| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Godalmighty83
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 207
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| if its in u-571 its wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JU_88
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: Just putting my mind to rest |
|
|
| GlowwormGuy wrote: | "During WWII, 21 Uboats were sunk by Allied submarines, 13 of those by the British alone."
I'm presuming that these were all surface kills - the U-boat was ambushed by a submerged Allied sub, right? Nothing like what happened in errr U-571? Just need to lay that issue to rest. I'm arguing with someone about the facts of that movie.
By the way Bruno, that's a great quote for a British sub campaign...
Mountbatten |
:hmm:
..... from U boat.net......
U-864
Type IXD2
Laid down 15 Oct, 1942 AG Weser, Bremen
Commissioned 9 Dec, 1943 Korvkpt. Ralf-Reimar Wolfram
Commanders 9 Dec, 1943 - 9 Feb, 1945 KrvKpt. Ralf-Reimar Wolfram
Career 1 patrol 9 Dec, 1943 - 31 Oct, 1944 4. Flottille (training)
1 Nov, 1944 - 9 Feb, 1945 33. Flottille (front boat)
Successes No ships sunk or damaged
Fate Sunk 9 Feb, 1945 in the North Sea west of Bergen, Norway, in position 60.46N, 04.35E, by torpedoes from the British submarine HMS Venturer. 73 dead (all hands lost).
On 9 Feb, 1945 the British submarine HMS Venturer, commanded by James S. Launders, torpedoed and sank this boat.
This is the only known incident in all of naval warfare in which one submarine sinks another while both are submerged.
Us Kaluens are damn lucky them Limey subs didnt make it in to SH3 
Last edited by JU_88 on Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GlowwormGuy
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 615
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well now THAT is interesting... I wonder how they managed it. Then again it did happen at the end of the war with a more advanced V Class Sub and like you said it was the ONLY time in the war that it happened.
Mountbatten |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JU_88
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only time in naval history even!, I hate nationalism, but that almost makes me proud to be British  I guess they were either
a) very lucky!
b) used the hydrophone,
c) saw its scope
d) worked out a solution before it dived
e) all of the above! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godalmighty83
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i doubt we will ever know exactly how it happened, my bet is on a hydrophone contact and a depth guess of periscope/snorkel depth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ducimus
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: Why not serve the Royal Navy for a change? |
|
|
| -Dreadnought- wrote: | It would seem that the next part in the Silent Hunter-series will be in the Pacific, right?
I was just wondering, why not make a campaign in the Royal Navy and not always the jerries or yankies? Just a thought... :ahoy: |
The pacific and atlantic were the largest, and most well known submarine campaigns to ever exist in history. In otherwords , these two campaigns, arguably make other less known sub campaigns look like a footnote in history. Not as many people would be intrested in that, it doesnt have the broad appeal a game company is looking for to sell more units.
That and from a content standpoint theres alot more material to work with in regards with the Silent Service or the Ubootwaffle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JU_88
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In all seriousness, some playable British subs would be a great bonus, as they had some really good ones, but I dont think they should be the focal point for SH4 as the Brits submarine campaign wasnt nearly as big or as busy as that of the kreigsmarine and USN.
We'll just have to wait and see eh.... :shifty: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruno Lotse
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Posts: 585
Location: HMCS Toronto (K 538)
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JU_88 wrote: | the Brits submarine campaign wasnt nearly as big or as busy as that of the kreigsmarine and USN.
|
Let's see.
During WW2 British submariners sank 9 enemy cruisers, 16 destroyers, 3 minesweepers, 1 auxiliary cruiser, and 368 merchants (826300BRT). I do not include results of mining operations where Brits were extremely active.
British submariners proved to be the best submarine killers. They hold the world record in number of killed enemy submarines - 41!!! subs. So, they were damn professionals through and through.
Their job (as in the German case) was the most dangerous in the Navy. 74 British subs did not see their home port again - heaviest casualties per capita in the service. Americans lost 54 subs.
