Just came across this bit about planes in Thunder Below
 

This is for the people who think that planes are overdone in SH4.

On the Barb's 9th war patrol (August 4th through October 3, 1944), a crewman remarked in his diary around September 19th that "...of 71 plane contacts, only 6 bombed us."

seventy-one plane contacts...Of course they were patrolling the Luzon Straight which is in range of land based airbases, but think about that next time you get frustrated with the numbers of airplanes you come across in SH4. :cool:

Nice bit of information :up:


RDP

mookiemookie
 

I don't think it was the number of planes so much as the number of planes that actually attack (which in the stock game seems to be EVERY single contact). Your point is well taken though. For my part, if I don't have to engage an aircraft, I won't, I'll take to the depths each time, it tends to keep the crew happy!! :up:

The game models Japanese mid to late war radar direction finding, so if you're running on the surface with your radars on, the game will send planes your way. Also, if you're spotted, the game will send planes along your projected track for a couple hours to search for you.

I finally figured that out after wondering why every plane contact I got was headed directly toward me. I now usually punch the "one sweep" button about once an hour (game time) while surfaced. It seems to help.

I tend to avoid Jap air patrols by sticking to USN submarine doctrine and mostly remaining submerged during the day. :smug:

I'm still not convinced the game isn't just sending aircraft available and in range in your general direction. I've tried evasion techniques to see if they change course based on following my radar and they don't. As long as I'm not near the surface within visual range, it seems very hit or miss if an aircraft gets close enough to be able to attack. While it seems at times certain aircraft are aimed right at me, many others flying to/from the same base over several hours or days will seem to miss my location by large margins (as long as I remain unseen.)

No doubt thought, if you want to get rid of the swarm for a while, stay submerged 80-100ft for 4-12 hours and you can shake them off for a while.
-Pv-

Yes, but measure that against the tales from O'Kane. Sure, there were aircraft, but there were also large areas of ocean where you were unlikely - if not never - to find enemy patrols. Tang's patrol in the Yellow Sea is a case in point. They made it to there, and patrolled around the area, with very little interference from aircraft. So, some contacts likely depending on year/month/location/weather/time of day, but it is more a case of you know within an hour or so of dawn, pretty much no matter where you are - or if there are enemy shipping lanes etc - you will start getting air contacts, and they will continue with monotonous regularity throughout the day.

Careful... one anectdote, no matter how powerfull, cannot be considered as valid proof. To make statistical proof you need more data.

Ok I'm putting on my Beery hat here...

Cannot be considered valid proof? An account written by someone who was there at the time it happened isn't valid proof? Maybe what you're saying is that it may not have been the norm, and I can buy that, but you can't say it wasn't valid proof. A primary source recorded at the time it happened is about as valid as proof gets.

That's the problem with the lack of range info with the SD radar. O'Kane indicates in Clear the Bridge that they would not dive immediately upon detection of an airplane; they would only dive if the range closed to within a certain threshold.

Not neccesarily. I studied History (actually Politics and Modern History) at University and the first thing they taught us was all accounts of an event should be taken to be worth the same at face value. Just because an account was written by somebody there does not automatically make it more valid. The person making the account could be biased, have a faulty memory or was simply not in the right place to witness all relevant events. The fact that a piece of evidence is 'primary' is irrelevant. Without any other evidence to draw from one persons account can't be taken as reliable or proof. :know:

Dantenoc is correct, the only way you can find out whether the amount of air conntacts in SH4 is accurate or authentic is to make a study of statistical evidence of the frequency with which US subs enountered enemy aircraft, how many times they where attacked, how effective attacks were etc etc.

Simply waving conflicting stories around as proof of one case of affairs or the other is no proof at all.

My own opinion is that, and I'm drawing this from my own faulty memory and the feel I've got from fairly limited reading;) , US subs enountered on average a pretty large volume of enemy air contacts.

What you were taught in University is purely arbitrary. In some areas of life, an eyewitness is considered more valid.

And talking about history and using the word proof is strange indeed. This isn't mathematics we're discussing.

I think larger point here which is that Gene Fluckey included this account in his book. Presumably he was working off of his patrol reports while writing it, so if the crewman was off in his observation I don't think it would have been included. If you want to call into question the accounts of two men who were there writing at the time by saying their memories were flawed, or by saying that the captain of the ship wasn't privy to everything that happened, or was biased and wrote an inaccurate patrol report then you may do so. I'm not going to call Medal of Honor and Navy Cross holder Gene Fluckey into question though.

