Midgets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Q-Ball -> Midgets (8/10/2009 2:51:22 PM)

Just curious......has anyone tried to use alot of midget subs, and what kind of results are you seeing beyond the PH attack?

The PH midgets seem to get a hit in every once in awhile, plus losing all the subs.

IRL, midgets weren't worth the effort, and I suspect that's true in AE as well, but just curious how it's working out for others



Feltan -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 2:53:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Just curious......has anyone tried to use alot of midget subs, and what kind of results are you seeing beyond the PH attack?

The PH midgets seem to get a hit in every once in awhile, plus losing all the subs.

IRL, midgets weren't worth the effort, and I suspect that's true in AE as well, but just curious how it's working out for others



Q-Ball,

Other than the PH attacks, I never plan to use them.

As you stated, IRL they weren't worth the effort. I see no reason not to learn from that lesson. [:)]

Regards,
Feltan



Don Bowen -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 3:02:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Just curious......has anyone tried to use alot of midget subs, and what kind of results are you seeing beyond the PH attack?

The PH midgets seem to get a hit in every once in awhile, plus losing all the subs.

IRL, midgets weren't worth the effort, and I suspect that's true in AE as well, but just curious how it's working out for others



Q-Ball,

Other than the PH attacks, I never plan to use them.

As you stated, IRL they weren't worth the effort. I see no reason not to learn from that lesson. [:)]

Regards,
Feltan


I'd recommend that you do use them. Grab a couple and the big I-Boats that can carry them and stage a raid on a major rear area base (Sydney, San Francisco, Bombay maybe). You might catch your opponent with no ASW assets assigned to protect his rear area harbors. And once you do raid once or twice, he will have no option but to assign such assets - which he badly needs elsewhere.



John Lansford -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 3:09:31 PM)

I figure that's what those YP's are for since you can't assign them to transport or escort duties.  Of course, I've only got them on the WC and am using anything with a DC thrower right now in Australia for anti-sub duties...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 3:14:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
IRL, midgets weren't worth the effort, and I suspect that's true in AE as well, but just curious how it's working out for others

As you stated, IRL they weren't worth the effort. I see no reason not to learn from that lesson. [:)]



You guys are going to break BRADY's heart saying things like that..... [:D]



PeteG662 -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 3:17:10 PM)

Only thing I use midgets for is throwing.....fun pub game! [:'(]



Mike Solli -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 3:23:07 PM)

Anyone know offhand which subs can carry midgets?



Feltan -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 3:45:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
... I'd recommend that you do use them. Grab a couple and the big I-Boats that can carry them and stage a raid on a major rear area base (Sydney, San Francisco, Bombay maybe). You might catch your opponent with no ASW assets assigned to protect his rear area harbors. And once you do raid once or twice, he will have no option but to assign such assets - which he badly needs elsewhere.


Don,

That is an interesting idea. However, widespread use of midgets would be ahistorical.

In real life, the Japanese deployed less than 50 midgets (although more were built, they didn't leave the HI area), and only about 15 saw action. They never met the expectations of the IJN. If I recall correctly, they were used at PH, Sydney, Ulithi, Okinawa and Guam; they sank about 5 ships. However, it is an interesting option.

Another interesting option would be for the Japanese to use their subs to mine enemy ports. Which they did historically to much greater affect than the use of midgets for less expediture of resources. Keeping Allied mine sweeping resources tied up at rear area ports is, in my opinion, an equally valid goal -- and one more in line with historical reality.

Regards,
Feltan



CEDeaton -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 4:20:30 PM)

Alas, with the advent of AE and the Mine Tenders, gone are the days of 9000 mine defenses. [:(]



Feltan -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 4:36:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CraigDeaton

Alas, with the advent of AE and the Mine Tenders, gone are the days of 9000 mine defenses. [:(]


Craig,

For most of the Pacific islands, I am happy those days are gone. The under water geography simply would not allow for massive mine fields around Iwo Jima, Truk, Saipan, etc. The water was too deep and the currents too strong to maintain anything other than a few mines for harbor defense. I maintain the problem with mine warfare in WITP was not mines, it was how the depth of the ocean was modelled on the map. Atols and some islands should not be coastal hexes, they should be deep water.

Regards,
Feltan





Sardaukar -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 4:39:11 PM)

AI tried to use them against me in Colombo, but carrier sub hit mine and midgets got stuck in sub net... Talk about surprise. And I formed ASW TF just in case...that was promptly sunk by KB air attack next day...[:o]

Great stuff, I am enjoying the game. [8D]



Brady -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 5:30:50 PM)

All you ever wanted to know about Midgets:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/midgets.htm



Mike Solli -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 5:46:00 PM)

Has anyone considered using the midgets assigned to attack PH somewhere else?



