Battle of the Atlantic: Ships Against Submarines!

You can finish each task in single battle.

Again though we asked to buff points for playing the objective. Even if people are terrible naval players they should still be rewarded for doing things the smart way. You can get 2000+ points in one battle on the US side but for me the maximum I have seen for the U-boats is ~1800. While it is possible to get the achievement in only 2 battles it’s only feasible if you attack the player destroyer escorts instead of going for the cargo ships.
It’s ending on Sunday anyway so it doesn’t matter but if Gaijin adds this back in again as an event I hope they listen to us. Otherwise they’ll be showing the community that they ignore the valid and genuine criticism to the game and gamemodes.

1 Like

I got 2478 points as a uboat yesterday :) admittedly teams make the difference and going after enemy players will add up faster then the objective


From submerged 3PV submarines ought to get directional audio information (way more than whatever can be heard currently). This would allow the player to be their own hydrophone operator; it’s not like there’s anything else to do down there.

Sound can travel a long way, so it would be a highly useful and 100% realistic tool for the player. It was the hydrophone operator on Prinz Eugen who first detected the approach of Hood & Prince of Wales, so for warships at high speed we’re looking at something >15 km (range of final salvo v Hood).

As IRL, when listening towards the stern the sound of your own propellor would drown out all else.

Surface ships could of course have the same, but they already hear all the above-surface sounds, so it might seem odd and the other sounds would make it harder for the player to interpret the sub-surface audio, so passive sonar is probably best left to the crew, as in the current event.

So after a lot more battles I have some more feedback and ideas about the gameplay, balance ect. Firstly I fully understand that this is a very basic testing event and basically all mechanics are WIP, but I still think that we can already see the key areas which need real work and more polish.


The modeling of the sonar is obviously very basic but I honestly really like the idea of implementing it into minimap and 3D view instead of special elements like radar. I feel that if the sonar were to have its own UI element the HUD would get very very fractured and poorly legible especially when we should have radar on most ships.

But nevertheless I would say that we should get more detailed sonar models and better UI representation. Currently there are some confusing aspects to its model in the event.

  1. Passive sonar - In my opinion the passive sonar shouldn´t provide the range to the target, especially not a precise one. I would say that passive sonar contacts would be better represented by line which would very roughly show the range.

  2. Active sonar - The representation is incomplete, there should be 2 aspects of the sonar

    • I would say that the 3D view well represents the close range sonar with depth calculating capacity although it lacks blind spots and the real ranges

    • But the second aspect - long range scan practically doesn’t exist even though I think repurposing the passive sonar markers would make for good representation.

  3. Another thing is that submarines lack any form of sonar, which is IMO big mistake

I made some pictures to illustrate the sonar ideas.


It is very similar to radar but the info is shown on the minimap which I feel is a very helpful thing since it should provide better information. The passive sonar is represented by the red lines and the “searchlight” sonar is represented by the red dots showing the bearing and the range. Other parts of the sonar are displayed too.

Another idea is that the sonar could maybe provide some info about the ship on the sonar like the radar provides the suspected type of the contact (surface warship/sub/cargo ship ect.)

Destroyer UI

I see two main issues, aiming of the DC. The guessing of where the DC hit is very very detrimental to the ability of DDs to hunt subs, and it will be even harder for the longer ranger ASW armament. Not to mention things like Hedgehog mortars which should require direct hit would be basically unusable.

The second is the whole selection system which I think will be very confusing and unwieldy especially for ships with more ASW armament.

I believe that both of these could be easily solved by adapting the torpedo aiming system and selection system for the ASW armament. Where one button would allow to highlight the aiming indicators and even cycle between them and the second one would launch the DC, Mortars ect. just like with torpedoes.

The aiming reticle illustration

The selection system - bar

This new selection system also doesn ́t take up more space in the bar then the current system which uses different buttons for mortars and DCR. But I would say that it would also allow for greater control.

Submarine UI

It is understandable that this aspect needs most polish and work, but I think that the movement system is good as it is. The depth control is easy to understand and works well (even if the max speed curve needs more polish).

