Submarine Weapon Mod Proposal

[el cid again]

The IJN C type submarines seem not to have any midget submarines, so I created a device for them. Since these submarines carry an 18 inch torpedo, the device is based on it - but with greater range! Since these subs could not fire a spread - they broached and otherwise moved severely when they fired one torpedo - I rated them as almost the same chance of a hit as a single shot torpedo spread. HOWEVER - they have MUCH more range. Since these submarines were almost always lost, win lose or draw, I treat them as one shot expendable weapons. Even so, they may allow for occasional hits - as they really achieved. FYI there is some evidence one of their successes was long overlooked - see Advance Force Pearl Harbor and follow up USNI articles doing forinsic analysis of a famous Pearl Harbor photograph. My midget device is called TAU Midget Sub - the minis were operationally called I-xy TAU - where xy is the number of the carrier submarine.

Late in the war a number of Japanese submarines were converted to Kaiten carriers - and so I created "upgrades" permitting these conversions after the date the first of each class occurs. I also created a Kaiten Type 1 device. This is essentially a modified 24 inch Long Lance torpedo, with the range in its Kaiten Type 1 form, and the damage of the Long Lance. You get one shot per Kaiten in the class.

Another submarine conversion for BOTH sides was to transport submarines - and to tankers. I allow upgrades to these as well. US conversions are not well known - for details of some operations involving them see Guerilla Submarines.

The US designed some submarines during the war. Some were built after the war, and some were not, but all were options. I am considering creating prototype submarines of these types - IF there is any interest in them. The US fleet boat died because of what was learned AFTER the surrender about German submarines. We could have learned more from the Japanese - who had submarines "based on superior hydrodynamic research" but we were so SURE the Germans were better we never tested them! But the fleet boat would have been essentially a lessons learned vessel based on our experience BEFORE we had captured material. But there was also a smaller boat - and it WAS built - although the design was modified. But I have the details of the ORIGINAL, wartime design. Finally, there were plans to mass produce medium subs, and these were not built, after intense debate. But a prototype might have been funded for testing.

I have a database of all submarine variants for the US - and another one for the Japanese - if anyone wants it send me an email. These are in Excel format now - although written in Lotus (pre XP).

[el cid again]

Tested. It works.

[m10bob]

el cid again...........A couple of light cruisers were also modified as Kaitan carriers..
I believe they were Oi and Kitikami....

[el cid again]

couple of light cruisers were also modified as Kaitan carriers..
I believe they were Oi and Kitikami....

This is quite true - and the tip of the iceberg. MANY ships were modified as kaiten carriers. I think they should be present as upgrades. But apparently no one has either made kaiten that work (before now) nor modeled these ships.

[Ron Saueracker]

If you have come up with a workable version of the Kaiten, great stuff. I did one too but did not think it worked well enough in the model given the hard code level 3 port restriction on sub attacks. Attack on Ulithi achorage not possible for example.

My idea for midgets I tried as well. It was actually manufactured like other subs (other than those present in opening OOB) and basically was a midget submarine, not a device. It had minimal endurance and minimal fuel (so it could tag along with a fleet sub and refuel so it). Worked OK but did not see the point considering the game's level 3 port invulnerability. Can't infiltrate Pearl Harbor, Sydney etc, so why bother?

These restrictions are there because of the abstract modelling of antisubmarine nets, anti torpedo defences etc. Great, but the devs also ignored these very same defences and geo-physical limitations when they allowed 2E torpedo armed aircraft to PORT ATTACK. I can see 1E tactical aircraft but big 2E jobs? Give me a break.[8|] Still trying to find one historical example of 2E or larger aircraft torpedoing ships in a real port (not an undeveloped anchorage or roads like Lunga Roads).

So, it's not like we never bothered with these other devices, we just found that the game design did not suit their inclusion.

[jwilkerson]

Wasn't the actual success of the Kaitens about 2 ships sunk and 3 damaged ?

