Ever pulled a Capt. Dodge?

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

First, there is no such phrase as "could of". It's "could have".

Second, as I said before, arguing about whether they could have done it is pointless. To prove it was actually done one needs to find a single account of them actually doing it.


And if you see a depth charge, do you go to flank speed to avoid it? "IRL", as you put it, this would bend or even break the periscope.

I don't think 7 or 8 knots would bend or break a barely extended periscope. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Generally they didn't use the periscope above 6 knots, but that was more due to vibration problems than potential damage, AFAIK, and that was with a fully extended periscope.

And no, I don't use it like that. I've *TRIED* it in the past, but depth charges sink faster than the boat will react.

And reloading torpedoes in a combat situation is something else they never did "IRL", since if you saw trouble coming you would need to change depth rapidly, which would mean suddenly having a ton of steel and explosives possibly breaking loose inside your submarine.

Errmm, yes they did, just not while under direct attack. An excerpt from Schepke's KTB:

We are now in the middle of row 2 of the convoy, close behind row 1. Lots of steamers in front, beside and behind us. Closest distance is 500 to 600 meters. Steamers are now beginning to get closer to each other so our freedom of movement is restricted. There were about 8 to 10 ships in a row. During the whole time torpedoes were reloaded. At about 24.00 hours 3 tubes are ready to fire
...
The major thing was that the torpedoes were constantly reloaded and that this fact was only achieved by the excellent job of the crew led by the second watch officer, LtzS Böning.

So, yeah, they did reload in combat conditions. And it could have easily worked out that they would have been still reloading had they been attacked, and the crew would have had to scramble to secure the torpedoes while depth charges were being dropped.

And the objection that the pressure would break the seals and flood the periscope well, and possibly the boat?

Perfectly valid. Using them past a certain fairly shallow depth would have resulted in them flooding. Though I imagine that they could withstand at least twice normal periscope depth, which would put you under the draught of most vessels.

They used the periscope to take pictures during the war as well, but only of things on the surface. Can you show documentation (i.e. pictures) of other submerged submarines taken even with modern technology?

No pictures, which I imagine are still classified, but there is this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9Md...ulling&f=false

I can't point you to the raw transcripts of targets I copied as a morse interceptor 20+ years ago for the same reason, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You can play any way you want, however unrealistic, but please don't try to justify it by what you think they *COULD* have done. If you want to rationalize it, please show that it *WAS* done, even if only once.

Why? I've heard whining about how raiding harbors was *NEVER* done, outside of Prien's Scapa Flow mission, and yet a reading of both volumes of "Hitler's U-boat War" turns up numerous examples, even if you exclude mining missions.

The point is taken, however: There is no documented instance of it happening that I am aware of, and in fact it would have been exceedingly difficult and recklessly dangerous.

/We should discuss this over a beer.