Submarines and targets

[mdiehl]

IJN submarines started the war with the advantage of a torpedo that worked well and had pretty decent speed. In all other ways they were inferior to the US subs that were fielded. Their primary disadvantages were: 1) Their size. They dove slower than any submarine manufactured by any major combatant. 2) Their shallow depth rating. Due in part in many cases to the inclusion of a floatplane hanger deck. An innovative but dangerous (and ultimately, failed) attempt to enhance the "scouting" function of IJN submarines as envisioned in the Decisive Battle Doctrine that was the basis for the IJN's warplan vs. the United States. (Subs were relegated to scouting roles and to attritional attacks on combat vessels. This was the doctrine primarily employed by the IJN throughout WW2.)

The US in exigis deployed a number of S-Boats or "Pigboats" (because they lacked a/c, in the tropics, their crews would "sweat like pigs"). These were an obsolete design from the 1920s whose one distinguishing characteristic was that, because they were very small, they could dive quite rapidly when the equipment was in good repair.

[Don Bowen]

Originally posted by mdiehl
The RAAF Wirraway was based on a home-grown design that started out as a civilian a/c.

The RAAF Wirraway was based on the North American NA-33 with improvements as specified by the Australian Government. There was some discontent in the Australian Parliament on the adoption of the U.S. aircraft.

The NA-33 was a basic, comparatively simple aircraft with excellent mechanical reliability. It is a member of the family of aircraft that included the famous NA-44, extensively used as a training aircraft by the U.S. Army as the AT-6, the U.S. Navy as the SNJ and by several allied air forces.

Another member of the family was the U.S. Army's A-27 light attack aircraft. This was a militarized variation of the NA-44 that was ordered by Siam but seized by the U.S. prior to delivery and issued to the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East.

As an Army Cooperation and light attack aircraft the Wirraway was excellent. When pressed into the role of a fighter in 1942 it was completely inadequate.

Don

[stubby331]

Talking of Aussie aircraft, (the only truly Aussie aircraft being the trusty Boomerang, yay!!!!.) (thats of course if you dont take into account the US designed engine).

Has anyone read of Boomerang air to air action? They were used in the war as ground support, so, despite searching I have never read of a air to air engagement.

On Michael Chan. Mate, your a riot.

Please come back to me on the Boomerang question.

ta

[Duritz]

stubby331,

Australian Defence thinking at the time was very similar across a range of military hardware types.......

This thinking was; get a design from overseas and adapt or build as quick as possible. Must remember that Aust was in a situation where they bought all their equipment from the UK but that was impossible after 1940 and so they grabbed whatever they could while starting their own industries from scratch.

Brewster Buffaloes were bought, NA44's were built under licence while the Boomerang was designed locally as the long term solution to their fighter problem. A similar scenario can be seen with tanks with the A1 Sentinel being developed using M3 Stuart tank pieces as much as possible.

But aircraft....... by the time the Boomerang was fully tested and built the US was in the war and Australia had access to their (and indeed a resurgent Britain's) aircraft in huge numbers. The Boomerang was therefore pushed into the same roles as previously filled by the Wirraway, ground support, recon and other light duties.

As such it was never sent willingly into combat against enemy fighters but I remember reading somewhere that it wracked up massive kills for the war of 5 enemy aircraft, including 1 Zero of unknown type:eek: :rolleyes: !!! I believe this Zero was during the later stages of the NG campaign - Wewak perhaps or Hollandia.

Forgot where I read it now and it may have been 6 but.... that's it! Sorry my memory is fading.......

[Erik Rutins]

The pinnacle of New Zealand military technology...

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/newz ... aland.html

Regards,

- Erik

[mdiehl]

Right you are Don. I was thinking of the home-grown Boomerang, which turns out not to have been based on a civilian a/c but a whole new body, married to a P&W Twin Wasp engine, with a Wirraway wing section and tail, and later a Spitfire tail. Zounds!

