Ever pulled a Capt. Dodge?

I think it wouldnt have helped. Any depth charge within 30 ft and youd be pretty f'd I think. Not sure though so dont take my word on that one.. question realistically, what was the damage radius of the Depth Charges?

[frau kaleun]

Wouldn't having the 'scope extended during a DC attack make it even more vulnerable to damage? Don't think I'd want to risk that. Also as far as evasive maneuvers go, I'd think it would severely limit your speed in making them, because isn't there a limit to how much the extended scope can withstand before it bends or breaks?

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Wouldn't having the 'scope extended during a DC attack make it even more vulnerable to damage? Don't think I'd want to risk that. Also as far as evasive maneuvers go, I'd think it would severely limit your speed in making them, because isn't there a limit to how much the extended scope can withstand before it bends or breaks?

Generally, when I do this, I use the observation periscope, and it's only extended far enough out of it's housing so that I can see.

I have used it at shallow depth to 'run under' a ship in an attempt to avoid escorts, or to give my crew some time to reload in relative safety, but it is a major pain to try and match heading and speed to any real degree.

As for the objections that you can't see that far, that's true to a point, but when you have something as large as a ship casting a shadow, you can see that much farther down than you could see the actual ship.

Oh, and while the 'scopes back then might not have been up to it, taking pictures of other ships, including other submarines, with the periscope was a reasonably common enough intelligence activity during the Cold War, so it *COULD* have been done, even if it wasn't IRL.

[Puster Bill]

I was half expecting this thread to be about getting your genitalia tattooed.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by fastfed

"COULD" of

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.

Originally Posted by Puster Bill

Generally, when I do this, I use the observation periscope, and it's only extended far enough out of it's housing so that I can see.

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 have used it at shallow depth to 'run under' a ship in an attempt to avoid escorts, or to give my crew some time to reload in relative safety, but it is a major pain to try and match heading and speed to any real degree.

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.

As for the objections that you can't see that far, that's true to a point, but when you have something as large as a ship casting a shadow, you can see that much farther down than you could see the actual ship.

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

Oh, and while the 'scopes back then might not have been up to it, taking pictures of other ships, including other submarines, with the periscope was a reasonably common enough intelligence activity during the Cold War, so it *COULD* have been done, even if it wasn't IRL.

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?

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.

[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.

[fastfed]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

I think it wouldnt have helped. Any depth charge within 30 ft and youd be pretty f'd I think. Not sure though so dont take my word on that one.. question realistically, what was the damage radius of the Depth Charges?

Everything I read, it was anything 30 feet from the sub, would do damage, how much depends.. Anything 20 feet from the sub or less and the sub is pretty much a goner..

[fastfed]

Hey Mrs. Sailor Steve.. I didnt NO we were HAVING Class today... THANKS you for being the proper GRAMER police.

Please correct my PUNCTUATION again..

don't be a smart ass for no reason.. WERE JUST HAVING A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION!

[desirableroasted]

The link I uploaded indicated that 20-30 meters of underwater visibility is pretty fantastic. But let's assume it's average.

Even then, since a VIIC is 67 meters long, you'd still be extraordinarily lucky to see your own bow. And at 6 knots, which is about the speed you'd have to have under a merchant, (and you have to assume he is not zigging), you are eating up 3 meters a second. You'd never avoid anything in front of you... the math doesn't allow it.

So I suspect the reason there is no documentation from wartime is that U-boat captains -- who, as a rule, probably forgot more physics and mathematics than most of us will ever learn -- never even considered it.

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by desirableroasted

The link I uploaded indicated that 20-30 meters of underwater visibility is pretty fantastic. But let's assume it's average.

Even then, since a VIIC is 67 meters long, you'd still be extraordinarily lucky to see your own bow. And at 6 knots, which is about the speed you'd have to have under a merchant, (and you have to assume he is not zigging), you are eating up 3 meters a second. You'd never avoid anything in front of you... the math doesn't allow it.

