TBH it's not a mod that ever interested me...the main reason for the sickener being the fact that radar and sonar can see through land masses/islands was enough for me to discount it.

I may check it out one day though.

Are you talking about the Seabed Repair Mod? I had no idea it had any effect on sensors. I thought it was all related to avoiding damage when bottoming the boat.:huh:

Oh it is as far as I'm aware but the game sensors were fubar'd from day one and that had a bearing on how I viewed the damage reactions to the boat when supposedly resting motionless on the bottom as well.

I do not use a great mod soup when I play so the mod works just fine with GWX 3.

I tried it in sommer 2013. But it´s not realistic.

In real life the sun warms the water surface (in hot summer days down to 20-25m) ---> we have a surface duct between 0 and 20/25 m with extended range for detection. Below we have normal ranges if the sonar equipment is there. With surface sonar we have no chance to get an echo from a target deeper the layer - but the sub below layer can detect the active sonar and attack the carrier of the sonar easily.

When it´s cold (autumn and winter). The noise speed ("Schallgeschwindigkeit") gets slower with the depth. So any noise will go down. That causes problems for sub hunters because they are not able to get echos from deep diving subs. (Deep can be less than 20m in extrem situations!)

What i miss in SH3 is a realistik simulation of weather:
- different weather in different areas
- in summer up to month of shining sun and warm weather with low wind speeds at sea (and short periods of raining between)
- changing wind speed and direction near land as in reality
- sun has effet on water temperatur (depending on wind speed and weave high) and causes layers
- different temps of the water depending on seasons and sun times and areas (gulf stream, etc.)
- and so on ...

Paulebaer1979, thanks for giving us the benefit of your experience. Concise and informative. Many factors that are not, and probably never will be, factored into a subsim game. It is a shame, but understandable, that your RL experience gets in the way of enjoying the subsim games. I sometimes wonder what an RL WW2 sub skipper would have thought of these games. (I have a cousin who's a cop. He can' t watch cop shows, even the "reality" ones like "Cops". Says it's all just too wrong.)

I find it amazing that it's so hard to detect something the size of a submarine less than 1000 feet away from you.

Steve

Thanks for your words guys.

Yes it´s very difficult to simulate the real world in a game. Even if the industry is able to do it they won´t do it because about 75% of the users aren´t able to enjoy this. How many guys enjoied the education in hydroacoustic, oceongraphy and noise detecting ("Geräuscherkennung") as i did? Producing a simulation for those guys would be very expensive and the guys wihtout that kind of special knowledge won´t give a good review because they are overchallenged with the game.

In real live a modern antisubmarinefregate isn´t able to detect a 206a, 212 or kilo class sub at a range of 1000m in bad conditions. In very good conditions they could detect a sub at 15000m - but their active sonar impuls is strong enough for three times the distance (full range to target and back as weak echo) and the subs are able to detect it. So they would either attack with wireguided heavyweight torpedo or move away. The danger for subs today are helicopter with dipping sonar. They are able to find a sub without any warning. And for this cause we have IDAS. Laser guided anti helicopter missiles - up to 16 in one torpedotube. Nice small bastards :arrgh!:

Btw. an old 206 sub was able to get inside an aircraft carrier group - they surfaced at a distance of 2000m starbord in front of the carrier. Modern subs are quiter, faster and maneuverable. One torpedo and a big carrier is unable to move with own power and needs a big tug - a modern sub has min 12 torps inside.:arrgh!:

That would have been U-33 which IIRC was a 212A Class.

https://translate.google.co.uk/trans...tml&edit-text=

The Royal Navy S and T Class (unable to locate links atm), Australian, Canadian and Dutch amongst others can boast similarly.

A few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Waller_(SSG_75)

http://defence.pk/threads/dutch-subm...d-more.142292/

No. It was either U24 or U18 around 1998/1999. I only was able to enjoy the pictures from this situation. They are on the walls from AZU with simulator for operation center and every time a guy from US-Navy or similar is inside the pictures are changed in others - less embarrassing for the USA:arrgh!:

The 206a were able to detect a typical small container ship at ranges from 60nm and each other only below 10000m (passive). 212 can detect typical container ships at 90nm and greater - each other only at less then 100m (not at silence running - if silence running less then 40m).
Nobody finds this subs well. (Niemand findet unsere Boote gut.):har:

I'm certainly happy to go by your memory but it leaves a little to be desired of the German article.

Near the top it certainly makes reference to U-24 also.

U33 was in USA a couple of month ago, right. They did exercises with US-Navy, too. (And simulated sunk the carrier:arrgh!:) But the pictures of US-aircraftcarrier inside reticle from attack periscope i have seen in AZU were taken with 206 sub - U24 i guess.

Yeah, whatever....I'm a tad annoyed I can't find the Ryal Navy photos :/\\!!

In 1941 S-38 escaped Japanese destroyers in Lingayen Gulf by lying on the bottom - three separate times. Shielded against the background of the bottom the submarine was undetected at a distance of less than 200 feet.

My own experience: While on maneuvers in 1970 my old WW2 destroyer USS Brinkley Bass (DD-887) twice conducted a practice engagement with an Australian submarine. Though we had been upgraded with the latest equipment for the time, we still lost badly both times.