A few new ideas

[Fidd]

146. Loose and suspended objects.

A nice feature of SH3 were all the hanging hams and what-not which were hung above in the control-room, and which swayed gently with the roll and pitch of the boat, and which did so more vigorously when DC'd. It would be nice to see some of these performing the same "roll" (or falling?) in WP. Additionally, there might be loose objects such as a pile of tins, belongings from lockers, locker doors etc, which could spill about in rough seas or when DC'd, with attendant sound effects.

This would help create more of a local-earth vertical reference in the boat, as well as provide scope for more immersive experience of being in rough weather or subject to DC's. Personally I find the few "flashes", almost inaudible DC explosion sounds, and lack of camera-shake, to be particularly underwhelming when hit by nearby DC's. Adding pitching movement to the boat would also add to this. (as far as I'm aware our boats only roll)

[Fidd]

147. Optional faster zig-rate.

It is my belief that convoy clocks were set to zig at a periodicity of circa 8 minutes, rather than (I gather) the 17 minutes we now have.

The difference is important. In the 17 minute scenario, there just is enough time to determine the convoy heading, speed and to fire and hit to a 15 minute TOI against a target which will maintain speed and heading.

Were the historical (8 min?) zig rate enabled (on an optional basis of course) then this attack profile would need to change completely, as now the mean-track and mean-speed would form the data for the TDC, making long range shots a bit more difficult, and a longer period of observations needed before firing. This in turn allows for more detection opportunities, especially if aircraft and/or radar arrive.

I suggest that zigs be limited to plus or minus 10-15 degrees of a base course, excepting after a hit on a merchantman or detection of a u-boat, whereafter the convoy can change by 30 degrees relative to the base course, with 15 degrees for the 2nd zig 8 minutes later, before reverting back to the original base course at a rate of 5, 10, 15 degrees per following 8 minute zig. Once back on the base course, the maximum zig would return to 15 degrees in either direction?

This optional change would greatly benefit navigators, as now they'd need to accurately plot the position of a boat at two recorded times, then derive the convoy speed from that. Similarly establishing the 1st and 2nd AOB's (and therefore headings) of the convoy, and the time they changed, to establish the mean-course.....

[derstosstrupp]

Where does the historical 8 minute figure come from? I was always of the understanding that large convoys zigged more to the tune of every half hour to an hour. Now, single ships on the other hand, yes, those zigzagged very aggressively. I would be extremely surprised at 8 minutes for a convoy, these are mostly merchant men, not trained in station keeping.

[Fidd]

I believe I read an account of this where there was a picture of the 8 markers around the periphery which were used to synchronise movements of individual ships. I cannot recall the precise source, but it's hard to think this isn't well documented?

[derstosstrupp]

Originally Posted by Fidd

I believe I read an account of this where there was a picture of the 8 markers around the periphery which were used to synchronise movements of individual ships. I cannot recall the precise source, but it's hard to think this isn't well documented?

I know radio room clocks used on some surface ships have markings like that to denote key times during the radio watch or between them, but eight minutes is far too short for zigs. I only have heard a half hour to an hour or so. It’s a recipe for disaster to expect merchant mariners to execute this every eight minutes. Even a crew trained in station keeping would be exhausted having to do this that frequently.

[Fidd]

I would suspect that it was only used when under fire, or when the "warnings of the numbers of u-boats in your area" warranted it. Once per half hour would provide little or no protection via ruining torpedo solutions, and would only serve to increase the track miles of the convoy.

[derstosstrupp]

Originally Posted by Fidd

I would suspect that it was only used when under fire, or when the "warnings of the numbers of u-boats in your area" warranted it. Once per half hour would provide little or no protection via ruining torpedo solutions, and would only serve to increase the track miles of the convoy.

