Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2

 
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 >> US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2 - 8/7/2002 3:44:03 PM   
shark

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		my US S class subs get occasional torp hits but suffer heavily from jap asw ships.
jap I boats have repeatidly penetrated my cv screens,obtained multiple hits on CVs and got away undamaged!
The CV screen had 6-8 of my best DDs,and CVs were operating undamaged.this has happened in 1.2 ,1.1,and 1.0.


Also the later "named" subs never seem to hit, I know the new torps are suspect but Morrison mentions a succesful strike by Nautilus at Midway on a heavily protected CV,followed by a succesful evasion.
Are there any plans to improve US ASW and sub performance further, or reduce Jap Performance ?

Thanks for giving pac war a worthy sibling.
Post #: 1
Re: US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2 - 8/7/2002 4:23:42 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by shark
[B]my US S class subs get occasional torp hits but suffer heavily from jap asw ships.
jap I boats have repeatidly penetrated my cv screens,obtained multiple hits on CVs and got away undamaged!
The CV screen had 6-8 of my best DDs,and CVs were operating undamaged.this has happened in 1.2 ,1.1,and 1.0.


Also the later "named" subs never seem to hit, I know the new torps are suspect but Morrison mentions a succesful strike by Nautilus at Midway on a heavily protected CV,followed by a succesful evasion.
Are there any plans to improve US ASW and sub performance further, or reduce Jap Performance ?

Thanks for giving pac war a worthy sibling. [/B][/QUOTE]

IRL, Japanese subs managed to sink the Wasp - to heavily damage the Saratoga ... and to finish the Yorktown - all this in a few months !!!! So there is nothing unhistorical in the Jap subs efficiency. However, have you checked if your "best DD" are those with the more depth charges and a good night experience ?

Moreover, the "named" US subs have some torpedoes troubles :D ... I don't remember the exact figure but something like 90% of their torpedoes don't explode in the game

_____________________________

Visit Spooky's UV & WITP Fansite !

(in reply to shark)
Post #: 2
Re: US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2 - 8/8/2002 8:56:59 AM   
seydlitz_slith


Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by shark
[B]my US S class subs get occasional torp hits but suffer heavily from jap asw ships.
jap I boats have repeatidly penetrated my cv screens,obtained multiple hits on CVs and got away undamaged!
The CV screen had 6-8 of my best DDs,and CVs were operating undamaged.this has happened in 1.2 ,1.1,and 1.0.


Also the later "named" subs never seem to hit, I know the new torps are suspect but Morrison mentions a succesful strike by Nautilus at Midway on a heavily protected CV,followed by a succesful evasion.
Are there any plans to improve US ASW and sub performance further, or reduce Jap Performance ?

Thanks for giving pac war a worthy sibling. [/B][/QUOTE]

According to US Submarines Through 1945, Norman Friedman, Naval Institute Press, 1995, 379 pages:

on Page 137:

The S-boats all lacked suffiecient range for Pacific operations, and postwar exercises often overtaxed them. To achieve rated endurance, they had to stow fuel oil in their ballast tanks. They left oil slicks every time they submerged until the tanks were washed clean."

United States Submarine Operations in World War II, Theodore Roscoe, United States Naval Institute, 1949, 577 pages sums up US submarine torpedo performance as follows (the S boats had mk10, the fleet boats MK 14):

pg 263.

US submarines sank many major Japanese men-of-war-ships in the carrier and cruiser categories, and one specimen in the battleship class. Yet, of the total sunk, less than 15%-just three major warships, to be specific-were sent to the bottom before the exploder faults were corrected. Even so, the three warships dealt the barest minimum of credit to the faulty Mark 6 exploder. For S-44 sank the heavy cruiser Kako with Mark 10 exploders which were fitted with the simple contact exploder. Nautilus sank Soryu after the Japanese aircraft carrier had been lamed by American aircraft, her hull plates bomb-weakened. And the third of these vessels, Tenryu, sunk by Albacore, although classified as a light cruiser, was an old-timer, little larger than a modern destroyer.

Compare these first three sinkings with the successes scored later. In the last half of the war the US submarines using the corrected exploder sank over six times the number of major warships downed by torpedo attack in the first half. Japanese merchant men also went to the bottom with greater speed and consistency. There was no Tonan Maru No. 3 exhibition during the last 18 months of the Pacific conflict.

