|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 11, 2020 7:58:33 GMT -6
You forgot "one sunk by its own toilet". :-) True, but I don't think that one is important... unless you are the guy who used the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 11, 2020 7:58:50 GMT -6
www.warsailors.com/convoys/Website about convoys. Corvette's were traditionally unstable gun platforms. They would roll and pitch extensively making gun laying difficult. I don't know if the game reflects this. However, on the U-boat side they were unstable also but had low profiles. Which did give them an advantage especially at night until the advent of surface search radar.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Aug 11, 2020 8:52:15 GMT -6
Low profile is a bit of a double edged sword, whilst they were a smaller target and less visible it also gave them a more limited horizon. The French submarine cruiser, Surcouf, - largest in the world until the Japanese I-400 class - had amongst other equipment a 5m range finder, but the effective range was about 16,000 yards due to the low height.
oldpop, I think small ships do take a penalty for being unstable firing platforms at least in scenarios - check the accuracy information and DDs at least take a penalty. Whether this is taken into account in gunnery duels I can't say, but it would seem odd to not do so.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 11, 2020 10:22:11 GMT -6
You forgot "one sunk by its own toilet". :-) True, but I don't think that one is important... unless you are the guy who used the toilet. It's important because it's hilarious. :-)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 11, 2020 10:41:52 GMT -6
Here is a PDF on Corvettes at War. Maybe there is information that will help this discussion. CORVETTES AT WAR.pdf (1.02 MB)
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Aug 14, 2020 11:40:13 GMT -6
That was a good read about Corvettes oldpop2000, thanks! It also confirms that corvettes should be able to beat submarines in a spirited gun duel. I wish we could actually design the submarines.
The article addressed German submarines. I'm curious about the experience of the US Submarine service, which engaged in significantly more gun duels due to their torpedoes being defective in the first half of WWII. I believe the US submarines also mounted better deck guns, including some custom modifications and even some modifications that became semi-official due their greater reliance on deck guns.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 14, 2020 12:03:54 GMT -6
@pavelst- the cruiser submarines were intended to be commerce-raiders, using cheap artillery shells rather than expensive torpedoes. Even with 'Surcouf', engaging a warship on the surface would be an act of desperation not choice. Because of their relatively small size and narrow beam, submarines make poor gunnery platforms. Also, because the guns are very close to the water level, visibility and gunnery direction are adversely affected by the spray from even moderate waves.
If gun-armed merchantmen can best a submarine in a gunnery duel (as happened more than once) then even a small warship should be able to out-gun a submarine in 9 of 10 cases. The exceptions would be when surprise was on the side of the submarine, or when random chance or human error tilted the odds.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 14, 2020 12:52:58 GMT -6
The US started the war with the Porpoise class of 1937. They only had 1 x 3 inch deck gun and 2 x .30 cal. deck weapons. The next was the 1938 Salmon class with about the same deck armament except an addition two machine guns. The next was the Sargo class, they had 10 subs with the same deck armament. The first practical submarines we built were the twelve Tambor class with 1 x 3 inch, one 40mm bofors and one 20mm Oerlikon cannon. There was the Mackeral small boats, only two were built. The next was the big ones, the Gato class of 77 boats. Same armament with 3 inch, 40mm and 20 mm guns. one each. Later in the war, the 3 in guns were replaced by 5 inch/50 cal. weapons. WW1, deck guns were used more, but not in WW2. The long range of the WW2 torpedoes eliminated the need, even the torpedoes were unreliable. The procedure was to fire four from the forward tubes, then turn and fire two more from the stern tubes. Hopefully, out of six torpedoes, one might work. By 1943, the Mark 14 had been improved and after that we had more experienced submarine commanders and better torpedoes. It was over after that for the Japanese. The most important class was the Balao's, 122 were built. Same armament. After this, was the Trench but they were built late in the war. with no deck weapons. US submarines destroyed 1314 warships in the Pacific which was about 55% of all Axis warships along with 5.3 million tons of shipping. We lost only 52 submarines but that was the lowest casualty rate of any submarine fleet in the war. Unrestricted submarine warfare was declared by Chester Nimitz when he took command of the US Pacific Fleet. He took command on board a submarine. The Japanese assumed by our post WW1 attitude that they had nothing to fear after moving south. They assumed that they could transport the raw materials to Japan without worrying about submarines. The assumption by the Naval War College was that to win the war in the Pacific, unrestricted submarine war had to be used to stop the flow of supplies to and from Japan. The NWC did not game this consistently but enough to realize and provide the CNO the information that this was another tool in our tool box. The Japanese did not use their submarines in this manor. They might have been more successful if they had patrolled our West Coast where there was oil fields and cracking plants, and try to stop the flow of oil to the fleet. They never considered this. Nimitz provided the War Trials in Germany with a document supporting unrestricted submarine warfare and this reduced Admiral Doenitz's sentence to ten years. fleetsubmarine.com/guns.htmlPS: I redacted some information I presented in the above statement because I cannot find the source, which I know I have in my books and documents. I instead, presented what I know is true and the source from Norman Friedman about interwar war gaming at the Naval War College. Please accept my apologies, I generally find the source first then present the information. Ich!!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 14, 2020 19:29:22 GMT -6
Well, I found it. Here is the information
"The fact that in successive disarmament negotiations the United States concurred with the British insistence on the abolition of submarines might give a deceptive impression to Japan that U. S. submarines would present no serious menace. Indeed, an opinion was current among the Japanese that the Americans had neither adaptability nor liking for submarine life."
Dillon, Katherine V.. The Pacific War Papers: Japanese Documents of World War II (p. 14). Potomac Books. Kindle Edition.
"But the Japanese continued to slight the menace to her own sea communications, underestimating the enemy’s power of submarine warfare."