With a top speed in level flight of low 300 mph it was good enough to hold its own against the Zeke but surpassed by later US and UK designs.

[Michael Chan]

Yes it WAS called the Kokoda trail by an AMERICAN reporter, but the term "Trail" is an american one where as "Track" is an Aussie term, here in Australia it is called the Kokoda Track.

Interesting point that you raise about the Zeros.....could you please supply the details and which alllied aircraft were based on the design of the zero? Facts please.

Last point...I have not yet attacked your nationality......your arrogance however is anothere issue.


__________________
"qui mare teneat, eum necesse rerum potiri" (that whoso can hold the sea has command of the situation) Themistocles 440 BC

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raverdave I never stated you attacked my nationality, but I'm arrogant because you have the typical Aussia attitude (I am guessing your Australian because of your flag) that you are better than other Asian countrys. I have an Encylopeada of Aircraft, which has most of the worlds aircraft in it and it states that early Australian aircraft were based on Zeros.

[stubby331]

WHOAH. Hold on a minute Michael. Lets not get into my country is better than your country crap.

I’m Australian, and proud of it, just as you are Japanese (in part at least) and proud of that.

Yes, we have differences.

But, taking Pot shots with massive generalisations like your statement doesn’t get anyone anywhere except get their backs up.

So lets try to be nice and get along huh.

[Duritz]

I have an Encylopeada of Aircraft, which has most of the worlds aircraft in it and it states that early Australian aircraft were based on Zeros.

Hi Michael,

Your quote is of great interest to me.

Most early Australian designs were started before the Allies had a working model of the Zero (obtained in the Auletians in June '42 from memory). Allied theory on the Zero was that it was just an inferior Asian aeroplane - the same prejudice you accused Raverdave of - and nothing to worry about, that is of course until after the Pac War had started. By then the Wirraway was already in production and the Boomerang in design phase.

If the book states that it was based on the Zero then I would suggest you will have to disregard it - the dates just don't work.

At home I have a book that says that if it wasn't for poor quality British troops and commanders then the 8th Australian Division would have stopped the Japanese in the Malaya peninsular - what crap!

Point is that authors sometimes lie or guess facts they don't have on hand, a deadline is approaching and you have to get it done so you sort of guess that last detail and send the chapter off to the printer. Perhaps the bloke who wrote it believed it to be true, why wouldn't he - I wish we had copied the Zero design instead of flying breadboxes with wings. BUT we didn't!

You can trust me or the book, it doesn't really worry me either way but please don't use race as a reason for disagreement. You and Raverdave should just settle down. WW2 is over and enough people got hurt fighting it the first time round.

Duritz.

[Ron Saueracker]

This thread kinda lost it's direction.:p

[Didz]

Originally posted by Duritz

If the book states that it was based on the Zero then I would suggest you will have to disregard it - the dates just don't work.

At home I have a book that says that if it wasn't for poor quality British troops and commanders then the 8th Australian Division would have stopped the Japanese in the Malaya peninsular - what crap!

Point is that authors sometimes lie or guess facts they don't have on hand, a deadline is approaching and you have to get it done so you sort of guess that last detail and send the chapter off to the printer. Perhaps the bloke who wrote it believed it to be true, why wouldn't he - I wish we had copied the Zero design instead of flying breadboxes with wings. BUT we didn't!

I would support Duritz on this point. As someone who decided to make a serious study of the 1815 campaign a few years ago I quickly discovered that most popular published history is wildly inaccurate. Particularly, that published close to the event. In the case of the 1815 campaign much was written which was heavily flavoured for the English market and supported English attitudes. The most common inaccuracy being of course that Wellington was English.

It therefore comes as no surprise to find a history book claiming that Australian aircraft were based upon the design of the zero. The reality is if you want to sell lots of copies of your book and be accepted into the community of local historians it doesn't hurt to stroke the national pride of your target audience at bit and its not a good idea to make any wildly controversal statements that contradict your peers even if they are based upon valid research.

