British Unit with low Exp

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Frank

Now get real, gentlemen!

Neither the German nor the Japanese nor the Italians had any ASW abilities to speak of.

It is interesting to read the after action reports from the Japanese amphibious operations in the DEI. The Asiatic sub captains were very impressed with the skill the IJN escorts demonstrated. Reading Hara's "Japanese Destroyer Captain" is also an eye openner to those who believe the IJN had no ASW capabilities to speak of. The primary difference, it appears to me, is that the Allied ASW got more capable faster than the Axis subs developed and the Allied subs got more capable faster than the Axis ASW. Made the campaigns in the Atlantic and Pacific very one-sided by 43.

People trying to minimize the British subs´achievements should just compare the plain size of the Med with the Pacific to get some impression about the problems British, Italian and German subs had to fight with in the Med.

I don't follow your logic here.

Ok, trying to explain:
Some gentlemen here thin that the sunk tonnage of a sub is a meassurement for the abilities of the skipper.
The USN Skipper sunk lots of ships. Great. The Brits sunk not so many ships in the Med.
One reason is of course, that the Italians had not so many ships. The second one ist, that the Med is a very small ocean, especially compared to the pacific. So planes had a much smaller area to cover, the same is true for ASW.
So, imho, the comparison of the sinking results in the Med and the Pacific is no proper way to found the abilities of skippers on.

Was I clearer now?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Frank

Now get real, gentlemen!

Neither the German nor the Japanese nor the Italians had any ASW abilities to speak of.

It is interesting to read the after action reports from the Japanese amphibious operations in the DEI. The Asiatic sub captains were very impressed with the skill the IJN escorts demonstrated. Reading Hara's "Japanese Destroyer Captain" is also an eye openner to those who believe the IJN had no ASW capabilities to speak of. The primary difference, it appears to me, is that the Allied ASW got more capable faster than the Axis subs developed and the Allied subs got more capable faster than the Axis ASW. Made the campaigns in the Atlantic and Pacific very one-sided by 43.

People trying to minimize the British subs´achievements should just compare the plain size of the Med with the Pacific to get some impression about the problems British, Italian and German subs had to fight with in the Med.

I don't follow your logic here.

Ok, trying to explain:
Some gentlemen here thin that the sunk tonnage of a sub is a meassurement for the abilities of the skipper.
The USN Skipper sunk lots of ships. Great. The Brits sunk not so many ships in the Med.
One reason is of course, that the Italians had not so many ships. The second one ist, that the Med is a very small ocean, especially compared to the pacific. So planes had a much smaller area to cover, the same is true for ASW.
So, imho, the comparison of the sinking results in the Med and the Pacific is no proper way to found the abilities of skippers on.

Was I clearer now?

Clear as mud.

First, if the number of ships sunk is not a good indicator of a sub captains' abilities, what is?

Next, let's look at what you said-
The US sank a lot of subs, the British didn't. This was because:
1) Japan had a lot of ships, Italy didn't.
2) the Pacific is a huge ocean, the Med is a small sea.
3) Italy (and Germany) had good ASW. (A direct contradiction of your last post, where you said the Axis had NO ASW)

If the small size of the Med made it easy for Axis ASW to find British subs, wasn't it also easy for British subs to find targets? If Italy had few ships, shouldn"t the British have cleared the Med fairly quickly? If the Med was cleared (or had few targets) why didn't the British send their subs to the Pacific, since their captains were so good, and Japanese ASW so poor?

And your 'Med theory' can't support your claim of superior German sub captins- didn't the German subs have their best success in the Atlantic(like the Pacific a huge ocean)? And BEFORE the Allies had their ASW system in place?

And no-one has said that British or German captanis weren't good, but why do so many always have to insist they are so superior to US captains?

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

And no-one has said that British or German captanis weren't good, but why do so many always have to insist they are so superior to US captains?

There isn't a point where anyone has said they are. Just ultra-defensive USN fanboys taking offense where none was meant. Someone said that a certain USN skipper had a rating of 90, whilst one of the better RN skippers
In fact....

Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

Go and find a post where someone actually says that RN subs should have a higher rating than US subs. [8|] Why do so many have to insist that everyone else was rubbish compared to the US?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...

I don't know about RN fanboys, but this post seems to indicate that RN subs should be rated higher than US subs.
Why? Because RN fanboys say so.[8|]

And I don't see any RN fanboys making any effort to dispute this claim; rather they have gone out of their way to condemn and critize the US.

Why is it so hard for so many to even say anything nice about the US?[&:]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...

I don't know about RN fanboys, but this post seems to indicate that RN subs should be rated higher than US subs.
Why? Because RN fanboys say so.

And I don't see any RN fanboys making any effort to dispute this claim; rather they have gone out of their way to condemn and critize the US.
Really. Try channeling a sturdy John Wayne sort of guy, as is your stereotype.
Why is it so hard for so many to even say anything nice about the US?[8|]

One post - and one not made by the people you are arguing with.

Also, if you look a little further, you will find people saying good things about the US in this very thread. Hence the 'so sensitive' accusation. Your nose has been so put out of joint by a single post you're apparently not reading what people are writing, merely sounding off.

I didn't think 'thin skinned' was an American trait but sure seems like it on this thread. Try channelling a bit more John Wayne or something.

[mariandavid]

When talking about sub sucess it would be much more useful to compare boats rather than captains. The latter degenerates into facile futility along the lines of 'mine was braver than yours'. Now comparing USN and RN fleet boats is much more interesting and probably would produce more viable comments.

[HMSWarspite]

Now now children, play nicely or the big bad moderator will lock the thread...

It is notoriously difficult to judge submarine effectiveness, and even more difficult to judge the commander. The simplistic view of ships sunk is hopeless as a measure. At best, % of encounters turned in to a sinking (or some other normalised measure) gives some help, but is by no means all. To cite examples, a German Type II U boat was a horrid, short ranged think with 2 torps. A (hypothetical) superman commander with a very target rich environment is going to struggle. On the other hand, the second happy time on the East coast US was such that quite mediocre commanders (with the German Type VII uboats - bit small for the job, and the IX - about adequate) could do rather well. Tankers sailing individually against lit up coasts tends to ... reduce the required skill content shall we say

The RN never really had boats suited to the Pacific (or ironically the Med). Thus they were never going to be able to get the coverage the US did. In the main they were short legged 'European' boats. (The issue with the Med is they had external fuel tanks that leaked, and were slightly too large:)!  ). I think the issue of who is 'best' is ultimately a fruitless discussion, but I see nothing wrong with the original premise that the best RN commander should not be so hugely lower than the best US...

Can we discuss something else now?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...

I don't know about RN fanboys, but this post seems to indicate that RN subs should be rated higher than US subs.
Why? Because RN fanboys say so.

And I don't see any RN fanboys making any effort to dispute this claim; rather they have gone out of their way to condemn and critize the US.
Really. Try channeling a sturdy John Wayne sort of guy, as is your stereotype.
Why is it so hard for so many to even say anything nice about the US?[8|]

One post - and one not made by the people you are arguing with.

Also, if you look a little further, you will find people saying good things about the US in this very thread. Hence the 'so sensitive' accusation. Your nose has been so put out of joint by a single post you're apparently not reading what people are writing, merely sounding off.

I didn't think 'thin skinned' was an American trait but sure seems like it on this thread. Try channelling a bit more John Wayne or something.

Your fellow RN fanboy issued a challenge to find a post suggesting that someone claimed RN subs should be rated higher than US subs. I answered that challenge - post#4 in this thread.
This claim was made with NO evidence for support, yet you RN fanboys eagerly accept it as true. When someone dared to question this claim, the result was several posts proudly proclaiming the superiority of the RN, and denigrating the performance of the USN.
As a US veteran, I really don't appreciate all the negative posts about the US; if that makes me 'thin-skinned', then so be it. If my responses upset you sensitive RN fanboys, well, sorry. Taking pride in your military is one thing, degrading another country's military is another. If you RN fanboys can do the former without also doing the latter, then you'll hear nothing from me.

And yes, there are people saying nice things about the US in this thread; my point is there are also a lot of people saying bad things about the US in this thread.

As for John Wayne, if you told him that RN captains were better than US captains, he'd knock you on your ...

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace



It is interesting to read the after action reports from the Japanese amphibious operations in the DEI. The Asiatic sub captains were very impressed with the skill the IJN escorts demonstrated. Reading Hara's "Japanese Destroyer Captain" is also an eye openner to those who believe the IJN had no ASW capabilities to speak of. The primary difference, it appears to me, is that the Allied ASW got more capable faster than the Axis subs developed and the Allied subs got more capable faster than the Axis ASW. Made the campaigns in the Atlantic and Pacific very one-sided by 43.


I don't follow your logic here.

Ok, trying to explain:
Some gentlemen here thin that the sunk tonnage of a sub is a meassurement for the abilities of the skipper.
The USN Skipper sunk lots of ships. Great. The Brits sunk not so many ships in the Med.
One reason is of course, that the Italians had not so many ships. The second one ist, that the Med is a very small ocean, especially compared to the pacific. So planes had a much smaller area to cover, the same is true for ASW.
So, imho, the comparison of the sinking results in the Med and the Pacific is no proper way to found the abilities of skippers on.

