Do We Really Have What It Takes?

[Fish40]

I'm not poseing this question to the guys out there who have Naval experience, because you have an unfair advantage. Do you think with the knowlege we have from playing SH4 that we would actually be able to track and successfully attack a ship?

[CCIP]

Sure, but the bigger problem is that with the knowledge from playing SH4 we wouldn't be able to crew and operate an actual submarine

SH4 might teach a good bit about commanding a sub during the attack stages, but a boat full of wannabe captains ain't gonna go very far...

[Armistead]

I assume you mean if we could go back in time to WW2.

Not even close...

For me, if I could even figure how to get a real scope up, if I saw a DD near, I would probably crap myself,

Destroyeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrr,,rrrr,rrr,er.. What's the command for getting the hell out of here.

[razark]

I'd say commanding a desktop would be a lot different from commanding actual people.

I don't think any single person simulation, no matter how realistic, is going to make you anywhere close to a real sub skipper. We might have the techniques, much of the knowledge, even many of the tools, they used, but none of us are doing it in the middle of the ocean. We all have the pause button, time compression, and we can save and reload. Very few of us have our computers set up on a rolling and pitching desk. We don't have to worry about the walls crushing in on us, or the house flooding.

Most of all, when we play, there are no lives at stake.

[Rockin Robbins]

I think just as Microsoft Flight Simulator accelerated the training of jet fighter pilots in spite of differences from the real thing, the Silent Hunter games could make you a better sub sailor.

But no, you couldn't go back in time, jump on a Gato in the middle of the Pacific and show those simpletons a thing or three about running a submarine. There is nothing we do here that they didn't do 60 years before us. There is a lot we can do that they couldn't because our game gives us too much information. There is a lot they could do that we can't because Ubi chose not to model important aspects of real submarines. And instead of saying "I'm taking a chance but the worst that could happen is I start a new career" your life would be in danger. There's no way to simulate that!

[fastfed]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I think just as Microsoft Flight Simulator accelerated the training of jet fighter pilots in spite of differences from the real thing, the Silent Hunter games could make you a better sub sailor.

But no, you couldn't go back in time, jump on a Gato in the middle of the Pacific and show those simpletons a thing or three about running a submarine. There is nothing we do here that they didn't do 60 years before us. There is a lot we can do that they couldn't because our game gives us too much information. There is a lot they could do that we can't because Ubi chose not to model important aspects of real submarines. And instead of saying "I'm taking a chance but the worst that could happen is I start a new career" your life would be in danger. There's no way to simulate that!

I only read this thread up to this part, because from experience I know, playing MFS, actually helps you in getting your Pilots License.. They can take the hours flown from the simulator and apply it towards real simulator hours..

Simulators are one of the best tools in learning about certain machines. Be it planes, tanks, helicopters..

Flying a radio controlled plane is harder than flying a REAL plane, just because of the scaled down model and the 180 degree difference (when the plane is flying toward you)
And even flying radio controlled planes have a nice simulator for the computer.. To learn first.

They didn't have simulators like they do today, back then.. But almost all modern equipment have some sort of virtual simulator and its a marvel of an invention.

That said, I think a simulator for a plane, tank and even helicopter would allow most of us to do the real thing (Under certain conditions)

But a submarine? I highly doubt that. Unless are minds are happy and we are not understress at all, we might have a chance to actually do something good with tracking down some merchants.. But we are not under stress in this game, we are in a stable room, with no pressure at all.


I think adding the real elements of life would have most of us forget what the hell to do.



I always think of things like the OP said. But if I was in WW2, I don't think I would want to be on a submarine, even though its one of my favorite pieces of history, I think I rather choose a battleship, or destroyer.. Probably wouldn't even be on the waters.. Put me into a nice B-25 and call it a day..

I'd be able to jump in one right now and fly and land her..

[sergei]

Originally Posted by razark

I'd say commanding a desktop would be a lot different from commanding actual people.

This is the big difference IMO.
Being responsible for the lives of your officers and crew.
If you screw up 60 good men die.
Imagine living with that sort of responsibility every day.
I don't think I could.