Dillon, Katherine V.. The Pacific War Papers: Japanese Documents of World War II (p. 15). Potomac Books. Kindle Edition.
The author was Atsushi OI, a member of the Personnel Bureau, Navy ministry till 1943 then Operations staff officer in Combined Escort Force General Headquarters. He published in the United States Naval Institute Proceedings. which means his opinions and information were well respected.
|
|
|
Post by andrewm on Aug 17, 2020 7:16:28 GMT -6
A lot of people seem to be getting hung up on the term Gun Duel forget that. Escorts get sunk by submarines frequently usually via torpedo. There is only two mechanisms for a sub to sink an escort both random events one for torpedoing a random warship , one for the battle between sub and escort. So in order for escorts to suffer attrition either a new mechanic must be added or leave this one in and maybe change the wording to cut complaints.
Building escorts was a major strain on UK shipbuilding in WW2, consumed a lot of American shipbuilding as well (although they had surplus capacity) and the lack of escorts hurt the allies badly in 41-42 as UK had not got enough yet an USA did not bother building escorts until the war started and it took a long time for them to lead up to it. Japanese never had enough escorts and Allied subs were able to wreak havoc even with being required to recharge batterries on the surface which was suicide in the ETO by mid to late 43. Japan both understimated the threat and had poor pre war preperation and lacked the industry to catch up once the threat became real, and they were lulled into a false sense of security by the almost useless American torpedo's early on in the war which made it look like they could protect their merchant ships when the real reason was that they were surviving because the Americans could not sink them even if they were unescorted. So you should need a lot of escorts and have to spend resources building them, also of course spend a lot on subs if you want to have an effective campaign, Germany did not have enough to achieve their objectives , USA/UK did against Japan. Also of course Germany largely did not care about allied subs they attacked some coastal shipping and transport across the Med but there was no German overseas trade to strangle as the Royal Navy surface fleet did that as soon as the war started.
|
|
|
Post by andrewm on Aug 17, 2020 7:20:44 GMT -6
American subs were attacking and sinking small japanese vessels with deck guns as late as the week before the Japanese surrender. The USS Barb even carried out shore bombardments with gun and 5 inch rockets, as well as a landing party to blow up rail road tracks. What finished the deck gun was the combination of Air power meaning no sub dared surface and streamlined hulls for underwater speed which made the gun a hindrance
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2020 7:41:40 GMT -6
A lot of people seem to be getting hung up on the term Gun Duel forget that. Escorts get sunk by submarines frequently usually via torpedo. There is only two mechanisms for a sub to sink an escort both random events one for torpedoing a random warship , one for the battle between sub and escort. So in order for escorts to suffer attrition either a new mechanic must be added or leave this one in and maybe change the wording to cut complaints. Building escorts was a major strain on UK shipbuilding in WW2, consumed a lot of American shipbuilding as well (although they had surplus capacity) and the lack of escorts hurt the allies badly in 41-42 as UK had not got enough yet an USA did not bother building escorts until the war started and it took a long time for them to lead up to it. Japanese never had enough escorts and Allied subs were able to wreak havoc even with being required to recharge batterries on the surface which was suicide in the ETO by mid to late 43. Japan both understimated the threat and had poor pre war preperation and lacked the industry to catch up once the threat became real, and they were lulled into a false sense of security by the almost useless American torpedo's early on in the war which made it look like they could protect their merchant ships when the real reason was that they were surviving because the Americans could not sink them even if they were unescorted. So you should need a lot of escorts and have to spend resources building them, also of course spend a lot on subs if you want to have an effective campaign, Germany did not have enough to achieve their objectives , USA/UK did against Japan. Also of course Germany largely did not care about allied subs they attacked some coastal shipping and transport across the Med but there was no German overseas trade to strangle as the Royal Navy surface fleet did that as soon as the war started. With the Lend-Lease Act passed in March 1941, the Uk was able to buy military equipment from the US including destroyer escorts and they commissioned the US too design a DE for that purpose in deep water. This occurred in June 1941. The design was titled British destroyer escort or BDE. Only six got that designation, all the rest became DE's as per the US Navy. The ratio was four to one, four for the US and one the British. The first class was the Evarts, 97 built, the next was the Buckley, 148. There were four other classes built during WW2. The British received 78 Captain-class Frigates under the Lend-Lease.
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Aug 21, 2020 12:52:15 GMT -6
American subs were attacking and sinking small japanese vessels with deck guns as late as the week before the Japanese surrender. Keyword being "small". I don't think anyone would question if it's 200 ton KE getting sunk, but that's completely different kettle of fish from winning a gun fight against what's effectively a full destroyer outgunning said sub 3-5 times.
|
|
|
Post by andrewm on Aug 21, 2020 15:15:43 GMT -6
But one torpedo and that Corvette or Destroyer sinks. In the last turn I ran of a game the event triggerred I had one escort sunk, in that same month 4 out of 78 Italian subs got sunk as did 4 merchant ships , that does not seem an unreasonable attrition rate. Do people want escorts to be unsinkable? If that was an option I am sure the various navies of the world would have taken it. Just mentally filter out gun duel and replace with duel I am repeating myself so I will stop annoying people but without this event how else do you think the game represents the attrition of escorts ?
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Aug 21, 2020 21:03:56 GMT -6
But that's the thing, isn't it? I mean sure, those of us that frequent the forum and have played the game for some time probably can create our own head-canon, but what about new players, what about those who don't frequent the forum and are just sitting in front of their computer, scratching their head going WTF?
Wouldn't it be better to just change the text in the event like you suggest (or my personal favor: Just don't mention the method how it was sunk, just read "Escort/Corvette XXX got sunk by an enemy sub") and avoid the whole issue?
|
|