Was I clearer now?

Clear as mud.

First, if the number of ships sunk is not a good indicator of a sub captains' abilities, what is?

Next, let's look at what you said-
The US sank a lot of subs, the British didn't. This was because:
1) Japan had a lot of ships, Italy didn't.
2) the Pacific is a huge ocean, the Med is a small sea.
3) Italy (and Germany) had good ASW. (A direct contradiction of your last post, where you said the Axis had NO ASW)

If the small size of the Med made it easy for Axis ASW to find British subs, wasn't it also easy for British subs to find targets? If Italy had few ships, shouldn"t the British have cleared the Med fairly quickly? If the Med was cleared (or had few targets) why didn't the British send their subs to the Pacific, since their captains were so good, and Japanese ASW so poor?

And your 'Med theory' can't support your claim of superior German sub captins- didn't the German subs have their best success in the Atlantic(like the Pacific a huge ocean)? And BEFORE the Allies had their ASW system in place?

And no-one has said that British or German captanis weren't good, but why do so many always have to insist they are so superior to US captains?

Hmm, it seems your reading comprehension ability is handicapped by me not being a native speaker.
Now very clear, so you might get it more easily:

One CANNOT compare the quality of skippers by comparing tonnage sunk in different theaters against different foes.

There is a wonderfull anecdote from Gulfwar I:
After a whole day of clearing mines in the Persian Gulf an American Skipper boasts he had cleared 100 mines that day. The German skipper told he had cleared only 12.
This very moment a tanker runs on a mine in the sector the American skipper had cleared before and explodes with a loud bang. The German skipper:" You don´t have to find Many mines, you have to find ALL mines!"

I hope this clearifies it a little bit.

Kind regards

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Frank




Ok, trying to explain:
Some gentlemen here thin that the sunk tonnage of a sub is a meassurement for the abilities of the skipper.
The USN Skipper sunk lots of ships. Great. The Brits sunk not so many ships in the Med.
One reason is of course, that the Italians had not so many ships. The second one ist, that the Med is a very small ocean, especially compared to the pacific. So planes had a much smaller area to cover, the same is true for ASW.
So, imho, the comparison of the sinking results in the Med and the Pacific is no proper way to found the abilities of skippers on.

Was I clearer now?

Clear as mud.

First, if the number of ships sunk is not a good indicator of a sub captains' abilities, what is?

Next, let's look at what you said-
The US sank a lot of subs, the British didn't. This was because:
1) Japan had a lot of ships, Italy didn't.
2) the Pacific is a huge ocean, the Med is a small sea.
3) Italy (and Germany) had good ASW. (A direct contradiction of your last post, where you said the Axis had NO ASW)

If the small size of the Med made it easy for Axis ASW to find British subs, wasn't it also easy for British subs to find targets? If Italy had few ships, shouldn"t the British have cleared the Med fairly quickly? If the Med was cleared (or had few targets) why didn't the British send their subs to the Pacific, since their captains were so good, and Japanese ASW so poor?

And your 'Med theory' can't support your claim of superior German sub captins- didn't the German subs have their best success in the Atlantic(like the Pacific a huge ocean)? And BEFORE the Allies had their ASW system in place?

And no-one has said that British or German captanis weren't good, but why do so many always have to insist they are so superior to US captains?

Hmm, it seems your reading comprehension ability is handicapped by me not being a native speaker.
Now very clear, so you might get it more easily:

One CANNOT compare the quality of skippers by comparing tonnage sunk in different theaters against different foes.

There is a wonderfull anecdote from Gulfwar I:
After a whole day of clearing mines in the Persian Gulf an American Skipper boasts he had cleared 100 mines that day. The German skipper told he had cleared only 12.
This very moment a tanker runs on a mine in the sector the American skipper had cleared before and explodes with a loud bang. The German skipper:" You don´t have to find Many mines, you have to find ALL mines!"

I hope this clearifies it a little bit.

Kind regards

Oh, look!
Another post containing an unsubstantiated 'anecdote' disparaging the USN.[8|]

If you can't compare the quality of sub captains by their results in battle, how do you compare them?
I've seen no evidence presented by you or any of the RN fanboys to justify the claim that RN (or German) sub captains were the best in the world. Lacking that evidence, one must look at the historical record. Doing so leads one to the unmistakeble conclusion that the in-game stats are historical and accurate.

