Merchants vs Warships

Gargamel · 01-20-11, 12:41 PM

DesirableRoasted made a comment in another thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...4&postcount=19) that I think deserves it's own thread, as it would derail the original topic, and by god, we don't go OT here at Subsim.

Quote:

I always wonder why people use high speeds (my temptation is to go slower, but that's just as inefficient). And shoot at destroyers (the two seem to go hand in hand).

Your job is to sink as much merchant tonnage as possible with the ammunition you are given. So it should be a given you do that as efficiently as possible. Don't waste torpedoes and shells on warships.

Yes, I agree our primary mission is the sinking of merchant shipping in hopes of blockading the British Isles.

But is it really a waste to attack a warship or two when that will allow us to sink more merchant shipping? If we find a weakly escorted convoy, or during a harbor raid, we sink the lone ASW craft, allowing us free reign of the docked merchants.

Ie, from a patrol I did early in the war:

Quote:

17.9.39.
1039 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! HMS Brazen (A&B classes), 1350 tons. Crew: 190. Crew lost: 1
1059 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! HMS Resolution (Revenge class), 31000 tons. Crew: 1199. Crew lost: 11
1107 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! MV Teakwood (Modern Tanker), 7292 tons. Cargo: Crude Oil. Crew: 51. Crew lost: 38
1109 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS Ole Wegger (Whale Factory Ship), 12017 tons. Cargo: Aviation Fuel. Crew: 126. Crew lost: 5
1110 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS N. T. Nielsen-Alonso (Whale Factory Ship), 12016 tons. Cargo: Aviation Fuel. Crew: 131. Crew lost: 128
1122 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS Port Auckland (Ore Carrier), 8085 tons. Cargo: Bauxite. Crew: 86. Crew lost: 15
1127 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS Manaar (Large Merchant), 5459 tons. Cargo: Machinery. Crew: 107. Crew lost: 39
1132 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS Ixion (Ore Carrier), 8083 tons. Cargo: Iron Ore. Crew: 86. Crew lost: 67
1142 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS Talthybius (Ore Carrier), 8084 tons. Cargo: Coal. Crew: 96. Crew lost: 82
1218 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS Raranga (Large Merchant), 5460 tons. Cargo: Machinery. Crew: 98. Crew lost: 24
1242 Grid BE 64 Ship sunk! SS Krasnoe Znamya (Tramp Steamer), 2432 tons. Cargo: Coal. Crew: 22. Crew lost: 0

If I had left the lone DD alone, then at best I would have gotten a shot at the Battleship, or maybe the two whale ships. But by taking out the escorts first, I could decimate the convoy.

Opinions? And I'm talking both historically, and game wise, which we know are two separate realities.

Hottentot · 01-20-11, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gargamel

we sink the lone ASW craft, allowing us free reign of the docked merchants.

Historically speaking I think a sub doing this would have been sunk as soon as they could find someone in the harbor who hadn't died of laughter. In game it's of course a different matter.

Sinking a destroyer does indeed often seem like a waste of resources in most cases, though it is satisfactory to say the least. And I agree that if a convoy has very weak escort and is in the middle of nowehere, then it might be a good idea too. I remember doing it occasionally on Mediterranean when I kept bumping into convoys consisting of only two or three merchants and just one destroyer. Then again, for some reason I often liked sinking the biggest merchant from under their noses anyway.

danexpat · 01-20-11, 01:40 PM

1939-vintage British BBs cost about 12,000,000 pounds sterling to manufacture, or $48,000,000 1939 USD, ~ $750 million 2010 USD.

Liberty ships cost about $1.6 million 1941 USD/400,000 pds sterling to manufacture, plus value of cargo, much more than cost of the ship.

But of course, there were only 19 British BBs worldwide and thousands of Liberty ships, so you have to factor in strategic target value. Just talking BBs here, not CVs or CAs.

Here's an excerpt from a good read:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...campaigns.html

Note that the $$ value of allied military shipping destroyed by Uboats was about 66% of merchant shipping/cargo NOT INCLUDING cost of major capital ships sunk.

