Can we have a "Pacific Submarine War for Dummies" FAQ?

[Subnuts]

Over the past couple of months I've gotten a little frustrated about the many misconceptions about the Pacific submarine campaign that seem to be clouding people's preconceptions on Silent Hunter IV. Some of them include:

-Submarines had no impact on the outcome of the war.
-American submarines were poorly designed, slow, ungainly, and based on WWI-era technology. They were basically pleasure cruisers with torpedoes.
-Going on patrol on a Fleet Boat was like walking into a shooting gallery full of helpless merchants.
-American torpedoes were useless throughout the war.
-There were no convoy battles during the war, and no night surface attacks.
-Japanese ASW was useless throughout the war, and the Japanese never bothered to develop new technology.
-The losses suffered by US submarines were extremely light, and as a whole the force suffered no major hardships during the war.

So please, does anybody want to start a FAQ?

[Torplexed]

The primary consenus circulating seem to be that the US Navy submariners had it pretty soft compared to the Germans, and that'll be a hard consensus to overcome. The truth of the matter was it was a different war in a different theater with different geography fought with different machines and naval philosophies.

Plus, we had those ice cream machines....that makes us look soft.

[bookworm_020]

I agree with torplexed on this one, you will have to chnage peoples mindset, maybe the game will do it, but I doubt it.

Ice cream machines I kown about, did you know about the deep fat fryers, and in one case, a slot machine!!

One way of finding if you were lucky or not!

[Hylander_1314]

Yes you'll have to adjust your tactics. Japanese convoys were small. The torpedoes stunk, but had a real long range. If they model them, you'll have to be careful about surface attacks with possible armed merchants who wait until you get close enough to blow you out of the water.

Japanese patrol planes like the Rufe (a floatplane version of the Zero), along with the usual Val and long range Zeros which are harder to spot than a PBY or Sunderland.

Hopefully, real Naval engagements like Coral Sea, Midway Bismark Sea, Leyte, the Solomons, etc, etc. Task force picket duty, overt ops, resue missions, and recon. All in the paradise of the South Pcific, while you munch on your ice cream cones from your own onboard Dairy Queen. Since the water purifier constantly breaks down.

[Ducimus]

I've read alot of Beach's books in the past, and from what i remember, being on a US sub was no walk in the park. HOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTT. LIke 120, 130 degree's. Silent running, no fans, tropical enviorment, nothing but electric motors running, decks covered in sweat, crew stripped to their skivies poping salt tablets. Plus Jap ashcan's were alot bigger then the US counterparts as i recall.

[Steeltrap]

As it happens I've read plenty about the Pacific Theatre. I've also always been interested in submarines.

It should be clear to all but an idiot that operating far from any friendly assistance, as was always the case in the Pacific due to its dimensions, under conditions where you were always open to attack at any stage - let alone being expected to find targets etc... - would be stressful. Breakdowns of equipment could prove disasterous, although the crews were pretty ingenious at overcoming some fairly challenging issues (I like the one on Wahoo about getting the dentists at Midway to fill in the pits in the sleeve of the periscope which had been tearing the insulation and packing, causing a constant - although small - leak when raised!).

While it is true that the USA subs were far more reasonable in their crew accommodations and facilities than the Germans, that's more a real indictment of the Germans' subs than saying the USA's were pleasure cruisers! Aircon alone made a significant difference, especially in the hot, humid Pacific, where the sea temperature served to increase temperatures. The sweating and salt tablets mentioned were a good indication that things weren't much fun when running silent.

It IS true that the Japanese did not develop their ASW cpabilities anywhere near the extent to which the Allies did. It's NOT true to say they were impotent - 52 subs (or whatever the exact loss figures are) is still plenty, especially given the fact that the USA deployed far fewer subs than did Germany.

The biggest point is that the subs were overwhelmingly successfull in strangling Japan. I think something like 90% of shipping from mid-44 onwards failed to reach their destinations.....90%!!!! Japan received NO oil shipments in 1945. Thos examples say it all - the subs of the USA were responsible for the most successful interdiction campaign by submarine anywhere, ever. Period.

So, 'easier' than the Atlantic? On balance, yes. 'Easy'? No. Less challenging? Possibly, but had plenty of challenges unique to the conditions.

Done well, the sim should be excellent, interesting and challenging. Same as Atlantic? No. Is that a bad thing? Not at all.

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

The primary consenus circulating seem to be that the US Navy submariners had it pretty soft compared to the Germans, and that'll be a hard consensus to overcome. The truth of the matter was it was a different war in a different theater with different geography fought with different machines and naval philosophies.

Plus, we had those ice cream machines....that makes us look soft.

No, if you really want the USA to look soft, compare the amount of supplies required by a combat division of Germany and the USA......

Read "Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War (Hardcover) by John Ellis" for specifics, but the comparisons are scary indeed!

