NYGM ruined my weekend

[sergbuto]

Main task of escorts was a protection of a convoy, not a chase after submarines for hours and thereby leaving the convoy unprotected. An extensive hunt for subs was left for hunter-killer groups and aircrafts. Making the game harder in terms of cat-and-mouse play with chasing convoy-escorts for hours after the initial attack on the convoy does not necessarilty mean that is how it was in reality.

BTW, escorts in SH3 can not run out of fuel.

[Myxale]

Cool stuff Schuhart! I felt sorry for you...but then again this could've been me down there in the sub...so

[Der Teddy Bar]

Originally Posted by sergbuto

Main task of escorts was a protection of a convoy, not a chase after submarines for hours and thereby leaving the convoy unprotected. An extensive hunt for subs was left for hunter-killer groups and aircrafts. Making the game harder in terms of cat-and-mouse play with chasing convoy-escorts for hours after the initial attack on the convoy does not necessarilty mean that is how it was in reality.

BTW, escorts in SH3 can not run out of fuel.

I think you will also find many instances where one or more escorts from a convoy did stay behing for hours hunting a u-boat.

The practice of only 'keeping a u-boat down' in my opinion was probably more associated with HufDuff where they could keep a u-boat down from great distances.

In Operation Drumbeat by Michael Gannon, Hardegen says, "The crew were very surprised when the destroyer (American) moved off. A British destroyer would have worked over the area repeatedly for a regulation thirty six hours"

In the video interview with Jurgen Oesten he relays how in 1939 while submerged, inferring that he was just not found due to any previous action, he was detected and attacked by a lone destroyer.

He goes on to say that the destroyer was very accurate and that the destroyer knew exactly where he was. This destroyer gave his u-boat a massive work over with him eventually ending up on the bottom at 134 metres with his u-boat extensively damaged and unable to move. He also relates that the hull was buckled in from a depth charge that also knocked the port diesel engine off it mounts.

It is inferred to have been over many hours possibly in double figures. On the 3rd night they surfaced to find that a trawler had been left there to watch for the u-boat possibly surfacing!


SHIII more often than not does not have all the escorts leave the convoy so all in all I would say that I feel that the result is quite reasonable.

[Yahoshua]

So...IS there a fixed amount per destroyer class of how many DCs' they carry? (I'm thinking the Das Boot thing...counting the DC and hoping you don't get hurt.)

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

So...IS there a fixed amount per destroyer class of how many DCs' they carry? (I'm thinking the Das Boot thing...counting the DC and hoping you don't get hurt.)

It's not counted per destroyer, it's counted per rack/launcher. Each one carries 40, AFAIK.
So, a late-war destroyer escort could have as many as 400 DC's to throw at you (2 racks + 8 K-guns)

[CB..]

here's summat that might be a side issue to the thread in some ways but relevant to gameplay especailly regarding reduced tonnage capability and damage etc

and i've not heard it mentioned before..

A further indication of the great accuracy of depth charge attacks was the frequent damage that the U-Boats now sustained to the upper deck containers for torpedoes, and this affected their diving capacity. In a type IXC boat for example, if four or six of these containers were suddenly flooded, the sinking of the boat could only be prevented by the immediate blowing of the diving tanks. On 30th April (1943) we had to order the removal of the upper deck containers on ALL operational boats. The resulting reduction of torpedoe-carrying capacity was not serious, for the constant air danger had allready discouraged boats from reloading at sea-- a process that required a considerable time on the surface.

this is taken from the Ministry of Defense's originally classified work
"The U-boat War in the Atlantic" by Gunter Hessler (Donitz' son in law)
having been given access to all available classified and unclassified German intelligence reports for the project.

and i thought i was being unrealistic by removing the external torps from the subs ...

on the length of time spent attacking an u-boat during/after a convoy attack it would be usefull to have a convoy commanders point of view?
im pretty sure there's info regarding this in the Gunter Hessler work but boy is it hard to find what you want in this book-- he does mention that most subs expected to be damaged either on the surface by aircraft or escorts or whilst diving to avoid an escort and still shallow-only after the introduction of hedgehogs did commanders become surprised and alarmed by the amount of damage they were recieving at depth--even in 1943-
the type nines being more liable to damage than the sevens-- even to the extent of being withdrawn from full convoy attacks-

it allso mentions the use of a mine by the escorts which the Germans did not have any knowledge of untill after the war-- the Mark XXIV mine..doesn't go into detail on this point sadly except that i think it was called the "mouse-trap"
anyhuw offers possibilities for gameplay modifications

[Observer]

Originally Posted by CCIP

It's not counted per destroyer, it's counted per rack/launcher. Each one carries 40, AFAIK.
So, a late-war destroyer escort could have as many as 400 DC's to throw at you (2 racks + 8 K-guns)

I think I know how to get around this. It's a bit of work, but not impossible. Please post any sources you have on DC load out by escort type.

[sergbuto]

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

In Operation Drumbeat by Michael Gannon, Hardegen says, "The crew were very surprised when the destroyer (American) moved off. A British destroyer would have worked over the area repeatedly for a regulation thirty six hours"

In the video interview with Jurgen Oesten he relays how in 1939 while submerged, inferring that he was just not found due to any previous action, he was detected and attacked by a lone destroyer.

A lone destroyer most likely means a patrolling destroyer which probably had nothing to do with a convoy and was directed to the area as a result of previous action. British extensively used a systems of patrols and those patrolling DDs would indeed repeatedly work over the area where a sub was seen last time.