Buildup of the navy

[Pang Bingxun]

Instead of discussing the naval buildup in the thread about the army build up a separate thread may be sensible.

The buildup of the navy hinges on many assumptions so i try to make sensible ones. Slider rushing can make sense, but itis complicated so i take it out of the equation. I assume Germany starts 1936 with a move hawk lobby followed by a move free markets in 1937 and 3 moves professional army for cheaper upgrading in 1938, 1939 and 1940. Also i assume that Militaristic Focus gives -5% on upgrading and that retooling is 72 days.

I assume that unlike assembly line experimentation the proper assembly line tech donnot apply for a navy that is to be completed at 1940/4/30. That is the day the NAP with soviet union expiries and it is near the time when new naval bases in the west are taken.

I present a few possible naval buildups. They are supposed to be economically sensible and that implies that all brigades are built separately from the ships. This saves retooling and supply costs and it enables to minimize ic spend on the navy before Danzig.

570 days before 1940/4/30 is 1938/9/30. That is Munich when full hawk lobby will be achieved. Before that -20% from sliders apply, after it it will be -24%. So most construction will occur after it.

Supply consumption starts once retooling is done. That is one reason why i will not maximize gearing bonus on the brigades, the other reason is that i like to avoid that brigades have no ships to be attached to.

When saving the game total progress is saved only 4 digits far. This can lead to the effect that total progress is only 0.9999 when it should be complete.

0.) 2 lines of DD1938 cost a total of 8.36 ic. Retooling starts 452 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/1/28. But the first 36 days only at 7.6 for DD1936. At 1939/3/4 the 2 lines are upgraded. At 1939/5/10 construction starts. 2 units each are completed at 1939/9/23, at 1940/1/30 and at 1940/4/30.

2 lines of ASW1937 cost a total of 2.28 ic. Retooling starts 222 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/9/18. Construction starts at 1939/10/24. 2 units each are completed at 1939/12/29, 1940/3/1 and 1940/4/30. Upgrading to ASW1940 costs further 127.68 icd. So it is 574.56 icd of retooling, 3176.8 icd of construction and a total of 3879.04 icd for the screens for one fleet of surface ships.

1.) 6 lines of CV1938 cost a total of 31.92 ic. Retooling starts 627 days before 1940/4/29 at 1938/8/2. The first 36 days of retooling still cost 28.8 ic for CV1936. At 1939/9/8 the upgrading to CV1938 increases it to 33.6 ic. At 1939/9/30 it reduces to 31.92. At 1939/10/14 construction starts. 555 days later at 1940/4/29 the 6 units are ready.

6 lines of CAG1938 cost a total 45.6 ic. Retooling starts 158 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/11/22, but the first 18 days only at 36.48 ic for CAG1936. At 1939/12/10 the upgrading to CAG1938 occurs. At 1939/12/28 construction starts. At 1940/4/30 the 6 brigades can be attached to the carriers. Upgrading to CAG1940 costs further 1773.41 icd. So it is 3700.32 icd of retooling, 23278.8 icd of construction and a total of 28752.53 icd for the capitals for one CFT. The entire CTF costs 32631.57 icd.

6 CV1938-CAG1941 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940 have a firing range of 185 km and a see attack of 6x10x0.8 = 48. Total convoy attack is 6x10+6x4 = 84.


2.) 6 lines of SHBB1938 cost a total of 52.44 ic. Retooling starts 467 days before 1940/4/29 at 1939/1/12. Construction starts at 1939/3/24, the 6 units are complete at 1940/4/29.

6 lines of capital ship AA1938 cost 4.56 ic. Retooling starts 101 days before 1940/4/30 at 1940/1/29. Construction starts at 1940/3/5, the 6 units are complete at 1940/4/30.

6 lines of capital ship Radar 1937 costs 4.56 ic. Retooling starts 116 days before 1940/4/30 at 1940/1/14. Construction starts at 1940/2/20, the 6 units are complete at 1940/4/30. Upgrading to RA1940 costs further 131.96 icd.

6 lines of capital ship Fire Control 1938 cost 9.12 ic. Retooling starts 97 days before 1940/4/30 at 1940/1/23. Construction starts at 1940/2/29, the 6 units are complete at 1940/4/30. Upgrading to FX1940 costs further 149.55 icd.

6 lines of secondary armament 1936 cost 2.28 ic. Retooling starts 131 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/12/29. Construction starts at 1940/2/5, the 6 units are complete at 1940/4/30.

6 lines of capital ship spotters 1936 cost 4.56 ic. Retooling starts 131 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/12/29. Construction starts at 1940/2/5, the 6 units are complete at 1940/4/30.

It is 4675.68 icd of retooling, 22581.12 icd of construction and a total of 27538.31 icd for the capitals for one SAG. The entire SAG costs 31417.35 icd. With only 4 SHBB1938 it is only 22237.92 icd.

6 brigaded SHBB1938 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940 have a firing range of 48 km and a see attack of 6x29x0.8 = 139.2. Total convoy attack is 6x28+6x4 = 192.

4 brigaded SHBB1938 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940 have a firing range of 48 km and a see attack of 4x29x0.84 = 97.44. Total convoy attack is 4x28+6x4 = 136.


3.) 6 lines of BB1936 cost 36.48 ic, but only 31.92 ic for the first 36 days as BB1930. Retooling starts 460 days before 1940/4/29 at 1939/1/19. Construction starts at 1939/4/1, the 6 units are complete at 1940/4/29.

The 5 brigades are the same as for SHBB1938. So it is 3365.28 icd of retooling, 16021.56 icd of construction and a total of 19668.35 icd for the capitals for one SAG. The entire SAG costs 23547.39 icd.

