Member
Senior Member
BORINGOriginally posted by mickalos:
To me, it's the most boring phase of any war in modern military history that I know of.!!! Read some books about the silent servse in the Pacific. Then youl change your mind. Read Run Silent Run Deep by Edward L. Beach, he was a WW2 sub skipper in the pacfic so u know its acurate.I cant beleave u said its boring.
Member
Senior Member
A question, how often did more than one u-boat attack a convoy simultaneously? I was under the impression that the wolfpacks were pickets who would attack a convoy one after the other once they found one (hence the contact reports we get now). Recall that the boats could not move fast enough to get into one big formation of 9 boats who would attack the same moment.
I actually think that, except for the old technology WWI sub comabt would be boring as it was pretty much a barrel shoot until the convoys were intorduced...like the Pacific. There is a reason that I always liked surface or carrier scenarios against the IJN which could be a tough opponent. IJN ASW was dismal though.
Member
If on the Pacific I will want not only the allies but also the japanese subs, some of the where really big, plus a conection with SH3 (merge install) to expand the operations.
If on the Atlantic, UK, and Italy submarines will be great, plus some german U-boat bonus like the XXIII.
On both cases, lots of new ships and warships will be apreciated.
Senior Member
The Pacific Theatre has very limited appeal to me, but I suspect there are many people like our friend Wilhelm here who would pay for that. I like the sound of a WW1 subsim, especially if it could be a 3rd-party mod just requiring new ship models and subs - ah, now it sounds like a lot of work...
I'd hate to say goodbye to the TDC though. You'd get a lieutenant with a set of slide rules to obtain the firing solution instead!
Senior Member
Though U may think that Jap ASW was "dismal", first reports of Jap sonar was much better then expected. And the IJN had help from the German Kregsmarine. Hell they know first hand what works and what dosent. And the Japanese optical industry was I hate to say it, Better then the U.S, therefore they could see beter at night. Tho the SD RADAR did evean the odds, they could see beter at night, we didint have to due to RADAR. I dont know wether the Japanese had RADAR tho. U.S sub losses resembeld (corect me if Im wrong) what the U-Boats expernced in late 40 early 41. So Id call it evean in ASW.Originally posted by joeap:
IJN ASW was dismal though.
Member
Oh B.S. .... I will AGREE that MOST Americans dont even consider history PERIOD (thanks to our fine public education system).Originally posted by Abihco:
The real limiting factor, as I see it, is that most Americans don't bother reading about or considering the war from more than the American perspective.
But I DISAGREE that Americans that DO study WWII history (and other war history) DO consider more than just "our side".
Look at all the Scale modelers in America...I know every one of them in my local club does extensive research when building a model. Be it Japaneese, German, Italian, British....
Heck, I started building that Revell Type VII Uboat...so I bought several books on Uboats. That also lead me to buy "10 years and 20 days"..a book written by Adm. Donitz. I have also read his actual war logs (the ones that have been translated to english anyway).
There are quite a few American gorgnards that know more about WWII history then a lot of West Point (the US Army Military college) grads do.
Member
In reading Adm. Dontiz's book (see above post)... He did use Wolfpack tactics when he could. And when a wolfpack COULD intercept a convoy is was usually devistating. BUT there were some major issues that kept Adm. Dontiz from using Wolfpacks to any great success..Originally posted by joeap:
A question, how often did more than one u-boat attack a convoy simultaneously? I was under the impression that the wolfpacks were pickets who would attack a convoy one after the other once they found one (hence the contact reports we get now). Recall that the boats could not move fast enough to get into one big formation of 9 boats who would attack the same moment.
I actually think that, except for the old technology WWI sub comabt would be boring as it was pretty much a barrel shoot until the convoys were intorduced...like the Pacific. There is a reason that I always liked surface or carrier scenarios against the IJN which could be a tough opponent. IJN ASW was dismal though.
1) Very little support from Gen. Goering for Air Recon. In fact in 1941 (after Hitler gave Dontiz a airwing) there was one month that dontiz had a whopping 2 (yes 2) sorties (patrols). This was due to the aircraft they were using being grounded to to problems.
2) When there was air patrols... there was a problem with navigational error. Pilot convoy/enemey reports were sometimes 80km or MORE in error due to wind drift, compass error.
3) Air Patrols were limited in distance. They could fly up to N. Ireland...but only have a short time until they had to return due to fuel.
4) Weather in N. Atlantic lead to frequent storms/low cloud cover.... so a lot of air patrols concentrated around the west of Spain. They had some success there...but the BIG targets were up in the N. Atlantic.
So...without good air patrols Dontiz was forced to use the picket line tactic. Basically, in Dontiz's own words "The lion was forced to wait for its prey in the underbrush. With his mouth open wide, hoping the prey would jump in".
Dontiz also had the problem of not having the 300+ Uboats he needed (100 at sea, 100 going out or returning, 100 in repair/drydock) to effecitvely gather the Uboats into a Wolfpack.
Yes he could vector the Picketing uboats into a target... but the idea of the Wolfpack was to hit the enemy fast and hard.. all at once.
With the picket line strategy it was mostly one uboat shadows the convoy and uses a marker beacon to bring the others in to attack. More times than not either the Uboat would have to attack before a significant numbers of other uboats arrived, or loose contact with convoy. Then it was more of a hit and run tactic, then the next Uboat came in and hit and run, repeat...
Senior Member
Up until May 1943 U-boats sank 10.7 ships for each U-boat lost. After May 1943 more U-Boats were sunk than ships sunk by U-Boats. .87 ships lost for every U-Boat sunk. I would call that dramatic by comparison.
In the 1944 in the Pacific, the US Suds annihilated the Japanese surface ships, the sub program was cut back for lack of targets and subs began to be assigned other task such as search and rescue for downed allied pilots (Like President GH Bush was so rescued)
While Japanese ASW was not terrible and they had German help in ASW that is as relevant as saying the US had a missile program to rival the Germans because we had British help. Yes I have read extensively but Run Silent Run deep is one man’s good account. Try reading Silent Victory for a broader more relevant account on the whole thing. You will find it anticlimactic from the end of 43 on. Just some good ole running up the score. The tough times were past for the Yanks, the Germans were in hell by comparison.
Believe what you want but documentation backs my premise.
Wulfmann
