Deploying Sub Mines once devices have updated

[kbfchicago]

Fellow forumites, need your help please. Not sure if this is game or user head space and timing related...

Current production patch level, PBEM, Scenario DaBabes, 22 Sep 1943. I am AFB.

I am unable to load out submarine mines. I get the error below (at proper port size, example is PH and sub is mine capable). However...when looking at Tracker (or in game device list) I have mines and "I think" should be using the upgraded mine types post 12/42. Even if for some reason I was not picking up the upgraded mine versions I still have a hand full of the old ones in stock and should pick those up...

As you can also see for my example posted below the sub is updated/upgraded to current levels (for this sub next update listed is 7/45). In fact all subs are up to date with just two exceptions across all sub types/nationalities.

What am I missing?

[kbfchicago]

sub is at 7/45 update level...

[kbfchicago]

Tracker shows mines available...

[Quixote]

Do you have your mines set to stockpile?

[EHansen]

There are only 4 MK 10 mines available. I am not sure if the sub will load a partial load.

[witpqs]

IIRC they do take partial loads. Not sure why that one didn't.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IIRC they do take partial loads. Not sure why that one didn't.

They will take partials; I did one today. But I think (don't KNOW) there is a percent check on a partial. It might be 50% of tubes, or it might be 50% of forward tunes only. Or it might not be 50%. That boat, and most USN fleet boats, has six forward tubes.

I suspect if there were six mines in the inventory it would load them. FWIW.

[tomed63]

For my two cents; you are showing the Grayback, Gar class 9/1943 and indicating an (item 1646) MK10 mine.
According to the editor, all Gar class with a 6/43 update should have gone to an (item 1647)MK12 Mine.
Your game date is Sept 22 1943 and you show the Gar class update of 9/43 but you do not show the mine update to a MK12 which should have happened in the 6/43 Gar class update.

[EHansen]

ORIGINAL: tomed63

For my two cents; you are showing the Grayback, Gar class 9/1943 and indicating an (item 1646) MK10 mine.
According to the editor, all Gar class with a 6/43 update should have gone to an (item 1647)MK12 Mine.
Your game date is Sept 22 1943 and you show the Gar class update of 9/43 but you do not show the mine update to a MK12 which should have happened in the 6/43 Gar class update.

It is a DBB-A game, and I believe that the Gar SS class does not upgrade to MK 12 in that scenario.

[kbfchicago]

Don Q = no.

Not looking to pick up the scraps (Mk10s), need to get the Mk12s...

EHansen, do you know if the Balo's under dababesA can use the Mk12s? (my recollection is they are also still listed in the TOE as using Mk10s even after upgrade.

Thanks all for quick review and thoughts...

[dr.hal]

Subs do pick up partial loads and also that type of load lessens the impact on torpedoes carried. So if you have a low load of mines, your load of torpedoes is better...

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: kbfchicago

Don Q = no.

Not looking to pick up the scraps (Mk10s), need to get the Mk12s...

EHansen, do you know if the Balo's under dababesA can use the Mk12s? (my recollection is they are also still listed in the TOE as using Mk10s even after upgrade.

Thanks all for quick review and thoughts...

In DBB, the only sub that uses Mark 12 mines is Argonaut. Since the Mark 10 goes out of production at the end of 1942, that means that once stocks of Mark 10 mines are used up, US subs can't lay mines anymore. Whether that's by design or a bug, I don't know.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Might be a bug. From http://www.subsowespac.org/the-patrol-z ... t-ii.shtml:

19-Apr-43 USS Scorpion (SS-278)
LCDR W. N. Wylie
War Patrol No. 1 Scorpion laid twelve Mark 12 mines and ten Mark 10-1 mines off Inubo Saki, Honshu, at approximately 36°-05' N, 140°-45' E.

20-Apr-43 USS Runner (SS-275)
CDR F. W. Fenno, Jr.
War Patrol No. 2 Runner laid thirty-two Mark 12 mines off Pedro Blanco Rock, near Hong Kong, at approximately 22°-15' N, 115°-15' E.

22-Apr-43 USS Stingray (SS-186)
CDR O. J. Earle
War Patrol No. 7 Stingray laid twenty-two Mark 12 mines off Wenchow Bay, China, at approximately 28°-10' N, 121°-55' E.

30-Apr-43 USS Snook (SS-279)
LCDR C. O. Triebel
War Patrol No. 1 Snook laid twenty-four Mark 12 mines in the Yangtze River Delta, off the Shengsi Islands in China’s Dinghai District, at approximately 30°-21' N, 122°-30' E.

30-May-43 USS Steelhead (SS-280)
LCDR D. L. Whelchel
War Patrol No. 1 On May 12, 1943, Steelhead laid eight Mark 12 mines off Erimo Saki, at approximately 42°-07' N, 143°-21' E. On May 30, 1943, she laid four Mark 12 mines off Erimo Saki, at approximately 41°-57' N, 143°-19' E.


And if I am not mistaken Argonaut used Mark 11 mines - the only sub to do so.

[EHansen]

ORIGINAL: msieving1

ORIGINAL: kbfchicago

Don Q = no.

