Submarines



  • I always have been disappointed in what I see as the minimization of subs in this game. Although it is much better now, still, playing other versions of this game, (World at War) and expansions for Axis and Allies throughout the 90’s still leaves me disappointed.

    Does anyone have any links to anything that indicate subs fought with capital warships. My influence has always been that subs only fought or conducted operations among subs only and there were never any naval battles that were coordinated with subs.

    I know some subs were used by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, but since no capital warships were involved, they really did their own thing. They certainly did not coordinate with the air craft.



  • Shinano (信濃?), named after the old province of Shinano, was an aircraft carrier built by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during World War II. Initially laid down as the third of the Yamato-class battleships, Shinano’s partially complete hull was converted to a supercarrier in 1942, midway through construction. Over the next two years, the ship was heavily modified and she became the largest aircraft carrier built up to that time.

    Partially completed in November 1944, Shinano was sent from the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal to Kure Naval Base to complete fitting out and transfer a load of 50 Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka rocket-propelled kamikaze flying bombs. En route to Kure, she was sunk on 29 November 1944, 10 days after commissioning, by four torpedoes from the American submarine Archerfish. The ship carried an inexperienced crew, had serious design and construction flaws, and was not ready for combat. Over a thousand of her crew and passengers were rescued, but 1,435 sailors and civilians died, including her captain. Shinano remains the largest warship ever sunk by a submarine.[1]

    –-Wikipedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano



  • Try this one also:

    Allied submarines were used extensively during the Pacific War and were a key contributor to the defeat of the Empire of Japan. During the war, submarines of the United States Navy were responsible for 55% of Japan’s merchant marine losses; other Allied navies added to the toll.[1] The war against shipping was the single most decisive factor in the collapse of the Japanese economy. Allied submarines also conducted reconnaissance patrols, landed special forces and guerrilla troops and performed search and rescue tasks.[2] The majority of the submarines involved were from the U.S. Navy, with the British Royal Navy and the Royal Netherlands Navy contributing smaller numbers of boats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_submarines_in_the_Pacific_War



  • @RJL518:

    Shinano (信濃?), named after the old province of Shinano, was an aircraft carrier built by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during World War II. Initially laid down as the third of the Yamato-class battleships, Shinano’s partially complete hull was converted to a supercarrier in 1942, midway through construction. Over the next two years, the ship was heavily modified and she became the largest aircraft carrier built up to that time.

    Partially completed in November 1944, Shinano was sent from the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal to Kure Naval Base to complete fitting out and transfer a load of 50 Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka rocket-propelled kamikaze flying bombs. En route to Kure, she was sunk on 29 November 1944, 10 days after commissioning, by four torpedoes from the American submarine Archerfish. The ship carried an inexperienced crew, had serious design and construction flaws, and was not ready for combat. Over a thousand of her crew and passengers were rescued, but 1,435 sailors and civilians died, including her captain. Shinano remains the largest warship ever sunk by a submarine.[1]

    –-Wikipedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano

    Wow very interesting, thanks!  I didn’t know the Allies used subs that extensively.  When someone says submarine I automatically think of German U boats.


  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    @eddiem4145:

    I always have been disappointed in what I see as the minimization of subs in this game. Although it is much better now, still, playing other versions of this game, (World at War) and expansions for Axis and Allies throughout the 90’s still leaves me disappointed.

    I totally agree - see my post here…

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.0


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The British battleship Royal Oak was torpedoed and sunk at anchor in Scapa Flow by a U-boat in 1939.  The British battleship Barham was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat while under way in the Mediterranean.  Such sinkings, however, were very exceptional, in contrast with U-boat sinkings of merchant ships.  There are three reasons for this.  The first is that the number of merchant ships at sea at any one time is vastly greater than the number of capital ships, so in terms of sheer percentages the chances are very low that any particular submarine target will be a capital ship.  Second, battleship designs typically included various measures for protection against torpedo and mine explosions: double hulls, extensive watertight compartmentalization, and anti-torpedo blisters (liquid-loaded void spaces intended to absorb and disperse blast effects).

