I know who you are.. muahaha :arrgh!:

nappy-still-hanging-around-at-off-topics

@ I'm Going Down: What's so rediculous about this post? Where did I say to jump back in time and command a Fleet boat? I never said do we have what it takes to be Captn. James T. Kirk:nope: Mabey I should have made myself clear. Putting ourselves in the positions of Radar/Sonar operator and WO, could we accurately collect data for a successful attack?

The real skippers and crew were just guys like us—only they had training. Does a simulator like SH4 contain anything that is coincident with that RL training? Sure. Assuming you use high realism settings you learn the trig required to make an attack. You also gain something that WW2 training lacked—a visualization of many engagements.

So from a practical standpoint, you gain a fundamental understanding of the torpedo fire control problem, and how to solve it. In addition you gain some insight into tactics for "fighting the boat."

What we lack are all the other aspects of training—which are myriad.

Knowing the limitations of the game simulation, a fair question might be; "assuming an Sh4 player had basic USN sub school training, would his hours of SH4 play make him more effective tactically than he would be otherwise?"

The answer? "Quite possibly."

Personally, with training and experience I believe I could perform any duties and man any station on a submarine and become qualified. However, I question whether I would be able to fit the psychological profile required of staying down in a tight area with contact with the same guys day in day out. I need a little variety and being able to go home after work! The Navy weeds out men that may collapse under the strain. It takes a special Esprit de Corps to be a real submariner and I don't know if I have it or not. At my age it doesn't look like I'll find out! But I do respect the Men that were able to do it.

Zoomer you hit the central question squarely on the head. Knowledge alone is not sufficient to make a submariner.

Still, we know more in general and have more interest in submarines than many of the boys plucked from farms in Kansas that were put into submarines, trained thoroughly and served amazingly well. The military knows how to make men ready. Many of us would do just fine.

Wellllllll .... no. Being a former "ground pounder" [Ranger, US Army] which I am sure will bring scorn and ridicule upon my head [seeing as this is a naval sim zone] I cannot speak with any naval expertise. However, applying this to what I did do in the military ... my answer would definately have to be "Sorry partner, no way." What someone has learned in the game would probably qualify them just enough to understand the general gist of what was happening around them... not execute it.

Just for example take one important factor ... something we ground pounders know and have a saying for ... "If you can't find the enemy, you can't kill them." Navigation in SH4 is simple ... drop a waypoint and presto ... you go there ... doesn't work that way in RL. Land navigation [without using GPS] has a lot to it that is based more on experience and art form than just drop an azimuth and go. My guess is, that same concept applies to commanding a sub. Knowing how to set up to fire a shot ... and knowing how to press the button to fire .... those are the science or hard fact forms ... but it doesn't include the experience and art form of it which I suspect is a major portion of the success formula. Sub commanders were/are respected as elite and unique ... even amoungst themselves. No simulation would get you to the point where you could find, engage, and destroy the enemy in a real life situation. Consider, there are two types of simulation done in the military today ... first ... computer simulation ... this is the "first step" simulation ... sure ... it has its value and is recognized. However it is also recognized as not enough. Then there is the second simulation the "actual" real life simulation or wargame or exercise or maneuver ... call it what you will but after the computer simulation they go out and do it in "practice" and still get fails ... but the point is no computer sim is ever enough.

The german and british navies used for their WW2 submarine officers an "attack teacher" machine, that is more or less a WW2 version of a game. Officers looked through a periscope and saw ship models placed on a surface and moving along. They issued orders and the assitants recorded their movements, plotting sub and enemy and the training officer told if they did it right or not. It was used to practice AOB and range estimation, as well as general approach tactics, and it served apparenty well for its purpose.

So I suppose that SH3/4 would indeed be a good trainer for SOME aspects of WW2 submarining, specifically attack tactics, situation awareness, ability to represent in your head the current tactical picture, etc.

But not much more than that. :)

But we come from all walks of life here, and we all have stories to tell, even those who didn't serve at all. No scorn here, friend.

Also UnderseaLCPL is a friend, so I have to suck up to the dirt guys. :D

Not a problem.. I can do that, but nobody will follow me , because no-one thinks like I do.

I spend countless hours working out a 'plan' and it's countless alternatives. When I'm in the sub 'I'm wired', and this goes on for the patrol duration.

The same for IL2, where I've spent a gazillion hours pushing the FW190 'beyond' limits.. pushing the boundaries....only to have many say I cannot do that...

But it's the same in either case - I want to live, and I make sure that I do.

edt: And as usual, you won't find me or others like me, making any significant difference in peacetime.
When the Sh1t hits the fan, that's when you'll 'see' us
:)

No.

I know I don't. There are some who actually do it, so they do. Some will, some won't.

But does the game show it one way or the other?

I agree, no.

Even when i started playing SH3 early this year (at the time i knew nothing about submarines except that they dive and shoot torpedoes), i knew a heck of a lot better than that! :rotfl2:

We've had players give "advice" on how to surface behind a Flower-class corvette, because you can sink them with your deck gun before they can turn around to use their single gun.