CEDeaton -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 5:46:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


quote:

ORIGINAL: CraigDeaton

Alas, with the advent of AE and the Mine Tenders, gone are the days of 9000 mine defenses. [:(]


Craig,

For most of the Pacific islands, I am happy those days are gone. The under water geography simply would not allow for massive mine fields around Iwo Jima, Truk, Saipan, etc. The water was too deep and the currents too strong to maintain anything other than a few mines for harbor defense. I maintain the problem with mine warfare in WITP was not mines, it was how the depth of the ocean was modelled on the map. Atols and some islands should not be coastal hexes, they should be deep water.

Regards,
Feltan





Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were very realistic, but it sure was fun to watch! [:D]



Dili -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 6:02:47 PM)

quote:

In real life, the Japanese deployed less than 50 midgets (although more were built, they didn't leave the HI area), and only about 15 saw action. They never met the expectations of the IJN. If I recall correctly, they were used at PH, Sydney, Ulithi, Okinawa and Guam;


"In May 1942 Ramillies was still in the Indian Ocean and was sent to cover the Allied invasion of Madagascar. On 29 May 1942, a reconnaissance plane from the Japanese submarine I-10 spotted Ramillies at anchor in Diego Suarez harbour. Ramillies changed berth after the plane was seen. However, the Japanese submarines I-16 and I-20 launched two midget submarines, one of which, commanded by Lieutenant Saburo Akieda, managed to penetrate the harbour and to fire its two torpedoes. The first torpedo severely damaged Ramillies at about 20:25; the second sank the oil tanker British Loyalty at 21:20. Lieutenant Akieda came under depth charge attack from the corvettes Genista and Thyme but managed to beach his submarine and flee inland with Petty Officer Masami Takemoto. Both were killed in a firefight with Royal Marines three days later.

Ramillies was reported sunk by the Japanese, but in fact was merely severely damaged. She was towed to Durban for temporary repairs, then in August 1942 she returned to Plymouth under her own steam and was back in service in June 1943." Wikiquote



Knavey -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 6:25:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan



Don,

That is an interesting idea. However, widespread use of midgets would be ahistorical.



I think historical play goes out the window as soon as the players make thier first turn.



m10bob -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 6:58:10 PM)

Japanese midgets.

[image]local://upfiles/7909/099932D5B8644BEBB0AC4C88660E4662.jpg[/image]



Iridium -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 7:06:17 PM)

Nice Afro.



Feltan -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 7:12:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan



Don,

That is an interesting idea. However, widespread use of midgets would be ahistorical.



I think historical play goes out the window as soon as the players make thier first turn.


Knavey,

Certainly you are correct to a point. The game is not scripted, you do not have to follow historical paths.

I appreciate the option of using midget subs to a greater extent than was historically possible. I think that is neat. I like it.

The point I was making above is that if options are important, and I think they are, I am dismayed that I couldn't use mines more aggressively. Such use has more historical precident, is economically more advantageous, and produces better results based on historical outcomes.

I should have been more clear.

Regards,
Feltan



Local Yokel -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 7:20:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Just curious......has anyone tried to use alot of midget subs, and what kind of results are you seeing beyond the PH attack?

The PH midgets seem to get a hit in every once in awhile, plus losing all the subs.

IRL, midgets weren't worth the effort, and I suspect that's true in AE as well, but just curious how it's working out for others


Although it's arguable the Japanese could/should have got more out of their midgets, I disagree that the midget concept wasn't worth the effort. On the contrary, I suggest that they showed themselves to be one of the more successful innovations of WW2 as a means of attacking capital ships in their home base. As evidence of this I look to Operation Source: the RN X craft attack on Tirpitz, and de la Pene/Bianchi's superlative SLC attack on Valiant and QE at Alexandria (underwater work being something at which the Italians have excelled from Egypt onwards). And Dili beat me to it by pointing out that the IJN can point to Diego Suarez as a qualified success, at least.

Actually, I wonder whether the AE team have let an opportunity slip. Why doesn't the RN get some XE craft in 1945, wherewith to emulate the extraordinarily courageous attack of Fraser and Magennis in XE-3 upon the Takao at Singapore? Or did I miss something in the reinforcement queue?



Terminus -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 7:42:13 PM)

Er, no... The AIRCRAFT was the more successful innovation when attacking enemy ships in their bases. Midget subs were a waste of resources.



Iridium -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 7:45:45 PM)

Midget Subs can be used for base defense as well no? Create 5 of them and form a TF...it should cause some mischief among a bombardment fleet or transport ships.



