quick question...

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Yea, and probably in a surface engagement much the same way a sub sank any other ship. There were no "Red Storm Rising/Hunt For Red October" sub on sub style engagements in WWII. The ASW technology simply wasn't there yet....

Sorry, but I have to post some more statistics: 46 enemy subs (20 Japanese subs and 26 German U-boats) were sunk by Allied submarines during the war. In return U-boats killed 9 Allied subs, Japanese submariners claimed 4 boats, although only one is confirmed kill. So…56 submarines were lost in sub vs sub combat during ww2, this number is not so miserable as you think.

Almost all these subs were sunk by torpedoes as I said, and I don’t see anything unusual here. Subs of that era weren’t truly submarines, as it was pointed out they spent most of their time during a mission on surface and during this time there was no difference between them and surface vessels, they all were targets for submerged subs, no need for sophisticated ASW equipment here.

[tiredoftryingnames]

For this to be in the game one sub would have to be determined to be submerged hunting while the other would be sailing along on the surface. SO basically someone would get the jump on the other and treat it as a normal sub on ship combat.

I can see it now.

"Allied fanboys got their way, their subs are always submerged and kill my subs. How come my subs are never submerged?"

[Mr.Frag]

"Allied fanboys got their way, their subs are always submerged and kill my subs. How come my subs are never submerged?"

[:D]

I want some borrowed subs with 88mm deck guns [;)]

[tsimmonds]

...one sub would have to be determined to be submerged hunting while the other would be sailing along on the surface...

Actually, if you look into it I believe you would find that most of the killer subs were on the surface too. Probably most of these sub-on-sub kills happened at night, when subs were likely to surfaced and charging batteries, and when detection of these extremely stealthy vessels would be most difficult. Radar would be a huge advantage....

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: tiredoftryingnames

For this to be in the game one sub would have to be determined to be submerged hunting while the other would be sailing along on the surface. SO basically someone would get the jump on the other and treat it as a normal sub on ship combat.

I can see it now.

"Allied fanboys got their way, their subs are always submerged and kill my subs. How come my subs are never submerged?"

I don’t want to say that missing sub vs sub combat is something worthy to loose sleep about, but in fact, it can be modeled quite easily. Here is one of possible way to do it -

Submarines should try to intercept and attack submarine TFs that move through their hex during execution phase, chance of such interception (not attack) should be quite low. Here we can assume that submarine that moves through a hex, which is current patrol zone of the enemy submarine(s), moves on surface while enemy sub on patrol is submerged. It should always be ambush, submerged sub on patrol attacks one that moves thru her hex on surface.

There were enough examples of successful “ASW” action of Allied subs without any help from ULTRA, kills by Taurus, Telemachus, Tautog, Batfish, by 3 Soviet subs etc. etc. Don’t forget that all allied subs were killed by axis subs without help of intel services of their navies.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Yea, and probably in a surface engagement much the same way a sub sank any other ship. There were no "Red Storm Rising/Hunt For Red October" sub on sub style engagements in WWII. The ASW technology simply wasn't there yet....

Sorry, but I have to post some more statistics: 46 enemy subs (20 Japanese subs and 26 German U-boats) were sunk by Allied submarines during the war. In return U-boats killed 9 Allied subs, Japanese submariners claimed 4 boats, although only one is confirmed kill. So…56 submarines were lost in sub vs sub combat during ww2, this number is not so miserable as you think.

Almost all these subs were sunk by torpedoes as I said, and I don’t see anything unusual here. Subs of that era weren’t truly submarines, as it was pointed out they spent most of their time during a mission on surface and during this time there was no difference between them and surface vessels, they all were targets for submerged subs, no need for sophisticated ASW equipment here.

Well I gathered the initial question of sub on sub combat was more pointed at fully submerged sub vs sub combat, ala Hunt For Red October where subs go at it, fully submerged using active sonar homing torps, which, of course, were non-existant in WWII. I image all those sunk subs killed by torp were hit and sunk while on the surface as any other ship was. And that kind of combat, is of course, realistic of the time.

