Surviving and evading destroyers in shallow water
 

Playing the single mission off the NJ Coast. I can succesfully sneak in and sink the required shipping. However, I get clobbered when trying to sneak out/ or make a mad dash out of there. Any advice on how to get away from destroyers in shallow water?

One tactic I have not tried in this scenario is to sink the destroyers. I've found the advice in the tactics section -- charging at the destroyer, turning at 900 meters and them hitting them with rear torpedos works . . . really well. However, I prefer to try to play this with stealth and patience.

Try with this http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=217396


This mod also looks interesting
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...do=file&id=958

I avoid shallow waters as the devil avoids the water in church. If there is no other chance i attack the destroyers first and than move on to the mission goal/patrol destination. Silent running (1kn), tactical useage from peri (15sec up for round sweep, 10 sec up for targeting) and exact shot helps.
But because of my 8 jears in navy at subs i´m a little bit trained in such things. :Kaleun_Wink:

Yeah, going into shallow water is just asking for trouble. I don't bother either.

I get don't go into shallow water. However, this is one of the single missions . . . and I would really like to complete it

In shallow waters you are virtually lost with your sub that can take 1 enemy shell on the surface and be doomed with any depth charge. So there is no solution but to sink the destroyers or stay out of detection. Simple as that.

Maybe at night you will stay out of sight for the destroyers while you can sneak-in to your objective? Whatever, you have to do a surface escape afterwards.

If you are being hunted in shallow waters, you have to

1) head for deeper waters.

2) refrain from extreme ire toon changes. Get to deep water.

3) if possible run those E-Motors hard and flank out of there!

My dictionary says "I can't compute!" Typo's?

Wow auto correct... direction changes!

I don't think the Uboat was used properly. Doenitz had the right idea for a blockade... his boss uncle Adolf was an idiot and rushed things, forcing a war they were not ready for. I think if Doenitz had the right amount of boats, and a strong budget to increase Uboat tech, we may have had a different history.

Ahh, that makes sense.

cheap allied solutions to expensive uboats:"money is the $inews of war"
 

nope! once the surface (Hedgehog mortars) and air are totally dominated by 10 centmeter radar capable of spotting a schnorkel (apex hunter a B-24 Liberator (flown by my still living 95 year old uncle:yeah:); Cutting the five French U-boat ports on the Biscay Bay off from the Atlantic and a FIDO mk 24: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ne_diagram.jpg

Quote:

from US Navy OEG Study No. 289, 12 August 1946 provides the following data related to Mark 24 effectiveness: Number of attacks in which Mark 24s were launched 264 Total number of Mark 24 torpedoes launched - all targets 340 Number of Mark 24s launched against submarines 204; Number of Mark 24 attacks on submarines by US aircraft 142; Number of Mark 24 attacks by Allied (primarily British) aircraft 62; Number of German U-boats sunk by FIDO 31; Number of German U-boats damaged by FIDO 15; Number of Japanese submarines sunk by FIDO 6; Number of Japanese submarines damaged by FIDO 3; Total number of submarines sunk by FIDO (German & Japanese) 37 Total number of submarines damaged 18

and your enigma ain't so enigmatic....(even after Doenitz added a fourth rotor) your happy times are over, technologically, tactically, strategically and numerically BBYY! Doenitz had read his Italian warfare book too:

Quote:

After (black) May 1943, the rate of loss of U-boats was greater than the rate at which new U-boats were commissioned, and the number of operational U-boats slowly declined. On 24 May 1943, Karl Dönitz — shocked at the defeat suffered by the U-boats — ordered a temporary halt to the U-boat campaign; most were withdrawn from operational service. May had seen a drop in allied losses coupled with a disastrous rise in U-boat losses; 18 boats were lost in convoy battles in the Atlantic in the month, 14 were lost to air patrols; six of these in the Bay of Biscay. With losses in other theatres, accident, or other causes, the total loss to the U-boat arm in May was 43 boats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_(1943) Part of the u-boat's success is attributaable to the Prime Minister himself, a former first sealord, who knew Germany had been defeated under the Kaiser and would be again: he prioritized his bombers against the German land-mass first and the u-boat threat second:

Quote:

....claimed that if the Admiralty’s demands for more aircraft had been met, the Battle of the Atlantic might have been won six months sooner. A recent article by John O’Connell asserts that victory could have been achieved a full year earlier if the British had allocated their aircraft differently. Dimbleby puts the figure at “many months.” The implication is that millions of tons of merchant shipping and thousands of lives might have been saved if Churchill had not prioritized the bomber offensive over the U-boat war.

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-prolong-battle-atlantic/

So you are saying if Doenitz had 300 uboat, was able to produce the type XXI earlier, and got Goerring forex for a more assisting Luftwaffe...

There would still be no chance to choke Britain?

Hard to believe. Since Britain had no intention of advancing Anti sub tech after WW1.