what were The Old Men thinking?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

PM me, then, cuz I can't remember. And I've read the book.

Done.

Originally Posted by WWII44

when I attack a convoy at night I use my torps on the merchants, and if my watch officer spots an escort I train my deck gun on them and try to sink them before the get within firing range for their guns(wich I have proven to be quite sucesful at.).

Be thankful the game is flawed. If it worked properly you'd be dead every time.

[WWII44]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Done.


Be thankful the game is flawed. If it worked properly you'd be dead every time.

I can take on single destroyers with ease but get several of them together then thats a different story.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by WWII44

I can take on single destroyers with ease but get several of them together then thats a different story.

I used to dogfight destroyers back in the Silent Service days, but in the present the thrill is gone for me. I have to pretend I'm really there, and that involves doing things as historically as I can. Just getting old, I am.

[Luno]

Sorry to put this here, but have you been getting my PM's Steve? My sent box is empty...

[VONHARRIS]

@FK
I see you know your way around Greek mythology.
If I have undrestood well , it all comes down to the limitations of putting the story on film and making it presentable to the public.
BUT , that story is part of my country's history (or mythology if you prefer) and I can't stand it seeing events being described wrongly.
Achilles never entered the Trojan horse nor he died inside the city of Troy and many others.


In "300" many mistakes were made. The Spartan Hoplite of the 5th century BC was heavily armored , the phalanx didn't work as shown etc.
The only correct thing of the 300 is that it shows the fighting spirit of the Spartan Army and the ultimate sacrifice of those 300 soldiers (in fact 1000 = 300 Spartans + 700 Thespians) for Greece herself!

As far as the "The 300 Spartans" I agree.

[CherryHarbey]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I used to dogfight destroyers back in the Silent Service days, but in the present the thrill is gone for me. I have to pretend I'm really there, and that involves doing things as historically as I can. Just getting old, I am.

Me too! i loved silent service
firing torps down their throats as they came arrow straight towards you and taking advantage of when they circled (in perfect circles) to torp them on manual, wait til they got to 10 o'clock and fire. get rid on the escorts and then take advantage of the unlimited deck gun ammo.
my excuse is that I was only 14......

[flag4]

Originally Posted by WWII44

when I attack a convoy at night I use my torps on the merchants, and if my watch officer spots an escort I train my deck gun on them and try to sink them before the get within firing range for their guns(wich I have proven to be quite sucesful at.).

...in reality the u boats were too slow submerged. in the early days of the war they could basically 'dissapear' underwater - like a mystery. detection was in its infancy but grew up very quickly in a few years. things had changed dramatically from 39-41 in technology.

(the allies learned fast allowing scientists to work directly with the military. where as in germany there was arrogance and mistrust between similar departments, this way of thinking took longer to catch on.)

in reality it would be frowned upon to engage destroyers: the risk of losing your whole boat and crew to one depth charge; madness.

as SS states, be grateful for the game flawes. and to engage with a deck gun - as i have foolishly done on my present patrol and got away with it - again is not good boat safety. as soon as you put the safety of your crew first the dimensions and psychology of the game changes - yes, it may sound heavy

...but this gives the game some of its longevity because it becomes more real and when you start reading the history it becomes allll to clear how awful it must have been, so the idea of challenging a destroyer with superior manouverability just becomes folly - and the tonnage gained minimal.

but this is all because i am immersed................i've finished now!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Luno

Sorry to put this here, but have you been getting my PM's Steve? My sent box is empty...

Yes, I got them fine. I wonder what's wrong.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CherryHarbey

Me too! i loved silent service
firing torps down their throats as they came arrow straight towards you and taking advantage of when they circled (in perfect circles) to torp them on manual, wait til they got to 10 o'clock and fire. get rid on the escorts and then take advantage of the unlimited deck gun ammo.
my excuse is that I was only 14......

Well, it helped that you could see where every ship was, even when at 300 feet, and could eyeball where they would be and just shoot, and hit nine times out of ten.

[U-Falke]

Originally Posted by flag4

...in reality the u boats were too slow submerged. in the early days of the war they could basically 'dissapear' underwater - like a mystery. detection was in its infancy but grew up very quickly in a few years. things had changed dramatically from 39-41 in technology.

(the allies learned fast allowing scientists to work directly with the military. where as in germany there was arrogance and mistrust between similar departments, this way of thinking took longer to catch on.)

in reality it would be frowned upon to engage destroyers: the risk of losing your whole boat and crew to one depth charge; madness.

as SS states, be grateful for the game flawes. and to engage with a deck gun - as i have foolishly done on my present patrol and got away with it - again is not good boat safety. as soon as you put the safety of your crew first the dimensions and psychology of the game changes - yes, it may sound heavy

...but this gives the game some of its longevity because it becomes more real and when you start reading the history it becomes allll to clear how awful it must have been, so the idea of challenging a destroyer with superior manouverability just becomes folly - and the tonnage gained minimal.

but this is all because i am immersed................i've finished now!

