Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

US submarines refueled seaplanes, exchanged cargo , parts and passengers by rubber boat , and attempted to pull each other off rocks. What is so terribly impossible to imagine one US sub crew trying to help another in extremis?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

US submarines refueled seaplanes, exchanged cargo , parts and passengers by rubber boat , and attempted to pull each other off rocks. What is so terribly impossible to imagine one US sub crew trying to help another in extremis?

I'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure, that subs on patrol carried neither fuel hose nor tank fittings to refuel another. The fittings could have been in the ER, but hose would need to ride outside the pressure hull in free flood areas due to volume. And no matter how well you clean a fuel hose it leaves a sheen when immersed.

Subs often left their anchors and chain with the tender at Midway, as well as lifelines and stanchions, plus their torpedo loading skids, which also rode in the superstructure. Everything which could make noise or be knocked loose in a DC attack was cut away and left behind. Taking a hundred feet of fuel hose along on the chance a fellow boat would need a drink? Unlikely.

I will neither confirm nor deny that modern SSNs leaving on sensitive missions today engage in this same behavior. Unless you've ridden the boats you have no idea how much bubbleheads HATE stray own-ship noise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

US submarines refueled seaplanes, exchanged cargo , parts and passengers by rubber boat , and attempted to pull each other off rocks. What is so terribly impossible to imagine one US sub crew trying to help another in extremis? This is the same service that in the 1920's SAILED a sub back to PH that had run out of fuel. Frankly , I feel this is simply a limitation that was chosen by the developers to either limit the game or because of coding issues. Like the issue of NOT being able to use USMC Raiders in the purpose they were designed, (as sub borne raiders) while using USMC para's in the Raider role, we need to "suck it up" , adjust, and live with it. It is a fact of the game. No house rule can fix it.


The fact is , all but the most anal retentive will probably lose a sub or two. Maybe the JFB's will consider this and throw the occassional bone to the AFB in "gamey" discussions or house rule negoitiations. Game limitations will affect both sides. If looked at as single issues , one side or the other will scream "unfair". If you take all the issues and put them in a pot together , it pretty much comes out equal.

To me , this is just one more example of why people who truly love this game should consider a "shut up and play" attitude .

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

US submarines refueled seaplanes, exchanged cargo , parts and passengers by rubber boat , and attempted to pull each other off rocks. What is so terribly impossible to imagine one US sub crew trying to help another in extremis?

I'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure, that subs on patrol carried neither fuel hose nor tank fittings to refuel another. The fittings could have been in the ER, but hose would need to ride outside the pressure hull in free flood areas due to volume. And no matter how well you clean a fuel hose it leaves a sheen when immersed.

Subs often left their anchors and chain with the tender at Midway, as well as lifelines and stanchions, plus their torpedo loading skids, which also rode in the superstructure. Everything which could make noise or be knocked loose in a DC attack was cut away and left behind. Taking a hundred feet of fuel hose along on the chance a fellow boat would need a drink? Unlikely.

I will neither confirm nor deny that modern SSNs leaving on sensitive missions today engage in this same behavior. Unless you've ridden the boats you have no idea how much bubbleheads HATE stray own-ship noise.

Having both talked with them on exchanges, and hunted them , I've got a pretty good idea and why. But todays Nuke submariners are a different breed than the diesel boat crews, by design and trying. Adm Flucky once told me that a modern sub sailor was generally horrified at some of the "stunts" he and his fellow wartime diesel boat skippers used to do.

My problem is that I cannot imagine any US sailor , especially with one of the submarine service, saying "too bad buddy , we don't have a hose. Guess you are just screwed".
I can imagine them doing above and beyond service trying to save them, up to and including running a rubber boat between the boats with five gallon cans, if that was all they had. I just don't see them giving up. This is a branch of the service that was legendary for comming up with innovated solutions to "impossible" problems. Sorry. I just can't visualize it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

US submarines refueled seaplanes, exchanged cargo , parts and passengers by rubber boat , and attempted to pull each other off rocks. What is so terribly impossible to imagine one US sub crew trying to help another in extremis?

I'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure, that subs on patrol carried neither fuel hose nor tank fittings to refuel another. The fittings could have been in the ER, but hose would need to ride outside the pressure hull in free flood areas due to volume. And no matter how well you clean a fuel hose it leaves a sheen when immersed.