[Torplexed]

Every nation plays to it's strengths. For the Germans it was tactical finesse and excellent small unit leadership. For the Soviets, it was sheer brute manpower. For the British it was commando raids and regimental tradition. For the USA it was overwhelming industrial output. The result was an army that had a larger tooth-to-tail ratio than any other nation. An army where a lot of leg units confiscated their own 'unofficial' motor pool. An army where a jeep built for four usually carried only two..or one. Not to mention a huge amount of pilfering and waste and stuff ending up on the black market. But considering that the United States had the 16th largest army in the world in 1940 (after Portugal's) waste in the expansion department was probably inevitable. In retrospect, I'm sure World War 2 could have been fought a lot more efficently and smartly by all sides...but unlike a simulation there was only one go at it.

[Soviet_Sharpshooter]

The fact the crews of US subs had to deal with hot weather isnt going to be reflected in the game, Silent Hunter 4 WILL be a easier game to play, obviously because the US did alot better in the pacific then Germany did in the Atlantic, this will allow more people to enjoy the Silent Hunter series, alot of game series do this to open up to a wider audience.


Personally ill miss playing the underdogs

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Every nation plays to it's strengths. For the Germans it was tactical finesse and excellent small unit leadership. For the Soviets, it was sheer brute manpower. For the British it was commando raids and regimental tradition. For the USA it was overwhelming industrial output. The result was an army that had a larger tooth-to-tail ratio than any other nation. An army where a lot of leg units confiscated their own 'unofficial' motor pool. An army where a jeep built for four usually carried only two..or one. Not to mention a huge amount of pilfering and waste and stuff ending up on the black market. But considering that the United States had the 16th largest army in the world in 1940 (after Portugal's) waste in the expansion department was probably inevitable. In retrospect, I'm sure World War 2 could have been fought a lot more efficently and smartly by all sides...but unlike a simulation there was only one go at it.

Spot on. Wasn't having a go at the USA, more saying that the icecream on subs was really a nothing compared with the supplies to a normal combat division when compared with other nations. Interestingly, in some respects the Soviets were superb logisticians and their divs fought very well on even lower supply requirements than the Germans. They also had a mania for camo and concealment, and were probably the best of anyone at achieving large-scale force movements in secret.

Would be interesting to speculate on what a division made up of the best aspects of the various combatants' forces would look like and how it would perform.

[Torplexed]

[quote=Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Spot on. Wasn't having a go at the USA, more saying that the icecream on subs was really a nothing compared with the supplies to a normal combat division when compared with other nations. Interestingly, in some respects the Soviets were superb logisticians and their divs fought very well on even lower supply requirements than the Germans. They also had a mania for camo and concealment, and were probably the best of anyone at achieving large-scale force movements in secret.

Would be interesting to speculate on what a division made up of the best aspects of the various combatants' forces would look like and how it would perform.

Yeah I always wonder how the Soviets would have performed if Stalin hadn't basically beheaded the Red Army in the 1930s. There were some real armored warfare visionaries in the Soviet General Staff who got the axe. Somehow General Zhukov survived the purges to show what could have been.

Let's seeee. What we need in our mixed WW2 unit is the stoic toughness of the Russians....the stiff upper lip of the British officer corps...the tactical and initiative minded Germans....the wisecracking can-do spunk of the Americans...the martial fervor of the Japanese. The Aussies and Kiwis to add character. Probably have to put the Italians and the French in the quartermastering department. I'm just kiddin'......I have French-Canadian relatives I probably shouldn't post that publicly.

Whoa...I've gone way OoooTeee.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

No, if you really want the USA to look soft, compare the amount of supplies required by a combat division of Germany and the USA......

Read "Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War (Hardcover) by John Ellis" for specifics, but the comparisons are scary indeed!

____________________________________________
Well what about looking soft? If you want to look tough join a biker gang. If you want to win a war, having more material then the enemy can be useful.

[Steeltrap]

My comment was meant to convey the view that there are other comparisons that serve more effectively to make the USA look 'soft'.

I was not, nor ever would, suggesting that those who fought in any theatre of combat, from any side, were soft.

Your comment might be seen as rather self-evident, to a point. On the other hand, having more material might lead to profligacy with it, which is a problem when the material in question is manpower.....that is the essence of Ellis' book (I recommend it as a very thorough and interesting study).

Anyway, if there was any feeling that I was calling the forces of the USA soft, let me make it clear I was NOT.

[JSF]

I am surprised at the perception by some in this forum of the American Forces during WW2. I am almost left with a sense the majority here share a common notion that America fumbled thier way to victory during the second world war. As if by some misfortune the Axis powers lost the war because the American lead Allies screwed up in reverse.

[Bort]

Plus, we had those ice cream machines....that makes us look soft.

MMM...ICE CREAM....rrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhh