Sub Warfare

[kaleun]

I had an ASW TF torpedoe a JP sub in the tutorial. It listed the torp as cause of death in the sunk ships list, and the Combat report said it as well. I am guessing that they caught them on the surface and BOOM! The sub did sink quickly with no depth chargeing.

Maybe[;)]the sub torpedoed itself. There was at least one instance that I know of, when a US sub operating IIRC in the area around Formosa, let off a spread of torpedoes, only to have one turn back and hit the sub, with wholly predictable results. IIRC only the people on the bridge survived. I am sure some forum grog will have the actual info.

[daft]

USS Tang I assume. Some of the crew managed to escape from the forward torpedo room too.

[Maliki]

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I will gladly trade some of my US subs for some of yours, in the spirit of game balance. My Us boats seem to have trouble landing hits. I am betting most of it is due to the torpedoes. I have only hit probably 4 ships with US boats and I am in Jan of 42 almost Feb (26th of Jan I think ). THe Dutch boats and UK boats have done much better with thier better torpedoes. Even so I beleive they have hit about 10 ships.

UB

Well my (US)subs hit things, but the torpedoes fail to explode, or if they do, they rarely actually sink much. My evil imperial oponent, may his Kami rot wherever Kamis rot, sends off a 30 ship ASW TF that proceeds to depth charge my valiant sub, which ends up having to be scuttled. So I think the sub play is probably balanced (If you are allied)

The US subs had a bad batch of torpedoes to start the war with,coupled with the fact that they were tested in Atlantic waters(apparently something about differing magnetic fields around ships(?) between the two oceans.Throw in the that most US sub skippers at the time were overly cautious and you have what is happening in the game.Starting sometime in 43 these problems were all rectified and thats when the US subs entered their heyday in the Pacific.


I wish i was having the same anti-sub luck everyone else here seems to be enjoying.Playing the guadacanal campaign for the loss of two subs,i keyed in on them with ASW groups,they took out a carrier,a couple cruisers and several destroyers.I spot them but my ASW groups just wait until one takes a shot at them,and even then not always,before they decide to react.[:-]

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: Xargun
I still do not enjoy watching my subs fire 6 or 8 torps at a single target and only have 1 hit, or all miss.. The thing that really makes me mad is when my subs fire 8 torps and they are all duds... Sometimes I wonder if the IJN bought so US torpedoes on the black market and didnt tell anyone.. WHat are the odds of all 8 torps being duds ? No very high is my guess...

Take a look at these: http://www.ww2pacific.com/torpedo.html , http://www.battlebelow.com/subwar.htm , and http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm

Frankly, there should be more US duds, not less. In an event described in hte above articles, one sub fired 15 torpedos at a target - 13 were duds.

[pad152]

Thanks Oznoyng

This is what I was trying to point out, that for the first 6 months of the war US subs where not the ships killers they are in the game and US subs should be less effective in the early part of the war.

[tanjman]

ORIGINAL: Maliki

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I will gladly trade some of my US subs for some of yours, in the spirit of game balance. My Us boats seem to have trouble landing hits. I am betting most of it is due to the torpedoes. I have only hit probably 4 ships with US boats and I am in Jan of 42 almost Feb (26th of Jan I think ). THe Dutch boats and UK boats have done much better with thier better torpedoes. Even so I beleive they have hit about 10 ships.

UB

Well my (US)subs hit things, but the torpedoes fail to explode, or if they do, they rarely actually sink much. My evil imperial oponent, may his Kami rot wherever Kamis rot, sends off a 30 ship ASW TF that proceeds to depth charge my valiant sub, which ends up having to be scuttled. So I think the sub play is probably balanced (If you are allied)

The US subs had a bad batch of torpedoes to start the war with,coupled with the fact that they were tested in Atlantic waters(apparently something about differing magnetic fields around ships(?) between the two oceans.Throw in the that most US sub skippers at the time were overly cautious and you have what is happening in the game.Starting sometime in 43 these problems were all rectified and thats when the US subs entered their heyday in the Pacific.


