|
Post by britishball on Oct 27, 2018 7:50:14 GMT -6
You seriously think that having realistic parameters for subs in 1900-1950 would make Carriers obsolescent? No, but I think it would make for an exceptionally boring and frustrating game experience if your Carriers keep getting sunk by submarines despite your nation being top 1 or 2 worldwide in both amount of destroyers to escort your fleet, and in ASW technology. Historical examples from UK: HMS Courageous in 1939, HMS Ark Royal in 1941, HMS Audacity in 1941, HMS Avenger in 1942, HMS Eagle in 1942 ( I wonder how many of those are "post 1940" when you claimed "pretty much every instance of a Uboat sighting becomes a "failed attack" ) Historical examples from USA: HMS Wasp in 1942, HMS Yorktown in 1942, HMS Liscome Bay in 1943, HMS Block Island in 1944 Most of the RN capital ships sunk by subs were at anchor where they thought they couldn't be attacked A single capital ship sunk is not "Most". I will end our discussion about the historical battle for the Atlantic here with saying it's very clear that you need to do alot reading up about the facts on the Battle of the Atlantic more than a quick skim through of the wikipedia article, because you keep getting most of the facts wrong consistently and the above quote proves it. Those ones past 1940 are hubris, as I said and you left out purely by accident I'm sure. Of course a carrier is going to get sunk by a submarine if it lacks any way of fighting it, that's why we should have given them more escorts. What you also neglect to mention is how many times past 1940 a submarine fired at and missed or how many times they chose not to engage or even got sunk by a carrier group and escort, but as I already said that list would be stupidly long; for example the very same Uboat which sunk Royal Oak at Scapa (and you are right it was only one, I had a sudden rush of **** to the brain and thought there were more there) later went on to fail to sink the Warspite. And that's just one example I'm not going to dig through that for hours finding more. This isn't the hill I want to die on, I came here more to challenge the notion that Britain was nearly crippled by Uboats and we were just weeks away from surrender; that's plainly wrong, life wasn't that bad in the UK during the war, not compared to Soviet Russia and they didn't surrender. We didn't even have to stop eating meat... I ended up challenging the notion that Submarines are some kind of "wonder weapon" I don't know, laughable. But as I said this isn't the hill I want to die on; I'll let others draw their own conclusions. This ( www.historynet.com/why-germanys-kriegsmarine-lost-the-battle-of-the-atlantic.htm ) is an interesting, though not very short, article which articulates most of my feelings fairly well. The IWM has an exhibit about "The Submarines which almost broke Britain" but it is notably talking about WW1 and not WW2. Honestly between the work by WATU and the work by Bletchley, and the fact that 70 destroyers tied up the majority of the sea from Ushant to Jutland, whilst the rest protected convoys I really don't see this 'wonder weapon' working. Apart from when we make a glaring mistake like leaving a clapped out carrier without escorts which was really asking for it, I'm surprised I've never seen any conspiracy theories about it like with the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbour" stuff. Thanks, williammiller I understand you are trying to keep this all family friendly but you really don't need to censor any of the stuff alex says to me, I'm a big boy, I've seen and heard it all before and I doubt this young pup can come up with anything that will shock me. There is an almost cyclical nature to historical observation, views changing over time, directly after WW2 it was widely agreed that Uboats were the most dangerous weapons the Nazis had (which is why there are loads of contemporary sources backing up that idea) but once the dust settles and people can stand back and see things in a wider picture that consensus changes, and then later on it moves again, I suppose me and Alex (or Alex and I) are just from different schools of thought. I've seen a similar thing happen with Alexander the Great; with widely contrasting opinions on his legacy fluctuating every decade from "about average" to "the greatest general and statesman ever" it's interesting. As for communication vs raider warfare I haven't studied it in depth, I hold no strong opinions on either side. I look forward to hearing more from @airy W though. As for axe99 and aeson (I'm always glad to see aeson) I too would love to see midget subs in RTW2, but I don't think it's likely, too small (both literally and conceptually) to really feature. Fun though it would be to take an X Class and do for the Tirpitz just as Donald Cameron VC and Godfrey Place VC did I don't see how it would work within the structure of RTW2 besides just being random events. But who knows perhaps we'll finally get an RN Silent Hunter game....
