Submarines and targets

[juliet7bravo]

I'm probably just going to end up editing all subs out. This is ridiculous.

[Don Bowen]

During World War II, 2 1/2 Japanese Submarines were sunk by SC (one shared with a DE) and no SC were sunk by Japanese Submarines. 13 U.S. Subchasers were lost (including one subsequently salvaged) - 1 to a Kamikaze, 2 to German Aircraft and 10 to accidents (6 Grounded, 2 Foundered, 1 Collision, 1 Burned).

Japanese Submarine Losses in World War II:

Sunk by Destroyers - 39
Sunk by Destroyer Escorts - 19
Sunk by Submarines - 19
Sunk by Carrier Aircraft -12
Sunk by Aircraft - 3 (plus one more probable)
Sunk by PT- 3
Sunk by Aircraft while in Port - 2
Sunk by DMS - 1
Mined - 2 (plus one more probable)
Sunk by SC - 2
Sunk by PG - 1

Sunk by combination of DD and Aircraft - 2
Sunk by combination of DD and Minesweeper - 1
Sunk by combination of DE and SC - 1
Sunk by combination of DE and Carrier Aircraft - 1
Sunk by combination of PG and Aircraft - 1
Sunk by combination of PG and Minesweeper - 1


Excludes accidental losses and those to unknown causes - compiled from data in Japanese Warships in World War II by A.J. Watts



U.S. Warships sunk by Japanese Submarines in World War II:

CV Wasp
CV Yorktown (previously damaged)

CVE Liscome Bay

CA Indianapolis
CLAA Juneau (previously damaged)

DD Hammann
DD Henley
DD O'Brien
DD Porter

DE Sheldon

SS Covina
SS Grunion (possibly)

No SC

Compiled from data in U.S. Warships of World War II by Paul H. Silverstone

[Paul Goodman]

Good data, just what I would have thought. So the ratio of destroyers (incl. DE) submarine kills to submarine destroyer kills is 58 to 5, or about 12 to 1. Of these, one DD, the Hammann, was heaved to aside the Yorktown (providing power to the pumps attempting to counter the list on the Yorktown). One spread from I-168 sunk both. Certainly an atypical situation. Realistically, the score is 58 to 4. Of the two carriers sunk, Yorktown was immobile. This is certainly what one would expect from I class submarines, too large, not very maneuverable, too noisy and limited diving depth make for a big fat turkey for eager destroyer crews.

The life saver for a submerged submarine is a thermal layer. This strata of cold water reflects sonar back to the receiver. A sub that can get under this is hard to detect (with WWII stuff). These thermals occur frequently in the North Atlantic and saved many a deep diving U-boat. In the tropical waters of the South Pacific, they are very deep, certainly well below the diving depth of an I boat. All subs were more vulnerable here than in colder waters, but particularly the I-boats.

May I suggest that very few Jp. submarines were sunk by Allied land-based aircraft simply because patrolling close to these bases was certain death. Surface for a snort of air and a charge and a Catalina or Avenger or (horror of horrors) a PB4Y is on you in minutes. The slow diving I-boat is dead.

So, it is obvious to all, I think, that I-boats were hopelessly outclassed by U.S. ASW capability. I personally consider the idea that great problems could have been created by the use of this capability for commerce warfare to be nonsense. The I boat had some assets, but basically, it was not nearly the quality of a U-boat and really unsuited for convoy interdiction. Long range and first rate torpedoes are the extent of the I boats assets.

Now to the real question. All these facts are well known to the creators of UV. Why have they elected to portray the Jp. submarine in a completely unrealistic manner? To which we should add, following in the tradition of PacWar.

Paul

[Erik Rutins]

I agree, in that as a player the one remaining area of ASW that I feel could use some tweaking is the aggressiveness and success of subs against sub-hunters of various kinds. While these subs were well-armed, relatively large ships, they did not tend to engage ASW craft to the degree that they seem to do in UV, nor with as much success.

I think that the sub vs. non-ASW and Air vs. sub combat seems about right, but even Japanese subs shouldn't go after ASW craft quite as much as they do. If they do, they should have more trouble getting good results. In any case, this is another thing for the designers/developers to decide if they want to revisit. However, from my perspective the sub vs. ASW ship concern is a valid one and should go on the eventual "tweak" list.

Regards,

- Erik

[Didz]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
I agree, in that as a player the one remaining area of ASW that I feel could use some tweaking is the aggressiveness and success of subs against sub-hunters of various kinds. While these subs were well-armed, relatively large ships, they did not tend to engage ASW craft to the degree that they seem to do in UV, nor with as much success.

I think that the sub vs. non-ASW and Air vs. sub combat seems about right, but even Japanese subs shouldn't go after ASW craft quite as much as they do. If they do, they should have more trouble getting good results. In any case, this is another thing for the designers/developers to decide if they want to revisit. However, from my perspective the sub vs. ASW ship concern is a valid one and should go on the eventual "tweak" list.

Regards,

- Erik

There should certainly be some formula built in to the torpedo success calculations that adjusts the chance of a hit according to the speed, manoeuvrability, size and draft of the target vessel.

