Jump to content

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2
[HM]
Members
10 posts
1,364 battles

Let me start this by opening up a full can of worms!

I see use in the WOW of subs as a very isolated tactical use to one sub per side as the sub was used almost in it's use as,A strategical asset and not a tactical one even when we look at the limited combat use as in the case of the U-boat sinking of Royal Oak or the IJN supper cv shinano by USN sub it is still more of a strategic use and not a tactical one.took me a great deal of searching to come up with the few details that I had using a number of different navy sources until I came upon a really great book by David Brown "Warship losses of world war two" from arms and armor press ISBN#0-85638-802-8.I was able to find out the numbers of losses from sub launched torpedoes verses all other types of losses.I also discovered that losses by mine were almost the same as sub launched torpedoes.Mines being mainly a Strategical area denial weapon.I really looked deep into the use of the sub as a tactical weapon and how where it was when used.

In 90% or more cases the subs tactical use against surface combat units was in the role of lone-wolf   role and less of a "fleet Boat" as intended in US fleet operations.Let me quickly address the KM fleet ops.Yes the KM did use their subs in massed fleet ops"wolf packs" but never in a tactical operation against surface combat units only against "convoy ops" with few surface units.So with that out look I give you the base for the idea of single sub per side use.

What are your ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
985
[CTF80]
[CTF80]
Members
4,226 posts
10,516 battles

Wargaming is trying to shoe-horn subs into the game.  It's patently obvious, even after practically everyone in WG said there would NEVER be subs in the game.  I am resigned to the fact that there will soon be a submarine tech tree for several nations added to the game.  I just don't care anymore; just more food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[SW]
Beta Testers
1,890 posts
8,252 battles

How WG does it we are waiting to see.

as for Historically  you (OP) unfortunately really limited your scope if you looked at tonnage lost vs subs deployed, The Pt Boat has a much better record

1 Subs were destined to sink ships; but did you take into account;

2 Denial of access to shipping lanes as Submarine deployment caused ships to not use certain passages for fear of attack by our subs

3 Rescue operations, American Naval Submarines saved hundreds of flyers so they could return to battle, something the Japanese did not believe in.

4 Reference, documentation and Photographic missions, thousands of hours of chart work, beach pictures and shore installations were photgraphed

5 Special operations, 11 submarines were used for transporting troops and supplies for special operations, coast watching and behind the lines activity.

6 Tactical reassignment of combat craft from normal operations to escort duty, the Japanese were unable to build ships as easy as we could so every ship removed to provide cover for shipping meant less ships attacking us in aggressive operations.

 

Yous should try books by Edward L beech, Paul R Stafford and Herbert Werner.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FAILD]
Members
427 posts
1,608 battles

Tactically speaking Subs were so slow underwater they had to lay in wait along projected convoy lines to get shots at the convoys from the front. Otherwise they had to try and run along the surface usually at night to try and get ahead of a zig zagging convoy.

Back in world war II neither side could tell who's sub it was when it was submerged. So they didn't really want to hang with the fleet. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
9,543 battles

There are two cases I'm aware of where submarines attempted to operate with surface ships. The RN's K-class subs and the IJN tried it once at Guadalcanal. The K-class was a disaster, and the IJN cruisers may have run over thier own sub that was scouting for them.

Not a great record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,567 posts
9,998 battles

Subs were designed to do one thing, attack slow moving convoys. They were never assigned to attack warships as this was never their purpose.  Once you introduce subs, all the destroyers have to be re-worked so that they could carry sonar and depth charges. I can't imagine what all these new features will do to CPU load on older, less powerful computers. 

Edited by STINKWEED_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
359 posts
6,797 battles

Subs in the scenario looks good. Honestly very excited to see what WG has come up with and I love the visuals XD. Very creepy vibe with that sea monster below the surface.

From what I've seen though, there is a lot of action involved.

They obviously move faster (or the distances are greatly compressed) to the point that you are actually doing some maneuvers.

I don't see any "realistic" speeds from these subs being implemented. The combat seems good enough; although the big thing that I'm curious about is the "dive" and O2 limiter. I couldn't read or see much via the video on that specific mechanic.

As far as general gameplay goes, WG is using this as a test I suppose to see submarines viability. Can't say if it will be worth it but Submarines are certainly not going to be for everyone though and it would be a niche playstyle.

2 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Once you introduce subs, all the destroyers have to be re-worked so that they could carry sonar and depth charges.

Interestingly enough, they did show a potential counter for Subs in in the video via depth charges. I'm likely to assume that (if implemented) any ship equipped with Depth Charges would have them deploy either automatically or manually if/when they are overtop of a submarines last known position and/or immediate location underwater. Probably more akin to the AA area of effect regarding damage and range. You don't have to hit a submarine directly to down it so "horse shoes and hand grenades" does apply here.

Either used as a consumable or (minimally) having a timer/cooldown for the depth charge drops. <without a cooldown, a DD could just park itself over the Subs position and non-stop drop depth charges all day long. Without a cooldown (or similar break) the submarine would need to be able to avoid such an assault (probably dive deeper) and I'm not sure how detection mechanics will work while underwater... assuming that hydro acoustics would be the primary means of detecting a underwater submarine.

As for operating a Sub...

Speed for them would likely be around the 20knots range. Their starting position/s would be ahead of the fleet, thus reducing the issue of them being late to the party and potentially opening up some sub vs sub gameplay if they are the only two at that cap or area of the map.

Their primary purpose would be to detect the enemy (a realistic use during the war) and to engage them if/when they can. Submarines certainly DID engage other ship types besides convoy ships. Just ask the Indianapolis.

