Subs Targeting CVs

[canuckgamer]

In the naval combat rules it states:

When a submarine fleet attacks any other kind of fleet,
damaged carrier groups get targeted even more often.

I have had a number of CVs sunk by subs. Hit the fleet containing CVs with air attacks and then attack them with subs. Last turn in the Med I lost two CVs to subs.

I am assuming that you are trying to simulate the situation where a CV has engine or steering damage from other attacks so it is easier for a sub to attack it. However I think this rule should be tweaked so that this only applies if a CV has suffered more than 50% of it's combat value in hits. For example, if a CV has one hit why would it be more vulnerable to a sub since it can easily outrun it.

I think this rule will be important in War Plan Pacific. Historically if I remember correctly there was only American CV that was already damaged by air attacks that was torpedoed by a Japanese sub. I also know that the American sub Archerfish sunk the Japanese "super carrier" Shinano on it's way to another Japanese location to finish it's fitting. The Archerfish happened to be at the right place at the right time.

[AlvaroSousa]

The UK lost so many CVs to subs they stopped escorting convoys

[battlevonwar]

Subs were well known to hit big juicy targets like Carriers. Even Battleships are quite vulnerable except more armored.

[AlvaroSousa]

That is pretty cool someone thought of that tactic. I like it. Air power then sub to finish them off.

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

That is pretty cool someone thought of that tactic. I like it. Air power then sub to finish them off.

I believe the Bismark was hit by a single torpedo from a carrier Swordfish and its rudder jammed. After it was reduced to a hulk but still not sunk by half the Royal Navy, it was sunk by a RN sub using more than one torpedo.

[michaelCLARADY]

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

That is pretty cool someone thought of that tactic. I like it. Air power then sub to finish them off.

I believe the Bismark was hit by a single torpedo from a carrier Swordfish and its rudder jammed. After it was reduced to a hulk but still not sunk by half the Royal Navy, it was sunk by a RN sub using more than one torpedo.

IF the CV was stacked with Destroyers I would think the subs should have to engage and defeat those first.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: michaelCLARADY


IF the CV was stacked with Destroyers I would think the subs should have to engage and defeat those first.

Not at all, the role of a submarine is to avoid the destroyers to target the CV.

[michaelCLARADY]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: michaelCLARADY


IF the CV was stacked with Destroyers I would think the subs should have to engage and defeat those first.

Not at all, the role of a submarine is to avoid the destroyers to target the CV.

Of course the DD's are actively seeking the subs..................

[WraithMagus]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
Not at all, the role of a submarine is to avoid the destroyers to target the CV.

Unless it is an American submarine in the Pacific. Sinking destroyers was one of the top priorities of US submarines, as the Japanese had few escorts and was completely overtaxing their destroyers to pull merchant marine escort duty, fast-transport duty, surface fleet escort duty, and also occasionally do the actual combat missions they were designed to be so oversized for.

The US submarine fleet actually managed to sink 1/3rd of the front-line destroyers the IJN possessed (and another roughly 40% was sunk by air power, with everything else - including accidental ramming and friendly fire as well as normal surface ships shooting them - taking up the last third)... and that's with the worst torpedo in the War ruining their chances for the first third of the war.

That said, while you might think of the worst threat to carriers being other carriers, but that was only true for the Pacific. There was a 12-9 split for carriers sunk by aircraft to submarines for the Japanese, and a 7-3 split for the Americans, plus Gambier Bay getting left undefended against a surface fleet by Hallsey. The British lost 5 carriers to U-boats, one to aircraft (in the Pacific), and one to being too dumb to run away when the Scharnhorst came rushing in, guns blazing.

Carriers (especially seaplane tenders) are useful for spotting submarines on the surface and providing warning or even attacking before they have a chance to dive (and even making the submarine dive is a minor win, as WW2-era subs could only move 1/3rd their normal speed submerged, and needed to recharge their batteries on the surface, so a sub submerged is a sub that can't move into position to attack your convoys as you re-route them away). That said, carriers are by far the juiciest targets for a submarine to attack, as they're positively huge, expensive, powerful, but very, very vulnerable to torpedoes thanks to the self-sabotage of the Washington and London naval treaty weight caps.

[george420]

Yes, just like the Yorktown at Midway.

[stjeand]

Sadly my subs normally shoot themselves not CVs...but they are sure to surface and invite the bombers over from the CV first.