6 brigaded BB1936 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940 have a firing range of 46 km and a see attack of 6x24x0.8 = 115.2. Total convoy attack is 6x23+6x4 = 162.


4.) 3 lines of BC1938 costs 13.68 ic and 14.4 ic before 1938/9/30, but only 13.2 ic for the first 36 days as BC1936. Retooling starts 728 days before 1940/4/30 at 1938/4/22. Construction starts at 1938/7/8, the first 3 units are complete at 1939/6/12, the second 3 units at 1940/4/30.

3 lines of capital ship AA1938 cost 2.28 ic. Retooling starts 163 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/11/17. Construction starts at 1939/12/23, the first 3 units are complete at 1940/2/28, the second 3 units at 1940/4/30.

3 lines of capital ship Radar 1937 costs 2.28 ic. Retooling starts 192 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/10/18. Construction starts at 1939/11/24, the first 3 units are complete at 1940/2/14, the second 3 units at 1940/4/30. Upgrading to RA1940 costs further 131.96 icd.

3 lines of capital ship Fire Control 1938 cost 4.56 ic. Retooling starts 155 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/11/25. Construction starts at 1940/1/1, the first 3 units are complete at 1940/3/2, the second 3 units at 1940/4/30. Upgrading to FX1940 costs further 149.55 icd.

3 lines of capital ship spotters 1936 cost 2.28 ic. Retooling starts 222 days before 1940/4/30 at 1939/9/18. Construction starts at 1939/10/24, the first 3 units are complete at 1940/1/29, the second 3 units at 1940/4/30.

It is 1404 icd of retooling, 10647.96 icd of construction and a total of 12333.47 icd for the capitals for one SAG. The entire SAG costs 16212.51 icd.

6 brigaded BC1938 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940 have a firing range of 44 km and a see attack of 6x17x0.8 = 81.6. Total convoy attack is 6x16+6x4 = 120.


5.) 30 lines of HSS1933 cost 102.6 ic. Retooling starts 546 days before 1940/4/30 at 1938/10/24. Construction starts at 1939/1/6, the first 30 units are complete at 1939/9/9, the second 30 units at 1940/4/30.

It is 7387.2 icd of retooling, 48632.4 icd of construction and a total of 56019.6 icd for the 10 wolfspacks of size 6.

12 unbrigaded HSS1933 have a firing range of 16 km and a see attack of 12x6x0.8 = 57.6. Total convoy attack of 60 unbrigaded HSS1933 is 60x10 = 600.


6.) 15 lines of SS1938 cost 34.2 ic, but only 22.8 ic for the first 36 days as SS1930. Retooling starts 524 days before 1940/4/30 at 1938/11/16. Construction starts at 1939/1/28, 15 units each are completed at 1939/5/30, at 1939/9/28, at 1940/1/16 and at 1940/4/30.

It is 2052 icd of retooling, 15458.4 icd of construction and a total of 17510.4 icd for the 10 wolfspacks of size 6.

12 unbrigaded SS1938 have a firing range of 18 km and a see attack of 12x4x0.8 = 38.4. Total convoy attack of 60 unbrigaded SS1938 is 60x7 = 420.


7.) 15 lines of SS1930 cost 22.8 ic. Retooling starts 524 days before 1940/4/30 at 1938/11/16. Construction starts at 1939/1/28, 15 units each are completed at 1939/5/30, at 1939/9/28, at 1940/1/16 and at 1940/4/30.

It is 1641.6 icd of retooling, 10305.6 icd of construction and a total of 11947.2 icd for the 10 wolfspacks of size 6.

12 unbrigaded SS1930 have a firing range of 17 km and a see attack of 12x4x0.8 = 38.4. Total convoy attack of 60 unbrigaded SS1930 is 60x6 = 360.


I consider it practical to compare figures to a 2 year period of 720 days.

1. The 32631.57 icd for CTF equal 45.32 ic over 720 days.
2. The 31417.35 icd for the heavy SAG equal 43.64 ic over 720 days.
3. The 23547.39 icd for the Bismarck SAG equal 32.70 ic over 720 days.
4. The 16212.51 icd for the Scharnhorst SAG equal 22.52 ic over 720 days.
5. The 56019.6 icd for 10 heavy wolfpacks equal 77.81 ic over 720 days.
6. The 17510.4 icd for 10 1938 wolfspacks equal 24.32 ic over 720 days.
7. The 11947.2 icd for 10 1930 wolfpacks equal 16.59 ic over 720 days.

Similar is true about maintenance costs over 720 days. Manpower is less relevant for the navy, so i just use the supply consumption during rest and construction at an assumed 4 supplies/icd.

5. HSS1933 consume 1.4 supplies, over 720 days that equals 252 icd or 30.32 % of construction icd.
6. SS1938 consume 0.6 supplies, over 720 days that equals 108 icd or 38.83 % of construction icd.
7. SS1930 consume 0.5 supplies, over 720 days that equals 90 icd or 48.53 % of construction icd.

 

[Commander666]

Instead of discussing the naval buildup in the thread about the army build up a separate thread may be sensible.

That makes sense.

The buildup of the navy hinges on many assumptions so i try to make sensible ones.

As you clarify below, your post only makes economic sense. But it gave me a headache just trying to read it. However, to put it in action in an actual game would guarantee disaster for me. I find it much easier, more historic, and far more enjoyable to play a truly sensible game along historic lines of a few ship lines building "as is" from start; and adding to that along the way to get a very diversified navy. I think you concentrate too much on sharpening your pencil to arrive at "optimum economics" instead of playing a sensible game.

I present a few possible naval buildups. They are supposed to be economically sensible and that implies that all brigades are built separately from the ships. This saves retooling and supply costs and it enables to minimize ic spend on the navy before Danzig.

