RE: American sub. failure update.........

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: American sub. failure update.........

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: American sub. failure update.........

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/19/2014 9:26:26 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

This has been debated to death and as many times as I have seen the debate it I have yet to see anyone produce any historical data to support the games seemingly over the top dud rate of 80% for Mk14 fish.

Everyone knows and agrees that the US had a dud problem (the same exact one the Germans had) and took way, way longer to face the reality of it and fix it than the Germans did, but no one, and I repeat no one has ever shown any historical data to support 80%.

If you play the game long enough you do realize the average of 20% non-duds, but that rate of 80% duds means it is very easy to hit strings of incredible duds. I have personally counted 13 straight duds before getting one that explodes.

It is what it is and we have to live with it as players, but for once I would like to see one of those who believes 80% is accurate to show me the money and defend that particular design decision with something more substantial than a simple "suck it up"!

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 31

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/19/2014 10:29:54 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm

gives some info from Lockwood tests:

What must never be forgotten is the fact that just over 50 years ago, submariners were forced to engage the enemy for 18 months with ordnance that proved to be at least 70 percent unreliable.

I think (I don't really know) that devs got the dud rate 80% from submarine after-patrol reports.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 32

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/19/2014 11:01:50 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

"I'm Baaack!"

This thread has arisen from its slumber!

No.

Its that new series called "The Last Ship"

years later the sub comes up for air and the crew asks......"Where is everyone?" "Whats a Smartphone?"

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 33

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 3:57:51 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

good looking guy when he was a young man!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 34

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 10:39:49 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm

gives some info from Lockwood tests:

What must never be forgotten is the fact that just over 50 years ago, submariners were forced to engage the enemy for 18 months with ordnance that proved to be at least 70 percent unreliable.

I think (I don't really know) that devs got the dud rate 80% from submarine after-patrol reports.

Interesting.

I was thinking 67% would be a rate I could by into, but 80% is a hard sell with me that would require some hard data.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 35

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 1:23:34 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

There were 3 separate problems with American torpedoes. Plus the magnetic exploder was considered so secret testing was deemed a breach of national security

Add in the fact that a certain manufacture was lining the pockets of congress in order to keep lucrative contracts in an economy just coming out of depression, and the delay in getting the issues fixed become more understandable.

Note understandable, but sure as heck not acceptable.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 36

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 6:05:21 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm

gives some info from Lockwood tests:

What must never be forgotten is the fact that just over 50 years ago, submariners were forced to engage the enemy for 18 months with ordnance that proved to be at least 70 percent unreliable.

I think (I don't really know) that devs got the dud rate 80% from submarine after-patrol reports.

Interesting.

I was thinking 67% would be a rate I could by into, but 80% is a hard sell with me that would require some hard data.

Problem is that the issues with the Mark 14 were solved one at a time over the course of 18 months-each given slightly better results. But yes, 80% in the first two thirds of 1942 is entirely believable but it was a combination of duds and misses that I think are lumped into this high rate. The jump to 40% later on seems right too as the torpedoes were routinely defective until late 43. There were incremental refinements between these dates that could boost efficiency a little bit, but it is Ok with me they way they are.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 37

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 7:12:03 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

I can't buy that argument CR.

I get 80% duds PLUS huge percentages of misses from the inexperienced crews.

I certainly don't begrudges the misses as the crews ARE inexperienced.

Saying the 80% dud rate seems OK because it also encompasses the miss rate is flat wrong headed from my perspective.

And yes, I agree that the drops in the dud rate are sufficient to make the MK14 carrying subs effective eventually.

I just feel very strongly that the 80% dud rate feels excessive. I say "feels" because I don't have hard data to base my gut feeling on.

I suspect that perhaps no one has accurate hard data (likely very hard to collect as many early reports of duds were scoffed at by higher command and chalked up to misses by inexperienced crews)and the 80% was simply an educated guess on the part of the designers.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 38

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 8:15:16 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Lockwood conducted tests of the contact exploders and they alone had a dud rate of 70%. Together with the depth problem and faulty magnetic exploders a dud rate of 80% in the game seems not unreasonable. USS Tinosa had a dozen duds in a row against a stationary target so no "misses" here. And as I have posted before - 300 torps fired for 10 ships sunk. Even if half the torps missed that leaves 15 torps per ship sunk hitting. And if we generously assume that per sinking three exploding torps were required, that leaves 12 duds out of 15 "hits". I think the devs know their stuff quite well.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 39

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 8:27:34 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

You can't extend the stats that way. For example, the S-boats didn't have TDCs. The fleet boats did. A lot of those 300 were S-boat shots in the defense of the PI. Training and doctrine also changed rapidly after the first set of short patrols. By early 1942 pre-war training was out the window.

