[REL] Trigger Maru 1.7.6 (Updated 24Jan08)

[theluckyone17]

[quote=Kapteeni Rantala]

In any case, I am am not convinced at all that this is the cause for the "pea" deck gun.

Are you making sure that all your hits (well, as many as possible) are below the waterline?

The reason I asked, is 'cause I've been wanting the deck gun toned *down*. I hit a European liner yesterday with four torpedoes, surfaced, and chased down a large passenger (can't remember the exact class). 6,000 tons, if I remember correctly, or thereabouts. I fired about fifteen to twenty shots, placing them along the length of her starboard side, then got the "enemy ship sunk" message. It took forever to sink.

I believe I heard that this is a result of NSM and the critical hit variable for each compartment... but it's kinda irritating. Why bother taking all this time to line up a torpedo salvo when I can simply surface and fire a few shells?

[tater]

Don't fire the shells.

NSM is being reworked to improve the fidelity vs deck guns. Dunno how this could be added to TM, exactly. I guess look at the patch which added a fixed NSM version, and see what files were in there and do the same with the new version.

Regardless, US deck guns were not used to any great effect sinking ships over 1000 tons.

There was ONE confirmed sinking of a ship over 2000 tons during the entire war with a deck gun (I checked every single attack made in Alden's book). The few over 1000 were barely so.

tater

[aurgolo]

Hy guys,

i am playing TM since 2 weeks and i consider it..... FANTASTIC!!!

The main task of TM is to bring you closer to reality nothing more (think about the new SFX), so do not expect a shooting gallery or a helping tool to get more renown, it is just the opposite.........and in this way it hits the target..........

LOVE IT...........!!!

[NefariousKoel]

Just a heads-up.

I uploaded a version of TM 1.62 without the more difficult sinking/damage models and a couple tweaks I've wanted to do such as adding Silent Running and Battle Stations to all stations.

ReadMe and download on this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...809#post643809

[Kapteeni Rantala]

In naval terms, a 3.5 inch gun, is a pea shooter!

True, then again, merchant vessels are unarmored - which is why there was no need to mount specially large guns on submarines.

The deck gun is not the boats primary armament, its torpedoes are. If you're using TM and NSM the deck gun is relagated to being a secondary weapon as in RL.

Mate, I know what the deck gun is for, and belive me, I do not regard it as the submarine's main weapon - I regard it as a weapon that can and SHOULD be used when wasting a torpedo (on unescorted merchant vessel - as long as it is not massive) seems like a waste of munitions.

You could shoot all of the superstructure off the ship and it would still not sink. The only way it would sink is if you flooded it and 3-4 inch shell holes are pretty small so it would take a long while to sink days possibly.

I have to disagree partly. Flooding would not be only trouble of merchant ship under deck gun's shelling. The shells would sooner or later create fires inside the ship, and belive me, fires around a merchantmen (especially tanker) can have very nasty results (I remember how you could sink merchant ships in Silent Hunter III with relatively few shells, simulating what happens when shells hit on right place and set something on fire that should not be set on fire - thank you GWX)

Can't Silent Hunter 4 simulate the use of deck gun in the same way as Silent Hunter III (Having played heavily modded Silent Hunter III - the almighty GWX, I must say that the effect of the deck guns seems to be more realistic in it, and flooding is simulated too)?

US deck guns were not used to any great effect sinking ships over 1000 tons. There was ONE confirmed sinking of a ship over 2000 tons during the entire war with a deck gun.

Conserning that German 88mm and 105mm deck guns were used with good effect by U-boat skippers to sink a large number of merchant ships which displaced more than 2000 tons (even on American waters) that seems odd.

This is not a pea shooter, people - literally. There certainly were guns of far greater caliber in naval use, but against unarmored merchantmen even 3.5-4.5 inch guns are effective.

[mrbeast]

The mounting of only small guns on subs has nothing to do with need, but practicalities. Some subs mounted very large guns but they were not very succesful. Large guns were heavy and caused instability in the boat, were slow to load and use. They caused drag and slowed the boat underwater, besides making the boat easier to detect on sonar (modern subs are smooth and streamlined with the minimum of stantions and protusions precisely for this reason). Small guns could only be mounted because of the limitations of the size of fleet bouts and U boats. If they could have mounted larger guns they would have. Bigger guns=more damage. Nothing to do with the fact merchants are unarmoured.

