Ah,my beautiful submarines.

[Wolfbat Borgia]

What can be done?

How many submarines is represented in an in-game sub-flotilla? -I thought it was 3 subs...

Did the usual submarines/"normal" types operate together with other ships in Squadrons, Fleets, Groups or whatever in WW2? -I haven't heared about it...

Forget about the Japanese Submarine Cruisers. They are not really represented as they where in WW2 tactically in-game (HoI2/DD).

I think this should be done:

1. It should NOT be possible to group them in uber-fleets. 6 - 8 "flotillas" per Group.
2. When attacked, they should imediately retreat, dive or whatever! (This is what they DID in reality...)
3. It should NOT be possible to group them together with other ship types IMO
4. Maybe subs should be harder to spot during night time AND day time?
5. It should be possible for a sub "flotilla" to concentrate attack on 1 ship of the attacking enemy. The flotilla automatically choose a ship of the enemy fleet, representing the possibility to sink large ships in battle.

EDIT.
6. Because the subs should "hit and run" they should not engage in long battles with sub-hunter fleets etc. This reflecting number 2 and 5 above.
.

 

[unmerged(58886)]

EDIT: It's worth noting that 16 Convoys (or 15 Escorts) costs the same number of IC-days to build as one Submarine flotilla. If you can sink at least 17 Convoys for each Submarine flotilla that you lose, then you are inflicting more IC-damage than you are suffering.

If we include the Light Cruiser, my score in the first month of the war was more than enough to pay the full construction costs of half of my Submarine fleet... 12 of the 24 flotillas. If I can do as well in October, then even if I lose all 24 Submarine flotillas on the first day of November, they will have inflicted more than their own IC-cost in damage.
__________________

Please keep us updated if this worked out

To prevent further confusion: 17 Convoys is like 1,7 times building a convoy "unit" = 17 ships. Correct?

 

[Blackthorne]

My two biggest problems with subs are that the game does not model foodstuffs very well (the real threat the U-boats always posed to the UK) and that the game does not model the fact that for something like the first two years of the war, Germany had massive problems with torpedoes - something the US would also face until 1943. For one thing, that attack on Royal Oak was absolutely lucky, considering nearly all of Prien's torpedoes didn't work

 

[unmerged(52775)]

Since the last patch (v1.2), I've sunk three CVs with Submarines.

Does it happen in-game often? No.

Did it happen often in real life? No.

During the Second World War, about 2100 Submarines were built by the warring nations. How many CVs were sunk by Subs? Nine. One for each 45 flotillas built, if we go with five Subs per flotilla.

I think the better question would be? How many CVs were sunk overall during the war. And what % of those sunk were sunk by subs? The answers to those two questions would give a better indication of how effective subs were against CVs. The same two would also work for any class of warship.

Of course the sinkings of Japanese carriers toward the end of the war would have to be taken into account. The fact that their pilots were so lacking in experience by 1944 would have to be wieghed.

But the reality is that the circumstances surrounding each sinking are probably semi- unique to that paticular sinking. Age of capitol ship, protection of said ship (screens), air cover and so forth. I think that you'll find that over all, considering that subs of the era were NOT designed to take on warships as their main function. They did rather well in that area when the total sinkings in warship tonnage is looked at. More success in the early years, and less as ASW technology became more advanced. JMHO

Nial

 

[Bullfrog]

I'd say most submarine victories over capital ships were more of a "finishing off" than a direct confrontation. First of all, the sub had to surprise a capital ship and be in short enough range to fire accurately. If ever a surface ship knew a sub was in the area it would have the speed to either overtake the sub and depth charge it or escape. Most sinkings of carriers were when the damaged carrier had been spotted limping away from battle and subs were vectored in to take it out.

 

[unmerged(52775)]

Agreed, but that statement could be said about most capitol ship sinkings during the war (remember? I said -most- ) Frequently it took the combined effort of several different attacks to bring down a carrier or battleship that was actively defending itself, and under steam. (( Sans suprise attacks, eg. Pearl Harbor )) For example, does that mean the third wave of planes was less responsible for a sinking then the first? Now, having said all that? *chuckle* Of course planes would and did become the most effecient ship killers during the war. But that is a reflection of the difference in roles that were envisioned by the designers of the time. Subs. were not designed to hunt capitol/ warships in WW2. But if in the right place at the right time, with a bold skipper? They could surely do the job. JMHO

Nial

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Nowone realy used subs for atacking warships during WW2(Ok Japs but shortly)
Germans at the beggining of war showed that one sub with skillful comander could make a chaos in Scapa Flow,but that was all.Japan subs later finished one USA Carrier after Midway,and the rest of war orders fo all subs in the world were:1 Convoy raiding, and 2,suply of island garrisons(Japan).