I had assumed that was the case.

[entemedor]

It's true that 58 Jap subs were sunk by DDs and DEs, but of these, how many in 1942? And in 1943? The vast majority were destroyed in 1944. Better radar, better sonar, better tactics and training... But out of the time-frame of UV.
And sunk by aircraft... three plus one probable in the whole war. No wonder in our UV games we seldom see a sub killed from the air. We can't compare the battle of the Atlantic with the Pacific. In the Atlantic, more than 2/3 of U-boats destroyed by aircraft (not including carrier hunter-killer groups) were lost in the way in/way out of their patrol, this is, when crossing the Bay of Biscay (if based in France) or around the Shetland / Hebrides (if coming/going to Germany). Relatively small areas, patrolled day and night by British, Canadian, Australian and American aircraft. In the vast Pacific, there were no such easy 'kill zones'.
As for surface gun attacks, there were a lot of them in the Pacific. The Japanese used large numbers of small vessels for coastal traffic and for its protection, even sampans and other sail types. US submarines killed them in huge numbers, but they are hardly mentioned in books; "US submarine operations in WW2" by Roscoe, for example, does not even list them in the official scores of the submarines. However, if you take a look at the Japanese side (for example "Warships of the IJN 1869-45" by Jentschura & Jung), you will learn how many auxiliary sub-chasers and minesweepers, tiny patrol craft etc were sunk by gunfire from US submarines. I will concede, however, that submarines in UV should submerge as soon as effective return fire is received.

Excuse me for all this bla-bla-bla... The reason for it? Just to say that in my opinion, ASW operations for the period 1942-43 are reasonably well reproduced in UV. Although if anything is sure after reading all the posts in this thread, is that results vary enormously from game to game (good replay value for UV, then!).

Last but not least, a petition! I want a list of successes by my individual submarines, just the way Top Kills are available for aircraft pilots. That would save me a lot of book-keeping... I just want to give some medals to my best commanders!

Regards,

[Paul Goodman]

Excuse me, but I, and many others, have lost more destroyers in a week than were actually lost in the entire war. I don't see anything even close to reality.

Paul

[FirstPappy]

If you define ASW to mean literally Anti-Sub-Warfare which are DDs, DEs, SCs, Air etc. abilities against subs I would tend to agree. But I definetly think there is something very wrong with SW - Submarine Warfare. Specifically direct sub attacks on either warships or transports by either side. I'm writing this while taking a break from my present game as the Japs. I had a TF with about 9 APs, 2 CLs, 3 DDs and 1 PG. This TF was invading GG in the early part of the war. While the TF was unloading troops and supplies at GG and GG was held by the Allies a US sub surfaced and began to pound one of my APs with it's deck gun. This AP had previously been torpedoed by this same sub two hexes to the right of GG. Although the AP was damaged, it was still within the limits to stay with the TF and unload. I guess this US sub commander was really pissed that he didn't sink the AP earlier, ran out of torpedoes and decided to open up with the deck gun to finish the job which is exactly what happened. Now what sub commander in real life would surface against a TF that included 5 good-sized warships to blast away at one damaged AP? This is no different in my opinion than a Jap sub attacking a TF of 9 SCs either with torpedoes or deck guns. I can see taking a chance against 9 SCs if there's a CV in the middle, but otherwise logic would have it that the rewards are not worth the risks in either case.

[Don Bowen]

************************************
It's true that 58 Jap subs were sunk by DDs and DEs, but of these, how many in 1942? And in 1943? The vast majority were destroyed in 1944. Better radar, better sonar, better tactics and training... But out of the time-frame of UV.
************************************

A very good point. Here is the loss data by year (subject to finger errors - its a lot of data handling!):

- - 1941 - -
Carrier A/C - 1
DD - 1


- - 1942 - -
DD - 4
DD and A/C - 1
DD and M/S - 1
DMS - 1
Mine - 1
PT - 2
SS - 3


- - 1943 - -
Aircraft - 2 Plus 1 Probable
Carrier A/C - 1
DD - 14
DD and A/C - 1
Mine - 1
PT - 1
PG - 1
PG and A/C - 1
SC - 2
SS - 2


- - 1944 - -
Carrier A/C - 4
DD - 16
DE - 14
DE and SC - 1
PG and M/S - 1
SS - 7


- - 1945 - -
Aircraft - 2
Carrier A/C - 6
DD - 4
DE - 5
DE and Carrier A/C - 1
Mine - 1
SS - 7

[Ron Saueracker]

I've yet to see this attack resolution...I wonder if it's possible. As for all the ahistorical results, how much ya want to wager ASW and SW will be fixed like all our other complaints. Great support, thanks guys!

[Don Bowen]

Losses to Aircraft in 1943 should be:

2 INCLUDING 1 probable

not

2 plus 1 probable


Don Bowen

-----------------------------------
How can one teach logic in a world that still speaks of sunrise when we have known for generations that it is really horizon-fall?
(A. Einstein)

[Didz]

Originally posted by Pappy
Now what sub commander in real life would surface against a TF that included 5 good-sized warships to blast away at one damaged AP? This is no different in my opinion than a Jap sub attacking a TF of 9 SCs either with torpedoes or deck guns. I can see taking a chance against 9 SCs if there's a CV in the middle, but otherwise logic would have it that the rewards are not worth the risks in either case.

