what was realistic patrol tonnage like ? - Page 2

AhhhFresh · 04-30-07, 09:20 AM

I think one difference is that we know how the war went and how tactics changed. So we tend to completely disregard sub doctrine. If you could take the great sub captains and crews of '44-45 in Manilla in '42 with Mark 10's instead of Mark 14's then they probably would have been having 20-30k patrols regularly. As it was, tactics and equipment only got refined by the time that Japanese shipping was really hard to find.

We also have the ability to disobey direct orders with no repurcussions, and go to areas we know have lots of targets without worrying about running into another sub.

nattydread · 04-30-07, 07:41 PM

The IJN fleet numbers also seem to be way to big. I cant believe the IJN had that many task forces, especially large task forces running around.

I cant help but believe the number of IJN vessels and large convoys needs to be decreased, and if thats not the case, the number of COMSUBPAC targets need to be decreased. Even with the ULTRA intelliegence, COMSUBPAC didnt give out every ULTRA recieved in fear the IJN would catch on (I think the USS Indy fell to that, sub activity was known to be in the area but not deciminated).

Fearless · 04-30-07, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nattydread

The IJN fleet numbers also seem to be way to big. I cant believe the IJN had that many task forces, especially large task forces running around.

I cant help but believe the number of IJN vessels and large convoys needs to be decreased, and if thats not the case, the number of COMSUBPAC targets need to be decreased. Even with the ULTRA intelliegence, COMSUBPAC didnt give out every ULTRA recieved in fear the IJN would catch on (I think the USS Indy fell to that, sub activity was known to be in the area but not deciminated).

I agree wholeheartedly.

Ducimus · 04-30-07, 10:20 PM

Reasons why tonnage is higher then historical record:

1.) Torpedo failure rate is NOTHING like it should be.

2.) Target rich enviorment with high tonnage ships as commonplace. (ive sunk more ocean liners and capital warships in two weeks in SH4 then over 2 years of playing SH3)

3.) Player is given too much information from various source in game which makes our "job" infinitely easier then a real sub captains. (map contact updates, the myriad radio/contact reports, external free camera, etc.)

Hartmann · 04-30-07, 10:48 PM

I´m agree

Also i think that there are too many huge task forces and capital ships.
i´ve played Sh1 and convoys were smaller . and pehaps more realistic.

is difficult believe how they can lost the war with several yamatos, carriers, and cruisers lurking around

Snuffy · 04-30-07, 11:29 PM

I had 68k plus on this my last voyage tonight ... I was down to two stern fish and a couple rounds for the 4.5 deck ...

nattydread · 05-01-07, 03:23 AM

I only mount the smaller deck gun in an attempt to handicap my deck gun crew a bit

Galanti · 05-01-07, 08:07 AM

Well, I'm playing with everything but external cam and map updates. I am also using the WIP Harcore Torpedoes mod, and have hacked the piss out of the campaign layer by reducing spawn chances and radio report chances. The result? S-35 dragged it's sorry ass into Freemantle last night with 508 tons to it's credit.

I bagged one subchaser with a lucky contact shot and beat up on some hapless sampans with my (somewhat nerfed) deckgun out of sheer spite. I did hit one 7,000 tonner for damage and watched the last of my fish bounce off or run deep. (I actually listened on sonar - pretty cool to hear the whine of your fish merge with the thump of a merchie's screws - and then the thunk of duds)

I coudn't even crack one thousand. And you know what? I have no problems whatsoever with that!

Tobus · 05-01-07, 08:21 AM

I just dit 122k before refitting. I had a taskforce with 2 Yamatos (?) and sank them both with 5 fish. I also had a large convoy which I almost entirely sank with my cannon during darkness, the 3 escorts smiling and waving as I did

and some loose sailing stuff.

This game be too darn easy

.

Galanti · 05-01-07, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nattydread

I only mount the smaller deck gun in an attempt to handicap my deck gun crew a bit

good idea, I also force myself to let the gun crew do all the shooting. However, as as you can operate it yourself in rough seas, and your crew can't, it can be too much tempation to stay off it. Anyone know how to mod it so that you yourself can't operate the gun in rough seas?

I do operate the 20 and 40mm myself though, as it's just too much fun to shoot up small craft with them.

mookiemookie · 05-01-07, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobus

I just dit 122k before refitting. I had a taskforce with 2 Yamatos (?) and sank them both with 5 fish. I also had a large convoy which I almost entirely sank with my cannon during darkness, the 3 escorts smiling and waving as I did

and some loose sailing stuff.

This game be too darn easy

.

All manual targeting, of course?

SteamWake · 05-01-07, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobus

I just dit 122k before refitting. I had a taskforce with 2 Yamatos (?) and sank them both with 5 fish. I also had a large convoy which I almost entirely sank with my cannon during darkness, the 3 escorts smiling and waving as I did

and some loose sailing stuff.

This game be too darn easy

.

All manual targeting, of course?

Doesnet matter, to sink the yamato in real life it took 12 mark 14's and over 20 1,000 lb bombs. And those are just the ones that "hit".

Even then she did not sink. Granted she was dead in the water rolled over on her side. She dident go under untill the powder magazine lit off.

