Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

sub vs sub?

 
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 >> sub vs sub? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
sub vs sub? - 4/3/2003 1:18:04 PM   
alphakilroy

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/6/2003
Status: offline
Has anybody ever seen any sub vs sub action? I've tried to place an allied sub into a jap subs hex but the jap sub always just moves over one hex.
Post #: 1
- 4/3/2003 9:30:00 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Nope, never seen it.

It was very rare in WW2. Subs, and more importantly, their torpedoes, were designed around killing surface ships. Subs COULD be killed by another sub if surprised on the surface (I think it was Mush Morton's boat that killed an IJN sub). But realistically, it was very, extremely rare. I've never seen it, or heard anyone report it; I doubt that they're coded as valid targets in the sub routines.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 2
- 4/4/2003 2:38:27 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Don't forget the saga of the USS Batfish (SS-311). She sank 3 Japanese subs in a week and half I think it was. Was it a rare occurance? Yes, compared to the majority of all actions. But it did happen occasionally. Keep in mind though, Japan didn't field a great many subs in combat. (not on the scale of US subs anyway).

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 3
- 4/4/2003 5:32:59 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline
There actually was quite a bit of sub vs sub combat -- go to the Combined Fleet website and check their sub listing and the summary reports for Japanese subs. However, most happened in 44 or 45 -- not during the time frame covered in UV. Also, a lot of these sub kills were done on Japanese subs foolishly on the surface -- not a good idea for Japan even in their own home waters! It's assumed your sub commanders are smarter then that. :)

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 4
- 4/4/2003 10:05:45 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I assked this every question sometime ago and was told that it doesn't oddur but would be considered in future patches - in other words it went on the list where the idea languishes.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 5
- 4/4/2003 10:06:46 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]I assked this every question sometime ago and was told that it doesn't oddur but would be considered in future patches - in other words it went on the list where the idea languishes. [/B][/QUOTE] Geez my typing is attrocious.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 6
Sub vs Sub in WWII, but not in BTR (?) - 4/4/2003 10:53:35 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Also, a lot of these sub kills were done on Japanese subs foolishly on the surface -- not a good idea for Japan even in their own home waters! It's assumed your sub commanders are smarter then that. [/QUOTE]

During the whole WWII, about 50 subs were sunk by another sub. Only one (victim) was underwater at the time. And of the hundreds of subs sunk by aircraft, almost all were found and attacked while on the surface, even if they may be sunk after the dive (by a Fido torpedo for example).

WWII subs were very slow underwater and to be able to find targets (either by sighting or radar) need to be on the surface. They also need to surface to recharge batteries (usually during the night) that allowed them to advance underwater.

In Pacific waters, where ASW forces were weak, it was usual for a sub to chase a target on the surface during the night or in bad weather, using faster surface speed to arrive in front of the target and then diving for the final approach.

Before that, the greatest successes of the U-Boat in 1941 were by attacks in groups in surface during the night. British escorts had more often Asdic than radar during this time and a sub has more chance to escape if it didn't dive !

Here is a list of cases of sub vs sub in UV time and aera during WWII:

May 17, 1942
Submarine Tautog (SS-199) torpedoes and sinks Japanese submarine I-28 north of Rabaul, 06°30'N, 152°00'E.

December 20, 1942
Submarine Seadragon (SS-194) sinks Japanese submarine I-4 between New Britain and New Ireland, 05°02'S, 152°33'E, while I-4 is engaged in a resupply mission to Guadalcanal.

3 January, 1943
Submarine Grayback (SS-208) claims to have sunk a Japanese submarine in Solomon waters, wrongly identified as the I-18. In fact she has no success.

27 July, 1943
Submarine Scamp (SS-277) sinks Japanese submarine I-168, 02°50'S, 149°01'E, and damages oiler Kazahaya, 02°38'S, 149°20'E.

16 November, 1943
Submarine Corvina (SS-216) is sunk by Japanese submarine I-176, south of Truk, 05°05'N, 151°10'E.


In our game, I have never seen it. Yesterday I did an head-to-head game to test this. 10 subs from each side were on patrol around the same island (shallow hex) for 25 days and never attacked any other. After ten days, I put about 40 planes on each side on ASW patrol near this aera. They were about 20 sightings each day, with from 25 to 50% attacks. Suppose the 2.3 patch is fully acting here as there were many subs at the same place. The subs were still not seeing each other (at least there should have been some collisions) but I changed the study subject to ASW aerial action.

I see something I have never seen in a game before (maybe because of FOW): a plane bombing a sub (with few sys damage, due to sea before) and the sub sinking at the end of the turn. In this case it was a Mavis against a S-something. There was another success, an I-Boat being bombed twice by B-17 the same day, ending the turn with 70/85 damage and sinking two days and 4 hexs later.