I don't have a problem with 80% in 1941. I do have a problem with it all the way to January 1943. There were well-documented local "fixes" to the torpedo problem, often varying depending on the CO and the degree of risk he was willing to shoulder. But they got better through 1942. Look at the tonnage curves.

I really have a problem keeping the Mk 14 pretty broken almost to the end of 1943.

The key game-wise is if the US submarine force is a strategic tool in the game and something Japan players have to counter. As the stock scenarios work now I think the answer is pretty much no. They were an anti-commerce weapon. In the game they aren't.

Won't be "fixed", but nobody should think that what they see in the game is how it really went.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 6/20/2014 9:28:45 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 40

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 9:48:13 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

What LST said.

80% dud rate is very reasonable considering all problems. And somehow I have never been too disappointed about my sub torpedo performance, just have to be happy when they get hits. Even with 80% dud rate, they do get kills.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 41

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/20/2014 10:49:10 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

Read actual patrol reports and see for yourself. I have.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subreports.htm

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 42

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/21/2014 12:05:06 PM

chazz

Posts: 133
Joined: 4/30/2014
Status: offline

I take the ribbing that I'm new to this and learning curve and so on...good naturedly, of course. I am beginning to sense that I'm beginning to annoy some on this forum, which is perhaps unavoidable.

On a positive note this is the first game I've stayed with in a long time that I've also yelled as many obscenities at. It's a good job I don't live in an apartment anymore, pretty sure my neighbours would call the nut wagon on me.

To wax historical on this issue...

It was the Mk 14 torpedoes (specifically, the magnetic detonators) that were faulty. The Mk 10s that the S-Boats used were not similarly affected. Neither were the Dutch torpedoes. But game mechanics being what they are, they're treated globally. I don't recall an 80% failure rate as being correct- for some boats I guess it was. I thought that the number was closer to 60-75% until the sub drivers took to reverting to contact pistols only, and making sure that they were more or less than 90 deg. AOB.

The Germans had the same issue in '40 but it took them far less time to correct the problem. IIRC HMS Nelson was saved by a spread of bad torpedoes as she was withdrawing at the close of the Norway campaign of that year.

< Message edited by chazz -- 6/21/2014 1:07:50 PM >

_____________________________

=================================
Thank you for your replies and advice!!

"If you're in a fair fight, then you didn't plan it properly" - Nick Lappos

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 43

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/21/2014 12:20:24 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chazz

To wax historical on this issue...

It was the Mk 14 torpedoes (specifically, the magnetic detonators) that were faulty. The Mk 10s that the S-Boats used were not similarly affected. Neither were the Dutch torpedoes. But game mechanics being what they are, they're treated globally.

No. You still underestimate the game design.

The dud rate is tracked on device level. The Mk10s are more reliable, which makes the S-boats the most effective USN subs at the start of the campaign.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 6/21/2014 1:22:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to chazz)

Post #: 44

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/21/2014 12:34:43 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

The Mk 14 had four faults, three of which were sort of hiding each other. It was running deeper than set, too deep to activate the magnetic exploder. When this was solved, it was found the magnetic exploder did not work properly (many prematures or duds) even when torp was running at proper depth. When resorting to the contact exploder, it was found it did not work properly either - and especially with perfect setups at 90 deg. As said before, Lockwood conducted tests with contact exploders at perfect angle and had 70% duds. The fourth issues of the Mk 14 were circular runs.

In the game, the Allied torps are NOT treated globally the same - the Dutch W1 torpedo for example has a dud rate of 10, as has the Britisch Mk VIII torpedo (and many others - check the editor).

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 6/21/2014 1:35:38 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to chazz)

Post #: 45

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/21/2014 12:38:44 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The Mk 14 had four faults, three of which were sort of hiding each other. It was running deeper than set, too deep to activate the magnetic exploder. When this was solved, it was found the magnetic exploder did not work properly (many prematures or duds) even when torp was running at proper depth. When resorting to the contact exploder, it was found it did not work properly either - and especially with perfect setups at 90 deg. As said before, Lockwood conducted tests with contact exploders at perfect angle and had 70% duds. The fourth issues of the Mk 14 were circular runs.

