Submarines being able to attack land

I would say it is very unlikely because Destroyer would qualify for shore bombardment before Submarine. For instance, I suggested elsewhere to consider DD as an Artillery support on first round only for Infantry unit.
@Baron:

I just learned that on many occasions during WWII (on D-Day) destroyers had made coastal bombardment.
Is their some ways to implement this possibility?

For instance, giving 2 destroyers a 1@2 on the first round of an amphibious assault.
Or giving a +1 on attack/DD to 1 Inf (like Art) for only the first round of a debarkment.
Same limitation on the number of bombarding ships, 1 ship/ground unit being offloaded from transport.

The idea is to keep it far less effective than cruiser and battleship bombardment without neglecting this historical capacity.

Any opinion on this topic?

Once this said, here is the beginning of an article about your idea and how it was done in WWII:

How One Very Special U.S. Submarine Ravaged Japan During World War II

In the closing months of World War II, heavy losses and depleted fuel stocks kept many of Japan’s remaining combat aircraft grounded and warships in port, awaiting an anticipated amphibious invasion. Starting in July 1945, Allied battleships embarked on a series of naval bombardments of coastal cities in Japan in an effort to draw these forces out to battle with little success. However, a week before the battleships began lobbing their massive shells, a legendary U.S. submarine toting a rocket launcher began its own campaign of coastal terror that foretold the future of naval warfare and also engaged in the only Allied ground-combat operation on Japanese home-island soil.

Submarines still made use of deck guns during World War II, most of them ranging between three and five inches in caliber. These were used to finish off unarmed merchant ships or sink smaller vessels that could evade torpedoes but also were occasionally directed to bombard coastal targets, such as in early-war Japanese raids on the coasts of California and Australia. The problem was that a single gun was unlikely to inflict much damage in a short amount of time, and the submarines were highly vulnerable to air, sea and land attack as long as they remained surfaced.

In 1942, the German Kriegsmarine actually tested submarine rocket artillery that could be fired underwater, but gave up on the idea due to its impracticality. Rumors that Germany had modified their subs to launch V-2 ballistic missiles at the United States led to a vigorous and bloody submarine hunt in the closing weeks of World War II.

The U.S. Navy, meanwhile, considered a much cruder solution: taking one of the Mark 51 rocket launchers it used on some of its LSM landing ships and strapping it to the main deck of a submarine. The twelve spin-stabilized 127-millimeter rockets mounted on the launch rack could only be fired while surfaced, and had a maximum range of three miles. However, a full volley could be ripple fired in the space of five seconds. The fixed launcher was unable to traverse, so the entire submarine had to turn to adjust the aim laterally.

Capt. Eugene Fluckey of the Gato-class submarine USS Barb volunteered his boat to try out the experimental rocket launcher in 1945. At the time, the Navy was actually testing the weapon’s viability as an anti-kamikaze weapon, but Fluckey managed to cajole the R&D staff into releasing the Mark 51 in time for his patrol, making the Barb the only rocket-launching submarine of the U.S. Navy in the conflict. You can check out footage of the rocket launcher on the Barb here.
…

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-one-very-special-us-submarine-ravaged-japan-during-world-19746

Submarines were more effective at shooting single plane with AA battery on deck than damaging coast line infrastructure.

I found this about Bombardment of Fort Stevens:

The Japanese submarine I-25, commanded by Tagami Meiji, had been assigned to sink enemy shipping and attack the enemy on land with their 14 cm deck gun. Transporting a Yokosuka E14Y seaplane, the submarine was manned by a crew of 97.[1] On 21 June 1942, I-25 had entered US coastal waters, following allied fishing boats to avoid the mine fields in the area.

Late that night, Commander Meiji ordered his crew to surface his submarine at the mouth of the Columbia River. His target was Fort Stevens, which dated to the American Civil War and armed with now more or less obsolete Endicott era artillery, including 12-inch coast defense mortars, and several of 10 in (250 mm) disappearing guns.[2]

Meiji ordered the deck gun crew to open fire on Fort Stevens’ Battery Russell. Surprisingly, his shots were harmless, in part because the fort’s commander ordered an immediate blackout. The commander also refused to permit his men to return fire, which would have revealed their position.[3]

Most Japanese rounds landed in a nearby baseball field or a swamp, although one landed close to Battery Russell and another next to a concrete pillbox. One round severed several large telephone cables, the only real damage that Meiji caused. Seventeen 5.5 in (140 mm) explosive shells had been fired at the fort.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Fort_Stevens

0:52

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYekeKr8r5I

:-D

Women on board boost their torpedoes engine…

@Caesar:

So deck guns firing surface targets, yay or nay?

Yea if the surface targets are ships, nay if they’re land targets.  WWII submarines did indeed carry deck guns, but their primary purpose was to give submarines a way to damage and/or sink enemy ships without wasting an expensive torpedo. (A German U-boat could carry 220 deck gun rounds, as opposed to just 14 torpedoes.)  A typical situation might be a case where an enemy ship would be crippled by a torpedo, then finished off with surface gunfire rather than with a second torpedo if it appeared to be sinking too slowly (or not sinking at all).  A WWII submarine could, in principle, shoot at a surface target on land, but there are several reasons why this would rarely have been done.