In order to cap a base, they'd have to surface. This won't be too much of a problem as I'm sure their detection range would be low enough to avoid being fully taken by surprise by a enemy DD. If one does shows up, it will be a harrowing escape for sure if you can escape at all. Though I don't think that installing the hydro acoustic module to all DD's will be needed, the 2km guaranteed detection mechanic should be enough but will have to be tweaked in a way so that you can't just permanently spot a submerged submarine. Likely losing contact with said submarine IF that submarine dives deep enough and moves away far enough before having to surface again for air.

Subs, I'd hazard to guess, would be the true "snipers" of the game. Slow, deliberate positioning with stealth and avoidance tactics being at the forefront of your playstyle choices. Equipped with torpedoes (possibly possessing special "class-specific" characteristics of their own) that can potentially cripple a enemy cruiser with one shot and or have a nearly guaranteed "flooding" capacity. Or perhaps the ability to damage a enemy ships modules more reliably. Basically, where as a submarine wont have the chances to get shots off as often, what shots that do land should be impactful.

Obviously, one of the biggest issues they face is that they would be fragile and easily destroyed by anything that spots them so this key limitation might be the nail in its coffin outside of scenarios. As far as scenarios go however, I think I might actually enjoy this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[HM]
Members
10 posts
1,364 battles
2 hours ago, StingRayOne said:

How WG does it we are waiting to see.

as for Historically  you (OP) unfortunately really limited your scope if you looked at tonnage lost vs subs deployed, The Pt Boat has a much better record.

MTB is the proper name and they can only account for 41 warship kills from 1941 to 1945.

1 Subs were destined to sink ships; but did you take into account.

???? I would like to respond to that but I am not understanding that question.

2 Denial of access to shipping lanes as Submarine deployment caused ships to not use certain passages for fear of attack by our subs

Yes I agree with 100% as ALL naval units do in all bodies of water( we are still on use of subs as tac or strategic in WOW)

3 Rescue operations, American Naval Submarines saved hundreds of flyers so they could return to battle, something the Japanese did not believe in.

Again I agree with you but it makes my point of being Strategical not tactical.

4 Reference, documentation and Photographic missions, thousands of hours of chart work, beach pictures and shore installations were photgraphed.

Again I agree with but it makes my point of being Strategical not tactical

5 Special operations, 11 submarines were used for transporting troops and supplies for special operations, coast watching and behind the lines activity.

Again I agree with you but same as 3 and 4.

6 Tactical reassignment of combat craft from normal operations to escort duty, the Japanese were unable to build ships as easy as we could so every ship removed to provide cover for shipping meant less ships attacking us in aggressive operations.

I disagree with you here your talking a tactical move of a ship or ships to a strategic  pool IE convoy ops.

Also Strategic use of subs to blockade shipping lanes and ports

the over all point of subs in WOW is a tactical use of a Strategic weapons system.just like sea borne mines.

you may  to read U-boat warfare by Jak P. Showell and subs under the swastika. just a quick list or I can help you with the naval war college list if you like.

 

Yous should try books by Edward L beech, Paul R Stafford and Herbert Werner.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,818 battles

WW 2 submarines-- Up to the I 201 and Type XXI classes-- were designed primarily for several missions, none of which really fit the WOW model for the game:

The big one is commerce raiding.  In this role the submarine is a modern day commerce raider like the Confederate ones of the Civil War or Drake's Golden Hind.  Basically, they're government sanctioned pirates.  In this role the submarine operates on the surface to sink unarmed, or poorly armed merchant ships and uses its ability to submerge to hide from retaliation.

The second purpose is as fleet scouts.  Here they move well ahead of their surface fleet in a screen and spot enemy ships and give warning to their fleet.  This is a possible WOW use for submarines, but a rather boring one.  Occasionally, they are able to attack a warship if its in the wrong place at the right time.  The sinking of the battleship Malaya is an excellent example of this.

A third would be clandestine operations.  That is, landing commandos, that sort of thing.  This is completely beyond the scope of WOW.

Submarines can't attack submarines if both are submerged in this time period.  They lack the sophisticated sonar arrays to do that.  The first system that really allowed such an attack to be made was the US PUFFS system in the late 1950's.  On the surface, a submarine is just a poorly armed and vulnerable surface target.   In WOW they'll be a mediocre ship that does little in a game beyond some early spotting and maybe getting the occasional cheap shot in using torpedoes.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[SW]
Beta Testers
1,890 posts
8,252 battles
1 hour ago, hm3duke said:

 

Op thanks for your responses I was replying to historical use not WG, I felt you had missed the point.

And Until War gaming puts them in, their role is purely speculative, as the player base has hardly any understanding of Naval warfare and Tactics overall.

Next-----The US NAVY recognizes PT Boat as an acceptable term.

See The Complete History of PT boats during WWII an Official US Navy Print Link below.

https://www.amazon.com/At-Close-Quarters-United-States/dp/1521367256

Thank You for the generous offer of learning about the Naval War College List, I am sure I can get that fairly easily

Iron Coffins is a much better read than Subs under the Swastika or at least I thought so.

Good luck and good hunting

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
359 posts
6,797 battles

If anyone wants a quick rundown on the question of the submarines effectiveness and strategies: https://www.quora.com/Were-there-many-successful-submarine-attacks-on-warships-in-WWII

-----------------------------------------------------

Your question highlights the main difference between the strategic philosophies of the US vs. Japanese  submarine services in WWII.

The US submarine service (like the German one) focused on attacks on merchant shipping.  As wikipedia puts it, warships "were fast, maneuverable and well-defended compared to merchant ships". The Japanese focused on warships.

