Silent Hunter 5 First person view.

[Spike]

http://www.hookedgamers.com/pc/silen...ticle-551.html

[DigitalAura]

I remember reading in the US Navy's submariners guide that certain vessels required a certain number of fanned torpedoes to be fired to ensure sinkings. It recommended that even relatively small vessels should have 4 torps fired at it .... I remember thinking it seemed like a lot to fire at one vessel.... but now the new SH5 is penalizing for this?

Every single torpedo that you launch should count. Damaging a target enough so that it starts to make water and sink is usually enough to make the torpedo count, so don't waste ammo on an already doomed vessel.

This is typically how I play anyways, but it seems to be contrary to historical protocols. Doesn't it?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by DigitalAura

I remember reading in the US Navy's submariners guide that certain vessels required a certain number of fanned torpedoes to be fired to ensure sinkings. It recommended that even relatively small vessels should have 4 torps fired at it .... I remember thinking it seemed like a lot to fire at one vessel.... but now the new SH5 is penalizing for this?



This is typically how I play anyways, but it seems to be contrary to historical protocols. Doesn't it?

Not at all. BdU's required protocol was different than SubPac's. Torpedoes were treated as premium weapons; not to be wasted. Since the uboats' mission was to strangle Great Britian, it was imperative to maximize each boat's effectiveness. It is also why attacking escort ships was frowned upon. This was also true given the small number of frontboote available at the start of the war. You needed each boat at sea for as long as possible between refits.

[DigitalAura]

I see! Cool.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Not at all. BdU's required protocol was different than SubPac's. Torpedoes were treated as premium weapons; not to be wasted. Since the uboats' mission was to strangle Great Britian, it was imperative to maximize each boat's effectiveness. It is also why attacking escort ships was frowned upon. This was also true given the small number of frontboote available at the start of the war. You needed each boat at sea for as long as possible between refits.

BdU did give out an order to fire a fan of 4 torps at escorts even if a hit was
unlikely during part of the war. It was thought such tactics would force
all escorts to spend more time on evasive maneuvers.

[difool2]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Not at all. BdU's required protocol was different than SubPac's. Torpedoes were treated as premium weapons; not to be wasted. Since the uboats' mission was to strangle Great Britian, it was imperative to maximize each boat's effectiveness. It is also why attacking escort ships was frowned upon. This was also true given the small number of frontboote available at the start of the war. You needed each boat at sea for as long as possible between refits.

An interesting what-if involves Doenitz making escorts a high priority target, for like six months or a year or so, stripping convoys of a significant amount of their protection, THEN going to town on the merchants. Wouldn't it be better to sink more merchants in a smaller amount of time than to spread the same tonnage out over many months? Wonder if you could do this in the game-mod it so that you have Zaukonigs right from Sept. '39, sink every escort you encounter, and by '42 see 40 ship convoys shepherded by only 2-3 escorts (if I am reading the press release correctly).

[von hally]

I don't know if i like that last paragraph on the "campaig of sh5" in that review guys......i dont want to lose the free to roam aspect.....being sent to a succesion of historical battles is not what im after

[von hally]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I wouldn't sweat over this, in SH3 you can also participate in historical battles from the Atlantic to the Med. But you have to get there by yourself. The "sandbox" feature is probably the most loved one, there's no way the devs would cut it in favour of a string of missions.

Btw all these previews are based on the demo at the recent game convention and press releases, aren't they? If actual preview versions of the game are sent to some magazines I imagine Neal would get a copy too?
If so, the recent previews aren't so reliable in terms of solid info on the game/gameplay.

yeah...i jumped in a bit quick there.....i love sh3...i want millions to buy sh5..so it lives on and enchants many more unsuspecting gamers

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I wouldn't sweat over this, in SH3 you can also participate in historical battles from the Atlantic to the Med. But you have to get there by yourself. The "sandbox" feature is probably the most loved one, there's no way the devs would cut it in favour of a string of missions.

Btw all these previews are based on the demo at the recent game convention and press releases, aren't they? If actual preview versions of the game are sent to some magazines I imagine Neal would get a copy too?
If so, the recent previews aren't so reliable in terms of solid info on the game/gameplay.

Excellent Post Mikhayl

It's all hearsay at this point.

While any news on SH5 is good.

We can't consider it Gospel.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by difool2

An interesting what-if involves Doenitz making escorts a high priority target, for like six months or a year or so, stripping convoys of a significant amount of their protection, THEN going to town on the merchants. Wouldn't it be better to sink more merchants in a smaller amount of time than to spread the same tonnage out over many months? Wonder if you could do this in the game-mod it so that you have Zaukonigs right from Sept. '39, sink every escort you encounter, and by '42 see 40 ship convoys shepherded by only 2-3 escorts (if I am reading the press release correctly).

The only problem with the what-if is that I believe it depends on a greatly exaggerated degree of effectiveness regarding the T-5. 640 were fired in combat. Only 44 or 45 ships were sunk by it, depending on which sources you want to cite. Given that each boat was only alloted a few (meaning that you didn't fire them in a spread), that's not a ratio considered favorable enough to offset the Allied industrial output.

[Hartmann]

I think that U.S boats were a lot more aggressive against japanese destroyers compared with the germans.

Japanese destroyer losses were relatively heavy during the solomons campaign, and Allied intelligence was quick to appreciate that the Japanese were suffering from a serious destroyer shortage in early 1943. This prompted nimitz to issue an order on 13 April that destroyers be given higher target priority by submarines (second only to capital ships) in order to aggravate the Japanese destroyer shortage.