Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

subs to hard to sink!

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> subs to hard to sink! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
subs to hard to sink! - 7/15/2002 6:41:33 PM   
tiger claw

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: australia
Status: offline 		I feel the subs are to durable running in at 33 for the japs and the US at 20 -25 there abouts this is to high they are very hard ta sink ! hit mines and keep going, i dont think so even when they badly damaged they get away easy.
just want to bring some notice to this more durable than a LC,ML,
and some very large ships!

subs with high pressure hulls are durable but something about 12-15 US and the large japs ones 19-22.

VON WEBBER.
Post #: 1
- 7/16/2002 1:53:13 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Actually, they are almost too easy to sink if the subs miss with their torps. Shallow water is hell on subs but deep water is OK. The main problem with ASW was that the subs were almost never detected unless they fired first, and they were too accurate against DDs, SCs and other very maneuverable craft.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 2
- 7/16/2002 6:46:45 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I really don't have a problem with the subs taking damage from depth charge attacks. Subs of all nationalities survived depth charge attacks and managed to get home with all sorts of damage. Hitting a mine, however, should kill them immediately. I can't recall any sub surviving hitting a mine during WWII.

However, it's not that subs are so tough, but the merchant ships they torpedo that need adjusting. Merchant ships should sink after one torpedo hit nearly every time. Tankers and very large ships might need more than one, but most cargo or transports didn't have the compartmentalization necessary to stay afloat after a torpedo hit them.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 3
- 7/16/2002 11:47:55 AM   
WW2'er

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 4/20/2000
From: East Dundee, IL, USA
Status: offline 		I agree with you John about cargo ships and transports. More should be sunk by only one torpedo.

Erik, I know it's not an OOB issue, but is this being considered for a possible future "tweak"?

_____________________________

WW2'er

"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." — Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 4
Re: subs to hard to sink! - 7/16/2002 11:07:19 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Hello...

Durability for the submarine class is used differently than for surface ships. For submarines, it represents maximum dive depth.

Hope this helps...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________


[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiger claw
[B]I feel the subs are to durable running in at 33 for the japs and the US at 20 -25 there abouts this is to high they are very hard ta sink ! hit mines and keep going, i dont think so even when they badly damaged they get away easy.
just want to bring some notice to this more durable than a LC,ML,
and some very large ships!

subs with high pressure hulls are durable but something about 12-15 US and the large japs ones 19-22.

VON WEBBER. [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 5
- 7/18/2002 6:23:52 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I'm afraid that makes no sense at all (durability for subs is a measure of how deep they could dive). There are numerous instances of US subs taking damage to the pressure hull while on the surface and being totally unable to dive at all. See Clay Blair Jr.'s "Silent Victory" if you don't believe me.

If a sub was seriously damaged while underwater, if they didn't escape quickly they had two options; surface and fight it out or sink. Fortunately the IJN's ASW practice was very lackluster, and many ASW commanders stopped depth charging as soon as any debris came to the surface, which allowed many USN subs to escape.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 6
- 7/18/2002 8:57:49 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		MIke's not saying "durability = depth" literally, but that the space in the database labled "durability" should be labeld "depth" for the case of submarines. The label's in the editor are not "dynamic" in that way.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 7
Torpedo hits on merchantmen - 7/19/2002 11:45:24 PM   
entemedor

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		Sorry, but I don't agree that merchant ships should sink after one torpedo hit nearly every time.
A LOT of old merchantmen survived torpedo hits. Just read combat reports of German or American sub commanders, and you will find a lot of ships that needed two, three or more torpedoes to be put down under. Some times the cargo helped them to keep afloat (and of course other times it made them sink like a stone), ships in ballast were more difficult to sink, some ships other than tankers DID have the needed compartmentalization. And if we speak of the mass-production Liberty ships... They had a remarkable rate of survival after attack, having five separate cargo holds, and from mid-1943 they formed the bulk of the US merchant fleet in the Pacific.
If the merchant ship was sailing alone, and the submarine had the capacity to remain in the area to finish her prize with more shots, few torpedoed merchantmen survived indeed. But escorted ships had a fair chance of remaining afloat.
At present, I think that aspect of UV works fine; some ships sink outright, others don't. And don't forget FOW... If you check the lists of sunken ships daily, you will find that quite a few of the ships you attacked and were reported damaged did actually sink.