The deck gun was a weapon of last resort. Submarines make poor gun platforms and carry no appropriate gun laying and ranging equipment beyond the scopes on the gun itself. It exposes the crew and the boat to easy damage by the enemy. Most of all it would give away a boats main weapon: stealth. Sinking a ship takes time so while a sub surfaces and begins to bombard a target, that merchant will be busy radioing its location and the fact that its under attack. A sub skipper was placing his boat under considerable risk attempting to sink targets by gunfire and generally standing orders to sub crews reflected this. Hence it only occured with small targets and to finnish off smaller merchants, usually if they had already been abandoned. Not 6000GRT merchants.

Tankers may well catch fire when hit but that isn't what sinks them. They can burn for days without sinking (remember the burning tanker in Das Boot?). Burnt out, derelict ships were not unknown drifting on the seas, days, weeks even months after they had been attacked and abandoned.

I've been searching for a while and can find no references to U boats sinking 2000+ ton merchants on a reguar basis by gunfire. Most references I can find talk of boats finnishing off ships that had first been crippled by torpedoes, or, refer to very small merchants. After 1943 most U boats discarded their deck guns as they were of little use and replaced them with extra AA guns, if at all.

Deck guns as modeled in SH3 and SH4 are way too effective IMO. They are too accurate, and cause too much damage to be very realistic. TM and NSM attempt to counter this, and are pretty succesful at that. They are attempts to simulate RL effects in SH4. If you want to cruise the seas, gunning down merchants left right and centre then do so, nothing wrong with that at all. Its not for me to say how other people should play their own game. But, IMO, its not realistic or authentic to the way U Boats and fleet boats operated in RL.

[tater]

It's also important to note that deck crews (and gun crews) are virtually invulnerable to anything short of other deck guns. 20mm, 25mm, even 40mm goes do nothing at all to the crew on deck until the sub has taken so many hitpoints damage that it is in grave danger of sinking. I've tested this extensively in an attempt to correct it to no avail.

As a result, there is virtually no reality check on gun engagements. Many japanese merchant ships were armed with AA guns, even if just MGs, and having your deck swept by MG fire was a bad thing in RL. RL merchants would also try to ram subs, and in SH4 they'd be sunk for their trouble, or at the least the sub would be undamaged.

If the Real Deck Gun mod can ever be finished, that will go some way to mitigating the superguns (particularly combined with LBO!).

tater

tater

[Kapteeni Rantala]

[quoteThe mounting of only small guns on subs has nothing to do with need, but practicalities. Nothing to do with the fact merchants are unarmoured.[/quote]

I have to disagree, as the former certainly did have to do with the fact that submarines in general carried relatively small guns.

IBigger guns=more damage

That is not very important because one does not specially large gun to attack vessels that are not designed or armored to withstand shelling. Even 20-40mm anti-aircraft guns were used to shell merchant ships (as you can see from this coloured footage ) - although I am not arguing that they were meant for this their AP shells (which were fired in high rate automatic fire) certainly did do damage.

Some subs mounted very large guns but they were not very succesful

.

Some submarines that happened to be large enough. In order to mount a large gun (over 110mm) the submarine needs to have enough size - too big gun on too small hull would make the gun unpractical because of what you mentioned, instability. In order to mount something like 127mm-150mm guns you would need a very large submarine - only Japanese submarines sported guns larger than 110mm and all of these submarines displaced more than 2,500 tons.

were slow to load and use.

Obviously.

They caused drag and slowed the boat underwater

All outside armament did, not just the deck gun.

The deck gun was a weapon of last resort.

I disagree, it was weapon to be used when firing a torpedo would seem like waste of munitons.

It exposes the crew and the boat to easy damage by the enemy.

Which is why they were used to attack unescorted merchant vessels.

merchant will be busy radioing its location and the fact that its under attack

Which obviously doesn't help always.