In the game, the Allied torps are NOT treated globally the same - the Dutch W1 torpedo for example has a dud rate of 10, as has the Britisch Mk VIII torpedo (and many others - check the editor).

This.

_____________________________

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 46

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/21/2014 2:40:32 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I really have a problem keeping the Mk 14 pretty broken almost to the end of 1943.

The key game-wise is if the US submarine force is a strategic tool in the game and something Japan players have to counter. As the stock scenarios work now I think the answer is pretty much no. They were an anti-commerce weapon. In the game they aren't.

Well, Japanese tonnage losses did not actually really spike up until November 1943 and there had to be a multitude of factors, better torpedoes, better experience, many more subs, better radar and so on but I do not think you could say that Allied subs were much of a strategic factor until mid to late 43. I get enough sub sinkings in 42-43 to mirror Allies successes. Tonnage is lower for me but I am really hunting warships more than merchants so that is expected. The problem in game is and always has been that the Allied sub arm does not become a strategic factor later in the game when it should-due to the overpowering effect of Japanese ASW. It is not the torpedoes that are the issue, and I have never seen changing the dud rate as a solution. There have been some nice ASW changes in the beta and Babes mods that have improved this but there are other simple fixes that I have always thought should be implicated.

One is to greatly lower the maximum DL attainable on Allies subs to reflect the pitiful quality radar on Japanese surface ships and the Allied ability to evade search planes due to surface to air search radar. Doing this would make the Allies subs much more deadly and reduced Allied sub losses. I have always said that to have a true simulation of the Pacific War, the Japanese player has to really be sweating Allied subs in 1944. That just does not happen but it has nothing to do with the dud rate in 1942.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 47

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/21/2014 4:25:15 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Read actual patrol reports and see for yourself. I have.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subreports.htm

I have picked a random one - Pickerel. In August 42 the patrol report mentions three different attacks with a total of eight Mk 14 fired. Results: 4 premature explosions, 2 misses, 1 torpedo hitting but not exploding and one good hit.

May have hit on an extreme example - or a typical one. Will check some others when time permitting.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 48

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/21/2014 10:52:02 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

I have personally counted 13 straight duds before getting one that explodes.

Based on your play, 14 shot with one hit, that is a 15.4%% probability-not 20% but close.

< Message edited by Rusty1961 -- 6/21/2014 11:52:45 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 49

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/22/2014 1:06:35 PM

chazz

Posts: 133
Joined: 4/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: chazz

To wax historical on this issue...

It was the Mk 14 torpedoes (specifically, the magnetic detonators) that were faulty. The Mk 10s that the S-Boats used were not similarly affected. Neither were the Dutch torpedoes. But game mechanics being what they are, they're treated globally.

No. You still underestimate the game design.

The dud rate is tracked on device level. The Mk10s are more reliable, which makes the S-boats the most effective USN subs at the start of the campaign.

Okeydokey.

I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. I have noticed Japanese duds, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I really have a problem keeping the Mk 14 pretty broken almost to the end of 1943.

The key game-wise is if the US submarine force is a strategic tool in the game and something Japan players have to counter. As the stock scenarios work now I think the answer is pretty much no. They were an anti-commerce weapon. In the game they aren't.

Well, Japanese tonnage losses did not actually really spike up until November 1943 and there had to be a multitude of factors, better torpedoes, better experience, many more subs, better radar and so on but I do not think you could say that Allied subs were much of a strategic factor until mid to late 43.

This coincides with the historical record. BuOrd did not finally recognize the problems with the Mk 14's detonators until Sep. 43. After that Japanese tonnage losses went up markedly. Before then, however, some Sub drivers were ordering contact pistols only, on their own initiative. If BuOrd didn't recognize the issue, the men in the boats certainly did.

< Message edited by chazz -- 6/22/2014 2:14:01 PM >

_____________________________

=================================
Thank you for your replies and advice!!

"If you're in a fair fight, then you didn't plan it properly" - Nick Lappos

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 50

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/22/2014 1:15:27 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Yep, that is depicted in game by lowering Mk 14 dud rate from 80% -> Jan 43 60% -> Sept 43 10%

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to chazz)

Post #: 51

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/22/2014 1:47:39 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

I long ago learned to respect the research done by the game design team..After reading and re-reading the Clay Blair book,(with VERY detailed torpedo research explained to exonerate good crews..I noticed the game team had followed history very well ref the American torpedo problems.
As mentioned...the older "S boats" did not use the flawed torpedoes..