According to Sinkings By US Submarines in WW II, the US strategy resulted in "1,178 Merchant Ships sunk for a tonnage total of 5,053,491 tons. The Naval losses were 214 ships and submarines totaling 577,626 tons". So roughly 5.5 merchant ships sunk for each 'naval' ship (of whatever size).

On the Japanese side, using their different strategy, Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II shows them sinking 170 merchant ships for a tonnage of 1 million tons, roughly 1/5 what the US accomplished. I don't see any stats on how many warships they sunk, only "In 1942, Japanese submarines managed to sink two fleet carriers (Yorktown and Wasp), one cruiser, and a few destroyers and other warships, and damage several others (aircraft carrier Saratoga).[17]".

-----------------------------------------------------

Strategically speaking, for the war effort, it was more cost-effective to go after unarmed merchant ships.The submarines life expectancy was still low, but it made up for it in tonnage removed from the enemy team. The Japanese strategy was to target whatever they could. But they did successfully mount several attacks on surface ships.

This would be mimicked regarding its use in the game minus the need or want to focus on unarmed merchant vessels. Their targets would be the warships on the enemy team as there is no "strategy" required for a greater war effort. Just simple planning you course of action and tactics used for the battle.

 

Another link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine_actions

This one here mentions several examples of submarines engaging and destroying other submarines. This is because submarines, more often than not, spend their time above water. This opens up chances for two opposing subs to engage one another. At some point, you'd have to surface to breath.

And, if all else fails, they can ram one another, though I'm sure that would require some level of skill if you were to attempt this underwater... 1943, October 31-November 1 – USS Borie and U-405 engage in a pitched battle ending with Borie ramming the submarine. Both ships are lost.

1945, February 6 – Royal Navy submarine Venturer becomes the only submarine to sink another submarine while they were both submerged when she sinks U-864 off Norway. <Obviously this is probably NOT going to happen in the game... although, if the torps are rendered underwater and slowly curve upward (extending its time below water), proper timing of the launch and close proximity to your underwater target might could allow some skilled players to actually accomplish this.

But there are several examples of warships that fell victim to submarines spanning every class. So the idea that submarines did not actively engage other warships (or attempt to ignore other warships outright) is wrong. What's more, they would actually be more effective in the game as compared to WW2 simply due to the existence of the caps and points of interest. A submarines job would largely be focused on helping to contest caps.

Alternatively, they could also be used to actively hunt down enemy BB's and CV's that are hanging around the back. They might not be able to chase either of those classes (even surfaced (20knots)) but with proper positioning, they are at least guaranteed to come face to face with someone on the map.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,808
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,125 posts
14,528 battles
5 hours ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Subs were designed to do one thing, attack slow moving convoys. They were never assigned to attack warships as this was never their purpose.  Once you introduce subs, all the destroyers have to be re-worked so that they could carry sonar and depth charges. I can't imagine what all these new features will do to CPU load on older, less powerful computers. 

Not quite.  It depends on the navy.  Pre-War doctrine for the IJN and even USN submarine use was fleet support, i.e. going after warships.  I don't know about the RN, Soviet Navy, etc.

 

For the USN, they immediately ditched the fleet support because the US needed SOMETHING attacking the Japanese, and early on, that was primarily Submarines.  They went after transports / cargo ships, etc., "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare."  But warships became a target.  Later on, the USN knowing that Japan couldn't replace warship losses, even had their Subs to add warships, even Destroyers to the target list.  The end result is a shocking amount of major warships the IJN lost to USN Submarines.

https://maritime.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg6

4 Fleet Carriers

4 Escort Carriers

1 Battleship

3 Heavy Cruisers (A RN Sub sank an IJN CA, 4 total)

9 Light Cruisers

38 Destroyers

We also know that Yamato while underway suffered from a USN submarine attack, eating a torpedo and flooding big time.  So there can be hits causing damage but the ships aren't sunk and so will not be in this "Kill Column."

 

The IJN had their doctrine to send their subs to go after warships.  Even through the end of the war, the IJN was dead set on going after warships.  They were so locked onto that idea that German efforts to get the Japanese to attack US shipping with their subs were 100% fruitless:  Post-WWII interrogation of VAdm.Paul Wenneker, attache to the German embassy in Tokyo.

"It was the expressed desire of the German Naval Ministry that every possible effort be made to induce the Japanese to exert their maximum effort in attack against U.S. merchant shipping in the PACIFIC. Notes were repeatedly exchanged between my office and BERLIN on this subject and directives from home instructed me to press the matter further. The Japanese had one invariable answer, namely, that they must conserve their submarines for attack against the U.S. Fleet. They argued that merchant shipping could be easily replaced with the great American production capacity, but that naval vessels represented the real power against what they fought and that these vessels and their trained crews were most difficult to replace and hence were the one logical target. If, therefore, they were to hazard their subs it must be against the U.S. Navy."

 

I'm not sure how successful this was for Japan, but I do know that Fleet Carriers Yorktown and Wasp were lost due to IJN Subs.

 

However, Subs did not normally work in conjunction with surface ships in the same naval engagement.  Even late war, the USN sent its Submarines as pickets to spot, report the movements of Japanese ships and attack.  But the idea of subs attacking ships with both sides having surface ships blazing away, I don't know of any such case.

 

But yes, Submarines were perfectly suited to attack a warship, it's what the doctrine called for, at least for Japan and the United States when the war started.

