Cold_Gambler Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 I'm no expert but it appears not to have been nearly as uncommon as one might think, as this information from a website about UK submarines attests (All HMS ... are submarines, not surface vessels): HMS Parthian sank Italian submarine “DIAMANTE†Quote
DD_Brando Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 As Cold Gambler states, it wasn't such a rare event though it's also true to suggest that the underwater encounter and attack scenario was almost non-existent in the Cold War sense, due to the reasons you mentioned. It should be recalled that WW2 submarines needed to surface-run much more frequently, for battery-charging, rendezvous with store-ships, and patrolling likely hunting-grounds, plus running to and from those hunting-grounds. Electric motors for underwater running produced much lower speeds than diesels on the surface. B Quote
Jediteo Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 A underwater fight would be close to impossible due to a number of issues A) The torpedoes were designed to run just below to surface (could be programmed slightly lower) The targeting of torpedoes was an exercise in trigonometry, and observation of the target (speed course and angle of bow) were needed to calculate the launch. Acoustic torpedoes were used by the germans, but never used in a large scale, and were quite unpredicatble. C) the amount of compressed air needed to launch a torpedo while submerged lower than a few meters is staggering. Surface encounters did occurr however, but rather rare. Quote
Lothar Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Come on Silent Hunter fans, share your knowledge ^^ Quote
Rattler Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Sub vs sub was extremely rare considering the number of sub casualties overall in the war. Quote
DoubleTap Posted March 11, 2009 Author Posted March 11, 2009 Sub vs sub was extremely rare considering the number of sub casualties overall in the war. Quote
Smash Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Im not sure how historical the movie U571 is but there was sub vs sub in that. Quote
Jediteo Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 U571 is to submarine warfare (and the enigma) as Mel Brooks' Men in Tights was for Robin Hood. Quote
Cold_Gambler Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 U571 is to submarine warfare (and the enigma) as Mel Brooks' Men in Tights was for Robin Hood. ROFL!! Quote
DoubleTap Posted March 11, 2009 Author Posted March 11, 2009 U571 is to submarine warfare (and the enigma) as Mel Brooks' Men in Tights was for Robin Hood. If this was Ubizoo, the flame war would be in full tilt by now!! Quote
Rattler Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Do you mean that Hollywood does not actually represent things accurately? DT, you wound my naive soul. I'll never trust anyone ever again! U571....pfeh! I suppose that you can't fire a 7.62mm minigun from the hip for a minute either, like in Predator? Say it isn't so...... Remember - this is where people get ideas like .50 cals can take out Tiger tanks. I just saw the Battlefield Mysteries episode where they determined who actually knocked out Wittman's Tiger in Normandy. Excellent reconstruction of the events and investigative work. Quote
Perfesser Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 The Typhoons may not have done that much damage to tanks but they contributed so much to keeping the German transport off the roads during daylight that they were well worth having. The Spit pilot I was talking to praised them highly saying they saved the butts of ground troops often. When they appeared in the sky the Germans went to ground. As for Hollywierd, I think all has been said that needs to be. Quote
Trout Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 I just saw the Battlefield Mysteries episode where they determined who actually knocked out Wittman's Tiger in Normandy. Excellent reconstruction of the events and investigative work. Quote
2. Administrators Jabo Posted March 11, 2009 2. Administrators Posted March 11, 2009 Re: DT's post about Hollywood - THIS is why I'm so worried about the re-make of the Dambusters film. The original is a classic, and if the film-makers are prepared to change the name of Gibson's dog despite it having a siginificant role in the story...well I shudder to think what else they'll be prepared to change. B-17's anyone? Jon Bon Jovi will probably be flying the lead aircraft... ~S~ Jabo P.S. On the subject of Pearl Harbour - I quite liked the historical bits, but for some bizarre reason, film-makers (in general) seem to think that a story without a romantic twist isn't a story - oh, yeah, and Ben thingy is definitely a twit. His ex is nice though. Quote
Tonar Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 I suppose that you can't fire a 7.62mm minigun from the hip for a minute either, like in Predator? Say it isn't so...... But that was Jesse Ventura !!! Quote
Snacko Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 With my new pc I can finally play SH4 with some decent graphics. Quote
Trout Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I just saw the Battlefield Mysteries episode where they determined who actually knocked out Wittman's Tiger in Normandy. Excellent reconstruction of the events and investigative work. Quote
DD_asas Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 this link looks nice http://www.valoratsea.com/subwar.htm Quote
APHill Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Trout, SH4 is worth the price of admission. It has nice graphics and is IMO quite realistic. It has a ton of great MODS for it as well, I have been playing it (dont tell anyone! LOL!) for a few years now, The only thing is its not as fast paced as some would like. Quote
APHill Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 By the way It also has a U-boat add on for it. Quote
BadAim Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Hey guy's I missed this thread. DT; so far as I know, only a couple of subs were sunk by other subs during WWII. I believe it's U868 that is lying at the bottom of the Atlantic just off the coast of Norway, that was sunk by a British sub commanded by a wunderkind math whiz after a several hour long cat and mouse game. I believe also that an Italian sub was sunk by another British sub in the Med, but I'm not 100% sure. Michael Whitman was killed by a single British firefly from a position at the edge of a wood. Whitmann was out in the middle of a field with three other tanks; and all were lost. I can't get to my library right now, so I can't give you the specifics, but I have always suspected that the Brits had the sun at their backs making them nearly invisible. I also suspect that the fact that Balthazar Woll (Whitmann's gunner) was home on leave contributed greatly. Several bodies were exhumed from their graves years later and while I don't think Whitmann was positively identified, his driver (Gunter Reims) was. ( At least that is the most believable account I've seen) Quote
Zooly Posted March 29, 2009 Posted March 29, 2009 I have a book about the U-boat war up till '43 and there arent many references on sub v sub combat but it does mention the real life '571' Quote
.png.3326d5bbcb89fe2bcd3937259933ad13.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.