Unit Question: Can Subs attack Subs?

[Edwin P.]

In SC2 can Submarines attack Submarines?

[Exel]

How much sub vs. sub action was there actually in reality?

[melb_will]

'actually in reality?'

[Shaka of Carthage]

Exel,

I'm not aware of any sub vs sub combats.

Even subs versus combat surface ships was very unlikely. Only the Japanese used thier submarines this way and its been critized by almost everyone.

Off the top of my head, I believe the Japanese record was something like two (2) DD type ships sunk and one (1) or two (2) larger ships damaged.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka,

As I'm sure you know the Japanese didn't have sonar, so U. S. subs sank their warships as targets of opportunity.

In 1945 two U. S. subs, Dace and Darter I believe were their names, sighted the largest of the three Japanese surface fleets, containing both the Yamato and Mushashi, leaving the Indies for the Leyte Gulf operation. After reporting this the two subs proceeded to sink two Japanese cruisers and a third that fell behind the fleet. The Japanese DDs dropping charges did no damage at all and the only close call was when one of the sinking cruisers nearly came down on the second submarine.

A short time later one of the subs went aground on a coral reef. It was undamaged but marooned. When Japanese aircraft straffed the exposed vessel and failed to inflict damage it's commander suggested the crews of both subs convert into a barracks and remain for the rest of the war as it was probably the safest place in the Pacific. Instead the shipwrecked crew doubled up on their sister ship and all hands reached port safely.

In other actions, a Japanese sub finished off the American CV Yorktown after it was hit by aircraft at midway. An American sub sank a converted BB, it would have been the third sister ship of the 65,000 ton 9x18" gun Yamato class BB. Incredibly it went down with a single torpedo hit -- no one knows why exactly. It's two sister ships required dozens of such torpedo and bomb hits before finally going down.

The most famous Pacific sinking by a sub was of the Amreican heavy cruiser that delivered one of the A-bombs. I believe the ship was the Minneapolis (or Indianapolis) sorry, I'm not certain which vessel it was.

In the Mediteranean the large WWI era BB Barham was sunk by a U-boat near Tobruk and one of the opening actions was a daring foray into Scapa flow itself, sinking another WWI era British BB.

The Italians sent a midget sub into Alexandria where frogmen set plastique charges and blew the bottoms out of two Queen Elizabeth class BBs (9x16" guns). Fortunately for the British, the ships appeared to still be afloat from the Italian embassy (Egypt, technically, was a neutral nation!) and the Italians thought the raid had been a failure.

-- Regarding the original point, I don't think any WWII era subs sank any of their counterparts.

An important thing to remember, though, is they weren't really submarines, only diving boats. The distinction being that a submarine is designed to spend all it's time below the surface. Diving boats go under only when necessary and for short periods of time. Throughout the war subs usually attacked either near the surface or on the surface itself. At night they were nvisible to escort vessels unless silougheted against a full moon, or a burning tanker.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn, Great history lesson.

Perhaps if subs can't attack other subs in SC2 they should be allowed to pass through, but not stop in tiles occupied by submarine units of an opposing side. Just another crazy idea.

I brought this up as once in SC1 I controlled the US and purchased subs to sink the approaching German fleet. My opponent used subs as an invulnerable screen to spot my subs since they would not receive any damage in a surprise encounter with my submarines. I did not realize this until I tried to attack them with my 3 submarine fleets.

[SeaMonkey]

JJ is completely correct, WW2 subs were little more than low silhouette boats that could submerge for short periods, easily spotted by aircraft.

As far as sub vs sub combat...it actually happened but mostly by accident, and should be allowed in SC2. By 1944 US subs had sunk a total of 7 IJN subs, in fact the first warship sunk by a US sub was the IJN I-173.....Jan. 27, 1942.

And yes JJ, it was the Indianapolis. That was the one with the massive shark attack, when the sailors were in the water for something like 4 days.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Look at the numbers that are cited above.

Then explain why submarines should be able to sink surface ships or other submarines in SC2.

Exceptions should not dictate the norm.

JJ, nope, didn't know that Japanese submarines did not have sonar. I do know that they had the best torpedoes when the war started and in general also misused submarines as supply ships, since they were the only ships the Japanese had that could get resupply isolated island garrisons.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Appreciated, it's an interesting topic.

