Ideas for Submarine Chariots for Harbour attack?

[Dili]

Now with WITM it is more than necessary to find a solution for anti-shipping Harbour attacks since 10th Flotilla MAS was the elite force in world for that kind of operation leaving for a period UK without 2 battleships.

The only thing that i am aware can hit ships inside Harbour it is a ship bombardment or aerial attack.

Since Italian submarines would have 3-4 Chariots(Maiale) for the operation.
I think the least worse way to model this is to use a floatplane based in submarines:

Since it is modeling an elusive force i think one idea is to simulate the Harbour/ship AA as guards. But i will try to discount the airfield CAP
so the airplane would have an amazing maneuverability to escape CAP; one theoretical weapon enough to pierce a battleship and make moderate to heavy damage with one hit. Elite pilot per floatplane. No defensive weapons

What would limit it's success:

No defensive weapons.
The submarine would have only one mission per airplane
The would not exist more than a realistic number of this Chariot "floatplanes"

Wanted success rate of about 50-60% in harbour attacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The most dificult thing is to simulate the disguised "Civilian" ship Olterra that was in interned in Spain and it's interior was full of chariots and attacked Gibraltar for a long period. For that floatplane "chariots" would have to have a very big range which would not be realistic so another solution must be searched. Maybe making a fictional mother submarine called Olterra or something like that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The MTMs can be modelled as torpedo boats -it existed in reality as MTSM- with only one torpedo and very high maneuverality

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chariot only Compiled Data

18 successful attacks (most ships were sunk)
11 chariots sunk in harbour operations(3 of the sunk were also successful attack)
7 chariots sunk when their mother submarines were sunk without reaching target

Total operational use of maximum 33 chariots. But maybe some of successful were returned to action so around 27-28 would be a good number.

Mother Submarines

Iride - 4 chariots
Gondar(Adua Class) - 3 Chariots
Scire - 3 Chariots
Ambra - 3 Chariots

----------------------------------------------------------------------
MTM/MTSM compiled data


MTM 4 successful 18 failed (16 of the failed were against hvy defended MALTA Harbour)
MTSM 1 sucessfull attack

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS


Seeking opinions specially from Fremen.

[DuckofTindalos]

You'd have to make it fast as well; that counts a lot in A2A. It'd still be very vulnerable to air intercept, no matter how much you max it out...

[Dili]

Thanks.  My assumption is that hyper maneuverality will affect more A2A than Air defense but i am not sure. Probably speed should be tweaked.

[qgaliana]

If your float plane/Maiale is making night time strafing attacks you should get minimal CAP with high accuracy no? AA will do damage but that would still be realistic.
 
I thought operatives and minisubs had to be picked up by a sub from the Olterra and then delivered to Gibraltar? Since your MAS crew won't suffer from extended cruises you could omit it without affecting gameplay I think.

[Dili]

True. But i  think low level straffing doesnt release a big bomb/aerial torpedo (any other way to achieve that kind of damage?), but i am not sure.

No the Olterra was near Gibraltar, no need for a mother sub. Maybe only when there was heavy seas.

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/InfGral/Olterra.htm

Less complete but in English:

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Decima.html

[kokubokan25]

It's a good idea Dili, the problem of course is how to "traslate" to WITP Engine.
Like a DEVICE, like a new type of sub.
In my opinion only the later is possible. A new type of sub with a new DEVICE, may be a torpedo with huge explosive change, representing the Maiale/MAS device.
Of course that sub would be a very short range but like in the WITP engine a ship can travel the entire map without fuel.....hex by hex.

[Dili]

Cant we make a submarine with  floatplanes like the japanese?

[el cid again]

The real solution lies in code. Code is RIGHT it is possible to defend a harbor - just wrong in making defense perfect.
If we turn any weapon loose without considering the defenses - that is ahistorical. I have some problem that my Midgets cannot attack at harbor, but only three of them ever scored in a harbor (one at PH, one at Trincomalee, one at Sydney - and the PH one was not admitted for half a century). That it is almost impossible is close to it being impossible. Code could address this - we cannot. Anything we do will ignore the defenses. A 60% success rate in harbor is nonsense.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: fremen

It's a good idea Dili, the problem of course is how to "traslate" to WITP Engine.
Like a DEVICE, like a new type of sub.
In my opinion only the later is possible. A new type of sub with a new DEVICE, may be a torpedo with huge explosive change, representing the Maiale/MAS device.
Of course that sub would be a very short range but like in the WITP engine a ship can travel the entire map without fuel.....hex by hex.

A sub won't do it. Subs do not attack inside ports level 3 or above.

I use TORPEDOES as my device to simulate kaiten and midget subs - and they work fine - but only in the open sea. This is their primary application - so I consider it a device success. In harbor there are lots of things that can go wrong. And of course not all harbors are created equal. Real attackers didn't attempt unsuitable harbors - nor harbors with prohibitive defenses. So the statistics mislead what it would be like to create a general weapon useful everywhere, and the enemy could not do anything to defend either.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Cant we make a submarine with  floatplanes like the japanese?

You can put ANY plane on ANY kind of ship. However - the answer here may be to use a smart weapon.
Put a MISSILE on a submarine. That should do it.

[Dili]

"The real solution lies in code" Of course but in meantime...
 

You can put ANY plane on ANY kind of ship. However - the answer here may be to use a smart weapon.
Put a MISSILE on a submarine. That should do it

 
A missile can be downed?
 
 

A 60% success rate in harbor is nonsense

 
X-Mas data: 18 Chariots that succeded(18 targets sunk or heavy damaged) and i am not including at least 2 frogmen attack without Chariots but from submarines  ; 11  chariots that were captured or destroyed in Harbour (3 of them succeded first) and a couple that returned to base without accomplishing the mission.
And note that many of this attacks werent against weak defended harbours but against Alexandria and Gibraltar.
 