More to the point what the hell were the 3 DD's, 2 CL's and the PG doing whilst this US sub was pounding away at one of their charges.

Presumably, as this was an invasion they had no anchored or finished with engines so why the hell weren't all 6 of them hurlting down on the US sub like a pack of avenging demons. A US sub on the surface in shallow water even at night would be a sitting duck.

[entemedor]

Don, thanks a lot for all the information. So the 58 to 5 rate for the whole war is reduced to a 5 to 3 for 1942. I just wanted to point out that in the UV period ASW warfare was not so much lethal.
And yes Pappy, I was meaning just ASW. I would agree that there are too much attacks by subs in UV, from what I'm hearing from some of you (although that has not yet happened in my campaign, but as I already said there seem to be huge differences from game to game).
As for the escorts sitting down while the AP was blasted by gunfire, you could blame it to a rain squall, communications mix-up or any other SNAFU situation... Just a freaky event! Of course if this happens too often, it shall get annoying... About subs stalking destroyers (and not vice-versa), USS HARDER sank IJN destroyers MINATSUKI, HAYANAMI and TANIKAZE (plus one more probable) in a three-day period, off the Japanese fleet anchorage of Tawi Tawi. And about rash commanders... I think it was HERRING (writing by memory there) which sank some small vessels by cannon, under the gunfire of coastal batteries!

Never mind, Ron is absolutely right, and all these subjects will surely be patched-up in a near future. GREAT GAME, CHAPS (NOT PERFECT YET, BUT LET'S GIVE THEM TIME...)

Regards,

[FirstPappy]

I agree. It is a great game and this is just a bit of annoyance. Although I can't wait for the Yamato to arrive in my game. I just bet that US sub commander is planning to pull along side it at night with a boarding party to capture it! I'll keep you advised if that happens.

[rhohltjr]

Originally posted by Pappy
...I just bet that US sub commander is planning to pull along side it at night with a boarding party to capture it! I'll keep you advised if that happens.

ROTFL!! US Subs are US warships correct? So there are Marines on board correct? I bet those submarine Marines are the same squad that "hijacked" some Japanese transports at Lunga in an earlier AAR I was reading!!! What great fun.!!!:D

[Paul Goodman]

Add this to the mix. See Mike Wood's reply to my thread on a task force with two 15 knot ships outrunning a fast carrier task force (slowest ship 28 knots). He suggests that this could be caused by more destroyers in the fast carrier task force (which was correct). He further points out that a task force of 4 cruisers will be faster than a task force of the same 4 cruisers and a destroyer! Now, since we have seen that destroyers are totally ineffective against submarines, why have them in the task forces to start with? Form destroyer squadrons (destroyers were, in fact, attached to squadrons for administrative purposes and still are to this day) which can trail behind the task force and refuel from fleet oilers. I'm gonna go do that right now!

Really sounds gamey, doesn't it? But, in fact, the destroyers quite often slowed the carrier TF down due to bad weather.

Paul

[bradfordkay]

"See Mike Wood's reply to my thread on a task force with two 15 knot ships outrunning a fast carrier task force (slowest ship 28 knots). He suggests that this could be caused by more destroyers in the fast carrier task force (which was correct)."


Since having more destroyers in a TF probably means that you're wanting them to perform ASW ops, then of course your TF will be moving slower. A destroyer at 30 knots is not going to pick up anything on its sonar. The ships found that they did their best work at much slower speeds.

Add to that the need for carriers to turn into the wond for air ops, and you can see more time to destination being lost.

My transport TFs almost always include at least a SC, so in my game they do not travel faster than the combat TFs. Thus I never noticed this phenomena. If the game is modelling the lost time due to ASW ops, it doesn't seem that the ASW ops are being very effective. Then again, I'm one of those commanders who never fells like his forces are effective enough.

[Michael Chan]

I think you maybe incorrect raverdave I think the reason you not chase Jap subs is because jap subs are superor in build and technology

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Michael Chan
I think you maybe incorrect raverdave I think the reason you not chase Jap subs is because jap subs are superor in build and technology

Well seeing as this is your first post I will be gentle with you;) .
Within the game it seems that it is the lack of training of my ship's crew that is causing the problem, rather than the "superor" quality of the build. I have after, many months of training now got my SC exp level upto 52. And have not seen a IJN sub for about 6 weeks now.........and believe I have been looking.....I have many ships that I want to seek revenge for.

[Michael Chan]

This is not my first post RAVERDAVE I have many posts.....

My SC exp is upto 88 and I have sen many superor IJN subs that I have in my fleet , I have sent many inferior navel vessals to the watery grave of the ocean, so you can see the training has nothing to do with it, it is the superor JAPENESE vessals just like during all the conflicts of the world wars.