As to the cruisers smiling and waving while you lob shells at them I have not witnessed this behavior personally. Hell even armed merchants can give me struggles in a surfaced "slugfest".

deamyont · 05-01-07, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Here's a list of best war patrols by tonnage sunk. As you can see, 28,000 tons would be enough to put you at #13 on this list:

http://www.valoratsea.com/tonnage1.htm

Archerfish - 1 ship @ 59,000 tonnes? The Shinano I guess?

Tobus · 05-01-07, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobus

I just dit 122k before refitting. I had a taskforce with 2 Yamatos (?) and sank them both with 5 fish. I also had a large convoy which I almost entirely sank with my cannon during darkness, the 3 escorts smiling and waving as I did

and some loose sailing stuff.

This game be too darn easy

.

All manual targeting, of course?

Yes, actually. Despite the clunky and messed-up manual targeting, I managed to place my hits because of good navigation and low distances with the battleships, 400m tops. As for the convoy: I hit 4 out of 6 on 1000 meters out, with 3 sinkings immediately. After that, I noticed the escorts just cruising on course and saw no guns on the merchants. So I thought "go for it". I nailed each and every one of the merchants. The escorts came snooping eventually, but at a snails pace and not seeming to search me, just circling back. After the last sinking I just dived and went the other way. No pings, no dc's, nothing.

Offcourse, seeing both Yamato's in feb 1942 at once is just ridiculous, sinking them both even more.

Ducimus · 05-01-07, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deamyont

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Here's a list of best war patrols by tonnage sunk. As you can see, 28,000 tons would be enough to put you at #13 on this list:

http://www.valoratsea.com/tonnage1.htm

Archerfish - 1 ship @ 59,000 tonnes? The Shinano I guess?

Ya. Obviously a one time only event

Not likey the IJN had Yamato's converted into aircraft carriers in their pockets like chump change .:rotfl:

04-30-07, 10:48 PM	#20
Hartmann Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Grid CH 26, Spain ,Barcelona Posts: 1,857 Downloads: 204 Uploads: 0	I´m agree Also i think that there are too many huge task forces and capital ships. i´ve played Sh1 and convoys were smaller . and pehaps more realistic. is difficult believe how they can lost the war with several yamatos, carriers, and cruisers lurking around __________________ But this ship can't sink!... She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. and she will. It is a mathematical certainty. Strength and honor

04-30-07, 11:29 PM	#21
Snuffy XO Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 420 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I had 68k plus on this my last voyage tonight ... I was down to two stern fish and a couple rounds for the 4.5 deck ... __________________ ----------------- Snuffy!

04-30-07, 09:20 AM	#16
AhhhFresh Mate Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 52 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I think one difference is that we know how the war went and how tactics changed. So we tend to completely disregard sub doctrine. If you could take the great sub captains and crews of '44-45 in Manilla in '42 with Mark 10's instead of Mark 14's then they probably would have been having 20-30k patrols regularly. As it was, tactics and equipment only got refined by the time that Japanese shipping was really hard to find. We also have the ability to disobey direct orders with no repurcussions, and go to areas we know have lots of targets without worrying about running into another sub.

04-30-07, 07:41 PM	#17
nattydread Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 498 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	The IJN fleet numbers also seem to be way to big. I cant believe the IJN had that many task forces, especially large task forces running around. I cant help but believe the number of IJN vessels and large convoys needs to be decreased, and if thats not the case, the number of COMSUBPAC targets need to be decreased. Even with the ULTRA intelliegence, COMSUBPAC didnt give out every ULTRA recieved in fear the IJN would catch on (I think the USS Indy fell to that, sub activity was known to be in the area but not deciminated).

04-30-07, 10:20 PM	#19
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Reasons why tonnage is higher then historical record: 1.) Torpedo failure rate is NOTHING like it should be. 2.) Target rich enviorment with high tonnage ships as commonplace. (ive sunk more ocean liners and capital warships in two weeks in SH4 then over 2 years of playing SH3) 3.) Player is given too much information from various source in game which makes our "job" infinitely easier then a real sub captains. (map contact updates, the myriad radio/contact reports, external free camera, etc.)

05-01-07, 03:23 AM	#22
nattydread Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 498 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I only mount the smaller deck gun in an attempt to handicap my deck gun crew a bit

05-01-07, 08:07 AM	#23
Galanti Captain Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ottawa Posts: 536 Downloads: 106 Uploads: 0	Well, I'm playing with everything but external cam and map updates. I am also using the WIP Harcore Torpedoes mod, and have hacked the piss out of the campaign layer by reducing spawn chances and radio report chances. The result? S-35 dragged it's sorry ass into Freemantle last night with 508 tons to it's credit. I bagged one subchaser with a lucky contact shot and beat up on some hapless sampans with my (somewhat nerfed) deckgun out of sheer spite. I did hit one 7,000 tonner for damage and watched the last of my fish bounce off or run deep. (I actually listened on sonar - pretty cool to hear the whine of your fish merge with the thump of a merchie's screws - and then the thunk of duds) I coudn't even crack one thousand. And you know what? I have no problems whatsoever with that!

05-01-07, 08:21 AM	#24
Tobus Lieutenant Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 260 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	I just dit 122k before refitting. I had a taskforce with 2 Yamatos (?) and sank them both with 5 fish. I also had a large convoy which I almost entirely sank with my cannon during darkness, the 3 escorts smiling and waving as I did and some loose sailing stuff. This game be too darn easy .