S-class pigboats

[m10bob]

When the American S class submarines in theatre went to war they were still carrying the older torpedoes, not the defective ones, so if they hit something, the hits were good.
The old S boats carried Mark X torps with contact detonators.

Source, GUADALCANAL..Richard B Frank


http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships ... /index.htm

"Until then, however, some successes had already manifested. While US submarines proved ineffective at defending the Philippines, in the Solomons, the old S-class submarines and their Mark X torpedoes, still relying on the low-tech but effective contact exploders, sank several enemy ships, including the Heavy Cruiser Kako. In the later years, the submarines managed to sink quite a few capital ships, including carriers Shokaku and Taiho, battleship Kongo, and auxilliary carrier Shinano, which remains the largest warship ever sunk by submarines. "

[mlees]

Just to nitpick, the capital ships listed as sunk in later years were not sunk by S-boats, or by the Mk10 torpedo.

The S-boats were relegated to training duties and rear area duties by late '43, IIRC.

[witpqs]

The quotation does not say that S boats sank those ships.

[DuckofTindalos]

No, but the implication of the quote says that...

[mlees]

In the later years, the submarines

 
Which subs are represented by the word "the"? It might seem to continue to be on the topic of S-boats to some readers. [:)]
 
Replace the word "the" with "U.S.", for example, and I would have had nothing to nitpick.

[el cid again]

I confirm the statement the Mark 10 was used by S boats and was more reliable. It is in many histories, and is taught at the USN ASW school in San Diego.

It is perfectly modeled in all forms of WITP - stock and everything based on it use the Mark 10 on the "Old S Class" and newer US submarines use the Mark 14. If I recall, hard code gives the Mark 14 problems, and that changes by date, twice. I believe it is discussed in the WITP Manual.

Note also that there are other S class submarines in RHS - not American but Russian - and this discussion is not related to them.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just to nitpick, the capital ships listed as sunk in later years were not sunk by S-boats, or by the Mk10 torpedo.

The S-boats were relegated to training duties and rear area duties by late '43, IIRC.

Quite a few were relegated to training before the war started.

[bradfordkay]

And in my game vs Chez, the S-38 sank the heavy cruiser Maya on Dec 11, '41 (she actually sank a few days later on the way to a port, but was torpedoed off Lingayan - so the historical similarity is still there).


Now, how many allied players relegate their S-boats to training duties by late '43?

[m10bob]

Any controversy with my post was due to my error in copy/pasting one sentence too many for the subject I was referring to.
Xin loi.

Actually, I might have expected complaints about the pic which is not an S class, but the one which came with that site offered.

Subject offered for edification of all.[:D]

[Skyros]

If anything they should probably all start with some damage since they were always breaking down. See PigBoat 39 for a good description of how cantankerous they were.

[akdreemer]

BTW, stock scenarios have the S boats equipped with the Mark 10. According to 'Hellions of the Deep', there was a shortage of Mark 14's early war, so all the older model 21" torpedoes were used along side, or in lieu of, the Mk 14. Thus the use of the Mark 10 should not be restricted to the 'S' boats.

[el cid again]

OK - so how do we simulate that? Put BOTH on the same boat?

[Dili]

will not update?

[el cid again]

IF that cryptic remark means " will not the Mark 10 update to the Mark 14"

IF we set the Mark 14 date right

Yes it would.

But it would be ahistoric - the hard code about Mark 14 would be defeated - and I fail to see the point? There were also not enough Mark 10 to use instead of Mark 14 across the board.

What IS feasible is to (say) put Mark 10 in stern tubes of boats before the Mark 14 date of total fixing. What is that date anyway? I forget. I am inclinded to do this IF it is popular - and in particular IF Dili reconsiders his "time to give up all hope for RHS statement" because of it. IF there is NO hope, why do any work - it is hopeless.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

IF that cryptic remark means " will not the Mark 10 update to the Mark 14"

IF we set the Mark 14 date right

Yes it would.

But it would be ahistoric - the hard code about Mark 14 would be defeated - and I fail to see the point? There were also not enough Mark 10 to use instead of Mark 14 across the board.

What IS feasible is to (say) put Mark 10 in stern tubes of boats before the Mark 14 date of total fixing. What is that date anyway? I forget. I am inclinded to do this IF it is popular - and in particular IF Dili reconsiders his "time to give up all hope for RHS statement" because of it. IF there is NO hope, why do any work - it is hopeless.

Aft tubes would be a good choice:

"Mk.14 torpedoes were, however, in such short supply in 1942 that some fleet boats loaded out with Mk.10 torpedoes or even Mk.15s in the after tubes".

Say by a 1943 refit for fleet boats all back to Mark 14. "S" boats straight Mark 10's.

[el cid again]

Yes - all new boats from 1943 - and all upgrades to older boats - get Mark 14s - but the Mark 14 works by a certain date.

BEFORE that, all S boats get Mark 10, all others get after Mark 10s, unless they don't have any after tubes.


EDIT: Executed for Level 7 scenarios. Will issue whenever x.783 is completed re aircraft. Looks like that means x.783 will be comprehensive.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - all new boats from 1943 - and all upgrades to older boats - get Mark 14s - but the Mark 14 works by a certain date.

BEFORE that, all S boats get Mark 10, all others get after Mark 10s, unless they don't have any after tubes.

EDIT: Executed for Level 7 scenarios. Will issue whenever x.783 is completed re aircraft. Looks like that means x.783 will be comprehensive.

More precisely page 104 in the Manual:

"Note on torpedo duds
In January 1943 all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes wee notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the Pacific War, this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years."