Historical Sub Q

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Historical Sub Q

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Historical Sub Q

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 4:28:08 PM

Redan

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/8/2006
From: a Quonset hut in Shangri-la
Status: offline

Were there really 27 subs at Manila at start of war? I accept that all the pig boats were there, and that the newer boats may have been administratively attached to asiatic fleet-- but were they actually there? If this has been asked and answered, I apologize. A nudge or hint to where I can see this info would be appreciated as well. Much thanks!

edit: change word pib to pig...[They call me Mr. Pibb!]

< Message edited by Redan -- 5/16/2007 4:33:10 PM >

_____________________________

"You can't stack units in this game. This is Tactics II, hexes haven't been invented yet..."

Post #: 1

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 4:33:26 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Don't have the exact # on me.....(someone will google it.) but yes, the Asiatic Fleet had a large sub contingent at the time. It was thought (same as with Germany earlier) that subs could perform a viable defense of a coastline.

_____________________________

(in reply to Redan)

Post #: 2

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 4:34:56 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redan

Were there really 27 subs at Manila at start of war? I accept that all the pig boats were there, and that the newer boats may have been administratively attached to asiatic fleet-- but were they actually there? If this has been asked and answered, I apologize. A nudge or hint to where I can see this info would be appreciated as well. Much thanks!

edit: change word pib to pig...[They call me Mr. Pibb!]

Well, not sure if each and every one of them was in port on Dec 6/7, but probably they were... the Far East Fleet had been recently reinforced with the submarines. Could probably check Clay Blair's book as that gives details of starting - ending dates of all patrols of the war.

(in reply to Redan)

Post #: 3

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 4:37:44 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/asia_subs.html

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 4

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 5:17:45 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

Most of US submarines were at dock when war started but were far less vulnerable to air attack than in the game. The "war ready" state was higher in the PI than in PH.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 5

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 5:30:27 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Actually, the Asiatic Fleet submarines were at a very low state of readiness for war. The level of maintenance and general crew preparedness were atrocious...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 6

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 5:32:28 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

There were a good number of "S-class" boats which were rather old and creaky. (but at least their torpedoes worked better....

)

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 7

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 5:48:08 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

True, but not just them...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 8

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 5:53:48 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

yes, the whole org was in need of a refit, both in personell as well as in equipment.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 9

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 7:44:07 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Actually, the Asiatic Fleet submarines were at a very low state of readiness for war. The level of maintenance and general crew preparedness were atrocious...

In WITP term they should have high SYS damage and low crew exp at start, but even if they were not very good, most of them were able to sail, or at least to dive into the port during a coming raid.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 10

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/16/2007 8:05:57 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

And also

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-CN-Java/USN-CN-JavaSea-2.html

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 11

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 2:07:30 AM

Caliban

Posts: 94
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline

My father was on one of those "s-boats". The alarum bells awoke them at 3:00am after radio communication ( I assume) informed them that Pearl had been attacked. They submerged in the bay to avoid aerial bombardment and then, that evening, set a northerly course where they encountered the invasion fleet the following day. They were sighted after a freak wave thrust their conning tower above the surface. They counted 57 explosions depth charges) as the Japanese sought them out. Their ship suffered structural damage and the loss of an their auxillary periscope. They spent the next 6 months attempting to find a safe port for repairs. This was finally accomplished at Balikpapan. His boat and the others of it's class, I assume, were primarily used for recon missions. He was 17 years old when he joined the "silent service" in June of 1941. He served the entire war in that service.

Larry Kocher (the very proud son of Wesley H. Kocher)

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 12

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 11:55:11 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redan

Were there really 27 subs at Manila at start of war? I accept that all the pig boats were there, and that the newer boats may have been administratively attached to asiatic fleet-- but were they actually there? If this has been asked and answered, I apologize. A nudge or hint to where I can see this info would be appreciated as well. Much thanks!

edit: change word pib to pig...[They call me Mr. Pibb!]