Great game, BTW...

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 8
Re: Torpedo hits on merchantmen - 7/21/2002 1:40:07 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by entemedor
[B]Sorry, but I don't agree that merchant ships should sink after one torpedo hit nearly every time.
A LOT of old merchantmen survived torpedo hits. Just read combat reports of German or American sub commanders, and you will find a lot of ships that needed two, three or more torpedoes to be put down under. Some times the cargo helped them to keep afloat (and of course other times it made them sink like a stone), ships in ballast were more difficult to sink, some ships other than tankers DID have the needed compartmentalization. And if we speak of the mass-production Liberty ships... They had a remarkable rate of survival after attack, having five separate cargo holds, and from mid-1943 they formed the bulk of the US merchant fleet in the Pacific.
If the merchant ship was sailing alone, and the submarine had the capacity to remain in the area to finish her prize with more shots, few torpedoed merchantmen survived indeed. But escorted ships had a fair chance of remaining afloat.
At present, I think that aspect of UV works fine; some ships sink outright, others don't. And don't forget FOW... If you check the lists of sunken ships daily, you will find that quite a few of the ships you attacked and were reported damaged did actually sink.

Great game, BTW... [/B][/QUOTE]

Unlike the atlantic theater, the vast majority of transport in the pacific were very small ships of the 3000 ton variety. A full on single torpedo hit was essentially death to that size ship.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 9
- 7/21/2002 1:44:50 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		Did you know : The largest battleship in the world could NOT sink a single sub (if the sub was submerged) ?

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 10
Torpedoes vs. merchantmen - 7/22/2002 4:20:00 AM   
entemedor

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		Hi dgadd,
I have been checking this affair of merchantmen tonnage, and comparing them with the Atlantic theatre. You are right that ships sunk were larger in the Pacific, but not for a big proportion:
PACIFIC
US subs are credited with the destruction of 1,150 ships (4,859,634 grt) (statistics from Roscoe). Average: 4,226 grt per ship.
GERMAN U-BOATS (all areas)
2,919 ships sunk (14,593,987 grt) (statistics from Clay Blair), exactly 5,000 grt per ship.
Of course both of the above include tankers, so your estimate of 3,000 grt per ships should be quite accurate... at least for Japanese ships. But for US shipping, I see a lot of Liberty ships (some 7,000 grt) in the Pacific from mid-1943. The Japanese had their own programme of standard ships, some 6,700 grt each, but they only came in action in substantial numbers in 1944.

I have also taken a look at the only monography I have for an US submarine, BOWFIN (SS-287), and there are several interesting (and surprising) data:
1st war patrol. 3 ships torpedoed, only 1 sunk (8,120 grt). Two small craft sunk by gunfire. Torpedoes expended: 13.
2nd war patrol. 6 ships torpedoed, 5 of them sunk. Six small craft sunk by gunfire. Torpedoes expended: 18. Patrol aborted after suffering slight damage from a merchantmen's gunfire.
3rd war patrol. Twelve torpedoes (6 hits) were required to sink SHOYU MARU (4,408 grt). After re-supplying torpedoes at Darwin, she fired 18 (!!) torpedoes at a tanker in several attacks, claiming five hits but failing to sink her. She was the fleet tanker KAMOI, which was only damaged. Five hits were also claimed on an escort and another merchant ships; sinking not confirmed. Torpedoes expended: 35.
4th war patrol. Fired 21 torpedoes (!!!) at two ships, claiming 7 hits, one actually sank (TSUKIKAWA MARU, 4,470 grt). Re-supplied torpedoes at Darwin, then hit three ships (two sank). Torpedoes expended: 41.
5th war patrol. Fired six torpedoes at MIYAMA MARU, 2 hits, ship later sunk by submarine ASPRO.
6th war patrol. Claimed 7 hits on 3 merchantmen and two escorts, only one ship sank (TSUSHIMA MARU, 6,754 grt). Fired four torpedoes at a small trawler (?), missed, sank it by gunfire.

