Feel free to list them. You might be in for a few surprises.

No Doubt.

Silent Hunter 2 wasn't the greatest subsim ever made but could be modded to include foreign submarines. My impression of the big Japanese I-Boats (Type KD7) was wonderful range and surface speed and torpedoes...but once forced under about as manuverable as a brick, as big as a house on a sonar screen and against any decent pack of Allied destroyers...dead meat.

or to put it another way. you got nothing.

Or to put it another way, anybody with half a brain realises that in war, crimes are commited by both sides. Just because 1 side "wins", that doesn't excuse their actions.


Nevertheless, no offence intended. Happy hunting to all.:up:

Ohhhhh , where did you get that information???
I read the book who written by Mistuma Itakura,he was a captain of some
I boats.

He was a captain Jusen type J1 class (I-2) and he says
it took only 40 seconds to dive whole body.
40 seconds is not so different from uboat IX.
And I-2 was build in 1926 !!! Old sub.

In war time IJN build mainly Jyusen type A,B,C called (kou otsu hei class).
By the book who wrote IJN researcher says in spite of large hull (bigger
than U-boat and US sub) mobility is not so bad under water except noise
and raider system.
And they can dive deep, safe depth is about 100M,and
it designed ,they can dive more around 200M over.




BY The Way,Why don't we stop use the word "JAP"or "JAPS"?
Yes I know, it use them as short version of Japanese or Japan.
And I know people of here are not use this words for offensive words.
But here is public space.
Not all the Japanese seeing this forum can understand english very well (includeing me lol)
and why using the words Jap.
If like these people see ,may be feel it using as offensive.

Let's use not "Jap" but "JPN" or "IJN" (Imeperial Japanese Navy).
:up:

Thank you.:yep:

I would like to command an IJN submarine because I like sushi a lot more than hamburgers or kentucky fried chicken...;)

If I posted to a Jap forum and they asked me to not use Jap because they were offended I would do so.
This is an in English language forum and Jap is short for Japanese and easier to write. Please do not also ask me to make LOL the long version either or ROTF or WTF (which we can not:rotfl:
It is not meant with any disrespect so write that down and understand the only ones offended are trying to be offended.

Wulfmann

I've seen similar requests on other (non "military") sites too, and while the abbreviation it is not generally intended in any derogatory manner, I'll do my best to avoid causing such offence.

Oh I see, you equate the occaisional, unspecified illegal acts of individuals with the large scale, policy driven acts of barbarism committed by the Japanese in WW2 (and of course the preceeding years in China).

Moral relativism is a wonderful thing isn't it - it allows you to know nothing and still pass judgement on everything. I commend you on your choice of personal philosophy, it suits you perfectly.

And what possible offense could be taken to comparing an unspecified number of unspecified individual Australian atrocities to the systematic murder of thousands of POWs, civilians, nurses, wounded and non combatants by various combinations of starvation, torture, brutality and simple murder. Yes a 'smiley face' makes everything OK.

Glad to hear it mate.

I can name 3 large scale Allied atrocities:

1) The destruction of the church city of Dresden. Had very little military value and was only done to terrorize the German people. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died there.

2)The fire bombing of Tokyo. Again,another bombing raid targeted primarily on civilians.

3)Nagasaki. While Hiroshima MIGHT have been necessary,Nagasaki was not. It was done more to send a message to the USSR than anything else.

NO ONE'S hands were clean in WW2, All sides commited atrocities,both large and small.

1) Dresden was a city that at that point in the war was close to the front and boasted a large military garrison, railway yards, and civilian factories that were converted to military use. In February 1945 the Germans were still fighting hard on both fronts and ignoring a major garrison city simply because it was a cultural center would have been militarilly irresponsible, it was a valid target. Also the German official whom was responsible for collecting the remains and sorting through the casualty lists after the attacks testified that the death toll was 30,000 not the 200-250,000 which has been quoted widely and inaccurately. 30,000 isn't anything minor by any means, but the Dresden bombing has been widely exaggerated in scale for various reasons for many years.