But where is what if in this game? Can this game give us possibility to use them otherway,for atacking?

Do not forget that from the Electrobote class (Germany 1944/45)subs become realy long-diving and dangerous weapon,vith sub-surface emergency speed matching many capital ships on short(combat) distances.

Concept of fighting submarines never ended.USSR Acula atack submarines are example,a pure predators .

Actualy, exclusive anti-merchant role of submarines died at the end of ww2.Afterwar subs are of two classes:Nuclear strategic,and atack submarines(and light subs for commando ops.).

Acording to Doomsday,advanced(level 6)subs were just improved convoy raiders.I think no.And allso acording to Doomsday ASW activity become to powerfull that subs were about to extinct as a weapon soon.
Neither of this is truth.From electrobote onwards subs become dangerous for every ship.
And subs didind extinct,they flourished,becoming more and more powerfull.
They are valid veapon even today with such electronics.

To understand my opinion,it i useful to look on period 1939-1945 as a adolescent period of submarines.At the beggining of ww2 they stroke powerfuly.In the middle of war their were in chrisis.At the end of the war they were mature(German sub. tehnology)and ready to step again into battle.Becouse of end of war this never happend..
But game allowses for GER to survive.Anfotunately sub desteny is allwys the same,oblivion.All players after 1945(GER) are buliding Carriers,becouse evolution of subs is so poor in game.A tehnological step between long range subs of level 4 to electrobote 5 is marked by small step in Doomsday.Real evolution between those tipes was enormous.

In Doomsday,everything linked to subs is so underestimated, so linear,allmost borring,and desperate for subs..

 

[unmerged(60207)]

This is what could be done (with alot of programming ofcourse;-)

The order list for subs should be increased:

1. Convoy raiding: this means flee from warships, when spotted. With the chance of being destroyed increased by the number of sub detecting ships.

2. Warship hunt: Subs hunt for (Large) warships and get a change to hit/destroy a ship with one torpedo. Chances decrease if there are alot of Destroyers.

note: for UK you could make a naval doctrine where ships would zig zag to decrease the chace of being hit by a torpedo (historic doctrine!)
Also with newer ships being researched the chance of getting a fatal hit is decreased because of better armor these ships would have.

3. Pirate: Subs will attack all shipping in a sea area, also ships of neutral countries (this wil inflict damage to your standing with other countries, but wil greatly inflict damage to the country your in war with.

Just a few idea's to make subs better.
You guys got better idea's?

 

[Evie HJ]

Nowone realy used subs for atacking warships during WW2(Ok Japs but shortly)

Strange, then, that submarines sank more big ships (BB, BC, CV, CVE, CA, CL) than any other weapons, including the vaulted carrier planes (and the debilitatedly overpowered land-based naval bombers), in World War II.

The Germans (Barham, Royal Oak, several british ships in the Med) ; the Americans (a massive chunk of the Imperial Japanesse Fleet) and the Japanesse (Wasp, finishing off Yorktown, the heavy cruiser Indianapolis a few days too late, keeping Saratoga out of action for practically all of 1942...) all used their submarines against warships as well as shipping.

 

[blue emu]

To prevent further confusion: 17 Convoys is like 1,7 times building a convoy "unit" = 17 ships. Correct?

Correct... if you can sink 1.7 convoy "units" for each Submarine lost, you are inflicting more IC damage than you are investing in the Submarines.

Please keep us updated if this worked out

October 12th, 1939... less than six weeks into the war:

Six of my Subs vs a 22-unit British stack = a 6,570 IC-day sinking... that just paid for my entire Submarine fleet, plus a profit.

I'm being viciously counter-attacked after that, though... my first Sub losses coming right up... not that it matters, even if I lose all six, I'm left way, way ahead of the game.

EDIT: October 13th, 1939... the very next day:

Any questions?

