Thoughts around VIIB vs. IXB
 

Hello!
My career has started very well. After 4 patrols I almost hold the required renown to upgrade my loyal type VIIB into a type IXB!
It´s february in 1940. I serve in the 2. flotilla (I think) and currently operating from Wilhelmshaven...

So I wonder, should I upgrade to the type IXB as soon as possible or should I spare my renown for something else?
I remember that there was discussion around the fact that some sub models had a larger variety of conning towers and equipment which could be fitted on them.
So, what say you? Should I keep to my type VIIB or upgrade to the IXB?

The things i noted in the IXB:
Heavier surface-to-air firepower
Larger caliber deck-gun (don´t know if you notice the difference)
Better range
Slightly slower submerged

:lurk:

Thank you!

Well it's even more complicated because you may want to wait for te IXC for even more range. See below thread for more on that.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=47241

The IXs have more torpedoes, and if you like going to far off places hunting then the IX is a good boat. Some people prefer the VII because it is more manueverable- I've been reading that often the IXs were considered too sluggish for convoy attacks ( atlerast from '42 on)

I think I'm going to start a 2nd career, so I have one with long range boats and one where I stick with the VIIs. Even if you stay with the VII the VIIC can carry more AA guns.

You may want to upgrade & try the IX for a while then if you don't like it just go back to a previous saved game.

The IXs are nice for getting to the easy hunting off the US coast when they enter the war, but harder to survive in later years because of the longer dive time and beeing a bigger, less nimble target.
Personaloly I think I'm going to try to get a IXC just for something different and because U-505 is located nearby.

Well, hope I've added to your confusion.

:lol:

Thank you, I shall take your thought to consideration! :yep:

(Gee, I sound like nerdy politician :P)

actualy the large calliber deck gun is not an advantage, as you carry half the rounds per box of ammo. all told the 88 has more of damage potential vs the 105 as the 105 shells only do a bit more damage stock, and you carry alot less ammo for it.

The IX are slow in changing depth, diving and turning, easier to detect on active sonar (due to the much larger size), and you will be sent alot further for each patrol (which meens alot more time sitting around as you cross the ocean). As for the heavier anti air of the IX, the stock ixb doesnt realy have much more firepower as the first type of 37mm gun is single shot with a 2 second reload, so i wouldnt expect to shoot down much with it.

Other then conning towers, subs typicaly have access to most of the same equipment upgrades (radar, sonar, batteries, engines, etc). Conning towers pretty much just determine what guns (flak and deck) can be mounted.

Realy the main advantage of the IX series is the number of torps it can carry. Range isnt much of an advantage in the long run as you will have to spend alot more time getting out there and back (since your gona get sent pretty far away from base by bdu), which some what counters the advantage of extra torpedos. Oh and structuraly XI's tend to be a bit tougher to sink.

Personaly i prefer the VII series over the IX. Though at some point in my current campaign i will switch to it for a bit (probably starting when the americans enter the war). then go back to the VII

From U-boat.net "Type IXB was an improved version of type IX with increased range of 1500 nautical miles and slightly heavier. The designed was improved again in the IXC type.

This type was the most successful overall with each boat averaging over 100,000 tons of sinking. They had 23 torpedoes stored which gave a determined U-boat commander a serious striking power which could be used night after night against the same convoy, as was often the case.

Perhaps the most famous IXB boat was the U-123 under the command of Kptlt. Hardegen which opened up the attack in the US waters in early 1942 known as Operation Drumbeat. U-107, under the command of Hessler, made the most successful convoy mission of the war over with close to 100,000 tons sunk out of Freetown, Africa."

Didn't realize the IXBs were so successful. Kinda interesting. Might make sense to goto IXs for a little bit then back to the VIIC like NeonSamurai said from a tonnage/ survivability point of view.

Just wish I had more time to play & try out all the options!

Cheers

Yup, that's true.

Yup, but size is not much of a problem till late '42/early '43. Till that time, most of the destroyers are equally lame for IX as for VII. Long patrols can be dull, but with the torpedo loadout of IX you can just skip patrol route and go for some rich hunt and still have more renown than from VII.