I wish i was having the same anti-sub luck everyone else here seems to be enjoying.Playing the guadacanal campaign for the loss of two subs,i keyed in on them with ASW groups,they took out a carrier,a couple cruisers and several destroyers.I spot them but my ASW groups just wait until one takes a shot at them,and even then not always,before they decide to react.[:-]

They also never did a war shot i.e. fired a torpedo with a live warhead because it cost to much since the torpedo in question would be destroyed and unable to be recovered and recycled. So they didn't find out about the dud problem (both the magnetic detonator and the back up impact detonator) and the fact that with a real warhead installed the the torpedo ran circa 8 feet deeper than set it would pass underneath the ship. So the Mk 14 actualy had three interconnected problems caused by peent pinching REMF desk jockeys.

1) Magnetic detonator would only work properly in North Atlantic waters were it was tested.
2) When the torpedo struck the target at <15 degree angle the firing pin would jam our snap.
3) With a real warhead installed it ran to deep for either detonator to work porperly.

Fix the first problem and the next two bite you. That why it took months fix, plus the fact the the officer incharge of the Mk 14 torpedo development was either ComSubPac or ComSubSWPac (can't remember which, Lockwood or Christie) during the first year of the war and blamed all duds on the skippers and not the torpedoes and his own stupid actions.

[X(] Sorry for the rant, but the fact they never court-martialed that SOB still p!sses me off [:@]

[Hatamoto]

Well, I´m as far as March 13th 1942, so far about 230 jap ships have gone down (+a few more I still don´t know about) compared to 70 allied, but most losses are due to bombing, especially those jap TKs, the AI likes to send to palembang, while 160 allied planes are sitting at Batavia, wating for more targets. Sub warfare seems to be ok, maybe there should be a few more duds for the allies (although Shokaku came away cause of these dammned duds). Lost 6 allied subs so far (8 more are badly damaged, but repairing rather quickly) against 11 jap ones, with approx. 5 or 6 more badly damaged.

One thing I noticed is to keep away from those jap APDs with their 8 DCs, 3 of my 6 losses are due to APDs doing ASW. the other 3 losses are caused by DDs (2 times Kido Butais escorts), jap PC/PGs and MSWs seem to be pretty useless, and AI doesn´t handle them well ( tends to send them with their TKs to palembang ), sunk about 20 !!! of them.

Jap AI seems to concentrate its subs at OZ eastern coast, and they cause a couple of losses on ASW TFs (nearly 1 ASW ship for 1,75 subs), MSWs are good at hunting them down, but also very vulnerable (none survived a single hit), had some success with those old 4 stackers too.

[Aficionado]

In early January of my current (and first) game, I had US subs get shots off at TWO Jap flat-tops. [:D][8D]

**Torpedo fails to detonate**

[X(][X(][X(][:o][:o][:o]

can't remember which, Lockwood or Christie

It was Christie. He was an LT when he was working on the MkXIVs. During the war he even went so far as to order skippers to NOT disable the magnetic detonator or change the depth controls. Just about all the higher-ups thought the skippers were at fault until some actual testing had been done. The Catch-22 was that there was no reason to do any testing, because the skippers were clearly at fault. That's the government for you. [8|] The establishment even went so far as to issue 'guidelines' for proper torp usage, and to occasionally send out Bureau of Ordinance "specialists" to help in the proper maintainence of torps. In classic "I'm from the government. I'm here to help!" fashion, one of the BuOrd techs set a gyro wrong and would've caused a circular run if the submarine crew hadn't noticed his mistake.

Lockwood conducted the first test of the MkXIV, to determine if it ran too deep, in June of '42. The torps were fired into a fishing net, with a fake warhead that had been weighted down somehow to have the same weight as a real warhead. Several torpedos were fired, and they all ran deep. However, the test wasn't 'scientific' enough for the Bureau of Ordinance.

So how many PP should it cost to promote Christie to Officer in Charge of Coffee Replenishment, Kiska Naval Base?

[freeboy]

I read that the contact detonators would break on a head on hit, and thus not detonate, so an angled hit might be less violent and cause an explosion... the testing which was done finally did reveal that the skippers where not lying, can you imagine the outrage.. If I was a skipper and somone suggested I lied to cover my ass, when I knew torps where bad I would probably come unglued.....