Not looking to pick up the scraps (Mk10s), need to get the Mk12s...

EHansen, do you know if the Balo's under dababesA can use the Mk12s? (my recollection is they are also still listed in the TOE as using Mk10s even after upgrade.

Thanks all for quick review and thoughts...

In DBB, the only sub that uses Mark 12 mines is Argonaut. Since the Mark 10 goes out of production at the end of 1942, that means that once stocks of Mark 10 mines are used up, US subs can't lay mines anymore. Whether that's by design or a bug, I don't know.

The Salmon 12/42, Perch 6/43, Shark 6/43, Porpose 12/42, cachalot 6/43, and Dolphin 6/43 are all listed as using MK 12 mines in DBB. You do not get many of these classes, but some you have 2 or 3.

[kbfchicago]

Thanks all. I'll drop in on the BaBabes web site, see if I can drop a question for the master mod'ers to see what their intent was. LST's citations above indicate use in other classes IRL. Perhaps limiting to the small production # classes was intended to be a play balance "feature"...

Much appreciate class review EHansen, until your comment was unaware (never used) of ability to review those details via tracker! Shows I have six subs in those classes currently active that should be listing and able to load Mk12s. When turn comes back later today will see where they are at and give it a try. Will post results to close the thread for any future AFB with similar question.

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Might be a bug. From http://www.subsowespac.org/the-patrol-z ... t-ii.shtml:

Interesting page. It reminds me that I wish the game provide for more specialized sub missions, particularly reconnaissance missions.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: kbfchicago

Thanks all. I'll drop in on the BaBabes web site, see if I can drop a question for the master mod'ers to see what their intent was. LST's citations above indicate use in other classes IRL. Perhaps limiting to the small production # classes was intended to be a play balance "feature"...

Much appreciate class review EHansen, until your comment was unaware (never used) of ability to review those details via tracker! Shows I have six subs in those classes currently active that should be listing and able to load Mk12s. When turn comes back later today will see where they are at and give it a try. Will post results to close the thread for any future AFB with similar question.

That information has always been available using the ingame database.

In the official scenarios some subs upgrade to use Mk 12 mines and others remain using Mk 10. Seems to me that the same research which informed the official scenarios applied equally to the DaBabes family. After all, facts are facts. They are not changed by writing a new scenario which deal with the same facts.

Alfred

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In the official scenarios some subs upgrade to use Mk 12 mines and others remain using Mk 10. Seems to me that the same research which informed the official scenarios applied equally to the DaBabes family. After all, facts are facts. They are not changed by writing a new scenario which deal with the same facts.

An article by Cdr John D. Alden, USN (ret.) in the October 2007 issue of The Submarine Review has a pretty detailed account of minelaying by US submarines in WW2. The following facts are noted in the article.

• 32 US subs conducted 33 minelaying missions in the Pacific. The first minelaying mission was in October 1942 and the last was in May 1945. The only US submarine to have two minelaying missions was USS Tautog.
• 29 of the minefields laid were Mark 12 mines, three were Mark 10 mines, and one was a mix of Mark 10 and Mark 12. The last mission with Mark 10 mines was by USS Silversides in June 1943.
• 23 minelaying missions started from Fremantle, Australia. 10 minelaying missions started from Pearl Harbor.
• In total, US subs laid 576 Mark 12 mines and 82 Mark 10 mines, an average of about 20 mines per mission. The number of mines per mission started at 32, declining to 11-12 from late 1943 through 1944, then increasing to about 23 per mission in 1945.
• All but one of the minelaying missions was done by a sub of the Tambor class or later (with 10 torpedo tubes). The exception was a minefield laid by USS Stingray, a Shark class boat.
• USS Argonaut was the only US sub designed as a minelayer, and had two 40" tubes for laying Mark 11 mines. The tubes were removed after her first patrol (which actually started before 12/7/41). She never laid any mines during wartime.
• Results of mines laid by US submarines are hard to estimate. Only one Japanese ship was observed hitting a sub laid mine. The Joint Army Navy Assessment Committee (JANAC) estimated 5 ships were sunk by sub laid mines. The US Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) was more optimistic, crediting sub laid mines with 26 ships sunk and 27 damaged. Alden estimated, based on Japanese sources, that 12 ships were probably or possibly sunk and 14 ships were probably or possibly damaged by US sub laid mines.
• Besides mines laid by US subs, 30 minefields were laid by British and Dutch boats.

The Mark 12 mine was a bottom laying mine with a magnetic trigger. The trigger was powered by a battery with an estimated life of 90 days. It had to be laid in pretty shallow water in order to be close enough to explode under a ship passing overhead. The Mark 10 mine was a tethered mine with chemical contact horns as exploder. It could be laid in deeper water, up to 200 feet deep. While the Mark 12 had a larger explosive charge, it would be exploding at a distance from the target, while the Mark 10 would be in contact, so I don't know how the effectiveness of the mines compared.

-Mark

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: msieving1

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Might be a bug. From http://www.subsowespac.org/the-patrol-z ... t-ii.shtml:

Interesting page. It reminds me that I wish the game provide for more specialized sub missions, particularly reconnaissance missions.

+1 And UDTs pre-invasion.