[/quote]Hence it only occured with small targets and to finnish off smaller merchants. Not 6000GRT merchants.[quote]

In the United States Navy.

Tankers may well catch fire when hit but that isn't what sinks them.

Which is not what I meant. It is not the fire, it is WHAT is on fire (or what can catch fire) and what can happen due to this.

I've been searching for a while and can find no references to U boats sinking 2000+ ton merchants on a reguar basis by gunfire.

No one said anything about "regular basis" (i.e. on every patrol) - I meant to point out that U-boats sinking merchant ships with deck gun was not so uncommon before 1943.

Deck guns as modeled in.... SH4 are way too effective.

Having played the game with the mod which is the title of this topic I dare to disagree.

TM and NSM attempt to counter this, and are pretty succesful at that.

If you consider firing 200 shells, including 140 4.5 inch AP shells at a ship's hull (including waterline) - and the only damage being a small fire on the stern (speed is not reduced and no real indications of damage being taken appear) to be realistic then I don't know what is.

Oddly, only deck guns seems to be effected by this problem - not guns of SAME caliber on AI controlled surface warships (mission modder).

its not realistic or authentic to the way U Boats and fleet boats operated in RL

Leave the U-boats out of this.



Kampf und Untergang der Kriegsmarine, written with the assistance of several former Kriegsmarine personnel, including Grand Admirals Erich Raeder and Karl Dönitz, details the effect U-boats caused at their height with torpedoes and deck guns.

Many japanese merchant ships were armed with AA guns, even if just MGs, and having your deck swept by MG fire was a bad thing in RL.

Of course - and as I have said before I would not attack armed merchant ship (or expect a real-life submarine commander to have done so) with deck gun, but this did not prevent submarine commanders from doing so. Italian submarine Comandante Cappellini sank three merchant ships with deck gun on one patrol, all displacing more than 2,000 tons (5,186, 5,029 and 7,472 tons). Mind you, these were all armed.

[don1reed]

Excellent posts, gentlemen.

Kriegsmarine Doctrine:
U-Boat Commander's Handbook
("U.Kdt.Hdb.")

1942

New Edition 1943

High Command of the Navy

see:

Section V
The Submarine as a Gunnery Vessel.
pp. 81 to 84.

Cheers,

[tater]

Originally Posted by Kapteeni Rantala

I disagree, it was weapon to be used when firing a torpedo would seem like waste of munitons.

Where are the logs of attacks on decent sized merchants. I don;t care in the least about U-boats, SH4 isn't about U-boats, so don't even bother with U-boat examples. Alden's book lists (in tabular form) every single submarine attack made by the USN in WW2. Every one. Sinkings, and damage, and he has entries for attacks by all types of weapons, even mixed attacks. They were simply not used aside from sinking sampans routinely.

Which is why they were used to attack unescorted merchant vessels.

Not by US submarines they weren't.

Hence it only occured with small targets and to finnish off smaller merchants. Not 6000GRT merchants.

SH4 is about the USN. I don't care about the KM in the least except to the extent they went to the bottom. If you want to demonstrate their effectiveness by the KM, count every single deck gun attack made from whatever the equivalent book for the KM is that lists every single attack made compared to post war records from the allies to make sure the claims match real sinkings and get back to me

No one said anything about "regular basis" (i.e. on every patrol). I am pointing out that it was not as so uncommon for U-boats before 1943.

What % of unescorted merchants above 2000 tons were attacked this way? I can get that figure for some time period for the US boats, I just have to count them up.

Having played the game with the mod which is the title of this topic I dare to disagree.

I still think they are absurdly easy to hit with, and damage and damage control are still pretty simplistic in SH4.

If you consider firing 200 shells, including 140 4.5 inch AP shells at a ship's hull (including waterline) - and the only damage being a small fire on the stern (speed is not reduced and no real indications of damage being taken appear) to be realistic then I don't know what is.

A bugged target DM doesn't indict the entire mod. Regardless, since the smallest ship (merchant) in game is on the large size for anything actually fired upon with deck guns by USN subs, what difference does it make?