 

Personally, I can't wait to have Gato and Type VIIC-class subs in my collection.  Will be interesting to see how WG handles ASW gameplay.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
359 posts
6,797 battles
2 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Personally, I can't wait to have Gato and Type VIIC-class subs in my collection.  Will be interesting to see how WG handles ASW gameplay.

lol to tell the truth, I'm really interested in whether or not WG would be willing to include the "unique" submarines that they came up with during WW2.

The Japanese had their share, but so too did a few other nations.

The French Surcouf: https://jalopnik.com/the-ten-weirdest-submarines-ever-made-1540403143

The Surcouf was the largest submarine between 1934-43, and it was equipped with a twin 8" cannon and an aircraft hangar.

They referred to it as an underwater cruiser at the time but what's more interesting is that it's still unclear who sank it and where, not to mention the wild stories about a fair bit of gold from the French Treasury that was supposedly in the Surcouf's cargo compartment.

Not sure about the image below, what nation, or its authenticity, but heck, that would be interesting to play around with... if only for the 10 seconds you actually manage to stay alive during a gunfight vs a DD. But vs another surfaced submarine, I'd say this one has an advantage.

See the source image<premium ship material?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junsen_type_submarine#Junsen_III_(I-7_class <Japanese tier 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine <Japanese premium? This one would be strange... to say the least. Maybe use the planes as either spotters or send them out autonomously to make bombing/torpedo runs against enemy ships. Something that I think WG should eventually add in order to include the Aircraft Cruisers and Aircraft Battleships into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[HM]
Members
10 posts
1,364 battles

 

17 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Not quite.  It depends on the navy.  Pre-War doctrine for the IJN and even USN submarine use was fleet support, i.e. going after warships.  I don't know about the RN, Soviet Navy, etc.

 

For the USN, they immediately ditched the fleet support because the US needed SOMETHING attacking the Japanese, and early on, that was primarily Submarines.  They went after transports / cargo ships, etc., "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare."  But warships became a target.  Later on, the USN knowing that Japan couldn't replace warship losses, even had their Subs to add warships, even Destroyers to the target list.  The end result is a shocking amount of major warships the IJN lost to USN Submarines.

https://maritime.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg6

4 Fleet Carriers

4 Escort Carriers

1 Battleship

3 Heavy Cruisers (A RN Sub sank an IJN CA, 4 total)

9 Light Cruisers

38 Destroyers

We also know that Yamato while underway suffered from a USN submarine attack, eating a torpedo and flooding big time.  So there can be hits causing damage but the ships aren't sunk and so will not be in this "Kill Column."

 

The IJN had their doctrine to send their subs to go after warships.  Even through the end of the war, the IJN was dead set on going after warships.  They were so locked onto that idea that German efforts to get the Japanese to attack US shipping with their subs were 100% fruitless:  Post-WWII interrogation of VAdm.Paul Wenneker, attache to the German embassy in Tokyo.

"It was the expressed desire of the German Naval Ministry that every possible effort be made to induce the Japanese to exert their maximum effort in attack against U.S. merchant shipping in the PACIFIC. Notes were repeatedly exchanged between my office and BERLIN on this subject and directives from home instructed me to press the matter further. The Japanese had one invariable answer, namely, that they must conserve their submarines for attack against the U.S. Fleet. They argued that merchant shipping could be easily replaced with the great American production capacity, but that naval vessels represented the real power against what they fought and that these vessels and their trained crews were most difficult to replace and hence were the one logical target. If, therefore, they were to hazard their subs it must be against the U.S. Navy."

 

I'm not sure how successful this was for Japan, but I do know that Fleet Carriers Yorktown and Wasp were lost due to IJN Subs.

 

However, Subs did not normally work in conjunction with surface ships in the same naval engagement.  Even late war, the USN sent its Submarines as pickets to spot, report the movements of Japanese ships and attack.  But the idea of subs attacking ships with both sides having surface ships blazing away, I don't know of any such case.

 

But yes, Submarines were perfectly suited to attack a warship, it's what the doctrine called for, at least for Japan and the United States when the war started.

 

Personally, I can't wait to have Gato and Type VIIC-class subs in my collection.  Will be interesting to see how WG handles ASW gameplay.

Thanks for your input!!! pointing out many of the ideas I was hoping we bring to the surface(bubblehead talk rofl!)

I think we are all starting to see the highly limited use of subs in direct naval actions(IE .Tactical)

Thanks again for the fantastic WORK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[HM]
Members
10 posts
1,364 battles
On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 1:31 PM, STINKWEED_ said:

Subs were designed to do one thing, attack slow moving convoys. They were never assigned to attack warships as this was never their purpose.  Once you introduce subs, all the destroyers have to be re-worked so that they could carry sonar and depth charges. I can't imagine what all these new features will do to CPU load on older, less powerful computers. 

I agree with you I just do not see subs(more than one per side) fitting into the proper historical rolls and how they were used in WW2.

IF WOW sticks to limited use of subs one per side it would make adapting to the wow software a lot less time consuming and

we could see faster deployment of the new software.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[HM]
Members
10 posts
1,364 battles
On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:44 PM, Murotsu said:

WW 2 submarines-- Up to the I 201 and Type XXI classes-- were designed primarily for several missions, none of which really fit the WOW model for the game:

The big one is commerce raiding.  In this role the submarine is a modern day commerce raider like the Confederate ones of the Civil War or Drake's Golden Hind.  Basically, they're government sanctioned pirates.  In this role the submarine operates on the surface to sink unarmed, or poorly armed merchant ships and uses its ability to submerge to hide from retaliation.

The second purpose is as fleet scouts.  Here they move well ahead of their surface fleet in a screen and spot enemy ships and give warning to their fleet.  This is a possible WOW use for submarines, but a rather boring one.  Occasionally, they are able to attack a warship if its in the wrong place at the right time.  The sinking of the battleship Malaya is an excellent example of this.

