severe damage is too different for various cases. And 5 min is many time for repair. Hull leak especailly.

What I know - I and write. But I write this so subs type II, VII and 9 not have submerged speed more then 8 knots and I not know about problems with periscopes in this submarine type during real war. I not read information about have this problem in war patrols submarines in submarine patrol logs or other sources.


US submarines made reload from to and in 20 knots speed. I forget US submarine what was reload from external to internal in it speed, but it was really. If reread all patrol logs US subs built before WWII, so can find this. And I knot know that german subs have prodlems with reloading from speed. I know, that reloadin from to have limite sea state 5, but about speed limite not know before you post.


Unfortunale for you - you not know really submarine war. During WWII was 1 case when US submarine attack convoy in sea state 12 and succesful reload tubes in this sea stete.

In this game regeneration oxigen is abscent and so was made oxigen limit for real submerged time. In WW I, when not regeneration or oxigen ballons, 1 russian submarine was underwater more then 21 hours without regeneration oxigen.

Not know about from real submarine warfare 1 and 2 world war before. Reasons defectes impact pistols mainle was technically in real life.

This normal, like normal was navigation errors in 60-200 sea miles between observations. And few time read, that between star observations was 3 week. And this 3 weeks was fog and low clouds with rain.

Mow we have heard opinions on both sides. Interesting, but opinion is not evidence. Can anyone provide citations (published first-person accounts, contemporary training manuals, or similar primary sources) to support or contradict any of these points? Then we will be closer to the truth.

I made chronick submarine attack http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-3-0-00000...0-0-1244279283 and so read many many documents from submarines about detail their war patrols.

If you wish truth so you need read war patrol logs submarines during WWI and WWII and other war patrols. After you read near 10000 or more patrol reports you can know total picture submarine war, but every submarine you can not remember in detail. So you head not rubber.

All these points have been discussed many times without definite conclusions (just go through the 3000+ posts in this thread).

But thanks to H.Sie's great work, you have a choice: don't use the mod, deactivate the feature you don't like, or tune the paramters to reflect your 'interpretation' of reality. It's all up to you.

Regards, LGN1

PS: If you read the manual carefully you will see that hull leaks are not influenced at all. Actually, that is the great advantage over the old longer-repair times mod.

This thread contains quite a few sources (e.g., the original VIIC manual) that are openly available. Just go through the old posts...

Regards, LGN1

If the issues are still unresolved, that would seem to be a good reason to encourage further discussion, rather than cutting it off. Are you suggesting that everything that could be said on these issues has already been said? We have two conflicting points of view here, on a variety of issues, advanced by two seemingly well-read people. I for one feel I could possibly learn something from such a discussion. YMMV

Yes, and we've all read the sources which are openly available. What about the ones that aren't? What about Denis's sources in Russian, for example? I am sure you are far more erudite than I, but I don't profess to know of every source that might be relevant. Again, I could learn from others, so I would like to encourage this discussion. I doubt it will consume a major portion of SubSim's bandwidth, and if it does, I'm certainly willing to make another contrib.

And, of course, there is no requirement to read threads which do not interest you. What is the advantage in cutting off an open discussion?

Hi BigWalleye,

sorry if my posts sounded rude. It was not my intention.

I'm more than open to see new data/information and I do not want to cut off any discussion. However, I do not want to go through all the OLD arguments again, i.e., I would like to see new sources,... and not just opinions. If it's about opinions, everyone can have his own and choose the parameters accordingly. That's why the parameters are accessible :yep:

And starting a discussion with "Read this topic, but not wish d/l this mod total :down: so:" (with obviously not reading the old discussions/arguments why some things are how they are) does not really sound like if one is interested in a good open discussion. Up to now I have not seen a single, original document.

Regards, LGN1

And BTW, the opening statement is extremely disrespectful to H.Sie who spent an incredible amount of his time to produce this mod and gave us the option to choose and adjust it to our likings. How many other mods give players the choice?