Kimmel was pissed about it because he needed them for WPPac 46, but the Navy had sent the subs to Manila as part of our deterent effort.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Redan)

Post #: 13

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 12:40:54 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

So much for deterrence...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 14

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 2:57:43 PM

Redan

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/8/2006
From: a Quonset hut in Shangri-la
Status: offline

Thanks for all the info, everyone! A special thanks for the story, Caliban.

_____________________________

"You can't stack units in this game. This is Tactics II, hexes haven't been invented yet..."

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 15

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 5:24:37 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caliban

My father was on one of those "s-boats". The alarum bells awoke them at 3:00am after radio communication ( I assume) informed them that Pearl had been attacked. They submerged in the bay to avoid aerial bombardment and then, that evening, set a northerly course where they encountered the invasion fleet the following day. They were sighted after a freak wave thrust their conning tower above the surface. They counted 57 explosions depth charges) as the Japanese sought them out. Their ship suffered structural damage and the loss of an their auxillary periscope. They spent the next 6 months attempting to find a safe port for repairs. This was finally accomplished at Balikpapan. His boat and the others of it's class, I assume, were primarily used for recon missions. He was 17 years old when he joined the "silent service" in June of 1941. He served the entire war in that service.

Larry Kocher (the very proud son of Wesley H. Kocher)

I think Dad's memory may be failing..., Balikpapan was taken by the Japanese well before 7 June, 1942 (six months). Maybe he meant 6 weeks...., which would seem like forever wandering around enemy infested waters in a broken submarine. Glad to hear he made it safely.

(in reply to Caliban)

Post #: 16

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 5:26:02 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

If I recall correctly, all but 1 or 2 departed for war patrols within 36 hours. I dunno why that is considered "low state of readiness", or that the subs starting in Manilla should be given high sys damage at start.

(1 sub was sunk at dock: USS Sealion, http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ss195.htm )

The only "shortage" (I can recall) at the start of hostilities was torpedoes, but this affected the Pac fleet as a whole, not just the subs in the Far East.

The Japanese blockade and conquest of the PI and DEI, of course, caused shortages of spare parts as events unfolded...

Am I recalling incorrectly?

(in reply to Redan)

Post #: 17

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 5:37:52 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

If I recall correctly, all but 1 or 2 departed for war patrols within 36 hours. I dunno why that is considered "low state of readiness", or that the subs starting in Manilla should be given high sys damage at start.

(1 sub was sunk at dock: USS Sealion, http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ss195.htm )

The only "shortage" (I can recall) at the start of hostilities was torpedoes, but this affected the Pac fleet as a whole, not just the subs in the Far East.

The Japanese blockade and conquest of the PI and DEI, of course, caused shortages of spare parts as events unfolded...

Am I recalling incorrectly?

Actually, at the very beginning of the war, the USN had a lot (several hundreds) of torpedoes there at Cavite (or Manilla, i don't recall which), all stored neatly in the torpedo depot... the IJNAF rectified this by bombing it and blowing it up... then they REALLY had a torpedo shortage after that...

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 5/17/2007 5:56:19 PM >

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 18

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 5:41:28 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

If I recall correctly, all but 1 or 2 departed for war patrols within 36 hours. I dunno why that is considered "low state of readiness", or that the subs starting in Manilla should be given high sys damage at start.

(1 sub was sunk at dock: USS Sealion, http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ss195.htm )

The only "shortage" (I can recall) at the start of hostilities was torpedoes, but this affected the Pac fleet as a whole, not just the subs in the Far East.

The Japanese blockade and conquest of the PI and DEI, of course, caused shortages of spare parts as events unfolded...

Am I recalling incorrectly?

Actually, at the very beginning of the war, the USN had a lot (several hundreds) of torpedoes there at Cavite (or Manilla, i don't recall which), all stored neatly in the torpedo depot... the IJNAF rectified this by bombing it and blowing it up... then they REALLY have a torpedo shortage after that...

