Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[el cid again]

This is essentially correct

except

the US did not go for snorkels at all, until the post war era

and the Japanese had an entirely different snorkel concept than the German one (not runing main engines at all)

but this is my point: you have no range on batteries in game terms - if submerged - you are stuck in that hex

If snorkes were supported by code - you could move two hexes per turn - so range should be adjusted for that speed -- and the choice to cruise would then be = snorkeling = submerged for detection purposes (both detection of and detection by the sub)

In RHS, snorkel fitted subs have low cruising speeds and high ranges - but they are not treated differently for detection by code

Also - virtually no submarine in that era could go 10 knots. 9 knots was very good, 8 knots normal, and 7 knots occasionally - in all casese these being TOP speeds on batteries - sustainable usually for an hour. For range - which was typically 45 to 90 miles - you had to go 2 or 3 knots - or 2.5 - really slow - but UNLESS you went that slow you could never move even one hex on batteries. For tactical reasons only a sub in transit might do that - they wanted speed for a tactical situation.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

One thing I did notice was if I hit the "Exit" button during a fight where my ships were focusing on just a few ships, in the combat report they damaged or sank nearly every ship in the convoy.  If I sit there and watch the entire fight, my ships blow just a few enemy ships away and then break off combat.  Anyone else noticed that?

Good point. i also have noticed a significant difference in combat results when i use the exit button - and would love to know whether this is just coincidence, or are the code routines different?

KB attacking PH. If I watch the fight, all of the Kate's use 800kg bombs, turn off the combat animations, and they score 3-4 torpedo hits per BB. That's pretty consistant as well.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But if it has radar, the radar helps it detect - although not to engage.

Not quite true - radar gives the chance to spot a target when in an unsuitable position, surfaced (say to the beam), run around to get ahead, and then submerge to wait in ambush. It is not guaranteed by any means (good old zigzag can spoil things) but is better than having no radar (as is said elsewhere) if relying on visuals to do this the sub is at a disadvantage, especially if having to move at high speed on the surface t get ahead of a target.

Only really fast warships (doing 20kts plus) give a radar sub an impossible time!

[Shark7]

Subs are and always have been ambush hunters anyway.  As a general rule, especially with DE subs, you're best bet it to move them into a well traveled sea lane under cover of darkness and just lurk there until something floats over you. 
 
Even modern DE subs are not going to catch any ship on the surface that is moving at cruise speed, but you can use intel and sonar to help position the sub so that it increases its chances of engaging.
 
The new AIP subs may change the tactics though.  They look promising for allowing faster movement while submerged, since they don't depend on running deisels to charge batteries.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But if it has radar, the radar helps it detect - although not to engage.

Not quite true - radar gives the chance to spot a target when in an unsuitable position, surfaced (say to the beam), run around to get ahead, and then submerge to wait in ambush. It is not guaranteed by any means (good old zigzag can spoil things) but is better than having no radar (as is said elsewhere) if relying on visuals to do this the sub is at a disadvantage, especially if having to move at high speed on the surface t get ahead of a target.

Only really fast warships (doing 20kts plus) give a radar sub an impossible time!

This is slightly oversimplified - but somewhat correct:

There are several cases:

A German sub with radar does NOT use it when submerged at all - the radar is built into the conning tower - on the front of it - in the form of diepoles - and so it only searches with it when surfaced - and gets no benefit when submerged

A US sub might have radar on a mast - and this can be used when submerged - and this sort of radar is almost as good as lookouts for range - and better than lookouts in bad visibility conditions

A US sub might have radar in the periscope - but that is more of a ranging tool than a search device

A Japanese sub might have radar on an antenna that is only used when surfaced - a horn like thing rather than the German dipoles - and again - it would not help when submerged

Radar increases the chance of detection - radically so in poor visibility - but less than perfectly in bad weather. IF you detect, it is like rolling a die - you might or might not be able to exploit the situation. It depends on speeds AND on base course angles - no matter how fast a ship is - if it is doing a USS Indianapolis thing (directly closing the sub) you will get into position.