APPENDIX 1: CALCULATION OF BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC COSTS
Allies:

A. Merchant Ships:
1. Cost of merchant ships lost to sub attack: 14,687,231 tons lost at $420 a ton.
2. It is assumed that 50% of destroyed ships had cargoes and I have estimated the value of each cargo as equivalent to the price of the ship.
3. American Maritime Commission constructed 5,777 ships of 39,920,000 tons during the war that cost $14.2 billion. It is estimated that only 2/3 were used in the Atlantic (this accords well with 61% reported in Leighton's Global Logistics 1940-43 (p.662) which was prior to the increase in lift necessary to handle Overlord).
4. The English and Canadians produced 11.9 million tons during the war. It is assumed their cost of production was as low as in the U.S.
5. The English started the war with 17,430,000 tons. The Americans started with 8.5 million tons (again only assumed 2/3 used in Atlantic). Additionally the Allies seized 3 million tons of shipping from nations occupied by the Axis.
6. It is assumed that 33% of the total merchant fleet was lost due to inefficiency of convoying. That is 11.36 million tons at $420/ton.
7. Repair costs from U-boat attacks were not included.
8. Total: $14.65 billion.

B. Warships:
1. The Americans had 140 destroyers stationed in the Atlantic. Each cost approximately $10 million. Additionally, they had 56 frigates assigned to the Coast Guard. I've estimated their cost as similar to a new frigate ($2.3 million).
2. During the war, the U.S. produced 520 destroyer escorts (DDE) and 96 frigates (FF) for convoy protection. A DDE cost $5.5 million and a FF cost $2.3 million apiece.
3. The Allies built 61 escort carriers that participated in the campaign at a cost of $12 million a piece.
4. The English and Canadians built or seized 169 DDEs. I've estimated their costs as equivalent to a Hunt class DDE ($6.4 million). They also built 156 frigates, 63 sloops (estimated to cost $4 million), 306 Corvettes, 27 other ASW vessels, and 15 armed merchant cruisers (all estimated at $3 million).
5. The English employed about 302 fleet destroyers during the war.
I've estimated that only 50% of their missions were related to ASW and that they cost the equivalent of an U.S. destroyer (a probable underestimation).
6. The cost of coastal defense craft and minesweepers used for ASW missions was not estimated.
7. The cost of major warships sank by submarines was not used in the estimate. [N.B. - see commens above re: BB cost of manufacture]
8. Total: $10.15 billion.

desirableroasted · 01-20-11, 03:42 PM

Game Tactics

The example Gargamel presents is an excellent example of "the theoretical exception proves the rule." If I encountered one ASW escort guarding a BB and a flock of large merchants, whalers, etc., in 1939, then of course the escort is the first target -- I don't care the convoy is alerted, as even their zigzagging presents no great challenge.

But I would have to know in advance it was the only escort, and I am scratching my head trying to recall an instance when I would have had that perfect knowledge.

Even in broad daylight, clear visibility, you rarely can see to the far end of the convoy, unless you use the "X-ray vision lock" exploit. So how are you to know there are no escorts? And in optimal attack conditions (dusk, moderate visibility), you sure aren't going to know.

So, without that knowledge, what do you do? You take down the sheep, not the border collies. If there is only one escort on the flock, that will become apparent soon enough.

Reality

Here, it's just logic. If the merchants are being guarded so carefully by sophisticated escorts, it must mean they are valuable and worth sinking.

And here, the price of replacement, etc, is not particularly relevant. Even cargo value is not necessarily relevant. A box of machine tools, while costing far less than a destroyer, might be essential to making 20 new ones. A merchant and a cargo of wheat don't cost much, but losing 2-3 a week can be the crucial thing in public morale. far more demoralizing than the loss of a destroyer (which might not even be reported in the papers until weeks later).

Game tactics + Reality

Escorts are just a part of the day at the office, and a distraction. My job is to sink merchants. If doing that means I have to sink an escort -- perhaps once out of 25 patrols -- fine, but it is out of necessity. I consider it a wasted torpedo.

But

I like seeing the pesky maggots go KaBoom as much as anyone. But only once in 25 patrols.

Edit

BTW, if you do like taking on escorts and battleships, be up in Narvik on April 10-13, 1940. You will get your fill of both and you will learn more than you want to know about shallow-water defense tactics.

danexpat · 01-20-11, 04:15 PM

Very well put, agree 92.6%

It's a bit of a quibble to say cost of replacement isn't necessarily relevant. Obviously, it's as good a proxy as we have to try to get a handle on the value of what you destroy. Let's put it this way: if a kaleun sank the HMS Hood, would it really matter what he did the rest of his career? Of course not.

Personally, I wouldn't engage one of these wandering DD groups any more than I engage coastal merchants. I don't go after anything less valuable than a C2 unless I'm on the last leg of the trip home.

I'm of two minds on targeting the convoy escort thing for the reason you gave: you usually don't know what else is in there unless you've shadowed the thing for a long time. But at the same time, I'm usually greedy and plan on reloading and taking another bite at the apple in a few hours, so taking out the border collie is very tempting.

U777 · 01-20-11, 04:16 PM

Did anyone ever take a warship down by accident, as in it took the torpedo meant for a merchant?

Gargamel · 01-20-11, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danexpat

Very well put, agree 92.6%

It's a bit of a quibble to say cost of replacement isn't necessarily relevant. Obviously, it's as good a proxy as we have to try to get a handle on the value of what you destroy. Let's put it this way: if a kaleun sank the HMS Hood, would it really matter what he did the rest of his career? Of course not.

Who sank the Courageous?

Who's the leading Kaleun in tonnage?

which of those two do most people (subsimmer's) know off the top of their heads.

desirableroasted · 01-20-11, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danexpat

Very well put, agree 92.6%

It's a bit of a quibble to say cost of replacement isn't necessarily relevant. Obviously, it's as good a proxy as we have to try to get a handle on the value of what you destroy. Let's put it this way: if a kaleun sank the HMS Hood, would it really matter what he did the rest of his career? Of course not.

Well, now you are talking apples and oranges. Hood isn't an escort, it is a national icon, and a capital ship, albeit an aging one. And, for game purposes, you can see it as a 36K ton merchant, because it reacts like a merchant. So of course you sink it.

When I say "escort" I mean naval ships that carry out anti-submarine warfare against you in the game. DDs, ASW trawlers, corvettes, etc. As I said, going after them is like going after the border collies rather than the sheep.

Missing Name · 01-20-11, 05:34 PM

Most of the small warships (DD, DDE, FF, trawlers...) listed in my sig were self defense. Others were guarding convoys or ports, allowing me to reload torpedoes or even engage on the surface without fear. I would rather use my fish on a merchant or large warship (CV, CVE, CA, CL).

That said, destroyers have such low health that a torpedo makes nice fireworks.

01-20-11, 01:40 PM	#3
danexpat Mate Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Wherever you hear the grinding of a DD hull on a U-boat Posts: 60 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Total warfare 1939-vintage British BBs cost about 12,000,000 pounds sterling to manufacture, or $48,000,000 1939 USD, ~ $750 million 2010 USD. Liberty ships cost about $1.6 million 1941 USD/400,000 pds sterling to manufacture, plus value of cargo, much more than cost of the ship. But of course, there were only 19 British BBs worldwide and thousands of Liberty ships, so you have to factor in strategic target value. Just talking BBs here, not CVs or CAs. Here's an excerpt from a good read: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...campaigns.html Note that the $$ value of allied military shipping destroyed by Uboats was about 66% of merchant shipping/cargo NOT INCLUDING cost of major capital ships sunk. APPENDIX 1: CALCULATION OF BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC COSTS Allies: A. Merchant Ships: 1. Cost of merchant ships lost to sub attack: 14,687,231 tons lost at $420 a ton. 2. It is assumed that 50% of destroyed ships had cargoes and I have estimated the value of each cargo as equivalent to the price of the ship. 3. American Maritime Commission constructed 5,777 ships of 39,920,000 tons during the war that cost $14.2 billion. It is estimated that only 2/3 were used in the Atlantic (this accords well with 61% reported in Leighton's Global Logistics 1940-43 (p.662) which was prior to the increase in lift necessary to handle Overlord). 4. The English and Canadians produced 11.9 million tons during the war. It is assumed their cost of production was as low as in the U.S. 5. The English started the war with 17,430,000 tons. The Americans started with 8.5 million tons (again only assumed 2/3 used in Atlantic). Additionally the Allies seized 3 million tons of shipping from nations occupied by the Axis. 6. It is assumed that 33% of the total merchant fleet was lost due to inefficiency of convoying. That is 11.36 million tons at $420/ton. 7. Repair costs from U-boat attacks were not included. 8. Total: $14.65 billion. B. Warships: 1. The Americans had 140 destroyers stationed in the Atlantic. Each cost approximately $10 million. Additionally, they had 56 frigates assigned to the Coast Guard. I've estimated their cost as similar to a new frigate ($2.3 million). 2. During the war, the U.S. produced 520 destroyer escorts (DDE) and 96 frigates (FF) for convoy protection. A DDE cost $5.5 million and a FF cost $2.3 million apiece. 3. The Allies built 61 escort carriers that participated in the campaign at a cost of $12 million a piece. 4. The English and Canadians built or seized 169 DDEs. I've estimated their costs as equivalent to a Hunt class DDE ($6.4 million). They also built 156 frigates, 63 sloops (estimated to cost $4 million), 306 Corvettes, 27 other ASW vessels, and 15 armed merchant cruisers (all estimated at $3 million). 5. The English employed about 302 fleet destroyers during the war. I've estimated that only 50% of their missions were related to ASW and that they cost the equivalent of an U.S. destroyer (a probable underestimation). 6. The cost of coastal defense craft and minesweepers used for ASW missions was not estimated. 7. The cost of major warships sank by submarines was not used in the estimate. [N.B. - see commens above re: BB cost of manufacture] 8. Total: $10.15 billion.

01-20-11, 03:42 PM	#4
desirableroasted Grey Wolf Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: In the mountains, now. On the edge of the sea before. Posts: 933 Downloads: 47 Uploads: 0	Game Tactics The example Gargamel presents is an excellent example of "the theoretical exception proves the rule." If I encountered one ASW escort guarding a BB and a flock of large merchants, whalers, etc., in 1939, then of course the escort is the first target -- I don't care the convoy is alerted, as even their zigzagging presents no great challenge. But I would have to know in advance it was the only escort, and I am scratching my head trying to recall an instance when I would have had that perfect knowledge. Even in broad daylight, clear visibility, you rarely can see to the far end of the convoy, unless you use the "X-ray vision lock" exploit. So how are you to know there are no escorts? And in optimal attack conditions (dusk, moderate visibility), you sure aren't going to know. So, without that knowledge, what do you do? You take down the sheep, not the border collies. If there is only one escort on the flock, that will become apparent soon enough. Reality Here, it's just logic. If the merchants are being guarded so carefully by sophisticated escorts, it must mean they are valuable and worth sinking. And here, the price of replacement, etc, is not particularly relevant. Even cargo value is not necessarily relevant. A box of machine tools, while costing far less than a destroyer, might be essential to making 20 new ones. A merchant and a cargo of wheat don't cost much, but losing 2-3 a week can be the crucial thing in public morale. far more demoralizing than the loss of a destroyer (which might not even be reported in the papers until weeks later). Game tactics + Reality Escorts are just a part of the day at the office, and a distraction. My job is to sink merchants. If doing that means I have to sink an escort -- perhaps once out of 25 patrols -- fine, but it is out of necessity. I consider it a wasted torpedo. But I like seeing the pesky maggots go KaBoom as much as anyone. But only once in 25 patrols. Edit BTW, if you do like taking on escorts and battleships, be up in Narvik on April 10-13, 1940. You will get your fill of both and you will learn more than you want to know about shallow-water defense tactics. __________________ "Well, now, that's true... the IXC is a bit of a chick magnet..but you really can't beat the VIIB for off-road fun."

01-20-11, 04:15 PM	#5
danexpat Mate Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Wherever you hear the grinding of a DD hull on a U-boat Posts: 60 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Really good points Very well put, agree 92.6% It's a bit of a quibble to say cost of replacement isn't necessarily relevant. Obviously, it's as good a proxy as we have to try to get a handle on the value of what you destroy. Let's put it this way: if a kaleun sank the HMS Hood, would it really matter what he did the rest of his career? Of course not. Personally, I wouldn't engage one of these wandering DD groups any more than I engage coastal merchants. I don't go after anything less valuable than a C2 unless I'm on the last leg of the trip home. I'm of two minds on targeting the convoy escort thing for the reason you gave: you usually don't know what else is in there unless you've shadowed the thing for a long time. But at the same time, I'm usually greedy and plan on reloading and taking another bite at the apple in a few hours, so taking out the border collie is very tempting.

01-20-11, 05:34 PM	#9
Missing Name Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Westun New Yahk Posts: 748 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	Most of the small warships (DD, DDE, FF, trawlers...) listed in my sig were self defense. Others were guarding convoys or ports, allowing me to reload torpedoes or even engage on the surface without fear. I would rather use my fish on a merchant or large warship (CV, CVE, CA, CL). That said, destroyers have such low health that a torpedo makes nice fireworks. __________________ Largest target sunk with deck gun: Japanese auxiliary cruiser, 15000 tons Largest engaged: HMS Nelson. Results inconclusive. Read Brag's stuff

01-20-11, 04:16 PM	#6
U777 Medic Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Chicago Posts: 159 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Did anyone ever take a warship down by accident, as in it took the torpedo meant for a merchant?