spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Oct 17, 2020 9:00:25 GMT -6
I was wondering if large, long-range subs could be implemented into the game? They would be quite expensive and only ~1.5 times the chance to sink naval ships with torpedoes compared to normal ones, but they could be modeled as having Surcouf-style large guns, meaning they could sink DDs and have a half chance of sinking CLs instead of the normal “TP ship sinks sub” event. Do you think they could be implemented?
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Oct 28, 2020 10:30:55 GMT -6
They could probably be implemented, but would be largely folly to build. There were a lot of reasons the type didn't catch on.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 28, 2020 11:03:04 GMT -6
They could probably be implemented, but would be largely folly to build. There were a lot of reasons the type didn't catch on. Not to be a bear, but how are you defining cruiser subs? Is it large caliber guns that are the defining element? If so they were bad designs, notably due to the poor gun stability of the subs and the guns being way to close to the water (poor LOS) among other things like the guns restricting max submerged depth.
However I've not read that the guns were the defining element - but size, range and speed were the defining elements. From Wikipedia "Long-range submarines with less impressive deck guns, including Type IXD2 U-boats and United States Navy fleet submarines, evolved through the Second World War; and may be identified as cruiser submarines in comparison to submarines designed for shorter patrols over lesser distances."
Long range, fleet subs took off. Soviet Whisky, Foxtrot, and USA Gato and early SSNs really were in that vain. Later SSNs were designed around hunting enemy subs...
Large aircraft carrying subs like the I-400 (which carried a 14cm gun) morphed into SSGs that took off in the Soviet Navy. I have read that these were a re-crafting of the large caliber gun sub concept - that of subs carrying heavy, long range firepower to sink heavily protected convoys.
Practically speaking if we are talking about the longer range fleet (cruiser) subs, than yes I would like to see them implemented with a higher % chance of sinking transports. Just like the medium SS is an improvement over the coastal SSC.
If we are talking about heavily gun armed subs, then I'm not particularly excited about the possibilities. It would be fun to have variety though.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 28, 2020 11:03:34 GMT -6
Cruiser submarines have some major disadvantages. They are very slow to dive making them vulnerable to armed merchants and aircraft, they present large sonar and radar targets, and last, they are slow to maneuver underwater making them vulnerable to depth charges and hedgehogs. Also, they are expensive to build and maintain. I would opt for small or medium submarines.
Their primary uses were as supply subs for bases or islands that could not be supplied by any other method or as oilers for other subs.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Oct 30, 2020 12:01:24 GMT -6
nimrodThe OP was asking about Surcoif-style subs with heavy gun armament. I went with that definition of "cruiser submarine" as I agree that it is the appropriate definition. "Fleet" type submarines definitely have a place in the game, although I'm unsure if the "medium range" subs already implemented are supposed to represent them. The middle class of USN "V-boats" (V-4, V-5, and V-6) were armed with a pair of 6" guns, a relatively heavy deck gun armament. That heavy gun armament added very little to their capabilities other than some bombardment capability. Without getting into the very large - and sometimes armored! - subs proposed between the wars (and thoroughly reworking submarine gameplay), I don't see them being worth adding to the current submarine mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 30, 2020 19:54:38 GMT -6
Abclark, Thank you for the response, I wanted to make sure I was understanding the definitions being used properly. The game definitions and forum poster definitions sometimes throw me for a loop. For example: SSC in game seems to stand-in for submerged ship coastal, but the USN uses "SSC -- cruiser submarine." www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/abbreviations.html#s and the modern USN definition of SSC refers to Ship to Shore Connector. OP sounded like he wanted long range subs, with some possible modifications to events to mimic large caliber guns. I know this isn't Surcoif class; but in WWII American fleet subs were fairly routinely replacing their 3" guns with 4" or 5" guns. A few subs supposedly added director control to them. "Late in the war, several boats were fitted with a pair of 5″/25s, as well as a simple director system, allowing coordinated fire." fleetsubmarine.com/guns.html So fairly heavy guns were still needed when your torps are bad and or the enemy doesn't have air-cover. Quick re-cap, thank you for the response. I think the in-game position is that the "medium range SS" encompasses the larger "fleet subs". I would like to see larger more capable "fleet subs" added as some countries have a historical need of them in the Pacific. I think it would be easy to mod the design in by adjusting the SS numbers by same amount that already exists between SSC and SS. Heavily gun focused subs aren't of much interest on my end.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 30, 2020 22:13:22 GMT -6
That list also indicates the use of SC for cruiser submarine, which is consistent with the use of SF for fleet submarine and SM for minelaying submarine as well as with the more general pattern of two-letter codes for major warship types, and does not indicate a symbol for coastal submarines but does somewhat often use three- or four-letter codes ending in 'C' or 'c' to indicate coastal subclassifications of a basic type - AGSC, coastal survey ship; AMc, coastal minesweeper; APc or APC, small coastal transport; CMc (CMC here), coastal minelayer; MHC, coastal mine hunter; MMC, coastal minelayer; MSC, coastal minesweeper (nonmagnetic); PYc, patrol vessel converted yacht coastal.