First, there’s the problem of range.  A U-boat’s deck gun had a maximum range of about 12 km, but probably had a shorter range in terms of effective accurately-aimed fire.  The closer a U-boat could get to a shoreline, the more accurate its gunnery would have been, but the more vulnerable the sub would be because subs don’t like shallow water (which restricts or even cancels out completely its ability to dive, an ability which is vitally important to a sub).

Second, there’s the question of the targets themselves.  By nature, they would be coastal targets (because sub deck guns can only reach inland for a short distance) and they would be fixed installations (because sub deck guns don’t have aiming mechanisms that are well suited to engaging moving targets on land, especially small ones).  In terms of targets with military value, this pretty much limits the choice to: a) fortifications such as bunkers; b) military bases, such as port facilities; and c) factories and similar industrial targets.  Attacking a) and b) with a sub would have been hazardous business.  As far as a) goes, there’s an old naval rule of thumb which says that warships should try to avoid getting into an artillery duel with shore fortresses because the shore fortresses, being fixed installations, can potententially have bigger guns and more ammunition than warships.  As far as b) goes, important facilities of this type in WWII might be protected by shore batteries and/or naval forces.  This would be hazardous for subs, because subs aren’t well suited to surface fights: they’re slow and not well armed compared with surface-combat ships.  As far as c) goes, this is actually more credible than a) or b) because factories would not have been as well defended as, say, naval bases.  In A&A terms, an IC on a shoreline might in principle be a submarine target…but there are a couple of potential objections too.  Just because an IC is in a territory with a shoreline doesn’t imply that the IC is built close enough to the seashore to be reachable by a U-boat’s guns.  Also, one has to wonder how much damage a U-boat’s deck gun would do to a factory, given its caliber.  Damage yes…but enough damage to downgrade or destroy an A&A IC?  That’s debatable.

@Caesar:

Okay then lets make a rule where Submarines can do a “raid” against factories, airfields, and ports.

Um, my point was actually to argue against such raids, not for them.  I mentioned that such raids “would have been hazardous business” for the sub, and I stated various reasons for it.

To look at this from another angle, here’s a point that applies to both the concept above and to the recent discussion in another thread about AAA firing at infantry.  The point is that there is often an important difference between what a real-world unit can do (capability) and what a real-world unit normally does (application) – and that when certain capabilities are not applied in a given context, there’s usually a darn good reason for it.

Let’s take a non-military example, because the above concept doesn’t just apply to military hardware.  A subcompact automobile has the physical capacity to drive on a Formula One racetrack, and a Formula One racecar has the physical capacity to drive on a highway.  In practical terms, however, subcompact automobiles don’t normally (if ever) drive on a Formula One racetracks, and Formula One racecars don’t normally (if ever) drive on a highway, because that’s not where they belong and because that’s not what they’re designed for and because it would create a safety hazard for them to do so.  Yes, AAA guns do have the capability to shoot at infantry, and yes, submarines do have the capacity to shoot at coastal targets, and yes, these things were sometimes done during WWII.  The point is that it was rarely done, and that it was rarely done for darn good reasons.

I would guess secret agents or spies put ashore from submarines were both more common and had greater effect than a sub getting of a few rounds at a poorly seen land target, before it needs to flee.

What was tried with minimal success and many Subs losses was to give a more powerful AA battery to some U-boats. Sometimes, Sub shot down a plane. But most of time, Subs were damaged and unable to dive and submerged by aircraft fire.

This special situation occurs more often than an ineffective shore attack with a single deck gun.

@Caesar:

Submarine attacks against ports wasn’t common at all, even if you ignore the deck gun and just picture torpedo attacks, it still happened. The point of this isn’t based on the fact if it happened or not. My goal is to add rules based on what DID happen and getting it to properly reflect on abilities in this game. Hence, why submarines having deck guns and trying to find an ability to use them.

As you tell, at 1h14min 50 sec, this US Sub destroyed a truck…
https://youtu.be/0p2JpYJpcFM

:-D :-D :-D

Don’t know if this kinda is what your looking for but have a rule where any sub next a factory and/or a base can do like a type of SBR or convoy attack. Just declare a sub attack on factory or base and defender pays 3 icp’s to the bank.

Subs having the ability to shoot land units is sound. I would add in AA capability ( getting one shot at every plane) and i would also add shore-bombardment capabilities, and lastly subs should get SBR capability. I would make them 4-4-2-6 units and they take 2 hits to sink. This would be commensurate with the capabilities of some planned sub that was in the planning stage. Thank You.

Sweet !

@Imperious:

Subs having the ability to shoot land units is sound. I would add in AA capability ( getting one shot at every plane) and i would also add shore-bombardment capabilities, and lastly subs should get SBR capability. I would make them 4-4-2-6 units and they take 2 hits to sink. This would be commensurate with the capabilities of some planned sub that was in the planning stage. Thank You.

It should get a 1 Infantry troop transport capacity and a combined arms working as artillery unit +1 attack bonus to Infantry (as a morale booster).

After all, Japan use Subs to bring food to desperate hungry soldiers under Allies food and ammos blockade in Pacific Islands.
Ask Kurt…
:wink:

OK: attacks and defends @4, moves 3 spaces, SB @4, takes 2 hits, carry’s 2 planes, 2 infantry, shoots at tanks, 1 shot at every plane, can capture capitals, and costs 6 IPC.

5%474807374-67584(665656)-6565698696453722-2=1#$%^&*(=n/a).

Thats a sub i can buy!!