Matrix Games Forums

The Barrier and the Javelein was written by H.P.Willmott

Right you are. [:D] My error trying to think about five things at once and write about two of them.

My error trying to think about five things at once and write about two of them.

Never easy to do, especially not when one is in a firefight[;)]

well, this is my point.
My test results under perfect conditions (shallow water, near the coastal asw airplanes) showed a lot losses. But american subs in this conditions survived much more after they got attacked by heavy asw groups...

if you say the same (i really do not care what nationality the attacked sub has) even in deep sea, you are
a.) very unlucky
b,) asw generally is overpowered.

My critics was more about the surviving capacity of american subs AFTER they got hits...

i allways think that early in the war both sides just not find a single sub, so they not come to the situation to kill em (beside the coastal circumstances of pearl), later on, both sides should improve (but american subs should suffer from duds) and late in the war the american subs are quite deadly and japanese subs are dead meat if detected and hunted (only the very last experienced crews of japanese subs should have a good surviving chance)...

So, if the japanese killed 6 subs in this short time it is something to be fixed (if you are not the unlucky one)

AM... the Balao's are a 1941 design. I see no point in comparing the operational merits of a sub that was deployed in substantial numbers and did sink ships (Balaos) and one that was not deployed in substantial numbers (the Type XXI -- which, by the way, displaced considerably more than the Balaos). Everyone knows the Type XXIs were better. If there had been any trained crews left to man them and if they could have escaped detection they might have been significant.

I didn't compare the Balao's to the Type VIIs because the were of considerably different displacement and designed for different purposes. The US fleet boats were on the whole much larger than the Type VIIs for the same reason that the Type IXs were larger than the type VIIs: operational radius. The US boats were designed to sail from Hawaii and attack ships around Japan. The Type IXs were designed to sail from coastal France or Kiel and attack ships along the US coast, in the Carib, and off of Africa in addition to the N.Atlantic.

The US did not design or build the equivalent of a short-mid range boat like the Type VII. Had they wanted one, I don't doubt that the US could have built something with comparable dive rate, comparable max rated depth, slightly faster, and with two tubes aft. (In effect, bearing the same relationship to the Type VII as the USN fleet boats to the Type IX.)

acceleration is the key... if you have an sub or truck or a plane... and you want to go faster the acceleration is the key...

now, we have a large fat 2000ts american sub that try to come from diesel engine to electric and try to go down (well, it is called crash dive)... it uses mostly the speed surplus of the diesel drive, it opens it tanks, fill em with water... and change to electric...

if you have to accelerate 2000ts you need time... esp. with a sub with a cannon on it and a very bad aerodynamic model for underwater... also, your baby is HUGE. Remember, it is fat and huge and turns like a 90years old lady without drugs... (remember, allways compared to the german subs) The battery is good enough for 30 minutes full speed or less, depending on the quality of the battery (this is more true for latewar german subs, but still for americans, esp. in the begin of the war). You need to turn, but you try to be silent, so the enemy does not hear you.... if you use your strong electro engines they are loud, really loud and water transports noise a long distance (remember, in water the accoustic run with 4500meters the second (or was it 1650 ?)), so to be loud would be selfmurder... the flank speed is only important if you have reached the deep and run away from your (detected) location, but again, acceleration is the key...
sorry, no plus for american subs... they are to fat and have bad acceleration. So sit down and try it another time...

for "old" subs the underwater speed is not important. For that, the ww1-subs had a larger underwater-range. American subs were just marginally improved german u-sub-cruisers of 1917. These boats with radar would have done as good as the american subs did in ww2 (okay, that is not true, but more realistic as your comparisation tries with the IXer-subs of german manufacturings)

Why do they need to accelerate? If they are on the surface they are quite likely to already be cruising faster than their underwater speed....

selbstmord=suicide

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
...
Why do they need to accelerate?...

They accelerate in the moment the sub captain notices the enemy has started his drop runto get out of the attack zone. This is for underwater only, not for the dive.

Oh my god... you can´t accept facts, right ?