Sometimes we have to prioritize our efforts - and thus far at least we haven't been able to add every marginally effective widget into the game. And we need to be careful not to inadvertantly create a "super" weapon which the historical kaiten wasn't.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Wasn't the actual success of the Kaitens about 2 ships sunk and 3 damaged ?

Sometimes we have to prioritize our efforts - and thus far at least we haven't been able to add every marginally effective widget into the game. And we need to be careful not to inadvertantly create a "super" weapon which the historical kaiten wasn't.

Yepper, this is a major concern. Seeing as just about everything in the game can be gamed (especially naval units), adding these marginal units just does not seem worth any further effort.

[el cid again]

Wasn't the actual success of the Kaitens about 2 ships sunk and 3 damaged ?

Sometimes we have to prioritize our efforts - and thus far at least we haven't been able to add every marginally effective widget into the game. And we need to be careful not to inadvertantly create a "super" weapon which the historical kaiten wasn't.

The problem with this reasoning is that it ties ALL potential situations to ONE real one. Not many Kaiten were fielded. The war ended before they were used very long. [How many weapons WE had were FAILURES or near failures for significant periods? Even the B-29 qualifies for this. Sometimes it takes TIME to get it right.] While I am not a big fan of Kaiten, I think the guided missile idea had real potential - and needed time and a functional economy to implement. But in a game scenario running 1/3 of the way through 1946, and in which Japan may have a working economy, such weapons MIGHT BE valuable - even super weapons. One way to find out is let players play with them.

A reverse point might also be made. Maybe it is a MISTAKE to convert to Kaiten carriers? Maybe it is a MISTAKE to build super planes (Kikka gets my vote there - a SLOW jet with NO guns - you really want it???). IF a player invests in these maybe he is making (recreating) a historical error. I like to give players traps they can voluntarily fall into. What is it Nappy said about "never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake?" I say "never fail to give an enemy the opportunity to make a mistake."

[el cid again]

If you have come up with a workable version of the Kaiten, great stuff. I did one too but did not think it worked well enough in the model given the hard code level 3 port restriction on sub attacks. Attack on Ulithi achorage not possible for example.

My idea for midgets I tried as well. It was actually manufactured like other subs (other than those present in opening OOB) and basically was a midget submarine, not a device. It had minimal endurance and minimal fuel (so it could tag along with a fleet sub and refuel so it). Worked OK but did not see the point considering the game's level 3 port invulnerability. Can't infiltrate Pearl Harbor, Sydney etc, so why bother?

I do not think I know this. I DO know about Level Three Port Defenses. But it is my impression they ONLY apply to ships NOT in TFs in the port. IF the ship is "docked" it clearly is in port - but I can still attack it. If it is "disbanded" - that is different - I can hit it by shelling or bombing - but I didn't even think about submarines. Surely I can do this in a major port - put a ship somewhere you cannot torpedo. So I am not sure it is wrong. Are you?

[Captain Cruft]

If the Kaiten is just modelled as a "big" torpedo then it will get blithely launched at high speed moving targets at sea. Not very realistic, at all.

The game really needs a concept of "sub port attack" to make this work.

It might even be better to model the things as mines ...

[el cid again]

If the Kaiten is just modelled as a "big" torpedo then it will get blithely launched at high speed moving targets at sea. Not very realistic, at all.

Au contraire, mon ami. That is the role the Kaiten was designed to fulfill, and the role it was most commonly launched in. Further, if I remember correctly, that was the role it was successful in. Attacks against heavily defended anchorages turned out to be hard even to deliver, much less deliver effectively. The Kaiten increases the tactical options of the submarine. When USS Indianapolis was sunk, it was by a Kaiten armed submarine - but in spite of the fact many suspected (and still suspect) kaiten sank her - it was not so. The ship happened to be a on a too good course - the sub actually had to back off to open the range to get the torpedoes to arm! But had the shot not been near perfect, the Kaiten WOULD HAVE been used. The sub's captain, author of two books (one by USNI), has explained it in some detail.