Would have been nice if they had coughed up one or two of them for testing.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 19

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 5:48:11 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

If I recall correctly, all but 1 or 2 departed for war patrols within 36 hours. I dunno why that is considered "low state of readiness", or that the subs starting in Manilla should be given high sys damage at start.

The S-boats could probably use some moderate SYS given their age and upkeep. The newer "fleet" boats would probably be in better condition save for the MAN equipped subs which were maintenance nightmares.

The true lack of war readiness came from planning, doctrine and training. There was also a self inflicted weakness at the Commander's level. Pre-war doctrine and excercise rewarded caution and low risk decisions which led to anemic attacks in war time, lost opportunities, suspected cowardice, and mental stress breakdowns of CO's.

_____________________________

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 20

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 6:01:44 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

If I recall correctly, all but 1 or 2 departed for war patrols within 36 hours. I dunno why that is considered "low state of readiness", or that the subs starting in Manilla should be given high sys damage at start.

(1 sub was sunk at dock: USS Sealion, http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ss195.htm )

The only "shortage" (I can recall) at the start of hostilities was torpedoes, but this affected the Pac fleet as a whole, not just the subs in the Far East.

The Japanese blockade and conquest of the PI and DEI, of course, caused shortages of spare parts as events unfolded...

Am I recalling incorrectly?

Actually, at the very beginning of the war, the USN had a lot (several hundreds) of torpedoes there at Cavite (or Manilla, i don't recall which), all stored neatly in the torpedo depot... the IJNAF rectified this by bombing it and blowing it up... then they REALLY have a torpedo shortage after that...

Would have been nice if they had coughed up one or two of them for testing.

Penny wise, pound foolish...

One thing the game doesn't show (and given the current game engine, i don't know how it could) is that the USN started using obsolete torpedoes (Mark 8's, iirc) when the torpedo shortage got really bad. Most of these had been lying around for years without maintanence... i don't know what kind of performance they got out of them (horrible, i suspect). They also loaded the fleet boats up with mines when they ran low on torps.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 21

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 7:53:59 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

The true lack of war readiness came from planning, doctrine and training. There was also a self inflicted weakness at the Commander's level. Pre-war doctrine and excercise rewarded caution and low risk decisions which led to anemic attacks in war time, lost opportunities, suspected cowardice, and mental stress breakdowns of CO's.

Yep, there were many, many sub skippers relieved in 1942 for lack of aggressiveness, real or perceived.

And it went far above the skiipers too. As you said, the entire Navy was unprepared mentally, tactically and in many cases, logistically.

All the services had become bureaucratic organizations that steadfastly resisted change and stomped on the guys that dared break with doctrine and show any initiative. Only those that toed the line were rewarded with promotion. People like Mitchell, Chennault and many others were punished for daring to think outside the box. Well, the Japanese broke that box on 7 December and the brass didn't have a clue of how to respond.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 22

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 11:13:03 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

The true lack of war readiness came from planning, doctrine and training. There was also a self inflicted weakness at the Commander's level. Pre-war doctrine and excercise rewarded caution and low risk decisions which led to anemic attacks in war time, lost opportunities, suspected cowardice, and mental stress breakdowns of CO's.

Yep, there were many, many sub skippers relieved in 1942 for lack of aggressiveness, real or perceived.

And it went far above the skiipers too. As you said, the entire Navy was unprepared mentally, tactically and in many cases, logistically.

All the services had become bureaucratic organizations that steadfastly resisted change and stomped on the guys that dared break with doctrine and show any initiative. Only those that toed the line were rewarded with promotion. People like Mitchell, Chennault and many others were punished for daring to think outside the box. Well, the Japanese broke that box on 7 December and the brass didn't have a clue of how to respond.

Chez

I agree with all of this analysis. However, I thought the ideas of these strategic wargames was to see how much "better" you (the player) could conduct the war than the real life theatre commanders did.