Again, kudos to the devs for getting it right in the FIRST place![&o]

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Your fellow RN fanboy issued a challenge to find a post suggesting that someone claimed RN subs should be rated higher than US subs. I answered that challenge - post#4 in this thread.
This claim was made with NO evidence for support, yet you RN fanboys eagerly accept it as true. When someone dared to question this claim, the result was several posts proudly proclaiming the superiority of the RN, and denigrating the performance of the USN.
As a US veteran, I really don't appreciate all the negative posts about the US; if that makes me 'thin-skinned', then so be it. If my responses upset you sensitive RN fanboys, well, sorry. Taking pride in your military is one thing, degrading another country's military is another. If you RN fanboys can do the former without also doing the latter, then you'll hear nothing from me.

And yes, there are people saying nice things about the US in this thread; my point is there are also a lot of people saying bad things about the US in this thread.

As for John Wayne, if you told him that RN captains were better than US captains, he'd knock you on your ...

Well, I'm not an RN fanboy. Boats are *** [:'(] And being stuck in a metal tube that goes underwater is even more so [;)] I didn't remember the post you mentioned, fair enough it was there and you found it. Have a medal. Now if you'd said I was an RAF fanboy you might be closer to the mark.

There aren't a lot of people saying bad things about the US in this thread at all. [:-] Just some sort of persecution problem from a USN fanboy. There is a post where someone says that RN skippers were (are) better than USN counterparts. It doesn't automatically make the implication that USN skippers were poor or denigrate their capabilities. Unless you are so insecure that you need to shout out your defence of the USN at every opportunity.
Or perhaps the Brits should start complaining that there is a lot of RN bashing going on in here from lots of USN fanboys. Except that (1) there isn't any bashing going on and (2) it seems you're only a fanboy when you aren't pro-USA [8|]

And as for John Wayne. He'd find it difficult to knock me on my arse. Because he's not in a position to do much knocking [:D][:'(]


The USN and RN fought different wars, the conditions and enemies were different. Apples and Oranges. The USN didn't fight the war that the RN did, the RN didn't fight the same war the US did.
For the most part (and I know it wasn't the entire war and some factors were similar) the USN fought a war in the open waters of the Pacific with long range boats. Transit times were longer but probably safer. The USN war was in some ways forced to the fore with the surface fleet battered at PH leaving the ubs as the main way to prosecute the war against an opponent with a large merchent force.
The RN fought in more confined waters in the Med, the transit times were shorter but more dangerous. Shallow, clear water made things tricky as did some extensive minefields. The offensive war wasn't as much of a priority for us Brits. Subs were used where possible, but iirc a fair bit of effort was put towards anti u-boat patrols and supply missions to Malta. In the Far East the RN subs mainly carried out shorter patrols around the DEI or Malacca Straits.
EDIT: In essence: The USN wouldn't have done too well in the Med with their more vulnerable, more visible big boats, the RN wouldn't have done too well against the Japanese HI with their smaller shorter ranged boats.

If my repsonse upsets you sensitive USN fanboys, then I don't care. Go and cry about it.

The entire point of this thread WAS that some RN captains had seemingly low ratings given their experience of several years of warfare.



P.S. If sprior is reading this... Submarines are really *** [:'(]

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Oh, look!
Another post containing an unsubstantiated 'anecdote' disparaging the USN.[8|]

If you can't compare the quality of sub captains by their results in battle, how do you compare them?
I've seen no evidence presented by you or any of the RN fanboys to justify the claim that RN (or German) sub captains were the best in the world. Lacking that evidence, one must look at the historical record. Doing so leads one to the unmistakeble conclusion that the in-game stats are historical and accurate.

Again, kudos to the devs for getting it right in the FIRST place![&o]

oh, you can compare the quality of a sub captain by their results in battle, if the circumstances are the same and the opponent is the same. Else you can´t.

Were there any US subs in the Med? I didn´t find any.
Why not? Because the large US boats were not suited for the clear shallow water of the Med. [:'(]Obviously the US admirals in WW2 thought that US skippers wern´t able to work under this circumstances (maybe they had too little skill? [;)] )

And here is another person who thinks the US achievements weren´t so difficult to make: "They sunk almost 1300 Japanese merchant ships, and many warships, for a loss of 52 submarines of a total of 288, a remarkable achievement which was aided by the fact that unlike the British, the Japanese neglected to properly escort and protect their merchant ships until the end of the war."
(http://www.2worldwar2.com/submarines.htm)


Today German subs are able to close to US CVNs without larger problems. They even run into NY harbour undetected. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjYZUiO ... 77&index=1)

The skippers of German U-boats aren´t better than their US counterparts, they just have more silent equipment. ( http://www.military-today.com/navy/u_212a_class.htm )

Following your argumentation US skippers suck because they can not do this with their noisier SSNs.
My opinion is you cannot compare the quality by these means. (Which is also stressed by Captain Borcherts, commander of 19th U-Boot-Flotille http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6 ... n28687352/ )

[sprior]

P.S. If sprior is reading this... Submarines are really ***

Yep. Whether you are in the Atlantic, the Med or the Pacific they're cramped, dangerous places to live and work.