It's 0,5s if you have a trained flakgunner on it and a full green bar. There's not much difference, as in the early stages of war you're only attacked by stupid Hurricanes, which are more annoying than dangerous. There's one great thing about heavy flak though - you can sink small merchants with it and save your torpedoes and shells for something more worthy :arrgh!:

Yup, but you can have two light and one heavy flak (IX/III conning tower) way before better conning towers for type VII appears.

Yes, oh yes :rock: The IX's are truly convoy killers. With VII you can pick a few targets and then have to return to base, with empty tubes. With IX, you just reload and do a second round ;) Also, you gain renown much faster with IX, as you can sink much more ships in one patrol.

Ive never had that problem i can usualy pull in 100k tons on 100% realism (i use a custom modified version of rub and other mods) with the viib each patrol, and still have most of my deck gun ammo left. Ive successfully wiped out a large convoy of all the ships of value (c2 or bigger) and still had several torps left. Of course with the IXB i could probably get close to 200k tons ;)

Of course though i am a bit of a sniper with torpedoes, i can usualy kill most transport/tanker ships in one shot, and i almost never miss (and no i dont reload my save game if i do miss). I average about 1 missfire/dud/miss per patrol.


Ive also never used the 37mm for sinking ships as realisticly that pea shooter doesnt stand a chance on its own to sink anything but a tugboat. Oh and the mod i use its more around 1 second reload with fully trained crew.

I also generaly try not to duke it out with aircraft, risk vs reward isnt worth it. So i never realy cared much about improved flak towers :)

I should also add that in the custom mod i use, destroyers arnt total slouches in '39/'40 and often will harrass me for several hours. Though their dc's are usualy off.

Well, if you're this good at 100% realism, than you don't really need a large torpedo loadout ;)

I wouldn't call a 3,7cm cannon "pea shooter". For the first half of WWII it was the main calibre for anti-armour cannons for both sides. And the flak cannons WERE used to attack merchants, along with the deck gun. I don't know if there were encounters of attacking merchants with flaks only, but 100 of 3,7cm holes right under the waterline surely could sink a small merchant ship (disregarding the full cargo of balsa wood inside ;) )

The only true risk with plane hunt, is the possibility of instant death in collision. Well, at least until those damn B24's appear :shifty: On the other hand, I've had patrols with more renown coming from endless waves of Sunderlands than from sinking ships (with 80-90% probability of one-shot kill).

Being an admitted IX boat fanboy, ill say dump that VIIB and get the IXB! :P

Anytime before 1943, the allies ASW is laughable at best. Before 41, you can really bring havok to convoys with night surface attacks. Hit em, shove off long enough to reload, and come back in and hit em again. You can make 3 or so attacks before the night is out.

is really true.

I found a convoy in my Ix-B with only one rookie scort. and i manage to do a huge carnage, attacking every night, until i expend all torpedoes. six tubes with 22

The 37 mm gun is very useful against little boats, and one time it save me , sinking a fast boat in gibraltar.

Perhaps IX-c have more range but is heavier and i think that it takes more time to dive.


I am a fan of big boats ix- ... gato , balao.. :sunny:

Your getting your weapons mixed up, the 37mm anti tank gun and the 37mm aa sub gun are completly different weapons, just like the 88mm sub gun is not the same as the infamous "88" anti tank/aa gun used by the LW.

The shell diameter doesnt indicate much of anything. Shell type, mass, and velocity give a much better idea of its capabilities. Anyhow the 37 AA gun is a near copy of the bofors 40mm gun. the shells it uses are completly different from the 37mm anti tank gun in all relivant stats other then diameter, infact the shells are totaly incompatable with each other. Neither the bofors 40mm or the 37 aa gun had much in the way of armor penetrating capability as they were designed as AA guns.