    The third reason is speed.  Merchant ships tend to be be slow, so they make easier targets.  Modern (1930s and later) battleships could typically do upwards of 27 knots (some as much as 33), so at full speed they were virtually impossible to hit with an unguided torpedo.  Even at a lower cruising speed, there wasn’t much time for a U-boat to catch sight of one, calculate a torpedo shot and fire, especially at medium to long ranges and/or if the battleship was zig-zagging.  When Churchill crossed the Atlantic in August 1941 to meet Roosevelt for the Atlantic Charter conference, he travelled aboard the battleship Prince of Wales, which travelled at high speed the whole time.  A journalist who travelled with him later greatly dramatized the danger of the situation and praised Churchill’s audacity, but in actual fact the chances of a successful U-boat attack were pretty slim.

    A bit of trivia in the reverse direction: HMS Dreadnought holds the distinction of being the only battleship in history to have ever sunk a submarine.  She rammed and sank U-29 in 1915.



  • My post was completely misunderstood. I didn’t mean subs fighting against capital warships, but subs fight with, that is on the same side.
    Another words, US subs coordinating with US capital warships. I always understood subs fought by themselves and never with capital warships.

    If anyone has a link to videos or webpages please let me know. Just the info would be OK and then I can look it up.



  • @eddiem4145:

    Another words, US subs coordinating with US capital warships. I always understood subs fought by themselves and never with capital warships.

    Yu are correct. Subs never did combined arms operations together with battleships or bombers. Subs did independent operations, but sometimes together with other subs, like the German wolf packs. And in the same way, you never did see Strategic Bombers cooperate with infantry or Tanks. Strategic Bombers were designed to target Industrial Complexes, and Subs were designed to target convoys. But since this is a simple game, the fun factor is more important than historical accuracy.

    The A&A Europe 1999 edition was the best game IMHO, since it had convoy centers all over the Atlantic that the German subs could target, and made for a historical correct struggle between German subs and allied destroyers. It also had a good Strategical Bombing Raid system that encouraged to use the Bombers against factories, and not against the historical incorrect ships or tanks. If you try to SBR an IC in the current Global game, you will lose your Bombers. So it is a much safer strategy to protect your Bomber behind a stack of infantry in a land battle, or behind subs in a naval battle. In the Pacific you will typically see a striking force of subs and Bombers, working together. But that never happened in the real war.

    Attached is a pic of the convoy centers of A&A Europe 1999 ed, to remember how it should be

    pic23986.jpg



  • The part of the bombers is not correct.
    Strategic bombers where used extensively against all kinds of targets not just industry.
    D-Day saw a lot of strategic bombers dropping bombs all over the place.
    Strategic bombers where used as mobile artilery where tactical bombers where more for close air support.

    Also tactical bombers where used to attack industrial complexes in cities in occupied countries to try to limit the civilian casualties.

    High level bombing was also used against ships but the results where not that great. US attacked the japan fleet at midway with high level bombers from midway.

    Dont forget that in real life there is not a strict line between stategic bombers and tactical bombers, Germany used the same bombers to attack airflields, london, and convoys and to support the attacks during the blitzkrieg.



  • In the current A&A Global game, the units are misused in a gamey way. Subs are used as fodder in naval battles, and this is historical not correct since subs were the most expensive and time consuming ships to build. But even worse, to kill a group of 5 subs, you can send in one destroyer with 10 Bombers, and you only lose your destroyer. Or you can send in one destroyer with 5 Battleships, and they absorb all the hits. Now this are all tactics that an experienced player can use against a beginner just for fun, but it feels wrong.

    Among the tons of house rules to fix this issue, I favor to let destroyers be the only units to hit subs. This is almost historical  correct. The game start in 1940, and planes did not sink subs before 1945. It will also get rid of a lot of special rules, like the sneak attack etc. So, if you play on the current Global map, and want to target the convoy zone outside UK, you just send in 2 German subs. Now, if there are a UK fleet there, they cant roll against subs. Only destroyers can. And one destroyer roll one dice, and maybe sink one of the subs. Now if there are 3 UK destroyers there, they roll 3 dice. That is a simple rule, and I cant understand why its not an OOB rule.