SeaMonkey

You surprised me with that info, I had no idea it would have occurred so often! During the First World War the British often ran submarines of their own behind merchant men hoping to catch a U-boat poised to use it's deck gun. I'm not sure whether any WWI U-boats were sunk in that manner, but it makes a fair amount of sense.

Shaka

Yes, the long lance Japanese torpedo was probably the best of the war.

Both American and German torpedos had detonation problems and all too often thudded harmlessly off a ship's hull. This happened with a German strike against HMS Rodney early in the war, one of Britain's heaviest battleships along with it's sistership, Nelson. The Rodney's crew watched as several wakes approached it broadside and a moment later they heard a few thumps and no explosions! There's little doubt that if those weapons had detonated the BB would have gone to the bottom.

The long lance, aside from having a longer range than American torpedoes, also had much greater sinking power. I believe it was the night battle at Savo Island where several American cruisers and destroyers were struck and sunk before they'd even sighted the Japanese vessels they were going against.

Japan, at the start of the war had neither radar nor sonar. This wasn't too serious an issue the first year, but became a fatal handicap when the United States began routinely employing high quality gunnery radar, against which the Japanese had no adequate countermeasure. Despite this, the Imperial Navy was noted for it's ability to fire accurately in darkness. Needless to say this could not be done at anything approaching the range gunnery radar provided.

Starting around 1943 large Japanese subs would go to Germany round South Africa carrying rubber or other raw materials and would return with radar sets or jet enjines to be reverse engineered by their own scientists.

I like the point you've made about the Japanese using their subs to carry supplies or attack war ships instead of being used against merchant shipping. I agree. What truly baffles me is that the Japanese planners took places like Wake Island (really a coral atoll) without a follow up plan of supplying it! Not only did they waste their subs on these assignments, but the subs themselves were woefully inadequate to supply those places.

The only Japanese strategic plan, assuming they could have pulled it off, was to actually land on and seize the Hawaiian Islands. The Phillipines could have been ignored! Without Hawaii they were untenable -- actually, they were untenable even with Hawaii till the Mariannas and Solomans were taken to provide logisital support and land based air craft protecting the islands southern approaches.

The Japanese considered such an operation but decided against it on the basis that seizing Hawaii would push the United States into an uncompromising stance. So they bombed it, accomplishing exactly the same thing but without the benefits that would have been theirs in actually taking the islands (deprive the U. S. of a sub base and naval base while giving themselves the means to send subs to harry the U. S. West coast).

Getting back to the game question, I like the idea of having sub vs sub in the game, but considering the pieces represent groups as opposed to individual ships, it's hard to see how it can be accurately represented.

[JerseyJohn]

I found some websites that have interesting material on the topics we're discussing here (searched -- Japanese Sonar Development)

<Hydrophones, Sonar, and Other Detection Devices in WWII>

<Submarine War in the pacific>

Interestingly, Japan had some radar and sonar technology at the start of the war, but neglected it's development and deployment till it was too late to save the situation. Even in 1944 the electronics sets were not distributed widely enough for effective use.

Additionally, the Imperial Navy was indifferent to the protection of it's merchant marine arm and often allowed convoys to move about unprotected where DDs were based, either sitting idle or being used for purposes other than convoy support.

[SeaMonkey]

Okay all, this is my reasoning: If a device has the ability to accomplish some action/deed then it should be allowed the possibility of that use. Makes no difference of the historical frequency, remember SC2 is a "what if" also.

Besides, let's examine the historical frequency. I reiterate what has been posted so far. How many CVs, BBs, CA/CLs, DDs, SSs, were sunk by WW2 submarines, taken the individual classes. Examine other weapons platforms' engagement frequency versus naval units. In SC1 ground units can engage naval units in port. How often did that happen? How many BBs/CAs/DDs sunk Carriers, should they be disallowed the ability?

Look, combat on the high seas was pretty chancy at best in the context of WW2 technology. Remember I have always been a proponent of the possibility of two belligerents missing the opportunity of engagement when occupying/traveling through a SC sea hex/tile.

Really now, is this such a far fetched notion that Subs should be allowed the ability to engage each other?