tactical question vis-a-vis historical/realistic - Page 2

schlechter pfennig · 05-04-10, 06:10 PM

Ok, gots a question for all you Kaleuns out here.

It's 10 June 1940, and 0430 hours. 15mps seas, overcast skies, moderate visibility. After receiving a convoy contact report I plotted an intercept and headed there. Once there I came to all stop and waited, bobbing like a cork.

Eventually the convoy did come into view. It took until the lead escort was about 7km out before I could with the binoculars, get an approximate idea of their course, heading and AoB to me.

Considering they were approaching towards my 90 I decided I might want to, ah . . . shift a little. I manuevered until I was facing them and, as well, flooded down enough to go deck awash (which had my watch crew complaining about wet feet, the wussies!

)

It's taken them quite a while to approach, and I've been keeping my eye on the lead escort. Right about 2 - 2.5 km away, and at 30 or so degrees to my starboard, I noticed his silhouette profile changing, becoming narrower . . . and I was pretty sure it wasn't because she'd just up and decided to head away from me!

I went to ahead slow then, once at periscope depth, went to silent running. My intention was to quietly creep past the lead escort then, using both hydrophones and attack periscope, manuevering between two lanes of ships. Since I couldn't really see detail through the scope as black as it is, all I'm doing is looking for shadowy blobs to confirm what the hydrophone is indicating. Then, once in position, going to flank and surfacing, doing a hard 90 turn and firing fore and aft, as the distances should be somewhere between 500 - 1,000 meters between me and them.

My question is . . . is this a realistic and/or historical tactic? I know night surface attacks are, but were there ever instances where U-boats stayed submerged only to abruptly surface once in attack range?

05-04-10, 06:10 PM	#1
schlechter pfennig Commander Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 462 Downloads: 53 Uploads: 7	tactical question vis-a-vis historical/realistic Ok, gots a question for all you Kaleuns out here. It's 10 June 1940, and 0430 hours. 15mps seas, overcast skies, moderate visibility. After receiving a convoy contact report I plotted an intercept and headed there. Once there I came to all stop and waited, bobbing like a cork. Eventually the convoy did come into view. It took until the lead escort was about 7km out before I could with the binoculars, get an approximate idea of their course, heading and AoB to me. Considering they were approaching towards my 90 I decided I might want to, ah . . . shift a little. I manuevered until I was facing them and, as well, flooded down enough to go deck awash (which had my watch crew complaining about wet feet, the wussies! ) It's taken them quite a while to approach, and I've been keeping my eye on the lead escort. Right about 2 - 2.5 km away, and at 30 or so degrees to my starboard, I noticed his silhouette profile changing, becoming narrower . . . and I was pretty sure it wasn't because she'd just up and decided to head away from me! I went to ahead slow then, once at periscope depth, went to silent running. My intention was to quietly creep past the lead escort then, using both hydrophones and attack periscope, manuevering between two lanes of ships. Since I couldn't really see detail through the scope as black as it is, all I'm doing is looking for shadowy blobs to confirm what the hydrophone is indicating. Then, once in position, going to flank and surfacing, doing a hard 90 turn and firing fore and aft, as the distances should be somewhere between 500 - 1,000 meters between me and them. My question is . . . is this a realistic and/or historical tactic? I know night surface attacks are, but were there ever instances where U-boats stayed submerged only to abruptly surface once in attack range?