On the whole aircraft seems to be poorer ASW platforms than they were historically. On the Allied side, about 12 B-17 and 30 PBY were on ASW patrol, all at a base 5 hexs away and flying at 1000 feet with 100% ASW. Almost each turn, the B-17 did more attacks than the PBY and they seem to do all the damage. I can't remember if a PBY ever sank an I-Boat in my games, they are far more useful in Naval Search.

In WWII, PBY were efficient during only one month in 42-43. Floatplanes assisted in two killings (I-18 and I-17 in 1943). B-17 were not used for ASW in Pacific (?) but very successful in Atlantic.

October 5, 1942.
PBY (COMAIRSOPAC) sinks Japanese submarine I-22 near Indispensable Strait, Solomons.

October 29, 1942
PBY (VP 11) sinks Japanese submarine I-172 west of San Cristobal Island, Solomons, 13°01'S, 162°45'E.

Sub to sub chasing would be cool. A test I didn't do is to have numerous subs going trough an hex where numerous subs of the other side are patroling.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 7
Submarines were on the Surface over 90% of the time - 4/6/2003 2:43:44 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
World War II Subs spent VERY little time submerged.

At the end of the war German subs finally had Schnorkels and spent more time submerged, and then the tiny handful of "Electroboats" (massive battery capacity and high underwater speed) that made it into combat did as well.


Japanese never had schnorkels to my knowledge.

Both US and Japanese subs spent almost all their time on the surface.

It should be possible in UV for a sub to torpedo another sub.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 8
- 4/8/2003 4:04:49 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
In the last stages of the war, American subs were getting fairly good surface radar units installed. This would allow them to spot Japanese subs on the surface before the Japanese sub could make visual contact. I imagine this gave American subs quite an edge in sub hunting operations.

Im gonna have to read up on this. Anyone else know?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 9
Sub vs sub follow up - 4/8/2003 4:34:53 AM   
alphakilroy

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/6/2003
Status: offline
If anyone has a copy of United States Submarine Operations in World War two by Theodore Roscoe (first printed 1949 but reprints are available from borders, barns & noble ) You can turn to page 449 and find a listing of some 16 Jap subs sunk by US subs between Jan.27 1942 and Nov. 28 1944 and another 7 were sunk in 1945 by sub action for a total of 23 of the total war time loss of 120 subs to all forces or about 20% of Jap sub losses were do to US subs. So clearly subs should be able to engage subs and there should be a decided US advantage do to radar.

As a side line I'm doing my first sen.17 under patch 2.3 It's May 1943 and I have all B17's grouped at Rabaul and on asw ops in one month they have sank 5 jap subs. Those peskey little red lines are rapidly disappearing from my map.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 10
- 4/8/2003 4:39:56 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Thats whats kinda funny how UV makes the subs burn fuel during air attacks. If anything, the fact that the sub was forced to submerge and run off batteries would save fuel, not burn fuel.

I guess UV has them pumping out diesel to make the boat dive faster ;)

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 11
- 4/8/2003 6:40:07 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Thats whats kinda funny how UV makes the subs burn fuel during air attacks. If anything, the fact that the sub was forced to submerge and run off batteries would save fuel, not burn fuel.

I guess UV has them pumping out diesel to make the boat dive faster ;) [/B][/QUOTE] Never realized it but it certainly makes sense, ssubmerged movement would not waste fuel - wear and tear on the batteries perhaps. Another thing to consider if subs could attack subs is how it would affect gameplay. I can see large wolfpacks on each side hunting each other and to hell with surface ships.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 12
- 4/8/2003 2:51:10 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
I think that the extra fuel wasted by subs under aerial attack is OK to me. After the bombing, if there were no surface forces around, most subs surfaced and changed spot with maximal speed. So for me that is modelizing that. The subs didn't change "hex" but is moving in the hex to escape ASW attacks.

Regarding subs... a sub moving was as hard to see as a barge.. and subs tend to attack barges a lot in UV.

And I don't think it is gamey to chase subs with other subs. Royal Navy had lot of subs doing this off Norway during most of the war. It would be far more efficient to chase AP instead anyway.

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 13
- 4/8/2003 9:40:40 PM   
djoosten

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 1/30/2003
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
Something else that isnt used by surface ships vs Subs are anchors, they used these towed anchors to crush and pull apart the subs, would been nice if they added this also. This was a tactic mostely used when a sub would go sit on the bottom and try to wait for the surface to pass by .. so they used these to crush them.

Bet this was more scary then depth charges itself!

_____________________________

Dave "EuroLord" Joosten

(in reply to alphakilroy)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> sub vs sub? 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

0.750