This is the epitome of your pencil sharpening. You complicate to the nth degree just to save a very minor further amount on supply costs because the brigades built separately will start construction later, so reducing total time for supply calculation. But, while it might work for you doing theoretical projections, it is extremely likely that most players facing the uncountable concerns and distractions of a real game are very likely to screw up majorly... and end up with wrong brigades on the wrong ships, incorrect brigades ordered, and too many or too few brigades. In short, your recommendation is just a brigade nightmare waiting to happen. It is one thing doing this only for a single major item like CAGs for CVs building separately, quite another trying to apply it to capital and screen brigades for a whole navy of many different ships.

6 brigaded SHBB1938 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940 have a firing range of 48 km and a see attack of 6x29x0.8 = 139.2. Total convoy attack is 6x28+6x4 = 192.

This exposes again how all your "economic sense" fails to have much "practical sense", IMO. Any Germany player who is very successful playing their navy further than the confines of the English Channel knows that SHBB is the very worst thing you could ever put into the Atlantic. To even suggest their use for convoy raiding tells me you never experienced a capable UK CTF sinking your 6 SHBB before your "Super Slow BBs" could even escape. The greater gun values of SHBB are worthless compared to the excellent speed of BB-4 when it comes to messing with enemy CVs - especially if caught in the middle of a large sea province.

5. The 56019.6 icd for 10 heavy wolfpacks equal 77.81 ic over 720 days.
6. The 17510.4 icd for 10 1938 wolfspacks equal 24.32 ic over 720 days.
7. The 11947.2 icd for 10 1930 wolfpacks equal 16.59 ic over 720 days.

This is good to expose how wasteful heavy subs are if trying to recreate the Donitz strategy and built 60. I agree that you meaning 6 flotilla when you write "wolfpack" is quite acceptable.

But, you know Pang, I think what is really missing from all your "economic posts" is a series of other posts that would do as I have done... and demonstrate how your fleet recommendations actually were successful in game.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

As you clarify below, your post only makes economic sense. But it gave me a headache just trying to read it. However, to put it in action in an actual game would guarantee disaster for me. I find it much easier, more historic, and far more enjoyable to play a truly sensible game along historic lines of a few ship lines building "as is" from start; and adding to that along the way to get a very diversified navy. I think you concentrate too much on sharpening your pencil to arrive at "optimum economics" instead of playing a sensible game.

That is a legit point of view. Still the advantages of the economical approach are quite subtantial.

This is the epitome of your pencil sharpening. You complicate to the nth degree just to save a very minor further amount on supply costs because the brigades built separately will start construction later, so reducing total time for supply calculation. But, while it might work for you doing theoretical projections, it is extremely likely that most players facing the uncountable concerns and distractions of a real game are very likely to screw up majorly... and end up with wrong brigades on the wrong ships, incorrect brigades ordered, and too many or too few brigades. In short, your recommendation is just a brigade nightmare waiting to happen. It is one thing doing this only for a single major item like CAGs for CVs building separately, quite another trying to apply it to capital and screen brigades for a whole navy of many different ships.

With the one exception of the CAG building brigades with the naval divisions has only mild disadvantages if naval spending prior to Danzig is of minor concern. Separate construction is more flexible and more economical, but it can be less convenient.

This exposes again how all your "economic sense" fails to have much "practical sense", IMO. Any Germany player who is very successful playing their navy further than the confines of the English Channel knows that SHBB is the very worst thing you could ever put into the Atlantic. To even suggest their use for convoy raiding tells me you never experienced a capable UK CTF sinking your 6 SHBB before your "Super Slow BBs" could even escape. The greater gun values of SHBB are worthless compared to the excellent speed of BB-4 when it comes to messing with enemy CVs - especially if caught in the middle of a large sea province.

It is speed 25 vs speed 24. I donnot believe that this is difference worth of the word excellent. In any case i did not mean to suggest the use, i mainly wanted to provide facts to base a decision on. 6 BB1936 are better than 4
SHBB1938 and 6 BC1938 are only marginally better than 4 BB1936 unless ministers magnify the difference as Dönitz does.

BC1938 has speed 26. CA1938 has speed 28 which equals the speed of CV1938. Going for 4 CV1938 + 2 CA1938 + 6 DD1938 can be sensible, but i clearly prefer the true CTF of 6 CV1938-CAG1941 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940. The other options just seem like an investment of some but limited use. Also managing just one proper CTF is much less demanding than managing more smaller fleets.

 

[MJF]

BC1938 has speed 26. CA1938 has speed 28 which equals the speed of CV1938. Going for 4 CV1938 + 2 CA1938 + 6 DD1938 can be sensible, but i clearly prefer the true CTF of 6 CV1938-CAG1941 + 6 DD1938-ASW1940. The other options just seem like an investment of some but limited use. Also managing just one proper CTF is much less demanding than managing more smaller fleets.

What do you do if your 6 CV IVs & 6 DD IVs get caught in bad weather? Would not a CTF consisting of either 3 CV IVs and 3 CA IVs, or (better) 4 CV IVs/2 CA IVs, with 3 CL IVs with AA & FC/RA/ or SP, and 3 DD IVs with ASW be not only more historical but give a better defense in that case?

 

[Commander666]

It is speed 25 vs speed 24. I donnot believe that this is difference worth of the word excellent..

Agreed! I was under a wrong impression that SHBB were much slower, but couldn't look them up as I never even do their tech. Guess that was my fault. Next game I'll have a team achieve that so I can really see just what "ugly ducks" those SHBB are. I think my extreme prejudice must be on account of you replacing the grandeur of the Bismarck and Tirpitz with a horrible acronym that shouldn't even be in the German arsenal.