I was so surprised by that massive torpedo expenditure that I checked John D. Alden's book to look at other submarines, and found that it was not a problem unique to BOWFIN. Some patrol reports are even hard to believe; GUAVINA (SS-362) fired 12 torpedoes and claimed 8 hits on T-3, a small APD of 1,500 grt, which actually managed to ran aground. DACE (SS-247) needed 10 torpedoes and 5 hits to destroy KYOEI MARU Nº 2, a ship of barely 1,200 grt. But the record must be held by RAY (SS-271): 22 torpedoes and 8 hits to sink JANBI MARU (5,244 grt).

So what? I am not sure that the torpedo attack routine on UV should be changed. I suppose that if a player had seen a submarine needing 10 torpedoes and 5 hits to sink a small ship, there whould be cries of wild unrealism. But these things just happened...
Excuse the (unexpected) lenght of this message!!

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 11
- 7/22/2002 5:09:33 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Using ANY US submarine's war history will show that there was a high use of torpedoes. Until 1944 US torpedoes were atrocious, with three different and severe design flaws. They ran deeper than they were set for, the magnetic exploder didn't work, and the contact exploder didn't work very well either. All three of these defects weren't corrected until 1944, so using Bowfin's use of torpedoes as "proof" that merchant ships were tough to sink is useless.

Mush Morton on Wahoo fired an entire sub's worth of torpedoes at an anchored merchant ship, one at a time, and did not sink it. That wasn't because merchant ships were hard to sink, but the US torpedoes sucked.

BTW, the Japanese merchant marine had a lot of ships, but they were not very large. The average tonnage of their ships was less than the Liberty ships. I've seen many merchant ships take two or more torpedo hits in UV and remain afloat; this is not historically correct and needs to be looked at.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 12
Torpedoes vs. merchantmen - 7/24/2002 5:17:37 AM   
entemedor

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		Yes John, you're absolutely right, US torpedoes sucked, but the three attacks I mentioned were in the second half of 1944, when the worst had passed and the problem had been mostly corrected: JANBI MARU 18 July 1944, KYOEI Nº 2 27 July 1944, T-3 15 September 1944. Also note that in those attacks the combat reports claim 8, 5 and 8 HITS respectively; of course the skipper could have wrongly assessed the result of some torpedo shots (premature explosions could be taken for hits) but not all of them. I am also quite aware that these were extreme cases, and that the contrary was also true; on that same July 1944, GUARDFISH (SS-217) sank 5,863-tons MANTAI MARU with just one hit, and the same did TANG (SS-306) with 6,932-tons YAMAOKA MARU.

And let's not forget that UV plays in 1942/43, when torpedoes WERE a big problem.

Just allow 1 of 5 merchantmen to survive a torpedo hit, and I will bw happy! :)

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 13
- 7/24/2002 6:12:56 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I don't have a problem with the chance to actually hit a merchant ship with a sub's torpedoes. That is where the torpedo defects would count, not if the torpedo hit and exploded. When they worked, they tended to work well. The S class subs, in fact, used older torpedoes that were more effective than the "modern" ones with the defects!

A merchant ship's abilty to withstand a torpedo hit should be based on one feature alone; that of displacement. They had no armor and no significant damage control ability, and little in the way of watertight compartments. I've had merchant ships take two torpedo hits and stay afloat; in fact, both Saratoga and Wasp have taken torpedo hits and took less than 10% damage in my current game!

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> subs to hard to sink! Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375