2) Toyko was the Japanese capital and one of the major industrial centers of the Empire. The way the Japanese employed cottage and small scale industry mixed in with civilian areas made it impossible to target those industries without hitting the civilian areas around them. Also since the residential areas which surrounded these dispersed industrial centers were also often where the workers for these industries lived it was decided that hitting them would do twofold disruption of the the manufacturing output of Tokyo. Yes lots of civilians were killed and that is unfortunate, but a case could be made that they were civilians employed in manufacturing items of military use. It's a borderline call but I wouldn't classify it as a planned attrocity conceived just to kill civilians. There were valid military reasons to hit Tokyo, and the other Japanese cities that were firebombed. The death tolls from such bombing attacks were as high as they were due to a combination of traditional Japanese building techniques and the widespread use of incidiaries which were most effective at destroying targets in areas of that sort. Grisly synchronicity yes, but not a planned attrocity to my mind.

3) Nagasaki was a result of the Japanese refusing to believe that "unconditional surrender or else" was really our policy. The bombing being the "or else" after Hiroshima. There were many in the Japanese military that wanted to continue to fight even after Nagasaki, and if that would have happened then the US would have employed more atomic bombs against more cities. After demanding unconditional surrender, and after showing the Japanese what would happen if they continued to resist, and then having them continue to fight there was little else to be done than follow through on the threat. The atomic bombs, while admittedly nasty things, saved millions of lives by shortening the war and making an invasion of Japan not necessary. And by millions I mean Japanese lives as well as Allied ones.

Yes I agree, bad things and attrocites are committed on all sides during a war. But the difference is that the Japanese and Germans systematically and institutionally, set out to commit such acts on a large scale as a matter of policy.

Having gotten that off my chest, back to the original subject: I wouldn't mind seeing an IJN submarine addon at some point, but I'd much prefer seeing a Dutch and/or British one in the PTO done first if nationality addons were considered.

Those three are only a few examples. The Allies during World War II did not have too much respect for human lives. Granted, they didn't have death camps (even though the US built concentration camps for Japanese), but they were not particularly nice people either.

That "Give us Jap Boats!!!111!" thing is still going on? Oh my.

Look, it's really simple: There were only two large-scale underwater warfare campaigns conducted in WWII: The U-Boat Battle in the Atlantic and the US Sub Campaign in the PTO. Plenty other nations deployed subs in one way or another, but only in such a limited way and numbers that you would have a hard time doing a campaign for it in a simulation, unless you want to throw all resemblence of historical accuracy overboard.

Since that "atmosphere" thing keeps coming up, about U-Boats having a different aura around them than Fleet Subs - true, in some way, it's completely different. The environment of the Atlantic is totally different to the Pacific, the enemy ships look different, the convoy sizes are different, the enemy tactics and equipment and that of your own boat is different, and, after all, there is a different atmosphere from "Jawohl, Herr Kaleun!" to "Up Periscope!". Usually, when I get into paying a U-Boat sim, I have zero interest in playing a Subsim at the same time. AND VISE-VERSA. What you people do is I think you miss out on something if you dismiss driving a Fleet Sub just because it might feel different.
I get the feeling many of the critics never played SHI. That was one KICK ASS PTO subsim. It had a fully functioning TDC, SD / SJ PPI radar etc, and it was able to transport the "Pacific mood" to the player pretty well. It felt totally different to AOD, but it was not any worse. In fact, from a technical point of view, it was more sophisticated, since you could enter manual fire solutions for the first time in a subsim.

What you need to do is either give this game a shot, or even better, start reading up somewhat on the US Fleet-Sub Pacific campaign. That should get you into the mood, and should also remove all of this "It was SOOOO easy and BOOORING!!11!" stuff. Submarine warfare in general was NEVER an easy thing. In the Pacific, the challenge was simply of a different kind in some ways. Just because the US Navy Sub-Campaign was not litterally as SUICIDAL as the Kriegsmarine ones, it doesn't mean it was easy or not dangerous. You will die plenty of time, count on it. In fact, for they had better equipment relative to the U-Boats in part, and the enemy ASW tactics were not as sophisticated (which mostly boils down to no rdr equipped night fighters / bombers attacking the Boats), US Skippers did A LOT of daredevil ****. Like, trying to enter enemy harbors pretty often or going all out against oncoming destroyers. In fact, there was a Skipper (I think of the USS "Harder") who made them his prime-targets to remove them out the inventory of the IJN. Also, catching taskforces moving at 27 knots, with constant aircover during the day, is something which will prove quite difficult. And don't forget you will often operate in shallow waters, with little room to maneuver, being able to see landfall either side of your sub.

In my opinion, if you really dismiss a US-Fleet Sub scenario as boring even before you played it, you must be either ignorant or have a general problem of a different kind which I will not go into here, but which seems quite obvious with some posters.