Did I read this correctly?

[Bubblehead1980]

Just checking, did the Japanese Navy's Sub Force really have a 75% casualty rate in WW 2?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Just checking, did the Japanese Navy's Sub Force really have a 75% casualty rate in WW 2?

Hey! I don't remember the actual number, but they had a high loss rate. I'll dig it up from one of my Japanese sub books.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Hey! I don't remember the actual number, but they had a high loss rate. I'll dig it up from one of my Japanese sub books.

I knew it was high, but 75% of their subs lost, that is staggering. I know Germans lost 700+ U boats, which compared to "only" 52 US boats. Loss rates are just staggering for them all.

[propbeanie]

keltos01 or similar would have to correct me, but the only reason that I can see that the rate is listed as 75%, and not closer to 90%, is because the rate you have counts the boats that had been retired and were being used in training. See http://www.combinedfleet.com/sensuikan.htm for more. One Jyunsen B1 left at the end, or one RO boat left... Some of the classes no longer existed.

[Sniper297]

One problem with finding accurate figures for the IJN subs is if they include midget subs, like the 6 that were lost on Pearl Harbor day. Those were two man subs with one motor, lots of batteries, and no engine to recharge the batteries, so they had a max range of 80 miles and very few were recovered by the mother sub - once they were launched they were pretty much written off. Even worse the Kaiten, which was actually a one man kamikaze oversized long range torpedo, was classed as a midget submarine by the IJN. If they count every suicide mission as a loss that would tend to inflate the numbers.

German U-boats, the most common figure I've seen is 40,000 men served in U-boats in WWII, with 33,000 lost. That's more than 75%.

[Sniper297]

Reading a book about USS WARD (4 piper destroyer that sunk the midget sub a couple hours before the air raid on Dec 7) and it mentioned two items that seem significant;

1. A full size Japanese I boat sub patrolling 4 miles outside the harbor was lucky to avoid detection - "several times" in two days she lost trim and broached. Either something wrong with the sub or something wrong with the crew, a disaster waiting to happen.

2. On Dec 10th, a US dive bomber from ENTERPRISE sighted another Japanese I boat on the surface in the daytime near Hawaii, sank it with the loss of the entire 127 man crew.

Off to a bad start, my theory on Japanese sub losses and mediocre success (despite having superior torpedoes) is that they apparently weren't very good at submarine warfare.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sniper297

Reading a book about USS WARD (4 piper destroyer that sunk the midget sub a couple hours before the air raid on Dec 7) and it mentioned two items that seem significant;

1. A full size Japanese I boat sub patrolling 4 miles outside the harbor was lucky to avoid detection - "several times" in two days she lost trim and broached. Either something wrong with the sub or something wrong with the crew, a disaster waiting to happen.

2. On Dec 10th, a US dive bomber from ENTERPRISE sighted another Japanese I boat on the surface in the daytime near Hawaii, sank it with the loss of the entire 127 man crew.

Off to a bad start, my theory on Japanese sub losses and mediocre success (despite having superior torpedoes) is that they apparently weren't very good at submarine warfare.

I believe they COULD have been great a it, especially early on, but the flaw was they did not utilize their sub force properly, stuck to their established doctrine of enemy warships being their primary targets.

Imagine the chaos and damage they would have caused if attacked west coast merchant shipping in 1942, while Germans were attacking east coast shipping during "Drumbeat", when our(US) commanders refused to listen to British and run convoys regularly (as Japanese did for most part until mid 1943 and early 1944, when it was too late). Imagine if they ran an unrestricted submarine warfare campaign against allied supply lines to Australia in manner we did on their supply lines?

Most of their boats lacked capabilities of US and German subs from what I understand, relatively shallow operating depths, slower dive times etc but they had excellent torpedoes and range, as well as brave crews.

[propbeanie]

Their main problem, in my opinion, from what I've read recently in my research for helping keltos01 out with the Climb Mount Niitaka mod, is that their "management" were stuck in a 1905 "Kantai Kessen" mind-set ("Naval Fleet Decisive Battle"). The submarine was a scout and a warrior. It was not to be used to sink lowly merchant vessels. Not only that, but since they were such good scouts, they would make great troop and supply transports, especially in shallow waters with a plethora of US DD vessels to shoot at on the way out... - No! Wait! We change our minds! Instead of Guadalcanal, let's send you to Kiska!... Yeah, that's the ticket, Kiska... ahh yes, I remember her well... Kiska, such a good kisser... sigh...