    But then we got the problem that a convoy zone adjacent to UK is very easy to protect. UK just place a lot of destroyers there, protected by scrambling fighters and a fleet. And this is just like in the real world. German subs almost never sank ships in port. But the Global map don’t have convoy zones out in the ocean, only adjacent to land, where they are easy to protect. So IMHO that is a flaw. Making the A&A Europe 1999 map superior, when it comes to commerce raiding. Â



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    D-Day saw a lot of strategic bombers dropping bombs all over the place.
    Strategic bombers where used as mobile artilery where tactical bombers where more for close air support.

    Perhaps not the main topic of this thread, but I will answer you. Heavy Bombers were not very accurate or effective weapons. They dropped bombs from high altitude, and the majority missed. Against the industry, they were not effective, and killed more cows in the nearby fields, than it ruined factories. Submarines that sank convoys did much more damage to the economy than Heavy Bombers. But in all A&A games it is the opposite, SBR is an option but convoys are not.

    On D-day more than 1000 Heavy Bombers targeted the Blockhouses at Omaha beach but missed. Then hundreds of Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers shelled the Blockhouses, but they missed too. Then 250 US Rangers climbed the cliff and killed the big coastal guns at Point du Hoc. So go figure.

    The Heavy Bombers main contribution on D-day were to bomb railroad stations in the cities, to block German movement. They tried to bomb some bridges too, but that failed. Even carpet bombing infantry failed. And the mobile artillery you are talking about, that was Stukas , not B 17


  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    @Narvik:

    Yu are correct. Subs never did combined arms operations together with battleships or bombers. Subs did independent operations, but sometimes together with other subs, like the German wolf packs. And in the same way, you never did see Strategic Bombers cooperate with infantry or Tanks. Strategic Bombers were designed to target Industrial Complexes, and Subs were designed to target convoys. But since this is a simple game, the fun factor is more important than historical accuracy.

    Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.



  • so u are asking if there was ever a fleet put together in world war ii, or maybe i should say a task force that included carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines all in the same fleet?

    I think Narvik is correct that subs were never used in that role…but let me check my library…and i will let you know…but i do think he is correct!



  • @Der:

    Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.

    No, I don’t think a unit should be limited too much. As you know, subs did sink battleships too, even if cargo ships were the main target. And heavy Bombers did carpet bomb soldiers on the ground and warships, even if bombing of infrastructure were the main purpose. I just think, that since we now got all this new units, they could get more special abilities.

    Submarines should be stronger in attacking convoys, but for that to happen, only destroyers should be able to hit subs. If not, then no sub will survive the 1 Destroyer + stack of Bombers combo.

    And, slightly off topic, I think the new Tactical should cost 10, att 3 and def 4. Special ability, target Tanks and Mechs before other casualties.
    The fighter should cost 6, att 1and def 2. Special ability, target other aircrafts in dog-fights before taking land unit casualties.
    The St Bomber should cost 12, att 4 and def 1. Special ability, do SBR against ICs


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @ShadowHAwk:

    The part of the bombers is not correct.
    Strategic bombers where used extensively against all kinds of targets not just industry.
    D-Day saw a lot of strategic bombers dropping bombs all over the place.
    Strategic bombers where used as mobile artilery where tactical bombers where more for close air support.
    […]
    Dont forget that in real life there is not a strict line between stategic bombers and tactical bombers, Germany used the same bombers to attack airflields, london, and convoys and to support the attacks during the blitzkrieg.

    Yes, I think that part of the confusion about all this comes from the fact that the A&A term “Strategic Bomber” is a debatable one that confuses capabilities (the bomb load a plan can carry and the range at which it can operate) with possible missions (the targets against which you use a plane).  The units in A&A that are deemed “strategic bombers” are more properly called heavy bombers and (in some cases) medium bombers, which is in fact what they were called during WWII.  The uses to which they were put were not rigidly defined by the strategic/ non-strategic concepts.  The Mitchell medium bomber, for instance, was used for the Doolittle Raid, which was a strategic mission (albeit on a very small scale).  The B-17 and the Lancaster, both of them heavy bombers, were used (along with a variety of medium and light bombers) to attack beachhead fortifications on D-Day, which was a tactical mission.

