SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Silent Hunter 3 - 4 - 5 > Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-10, 01:32 PM   #1
treblesum81
Frogman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
Downloads: 71
Uploads: 0
Default US Target Hierarchy?

Is there a specified value hierarchy assigned to Japanese targets like there was in SHIII? I.E. in a convoy, should I be gunning for warships first? Or tankers? Or cargo ships? Or does it matter?

Thanks.
treblesum81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 01:45 PM   #2
MattDizzle
Stowaway
 
Posts: n/a
Downloads:
Uploads:
Default

Tankers, always tankers. Of course its just a game, but at the beginning of the war japan only had something like 18 months worth of oil to run their military and war machine. It was the whole point of the war. Taking the enemies oil means the ships stay in port, the planes stay on the ground (Cant train new pilots very well if the training aircraft dont have gas, combine this with killing off all the experianced pilots for some nice results.)

Oil ships
Military equiptment
Other cargo
Warships

Warships are always best left alone (in my Sh5 career i've only heard the PING of ASDIC on two occasions), even if its a battleship or carrier the sub would be more useful to shadow it on radar and let bigger task forces (other capital ships with aircraft) deal with it, maybe sticking a torpedo or 2 into it as it was towed away from the damaged battle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 02:26 PM   #3
Bubblehead1980
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 7,115
Downloads: 605
Uploads: 44


Default

tankers
cargo
large warships such as carriers, battleships, heavy cruisers.
Bubblehead1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 02:43 PM   #4
treblesum81
Frogman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
Downloads: 71
Uploads: 0
Default

The question though, is does killing in that order net you better renown? Or is it just a role playing kill list?
treblesum81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 02:56 PM   #5
tater
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
Default

You likely get more renown for warships that are bigger than escorts than any other type. In RL, bigger was better, unless you had orders (as they sometimes did) to take out escorts. In a mixed group, unless you had orders to concentrate on troop transports or something, a large warship is always the preferred target.
tater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 03:00 PM   #6
treblesum81
Frogman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
Downloads: 71
Uploads: 0
Default

Ok, so I should really start down the line from largest to smallest as I attack a convoy, as that is most likely to net better renown, and is probably similar to how it really was?
treblesum81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 03:03 PM   #7
BillBam
Watch Officer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Yuba/Sutter, CA
Posts: 347
Downloads: 171
Uploads: 0
Default

there is a renown chart floating out there, unfortunately the link in the post is dead. Maybe is someone has it they can post it.

However it is pretty obvious that an Aircraft Carrier is going to have a higher renown than an Old Split Freighter, even though merchant shipping was the priority. In game it really should not be an issue as you are unlikely to come across both in the same convoy/task force. Also in game and in real life if the even that you came across a AC/BB and a tanker would "anyone" really sink the tanker over the chance to sink a major military asset?
__________________
BillBam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 03:10 PM   #8
treblesum81
Frogman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
Downloads: 71
Uploads: 0
Default

I really hope someone has that chart... Not that I would necessarily go for a tanker over an AC / BS, but if I've got the choice between like a tanker and a cruiser or something like that, I might need a little guidance.
treblesum81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 04:19 PM   #9
Jan Kyster
Ace of the Deep
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,151
Downloads: 152
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by treblesum81 View Post
Is there a specified value hierarchy assigned to Japanese targets like there was in SHIII? I.E. in a convoy, should I be gunning for warships first? Or tankers? Or cargo ships? Or does it matter?

Thanks.
Have a look in your "Current Doctrine Submarines, USF 25(A)", article 4103, http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/...SS-Doct-4.html

Quote: "The objectives of submarine attack are enemy ships and shipping. If a choice is offered, priority is as follows: CV, BB, ACV, AO, any man of war larger than a DD, AP, AK, DD. However, no worthwhile target should be passed up in the hope of securing a better one."

Jan Kyster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-10, 05:44 PM   #10
Bubblehead1980
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 7,115
Downloads: 605
Uploads: 44


Default

The primary mission of the US Pacific Submarine Force during World War II was to eliminate Japanese merchant shipping.Large warships such as carriers or battleships if encountered were of course a target you did not let go but as said, merchant traffic(includes tankers) were the main focus.Tankers became a priority because without the oil and fuel, the warships could not fight without fuel.I read that the Yamato and Musashi stayed put for most of the war because of their bad fuel economy and many other big warships did because fuel was scarce.

So say you run into a convoy with 3 large merchants and one mid sized or even small tanker, tanker is your main target.Now you can attack more than one target at a time, esp with bow tubes, say two fish to the small tanker and 4 to a big merchant.Obviously if you run into a TF with a carrier or BB, carrier is your priority followed by battleship and on down.Also obvious is if the carrier is a long shot and battleship is closer, go for the BB.

The Japanese had a completely different doctrine, they believed in svaving torpedos for warships and only attacked merchants when they happened to stumble upon them.They did not deploy specifically to interdict merchant/tanker traffic.Thus the US was able to run supplies, troops and oil all over without a real concentrated submarine threat from the IJN.May have had a U boat in the Atlantic type situation early in the war had they done this and who knows given the weakness of the pacific fleet early in the war if could have overcame the I boats as we did U boats in the Atlantic.

So to sum it up once more...

tankers
merchants
large warships...CV, BB, CA
Bubblehead1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.