How to be a better SH player!
 

In order to be a better Silent Hunter player, we need to understand what SH is.

With so many games out there that offer the experience of commanding submarines, or being a sniper, or ambusher of sorts... we really need to break this great game down to fully understand what she is!

While there are many great sub games, SH to me, creates the ultimate claustrophobic sense of death around every corner. But 98% of the time, it creates a snooze fest of transit time, plane, and escort avoidance.

So what makes this game great?

Silent Hunter... is you and me. Not our boat, our crew, or just a title. It is us taking command of a large vehicle that requires a crew, and turning it into a machine of death. The prospect of a great tonnage rate, or simply sinking that aircraft carrier looms over our heads constantly. That feeling of doing the math, waiting for the right opportunity, and see the end result sink in the ocean fascinates us!

But how do we do that in an awesome way? An efficient way?

Are you an Active or Passive commander?
Technically speaking, we are all "active" commanders. We go out and actively seek out targets to sink. But let's get real here... How many times have you gone out for patrol, shot all your torps, and came back within 2 weeks? What was your tonnage score? Were you hunting the right targets? How many misses? How many times were you spotted?

While you probably scored well, and hit some ships, unless you sank serious targets, or racked serious tonnage within the 2 weeks, in reality, we would lose our command.

We need to go out there, with intention of flooding our OODA loop with information, and get the job done right!

The OODA loop?
What in the world is OODA? you are asking. It represents our decision making process. Observe; seeing your target, identifying what it is. Orientate; get our boat into a position to make an attack or evade. Decision; understanding the situation you are currently in and deciding how best to act. Action; taking the appropriate actions.

When we throw information into this loop, we can make better decisions on how to take a target. But in order to make better decisions, we need to throw lots of good information at it. Passively playing: hunting along the coast, or simply taking every target that you find will not help us here.

All of the great sub commanders did daring things. Whether it was Prien in Scapa Flow or Kretschmer floating in between the convoy columns, they tested their decision making OODA skills by going out and getting information.

Plan out where your hunting grounds will be; the targets you are only interested in; the ships you will absolutely not waste your time in attacking; and your line in the sand when it comes to sacrificing your crew. As the silent hunter, YOU get to determine the time, place, and intensity of the attack.

To be a good SH player, we need to hunt more than coastal freighters or tramp steamers. We need to hunt convoys. This could take 2 or 3 months at least.

We need to select proper targets, and bypass the garbage that floats by!

We need to hold off attacking in bad weather, and strike when our solution is at it's most refined.

We need to properly report convoy positions and wait for the wolfpacks.

We need to manage our fuel, and when necessary, burn it to overtake convoys and targets of opportunity.

Take your time commander, and good hunting!

P.S. Please click on my signature to view videos on SH3/5. Please like and subscribe.

Excellent points that you make. However, we all know that the theory is different from the practice.

- Sometimes, Kaleuns had dry patrols.
- Sometimes, the convoys were too far away, or changed course, or were lost.
- Sometimes, the only ship that passed by was that big tanker on an Eastbound course, but flying neutral colours with its bright colorlights on.
- Sometimes, the North-Atlantic weather, winds, and currents simply didn't cooperate.
- Sometimes, no wolfpack was possible.
- Sometimes, only a dozen boats were on mission and sent to empty patrol grids.
- Sometimes, the convoy approach repeatedly failed.

I am convinced that while they were all extremely competent, most if not all Kaleuns called "Aces" were also running quite a bit lucky due to their circumstances while other Kaleuns with as much talent, drive, and aggressiveness were simply at the bad place in the wrong time, instead having poor to mediocre results. Then, what makes the difference between the Kaleun who was sent back on another patrol despite this, and the other Kaleun who was sent to training school, ordered to command a motor boat, or simply discharged from command?

As far as I know, only Heinz Hirsacker was finally court-martial after six patrols for cowardice and "failure to do his upmost in the face of the enemy"... that seems to indicate that commanders being "passive" were not so much an issue that it warranted more examples of "or else...".

@Drakken...

Of course you are right. I merely intend to motivate newer players into a more immersive gameplay.

My reply came out rougher than I expected, accept my apologies. :Kaleun_Salute: I agree with you, a Kaleun's main job is targetting convoys and big ships, especially transport ships and tankers. If I decide not to do so presented with an occasion my main decision-making factor is that, were it real life and I had to submit my KTB after this patrol, I'd need to have damn good reasons and justifications for that decision backed by both practical experience, precedents, and the Submarine Handbook. For example, should Donitz himself or one of his staff officers ask me why I did not pursue such-and-such convoy, I'd say that the convoy was too far away according to my position and calculations, the sea and winds were too rough, stormy weather, etc. Such reasons would be found in both my KTB and in the Navigator's own log (like weather information, calculation of distance and ETA, etc).

However, should at least some conditions are favourable it is my duty to try to make visual contact with the convoy and report to BdU. If I miss the convoy but can prove I've done my utmost to try finding it, my take is that Donitz would not hold it against me. However, if I attack I must be relentless - if conditions allow I must attempt to reengage the convoy.

Targets over 5 000 GRT are considered good targets. My rule of thumb is one torpedo for each additional 3000-5000 GRT (so 8-10K GRT = 2 eels). Targets of opportunity under that tonnage warrant either a single torpedo (hit or miss) or the deck gun (if not armed) if weather and conditions render an attack practicable. However, if a target is damaged I must continue until I sink it unless it would be unreasonable to do so.

Finally, I stay in the patrol grid area until ordered to a new grid or my fuel reserves approach the lowest estimation that allow to return home, plus 10%. I also expand my search pattern to immediate neighboring grids if, no contact has been made after 7-10 days. However, I try never to go full rogue unless I receive operation freedom, and even then I go to the closest grid with convoy routes nearby.

