Matrix Games Forums

Been reading "The Depths of Courage: American Submariners at War with Japan, 1941-45". A passage in the book and comments on the forum got me to thinkin'...

Forumites have all commented on the effectiveness of the S-boats in game versus their performance in history. Partly this is attributable, in game, to the torpedo carried compared to the "Fleet" boats, however are there other stats that matter?

Which leads me to the passage in "Depths of Courage"...page 73.

The only submarines available to the Americans in the Solomons at the time were eleven obsolescent "Sugar" boats stationed at Canberra, and these were on their last legs. At 225 feet in length, the S-boats were eighty-three feet shorter than the newer "Fleet" submarines; had two rather than four diesel engines; could carry only half the number of torpedoes; had half the crew members; had a top speed of only eight knots; and could stay on patrol for only half the time of a Fleet boat. Only one S-boat John R "Dinty" Moore's S-44 (SS-155, commissioned in February 1925), hand an air conditioning system. The men aboard the other Sugar boats complained bitterly about the heat, the lousy food, the electrical and mechanical problems, the inadequate sonar gear, and the millions of cockroaches that infested them.

Looking in the editor DBB gives the S-Boats a top speed of 14 knots...whereas the "Fleet" boats are rated with a top speed of 19 or 20 knots....perhaps the S-boats should be re-rated to an even slower Max Speed to reflect the fact that the boats were worn out...and probably didn't function at spec... by the time of our game.

Does "MaxSpeed", in game, affect the ability of a submarine to perfect a firing angle and allow the sub to engage a target?

Or does a sub simply get to fire if a suitable target passes through its hex?

ORIGINAL: treespider

The only submarines available to the Americans in the Solomons at the time were eleven obsolescent "Sugar" boats stationed at Canberra,

[&:]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: treespider

The only submarines available to the Americans in the Solomons at the time were eleven obsolescent "Sugar" boats stationed at Canberra,

[&:]

I wondered about that bit!

For "Canberra", read "Brisbane". Suppose it's an easy mistake to make: both names have eight letters...

Canberra - Brisbane...take it up the authors...Flint Whitlock and Ron Smith...wonder where they got the Canberra reference from?

Still the point of the post was to point out the operational performance of the S-boats.

Morrison, Volume IV, p 224 places top speed as 11 knots -

On the surface the S-boat could do but 11-knots, nowhere near enough to make approaches on warships. If a target obligingly came within range of a waiting S-boat, primitive methods of torpedo control prevented accurate shooting. After getting off her "fish", the S-boat could go under water neither as deep nor as fast as the fleet boats, and her riveted hull frequently leaked revealing a trail of oil.

Looking in the editor DBB gives the S-Boats a top speed of 14 knots...whereas the "Fleet" boats are rated with a top speed of 19 or 20 knots....perhaps the S-boats should be re-rated to an even slower Max Speed to reflect the fact that the boats were worn out...and probably didn't function at spec... by the time of our game.

You are probably right that the maximum sustainable speed for these boats was less than 14 kts. But by the same token I would not be surprised if "The Engineer" could crank out more than 14 kts during his periodic speed trials (a form of inspection that his seniors might pay attention to: generally lasting two hours or so). So if it is your intention to limit the effectiveness of the S-boats to better reflect their historical effectiveness you'd do well to see exactly how the maximum speed attribute figures in the combat code.

I served on a couple of fairly tired pre-WWII Coast Guard Cutters (same class as Taney in AE). I clearly remember the Duane making 22.5 kts for our speed trial in 1973. Unfortunately I can't remember what our rated max speed was at that time but I think it was 19.5 kts. When I returned to sea in 1978 sister ship BIBB (a sistership) had had its max rated speed reduced to 18.5 kts. I also remember departing for a high speed run from New Bedford, MA to San Juan, PR at the last possible moment and making about 19.5 kts enroute (over the course of several days). Age had definitely played a role in reducing what exactly "The Engineer" was willing to do for the sake of speed (in peacetime) but clearly the ship was able to exceed its supposed maximum rated speed even over the course of several days.

By the way, who really cares if it was Canberra or Brisbane? You're doing stellar work.

Who cares??? Are you new here?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: treespider

The only submarines available to the Americans in the Solomons at the time were eleven obsolescent "Sugar" boats stationed at Canberra,

[&:]

I wondered about that bit!

It's just as wrong as the 8 knots.

ORIGINAL: spence

By the way, who really cares if it was Canberra or Brisbane? You're doing stellar work.

Getting out on patrol from Canberra would muss the hull paint just a bit. Gravel in the main seawater intakes, a 'roo hung up on the forward lifelines . . .

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: spence

By the way, who really cares if it was Canberra or Brisbane? You're doing stellar work.

Getting out on patrol from Canberra would muss the hull paint just a bit. Gravel in the main seawater intakes, a 'roo hung up on the forward lifelines . . .

Take it up with one of the authors - Ron Smith - ..."enlisted in the navy in 1942 at age seventeen, taking part in five war patrols aboard the USS Seal. He was awarded the Submarine Combat Insignia, the Purple Heart, and many other commendations... He lives in Austin, Texas."

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Smith recalled Canberra as the place where he was "based" because he "docked" his boat there...so to speak... when on shore.

If you want to pick nits the "hallowed" Shattered Sword is mistaken about a number of nitpick "facts" as well...

Could it be a confusion between surfaced and submerged speed?

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Could it be a confusion between surfaced and submerged speed?

Morrison puts top speed at 11 knots on the surface.

All of the sub class data was taken from a consistent set of sources, so that the numbers are consistent - one class "relative" to another. Just about every technical reference (Lenton, Friedman, etc..) gives 14/15 and 10/11 for S-boats.

