To sink the 1,314 ships in the Pacific in WW2, an amazing 14,748 torpedoes were fired

[pdiddy]

Take heart all you 100% realism players! That's roughly one ship for every 11 torpedoes fired! I hate missing, but if you are sinking two ships per patrol you're about fleet average!

Of course, you're probably doing much worse early war with duds, so you'll have to step up your game late war!

Info found here: Ahoy - Mac's Web Log

[TorpX]

I recently went through the statistics in the back of Roscoe's US Submarine Operations of WWII, and while I never totaled the torpedo and ship numbers, your figures tell the same story.

For instance, I divided the number of merchant ships sunk by the number of attacks made. The best monthly figure was 51%, and most were a good deal less than that. In fact in a lot of months the average was no more than 25%.

[merc4ulfate]

It's a big ocean.

[merc4ulfate]

[ssjtoma]

like these documentaries.

[Spraug]

Wow, they even "have" a Tang crew member!

[pdiddy]

Sweet video! Thanks!

Slowly making my way through it. At about minute :35, the narrator tallies the 1942 results: abysmal with about 1/2 ship sunk per patrol!

[TorpX]

I recently finished reading LUCK OF THE DRAW, by Capt. C. Kenneth Ruiz. In it he comments on JANAC assessments:

Time and again during the war, the submarine fleet did not receive credit for sinkings and damaged ships for a variety of reasons, including interservice rivalries. The official U.S. summary, The War Against Japanese Transportation, was prepared and published by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. That alone should indicate why submarine sinkings were not always carefully documented. The postwar Japanese records left much to be desired and were of little help in documenting sinkings. The Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee, which established credits for sinkings and damage, was dominated by the Strategic Bombing Survey report, though there was input from the Submarine Operations Research Group.

[emphasis in original]

While other authors made critical comments about the matter, these are the sharpest I've come across. They strongly suggest that the Silent Service was short changed and sinkings were, in fact, significantly undercounted.

While both Blair, and Roscoe seemed to view JANAC figures with a degree of skepticism, they nevertheless relied on them for their histories. Possibly, they did not see any alternative.

I wish I knew more about the details of how the figures were compiled.

[pdiddy]

Originally Posted by TorpX

They strongly suggest that the Silent Service was short changed and sinkings were, in fact, significantly undercounted.

Yes, this is most interesting. The more I learn about it, the more it seems either the report and its methodology (or political aim) was flawed or every single sub Skipper's reporting methodology was flawed. It is difficult (for me) to see how it can be viewed any differently.

However negatively the Silent Service felt about the report - concerning criticism, they were unbelievably (to me) but perhaps unremarkably...well...silent.

Though I have noticed in the "Silent Service" TV series, RADM Dykers, the host/narrator, often uses figures in opposition to the JANAC report. He will usually preface with something like "According to my figures..." even though the JANAC report had been out for well over a decade by then. Perhaps collectively the WWII veterans chose to simply ignore the report.

As time marches on, matters such as these will become increasingly difficult to distinguish!

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by pdiddy

As time marches on, matters such as these will become increasingly difficult to distinguish!

Quite so.

I was thinking about this because in any war sim with ships, be it SH or WitP, you need to estimate the size of the Japanese merchant fleet. If you have to rely on inaccurate/incomplete records, then estimates of shipping traffic may be off the mark.