Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Torplexed
I know this discussion has come up in the SH3 forums. Keyboard U-Boat captains who want to claim that sinking that one vital shipment of Sherman tanks cost the Allies the battle in Normandy and therefore they single-handedly won World War 2 for Germany. 
Japan's shipping is a lot more fragile than the Allies, but to really gauge what effect you have on the war you would almost have to have some vast sub-routine running the entire Pacific War...for both sides. After all you have to calculate the effect of not just the ships you have sunk, but what those 100 odd other US and Allied subs are doing too. Not mention the surface ships, planes, Marine brigades, etc on your side as well. For example, if you sink the Shokaku prior to the Port Moresby operation does that mean the Coral Sea battle is called off and so is Midway? Are the carriers marked for the Midway operation directed to the South Pacific instead? Does it logically amend the war to take in effect what you and other factors cause? |
Midway would still have gone ahead if the Shokaku went down, it went ahaed with Zuikaku in port and Kure without an airgroup (It didn't seem to have occured to the Japs to transfer the airgroup from Zuikaku, together with the Instructors from the flying school onto Kure).
The closest times a single sub has come to affecting the outcome of a war are (in chronological order):
The sinking of the Luisitania, bringing American opinion against Germany.
Damaging Tirpitz (Technically not a single sub, but a single mission) reducing the surface threat to the Arctic Convoys.
The sinking of Ark Royal, potentially lengthening the battle in the Med.
The sinking of USS Indianapolis, if it had happened on the way out.
The Sinking of the Belgrano.