US subs didn't attack anything above really small merchants with deck guns. There were very very rare exceptions. So pretty much using your deck gun on anything in SH4 aside from sampans is flatly unrealistic. In virtually never happened. (and many of the "2000 ton" ships attacked by US boats with the DG turned out to be under 1000 tons in actual fact.)

Of course, and as I have mentioned earlier, I would not attack armed merchant ship (nor would I have expected real-life submarine commanders to do so), although this did not prevent submarines from attacking armed merchant ships. Italian submarin Comandante Cappellini sunk three merchant ships with her deck gun, all displacing far more than 2000 tons (5186, 5029 and 7472 tons). And mind you, these were armed ships.

RL skippers in the USN didn;t attack UNARMED merchants of any size with DGs, either.

tater

[mrbeast]

Can you supply any evidence that U boats sank 2000+ ton merchants with gunfire? Name a ship?

[tater]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Can you supply any evidence that U boats sank 2000+ ton merchants with gunfire? Name a ship?

It would be important to specify that they should be merchants attacked with DGs, not oreder to be abandoned, THEN fired upon at their leisure with DGs. IE; maneuvering targets, fighting not to be sunk (which would be all jap ships)

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by tater

It would be important to specify that they should be merchants attacked with DGs, not oreder to be abandoned, THEN fired upon at their leisure with DGs. IE; maneuvering targets, fighting not to be sunk (which would be all jap ships)

Thats a good point Tater.

What I should have said was sunk by gun fire 'in action'. That is sub sails up/surfaces and opens fire on manned merchant vessel. Also not a ship previously damaged by torpedoes or other.

[Kapteeni Rantala]

Where are the logs of attacks on decent sized merchants.

I never claimed that the United States Navy's submarines would have sunk more than apparent one 2,000+ ton merchant.

don't even bother with U-boat examples

U-boats are as valid example of deck gun carrying submarines as any other.

I don't care about the KM in the least except to the extent they went to the bottom

I find your statement insulting towards Kriegsmarine veterans (the name's Wallenberg, by the way).

If you want to demonstrate their effectiveness by...

I am not trying to to demonstrate anything else than that deck gun was a potent weapon and for some reason it is not as potent as it should be in my copy of this very interesting game.

Reading your post almost look like that you are hostile/angry to me over this deck gun issue. Rest assired, I am not saying that the United States Navy "sucked" or anything because of what they sank with deck guns.

A bugged target DM doesn't indict the entire mod.

Of course not, and I have never claimed such. I raise my hat and bow deep before modders because of the effort they see trying to improve the game.

since the smallest ship (merchant) in game is on the large size for anything actually fired upon with deck guns by USN subs, what difference does it make?

I am not the United States Navy submarine fleet from World War II? No one is playing the game by "ships sunk historically" book.

So pretty much using your deck gun on anything in SH4 aside from sampans is flatly unrealistic.

Yes - in sense that that's what the deck guns were used historically by the submarines (I am not taking the word sampan literally, of course) - not because you can't sink anything bigger with it.

Can you supply any evidence that U boats sank 2000+ ton merchants with gunfire?

To ask such question sounds silly, conserning that German U-boats sank over 14 million tons of shipping, yet you seem to assume that not a single ship of more than 2,000 tons was sunk by deck gun. I already have named the book to which I partially base my statement (which was written with the assistance of both Grand Admirals, the latter being commander of German U-boat fleet).

Name a ship?

Few examples.

Pan Norway 9,231 tons
Alcoa Guide 4,804 tons.
Korsholm 2,647 tons.

All ships were sunk by U-123.

And as I said, I am not saying anything else than it was very possible to sink "bigger fisher" with deck gun than historically were - the fact that such sinkings were done by navies other than the United States Navy is not relevant, it only proves that they were possible.

[mrbeast]

Solely by gun fire?

My whole point is that it is not typical of submarine warfare anywhere in WWII to attack and sink merchant shipping in this fashion. It runs counter to the whole point of submarine warfare. There may be a handful of examples, but they are atypical of the nature of sub warfare. Hardegen was operating on a totally unprepared coast where ships ran individually with their formation lights on and there was little chance of being intercepted by naval forces.