Basically, while SSC is not a USN hull classification symbol for coastal submarine according to DANFS and NVR, it is a symbol which would be consistent with the pattern set for coastal variants of other types and doesn't conflict with a two-letter SC cruiser submarine hull symbol contemporary with the SF fleet submarine, SM submarine minelayer, and SS submarine hull symbols, which at least makes it somewhat plausible as a (short-lived and likely never-assigned) interbellum symbol for coastal submarines.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 1, 2020 10:11:27 GMT -6
Didn't mean to imply RTW or Abclark were out of line.
The USN went through several nomenclatures through the 1900's. Other nations and navies likewise went through different naming and abbreviation conventions that muddy the waters for me. A lot of people think I'm dyslexic so I'm always trying to make sure I'm on the same page with others.
A lot of failed concepts were re-examined, re-applied and brought to a successful implementation with new technologies. Due to the differences in time frames these re-imagined concepts are usually designated very differently than the historical precedents while fulfilling the same roles. The Zumwalt DD-1000 in a historical sense is a Cruiser in terms of displacement (Zumwalt is about 14,000-15,000 tons and the Ticonderoga Cruisers are about 9500-11000 tons and the Flight III Arleigh Burke DD's are about 9,500 long tons) and probably comparable to a BC in firepower. The decommissioning of the Iowa's for the un-realized "Arsenal Ships", the Kirov's being the re-imagining of the BC concept. The cruiser / raider concept was re-imagined by the Russians into missile carrying submarines.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Nov 1, 2020 18:11:07 GMT -6
I favor the introduction of cruiser submarines, but I think that their effectiveness against surface warships should not be too much more effective than a regular submarine. Even for something like the Surcouf, an enemy cruiser would have to already be fairly damaged in order for a surface action to be a wise proposition.
An advantage against KEs would make sense. However, for anything DD and up, the benefits of a heavy surface armament don't out-weight the serious disadvantage that a submarine has from fighting on the surface. In short: Surcouf against a Flower-class KE and I'd want to be on the sub, but a Surcouf against a Fletcher or similar DD and I'd rather be on the DD (all of this with the caveat that the surface warship is not crippled or damaged).
Cruiser subs could have a greater likelihood to sink merchant vessels due to their heavier armament and other advantages (floatplane hangers).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2020 19:08:53 GMT -6
Just some information: The Japanese I-400 class submarine, the largest ever constructed till nuclear powered submarines cost 28,861,000 JPY. Now just convert that the US dollars and you will see how really expensive these boats actually were.
The answer is 18.55 cents in 1942. so, multiply 28,861m000 times $18.55. One of you math geniuses can figure this better than I can.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 1, 2020 20:32:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2020 21:06:07 GMT -6
I can confirm the cost in yen of the I-400's but the conversion is a bit more tricky. The best answer I can find for the 1942 Yen was $18.56. I know that our Gato class submarine cost $2.85 million dollars in 1940. In numbers that would be 2,850,000 dollars.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 2, 2020 7:37:26 GMT -6
Looking at the chart in the above post, the Yen was worth about .2349 dollars in the 1941 time period, if I am interpreting this correctly. If I multiply the cost of the I-400 times the yen equivalence, it would seem that that ship, in US dollars cost about 6,779,448.9 dollars which is three times the cost of the Gato class submarines. The Gato's weighed in at 1525 tons, while the I-400 weighed about 5223 without the aircraft. From this information you can determine the cost per ton.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 2, 2020 11:35:56 GMT -6
Did realise after I got to work I'd missed a part of my post off, looks like you figured out how I meant it though.
Only other issue is that we have to assume that the items included in the costs are roughly the same of course.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 2, 2020 11:43:21 GMT -6
Did realise after I got to work I'd missed a part of my post off, looks like you figured out how I meant it though. Only other issue is that we have to assume that the items included in the costs are roughly the same of course. The only difference was that our subs did not have a hangar to an aircraft, along with storage for ordnance and fuel. The fuel would be at least 85 octane and that is very flammable so it would have to be stored on the deck. The change would be fuel, they would need a lot more fuel for the 37,000 NM range, I think that was the range.
|
|