1-1.png
My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.
Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes
-
Well write Marc but merchant marine was not only the target.
Don’t forget that U-Boat had mission. And sometimes it was clearly to sink warship. (Remember Scapa flow).
The mission of the Japanese sub was to sink US warships. (Without great succes)
So I think the sub must choose is target and the last must be the destroyer.AL.
-
Well write Marc but merchant marine was not only the target.
Don’t forget that U-Boat had mission. And sometimes it was clearly to sink warship. (Remember Scapa flow).
The mission of the Japanese sub was to sink US warships. (Without great succes)
So I think the sub must choose is target and the last must be the destroyer.I never said that merchant ships were the only targets of submarines in WWII. I said they were the primary targets of submarines, because they were the targets that had the highest value from a strategic point of view.
-
@Baron:
I still have one question:
does a Sub on hunting warships missions, such as the IJN Subs you talked about, can be able to attack and sunk a destroyer?
Or a they too big fishs to fry for Subs?
And does such a feat was only possible in very special circumstances?
Example: such as dark night, sub having the surprise effect and DD traveling at half speed.Or is it that, when a Sub have a Destroyer up on the cross-wire, their was always bigger and easier target, since DDs are escorting other warships?
This would explain why there is so few record of a Submarine sinking a Destroyer.The different variables you list in your question pretty much summarize the answer, which is “It depends.” A destroyer is, in some respects, like any other surface ship: it floats because its hull displaces enough water to compensate for its weight, and it can be made to sink if you increase its weight (by filling it up with water) to the point where the water it displaces isn’t enough to hold it up. So in that sense, there’s nothing magical about a destroyer. As with any other ship, the best way to fill it up with water is to blow a hole in its hull below the waterline, using such weapons as torpedoes, mines or explosive shells. Torpedoes are arguably the most practical and versatile way of blowing a hole in a ship’s hull below the waterline, so let’s focus just on torpedoes for the sake of brevity. Let’s also just focus on submarine-fired torpedoes, since this is what the present rule discussion is about, even though torpedoes can also be delivered by surface ships and by aircraft.
So the two questions to consider become the following: to what extent is a destroyer more likely (or less likely) than any other ship to have a submarine put a torpedo into its side, and to what extent is a destroyer more likely (or less likely) than any other ship to sink if it’s been torpedoed?
Let’s take the second question first because the answer is fairly straightforward. Basically, I’d say that a WWII destroyer is more likely to sink from a torpedo hit than a WWII cruiser or a WWII battleship because destroyers were pretty fragile, as their nickname “tin can” conveys. They were basically the floating equivalent of a Zero fighter: fast and agile, but completely lacking in armour. Cruisers and battleships were armoured (to various extents) along their waterlines, and battleships typically had sophisticated anti-torpedo features such as liquid-loaded bulges designed to absorb and dissipate torpedo blast effects. On the other hand, a WWII destroyer was probably less likely to sink from a torpedo hit than a merchant vessel. Destroyers are combat vessels, so they’re designed with more watertight compartmentalization than civilian merchantmen, which helps to keep the ship afloat if it’s been torpedoed. Also, destroyers are manned by naval personnel, not merchant mariners, so this theoretically (but not invariably) means a higher standard of discipline and training, which can make the difference between life or death in a damage-control situation.
Now for the first question, which breaks down into two components: how likely is a sub to be taking a shot at a destroyer, and how likely is the sub to actually hit its target? To get back to my basic answer: it depends. Is the sub operating in the deep ocean? If so, it’s more likely to run into a convoy than a naval force because the convoys were more numerous. Is it operating near a commercial port? Again, the chances are that it’ll run into a convoy rather than a naval force. Is it operating near an enemy naval base? Here, the chances rise that it will spot a warship.
If the sub runs into a convoy, what will it choose to attack: the merchantmen or the escorts? The merchantmen were supposed to be the priority targets, so in principle a sub captain who has a target choice will, all other things being equal, attack the merchant ship rather than the escort vessel (unless he’s following Japanese naval doctrine). If things aren’t equal, the answer might vary. For instance, a U-boat captain who’s given a choice between a fast cargo vessel and a destroyer lying motionless in the water (let’s say, due to engine trouble or because it’s picking up survivors) might take a shot at the destroyer because it’s an easier target under those circumstances. Another variable is a U-boat is at the end of its mission and low on torpedoes, in which case the skipper might be more choosy about what to attack.
