|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 12:37:49 GMT -6
Well, I thought we could “march” down another avenue for RTW2- submarine warfare. We can thank John Phillip Holland for the first operational submarine although Leonardo Da Vinci had some designs, and there are roots in antiquity for undersea vessels, but Holland’s submarine was the first true weapon. We can thank Robert Whitehead for the first effective self-propelled torpedo. Both weapons were available at the start of the 20th century.
We don’t know how submarine warfare will have progressed in the new game, but I suspect they will be larger, carry more torpedoes, faster surface and undersea speed and longer range. However, the opponent will probably have more tools also. Weapons like ASW aircraft, ocean-going escorts with depth charges, hedgehogs, and sonar eventually.
We know that you can use submarines to support the fleet, attack an opponent’s trade routes or just turn the subs loose in unrestricted submarine warfare. All three have been used in real history with effectiveness. We can list all the major capital ships sunk by submarines. Here are a few:
Royal Oak
Barham
Wasp
Yorktown
Taiyo
HMS Courageous
Kongo
Shokaku
Shinano
These are just a smattering of the actual ships sunk.
Anyway, let’s take this where ever it goes. We can survey how each nation depending on geography will or should handle submarines, technology and tactics.
The game is on, Gents
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 14:19:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Aug 13, 2018 15:36:26 GMT -6
One thing that's always interested me is why torpedo technology seems to be so unreliable. During WWII, pretty much every side had reliability issue with their torpedoes, most famously the American Mark 14. What really spiked my interest was that during the Falklands War in 1982, the British nuclear submarine Conqueror sunk the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano (formerly USS Phoenix)with a torpedo initially designed in 1925(the MK VIII). Why didn't Conqueror use one of it's new homing torpedoes, the Tigerfish? Because there were questions about it's reliability. What more, that torpedo (the Mark VIII) is still in service today, whereas the Tigerfish isn't.
If I had to take a guess, I'd assume that a combination of testing difficulties due to the physical properties of torpedoes and funding would be the most likely reasons.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 15:47:26 GMT -6
One thing that's always interested me is why torpedo technology seems to be so unreliable. During WWII, pretty much every side had reliability issue with their torpedoes, most famously the American Mark 14. What really spiked my interest was that during the Falklands War in 1982, the British nuclear submarine Conqueror sunk the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano (formerly USS Phoenix)with a torpedo initially designed in 1925(the MK VIII). Why didn't Conqueror use one of it's new homing torpedoes, the Tigerfish? Because there were questions about it's reliability. What more, that torpedo (the Mark VIII) is still in service today, whereas the Tigerfish isn't. If I had to take a guess, I'd assume that a combination of testing difficulties due to the physical properties of torpedoes and funding would be the most likely reasons. My first simple answer to your question is that only the simple in war succeeds. All who have served in the military or worked for the military know this. Complex systems can be nightmare to maintain and use. The torpedo is one of those. The guidance systems are complex and delicate. They have to be checked almost daily in the submarine for accuracy and reliability. The motors would seem simple but they aren't. The movement of the torpedo from the warehouse to the dock, and then loaded into the submarine is fraught with problems that can, unknowingly damage the delicate systems. The launching with compressed air from the tube puts stress on the internal systems. The travel to the target through the waters can disrupt the accuracy and reliability of the torpedo. Along with all these variables, the engineering and testing might not be adequate. This was one of the issues in the early part of the Pacific War with our torpedoes, the lack of adequate testing to verify the torpedoes. Here is a link to an interesting article on the Mark 14 Torpedo Scandal which might shed some light on this problem. www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/torpedo-scandal-rear-adm-charles-lockwood-the-mark-14-and-the-bureau-of-ordnance/Good question, keep them coming so we can all learn.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 15:56:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 13, 2018 16:12:30 GMT -6
Submarines shouldn't march, they should swim! Sorry, enough silliness. Submarines were very dangerous by the time WW2 came around - from Brown's "Warship Losses of World War Two", more ships were sunk by submarines than surface actions (but less than by aircraft). It's an interesting issue to raise, and a tricky gameplay challenge, as how to make it historically plausible without a slew of "ship X was sunk by a submarine" at the start of each turn messages.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 16:18:24 GMT -6
Submarines shouldn't march, they should swim! Sorry, enough silliness. Submarines were very dangerous by the time WW2 came around - from Brown's "Warship Losses of World War Two", more ships were sunk by submarines than surface actions (but less than by aircraft). It's an interesting issue to raise, and a tricky gameplay challenge, as how to make it historically plausible without a slew of "ship X was sunk by a submarine" at the start of each turn messages. They "march" underwater, how's that. I agree that the submarine became very dangerous, especially if you hadn't prepared your merchant fleet and escorts for their intervention. This is what happened to both the British, who solved it quickly but the Japanese never did. What is simply amazing is that the British did not start design work on an escort capable of oceanic operations until mid-1940, even after having been almost bankrupted in WW1. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it..... so said George Santayana. Actually, his original statement was "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". I like that best.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Aug 13, 2018 20:56:12 GMT -6
Do I remember right that RtW2 will include a more comprehensive design process for submarines instead of simply enabling more advanced subs as technology progresses? That way we could see a range of capabilities to fit the wars a country imagines fighting (perhaps a high-low mix of long-range and coastal subs for some countries like Germany, versus an all-long-range fleet of large boats for the US).