Yeah, I'm hopeful we can get a constructive discussion going.

And BTW, I agree that the tunability of h.sie's patches is one of the factors that makes them so exceptional. It's hard to find fault with his decisions when you can adjust them quantitatively to suit your personal preferences or historical interpretation.

denis 469

even if you´d be right with all your critics, i counted only 7 points. 7 points out of 23 (regardless of that easy 4GB patch switch) don´t suffice imho for that devastating verdict.

Btw, h.sie repeated again and again, that he wasn´t a submarine expert, he always asked for advice, experiences and knowledgment of others which were more familiar with that item and then he tried to find a solution with those tools he owned - as a programmer.

E.g. to respond on one single point:

The torpedo failure fix was a trial to simulate: Neither any premature explosions due to heavy seas (which are already included) nor dudes due to the faulty impact pistol (also included), but to simulate the underpressure effect of the depth steering apparatus during long term diving turns, what was the third part of the "torpedo crisis", but never was realised in SH3.

So, if the depth setting was wrong, the torpedo got a - dude.

In another point you seem to be right: I reread the german wikipedia article about vibrations of the periscopes (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXI#Sehrohre):

There is said, that only the new extended attack periscope had that vibration problem at 5Knots and more. Obviously, the older attack periscopes type StaSR C/2 had that problem only at 8,5kn and beyond, a velocity which couldn´t be achieved by the old u-boats. Therefore it was replaced again with the older, established periscope.

The night observation periscope got a enhanced guiding, which led to no vibration until 8kn.

So what about changing that vibration value in h.sie´s ini to 8knots? This should simulate that effect AND using the periscope with typII, VII, or IX boats should be possible without disturbances.

here is the promised video to show you can patch the steam version and works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8swgbPegf8

"This video is private. Sorry about that.:("

Could you make it public access? Thanks.

woops fixed

You not right about discussion. Simple my database subarine attacks have 102577 submarine attacks, and, as I know, no one people in world not have this data total.
In my opinion good and interesting discussion must be with people who have data about 100000 submarine attacks (+/-), but other people with this information is abscent total. Discussion with other peoples would be like with you. You not know so data and say, that you need original documents instead himself find this document.
I understand, that you wish read original documents about attacks and say you, that you need himself read submarine patrol logs from varios countryes. But you not made this. If you not wish read orginal documents, so when I can say you information. If you wish, that I place this documents, so not. So orginal documents abourt US submarines, for example, have size near 80 Gb. So i can not u/l this documents.

I see that you made good (total) mod and thank you for this, but my opinion I write before.

Sorry with my open opinion about you words that I not wish open discussion. May be you not glad read that I write now. So sorry.

About errors depth after long submarged I can say, that it is wrong. Mainly says, that in Norvegian campain was this errors. But I find less then 10 sich attacks. All other falty attacks was so have defective impact and influence pistols and missing during attacks. It is easy can see read describe every attacks.

For example attacks U-47 in Norvegian campain:
15.04 22.42 from surface launch 4 torpedoes against 4 transports. 4 hits and 4 duds.
16.04 01.36 from surface launch 4 torpedoes against 4 transports. 4 hits and 4 duds.
19.04 15.53 from submerged launch 2 torpedoes against battleship "Warspite". 1 hit and dud and 1 premature explosion.

and U-48 in Norvegian campaign:
11.04 12.30 from submerged launch 3 torpedoes agains cruiser "Berwick". Missed.
11.04 21.15 from surface launch 3 torpedoes aganst cruiser "York". Missed.
14.04 10.35 from submarged lauch 1 torpedo against battleship "Warspite". Missed.
15.04 00.25 from surface launch 3 torpedoes against destroyer. Missed.
15.04 00.48 from surface launch 1 torpedo against destroyer. Missed.

As you see no one faulty attack was not from errors depth in torpedoes. And so picture in near all other german submarine.