Subs often left their anchors and chain with the tender at Midway, as well as lifelines and stanchions, plus their torpedo loading skids, which also rode in the superstructure. Everything which could make noise or be knocked loose in a DC attack was cut away and left behind. Taking a hundred feet of fuel hose along on the chance a fellow boat would need a drink? Unlikely.

I will neither confirm nor deny that modern SSNs leaving on sensitive missions today engage in this same behavior. Unless you've ridden the boats you have no idea how much bubbleheads HATE stray own-ship noise.

Having both talked with them on exchanges, and hunted them , I've got a pretty good idea and why. But todays Nuke submariners are a different breed than the diesel boat crews, by design and trying. Adm Flucky once told me that a modern sub sailor was generally horrified at some of the "stunts" he and his fellow wartime diesel boat skippers used to do.

My problem is that I cannot imagine any US sailor , especially with one of the submarine service, saying "too bad buddy , we don't have a hose. Guess you are just screwed".
I can imagine them doing above and beyond service trying to save them, up to and including running a rubber boat between the boats with five gallon cans, if that was all they had. I just don't see them giving up. This is a branch of the service that was legendary for comming up with innovated solutions to "impossible" problems. Sorry. I just can't visualize it.

First they have to radio they're out of gas. That attracts attention. Then another boat has to be close enough to help. That's unlikely. Then there has to be land without enemy which the out-of-fuel-boat can get to. If they're adrift the rescuer never finds them. Then the rescuer has to have fuel to spare; unless they're in the first third of the patrol that's unlikely. Then both subs have to stay exposed, in shallow water or moored to an island, a long, long time to do a transfer without hoses. We're talking thousands and thousands of galons to get back to Midway. Then, they don't have any five gallon cans.

Speculate all you want. It never happened.

Admiral Fluckey well knew the complexities of modern SSNs and the dangers of going off script with nuclear power. In a hot shooting war who knows? You might battleshort a reactor. But drive an SSN into water too shallow to dive? Nope.

He was a speaker at the commissioning of my boat BTW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


All perfectly true. And there was a reason WHY Rickhover allowed very few WW2 Sub skippers (Wilkenson and Beach are the only two that come to mind, but I'm sure there were others)

A lot of it was age. Most of the younger WWII COs were Reserve and didn't stay in. The Academy guys who were LCDRs in 1945 were O-6s by the mid-50s, or retired. Rickover didn't have the god-like powers over NR from the first day either. He was an O-6 with no combat experience. To some extent he took who they sent, although he always did the interviews.

Sub crews today won't radio, but sub's were used in wolf packs in WW2.

We usually didn't call them that. And they didn't start until 1944, really after mid-year. To a great extent they didn't communicate once in the patrol area. They had lines of operation to prevent blue-on-blue.

For the first two years a fleet boat leaving Midway headed west was utterly alone in a way no other operating unit in the war was. There was no help, there was no medevac, there was no fuel, there were no parts. I don't think players of the game fully grasp that.

(OK, the USN ones only had 3-6 boats, but one carried a Commodore or Captain , and they didn't coordinate by telepathy). All I'm saying is that a justifyable risk might be taken. And to save a fellow sub crew? Absolutely. The Darter and Dace incident show this. So does the incident of trying to save that Dutch boat (I forget the number). Even though both these incidents were unsuccessful, attempts were made.

Darter and Dace were operating in support of a fleet action. They weren't on a normal patrol. Also late war.

I'm glad you got to hear Gene Flucky.

Umm, no. I was six when my boat was commissioned. We had photos in the wardroom scrapbook.

He was an amazing man and patriot. I was very lucky that I had several book signings with him when I was with the Navy Memmorial bookstore. While it's a pain for the authors, it's a great opportunity for staff to pick their brains (as the poor guy often had hours of standing or sitting around waiting for customers.) But I think Adm Flucky , like a great many of the WW2 boat drivers, felt that their boats were expendable , in a good cause. And even if a sub couldn't be refueled, I could imagine them trying to tow it. And of course if all else fails , take off the unfortunate crew and scuttle the boat.

I also can't imagine a boat crew that was said unfortunate crew, sitting there and saying "ok we're screwed lets sit here and die because we are afraid to use the radio." What did they have to lose? As the old saying goes, "if you fall off a building , you might as well try and learn how to fly". What have you got to lose?

