VIIc vs IXc u-boat ?

[Adriatico]

From your experience,
did you notice any difference between smaller VIIc sub and larger IXc sub, within enemy Escorts scanning:

- Is the "big brother" easier to detect... i.e. more detectable due tu it's size, by Allied pinging around convoy ?
...or it makes no difference ?

Combat experience would be appreciated...

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Adriatico

From your experience,
did you notice any difference between smaller VIIc sub and larger IXc sub, within enemy Escorts scanning:

- Is the "big brother" easier to detect... i.e. more detectable due tu it's size, by Allied pinging around convoy ?
...or it makes no difference ?

Combat experience would be appreciated...

In SH3, the larger the object is, the easier it is to detect. This is true of both the player unit AI, and the enemy AI.

[danlisa]

Pig Boat!

Take the IXD2 for a spin.:p

[STEED]

Originally Posted by danlisa

Pig Boat!

Take the IXD2 for a spin.:p

I do down under, now how many have I lost. :hmm:

[Hartmann]

IX-B boat,

i always used big boats since SH1

Perhaps easier to detect and only a bit slower in dive times, but the firepower of the 21 torpedoes , AA guns and surfaced speed/range is an important factor.
and you can get it early in the war .

Late in the war you can go to far places, less populated by planes and try to survive to the end of the war or a XXI boat.

I choose this boat because is more challenge than a VII boat , and i can fire 8 torpedoes more .

[JCWolf]

VIIC for me , is the best boat untill the moent in my game,
Manouvers are smouth and haves a good performance under attack...

Not had the IXC yet!

I don't think I'll change cause I like to much
the VIIC...

[Adriatico]

Well, me too... I've been in love with VIIc all the time, ...but georgeous "Shlickgrau58" pushed me into new experience:



Since I had a terrible combat survival experience, even with smaller VIIc, I guess that messing within convoy (my favorite attack) with IXc would mean suicide..."mission impossible".

I assume that advantage of torp. number should be used... to try my luck with a number of long range shots ...keeping a reasonable distance from Allied formation.

Any other personal tactics...???

[mowgli99]

I wish the VIIC had more torps but i'll get over it. Underwater it manuvers great which is good when under attack.Also has more upgrades.

[nikimcbee]

The Type VII was geared more for convoy attacks, while the IX was more for solo operations. If you like attack convoys, the 7 is the way to go

I've had bad expirences attacking convoys in a type 9.

[sh3rules]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

In SH3, the larger the object is, the easier it is to detect. This is true of both the player unit AI, and the enemy AI.

This means a IID would practically disappear from the enemy sonar, correct? I never tried the Type II BTW.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by sh3rules

This means a IID would practically disappear from the enemy sonar, correct? I never tried the Type II BTW.

No, it will not simply disappear. Generally speaking, sensors are also subject to the total surface area of the contact as presented to the searching sensor. This is called "aspect ratio." Another way to look at this is to think in terms of the angle that a target is visble, or presents to you. (You've heard of "radar cross section" right?) It is easier to spot ships from the side than it is to try and spot them from the bow or stern.

In some ways it is easier to evade in the Type II U-boats, but this does not guarantee survival. If you are noisy or sloppy with the maintenance of your aspect ratio or cross-section as presented to the enemy, nature will take its course.

Sensors are also speed sensitive. If you are running about on the surface at flank speed, you are also leaving a big wake signature, making it easier for lookouts to spot you. (You can demonstrate this sort of awareness in everyday life. Speeding cars will catch your eye moreso than the rest of the traffic that trundles along obeying the limits. Maybe this is a bad example but it serves. Movement draws attention.)

Once you are detected... any other surrounding units are notified and their sensors go from passive search to active search mode. (This quite handily represents lamp, and later wireless, signalling among escorts etc.)

In 1939, in the opening four months of the war, nine out of a total of 57 combat-ready U-boats, were lost. (Including Type II's commonly in use at the time.) This represents roughly 16 percent of the available force. Thinking in terms of the long haul to come, this is a very high loss rate. Granted, it represents losses to all causes (mines and accidents as well as hostile action) but it does demonstrate the danger inherent in being a U-boatman.

Being larger makes it easier for you to be detected. Being smaller makes it more difficult to be detected, but it is not a panacea.

