SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   SH4 U-Boat Missions Add On (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=232)
-   -   Type IX/D2 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=149478)

Morpheus 03-24-09 06:15 PM

finally, to add some comment to the actual thema.

i think it is senseless to compare german vs. us subarines here, since we will never get a chance to find out. i like both, played sid meyers silent service on the c64 wayback in the 80ies and enjoyed the gato and balao class submarines very much. i like german subs the same, just for what they are. this game doesn't represent "the real" submarines at all, but gives our imagination some great help in having an idea of how it could of been.

so, if you want to have a measure on your dick with eachother you will have to find another kind of measurement than this one. just because it is ridiculous ...

Rockin Robbins 03-24-09 07:53 PM

I stand by my statements and leave it to others to judge whether I have made my points well. I am satisfied that aside from misspelling propaganda, I did a pretty good job.

By the way, the book is excellent. It is the movie that is pitiful. And it is pitiful from a dramatic point of view, not photographic. It is the men who are unbelievable, not the machines. Many U-Boat veterans have made my exact point that the movie denigrates the men it is supposed to lionize. They don't consider themselves to be heroes anyway. While I respect them, I agree completely with their self-image. A hero must fight for a just cause. Theirs was evil to an extreme seldom seen in human enterprise.

Why do you find it necessary to make anatomical references (I'm surprised the illustrious auto-censor let that one fly:D. Two points for sneaking that one through.) or bring up the U-Boat vs. fleet boat angle, which was not even treated in my opinion of Das Boot? Misdirection is a tool of someone who has conceded the discussion and needs to change the subject. I'll let your conduct speak for itself.

Morpheus 03-24-09 08:13 PM

Did you have your coffee this morning, Admiral?

martes86 03-25-09 05:38 AM

This is fun...

Morpheus, do you realise that your "sort-of-points" are making us serious u-boot fans look like a bunch of stupid blind-faith kriegsmarine worshippers?

Shut up if you're not able to make a valid point. Thanks.

Now, a serious point here.

Yeah, I know what's Das Boot about, and still, I can't help loving it. It's terribly unrealistic speaking from an operations protocol point of view, and there's probably too much of a screaming act when under attack, etc.
Still, it's a movie (made for Hollywood, mind I add), it's about U-Boote, and regardless of poor depiction, it's damn cool. Das Boot was made to try to realisticly reflect some points of U-Boot warfare and its people, but not all of them... and while we might base our statements about U-Boote in this movie for a large part, it's for a great desire of making the environment in which we "play" the "game" a spectacular and fun show, which we can enjoy with a mixture of realism and spectacular fun show. Das Boot is seen like a bible for "U-Booting", but even though we base our acts on it, it's an accesory, and of course, those of us with a responsible and rational approach, try to make it a complement of even more realistic materials.

Now, for realistic protocols, you might want to watch "Morgenrot", a WW1 based german film made in the late 20's.

I'll post more if something comes up to mind. :DL

Morpheus 03-25-09 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martes86 (Post 1071593)
This is fun...

Morpheus, do you realise that your "sort-of-points" are making us serious u-boot fans look like a bunch of stupid blind-faith kriegsmarine worshippers?

Shut up if you're not able to make a valid point. Thanks.

give me a invalid point i made

sorry when i ruined your roleplay jacko

martes86 03-25-09 07:54 AM

Invalid points? Well, for starters...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morpheus (Post 1071378)
so, if you want to have a measure on your dick with eachother you will have to find another kind of measurement than this one. just because it is ridiculous ...


This is not like a very constructive comment, so you can take it back in, we don't want to see it. :rotfl:

Now,


Quote:

Originally Posted by Morpheus
i marked out the interessting lines in bold. first, this man was not a everyman whimp, he was what we call a "kriegsberichterstatter", in english, a war correspondent. second, this story is no fiction, it really happend. The man's name you called a everyman whimp was Lothar-Günther Buchheim, and he joint U96 in 1941 as a war correspondent. i read his book, which the movie was made after. Propaganda? For what? Hitler? You must be jokin. It points out so much as a antipropagande for Hitler. Poor Melodrama? What do you think the saving of private ryan or any reasonable movie is? everything else i would call a propagande for making war, no?

RR didn't actually say that the man was a everyman whimp, but that he looked like that. He knows that he's supposed to be a correspondent, but, my guess is that he doesn't think he's very well portrayed... he might be right.

Second, the story IS FICTION. Das Boot is a fictional version of one of the patrols of U96, and so, all characters in the book have fictional names. Buchheim published another book, which name I can't remember right now, but that was the one based on real facts, and included real photos made on patrol. Das Boot is a fiction novel. Of course, having been a correspondent a board the U96, he gathered that experience to make the book look convincing, but it was fiction nevertheless, and the U-Boot veterans didn't like that fiction as they thought it didn't represent the reality of U-Boot men, so they wrote the book entitled "We U-Boot men say: no, it was not like that". I guess you didn't know that.