Just look at the storm Peter Hofschroer caused when he published an account of the 1815 capaign based upon his own research in German archives.

[Top Cat]

I can handle subs making a mess of slow transport convoys, but not faster military vessels. Submarine commanders should quake in their boots if anything with sonar/depth charges are around.

I've just started playing scenario #19 (version 1.40) by PBEM and I've lost 2 destroyers and 5 sub chasers in 2 weeks to submarines, including 1 sub taking out 2 sub chasers in a single night/day. This is on top of several transports going down.

In return I've fired 2 depth charges and hit nothing. At this rate I'll be out of ASW capability by early 1943?

Most of this is happening in the shallow waters off Rabaul, with 3 Rabaul squadrons on ASW duties, height 1000ft + dedicated destroyer packs+ sub chasers!!

I've also nearly completed scenario #19 against the AI and to date neither side has lost a submarine to aircraft.

Top Cat

[loader6]

I agree they just seem too **** good, especially in shallow waters when confronted by numerous ASW platforms, especially DDs.

[Possum]

Yet another area where the game could do with the introduction of a Group Experience rating, to reflect how important Teamwork was in hunting subs.
My impression so far is that every single attack carried out against a sub by aircraft and ships, is being resolved as a series of individual ship/plane vs sub battles.
Which, in real life did not happen that often. And, again in real life, the submarine should be expected to survive quite handily, which is exactly what is happening now.
Unfortunately, it is happening when there are mumerous ASW vessels involved, and that is incorrect.
Where there are 2 or more ASW vessels involved, then they should be ganging up on the sub, making it that much harder for the sub to survive.
6 Trained SC's pack attacking a submarine should guarantee that it must return to port with system dammage, and have a good chance of actually sinking the submarine, with no loss of SC's.
AS it now stands, if I send these 6 SC's chasing after a submarine, I can confidently expect the Submaring to sink 3 of them and make it's escape. Which is what I'd expect to happen only if all 6 SC's encountered the Submarine one at a time, with the SC's lookouts being compleatly oblivious to the threat of submarine attack.
Oh, and not learning from the prior experience of the SC ahead of them suddenly going Gloop, or exploding for no apparent reason.
Oh, and also, 4 experienced DE's/DD's/DML's/DMS's, trained to work as a team, should be the death any submarine that they find.
Please read some histories about ASW warfare. In particular, the account of the DE USS England in the Solomons in late 1943, for an example of how good a well drilled Escort team was at dispatching submarines.

[mogami]

Greetings, I admit enemy subs often sink one of my Subchasers but they usally die right afterwards when the rest of the TF goes after it. I see 2-4 ships attack enemy subs quite often.
(I also always use a DD or SC skipper as TF commander)
I use 2-3 SC and 1 DD as a core ( often when enemy sub has been spotted the previus turn I will send 4-6 SC and 2-3 DD in a single TF to hunt for it. This is when I sometimes lose an SC (but so far I have always gotten the sub)

[rtrapasso]

Originally posted by 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

Gosh, this date conflicts radically from Silent Victory (Clay Blair). Perhaps this is because "unknown causes" are said to be excluded from your list. On p. 553, he states there were 23 IJN subs lost in 1942, 22 in 1943. He doesn't give a breakdown except that 2 were sunk by subs in 1943, and on p.359 he states 6 were sunk by US subs in 1942. Has anyone seen a sub vs. sub battle in UV?

Your list was only 13 subs lost in 1942, and 26+1 prob. in 1943. A curious discrepancy for reasons unclear to me...

Bob T.