The RN in the Med and the North Sea really can't be compared to the USN in the Pacific or the Germans and Italians in the Atlantic. Each was "special" which is why you aren't comparing like with like.

The Wahoo sank 20 vessels totalling just over 60,000 tons in 11 months. Otto Ktretschmer sank sank 47 ships for a total of 274,333 tons. Wanklyn sank 140,000 tons of enemy shipping.

I'm not saying that Wanklyn was a better sub driver than Morton, but shouldn't the fact that the RN sub drivers could do this be somehow reflected in improved stats for them?

If anyone wants a bun fight, I got lots of buns.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

When talking about sub sucess it would be much more useful to compare boats rather than captains. The latter degenerates into facile futility along the lines of 'mine was braver than yours'. Now comparing USN and RN fleet boats is much more interesting and probably would produce more viable comments.

I agree with your contention in the first line. Subs, of any stripe, are inherently differnt than other naval assets, in RL and in the game. They operate independently, not as part of task forces. They can rove and hunt; they don't need to worry about screen assignments or admirals micro-managing their activities. They are low value enough to risk in high risk--high reward missions, where your CV would fear to tread. Their crews are small enough that the CO has a direct, huge effect on training and performance. He's right there, personally fighting the ship, and the results of the best boats versus the worst, or average, within the same type classes and patrol draws is massive. Hundreds of percent different. In subs, the CO IS the key guy. But not the only guy.

If there ever is a WITP2, I hope that the submarine component is further deepened and developed, at least to the level of AE's tracking of pilot result stats and individual training stats. A boat might be great at attacks, but poor at damage control, for example, and there is never enough drilling time to do everything. Crew fatigue is also a variable that needs to be specially managed in subs. Right now, there is no R&R needed. If the boat is undamaged a 12-hour turn-around sees it back on patrol. For the Allies this alone serves to increase total force time-on-station by probably 30-40% over history.

I'd also like to see code that works with the DB devices so that attacks only expend torpedoes in proportion to the target value, AND that allow historic convoy attacks on multiple targets in the same spread. I realize this won't happen in AE patches, but ought to be a key desgn feature in any WITP2.

[sprior]

I agree with your contention in the first line. Subs, of any stripe, are inherently differnt than other naval assets, in RL and in the game. They operate independently, not as part of task forces. They can rove and hunt; they don't need to worry about screen assignments or admiral's micromanaging their activities. They are low value enough to risk in high risk--high reward missions, where your CV would fear to tread. Their crews are small enough that the CO has a direct, huge effect on training and performance. He's right there, personally fighting the ship, and the results of the best boats versus the worst, or average, within the same type classes and patrol draws is massive. Hundreds of percent different. In subs, the CO IS the key guy. But not the only guy

And it is for these very reasons I disagree and say it has to be about the kit and the man. A state of the art sub with a bad skipper will achieve nothing, likewise a badly built or designed boat even with the best skipper will achieve nothing. The 2 are inter-related, a well built boat with a good skipper is a wonderful thing but still very fragile.

[frank1970]

As a matter of fact ther are 3 points to be taken into account:
the captain, the crew and the boat. All three of them have to be good and have to work together, then a sub will be successfull.
AE does work with all three of them, but is a little "conservative" with the skippers quality.

[Anthropoid]

What is that old joke about submarines being long, hard and full of seamen?

[sprior]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

What is that old joke about submarines being long, hard and full of seamen?

There's also one about the admiral's daughter.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
As a US veteran, I really don't appreciate all the negative posts about the US; if that makes me 'thin-skinned', then so be it

And what do you think Brits think about you slagging off the RN?

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
If there ever is a WITP2, I hope that the submarine component is further deepened and developed, at least to the level of AE's tracking of pilot result stats and individual training stats. A boat might be great at attacks, but poor at damage control, for example, and there is never enough drilling time to do everything.

True enough. I found it interesting to read about how the British T submarines were designed for targeting enemy warships rather than merchants. They didn't carry many torpedo reloads but they had 10 forward tubes, so they could put down a huge (but one shot) spread if they found the Bismarck one day.

I think the IJN submarines were built with the same sort of thing in mind.