Of course, I wouldn't go as far as calling it poor melodrama, as I love the movie, but still, RR has a point, which you seemingly don't... at least, even if I don't agree with him, I try to make a solid point of my opinions, instead of talking about dicks' sizes.

And don't worry, nothing ruined here... in fact I'm having fun reading some of the ignorant posts being made by some people that call themselves u-boot fans.

Morpheus 03-25-09 11:32 AM

who is the ignorant one here. you interpret the writen of someone else as it fits for you and distract with moving away from the thema ... must bee some weird stuff you're comsuming.

as it seems you both didnt get the line i made with answering within two sepperate posts. one was a direct answer to RR, and the other a answer to this thread. maby you go back and look what it was about on the start anyway. but i can image that lines start to blur when consuming heavy stuff.

my intend is in no way to talk bad about u-boat fans, but it seems to me that you are cought in some kind of fog. talking about invalid points, i think it was a very good point, and i think you enjoyed reading it, which would explain your smiley towards that one.

we can continue with this hairsplitting typing anyways until the moon drops down ... thats why i called this a crappy thread in the beginning.

martes86 03-25-09 11:44 AM

I'll admit, the "lower member" thing was a little drift... anyways, seemed funny to mock the comment, and so I did, thus, the smiley present in my post...

But the rest of the post is perfectly valid and in line with your previous post.

Morpheus 03-25-09 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martes86 (Post 1071645)
But the rest of the post is perfectly valid and in line with your previous post.

you mean this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 1070919)
The main character is some everyman whose function is to whimper in the corner, suffering nobly but incapable of any constructive function on the boat.

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by martes86 (Post 1071645)
RR didn't actually say that the man was a everyman whimp, but that he looked like that. He knows that he's supposed to be a correspondent, but, my guess is that he doesn't think he's very well portrayed... he might be right.


your abilities are amazing, you should go to nasa testlabs ...

martes86 03-25-09 12:47 PM

Now it is me who doesn't know what stuff are you smoking. I thought RR and me were answering you for the post he made about Das Boot and your later replies.

Oh, BTW, I also think he's a little wrong when saying that the movie is propaganda. But I reafirm myself on the rest of the stuff I wrote.

Morpheus 03-25-09 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martes86 (Post 1071834)
Oh, BTW, I also think he's a little wrong when saying that the movie is propaganda.

this was the reason for me to reply on his post in the first place. so at least we both agree in that point :03:

Rockin Robbins 03-26-09 01:25 PM

Martes, the movie is typical German anti-war propaganda, similar, but much more poorly done than Im Westen nichts Neues. But, seeing that our other participant here is in other threads being incendiary, it's best to just
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...dthetrolls.gif

martes86 03-26-09 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 1072584)
Martes, the movie is typical German anti-war propaganda


Oh, now I understand what you meant... ok... I don't like the word propaganda anyways... makes one feel as if beeing adoctrinated in some way...

And, it's not like it'd be good if it was pro-war propaganda, is it? :DL

Morpheus 03-26-09 05:55 PM

after all i think this was a funny but weird discussion

muchos salutos and hasta luego spaniard

morph

martes86 03-27-09 03:58 AM

That's what we're all after. Fun.
In a way, I'm glad we all had fun writing these lines. :yep:

Rockin Robbins 03-28-09 01:10 PM

Here is how superior U-Boats were. This is absolutely devastating and shows how pitiful the entire U-Boat gambit really was:

From Jak Mallmann Showell's U-boat Commanders and Crew 1935-1945:

Quote:

Horst Bredow of the German U-boat Archive has records of 1,171 U-boats having been commissioned between 1935 and 1945. If one combines this figure with the famous Churchill comment the the only thing that frightened him throughout the war was the U-boat threat, then it is easy to conjure up visions of hundreds of bloodthirsty U-boat commanders prowling the waters around the British Isles and along the eastern seaboard of the United States. However, the figure of 1,171 boats is grossly misleading, and does not reflect the reality of the war at sea. The number of Allied ships which were attacked and at least damaged can be calculated from Axis Submarine Successes by Dr. Jürgen Rohwer. The details for the Atlantic and North Sea are as follows:

25 U-boats attacked, sunk, or at least damaged 20 or more ships
36 U-boats attacked between 11 and 19 ships
70 U-boats attacked between 6 adn 10 ships
190 U-boats attacked between 1 and 5 ships

This adds up to a total of 321 U-boats. Ships sunk in the Black Sea, Mediterranean, Baltic, and Indian Ocean will make the total rather higher, and one could allow a few more for calculation errors. However the probable total still leaves a staggering gap of about 850 U-boats which appear not to have sunk or damaged anything throughout the entire war. In fact almost all of these, representing three-quarters of the whole U-boat Arm, never came within shooting distance of the enemy. School boats, supply boats, experimental craft, and boats commissioned towards the end of the war which were never in a position to sink ships, could be discounted; but there still appears to be a huge discrepancy between the number of U-boats commissioned and the number which actually attacked the enemy. This makes one wonder why Germany put so much effort and so many resources into building submarines, if the majority never achieved anything other than tying down the vast enemy forces which hunted and destroyed them.