German submariners failed to meet strategic goal. They were supposed to strangle Brits to submission. They were supposed to put British on their knees, to make them sue for peace. Weren't they? It never happened. So, strategically UBootWaffe proved to be useless. They failed to deliver.
British submariners met their strategic goals. They were supposed to strangle Axis forces in the Mediterrenian. Rommel lost in Africa in most part because he never had enough what he needed for his operations - fuel, spare parts, ammunition. Rommel was Hitler's favorite, he was very important for propaganda purposes and as such he was on the first priority list. Yet it never happened because British submariners were very adapt in sending transports bound to Afrika Korp right to the bottom. Submariners also saved Malta. You said that using T type didn't make sense. Too large, too clumsy. The reason they were using T and other large mine layers was provision of supplies to Malta. On the way back they would do mine laying on route of transports to Afrika Korp and Italians. Everything in extremely perilous for submarine warfare conditions - shallow, clear waters pursued by Italian destroyers who, incidentally, were very professional in job which they were doing. For the whole war German destroyers managed to sink 1 British sub. The bulk of British sub losses (again - 74 subs) is Regia Marina exploits.
Yeah, they also blew up Tirpitz, by the way.
Like Winnie said:
"Of all the branches of men in the Forces, there is none which shows more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the submariner. Great deeds are done in the air and on the land; nevertheless, nothing surpasses your exploits."
Italian cruiser Muzio Attendolo in Messina in fall 1942.
'Courtesy' of HMS Unbroken...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JU_88
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Bruno Lotse
Ok i'll re-phrase that,  A british Sub campaign wouldnt be as popular...... Why not?... I dunno ask the Americans.
Any way dont attack me!  im your side, I want to play with British subs as much as you do, Im just being objective thats all....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JU_88
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Bruno Lotse
Ok i'll re-phrase that, A british Sub campaign wouldnt be as popular...... Why not?... I dunno ask the Americans.
Any way dont attack me! im your side, I want to play with British subs as much as you do, Im just being objective thats all.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godalmighty83
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it wouldnt really have to be a whole campaign, just at a point in time at certain ports off a british sub for sale for those with enough renown like you do the other subs in the game.
enemy subs were caught and used by the other side, i believe the royal navy had a couple of type VII's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JU_88
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godalmighty83 wrote: | it wouldnt really have to be a whole campaign, just at a point in time at certain ports off a british sub for sale for those with enough renown like you do the other subs in the game.
enemy subs were caught and used by the other side, i believe the royal navy had a couple of type VII's. |
yeah they got one VIIC and renamed it HMS Graph, she was known to have snuck in to the Bay of Biscay on a couple of occasions and made attempt attacks on other Uboats (perfect for the job), but she never sunk anything. She ended up wrecked off the coat of scotland.... I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-Pv-
Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would have no objection to playing brit subs in Europe against the Axis. I read a couple Brittish sub historical WWII books that had me as rivited as any other service. I'm pleased to play the Pacific again in modern graphics, but would have had no screaming objection if the direction had gone to Brittish against the Axis. Look at the populariity of the Battle of Brittain games. As I have said before elsewhere, THREE major German sub releases with no modernization of the Pacific theater (not counting the worthy Pacific Aces mod) was getting tired fast.
-Pv- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kaptain Kaos
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 8
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: How about "Sub Navy of Choice" gameplay option... |
|
|
| I like the idea of playing from some of the other Allied / Axis points of view. I'm also a big fan of IL-2 Sturmovik series. Maybe the head honchos at UBISOFT can get the IL-2 and SH folks at the same table and come up with the kind of "pick your country / pick your weapons platform" career option for SH IV that the IL-2 bubbas did so well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AceChilla
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 133
Location: Hollandia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
And what about all the Dutch subs in the Pacific! I wanna, I wanna, I Wanna!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