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Jan 4, 2019 3:54:27 GMT -6
I found myself thinking about submarines again recently. They're fairly abstracted in RtW (and, so far as we can see, RtW2), but there might be room for the role of undersea combatants to expand in RtW2. A good place to start might be being able to allocate submarines to specific areas, so that medium- or possibly long-ranged models (if an additional submarine type is added for RtW2 above "medium-range") can be sent to some areas while SSCs are left to cover home areas or concentrated in places they make sense (like the North Sea or Mediterranean Sea). We haven't heard much of anything about subs in the upcoming entry yet, though, but maybe we will as the release gets closer.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 17, 2019 2:25:26 GMT -6
Apologies if this has come up before and I fully submit it's a bit out of the game's sphere of interest but will there be aircraft carrying submarines like the Japanese I-400? For convoy raids, I'd expect to have a large increase in range and greater effectivity. I think the main benefit though would be to allow random scouts to appear in scenarios that wouldn't ordinarily have them.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 17, 2019 12:51:01 GMT -6
Apologies if this has come up before and I fully submit it's a bit out of the game's sphere of interest but will there be aircraft carrying submarines like the Japanese I-400? For convoy raids, I'd expect to have a large increase in range and greater effectivity. I think the main benefit though would be to allow random scouts to appear in scenarios that wouldn't ordinarily have them.
|
|
|
Post by goodguy on Jan 17, 2019 18:22:23 GMT -6
I believe that submarines were the best place to invest the limited resources Germany had. According to Wikipedia, liberty ships took half a million manhours to build in 1943 (1.4 million manhours initially), while type XXI subs takes about than 300,000 according to Donitz. This is not accounting for cargo on the liberty ship.
Obviously, not every ship was a liberty ship and took as long, but liberty ships should have the good manhours to transport tonnage ratio.
Assuming the worst case is a type XXI trading for a single liberty ship then it is a good trade assuming the same industrial capacity and manpower.
Obviously Germany did not have a comparable industrial capacity and manpower pool. However, what other weapon provided such a trade? Definitely not the fighters and bombers of the Luftwaffe and definitely not the tanks and infantry stuck on the wrong side of the channel.
So subs weren’t an I win button, but the best option on a list of worst options.
For this reason I would like a better submarine portion in Rule the Waves 2. Even if it is delayed a few more weeks, as long as the reason is communicated sufficiently I don’t see the community having a problem.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 17, 2019 18:48:14 GMT -6
I believe that submarines were the best place to invest the limited resources Germany had. According to Wikipedia, liberty ships took half a million manhours to build in 1943 (1.4 million manhours initially), while type XXI subs takes about than 300,000 according to Donitz. This is not accounting for cargo on the liberty ship. Obviously, not every ship was a liberty ship and took as long, but liberty ships should have the good manhours to transport tonnage ratio. Assuming the worst case is a type XXI trading for a single liberty ship then it is a good trade assuming the same industrial capacity and manpower. Obviously Germany did not have a comparable industrial capacity and manpower pool. However, what other weapon provided such a trade? Definitely not the fighters and bombers of the Luftwaffe and definitely not the tanks and infantry stuck on the wrong side of the channel. So subs weren’t an I win button, but the best option on a list of worst options. For this reason I would like a better submarine portion in Rule the Waves 2. Even if it is delayed a few more weeks, as long as the reason is communicated sufficiently I don’t see the community having a problem. Submarines were a very good investment for any nation who wants to implement trade warfare. Once the US Navy developed better torpedoes and cleaned out the bad officers, the Japanese trade lanes from the South Pacific were cut cleanly. The British, Germans and the Italians used it effectively in the Mediterranean. We generally don’t believe that guerre de course can win a war, but it does contribute to the overall victory. Decisive victories are few and far between, but guerre de course using submarines can be very effective in reducing the economic ability of a nation to continue a war. I use it effectively in RTW and will continue in RTW2. I am not a big fan of decisive battles.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 17, 2019 21:45:40 GMT -6