It might be worth adding that these figures were not calculated with hindsight: they were available to U-boat Command at the time, and the only difference between then and now is that we now know that U-boat commanders generally overestimated their tonnage sunk by about one third.

Looking at the same figures from a different angle, one might consider that these ships were sunk by men rather than by machines. Out of a total of about 2450 Allied ships sunk in the Atlantic one finds that 30 U-boat commanders were responsible for sinking just under 800 of these. This means that 2% of the U-boat commanders were responsible for sinking almost 30% of the Allied shipping losses in the central area of the submarine war.

In what way was such a dismally performing military arm with so many machines and so little actual achievement going to possibly succeed? Most U-Boats were just hiding and trying to survive, using the "ostrich theory" that I make fun of so much in the fleet boat strategy bull sessions. Yikes! I had no idea it was so bad. It just totally flies in the face of all U-Boat fanboy mentality. Heck, it flies in the face of what I thought was my considered opinion of their effectiveness. Only 321 of about 1,200 U-Boats offensively engaged the enemy at all. Disgraceful.

Rockin Robbins 03-28-09 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martes86 (Post 1072615)
Oh, now I understand what you meant... ok... I don't like the word propaganda anyways... makes one feel as if beeing adoctrinated in some way...

And, it's not like it'd be good if it was pro-war propaganda, is it? :DL

That's not it at all. All Quiet on the Western Front is excellent anti-war propaganda. There are many, many great anti-war films and books, Walt Whitman's Specimen Days being a fabulous one. "Propaganda" is not a disparaging word, but only a descriptive word signifying the intent of the work. Good propaganda is that which uses the truth to convince. Bad propaganda is that which cannot defend the position with the truth (because the position is defective or the author is) and resorts to using distortion. The distortion in Das Boot doesn't even support the anti-war stance of the movie, just discredits it! It's not distortion with the intent to deceive, it's distortion born of laziness and sloppiness.

That is made even less excusable by the fact that the book the movie draws from is much better. Hey! American movie makers do even worse, ala Titanic. Das Boot has LOTS of company.

Dread Knot 03-28-09 01:53 PM

None of this surprises me. Clair Blair states in the preface to his book, Hitler's U-Boat War that perhaps no weapon in WW2 is as mythologized as the U-Boat. Churchill inflated the U-Boat threat to help draw a neutral America's sympathy and support for the Britain The Germans exploited the threat for their own propoganda purposes.

Perhaps the greatest contribution they actually made was forcing the Allies to convoy, thereby slowing the movement of men and material.

Rockin Robbins 03-28-09 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dread Knot (Post 1073844)
None of this surprises me. Clair Blair states in the preface to his book, Hitler's U-Boat War that perhaps no weapon in WW2 is as mythologized as the U-Boat. Churchill inflated the U-Boat threat to help draw a neutral America's sympathy and support for the Britain The Germans exploited the threat for their own propoganda purposes.

Perhaps the greatest contribution they actually made was forcing the Allies to convoy, thereby slowing the movement of men and material.

I think he also made his statement with the aim of encouraging Germany to plow even more men, money, resources and time into a dead end that had no power to help Germany's war effort and could not avoid pulling the United States into the war. Recruiting the US was one of Mr Churchill's most cherished goals. The U-Boats helped him immensely.

There you go making my mistake of misspelling propaganda as "propoganda." How is anybody going to believe us if we can't spell?:rotfl:And I patented that goof. You are expressly forbidden to copy it. Come up with your own misspelling!:har:

mookiemookie 03-28-09 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 1073808)
Here is how superior U-Boats were. This is absolutely devastating and shows how pitiful the entire U-Boat gambit really was:

In what way was such a dismally performing military arm with so many machines and so little actual achievement going to possibly succeed? Most U-Boats were just hiding and trying to survive, using the "ostrich theory" that I make fun of so much in the fleet boat strategy bull sessions. Yikes! I had no idea it was so bad. It just totally flies in the face of all U-Boat fanboy mentality. Heck, it flies in the face of what I thought was my considered opinion of their effectiveness. Only 321 of about 1,200 U-Boats offensively engaged the enemy at all. Disgraceful.

Well, you obviously have a fleet boat bias, but to say that a technology, in this case the u-boat, is inferior because of the odds stacked against it and the tactical deployment of it is not correct. You need to judge it on it's own merits. Was the boat suited for the task in which it was asked to do? Could it effectively remain deployed for a substantial length of time once on station? Was the armament it carried adequate for the task? You need to drill down to the micro unit level, not the macro strategy level.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 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.