American sub. failure update.........

[sdhundt]

For any of you who may have read my American torpedoe rant last weak well here is the update.......My head just exploded.....For the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth time in a row the American subs. torpedoes failed to detonate against a Nip. CV. Three times in one turn American subs. shot torpedoes at the KAGA but none detonated. This has become absolutely absurd.

[DuckofTindalos]

Sigh...[8|] The failure rate is not 100%, as you seem to think.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: sdhundt

For any of you who may have read my American torpedoe rant last weak well here is the update.......My head just exploded.....For the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth time in a row the American subs. torpedoes failed to detonate against a Nip. CV. Three times in one turn American subs. shot torpedoes at the KAGA but none detonated. This has become absolutely absurd.

You keep emphasizing attacks on CVs. How are your Mk14 results in total? From Sunk Ships?

[treespider]

What's absurd is his ability to get into launch position against CV's so many times.

[pmelheck1]

You can always turn off historical torpedoes.

[sdhundt]

Since I started the game using historical torpedoes I don't think you can change it after the first turn, though I could be wrong.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: sdhundt

Since I started the game using historical torpedoes I don't think you can change it after the first turn, though I could be wrong.

If it's an AI game you might be able to.

I am also amazed you are getting so many shots at CVs with torpedoes. How is that happening?

[roy2008]

hey Stephen your dutch sub has hit my soryu and an ami sub has hit an CVL, this is enough

[sdhundt]

Roy, I don't count the dutch subs.

[KenchiSulla]

sdhunt, shit happens....

[sdhundt]

I know........

[topeverest]

SDHUNDT:

I've been playing going on five years now. trust me when I tell you IMHO this is within the realm of normal results, but I am impressed you have actually got your subs into the same hex as the KB on several occasions so early in the game. That is noteworthy. Let me suggest you catalog your subs by torpedo types and check the editor. You will find that not all allied subs suffer 80% dud penalty in 42.

And it is my impression you are expecting your subs to be an effective fleet interdiction medium in 42. IME, this is not the case. When 43 and then 44 rolls around, you will be amazed how effective they can be. In 42, you have to be...patient...in most things allied - not just subs.

Good hunting.

[witpqs]

I'm still stunned at so many "Hit but no explosion" messages in a row because of the number of sub attacsk that such implies. Some sub attacks get "Fails to achieve firing position". Not all sub attacks that do fire torpedoes get torpedo hits. Only when you get an actual hit can the torpedo be a dud. So to have that many actual dud messages in a row means you have had what, at least 8 to 12 attacks against his carriers to result in 25 straight duds?

Dude, play the lottery!

[sdhundt]

I must admit not ALL were dud hits. I think one or two may have been misses

[witpqs]

I think for most of us, the majority of torpedoes that get launched against enemy carriers miss the target.

[sdhundt]

Well for my game the majority were duds not misses. I think the game is trying to give me a stroke.

[YankeeAirRat]

Wow I can't believe we are still flogging this dead horse on what now 8yrs, ever since WiTP showed up? [8|]

Sdhundt, take an honest and objective look at what everyone is trying to tell you. That your experiences are not the norm for both real life for engagements in the early part of the war and that the torpedos seem to be operating on the norm for the early part of the war. Finally, do your stats math again, because it doesn't seem like 100% failure based on number of torpedos per submarine and number of times they shoot, something just doesn't seem right with anything your telling us. I would almost suggest you post a verbatim combatreports.txt from a submarine engagement or even a saved file for folks to look at and see if they can find where the issue is.

You should take a look at RAdm S.E. Morrision's books on the US Navy's own history in the immediate post war, you will find that they talk about the horrible torpedos that the Navy had. Years ago I remember running across a USN/NARA produced book that talked about the whole history of the Submarine Offensive against the Axis Powers during WW2, it was a mult-volume set that talk about every last Submarine built and covered major points on each of its war patrols. If I remember they even had the numbers crunched on the real number of duds, miss, hit rates of the torpedos broken down by year, region, and even class. One of the biggest things the authors mention was how the dud rates of the torpedos were high, but due to BuOrd's claim that it was the commander's inability to use them right that was leading to dud. Another thing this book mentioned was how the early war Submarine commanders were afraid of being aggresive with thier submarines so that too lead to a number of missed firing chances and it was only by luck that those few which ran into the right places to engage convoys still expected the Japanese to steam like ducks in a row during a shooting gallery. If I remember from some of the studying that I have done, the closes that we had a USN submarine get to any of the IJN's fleet carriers was the USS Tambor (which had one Lt Ed A. Spruance, son of Raymond A Spruance, as a member of the crew). They had a fish eye view of the death of all four carriers from the dive bombers at Midway. However, they couldn't manuver successfully for a shot during the engagement since they were also heavily prosecuted at times by IJN's DD's. It wasn't until the Battle of the Phil Sea that a submarine had a chance against another IJN carrier and even then the USS Archerfish could be considered the last successful engagement of a submarine against a CV. Otherwise, the US Submarines just didn't seem to run across major IJN fleet units that often, rather they purposely went after the merchants and patroled the expected/suspected convoy routes.

[chazz]

I turn "Realistic US Torpedos OFF" for balancing. The Japanese subs in the game are Type VIIc U-Boats with Kretschmers and Priens in command. Very, very hard to kill. 90% of my ASW attacks fail. In about 30 attacks, I've only sunk one and damaged another.

Ahistorical.

IRL, Japanese subs (particularly the big 'uns) were slow divers and noisy.

[tigercub]

they are fine take it like man it gets better!

[pharmy]

I am JFB and in early 1942 if I want to have my subs killed I visit the Indian Ocean or Australia and meet up with a British DD, DE, or KV and I have about a 25% chance of dying or serious injury. By 1943 a meeting with any DD from an Allied navy is very dangerous. Once captain's skill level's increase and ASW hits 8 or above, killing subs will be a whole lot easier. Also successful convoy attacks are harder, most successes are against ships sailing singly.

That being said, I do sink many more merchants then the IJN did historically, but this is also due to a WITP player using them for merchant attacks while WW2 the Japanese used them strictly for fleet actions. Allied subs are even harder to kill, except in shallows. Later on when Japan gets super Es, then it becomes a-historically easy. The IJN super Es should be nerfed in late war.