Hiding under tankers and ships cheating?

[Red9Iron]

After slipping in to a convoy, I often stay under a ship or near a ship.. Destroyers can not depth charge because they would have a merchant ship as a head ornament.. I dont believe this was common practice during ww2.. Would you guys see this as a form of cheating? :hmm:

And yes..I know..It is a single player game and the only one that I would be cheating is myself.. but is a personal dilemma that i am facing and wanted some oppinons.. Thanks guys..

[danurve]

Let's presume, that your boat is under another ship after you've had some tonnage.
Keeping up with undamaged merchants requires extra speed. That's like the dinner bell for a hungry escort. You can get away with a lot of things Early war, but if you're looking for time to reload your torpedo tubes you might need a new tactic down the road. I wouldn't call it cheating though.

[Torplexed]

Hiding under a disabled ship is not that uncommon a tactic in the game. Gets ugly though, when the ship suddenly sinks on top of you and takes you down with it.

[Red9Iron]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Hiding under a disabled ship is not that uncommon a tactic in the game. Gets ugly though, when the ship suddenly sinks on top of you and takes you down with it.

good point

[Brag]

It works, but as Torplexed said, sinking ships are unreliable

[Graf Paper]

Yeah...about as unreliable as a schizophrenic pit bull!

Don't deck gun tankers to finish them off, either! If you're too close when they blow, you'll blow up along with them! Been there, done that.

And another episode of one of my early careers...

Once, I was hiding by the wreck of a C2 cargo I had sunk, mere minutes before, in an attempt to elude the four escorts that were very determined to punch my ticket to Davy Jones' Locker. They depth-charged my position, but I was safely ensconced in the shadow of the wreck, so the charges couldn't hit me directly. Little did I realize the explosions had disturbed the wreck's equlibrium and caused her to settle.

That big mother rolled over, right on top of me!

Moral of the story: "Fatty and Skinny went to bed. Fatty rolled over and Skinny was dead!"

On May 27th 1915 U-21 (KK Otto Hersing) torpedoed the battleship HMS Majestic off Gaba Tepe near the Dardenelles. The battleship was close to shore in shallow water (9-fathoms) with her anti-torpedo nets out and surrounded by destroyers and anti-submarine trawlers. KK Hersing closed to 400 yards in broad daylight and put two torpedoes into her. He then took U-21 UNDER the sinking 15,700 ton (full load displacement) Majestic (which sank in only seven-minutes with the loss of 40-lives) and escaped cleanly.

Even given the primitive ASW capabilites of 1915, that took guts.

I would suggest that nobody could accuse you of cheating for using your victims as cover but that's just my $0.02.
Good Hunting

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by Graf Paper

Moral of the story: "Fatty and Skinny went to bed. Fatty rolled over and Skinny was dead!"

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Oh, how many years since I've heard some of those.

[iambecomelife]

When U-550 sank the "Pan Pennsylvania" the commander hid his U-Boat under the burning tanker. Unfortunately for him, the tactic didn't work, probably because it was 1944 and the escorts had good ASW gear. The sub was depth-charged to the surface and sunk.

http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/3236.html

http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBCUTTE...king_U550.html

http://makofever.com/wrecks/Panpennsylvannia.htm



The "Pan Pennsylvania". (Not a very attractive design IMO).



U-550 getting blown to the surface after trying to hide beneath the wreck.

[Sailor Steve]

I think it would depend on how you hid under the merchant. If you can do it by sound, good for you. If you're using external views to stay under the merchant, then of course it's cheating.

[Red9Iron]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think it would depend on how you hid under the merchant. If you can do it by sound, good for you. If you're using external views to stay under the merchant, then of course it's cheating.

What about periscope?

Thanks you guys for the stories..Very good read..

[melnibonian]

Generally speaking early in the war you can hide under ships and evade the escorts. Usually I tend to get about 5-10m below them to have room for movement in case something goes wrong. Later in the war when the allied sonar and ASDIC is very good if you try to do this you're looking for trouble. I try to go as deep as possible (and even deeper some times) and get as far away as possible from the ships and escorts.

[Elmer Kosterman]

Originally Posted by Red9Iron

What about periscope?

I have never heard of the periscope ever being used to see things under water in real life, so I would consider that cheating.

On a similar note, in the early morning of October 14, 1942, U-69 under Kptlt. Gräf sunk the ferry SS Caribou (252 passengers and creew) at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. When the anti-submarine forces came looking for him, he hung out around where the ferry went down, assuming the the enemy would be reluctant to drop depth charges with survivers in the water above him. U-69 got away but 137 people from the Caribou died.

[Cohaagen]

All's fair in war - there's no such thing as "cheating"! Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere, the greatest U-boat commander of all, hid under a sinking ship in WWI, only to become trapped when it began to go under. He escaped.

Also, Lt Ian Fraser in midget craft XE-3 sank the IJN heavy cruiser Takao at anchor. After dropping saddle charges and attaching limpet mines they became trapped under the vessel and only just managed to escape. Fraser and diver JJ Magennis both got the VC for the action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Edward_Fraser



edit for typos

[3Jane]

Was here for eleven hours until the destroyer went away (Nelson)