Formula for flooding (litre of water per minute)
http://img.xrmb2.net/images/580417.jpeg

you asked...
I'd love to see a personnel brow from the bunker to the boat( that is cross-able) and or mooring lines pier side. I've often wondered why we weren't drifting away form the pier. I know its purely cosmetic, but wouldnt that be something.:yep:

Pity :hmph:

Thank you both guys :)

You have driven away any residual reasonable doubt now!

Feedback about Decks Awash patch

When I'm staying on the bridge:
I can using UZO - it's OK
I can firing torpedoes - it's OK
I can't using deckgun - it's OK
I can using (myself) AAguns - it's OK
But I can't watch with binoculars :wah: - why? it's not good :D

Just a small report :salute:

The only thoughts i have on torpedo drift is if we could somehow have tide charts . They dont have to be relevant to ww2 , just take some tide times and date them from 1939 to 1946 . Make the drift variable depending on the tides size and times . You could look up the tides and calculate roughly how much drift you might expect and allow for it . Not to be very accurate though , just a help .

Unless I'm very much mistaking, when in the open ocean away from coastal and harbor tides and currents, for any given area the size of a torpedo's max. range currents and tides, etc., should have no effect as they would equally affect the shooter, the torpedo, and the target.

If a whole salvo is fired - could all torps drift:hmmm:

gap once shared an interesting piece of literature in this forum
(dont' ask me in which thread, it was in connection with the torpedo dud rate which TDW was thinking about):

WOLVES WITHOUT TEETH: THE GERMAN TORPEDO CRISIS IN WORLD WAR TWO
by David Habersham Wright

QUOTE (Page 210)
Even perfect firing data was useless if the commander did not also take into account the
currents that could alter a torpedo’s run track. In places such as the Norwegian Fjords, where the
currents were particularly strong and changing, anticipating their behavior was particularly
difficult, being done as it was basically by locating a point of reference and measuring speed and
direction from this.

401
Trompelt, 142

Trompelt, Heinz. Eine andere Sicht: Tatsachenbericht eines Torpedo-Obermech. Maat und
Fähnrich z.S. Gefahren auf U-459 und U-172. (Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH,
2006.
UNQUOTE

In all the literature I've read so far I've never came across a statement stating the the tides were a problem,
I suppose that this would only have had an influence when really close to the coast..

....this would support quink99's post

excerpts from "WOLVES WITHOUT TEETH: THE GERMAN TORPEDO CRISIS IN WORLD WAR TWO":

"It will be recalled that from the outset of the war individual captains experienced great trouble with the actual run of their torpedoes. Entirely separate from the problems of depth or premature detonation, a torpedo fired one direction might suddenly veer off course or even in certain rare cases loop back around to strike the attacking U-boat. Assuming that the torpedo did run straight, a shaky run resulting from outside disturbances could in certain instances work against the armature and potentially contribute to a premature detonation. It was found, however, that such disturbance could be greatly reduced by replacing the previous four-bladed propeller with a new six-bladed propeller. This transition enabled the torpedo to run more smoothly in the water and hence improve its accuracy and stability." (pp. 76-77)


"During the summer of 1940 the TI launched an investigation into the causes of the oft-reported instances in the past whereby torpedoes would inexplicably run off course after being launched. The TI attributed this behavior to prolonged vibration of the G.A. [Geradelaufapparat course stabilization device] incurred during transport or while on board the boat. This can be explained as follows: the straight ahead motion of the torpedo was governed by a device found within the torpedo known as the Geradelaufapparat, commonly abbreviated as G.A. This device was extremely sensitive, so much so that it could, they speculated, be thrown out of sync by the jolts and bumps that it encountered either as a result of improper handling during its delivery to the front, or once delivered, through some violent motion such as that resulting from being depth-charged. Pending the results of this investigation, the TI suggested that two measures be taken. First was the rather vague and obvious, and as such probably unhelpful, suggestion that all efforts be made to secure and protect the tail piece of the torpedo (in which the GA was located) from violence or unnecessary stress. Second was the more helpful proposal that the firm seating of the locking nuts for the clutch nuts of the rudder linkage should be inspected/proofed as often as possible." (p. 139)

My conclusions:

"external disturbances" could unstablize torpedoe's course, eventually leading to its premature detonation.

