New kaleun; a few realism questions

[kaleidemiller]

Hello, frens!

I have some experience with military sims (mainly flight sims), but I'm new to Silent Hunter (and sub sims in general). As such, I've a few questions regarding realism, if you'll indulge me. SH3 + Onealex mod. Out-of-the-box settings, except that I turned off crew fatigue -- not a captain's job, imo, and not something that interests me from a simulation perspective.

1) Regarding the map view (F5)... Would there have been officers or POs in the control center constantly updating the position of enemy ships on the navigation map? Would I, as captain, have been able to visualize a ship's movement imposed upon the map... if not to the same real-time extent as the game portrays?

2) How accurate was the range estimate from the hydrophone operator? In the game, you can use the hydrophone contact vector to fairly accurately determine the range. Was that possible?

3) How does the community feel about using the F5 map for plotting a targeting solution? Do "real kaleuns" solely use periscope target recognition and speed/range determination, aided by clues from the hydrophone operator?

Regardless, I've very much enjoyed my time with the game so far! Currently in December 1939, having started a 1st flotilla career based in Kiel. 26,000 tons sunk after five patrols... and quite a lot of malfunctioning torpedoes!

All the more satifsying when they DO find their targets. :p

[derstosstrupp]

Originally Posted by kaleidemiller

1) Regarding the map view (F5)... Would there have been officers or POs in the control center constantly updating the position of enemy ships on the navigation map? Would I, as captain, have been able to visualize a ship's movement imposed upon the map... if not to the same real-time extent as the game portrays?

Typically only the navigator, and only at the request of the commander. Plotting was very typical when shadowing a convoy in order to determine zig pattern, speed etc. A plot of each individual ship though wouldn’t happen. In short, the plot was primarily used as a means to determine target data, and not so much for situational awareness.

Originally Posted by kaleidemiller

2) How accurate was the range estimate from the hydrophone operator? In the game, you can use the hydrophone contact vector to fairly accurately determine the range. Was that possible?

Very inaccurate. There are instances in the historical record of experienced sound men being totally confused about the distance of certain sounds, in one memorable case aboard U-47, which picked up explosions that turned out to be miles away, which the operator mistook as right on top of the boat. Passive listening was so dependent on ambient factors (sea state, water depth, salinity, stratification etc) that conditions were often far less than ideal.

Originally Posted by kaleidemiller

3) How does the community feel about using the F5 map for plotting a targeting solution? Do "real kaleuns" solely use periscope target recognition and speed/range determination, aided by clues from the hydrophone operator?

It provides far too much information. During a submerged attack, the commander was looking through the attack periscope in the tower making all the decisions for the approach based on what he saw there, assisted by the navigator, who used slide rules and tables to assist him there. Surfaced, the commander would be on the bridge overseeing the situation and supervising the I.WO, who was doing the aiming at the UZO.

Silent Hunter series provides no middle ground. Map contacts on provides way more information at a glance than any real commander could dream of, and map contacts off falls short as well as you are almost entirely dependent on what you yourself can see/gather. In real life, data gathering was normally a team effort - a target would be followed on a parallel course at max range for a time and its speed and course matched (called “Ausdampfen”), or the data was determined by plotting. The officers had a little pow-wow and agreed on the course and speed, and these were documented in the KTB. At the time of the shot, the data was then confirmed by estimation. This is how SH targeting falls short - either you “have it all”, or you are forced to be on your own. That said, I personally play no map contacts, as I find using the historical data gathering methods (matching, plotting, estimating) to be a big part of my enjoyment.

[Hooston]

Excellent post. "Silent Hunter series provides no middle ground." That's the problem in a nutshell. With manual targeting you tend to be very busy doing several people's jobs, but if you let the AI do things for you it does them much too well.
In particular without radar it was very difficult in real life to calculate range to target - whether by hydrophone, periscope, Uzo or naked eye. Using the mast height or ship length for range was not very practical when there was such a vast number of merchant ship types.

Historically there were a number of clever methods of deriving a target solution without having to directly measure range to target accurately. Can I recommend Tonci87's excellent series on "U-tube"? https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...Ig-rUT4Z3fOPPS He really makes an effort to use realistic attack methods. I think he still goes a bit far in drawing super-accurate lines on the plot, but it's really up to you how you choose to play.

[derstosstrupp]

You are spot on! Not to mention that as long as the gyro angle is low, say within 30° of your bow, range hardly matters to the computation of lead angle. It’s only when the gyro angle gets large, especially at close range, that accurate range input into the TDC makes a big difference, due to parallax. Hence why it is always best to minimize the gyro angle to the extent possible, to eliminate one potential source of error. Then you can get away with ballparking it, as was typical in real life, estimating the length of the target and gauging range by how much it filled the optics when close to a 90 AOB. Lots of mentions of this in KTBs.

I always recommend people play with the TDC to see these impacts. Move the bearing so that the gyro angle is low, and then turn the range knob through its entire throw and watch the gyro angle - it will hardly change. Now do the same thing, except move the bearing so that the gyro angle is very large. When you turn the range knob, the gyro angle now changes significantly.

[Aktungbby]

kaleidemiller!

[bstanko6]

This game is absolutely great for trial and error. Try out some weird angle shots and see what happens. Keep trying and learning!

[kaleidemiller]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

kaleidemiller!

[John Pancoast]

In terms of plotting a very good in between is the Assisted Plotting Mod.
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/dow...o=file&id=1328
But don't get caught up too much in the pursuit of "realism". It's just a video game and there are many glaring errors and omissions still in it.

[kaleidemiller]

Thank you all so much for the warm welcome vis-a-vis these great responses -- very helpful, and confirming of my suspicions.

I have indeed been watching the excellent Tonci87 videos on YT. In fact, I would attribute my small successes thus far almost entirely to both him and to Wolfpack345, whose videos are also excellent, if somewhat less "realistic" given his greater use of the in-game navigation map. My attacks to date have been more like Wolfpack's -- more dependent on information derived from the map. He often uses the U-Jagd as well, which I don't believe is available in the OneAlex mod that I'm using?

To clarify somewhat, I'm not really striving for "absolute realism" in what is, after all, a "computer game." I guess I'm more curious about how _you_ approach the game, and how _you_ strike a balance between realism and fun. And, of course, I'm also trying to understand what truly was realistic (being a newcomer to this aspect of WW2-era combat), so that I can make informed decisions on how to approach the game myself.

Anyway, thanks again!

I've enjoyed my time thus far with the Type II, but, I'll admit, I'm looking forward to a Type VII upgrade. :p