[Top Cat]

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

Top Cat,

I do nto thin kin '42 that you have sonar. Not on MSW anyway. But yeah he is a serious bad boy if 4 of 6 in an ASW TF are dead from him !

UB

Not sure about the Aussie MSW's but there was plenty of sonar around before WW2. A 30 second search Found the following at uboat.net.

In 1939, Great Britain had 165 destroyers and 54 patrol ships and minesweepers equipped with the active sonar. Before WW2, the United States had 60 destroyers equipped with the active sonar. Germany had many ships and submarines equipped with the sonar. In the German navy, the sonar was known as “S-unit”. In WW2 the sonar was improved in all navies involved in the war. The active sonar generally was fitted on surface ships. Submarines generally were equipped with passive sonar i.e. “Underwater sound detector”.

Anyway it's now about 9-1 to the Japanese off the coast of Australia in my current game, 2DD's and 7 MSW's for the loss of 1 sub. Think it's just a run of bad luck more than anything. These losses were inflicted on dedicated ASW taskforces of 6+ ships a piece.

Cheers
Top Cat

Cheers
Top Cat

[Top Cat]

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

Top Cat,

I do nto thin kin '42 that you have sonar. Not on MSW anyway. But yeah he is a serious bad boy if 4 of 6 in an ASW TF are dead from him !

UB

Not sure about the Aussie MSW's but there was plenty of sonar around before WW2. A 30 second search Found the following at uboat.net.

In 1939, Great Britain had 165 destroyers and 54 patrol ships and minesweepers equipped with the active sonar. Before WW2, the United States had 60 destroyers equipped with the active sonar. Germany had many ships and submarines equipped with the sonar. In the German navy, the sonar was known as “S-unit”. In WW2 the sonar was improved in all navies involved in the war. The active sonar generally was fitted on surface ships. Submarines generally were equipped with passive sonar i.e. “Underwater sound detector”.

Anyway it's now about 9-1 to the Japanese off the coast of Australia in my current game, 2DD's and 7 MSW's for the loss of 1 sub. Think it's just a run of bad luck more than anything. These losses were inflicted on dedicated ASW taskforces of 6+ ships a piece.

Cheers
Top Cat

Cheers
Top Cat

[Maliki]

ORIGINAL: tanjman

ORIGINAL: Maliki

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I will gladly trade some of my US subs for some of yours, in the spirit of game balance. My Us boats seem to have trouble landing hits. I am betting most of it is due to the torpedoes. I have only hit probably 4 ships with US boats and I am in Jan of 42 almost Feb (26th of Jan I think ). THe Dutch boats and UK boats have done much better with thier better torpedoes. Even so I beleive they have hit about 10 ships.

UB

Well my (US)subs hit things, but the torpedoes fail to explode, or if they do, they rarely actually sink much. My evil imperial oponent, may his Kami rot wherever Kamis rot, sends off a 30 ship ASW TF that proceeds to depth charge my valiant sub, which ends up having to be scuttled. So I think the sub play is probably balanced (If you are allied)

The US subs had a bad batch of torpedoes to start the war with,coupled with the fact that they were tested in Atlantic waters(apparently something about differing magnetic fields around ships(?) between the two oceans.Throw in the that most US sub skippers at the time were overly cautious and you have what is happening in the game.Starting sometime in 43 these problems were all rectified and thats when the US subs entered their heyday in the Pacific.


I wish i was having the same anti-sub luck everyone else here seems to be enjoying.Playing the guadacanal campaign for the loss of two subs,i keyed in on them with ASW groups,they took out a carrier,a couple cruisers and several destroyers.I spot them but my ASW groups just wait until one takes a shot at them,and even then not always,before they decide to react.[:-]

They also never did a war shot i.e. fired a torpedo with a live warhead because it cost to much since the torpedo in question would be destroyed and unable to be recovered and recycled. So they didn't find out about the dud problem (both the magnetic detonator and the back up impact detonator) and the fact that with a real warhead installed the the torpedo ran circa 8 feet deeper than set it would pass underneath the ship. So the Mk 14 actualy had three interconnected problems caused by peent pinching REMF desk jockeys.