In my games, I generally use the S boats early on for this reason, and use the newer boats till later on as picket boats and spy boats, (to gain experience)..
If the newer boats hit anything of value before spring of 1943, its' just a bonus, but not expected..

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 52

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/22/2014 7:54:00 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Lockwood conducted tests of the contact exploders and they alone had a dud rate of 70%. Together with the depth problem and faulty magnetic exploders a dud rate of 80% in the game seems not unreasonable. USS Tinosa had a dozen duds in a row against a stationary target so no "misses" here. And as I have posted before - 300 torps fired for 10 ships sunk. Even if half the torps missed that leaves 15 torps per ship sunk hitting. And if we generously assume that per sinking three exploding torps were required, that leaves 12 duds out of 15 "hits". I think the devs know their stuff quite well.

These numbers do not agree with other sources. The devs knew a lot; on the sub model they were much too conservative re the USN fleet boats. Perhaps for game balance. Fine. But the effectiveness numbers in the game ARE NOT CORRECT against history. It has become received knowledge around here that the USN sub force was basically worthless in 1942. In truth they sank over half-a-million tons.

One thing I will say is the game is far too generous to the S-boats. They were crap. The Mk 10 is a tiny piece of the puzzle. As platforms they were obsolete in the 1920s. Certainly by 1930. Their FC was primitive. Their habitability was horrendous. they were shallow-hulled, fragile, persnickety boats. They were kept due to the Depression, basically. They had no business being at war with a first-rate navy in the 1940s. Their record is pretty bad, and they were withdrawn.

As far as the Mk 14 goes, these are some numbers I found:

http://www.valoratsea.com/month1.htm

Sinkings by month and year, against patrol-days. Columns are: # of ships sunk, tonnage, # of days on patrol.

1941 6 31,693 281

1942 133.5 552,472 4,886

1943 308 1,366,962 6,682

1944 548.5 2,451,913 11,700

1945 154.5 447,584 7,741

Grand Total
1150.5 4,850,624 31,290

Is 1942 great? Yes and no. These were pre-war boats and pre-war, often timid, COs. Radar was only installed part of the year (radar had FAR more to do with results than any Mk14 problems.) A very large number of patrols were out of forward bases at Fremantle and Brisbane, with less than stellar pre-patrol support, parts, and training. Both Coral Sea and Midway took large numbers of boats out of patrol cycles and into fleet support roles, cutting anti-commerce missions. And, due to Midway at mid-year, the first half of the year's patrols had to leave from Pearl and return there, cutting on-station time significantly versus 1943 and 1944.

And still, with far fewer hulls, a little radar, crap COs in many case, and yes, crap Mk14s, these boats sank over 1/3 as many ships as in 1943 when the command problem was solved, radar was universal, Midway was humming, Japanese tactics were well-known, and the end-around-night-surface-attack doctrine was embedded in the sub fleet. The guys in 1942 did heroic work.

So how bad were the Mk14s in 1942? Not that terrible in total.

Number of Torpedoes Fired by U.S. Submarines
Total number fired = 14,748

Average number fired per attack = 3.586

Average number fired per ship sunk = 14,748 /1,392 = 10.59.
(8 in 1942; 11.7 in 1943; 10 in 1944)

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg10

Yes. Fewer shots per ship in 1942 than either 1943 or 1944. Why? Lots of reasons. Bigger targets is for sure a reason. Many carriers, BBs, CAs in the latter two years. Also, more inventory. In 1942 COs were strongly advised to be careful with torpedo consumption as wartime production rates were not there yet. Other reasons. But bottom-line, ships were sunk with the MK14 while it was "broken." From these numbers I don't see a lot of support for an 80% dud rate IN COMBAT. I ack that was seen in controlled tests with BuOrd procedures and base-prepared rounds. At sea boats did all sorts of local mods to make the fish work better. It's documented in numerous places that some boats deactivated the magnetic exploder once clear of the channel, probably a CM offense if the CO had been caught.

But the numbers are the numbers. And, to return to the game, how many AFBs see 550,000 tons of sub-sunk in 1942?

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 6/22/2014 8:57:56 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 53

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/22/2014 8:18:30 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, Japanese tonnage losses did not actually really spike up until November 1943 and there had to be a multitude of factors, better torpedoes, better experience, many more subs, better radar and so on but I do not think you could say that Allied subs were much of a strategic factor until mid to late 43. I get enough sub sinkings in 42-43 to mirror Allies successes. Tonnage is lower for me but I am really hunting warships more than merchants so that is expected. The problem in game is and always has been that the Allied sub arm does not become a strategic factor later in the game when it should-due to the overpowering effect of Japanese ASW. It is not the torpedoes that are the issue, and I have never seen changing the dud rate as a solution. There have been some nice ASW changes in the beta and Babes mods that have improved this but there are other simple fixes that I have always thought should be implicated.

