler93, thanks for the info I always wondered where the term comes from also:up: And don't worrry about the patrol reports, its not geeeky, just creative:yep:

A bit of perspective, I hope.

First, on the question of valid proof, I agree with Dantenoc: one actual report is valid proof...that it happened once.

Second, 71 planes were sighted in 60 days. That's slightly more than one per day. Given transit times, during which there were amost certainly no sightings, there might have been as many as three per day. That's a lot, but hardly what I'm led to understand the game throws at you.

As for the Cod patrols, #6 records 170 aircraft sightings over a similar period. That's a whole lot! But, given that sightings probably include radar contacts as well as long-distance unverified sightings, what are the odds that in mid-1945 a large number of those are friendly?

As the statisticians say: "Once is not a trend". It was mentioned earlier that a true analysis has to include the logs of every patrol, or else the results will always be skewed.

I'd like to add that I included O'Kane's comments as another example of "someone who was there" with experiences significantly different from those initially posted.

As has been noted, neither is "right". They are simply examples. A proper analysis of contacts, locations, dates etc would need to be done in order to get apicture of what was within norms for aircraft contacts in any given area at any given time. The initial post suggests that, because 1 submarine encountered large numbers of air contacts, the simulation is accurate in its portrayals of aircraft contacts. This is flawed reasoning, for all the good reasons stated by others.

I DO believe that knowing you will encounter aircraft within 'x' hours of being on the surface in daylight is wrong. Their should be a chance, tempered by location, date and weather. At the moment that chance seems to be 100% over large stretches of the Pacific, even when there is no reason for the Japanese to 'know' you are about (the fact that contacts are affected by your previous 'sighting' is a good feature I think!). This I find hard to accept as valid.

Cheers

I haven't encountered this. Is this from stock SH4 or were you running any mods?

If you read the actual patrol reports, they do corrospond.

Both stock 1.3 and modded.

I've not d/l 1.4 as it fails to address the real bummers for me about SH4 - AI, SD radar and sub physics (mainly depth chnging characteristics).

Cheers

Well, the system basically works like that, and its even more complex. Its not perfect. But tuning it is hell.