Tankerace-question about subs and mines (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930



Message

crsutton -> Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/7/2006 10:31:59 PM)

Hi,

Really have been enjoying my campaign of WPO. However, I thought that I read in the past that eventually minefields would be made so that subs could be taken out by mines. Yet, in my entire WITP and WPO experience, I have yet to see a sub ever hit a mine. In my campaign, I am just parking subs in enemy port hexes and paying no heed to minefields. If I am not mistaken weren't mines the most dangerous sub killers before the advent of reliable sonar? Is the sub vs minefield issue not workable in the way that the game is written? I would think that shallow waters and minefields would make for bad Mojo for subs.

Your thoughts?



Terminus -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/7/2006 10:43:57 PM)

I've seen subs hit by mines, but it's not like it happens often.



Matto -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/7/2006 11:04:21 PM)

My opponent lost submarine by mine ... but it was after on april 1923 = 11 months after beginning of war :o)



Pkunzipper -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/8/2006 7:41:11 PM)

Submarines could have hit a mine only if submerged, since their low draft when surfaced makes them almost invulnerable to mines in good weather...



engineer -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/8/2006 11:01:20 PM)

In my Japanese Coastal Artillery thread, the referenced report spends a whole section on Japanese mine defenses of their coastal waters.  Evidently, the Japanese distinguished submarine minefields from surface ship minefields by the depth at which the mines were moored.  Surface minefields were set pretty shallow, just 13 feet deep, while the sub minefields were set down at 60 feet or so. 

If those are the tactics employed, it would seem there's no good reason for a sub to be immune to mine fields.  Even a coastal sub will draw 13 feet of water. 



Tankerace -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/9/2006 12:36:18 AM)

I believe subs can be hit by mines, but the chance is very very low. (Compared to surface ships).

Also take a port hex, for example. I have always believed that a sub in an enemy port hex is not necessarily in the port, per se, but the surounding waters (up to 58nm).  With experience relatively low on submarines, and commanders, it would be highly unlikely one would actually try to penetrate a harbor's defenses.

That said - if subs regularly penetrated ports then I would think the mine hit rate would need to be improved, but my interpretation has always been that subs in a port hex are outside the port most of the time, with only a few attacks actually in the port hex.



Terminus -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/9/2006 12:51:40 AM)

Obviously... This is one of the things that sometimes frustrates me about this place. People conveniently "forget" that each hex is SIXTY MILES!!! No port or city covers that much space.



crsutton -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/12/2006 7:59:45 PM)

I am not conveniently forgeting anything. Sixty miles or not, if you look at the facts for German subs in WWI, the most frequent cause of sub loss was by mines, friendly and unfriendly. Over the coures of the four year war, minefield belts became pretty extensive and not limited to just around the ports. That is my point. A sub operating in a port hex would spend the bulk of its time not in the port but hovering around the exits and ship channels-within a few miles-not fifity miles away.  Because, that is where they would find the ships! And this logically is where defensive minefields would be placed. If you look at the numbers you will see that there were not as many subs lost to depth charges (around 30) as to mines. I have seen quite a few subs go down to DC in the game but have yet to see one hit a mine. For this reason, I think that minefields should be much more dangerous to submarines to reflect the actual statistics. (Admittedly from a different war but I don't think the tactics would have changed much in the interm.)

As it is now, I am parking my subs in enemy port hexes and reaping the benefit of shooting up Japanese ships entering and leaving port without any risk from mines. I just don't think that should be the case.

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/sml00001.htm



Jorm -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/13/2006 3:49:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

  With experience relatively low on submarines, and commanders, it would be highly unlikely one would actually try to penetrate a harbor's defenses.




I must disagree completely.

For an account of WWI submarine operations read "Stokers Submarine"
Experince had nothing to do with it, if they were ordered to try, they did.


"That Stoker managed to find a way through the narrow Dardanelles against unknown currents, mines and withering enemy fire has been described as "the finest feat in submarine history". Stoker's achievement meant much in military terms, but even more emotionally in boosting the morale of the embattled Allied troops. "Stoker's Submarine" tells the story of a remarkable naval hero, who, until now, has been little celebrated."

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/anecdotes/ae2.html







Tankerace -> RE: Tankerace-question about subs and mines (11/15/2006 2:33:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

  With experience relatively low on submarines, and commanders, it would be highly unlikely one would actually try to penetrate a harbor's defenses.




I must disagree completely.

For an account of WWI submarine operations read "Stokers Submarine"
Experince had nothing to do with it, if they were ordered to try, they did.


"That Stoker managed to find a way through the narrow Dardanelles against unknown currents, mines and withering enemy fire has been described as "the finest feat in submarine history". Stoker's achievement meant much in military terms, but even more emotionally in boosting the morale of the embattled Allied troops. "Stoker's Submarine" tells the story of a remarkable naval hero, who, until now, has been little celebrated."

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/anecdotes/ae2.html



But - U.S. submarines worked completely different. U.S. boats were given a patrol area, or were ordered to operate off a certain port. Very rarely would they be ordered in, and considering U.S. commanders experience, they would not be apt to try it on their own. Hence, commanders with a low experience would not do it. Your example is orders, which you are right, if he was "ordered" he would "try". My example, and reasoning, is initiative.

Sure, a boat could be ordered to try it, and would probably be lost. But given a U.S. and Japanese style of patroling, generally the only way an officer would enter a base is on initiative, something that given low experience and aggression he would not do.

Moreover, I don't think the Dardenelles compares with, say, Tokyo Bay. On the one hand if the sub is chased out of the Dardenelles to the Med., he is right back in friendly British waters. Especially if he needs to abandon ship or scuttle. If a U.S. sub barely makes it out of Tokyo Bay, he still has about 1,000 miles of ocean to cover that is being patrolled by the Japanese Navy. Making it highly unlikely that an S-boat, or a coastal R-boat would ever be ordered into Tokyo Bay or any other Japanese harbor.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.71875