My main issue is once again with the armament selection and armament options. I have several suggestions and thought about this:

  1. Gyro torpedoes The ability of subs to attack anything other then slow convoy is severely limited by the need to steer the whole sub to target the ships. So as others also mentioned I would like to see the ability to have gyro steered torpedoes.

    I think the best way how to implement this mechanic would be to use the current torpedo FCS which we have in the bino/periscope view. But I think that having the player set the bearing manually would be too complicated but I would like to still have control if I use the gyro turning ability.

    So I propose to add special button for firing gyro steering torpedoes. - This would use standard torpedoes but would fire them so they steer to the calculated bearing by the FCS.

  2. Armament selection For current testing we only have an option of launching torpedoes from bow and launching mines from stern. For testing purposes this is fine but I think that many of us would want more options in actual gameplay, ability to select different torpedo types, possible mines ect.

    So I think that some kind of weapon selection system would be most welcome. And I think we can again look at how other ship types do that.

    Other ship types have weapon groups primary, secondary and tertiary. So I think that adapting this system to submarines would be a big improvement to their gameplay. The groups could be as follows:
    Primary - bow torpedo tubes
    Secondary - stern torpedo tubes
    Tertiary - the deck armament/other armament

    Similarly as on surface vessels the player would also have the ability to select up to three different torpedoes/mines to launch from these tubes and in case of more modern submarines other kinds of equipment.

  3. Emergency surfacing - I would like to see expanded functionality for this button where it would act as an emergency dive when in periscope depth/surface.

The illustration of the submarine UI

In the bar you can see from left to right:

  1. Weapon group selection indicator for bow/stern torpedo tubes

  2. Acoustic torpedo - this could be further modification or something

  3. Fast short range torpedo

  4. Slow long range torpedo/Mine

  5. Button for gyro steered launch of torpedoes

  6. Periscope control

  7. Emergency dive/surfacing button

  8. Damage control buttons ect.

I think that all of these suggestions would improve the core of the Submarine/ASW gamaplay and make it more enjoyable.

There are also other issues and concerns I have with regards to the PvP gameplay on the current PvP maps and objectives but these I more of a speculation then a feedback.


After getting a hang of the mode, it became a little easier as the submarines to be effective and do the objective (though effectiveness still varies depending on how many experienceed naval players are on eiter team.)

The Catalinas are still super overpowered in the mode, as one 500lb bomb is a oneshot to a submarines that is between 0-20m, while the AA on the submarine is insufficient to deal with this kind of threat, so once the US team gets a lead, their odds of winning drastically increase.
Maybe giving the German side a fighter as a spawn option would remove the pressure of the submarines getting camped by PBYs in the later stages of the mission.

The depth mechanic also needs some work, as it is still very unclear just how long you can actually stay below 60m, since i had games where i was fine for 5+ minutes, and another game where my hull imploded after less than 60 seconds at the “dangerous depth” (with no previous damage).
If you could make it clear how long the sub could stay submerged, or make the damage more deterministic instead of random, it would help the subs to feel more confident in their primary element, which is being at depth.

The thing is, scoring in Naval is a global issue after the devs changed how scoring works in late 2021. If you don’t remember, they decreased score for kills and assists, but increased score for damage.

I have to admit, this idea makes perfect sense for objects that give you damage points. The problem is, there are objects in the game that don’t have the damage points attached to them, so all you get is a kill/assist score from them. And since that score is nowadays lowered, you get pretty much nothing for destroying such objects.

For example, Cargo Ships don’t give you any damage points (and this is the real problem!), so killing a Cargo Ship in Naval Arcade gives you 10 score:


Naval Bases also don’t give you any damage points, so destroying Naval Base gives you 2 score:


Naval Bases are currently disabled, because players didn’t like them. But guess why they didn’t like them? Look how long it takes to take them down, just to get 2 score. Simply because the devs never thought about attaching damage points to naval bases.

There’s also a problem with the score for killing planes in Naval. Because destroying planes again don’t give you damage points, you can only get a lowered score for a kill, when you destroy a plane with a vessel:


The problem with planes is even bigger, because planes are played by real players, and they are very dangerous. But killing them is just not worth it with this 2021 scoring system.