1) Magnetic detonator would only work properly in North Atlantic waters were it was tested.
2) When the torpedo struck the target at <15 degree angle the firing pin would jam our snap.
3) With a real warhead installed it ran to deep for either detonator to work porperly.

Fix the first problem and the next two bite you. That why it took months fix, plus the fact the the officer incharge of the Mk 14 torpedo development was either ComSubPac or ComSubSWPac (can't remember which, Lockwood or Christie) during the first year of the war and blamed all duds on the skippers and not the torpedoes and his own stupid actions.

[X(] Sorry for the rant, but the fact they never court-martialed that SOB still p!sses me off [:@]

I didn't want to add all that,well expect for ssinging blame,from what little i read there was more than enough to go around..figured most people here would know about torps running deep and such..but since i've only been playing the tutorial(wow does this game suck up time)and the guadacanal scenario,anyone playing later in the war years notice any difference with US sub operations?

[tanjman]

ORIGINAL: Top Cat

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

Top Cat,

I do nto thin kin '42 that you have sonar. Not on MSW anyway. But yeah he is a serious bad boy if 4 of 6 in an ASW TF are dead from him !

UB

Not sure about the Aussie MSW's but there was plenty of sonar around before WW2. A 30 second search Found the following at uboat.net.

In 1939, Great Britain had 165 destroyers and 54 patrol ships and minesweepers equipped with the active sonar. Before WW2, the United States had 60 destroyers equipped with the active sonar. Germany had many ships and submarines equipped with the sonar. In the German navy, the sonar was known as “S-unit”. In WW2 the sonar was improved in all navies involved in the war. The active sonar generally was fitted on surface ships. Submarines generally were equipped with passive sonar i.e. “Underwater sound detector”.

Anyway it's now about 9-1 to the Japanese off the coast of Australia in my current game, 2DD's and 7 MSW's for the loss of 1 sub. Think it's just a run of bad luck more than anything. These losses were inflicted on dedicated ASW taskforces of 6+ ships a piece.

Cheers
Top Cat

Cheers
Top Cat

Not all DDs, PG, PC etc. . . . started the war with active sonar, most if not all had hydrophones, which is was WWI technology. They modeled radar as an upgradable device, I wonder why they didn't do the same for sonar? If they ever do an ETO version of WitP they should.

[John B]

Through to mid-April'41 in Scenario 15, playing the Allies. I've probably sunk about 80 Jap AKs etc, but you do find that the heaviest sinkings are in the first few weeks, when, as you'd expect, Jap shipping is pretty thick on the ground (or water), carrying invasion forces etc. By April sinkings are tailing off sharply. Whether or not its too heavy a sinking rate, I'm not sure. The losses don't seem to have unduly hindered the Japs so far. About 8 Allied SS lost at sea, plus a couple sunk by air attack in port.

Still a bit dubious about the the rate at which JAP SS are sunk. 11 by mid April. (Historically c20 in the first twelve months). So it may turn out to be too high. My own AK losses have been slightly higher than the Japs, mainly because at first I left some in ports which were captured and then they scuttled themselves. On-going annoyance is the habit of Auto-Convoy to route convoys straight through the Marshalls and past Kwajalein, where the Bettys pick them off. The trick is to intervene and route them first to somewhere like Suva, and then re-route them to their original destination when they are far enough south to dodge the Japs, but every so often I tend to forget.

Dud torps are authentically annoying. Still grind my teeth over the time when one of my subs launched a full salvo at "Kaga", and not one detonated [:@]

[John B]

Meant April '42 in the above. You lose track of time playing this game....

[mdiehl]

Interesting. Auto convoy running transports right through the Japanese held Marshalls is an old GGPW nuisance. GGPW was so notorious that it was never safe to set West Coast, CenPac, SWPac, or SoPac on "computer operational control." You had to run everything on manual to avoid the problem.

Another big problem in GGPW was the propensity to load up a regiment or division on transports then send it off on a slow ride through submarine infested waters sans escort. Has this little illness been cured in WitP?

I'm here to help!" fashion, one of the BuOrd techs set a gyro wrong and would've caused a circular run if the submarine crew hadn't noticed his mistake.

The only good news there being that had the torpedo run circularly it probably would not have exploded.