S-Boats, Mk 14s, and Whut??

[TG626]

Rolled into Brisbane 4 July 1942 in USS S-40 with 4 open racks for torpedoes, and I ended up with that...

(FWIW, notice that the screen indicates that the base has 0 Mk10s available)

Mk14s on an S-Boat? What do you do? Load em on the surface and then drive around with them sticking out of the bow??

I *AM* running TMO - so I don't know if it's a SH4 bug or a TMO bug.

[Admiral Halsey]

I think it's a stock bug. The game want's to load those Mark 14's even when you don't want them. I've found it's best to rearm just before ending the mission to ensure this doesn't happen.

[TG626]

Ok then. I reloaded by "just before docking" save game, did a refit, THEN ended the patrol.

I now have all Mk10s.

Thanks!

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by TG626

Ok then. I reloaded by "just before docking" save game, did a refit, THEN ended the patrol.

I now have all Mk10s.

Thanks!

No problem. Oh and yes TorpX that 0 is the renown cost. Unlike SH3 so long as you have the renown you can fill the sub with the most expensive torps due to an unlimited supply. To be fair though the US did have a huge stockpile of torps so its not like there was any danger of running out of the Mark 14's.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

To be fair though the US did have a huge stockpile of torps so its not like there was any danger of running out of the Mark 14's.

Not as much as you think. A significant chunk of the Navy's torps were lost in the Philippines early on, and it took some time to increase production. [I'm talking about the Mk. 14's, I don't know how many Mk. 10's we had.]

Haven't you read about the much disliked mine laying missions, and the poor endorsements skippers got when they used more than two torpedoes on a ship?

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Not as much as you think. A significant chunk of the Navy's torps were lost in the Philippines early on, and it took some time to increase production. [I'm talking about the Mk. 14's, I don't know how many Mk. 10's we had.]

Haven't you read about the much disliked mine laying missions, and the poor endorsements skippers got when they used more than two torpedoes on a ship?

We still had plenty of Mark 10's lying around. Plus with the troubles the Mark 14 had it was no big loss really. Now if the improved Mark 14's were being used at the start of the war then it becomes a huge loss.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by TG626

(FWIW, notice that the screen indicates that the base has 0 Mk10s available)

Isn't the '0' the renown cost of the torp?

IDK about the nature of the bug, it's never happened to me, but someone said S-boats could use Mk. 14's in stock.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by TG626

(FWIW, notice that the screen indicates that the base has 0 Mk10s available)

Originally Posted by TorpX

Isn't the '0' the renown cost of the torp?

This is correct. The number next to the weapon is not the number remaining but the renown cost per weapon. A little cheat to get free fish is to refit before ending your patrol. You'll get the loadout you had when you went to sea and won't have to pay the renown.

[Admiral8Q]

S-Boats should not, because they could-not have Mark 14's. They're tubes couldn't take 'em. Only Mark 10's!

[TG626]

Exactly. That's why I asked and made the "sticking out of the bow" comment, the Mk14s are too long for an S-boats tubes.

I jumped to an assumption with the "0" mostly because the text is red - made me think I was seeing what could be loaded, and that there were none at the base.

Giving the sim too much credit I guess

[Admiral8Q]

Originally Posted by TG626

Exactly. That's why I asked and made the "sticking out of the bow" comment, the Mk14s are too long for an S-boats tubes.

I jumped to an assumption with the "0" mostly because the text is red - made me think I was seeing what could be loaded, and that there were none at the base.

Giving the sim too much credit I guess

Either way, an S-boat could noy have a Mark-14.

[TG626]

I don't know how it exactly factors in, but having a huge stock pile in general doesn't always translate into having a huge stock pile at any given toward base. At least in real life that is.

Seems like the long range of the 14s was a waste, and the exploder issues are well documented (now) so even though they have a lower yield, I'm just as happy with the mk10s ( if I didn't say so before, its mid 1942... )

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by TG626

I don't know how it exactly factors in, but having a huge stock pile in general doesn't always translate into having a huge stock pile at any given toward base. At least in real life that is.

Seems like the long range of the 14s was a waste, and the exploder issues are well documented (now) so even though they have a lower yield, I'm just as happy with the mk10s ( if I didn't say so before, its mid 1942... )

Yeah i've never used the long range setting during any attack except for one time at night when I couldn't penetrate a heavily defended convoy on the surface.

[Snarf]

One can only imagine, the war with Japan probably would have been over by the end of '43 if we had perfectly functioning MK14's. Like TG626 said, it doesn't matter how many you have if they are not where you need them.

I've had a slightly different issue before where a couple of my MK14's magically turned into German torpedoes. I think that was a save game glitch and I haven't seen it happen in TMO.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Snarf

One can only imagine, the war with Japan probably would have been over by the end of '43 if we had perfectly functioning MK14's. Like TG626 said, it doesn't matter how many you have if they are not where you need them.

While I agree, another issue for the US early on was a lack of subs in such a large theater. It wasn’t until late 1942 when sizable numbers of the Gato class were in the Pacific and the Balao class boats were sliding down the ways almost every week that the USN had enough boats to go out and really start doing a Rocky Marciano on the Japanese merchant marine. The less aggressive skippers would still have to be winnowed out as well.

So, until late 1942 the strategic picture would not dramatically change. Sure enough, there would be additional sinkings. There were some really good skippers out there in the early days like Chester Smith, Joe Grenfell, Lew Parks, and “Moon” Chapple who would have come home with the broom lashed to the periscope, signaling a clean sweep. USS Nautilus would have certainly sunk the Kaga at Midway instead of denting her with a dud and may have very well dispatched the Kirishima too. If enough tankers and freighters could have been sunk in the right places, Japanese tactics in the Solomons could have been disrupted as well.

Starting in late 1942 however (approximately 9-10 months earlier than the real event, the maru slaughter would have begun. The lack of tankers and the fuel they transport would have serious implications for the Japanese responses to the Philippines and the Marianas operations. I would estimate that by January, 1945 at the latest the entire Japanese economy, their industry, and their war making potential would have come to a complete standstill, idled by a universal lack of fuel, spare parts, food, and other essentials brought on by the utter destruction of the Japanese merchant marine and that could very well have ended the war right there.