U-Boats Over Rated

[canuckgamer]

In our PBEM game 5 u-boats attacked Allied surface ships providing shore bombardment and sank 2 BB's and 2 Ca's and there wasn't even a hit registered on a u-boat. In one of the attacks the u-boats "ambushed" the surface ships but in the manual it indicates that the superior fleet is more likely to ambush. They attacked from 5 hexes away which is a head scratcher as that is the range of a CV. In WW2 didn't u-boats sail to a location and lay in wait for MM's and if they were lucky a destroyer that got close enough for a torpedo attack? So a 5 hex attack range makes no sense to me. I opened up the 1943 scenario and looked at a 42 attack sub u-boat and it's surface attack value was 7 the same as a 41 Allied CA, another head scratcher.
U-boats are the best bang for the buck considering they are less expensive to build, burn less oil, can stay at sea longer, cannot be attacked by naval units unless in a coastal hex and are deadlier when raiding convoy routes.
I think that u-boats and submarines should only be allowed to attack other ships by moving adjacent just like surface ships. Their surface attack value should also be looked at. How can the surface attack of a u-boat be equal to a CA?

[Nirosi]

Hi Canukgamer,

Those results seem incredible. If anything I remember discussions with PL1 and Vilain (for those who remember them) about how ineffective the subs where against surface warship as even when getting the ambush bonus they would usually lose a hit against none most of the time.

However there is a situation where surface ships can become very very fragile: repetitive shore bombardment. Every involvement reduce their readiness and they become useless very fast at any kind of combat. But this has nothing to do with subs been too strong, if anything an enemy surface fleet would have inflicted way more damage than what the subs did in the same situation. I remember a game when the UK fleet stayed at sea two whole turns for shore bombardment (10 or so attacks). Then the Italians came with roughly similar numbers in ship (it was a large fleet scenario) and sank over half the now very disorganized UK fleet while receiving very minor damage.

If doing shore one can stay there a few turns if there are no enemy that can intervene. If there are any enemy subs or ships close, one must rotate the shore bombarding ships every week or risk disaster.

PS : I assume here that when you says 2BBs and 2CAs sunk, you do not actually mean only 4 hits, but 4 "counters" lost (22 hits)?

[Nirosi]

Their surface attack value should also be looked at. How can the surface attack of a u-boat be equal to a CA?

I think it is fine and fair as it is. Lets not forget that a CA counter represents about 5 heavy cruiser and some small escort (let's say 4 extra DDs). While a sub counter represents about 12 active subs at sea.

Now lets say that you are an admiral and an enemy destroyer flotilla (a patrol group counter in game terms) is in the vicinity and you can send either a CA counter or a Sub counter. I would send the CA of course as I consider that they should inflict more damage with their big guns than the subs since only some subs might even find the DDs and they are hard to hit with torpedoes and they are many of them. So yes, as you say, here the CA should have a better surface (anti-surface really) rating than the subs.

But now imagine the same situation, but the enemy is a BB counter (so lets say representing the Bismark and the Tirpitz). I would send the sub instead of the CAs here. I only need one sub to be very (very!) lucky with a few torpedoes. Of course chances are very very small, but still much better than what the CA would have in my opinion. Of the 5 CAs, 2 or 3 might even get crippled even before getting into firring range. And then the remaining ones will have to fight almost one on one against much better armed and armored opponents. So in this case, contrary to the first, I would actually expect the subs to have a better anti-surface value.

So by taking many contexts together, yes on average and abstractly, I thing that having the same (anti-)surface value for CAs and subs is not that strange.

[canuckgamer]

My mistake, the Allies actually lost a BB and CA with no hits on the u-boats. I have attached screenshots. I got mixed up as there was a fleet retreat and it showed the losses again.
I was swapping the naval units that were shore bombarding so that their effectiveness levels were not low.
However I still think u-boats/subs should be looked at for WP2. Historically in WW2 they had to wait for enemy ships and MMs to come to them because of their lack of speed, even more so when they were submerged. They were also used as a picket line stationed in front of surface ships to not only ambush enemy surface ships but to warn of their presence. They were also good at sneaking in and sinking damaged surface ships. For example the Yorktown after Midway.

[Nirosi]

Sitll, a CA and a BB sunk the same turn by 3 u-boats. Still very effective. Not something one sees often. I wonder if this is not a statistical anomaly. Because I admit, it is quite a loss (in real life it represents 4-6 heavy cruisers and 2 battleships!)

[AlvaroSousa]

Just as a note there is the I-19 sub that sank the CV Wasp + a DD + damaged a BB so badly it had to go back to port with only 1 torpedo spread.

Also the one sub that went into scapa flow and sank a BB

Or the sub that sank the Shinano

10 CVs were sunk by sub during the war
3 BBs were sunk by sub
14 cruisers were sunk by sub

system isn't perfect and I think there is a mechanism that does reduce their attack. Getting an "Ambush" result means the luck was very much in favor of subs.

If you read about some of the surface naval battles that occured in WW2 they are mind blowing. A miscommunication here, a lucky shot there, some radar not working, positioning. Some battles look impossible to have happened but did.

[stjeand]

Well things to remember...

1. Efficiency...if it low they will be extremely weak. No idea how many "supports" they provided but 8% efficiency loss per support
2. Location...next to shore means they are in a high visibility area so easy targets.
3. Subs ambush...that is huge. That is a large bonus against battleships that have little defense against a sub and no real way to damage them.
4. The subs are likely technology 43 or 44 whereas the surface vessels are what 41 at best? Likely 40 or 39?

More than likely that is just a bad luck for you and good luck for the Germans.

I had one game where my CVs were caught in surface action 2 times in a row...and I lost 2 of them. Crazy bad luck and highly unlikely but that was devastating.

[Platoonist]

Some battles look impossible to have happened but did.

The ordeal of Taffy 3 comes to mind. An escort carrier screen of 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts engages 4 Japanese battleships, 8 cruisers, and 11 destroyers, led by the 18.1-inch gun armed battleship Yamato. Led by a befuddled admiral, the Japanese get confused, take the heavier losses and eventually cut and run.

But, if it happened in a game, you'd have no end of players complaining CVE groups are overrated.