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Aug 14, 2018 0:05:55 GMT -6
Well, I thought we could “march” down another avenue for RTW2- submarine warfare. We can thank John Phillip Holland for the first operational submarine although Leonardo Da Vinci had some designs, and there are roots in antiquity for undersea vessels, but Holland’s submarine was the first true weapon. We can thank Robert Whitehead for the first effective self-propelled torpedo. Both weapons were available at the start of the 20th century. To those I'd add first electric sub, first use of periscope on sub and propeller theory, all designed by Stefan Drzewiecki working first in Russia and later in France. He also designed external torpedo launch system (drop collar) that was used by both French and Russian subs in I World War.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 14, 2018 1:54:14 GMT -6
Submarines shouldn't march, they should swim! Sorry, enough silliness. Submarines were very dangerous by the time WW2 came around - from Brown's "Warship Losses of World War Two", more ships were sunk by submarines than surface actions (but less than by aircraft). It's an interesting issue to raise, and a tricky gameplay challenge, as how to make it historically plausible without a slew of "ship X was sunk by a submarine" at the start of each turn messages. They "march" underwater, how's that. I agree that the submarine became very dangerous, especially if you hadn't prepared your merchant fleet and escorts for their intervention. This is what happened to both the British, who solved it quickly but the Japanese never did. What is simply amazing is that the British did not start design work on an escort capable of oceanic operations until mid-1940, even after having been almost bankrupted in WW1. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it..... so said George Santayana. Actually, his original statement was "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". I like that best. It may have been that pre-mid-1940, they expected that their existing destroyer force could handle the small number of U-boats that would be able to go much further than the Western Approaches, and then the fall of France changed everything? That's just supposition on my part though - I do have (and have read, but I can't recall the specifics of the River class design process) Friedman's "British Destroyers and Frigates, WW2 and after" so can look up if that would help .
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 14, 2018 4:39:04 GMT -6
They was Flower class corvettes under construction. So RN was trying countermeasure U-boots.
You should compare it the U-boots fleet which was quite small at start of the war.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 14, 2018 8:55:46 GMT -6
They was Flower class corvettes under construction. So RN was trying countermeasure U-boots. You should compare it the U-boots fleet which was quite small at start of the war. Here is a nice link to a brief intro to the Flower class Corvette - uboat.net/allies/warships/class/42.html
|
|
Wiggy
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by Wiggy on Aug 14, 2018 17:24:58 GMT -6
I like the idea of an ASW rating for ships, but I envision that some evasion/survivability rating for the submarines would operate in parallel, perhaps to simulate submerged speed and range, limited oxygen and compressed air stocks, sensors like radar warning receivers and hydrophones and even anti-sonar coatings. Perhaps this value mitigates the effect of ASW ratings for ships.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Aug 14, 2018 18:28:37 GMT -6
Anyone brought up the miniature subs or Mother Sub and manned torpedoes? Perhaps treated as MTB in RTW.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 14, 2018 20:22:49 GMT -6
Anyone brought up the miniature subs or Mother Sub and manned torpedoes? Perhaps treated as MTB in RTW. I think it goes without saying, the mini submarines and like probably would be an interesting addition although their effectiveness is questionable. They were effective in mission killing the Tirpitz, the Japanese attempt at Pearl Harbor is still in question, The German's experimented with different types, but I don't remember any actually being deployed. The Italians had their Maiale or manned torpedo submarine and they were effective in mission killing two battleships at Alexandria and a tanker. But to my knowledge that is essentially all they ever did. But, who knows what kind of fun we could have.
|
|