 

[Commander666]

What do you do if your 6 CV IVs & 6 DD IVs get caught in bad weather? Would not a CTF consisting of either 3 CV IVs and 3 CA IVs, or (better) 4 CV IVs/2 CA IVs, with 3 CL IVs with AA & FC/RA/ or SP, and 3 DD IVs with ASW be not only more historical but give a better defense in that case?

Considering it is AoD game mechanics we need to accomodate how the AI actually runs its fleets. So you are absolutely right. Player fleets need "soak offs" but those should be fast CAs so minimum fleet speed will be the CV. Some players hate this (I too and love pure CTFs) but pure CTFs are really best for only "running away once org is reduced" - which happens way quicker if no BB or CA soak off with the CV.

Incidentally, it is a favorite German tactic to build 3 BC with CL only for the purpose of closing with a most unlucky-to-be UK CTF when it strayed into "frozen" sea. Usually the UK CTFs include older BBs, but they aren't much match for 3 German BC-4, who seem to target the CVs (because they sink so quickly?)

 

[Pang Bingxun]

What do you do if your 6 CV IVs & 6 DD IVs get caught in bad weather? Would not a CTF consisting of either 3 CV IVs and 3 CA IVs, or (better) 4 CV IVs/2 CA IVs, with 3 CL IVs with AA & FC/RA/ or SP, and 3 DD IVs with ASW be not only more historical but give a better defense in that case?

CL is better at defence, but DD-ASW is better at detection and has lower visibility.

If chances of getting caught in bad weather are high, than a CTF should not seek battle in the first place. Staying in port is much better than risking unwarranted losses.

If a bad situation arises unexpectedly retreat should occur without delay. Mitigating losses in bad weather is important, but mitigating exposure to bad weather is much more important.

The one unit type that does excel at bad weather is the submarine. DD-ASW help against them.

Some players hate this (I too and love pure CTFs) but pure CTFs are really best for only "running away once org is reduced" - which happens way quicker if no BB or CA soak off with the CV.

How would org be reduced in the first place? I imagine this happens by being hit. That however is to be avoided as it reduces strenght and regaining strenght takes a lot longer than regaining org.

Avoiding to be hit would seem to be easy while the CTF keeps is distance to the enemy. While weather and doctrines are fine this work well. But the is the exception of enemy carriers. Keeping them at distance is near impossible. So weakening enemy CV beforehand plays an important role.

 

[Commander666]

If chances of getting caught in bad weather are high, than a CTF should not seek battle in the first place.

"Frozen" sea can happen all around the British Isles in winter. It is not bad weather I was discussing but the condition of frozen sea which - according to many past HoI family threads has made CVs easy targets for modern gun boats to close with. I don't know why but there are numerous comments on these boards like "don't put CVs in the North Sea if wintertime."

I don't think you can really expect the best part of the Royal Navy (its CVs) to stay in port all winter long. And, the fact that the frozen sea provinces shift, makes it difficult to assess if one should venture on patrol with their CV, or not.

How would org be reduced in the first place? I imagine this happens by being hit. That however is to be avoided...

You imagined correctly. Good luck trying to avoid getting hit in a battle. You are, of course, alluding to the ideal point-of-view that CVs should be able to stay far out of enemy range if enemy only has gunboats. Well, this discussion really was about conditions where gunboats can close with CVs to the firing range of their guns. I know for a fact that 3 BB-4 which manage to close with 3 CV will decimate the CVs. Generally it needs a fairly fast fleet but also of large attack value. BBs are probably too slow; CAs too weak.

But - alternately - I think most people don't know that, whenever it is pure subs against CVs, then nearly most of the time battle starts at less than 10.0 km. There is something about German U-boats with Sealane Interdiction doctrines that nearly always results in pure subs starting combat at about this favorable range (and often it is just 1.0 km). As the subs fire thru the night, but the CV can't, the subs win.

However, if any surface ship in battle on same side as subs, then battle usually starts at CV range. So, it really is important Germany not get other fleets participating with its wolf packs.

 

[MJF]

Constantly checking weather seems like too much micromanagement to me.

 

[Commander666]

I agree especially since the "frozen" sea provinces can only be known to be frozen if hovering mouse over every province. It is all right for a Germany player deciding to bring out his BC fleet to possibly park next door to Scapa Flow if the Pentland Firth is frozen, but not likely that UK player would check everywhere if wanting to patrol with his CTF.

As regards really bad weather like thunderstorms (easily visible if viewing in weather map mode) AFAIK battles give no results in those conditions but attrition is high on the ships.

As regards other bad weather, as you say, it really is far too difficult to monitor if it is snowing or just started blizzarding. Maybe somebody knows the precise handicap for CV depending on if rain, snowing, blizzard or thunderstorm but, AFAIK, it was frozen seas that was the condition that seemed to favor BCs attacking CTFs. No idea why... just what I remember from past forums.

But as it has been ages since my BC-4s messed with any CTF, I don't know. My last success for this type of engagement was the English Channel and Malacca Straits so I actually formed impression that maybe CVs can be too confined in some sea zones. But I decided that probably isn't right and chalked the experiences up to "just luck".... but it was very nice closing with enemy CVs and sinking them using gun boats.

HOWEVER, I do play very much on weather map mode because I want to know when my bombers won't fly because there is lightning flashing over their base, and often will just park aircraft if a lot of storms to avoid some bombers possibly flying but their accompanying fighters stuck on ground.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

The frozen condition itself has no effect on naval battle. night, rain, snow and storm however greatly hurt the attack value of Carriers and presumably also their detection and positioning. During winter the nights are longer and bad weather is more likely. CTFs are a Schönwetterflotte and during good weather they do excel. But you better donnot use them in bad weather.