[rtrapasso]

Originally posted by 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

Regards,

Assuming you mean 5 to 3 for IJN subs vs. surface forces including DD and DEs. However, of the 3 DDs lost in 1942, there were rather peculiar circumstances in the case of the Hammann (tied up to the Yorktown) and O'Brien. The O'Brien had her bow blown off by the same attack that damaged the North Carolina. The I-19 was actually firing at the Hornet. The O'Brien made it back to port, was patched up, was sent back to the US - and sank in route. This could almost be considered an operational loss to some degree. This would be like dragging your cripple into Noumea, clicking Return to Pearl, and having the ship sink.

Although UV does a great job in simulation of operational AC losses, operational losses of ships seem to be limited to the rare occasion when a ship might strike a "friendly" mine and the everpresent SYS damage. Reading through the Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II, one would think the navies on both sides were being run while blind drunk. For instance:
10 Dec 1941 - BB New Mexico accidentally rams and sinks US freighter Oregon.
12 Dec S38 mistakenly torpedoes and sinks Norwegian (Allied) merchantman Hydra II.
12 Dec Jap. minelayer Naryu is damaged by marine casualty.
13 Dec Jap. cargo ship Nikkoku maru is stranded and wrecked.
14 Dec 1941 DD Craven collides with CA Northampton and is damaged.
14 Dec 1941 IJN Gunboat Zuiko maru driven aground, sinks in storm
16 Dec SS Tambor, damaged in operational casualty, retires from waters of Wake.
17 Dec Submarine RO66 is sunk in collision with sister ship RO62 off Wake Island.
17 Dec Philipine steamship Corregidor with 1200 passengers, hits an army mine and sinks with heavy loss of life.
19 Dec Destroyer Craven damaged by heavy seas
20 Dec SBDs from Enterprise accidentally bomb submarine Pompano TWICE.
21 Dec DD Paul Jones is damaged when her propellor strikes a sunken object.
24 Dec PT33 is damaged in grounding on reef (later burned in place)
26 Dec US subchaser PC451 accidentally rams and sinks US tug Nancy Moran.
26 Jap. DD Murusame and MSW W.20 damaged by marine casualty.
28 Dec DD Peary damaged when bombed and strafed by RAAF Hudsons.
28 Dec Jap DD Akikaze, cargo ships Kamogawa maru and Komaki maru are damaged by marine casualties
29 Dec submarine RO60 irrepairably damaged by grounding.
29 Dec US freighter Stonestreet is damaged by an evaporator explosion, and forced to abandon convoy and return to port.
3 Jan 1942 - Japanese freighter Meiko maru sunk by accidental gasoline explosions.

the list goes on and on, and includes some serious units, including major carriers, battleships, etc. Most of these are not minor accidents - they either removed the ship from the war for weeks, months, or sometimes permanently. There seem to be fewer listed as the war goes on, and I am not sure if this is because the navies got better, or the author got overwhelmed by the number and decided to stop listing them as they had less influence on the outcome of battles.

So, maybe UVs designers were NICE to us, and decided to simulate all of these horrible accidents, etc., by pinging us with a SYS damage every now and again. Perhaps a message like "BB Mutsu explodes and sinks for unknown reasons while in port" (as actually occured - turned out to be unstable ammo) might be more realistic (if aggravating).

Bob T.

[Don Bowen]

Originally posted by rtrapasso


Gosh, this date conflicts radically from Silent Victory (Clay Blair). Perhaps this is because "unknown causes" are said to be excluded from your list. On p. 553, he states there were 23 IJN subs lost in 1942, 22 in 1943. He doesn't give a breakdown except that 2 were sunk by subs in 1943, and on p.359 he states 6 were sunk by US subs in 1942. Has anyone seen a sub vs. sub battle in UV?

Your list was only 13 subs lost in 1942, and 26+1 prob. in 1943. A curious discrepancy for reasons unclear to me...

Bob T.

Here are the Japanese submarine losses - source is Japanese Warships of World War II by A.J. Watts. Hand copied - may have finger errors!

