USN Convoy Attacks

[Reinhard Dietz]

So I'm puttering around and have found a convoy of troopships. SUBPAC wants them destroyed. Being an old Kriegsmarine hand, I figure there's one way to destroy an early war (17 DEC 1941) convoy, and that's a nighttime surface attack.* The problem here is that it's 0830.

I'm sorely tempted to stalk this convoy---currently anchored or something like it---until nightfall and then race in at flank speed on the surface, but certain things seen in the convoy's guard suggests that would be a short-lived attack. Right now, I'm trending towards a nighttime submerged effort. So, all you fleet boat fanatics: What's the USN manual say?

*Through the magic of the hydrophones and the periscope, I've got a pile of escorts, including a couple of light cruisers.

[Diopos]

The USN says: We pay you to DIVE!

:DL


.

[razark]

Proper pre-war/early war doctrine would be for you to dive deep, and conduct an attack by hydrophone. Do not risk your boat. Do not risk your crew. Do not get detected.

But if you want to throw out the book and sink ships, I'd suggest a submerged daytime attack. Do what you must to get in, sink the targets, and get out to do it again.

[Reinhard Dietz]

Proper pre-war/early war doctrine would be for you to dive deep, and conduct an attack by hydrophone. Do not risk your boat. Do not risk your crew. Do not get detected.
You're serious, aren't you? I thought I had seen others make reference to this, but I kind of wrote it off as a joke. A bearing-only attack using unguided torpedoes seems like a waste of time---perhaps if I had ADCAPs (and that's the only kind of attack I can manage with modern boats, since I can't do TMA to save my life) it'd make sense.

But if you want to throw out the book and sink ships, I'd suggest a submerged daytime attack. Do what you must to get in, sink the targets, and get out to do it again.I'm probably going to give that a shot. With a totally green crew, my brilliant idea of a surfaced nighttime attack is probably suicide against a group of cruisers. On the other hand, the passive-only attack seems like it would be fun, if pointless.

[Armistead]

Depends on conditions and how brave you are. Once you get use to how the game works, you'll learn to get way ahead of it's track, dive and wait and shoot as close as you can. Try to put yourself between the escorts and keep a narrow profile. If you're playing stock, this is a easy attack, using TMO, much tougher. The most important thing in not being heard while submerged is rough seas, that with silent running you can get by with murder.

If your unsure or water is calm, shoot spreads from longer range, 3000 yards or so.

[razark]

You're serious, aren't you? I thought I had seen others make reference to this, but I kind of wrote it off as a joke.

Yup. I'm serious. In pre-war exercises, a commander who managed to get his periscope seen by the "enemy" stood a very high chance of being relieved of command. The submarine was thought of as a scouting unit for the fleet. As most of the US fleet was still sitting in Pearl Harbor, the submarine force took up the slack. The early skippers showed very little success, and were soon replaced by younger, more aggressive officers. These younger officers also had the advantage of having been on actual war patrols under the pre-war skippers. They knew what would work, and what wouldn't.

[Reinhard Dietz]

If your unsure or water is calm, shoot spreads from longer range, 3000 yards or so.
The water's almost as smooth as glass and the conditions are essentially CAVU. I'll probably try the 3,000 yards attack; might be safer since the Sargo boats aren't the deepest-diving in the world.

[Reinhard Dietz]

Well, bother. I've tried this attack four or five times and can't score a single stinking hit, due to that whole "dowdy old transport handle like a racing boat" bit. Using ye olde external camera, I've watched Small Passenger Carriers out-accelerate and out-maneuver torpedoes like pros. "Oh, for <expletive deleted> sake!" has been heard rather often in the last two hours.

Between that and the dud torpedoes, nothing's working. Give me a Type VIIC or a Type IXC and I'll take all six or seven destroyers, three light cruisers and eight transports. :damn:

It would help if I could pause the game and pre-set the torpedo depths for all eight tubes.

[KlassenT]

That, sir, has always confounded me a bit. Is it historically accurate to have an independent per-tube depth control dial and a universal spread control dial? Always seemed to me that standardization would call for the same behavior on both dials, either both independent or both universal... Ever been looked into by the mod squads, just for kicks? :88)

[NorthBeach]

I'll assume you have speed and course plotted. If seas are smooth, I'd use a Vector Analysis attack using sonar at a depth of 149 feet (a foot over max firing depth). So, range doesn't matter. Compute your attack 2deg off true to lessen the 90deg dud factor. Sonar contacts are at MOT or at the screw (I've never figured out which, for sure), so at 3000 yards lead your target by 4degs if under 10kts for the first shot of your salvo. Adjust your gyro angle ahead by 1deg for the 2 successive shots.