No mention though about torpedo drifting, intended as a gradual and random detour of torpedoes from their main course, neither in the above mentioned essay nor elsewhere on the web.

The gyroscope fitted on WWII torpedoes was acting both as a route stabilizer and a steering control. My thought is that any major malfunctioning of this device would have lead to an abrupt veer from torpedo course (wich is already modelled in game I think) rather than to many cumulative minor course changes. :hmm2:

I don't know exactly where to put it, so I will just put it in this thread. I'm kind of sick and tired of having the destroyer run straight into my u-boat, thinking he can do that and get away with it for a nice afternoon cup of tea after I'm sunk. You just don't run into a 769 ton piece of metal at 36 knots and expect your destroyer to stay healthy afterwards. This happens every time if you let it close to you. It just simply runs over you. :ping:

And it doesnt bump into your ship by accident either, the damn destroyer is aiming at you from 7000 metres away, and it runs over you.

It seems like the destroyer is assuming im underwater and thinks it can do that when im actually surfaced.

There are several reports about destroyers or even merchant ships ramming intentionally onto U-boats. Some of these unortodox attacks ended with the sinking of the boat.

See here for some more detail on the subject: :03:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_r...ntieth_century

gap, I embrace accidents, but not accidents from 7 kilometres away, every time, big difference, and those are no accidents.. :salute:

Let me put it this way. Let's say you are in the conning tower, you see a destroyer coming from 7 km distance, turning towards you. If you know that thing will crash into you when it arrives at your position, then you pretty well know something is wrong with the game. If you KNOW that damn thing will crash with you.... How would you know that btw, and I do know that because it happens every time heh.

Who said that they are accidents? According to the wikipedia article that I mentioned in my previous post, it seems that destroyers were occasionally ramming submarines when they were given this chance, and they were doing it on pourpose. If you read it carefully it mentions "ramming attacks" not "accidental rammings". Besides this, it references its sources and even the name of submarine units sunk by ramming, so you can check by yourself. :)

Ramming or not, why don't you dive? After seeing a 7 km far destroyer that is coming after you, diving as soon as possible seems to me the first thing to do. Would you expect her to come to a dead stop before she reaches you? :O:
How would she depthcharge you if she doesn't try to get on top of you:06:

gap,

point 1: Most ramming were done by battleships, battleships have much much stronger hulls than a light and simple destroyer.

point 2: There were extremely few ramming incidents with destroyers. And those who did, had their destroyer badly damaged. Quote "Borie was too badly damaged by the ramming to be salvaged", and btw, the u-boat that the destroyer rammed into, were not critically damaged he-he.

point 3: Only a tiny fraction of all the 1200 uboats during the course of the war was attacked by ramming, insignificant numbers, and most done by heavy ships or scared/suicide merchants.

point 4: What I am talking about are destroyers doing this in 100% of the cases in the game, there is a big, big, BIG difference here.. :yep: Ramming is an absolutely last resort attack, and preferably on wooden vessels. You don't attack uboats by ramming and as a primary type of weapon, its silly.

point 5: "Why don't you dive" you say... well, diving may avoid just that, but it doesn't fix the problem, the problem will remain. Just like any other things that you seldom do in the game, there comes a time when you will do these seldom things and when you do, its not going to be working correctly.

And there are times when you can't dive, the game has to work in those situations too, just because something happens rarely doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed.

point 6: "How would she depthcharge you if she doesn't try to get on top of you" you say... In a hurry, all I can think of is "IF NOT SUBMERGED, ATTACK WITH GUNS (AVOID PLAYER POSITION), IF SUBMERGED, ATTACK WITH SINKMINES (USE PLAYER POSITION)".. Its a pretty basic and simple mechanism..

Let me just summarise this, the main weapon of a destroyer is not ramming it into a uboat at full spead and then doing heavy damage to itself. The main weapon is to use its damn artillery pieces, fletcher class have 5 of them installed and they will put holes into your uboat, sinking it rapidly. They wont be ramming into you at full speed, trust me. Its a silly naval strategy to do that. :D

Btw, this probably happens because the game doesn't know any better, it probably thinks that you have dived already and that it doesnt need to consider the risk of crashing into you