On being fair to Submarines

[Clausewitz]

It is with some trepidation that I post some more new rule proposals, as doing so in recent weeks has begun to feel like something akin to stepping out in front of a firing squad.
There they all are: DocD, TrimChris, Rolly Polly; pasty faces all in a row, pieces cocked, and grinning horribly.
Anyway, I have no last requests so here goes with a piece on submarines.

I was trying to come up with a way of making submarines (and hence destroyers) more powerful as they very quickly disappear from my games. They ALWAYS seem to be taken as the first casualty in a naval battle and NOBODY ever buys new subs. This seems a poor representation of submarine warfare. After all, the nearest the western allies came to defeat was when the U-boats were sinking more ships than were being built, and the Japanese stated after the war that the sinking of their transport shipping by US subs was the biggest single factor contributing to their defeat.
Then I reviewed the rule that "Submarines may never fire at aircraft" and it hit me.
If this rule is absolute, despite the fact that towards the end of the war German U-boats were fitted with more powerful AA guns and ordered to engage aircraft on the surface rather than evade them by submerging, then we should equally enforce the rule that
"Battleships may never fire at submarines". This is because in the whole history of naval warfare only one sub was ever sunk by a battleship (a lucky ramming incident in WWI).
It is then only natural that this is extended to all ships other than destroyers so that
"Only destroyers and aircraft may ever fire at submarines".
This completely transforms the nature of sub warfare, with navies virtually required to build destroyers to escort all their surface fleets.
Add three more changes into the mix.
1. Make the oceans wider. If the allies can skip across the Atalantic in one turn there is no chance of the U-boats making much impact.
2. Import Combat Air Patrol from Pacific. This nullifies the new sub advantages in coastal areas, but creates natural sub "killing zones" in deep water areas.
3. Implement simple stealth rules for subs, which can move unseen by the enemy (write moves down on paper), unless discovered by destroyers or CAPs.

If this all seems to be making combat down the road of the "Scissors, Paper, Rock" school of warfare, don't blame me. Blame the bloke who came up with the chestnut about subs not firing at planes, thus condemning subs to an early, miserable death.

Alright then, hotshots! Do your worst. :cool:

[TrimChris]

Let's get this party started. Right!

Limiting what can hit subs is great for those subs away from fleets on stealth missions but then in a larger battle they're often the piece you'd rather lose. Then we're back to the cruiser needed to replace a destroyer needed for a drop to another 2/2/2 unit. I support that.

Widening oceans. Good in theory but how to handle all of the other game balancing ramifications? Maybe double the size of the oceans, but then double the US income to compensate their increased infrastructure costs and delay in getting into battle. The US income is the most short changed in the game anyway when compared to its true productive power.

CAP is fine.

Even the sub stealth rules have merit but I think this would add a lot of time to the game. Having to carefully consider all of your naval moves b/c of potentially lurking subs shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Karel Doorman]

Ready!
...
...
Aim!
...
...
Wait a second,
Hold your fire!

I just got a report from HQ. Let me read it out to you:

This Clausewitz bloke isn't a traitor, he's just misunderstood sometimes. We all agree that he can be way out of line every once in a while and we can all recall moments when his diarea of words was really too much a man can handle. We just waved the white flag to be able to get the hell out of there! If english was his native language our commander in chief (the great Dutch but dead hero Karel Doorman) would have given him hell on some subjects.
But hey, try to be understanding. We don't exactly call him a genius but every once in a while he has some pretty good ideas. Take his comments on subs for instance. "Why can't subs shoot down planes?" he asked. We always took for granted the fact that the subs in our armies were just lame boats manned by idiots that could remember nothing more than looking at their depth meter from training. But not Clausewitz! He opened our eyes so we are able to recognize the qualities of these sub-things. They are built to be under water allright, but not to be there for ever after T2! Clausewitz asks us to be good to our subs and their fine crews and tells us to let them be the sitting ducks of the A&A family no more!
It takes courage people, to stand up for the suppressed boats of our fleets. And because of this, we declare Clausewitz Dreyfuss a free man again! At least untill he really pisses us off with some of his little less caring thouhts on units.

You're all dismissed gentlemen, and remember the lesson you just learned:
Be nice to subs, and give em something to kill!

[Krieghund]

Or you could keep the oceans the same size and only allow fighters that are CAPed or carrier-based to hit subs. (Hmmm, this is starting to sound hauntingly familiar.)

[sking500]

I hear you Clausewitz...although I would also add an economic effect of subs and "raiders" that is not reflected in A&A.

While there were several strategic contributions made by subs sinking warships, their primary impact was economic. A&A Europe reflects this fact, but it is completely overlooked in standard A&A.

Also, surface warships were used pretty extensively by the Germans for raiding operations targeting merchant convoys. While their effect was somewhat more limited than the subs, the Allies were terrified of this use of the German surface fleet, and committed substantial amounts of their fleet to counter it.

How about a rule where a transport taken as a casualty would incur 1 IPC in "economic damage" to the owning player?

Or that a player could only derive economic benefit from territories that are able to trace a path back (through friendly-controlled territories, and/or friendly-controlled/unoccupied sea zones) to an IC? While this is more complex, it also provides a more detrimental economic effect, and would encourage using "cheap" subs to effectively cut off nations from their remote economic sources (something the British and Japanese were critically dependent on).

[Lobo]

While there were several strategic contributions made by subs sinking warships, their primary impact was economic. A&A Europe reflects this fact, but it is completely overlooked in standard A&A.

Or that a player could only derive economic benefit from territories that are able to trace a path back (through friendly-controlled territories, and/or friendly-controlled/unoccupied sea zones) to an IC? While this is more complex, it also provides a more detrimental economic effect, and would encourage using "cheap" subs to effectively cut off nations from their remote economic sources (something the British and Japanese were critically dependent on).

I think you're on the right track here. How about having convoy routes (not boxes but lines) drawn on the board, running from overseas territories back to production centers? IPCs are lost if enemy naval units occupy SZs crossed by these convoy routes. Alternatively, have tiny convoy boxes along the convoy routes. This would probably necessitate more sea zones on the board, but I think we are all leaning in that direction.

[DocD]

I was once a leading researcher and chief of staff at the Asylum for Houserulenotics, but lately, von Clausewitz has been showing sooooo much improvement that I hereby officially resign from that post!
As far as one of the firing squad members Clausey...well, let's just say I agree with Doorman and proclaim you a freeman for now!
Again I agree fully with you in your analysis of subs. I have purchased a few in my many games, but only as cannon fodder and not as the attack vessels they represented in WWII. So I welcome your ideas which so far seem quite good.

Again...I really have to wonder why I am having these dreams about agreeing with you von Clausewitz. I may have to have the health inspector check my water.
See ya....

[TrimChris]

Hmmm, maybe the low starting 42 IPCs for USA reflects some implicit success of hidden German subs.

[Lobo]

Hmmm, maybe the low starting 42 IPCs for USA reflects some implicit success of hidden German subs.

I don't think so. The US was more than self-sufficient in resources during WWII. The US did use ships for moving goods up and down the coastal areas, but was able to transfer this traffic to pipelines and railroads without too much trouble. The low IPCs for the USA is more for keeping the game balanced.

The British and Japanese were the ones that depended on overseas shipping.

[sking500]

I don't think so. The US was more than self-sufficient in resources during WWII. The US did use ships for moving goods up and down the coastal areas, but was able to transfer this traffic to pipelines and railroads without too much trouble. The low IPCs for the USA is more for keeping the game balanced.

The British and Japanese were the ones that depended on overseas shipping.

Also, don't forget about the Russians and Murmansk. While not the backbone of their production, the Germans put a pretty good effort forth to try and shut it down. I remember an anecdote that trucks bearing the letters USA were so common the Russian people thought it meant the Russian equivalent of "Kill that SOB Adolph!"

[pagan]

A sub would be nice if it had the ability to actually do something in causing pain to your opponent such as:

1. Being able to submerge on Sighting in DEFENSE. No matter if they are part of a naval force or alone. This opportunity happens on the first phase of the combat and only before the battle begins. if the sub rolls a 2 or less on a d6 it MAY submerge before battle. A submerged sub no longer qualifies the seazone as being enemy occupied. (tranys can then move freely PLUS removes the ability to sub-stall)

2. Subs are able to target TRANSPORT ships. On attack, the sub(s) can pick a specific TRANSPORT target and try to sink it.

3. Subs can move under occupied seazones on their first move and strike in an adjacent seazone on its second move. (current standing rule)

4. Destroyers negate sub abilities in a 1:1 ratio
a. the ability to submerge on Sighting in defense
b. the ability to Target a transport
c. the ability to swim under SZ

5. Remove DD Bombardment tech and make it standard
a. DD 2/2 att/def + bombardment still cost 12IPCs

---------------------
I do know that subs in WW2 had less power than described here. However, they did have the abilities listed above. And I would even consider raising the price of a sub (the one listed above) to 10 IPCs.

---------------------------------
my view on CONVOY ZONES:
To make the naval war a bit FUN, would be to install Convoy zones.

But these zones should not be a diffusion of standing IPCs of USA+UK territory money. They should merely be a way for the axis to cause 'a little' damage on the Allies. In saying this -->

Convoy Zones: when an enemy SUB is located on a convoy zone, the owners zone (UK or USA) will lose 2 IPCs per zone (per sub?) taken. I.E.. germany's attack into a convoy zone forces the Convoy Zone's owner to lose 2IPCs. Or just make it 4 IPCs with any enemy sub in the zone for ease of use. This loss of money only happens at the begining of the UK/USA turn. this removes problems of combatant SS not being able to hit for shipping damage. Also gives allies a way fo clearing out CZs for each other.

Where should you put convoy zones?
1. They should be in BOTH the atlantic and the pacific.
2. They should be an Extra move to enter
3. The convoy zone boxes should be WITHIN a single sea zone.
4. I don't know which sea zones (smile)

[Lobo]

Also, don't forget about the Russians and Murmansk. While not the backbone of their production, the Germans put a pretty good effort forth to try and shut it down.

Yeah, I did not mean to say that only UK and Japan depended on sea transport, just that they were the most dependent.

I didn't mean to slam TrimChris' idea either, it's a good idea, but would not apply to US , maybe other nations though. I don't think it would be good to use it in A&A because it takes away a strategic decision and this is a strategic game.

Mike Selinker replied to my question about adding SZs. I don't agree with the rationale given for having so few SZs. Naval combat was not all that common, carriers were important (in all theatres) because of their reach, and battles would take place eventually as one task force chased down the enemy to destroy them. So if his reasons are the only down side to additional SZs, I think it would be good to add SZs for house rules.

[TomJag3]

For those wanting subs to have 'superman' abilities, for only 8 points, a few things need to be added to the game. Lend Lease from the US to Britain and Russia needs to be added (Don't forget the Firefly Tank for Britain). The US economy needs to be nearly doubled.

More accurate starting naval dispositions need to be created, give the US, British, and Germn navies their due. Cover all the sea zones with merchant ships. Add U-boats off Brazil. Allow Liberty ships, one being produced each week is hardly representative of the 8 points it costs the US currently. Put out another carrier for the US with 1 fighter. Beef up the British fleets. Don't forget the Russian Fleet in the Baltic, the BB's at anchor that provided artillery support for the defense of Leningrad. Germans faced heavy AA fire while attempting to take out those BB's. The Russians also had DD flotillas based around Archangel and Murmansk.

For the earlier comment, that only 1 BB ever sank a sub, don't forget, the BB represents more than a BB. Think of it more as a battle fleet composed of BB's, DD's, CA's, and CL's.

My feeling is that submarines are incorrectly portrayed in the game, compared to their historical place. They were more important in a strategic role, versus supply, than in a tactical war in naval combat. Their role in the game would be more appropriately portrayed by DD's, and the destroyers in the game seem more like a cruiser piece. I would enjoy having the strategic role of the DD portrayed in the game, similar to how A&A: Europe tried. It failed because the sub was turned into an attrition unit for naval combat, the proper function of the destroyer. If playing A&A: Europe historically, an interesting Battle for the Atlantic can be fought, going for control of the convoy zones. Third Reich had an interesting way of applying subs to the overall economy.

Yes, the submarines aren't portrayed accurately in the game. However, each naval unit has its purpose and has a role in the game and these capabilities are well balanced. What the game has seems to work pretty well. Some people seem to think that submarines aren't allowed to do enough and should have extra capabilities. However, these people don't want to take away the capabilities that subs have in the game that they never possessed in real life.

[sking500]

In slight contrast to some of my earlier statements, I do believe one point is being overlooked here. Axis and Allies is a "quick and dirty" simulation of WWII. It is not meant to provide the level of detail the true ,hard-core wargamer craves...it is meant to appeal to a larger audience by abstracting certain concepts.

While I prefer the idea of cutting off convoys to damage another player's economy, a submarine destroying a battleship, aircraft carrier, destroyer, or transport abstractly represents the same thing.

That being said, I do feel an adjustable set of rules (i.e. basic, intermediate, and advanced), like many other games, can be applied to A&A. I also don't see where "official" rules coming from Hasbro/Avalon Hill are necessary. There is a large enough community of A&A fans where a consortium could be formed to develop "unofficial" rules that the community agrees upon, and, there are dedicated enough fans to keep it going.

[Lobo]

In slight contrast to some of my earlier statements, I do believe one point is being overlooked here. Axis and Allies is a "quick and dirty" simulation of WWII. It is not meant to provide the level of detail the true ,hard-core wargamer craves...it is meant to appeal to a larger audience by abstracting certain concepts.

I'm not sure it has been overlooked here. I understood this to be a post about giving AAR a slightly harder edge to it. If everyone was happy with the Q&D simulation then cool, no need to even start this thread. Most of the threads on this board including the LHTR can be dropped as well. I

Your caution is worth remembering when we start tinkering with the game. The game's attraction and beauty is in its simplicity.

[sking500]

I'm with you, Lobo...I prefer games with options, and, as a paying customer, I'm all about letting the manufacturer know what you think can improve on their product. However, when the manufacturer doesn't respond, for whatever reason, good or bad, I also feel you have the freedom to take matters into your own hands (individually or collectively), and make things better. I relish these forums, as many great ideas have been posted here.

However, I also feel that we, as a community, don't have to sit idly by petitioning Hasbro/AH for change. There's power in numbers, and if enough paying customer speak with one voice, Hasbro/AH WILL listen. I get a bit frustrated when I see a bunch of posts about "what if's" on these forums, and nothing is done about them.

I respect Clausewitz's (and others') willingness to stick his neck out, in anticpation of taking a few shots. However, conversely, it's proportionally disappointing to see little more than ramblings on these forums come of it.

Want terrain, more sea zones, convoy routes? Publish a few JPEGs of game board overlays that you can print, and use tacky putty to stick to your game board. Offer it in a format where they can be done as transparent overlays so multiple layers can be used. Ink Jet transparencies can be bought cheap at most office-supply stores. Publish the rules along with them in HTML, or PDF.

Want to make some extra money? Offer profesionally printed copies (with tacky putty included, or that are plastic and "stick" by static-electricity) that can be mailed for a nominal fee. As long as you do your own graphics/rules, there shouldn't be any threat of copyright infringement.

Think Hasbro's going to complain if one of your mods gets popular, and increases sales of A&A?...not likely.

Most of this can now be done "on the cheap". You also have a good audience here to solicit feedback from.

[Clausewitz]

For the earlier comment, that only 1 BB ever sank a sub, don't forget, the BB represents more than a BB. Think of it more as a battle fleet composed of BB's, DD's, CA's, and CL's.


Why should BBs have this privilage and not subs? If that's the case why have separate destroyer and carrier pieces? Why not just have a single ship piece to represent "mixed fleets"?
I'm well aware of the fact that one piece doesn't represent one ship, but it's up to the players to buy different pieces to achieve different goals. We should be forced by the rules to buy mixed forces to mutually support each other or suffer the consequences. It's all about achieving the correct balance of cost and abilities, and in my view this has not yet been reached in regards to subs and destroyers.

[TomJag3]

Clause, I haven't a clue, since I didn't design the game. Just trying to apply common sense.

I'm glad to see the Germans with the DD in the Baltic, it is a fair representation of their surface warship capabilities. A BB, a couple of BC's, a handful of CA's and DD's make the DD piece a fair representation of their navy. The only reason I can think of for having them begin with only 3 subs would be factoring a subs abilities against warships. The game design doesn't allow subs to be used in their historic role, which was primarily to prey on merchant shipping. (I know torpedos were deadly against surface warships, especially the Japanese 'Long Lance', but a submarine is a fragile ship that is slow. Their top cruising speed on the surface was about the convoy speed of a task force. They had to depend on being in a location where shipping was passing through.) Merchant shipping isn't a factor in the game at the strategic level, where the impact of subs would be noticed.

A&A is a great game, but it is a 'beer and pretzels' game. It's not complex and it shouldn't be. It does a great job of doing what it was designed for. If a person is looking for great detail for WWII, they need to look elsewhere. They need one of the games with over 100 pages of rules for a single campaign.

Task Forces weren't composed of only 1 ship type. I like to think that the different naval units represent different mixes of units. Because subs didn't mix with other units when in action, I suppose that subs represent the wolfpacks. BB's represent powerful task forces made up of BB's, CA's, CL's, and DD's. DD's would be less powerful task forces with CA's, CL's, and DD's. CV's represent a carrier group with CV's, CA's, CL's, and DD's.

I think the mix of different naval units, each with their own special capabilities, add a nice feel to the game.

[Clausewitz]

Look, will people stop telling me to go and play some horrendous hex and counter dinosaur. I like A&A. I still want to play A&A, but that doesn't mean I have to accept all the official rules verbatim. If I think there's a problem with subs and destroyers I want to fix that problem within the parameters of A&A. The aim is not to produce a more complex game, but one that is better balanced, i.e. where every unit has a specific and important role. If everybody just buys stacks of infantry and nobody ever buys destroyers then that, in my opinion, is a flaw in the initial design and just because I would like to address that with a fix doesn't mean that I want to change A&A into a different game.

[Clausewitz]

Again...I really have to wonder why I am having these dreams about agreeing with you von Clausewitz. I may have to have the health inspector check my water.
See ya....
I know what you mean, Doc. I'm scared too. :(

[Lobo]

Look, will people stop telling me to go and play some horrendous hex and counter dinosaur. I like A&A. I still want to play A&A, but that doesn't mean I have to accept all the official rules verbatim.

Have you looked at the Axis and Allies Enhanced Realism Rules by R.D.Baker? They were designed for MB edition but they have some interesting features that make for a more interesting, realistic and balanced game.

The unfortunate part is that you need a calculator and pencil/paper to calculate your purchases and the game takes a lot longer.

I agree that there can be a middle ground, but it will take quite a bit of work.

[TomJag3]

Clause, a reason people don't buy many naval units is because of the cost. Naval units don't take territories, therefore it's inefficient to buy more than necessary. DD's cost 12 points, and that's a significant investment for 1 unit. That's about a third of a nation's output for a turn. It's wasteful to have more than you need. If you want more naval units bought, cut the costs of naval units in half. I have no idea what that will do to the balance of the game, but it makes purchasing fleets more worthwhile.