So the scoring on objects that don’t have damage points attached to them is a global issue in Naval game mode after the 2021 changes. I wrote about this problem a few times on the old forum, just no one cared about it. Right now everyone see this problem because of the event. But it doesn’t mean global scoring can’t be improved. To be honest, that should be done a long time ago, if only anyone cared about this issue.


My two cents on this event.

It’s really fun but unbalanced in favour of the US.
1 There are too many detroyers to defend the convoy. Should be korvets or fregates to make it a bit more realistic.
2 Sonar reach is too big. It’s impossible to sneak up on the convoy without being detected.
3 PBY is way to OP. It’s very difficult to shoot them down and too easy for them to get new bombs. Had a match where I could make 4 runs without being shot down and drowning several u-boats.
4 Once you get the hang of it it’s easier to kill an u-noat in a destroyer than the other way around.
5 He111 is almost useless. Only managed to torp a few convoy ships and 1 destroyer. Was shot down every time I used it. Managed to make 1 return to reload.
6 Targeting system on the u-boats are fine and working as intended. Managed to make several kills on a convoy ship from 2/3 km.
7 View from the u-boat under water is quite cinematic. First time gave me a “Das Boot” feel. :)

All in all it was a fun event with lot’s of possibilities for the future. U-boats can be a great asset to the game if balanced properly.

1 Like

does anyone know where to get the soundtrack for this event cuz its fire


I really enjoyed this event, having some knowledge of WW2 submarine tactics from my readings. I discovered one little exploit - set depth at 4 metres, actual depth 5 metres and you can still run at surface speed without leaving a wake and with only the tops of some AA guns and an antenna visible at some times. This helped me a lot once I learned how best to use it.

I thought the depth restriction on the U-boat was ridiculous, as was the missing 88mm deck gun. The rewards were disappointing, the only thing I did with the carley float was put one on the rear deck of the HMNZS Leander as a tribute to HMAS Sydney II, a Leander class cruiser sunk by the German raider Kormoran off the Western Australian coast with the only piece of the Sydney found being a carley float. I do like the avatar though.

I thought the points given for sinking merchant vessels were awful though I have read that this was due to being unable to change them just for this event. It really just meant I had to play a few more games as the Germans than I did as the Americans. I’m really mission oriented so I strove to get away from the escorts and sink the merchantmen. I did enjoy one time I set a very dense minefield and watched as an escort charged toward them, turning to try to avoid them and then set every single one off, man, that was glorious!

I think submarines can have a place in the general game.


I used to be against subs in game, as I felt they wouldn’t fit, but after this event, I do think they would fit, and be very fun, so please, give us a few subs at least, and I especially cannot wait for the modern missile armed subs


Didn’t really enjoy playing the US side of the event, but the submarine gameplay is great. It would definitely be nice to see submarines get added to naval and anti submarine aircraft as a follow up

1 Like

Decent event. Hard no on adding subs to naval. I say this after hundreds of hours in coastal and bluewater ships; they’re not going to be easy to balance and won’t be fun for anyone to fight in or against.


For a follow up event we should get to control an I-16 class to test parasite craft on submarines.

1 Like

My review and general thoughts abt this event:

The Submarine-
It looks great ! The Xray view of the internals was especially well done, w/ it 's various modules and indications of where the different compartments are. Crew members manning the guns and conning tower when surfaced was the only thing really obviously missing.

The periscope was very interesting mechanically, it 's torpedo lead calculator especially. A similar mechanic for surface ships would be very welcome.
The field of view was often too limited to use the in-environment lead indication for targets traveling abeam while keeping them centered in the crosshair, it might be useful to have an indicator on the toolbar for when the torpedo tube is in line w/ it, similar to the grey/green circle used for gun turret readiness.
It felt too easy to lock onto periscopes even when a submarine was traveling slow or stopped while having it above water, but the combat ranges in the event were very short so I cannot fully say that they were inappropriately noticeable. At ranges further than those here, though, the periscope should not be so easy to attack.

