Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Crokodone

To those naysayers involving submarines and surface combat

89 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

792
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,755 posts
11,763 battles

Who said subs needed to battle submerged??? 

Also, moored mines: when?

  • Confused 2
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,845
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,428 posts
14,165 battles
8 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Who said subs needed to battle submerged??? 

Also, moored mines: when?

No one ever claimed that subs didn't attack warships. What we have claimed is no sub attacked a warship that was engaged in combat with other surface ships.

  • Cool 6
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,098
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,918 posts
26,905 battles
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

No one ever claimed that subs didn't attack warships. What we have claimed is no sub attacked a warship that was engaged in combat with other surface ships.

This. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,914
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,777 posts
4,631 battles
7 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

No one ever claimed that subs didn't attack warships. What we have claimed is no sub attacked a warship that was engaged in combat with other surface ships.

So what?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,845
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,428 posts
14,165 battles
4 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

So what?

 

A good argument can be made that CV's do not fit the game and I think that it is an even bigger stretch to fit the submarine's square peg into the games round hole.

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,914
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,777 posts
4,631 battles

If you're going to argue from historicity, then I'd leave out the bit about CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[DOW]
Members
966 posts
31,681 battles

   Also, Uss Bergall ended up with a nice 5" hole through her forward torpedo room pressure hull from a shell that thankfully failed to explode. Also the Japanese DD was unable/unwilling to give chase in the murk due to pre existing damage. The US Captain did a pretty good job of route planning to get from Singapore to Australia given the fact she could not be submerged.

Edited by Roadrider7021
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,845
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,428 posts
14,165 battles
7 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

If you're going to argue from historicity, then I'd leave out the bit about CVs.

Why do you say that? The Action off Samar was an exception and showed that CV's had no business being in a gun battle.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[TDRB]
Members
5,140 posts
13,741 battles
22 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

If you're going to argue from historicity, then I'd leave out the bit about CVs.

In this forum, yes. But CV's did make all surface battles of dueling warships obsolete and relegate BB's & most cruisers to AA barges & offshore artillery platforms. This reason alone makes a good argument why CV's should not be in the game.

Edited by kgh52
  • Cool 11
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,133
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,629 posts
4,997 battles
27 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

In this forum, yes. But CV's did make all surface battles of dueling warships obsolete and relegate BB's & most cruisers to AA barges & offshore artillery platforms. This reason alone makes a good argument why CV's should not be in the game.

This is extremely overstated in the context of WWII.  It is basically cherry picking the major US vs Japanese fleet carrier battles and ignoring all of the other naval battles or, worse, dismissing all other naval battles as errors because carriers could have done it better (they couldn't have).  Heck, there was one night engagement wherein the British admiral ordered the ships to form a line and open fire in which the RN carriers dutifully formed up and opened fire before being ordered to withdraw to the rear.  So there is an example of a CV firing on an enemy warship with its guns.  CVs were bad at night actions and couldn't fight in heavy seas, such as the Batttle of the North Cape where Duke of York and supporting ships sank Scharnhorst.

Contrary to popular opinion, CVs are far more powerful in this game than in reality.  It took multiple waves from seven CVs to sink Yamato in reality.  In this game a single CV can do it in several waves.  Prior to the rework a CV could sink Yamato in a single strike.  Very few BBs were sunk underway by CVs and those that were, all Japanese, were done with overwhelming numbers that far exceed what a single CV could do.

Edited by Helstrem
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,627
[WOLF3]
Members
27,058 posts
23,842 battles
15 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

This is extremely overstated in the context of WWII.  It is basically cherry picking the major US vs Japanese fleet carrier battles and ignoring all of the other naval battles or, worse, dismissing all other naval battles as errors because carriers could have done it better (they couldn't have).  Heck, there was one night engagement wherein the British admiral ordered the ships to form a line and open fire in which the RN carriers dutifully formed up and opened fire before being ordered to withdraw to the rear.  So there is an example of a CV firing on an enemy warship with its guns.  CVs were bad at night actions and couldn't fight in heavy seas, such as the Batttle of the North Cape where Duke of York and supporting ships sank Scharnhorst.

Contrary to popular opinion, CVs are far more powerful in this game than in reality.  It took multiple waves from seven CVs to sink Yamato in reality.  In this game a single CV can do it in several waves.  Prior to the rework a CV could sink Yamato in a single strike.  Very few BBs were sunk underway by CVs and those that were, all Japanese, were done with overwhelming numbers that far exceed what a single CV could do.

A lot of things are exaggerated or made ahistorical in this game to make it an arcade game.

 

Torpedo speeds are significantly faster than they really were.  The vaunted Type 93 mod 2 "Long Lance" that everybody wets themselves over for being very fast "IRL" went 40-42kts.  That was fast for torpedoes.  In WoWS that same torpedo goes 67kts.

DDs being able to reload torpedoes while in combat.  That didn't happen "IRL" and only the IJN made a setup where certain DDs could reload torps one more time during battle.

Radar seeing through islands.