Target speed, target size, target distance, target orientation and target course are hugely important variables. WWII destroyers were at the high end of the surface-ship speed scale, so this made them harder to hit than slower ships…assuming they were operating at their maximum (flank speed) at the time a sub ran into them, which they probably rarely were because most warships (for fuel economy reasons) tend to operate at a slower cruising speed much of the time. WWII destroyers were near the low end of the size scale (though frigates and corvettes were smaller), so this made them harder targets than cruisers and destroyers. Distance and orientation are uncontrlable variables, since they come down to luck: a nearby destroyer lying perpendicular to a sub will obviously be an easier target than a distant aircraft carrier lying bow-on. Course is another big variable: a zigzaging ship is harder to hit than one traveling on a straight course, and a torpedo shot will be affected depending on whether the surface ship is headed toward the sub, away from it, or sideways across its track. Another variable: does the ship have lookouts who are on their toes (ready to spot incoming torpedoes promptly) and a sharp captain who will promptly turn his bow towards the torpedo to comb its track? If so, the odds of a hit are greatly reduced. Agile destroyers can obviously perform such maneuvers better than a tubby cargo vessel, so that’s a point in their favour.
So the upshot of all this is that there’s no single answer to the question of why destroyers were (or weren’t) sunk to a greater and lesser degree than other ship types. In a very general sense, the main factors at play were probably: a) that subs didn’t often take shots at destroyers since they were less important strategically than merchant ships; b) that destroyers tended to be hard targets to hit due to their speed and agility; and c) that successful torpedo hits on destroyers could very well sink or severely damage them, due to their relative fragility.
-
Thanks again for taking time to make such an elaborate post.
I really appreciate.
BaronI wanted to integrate also this post on Sub of yours in this thread:
@CWO:I’ve just revised the list of IJN Submarines to find if there is many of them which were sink by planes. It appears that there is not much. Most of them were sunk by destroyers or submarines.<<
And there’s a good reason for this. Japanese subs in the Pacific and German subs in the Atlantic played almost completely different roles. The Japanese considered that the primary mission of a sub was to sink enemy warships, and IJN subs therefore wasted a lot of time trying to do so rather than attacking the USN’s supporting transport ships (which, being slower than warships, would have made much easier targets). The USN therefore didn’t have to devote a huge effort to ASW in the Pacific.
In the Atlantic, Germany considered the primary mission of a sub was to sink enemy transport ships. The cargos being convoyed by these ships were vital to the Alllied war effort, so the Allies placed more and more priority on defending them as the war went on. In other words, German subs were a high-priority target for the Allies, whereas Japanese subs were not. A related factor was that the Atlantic is only about half the size of the Pacific, and that the Allied convoys sailed on fairly well-defined routes, so these elements made combat encounters with subs much more likely in the Atlantic than in the Pacific.
The Americans, interestingly, used their own subs in the Pacific much as the Germans did in their Atlantic: the USN’s submarines concentrated on attacking the Japanese shipping routes bringing oil and other critical supplies to the Japanese home islands. USN subs might have suffered considerable casualties in the process if the Japanese had taken this threat seriously, but Japan – despite being a maritime nation – gave astonishingly little importance to convoying their merchant ships and to developing their ASW capabilities.
So in a nutshell, Japan had a faulty understanding of how Japanese submarines should be used for maximum effect against the Americans, and a faulty understanding of how effectively the Americans were using their own submarines against Japan.
-
@Baron:
My first impressions are that 1 DD:1 Sub combined with Subs surprise strike makes Destroyer weaker than Subs.
On opening moves, German’s two atlantic Subs were very successful because 1 single preemptive hit was enough to sunk the destroyer without any retaliation. This left a weak Transport defending @1 against two Subs.
The USA’s DD+planes easily get rid of 1 atlantic Subs in the first round (the other sub submerge) but, again, the surviving DD was no match against the 2 remaining U-boats (1 which was able to submerge in the previous battle and the other coming from the previous assault on UK’s Battleship.) The destroyer was again sunk by a preemptive strike.
So, attacking Subs were already deadlier on the same IPCs basis than Destroyer.
But, in any numerical advantage over DDs, it is even more deadlier if DDs cannot retaliate.
And compared to Subs against Subs, in which all defendings Subs still keep their roll @1, it seems very strange and quite unhistorical: Subs can retaliate while Destroyers can’t.To Der Kuenstler,
I’m wondering if you get a similar issue with your Subs on the 1:1 DD’s blocking capacity?
And, if not, why?
Is it because of your Classic transports, used as first casualties, thus letting DDs retaliate?