They would have radioed. But unlike in the game, a boat without fuel doens't make one hex a day. Adrift, nobody would have found them. You know how big the Pacific is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AirGriff

If memory serves, the manual states the 1 hex a day move for a ship out of fuel simulates a ship in tow. So, in the game universe, the gaming gods said let it be and that's the way it is

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

ughfortunately, the mortally-wounded Capt. Lawrence's shipmates were forced to 'give up the ship'. USS Chesapeake was decisively defeated by HMS Shannon after a furious 15-minute cannonade/boarding action (1 June 1813). the British buried him at Halifax w/ military honors.

Oliver Perry named his brig 'USS Lawrence' in memory of his dead friend, & fought her under the banner "Don't Give Up the Ship" at the battle of Lake Erie (10 September 1813). USS Lawrence was badly damaged, but Perry transferred to her sister, USS Niagara, & achieved a Nelsonian victory over the British squadron. his subsequent dispatch to headquarters provided another famous phrase to our young navy's history: "We have met the enemy and they are ours."

All true.

This battle, which lasted at most fifteen minutes, is among the bloodiest in the history of ship-to-ship combat. It was also mentioned in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" wherein Chesapeake's third lieutenant--a billet not a rank--left his battlestation to help carry mortaly wounded Lawrence below. In the boarding melee the officers senior to him were killed and he became the commanding oficer while belowdecks. He was later court martialed for leaving his station without orders during battle and being absent while commanding officer.

Lawrence has had several USN ships named for him, the last being a guided missile cruiser I believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AirGriff

If memory serves, the manual states the 1 hex a day move for a ship out of fuel simulates a ship in tow. So, in the game universe, the gaming gods said let it be and that's the way it is

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

ughfortunately, the mortally-wounded Capt. Lawrence's shipmates were forced to 'give up the ship'. USS Chesapeake was decisively defeated by HMS Shannon after a furious 15-minute cannonade/boarding action (1 June 1813). the British buried him at Halifax w/ military honors.

Oliver Perry named his brig 'USS Lawrence' in memory of his dead friend, & fought her under the banner "Don't Give Up the Ship" at the battle of Lake Erie (10 September 1813). USS Lawrence was badly damaged, but Perry transferred to her sister, USS Niagara, & achieved a Nelsonian victory over the British squadron. his subsequent dispatch to headquarters provided another famous phrase to our young navy's history: "We have met the enemy and they are ours."

All true.

This battle, which lasted at most fifteen minutes, is among the bloodiest in the history of ship-to-ship combat. It was also mentioned in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" wherein Chesapeake's third lieutenant--a billet not a rank--left his battlestation to help carry mortaly wounded Lawrence below. In the boarding melee the officers senior to him were killed and he became the commanding oficer while belowdecks. He was later court martialed for leaving his station without orders during battle and being absent while commanding officer.

Lawrence has had several USN ships named for him, the last being a guided missile cruiser I believe.

hi Moose,
i'd totally forgot that Heinlein's 1959 book specifically mentioned this action, as an example of a 4th-dogsbody who suddenly became CO after the ship's officer corps was destroyed by Shannon's fire. Heinlein is out, though - he wrote, "This boy’s family tried for a century and a half to get his conviction reversed. No luck, of course. There was doubt about some circumstances but no doubt that he had left his post during battle without orders."

Midshipman William Cox had been appointed acting-lieutenant aboard USS Cheasapeake. after helping carry the wounded Capt. Lawrence to the surgeon's station, he was trapped below-decks by the British boarders.

"It fell on Cox’s descendants to pursue his vindication. His son, William Cox, was once expelled from Lafayette College for striking a professor who called his father a coward. When Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his book The Naval War of 1812 (1882) that Cox had acted “basely,” family members protested so vigorously that the future president apologized and corrected his account in later editions. Moreover, for the next 134 years they wrote Congress and the Navy Department seeking to overturn the conviction and have his rank restored. Finally, in 1952 E. D. Litchfield, Cox’s great grandson, succeeded in bringing the matter to the attention of the House Armed Services Committee. Rear Adm. John D. Heffernan then outlined the historical facts for the committee and recommended his reinstatement. On April 7, 1952, Congress passed legislation to that effect and, once signed by President Harry Truman, Cox was formally, if posthumously, restored to the rank of third lieutenant." http://books.google.com/books?id=-7MwvwL5UR0C&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170#v=onepage&q&f=false

i'm fathering this on a webpage: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012922.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/1942RefuelingAtSea.html


see 223 - Special Instructions for refueling Submarines..

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/1942RefuelingAtSea.html


see 223 - Special Instructions for refueling Submarines..

quote:

But hey, it's the NAvy. There needs to be a procedure, we write a procedure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

But hey, it's the NAvy. There needs to be a procedure, we write a procedure.