The torpedo trouble was well cured by the end of 1943. It had been a tragically expensive muddle. The cost to the United States ware effort in lives, dollars and time remains incalculable.

-----------
My comment: The latest changes make it about right. I don't see any need to adjust it.

Don

(in reply to shark)
Post #: 3
Re: Re: US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2 - 8/8/2002 11:54:16 AM   
shark

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by seydlitz
[B]

According to US Submarines Through 1945, Norman Friedman, Naval Institute Press, 1995, 379 pages:

on Page 137:

The S-boats all lacked suffiecient range for Pacific operations, and postwar exercises often overtaxed them. To achieve rated endurance, they had to stow fuel oil in their ballast tanks. They left oil slicks every time they submerged until the tanks were washed clean."

United States Submarine Operations in World War II, Theodore Roscoe, United States Naval Institute, 1949, 577 pages sums up US submarine torpedo performance as follows (the S boats had mk10, the fleet boats MK 14):

pg 263.

US submarines sank many major Japanese men-of-war-ships in the carrier and cruiser categories, and one specimen in the battleship class. Yet, of the total sunk, less than 15%-just three major warships, to be specific-were sent to the bottom before the exploder faults were corrected. Even so, the three warships dealt the barest minimum of credit to the faulty Mark 6 exploder. For S-44 sank the heavy cruiser Kako with Mark 10 exploders which were fitted with the simple contact exploder. Nautilus sank Soryu after the Japanese aircraft carrier had been lamed by American aircraft, her hull plates bomb-weakened. And the third of these vessels, Tenryu, sunk by Albacore, although classified as a light cruiser, was an old-timer, little larger than a modern destroyer.

Compare these first three sinkings with the successes scored later. In the last half of the war the US submarines using the corrected exploder sank over six times the number of major warships downed by torpedo attack in the first half. Japanese merchant men also went to the bottom with greater speed and consistency. There was no Tonan Maru No. 3 exhibition during the last 18 months of the Pacific conflict.

The torpedo trouble was well cured by the end of 1943. It had been a tragically expensive muddle. The cost to the United States ware effort in lives, dollars and time remains incalculable.

-----------
My comment: The latest changes make it about right. I don't see any need to adjust it.

The warhead problems i had heard about,although not to the extent you describe.However the asw performance of US ships in UV seems equally woeful.:mad:

(in reply to shark)
Post #: 4
- 8/8/2002 5:01:20 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Morison may claim Nautilus sank Soryu, but he's the only one making that claim. Clay Blair Jr. says there was no proof that the carrier was sunk by any sub at Midway. Probably what the Nautilus captain saw was a premature explosion of the torpedo. The magnetic detonator was known to trigger early when it contacted the magnetic field around the ship.

(in reply to shark)
Post #: 5
Re: US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2 - 8/8/2002 10:24:02 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by shark
[B]Also the later "named" subs never seem to hit[/B][/QUOTE]
Does anyone know when the dud torpedo problem was solved historically? Was it in the time frame covered by UV? And if so, is it modeled in the game?

_____________________________


(in reply to shark)
Post #: 6
- 8/9/2002 12:44:44 AM   
Kingfish

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 6/17/2002
Status: offline 		In "Miracle at Midway" Prange lists several eyewitness accounts of the attack on Soryu by Nautilus, in which the torpedo does strike the Carrier, but does not detonate.

Instead, it breaks in two. The heavier warhead sinks, but the lighter stern section floats to the surface, becoming an adhoc life raft for the Soryu crew who had jumped overboard.

Edit: I checked my source when I got home last night, and it turns out the carrier in question was Kaga, not Soryu. The skipper of the Nautilus misidentified the target, which is easy to do when looking thru a periscope at a bombed out and burning hulk several thousand yards away.

(in reply to shark)
Post #: 7
- 8/10/2002 6:48:49 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		The US torpedo problems weren't totally solved until the end of 1943. The problems with the torpedoes tended to cover each other up, which made identifying all of them very time consuming. The magnetic detonator was too sensitive, the depth setting didn't work and the contact exploder was too fragile. Fixing one problem just uncovered another one. It wasn't until 1944 that the subs could really rely on their torpedoes going where they were aimed and exploding when they hit something.

(in reply to shark)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> US versus Jap sub and asw performance.in UV1.2 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

0.969