![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#8 | ||||
Weps
![]() Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Control Room
Posts: 355
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
I agree that the snorkel gets detected too easily in rough seas. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Against the insignificant improvement in detectability of snorkling over surfaced recharging, one must weigh the the fact that a snorkling u-boat, even with observation scope up, is much less likely to detect attacking aircraft in time to evade attack than is a u-boat surfaced in daylight. This means that a snorkling u-boat detected by aircraft is much more likely to be damaged by those aircraft than is a surfaced u-boat. If Randomizer has a similar quantity of observations, but different conclusions, could it be because of different areas of operation leading to different aircraft being involved? Not as many of my missions were inshore. Inshore missions seem to run into small aircraft more often and these seem less likely to be equipped with RADAR. I've noticed that single-engined aircraft, though smaller, are more likely to be detected by my crew without the aircraft detecting my sub than is the case for multiple-engined aircraft. My original comment about detectability specifically mentioned centimetric radar, and most of the attacks on my snorkling u-boats has been by aircraft equipped with centimetric radar. Perhaps detection rates by Hurricanes etc. are signifcantly lower, but I wouldn't have noticed that. Anecdotally, my most recent trip to the North Channel in 1944 resulted in the loss of my most successful 11th Flotilla commander (7 patrols from 42/10 to 44/05, 163kT sunk). He was attacked by aircraft... while snorkeling.
__________________
100% realism, DiD Harbor Traffic 1.47(incl. RUB) Using SH3 Commander to implement many custom realism tweaks Covered 1939-1945; now restarting in 1939 again. Completed 39 careers, 210 war patrols, 4.7Mt sunk, 19 subs lost |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|