Sub warfare

[Alex_brunius]

Nah, Jap national unity will be quite high, I imagine. It will be shattered severly by Atomic Bombs, Strat bombing campaign (not countered effectively enough), Sub campaign and general battlefield losses.

Yes that's what what I was talking about, their unity when they surrendered shouldn't be high even if their unity at pearl harbour so happens to be highest in the world. I agree that no other nation suffered as hard from all 3 of the powerful HoI3 strategic weapons. And also no other large nation gave up with so little of their core territory lost.

National unity and the strategic submarine campaigns effects on it seems like very interesting features so far.

 

[barleyman]

what every submarine captain and commander fears are the destroyer hunting groups that prowled the atlantic, these are the usual bane for any small pack of subs. so in order to hunt and destroy with just a resonable degree of success there need to be several groups patrolling choke points (the greenland-Iceland-Faroes-Scarpa Flow gap and the english Channel) and the convoy sealanes.

Yes, in the game that's true. However, it's just an artifact how thoroughly broken the HOI2 portrayal of sub warfare was. While H&K patrol might catch a sub once in a while, in the game they immediately manage to round up every single sub in the seazone worth of many thousands of square kms. IRL I do believe hunter killers were pretty much waste of resources. Only places where subs would be rounded up was near convoys and in transit by planes. (well, not rounded up but you get the idea..) In Hoi2 convoy attacks didn't actually do any damage whatsoever to the subs?

 

[Alex_brunius]

In Hoi2 convoy attacks didn't actually do any damage whatsoever to the subs?

Im pretty sure they did that in some versions of the game. This didn't work very well though since apparently they shot sea-attack and not sub-attack back For example I know one of the later versions of HoI2 my Battleships had to return to port after a convoyraiding mission, they had been damage below 50% strength by the defending escort ships.

 

[unmerged(71436)]

While there can be an argument made in favour of differentiation between "submersibles" and "submarines", in game terms this is nonsense (i.e. making two seperate unit types). A 1941 submarine (from any side) could stay under water for 24 hours if it had to at minimal speed, which is the relevant time frame for any possible underwater attack scenario.

From ca. 1944 onwards with the widespread use of snorkels on German submarines, speed massively should decrease but air defence massively increase. Surface defence could increase slightly.

Two things I've been missing in the debates so far (don't lock them again please, this is fundamentally still a debate about how to represent submarines properly in the game) are:

1) That the late VIIC submarines, with snorkels, already have most of the advantages some ascribe only to the XXI.

2) That, whatever the potential of the XXI may be, the game actually goes on beyond 1944. What about the next generation of submarines? Had the war continued, it seems doubtful that submarine design would have stopped there. The next generation of diesel-electric submarines was considerably more potent than the XXI and this should be considered as well.

And about ASW - that a single submarine was depth-charged proves nothing. You can detect anything submerged with active sonar, which the UK had more or less perfected by then. More to the point is that the XXI got away and was not sunk when the average lifetime of a new VII had reached about 1.5 patrols. And it is precisely this which is the core point of the discussion:

Allied ASW was so strong that conventional submarines were practically useless, but the new "real-underwater" submarines stood a fighting chance again.

The best way to reflect this in-game is with greatly increased sea defence values, I think.

It is a pity that the mechanics (of HOI2 at least) don't really allow for subs to "get away" or evade action that easily. In principle the main advantage of the XXI is not (as some here apparently argue) its greater weapons load or some fantastic stealth ability but merely that its high underwater speed was higher than the speed of most convoy escorts (barring destroyers and above) and coupled with its ability to stay submerged for extended periods of time thus it had a much better chance of survival.

A Cold War equivalent - in a way - is the Alfa. It too, was incredibly fast and a "superweapon" for a while. Western technology took less than a decade to nullify all its advantages and that wasn't while at war. In WW2, the XXIs advantages would probably have been countered in two years. But then something else would have taken its place as well.

 

[Alex_brunius]

1) That the late VIIC submarines, with snorkels, already have most of the advantages some ascribe only to the XXI.

I don't agree here. I believe that submarines and submersibles need two different classes and that snorkel is not as important as you make it up to be. Snorkels not built into the original design (XXI was the first uboat with this) did slow down the slow sub even more. Both when used and when folded down.

The most fundamental difference and reason why they should have a separate class is however these points:

# They had a submerged range of 200km (11hours endurance) running at 10 knots (fast) submerged speeds. This is more then enough to cruise for the entire day at the exact cruising-speed the standard diesel submarines used, without having to even put an antenna above the surface. A snorkel only visible at night could generally not be found by allied radar.

# They had the ability to use exceptional underwaterspeed where it really mattered the most, near convoys that had constant air patrols latewar.

It is a pity that the mechanics (of HOI2 at least) don't really allow for subs to "get away" or evade action that easily. In principle the main advantage of the XXI is not (as some here apparently argue) its greater weapons load or some fantastic stealth ability but merely that its high underwater speed was higher than the speed of most convoy escorts (barring destroyers and above) and coupled with its ability to stay submerged for extended periods of time thus it had a much better chance of survival.

Why don't you consider "stealth ability" to be the same as:
1.) High underwater speed (so one don't even need a snorkel up).
2.) And the ability to stay hidden for extended amounts of time without impairing your movement or tactical flexibility.

I think the later generation of submarines should have the primary advantage of even higher air-defence and higher sea-defence. There is however a problem that the visibility stat kind of ends at 0. Here I really hope that decimal values can be used or early subs need to have much higher values to allow for serious tech improvements all the way to 48.

The primary point I think is that there should be many techs for both sides of the convoy war to improve when trying to get an edge. A tech jump off 6years from 1938 - 1944 in HoI2 as the only improvement didn't provide this possibility of gradual improvements.

I think has been greatly improved for HoI3. There seems to be around 5 continuous techs to improve all technical aspects of the submarines and destroyers, as well as even more doctrines.

I am still missing the (IMHO very important) distinction between a submarine that have disel power as primary propulsion and one that have a more powerful electric engine. Type XXI wasn't alone, the Japanese I-200 class completed 3 subs with underwater speeds of 19knots.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

I don't agree here. I believe that submarines and submersibles need two different classes and that snorkel is not as important as you make it up to be. Snorkels not built into the original design (XXI was the first uboat with this) did slow down the slow sub even more. Both when used and when folded down.

The most fundamental difference and reason why they should have a separate class is however these points:

# They had a submerged range of 200km (11hours endurance) running at 10 knots (fast) submerged speeds. This is more then enough to cruise for the entire day at the exact cruising-speed the standard diesel submarines used, without having to even put an antenna above the surface. A snorkel only visible at night could generally not be found by allied radar.

# They had the ability to use exceptional underwaterspeed where it really mattered the most, near convoys that had constant air patrols latewar.

Why don't you consider "stealth ability" to be the same as:
1.) High underwater speed (so one don't even need a snorkel up).
2.) And the ability to stay hidden for extended amounts of time without impairing your movement or tactical flexibility.

I think the later generation of submarines should have the primary advantage of even higher air-defence and higher sea-defence. There is however a problem that the visibility stat kind of ends at 0. Here I really hope that decimal values can be used or early subs need to have much higher values to allow for serious tech improvements all the way to 48.

The primary point I think is that there should be many techs for both sides of the convoy war to improve when trying to get an edge. A tech jump off 6years from 1938 - 1944 in HoI2 as the only improvement didn't provide this possibility of gradual improvements.

I think has been greatly improved for HoI3. There seems to be around 5 continuous techs to improve all technical aspects of the submarines and destroyers, as well as even more doctrines.

I am still missing the (IMHO very important) distinction between a submarine that have disel power as primary propulsion and one that have a more powerful electric engine. Type XXI wasn't alone, the Japanese I-200 class completed 3 subs with underwater speeds of 19knots.

Just one note about submarine speed.
In 1945 XXI had max. atack speed under water 17 knots(18 acorrding to some sources).
Any sub in ww2 before had max 7 knots.

One interesting fact to observe:Modern non-nuclear submarine has max underwater atack speed..22-23 knots(state of the art german U 212 max 22 knots).Modern nuclear subs has classified speeds,but its believed some can achieve in emergency well over 30 knots( Los Angeles class 33 knots),but this is by throwing virtualy millions of horsepowers of their overheated reactors into water,which is of course terrible waste of energy but nuclears can afford.

So let us think about XXI again.It had 18 knots in 1945, 60 years of evolution of this,according to some not so revolutionary sub,give to non-nuclear subs 5 aditional knots of speed.

The reason_hydrodinamics-nothing radical was achieved in hydrodinamics after XXI,teardrop shaped hull in late 50-s gave fiew % aditional water drag release and thats it.

Now,when I sad that ,lets compare the step in speed between ww2 submersible and XXI?

EDIT-I understand that we are getting booring and iritative (including to moderators) with this electroboat storry, and I am realy now feelling ancomfortably becouse I dont know when they will close some submarine topic again.Newertheless I think electroboat level(1944 /1945 tech. step) in HOI III should offer significant increase in speed and defence of sub compared to previous tech.And I mean significant step.
Realy I think this is logical thing to ask and expect.If this is not logical and legitimate expectation, than I realy dont know what is.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

The storry about Japanese I-200 sub(1945) is interesting.Its shows that around 1945 happend significant shift in submarine design on more than one place in the world,and the result of this were not slightly but fiew times faster and durable(underwater) subs than before.

 

[PB-DK]

Yes, in the game that's true. However, it's just an artifact how thoroughly broken the HOI2 portrayal of sub warfare was. While H&K patrol might catch a sub once in a while, in the game they immediately manage to round up every single sub in the seazone worth of many thousands of square kms. IRL I do believe hunter killers were pretty much waste of resources. Only places where subs would be rounded up was near convoys and in transit by planes. (well, not rounded up but you get the idea..) In Hoi2 convoy attacks didn't actually do any damage whatsoever to the subs?

the latest beta patch helped quite a bit to do damage to subs and do something for the convoy battle for hoi 2, but as we still havn't heard anything about hoi 3's except that the convoy system have had some changes like losing ships in convoy also makes you lose the cargo, we might not have any major improvements in the sub warfare compared to hoi 2...

but then again seeing how the the naval system has changed we might get lucky... heres for hoping for God and co have done it

(and see, no history refences, happy now?)

 

[unmerged(54763)]

the latest beta patch helped quite a bit to do damage to subs and do something for the convoy battle for hoi 2, but as we still havn't heard anything about hoi 3's except that the convoy system have had some changes like losing ships in convoy also makes you lose the cargo, we might not have any major improvements in the sub warfare compared to hoi 2...

but then again seeing how the the naval system has changed we might get lucky... heres for hoping for God and co have done it

(and see, no history refences, happy now?)

No history references here allso,look,I am holding my hands up,check my pockets...ok?


Lets face it HOI II didnt manage to balance subs from the fist moment of its existance to the last minute.Last beta HOI II patch seems to sligtly tried..but..nay..its still if you play with sub seriously after 1943 as Germany,its silly.
In HOI II you are as as Germany such superpower in 1945 but your submarine fleet is simply impotent stockpile of rusting metal..I mean It cant be real historical situation(ups i sad that word again),and even if it is- where is this legendary WHAT IF?..I dont know, I realy dont know what to say or expect from HOI III. So little(if any)informations about subs so far.
If HOI III changed nothing about late war sub developement...

EDIT-I know HOI III will be great game,I simply know and have a good felling to,and I realy am relieing on human intuition.
But about subs in HOI III I am holding my breath....

 

[Alexander Seil]

Nah, Jap national unity will be quite high, I imagine. It will be shattered severly by Atomic Bombs, Strat bombing campaign (not countered effectively enough), Sub campaign and general battlefield losses.

I think it was about 70% in the screens we've seen around 1943.