EDIT #2: The battle in the Channel has run it's course.

My losses: four of the six Submarine Flotillas engaged. Total IC-day cost = 2,064 IC-days, including the estimated cost of repairing the two survivors.

British losses: one BB-III, one BB-II, one CA-III. Total IC-day cost = 14,270 IC-days, NOT including their repair cost for damaged units.

... a seven-to-one profit margin... and the war is still less than six weeks old.

 

[blue emu]

Please keep us updated if this worked out

The second month of the war is now complete.

To clarify, I am running DD v1.2 on Normal/Aggressive, with absolutely no changes to the Sub units or Doctrines. I did not switch Doctrine paths from Sealanes Interdiction (so no buggy super-positioning bonus exploits), nor did I Tech-Rush either Doctrines or Submarines.

I sold off all of my pre-war Subs, and started the war at the "Danzig or War" event with 24 1938-model U-Boat flotillas, grouped in four fleets of six Sub Flotillas each... all under "Sea Wolf" leaders. Only the starting pre-war Naval Doctrines researched, plus "Indirect Approach -1939" (which does not affect Submarines at all). No Naval Bombers. No Air cover. No surface raiders.

My results so far:

September:

Started with 24 Sub flotillas. Built none. Lost none (plus 37 points of damage). Finished with 24 Sub flotillas, six under repair.

Sinkings: 167 Convoys, 6 Escorts, one CL-4 (La Galissonniere)
Losses: none.

My total IC/MP-investment: 11,627 ICs (including construction and repair costs). 12.2 Manpower.

Total IC-damage to enemy: 6,522 ICs (not including repair costs). 18.2 Manpower.

October:

Started with 24 Sub flotillas. Built 6. Lost 5 (plus 40 points of damage). Finished with 25 Sub flotillas, one under repair, six gaining ORG.

Sinkings: 26 Convoys, 5 Escorts, one BB-3 (Rodney), one BB-2 (Royal Sovereign), one CA-3 (Middlesex)
Losses: 5 Sub flotillas.

My total IC/MP-investment: 14,622 ICs (including construction and repair costs). 15.3 Manpower.

Total IC-damage to enemy: 20,792 ICs (not including repair costs). 23.2 Manpower.

... so far, my entire Submarine fleet is paid for in sinkings alone, and (considering that most of my U-Boats are still in the game) I'm attritioning the British by about 8-to-1 in both IC-costs and Manpower.

Note that I have included my own construction and repair costs in the balance sheet, but omitted the British construction and repair costs.

My actual losses (including repairs and reinforcements) are only 2,622 ICs and 3.3 Manpower, compared to the British 20,792 ICs and 23.2 Manpower.

Are you sure that Subs are worthless?

 

[Evie HJ]

In view of that sort of result, I withdraw any complaints I may have had regarding submarines and warships.

This is more or less what one would call realistic.

 

[blue emu]

I will admit that sinking two BBs in 48 hours was a rather lucky result... one BB sunk per year would be about the historical rate.

Still... it shows that with some luck and sensible tactics, Subs are not quite useless against warships.

That battle, by the way, was perfectly fair... 22 British ships, properly screened (10 Capital Ships, 12 Screens) and led by an Admiral (no Over-Command-Limit penalty)... ambushed at night by six of my Sub flotillas under a skill-4 Sea Wolf.

I only started this current game after this thread caught my attention... usually as Germany I switch to Base Strike, but I decided this time to stay with Sealanes Interdiction and just see how worthless Submarines really are.

I have been playing as historically as possible... no Tech Rushing or Doctrine Rushing, no extravagant Submarine build programs, no cooperation from the Luftwaffe or surface fleets, all Subs deployed in groups of six under Sea Wolves, and always set to Convoy Raiding (at Night), not to Naval Interdiction.

 

[Evie HJ]

I will admit that sinking two BBs in 48 hours was a rather lucky result... one BB sunk per year would be about the historical rate.

Still... it shows that with some luck and sensible tactics, Subs are not quite useless against warships.

That battle, by the way, was perfectly fair... 22 British ships, properly screened (10 Capital Ships, 12 Screens) and led by an Admiral (no Over-Command-Limit penalty)... ambushed at night by six of my Sub flotillas under a skill-4 Sea Wolf.