 

[Commander666]

Thanks for that info.

So "frozen sea provinces" is nothing more than a thermometer reading... similar to how frozen terrain evokes greater attrition. AoD attrition for ships in frozen sea is significant but not sure that chipping the ice daily from the railings and other steel fixtures of real ships operating where sea spray instantly freezes when it hits metal really is an attritional factor.

The damage to the steel by some paint also being chipped away is hardly comparable to soldiers freezing to death in extreme cold, and thousands others suffering frostbite. All in all, "frozen sea" is a very poor AoD feature - made far worse in that it doesn't even show on map unless player tediously mouses over every sea province.

EDIT: This discussion got me to look deeper... and for the 1st time (in about 10 years) I see all the info is available in STATISTICS/ Naval Unit Modifiers. Well, blow me down!

But hold it. I see that "muddy move" is a possible naval modifier. Ships move thru mud? Oh my gosh... how I love AoD!

 

[MJF]

6.) 15 lines of SS1938 cost 34.2 ic, but only 22.8 ic for the first 36 days as SS1930. Retooling starts 524 days before 1940/4/30 at 1938/11/16. Construction starts at 1939/1/28, 15 units each are completed at 1939/5/30, at 1939/9/28, at 1940/1/16 and at 1940/4/30.

It is 2052 icd of retooling, 15458.4 icd of construction and a total of 17510.4 icd for the 10 wolfspacks of size 6.

12 unbrigaded SS1938 have a firing range of 18 km and a see attack of 12x4x0.8 = 38.4. Total convoy attack of 60 unbrigaded SS1938 is 60x7 = 420.


7.) 15 lines of SS1930 cost 22.8 ic. Retooling starts 524 days before 1940/4/30 at 1938/11/16. Construction starts at 1939/1/28, 15 units each are completed at 1939/5/30, at 1939/9/28, at 1940/1/16 and at 1940/4/30.

It is 1641.6 icd of retooling, 10305.6 icd of construction and a total of 11947.2 icd for the 10 wolfspacks of size 6.

12 unbrigaded SS1930 have a firing range of 17 km and a see attack of 12x4x0.8 = 38.4. Total convoy attack of 60 unbrigaded SS1930 is 60x6 = 360.


I consider it practical to compare figures to a 2 year period of 720 days.

1. The 32631.57 icd for CTF equal 45.32 ic over 720 days.
2. The 31417.35 icd for the heavy SAG equal 43.64 ic over 720 days.
3. The 23547.39 icd for the Bismarck SAG equal 32.70 ic over 720 days.
4. The 16212.51 icd for the Scharnhorst SAG equal 22.52 ic over 720 days.
5. The 56019.6 icd for 10 heavy wolfpacks equal 77.81 ic over 720 days.
6. The 17510.4 icd for 10 1938 wolfspacks equal 24.32 ic over 720 days.
7. The 11947.2 icd for 10 1930 wolfpacks equal 16.59 ic over 720 days.

Similar is true about maintenance costs over 720 days. Manpower is less relevant for the navy, so i just use the supply consumption during rest and construction at an assumed 4 supplies/icd.

5. HSS1933 consume 1.4 supplies, over 720 days that equals 252 icd or 30.32 % of construction icd.
6. SS1938 consume 0.6 supplies, over 720 days that equals 108 icd or 38.83 % of construction icd.
7. SS1930 consume 0.5 supplies, over 720 days that equals 90 icd or 48.53 % of construction icd.

As for this fleet of 60 SS 1938s, wouldn't it be better to use 5 fleets of 12, vs 10 fleets of 6? I would think even 6 fleets of 9 would be superior...?

 

[Commander666]

I would like to answer, if I may, as I suspect Pang probably has not played his recommendation to get actual battle info. But - as state at the end - there is another PoV.

You are quite right, larger wolf packs are "superior". If wishing to destroy AI enemy fleets, then nothing beats three wolf packs of 9 each with somebody a Grand Admiral so the 27 flotillas can attack together. This allows enough flexibility to pull out of battle the group with most seriously damaged subs and drop the very damaged units out before re-entering the reduced but now healthier group back to the battle. This is the secret to avoiding getting U-boats sunk while continuing a battle to the full demise of the enemy.

But the groups of 9 need to start somewhere and first get leader experience. There is no doubt that the most leaders will be trained the fastest if subs go out in single flotillas. This means very low visibility, all SeaWolf specialists you got probably actively hunting, and spare subs maybe sitting in port with no leaders. This works fine until you start losing some subs because a single SS-4 will only survive attack by a couple UK DDs if it has a short retreat.

At this point, more subs will have been constructed, so leading to Germany creating wolf packs of three flotillas which will drive off most UK DDs and CVLs while still allowing for many SeaWolf specialists to be gaining exp.

As more subs enter the war, it is natural to just let wolf packs increase in size, and at size 6 they will be able to engage in some quite profitable battles against smaller RN forces.

The final strategy leads to the size 9 wolf packs, with the most skilled leaders getting the higher promotions so that three wolf packs of 9 each operating in close proximity will never be overstacked. By close proximity I mean in adjacent Sea Areas - not adjacent provinces. A single stack of nine SS-4 flotillas (long range 1938) has no problem fighting alone for 24 hours until its buddies arrive. And it should be retreated as soon as the first "buddy wolf pack" enters battle so that the most damaged units can be removed.

So, Pang is also right in a math kind of way as I think he is really just aggregating the total U-boat force and finds 10 x 6 a convenient set-up. It could apply during the normal transition of Germany going from running individual u-boats to 9-unit wolf packs.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I would like to answer, if I may, as I think Pang really has not played his recommendation to get actual battle info.

