RSRD Comments

[ColonelSandersLite]

Originally Posted by Zero Niner

Can't really compare real life records with the tonnage one can get in the game. In the game on ealways gets the credit for a sinking, down to the correct class of ship whereas IRL it was a much more difficult process to claim credit. Combat flight simulations exhibit a similar characteristic.

The problem with that logic is that it's *exactly* backwards. In games you get credit for exactly what you sink/shoot down (unless if fails to credit you, which happens on occasion), as you stated. However, in real life under claiming is not an issue, over claiming is. Check out this link: http://www.valoratsea.com/skippers.htm . Note that to a man, every person on that list over claimed. There where some notable patrols that where exceptions, but not careers to my knowledge. Same story in aviation as well. I don't know of any air force that has ever under claimed ever. I do know that in some air forces in certain conflicts over claiming was way out of proportion to reality though (especially over enemy lines). Understand that I'm not blaming any of these men, as there's just no blame to place really. The fog of war makes getting good battlefield intelligence difficult and "I'm positive I nailed him" or "no way he could survive that" is much more prevalent than "nah, I didn't hit ****" or "wow that's one tough SOB" is all I'm saying.

The thought that in the earlier part of the war, the Japanese did not favor convoy tactics is potentially a good point which I should probably do some research into. However, my assertion that there's too many single ships still stands on some rather simple logic. That logic being that it wasn't such an easy matter to score 40,000 tons per trip out (I play full switch in TMO BTW, so that includes a roughly 60% torpedo malfunction rate). If it had been like that your average sub commanders score would be something like 150,000 tons. Of course JANAC doesn't credit *anyone* with a score like that. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, submarines would sometimes return to base without even sighting a single enemy ship. This is something I just can't imagine when playing RSRD as the ocean is crawling with individual ships clipping around at 8-12 knots.


You guys just sent me on a pretty good research binge with some of your comments on losses though.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

11 of the 52 US subs lost weren't due to the enemy.

That still leaves 41 that where, which is quite a few men kia. Here's what I came up with, notes after.

Total listed 41

Lost to enemy aircraft 6 (15%)
Sealion 12/10/41
Grenadier 4/22/43
Wahoo 10/11/43
Barbel 2/4/45
Lagarto 5/3/45
Bullhead 8/6/45

Lost to enemy surface vessels 18 (44%)
Shark 2/11/42
Perch 3/3/42
Argonaut 1/10/43
Amberjack 2/16/43
Grampus 3/5/43
Triton 3/15/43
Pickerel 4/3/43
S-44 10/7/43
Sculpin 11/19/43
Capelin 12/9/43
Trout 2/29/44
Herring 6/1/44
Golet 6/14/44
Harder 8/24/44
Shark II 10/24/44
Scamp 11/11/44
Bonefish 1/18/45
Trigger 3/28/45

Lost to enemy surface vessels or aircraft 3
Cisco 9/28/43 (combined air and surface vessel attack)
Grayback 2/26/44 (combined air and surface vessel attack)
Gudgeon 5/11/44 (controversial)

Submarines Lost to mines 7 (17%)
Runner 5/43
Pompano 9/27/43
Scorpion 2/24/44
Robalo 7/26/44
Flier 8/13/44
Escolar 10/17/44
Albacore 11/7/44

Lost to mines or surface vessel
Swordfish 1/12/45

Lost to an enemy submarine
Corvina 11/16/43

Unknown causes 5
Grunion 7/8/42
Grayling 9/12/43
Growler 11/8/44 (probable enemy destroyer)
Kete 3/20/45
Snook 4/8/45 (probable enemy destroyer, possible enemy submarine)


These numbers came from a post war report, I think from 49. The ones that where split into a couple of categories (debated at the time of the report) and the unknowns I ended up looking into to see if more recent information could place their causes more definitively.

Ok, admittedly, there where only 2 losses to enemy surface vessels in 42. I'm guessing that this is because of the early war tendency of the Japanese ASW to set their depth charges way too shallow. The two subs they got, without looking into it further where probably in shallower water. Notice that this does not mean the Japanese didn't *try* anyways. In 43 the picture changes quite dramatically and notice that I did give RSRD a solid enough chance that I was into late 43 without having even seen an escort, much less getting depth charged by one.

Originally Posted by MK2

Let's not forget the ones that were lost to probable enemy mines. Mines accounted for subs as well.

Personally, I count mines as enemy action. Sure, it's not as if someone fired a projectile at a target, but the enemy did put that mine there.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Those probably accounted for many US subs that were never heard from again that aren't mentioned in Japanese records.

Which is 3 submarines. If you notice the pattern in those dates, it's probable that maybe one was lost to mines, the others are unlikely. I'd be more willing to be that they where lost to attacks with no record, the records where lost/destroyed, or where operational losses.

Dorado is debatable as a friendly fire incident though. More modern stuff seems to place it as an operational loss. Hard to say though, wasn't ever found.

One final thought though. I noticed doing this research that 3 of the 4 submarines which ran aground where s-boats in 42. That's either one hell of a coincidence or there's some kind of reason for that. Anyone know?