submarine bombardment

[Trugrit]

What would be nice is to allow sub task forces to select the target type.

Japanese sub doctrine made it into the manual but not into the game.

Too bad.

[Dili]

I think the Doolittle raid could be made in game if we accept the the planes return to the carrier instead of going China. Just make a small number of carrier able B-25.

[Jones944]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think the Doolittle raid could be made in game if we accept the the planes return to the carrier instead of going China. Just make a small number of carrier able B-25.

I'd risk a carrier and do it in game for a 100 political point bonus! [:)]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

What would be nice is to allow sub task forces to select the target type.

Japanese sub doctrine made it into the manual but not into the game.

Too bad.

Just to be clear, there was NO official sub doctrine that prevented them from attacking any ship that crossed their path. This is why it is not in the game.

Here is a link to merchant ships sunk in the Pacific. Obviously there were a lot of Japanese sub commanders disobeying orders [:)]

http://www.usmm.org/pacific.html#anchor446433

The doctrine that Japanese subs did have was to scout for SURF TFs. Which is why so many subs had search planes on them. If Japan had committed the subs the way players do in AE, then they could have seen similar results. Of course converting them to transport duties made things even less likely for them to shoot at anything. Much less a xAK.

[spence]

Here is a link to merchant ships sunk in the Pacific. Obviously there were a lot of Japanese sub commanders disobeying orders

Given 120+/- IJN subs the record you cite is not that impressive. It is very apparent that the IJN did not wage unrestricted submarine warfare in the same league that either the Germans or Americans did.

[Numdydar]

That is correct. As I noted above the official doctrine was to scout for surface ships. Which meant they were not sitting on convoy routes looking for xAKs [:(]. But there was no doctrine or rule of engagement that said that a sub could not shoot at anything but a combat ship.

[wdolson]

I have read the IJN had strict doctrine about how many torpedoes they could launch against which target. I believe merchant ships could only have one torpedo launched against them.

Bill

[Trugrit]

Numdydar,

True, no official Japanese sub doctrine in the real war.

Here is a better link on Japanese subs with source info at bottom:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The Japanese bombarded both Washington and California , as well as Midway. The USN had 3 "Sub cruisers" (Nautilus , Narwhale and Argonaut) that had 2 six inch guns. Two of those boats did significant damage on the Makin Is raid. If this could be done , it would be both believable and useful. Imagine 20+ USN boats in December 1941 , having useless torpedoes , forming a bombardment raid! [:D]

Interesting idea!

It was Oregon that I-25 bombarded, at Astoria. Blew up a baseball backstop near the gun battery at Fort Stevens. A good article on what the I-25 and I-26 did here. Interesting that the 10inch guns at Fort Stevens did not fire back so as not to give away their positions. (I wish we had that option for in-game sea and land bombardments!)
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/exhibits/ww2/threat/bombs.htm

I agree it would be fun, but probably or very little use. It's amazing that we can perform sub-tranport raids as it is, and that sub transport, as used in the war, is so effective.