Radar only lasting several seconds.

Radar going only a few km.

The same gun used as a DD or Cruiser Main Battery is magically worse when used as a Secondary gun.

Ships shrugging off torpedo hits, press a button, and go along as if everything was fine.  In reality torpedo hits, damage were catastrophic.  Even Battleships were wary of these things.  Even during the Battle of Jutland, the threat of a mass torpedo attack by the fleeing Germans convinced the Royal Navy not to pursue.

Carriers not being able to mount a MASS strike with their air groups, instead only attacking with a single flight at a given time.

CV player not being able to choose what kind of ordnance his air strikes should mount.

Etc.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,133
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,629 posts
4,997 battles
2 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

A lot of things are exaggerated or made ahistorical in this game to make it an arcade game.

 

Torpedo speeds are significantly faster than they really were.  The vaunted Type 93 mod 2 "Long Lance" that everybody wets themselves over for being very fast "IRL" went 40-42kts.  That was fast for torpedoes.  In WoWS that same torpedo goes 67kts.

DDs being able to reload torpedoes while in combat.  That didn't happen "IRL" and only the IJN made a setup where certain DDs could reload torps one more time during battle.

Radar seeing through islands.

Radar only lasting several seconds.

Radar going only a few km.

The same gun used as a DD or Cruiser Main Battery is magically worse when used as a Secondary gun.

Ships shrugging off torpedo hits, press a button, and go along as if everything was fine.  In reality torpedo hits, damage were catastrophic.  Even Battleships were wary of these things.  Even during the Battle of Jutland, the threat of a mass torpedo attack by the fleeing Germans convinced the Royal Navy not to pursue.

Carriers not being able to mount a MASS strike with their air groups, instead only attacking with a single flight at a given time.

CV player not being able to choose what kind of ordnance his air strikes should mount.

Etc.

Agreed.  My point is merely that people overestimate a single WWII CV's ability to sink a single WWII BB in historical context quite a bit.  Yes, the carrier did something the BB couldn't, it extended naval strike capability hundreds of miles compared to the BB's two dozen miles and that is very useful.  That did not change the fact that BBs were still useful and were still extremely tough customers.  A lot of people with surface level familiarity with WWII, major battles and such, look at the Pacific theater and the famous battles there and conclude that CVs instantly rendered BBs obsolete and a useless liability, and that simply wasn't true.  It was progressively more true the further into the war we look at, but even at the end BBs were still not obsolete, just not worth their price.  It wasn't until some time after WWII that BBs, as surface combatants, were truly obsolete.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,889
[SYN]
Members
15,860 posts
12,803 battles
1 hour ago, iDuckman said:

So what?

 

WoWs is a decisive battle simulator.

No one brought subs to a decisive battle.
They were far too slow to keep up with the fleet.
They couldn't even keep up with standard BBs.

 

Subs were used for guerilla warfare.
They were good at hiding and ambushing, but god awful at running away from faster destroyers and aircraft when spotted.
In fact, they were so bad at running away once spotted, that attacking anything other than already stricken warships or merchant vessels was very high risk and resulted in many submarines being sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,845
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,428 posts
14,165 battles
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

In this forum, yes. But CV's did make all surface battles of dueling warships obsolete and relegate BB's & most cruisers to AA barges & offshore artillery platforms. This reason alone makes a good argument why CV's should not be in the game.

Not obsolete but not the primary method of attack but that didn't happen until well into the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[HKC]
Members
604 posts
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

A lot of things are exaggerated or made ahistorical in this game to make it an arcade game.

 

Torpedo speeds are significantly faster than they really were.  The vaunted Type 93 mod 2 "Long Lance" that everybody wets themselves over for being very fast "IRL" went 40-42kts.  That was fast for torpedoes.  In WoWS that same torpedo goes 67kts.

DDs being able to reload torpedoes while in combat.  That didn't happen "IRL" and only the IJN made a setup where certain DDs could reload torps one more time during battle.

Radar seeing through islands.

Radar only lasting several seconds.

Radar going only a few km.

The same gun used as a DD or Cruiser Main Battery is magically worse when used as a Secondary gun.

Ships shrugging off torpedo hits, press a button, and go along as if everything was fine.  In reality torpedo hits, damage were catastrophic.  Even Battleships were wary of these things.  Even during the Battle of Jutland, the threat of a mass torpedo attack by the fleeing Germans convinced the Royal Navy not to pursue.

Carriers not being able to mount a MASS strike with their air groups, instead only attacking with a single flight at a given time.

CV player not being able to choose what kind of ordnance his air strikes should mount.

Etc.

Right. I would go so far as to say aside from images of actual ships, these avatars have no other relation to history.  Its all made up to make the game work.  Not a condemnation, just observance.    BBs for example were really meant for a single, set-piece action that would decide a war.  By the time WW2 rolled around they were being shoe-horned into different roles and studiously avoided confrontations with other BBs.  Many famous ones died without firing at another BB or ship. Some never engaged in sea battle at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,225
[-ARP-]
[-ARP-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,165 posts
4,371 battles
4 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

WoWs is a decisive battle simulator.