A third would be clandestine operations.  That is, landing commandos, that sort of thing.  This is completely beyond the scope of WOW.

Submarines can't attack submarines if both are submerged in this time period.  They lack the sophisticated sonar arrays to do that.  The first system that really allowed such an attack to be made was the US PUFFS system in the late 1950's.  On the surface, a submarine is just a poorly armed and vulnerable surface target.   In WOW they'll be a mediocre ship that does little in a game beyond some early spotting and maybe getting the occasional cheap shot in using torpedoes.

I agree I am just not finding the base for use of subs in the game on more than 1 per side base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[HM]
Members
10 posts
1,364 battles
On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:59 PM, StingRayOne said:

Op thanks for your responses I was replying to historical use not WG, I felt you had missed the point.

And Until War gaming puts them in, their role is purely speculative, as the player base has hardly any understanding of Naval warfare and Tactics overall.

Next-----The US NAVY recognizes PT Boat as an acceptable term.

See The Complete History of PT boats during WWII an Official US Navy Print Link below.

https://www.amazon.com/At-Close-Quarters-United-States/dp/1521367256

Thank You for the generous offer of learning about the Naval War College List, I am sure I can get that fairly easily

Iron Coffins is a much better read than Subs under the Swastika or at least I thought so.

Good luck and good hunting

 

A great book by a TRUE American Hero(CMO" congressional medal of Honor") But it is limited to actions of a subclass of the MTB

and so it does not really cover the use of the MTB as a whole so not a very good book for the CLASS but a GREAT book for the sub classification of the MTB "The PT(patrol torpedo)"

This may help folks to understand the difference of PT(patrol torpedo) V/S MTB(Motor Torpedo Boat)
and WHY the designation PT(patrol torpedo) became PT(patrol boat) in part 1 it shows what the naval board called the small craft in part 2 you will read about WHY PT boats lost their torpedoes and went to guns and Depth charges and a host
of other arms.PT are a sub class of the MTB they are not a different class at all up until late 44 to 45 they lost their
torpedoes.
1st part)In March 1941, during a heavy weather run from Key West to New York by MTBRON 2 (Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 2), Elco 70-footers pounded heavily in 8 to 10 foot waves even at moderate speeds, and seas continuously broke high over the bows. Operating personnel reported extreme discomfort and fatigue. All boats suffered from some sort of structural failure (forward chine guards ripped away, bottom framing under bows broken, side planking cracked [indicating lack of longitudinal strength], and other weaknesses). In April 1941, MTBRON 1 reported enthusiasm over the 81-foot Higgins (PT-6), and with the Higgins showing such good seakeeping further purchase of Scott-Paine boats was unnecessary. And, in early 1941, BuShips lent Packard engines to both Huckins and Higgins, which wanted to build competitive boats at their own expense.
A Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) PT Boat Conference held in May 1941, convened to discussed future PT characteristics. All PTs prior to the 77 ft (23 m) Elcos had been found defective, and it was probable the extended 70 ft (21 m) Elco would not be an improvement. This conference, including representatives from BuShips, BuOrd, MTBRONs, Interior Control Board, and CNO, recommended a series of comparative tests to evaluate what turned out to be five new designs of motor torpedo boats. Of note, the conference strongly recommended that no more Elco 77-footers be ordered until the tests had shown that they were indeed satisfactory.

2nd part)Occasionally, some front line PT boats received ad hoc up-fits at forward bases, where they mounted such weapons as 37mm aircraft cannons, rocket launchers, or mortars. When these weapons were found to be successful, they were incorporated onto the PT boats as original armament. One such field modification was made to Kennedy's PT-109, which was equipped with a single-shot Army M3 37mm anti-tank gun that her crew had commandeered; they removed the wheels and lashed it to 2x8 timbers placed on the bow only one night before she was lost. The larger punch of the 37mm round was desirable, but the crews looked for something that could fire faster than the single-shot army anti-tank weapon. Their answer was found in the 37mm Oldsmobile M4 aircraft automatic cannon cannibalized from crashed P-39 Airacobra fighter planes on Henderson Field, Guadalcanal. After having demonstrated its value on board PT boats, the M4 (and later M9) cannon was installed at the factory. The M4/M9 37mm auto cannon had a relatively high rate of fire (125 rounds per minute) and large magazine (30 rounds). These features made it highly desirable due to the PT boat's ever-increasing requirement for increased firepower to deal effectively with the Japanese Daihatsu-class barges, which were largely immune to torpedoes due to their shallow draft. By the war's end, most PTs had these weapons.

I hope this will help clear up the Names of the different craft and why they are called the way they are.
Here is a list of ALL subclasses of the MTB
All Motor Torpedo Boat classes
The list is divided by navy, then ordered by commissioned date of each class (oldest first).