I was under the impression the command limits went 6 (R. Adm), 12 (V. Adm), 18 (Adm), 30 (F. Adm)?

 

[blue emu]

I was under the impression the command limits went 6 (R. Adm), 12 (V. Adm), 18 (Adm), 30 (F. Adm)?

Ah, yes, my mistake... he must have been a Grand Admiral, then... because I cursored-over each of the British units to check on the combat modifiers, and none of them had the -25% OCL penalty.

They all suffered from Night penalties of various sizes (depending on ship-type... -80% for the single CV, much less for the surface ships), while my Subs got a +20% Night combat bonus instead.

Another factor that may have helped was my German slider-moves... I make the 1936 and 1937 moves towards Central Planning, and the 1938 and 1939 moves towards Standing Army. That gives my new builds a total of +15% Manpower Experience, which is worth a +7.5% modifier in combat.

 

[Murkk]

The problem with subs and germany is that they don't actually do anything. You can't actually get naval supremcy with them... you'll have to use nav bombers for that. They won't sink enough convoys to hurt the british or even make them produce more. And outside the english channel you end up facing all sorts of stupid small naval groups like 3 destroyers and a CL that will rip you apart.

It's just not worth the doctrine research or tech advances. You give up too much to get it. Germany doesn't do well nickel and diming the allies. History has taught that even an slaughter with small gains is not worth a narrow victory that gives you something of value.

But hey, if you're having fun with them that's what matters.

As for historical value of subs... not even close. Convoy raiding should be far greater in effectiveness but convoy escorts should destroy subs. Once the allies started escorting conveys with destroyers, it became a nightmare for the axis. The subs were still effective in destroying convoys, but it was a huge problem making enough subs with effective crew to replace the losses.

 

[Bullfrog]

My total IC/MP-investment: 11,627 ICs (including construction and repair costs). 12.2 Manpower.

Total IC-damage to enemy: 6,522 ICs (not including repair costs). 18.2 Manpower.

October:

Started with 24 Sub flotillas. Built 6. Lost 5 (plus 40 points of damage). Finished with 25 Sub flotillas, one under repair, six gaining ORG.

Sinkings: 26 Convoys, 5 Escorts, one BB-3 (Rodney), one BB-2 (Royal Sovereign), one CA-3 (Middlesex)
Losses: 5 Sub flotillas.

My total IC/MP-investment: 14,622 ICs (including construction and repair costs). 15.3 Manpower.

Total IC-damage to enemy: 20,792 ICs (not including repair costs). 23.2 Manpower.

... so far, my entire Submarine fleet is paid for in sinkings alone, and (considering that most of my U-Boats are still in the game) I'm attritioning the British by about 8-to-1 in both IC-costs and Manpower.

Note that I have included my own construction and repair costs in the balance sheet, but omitted the British construction and repair costs.

My actual losses (including repairs and reinforcements) are only 2,622 ICs and 3.3 Manpower, compared to the British 20,792 ICs and 23.2 Manpower.

Are you sure that Subs are worthless?

You have to keep this up for years to make it worthwhile....remember that the UK STARTED with 1000+ convoys and all the ships you sunk, so really all the IC they have lost are the IC they put into maintaining those units via supplies. If you keep up the pressure for a long time then it will make some difference in the IC the UK AI has invested in convoys, ships and so on. If so however, realize that superior ASW doctrines will eventually make your subs a horrible investment as long as you keep building and researching them.

 

[Gormadoc]

You have to keep this up for years to make it worthwhile....remember that the UK STARTED with 1000+ convoys and all the ships you sunk, so really all the IC they have lost are the IC they put into maintaining those units via supplies. If you keep up the pressure for a long time then it will make some difference in the IC the UK AI has invested in convoys, ships and so on. If so however, realize that superior ASW doctrines will eventually make your subs a horrible investment as long as you keep building and researching them.

Well if it was possible to strangle UK in a few months with 24 sub flotillias, what would be the challenge? Its bad enough that it is so easy to invade the UK.

3 cap in one month on top of convoys, is a quite good result if you ask me.

 

[Bullfrog]

Well if it was possible to strangle UK in a few months with 24 sub flotillias, what would be the challenge? Its bad enough that it is so easy to invade the UK.

3 cap in one month on top of convoys, is a quite good result if you ask me.