Oh and i should also add that the 37mm at gun was realy only effective against light tanks, mediums you had to get fairly close to penetrate, and you could forget about heavy tanks of the period, its why the germans quickly changed the 37mm gun on the pz3 to the 50mm at gun. Even if the 37mm AT gun was used on ships the damage would be minor, the holes small and easily plugged.

So again the 37mm aa gun is a pea shooter when used on ships. Problem is the game doesnt model the effects of armor properly. If they did the 20mm would not be able to sink a ship no matter how many times you fired at the hull, and the 37mm would mostly dent the hull and maybe put a few small holes. Neither is designed to penetrate ship plating, they are designed to rip aircraft apart.

I thought a lot before ´buying´ my IXB !!

Did my first carrer all on a VIIC (as soon as it became available), and liked it a lot !! :up: :up:


Making it Short ---> IXB

Pros:
Lots of torpedoes :) :) :) :) :)

Cons:
Fewer AA guns :stare: :stare:
Manuevering is slower, think of an elephant !! :stare:

Neutral: The heavier Deck Gun (wich was my main reason to upgrade) is balanced with less shells :stare: :stare: :stare:
So don´t count too much on that !! :stare: :stare: :stare: :down:


In the end, i´ll stick to it in this campaign - but just because of the torpedo load !
Sometimes i miss my old and rusty VII-C !! :doh:

I am in the same situation, almost.

I started with a type II. I am now using a type VII-B and I'm using Willemshaven. The type VII-C is available and I got enough renow to get it, but I am waiting to have enough renow to grab a type IX for the extended range. Right now I got around >3000 in renow but the type IX was 9000 and now it's 7500 to grab it (I'm using RuB 1.45 and all the patches from the Avon Lady web page).

I'd like to grab the IX-C but perhaps I will have to grab the IX-B because the renown required could be pretty high.

I'm using RUB and SHIII Commander, so I have the correct Flotilla starting points. I mention this in the context that I have three separate careers going right now, one from each flotilla, one in a IIb and two in Type VIIs. The Type IX is now available for the 2nd Flotilla, but I'll avoid starting a career in one until either my man in the 2nd is killed or retired, or enough time passes that a new flotilla is formed.

I doubt that I'll ever actually upgrade one of them to a newer or bigger boat, but only time will tell if I stick to that.

Well, I couldn't agree less ;)
The 3,7cm PAK (KWK) 36 and the 3,7cm SK C/30, were developed for completely different purposes, but were indeed quite similar in combat characteristics. They both fired rounds of similar weight with high velocity. The main difference was the type of projectile used, with PAK 's firing mainly solid AP rounds, and FLAK's using HE bursting rounds. In fact, the 3,7cm SK C/30, firing AP rounds, would do much better, having much longer barrel (83calibres, comparing to PAK's 45calibres) and higher projectile velocity (1000m/s vs 762m/s). That's also the case with 8,8cm FLAK, designed primarily for AA role, but performing so good with armour, that it's mainly known from this side.
And in the game, we're fitted with AP ammo for the heavy FLAK - i don't know if the had any in reality (M42 and M43 had). If they hadn't, they really couldn't sink anything bigger than some wooden trawler.
Instead they could be (and were) used to supress any resistance from enemy crew. With light FLAKs used as HMGs, and the heavy ones, supressing any gun mounted onboard, even armed merchant could be sunk with the use of a deck gun. Oh well, not counting those late Liberties, armed like some goddamn destroyer :arrgh!:
I think, that the inability to order FLAK crew to at least aim at the gun mounts of waterborne targets is one of the biggest bugs of Sh3.

The penetration of PAK36 at 30º was 29mm of armour from 500m and 64mm from 100m. Are you trying to tell me, that the hull of a small merchant ship was thicker than this? And who would pluck the holes, if there's a constant delivery of new ones right next to existing? ;)
The main reason for not sinking ships with the heavy flak fire only was, because if the sub could surface right next to unarmed merchant and nail it with 3,7cm rounds for such a long time carelessly, it was just easier to abordage it, and open the valves or set explosives ;)
Unfortunately, it's not simulated in the game :(