Commissioned
Royal Navy
 
BPB 60 feet-type (30)
1936 - 1942
 
BPB experimental-type (MTB 100) (1)
1938 - 1938
 
Vosper experimental-type (MTB 102) (1)
1938 - 1938
 
Vosper 70 feet-type (28)
1939 - 1942
 
Thornycroft 55 feet-type (14)
1939 - 1941
 
Thornycroft 73 feet-type (3)
1939 - 1940
 
White 73 feet-type (39)
1940 - 1944
 
Vosper 60 feet-type (4)
1940 - 1940
 
Thornycroft experimental-type (MTB 104/105) (2)
1940 - 1940
 
Thornycroft experimental-type (MTB 106/107) (2)
1940 - 1940
 
Chantiers Navales de Meulan experimental-type (MTB 108(i)) (1)
1940 - 1940
 
Vosper 72 feet-type (144)
1941 - 1944
 
Thornycroft 75 feet-type (13)
1941 - 1942
 
Thornycroft experimental-type (MTB 345/346) (2)
1941 - 1942
 
Vosper experimental-type (MTB 103) (1)
1941 - 1941
 
Fairmile D (197)
1942 - 1945
 
BPB 72 feet-type (77)
1942 - 1946
 
Thornycroft experimental-type (MTB 344) (1)
1942 - 1942
 
Vosper 73 feet-type (29)
1944 - 1948
 
Fairmile D (Modified) (28)
1944 - 1945
 
Camper&Nicholson-type (8)
1944 - 1946
US Navy
 
ELCO 70' (10)
1940 - 1940
 
Fisher 58' (4)
1940 - 1941
 
PT 9 (3)
1940 - 1941
 
ELCO 77' (49)
1941 - 1942
 
Folgal 58' (2)
1941 - 1941
 
PT 5 (2)
1941 - 1941
 
PT 6 (2)
1941 - 1941
 
PT 7 (2)
1941 - 1941
 
PT 8 (1)
1941 - 1941
 
ELCO 80' (297)
1942 - 1945
 
Higgins 78' (209)
1942 - 1945
 
Huckins 78' (18)
1942 - 1943
 
Vosper 72' (38)
1945 - 1945
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,567 posts
9,998 battles
40 minutes ago, hm3duke said:

I agree with you I just do not see subs(more than one per side) fitting into the proper historical rolls and how they were used in WW2.

IF WOW sticks to limited use of subs one per side it would make adapting to the wow software a lot less time consuming and

we could see faster deployment of the new software.

 

It won't happen because everyone will be rushing to get subs creating massive wait times for the MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[HM]
Members
10 posts
1,364 battles

I noticed a lot of information given  about subs sinking warship .

like the Yorktown at midway.You may want to dig a little deeper .My point is sinking of warships by submarine actions only not actions of the subs after a large number of air attacks IE(Throughout the night of 6 June and into the morning of 7 June, Yorktown remained stubbornly afloat; but by 05:30 on 7 June, observers noted that its list was rapidly increasing to port. At 07:01, the ship turned over onto her port side, rolled upside-down, and sank, stern first, in 3,000 fathoms (5,500 m) of water.[2] In all, Yorktown's sinking on 7 June 1942 claimed the lives of 141 of her officers and crewmen.)Yorktown was lost not due to sub torpedo fire.But to many air strikes and torpedo strikes from aircraft and the dentation of onboard weapons and the choice to take off the salvage crew before the I-boat fired it's tubes.

when things happen and in what order are very important when you are trying to evaluate the effects of weapons.

I am again trying to stress the use of subs only in sinking not of aircraft use we are already aware of the very effective use of airpower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
359 posts
6,797 battles
22 minutes ago, hm3duke said:

My point is sinking of warships by submarine actions only

So, direct kills?

Well, we all know the Indianapolis. And you can bet that the majority of DD kills was from the submarine. About 30 DD's were said to have been taken out by submarines and if they can 1 shot a cruiser, I'm inclined to think that if a single torp hits a DD, it's game over; except of course in a few instances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine_actions

1939, October 14 – German U-boat U-47 sinks HMS Royal Oak in Scapa Flow base. The First Lord of Admiralty Winston Churchill officially announced the loss of Royal Oak to the House of Commons, first conceding that the raid had been "a remarkable exploit of professional skill and daring". <I'd say this would make for a good scenario mission.

1941, November 13 – U-81 strikes HMS Ark Royal with a single torpedo. She sinks the following day due to crippling damage. <flooding damage is no joke.

1942, September 15 – Japanese submarine I-19 sinks U.S. aircraft carrier USS Wasp and destroyer USS O'Brien and damages battleship USS North Carolina with a single salvo.

1944, November 29 – USS Archer-Fish sinks Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, the largest vessel of that time. <took 4 torp hits to do it, but it worked.

This is just the wiki list of ships sunk by submarines. There are certainly a lot more because I know that the DD's aren't listed.

Submarines didn't need outside help to kill some of the largest ships during the war, just the opportunity to do so. With the games border restrictions and contested locations, this makes finding those enemy ships that much more simple.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,818 battles

What I visualize happening is that if you get stuck with 2 or 3 subs on your side, you have an advantage for all of a minute or two in the opening phase of a battle.  These could substitute for destroyers and take an objective and / or scout, lighting up the other side.  After that, they're either found and sunk or driven out of the game by being forced to submerge.

Occasionally, one will be a spoiler and get a lucky shot on some major target and cripple or sink it.  But, that will be the exception, not the rule.  I'd think players will quickly tire of submarines and pretty much abandon using them as they will be seen as far to fickle to be played consistently well.

Submarines just don't do well as fleet units, at least historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,818 battles
1 hour ago, Levits said:

So, direct kills?

Well, we all know the Indianapolis. And you can bet that the majority of DD kills was from the submarine. About 30 DD's were said to have been taken out by submarines and if they can 1 shot a cruiser, I'm inclined to think that if a single torp hits a DD, it's game over; except of course in a few instances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine_actions

1939, October 14 – German U-boat U-47 sinks HMS Royal Oak in Scapa Flow base. The First Lord of Admiralty Winston Churchill officially announced the loss of Royal Oak to the House of Commons, first conceding that the raid had been "a remarkable exploit of professional skill and daring". <I'd say this would make for a good scenario mission.