Though, really, Japan in mid-1945 really did have VERY low national unity, even before the bombs. They were actively looking for peace, with "conditions" that were hardly favorable. About the only real requirements were that they handle demobilization themselves (which they did anyway) and the preservation of the Imperial system (which Americans protected even against the Japanese).

I think that the actual morale of the Japanese is routinely overestimated (as moderns love jingoistic mythology imputed to their enemies - admitting that the enemy can be rational is a taboo). It was the only Axis nation to surrender without a ground invasion (unless you count Bulgaria switching sides). A great example of what the NU system is designed to achieve, I think.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

I think it was about 70% in the screens we've seen around 1943.

Though, really, Japan in mid-1945 really did have VERY low national unity, even before the bombs. They were actively looking for peace, with "conditions" that were hardly favorable. About the only real requirements were that they handle demobilization themselves (which they did anyway) and the preservation of the Imperial system (which Americans protected even against the Japanese).

I think that the actual morale of the Japanese is routinely overestimated (as moderns love jingoistic mythology imputed to their enemies - admitting that the enemy can be rational is a taboo). It was the only Axis nation to surrender without a ground invasion (unless you count Bulgaria switching sides). A great example of what the NU system is designed to achieve, I think.

I believe you didnt correctly make distinction between morale and national unity.Its not the same, actualy has little do do with each other.You can have two fractions fighting for power within same nation,and both fractions can have high morale,but national unity is zero.

Japan morale in 1945 was nothing else but rock,actualy steel-solid.
What about Okinava, Iwo Jima?Americans burned Tokio and hudreds towsands people died in flames still their morale was solid.
If there will be scale about morale Japan should be a raference as 1,and any other nation on planet should be from zero to 1.

Now about national unity in game.We should look on this subject on other way.It has nothing to do with morale.This are simply disturbances in polithical body of nation,but I am looking to this allso as shaken status of strategic command of country becouse of dubious war circumstances.Lowered national unity of course decreases ability of nation to wage war,still has little to do with morale, at least in my eyes.That in game is represented well I think,but for me has nothing to do with morale.

EDIT- you must met Japan people and culture to understand some things about them.I dont know its there word for low morale in Japanese.

 

[unmerged(71436)]

Short question concerning submarines in HoI:

Are submarines and destroyers basically the same unit type apart from stats? Are they basic naval units with different stats or is there a fundamental difference between units that can submerge and units that cannot?

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Short question concerning submarines in HoI:

Are submarines and destroyers basically the same unit type apart from stats? Are they basic naval units with different stats or is there a fundamental difference between units that can submerge and units that cannot?

In HOI II they were quite simillar actualy from one point of view.
Lets see what will be in HOI III.we have so little information concerning just subs proper.

 

[unmerged(51416)]

I believe you didnt correctly make distinction between morale and national unity.Its not the same, actualy has little do do with each other.You can have two fractions fighting for power within same nation,and both fractions can have high morale,but national unity is zero.

Japan morale in 1945 was nothing else but rock,actualy steel-solid.
What about Okinava, Iwo Jima?Americans burned Tokio and hudreds towsands people died in flames still their morale was solid.
If there will be scale about morale Japan should be a raference as 1,and any other nation on planet should be from zero to 1.

Now about national unity in game.We should look on this subject on other way.It has nothing to do with morale.This are simply disturbances in polithical body of nation,but I am looking to this allso as shaken status of strategic command of country becouse of dubious war circumstances.Lowered national unity of course decreases ability of nation to wage war,still has little to do with morale, at least in my eyes.That in game is represented well I think,but for me has nothing to do with morale.

EDIT- you must met Japan people and culture to understand some things about them.I dont know its there word for low morale in Japanese.

Agreed completely. Japan is the nation most vulnerable to National Unity, as it never really developed counters for US strategic weapons. That's what I'm afraid might go wrong in my first HoI3 game (Jap'44). I hope I'll be able to defeat bombers with massed fighters, but lack of destroyers can be a real issue here...