One is to greatly lower the maximum DL attainable on Allies subs to reflect the pitiful quality radar on Japanese surface ships and the Allied ability to evade search planes due to surface to air search radar. Doing this would make the Allies subs much more deadly and reduced Allied sub losses. I have always said that to have a true simulation of the Pacific War, the Japanese player has to really be sweating Allied subs in 1944. That just does not happen but it has nothing to do with the dud rate in 1942.

On the spike, you say spike, I say "curve". In particular pay attention to the ships sunk per patrol day.:

December (1941) 6 31,693 281
Total 6 31,693 281

Month Ships Sunk Tonnage # Days on Patrol
January (1942) 7 28,351 322
February (1942) 5 15,975 363
March (1942) 7 26,183 363
April (1942) 5 26,886 396
May (1942) 20 86,110 396
June (1942) 6 20,021 446
July (1942) 8 39,356 437
August (1942) 17.5 76,652 462
September (1942) 11 30,389 454
October (1942) 25 118,920 504
November (1942) 8 35,358 512
December (1942) 14 48,271 512

Total 133.5 552,472 4,886

Month Ships Sunk Tonnage # Days on Patrol

January (1943) 18 80,572 57
February (1943) 10.5 54,276 405
March (1943) 26 109,447 442
April (1943) 19 105,345 448
May (1943) 29 122,319 437
June (1943) 25 101,581 659
July (1943) 20 82,784 532
August (1943) 19 80,799 858
September (1943) 38 157,002 697
October (1943) 27 119,623 648
November (1943) 44.5 231,683 572
December (1943) 32 121,531 407

Total 308 1,366,962 6,682

Month Ships Sunk Tonnage # Days on Patrol

January (1944) 50 240,840 824
February (1944) 54 256,797 593
March (1944) 26 106,529 689
April (1944) 23 95,242 775
May (1944) 63.5 264,713 1,063
June (1944) 48 195,020 824
July (1944) 48 212,907 1,275
August (1944) 49 245,348 1,056
September (1944) 47 181,363 850
October (1944) 68.5 328,843 1,306
November (1944) 53.5 220,475 1,317
December (1944) 18 103,836 1,128

Total 548.5 2,451,913 11,700

Month Ships Sunk Tonnage # Days on Patrol

January (1945) 22 93,796 1,066
February (1945) 15 55,746 1,093
March (1945) 23.5 70,727 1,217
April (1945) 18 60,696 1,045
May (1945) 17 32,394 1,014
June (1945) 43 92,267 1,067
July (1945) 12 27,408 901
August (1945) 4 14,550 338

Total 154.5 447,584 7,741

Totals Ships Sunk Tonnage # Days on Patrol
1941 6 31,693 281
1942 133.5 552,472 4,886
1943 308 1,366,962 6,682
1944 548.5 2,451,913 11,700
1945 154.5 447,584 7,741

Grand Total
1150.5 4,850,624 31,290

I have two games running. I am aggressive with my subs. I send them into harbors, I forward deploy/base, I swap COs, I emphasize choke points. In one game, January 1943 I have sunk 28 ships with Mk 14s. About half are PBs. In the other September 1942 game the total is 11 ships, about 2/3 xAK/xAKL. Playing the AI I have never come close to historical numbers either. Not even 50%.

Nor is it just about merchants. USN subs sank: 8 carriers, 1 BB, 4 CAs, 9 CLs, 38 DDs, 23 SS. Imagine the JFB howls if even half that list were achieved in the game.

I do agree with you on DL. It is the single biggest contributor to sub results in the game, more than the dud rate. The dud rate can be fought, a bit, with smart basing and patrolling, and the AFB gets the advantage of rapid turn around between patrols, and more rapid repair than would have been possible in RL. But an all-day DL spike from one sighting is extreme. And the ease of getting a sighting, given air-search radar use after mid-1942, is much too high.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 6/22/2014 9:20:32 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 54

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/22/2014 8:30:34 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Read actual patrol reports and see for yourself. I have.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subreports.htm

I have picked a random one - Pickerel. In August 42 the patrol report mentions three different attacks with a total of eight Mk 14 fired. Results: 4 premature explosions, 2 misses, 1 torpedo hitting but not exploding and one good hit.