1941, November 13 – U-81 strikes HMS Ark Royal with a single torpedo. She sinks the following day due to crippling damage. <flooding damage is no joke.

1942, September 15 – Japanese submarine I-19 sinks U.S. aircraft carrier USS Wasp and destroyer USS O'Brien and damages battleship USS North Carolina with a single salvo.

1944, November 29 – USS Archer-Fish sinks Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, the largest vessel of that time. <took 4 torp hits to do it, but it worked.

This is just the wiki list of ships sunk by submarines. There are certainly a lot more because I know that the DD's aren't listed.

Submarines didn't need outside help to kill some of the largest ships during the war, just the opportunity to do so. With the games border restrictions and contested locations, this makes finding those enemy ships that much more simple.

 

What this misses is the circumstances of these actions.  In every case, the target came to the submarine, not the other way around.  The sub happened to be in the right place at the right time to make that happen.  The Royal Oak sinking is an exception we'll never see in the game except in some odd scenario:  A submarine sneaking into a base and torpedoing an at-anchor ship.

At sea, the sub has to have the luck to be in the right place at the right time to get a shot on a warship.  The only viable way I can see this possibly happening with regularity in the game is if a sub squats on an objective and waits for the other side to show up to take it.  Then it could get in the proverbial Parthian shot on a target.  However, once it does, or until it is discovered by something like hydro, it becomes doomed to be pounded out of existence by ASW weapons it has no defense against.

Thus, subs become nothing but spoilers.  They aren't going to be the vessel type for decisive action.  I suppose there is the case of using one late in a game as a spoiler to win by having hidden and survived only to surface and take an objective at the last minute when the other team is down to a few ships and has nothing that can sink a sub left.  Then it might be decisive by grabbing an objective with nothing to oppose it.  But, even then, the circumstances have to be right for this to happen.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,808
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,125 posts
14,528 battles
13 hours ago, hm3duke said:

I noticed a lot of information given  about subs sinking warship .

like the Yorktown at midway.You may want to dig a little deeper .My point is sinking of warships by submarine actions only not actions of the subs after a large number of air attacks IE(Throughout the night of 6 June and into the morning of 7 June, Yorktown remained stubbornly afloat; but by 05:30 on 7 June, observers noted that its list was rapidly increasing to port. At 07:01, the ship turned over onto her port side, rolled upside-down, and sank, stern first, in 3,000 fathoms (5,500 m) of water.[2] In all, Yorktown's sinking on 7 June 1942 claimed the lives of 141 of her officers and crewmen.)Yorktown was lost not due to sub torpedo fire.But to many air strikes and torpedo strikes from aircraft and the dentation of onboard weapons and the choice to take off the salvage crew before the I-boat fired it's tubes.

when things happen and in what order are very important when you are trying to evaluate the effects of weapons.

I am again trying to stress the use of subs only in sinking not of aircraft use we are already aware of the very effective use of airpower. 

USN submarines were sinking warships left and right without air power.  The USN flooded the central and western Pacific with submarines.  It was obvious where the Japanese were sailing, where they were based and traveling to / from (the Home Islands, Truk, Rabaul, and the heavy traffic areas of the Dutch East Indies and Philippines... All highly concentrated).  USN subs were frequently harassing the Japanese and causing losses as they traveled the Pacific.

 

Shinano, Taiho, Shokaku.  Just 3 examples.  3 major Japanese Carriers.  2 of these were underway in combat operations with carrier air groups.  Lost due to submarines without any aid from friendly air power.

 

Even this reference here: https://maritime.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg6

... That I used already, mentions which kills were in conjunction with aircraft.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
359 posts
6,797 battles
2 hours ago, Murotsu said:

What this misses is the circumstances of these actions.  In every case, the target came to the submarine, not the other way around.  The sub happened to be in the right place at the right time to make that happen. 

Isn't that how the game works out the vast majority of the time. More often than not, the enemy will come to you. You've got a equal chance of the enemy team going full lemming to the other side of the map, but eventually, they will make their way there to you. WG can fiddle with the actual top speed a little for gameplay sake if they need to, so there is that too.

But even at a lower max speed compared to other ships, this is also workable simply by reading the map and putting yourself in the path of the enemy. Now, at 20knots, you aren't chasing anyone down, but you can darn sure get into position to intercept a approaching enemy. Which is why (counter to the placement of CV's) subs should be started ahead of the fleet. 20knots to move to a cap or wherever and at that 20 knots, eventually, you can intercept the path of a enemy ship that is moving/hiding in the rear. They can't outrun you because there is a border wall keeping them in.

As far as the game is concerned with this issue, the literal "framing" of the game takes care of these "circumstances".

 

2 hours ago, Murotsu said:

At sea, the sub has to have the luck to be in the right place at the right time to get a shot on a warship.  The only viable way I can see this possibly happening with regularity in the game is if a sub squats on an objective and waits for the other side to show up to take it.  Then it could get in the proverbial Parthian shot on a target.  However, once it does, or until it is discovered by something like hydro, it becomes doomed to be pounded out of existence by ASW weapons it has no defense against.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to work out the details. Anti-sub warfare is something that will be seen in this upcoming Halloween mission. Depending on how they go about balancing things, submarines might not be as easy to deal with as one might think, or they might very well have other tricks/tactics up their sleeves to further play around with. It's hard to tell exactly how weak or OP submarines will be without any clue what to expect to begin with. <Which is why WG stated that they'd see how they do in the upcoming scenario whether or not they'd consider it further.