Unless you have better information.

[el cid again]

The first problem is you are trying to build a general case from too small a data set. It can in no case be valid (statistically speaking) with fewer than 30 instances (the "statistical minimum number" for reliability). That does not mean it isn't an indicator - but it isn't valid. Good design requires one be conservative and pessimistic about functions.

The second problem is that you are using a set of data where the planning staffs did the hard part for you - probably. Their success rate implies competence - not accident. That implies they knew where their tactical methods had a good chance of success. That implies they would not have attempted such attacks where they were not so likely to work. As long as you are building a function that will apply to ALL bases - and not permitting any defense under player control to matter - you need to factor in something for the unknown portion where even the staffs IRL would not have tried. This is derivitive logic, and it is probably impossible to know what the fraction is, but it is grounds to be conservative in your function.

The third problem is that the attacks were probably too focused vs certain national enemies. You are trying to build a general function which would apply to ALL possible enemies - and that might not be the same. Another reason to be conservative. Would a US defended harbor be as vulnerable? Maybe. Maybe not.

I would be a lot more comfortable with a code solution - insofar as GG throws in lots of factors when he builds a function. A simplistic approach may work - and I do it all the time. But to be reasonable one needs to be conservative - particularly when the starting data sample is too small - as in this case. A conservative rendering - in the absense of specific indicators of how much it is off - would reduce the raw data value by a close order of magnitude (that is, divide by two). It is very likely such a value would be much closer to real data than using strait up raw data is. After many years needing to guess, then measuring, various functions, it is possible to say the odds are an order of magnitude (that is 10:1) in favor of such a statement being true in any given case.

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: Dili

True. But i  think low level straffing doesnt release a big bomb/aerial torpedo (any other way to achieve that kind of damage?), but i am not sure.

I was thinking more like a big cannon and no bombs if you go this route. You'd have to tweak ROF maybe to avoid multiple hits? It'll look silly in the database, but just keep telling yourself - it's only a model. [:D] As long as it gives the results you are looking for...

[kokubokan25]

Another idea.
What about a special mine? A mine with a huge explosive charge delivered into port by a submarine.
It's true that the mine only explode when a ship crossing the path but anyway those attack will be in the port hex.
A special mine/device with a limited production and carried only by some modified subs.

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The first problem is you are trying to build a general case from too small a data set. It can in no case be valid (statistically speaking) with fewer than 30 instances (the "statistical minimum number" for reliability). That does not mean it isn't an indicator - but it isn't valid. Good design requires one be conservative and pessimistic about functions.

The second problem is that you are using a set of data where the planning staffs did the hard part for you - probably. Their success rate implies competence - not accident. That implies they knew where their tactical methods had a good chance of success. That implies they would not have attempted such attacks where they were not so likely to work. As long as you are building a function that will apply to ALL bases - and not permitting any defense under player control to matter - you need to factor in something for the unknown portion where even the staffs IRL would not have tried. This is derivitive logic, and it is probably impossible to know what the fraction is, but it is grounds to be conservative in your function.

The third problem is that the attacks were probably too focused vs certain national enemies. You are trying to build a general function which would apply to ALL possible enemies - and that might not be the same. Another reason to be conservative. Would a US defended harbor be as vulnerable? Maybe. Maybe not.

I would be a lot more comfortable with a code solution - insofar as GG throws in lots of factors when he builds a function. A simplistic approach may work - and I do it all the time. But to be reasonable one needs to be conservative - particularly when the starting data sample is too small - as in this case. A conservative rendering - in the absense of specific indicators of how much it is off - would reduce the raw data value by a close order of magnitude (that is, divide by two). It is very likely such a value would be much closer to real data than using strait up raw data is. After many years needing to guess, then measuring, various functions, it is possible to say the odds are an order of magnitude (that is 10:1) in favor of such a statement being true in any given case.

This is your long way of arguing for a 30% or less success rate? Reasonable, and you probably need to go lower for play balance anyways as the game engine will likely let you run these operations much more often than in real life (as with almost everything else).

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: fremen

Another idea.
What about a special mine? A mine with a huge explosive charge delivered into port by a submarine.
It's true that the mine only explode when a ship crossing the path but anyway those attack will be in the port hex.

Hmmm. Can a submarine mine an enemy port, or is that limited to open water? If mining the port is allowed, that looks like a possibility. However, how long would the "minefield" stay active?

[qgaliana]

Still haven't heard what's wrong with Dili's first idea of a float plane. If you house rule them for port attacks only?

[kokubokan25]

A sub can mine a port. This is a WITP feature.
Of course, the mine would stay only a few days with only three Maiale (mine) carried in a Scire mod sub. With only three mines the possibity of succes in such attack .....
I will test this idea however.

[Mifune]

"A sub won't do it. Subs do not attack inside ports level 3 or above." What Cid is alluding to is that ports 3+ have submarine nets. Hence subs would not work they way you want them to in this case.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

ORIGINAL: Dili

True. But i  think low level straffing doesnt release a big bomb/aerial torpedo (any other way to achieve that kind of damage?), but i am not sure.

I was thinking more like a big cannon and no bombs if you go this route. You'd have to tweak ROF maybe to avoid multiple hits? It'll look silly in the database, but just keep telling yourself - it's only a model. [:D] As long as it gives the results you are looking for...

There is a big gun with a low ROF in the RHS device list you can mess with. Device 175 the M6 75mm cannon. It was successfully used in Viet Nam, but it was originally designed for B-25s or B-26s and served in one model in WWII.