There is always a trade-off as well... total armament versus stealth and/or maximum operational range... but that is a subject for different thread.

[Adriatico]

Hey Captain,

1) Does the SHIII (GWX) game engine recognises different calibres of deck canons - in a terms of different inflicted damage on shell hit ?
In this case between VIIc and IXc shell ?

2) Reversed : Can IXc "body" withstand more damage compared to VIIc when "receiving" ecorts shell-hits on surface, is it generally less sensitive in game engine ? ...or it purely depends on u-boat parts that were hit ?

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Adriatico

Hey Captain,

1) Does the SHIII (GWX) game engine recognises different calibres of deck canons - in a terms of different inflicted damage on shell hit ?
In this case between VIIc and IXc shell ?

2) Reversed : Can IXc "body" withstand more damage compared to VIIc when "receiving" ecorts shell-hits on surface, is it generally less sensitive in game engine ? ...or it purely depends on u-boat parts that were hit ?

1) Very definitely yes. The 88mm deck gun does a litte less damage than the 105mm deck gun and so on. Conversely, a single hit with a 16 inch battleship shell will destroy your U-boat. (Proven in testing.)

2) Roughly speaking, yes a Type IX in GWX can withstand a bit more structural damage, but only because it is longer lengthwise. More surface area in some ways can be viewed as more hitpoints... but it really doesn't work out that way in game. (Or in real life IMHO for the Type IX.) Being a larger target makes it easier for the enemy to hit you so any advantage arguably represented by having more hitpoints is lost. U-boats have pressure hulls... designed to withstand pressure. You can see this evidence by their shape. (The inner hulls) Some users think in terms of armor. U-boats did NOT have armored hulls. Armored hulls would destroy the performance of the U-boat by making them overweight and underpowered.

Secondarily, the Type IX cannot dive as deep as the Type VII's in GWX, nor could they in RL. (common knowledge) Damage is handled a little differently when diving. (Crush damage applies directly to the hull integrity as opposed to additional penetration / interior component damage inflicted by surface weaponry.)

[Adriatico]

Thanks Captain,
From my short experience you are 100% right... IXc seems to be more disadvantage on surface (fatty target)... last thing to be used in combat gunnery.

By the way, as I see your signature, I have to tell you that accuracy of canon fire of small escort ships is a bit exaggerated in GWX.

I served in Navy (country is not important) as compulsory service, being for a months at boat of similar size 20-25m, at 20mm guns.

Boats of that size are not stable platform for aiming and shooting ( destroyers are something compleatly different).

Namely, in GWX "Happy Times" mission conditions (just a bit rough sea):
I was repeatedly blasted from escort boat that is just one black dot on horizon. I would say from aprox. nautical mile distance it scored one direct hit in three shots...?
It wiped me out in a less than two minutes.
Real gunner at such unstable platform would have far less accuracy from that distance, something like so called "warning shots".
At some 900-700 m it would become seriously accurate, with a devastating accuracy below that range. (talking about submarine running at flank speed)

I know... that original mockery with "even steven" gunnery duels betwen sub and escort ships had to be removed,... but I think the right way would have been to further decrese players sub. canon aiming accuracy ( sometimes I hit far away merchant like form Bismarck turet...) instead of introducing sniper-boats.

Sorry for being a smart ***, out of topic, ...but I am quite convinced in described feeling.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Well, my first thought in response to your post is to ask you what mods you've installed over GWX?

ALL guns in GWX have been given a "destabilization" fix by us that limits the laser guided / radar directed / never miss fire that you speak of. This has been done as far as the limitations of the game will allow. (The adjustments are very sensitive in nature.) If we adjust it any farther, weapons will fail to fire.

Other mods can easily wreck this feature... though the game will still likely run.

If you are trying to be a "smart***" as you say, well I'm done speaking with you. I'm tired of trying to be nice to rude people. Every last GWX user out there has something they don't like about GWX. These are individual opinions, and we always try to appoach modding with the big picture in mind. Whether or not you agree with our decisions, methods, or explainations of why things are done a certain way, doesn't really matter.

If there is any particular element that you just can't stand, either you can fix it or uninstall SH3/GWX.

No one will ever be able to make SH3 "perfect" for all users.