Submarines: The unfixable issue of contact distance.

[cheapinkc]

35 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

No.  You said you would put them more towards the middle of the map.  Exactly how far before they spotted each other at the start?  How would they remain combat effective at 8knt maximum speed average?  How would they get into combat range within 20 minutes at those speeds?

 

You have proposed a simplistic answer to a complex situation which does nothing but make you feel better about not being the Sub.  Try and see what being the Sub with your suggestions would be like.

 

 

If they start near the objectives of the battle even at slower speeds they can certainly get into combat range and it's more difficult to avoid them if you care about winning the match.   

 

 

[Jakob Knight]

15 minutes ago, cheapinkc said:

If they start near the objectives of the battle even at slower speeds they can certainly get into combat range and it's more difficult to avoid them if you care about winning the match.   

 

 

 

See, now that is a more definitive answer and one I wouldn't reject out of hand.  The issues of having opposing Subs in close proximity to each other from the start of the game and the actual impact of other changes would have to be evaluated, though.

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

53 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Again, risk is one thing, but designing something to be lost in it's mission was not done.

 

Submarines and surface raiders were expected to survive their intended missions, which were against unarmed targets.  Those units took months or years to build and no small amount of resources, and throwing those away on a single routine mission would have been treason in wartime.  No nation could afford such attrition, and they knew it.

 

Torpedo boats and PT boats were similarly designed to survive their normal intended duties of ambush/hit and run near coastlines that afforded places to mitigate detection and pursuit.

 

Airplanes and the trained pilots were never trained or designed to suicide themselves in normal military duties because, again, the material and time spent putting them into service was noteworthy, and it was the expectation that they would survive more than not.  

 

Yes, risk vrs reward is always part of military tactics and strategy, but that goes for any type of ship depicted in the game.  Entire task forces could be sacrificed if the gains were seen as worth it (Operation Ten-Go only being among the most famous).  Therefore, why make any unit in the game survivable under the same rationale?  It doesn't hold up to examination to single out Submarines in this respect, especially given that they were among the few warships that actually could engage in battle and escape undamaged.

 

 

This idea is not true at all.

Subs and surface raiders were designed to be more expendable than other ships. Sure, you HOPED they would survive...but reality indicated otherwise.

A similar situation existed with the B-17 in 1943. We knew it was suicidal to send them in daylight without fighter cover, we did it anyway.

Your premise is flawed from the root.

44 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I take it you are familiar with Japanese personal accounts of Officers presented with that decision?  They were as dumbfounded and morally opposed to it as an ordered action as the US Officers would have been.  However, no soldier, sailor, marine, or aviator serves their country without the willingness to give up their life if need be.  The Japanese extended this to the Emperor as well as Japan itself, but it still remained true that kamikazes had to volunteer for that duty.  Those who did not wish to be trained for that duty were not.

 

 

Most Kamikaze pilots volunteered for FLIGHT DUTY, they did not realize that they were training to be Kamikazes until after it was too late to back out...as they were not told until much later in the process.

Again, your premise is flawed.

40 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Well, that's where, as with other units in the game, changes were made to facilitate the environment of the game.  CVs would never fight so close to land, nor would Battleships that weren't interrupted in shore support.  But the game is set up for close range, terrain-filled combat matches, and Subs need to be main combat capable.  Note that when I said 'main combat unit' in my post, I meant any naval unit intended for regular sea duty away from the home country, or 'blue water' units.

 

 

Again, flawed.

Sure, such ships aren't designed to ideally fight near land...but, at times, they did so (memorably HMS Warspite in 1940 and USS Washington in 1942).

I think you are conflating ship design and idealized intent with practical combat realities of attritional warfare.

Naval combat officers in the days of this game EXPECTED to lose men and ships. That was part of the way the navies fought.

This was even more so when discussing planes and subs. Losses were going to happen. The point was to make the losses worth the sacrifice.

35 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

None of that was a direct order from High Command, but a decision on the part of the pilot.  It was only during the later part of the war that the High Command decided to facilitate this when all other options seemed doomed.  Even Operation Ten-Go did not involve crews that did not volunteer to execute it (those who chose to leave the ships were allowed to do so).

Incorrect.

Direct orders establishing the squadrons were done in 1944...and airmen were drafted into these units without being informed of the task until serious consequences could be meted out for refusal...and the IJN and IJA were brutal to those who deviated from their norms.

Abandoning their ships and comrades would involve massive shame. Believing that there was a chance to opt out is to intentionally self deceive.

[Jakob Knight]

35 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Submariners suffered the highest casualty rate in the German military: 75%. 

 

That happened because, as happens, adaption and technology turned against the U-boats, who actually had a very successful track record until then.  When technology and tactics were applied to the Subs, the tables turned again, and we now have Submarines that are the ace card in every Navy today.

 

 

[Jakob Knight]

13 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This idea is not true at all.

Subs and surface raiders were designed to be more expendable than other ships. Sure, you HOPED they would survive...but reality indicated otherwise.

A similar situation existed with the B-17 in 1943. We knew it was suicidal to send them in daylight without fighter cover, we did it anyway.

Your premise is flawed from the root.

Most Kamikaze pilots volunteered for FLIGHT DUTY, they did not realize that they were training to be Kamikazes until after it was too late to back out...as they were not told until much later in the process.

Again, your premise is flawed.

Again, flawed.

Sure, such ships aren't designed to ideally fight near land...but, at times, they did so (memorably HMS Warspite in 1940 and USS Washington in 1942).

I think you are conflating ship design and idealized intent with practical combat realities of attritional warfare.

Naval combat officers in the days of this game EXPECTED to lose men and ships. That was part of the way the navies fought.

This was even more so when discussing planes and subs. Losses were going to happen. The point was to make the losses worth the sacrifice.

Incorrect.

Direct orders establishing the squadrons were done in 1944...and airmen were drafted into these units without being informed of the task until serious consequences could be meted out for refusal...and the IJN and IJA were brutal to those who deviated from their norms.

Abandoning their ships and comrades would involve massive shame. Believing that there was a chance to opt out is to intentionally self deceive.

 

Well, much of what you say contradicts what I have read on the subject, but as I am not more than a casual historian, I will admit my own sources of information may be insufficient in this case and will concede the matter of kamikazes on the assumption your background is better informed than mine.

 

However, on the matter of Submarines and Surface Raiders, I do know none of them were built to die.  They were built to give the greatest reliability and survivability their mission could afford, not as suicide units.  Only the Japanese kiten suicide Subs were so built, and they required a mother ship.  They were not intended as main Navy units but special operations units.

 

Edit:  as a point of example, every unit in the Kriegsmarine was designed as a surface raider.  The German Navy knew they were outgunned by the British Navy, and fully intended their ships to engage in raiding commerce.

Edited March 18 by Jakob Knight

[Wolfswetpaws]

39 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Submariners suffered the highest casualty rate in the German military: 75%. 

Late war, after detection equipment (ship sonar & radar, and aircraft radar) had been widely proliferated and ASW methods hand been refined and the ratio of ASW ships and planes and radio-direction-finding stations had increased in comparison to the number of German Submarines deployed at the same time.

Early war was called the "happy times" by the German Submarine forces.

Breaking the German codes helped the Allied efforts, too.

[Wolfswetpaws]

11 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This idea is not true at all.

Subs and surface raiders were designed to be more expendable than other ships. Sure, you HOPED they would survive...but reality indicated otherwise.

A similar situation existed with the B-17 in 1943. We knew it was suicidal to send them in daylight without fighter cover, we did it anyway.

Your premise is flawed from the root.

Most Kamikaze pilots volunteered for FLIGHT DUTY, they did not realize that they were training to be Kamikazes until after it was too late to back out...as they were not told until much later in the process.

Again, your premise is flawed.

Again, flawed.

Sure, such ships aren't designed to ideally fight near land...but, at times, they did so (memorably HMS Warspite in 1940 and USS Washington in 1942).

I think you are conflating ship design and idealized intent with practical combat realities of attritional warfare.

Naval combat officers in the days of this game EXPECTED to lose men and ships. That was part of the way the navies fought.

This was even more so when discussing planes and subs. Losses were going to happen. The point was to make the losses worth the sacrifice.

Incorrect.

Direct orders establishing the squadrons were done in 1944...and airmen were drafted into these units without being informed of the task until serious consequences could be meted out for refusal...and the IJN and IJA were brutal to those who deviated from their norms.

Abandoning their ships and comrades would involve massive shame. Believing that there was a chance to opt out is to intentionally self deceive.

I offer this book title as a reading suggestion.
 

Thunder Gods: The Kamikaze Pilots Tell Their Story

Hatsuho Naito, Mayumi Ichikawa

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2053438.Thunder_Gods

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Well, much of what you say contradicts what I have read on the subject, but as I am not more than a casual historian, I will admit my own sources of information may be insufficient in this case and will concede the matter of kamikazes on the assumption your background is better informed than mine.

 

However, on the matter of Submarines and Surface Raiders, I do know none of them were built to die.  They were built to give the greatest reliability and survivability their mission could afford, not as suicide units.  Only the Japanese kiten suicide Subs were so built, and they required a mother ship.  They were not intended as main Navy units but special operations units.

 

 

Surface raiders and subs were not the kaiten or x craft of the more specialized high risk operators.

They were, however, designed to be used in attritional warfare...perhaps not suicide, but losses WERE expected...and the way forward was to make MORE of these units to balance EXPECTED combat attrition.

Losing them was not viewed as negatively as losing other combat units.

In a similar way, CVEs were built with the understanding that some would be lost...and they were built cheaply because of that understanding.

Same with DEs and corvettes.

Edited March 18 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I offer this book title as a reading suggestion.
 

Thunder Gods: The Kamikaze Pilots Tell Their Story

Hatsuho Naito, Mayumi Ichikawa

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2053438.Thunder_Gods

Interviews with the USSBS post war are known to be problematic from a 'is this man telling the truth' standpoint.

Even today, the topic of the Kamikaze is controversial in Japan...much like the Lost Cause in the US, and the stab in the back in Germany...there is substantial hesitation from people in power to admit exactly what they were doing in those years of war...

...and a substantial amount of 'I wasn't duped' mentality by the victims.

Be careful reading immediate post war accounts.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Be careful reading immediate post war accounts.

196 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1982

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

8 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

196 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1982

Sources are from the interviews conducted by USSBS...

Not saying it's all rot.

Just saying to be careful.

People often don't want to share what actually happened, for a variety of good reasons including self preservation.

Edited March 18 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Admiral_Karasu]

43 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

That happened because, as happens, adaption and technology turned against the U-boats, who actually had a very successful track record until then.  When technology and tactics were applied to the Subs, the tables turned again, and we now have Submarines that are the ace card in every Navy today.

 

 

Are we talking about diesel powered submarines or nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines? Two very different kettles of fish, especially if we think about WW1 and WW2 era submarines in the context of WoWS.

36 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

The German Navy knew they were outgunned by the British Navy, and fully intended their ships to engage in raiding commerce.

See the problem when it comes to WoWS?

[Jakob Knight]

4 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Are we talking about diesel powered submarines or nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines? Two very different kettles of fish, especially if we think about WW1 and WW2 era submarines in the context of WoWS.

 

I was explaining how technology and tactics evolve to make what was once successful into something no longer successful, and pointing to that point of failure as proof the entire concept was a suicide project is ignoring the factors involved.  The modern submarine is proof that Submarines were not suicide units, just that their performance became so when they could not keep up with the changing situation of warfare.  Given the resources and advancements, they could have remained extremely survivable units, but neither was available by that time.

 

9 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

 

See the problem when it comes to WoWS?

 

 

That it took a surface raiding force like the German lines and made them fit into main combat situations in the game?  Would the players have accepted a game that didn't let them fight in their Bismark unless the opposing team was composed of only Destroyers and Freighters?

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

14 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I was explaining how technology and tactics evolve to make what was once successful into something no longer successful, and pointing to that point of failure as proof the entire concept was a suicide project is ignoring the factors involved.  The modern submarine is proof that Submarines were not suicide units, just that their performance became so when they could not keep up with the changing situation of warfare.  Given the resources and advancements, they could have remained extremely survivable units, but neither was available by that time.

 

What? They made the subs as good as they could with the technology available at that time. No way could they have built them to exceed those design limits, there was simply no time or resources to test radical new design concepts in war time. I agree, though, they weren't 'suicide units'. The risks were factored in their design and intended use. What happened depended on skill, foolhardiness and circumstances, sometimes on pure luck. The risks always grow exponentially if you try to exceed the design parameters.

 

Quote

That it took a surface raiding force like the German lines and made them fit into main combat situations in the game?  Would the players have accepted a game that didn't let them fight in their Bismark unless the opposing team was composed of only Destroyers and Freighters?

I think you missed the point.

[Jakob Knight]

16 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

What? They made the subs as good as they could with the technology available at that time. No way could they have built them to exceed those design limits, there was simply no time or resources to test radical new design concepts in war time. I agree, though, they weren't 'suicide units'. The risks were factored in their design and intended use. What happened depended on skill, foolhardiness and circumstances, sometimes on pure luck. The risks always grow exponentially if you try to exceed the design parameters.

 

 

And we can see in designs such as the 2501 and 4501 that they were looking at taking the next steps technologically.  But the evolution of sonar technology, convoy tactics, and air support came faster.  So what appeared to be suicide missions didn't start that way when the U-boats were designed.  That was what I was pointing out.

 

16 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

 

I think you missed the point.

 

 

I don't think so.  One of the arguments I keep seeing is that Submarines should be removed from general play and put in their own mode of battle because they were historically never intended to engage in main fleet battles ( ironically, the IJN did make fleet Submarines for this purpose, but to date, they have been very poorly represented by the I-56).  Well, the entire Kriegsmarine was similarly designed to avoid enemy forces and engage in commerce raiding.  Do we remove all German ships to the same mode for the same reason?

 

And, regardless, are German ships examples of ships designed with the expectation of acceptable losses and limited survivability?  Last I checked, turtleback armor isn't exactly a sign you don't care if your surface raiding force survives overmuch.

 

If I've missed the point, please elaborate.

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

5 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

And we can see in designs such as the 2501 and 4501 that they were looking at taking the next steps technologically.  But the evolution of sonar technology, convoy tactics, and air support came faster.  So what appeared to be suicide missions didn't start that way when the U-boats were designed.  That was what I was pointing out.

 

 

I don't think so.  One of the arguments I keep seeing is that Submarines should be removed from general play and put in their own mode of battle because they were historically never intended to engage in main fleet battles ( ironically, the IJN did make fleet Submarines for this purpose, but to date, they have been very poorly represented by the I-56).  Well, the entire Kriegsmarine was similarly designed to avoid enemy forces and engage in commerce raiding.  Do we remove all German ships to the same mode for the same reason?

 

And, regardless, are German ships examples of ships designed with the expectation of acceptable losses and limited survivability?  Last I checked, turtleback armor isn't exactly a sign you don't care if your surface raiding force survives overmuch.

 

If I've missed the point, please elaborate.

 

 

My point is that WG has taken what at best would be a very marginal use for submarines and blown it out of all proportion. An analogous example would be to make the BB's in WoWS capable of firing at land based targets primarily, and not so well at other ships... or making the CV's essentially plane ferries.

[Asym]

11 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

My point is that WG has taken what at best would be a very marginal use for submarines and blown it out of all proportion. An analogous example would be to make the BB's in WoWS capable of firing at land based targets primarily, and not so well at other ships... or making the CV's essentially plane ferries.

OK, I think most are missing the point:  WOWS is an arcade shooter being represented by historical ships that simply don't operate as they in during the world wars...  It's all make believe and it's not too logical to "assume" any intent of our host creating "realistic Pacific Naval Warfare..."

We are an arcade shooter with sort-of WW1 and WW2 ships that, and it is my belief, Alien Space Bats actually created this game, in a proboscis in cheek way, to drive WW purists bat arse crazy....  I hear then giggling in a bat way right now.

So, before we cause them to have a Bat Stroke, let's agree to disagree on this topic and spend some time wondering what's the next ASB deliverable that will cause history convulsions.....

[Jakob Knight]

17 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

My point is that WG has taken what at best would be a very marginal use for submarines and blown it out of all proportion. An analogous example would be to make the BB's in WoWS capable of firing at land based targets primarily, and not so well at other ships... or making the CV's essentially plane ferries.

 

Submarines accounted for quite a number of warship losses over the course of WWII, on both sides.  They were not taken as anything but valid threats by every warship, and it is not like other ships never intended for fleet action have not been adapted for that here.  Graf Spee comes to mind as just one example.

 

As to your analogues, I don't see what you are saying.  Battleships never lost their anti-ship punch (indeed, it was a primary consideration in their reactivation in the 1980s), and the only time CVs were aircraft ferries were when the first ones were deemed too obsolete to serve any other function due to new Carriers having took their place.

