sub v. sub (Full Version)

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



Message

pontiouspilot -> sub v. sub (8/1/2019 5:20:40 PM)

I remember a thread from the last few months where the rarity of this was discussed. Here is a shocker: I am Allies and in late March'43 versus the fighting Irishman in London & I have sank 3 IJN subs with subs in the last 5 weeks. He is feeling a little snake bitten!



geofflambert -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 5:52:59 PM)

I haven't found it unusual at all if both sides are deploying subs to the same area. There's a good chance one will detect the other, or both will. A torpedo hit beats a depth charge every day of the week.



btd64 -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 6:13:45 PM)

I have seen this my last two games. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't....GP



spence -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 7:27:59 PM)

I sorta remember from somewhere that subs will more often engage/hit enemy subs near enemy bases.

From the TROMs of IJN subs it seems that USN subs sank their IJN counterparts on the order of 8 or 9 to 1. I believe that much of this disparity can be attributed to SIGINT (real rather than in game).



HansBolter -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 7:50:12 PM)

Been happening a lot in my current game now that I have a cordon of subs ringing the HI in January of 1946.

It isn't as rare as urban legend makes it out to be.



BBfanboy -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 8:27:42 PM)

After Allied subs get radar they are most likely to get attacks on the IJN sub, rather than the other way around.

Subs that are already damaged and traveling slower than usual on their RTB are more likely to be hit than subs that are fully functional. If my ASW has damaged an IJ sub, I try to guess where its home base is and put my subs in the path home. Sometimes it pays off.



HansBolter -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 8:48:37 PM)

Oh and I forgot to mention.......


For me Sub vs Sub has always been the equivalent of Spy vs. Spy and I have been known to cry out that very thing with great enthusiasm when one of these encounters occurs. [:D]


For those who grew up in a in a bubble, if you don't get the reference, I suggest picking up a copy of Mad Magazine.



BBfanboy -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 8:50:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Oh and I forgot to mention.......


For me Sub vs Sub has always been the equivalent of Spy vs. Spy and I have been known to cry out that very thing with great enthusiasm when one of these encounters occurs. [:D]


For those who grew up in a in a bubble, if you don't get the reference, I suggest picking up a copy of Mad Magazine.

Know it well. Not that I am a racist, but I always rooted for the white spy. I think it was about 50-50 on which spy got the better of the other.



rustysi -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 9:12:22 PM)

quote:

Spy vs. Spy


[8|]



rustysi -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 9:16:31 PM)

quote:

Know it well. Not that I am a racist, but I always rooted for the white spy.


Nah, I always rooted for 'Cheech Wizard'. Same mag, different comic. BTW one of my favorites would definitely be considered racist today. The PCer's would go nuts.[:)]



geofflambert -> RE: sub v. sub (8/1/2019 10:17:12 PM)

S v S was like the coyote v the roadrunner, except there was no roadrunner and both were coyotes, and, to put it bluntly, losers.



HansBolter -> RE: sub v. sub (8/2/2019 11:34:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Oh and I forgot to mention.......


For me Sub vs Sub has always been the equivalent of Spy vs. Spy and I have been known to cry out that very thing with great enthusiasm when one of these encounters occurs. [:D]


For those who grew up in a in a bubble, if you don't get the reference, I suggest picking up a copy of Mad Magazine.

Know it well. Not that I am a racist, but I always rooted for the white spy. I think it was about 50-50 on which spy got the better of the other.


We both grew up in the era wherein the color white was (and to a large degree still is) associated with good and the color black was (and to a large degree still is) associated with bad or more appropriately evil.

This is a concept that dates back to the early days of our species and relates more to the opposites of day and night, light and dark, than to any later inappropriately applied association with race or skin color.

Nothing to be ashamed of or need to apologize for. I too rooted for the (good) white spy.



Rusty1961 -> RE: sub v. sub (8/3/2019 2:31:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

After Allied subs get radar they are most likely to get attacks on the IJN sub, rather than the other way around.

Subs that are already damaged and traveling slower than usual on their RTB are more likely to be hit than subs that are fully functional. If my ASW has damaged an IJ sub, I try to guess where its home base is and put my subs in the path home. Sometimes it pays off.



I didn't think of that. Thanks for sharing.



fcooke -> RE: sub v. sub (8/4/2019 8:29:53 PM)

Only USS Corvina was a definite loss to an IJN sub while US subs with 18 definite kills of IJN subs. Certainly there are many other subs whose cause for loss is unknown. With the IJN sub force doctrine of going after capital ships in the war likely meant that even if they saw a sub they might not attack - to save the torpedoes for bigger fish. Later in war the sheer number of US subs, plus much better tech (radar, Ultra) put IJN subs under a lot of pressure. Also, IJN sub force didn't get the best men/officers- they all wanted to be on the BBs, CAs and CVs, where by the second year of the war US men were dying to get on subs (no pun intended - 1 in 5 of them didn't come come) and the skippers were aggressive.