[newpaintbrush]

Ya. Good 'un. Hope wotc changes the rules to this.

Dunno about economic advantage, though.

[sking500]

Keep in mind that two of the five major combatants did not make much use (relatively speaking) of their surface fleets. The German surface fleet spent most of its time avoiding the British and Americans while the U-Boats were hunting convoys, not sinking warships. There are only a few accounts of the Russian fleet being involved in any combat (support of Leninigrad is the only one that comes to mind). For these two, a player not investing heavily in ships is fairly realistic (German sub exception).

Obviously the British, Japanese, and Americans are the opposite. In the game this is also reflected well in the fact that all three must invest in sea power, or risk losing the game. I believe the addition of rules governing convoys would encourage more submarine, and destroyer building on the part of the everyone but the Russians.

[cousin_joe]

Check out the Convoy Raids rules in the A&A:Enhanced variant...
http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=2340

-Simple to implement
-No board changes
-Rewards aggressive play (more IPC damage the deeper you get your SUBs into enemy territory)
-Makes destroyers more useful

[TomJag3]

GROGnads, where did you get your information?

Overall in WWII, raiders were the #5 cause of merchant shipping losses in the Atlantic. From 1942, on (the time covered by A&A), they ranked only #7.

From 1939 - 1945
Submarines 14,686,000 tons
Aircraft 2,890,000 tons
Mines 1,406,000 tons
Other causes 1,030,000 tons
Raiders 830,000 tons
Warships 498,000 tons
Coastal forces 230,000 tons

From 1942 - 1945
Submarines 9,896,000 tons
Aircraft 1,488,000 tons
Raiders 237,000 tons
Warships 138,000 tons

Another point about the use of Convoy Raiders, they were used in out of the way locations to pick off single ships. Grand-Admiral Raeder did not anticipate that sinkings of merchant shipping by surface raiders would be on such a scale as to seriously threaten Britain's lifelines, but he hoped to draw off and wear down a large part of Allied naval strength through the need to escort convoys and form task groups in an attempt to hunt down elusive raiders.

[squirecam]

Clause, a reason people don't buy many naval units is because of the cost. Naval units don't take territories, therefore it's inefficient to buy more than necessary. DD's cost 12 points, and that's a significant investment for 1 unit. That's about a third of a nation's output for a turn. It's wasteful to have more than you need. If you want more naval units bought, cut the costs of naval units in half. I have no idea what that will do to the balance of the game, but it makes purchasing fleets more worthwhile.

And what do you consider "need" ??

I know that many A&A revised players undervalue the naval game. For instance, how many transports does Japan "need"? Some people might say 4, as that is the max you can transport from Japan to the mainland each turn.

However, this does not consider all the units left behind on Japanese islands. They go to "waste" when Japan has 4 transports or less.

Not to mention that a Navy requires your opponent to build a greater navy to kill yours, or go elsewhere and leave you with control of the seas.

Squirecam

[TomJag3]

GROGnads,

Though 830K tons of shipping is far less than the 14M tons of shipping that u-boats accounted for, it's still an impressive total and far more than I had expected. Perhaps what they meant was that they had individually sank more tonnage than any individual u-boat.

[pagan]

you also need to take out a number from a certain time frame. By taking all tonnage shipped in a certain period of actual german u-boat activity (rather than in their demise) you should be able to get a more accurate depiction of their efficiency.

You will have to take into consideration the methods of employ (the possible tactics & strategies vs. the actual ones) by both the german U-boats, and the Allies transport ships.

[sking500]

Which leads to a side question...which was more accurate, artillery from a ship's cannons, or a torpedo from a U-Boat?

Also, a comment on the tonnage. German surface vessels could be substantially more agressive than U-Boats, being thicker skinned, and less vulnerably to escort defensive fire. I have not read accounts of the tactics used by the German pocket battleships acting as raiders. I would imagine, however, that they were able to actually duke it out with convoy escorts, disable/destroy them, then pick off the merchant ships (even the British "decoy" ships) fairly easily.