No one brought subs to a decisive battle.
They were far too slow to keep up with the fleet.
They couldn't even keep up with standard BBs.

 

Subs were used for guerilla warfare.
They were good at hiding and ambushing, but god awful at running away from faster destroyers and aircraft when spotted.
In fact, they were so bad at running away once spotted, that attacking anything other than already stricken warships or merchant vessels was very high risk and resulted in many submarines being sunk.

That really doesn't matter within the context of this game. It's World of Warships, I'll be hoping for Seaplane Tenders for ASW actions.

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[TDRB]
Members
5,140 posts
13,741 battles
5 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Not obsolete but not the primary method of attack but that didn't happen until well into the war.

In WW2 the clashing of surface warships was inevitable due to the prewar global naval race. But this was the swan song of big gun ships as rulers of the seas.

You sited the Battle off Samar. Very few of Sprague's planes had the ordnance to engage cruisers & BB's. I do believe it is safe to say the Battle off Samar would have different heroes if the planes had access to ordnance designed to sink ships instead of providing ground support.  

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,654
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,735 posts
19 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

No one ever claimed that subs didn't attack warships. What we have claimed is no sub attacked a warship that was engaged in combat with other surface ships.

That's exactly it. 

Since talk of subs started the Halloween thing, we've asking for examples of submarines directly engaged in gunbattles between surface ships -- which is the entire context of WOWS -- and have consistently been provided with examples that ignore one or more of the criteria, and the people giving those examples keep acting like they're a slam-dunk in-your-face rebuttal.  

 

17 hours ago, Helstrem said:

This is extremely overstated in the context of WWII.  It is basically cherry picking the major US vs Japanese fleet carrier battles and ignoring all of the other naval battles or, worse, dismissing all other naval battles as errors because carriers could have done it better (they couldn't have).  Heck, there was one night engagement wherein the British admiral ordered the ships to form a line and open fire in which the RN carriers dutifully formed up and opened fire before being ordered to withdraw to the rear.  So there is an example of a CV firing on an enemy warship with its guns.  CVs were bad at night actions and couldn't fight in heavy seas, such as the Batttle of the North Cape where Duke of York and supporting ships sank Scharnhorst.

Contrary to popular opinion, CVs are far more powerful in this game than in reality.  It took multiple waves from seven CVs to sink Yamato in reality.  In this game a single CV can do it in several waves.  Prior to the rework a CV could sink Yamato in a single strike.  Very few BBs were sunk underway by CVs and those that were, all Japanese, were done with overwhelming numbers that far exceed what a single CV could do.

Indeed, it was other technologies in addition to the carrier that fundamentally changed naval warfare -- the WW2 carrier alone wasn't the end of the battleship by a long shot. 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts

we can always change the rules to fit the agenda

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
792
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,755 posts
11,763 battles
8 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

No one brought subs to a decisive battle.

Tell that to the Japanese at Savo Island or the Americans at Midway and Lyte Gulf. 

WoWs is an arcadulator, and it works; so far...

4 hours ago, Hunter_Steel said:

That really doesn't matter within the context of this game. It's World of Warships, I'll be hoping for Seaplane Tenders for ASW actions.

~Hunter

Same.

9 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Why do you say that? The Action off Samar was an exception and showed that CV's had no business being in a gun battle.

Not an exception, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau proves you wrong. And didn't Furious aid Warspite in the battle of Narvik. CVs and Submarines have their place in their context in history and the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[TDRB]
Members
5,140 posts
13,741 battles
9 hours ago, SKurj said:

doesn't this count...

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

or this one..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Juneau_(CL-52)

 

surprised by how many US subs were thought to have been lost due to circular run of torpedoes...

Actually no. The Juneau was one of 3 heavily damaged ships trying to limp to a safe harbor for repairs when the sub hit her with torpedoes. It was not during the battle.

The Taiho is a CV, not a surface battle ship.

Subs did sink the HMS Barham  &  Royal Oak. But again, they were not in a battle.

In fact the only time I can think of where subs were used in a battle were the suicidal midget subs the Japanese used at Pearl Harbor.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
Just now, kgh52 said:

Actually no. The Juneau was one of 3 heavily damaged ships trying to limp to a safe harbor for repairs when the sub hit her with torpedoes. It was not during the battle.

The Taiho is a CV, not a surface battle ship.

Subs did sink the HMS Barham  &  Royal Oak. But again, they were not in a battle.

In fact the only time I can think of where subs were used in a battle were the suicidal midget subs the Japanese used at Pearl Harbor.

 

 

but Taiho was torped during operations against surface warships....  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,654
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,735 posts
Just now, SKurj said:

but Taiho was torped during operations against surface warships....  

Was Taiho, the ship, itself, involved in the gunbattle between the surface ships?  

No. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts
11 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Who said subs needed to battle submerged??? 

Also, moored mines: when?

He has a fantastic channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×