Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The IJN was completely unaware of the torpedo problem. The fear they had for their capital ships was based on their own doctrine. As opposed to the German U-Boats, Japanese subs were to be used against warships, not shipping. They had the mistaken belief that, of course, the Americans agreed with them and had a similarly flawed doctrine. As the Japanese player you have the option of having a different doctrine.

quote:

Protecting convoys in the vast Pacific wasn't even possible really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Protecting convoys in the vast Pacific wasn't even possible really.

Is this your thinking or have you read it somewhere? Just interested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Protecting convoys in the vast Pacific wasn't even possible really.

Is this your thinking or have you read it somewhere? Just interested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck

I am playing Japan in Scenario 2 in late August 1942 and I am terrified of the US Subs.

They have torpedoed several of my carriers, thankfully not sunk, some multiple times with the Mark 14 torpedoes.
We have seen only 2 duds so far, both versus xAKs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Protecting convoys in the vast Pacific wasn't even possible really.

Is this your thinking or have you read it somewhere? Just interested.

I don't recall reading anyone who was saying that, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had. We had the resources to send some DEs or DDs with the convoys but that wasn't enough in the Atlantic.
If the IJN had put a similar effort into interdicting shipping as the Kriegsmarine, I would think it might have extended the war a year, but not won it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck

I am playing Japan in Scenario 2 in late August 1942 and I am terrified of the US Subs.

They have torpedoed several of my carriers, thankfully not sunk, some multiple times with the Mark 14 torpedoes.
We have seen only 2 duds so far, both versus xAKs.

quote:

During the early war period, did the Japanese ever become aware of the USN torpedo problems, and perhaps adjust tactics accordingly? It would be ironic if they discounted the threat of US subs just when the USN started getting the problem fixed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't think we would tend to disagree with each other, in my experience. But your typical IJN sub could probably swallow 5 unterseeboats without burping. I'm going to stick with my bad doctrine thesis (Yes I have a degree from T***** University in that) and continue to posit that if they had seen things the way the Germans did and executed properly the damage they could have done could have been (well, not incalculable) large. The Japanese effort in regards to subs was actually remarkable and some could have compared favorably to B-29s, if such comparisons could be made (they couldn't, not even in this forum) oh my gollywolly, what have I done? I may be banned for life. You know what I mean. Their doctrine diverted their efforts away from strategies that might have worked (better).

I also have a degree in spelling and knowing how many asterisks to use when I don't want to spell something out from the same fine institution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't think we would tend to disagree with each other, in my experience. But your typical IJN sub could probably swallow 5 unterseeboats without burping. I'm going to stick with my bad doctrine thesis (Yes I have a degree from T***** University in that) and continue to posit that if they had seen things the way the Germans did and executed properly the damage they could have done could have been (well, not incalculable) large. The Japanese effort in regards to subs was actually remarkable and some could have compared favorably to B-29s, if such comparisons could be made (they couldn't, not even in this forum) oh my gollywolly, what have I done? I may be banned for life. You know what I mean. Their doctrine diverted their efforts away from strategies that might have worked (better).

I also have a degree in spelling and knowing how many asterisks to use when I don't want to spell something out from the same fine institution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't think we would tend to disagree with each other, in my experience. But your typical IJN sub could probably swallow 5 unterseeboats without burping. I'm going to stick with my bad doctrine thesis (Yes I have a degree from T***** University in that) and continue to posit that if they had seen things the way the Germans did and executed properly the damage they could have done could have been (well, not incalculable) large. The Japanese effort in regards to subs was actually remarkable and some could have compared favorably to B-29s, if such comparisons could be made (they couldn't, not even in this forum) oh my gollywolly, what have I done? I may be banned for life. You know what I mean. Their doctrine diverted their efforts away from strategies that might have worked (better).

I also have a degree in spelling and knowing how many asterisks to use when I don't want to spell something out from the same fine institution.

Probably not. Japanese subs were large with nice speed and range but slow to dive and slow to turn. They were quite noisy and not built as well Germans subs. And they really could not dive very deep. If they had diverted to attacking merchants, yes they would have sunk some more merchants in 1942. But by mid 43 the Americans were up to speed in ASW technology and tactics and would have rolled them up no matter where they were up to. The biggest failing of the Japanese was that they were woefully deficient in code and radio security and the Americans knew where there subs were and where they were going quite a lot. Truthfully, when radar, advanced sonar and Huff Duff were all on line, it did not work very well for the Germans either. My two cents anyways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't think we would tend to disagree with each other, in my experience. But your typical IJN sub could probably swallow 5 unterseeboats without burping. I'm going to stick with my bad doctrine thesis (Yes I have a degree from T***** University in that) and continue to posit that if they had seen things the way the Germans did and executed properly the damage they could have done could have been (well, not incalculable) large. The Japanese effort in regards to subs was actually remarkable and some could have compared favorably to B-29s, if such comparisons could be made (they couldn't, not even in this forum) oh my gollywolly, what have I done? I may be banned for life. You know what I mean. Their doctrine diverted their efforts away from strategies that might have worked (better).

I also have a degree in spelling and knowing how many asterisks to use when I don't want to spell something out from the same fine institution.

Probably not. Japanese subs were large with nice speed and range but slow to dive and slow to turn. They were quite noisy and not built as well Germans subs. And they really could not dive very deep. If they had diverted to attacking merchants, yes they would have sunk some more merchants in 1942. But by mid 43 the Americans were up to speed in ASW technology and tactics and would have rolled them up no matter where they were up to. The biggest failing of the Japanese was that they were woefully deficient in code and radio security and the Americans knew where there subs were and where they were going quite a lot. Truthfully, when radar, advanced sonar and Huff Duff were all on line, it did not work very well for the Germans either. My two cents anyways.

I think the Gorn was implying that a change in doctrine to attack shipping instead of warships would have meant a change in sub specs to produce smaller, stealthier subs like the Germans had, although long range would still have been desirable. The problems with operational security and radio use could have been reduced too, had anyone on the IJN side actually imagined the Allies breaking their codes and triangulating their signals. After Midway and the ambush of Admiral Yamamoto's aircraft, the lack of communications security should have been obvious to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The IJN was completely unaware of the torpedo problem. The fear they had for their capital ships was based on their own doctrine. As opposed to the German U-Boats, Japanese subs were to be used against warships, not shipping. They had the mistaken belief that, of course, the Americans agreed with them and had a similarly flawed doctrine. As the Japanese player you have the option of having a different doctrine.

I don't think I'd call the Japanese doctrine flawed. It's not as if they could have strangled American logistics by targeting the merchant supply. Supporting fleet actions by going for warships was probably the most efficacious use of their subs, aside from torpedoing troop transports on the way to an invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

This would have never "starved" the United States or American industry as German victory in the Battle of the Atlantic might have done to the United Kingdom, but it would have seriously diminished the United States ability to build the supply and infrastructure in Hawaii, done serious damage to Australia and New Zealand, and made resupply of American outposts in the Pacific very difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I agree here, and you could use the game to sort of reinforce the theory. I (and I think we JFB's) hunt merchies all the time with subs. I for one sink many, against the AI not that hard. I doubt any of this has had much effect on AFB's. If it has would you guys speak up.