Dealey and Christie

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, you know that Vice Admiral Christie was a strange old bird. We talked earlier about how he insisted that Commander Sam Dealey take him out on a cruise, and reportedly, allegedly, possibly not, ordered Dealey to raise his conning tower above the surface to lure one of the DD's in for one of his famous "down the throat" shots. And we detailed how they covered for each other after the fact. In it's "remember this" series, the US Subvets of WWII have an even more interesting take on the situation where Admiral Christie functionally admits giving the order!

REMEMBER THIS USS HARDER?

When the Harder (Dealey) returned to Darwin from her record-breaking "destroyer" patrol on June 21, 1944, Admiral Christie requested Cdr.Dealey to take him out on a "three week patrol." The primary purpose of this trip was to sink the ship that regularly hauled nickel from the Celebes, the Japanese only source for this strategic metal. A contact report alerted Harder to the presence of a damaged cruiser and two escorts, returning from the battle of the Philippines. Unable to close despite running at flank speed, Adm. Christie said to Cdr. Dealey "why didn't you expose your conning tower and lure the DD's in and sink them." Later, Dealey privately asked, "Admiral, were you serious about luring them in?" Replied Christie "Well Sam, you're the destroyer killer. I was neither criticizing nor directing. The way we feel about you and the Harder, the risk was not great." source: www.ussubvetsofwwii.org

The waters get muddier on this episode!

[Rockin Robbins]

Say what you will about the hardcore sim crowd, the lack of response to real information shows that even they are primarily interested in subjective gameplay issues rather than historical facts. This really bodes well for the new add-on. Ubi came to the same conclusion and went with what people really want, which is very different from what they SAY they want.

The first thing you learn selling anything is that people lie. You have to penetrate through what they say they want and sell them what they REALLY want. That's a tough order.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not sure what your point is about the "hardcore sim crowd". I didn't respond yesterday because I haven't been online since the day before that. It's an interesting story, but again, is there a point beyond Admiral Christie's "strangeness"?

Is it about criticizing players who make a point of attacking destroyers (as I recently did)? Sure it was done, but it took torpedoes away from the job of sinking merchants and it was also risky. Remember, Harder didn't come back from her sixth patrol.

During his short but impressive career Dealey’s USS Harder sank 16 enemy ships totaling over 50,000 tons.

While Commander Dealey was the bravest of the brave, and 16 ships and 50,000 tons in 6 patrols is nothing to sneeze at, it's also not the most impressive of scores.
http://www.submarinebooks.com/DestroyerKiller.htm

I don't condemn gamers for playing like gamers, but I'm more impressed when they play as if their life was really on the line.

And if what I just wrote has nothing to do with what you meant, I'll crawl back under my bridge and wait for some defenseless billy-goats to come along.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm not sure what your point is about the "hardcore sim crowd". I didn't respond yesterday because I haven't been online since the day before that. It's an interesting story, but again, is there a point beyond Admiral Christie's "strangeness"?

Is it about criticizing players who make a point of attacking destroyers (as I recently did)? Sure it was done, but it took torpedoes away from the job of sinking merchants and it was also risky. Remember, Harder didn't come back from her sixth patrol.

While Commander Dealey was the bravest of the brave, and 16 ships and 50,000 tons in 6 patrols is nothing to sneeze at, it's also not the most impressive of scores.
http://www.submarinebooks.com/DestroyerKiller.htm

I don't condemn gamers for playing like gamers, but I'm more impressed when they play as if their life was really on the line.

And if what I just wrote has nothing to do with what you meant, I'll crawl back under my bridge and wait for some defenseless billy-goats to come along.

Hmmmmm. What's my point? (do I have to have a point? I'm in trouble here) Christie's strangeness is certainly part of it. He actively resisted his skippers' reports of torpedo malfunctions, disciplining officers who were too strong about it. When one submarine made the mistake of picking up over 50 refugees from the Philippine defeat and one was an officer superior to the skipper. This officer ordered the submarine to continue its war patrol instead of returning to Australia with the evacuees. In the course of this "black hole of Calcutta" mission, they were subject to a prolonged depth charge attack by the inept Japanese navy :rotfl:which nearly exhausted the oxygen supply for the crew. On return, Christie severly repremanded the sub skipper for not cutting short his cruise and returning the evacuees to terra firma.

Balanced on that is Christie's foreward to the book "Destroyer Killer," which I have and you reference with that link, where Christie takes responsibility for sending Sam Dealey out on one too many missions when he knew better. That's a surprising amount of humility from the man who ordered Dealey to force the "down the throat."

I just think the real life complexity is so much richer than the "sonar shouldn't work on the surface dammit!" hardcore simmers who usually operate on very limited factual ground. There are plenty of other examples. Those who pride themselves on "historical accuracy" are usually actually primarily concerned with balance between player and enemy that makes for their subjective goal of great gameplay.

Just like I did with the Dick O'Kane attack method, after they come to their conclusion, they ask "is there ANY way I can historically justify this?" Guilty as charged.:rotfl:

[Munchausen]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I just think the real life complexity is so much richer than the "sonar shouldn't work on the surface dammit!" hardcore simmers who usually operate on very limited factual ground.

For many SH4 players, it might not seem logical that sonar worked on the surface ... but, at low speed or when the sub was stationary, it worked. It might not seem logical to attack destroyers ... but some skippers did it. It might not seem logical that subs were often tasked to pick up or drop off key personnel and/or refugees ... but such taskings happened throughout most of the war (usually over the objections of the skipper). Or that a sub could hold a submerged position without making headway (and occasionally did it to evade the enemy). Or observation scopes could be used during an attack. Or subs could cruise above "crawling speed" without running out of fuel. But, logical assumptions to the contrary, it actually happened that way.

The fun part is reading (or hearing or watching) stories about guys who actually did these things ... the type of things some of us assume are impossible. Or, at least, improbable.

It doesn't really bother me when modders change the simulation to reflect a logical (but erroneous) assumption (or two) about the operation and/or capabilities of American subs (and/or Japanese defenses) during World War II. Just as long as they don't convince the devs to do likewise. 'Cause my only assumption is that the devs did a whole lot of research to get the simulation where it is ... and that official patches (the kind that can't be changed by most of us) are for fixing real bugs.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Munchausen

For many SH4 players, it might not seem logical that sonar worked on the surface ... but, at low speed or when the sub was stationary, it worked. It might not seem logical to attack destroyers ... but some skippers did it. It might not seem logical that subs were often tasked to pick up or drop off key personnel and/or refugees ... but such taskings happened throughout most of the war (usually over the objections of the skipper). Or that a sub could hold a submerged position without making headway (and occasionally did it to evade the enemy). Or observation scopes could be used during an attack. Or subs could cruise above "crawling speed" without running out of fuel. But, logical assumptions to the contrary, it actually happened that way.

The fun part is reading (or hearing or watching) stories about guys who actually did these things ... the type of things some of us assume are impossible. Or, at least, improbable.

It doesn't really bother me when modders change the simulation to reflect a logical (but erroneous) assumption (or two) about the operation and/or capabilities of American subs (and/or Japanese defenses) during World War II. Just as long as they don't convince the devs to do likewise. 'Cause my only assumption is that the devs did a whole lot of research to get the simulation where it is ... and that official patches (the kind that can't be changed by most of us) are for fixing real bugs.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrr Matey!!!!