That's not what I am talking about in the least. Thanks for trying though. I am trying to say that subs are a useless investment OVER TIME. I care nothing for starving the UK because it is not worth the IC, MP, time or effort when you can just land in Portsmouth with no resistance. IF, however, subs were at least able to maintain an edge over surface fleets hunting them down then they would be more of a viable option. My post was an arguement that Blue Emu could not keep his miraculous sub vs. convoys and capital ship record forever, and in the end it would cost him more than it gained.

 

[blue emu]

...remember that the UK STARTED with 1000+ convoys...

So I've sunk about 20% of the British Convoys in eight weeks.

If I can keep that up for just eight more months (... and I don't really expect to) the British would be entirely out of Convoys... unless they start side-tracking production into replacing them.

... so really all the IC they have lost are the IC they put into maintaining those units via supplies.

... plus the ICs and Manpower that they've spent repairing the units that I've damaged. This assumes that they are NOT re-building any of those 200 Convoy losses... if they are trying to replace them, that IC and Manpower also counts.

EDIT: Also... I can't help feeling that your argument contains a logical fallacy. According to your method of keeping score, I would be much better off by sinking one Cruiser that they just now built (since those ICs would count, by your method of scoring) than sinking all of their starting CVs and BBs (since those ICs wouldn't count, by your method of keeping score).

You'll pardon me if I don't find that "logic" very compelling...

If you keep up the pressure for a long time then it will make some difference in the IC the UK AI has invested in convoys...

Indeed it will... in a previous "Russia First" Germany game, while I was waiting for the Bitter Peace to fire, I re-loaded as the British to check on the progress of the U-Boat war... their Unit Build Queue contained NOTHING except Convoys, Escorts and NAVs.

In effect, I had reduced them to just scrambling to keep themselves afloat... they were unable to even spare the ICs needed to build a few defensive units to oppose my coming invasion.

If so however, realize that superior ASW doctrines will eventually make your subs a horrible investment as long as you keep building and researching them.

Of course... assuming that Britain still exists in 1942 or 43.

EDIT: One point that I should clarify... I did not start this current game in order to prove that U-Boats can win the war all by themselves. If that had been my intention, I would certainly have built more than just 24 flotillas, and would probably have Tech-Rushed the Doctrines (they are only 1940 dates, after all).

Starting with 60 U-Boat flotillas is perfectly possible without compromising the build-up for Poland and France. Starting with 90 flotillas is also within reach, if I am willing to run the initial land campaigns on a shoe-string.

My goal in this game was to play rather historically... avoiding an early Sealion, trying to tie up the British with a minimal investment in the U-Boat arm, while building up large forces to take out Russia first... then return to deal with Perfidious Albion. I intended simply to show that U-Boats are not useless, and that they can score an occasional lucky kill against a Capital Ship. If you read some of the early posts in the thread, you will see people claiming that U-Boats are "utterly worthless" and "cannot" kill enemy Capital Ships. I wanted to show that these claims are exaggerated.

As for the current game... remember that I started with a small U-Boat force, which up until now has been handicapped by operating exclusively out of German North Sea ports... and with zero assistance from the Luftwaffe or surface Kriegsmarine forces. With the fall of France in late October, I have now gained new Airfields and Naval bases much closer to the British Convoy routes.

The impending fall of Spain and Gibraltar this coming spring will shift the Naval balance even further... by giving me bases still closer to the Convoy routes; and by forcing the British to re-route their Convoys the long way around Africa instead of through the sheltered Med. That will expose them further to U-Boat depredations, as well as requiring more Convoy ships to run each route... thus providing more concentrated targets.

My TACs and CAS will also soon be joining in the Convoy hunt, since they lack other useful employment during the winter months. I built no NAVs.

When you consider that I have only been spending 14 ICs per day on U-Boats... not even enough for one extra Armored Division serial... it is not at all obvious to me that U-Boats are "not cost-effective".

EDIT: Ongoing results of the U-Boat campaign:

November:
Sunk: 55 Convoys, 4 Escorts. No new construction, no losses.

December:
Sunk: 91 Convoys, 13 Escorts. No new construction, 2 Subs lost (through sheer stupidity).

Running totals for the first four months of the war:
Sunk: 339 Convoys, 28 Escorts, 2 BB, 1 CA, 1 CL
Lost: 7 Subs.