Cause the americans did not develop short-midrange subs... this sounds like "it is unfair to compare american battleships with other nation battleships for the broadside, cause they were forced to cross the panama chanell....

again, that is not the point. American subs were larger as their german counterparts, the XXI were fully different to any other subs. Also, the germans bought underwaterspeed for crashdiving capability, this means the XXI were faster below the sea as any other sub, but they paid with speed and sub range... they decided that this would be more important.

Your common comment about the quality of german sub crews, well again a full miss. the quality of late war crews was not worse to the early war crews... in fact, german XXIer subs did not see combat service cause the first subs had disadvantages (they could not reach their deep) and because the germans used around 100 of them to train their crews... but because your only knowledge are facs you like (the rest you ignore) makes such silly comments. As espected.

The german VIIer subs had operated from japan, truk, etc... and if the americans had tried to hunt them in the pacific, they had have 2 possibilities
a.) to loose a lot transport capacity
b.) to use a LOT planes to cover the area... and i mean really a lot... but to be fair, with the time, even american crews had got the chance to get the knowledge of brits like Jonny Walker...

Another missing point is really the sub vers. sub capability... here the allied subs were good. they waited in the near of the axis bases and got their chances... this is also really missing.

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
...
Why do they need to accelerate?...

They accelerate in the moment the sub captain notices the enemy has started his drop runto get out of the attack zone. This is for underwater only, not for the dive.

In that case, the noise you make is irrelevant.

the conventional sub of ww2 (all beside the e-boats and the walther-prototypes (okay, he developted both) had a high surface speed (mostly around 16 to 23 knots at best ! i think some british steam subs! had reached 27 knots) to reach their attack rooms or to escape surfaced from the slow 14-15knots trawlers (this is cause of the ww1-experience, slow 10knots trawlers hunted down the subs) but only slow sub speed.

Now, the sub is in a deep of say 100 meters (not a japanese sub, they reaced around 50 meters (at last the Ro-class)!), if the destroyer/asw has a signal, it will come from behind, the asdic (or whatelse soundsystem the axis used) tracking the sub. If the destroyer is directly above the sub it can´t hear the sub but drop its dc´s. The sub hear the dc in the water and think about the position of em... he will try to get away... in the hunting phase it runs with silent run, like 2 knots... if it is faster it is louder and more easily to be tracked.... now with the destroyer above you, you give flank speed and a turn left or right... and here acceleration is the key... as faster the sub can take speed, as farer away is the sub...

if you have an experienced asw-hunter crew, with some nasty hedgehog (fires in front of the asw-ship, you do not loose sonar/asdic-contact to the sub!) things run different, here only deep deep deep gives you a small surviving chance... against walker, well, really small chance.

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
In that case, the noise you make is irrelevant.

Not if there are more than one enemy escort after you: one does the attack run, the other one can listen for the subs noises. But I was arguing about the maximum speed, not the noise. Did I miss a statement?

Nope. you can hear noise below the sea in quite a distance... whales once could "talk" to each other around half the earth..(no kidding), a sub on flank speed could be heared in really long distance...

the flank speed is needed to run away from your last know dived position in the moment the asw dropped its dcs... and here acceleration is more important as max. speed....

If the destroyer is directly above the sub it can´t hear the sub but drop its dc´s. The sub hear the dc in the water and think about the position of em... he will try to get away... in the hunting phase it runs with silent run, like 2 knots... if it is faster it is louder and more easily to be tracked.... now with the destroyer above you, you give flank speed and a turn left or right... and here acceleration is the key... as faster the sub can take speed, as farer away is the sub...

Another factor in this case is the speed at which the DCs sink. Heavier charges sink faster, and more streamlined ones will be faster still. There were big differences here between various navies....

If you have a large sub, a hit chance is larger (i hope even you can recognize it), its manouverability is slower and if it is a near hit, the forces that could create damage as more impact to the sub.

No. It depends on the maximum underwater speed and the maximum depth. In every case the goal is to outrun the attacking weapon (not the escort). So if you can outrun hedgehog you're in much better shape (only the Type XXI had a shot at outrunning ahead-thrown weapons). If you can out run or out dive the DC you're in better shape. The deeper you are, the longer it takes the DC to arrive where the escort thinks you are. The more time you have to run to some place where the DCs aren't.