So, I do think the US subs should get much better results on those of the IJN, assuming good skippers.



Zorch -> RE: sub v. sub (8/4/2019 9:57:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Only USS Corvina was a definite loss to an IJN sub while US subs with 18 definite kills of IJN subs. Certainly there are many other subs whose cause for loss is unknown. With the IJN sub force doctrine of going after capital ships in the war likely meant that even if they saw a sub they might not attack - to save the torpedoes for bigger fish. Later in war the sheer number of US subs, plus much better tech (radar, Ultra) put IJN subs under a lot of pressure. Also, IJN sub force didn't get the best men/officers- they all wanted to be on the BBs, CAs and CVs, where by the second year of the war US men were dying to get on subs (no pun intended - 1 in 5 of them didn't come come) and the skippers were aggressive.

So, I do think the US subs should get much better results on those of the IJN, assuming good skippers.

18 US sub vs IJN sub kills seems high...source?

I would like to recommend The Hunter Hunted: Submarine versus Submarine Encounters from World War I to the Present by Robert Stern, USNI 2007.



fcooke -> RE: sub v. sub (8/4/2019 10:25:48 PM)

Naval History and Heritage Command:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-submarine-losses/japanese-submarine-casualties-in-world-war-two-i-and-ro-boats.html

I think it was while reading Clay Blair on Pacific sub operations that I was surprised by the exchange rate.



geofflambert -> RE: sub v. sub (8/4/2019 10:32:42 PM)

We can leave unterseeboats out of the discussion for obvious reasons. Because of the difference in doctrine between the USN and IJN on sub use they were unlikely to encounter each other unless an IJN sub was transiting a USN sub's patrol zone. Advantage USN.



Zorch -> RE: sub v. sub (8/4/2019 10:37:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Naval History and Heritage Command:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-submarine-losses/japanese-submarine-casualties-in-world-war-two-i-and-ro-boats.html

I think it was while reading Clay Blair on Pacific sub operations that I was surprised by the exchange rate.


Thank you.



spence -> RE: sub v. sub (8/4/2019 10:57:39 PM)

quote:

18 US sub vs IJN sub kills seems high...source?


The TROMs of all the IJN subs at CombinedFleet.com tend to confirm the number of IJN subs lost to other submarines.



Zorch -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 2:47:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

18 US sub vs IJN sub kills seems high...source?


The TROMs of all the IJN subs at CombinedFleet.com tend to confirm the number of IJN subs lost to other submarines.

I don't question Blair's data; but I thought it was hard to hit a shallow draft vessel with torpedoes.
Were these mostly ambushes setup by intell/radar?



warspite1 -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 3:40:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Only USS Corvina was a definite loss to an IJN sub while US subs with 18 definite kills of IJN subs. Certainly there are many other subs whose cause for loss is unknown. With the IJN sub force doctrine of going after capital ships in the war likely meant that even if they saw a sub they might not attack - to save the torpedoes for bigger fish. Later in war the sheer number of US subs, plus much better tech (radar, Ultra) put IJN subs under a lot of pressure. Also, IJN sub force didn't get the best men/officers- they all wanted to be on the BBs, CAs and CVs, where by the second year of the war US men were dying to get on subs (no pun intended - 1 in 5 of them didn't come come) and the skippers were aggressive.

So, I do think the US subs should get much better results on those of the IJN, assuming good skippers.

18 US sub vs IJN sub kills seems high...source?

warspite1

Sub vs sub kills were not uncommon in WWII in all theatres.



BBfanboy -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 4:16:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

18 US sub vs IJN sub kills seems high...source?


The TROMs of all the IJN subs at CombinedFleet.com tend to confirm the number of IJN subs lost to other submarines.

I don't question Blair's data; but I thought it was hard to hit a shallow draft vessel with torpedoes.
Were these mostly ambushes setup by intell/radar?

When surfaced, doesn't a sub still have ~20 feet of hull depth in the water? That would be on a par with most AKs.



jdsrae -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 7:21:48 AM)

Plus when surfaced they can be hit by deck gun. Would be risky business though.
I wonder how many were sunk by torpedo (most?) compared to slow MGB-like battles.
Did they have magnetic detonators back then, so could a torpedo detonate under the sub and still break it in half?



RangerJoe -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 7:50:42 AM)

Part of the problem with the US Mark 14 torpedo was the magnetic detonator. The device was set to go off based on the magnetic field of the eastern US but in the Pacific the field is different. The torpedo would explode about 50 feet away from the target.



fcooke -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 11:05:36 AM)

If you want to believe wiki a gato sat 17 feet deep in the water and a fletcher 17.5. Sounds about right. And I think many IJ smaller ships drew far less but still sit on the bottom. I think the magnetic detonator was off by the end of 43 after many US skippers had run their own tests showing the things were not working. Germans had the same problems at the beginning of the war, but ditched them quickly, which was unfortunate for many, many Allied seamen. And a bit of an afterthought. The recently found Eagle had a draft of 8.5 feet and the German sub had no problem sinking her.

Two stories come to mind. One where a US sub crippled (I think) an IJ tanker and then proceeded perfect set-ups for something approaching 20 more shots. The results were horrid. For the USN that is. The other is borrowing fishing nets in the HI and firing torps into some cliffs. The holes in the nets showed that the torps were running - at best case 10 feet deeper than set. Now that has nothing to do with the magnetic issue but US skippers were blamed for the early war failures when in reality:

torps were running deep
magnetic detonators were not working properly
firing pins bent and did not explode on a straight (90 degree) hit because they bent. Only non-perfect, off angle hits worked.

Trying to solve a multi-headed problem is not easy as any developer/computer programmer will tell you so this was hard to solve.

TO make things even worse, before the war, in order to save money, practice firings were carried out with torps that were easy to recover for 'cost saving' reasons. This meant the torps had a different warhead weight than what 'live' warheads had and made all the data a bit wonky.

And to top it off I think I recall some of the top brass in the sub force in WW2 were involved in those Newport test firings and refused to believe there was anything wrong with their precious product - must be the skippers. I cannot recall which of the senior brass it was - but admiral level.

The fact that the Dolphins were able to do what they did under that backdrop makes their accomplishments even more impressive.

Regards,
Frank



RangerJoe -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 12:14:37 PM)

The firing pins were made from heavy steel and moved too slow to hit the primer if the torpedo struck at a 90 degree angle or thereabouts. The tube for the firing pin would deform before the primer was hit. When they made a firing pin from an aluminum aircraft propeller, it worked fine and that was the fix for that.



Gridley380 -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 1:14:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

If you want to believe wiki a gato sat 17 feet deep in the water and a fletcher 17.5. Sounds about right. And I think many IJ smaller ships drew far less but still sit on the bottom. I think the magnetic detonator was off by the end of 43 after many US skippers had run their own tests showing the things were not working. Germans had the same problems at the beginning of the war, but ditched them quickly, which was unfortunate for many, many Allied seamen. And a bit of an afterthought. The recently found Eagle had a draft of 8.5 feet and the German sub had no problem sinking her.

Two stories come to mind. One where a US sub crippled (I think) an IJ tanker and then proceeded perfect set-ups for something approaching 20 more shots. The results were horrid. For the USN that is. The other is borrowing fishing nets in the HI and firing torps into some cliffs. The holes in the nets showed that the torps were running - at best case 10 feet deeper than set. Now that has nothing to do with the magnetic issue but US skippers were blamed for the early war failures when in reality:

torps were running deep
magnetic detonators were not working properly
firing pins bent and did not explode on a straight (90 degree) hit because they bent. Only non-perfect, off angle hits worked.

Trying to solve a multi-headed problem is not easy as any developer/computer programmer will tell you so this was hard to solve.

TO make things even worse, before the war, in order to save money, practice firings were carried out with torps that were easy to recover for 'cost saving' reasons. This meant the torps had a different warhead weight than what 'live' warheads had and made all the data a bit wonky.

And to top it off I think I recall some of the top brass in the sub force in WW2 were involved in those Newport test firings and refused to believe there was anything wrong with their precious product - must be the skippers. I cannot recall which of the senior brass it was - but admiral level.

The fact that the Dolphins were able to do what they did under that backdrop makes their accomplishments even more impressive.

Regards,
Frank


Well said - the story of the "we crippled her, I'm going to keep shooting until I sink her" (actually a whaling ship) is well told here:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Tonan3_t.htm

See 24 July '43.

"In all, USS TINOSA fires 15 Mark-14 torpedoes and gets 13 hits, but 11 are duds."

I have yet to master the combination of settings, patrol zones, and captain selections that allow one to replicate the lethality of the late-war US sub force, but judging by some of the AAR's out there it can be done.



fcooke -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 4:37:48 PM)

In my defense, the IJN was using the whaling ships as tankers [8|]. And the Tonans were monsters - I think circa 20k tons. I think more than one survived being torpedoed and managed to get home.

Thanks for the details Gridley. I fear using my memory as I get older.....



geofflambert -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 4:58:47 PM)

If the Empire covers the chokepoints well with air ASW, for instance between Luzon and China, it can be tough. Historically I think they had too much reliance on MAD at night and not enough on eyeballs during the day. Part of the problem is the difference between sub doctrine. They were more likely to defend the places where they would put subs if they were on the other side, rather defending the places the US actually patrolled their subs.



Gridley380 -> RE: sub v. sub (8/5/2019 5:19:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

In my defense, the IJN was using the whaling ships as tankers [8|]. And the Tonans were monsters - I think circa 20k tons. I think more than one survived being torpedoed and managed to get home.

Thanks for the details Gridley. I fear using my memory as I get older.....


Yup. I believe they're the "Tonan Whaler" class in the game - nice big targets. Unless, of course, you get 11/13 duds...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375