What about hiroshima?
 

Has anyone get close enough to see Little Boy fall in Hiroshima on August 6th 1945? I saw the battle off Samar with the stock game v1.5 and it was quite accurate with its real life counterpart, so i was thinking about other great events.
An atomic explosion from the bridge would be a hell of a great sight, and i would drop even the biggest unprotected convoy to see it:cool:

That would be awesome as it was big payback for all the war attrocities and pearl harbor, anyway historicly its the only such attack with such weapon. That stuff still seams so science fiction to me what that bomb actually does


Jonesy

The actual event is not simulated in the game. You get a radio message that it's taken place and that's it. We did have a thread wondering if it was in the game about a year ago.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ht=atomic+bomb

The historical battles represented in the game are mere shadows of the actual events for the most part, especially given the wacky air model.

While this is only a game, we still would not have known about the dropping of "Little Boy" or "Fat Boy', very few did, and although it is true history and a real event, I still don't wish to see it simulated. Please don't accuse me of being a "soft liberal", I'm certainly not. Of course we did what we felt we had to do, and the past can't be changed. To the contrary, I was raised in a military family, and support our military wholeheartedly, but to this day, I only wish we would/could have had a less horriffic alternative.

BTW, Sorry..my intent is not to start some big debate issue here.. just my humble opinion. :DL

It's funny. We've gotten a lot of questions since the game came out asking if it's possible to ambush the Japanese carrier fleet as it steams toward Pearl Harbor. I guess it's hard for players to suppress advanced knowledge of events like Pearl Harbor, Midway or the A-bomb.

I always wondered if it's possible to see Mt. Fuji through your periscope in the game like many skippers did in real life. However, I have to assume it's not modeled as I'm certain someone would have posted a screen shot by now.

Might have to go check that out .........

Am there now in March 28 1945, 2miles SW of Hiroshima and not a lot to see apart from a ISE BB and a carrier and thats it and a lot of Jap planes buzzing around.

The Hiroshima bomb didn't get dropped until August 1945.

The race is on! First one with a screenshot of Mt. Fuji wins!

I don't suppose this counts. :D

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4834/237.jpg

Okay...I'll fire up SH4 and go look. Fuji is generally southwest of Tokyo near Atami and Shizuoka. :cool:

Fuij is a monster mountain-3777m-and if it can be seen i game, anywhere off the coast of Tokyo Bay to Shizuoka should be good.

I can see it from Chiba on the far side of Tokyo Bay everyday, at a distance of 250+ kilometers.

I just fired up one of those single patrol scenarios that starts off the coast of Honshu. I checked the area out. No sign of the mountain although I did get blasted by a shore battery for my pains.

I tried using the external camera to search inland but found the ground just drops straight down to the sea like a facade when you go too far. That's probably why it's not there. My guess is that the game only models topography so far inland and then quits.

Must be an impressive sight in real life from Chiba. I see Mount Rainier everyday on my commute although it's not as pretty and symmetrical as Fuji.

Stunning, especially for an Australian, the flatest continent on earth. It's got that funny cold white stuff on it too. I think Mt Ranier is nicknamed Fuji, right?

Actually the mountain around here that most resembled Fuji in terms of it's shape and symmetry was Mt. St. Helens. But that certainly changed for the foreseeable future in 1980 when it committed volcano seppuku.

Mt. Rainier is a bit lumpier, but a bit higher than Fuji. (4392 meters)

http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/hou...lMtRainier.jpg

At the risk of pulling us back onto the topic that everyone had so neatly manoeuvred away from, I have to say I agree with Soundman. I believe in seeking out peaceful solutions to conflict, but I'm no pacifist. I understand that military activity is sometimes the only viable route to take, but it should rarely be the first choice, and if there are other ways we should be exploring those thoroughly before we take up arms.

I know that this could potentially flare up the whole "should we be simulating war for fun" debate. So my take, very briefly:

Silent Hunter, and other war-based simulations, are entertaining, and maybe that's a little weird, when you think about it. Though like most other people, I'd much prefer the idea of wars being fought in simulation than for real. But this war really happened. Still, I say to myself that it's also educational in that, after spending several ingame hours attempting to escape from a flotilla of alerted destroyers, I think I have a better appreciation at least for the mechanics of what submariners had to face during the period. I'm not going to presume that I understand what they went through, that "I can relate" - but I can say that playing the game has made me think. And by and large I think that's a good thing.

And at its most basic level a game of this type is a challenge: this is your situation; these are your constraints; this is what you want to do. Now find a way to do it within those constraints.

So I'm not for one moment arguing against the simulation itself or the detail it presents. But. There is something about the idea of displaying the detonation of those weapons that I would find a little uncomfortable. Is that inconsistent? Is it irrational to think that way about one specific atrocity in a war of many atrocities? Maybe it is. But somehow, I think that certain events are significant not just for the number of people they killed - as if that's not bad enough - but for what they represent. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were symbols that the world had changed - there was a new power in the world. War was no longer something that was (in principle at least if rarely in practice) restricted to the battlefield. While civilian casualties had always been inflicted and rationalised, suddenly we're faced with the most powerful weapon ever devised, and it was specifically designed to incinerate huge areas - and therefore huge numbers of people - in one strike. And if Little Boy and Fat Man weren't terrifying enough in themselves, they were the heralds of a new age of fear and brutality. We can argue over whether the detonations over Japan were justified in light of what the Japanese had done, but in the end their significance spread out far beyond the Pacific war and encompassed all of humanity, present and future.

I can't truly rationalise this. I'm maybe being oversensitive or too... what was it? Too 'bleeding-heart'. But no, I think we're better off for holding that particular event as something that is spoken of, but not seen in the game. It should, I think, bring pause. Whatever other reason I think we can offer as to why we choose to amuse ourselves with recreations of horrific situations, I think it's worth holding that particular event in a special place.