The relationship between sub displacement and survivability is more complex than you are stating. Generally, a BIG boat, having more floodable space, takes more damage to kill than a small boat. But not if being bigger comes at the cost of being very slow (like the larger Italian boats), or if the boat is designed with something patently stupid like an aircraft hangar (which is just a bulky vulnerable void space with a pressure hatch the size of a freaking barn). The bigger the pressure hatch, the easier it is to crack the seal.

So, no, american subs weren´t robust compared to their german counterparts.

Depends on what you mean. They were as robust as or even more robust than Type IXs. They were more vulnerable to attack than Type VIIs in a crash dive, but faster than Type VIIs and capable of surviving more damage than Type VIIs. The Type VIIs on the other hand, being smaller and deeper diving, and faster in a crash dive, had a better chance of short term escape by means of evasion.

If american subs had to encouter british asw, they had died like flies... too large, too slow and not agile they had been perfect targets...

I think it's more accurate to say they'd have died like German Type IXs.

if we also see american torpedos (even worser as the german G7e model in 1940-41) they have no supremacy....

You're spot on about that one.

so, if the japanese player use heavy air- and asw methods, american subs should die as quick as japanese and if damaged heavily they should die.

I do not agree. Given US and IJN subs used in similar conditions in the face of similar numbers of escorts and patrol a/c, Japaness subs should be attacked more often and should be more susceptible to damage in the event of a "hit."

for any sub should be true: if it is a hit and this hit damage the structure and the sub is under water, it is dead... or forced to try it home surfaced.... untill you show the evidence that the average american sub that was damaged heavily escaped untouched dived... but you can´t.

I do not think you understand what UV/WitP means by a "hit" that does not immediately sink the target. It's accretional damage from DCs exploding close abroad. Lots of American subs that were heavily damaged escaped.

Also remember that i said, that the subs survive too heavy damages... not that the german subs were überboote (even if the average german VIIer sub survived more damage as an american sub, at last if we look into history... but to be fair (a word you should look in a dictionary), american subs had not to encounter much damages... cause they got only "light" dc-attacks... that was their HUGE luck. But is nothing to reduce the bravery of the american sub crews... it wasn´t their fault that their subs were - with the exception of radar equippment (that was quite superior) just average

.

The US subs were better than average. So were the German Type IXs. The difference in their overall survivability has little to do with differences in their design and much more to do with the nature of the assets deployed against them. Japanese submarines were on the whole inferior, although they had at least the merit that their torpedoes worked properly more often than the Mark XIV torps.

ONLY these subs had the capability to escape the following trawlers...

Japanese minisubs tried the "hiding under a ship" tactic and it did not work out very well for them. The Walters designs had one asset and one asset only in spades. Speed.

Just crap, cause you can train all the day, if you train false it is not good but bad to train. American asw lacked anything COMPARED to the experience of the british (including all other commenwealth nations) crews...

You are mistaken both in re what may be accomplished in training and in your implication that the USN somehow trained in the wrong tactics. I can't fathom what you imagine the USN trained its crews to do. In 1942 they were on the whole on par with UK crews. The basic problem was the simple absence of a sufficient number of escorts.

Oh, i still wait for the answer to the question about american subs used historically, lying in harbor to refit and repair 2 days for one day at sea and your behaviour to do the same.... as the great historical freak....

Whiskey tango foxtrot? Over. 2 days to refit and repair per day at sea...... is this what you want to see or are you complaining because you think it should be 3:1 or something?

exact ! but still if i compare the mighty american überboats from mdiehl (large, fat, slow acceleration) with german subs (as he did) they are an easy prey...