I think the only debate here is whether that was the norm or not. We know that Fluckey spent as much time surfaced as possible, as opposed to many other captains who travelled submerged during the day. This would obviously increase the number of plane contacts. So was it the norm for all submarines? Probably not. Would it have been the norm for those who stayed surfaced in enemy waters as many SH4 players do? Probably.

Excellent points, mookie. I'd just like to add the Thunder Below is a fabulous book...the best sub book I've read, and highly recommended.

Splice the Main Brace! (anyone know what that actually means???)

Howler :arrgh!:

LOL ... Aye matey! Arrgh, from the age of square riggers; an extra ration af rum... Cocktails!

Happy Hunting!

Art

Wikipedia to the rescue :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splice_the_mainbrace

This is a list I made some time ago for a diferent message. It shows the number of airplanes and ships that were sighted by the USS Cod during its patrols;

First patrol: [Oct 22 1943 - Dec 16 1943] 10 ships 14 aircraft
Second patrol: [Jan 11 1944 - Mar 13 1944] 16 ships 13 aircraft
Third patrol: [Apr 6 1944 - Jun 1 1944] 24 ships 19 air
Fourth patrol: [Jul 3 1944 - August 25 1944] 55 ships 54 aircraft
Fifth patrol: [Sep 18 1944 - Nov 20 1944] 54 ships 117 aircraft
Sixth patrol: [Mar 24 1945 - May 29 1945] 4 ships >170 aircraft
Seventh patrol: [June 26 1945 - August 13 1945]:33 ships Aircraft not mentioned as number but reported as 'few in number'

As you can see a substantial number...

groetjes,

I'm not calling Gene Fluckey's competance or integrity into question here; my point was general. You have to view accounts with a certain degree of scepetcism, regardless of who they were written by. For example, Winston Churchill just about out ranks Gene Fluckey as someone who was there, but his accounts of what happened during the war aren't always particularly accurate. So because someone was high ranking or decorated doesn't neccesarily make their version of events correct.

The main thrust of my earlier post was that its pointless saying that because O'Kane didn't encounter many aircraft SH4 is unrealistic, or because Fluckey encountered so many, SH4 is realistic. Unless you make an analysis of all the evidence you can't say for sure either way.

An account from one source can't be used alone as evidence to support a general point. What was the norm for Gene Fluckey on that patrol quite probably was not the norm for most boats, as you rightly point out. IMO I think you're probably right about the numbers of air contacts. :up:

Gino, thats what I'm talking about, good stuff!:up:

Thunder Below is written by Captain Fluckey, based on his ship contact logs, which consolidate several sources (different officers making the entries), hundreds of independent sighting incidents over an extended length of time at a wide variety of geographic datum points:doh:. As source material, it must be considered superior to a secondary source, which is often one person reaching a conclusion, then seeking data to "prove" his point after the fact.

You seem to imply that fact is determined by merely counting opinions, with all opinions equally valid. On that basis, Britain doesn't exist, as most Americans can't find it on the map!:rotfl: Of course the United States does not exist because most Americans can't find that on a map either. I would maintain that the existence of Britain or the United States is not subject to opinion. Certainly some evaluation of the likelyhood that a given source is credible should be part of the historical process. Otherwise the result is pure madness.

Just to break up the debate, I did, in fact, check out the Wikipedia entry and found this:

If the mainbrace was shot away it was usually necessary to repair it during the engagement; the ship was unmaneuverable without it and would have to stay on the same tack. Even repairing it after the battle was a difficult job; the mainbrace ran through blocks, so it could not be repaired with a short splice or a knot. Splicing in a large run of hemp was strenuous work, and generally the ship's best Able Seamen were chosen to carry out the task under the supervision of the Bosun (Boatswain).[1] On completion of the task it was customary for the men to be rewarded with an extra ration of rum. The Bosun would take a sip from the ration of each of the men he had selected for task. Eventually the order "Splice the mainbrace" came to mean that the crew would receive an extra ration of rum, and was issued on special occasions.



I was rather curious about the origins of the term after reading Thunder Below. I love the fact that Fluckey would splice the mainbrace after sinkings, as well as enjoy a custom-made cake to mark the event. When I occasionally write my own SH4 patrol logs (incredibly geeky, I know) I try to get in a few cakes and "depth charge" rations of whiskey :D

Sorry for the "off-topic" nature of these posts, so please continue the debate over how many planes we should be seeing in SH4...

Good hunting,
Howler :arrgh!: (splicing the mainbrace)