NIce topic guys
Its not dificult to sink a destroyer... but...
I am using a mod that makes the u-boat more fragile...
Took a mine hit his week trying to sneak into Dover and got
red damage in all compartments... end of career.
Now (also) with a IXB and a seasoned crew in 1940, I just dive to 240m and
wait until they leave. They are so deaf in this year...

Something I don't understand in Das Boot... didn't the sonarman hear the DD in that scene? I would be hitting the "follow nearest.." like an animal if I were that guy.

[WWII44]

Originally Posted by flag4

...in reality the u boats were too slow submerged. in the early days of the war they could basically 'dissapear' underwater - like a mystery. detection was in its infancy but grew up very quickly in a few years. things had changed dramatically from 39-41 in technology.

(the allies learned fast allowing scientists to work directly with the military. where as in germany there was arrogance and mistrust between similar departments, this way of thinking took longer to catch on.)

in reality it would be frowned upon to engage destroyers: the risk of losing your whole boat and crew to one depth charge; madness.

as SS states, be grateful for the game flawes. and to engage with a deck gun - as i have foolishly done on my present patrol and got away with it - again is not good boat safety. as soon as you put the safety of your crew first the dimensions and psychology of the game changes - yes, it may sound heavy

...but this gives the game some of its longevity because it becomes more real and when you start reading the history it becomes allll to clear how awful it must have been, so the idea of challenging a destroyer with superior manouverability just becomes folly - and the tonnage gained minimal.

but this is all because i am immersed................i've finished now!

well I am not a realism junkie so I have a mod that makes my sub invunerable to damage(though subsystems cand compartments can still be damaged it's relitivly minimal).

[U-Falke]

Originally Posted by WWII44

well I am not a realism junkie so I have a mod that makes my sub invunerable to damage(though subsystems cand compartments can still be damaged it's relitivly minimal).

Nice, I should do like this one day... that's why I never complete a carreer

[WWII44]

Originally Posted by U-Falke

Nice, I should do like this one day... that's why I never complete a carreer

I could post a copy of my "godmode" file here mabey.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by U-Falke

Nice, I should do like this one day... that's why I never complete a carreer

Heh, no more than 2 years for me. it seems once America jumps in they bring heat seeking depth charges with them

I suspect with both of us it is our tactics. We can afford to be sloppier and more daring when the blood shed is pixels and not breathing men with families.

We both try harder

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by VONHARRIS

@FK
I see you know your way around Greek mythology.
If I have undrestood well , it all comes down to the limitations of putting the story on film and making it presentable to the public.
BUT , that story is part of my country's history (or mythology if you prefer) and I can't stand it seeing events being described wrongly.
Achilles never entered the Trojan horse nor he died inside the city of Troy and many others.

I agree that Achilles' death is one element of the story where they probably could have stuck with the Homeric version and still not strayed outside the limitations of trying to fit all the major necessary plot points into what time they had. OTOH, the way they handled it did provide what felt to me like a very satisfactory and necessary resolution to the romantic subplot of Achilles and Briseis.

In "300" many mistakes were made. The Spartan Hoplite of the 5th century BC was heavily armored , the phalanx didn't work as shown etc.
The only correct thing of the 300 is that it shows the fighting spirit of the Spartan Army and the ultimate sacrifice of those 300 soldiers (in fact 1000 = 300 Spartans + 700 Thespians) for Greece herself!

As far as the "The 300 Spartans" I agree.

One of the BIG things that was left out of "300" and IMO should be included in any proper telling of that tale, was the whole bit about the Delphic oracle being consulted and sending back the response that, to paraphrase, either Greece (or Sparta, I forget which) would be conquered or a Spartan king would die. If you're going to tell that story in a way that emphasizes Leonidas as the protagonist *and* focuses on the idea of the few sacrificing themselves for the greater good, HOW ON EARTH DO YOU LEAVE THAT OUT?

Assuming that Leonidas was a man who took the oracle seriously - and from what I've read, there's every indication that this would have been the case - here you have someone going into what already looks like a hopeless battle knowing that no matter what the outcome overall, his *own* death is a prerequisite to Sparta's and Greece's survival.

Instead they just have him consult the local oracle (and don't even get me started on how they portrayed the ephors, because: ugh) and he gets told not to go by a bunch of crooked... er... whatever they were suposed to be... who've already been paid off by Persia.

Most of my issues with "300" no doubt stem from the fact that they were essentially doing a movie version of the graphic novel. I've been told they stayed pretty faithful to that, so they weren't even looking at making a movie based on what we know or can surmise to be fact or all the long-accepted anecdotal parts of the story that have been handed down. Still, I think the "original" story is compelling enough to be told "as is" by a talented group of people and now it will probably never get done.

But at least they didn't totally forget about the part the Athenian fleet played in the enterprise, so I guess that's something.