The mobility of the submarine seems to have been greatly boosted due to the Arcade mode the event ran in. Whether despite or because of this, the inertia of the submarine ( especially when coming to a stop or accelerating while fully surfaced ) seemed to have a great deal of resistance to overcome, which felt unwieldy compared to the behavior of surface ships.
The automated control of depth was useful for holding position at specific depth while otherwise occupied, though it usually caused the submarine to run one (1) metre deeper than set. The lack of a manual pitch control was the reason I missed a few close-range torpedoing opportunities, but that 's very situational.

The gunplay was unfortunately very poor, there was no option to re-range via mousewheel which made keeping targets in view while leading them more difficult than surface ships. Locking targets from binocular view or 3PV while surfaced was awkward due to needing to wait for torpedo lead calculation to complete before the lock would not be lost while moving the crosshair off of the target to lead the guns.
Using the deck guns was very awkward against aircraft, since they still had the issue of waiting on " torpedo calculation " to properly lock/lead the target, and the guns also did not always align w/ the cursor at high( above ~40 degrees ) angles when no target was locked.
The differing traverse arcs and ballistic behavior of the 20mm and 37mm guns, and the small ammunition pool available to the latter, leads me to suggest that these should have been assigned to separate gunnery groups - secondary and primary respectively would have been better.

The ability of the submarine to dive to depth seemed to be greatly less than what was indicated on the statcard, and while there was some kind of progressive damaging while approaching it present, receiving that damage felt inconsistent, which made attempting to use deeper depths as an escape feel more troublesome than the risk was worth.

Third-person view while submerged was very well done, the effects of bubble trails left by propellers and torpedoes looked nice. The transitional effects on surface vessels above moving out of view was good too. Friendly submarine 's nametags probably could’ve been left visible while submerged, since they stay visible on the minimap. It becomes difficult to see the submarine when deeply submerged, an illuminated outline or aura similar to the one aircraft receive when flying through thick clouds would help w/ navigation.

The acoustic signature " detectable radius " being visible on the minimap was very functional, but seemed too simple. An acoustic output measured in decibels, in combination w/ appropriate/accurate sensitivity ranges by surface-ship hydrophones, might have had more room to develop gameplay and countertactics. The submarine lacking hydrophone/passive SONAR equipment of it 's own was disappointing, that would’ve added opportunities to play around roughly knowing surface ship locations and when the player sub was being detected by their active SONAR.

The mine armament was very helpful in warding off surprise attacks, though it 's effectiveness was hurt somewhat by it 's easy visibility owning to markers, and lengthy deployment time from depth. Hopefully we’ll see some differences between moored-contact and bottom-influences types modeled someday.
An option to replace the mines in the rear torpedo tube w/ torpedoes, or select a specific ratio of mines to torpedoes as one does between shell types for guns, would be welcome too.

The Surface Ships-
Probably the easier side of the event to play, though perhaps owing to being more familiar w/ playing them.

Gunnery against submarines felt off at times. On one hand, the ability to continue damaging a submarine due to shrapnel being able to strike it 's external modules while it sat around periscope depth made it easier to force them to continuously repair( thus bleeding them of crew ) than perhaps really justified. The ability to keep the sub fully locked at that depth did not help the submarine in that regard.
On the other hand, it did feel sometimes that the damage effect to the submarine was not especially reactive, specially in regards to hits causing major perforation to the submarine 's hull or ballast tanks.

The SONAR and hydrophone detection was really effective ! Maybe too much so.
Overlaying the passive sound detection onto the minimap made too easy to locate submarines exact location, since it provided that w/ exact references to surfaced objects w/ which to navigate by. And the submarine marker icon becoming visible in the center of the " field " of sound it generated ( since the map information was overlaid ) when the sub was at shallow depths did not allow the uncertainty abt exact location that larger detection " patch " to come to be. Would recommend instead to have a separated scope for sound-detection, like the radar uses.
The active SONAR information being overlaid into the game-environment was very interesting, but it would have been difficult to read if the submarines could have dived much deeper. Another scope like the one the passive SONAR should be using could be useful as an option for this too. It also seemed like it was possible to use sound-based detection devices at too high of a speed range compared to real life, but that might’ve been a result of the event being in Arcade mode.