Or because in your play-test all Subs were going Convoy raiding instead of chasing DDs and TPs?
Or maybe, you didn’t see this as an issue?In my house rules if one sub attacks one DD, the DD still takes away all of the sub’s special abilities - it does not get a free shot - it fights as regular. If 2 subs attack one DD, the DD takes away the special abilities of one of the subs, so only one sub gets a first shot attack.
The way to keep subs under control with the 1:1 rule is not to let them outnumber your DDs. The US and Britain can both buy DDs vs Germans subs so this shouldn’t be a problem for them. Also, the DD’s should be aggressive and go attack every sub they can see with plane backup - that way the subs are vulnerable defending @ 1 and likely to get killed before they can escape. Â
-
_In my house rules if one sub attacks one DD, the DD still takes away all of the sub’s special abilities - it does not get a free shot - it fights as regular. If 2 subs attack one DD, the DD takes away the special abilities of one of the subs, so only one sub gets a first shot attack.
The way to keep subs under control with the 1:1 rule is not to let them outnumber your DDs. The US and Britain can both buy DDs vs Germans subs so this shouldn’t be a problem for them. Also, the DD’s should be aggressive and go attack every sub they can see with plane backup - that way the subs are vulnerable defending @ 1 and likely to get killed before they can escape._
You can also used something like: Before the sub attack, Destroyer roll dice and if you find it you can destroy it.
Only the surviving sub can shoot.AL
-
Also for the one’s who used the wolf pack.
I think it must be used only againt cargo and/or transport…
Not against warships.AL
-
Geez…I read a lot of thing about the sub and not easy to find the good solution and compromise.
But I don’t buy… sub shoot airplane. What was the % of success of AA sub against a fighter?AL
-
What was the % of success of AA sub against a fighter?
In real life, the chances were minimal. WWII subs in general had rather weak anti-aircraft armament; their main defense against air attack was to submerge.
During the second half of WWII, sometime after the mid-1943 turning point that saw the Allies finally get the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic, one of Admiral Doenitz’s tactical responses was to order U-boats to start fighting it out with aircraft on the surface rather than diving. I think there were even some U-boats that were given upgraded AAA firepower for that pupose. This tactic proved a failure, however, because Allied planes simply kept the surfaced U-boat in sight while staying out of AAA range, and relayed the sub’s position to any friendly surface warships in the area. In a surfaced-sub-versus-plane engagement, it’s the plane that controls the range because it’s much faster than the sub. Only a few planes were shot down by the Germans when this tactic was introduced, until the Allies adjusted to the situation.
-
one of Admiral Doenitz’s tactical responses was to order U-boats to start fighting it out with aircraft on the surface rather than diving. Â I think there were even some U-boats that were given upgraded AAA firepower for that pupose. Â This tactic proved a failure,
Right, I read the same thing that’s why I don’t agree with sub can shoot airplane.
In my rules, plane (Sea plane, light bomber and some bomber) can attack sub but airplane must find it before.
So it gives the opportunity to sub to retreat. (submerge).AL
-
In my rules, plane (Sea plane, light bomber and some bomber) can attack sub but airplane must find it the before.
So it gives the opportunity to sub to retreat. (submerge).AL
Pretty good, except for the extra dice roll. In my rules, during any round of battle when all attackers miss the sub, the sub can withdraw up to its full remaining movement instead of firing back. So if a fighter is attacking at “3”, 1-3 it hits the sub, 4-6 the sub gets away. (Or you could say the fighter couldn’t find it - same result.)
-
the sub can withdraw up to its full remaining movement instead of firing back.
Same as me when sub are under attack……
But before sub could retreat and back in another sea zone but I think I’ll change that.
Sub must submerge in the sea zone where he was before the combat.AL
-
@Der:
@Baron:
My first impressions are that 1 DD:1 Sub combined with Subs surprise strike makes Destroyer weaker than Subs.
On opening moves, German’s two atlantic Subs were very successful because 1 single preemptive hit was enough to sunk the destroyer without any retaliation. This left a weak Transport defending @1 against two Subs.
The USA’s DD+planes easily get rid of 1 atlantic Subs in the first round (the other sub submerge) but, again, the surviving DD was no match against the 2 remaining U-boats (1 which was able to submerge in the previous battle and the other coming from the previous assault on UK’s Battleship.) The destroyer was again sunk by a preemptive strike.
So, attacking Subs were already deadlier on the same IPCs basis than Destroyer.