Date - Sub - Cause
12/10/41 I-70 Carrier Aircraft (USS Enterprise)
12/17/41 RO-66 Collision (with RO62)
12/29/41 RO-60 Wrecked
1/17/42 I-60 HMS Jupiter (DD)
1/20/42 I-124 USS Edsall (DD) and HMAS Deloraine, Katoomba, and Lithgow (AM)
1/27/42 I-73 USS Gudgeon (SS)
2/26/42 I-23 Missing as of 2/15/42, probably lost 2/26/42
5/17/42 I-28 USS Tautog (SS)
5/17/42 I-64 USS Triton (SS)
8/28/42 I-123 USS Gamble (DM)
8/29/42 RO-33 HMAS Arunta (DD)
8/31/42 RO-61 USS Reid (DD) and USN Aircraft
10/5/42 I-22 Missing
10/13/42 I-30 Mine (off Singapore)
11/2/42 I-15 USS McCalla (DD)
11/4/42 RO-65 Aircraft (in Kiska Harbor)
11/11/42 I-172 USS Southard (DMS)
12/9/42 I-3 PT-59
12/25/42 I-4 PT-122 - Probably
1/29/43 I-1 HNZMS Kiwi and HNZMS Moa (PGs)
2/11/43 I-18 USS Fletcher (DD)
4/7/43 RO-34 USS Strong (DD)
5/12/43 I-31 USS Edwards and USS Farragut (DDs)
5/14/43 RO-102 USS PT-150 and PT-152
6/11/43 I-24 USS SC-487
6/11/43 I-9 USS Frazier (DD)
6/22/43 I-7 USS Monaghan (DD)
7/12/43 RO-107 USS Taylor (DD)
7/14/43 I-179 Training Accident
7/27/43 I-168 USS Scamp (SS)
7/28/43 RO-103 Probably Mined
8/19/43 I-17 HNZMS Tui (PD) and USN Aircraft
8/25/43 RO-35 USS Ellet (DD)
9/1/43 I-182 USS Wadsworth
9/3/43 I-25 USS Petterson (DD)
9/15/43 RO-101 USS Saufley (DD) and USN Aircraft
9/29/43 I-178 USS SC-669
10/10/43 I-20 Missing
10/18/43 I-19 Probably sunk by USN Aircraft
11/13/43 I-34 HMS Taurus (SS)
11/22/43 I-35 USS Frazier and USS Meade (DDs)
11/24/43 RO-38 Sunk, Cause Unknown
11/25/43 I-40 USS Radford (DD)
11/25/43 RO-100 US Army Aircraft
11/26/43 I-39 USS Boyd (DD)
11/29/43 I-21 Carrier Aircraft (USS Chenago)
1/11/44 I-11 Missing
1/16/44 I-181 American Forces (!?!)
1/22/44 RO-37 USS Buchanan (DD)
2/1/44 I-175 USS Walker (DD)
2/3/44 I-171 Missing
2/5/44 RO-39 USS Charrette (DD) and USS Fair (DE)
2/11/44 RO-110 HMIS Jumna (PG) and HMAS Launceston and Ipswich (AM)
2/12/44 I-27 HMS Paladin and HMS Petard
2/15/44 I-43 USS Aspro (SS)
2/15/44 RO-40 USS Phelps (DD) and USS Sage (AM)
3/23/44 I-42 USS Tunny (SS)
3/24/44 I-32 USS Manlove (DE) and USS SC-1135
4/3/44 I-174 Missing
4/4/44 I-169 Damage after airraid on Truk harbor
4/6/44 I-2 USS Saufley (DD)
4/26/44 I-180 USS Gilmore (DE)
4/28/44 I-183 USS Pogy (SS)
4/30/44 RO-45 USS McDonough and USS Stephen Potter (DDs) and aircraft of USS Monterey
5/16/44 I-176 USS Franks, Harrard, Johnston (DDs)
5/19/44 I-16 USS England (DE)
5/22/44 RO-106 USS England (DE)