    Generally, the heavy and medium bomber categories were called by those terms.  There was more terminology variety at low end of the scale, in the niche occupied by the A&A “tactical bomber” units: light bombers, fighter-bombers, multi-mission fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, ground-attack aircraft and so forth.  Some of the planes in those categories show up in A&A as fighter sculpts – the P-38 Lightning being a good example of a versatile plane that had many roles.


  • 2017 '16

    @Narvik:

    In the current A&A Global game, the units are misused in a gamey way. Subs are used as fodder in naval battles, and this is historical not correct since subs were the most expensive and time consuming ships to build. But even worse, to kill a group of 5 subs, you can send in one destroyer with 10 Bombers, and you only lose your destroyer. Or you can send in one destroyer with 5 Battleships, and they absorb all the hits. Now this are all tactics that an experienced player can use against a beginner just for fun, but it feels wrong.

    Among the tons of house rules to fix this issue, I favor to let destroyers be the only units to hit subs. This is almost historical  correct. The game start in 1940, and planes did not sink subs before 1945. It will also get rid of a lot of special rules, like the sneak attack etc. So, if you play on the current Global map, and want to target the convoy zone outside UK, you just send in 2 German subs. Now, if there are a UK fleet there, they cant roll against subs. Only destroyers can. And one destroyer roll one dice, and maybe sink one of the subs. Now if there are 3 UK destroyers there, they roll 3 dice. That is a simple rule, and I cant understand why its not an OOB rule.

    But then we got the problem that a convoy zone adjacent to UK is very easy to protect. UK just place a lot of destroyers there, protected by scrambling fighters and a fleet. And this is just like in the real world. German subs almost never sank ships in port. But the Global map don’t have convoy zones out in the ocean, only adjacent to land, where they are easy to protect. So IMHO that is a flaw. Making the A&A Europe 1999 map superior, when it comes to commerce raiding. Â

    I see the same issue about Subs.
    Here is how I try to solve the problem:
    @Baron:

    @Der:

    @Baron:

    A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).

    The problem here is, that the sub usually works alone, so it will be the only casualty to choose most of the time.

    Probably, I was unclear about some aspects of the HR on Subs casualty:

    Your main ideas apply also here:
    Destroyers can block the submarine submerge on a 1 on 1 basis and 1 Destroyer cannot stop additional Subs from crossing the single DD’s controled SZ.
    The difference is about Surprise Strike, I prefer the OOB: it needs only 1 destroyers to protect against Sub’s Surprise Strike.

    Submarines LAST CASUALTY RULE:
    A submarine unit can be choose as casualty when there is no other elligible surface warships (DD, CA, CV, BB).
    In other way, submarines will be the last casualty amongst warships.

    -Planes need no more Destroyers to hit submarines.
    Fgs, TcBs and StBs can hit submarine anytime, inside the limit of this given rule on Subs casualty.

    -Submarines keep Surprise strike, Submersible, Cannot hit air, and Treat Hostile Sea-Zones as Friendly. -1 Destroyer unit protects against all Subs Surprise Strikes .
    But _1 Destroyer unit prevents only 1 submarine Submerge and for 1 combat round only. _And 1 Destroyer can only stop 1 Submarine Treat Hostile Sea-Zones as Friendly capacity. So additional Subs can cross a given SZ to make Combat or simply as a Non-Combat Move in the further away SZ.__ Special retreat move for Submarines and Destroyers:
    Even if there is no more enemy ships in a once embattled Sea-Zone, attacking Subs and Destroyers can retreat 1 SZ from where they came.

    So, a Submarine unit : Attack 2 Defense 1 Move 2 Cost 6
    will be cheap and far more difficult to spot and destroy. Hence, have a better survivability compared to OOB.
    However, Submarines will no more serve as a cheap fodder for any big warships, and this make them less interesting for some kind of naval investments and strategies.

    So, Submarines will be acting like Submarines in all situations.
    Submarines mostly attack Surface Warships (DD, CA, CV, BB) but can sometimes hit submarines (at the end of naval combat or when patroling with Destroyers against Subs only fleet).
    There will be no more Subs destruction fest in opening Naval Battle. 😮

    Defending planes will be very dangerous (as they should) against attacking Submarines only fleet, even when there is no more destroyers on the plane’s side. :evil:
    Attacking planes combined with Subs only fleet can also be a good strategy against a standard fleet, since Subs are cheaper and are allowed to be taken as casualty before planes.