Definitely not the fighters and bombers of the Luftwaffe The Fw-200s managed to put down about 365,000 tons of merchant shipping in about a year before the threat of Allied fighters forced them out of the role. That makes me consider a possible alternative to the Uboat focus. Let's pretend that Germany begins producing domestic copies of the Kawanishi H6K. While slow, this seaplane had phenomenal range and a decent bombload as well. Could it have been possible to use the Type XIV "Milk Cow" Uboats as submersible seaplane tenders? I'm imagining a scenario where the mid-Atlantic becomes the most treacherous area for merchant ships, as German flying boat raiders patrol up and down it, refueling and rearming at stealthy tenders.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 17, 2019 22:43:28 GMT -6
Assuming the worst case is a type XXI trading for a single liberty ship then it is a good trade assuming the same industrial capacity and manpower. Except it turned out that submarines were like fighters in that to get the best out of the weapon you needed a skilled person at the controls. In the case of the fighter, that's the pilot, and in terms of the submarine, it's the captain (naturally, the crew skill matters too). Put an unskilled pilot in the seat of a fighter or an unskilled captain in command of a U-boat, you won't see much in the way of favourable combat results. Losing a skilled pilot or captain hurts a lot because it typically takes a long time for the replacement to get up to a comparable skill. Obviously Germany did not have a comparable industrial capacity and manpower pool. However, what other weapon provided such a trade? Definitely not the fighters and bombers of the Luftwaffe and definitely not the tanks and infantry stuck on the wrong side of the channel. However, once the Combined Bomber Offensive gets rolling, fighters are critical for defence of Germany. And therein lies the problem for Germany: it is being attacked from multiple vectors, and there isn't sufficient resources to meet all those vectors, whereas the U.S. alone could prosecute the war against Germany from multiple vectors.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 18, 2019 16:04:31 GMT -6
I believe that submarines were the best place to invest the limited resources Germany had. According to Wikipedia, liberty ships took half a million manhours to build in 1943 (1.4 million manhours initially), while type XXI subs takes about than 300,000 according to Donitz. This is not accounting for cargo on the liberty ship. Obviously, not every ship was a liberty ship and took as long, but liberty ships should have the good manhours to transport tonnage ratio. Assuming the worst case is a type XXI trading for a single liberty ship then it is a good trade assuming the same industrial capacity and manpower. Obviously Germany did not have a comparable industrial capacity and manpower pool. However, what other weapon provided such a trade? Definitely not the fighters and bombers of the Luftwaffe and definitely not the tanks and infantry stuck on the wrong side of the channel. So subs weren’t an I win button, but the best option on a list of worst options. For this reason I would like a better submarine portion in Rule the Waves 2. Even if it is delayed a few more weeks, as long as the reason is communicated sufficiently I don’t see the community having a problem. Liberty ships were amongst the cheapest ships of their size to be built - they were easier to build than the C3 transports, tankers or victory ships (the other main civilian types the US Maritime Commission was building at the time). The average 'direct'* cost of a Liberty Cargo ship was $1,822, compared with $2,494 for a Victory Cargo, $3,523 for a 'Standard Cargo' (the C3) and $3,068 for a tanker. Liberty's had a 'light' tonnage of around 3,500. Now, it's _super_ rough (and from a different source, 'Warship Building and Repair During the Second World War', which is only about British shipbuilding during the war) but a rough proxy is that a ton of warship is about five times as expensive as a ton of mercantile shipping. With the Type XXI having a normal displacement of 1,621 tons (so I'd wager a light displacement of at least 1,000), I'd expect even if it cost the 'average' amount for a warship (which I doubt - the Type XXI was technically complex) that trading 1:1 would be a losing proposition if the only matter of interest is the 'war of tonnage attrition'. Indeed (and this is going from memory), I think (but could be wrong, my memory is unreliable at best) it was something like 1:1 losses that lead Doenitz to withdraw his subs temporarily from the Atlantic. However - the subs went back (even though their losses only got worse - noting that this is before the Type XXI of course) - and this was because even if they were losing (badly) the war of attrition, it meant the Allies had to dedicate considerable resources to fighting the subs that wouldn't be used elsewhere to hurt Germany - so there are situations where tactical losses may still be of strategic value in terms of subs. * Taken from a table in 'Ships for Victory' - the history of the US Maritime Commission in World War II. Definitely not the