Are the AC in 1943 a little too good or am I unlucky.
 

I am no rookie and I like it tough. In fact I changed all my escorts to 3 and 4 in the RND file from day one. But, I have tried a few missions with a 1943 campaign and the aircraft seem to be a little too good. After having learned to dive as soon as an air contact report comes in it does not seem to matter. If there is an AC report and I dive as fast as possible I am still sunk. Since the report comes from picking up a radar signal I would think that is way before any sighting and at 3 miles per minute (200MPH) it would take at least five minutes for the planes to arrive and I am being sunk in the middle of the dive. That does not sound right to me as that is much less than one minute from contact of a radar signal to destruction.
What have you found for AC in 43 or 44? Is it completely impossible or am I missing something?
Wulfmann

Do you routinely dive during the day and surface at night? I do this religiously and I have yet to be bothered at all by any aircraft in any career I've run.

I'm doing a very interesting experiment right now. It's called "RealU-flak". When I'm done with it, I'll tell you what I think - but so far, it looks pretty acceptable... :hmm:

I guess it depends on the aircraft's speed. I got a report of an aircraft sighted. It was a Sunderland. I was using a type IXD2 (which means Titanic sank faster). I was still able to dive before the Sunderland came up on me. Actually, I was already at about 30 or 40 meters.

One thing that is bugging me, though, is the fact that planes can detect the snorkel too easily. I was running subermged using the snorkel with a XXI. Those dumb planes ALWAYS ambush me. I don't see the point of a snorkel. I'd stand a better chance on the surface. :damn: :damn:

So far, being sighted by a plane is sure death for me. I don't mind it being difficult but so far it seems impossible. I do not run submerged all day. In Jan 1943 I should not have too. In Jan 1944, I can see it but if that is required in Jan 1943 I would say that is not historically accurate. I believe being sunk within 60 seconds of getting a radar detected report is not right either. The planes spent many hours patrolling and did not have their finger on the trigger 24/7. They would have to adjust to make an attack approach while covering the distance from detecting the U-boat, the same as their radar signal being picked up. That can not be under 5 minutes but under the most rare of circumstances and certainly not the norm, as has been my case to date. It might be the 1024TC does not slow down fast enough when it changes by the signal report and therefore the plane has already gone the 4 out of 5 minutes needed to close and you have been unable to take any action as you would and should have.
Wulfmann

U-boat losses really started to mount as early as July 1942, with losses in double digits for almost every month after that. February 1943 saw 19 U-boats destroyed. The numbers of U-boats destroyed in the last 6 months of 1942 (75) are not a great deal lower than the losses encountered in any of the following 6 month periods - Jan to June 1943 (113), July to December 1943 (124), January to June 1944 (129), and the last 6 months of 1944 (112), yet they are vastly more than the losses in the first 6 months of 1942 (21). Clearly, late 1942 and early 1943 saw a huge difference in the Allies' ability to kill U-boats. Perhaps in reality, U-boats were not travelling submerged during the day in late 1942 and early '43, but if they weren't, they certainly should have been.

According to Uboat.net, 1942 was the year aircraft became a significant killer of U-boats, and aircraft accounted for 31 of the 96 U-boats sunk in that year, so I think it's a mistake to travel surfaced during the day even in 1942. It may have been a mistake that real U-boat crews made, but it's a mistake nonetheless.

The other thing that argues for travelling submerged in early 1943 is the fact that BdU initiated the flak boat program in early 1943. Clearly, air attack was recognized as a major danger by this time, which means that air attacks were having great success. In light of this, it has to be a mistake to treat aircraft lightly, even in 1942 and '43.

Well, I tried that U-Flak career. U-Flak (Turm IV) is bugged :(

But I don't think they're uber. Over the course of that short experiment, I found that manuevering on the surface gives you a fair chance of escape if you act swiftly and play well.

Pretty sure the U-Flak isn't bugged, your save games are.

You think?

That's a possibility. But what on earth would cause that? :-?

I'm actually starting to suspect there may be some corruption going on either in my saves or in the game. I've had at least two other savegame bugs recently, whereas I've had none before...

With SH3, anything's possible. :-? :D

No sorry, I jumped the gun a bit. I thought the Uflak turm was only available later than September 1943 (your screenshot). However, in basic.cfg it is available to buy in

[CONING_TYPE8] ;VIIC/4
Idx=8
Year=1943
Month=6
SubNb=3
SubType0=1
SubVersion0=1
SubType1=1
SubVersion1=2
SubType2=1
SubVersion2=3
S01=4
S02=5
S03=5
Renown=1500

It isn't mentioned in the VIIC eqp file though. That may cause it. Don't know, but will try and find out.

Actually, it's probably not the savegames. I remembered something else: when I was "bying" the equipement for it, I bought the tower, then I went for other upgrades... then I went to Flak guns, and realized that I had only the selections of a Turm II's config, including the deck gun, while the picture of the sub looked like a Turm II with Turm IV's flak guns (including the forward one 'hanging' in the air in front of the tower) :huh:

Yeap, might be that .eqp then :hmm:

"Wow" Berry I must be the most unlucky capatain in the UB fleet :D
I have been using your RUB 1.42 with ver 1.4b April 1942 V11C
Out St Nazaire start 3 new patrols and have been hit at night on surface
Dive in day time and watch RAF planes overhead on patrol.
Try to move at night PD till batterys get low then surface dead in water
to charge batterys no wake and a PBY layed a bomb square on me.
Regards
Lane :D

I've baught a Uflak tower before and outfitted it properly. Hmm, the eqp file may be it, but then the IX largest Turm isn't in the IX eqp.

Hmm,

Right, well I bought a UFlak tower, outfitted it and took it out to sea. 1944 and was attacked as soon as it got light. A single catalina, which I ripped to shreds, then a single Sunderland (using a new set of airbase files to give single plane encounters - but too easy by the looks of things).

Saved and reloaded and everything is fine. I did notice that while in port and outfitting, the Uflak tower disappeared from the upgrade screen and was replaced by Turm 3, with deck gun etc.

However, when I went to the barracks screen, the Uflak turret was there again. I have seen the Upgrades screen "forget" what I have purchased a few times before. Sometimes it resets my torpedo config, sometimes the radar I just purchased will disappear, and when I try and buy it it says I still have it or have it already. I have never seen a Turm be forgotten though.

Many moons ago, I tidied up these screens so the correct equipment would show when you buy it. Eg a rotating hydrophone on the deck near the bow etc. I learnt alot about how these screens work. There are seperate damage files for the barracks/damage screen, but despite my fixes, it would "forget" changes and revert back on entering the screen again. If you buy a radar while you have a certain Turm, it will reference the conning file to see where to show it. I think maybe something you buy is referenced wrongly and you see the wrong Turm, maybe. ANyway, so far it appears cosmetic. The Turm is there, with guns.. it just doesnt show...

I'll have a look at the menu screen for Turm4. Though at first glance everything looks ok.

I don't think it is the eqp, I think that contains default equipment for subs in a time period without addons you make during a campaign. As I said, other Turms are not referenced in other classes, meaning you have to buy them if you want them.