5/23/44 RO-104 USS England (DE)
5/23/44 RO-116 USS England (DE)
5/26/44 RO-108 USS England (DE)
5/31/44 RO-105 USS Hazelwood, McCord (DDs), England, George, Raby (DEs)
6/10/44 RO-42 USS Bangust (DE)
6/11/44 RO-111 USS Taylor (DD)
6/13/44 I-33 Training Accident
6/13/44 RO-36 USS Melvin (DD)
6/16/44 RO-44 USS Burden R Hastings (DE)
6/17/44 RO-114 US Melvin and USS Wadleigh (DDs)
6/17/44 RO-117 USS Melvin and USS Wadleigh (DDs)
6/19/44 I-184 Carrier Aircraft (USS Suwannee)
6/22/44 I-185 USS Chandler, Newcombe (DDs)
6/24/44 I-52 Carrier Aircraft (USS Bogue)
7/1/44 RO-48 Unknown - July, 1944
7/4/44 I-10 USS David W Taylor (DD) and USS Riddle (DE)
7/14/44 I-6 USS William C Miller (DE) - Probably
7/17/44 I-166 HMS Telemachus (SS)
7/19/44 I-5 USS Wyman (DE)
7/26/44 I-29 USS Sailfish (SS)
7/28/44 I-55 USS Wyman and USS Reynolds (DEs)
9/16/44 I-364 USS Sea Devil (SS)
9/25/44 RO-47 USS McCoy Reynolds (DE)
10/3/44 I-177 USS Samuel S Miles (DE)
10/25/44 I-54 USS Richard M Rowell (DE)
10/27/44 I-26 Missing
10/28/44 I-46 USS Helm (DD)
10/29/44 I-45 USS Whitehurst (DE)
11/12/44 I-38 USS Nicholas (DD)
11/18/44 I-41 Carrier Aircraft (USS Anzio) and USS Lawrence C Taylor (DE)
11/19/44 I-37 USS Conklin (DD) and USS McCoy Reynolds (DE)
11/29/44 I-365 USS Scabbardfish (SS)
1/5/45 I-12 Missing after 1/5/45
1/18/45 I-362 USS Fleming (DE)
1/23/45 I-48 USS Conklin, USS Corbesier, USS Raby (DEs)
1/31/45 RO-115 USS Bell, Jenkins, O'Bannon (DD) and Ulvert M Moore (DE)
2/7/45 RO-55 USS Thomason (DE)
2/11/45 RO-112 USS Batfish (SS)
2/13/45 RO-113 USS Batfish (SS)
2/24/45 I-371 USS Lagarto (SS)
2/26/45 I-370 USS Finnegan (DE)
2/26/45 RO-43 Carrier Aircraft (USS Anzio)
2/27/45 I-368 Carrier Aircraft (USS Anzio)
3/23/45 RO-41 USS Haggard (DD)
3/31/45 I-8 USS Morrison and USS Stockton (DDs)
4/5/45 RO-49 USS Hudson (DD)
4/8/45 I-56 USS Heerman, McCord, Collet, Mertz, and Uhlmann (DDs) and Aircraft of USS Bataan
4/9/45 RO-56 USS Mertz and USS Monssen (DDs)
4/12/45 RO-64 Mined
4/18/45 RO-46 USS Sea Owl (SS)
4/25/45 RO-109 USS Horace A Bass (DE)
4/29/45 I-44 Carrier Aircraft (USS Tulagi)
5/30/45 I-361 Carrier Aircraft (USS Anzio)
6/10/45 I-122 USS Skate (SS)
6/27/45 I-165 USN Aircraft
7/14/45 I-351 USS Bluefish (SS)
7/16/45 I-13 Carrier Aircraft and USS Lawrence C Taylor (DE)
7/18/45 I-372 USN Aircraft
7/28/45 I-404 Carrier Aircraft from US Third Fleet
8/14/45 I-373 USS Spikefish (SS)