fighters and bombers of the Luftwaffe The Fw-200s managed to put down about 365,000 tons of merchant shipping in about a year before the threat of Allied fighters forced them out of the role. That makes me consider a possible alternative to the Uboat focus. Let's pretend that Germany begins producing domestic copies of the Kawanishi H6K. While slow, this seaplane had phenomenal range and a decent bombload as well. Could it have been possible to use the Type XIV "Milk Cow" Uboats as submersible seaplane tenders? I'm imagining a scenario where the mid-Atlantic becomes the most treacherous area for merchant ships, as German flying boat raiders patrol up and down it, refueling and rearming at stealthy tenders. I could be off here, but the weather in the Atlantic can be notoriously rough - I'm not sure whether it would be a suitable environment for flying boats like that to operate in, at least reliably. Floatplanes could rely on their 'mother ships' steaming in a 'U'-shape to create a patch of smooth-ish water, but I'd be surprised if a a Type XIV could achieve the same effect (although I honestly wouldn't know so could be way off here). The other issue is that I'd imagine things like CAMs and FCSs, at least until the CVEs and MACs showed up, would have caused similar trouble for the flying boats as they would the FW-200s.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 16:36:37 GMT -6
The North Atlantic weather very difficult to manage especially for floatplanes, PBY’s did fly out of Iceland and New Foundland. In fact, it was a PBY flown by an American pilot with British pilots learning, that discovered Bismarck after she lost the Norfolk. The patrols were given the name Neutrality Patrols. The British on 10 May 1940 had invaded Iceland after the government had declared independence from Denmark. Later, control was passed to the US, and we occupied it with Marines. www.zianet.com/tmorris/charlie.htmlNow whether floatplanes were operated is another question. I believe that they were probably used weather permitting.
|
|
|
Post by exgavalonnj on Jan 18, 2019 17:04:52 GMT -6
Sinking the ship is a bonus, what makes submarine warfare much more effective is it is much easier to sink a platoon of tanks then it is to destroy them on a battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 17:18:40 GMT -6
Sinking the ship is a bonus, what makes submarine warfare much more effective is it is much easier to sink a platoon of tanks then it is to destroy them on a battlefield. I completely agree. If you study the Mediterranean war in North Africa and Italo-German effort to bring supplies including tanks to Rommel from Naples to Bizerte and the British attempt to do the same thing to Cairo, you will see that they lost more equipment with the use of submarines. It greatly affected the German effort.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 19, 2019 1:54:16 GMT -6
Sinking the ship is a bonus, what makes submarine warfare much more effective is it is much easier to sink a platoon of tanks then it is to destroy them on a battlefield. I completely agree. If you study the Mediterranean war in North Africa and Italo-German effort to bring supplies including tanks to Rommel from Naples to Bizerte and the British attempt to do the same thing to Cairo, you will see that they lost more equipment with the use of submarines. It greatly affected the German effort. I think the Mediterranean is the best example of complex warfare as land, sea and air was the most connected here. You loss land, your access to airfields decrease and enemy access to airfields increase hence your air coverage decrease and enemy range to cover sea increase hence your power projection at sea decrease too as enemy has better possibility to cover sea by land aircrafts.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 19, 2019 10:17:36 GMT -6
I completely agree. If you study the Mediterranean war in North Africa and Italo-German effort to bring supplies including tanks to Rommel from Naples to Bizerte and the British attempt to do the same thing to Cairo, you will see that they lost more equipment with the use of submarines. It greatly affected the German effort. I think the Mediterranean is the best example of complex warfare as land, sea and air was the most connected here. You loss land, your access to airfields decrease and enemy access to airfields increase hence your air coverage decrease and enemy range to cover sea increase hence your power projection at sea decrease too as enemy has better possibility to cover sea by land aircrafts. It is a guide to the concept of power projection. It is very complex war, which is interesting because the main combat operations area was a simple desert semi-arid environment, which was excellent for armored warfare.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 22, 2019 23:02:43 GMT -6
while type XXI subs takes about than 300,000 according to Donitz. This is not accounting for cargo on the liberty ship. Building submarines goes considerably faster when you dont bother with quality control.
|
|