 

2 hours ago, Murotsu said:

Thus, subs become nothing but spoilers.  They aren't going to be the vessel type for decisive action.  I suppose there is the case of using one late in a game as a spoiler to win by having hidden and survived only to surface and take an objective at the last minute when the other team is down to a few ships and has nothing that can sink a sub left.  Then it might be decisive by grabbing an objective with nothing to oppose it.  But, even then, the circumstances have to be right for this to happen.

I really hope that people aren't expected submarines to be the defacto factor of a victory every time. Sure, they would be good for spotting up until they have to dive for safety, good at sniping key targets (if/when they can manage), and good at distracting enemy forces (capping, attacking, or otherwise), but they are not going to be any more effective than any other ship class. But, at the same time, they are also NOT going to be any less effective than any other ship class either. They do share similarities with DD's, that's a given, but their specific features and traits as well as tactics are different enough to potentially make them stand out.

But the way I see it they, like the DD's (with their stealth) and BB's (with their huge offensive capabilities), certainly can and will play a significant role in some victories. It would be a different form of play style, a slower-paced style of gameplay (with moments of action here or there) that rewards those who know how to put themselves in front of a rushing enemy force and keep their cool. DD's finding themselves dealing with a overwhelming force are running scared or avoiding it; not so in a submarine. Keep your cool and hope for the best. Plan your shots and have a escape plan ready.

Heck, it might even be a significant counter to some enemy forces that just bum-rush one side of the map and continue to steamroll to the other.

A single sub, waiting in the shadows as the enemy fleet goes sailing by, hoping that the enemy doesn't manage to spot him. Waiting till the coast is clear before firing off a few torps into a BB or a enemy CV that is following the main group. Instantly, that rushing (overwhelming) enemy fleet now has to read the situation and slow their roll. There's a easy to kill enemy nearby, but the only way you are going to spot it is if it either surfaces for air, or your DD's and cruisers hunt it down. That Yamato had no problem pushing up, it can tank, and the ships in front of it could easily screen it from a DD. But that one submarine managed to slip past them.

For context, I love the Musashi and the last thing I want is another ship class that can counter it, but if there's no DD's or CV's on the enemy side (and, in certain situation, even if there are), I have no worries yoloing up to a cap or area on the map and laying waste to everyone I can see. I don't expect subs to change much, but they could give me something to be wary about and if he/she manages to slip past my teams defenses and takes me out, all I can say is that the kill was well deserved. In addition, as a DD, it would give me a target to go hunt that my class is exceptional at dealing with. Now, instead of just hunting down straggling BB's, I've got a option to actively defend my fleet against a foe few others can deal with.

Either way, submarines played a massive part in many iconic ships destruction and was a huge factor in naval warfare at the time. So much so that many ships were outfitted with the necessary equipment to deal with them; as any other vessel or threat.

Don't know if WG wants to deal with everything involved to introduce them to regular gameplay, but it might be worth it to introduce this last piece of the naval warfare experience. It's certainly not going to be hard to balance that's for sure. These things come with their own peculiar balancing with their lack of armor and requirement to surface from time to time. Just tweaking the surface time requirements alone would be enough to deal with how effective these things are.

Also, just to add, I'm not sure if Submarines are worth counting as DD's or if they would be better off being limited as we see currently with CV's. There are a good number of cruisers that should be equipped to deal with Submarines about as well as DD's, so I'm thinking that submarines might could take up the same slot as a DD. So long as there aren't one-sided battles where one team ends up with something like 5 submarines vs another team with 5 DD's. DD's being considered more than capable of countering those submarines... but then again, we do see on the reports just how many DD's those submarines took out. So I'm not 100% sure exactly which one is better at countering the other in terms of what we'd see in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,439 posts
4,626 battles
7 hours ago, hm3duke said:

I noticed a lot of information given  about subs sinking warship .

like the Yorktown at midway.You may want to dig a little deeper .My point is sinking of warships by submarine actions only not actions of the subs after a large number of air attacks IE(Throughout the night of 6 June and into the morning of 7 June, Yorktown remained stubbornly afloat; but by 05:30 on 7 June, observers noted that its list was rapidly increasing to port. At 07:01, the ship turned over onto her port side, rolled upside-down, and sank, stern first, in 3,000 fathoms (5,500 m) of water.[2] In all, Yorktown's sinking on 7 June 1942 claimed the lives of 141 of her officers and crewmen.)Yorktown was lost not due to sub torpedo fire.But to many air strikes and torpedo strikes from aircraft and the dentation of onboard weapons and the choice to take off the salvage crew before the I-boat fired it's tubes.

when things happen and in what order are very important when you are trying to evaluate the effects of weapons.

I am again trying to stress the use of subs only in sinking not of aircraft use we are already aware of the very effective use of airpower. 

So all that damage that crippled the ship was spontaneous? Not caused by torpedo? And this didn't leave the ship vulnerable to air attack?

It's like saying kamikaze's didn't damage Bunker Hill - her own aircraft, fuel and munitions did. Which begs the question: should they not have loaded Bunker Hill with aircraft, fuel and munitions?

Submarines attacked merchant ships both as lone wolves and wolf-packs.

They also acted as picket ships at choke points, waiting for the enemy to come to them.

They also acted as raiders, penetrating harbours and assembly points.

 

Gun ship drives - even historically - hated the advent of the torpedo, and then the submarine. They tried to suppress them, ignore them and deride them. But submarines changed the face of naval warfare in WW1, 2 and the Cold War.

Gun ship drivers - even historically - hated the advent of the aircraft, and then the aircraft carrier. They tried to suppress them, ignore them and deride them. But aircraft carriers changed the face of naval warfare in WW1, 2 and the Cold War.

 

Threads like this prove we fail to learn from history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×