sure, allied dc´s are much better - nobody said something else (and i think they have much better numbers). But if i compare two subs (cause i make a voting about the subs quality) i do not put in the different quality of dc´s. The result (attacking an american sub or an axis sub) will be different, but if i attack both subs with the same weapon, the american sub has lesser surviving chances. And this is something mr. mdiehl disagree... if he would say "the generally result of an attack is, that the american sub has an higher surviving chance, i would agree 100%. But IF the american sub got near hits or direct hits, it is dead and the german sub (for this example) could maybe escape, or to say it better, the chance to survive this attack is higher for the german sub (training, combat experience, sub characteristica...) and again my "counterpart" can´t accept these facts. He start to avoid, lie, ignore, compare apples with oranges. Cause he can´t stay with the fact that something different to us equippment is superior (in my case i just said, that british knowledge, training and experience was far ahead of american knowledge - nothing about german supermen should kill blinded any american forces...) he has the same funny attitude about american equippment like Patton - he couldn´t accept that the IS-Tank was far superior to american tanks. (by the way, mdiehl belive that the american sherman is superior to the german panther... but i do not want to open pandors cup [:D]) I just try to show the origin of this discussion.
But anyway, i only said, my testing about the game shows a too high surviving capability of american subs after they got damaged heavily...

by the way, did someone mention the huge overestimated durability level of old british and american dreadnoughts ? i mean, the americans are understandable, but the preww1-designed british qe- and revenge-class ????? that should be a joke. If revenge get 120, missouri should get 400 and yamato 500... even the large american cruisers should have larger durabilty... one torpedo or two and they are gone... !esp. the revenge class... !

oh... show the evidence of the many american subs that escaped from tokyo to pearl after beeing heavily damaged....

a sub below the surface that has a hole is doomed or it comes to the surface - ig the damage can´t be fixed with the board repair equippment it has to stay surfaced... any sub of the world has this problem - even today.

Your knowledge about underwater speed and underwater defence strategy in ww2 sucks. A sub couldn´t run at max. speed or has no electric power after max. 1 hour... only the XXI could run 8 hours at maximum speed. But the thing was a battery with some space around ! the conventional subs were an diesel engine with small battery to dive, hide, come back to surface... ALL subs were built in this way. Sure, american subs had the advantage of a lot torpedo tubes (but unfortunatly, they had torpedos that sucked. I think if the americans had better torpedos, the war had been over a year earlier, if the german torpedo had been better in 40-41 the brits would have had a serious problem (loosing a few 10000 troops in cold northern water and some larger bbs in this stageof the war had kicked their problems).

American crews lacked the experience of british crews, untill the end of the war. Just look about the kill ratio of german subs (japanese subs do not count cause they could have been sunk by you and me after 5 minutes training). I guess you know the numbers who killed em and you also know the numbers about the ships... and the winner is.... uk. If you do not accept this, you should go back to school. Oh, you do not see me telling that everything is a lie, germany lost all these subs by accidents... i just do not accept that you try to mix american crews with british... they defeated the german subs, they got the american equippment and they need it, but the brits and the commonwealth defeated the german subs... at last in reallity. If you show the statistic about the equal american kill ratio (esp. in 1942 and 1943!) to the british this is something different. But you can´t. If the brits had manned the american asw-ships in the pacific the japanese had lost their subs much faster.... but to be fair the american pacific crews got not much real war contests cause the pacific is such a large place and the japanese had only few boats and these were easy prey cause they lacked anything a normal conventional sub had.

Oh, any sub is built for speed and silence now, so Walther did a good job, right ? Oh, and you want to explain that the german walther subs (both the e-boats and also the others) were superior to the american subs ? fine...

Maybe someone could create a test where two Destroyers, one Japanese and one American, both have the same equipment (use the editor), the same exp rating and the same leadership ratings, attack subs. I'd like to see the results of 20 or 30 such attacks. If everything is working as it is supposed to the Japanese hit rate should be 67% of the American pre-43, and 80% of the American 43 and later. The damage should be the same if they are using the same depth charges. Somehow I suspect the Japanese won't be as good as expected. I'd do the test myself but I'm currently between computers. [:(]

The result (attacking an american sub or an axis sub) will be different, but if i attack both subs with the same weapon, the american sub has lesser surviving chances.

That is not correct.

if he would say "the generally result of an attack is, that the american sub has an higher surviving chance

I would say that in general given a USN fleet boat and a Type IX operating at the same depth exposed to the same size dc exploding at the same distance, the general likelihood of either boat not immediately sinking is about the same for both boats. I would also say that a submerged Type IX is slightly more likely to be exposed to a close dc detonation because it is 1 knot slower. A submerged Iboat exposed to the same attack under the same conditions is less likely to survive than a Type IX or a USN fleet boat.