A variation on this is passive radar - ESM or radar intercept. This was more used by the Axis than the Allies, and might be on a mast or on the conning tower - depending on the gear an the case. And it IS in RHS - at least one set is - a hybred radar/ESM set - where it is really a radar that was more often used in passive mode - and the range given is its range in that mode. It is late enough most Allied targets will be radiating - for by the end of WWII the Allies had developed the bad habit of "radiate practically all the time" - something we STILL do - and something the enemy exploited [See Shinano and the account of how she intercepted her hunter's radar - had the temporary initiative - but misinterpreted the meaning of the signal and the position of the submarine.]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Subs are and always have been ambush hunters anyway.  As a general rule, especially with DE subs, you're best bet it to move them into a well traveled sea lane under cover of darkness and just lurk there until something floats over you. 

Even modern DE subs are not going to catch any ship on the surface that is moving at cruise speed, but you can use intel and sonar to help position the sub so that it increases its chances of engaging.

The new AIP subs may change the tactics though.  They look promising for allowing faster movement while submerged, since they don't depend on running deisels to charge batteries.

This is a misunderstanding. It all depends on relative speeds, positions, and correct interpretation of the data - which is often ambiguous. Is not true that a modern DE sub cannot catch a ship on the surface - and in some conditions - it should always do so. Further - if it has picked its position well - it may be almost guaranteed to have a target with a closing aspect. In fact, it is now fairly common for conventional submarines even to intercept and achieve fire control solutions on US carriers - although in part that is due to a horrible loss in USN ASW capability ("the Cold War is over, we don't need to invest in the units, training, etc")

AIP is not very useful in a tactical sense - many forms of it make noise - so you do NOT use it in combat. You use it when cruising - to extend underwater range - or to recharge after an action - without the need to surface or even snorkel.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Subs are and always have been ambush hunters anyway.  As a general rule, especially with DE subs, you're best bet it to move them into a well traveled sea lane under cover of darkness and just lurk there until something floats over you. 

Even modern DE subs are not going to catch any ship on the surface that is moving at cruise speed, but you can use intel and sonar to help position the sub so that it increases its chances of engaging.

The new AIP subs may change the tactics though.  They look promising for allowing faster movement while submerged, since they don't depend on running deisels to charge batteries.

This is a misunderstanding. It all depends on relative speeds, positions, and correct interpretation of the data - which is often ambiguous. Is not true that a modern DE sub cannot catch a ship on the surface - and in some conditions - it should always do so. Further - if it has picked its position well - it may be almost guaranteed to have a target with a closing aspect. In fact, it is now fairly common for conventional submarines even to intercept and achieve fire control solutions on US carriers - although in part that is due to a horrible loss in USN ASW capability ("the Cold War is over, we don't need to invest in the units, training, etc")

AIP is not very useful in a tactical sense - many forms of it make noise - so you do NOT use it in combat. You use it when cruising - to extend underwater range - or to recharge after an action - without the need to surface or even snorkel.

Catch as in tail chase, intercepting is very possible by manuevering to where the ship will be going, but this is still ambush hunting, you move to where the ship is going and wait for it to come to you. But if it is moving away, the SSK (and even the SSNs) simply don't have the submerged speed to catch a surface ship. Which in itself isn't exactly true either...many subs have more than enough speed, but are so noisy moving at those speeds that they would almost certainly be detected before getting into a firing position.

A subs best weapon is its stealth. They are most effective if they can strike from ambush with complete surprise. It's just not advisable to try to chase down targets at a high rate of speed, because the noise generated negates the subs main advantage, which is stealth.

[apbarog]

Will there be any changes in AE regarding the advantage to setting many small minefields as opposed to one large minefield? I'm not arguing for or against this, just that there is an advantage in WitP to breaking a ML/SS force into many 1 ship ML/SS TF's in order to drop as many minefields as possible.

Apologies if this has been asked and answered already.

[spence]

submarines do not move or behave properly

In part because the operational dynamics of the submarine war are completely reversed. The Japanese possess a wide area search capability wherever they choose to station their Glen carrying submarines. The subs have intelligence on the location of convoys and direction of movement. The Glens somehow manage to fly even when the submarine is under "constant" (attacked in night phase and again in the day phase) attack by ASW forces. Meanwhile the USN submarines operate secure only in the knowledge that the vaunted and much feared 51st Road Construction Battalion is far away in Meiktila. IRL MAGIC/ULTRA was providing US/Allied subs with convoy routings and compositions and if that wasn't enough the Japanese merchies were blabbing away on the wireless providing their noon positions every day in low level code (and compromising any changes therein by giving an RDF fix to accompany their coded position).