Dili -> RE: Midgets (8/10/2009 9:15:13 PM)

The 6* Italian CB Midget subs in Black Sea sunk 2 Soviet Submarines(plus one unconfirmed) in one year May42-May43.

http://www.modelshipwrights.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=118380&page=1

*(in practice 5 since one of those was almost from start sunk by aircraft bombing attack in the harbour)

quote:

Actually, I wonder whether the AE team have let an opportunity slip. Why doesn't the RN get some XE craft in 1945, wherewith to emulate the extraordinarily courageous attack of Fraser and Magennis in XE-3 upon the Takao at Singapore? Or did I miss something in the reinforcement queue?


Yeah, i found surprising that AE team limited midgets to Japan only. After British copied the Italian chariots they started to use them against Italians itself from 1943.



Knavey -> RE: Midgets (8/14/2009 6:16:04 PM)

Another point is that although they did not use them (the non-afro midgets) effectively, SOMEONE in the Japanese command was planning on using them. This is a LOT of submarines.



[image]local://upfiles/7595/1DCD74C4D38B4AB887A5485CCB255CA8.jpg[/image]



Nikademus -> RE: Midgets (8/14/2009 6:29:01 PM)

basically with midgets.....expect very low returns from high efforts. Depending on the target though.....you might experience some joy and produce some new swear words from your opponent. :)



juliet7bravo -> RE: Midgets (8/14/2009 7:18:24 PM)

Dan Bowen hit it right.  Any ASW assets you tie down in the rear, are assets that aren't being used at the front.  What was the point of having long range I-boats that could carry midgets, if you didn't transport them long-distances?  Then using the midgets against the most heavily defended bases, when civilian ports bursting with shipping were (comparatively speaking) wide-open all up and down the West Coast?

"I maintain the problem with mine warfare in WITP was not mines, it was how the depth of the ocean was modelled on the map. Atols and some islands should not be coastal hexes, they should be deep water."

Also exactly right.  Might have also used mine fields that were based on percent effective to reflect mine density, with their effectiveness maxing at 100%, regardless of how many additional mines were laid.  The current solution was "throwing the baby out with the bath water".



oldman45 -> RE: Midgets (8/15/2009 8:50:50 AM)

I just had a mini sub attack a ship outside of Sydney, then I had another minisub attack outside of Rabaul.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Midgets (8/15/2009 10:26:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I'd recommend that you do use them. Grab a couple and the big I-Boats that can carry them and stage a raid on a major rear area base (Sydney, San Francisco, Bombay maybe). You might catch your opponent with no ASW assets assigned to protect his rear area harbors. And once you do raid once or twice, he will have no option but to assign such assets - which he badly needs elsewhere.


Obviously you have never actually tried doing this. Mommy boats usually hit the minefields and their spawn hits a fair number as well. And if you do manage to get 1 into the port, a hit on anything bigger than a DD isnt going to sink it sooooo, you just gave up 15 to 40 points (or more) for what? To damage a BB? Big deal.

No way in hell are these things worth the points you lose for using them. Best thing is to put them in a friendly port (like Saipan) and use them as a floating minefield.



juliet7bravo -> RE: Midgets (8/15/2009 4:02:07 PM)

Interesting bit of useless trivia from a tanker TROM;

"Summer 1941:
Enroute to Los Angeles to load a cargo of oil, KENYO MARU stops at Kwajalein, Marshall Islands. At the IJN's submarine base, she takes a Type A midget submaine under tow. KENYO MARU tows the midget underwater to the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands. There, the midget is again taken under tow by another oiler and towed underwater back to Kwajalein. The purpose of this exercise is give the midget submariners deep sea towing and navigation experience."



witpqs -> RE: Midgets (8/15/2009 6:18:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I'd recommend that you do use them. Grab a couple and the big I-Boats that can carry them and stage a raid on a major rear area base (Sydney, San Francisco, Bombay maybe). You might catch your opponent with no ASW assets assigned to protect his rear area harbors. And once you do raid once or twice, he will have no option but to assign such assets - which he badly needs elsewhere.


Obviously you have never actually tried doing this. Mommy boats usually hit the minefields and their spawn hits a fair number as well. And if you do manage to get 1 into the port, a hit on anything bigger than a DD isnt going to sink it sooooo, you just gave up 15 to 40 points (or more) for what? To damage a BB? Big deal.

No way in hell are these things worth the points you lose for using them. Best thing is to put them in a friendly port (like Saipan) and use them as a floating minefield.


I've done a total of 4 starts in AE. Three times there have been torpedo hits on a BB by a midget sub. In one case that BB was hit by nothing else during the turn, but sank during combat resolution anyway. One midget torpedo hit sank one BB.

[Add: Talking about Pearl Harbor turn 1.]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625