Sinking destroyer with deck gun

[Hinrich Schwab]

Attacking a destroyer on the surface is crazy. I have had the misfortune of being in this situation twice. I used similar tactics both times, but neither kill came from the deck gun. Both times I duped the destroyer into playing chicken. Both my boat and the destroyer running Ahead Flank guns blazing, I would get occasional hits, but the one gun focused on me usually overshot (the main reason for the rundown was to avoid a broadside attack from all the destroyer's guns). When I got around 800 meters, I would snapshot one or two torpedoes and crash dive, hoping to clear his keel before losing my conning tower. While I was successful both times, it is not an experience I would want to repeat. The best way to beat a destroyer is to light up whatever he is protecting and let him return home to tell his superiors that he didn't protect squat.

[CCIP]

The trouble for the game, of course, is that destroyers just have HP. Run it down and you win. Subs also just have HP, and can take hits easily. In reality, the chance that you would do any serious damage to a destroyer charging you head on is miniscule. The chance that a single hit in the pressure hull would kill you is very high. He also has much more accurate, faster-loading and deadly guns. So what would actually happen is that even if the sub was still in one piece after a few shots, the average destroyer is 2x faster - so you'd get rammed and that'd be the end of it.

Sub vs. destroyer showdowns like that never historically happened. Showdowns between subs and corvettes and gunboats did, but even then subs have a pretty poor record in those (afaik they never did better than a draw in those situations, and that's against ships whom they matched in surface firepower and exceeded in tonnage).

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Showdowns between subs and corvettes and gunboats did, but even then subs have a pretty poor record in those (afaik they never did better than a draw in those situations, and that's against ships whom they matched in surface firepower and exceeded in tonnage).

About the only situation in WW2 where I can recall where a submarine outfought escorts on the surface was the October 1944 battle between the USS Salmon and two circling Japanese Kaikoban escort vessels. Forced to surface, she managed to overwhelm one of them with gunfire at close range and make a break for it. Even that was a bit of a fluke as the Japanese thought there were other US subs submerged and angling for an attack and broke off the engagement when Salmon entered a rain squall.

http://todayshistorylesson.wordpress...almon-patties/

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by CCIP

The trouble for the game, of course, is that destroyers just have HP. Run it down and you win. Subs also just have HP, and can take hits easily. In reality, the chance that you would do any serious damage to a destroyer charging you head on is miniscule. The chance that a single hit in the pressure hull would kill you is very high. He also has much more accurate, faster-loading and deadly guns. So what would actually happen is that even if the sub was still in one piece after a few shots, the average destroyer is 2x faster - so you'd get rammed and that'd be the end of it.

Sub vs. destroyer showdowns like that ever historically happened. Showdowns between subs and corvettes and gunboats did, but even then subs have a pretty poor record in those (afaik they never did better than a draw in those situations, and that's against ships whom they matched in surface firepower and exceeded in tonnage).

That is also the beauty of the game. As good as the AI can be, it is also unbelievably stupid. Any destroyer captain worth the hot seat would maneuver around a sub to avoid presenting any target to the fore or aft of the boat because of the torpedoes. The game, conversely, can be a bit single-minded.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Schwartzritter

That is also the beauty of the game.

Only if you just want to play a videogame with submarines. To those of us who play it for the simulation factor that is no beauty at all.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Only if you just want to play a videogame with submarines. To those of us who play it for the simulation factor that is no beauty at all.

I do believe I have just been insulted. I doubt you intended this, but your statement insinuates that I am inferior because I lucked out in a couple of encounters because I was willing to exploit the game engine.

I am happy to draw the line between game and simulation at a certain spot. I do not want to burn myself out. I am satisfied with my manner of play and the fact my interest in submarines allowed me to easily write my bachelor's thesis on the subject. My work as an academic keeps me grounded enough with reality to where I am happy with certain aspects of the game because it is a game.

If I seem to be taking this too harsh or reading too much into your statement, I apologize for that. However, I do not like being judged simply because I got away with stunts that only work in a game. I do not need to be told they do not work in real life because I have crammed enough books to drive that point home.

[1480]

No biggie, we all get away with something that might not be historically accurate. As to above intent, I cannot speak for any one else but me.
Have fun and good luck on your bags.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Schwartzritter

I do believe I have just been insulted. I doubt you intended this, but your statement insinuates that I am inferior because I lucked out in a couple of encounters because I was willing to exploit the game engine.

Inferior? Not at all. I just disagree. On the other hand I've been playing subsims since Silent Service back in 1986, and I've kind of burned out on just sinking ships. My idea of a good time is to leave a well-modelled harbor in real time and enjoy the sights. The actual hunting and sinking of ships is almost an anticlimax to me.

I am happy to draw the line between game and simulation at a certain spot. I do not want to burn myself out. I am satisfied with my manner of play and the fact my interest in submarines allowed me to easily write my bachelor's thesis on the subject. My work as an academic keeps me grounded enough with reality to where I am happy with certain aspects of the game because it is a game.

My hat is off to you; you're a better man than I am. Everybody should play the way that suits them.

If I seem to be taking this too harsh or reading too much into your statement, I apologize for that. However, I do not like being judged simply because I got away with stunts that only work in a game. I do not need to be told they do not work in real life because I have crammed enough books to drive that point home.