The reality was that they had a 40mm AA gun back there, and the one time a u-boat is recorded as doing that the AA gun killed the u-boat's deck-gun crew before they could get the gun uncorked.

The u-boat surrendered.

Imagine this:
Somehow, this thread is a time machine
we all go back in time to early 1941, and we are stuck in naval academy
we learn how to use the stuff on the sub(torps, electronics, guns, etc)
Then we get sent to a sub to be ship-mates(assume we know who each other is on Subsim)
we would probably fall apart quite quickly
first of all, we would be screaming for the time compression
than we would be complaining about the bad living conditions. (not to meantion the inconvenience caused by the female members of Subsim-if there is any) After all, i play silent hunter on a comfortable chair, while eating ice cream and rocking along with KISS.
and the biggest problem: leadership
We are used to be an omnipotent power on the sub and that we all think we know what we are doing, so the captain would probably lose control and experience multiple mutinies

Of course, we would all be screaming to head back to port after a week with out showers or air conditioning on a s class boat

I have to disagree that we could not do it. When necessity calls a surprising number of people always find that they are ready and able. This would be no exception. I predict that we cannot predict who would qualify, but that a surprising number would be fine. That would include some who think that there is no way they could. It would exclude some that think they would definitely qualify.

I agree with Robbins.Times such as WW II or any war bring out the best in people.Ordinary men(and women at times) show extraordinary courage, ability etc when needed.

While in any group there would be some that could and some that couldn't, and with the proper training, almost any of us here could have a pretty decent idea of what we were doing, simply taking a modern gamer and placing them in command of a WWII Fleet Boat on an actual wartime patrol would be a disaster. Success in the game would not translate to success in real life, and there's a lot more to it than showing some courage.

The captains who started out in command during the war were well trained professionals, with a firm understanding of what their boats could do, and the theory behind how submarines should operate. They trained in tactics and simulated attacks. And then they went on patrol against a real enemy.

And they failed. Many of the early war commanders were awful at the job. They had trained under unrealistic conditions, with unrealistic expectations, using unrealistic tactics. The early captains showed poor results (even taking the poor torpedo situation into account). They missed many opportunities to attack targets because of the way they were used to operating in peacetime and in simulations.

As the early war skippers were taken off the line, they were replaced by their junior officers. These folks had seen over and over again what wasn't working. They knew what had been tried, and they learned from those mistakes. Even with the ongoing torpedo issues, they had higher success against the enemy than the men they replaced.


If we found ourselves on a Fleet Boat in the war, we would be operating on our experiences in the game. We would have false expectations of how things should work, and how to use our boats. We would expect them to behave as in the game. Add in the fact that we are used to commanding the boat by pointing and clicking or poking at a keyboard instead of relying on actual people to carry out our orders and bring us information. We would be like the early failed skippers, and we would quickly be dead or replaced. But whatever junior officers we had might learn from our mistakes.

However, if we were to take sub sim players, and put them through an actual training course like the real officers went through, teach them how to be real naval officers, and how to lead a sub crew, and give them actual hands-on experience operating in one of the boats, would they be able to take command and show better results than if they hadn't spent hours playing SH4? Maybe the ones that didn't wash out first. But without the real training, we'd be almost as lost as any untrained person would be.

Of course there are some here who could survive the life, and even thrive. People do it all the time.

The original question was whether we could track and sink a ship with the experience we have from playing the game.

I think I'd feel pretty safe if I was on the ship you're trying to sink... lol Silent Hunter doesn't model modern sub warfare at all, and the WWII combat would still need alot more info than found in game.

Once again, it seems people think I'm talking about going back in time and running a Fleet Boat during the Second World War. That's not what I meant by "Do we have what it takes":nope: Once again, I'm only referring to the physical accumulation of target data. Could we peer at a radar scope, and know what to do? Would we be able to some degree determine course and speed of a target? I'm willing to bet that we wouldn't be dead on, but we could be in the Ballpark, or at the very least, be playing the same sport! I haven't served in the Armed Forces, but I've been on the water quite a bit due to my love of Saltwater Fishing. My buddy has a boat equipped with radar. Although much more advanced than the units of WW2, reading the scope is nearly the same. You see a blip, and could see it's range by looking at the concentric rings on the scope. There is a range selector, and bearing indicator. What's so different? On an offshore Shark fishing trip once, my buddy and I plotted a course to a wreck useing a chart and paralell rule. Of course we also had GPS and an Auto pilot on the boat, but the course heading was determined by us useing the same tools a navigator during WW2 would use. I'm not a Navigator by any means, so don't start jumping down my throat here!

How many of us since we started playing SH have been on the water for whatever reason, and saw a ship heading towards us. You mean to tell me you never tried to figure it's AOB and bearing? I know I have:o So yes, we don't have the training of a submariner. Most of us don't know what it's like to be in a combat situation. I know I couldn't give orders to run a Fleetboat, but I bet we could get a basic setup of data on an approaching ship, although not as accurate as a trained sailer, but fairly in the park. That's my opinion.