  • Fixing the submarine rules without drastically changing the rules is pretty simple. The idea comes for the World at War game which specialized in rules that were extremely historical.

    The basics of that rule were that planes, capital warships had to roll to find the sub on a 1-2. That represented the chance they caught them on the surface. Destroyers had a much better chance of finding the subs on a 1-4. Representing finding them on the surface and tracking them underwater.

    Convoy raiding zones stretched across the Atlantic. Sub also could not defend or attack with capital warships.

    They also had different levels of radar and counter radar technologies that the allies and Germany competed. If Germany had level one counter radar, it was harder to located the sub. If the allies had radar level 1, it made it easier to find the subs. They also had sub pens that gave them greater protection when parked along the French and German coast.



  • so, there is a reason the old World at War is never played. When the rules got too specialized and difficult, people don’t play it


  • Customizer

    @Narvik:

    so, there is a reason the old World at War is never played. When the rules got too specialized and difficult, people don’t play it

    I agree with you. While I understand that the way subs are portrayed in this game may not be very realistic, and the same could be said of bombers, trying to make special rules to make them more in line with how these units were actually used will end up making the game way too complex. Just the basic set of rules for the game is hard enough to get all into your memory. I have played this game for years, but I still find myself checking the rule book for certain things.
    If you add more rules, then that is more that you will have to keep checking on during play. That will just slow things down to a crawl. Especially if you end up with rules where a sub can do this in this situation but not in another situation, and so on…
    While I do like an occasional change for something different, like Young Grasshopper’s new Halifax rules or the G40 Delta Deck, I still prefer this game to be relatively simple. Too much complexity saps out the fun.


  • 2017 '16

    What makes Halifax so interesting it is because it simplifies the oddity about UK’s dual economy.

    I should also add that it also introduce another aspect of Historical Realism by giving Commonwealth a whole Power status, as it should be.

    Simplifying+ More realism = a lot of +++ on the Opening Post of Halifax House Rule.

    That is the recipe for success.


  • 2017 '16

    @Narvik:

    @Der:

    Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.

    No, I don’t think a unit should be limited too much. As you know, subs did sink battleships too, even if cargo ships were the main target. And heavy Bombers did carpet bomb soldiers on the ground and warships, even if bombing of infrastructure were the main purpose. I just think, that since we now got all this new units, they could get more special abilities.

    Submarines should be stronger in attacking convoys, but for that to happen, only destroyers should be able to hit subs. If not, then no sub will survive the 1 Destroyer + stack of Bombers combo.

    And, slightly off topic, I think the new Tactical should cost 10, att 3 and def 4. Special ability, target Tanks and Mechs before other casualties.
    The fighter should cost 6, att 1and def 2. Special ability, target other aircrafts in dog-fights before taking land unit casualties. The St Bomber should cost 12, att 4 and def 1. Special ability, do SBR against ICs

    On 1942.2, play-tested a similar unit of Fg at the same cost but attack @1 on first strike.
    The Bomber and Cruiser were at 10 IPCs, also. Tactical Bombers (A3-4 D3-4 M4) were at 9 IPCs.

    Such a Fighter unit makes a too big competitive buying against submarines.
    Same price, can do the same cannon fodder in Naval Combat and better on defense but also useful in ground battle. That’s seems a problem.

    Everyone around the table agree that all the changes shifts the balance toward Allies, mostly due to cost decrease.

    Did you introduce a three planes aircraft carrier? If not the case, this have a very big downgrading impact on the defensive strength of the combined units Carrier+2Fgs.
    In addition, in Naval Combat, the special ability of Fgs have far less significance since, at 6 IPCs, it is always amongst the first casualty taken.
    Destroyer (A2 D2 Cost 8 ) have a better combat value.

    Maybe this last point is still more historical since many Fgs were destroyed and damaged in Naval combat, often in PTO, there was Battle between ennemy’s aircrafts against warships but not warships against warships.

    If you also play-tested it, leave me some feedback.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 6
  • 2
  • 47
  • 4
  • 11
  • 3
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

71
Online

14.5k
Users

35.1k
Topics

1.4m
Posts