BTW I have just started my first career with 100% realism, Full Nav, and Enigma messages on. I took your counsel and started writing my first KTB (positions, weather, course and corrections, etc.)

Thank you all for sharing all this valuable experience!

:Kaleun_Salute:

A "Sub"-Academy?
 

@ bstanko6 and so many others.

As a novice, I read the stories, the adventures, the problems and so on that you encounter with great interest because I am obsessed with the thrills, problems and intelligence that comes with hunting.
I hope in time I can act like you do. In the meantime, I have to learn.

1) That means I have to study the manual (sometimes more than 300 pages, do you see this doing?). Reading things full of abbreviations that you don't understand and because of the overwhelming amount of details, you can't remember?

2) The ingames lessons are largely insufficient to explain the complex matter.

3) OK, I'm going to look on Youtube for basic lessons. These are the worst! Suppose half of the players do not have English as their mother tongue, then that "bad luck" half has to do with no kind of English to follow, often with a tempo, much, much too fast, full of abbreviations, half-pronounced words (so the the rest has been swallowed), suddenly an instrument appears on the screen, without telling them how they did it, all too often based on prior knowledge, skipping steps. Rarely envision the target audience: THE STUDENT. In this case the student must be MOST important and above all.
The student still has to learn EVERYTHING (even the smallest trifle). The "teacher" is usually poorly or not at all prepared to give a lesson. This means quite a bit. The teacher should not only demonstrate WHAT the student should do but also tell WHY! Do not forget the smallest step, prepare everything well! And everything in a calm, unhurried way! And all this in easy to understand English and a cleare voice.
Do not swing the cursor around the screen in all directions, but tell with a easy to follow clear pointer what you are GOING to do.

4) The above leads me to a suggestion: There are a lot of experts here who are eager to explain anything to a student. Is it possible that you ask an education expert to check your lesson? Are we trying to establish a real "sub" academy? A lesson is then "approved".
The big advantage is that we then have high-quality explanations as is currently the case and that we can have conversations with absolute beginners who can easily follow the lessons. Don't forget: The more successful students, the more experts are grown!

easy

Fwiw, using your torpedo to tonnage ratio examples. IRL according to the Blair books, a 8-10k ship would usually get 3-4 torpedoes fired at it (a plum prize that size, torpedo reliability, etc.) and it wasn't uncommon for even smaller ships to get the same treatment.
The "two torpedoes on the big one and a single on the two mid-size/smaller ones" that can easily be done game wise, would have been more like "all four at one of them" in reality.
So thats how I handle such but of course everyone is free to play the game as they see fit.

Don't hit yourself too hard, and take the time it needs to learn. You have the benefit of time on your side.

In real life KM submarine officers first went on a course that lasted twelve weeks, with 207 taught hours, and 1-2 hours daily in simulator. Then, to submarine commander for three months training in theory and tactics, with further special training in the working of the gyro-compass, underwater sound location and escape apparatus. Then, they were thrown into a u-boat and there you go, do your best.

As a point of reference, where I live the training to become a plumber-heater lasts 1500 hours (or 13 months).

Very interesting. I really need to read the Blair books. :up:

I believed rationing torpedoes was a thing because the aim was to remain operational for when the boat reached their assigned patrol grid to attack convoys. Hence the "ratio". Then again, in the game we encounter far more traffic than real-life Kaleuns really did.

So, aside to serve as moving weather stations or convoy shadower, I take that u-boats often went to submarine tenders to resupply in torpedoes?

Blair's books can help a lot in playing "realistically".

Yes, they went to resupply u-boats/tankers (milk cows) for torpedoes, but those didn't start until 1942 and was never a full resupply. Occasionally, regular boats gave torpedoes that they couldn't/wouldn't use for various reasons to boats that could too.
Although the game allows it, irl the various interned German supply ships never provided torpedoes; only the milk cows did.

Regarding the ratio, we also have much more reliable (and possibly more powerful) torpedoes in the game vs. reality (even with the various patches available) and there was a very strong "bird in the hand" line of thought emphasized to commanders.
I.e., better to sink one ship than only damage a few, etc.

Maybe a few other things to add to the list:


- Do you use above 32x tc when reloading torpedoes, making repairs, etc. thus preventing the crew from getting fatigued ?
- Do you do scope night attacks when it is unrealistic/ahistorical to do so ?
- Do you run the engines at flank speed for hours on end without having to worry about damage ? (H.sie's patch fixes this; engine problems were not uncommon irl).
- Do you unrealistically chase convoys at high speeds during periods of low visibility (rain, etc.) ?
- Do you reload from deckside torpedoes during unrealistic/ahistorical conditions ?
- Do you use your deck gun at night ?


Off top of my head anyway. If this doesn't belong in this thread bstanko, I'll be glad to delete it.

I'm adding to the list:

- Not sending daily status reports to BdU?
- Not shadowing a convoy when instructed to do so, reporting their position every two hours?
- Not staying in or around assigned grid for the remainder of the patrol, unless instructed otherwise?
- Not staying submerged during daylight when in transit on enemy seas, including around early war Britain?
- Not using proper diving and surfacing procedures?
- Engaging aircraft with Flak at any time, rather than crash dive?
- Avoiding convoys after 1943, because you know in hindsight that they are death traps?

Great conversation. All fits in this thread!

I don't know if daily status reports were actually sop or not but via orders, after June 1941 they definitely were not.

i use dynenv2.9 wave mechanics gale with twos so i don't attack with winds over 6 use SH MechSys_1.03 and roll dice for equipment fail