[rtrapasso]

Originally posted by Don Bowen


Here are the Japanese submarine losses - source is Japanese Warships of World War II by A.J. Watts. Hand copied - may have finger errors!

Date - Sub - Cause
12/10/41 I-70 Carrier Aircraft (USS Enterprise)
12/17/41 RO-66 Collision (with RO62)
12/29/41 RO-60 Wrecked
1/17/42 I-60 HMS Jupiter (DD)
1/20/42 I-124 USS Edsall (DD) and HMAS Deloraine, Katoomba, and Lithgow (AM)
1/27/42 I-73 USS Gudgeon (SS)
2/26/42 I-23 Missing as of 2/15/42, probably lost 2/26/42
5/17/42 I-28 USS Tautog (SS)
5/17/42 I-64 USS Triton (SS)
8/28/42 I-123 USS Gamble (DM)
8/29/42 RO-33 HMAS Arunta (DD)
8/31/42 RO-61 USS Reid (DD) and USN Aircraft
10/5/42 I-22 Missing
10/13/42 I-30 Mine (off Singapore)
11/2/42 I-15 USS McCalla (DD)
11/4/42 RO-65 Aircraft (in Kiska Harbor)
11/11/42 I-172 USS Southard (DMS)
12/9/42 I-3 PT-59
12/25/42 I-4 PT-122 - Probably
[snip...]

Wow! Great compilation!
I will only concern myself here with 1942. OK - I am not sure where the discrepancy lies, and if one source is more current than another. The edition of Silent Victory I am quoting is 2001, presumably the most current. Page 361, he credits six IJN submarines sunk by US subs, crediting Gudgeon, Tautog (two), Triton, Grayback, and Seadragon.
Gudgeon is credited with sinking I-173 on 1/27/42 as a result of radio intelligence.
Tautog is credited with I-28 in May 1942.

Triton is credited with I-64 on 17 May 1942.

Grayback is credited with I-18 in December 1942 (p343), however, Official Chronology says I-18 sunk by Fletcher as per your source.

Seadragon is credited with I-4 in postwar JANAC records. According to The Official Chronology of the US Navy, this occurred on 21 Dec between New Britain and New Ireland at 5 deg 2 min S, 152 deg 33 min E, while I-4 was engaged in resupply mission to Guadalcanal.

I still can't find the second sub Blair credits to Tautog. The book does not give a list of ships or warships sunk by submarine, but gives lists of tonnage and numbeers of ships sunk. If I find it, I will list another post.
Bob T.

[Don Bowen]

Originally posted by rtrapasso


Gudgeon is credited with sinking I-173 on 1/27/42 as a result of radio intelligence.

Tautog is credited with I-28 in May 1942.

Triton is credited with I-64 on 17 May 1942.

Grayback is credited with I-18 in December 1942 (p343), however, Official Chronology says I-18 sunk by Fletcher as per your source.

Seadragon is credited with I-4 in postwar JANAC records. According to The Official Chronology of the US Navy, this occurred on 21 Dec between New Britain and New Ireland at 5 deg 2 min S, 152 deg 33 min E, while I-4 was engaged in resupply mission to Guadalcanal.

I still can't find the second sub Blair credits to Tautog. The book does not give a list of ships or warships sunk by submarine, but gives lists of tonnage and numbeers of ships sunk. If I find it, I will list another post.
Bob T.

The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships entry for Tautug credits her with RO-30 on April 26, 1942. Japanese Warships of WWII states RO-30 scrapped post war. Conway All the World's Warships agrees with the scrap in 1947.

Also note that Japanese I-boats with numbers < 100 were renumbered late in the war by adding 100 (I-73 becomming I-173, etc). Most of my sources give the number at time of loss but several use the +100 number.

A web search turned up:
http://www.merriam-press.com/mono_075/m_056.htm
which turns out to be a book for sale but the listing has some interesting data.

Don