MY two cents worth
 

Its a little bit obscure but according to Janes

they record the type IXB to have been the

Most succesful UBoat design in ww2

MM

Easy IB, don't talk about us old Kaptains like that. Some of us might be old and have arthritis, but we can get the job done. ;) It's CRS that causes us grief. LOL

You don't have to run long patrols to the Americas if you don't want to. USe SHIII Cmdr to change your patrol grid to what you want when you start a new patrol. Keeps you from spending long days and nights at sea having to listen to the crew cry over not seeing anything to sink. Tho someplace far off to the west is a good place to throw Bernard overboard. Let the enemy deal with him. :)

Edit:
Now I know I'm old around here... 1000 posts. :roll:
But not as old as some younger than I. LOL

Cool :|\\

I agree. I fell in love with the IX having driven nothing but the type II and VII for years. I have been down the West coast of Africa but so far have not reached Durban. I will have to take a looksie now in light of the above screenshot. :hmm:

Longyearby was a Fun Harbor raid Sunk 4, one trop each & suface with Deck gun to finish them off, late spring of 1940. Freetown was a Blast to had 2 Destroyer come looking for me and they got Stuck in there own Nets. After my nerves claimed Down i sunk t3 in the dock and PL on the sea wall. left that port with 70,000 tons.
I did a NewYork raid before the dec 1941 and Sunk a British P.L. up the west side river. left on the surface too.
IX is a Great _U-boat, Next patrol i should be in a C version. Few more torps can't hurt.

Also is a good boat for people interested in SH4 , very similar in size to us boats like gato and balao:hmm:

Sinking non moving ships in harbours is no sport...:D

IXD2 is similiar to a gato, albiet a tad, (i mean by just a meter or three) smaller. And has very similar nonclamature in peformance and armarment. (excepting the Gato has 4 tubes aft and 6 tubes bow as opposed to 2/4 in the IXD2)

an IXB or IXC is acutally smaller then a gato.

i though it was a similar size.. :88) it means that U.S used a very large boats

Here's a spec comparision i did awhile ago.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...34&postcount=1

Very similar.

In a certain sense, every resource used in fixing up a ship that was damaged/sunk in a harbor isn't available for other uses (like building more ships). Also, some ships just aren't worth salvaging. If you break a ship in two, as opposed to just putting a hole in it, you aren't going to be able to put her back together (I suppose it is *POSSIBLE*, but I would bet the expense isn't worth it). Also, some ships are just too old to justify the expense, even in wartime when the enemy is desperate for hulls.

Think of it this way: If you sink a ship in a harbor, that is X number of tons of cargo that isn't going to be shipped to it's destination for the amount of time that ship is being repaired, which generally runs into months. In addition, if the ship was laden with cargo at the time you sank it, that cargo might be ruined (ie., if it was foodstuffs, textiles, gunpowder, gasoline/oil, etc.). So it can be worth it to sink them in the harbor, especially if you haven't had much luck elsewhere.

I figure that sinking a ship that will likely be raised and put back into service is like sinking half a ship. It isn't as good as putting one down 'over 1,000 meters', but it is better than not sinking one at all.

Very handy Ducimus danke :up: