Submarine operational density

[Tisifoni12]

It's early 1940 and there are over 60 French and British submarines operating in the Danish Belts:

• Which is still Danish; neutral
• 60 submarines out in the Atlantic I can accept, 60 in the shallow, constricted and complex Danish Belts; they'd be a navigation hazard to each other . . .

Seriously, there should be some limit on submarine numbers involved in shallow inshore waters

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They are significantly easier to spot and remove. If you assign naval bombing missions there and have any measure of radar at all, you will delete them in droves.

In a co-op MP game recently, I picked Philippines just to have a challenging position. Using a bit of radar and just 200 NAV 2s, Japan's raiding fleet in south China sea died rapidly. It took more doing to get their real fleet to come out, as usual. Eventually I settled on running a sacrificial convoy raiding sub 1 at a time. Killing enough of the IJN to naval invade Japan took well over a year, but knocking them down to 3-5 submarines was a matter of months, with not that many planes.

 

[Tisifoni12]

@TheMeInTeam

Which is why they would not be deployed like that. Submarines do not operate in fleets . . .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A rational actor wouldn't deploy them that way. As a reminder, you're fighting the AI.

There is nothing saying the allies *couldn't* send 60 subs into the Danish belts to suicide during WW2. That was a physically possible move, even in our timeline. It's stupid obviously. But so is the AI meat grinding 5M casualties into a static line or similar suicide operations, which we also observe.

This is also why I get annoyed when people talk about "fleet in being" doctrine allowing naval superiority even when the other side calls their bluff, puts ships in those waters, or hell even sets them to raid convoys. At some point, if the enemy isn't trying to contest the waters, they don't have "superiority". Unless one thinks UK would have just sat there while Germany blasted all their convoys to smithereens in the English channel with surface ships like they'll do in the game sometimes...

 

[davidc929]

A rational actor wouldn't deploy them that way. As a reminder, you're fighting the AI.

There is nothing saying the allies *couldn't* send 60 subs into the Danish belts to suicide during WW2. That was a physically possible move, even in our timeline. It's stupid obviously. But so is the AI meat grinding 5M casualties into a static line or similar suicide operations, which we also observe.

This is also why I get annoyed when people talk about "fleet in being" doctrine allowing naval superiority even when the other side calls their bluff, puts ships in those waters, or hell even sets them to raid convoys. At some point, if the enemy isn't trying to contest the waters, they don't have "superiority". Unless one thinks UK would have just sat there while Germany blasted all their convoys to smithereens in the English channel with surface ships like they'll do in the game sometimes...

When Churchill went back to the admiralty at the start of the war one of his main proposals was to send a surface fleet into the Baltic. He spent months pursuing this but thankfully wiser heads eventually persuaded him it wasn't feasible. In that respect putting 60 submarines in would have been far more rational. Though still stupid.

 

[kaguravitro]

It's early 1940 and there are over 60 French and British submarines operating in the Danish Belts:

• Which is still Danish; neutral
• 60 submarines out in the Atlantic I can accept, 60 in the shallow, constricted and complex Danish Belts; they'd be a navigation hazard to each other . . .

Seriously, there should be some limit on submarine numbers involved in shallow inshore waters

i agree, in general stakking is bad, also need a policy to set the level of naval interdiction (yes a policy with pp and condition)
This also happens with palnes stakking 5000 in a single area

 

[Anaraxes]

• 60 submarines out in the Atlantic I can accept, 60 in the shallow, constricted and complex Danish Belts; they'd be a navigation hazard to each other . . .

So, this comment sent to to Wikipedia just out of curiosity. The Skagerrak strait is described there as being 240 km long and 80 to 140 km wide. Average depth is given as 200 meters, with the max over 700. Max crush depth on WW2 subs was generally around 200-300m, depending on which ones you want to pick, with many models less.

So, depth isn't a limitation, as subs couldn't generally make it to the bottom even if they wanted to, and 60 subs means there's about 440 km^2 per sub, or around 21 km between them in any direction on average.

Hm, that makes me wonder how wolfpacks could operate without being a navigation hazard to each other, with 8 - 20 subs concentrated on a single convoy of, say, 30-70 ships. Let's see, usually broader than they were long, say 6-12 columns of 6, at 400m spacing. So, about 0.16 km^2 per ship. German max torpedo range, 7500 m, so those 8 subs attacking a 6x6 convoy (2.4 km square) have to all be within a 18 km square themselves to shoot at all. Probably a lot closer, of course.

Well, that's it for the random Google searches of the evening. I've got a bit better feel for the scale of things naval. Thanks for prompting the topic. (Yes, I entertain myself in odd ways.)

 

[Tisifoni12]

@Anaraxes
Submarines of this period have to come to the surface to ventilate.
Activity not only in the Skaggerak, but also amongst the Danish Islands.
Why are German convoys going between Swedish West Coast and Germany, why not between Stochholm and Germany. Bad routing designed to encourage purchase of MtG ?

 

[Meglok]

It's early 1940 and there are over 60 French and British submarines operating in the Danish Belts:

• Which is still Danish; neutral
• 60 submarines out in the Atlantic I can accept, 60 in the shallow, constricted and complex Danish Belts; they'd be a navigation hazard to each other . . .

Seriously, there should be some limit on submarine numbers involved in shallow inshore waters

That is a target rich environment. Send in the NAVs, problem solved.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Current run has reached 10/12/1939, with a Polish campaign start of 01/09/1939 and the French and British have lost 102 submarines in the Baltic, Skagerak, Kattegat and German Bight.

Suicidal madness; the AI does not conserve forces . . .

 

[Androbey]

@TheMeInTeam

Which is why they would not be deployed like that. Submarines do not operate in fleets . . .

per Merriam-Webster:

Definition of fleet​

(Entry 1 of 3)
1: a number of warships under a single command specifically: an organization of ships and aircraft under the command of a flag officer
2: GROUP sense 2a especially: a group (as of ships, planes, or trucks) operated under unified control

Yes, submarines operate in a "fleet". Fleet being an administrative organization. It is just that submarines normally sortie individually. Except, when there is specific operation where there is a need to coordinate a group of them. Ex., U.S. use as a life-line to pick up ditched airplane crews, or when operating as a "wolfpack".

Wolfpacks or "Life-lines" were usually mid to late war operations. Also, these groups are centrally coordinated by their HQ.