But IF the american sub got near hits or direct hits

Any sub hit directly by an exploding Allied DC is dead one way or the other. It's the near misses and their accretional damage that we are of necessity talking about, since those are the only kinds of "hits" from which a sub can walk away, so to speak. There are plenty of examples of USN submarines accumulating a large amount of accretional damage and escaping.

the chance to survive this attack is higher for the german sub (training, combat experience, sub characteristica...) and again my "counterpart" can´t accept these facts.

You seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between facts and some sort of wierd divine revalation experience that you are attempting to share.

He start to avoid, lie, ignore, compare apples with oranges.

Apples vs oranges? You're the moke who wants to compare the Type VIIs with boats that were designed for a different purpose.

Cause he can´t stay with the fact that something different to us equippment is superior

The Type XXI was the best of the bunch. Lucky for the Wallies that it was a non-factor in the real event.

(in my case i just said, that british knowledge, training and experience was far ahead of american knowledge)

And you were and still are incorrect in your assessment. Again, however, I invite you to post an analysis that supports your claims.

he has the same funny attitude about american equippment like Patton - he couldn´t accept that the IS-Tank was far superior to american tanks.

For a guy who values sticking to the subject you have a knack for straying. But I do not believe we ever discussed a comparison of US tanks vs the IS2. Since you've brought it up that the IS2 was arguably the best heavy tank of the war. I will also add, in the interest of not comparing apples to oranges, that the US did not build any heavy tanks in WW2.

(by the way, mdiehl belive that the american sherman is superior to the german panther... but i do not want to open pandors cup ) I just try to show the origin of this discussion.

Actually, I said that the Sherman was by some lines of reasoning a better tank to have around than a Tiger (not a Panther), and better than the PzIV. The gist of my comment was that the Tiger was, strategically speaking, an expensive, badly designed (for the job), quirky, logistical niightmare. It did, however have a very good gun. The Panther was arguably a medium tank, but deployed like a heavy (its weight is more comparable to the US M26 rather than any other medium). Certainly the Panther was better than an M4. The Panther aside, the M4 was arguably the best medium tank of the war. Certainly better than the PzIV (and the PzIV was pretty good).

Your knowledge about underwater speed and underwater defence strategy in ww2 sucks. A sub couldn´t run at max. speed or has no electric power after max. 1 hour...

My knowledge about underwater speed and defense strategy in WW2 is apparently better than your ability to read. I never said that it was standard practice for a submarine to run at maximum emergency submerged speed for extended periods of time. I said that subs used it when attacking escorts increased speed for their dc runs.

Only the XXI could run 8 hours at maximum speed.

Allegedly. I agree, however, that such was the intent of the design and the result of non-deployment operational tests of the batteries. Whether it would have worked that well operationally is a point on which data is lacking.

mdiehl:

The USN sank more submarines in 1942 than the Japanese sank during the entire war. Repeat: more in 1942 than Japan during the entire war.

Have any figures?

it is interesting that more S-class subs were lost to grounding than to any form of Japanese ASW.

Or so they claimed.

After all, Hoyt's not perfect. He made substantial errors in The B and the J about the relative merits of the A6M and F4F.

And where do you find that information? I somehow find it hard to believe these things seeing as how you think the Allies were so prepared pre-war for anti-submarine warfare.

If you look at what, exactly, USN and IJN escorts routinely DID achieve you find that the USN was indeed no giant killer in 1942, but still did substantially better than the Japanese shot per shot, convoy per convoy.

Oh, so you have some source somewhere that accounts for a per-shot ratio? [:D][:D] BTW, part of the whole point of this ASW debate is to state that the USN ASW was not giant killers in '42, yet that is precisely one of the things stirring this. Don't you think that having the USN attack my JA subs in deep water, BEFORE the sub fires a single shot, with my subs NEVER diving deep, subject to attack from every single escort (or ASW fleet ships possibly), while in the reverse my JA ASW combat fleets not only can't find the sub in 6/7 instances despite it being spotted by aerial recon one hex away, with the USN sub diving deep and of course the one ASW JA attack missing, a stark contrast to the ridiculous? WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE LIKE IN '44 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sheesh.