Did find some grits in the bunkerage and endurance numbers for S-boats, though. Early war bunkerage is way too low, later war endurance is way too high (using Lenton). Will fix in Babes scen data.

ORIGINAL: JWE

All of the sub class data was taken from a consistent set of sources, so that the numbers are consistent - one class "relative" to another. Just about every technical reference (Lenton, Friedman, etc..) gives 14/15 and 10/11 for S-boats.

Did find some grits in the bunkerage and endurance numbers for S-boats, though. Early war bunkerage is way too low, later war endurance is way too high (using Lenton). Will fix in Babes scen data.

I understand the technical reference specs are accurate and consistent ... just curious if by the time of our game, the boats have been so worn out as not to be up to the technical specs - hence the anecdotes of Morrison and Flintlock/Smith which reference 11 knots on the surface and 8 knots respectively.

ORIGINAL: treespider
Morrison puts top speed at 11 knots on the surface.

Yes, and other people say this, and other people say that, and other people say something else again. That's the danger of cherry-picking references. There's no consistency, no context, and very little technical basis for many of the assertions.

One can easily rebuild and refurbish diesels, one can replace batteries, one can put a boat in a graving dock and clean the hull; basically, the proposition that they slow down with age is a myth. I have a 15 year old Jeep, that's been pulling 3-ton sailboats around the country, that runs just like new, because I do proper maintenance.

Morrison was probably refering to the service cruise speed (in the 10-11 knot neighborhood).

[ed] there's a gazillion ship classes in the database, that were built in the same time frame, that run just like they did when they were new. Mainly because the did so operate. A hull is a hull, is a hull, is a hull, and if you grave it, it's just like it came out of the yard. An engine, is an engine, is an engine, and if you maintain/rebuild to specs, it's just like it came out of the box. What is it about a ship that's supposed to wear out? Yes, some will flex and rust to death, but there are still well maintained Hog-Island freighters giving good service, today, almost 100 years later.

ORIGINAL: JWE
[ed] there's a gazillion ship classes in the database, that were built in the same time frame, that run just like they did when they were new. Mainly because the did so operate. A hull is a hull, is a hull, is a hull, and if you grave it, it's just like it came out of the yard. An engine, is an engine, is an engine, and if you maintain/rebuild to specs, it's just like it came out of the box.

That's a pretty big 'if' in there. There seem to be plentiful references to the Royal Sovereigns not being adequately refitted between the wars and not being able to reach design speeds. For most ships I'd agree there isn't enough data to justify changing from the original stats, but there are one or two exceptions.

ORIGINAL: dwg
That's a pretty big 'if' in there. There seem to be plentiful references to the Royal Sovereigns not being adequately refitted between the wars and not being able to reach design speeds. For most ships I'd agree there isn't enough data to justify changing from the original stats, but there are one or two exceptions.

Yes, and that's exactly the point. There's a gazillion references for individual ships at various points in time. And the data in those references vary according to who is writing the article and what his context is. That is the danger of trying to define vessels according to anecdotes and apochrypha. It is very likely "truth" in one aspect, but irrelevant in the context of the game scope.

IRL is often "fun", and nice to know, but not particularly worthwhile when considered contextually. One must, simply must, place things in a rational, relational, relationship, and let things fall where they may.

The alternative is letting AFBs and JFBs argue the "battle of favorite internet sources", which is something I think is infinitely worse than a reasonable, and justifyable, appreciation.

[ed] it's just like the PGA Tour Championship. 92% of the International Pros either don't want to participate or can't, under the PGA Rules. So, uh, what does that say about the winners? Oh, yeah; the PGA is the sine qua non of golfing, isn't it? ... isn't it? ... my goodness, it isn't? ... well, I have a website that says ...

You don't like that approach, that's why God invented the editor.

ORIGINAL: treespider

Take it up with one of the authors - Ron Smith - ..."enlisted in the navy in 1942 at age seventeen, taking part in five war patrols aboard the USS Seal. He was awarded the Submarine Combat Insignia, the Purple Heart, and many other commendations... He lives in Austin, Texas."

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Smith recalled Canberra as the place where he was "based" because he "docked" his boat there...so to speak... when on shore.

If you want to pick nits the "hallowed" Shattered Sword is mistaken about a number of nitpick "facts" as well...

I'm in jest, more or less. A copy editor should hang her head in shame at missing this one if the author got it wrong, but it's not a biggie. Although when I took a tour bus from Brisbane to Canberra on a day trip, the ride was long enough for me to make time with six USAF nurses along on the tour, and set up dates with two of them. If you knew my style then, that was a VERY long bus trip. [:)]

Edit: Sydney to Canberra. Portions of that trip are fuzzy . . .

ORIGINAL: JWE

And the data in those references vary according to who is writing the article and what his context is. That is the danger of trying to define vessels according to anecdotes and apochrypha. It is very likely "truth" in one aspect, but irrelevant in the context of the game scope.

IRL is often "fun", and nice to know, but not particularly worthwhile when considered contextually. One must, simply must, place things in a rational, relational, relationship, and let things fall where they may.

I disagree with your emphasis. "anecdotes and apocrypha" are easy to dismiss, but that's anecdotes and apocrypha, there is a considerable amount of data out there from first class authors using original source material that shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. If the source is known to be reliable and is not contradicted by better sources, why ignore it? The only 'rational, relational, relationship' that ultimately matters is 'to the best of the field's collective knowledge, X is true'.

IRL isn't simply 'fun', it is the measure by which a model or simulation is judged. So if the sources I trust say that the truth was X, and the model says Y, then, as you say, that's what the editor is for.