[tiredoftryingnames]

I wasn't saying it shouldn't be in the game with my joke. I'm merely stating that it's a small part of operations and one that would for sure cause complaints when modeled because someone's sub would be given the advantage. For it to work whether one or both is on the surface someone is going to get the jump. But it's a moot point close to getting released. Maybe for a patch but that's a call I can't make.

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: tiredoftryingnames

What game are you testing? I have seen no flying subs launched from other subs. In fact there are no flying subs at all. Although there is a sub called Flying Fish. [:D]

Haven't been watching "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" recently I see. The Seaview had a flying sub. And since it was technically possible for the Japanese to have developed this during the war, I am demanding that it be put into the production cycle as of 1/1/46. If not, the game is broken.

[Mr.Frag]

Watch it when you send your subs into bases with CD guns if trying to transport troops or lay mines! [:D]

*while we are on the sub topic*

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Watch it when you send your subs into bases with CD guns if trying to transport troops or lay mines! [:D]

*while we are on the sub topic*

Excuse me, sir. Are you suggesting that this is the quickest way to make a Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? And probably one-way?

[tsimmonds]

Watch it when you send your subs into bases with CD guns if trying to transport troops or lay mines!

*while we are on the sub topic*

Great news!

[Mr.Frag]

Are you suggesting that this is the quickest way to make a Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea?

Most certainly! Just ask the 4 subs I sent to mine Midway with that Marines CD unit!

[LTCMTS]

1. What four subs? The only minelaying subs the IJN had before mid-42 were the four I-121 class with their obsolescent Type 88 mines. The only other mines laid by IJN subs were captured Brit mag mines from Singapore.

2. Sink them how? The whole purpose of minelaying subs is to lay the mines underwater from the sub. How do CD guns sink a sub at or below periscope depth?

[Mr.Frag]

How do CD guns sink a sub at or below periscope depth?

Stick your periscope up and find out [:D]

[Nikademus]

i believe that was a bug......subs should not be hit by CD guns

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

i believe that was a bug......subs should not be hit by CD guns

I was wondering how a simple task of laying mines would expose a sub to coastal guns. Now if a sub came to the surface to attack some enemy shipping - then the guns would blast it apart in moments.

Also (for LTCMTS) I believe they have made no difference between sub classes for the purpose of laying mines. Someone else more knowledgable on this can correct me if I'm wrong.

Xargun

[kaleun]

AFAIK all subs types could, and did lay mines. There were specialized mine deployment subs i.e. Argonaut that had mine "bays" so could carry lots more mines, but they IIRC they did not have much of an effect.
In the game, all subs can carry mines, if I am not missing something.

[Mr.Frag]

Not missing anything. Any sub can be sent out with mines instead of torpedoes. Certain subs also have native mine capacity without giving up their torpedoes.

[kaleun]

picky picky: Often subs carried mines in the torpedo tubes, and regular torpedoes for reloads.
[:D]
We shall now proceed to pick the nits

[LTCMTS]

OK, we went through this before. The IJN had only four subs, the KRS (Kirai-Sen) class, I-121 through I-124, copies of the German U 122 minelaying sub of WWI. They laid Type 88 mines (copies of German mines) from mine specific tubes at the stern. This is stated so in Bagnasco, Conway's, Jentschua, Jung & Mickel. Boyd and Yoshida in "The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II" states that other than minelaying ops by the KRS class earl;y in the war. The only other minelaying mission was by I-6 off Brisbane on 13 Mar 43 using German acoustic mines laid through her torpedo tubes. Finally, according to Campbell, the IJN tried to develop a sub minelaying capability, but the Type 1 self-propelled anti-harbor mine, two of which were launched from the marker bouy locker of I-class subs, blew up the test sub. They produced 600 copies of the USN Mk.10 Mod.1 moored contact mine by early 1945, and a limited number of German magnetic and acoustic mines by mid-1945 which suffered from severe reliability problems. Thus, the game is wrong in giving this ability universally to all subs. Not to mention that British and Dutch subs (other than the specifically designed minelayers) were limited by the small number of TT laid M Mk.II magnetic mines produced and the limitation to the "T" and "S" class subs.