. . . or any military service. Quoted from memory from Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising: "The Air Force had to have a plan for every contingency. It didn't have to make sense."

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Moose I agree with almost everything you said. I agree that no Nuke would ever take the kind of chances that would be involved with "rescue refueling". Nukes are trained that way , and for a damned good reason. (Imagine an airdale attitude with a nuclear reactor (shudder). I agree it would be tough, not in procedure , and probably stupid. EVERYTHING you have said is logical,sensible and practical. No argument, total disagreement.

A couple of questions though; 1) did any sub on patrol ever run out of fuel? Then they would not have needed to implement the procedure, would they? How much of our problem with subs running out of fuel is game related? If so, generally it would have people screaming "gamey" (unless of course it affected primarily AFB's. JFB's tend to scream far more often then AFB's do, I don't know why , but it just seems to go that way).

2) are ww2 submariners anything at all like modern submariners? Similar mind set? Training? Values and mentality?

3) and finally , do you honestly feel that even the most cautious of todays well trained nuclear submariner would honestly say "screw you buddy, it's too much of a risk and goes against doctrine?"

My thoughts , for whatever they may be worth (obviously not much) is that the problem we have with subs constantly running out of fuel did not happen in real life, that it is a "anomoly" associated with the game. If it did happen in real life , we'd have lots of heroic stories of submariners risking it all , and trying to immplement the "procedures" that were not unused , and as you point out, probably impractical. I do not belive that sailors, regardless if they sailon the seas, below them, or over them, do not allow fellow sailors to die without making heroic , stupid and sometimes suicidal attempts to save them. I don't know crap about submarine procedures. I freely admit that. But I have strong feelings about people in general, and sailors in particular. And I can't help but feel that they wouldn't give up.


Now here's the rub. It's a game. It has occassional flaws. And this might be one (or not, depending on your point of view , we've established that differences of opinion). But the real question here (at least to me) is , assuming that there is a flaw, can a house rule fix this? Can anyone? Then if not, shall we debate it endlessly , or "suck it up" and get back to our games?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


In the game there's no reason to run out of fuel unless from damage. Players who do aren't paying attention. I can't see a need for any HR, nor do I see what it could be anyway. The code is the code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: guytipton41

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


In the game there's no reason to run out of fuel unless from damage. Players who do aren't paying attention. I can't see a need for any HR, nor do I see what it could be anyway. The code is the code.

Hi Bullwinkle,

Yeaaahhh.... OK I agree. But. For example you might have short range subs home ported at Fiji and with adequate fuel for submarine operations. And then uninvited guests show up (perhaps 100,000 IJA and IJN troops). Then perhaps a fast transport TF sneaks in and sucks the oil tanks dry. And then perhaps the submarine pulls in into port and says "filler up!". Just saying it could happen.

Cheers,
Guy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

When a ship is damaged, it automatically breaks off from the task force, forms an escort force and comes home. When a ship does a mission , it automatically comes come. When an air group gets ready to fly a mission , a number of "dice rolls"...AKA mission checks are performed. If the numbers don't add up, it doesn't fly. No air plane will allow itself to hit a target outside of its range.

Yet submarines are always allowing them selves to run out of fuel. Unless we perform constant checks , and distrust the computer on every setting we make, we will sometimes run a sub out of fuel.

As far as submariners not willing to got the "extra mile", may I suggest that THEY might stay on the surface to tow a boat. We just never had it necessary to do this. Had it been , do you honestly think it would not be tried? Let me point out that other submariners of another navy (The Kreigmarine) had to face this choice. I refer to the "Atlantis" case where the crews of several U-boats , including Italian, stayed on the surface with survivors , towing lifeboats. Straining their resources , endangering themselves to air and sea attack , to try and save their fellow sailors. I'll try and find a link , my refernce is unfortuanately in the old school form of a book on Atlantis.

I just am reluctant to admit that American sailors would refuse to do what German and Italian sailors did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, I just checked. You can't combine them into TFs with other subs that have fuel and click "replenish at sea." It is not possible. Another brilliant idea of mine that has been shot to threads.

quote:

I pulled into French Frigate, disbanded, and sent a base force and some fuel from Pearl. Got it home in three weeks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

quote:

I pulled into French Frigate, disbanded, and sent a base force and some fuel from Pearl. Got it home in three weeks.

i wonder if you could have sent a 1 AKL amphib TF to throw fuel into the 0 level port and had the sub refuel?

rms/pa