May have hit on an extreme example - or a typical one. Will check some others when time permitting.

Looking at Blair, USS Pickerel was a Brisbane boat in that era. She left on patrol in in July on her fifth patrol, achieved nothing, and continued on to re-base in Pearl. In total, the of eight Brisbane boats leaving in July 1942 (seven were S-boats, Pickerel the only fleet) a total of three ships were sunk for about 22,000 tons.

Looking at the month of July for boats leaving Pearl, we see 11 fleet boats and no S-boats. Four patrols were to Empire waters, 6 transited to Freemantle via patrol around Truk, and one went to the East China Sea. Wartime credit for this group was 25 ships sunk for about 184,000 tons.

Post-war JANAC review lowered these figures to 14 ships for about 61,000 tons.

All with "broken" Mk 14s.

Source: Blair, page 917

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 55

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/22/2014 9:50:52 PM

pharmy

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline

I was under the impression that in the game, the first air search radar for the Japanese is the H-6, which arrives in 6/44. I thought that meant even if I have a plane with that capability, it would not be active till then. So that would mean my Kate 2s have N-6 radar and MAD from the beginning? I'm not sure if this is so, I checked the game and saw no indication. I remember seeing it being blanked out previously, but now it doesn't appear at all in the squadron plane info.

Edit - the planes and database - electronics section still shows H-6 at 6/44.

< Message edited by icepharmy -- 6/22/2014 10:53:25 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 56

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/23/2014 9:39:33 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

The guys in 1942 did heroic work.

Yes, they did - they got sinkings with "broken" Mk 14 - nobody is denying this.

But they would have done an even better job in 1942/43 with working torps, don't you agree?

Now, in the game we get sinkings with "broken" Mk 14 as well.

My current game is at February 25th, 1942 and I have nine sinkings with Mk 14 - one PB, one AG, one TK and the rest AKs.

Seems my experience is just different from yours.

Ok, numbers are numbers - but statistics must be taken with a grain of salt.

What do you want to imply by stating the fact that in 1942 fewer torps were needed per sinking than in 1943 or 1944 - that there was no problem with torps in 1942 compared to later?

There are several factors to explain this. Early in the war there was a torpedo shortage, skippers were ordered to limit numer of torps used per target. They got some sinkings even if three out of four torps did not work properly because one hit on an AK was usually enough. Later when torpedo supplies were amply they could fire more (it was doctrine to fire spreads - and full salvos against capital ships). But this was producing "overkills" when the torpedo problems were finally solved (like four torps on an AK for four hits). Also most of the warship sinkings you mention happened late in the war, and since capital ships were usually attacked with full salvos, this means a lot of torps expended for just one target. So lower torpedo expenditure in the stats for 1942 does not surprise me and is not an indicator for equal or even better torpedo performance in 1942 than later in the war.

Also stats on patrol days per sinking adds nothing to the dud rate debate - late in the war targets became scarce and many subs spent many days on patrol with no sightings.

I am aware that some skippers ignored orders and deactivated the magnetic exploder and/or set the torps to run shallower than doctrin demanded, but I claim that this yielded only marginally better results since they were then relying on the faulty contact exploder. See Tinosa's experience in July 1943 as - granted - the most extreme example of duds despite a perfect setup. Following this, Lockwwod conducted tests, found the problem with the exploder and finally in September 1943 the first torpedos with reliable contact exploder were issued.

There is no denying that the USN had a torpedo problem up to late 1943, and the game reflects that with the dud rate. For me 80% is not too high and results in the game are ok. If you think 80% is too high, then there is the editor.

Nough said and let's just agree to disagree like gentlemen.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 6/23/2014 10:45:00 AM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to pharmy)

Post #: 57

RE: American sub. failure update......... - 6/23/2014 1:47:59 PM

pharmy

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline

Beginning of Sept 42 PBEM game
Mark 14 Torpedo : 69 ships 250,162 tons (1 CL, 6 Patrol, 4 AO/TK, rest AK/AP)
Mark 10 Torpedo : 10 ships 25,521 tons (1 DD, 2 CM, 1 TK, 1 xAP,6xAK)
21 MK VIII Torpedo (Brit): 4 ships 14,965 tons (4 xAK)
45cm and 53.3 cm (Dutch) 49 ships 172,814 tons (1 CVL,1 CL, 4 DD, 1 DMS, 1 SS, 7 AO/TK, rest AK/AP)

< Message edited by icepharmy -- 6/23/2014 2:48:25 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 58