But, in any numerical advantage over DDs, it is even more deadlier if DDs cannot retaliate. And compared to Subs against Subs, in which all defendings Subs still keep their roll @1, it seems very strange and quite unhistorical: Subs can retaliate while Destroyers can’t.To Der Kuenstler,
I’m wondering if you get a similar issue with your Subs on the 1:1 DD’s blocking capacity? And, if not, why?
Is it because of your Classic transports, used as first casualties, thus letting DDs retaliate?
Or because in your play-test all Subs were going Convoy raiding instead of chasing DDs and TPs?
Or maybe, you didn’t see this as an issue?In my house rules if one sub attacks one DD, the DD still takes away all of the sub’s special abilities - it does not get a free shot - it fights as regular. If 2 subs attack one DD, the DD takes away the special abilities of one of the subs, so only one sub gets a first shot attack.
The way to keep subs under control with the 1:1 rule is not to let them outnumber your DDs. The US and Britain can both buy DDs vs Germans subs so this shouldn’t be a problem for them. Also, the DD’s should be aggressive and go attack every sub they can see with plane backup - that way the subs are vulnerable defending @ 1 and likely to get killed before they can escape.Thanks DK,
I bolded the main points.
Basically, you tell to not worry the overall situation is in favour of 2 Allies in Atlantic against Germany.
You still use Classic transport, right?
This also help to have a better defense when TPs are sacrificed before DDs.
OK.Another way to keep balance between Subs and Destroyers on unit scale, I would suggest this:
Since for 24 IPCs you can oppose 4 Subs against 3 DDs,
an approximation could be one Destroyer group of x unit can block x+1 Sub units.
x DDs block x+1 Subs.
So 1 DD blocks 2 Subs, 2 DDs blocks 3 Subs, 3 DDs blocks 4 Subs, etc.It’s not as elegant than 1 DD:1 Sub but it can somehow resolve the weakness of Destroyers in small scale naval combat.
In addition, this resolves the incongruity of Subs being hit and still able to react with a preemptive Def @1 compared to a Destroyer hit by a surprise strike and unable to defend @2. -
Another way to increase a better defense is a compromise for taken last transport A0 D1.
Only Subs hit can be allocated to transport before warships.This can somehow re-enact Subwarfare against Transport and Destroyers reaction to attacking Subs.
I know it is not going in the way of simplifying however.
-
YA. You’ll have to go back and change title to Multifling rules for interactions of transports, Submarines, Destroyers and Planes. :wink:
-
YA. You’ll have to go back and change title to Multifling rules for interactions of transports, Submarines, Destroyers and Planes.
:-D….
-
@Baron:
Another way to keep balance between Subs and Destroyers on unit scale, I would suggest this:
I really don’t think you’ll have to worry about it. The German player has bigger fish to fry (holding off Russia). If the German player buys enough subs to clear the Atlantic, he would have to do it at the expense of losing the East Front. Subs are cool to play with, but they don’t take land, so they won’t win the game for you.
-
@SS:
YA. You’ll have to go back and change title to Multifling rules for interactions of transports, Submarines, Destroyers and Planes. Â :wink:
@Der:
@Baron:
Another way to keep balance between Subs and Destroyers on unit scale, I would suggest this:
I really don’t think you’ll have to worry about it. The German player has bigger fish to fry (holding off Russia). If the German player buys enough subs to clear the Atlantic, he would have to do it at the expense of losing the East Front. Subs are cool to play with, but they don’t take land, so they won’t win the game for you.
I wrote the other ways to solve the problem (if it was one) but I think I will follow your advice DK, thanks.
I didn’t abandon the hope of having something simple. :-)
This thread can have many posts and many ways of trying to make it simpler and balance.In fact, increasing the strength of the Subs compared to DDs is probably balanced by keeping a real Classic transport which can be used anytime as a fodder unit.
That’s a good news.
So, Transports behavior in combat will be simpler and a bit more according to historical Subwarfare.
Subs will get more occasions of doing surprise strike keeping 1 DD:1 Sub. This makes for more funny situations instead of a scripted casualty scenario.
I would also say that in my game, we play with Escort Carrier (A1 D1 C11, ASV as DD, 1 plane on board), and this CVE unit already make harder time for Subs. And even if a CVE is sunk by a surprise strike, the plane on board can still retaliate on the Subs in that given round.
In addition, Subs are no more immune against planes without DDs, making Subs weaker in this perspective.
-
I didn’t abandon the hope of having something simple.
I think I found it….
-
I didn’t abandon the hope of having something simple.
I think I found it….
Go ahead, I’m curious.
What is your idea?
Suggested Topics