I don't think the subs starting in the PI should have sys damage (see post #10), either to simulate a poor material state of readiness (which I dont think existed, see my post #17), or command confusion, which the player is replacing with him/herself anyway...

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 23

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/17/2007 11:23:22 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
I agree with all of this analysis. However, I thought the ideas of these strategic wargames was to see how much "better" you (the player) could conduct the war than the real life theatre commanders did.

I don't think the subs starting in the PI should have sys damage (see post #10), either to simulate a poor material state of readiness (which I dont think existed, see my post #17), or command confusion, which the player is replacing with him/herself anyway...

I think it's a worthwhile notion. After all, even if you are the "Theatre Commander", you don't carry much weight before the war with Bureau of Personell or Bureau of Ordnance. You would start stuck with whatever was "on hand". The game does give you the ability to "beach" poor skippers and "repair" systems damage, so you are in the same position as your historical counterparts. Christ..., look how long it took to convince Bureau of Ordnance that their wonderfull Mk XIV Torpedoes were a piece of crap.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 24

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/18/2007 12:19:18 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Or at least the magnetic exploders were...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 25

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/18/2007 12:46:30 AM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
I agree with all of this analysis. However, I thought the ideas of these strategic wargames was to see how much "better" you (the player) could conduct the war than the real life theatre commanders did.

I don't think the subs starting in the PI should have sys damage (see post #10), either to simulate a poor material state of readiness (which I dont think existed, see my post #17), or command confusion, which the player is replacing with him/herself anyway...

I think it's a worthwhile notion. After all, even if you are the "Theatre Commander", you don't carry much weight before the war with Bureau of Personell or Bureau of Ordnance. You would start stuck with whatever was "on hand". The game does give you the ability to "beach" poor skippers and "repair" systems damage, so you are in the same position as your historical counterparts. Christ..., look how long it took to convince Bureau of Ordnance that their wonderfull Mk XIV Torpedoes were a piece of crap.

Which is already reflected in the dud rates located in the device file... paint me confused.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 26

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/18/2007 2:36:44 AM

Panther Bait

Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

I just happened to be reading Vol 3 of Samual Morrison's History of the Navy dealing with the start of the Pacific war. His figures have 27 submarines in dock at Manila on Dec 7. Four S-class, seven Perch class and the rest Salmon class, with 3 listed as in overhaul. The only subs damaged in the initial air attacks were 2 of those in overhaul. The rest presumably set sail.

Morrison states that about 230 torpedos were destroyed when the Japanese bombed Cavite. Considering the generally low numbers of torps the US Navy started the war with, that was incredibly significant.

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 27

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/18/2007 6:33:23 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
I agree with all of this analysis. However, I thought the ideas of these strategic wargames was to see how much "better" you (the player) could conduct the war than the real life theatre commanders did.

I don't think the subs starting in the PI should have sys damage (see post #10), either to simulate a poor material state of readiness (which I dont think existed, see my post #17), or command confusion, which the player is replacing with him/herself anyway...

I think it's a worthwhile notion. After all, even if you are the "Theatre Commander", you don't carry much weight before the war with Bureau of Personell or Bureau of Ordnance. You would start stuck with whatever was "on hand". The game does give you the ability to "beach" poor skippers and "repair" systems damage, so you are in the same position as your historical counterparts. Christ..., look how long it took to convince Bureau of Ordnance that their wonderfull Mk XIV Torpedoes were a piece of crap.

Which is already reflected in the dud rates located in the device file... paint me confused.

READ THE WHOLE THING! I mentioned the Torpedo problem as an EXAMPLE of the problems of dealing with the entrenched bureacracy of the Bureau of Ordinance. I didn't say it wasn't dealt with in the game. The point of the discussion was the inneffectiveness of pre-war submarine skippers and the material deficiencies of the US Submarines in the Philippines...., and how it might be represented in the game.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 28

RE: Historical Sub Q - 5/18/2007 4:01:07 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline