Don't know whether this article will add anything to the discussion

http://www.securitypipeline.com/show...leId=181501030

If nothing else, it shows that that the "sm" terminology was used by U boat commanders in their reports to BDU....assuming of course.... that the enigma decipher was correct :D Don't know, of course, what Hartwig Looks meant by sm but I find it hard to believe he was referring to " statute miles ".

Hi Snitzel..... agree with VonHelsching, the therm "sea mile" is not used..... almost not yet, and from many time ago, when you read "sm" it is refering to satute miles.

In my laguge it is "millas nauticas" but some time i hear from olders crews "millas marinas" wich can be the equivalent of "sea miles" you mentioned.

As VonHelsching wrote, may be an old therm, but not used in last years, my job is to navigate from 20 years ago, and we call them "nautical miles".

So, when we read "sm' it is more common to think in statute miles, but talk about a sub, and talk about "statute miles" is an incongruence...i think so.

Due to this uncongruence....you may be right and the Unterseeboowaffe is using a wrong therm and really they are talking about nautical miles (1 minute of degree of the earth circunference at average sea level at ecuador)

But as they wrote..... sm, it is staute mile, may be they need to change it.....

Stiebler. I coudln't agree more about the web sites. The information is diverse.

Your sources seem to be more trustworthy than web sites. I am semi-convinced now about sea / nautical miles, unless someone can prove us otherwise with different valid references. Can you write the name of the books (authors, publishing house etc.)? I would be greatful!

But we have to reach some sort of consensus on which measuring unit we are going to use from now on.

Anyone else on this?

Stiebler's post conviced me thet there might be a case for nautical and not statute miles. Furthermore the vintage term sea miles might be the case, since we are talking about a vintage era (1940) :yep:

From now on this can be reffered to as the "NASA Web Syndrome" :rotfl:

Well, a Germen speaking person (weil ich habe alles vergessen) would held us to solve this riddle. So, the million dollar question is:

What does the term "sm" mean in German?

Well it could mean "See-Meilen" as in nautical miles....but im not sure if's that what was menat in the article! :dead:

Seemeile (nautical mile), plural is "Seemeilen" (nautical miles).

von Helsching wrote:
Both these books have been in my private collection for decades - that shows how old I am.

The one I would strongly recommend for the fullness of U-boat technical detail for ranges is:
"U-Boats Under the Swastika" by J P Mallmann Showell, Ian Allan Publishers (England) 1973.
I'm pretty certain that this book has been updated in recent years.

Mallmann Showell is a highly-regarded U-boat historian, born of a German ex-U-boat engineer, who was killed in action, and a British mother. They were living in Germany at the outbreak of the 2nd World War. The historian is still going strong and lives in Britain. I met him once. He didn't know what the emergency procedure was if a U-boat was surprised by a destroyer on the horizon while halfway through reloading an external torpedo. I still don't know either.

Another outstanding technical book (though I didn't look at it when making my reply) is Roessler's "The U-boat - The technical evolution of the submarine". This has also just been republished, after languishing for many years. Again, I have the original version which cost a fortune to buy second-hand. (Originally published in German.)

The other book in my private collection, to which I referred in the earlier reply, is long out of print, and I haven't seen it available for a very long term time. It was also from the Ian Allan stable.


Stiebler.

That name sounds familiar...<searches through library>... Yep, he's also the author of the German Navy Handbook 1939-1945. Highly recommended.

Thanks Myxale, Gizzmoe and Stiebler for your input.

Now some work has to be done:

- Update the NASA fix underwater ranges
- Re-calculate tests already done for surface ranges (this is more complicated that it sounds...) and make more tests.

The ranges on the final release will not differ much (approx -10%) from the initial.

Thanks again

VonHelsching

Posted final version, based on the thread discussion.

*Corrected / Fine tuned all underwater ranges *
*Corrected underwaterversion for IIB - RuB version only*

Thanks to all that contributed to this fix.

Now that we use nautical miles as reference, all underwater ranges were updated (0-10% plus from the previous version, depending on uboat type).

FYI I did extensive tests on surface ranges, using 100 nautical miles as reference range (tweaked all uboat ranges). In the beginning I had hopes :-j that the Devs would have repeated the NASA mistake and we had to update surface ranges all over again. But they proved me wrong:

When SH3 pops out the "fuel tank empty" message, the range seems less than actual nautical miles. BUT, the uboats, continue with empty fuel tank for about 8-9 kilometers per 100 kilometers.
So, it seems that someone from the devs caught this bug quite late and pulled a real "quick and dirty" fix. But then, he didn't bother to fix this for underwater ranges...

Enjoy, and don't run out of batteries close to the English coast! :huh:

Is this one also HT1.47 friendly?

Never mind. I should have unzipped it before I asked. :doh:

You shouldn't have any problem. Backup your submarine folder, just in case and ignore any JSGME messages. This fix affects only the .sim files.

The worst thing thac can happen is for an AI u-boat to have less underwater range :-j

Wow, how did i miss this thread.

What exactly did you change in the sim files?

Ive already heavily edited my sim files and would like to incorporate these changes into them. So an itemized list of what was changed and its new value would be much appreciated.

I suppose i could always D/L it later and open the files up and see for myself, but im at work atm and can't do that right now. ;)