Anyone have any knowledge on this subject? I would be interested to find out what accounts there are out there.

Thanks!

[Drax Kramer]

Which leads to a side question...which was more accurate, artillery from a ship's cannons, or a torpedo from a U-Boat?

I don't know what was more accurate, but torpedoes were far more effective since they struck bellow the waterline.

Also, a comment on the tonnage. German surface vessels could be substantially more agressive than U-Boats, being thicker skinned, and less vulnerably to escort defensive fire. I have not read accounts of the tactics used by the German pocket battleships acting as raiders. I would imagine, however, that they were able to actually duke it out with convoy escorts, disable/destroy them, then pick off the merchant ships (even the British "decoy" ships) fairly easily.

German raiders were usually under standing orders not to engage warships if possible. Graf Spee made a mistake of trying to take out three British cruisers (actually Germans thought they were going to attack one cruiser and two destroyers) and was lost.

Fighting the surface escorts would usually mean that merchants would scatter in all directions and possible escape. Thus raiders (as well as submarines) prefered taking out single ships although few successful attacks by Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Admiral Scheer on convoys were scored.

The best effect of raiders was the disruption of the convoy system since British standard response to the presence of a raider was to stop all the convoy traffic until the raider was out of the area.


Drax

[TomJag3]

Which leads to a side question...which was more accurate, artillery from a ship's cannons, or a torpedo from a U-Boat?

Also, a comment on the tonnage. German surface vessels could be substantially more agressive than U-Boats, being thicker skinned, and less vulnerably to escort defensive fire. I have not read accounts of the tactics used by the German pocket battleships acting as raiders. I would imagine, however, that they were able to actually duke it out with convoy escorts, disable/destroy them, then pick off the merchant ships (even the British "decoy" ships) fairly easily.

Anyone have any knowledge on this subject? I would be interested to find out what accounts there are out there.

Thanks!

Artillery is far more accurate than a torpedo. The torpedo carries far more explosive than a shell. Standard torpedoes had a diameter of 21", though the Japanese used 24" torpedoes and aerial torpedoes were 15". A standard sized gun for a destroyer was 5", light cruisers carried 6" guns, and heavy cruisers used 8" guns. Battle cruisers through battleships used 11" up to 18" guns for their main batteries.

Topedoes moved at speeds of 24 knots through 48 knots. Their targets could be moving anywhere from 12 to 30 knots. The problem with hitting a target with a torpedo was to determine the speed of the target, the torpedo speed, the angle of interception, and the angle of the target. A target heading toward the submarine was far more difficult to hit than a target moving across the front of the submarine. Torpedoes were normally launched at less than 2500 yards. Shells could be fired out to 24,000 yards, frequently fired at 13,000 yards. Torpedoes could be set at different speeds, however, the faster the torpedo was set, the shorter range it had.

Because shells travel much faster, it is easier to determine where to fire and except for Japanese Long Lance torpedos, shells have a much farther range. However, many things must be calculated when firing a gun; the roll of the ship, speed of the target, range, velocity of the shell, trajectory, etc. Nearly all shells fired missed. Of course, they were mostly fired at a longer range than torpedoes were launched.

Submarines depended on stealth to get close enough to get a hit. Then, hope the torpedo isn't a dud (read about US early war torpedoes).

Surface raiders did not typically attack escorted convoys and the escort carriers were the doom of vessels (surface and uboats) attacking convoys. They allowed air cover to stretch across the areas of the ocean where land based air couldn't fly. Carrier aircraft would spot subs, attack them, and vector escorts in for the kill. They made it very difficult for uboats to surface for recharging batteries. Read autobiography by Rear Admiral Daniel V. Gallery for interesting story of how the Battle of the Atlantic was won.

[elbowmaster]

and now a word from...


http://www.uboat.net


-cheers

-elbowmaster

[TomJag3]

Ah yes, a fine site.