External booms and internal whoops should follow...

[KlassenT]

... 149 feet (a foot over max firing depth)...

Hmm, I don't think this is a universal number, then. It's 99ft (100 max) for me in stock 1.5, so it may be altered by a mod or it may just vary between sub classes. *shrugs*

[Reinhard Dietz]

That, sir, has always confounded me a bit. Is it historically accurate to have an independent per-tube depth control dial and a universal spread control dial? Always seemed to me that standardization would call for the same behavior on both dials, either both independent or both universal.
I'll readily confess that I'm used to the tube-by-tube setting ability in SHIII. I'm also not particularly pleased with the auto-TDC setting depth for me every time I select a target since I know a little something about USN torpedo depth patterns and am adjusting for it. If I didn't have to flip out of the target data page and reset the depth (if not the speed and pistol settings) constantly, I'd probably do a little better. For whatever reason, a torpedo attack in SHIV seems a lot more like spinning a bunch of plates on sticks all at once instead of the leisurely sniping on careful settings that I get away with in SHIII.

I'll assume you have speed and course plotted. (...) External booms and internal whoops should follow.
NorthBeach, I have enough trouble with a completely assisted attack; doing this with my aiming skills would be a larger disaster than it already is. Between the most excellent performance of Japanese naval propulsion and their remarkable maneuverability, about the only way I'll probably get a hit on this convoy is using a nuclear-tipped SS-N-19.

I'm currently very tempted to get a ship physics mod, either of the JREX or Webster variant. Anyone got opinions on either of those?

[NorthBeach]

@KlassenT- re firing depth. You're correct. The depth is sub-class specific. I've been in a Balao for so long I posted 149 without thinking.

@RD- Pre TMO I used Webster's mod with satisfaction.

[magic452]

You are attacking one of the most difficult convoys in the game if you are after the one I think you are. If so they have circled the wagons and there is no way to get close, the escorts are pretty good and the little troop ships are hard to hit.

The only really good shot you have is to wait till dark and shot from longer range or till they start moving again.

For auto targeting you do not need to lock on the target. When you lock on that sets the torpedo depth, but if you don't lock you can set the depth yourself. It's been a long time since I played auto but I think I remember it this way. But then....... lets just say I'm getting old.

Webster's physics mod works pretty good but has limits.
Might check out his GFO mod as well. These only work with stock 1.5

The difference between Fleetboats and U boats is in Fleetboats it starts out hard and gets eraser. U boats is the other way around.

Magic

[Armistead]

We all went through it, in time it'll be pie to you. If you're shooting from far away, shoot wider spreads. If I use the stad, once I get it set, I'll unlock and set a bearing in front of the ship and shoot at the juicy spots as they cross the wire. Basically if you shoot one in front far enough, he'll slow down for it to pass, but the next two coming shoud be more MOT and should hit him.

They can see torp trails easy in calm water, so if you don't feel safe getting closer in, may want to track until better conditions.

[Gibus]

For whatever reason, a torpedo attack in SHIV seems a lot more like spinning a bunch of plates on sticks all at once instead of the leisurely sniping on careful settings that I get away with in SHIII.


Why must we always compare SH III and SH IV?
They are two different games that each have the pretension to be like history. However, German history is not American history.

[looney]

because both games are about submarine warfare during WW2.

[Reinhard Dietz]

Why must we always compare SH III and SH IV?
They are two different games that each have the pretension to be like history. However, German history is not American history.
Because there's an excellent chance that I'm doing something wrong when playing SHIV as opposed to SHIII---maybe someone else has been in the same situation and can say either "Yes, here's what to do" or "No, it doesn't work like that on a fleet boat". The feeling I get is that I'm fighting the UI more than I'm fighting the AI, if you take my meaning.

I am tempted to write to Admiral Lockwood (or his predecessor) and request that I be issued a Type IXB; it would make things easier. :yeah:

[Bilge_Rat]

underwater hydrophone attacks were tried in dec. 41, but were quickly abandoned in favour of proper periscope attacks, since skippers realized they were useless.

night surface attacks did not become the norm until 44-45, using radar.

regarding the TDC, one nice thing about SH3/4 and 5 is that they simulate each nation's approach.

The US TDC was the first functioning fire control computer and was decades ahead of what other navies were using. The one in SH4 closely simulates the way the real TDC worked. Use it properly and it is an invaluable tool.

The Kriegsmarine aproach was much more manual based on estimates by the Kaleun. Both Sh3 and SH5 properly simulate this method. I personally prefer the way it is handled in SH5, but that is a matter of personal choice.