No, I probably was being judgemental. I tend to do that sometimes, and I apologize. That said, I do love a good discussion on what is or isn't valid in a game, mainly because for me it's so much more, and so much less. You see, I'm also extremely anal about the way I actually play, to the point of being obsessive/compulsive about it. As I said, I love the idea that there are so many different ways to play the same game. Part of it is that I've been doing it too long, and I've seen too many threads started about sinking a million tons in a patrol and acting like doing that on the easiest settings is something special. You didn't do that, but I did react to the idea, not of exploiting the game's idiosyncrasies, but of praising the game for having them.

So, as usual, I find myself explaining myself and apologizing, mainly because you're right.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Inferior? Not at all. I just disagree. On the other hand I've been playing subsims since Silent Service back in 1986, and I've kind of burned out on just sinking ships. My idea of a good time is to leave a well-modelled harbor in real time and enjoy the sights. The actual hunting and sinking of ships is almost an anticlimax to me.


My hat is off to you; you're a better man than I am. Everybody should play the way that suits them.


No, I probably was being judgemental. I tend to do that sometimes, and I apologize. That said, I do love a good discussion on what is or isn't valid in a game, mainly because for me it's so much more, and so much less. You see, I'm also extremely anal about the way I actually play, to the point of being obsessive/compulsive about it. As I said, I love the idea that there are so many different ways to play the same game. Part of it is that I've been doing it too long, and I've seen too many threads started about sinking a million tons in a patrol and acting like doing that on the easiest settings is something special. You didn't do that, but I did react to the idea, not of exploiting the game's idiosyncrasies, but of praising the game for having them.

So, as usual, I find myself explaining myself and apologizing, mainly because you're right.

I didn't think you were intentionally insulting, but your apology is most certainly accepted. I do play with some degree of realism. I am around 75% in that respect as well as use SHIII Commander. The only real "cheat" I keep is the map auto-update. I also keep automatic targeting because I am not a 'one-man crew'. My examples, as I said, were flukes. I also understand about seeing the ludicrous tonnage counts. In my current campaign, I am a T3 away from tying Kretschmer's tonnage record. Yet I also know that the game has ships pop up in the same spot with some degree of regularity, which is hardly realistic. If I had to estimate what a realistic tonnage amount would be, I would cut my numbers by about 40%. Like I stated earlier, I take a somewhat lighter approach to the game because I spend way too much time worrying about actual history, now that I am working on my master's in the subject. I certainly respect your dedication for absolute realism. However, as you have stated, there is more than one way to enjoy the game with a reasonable amount of realism involved.

[Sailor Steve]

I have no degrees, but I have spent years reading up on Renaissance history, early American history, aviation and naval history, a special favorite being the late nineteenth and early twentieth century development of the modern warship. I have an extensive detailed collection of books on the subject, and spent the greater part of the last decade slowly working on my own World War 1 tabletop minieatures game. I might have more detailed information on armor layouts than anyone I'll ever meet.

I spent a year-and-a-half homeless, and used my time at the local library. Besides catching up on the early mystery masters (Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler) I also had fun with a huge amount of biographies (well, probably not more than 10), including seven books on Jefferson, including Dumas Malone's 6-volume, 3500-page epic. Not trying to brag (well, a little), I just like to talk about it. So I'm not suffering from education, just a serious lack of credentials.

[Fish In The Water]

There's a huge gulf between education and wisdom. Education is what you get in a classroom. Wisdom is what the truly wise garner from life. I'll take someone who views life as a constant learning experience ahead of someone with a few letters after their name any day of the week.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Fish In The Water

There's a huge gulf between education and wisdom. Education is what you get in a classroom. Wisdom is what the truly wise garner from life. I'll take someone who views life as a constant learning experience ahead of someone with a few letters after their name any day of the week.

Thank you for the insult. I had planned on making a bigger contribution once I had become more comfortable in what I know, but I see no reason to do that now.

[Fish In The Water]

Originally Posted by Schwartzritter

Thank you for the insult. I had planned on making a bigger contribution once I had become more comfortable in what I know, but I see no reason to do that now.

Sorry you took it that way, as there was no insult intended. Please do contribute as I would certainly value your input.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Fish In The Water

Sorry you took it that way, as there was no insult intended. Please do contribute as I would certainly value your input.

That comment stung, man. I am like many people here. The only difference is I chose to go to college to make my military history hobby a full-blown career. One cannot do that without the sheepskin.

[Fish In The Water]

Originally Posted by Schwartzritter

That comment stung, man. I am like many people here. The only difference is I chose to go to college to make my military history hobby a full-blown career. One cannot do that without the sheepskin.

In that case, apologies for the sting. Please don't take it personally as the comment was not directed at you. No doubt you take a certain amount of pride in your accomplishments and you're entitled to, as I'm sure you worked hard for it.

I never suggested that 'educated' people can't also be wise, merely that a piece of paper is not always a guarantee of wisdom. If that hurts, then I'm sorry you feel that way. In any event, kindly do us all a favor and continue to learn and grow even after the 'sheepskin' is in the rear view mirror. That way we all win.