The idea wasn’t to foil solutions, it was to make tracking the convoy by a shadowing U-boat difficult. If you recall, a U-boat (typically the first to sight it) was designated the “contact holder” and could not attack until BdU knew he had sufficient boats in contact. That took many many hours. It needed to provide contact reports at intervals and often they lost contact because they could not follow the convoy’s movements effectively or were driven off by roving escorts. The zigzag patterns would typically be very complex, making it difficult to predict the base course and assemble boats effectively. That was the whole idea. Again, you can’t expect a glorified gaggle of civilian ships to execute the precision needed at 8-minute intervals without collisions happening (they happened as it was even with infrequent zigs). Nor did it happen for that reason in danger areas of U-boats. A recipe for loss of coordination and scattering. And unlike in Wolfpack, in real life the scatter meant absolute failure of the convoy commander and easy pickings for U-boats.

[Fidd]

I don't doubt the veracity of what you're saying, but from what I've seen - an image of a merchantman clock with the periphery marked for when zigs should be made; it makes we wonder if we're both right, namely that there were short-interval zigs to make solutions more difficult when under fire, and longer interval ones designed to frustrate establishing the convoy's base course, as you describe.

In other words, we may both be right.

[Fidd]

148. DF-ing using civilian radio-stations/DFing u-boats

This was a common technique, especially on long-wave, to establish the bearing to and from civilian transmitters known location, and therefore with a cross-cut bearing, to determine position deep into the Atlantic. If one assumes that the location of the u-boat was unknown to the crew initially, this might make for some interesting navigational use of DF's to fix their position. The more lines established, the more accurate the fix, and therefore the more accurate subsequent navigation to the convoy becomes. (assuming some form of time-compression to keep "time to target" roughly comparable to now)

With the multi-national player-base, it ought to be possible to create plausible sounding radio transmissions of stations in the UK, Germany, France and the low-countries, to which a radio-officer can tune the DF equipment to start DFing.

The allied counter to this is the use of DFing locations - spread from Iceland to the Azores, to fix the area of u-boats whenever they transmit. On a strategic level this has little bearing (if you'll excuse the pun) on the game, however, it could be used the more radio-traffic is sent between boats in game, to send detached escorts down a bearing to search for a surfaced or thence submerged u-boat. By counting the characters, or duration of morse signals sent, from a particular u-boat during the course of a game, a tipping-point might be reached causing such a detachment of an escort. Or aircraft.

DFing therefore could be engineered in game to both assist u-boat crews in locating a convoy and establishing their own position - or the position of other u-boats, but ALSO via the brevity, or otherwise, of radio transmissions from it, to cause AI or PVP escorts to be able to detach from their usual positions.....

[Fidd]

149. Refinement of AI escorts in determining likely position of an attacking u-boat from torpedo wakes.

If the attacked merchantman is sunk within a short period of being hit, all the escorts should be aware of is the 180 degree arc "side" that the torpedo has come from, and therefore those escorts on that side should turn outwards from that side, and commence asdic and hydrophone searches. However, as the distance from which the torpedo is fired is unknown, the distance outwards they travel is fairly short.

If the merchantman is hit but does not sink quickly, it is assumed that the approximate track of a steam inbound torpedo is known to the crew, and this information is given to the escorts via short-wave radio or other signal, and the AI escort then proceeds along the reciprocal of that track, for a reasonable distance, likewise at asdic and hydrophone speed.

Similarly, if the track of a steam torpedo is seen passing an un-hit merchantman, the same reasonable distance is covered by the outbound pinging/listening escort, however, with a less certain bearing, so there should be a random error in bearing to course travelled.

If the u-boat is physically spotted, the AI escorts would travel directly at best speed to the area, for perhaps 90% of the distance, and only then conduct asdic and hydrophone searches, firing guns at the u-boat so long as it or the periscope is in view, possibly with star-shells.

So, firing electrics, will result in poor ability by the escorts to locate a u-boat, provided it remains quiet and achieves sinking hits. On the other hand, if it fires and misses with steams, or hits but does not outright sink, a merchantment, then the ability of the escorts to determine the location of the u-boat improves. Finally, if the u-boat is visually seen, then it's in for a world of hurt, possibly with several escorts coming for it at up to 36 knots....