[Armistead]

Let's see, we know we couldn't so let's think of the things we SH4 players would say.

"Er, XO, where is the map that shows all the contacts and I need my external cam"

"Here comes a DD, hit the save button"

"That Jap escort is named the Ducimas, kill yourself"

"Where the heck is my Maxoptics, I can't see."

"Where is the stable option, I'm seasick."

"It's winter and all I have is this tee shirt."


or some noobie,

"Five DD's at 1000 yards, surface and man the guns.."

[Capt. Teach]

Originally Posted by Fish40

I'm not poseing this question to the guys out there who have Naval experience, because you have an unfair advantage. Do you think with the knowlege we have from playing SH4 that we would actually be able to track and successfully attack a ship?

Wellllllll .... no. Being a former "ground pounder" [Ranger, US Army] which I am sure will bring scorn and ridicule upon my head [seeing as this is a naval sim zone] I cannot speak with any naval expertise. However, applying this to what I did do in the military ... my answer would definately have to be "Sorry partner, no way." What someone has learned in the game would probably qualify them just enough to understand the general gist of what was happening around them... not execute it.

Just for example take one important factor ... something we ground pounders know and have a saying for ... "If you can't find the enemy, you can't kill them." Navigation in SH4 is simple ... drop a waypoint and presto ... you go there ... doesn't work that way in RL. Land navigation [without using GPS] has a lot to it that is based more on experience and art form than just drop an azimuth and go. My guess is, that same concept applies to commanding a sub. Knowing how to set up to fire a shot ... and knowing how to press the button to fire .... those are the science or hard fact forms ... but it doesn't include the experience and art form of it which I suspect is a major portion of the success formula. Sub commanders were/are respected as elite and unique ... even amoungst themselves. No simulation would get you to the point where you could find, engage, and destroy the enemy in a real life situation. Consider, there are two types of simulation done in the military today ... first ... computer simulation ... this is the "first step" simulation ... sure ... it has its value and is recognized. However it is also recognized as not enough. Then there is the second simulation the "actual" real life simulation or wargame or exercise or maneuver ... call it what you will but after the computer simulation they go out and do it in "practice" and still get fails ... but the point is no computer sim is ever enough.

[Hitman]

The german and british navies used for their WW2 submarine officers an "attack teacher" machine, that is more or less a WW2 version of a game. Officers looked through a periscope and saw ship models placed on a surface and moving along. They issued orders and the assitants recorded their movements, plotting sub and enemy and the training officer told if they did it right or not. It was used to practice AOB and range estimation, as well as general approach tactics, and it served apparenty well for its purpose.

So I suppose that SH3/4 would indeed be a good trainer for SOME aspects of WW2 submarining, specifically attack tactics, situation awareness, ability to represent in your head the current tactical picture, etc.

But not much more than that.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Capt. Teach

Wellllllll .... no. Being a former "ground pounder" [Ranger, US Army] which I am sure will bring scorn and ridicule upon my head [seeing as this is a naval sim zone] I cannot speak with any naval expertise.

But we come from all walks of life here, and we all have stories to tell, even those who didn't serve at all. No scorn here, friend.

Also UnderseaLCPL is a friend, so I have to suck up to the dirt guys.

[vanjast]

Not a problem.. I can do that, but nobody will follow me , because no-one thinks like I do.

I spend countless hours working out a 'plan' and it's countless alternatives. When I'm in the sub 'I'm wired', and this goes on for the patrol duration.

The same for IL2, where I've spent a gazillion hours pushing the FW190 'beyond' limits.. pushing the boundaries....only to have many say I cannot do that...

But it's the same in either case - I want to live, and I make sure that I do.

edt: And as usual, you won't find me or others like me, making any significant difference in peacetime.
When the Sh1t hits the fan, that's when you'll 'see' us

[Ducimus]

Do We Really Have What It Takes?

No.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

No.

I know I don't. There are some who actually do it, so they do. Some will, some won't.

But does the game show it one way or the other?

I agree, no.