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, Asym said:

OK, I think most are missing the point:  WOWS is an arcade shooter being represented by historical ships that simply don't operate as they in during the world wars...  It's all make believe and it's not too logical to "assume" any intent of our host creating "realistic Pacific Naval Warfare..."

We are an arcade shooter with sort-of WW1 and WW2 ships that, and it is my belief, Alien Space Bats actually created this game, in a proboscis in cheek way, to drive WW purists bat arse crazy....  I hear then giggling in a bat way right now.

So, before we cause them to have a Bat Stroke, let's agree to disagree on this topic and spend some time wondering what's the next ASB deliverable that will cause history convulsions.....

Well, the historical argument is one thing but I think it was WG themselves who touted about historical this and historical that to begin with.

Another part of the argument is that this is a mess in terms of game play, and it's a mess entirely of WG's own making.

I'm beginning to suspect Scumsoft is behind this....

[Jakob Knight]

5 minutes ago, Asym said:

OK, I think most are missing the point:  WOWS is an arcade shooter being represented by historical ships that simply don't operate as they in during the world wars...  It's all make believe and it's not too logical to "assume" any intent of our host creating "realistic Pacific Naval Warfare..."

We are an arcade shooter with sort-of WW1 and WW2 ships that, and it is my belief, Alien Space Bats actually created this game, in a proboscis in cheek way, to drive WW purists bat arse crazy....  I hear then giggling in a bat way right now.

So, before we cause them to have a Bat Stroke, let's agree to disagree on this topic and spend some time wondering what's the next ASB deliverable that will cause history convulsions.....

 

Hmmm...maybe a return of the WOWS Vrs Flying Saucers event?

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

3 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Submarines accounted for quite a number of warship losses over the course of WWII, on both sides.  They were not taken as anything but valid threats by every warship, and it is not like other ships never intended for fleet action have not been adapted for that here.  Graf Spee comes to mind as just one example.

 

As to your analogues, I don't see what you are saying.  Battleships never lost their anti-ship punch (indeed, it was a primary consideration in their reactivation in the 1980s), and the only time CVs were aircraft ferries were when the first ones were deemed too obsolete to serve any other function due to new Carriers having took their place.

 

 

Well, here's a Wikipedia list. Yes, there are warships there, but if we go down that path, we'd have to start looking at the circumstances each one of them got sunk in.

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

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

....the only time CVs were aircraft ferries were when the first ones were deemed too obsolete to serve any other function due to new Carriers having took their place.

Nope.

[Asym]

8 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Hmmm...maybe a return of the WOWS Vrs Flying Saucers event?

Oh GoD, Oh good GoD, ANYTHING, please, ANYTHING "new"   I suspect there's be some serious medical issues if our host "did something new and exciting" sometime this year......

I'd love to see a PT/E-Boat mode where you would have to intercept and destroy a guarded convoy in the narrow Island chains and get away with whatever you could ! 

Or..........gosh.........a new campaign designed for us long time players that "Forced us" to play all modes and all of the ship types well....  Or.............anything new.

Edited March 18 by Asym

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, Asym said:

Oh GoD, Oh good GoD, ANYTHING, please, ANYTHING "new"   I suspect there's be some serious medical issues if our host "did something new and exciting" sometime this year......

I'd love to see a PT/E-Boat mode where you would have to intercept and destroy a guarded convoy in the narrow Island chains and get away with whatever you could ! 

Or..........gosh.........a new campaign designed for us long time players that "Forced us" to play all modes and all of the ship types well....  Or.............anything new.

Perhaps they are working on new content, new premium ships freshly cloned from existing ones, or maybe even a new Premium Shop interface?

[Jakob Knight]

23 minutes ago, Asym said:

Oh GoD, Oh good GoD, ANYTHING, please, ANYTHING "new"   I suspect there's be some serious medical issues if our host "did something new and exciting" sometime this year......

I'd love to see a PT/E-Boat mode where you would have to intercept and destroy a guarded convoy in the narrow Island chains and get away with whatever you could ! 

Or..........gosh.........a new campaign designed for us long time players that "Forced us" to play all modes and all of the ship types well....  Or.............anything new.

 

April 1st in two weeks.  

 

Brace for impact, my friend.