I noticed the depth charges did not have any timer settings available in the spawn menu, not sure if they’re being permanently set to a time or if they’re automatically updating based on some kind of range projection. The regular depth charge rails were very effective, mortars and the Hedgehog on USS Tacoma less so. Lacking an aiming reticule for them made it difficult to apply them to specific locations compared to the stern-mounted rails. Having an aiming interface, especially one which allows the player to set the depth/time to detonation while in the match, would provide more opportunities to employ them.
The rear rails on USS Tacoma and the projectors on USS Fletcher started to launch all of their depth charges at key press partway through the event, while the effect was somewhat minimized by those being able to reload since Arcade rules were in effect, it was unwelcome and this player would prefer to be launching them one at a time at key press, for most effective employment.
The launch and detonation of depth charges seemed to have little to no effect on the SONAR detection of targets, which is questionable from a historic viewpoint.

Damage from performing a ram attack was disappointingly low for the effort and luck needed to achieve one.

The Aircraft-

PBY-5 really shined in this event. It probably did not need to have submarine markers visible on the minimap to perform in it 's role though, especially not for submerged ones. The depth at which a player could see a submarine beneath the surface was maybe too much also.
The torpedoes were not very useful in this situation, but bombs could be made to work very effectively through use of the fuze timer. I would’ve liked to know how it 's mines could have performed here.

The He 111 was not very useful, it spawned almost already inside the range of enemy antiaircraft targeting and not high enough to toss bombs. If ignored there was the possibility of assisting to make a turnaround ticket play using it, but this was not consistent.

The Mission-

Dynamic spawn locations w/ a moving objective area ? Fantastic !

The submarine spawning at a depth too great to employ it 's guns, but also too shallow to avoid gunfire was awkward - would be better to spawn fully surfaced.

Airborne reloading locations for bombers instead of self-reloads or an airfield zone felt like a balance between keeping them in the fight enough to justify their spawncost, and not having them constantly overhead making attacks - something like this might be useful in regular battles. The large-enough bombloads of the aircraft provided meant that it was used little here though.

The composition of the convoy being entirely large cargo ships was very limiting on the submarines - these required the torpedoes or mines to destroy, but those were also necessary for self-defence against the other team 's players. Some smaller ship targets which could have been destroyed through use of the deck guns could have been interspersed w/ the larger ones, an example the Isles-class, or the small freighter Norbis used in Air EC.

The overall asymmetric format of the event was interesting, but it also felt like it made matches where challenging the other team became impossible long before they officially won due to this. The setup where only one team needed to complete an objective other than fighting the players of the other team contributed to that.
The attack/defend convoy mission would probably become much more fair as one objective of many in a larger scale mission, or as part of a multi-stage match like those found in WWM or the Advance event.

Very enjoyable, showcasing new mechanics and new kinds of gameplay ! I hope we can see these new kinds of vessel and their counterplay in regular matches very soon !


i really like the “mouse vs cat” game between Uboot and surface ships and how it is very dangerous to be in surface for a submarine when there are planes in the sky!!!i really find this event very well made!!!hope WWII submarines will be add soon!!!thanks again for this event!!!:)-just maybe a FW200 instead of an He111-

1 Like

Some final thoughts.

As noted by many, the He 111 was borderline pointless - I never used a single spawn, unlike the Catalina, which I used if my DD got sunk. I get that the arctic convoys were attacked by German torpedo bombers, so the inclusion of the 111 was a fair call. In retrospect - and given the power of the PBY in this event - maybe the battles over the Bay of Biscay could have provided better inspiration: the Germans employed Ju 88C heavy fighters to counter allied Liberators, Sunderlands, Wellingtons which were hunting U-boats in transit to/from the mid-Atlantic. (Eventually the RAF deployed Beaufighters and Mosquitoes to counter the Ju 88s taking a toll on the ASW aircraft. See Bloody Biscay by Chris Goss). Given the effectiveness of the PBY in this event a Ju 88C heavy-fighter counter might have been more useful than the He 111.

Damage models.

Within 500m or so I found DDs almost invariable sustained ‘unrepairable damage’ from surfaced U-boat 37mm guns - at least I hope it wasn’t the 20mm guns… C’mon, 6”, 8” cruisers hardly ever do that! In return, 5” salvoes hitting surfaced U-boats rarely caused the ‘unrepairable damage’ that really should be standard in those cases.

Once submerged that ‘tankiness’ disappeared. Maybe that’s why so many event U-boats did what no RL U-boat would choose to do, by surfacing and going head-to-head with a DD? It’s hard to tell from 3PV, but I reckon lethal DCs can be at least a submarine length away (67m for a Type VIIC); I’ve been killed by a bomb the moment it hit the water and I was at 30-something metres, heading deeper.

Paper from 1935, Lt Cdr Doughty USN, re WW1 experience.
Admiral Jellicoe concluded post-war that a DC needed to explode within 14’ (4.5m) to instantly kill a sub; within 28’ (9m) to disable; and within 60’ (19m) to ‘demoralise the crew.’ At least 1000 DCs were dropped for every U-boat kill.

NavWeaps also has a lot of details, eg, the magnetic pistol on the US Mk 8 DC was set to detonate between 20’ and 25’ from a U-boat (6 or 7 metres). That contained a 270 lb charge.

Wikipedia’s Depth Charge page is pretty much in line with these figures. The UK Mk VII (290 lb amatol) was estimated to be lethal at 20’ (6m) and would force a U-boat to the surface at twice that; in 1942 when the amatol was replaced by torpex the distances increased to 8m and 16m. The USN Mk 4 & 7 needed to be within 15’ (4.6m) to rupture the pressure hull (kill). “Most U-boats sunk by depth charges were destroyed by damage accumulated from an extended barrage rather than by a single charge, and many survived hundreds of depth charges over a period of many hours, such as U-427, which survived 678 depth charges in April 1945.”

If we’re generous with the distances quoted above we could say DCs could insta-kill within 10 metres (pretty much the height of the Type VII). However, I feel they’re way more deadly than that. Aside from sinkings at PD or slightly deeper, where I’m sure DCs exploded within 10m, I don’t think I was ever sunk by a DC that was as close as the height of the sub. Insta-death was standard, with less serious damage being rare and often almost pointless as it could be fixed in a couple seconds. Death was almost always instant and not the result of accumulated damage.

DDs didn’t need the enhanced DC lethality given how much hand-holding they got in every other way. The skill for the DDs was knowing torpedoes come out the front of the subs and mines come out the back. Locating and tracking subs just happens for you. Just be careful about how you approach the subs and you can’t go far wrong, as most DC attacks will result in a kill.

Edit: and finally… BR3.7 for the typical WW2 sub? So facing ASW vessels like HMS Blackpool with Bidder passive homing torps and Limbo mortars capable of firing DC patterns from 400 to 1000 yds all around the ship, or Soviet sub-chasers with active/passive SET-40 torps. Might need a rethink on BR.

Battle of Atlantic summary:


  • quite well ballanced game (depend from experience of players)
  • extremelly good game immersion (one of th best WT event ever played)
  • playing uboat a little harder than expected (in comparision to escort ship)
  • perfect soundtrack
  • real-look gameplay (no battery / air limits) like at “another games”


  • visible spawn points for opponent’s team (sub quite often put mines on escort spawn)
  • same weather conditions (missing bigger waves / no waves + dusk / sunny / night)
  • no night battles at all (why? with flares may be a good challenge)
  • no other nation scenarios (US sub vs JAP escort at Pacific / ITA sub vs GB escort at Mediterranean)
  • more merchants at convoy nice welcomed (still need 10 ships to destroy)

Scenario bugs:

  • fire underwater
  • explosion underwater
  • torpedo active (may explode) just after fire


  • no ram possible?

One of the best event I have ever played.



the event was set in arcade settings:

  • type VII doesn’t go that fast irl
  • sonar on minimap and submarine highlighted in blue when close
  • PBY was also way too maneuverable

i’d bet the sonar on highlighting wouldn’t come in rb, and the subs would also be a bit slower