So I suspect the reason there is no documentation from wartime is that U-boat captains -- who, as a rule, probably forgot more physics and mathematics than most of us will ever learn -- never even considered it.

I've been at least 25 meters deep in the ocean, and it seems to me that during daylight hours you could look straight up and be able to see if there was a ship above you under almost all but the very poorest visibility. When there is a large contrast (light surface, dark ship) like that, you don't have to be able to see details in order to perceive that something is above you.

Provided the periscope could handle being unhoused at 25 meters, of course. Anyone remember how deep U-977 was when her observation scope was busted due to being left up during a dive?

He has a point, try it out in GWX go down to a depth where your sub dissapears in free cam, then twist the cam so youre looking up at the surface, ive done this and the sub became immediately visible in close to 70m of water (not for sure on the depth just using a number) now at night, its darn near impossible even at P depth.

Originally Posted by Puster Bill

I've been at least 25 meters deep in the ocean, and it seems to me that during daylight hours you could look straight up and be able to see if there was a ship above you under almost all but the very poorest visibility. When there is a large contrast (light surface, dark ship) like that, you don't have to be able to see details in order to perceive that something is above you.

Provided the periscope could handle being unhoused at 25 meters, of course. Anyone remember how deep U-977 was when her observation scope was busted due to being left up during a dive?

[desirableroasted]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

He has a point, try it out in GWX go down to a depth where your sub dissapears in free cam, then twist the cam so youre looking up at the surface, ive done this and the sub became immediately visible in close to 70m of water (not for sure on the depth just using a number) now at night, its darn near impossible even at P depth.

Yeah, in the game it is possible. I think we are trying to figure out if it was possible in real life and, if not, making a note to not exploit the game in the future.

To take another example, clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not

[desirableroasted]

Originally Posted by Puster Bill

I've been at least 25 meters deep in the ocean, and it seems to me that during daylight hours you could look straight up and be able to see if there was a ship above you under almost all but the very poorest visibility. When there is a large contrast (light surface, dark ship) like that, you don't have to be able to see details in order to perceive that something is above you.

Provided the periscope could handle being unhoused at 25 meters, of course. Anyone remember how deep U-977 was when her observation scope was busted due to being left up during a dive?

I am not a diver, but diving friends tell me the difference between a sunny, clear day and a cloudy one is enormous even at fairly shallow depths (and not being a diver, I don't know how deep that is, but certainly not more than we are talking about).

It certainly seems plausible that you could look up with the scope at a fairly shallow depth and see the shadow of a ship, if the sun was right. Makes sense. But keeping it in sight while you align your boat and match its speed (especially if it is weaving) seems a whole 'nother problem.

[JokerOfFate]

I agree with Roasty here on a lot of stuff but heres my case,

"So I suspect the reason there is no documentation from wartime is that U-boat captains never even considered it."

I agree with most of that but not many people came back, so the likelihood of their being any documentation is small.

"clicking the "lock" function in the periscope or UZO lets you "see" ships 6 or 7 nm away, even in dense fog... not possible in real life, so it's up to the player to decide whether to exploit that or not"
Not true, the smoke from some ships can be seen from miles away, making it possible.

"And at 6 knots, which is about the speed you'd have to have under a merchant, (and you have to assume he is not zigging), you are eating up 3 meters a second. You'd never avoid anything in front of you... the math doesn't allow it."

What about the variables there, was the merchant hit, sabotage or a malfunction.

Now, I know for a fact that if things are not going your way on a battlefield then you'll use every trick and break every rule/restriction to get your boys out alive, so maybe it did happen, heck maybe it worked but they just didn't make it back to spread the news

[JokerOfFate]

So as far as I see it, there's no way to prove whether or not they did do it.

So I think we should just call it a matter of debate and do what you see fit because no matter what its a 50-50 of being real or fake.