[jwilkerson]

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Catch as in tail chase, intercepting is very possible by manuevering to where the ship will be going, but this is still ambush hunting, you move to where the ship is going and wait for it to come to you. But if it is moving away, the SSK (and even the SSNs) simply don't have the submerged speed to catch a surface ship. Which in itself isn't exactly true either...many subs have more than enough speed, but are so noisy moving at those speeds that they would almost certainly be detected before getting into a firing position.

A subs best weapon is its stealth. They are most effective if they can strike from ambush with complete surprise. It's just not advisable to try to chase down targets at a high rate of speed, because the noise generated negates the subs main advantage, which is stealth.

well said

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

submarines do not move or behave properly

In part because the operational dynamics of the submarine war are completely reversed. The Japanese possess a wide area search capability wherever they choose to station their Glen carrying submarines. The subs have intelligence on the location of convoys and direction of movement. The Glens somehow manage to fly even when the submarine is under "constant" (attacked in night phase and again in the day phase) attack by ASW forces. Meanwhile the USN submarines operate secure only in the knowledge that the vaunted and much feared 51st Road Construction Battalion is far away in Meiktila. IRL MAGIC/ULTRA was providing US/Allied subs with convoy routings and compositions and if that wasn't enough the Japanese merchies were blabbing away on the wireless providing their noon positions every day in low level code (and compromising any changes therein by giving an RDF fix to accompany their coded position).

This was, of course, the point of the Glen and both its predecessor and its follow ons. However - it is a valid point they could not fly in many conditions - and I am using an experimental rule limiting both range and per cent flying. [First pass - range = 2 for air search or 3 for recon or 1 for attack; if searching maximum 50 per cent - and I experiment with 30 per cent too: in this form the subs are useful but not by any means reliable at detecting enemy surface forces.]

On the other hand, the Allies never seem to have problems with intercepted messages either - and the habit that bites us to this day (transmit with practically everything practically all the time is how I put it) dates from this period in our history. In fact, the enemy was able to exploit signals tactically - and in particular radar signals - which we seem to have believed was so secret and they were so backwards it was not a possibility.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.

I am not able to confirm in testing that small minefields are more effective than large ones. Except in these senses:

1) Only one or two ships get hit per mine attack -

2) Sweepers clear big ones almost as easily as small ones -

the net impact being that large mine fields are not very cost effective

[bradfordkay]

Joe, if there's an absolute limit of 4000 minefields, do minefields that have been cleared still count against this final limit, or does clearing a minefield add another to the number that can be laid at the moment?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.

So what counts as a minefield? Is it one TF laying mines? So if a TF lays mines at the same base 20 times, is that 20 mine fields or one?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Joe, if there's an absolute limit of 4000 minefields, do minefields that have been cleared still count against this final limit, or does clearing a minefield add another to the number that can be laid at the moment?

Totally cleared fields are returned to the free pool.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.

So what counts as a minefield? Is it one TF laying mines? So if a TF lays mines at the same base 20 times, is that 20 mine fields or one?

That would be 20 fields.

[bradfordkay]

Thanks, Joe, for clearing that up...[&o]

[Dili]

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.

 
That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities.

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually in stock there is a trade-off to laying lots of mine fields. There are only 4000 minefields allowed to both sides total. So if both sides lay as many minefields as possible they will run out and then no more can be laid. As Japanese, in stock, I actually think carefully about when and where to lay minefields, not laying those in the rear areas too early. But I do try to "carve out" my share of minefields, so the Allies don't get them all.

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.

So what counts as a minefield? Is it one TF laying mines? So if a TF lays mines at the same base 20 times, is that 20 mine fields or one?

That would be 20 fields.

So each task force lays one minefield without regard to how many minelayers are in the task force?

Next question is do you know when you've reached 4000 minefields by the numbers of mines in a hex not increasing? The mines in the ships not showing as laid?