It is not a recommendation.

As for this fleet of 60 SS 1938s, wouldn't it be better to use 5 fleets of 12, vs 10 fleets of 6? I would think even 6 fleets of 9 would be superior...?

That is quite possible. In the initial post i did not try to answer that question. It just is so that germany has about 10 seawolf admirals, so 10 times the lowest command limit seemed like a good idea for choosing a highly arbitrary number.

For offensive convoy hunting at choosen coordinates a larger force will be better. If a large convoy is known to pass trough a sea province, than a large convoy attack value will be desired. In that case SHBB1938 or even SHBB1945 would excel. SHBB1938 has convoy attack 22, SHBB1945 has convoy attack 29. But by the time SHBB1945 can be used, CAG1948 can be used. CV1941-CAG1948 has convoy attack 20.

For battles against fleets low visibilty has merit. Each additional Sub is one more target the enemy could detect and only detected divisions can be targeted. If all your naval divisions remain undetected during battle, than the enemy has no target to hit. This helps small wolfpacks a lot. But once just one sub flotilla is detected the enemy can concentrate all hits on this one target, thus negating the low visibility of subs.

One possibly conclusion is that fleet size should be up to 6 in order remain undetected or the opposite to expect being detected and thus maximize the fleet size to up to 26 flotillas. In practise 12 seem like a good idea due to diminishing returns induced by stacking penalty.

2 SS1938 have 2x4x1.00 = 8 see attack and 2x7=14 visibility.
3 SS1938 have 3x4x0.98 = 11.76 see attack and 3x7=21 visibility.
4 SS1938 have 4x4x0.96 = 15.36 see attack and 4x7=28 visibility.
5 SS1938 have 5x4x0.94 = 18.80 see attack and 5x7=35 visibility.
6 SS1938 have 6x4x0.92 = 22.08 see attack and 6x7=42 visibility.
7 SS1938 have 7x4x0.90 = 25.20 see attack and 7x7=48 visibility.
8 SS1938 have 8x4x0.88 = 28.16 see attack and 8x7=56 visibility.
9 SS1938 have 9x4x0.86 = 30.96 see attack and 9x7=63 visibility.
10 SS1938 have 10x4x0.84 = 33.60 see attack and 10x7=70 visibility.
11 SS1938 have 11x4x0.82 = 36.08 see attack and 11x7=77 visibility.
12 SS1938 have 12x4x0.80 = 38.40 see attack and 12x7=84 visibility.
13 SS1938 have 13x4x0.78 = 40.56 see attack and 13x7=91 visibility.
14 SS1938 have 14x4x0.76 = 42.56 see attack and 14x7=98 visibility.
15 SS1938 have 15x4x0.74 = 44.40 see attack and 15x7=105 visibility.
16 SS1938 have 16x4x0.72 = 46.08 see attack and 16x7=112 visibility.
17 SS1938 have 17x4x0.70 = 47.60 see attack and 17x7=119 visibility.
18 SS1938 have 18x4x0.68 = 48.96 see attack and 18x7=126 visibility.
19 SS1938 have 19x4x0.66 = 50.16 see attack and 19x7=133 visibility.
20 SS1938 have 20x4x0.64 = 51.20 see attack and 20x7=140 visibility.
21 SS1938 have 21x4x0.62 = 52.08 see attack and 21x7=147 visibility.
22 SS1938 have 22x4x0.60 = 52.80 see attack and 22x7=154 visibility.
23 SS1938 have 23x4x0.58 = 53.36 see attack and 23x7=161 visibility.
24 SS1938 have 24x4x0.56 = 53.76 see attack and 24x7=168 visibility.
25 SS1938 have 25x4x0.54 = 54.00 see attack and 25x7=175 visibility.
26 SS1938 have 26x4x0.52 = 54.08 see attack and 26x7=182 visibility.
27 SS1938 have 27x4x0.50 = 54.00 see attack and 27x7=189 visibility.
28 SS1938 have 28x4x0.48 = 53.76 see attack and 28x7=196 visibility.
29 SS1938 have 29x4x0.48 = 53.36 see attack and 29x7=203 visibility.
30 SS1938 have 30x4x0.48 = 52.80 see attack and 30x7=210 visibility.

 

[Commander666]

I don't think you have tried this because your advice contradicts everything as to how I win with subs.

As regards,

For offensive convoy hunting at choosen coordinates a larger force will be better.

Hunting at "chosen coordinates" is a very poor tactic since there is great likelihood no convoy passes the chosen coordinate. That is why subs need to hunt in a sea area. Further, if you do get a hit at chosen coordinates, the convoy will divert, and sub staying at chosen coordinate is often fruitless until hits elsewhere get convoy to return to passing that coordinate.

For battles against fleets low visibilty has merit.

No it doesn't, because low visibility means few subs, and few subs lose battles against fleets.

Each additional Sub is one more target the enemy could detect and only detected divisions can be targeted.

Why do you ignore the obvious? Each additional sub is one more weapon to sink the enemy.

If all your naval divisions remain undetected during battle, than the enemy has no target to hit.

This is totally utopian. To even suggest it is amateurish. You will NEVER have a sub battle and have all your subs remain undetected. Yes, there will be hours when all the subs are undetected and can't be hit (usually night) but never a naval battle where the subs sank a fleet and no sub was even hit.

This helps small wolfpacks a lot.

No, it doesn't help small wolf packs at all because small wolf packs are very quickly sunk. It only helps small wolf packs to not be engaged in the first place. But once engaged, the bigger a wolfpack you have, the more you will win. Also, the more wolfpacks you can get into the battle, the better you will win because then you can pull out some stacks before you lose a sub.

But once just one sub flotilla is detected the enemy can concentrate all hits on this one target, thus negating the low visibility of subs.

This statement makes no logical sense. The first part is correct. The 2nd part is irrelevant to the statement. Maybe you mean to say, "Once a sub is detected it previous low visibility is negated?" That's fairly obvious, and has nothing to do with only detected subs receiving the hits. I mean, it is quite clear that enemy can not concentrate hits on what hasn't been detected.

One possibly conclusion is that fleet size should be up to 6 in order remain undetected or the opposite to expect being detected and thus maximize the fleet size to up to 26 flotillas.

This is wrong on all counts. If one sub can be detected how do you hope that 6 subs in a stack would improve remaining undetected? Yes, 6 would be harder to detect than 26 (so obvious).

But as regards your figure of 26 (derived from the mathematical optimum of diminshing returns due to increasing stacking penalty) your suggestion will lead to massive u-boat losses because there is absolutely nothing in your recommendation that can be called tactics. You have no strategy either - only a theoretical number.

A stack of 26 can not win the battle without huge losses because it can not retreat damaged subs before they are sunk.

In practise 12 seem like a good idea due to diminishing returns induced by stacking penlty.

And have you practised this? 12 is a terrible number because you - FIRSTLY - need to start thinking about wolfpacks (Plural) instead of arbitrary numbers. 4 stacks of 3 is great, and 2 stacks of 6 still works also. But 12 is just as inflexible as is 26 (only much weaker).

ALL IN ALL , YOUR POST exposes that you don't know how to win against large enemy fleets using U-boat tactics. This is not surprising because over the past years of your posts regarding Germany strategy have consistently included things like:

• "disband the SS-1" (when it is an excellent training sub)
• "disband all the subs at start" when the two existing SS-2 with one under construction creates the first wolf pack that can actually defeat inferior UK DDs. (more training)
• "don't build any subs but build CVs" ehr, umh, Pang, how does that teach SeaWolf qualities?
• change the German naval doctrine path away from Sealane Interdiction (you are not any submariner... so please stop pretending you are).

 

[Commander666]

25 SS1938 have 25x4x0.54 = 54.00 see attack and 25x7=175 visibility.
26 SS1938 have 26x4x0.52 = 54.08 see attack and 26x7=182 visibility.
27 SS1938 have 27x4x0.50 = 54.00 see attack and 27x7=189 visibility.

And you have a serious problem with your over-precise math. While you love taking numbers to 2 decimal places, the simple arithmetic fact is that 54.00 and 54.08 are the same thing once you start applying that rule that you must drop a decimal place for every multiplication step. IN SHORT, 25-27 SUBS HAVE IDENTICAL SEA ATTACK, that being 54.0

But what you majorly miss is that it should NEVER be 27 SS, but "9 SS plus 9 SS plus 9 SS". Accept that concept and you will be ready to learn some sub tactics.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Hunting at "chosen coordinates" is a very poor tactic since there is great likelihood no convoy passes the chosen coordinate. That is why subs need to hunt in a sea area. Further, if you do get a hit at chosen coordinates, the convoy will divert, and sub staying at chosen coordinate is often fruitless until hits elsewhere get convoy to return to passing that coordinate.

Indeed. It really is only a good choice if it is known that a large convoy will pass through that sea province. But if there are proper estimates where large convoys will pass through, than large fleets with high convoy attack can do a lot of damage in the short timespan that the convoy does pass through that province.

I am uncertain which strategy is likely to be superior in the long run, probably a combination that does adapt flexible to changing circumstances will work best.

No it doesn't, because low visibility means few subs, and few subs lose battles against fleets.

Only if they are detected.

Why do you ignore the obvious? Each additional sub is one more weapon to sink the enemy.

Each additional ship is also one more target for the enemy to hit. Whether that is a good thing is open to interpretation. While at least one sub is being detected it is a good thing as that way more than one sub might be detected and this leads to damage being distributed more equally.

This is totally utopian. To even suggest it is amateurish. You will NEVER have a sub battle and have all your subs remain undetected. Yes, there will be hours when all the subs are undetected and can't be hit (usually night) but never a naval battle where the subs sank a fleet and no sub was even hit.

It happens on an hourly basis. The lower your visibility, the more hours without being detected.

No, it doesn't help small wolf packs at all because small wolf packs are very quickly sunk. It only helps small wolf packs to not be engaged in the first place. But once engaged, the bigger a wolfpack you have, the more you will win. Also, the more wolfpacks you can get into the battle, the better you will win because then you can pull out some stacks before you lose a sub.

First i like to clarify terms. A formation is something that moves as one. So for example a formation of 6 SS flotillas under the direct command of a rear admiral. It is possible to stack more than one formation in a province, say 4 formation of 3 SS flotillas each. Small formations help to properly disengage to mitigate losses and it also helps to add more formations to increase the amount of naval divisions in a controlled manner without increasing the size of entire fighting fleet too much.

This statement makes no logical sense

It makes perfect sense. While all flotillas of a fleet are undetected the fleet profits from the low visibility. But once just one flotilla is detected the enemy can target a part of the fleet. In a such a situation more than one flotilla being detected would not hurt. Higher visibility would not hurt, thus the advantage of low visibility is negated. Low visibility helps to remain undetected, but only all naval divisions remaining undetected is a significant advantage.

This is wrong on all counts. If one sub can be detected how do you hope that 6 subs in a stack would improve remaining undetected? Yes, 6 would be harder to detect than 26 (so obvious).

But as regards your figure of 26 (derived from the mathematical optimum of diminshing returns due to increasing stacking penalty) your suggestion will lead to massive u-boat losses because there is absolutely nothing in your recommendation that can be called tactics. You have no strategy either - only a theoretical number.

A stack of 26 can not win the battle without huge losses because it can not retreat damaged subs before they are sunk.

This is why i am careful about the terms here. A stack or more precisely a fighting fleet of 26 can consist out of many smaller formations.

Depending on weather etc. a fleet of 6 might already be too big to remain undetected reasonable long. That is why i stated up to 6. That formulation includes smaller fleet of size 3 or even size 2.

A problem with very small fleets is that no battle might start. The enemy will not detect the fleet of subs and the subs will not dare to engage the enemy themselves. This tends of favour larger fleets. Size 12 often is a good choice.

change the German naval doctrine path away from Sealane Interdiction (you are not any submariner... so please stop pretending you are).

Well, if the doctrine is being kept, than building subs is a natural choice. And building subs does imply to use them.

 

[Commander666]

We have been around this so many times it won't surprize me if Forum gets tired of laughing.

First i like to clarify terms. A formation is something that moves as one.

We don't use your Wehrmacht terms in the Kriegsmarine. They are called "wolf packs".

This is why i am careful about the terms here. A stack or more precisely a fighting fleet of 26 can consist out of many smaller formations.

Being careful is not the same thing as being correct. You are making up your own new terms faster than I can respond to the misnomers. "Fighting fleet"? Ever knew of a fleet that can't fight? Even TPs "fight". You are actually careful to use terms that - when called on it - you can backtrack and say "the term included that". In the majority of your above you have mentioned using single wolf packs. More importantly, you have totally missed the most important tactic - retreating a wolfpack while the other wolfpack(s) keep fighting because your basic concept of how to organize subs is very wrong.

A problem with very small fleets is that no battle might start. The enemy will not detect the fleet of subs and the subs will not dare to engage the enemy themselves.

You are so far off I fear that you won't even pass basic training for the Kriegsmarine, never mind the much stricter requirements for the submariner candidates.

Let me tell you a secret. We take the battle to the enemy every chance we have. That is because our Chief of the Navy favors us with bonuses that way. We most definitely do dare to engage the enemy with very small wolf packs and even single flotillas because we have total confidence that the combined attack force nearby will decimate the enemy. In fact, the problem seems to be to get the AI to play with us. So at times we trick it with "hanging out bait" like a very small wolfpack that seeks very large CTFs cruising just off Norfolk.

This tends of favour larger fleets. Size 12 often is a good choice.

NO, IT DOES NOT FAVOR LARGER SUB FLEETS. A fleet is one fleet, right? I more than adequately have explained to you that large SS fleets take huge losses. What it does favor is several fleets working cooperatively to so have a very large total sub force which is large enough that often retreating ~1/3 of it to remove damaged subs from any specific stack is no problem regarding temporary loss of total strength.

Well, if the doctrine is being kept, than building subs is a natural choice. And building subs does imply to use them.

Sadly, "implying to use subs" does not, in your case it seems, mean actually using them proficiently. Maybe the problem is that even just your description of the warfare is so weak as to formulate statements like the above instead of much stronger statements which show conviction to the art of U-boat warfare.

Pang, have you ever sunk completely a whole USN mixed fleet of 18-26 ships including 3-4 CV-3 with half a dozen DD flotillas, and did so without losing a single SS flotilla? I have, and posted so long ago at least two different times. While the threads still exist, I believe, sadly the screen shots don't. Anyway, my sub skills have only increased since then, and I honestly tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree with your reference to large sub fleets and all other statements that do not specifically state that u-boats should hunt so that several wolfpacks can [EDIT] coordinate an attack.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Fighting fleet"? Ever knew of a fleet that can't fight?

I have seen fleets that are not fighting at some point in time. Only when it is fighting it is the fighting fleet and contributing to stacking penalty.

Even TPs "fight".

Do they contribute to stacking penalty? According to /db/misc.txt they donnot.

We don't use your Wehrmacht terms in the Kriegsmarine. They are called "wolf packs".

The subs of a wolfpack are not moving as one, they are not a formation. They are a fighting fleet. They fight at night and often they donnot know where the other wolves are.

U-boat movements were controlled by the Befehlshaber der Unterseeboote (BdU; English translation: "Commander of Submarines") much more closely than American submarines, which were given tremendous independence once on patrol. Accordingly, U-boats usually patrolled separately, often strung out in co-ordinated lines across likely convoy routes (usually merchants and small vulnerable destroyers), only being ordered to congregate after one located a convoy and alerted the BdU, so a Rudel consisted of as many U-boats as could reach the scene of the attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfpack_(naval_tactic)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfsrudeltaktik

In the majority of your above you have mentioned using single wolf packs.

Actually i refered to fighting fleets because it is about stacking penalty. Stacking penalty does not depend on how many formations form a fighting fleet.

A fleet is one fleet, right?

A fighting fleet can consist of more than one formation. The same is true about fleets that are not fighting at the moment.

Since you use fighting fleets of up to 27 sub flotillas and thus a lot more submarines your argument against larger fleets is slightly absurd because I am arguing your way. I suspect that 4 formations of size 6 do better than 3 formations of size 9. The later may still have the merit of convenience.

8 formations of size 3 would still be better, but not just convience for the human player but also shortness on sea wolf admirals would be a concern.

Pang, have you ever sunk completely a whole USN mixed fleet of 18-26 ships including 3-4 CV-3 with half a dozen DD flotillas, and did so without losing a single SS flotilla?

I did something like that to the royal navy, but i did use nuclear subs, so that is really no fair comparison. Nuclear subs are quite good at remaining undetected. The main worry there was running out of supplies before running out of enemies. Bringing in new formations into the fighting fleet and retreating formations low on supplies was important.