Realistic sub tactics with aircraft

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Yup.. but it makes sense to let the target come to you, if you know where to find it - A little comon sense works wonders here.A 50/50 chance, because your sub can only travel at the same speed of the merchants. You might be patroling away from a target, or towards one. If you were in a vehicle (patrol aircraft) who speed is much greater, I'd say yes.
Here.. you also conserve fuel for the chase.

A little common sense is exactly what Eugene Fluckey used when developing the yo-yo strategy. He began his career in the middle of 1944, when boat after ostrich boat was returning to port empty handed and full of torpedoes because they followed your version of "common sense." They were wrong. Fluckey's results, and our results if we follow his advice from Thunder Below, will be that we don't just develop a few percentage points more targets, we will develop a conservative 10 times more targets staying on the surface using our radar to develop more targets. Whether targets are moving or not, they are distributed in a random manner that makes their relative motion irrelevant.

Originally Posted by vanjast

- You'll see a lot more aircraft, advertising your presence.

The only important thing is that I see the aircraft first. That is where the submerged policy is lousy. Not only do you have to cheat by leaving the engines off, something impossible to do with a real submarine, but you have to surface sometimes. When you do, you do so blind, even if you look around with your periscope. Even if you raise your radar antenna while submerged, that plane can see you at periscope depth and plaster you every time you take your head out of the sand. Because you insist on operating your boat without a valid situational picture you endanger your crew unnecessarily every time your surface.

With radar, I see every airplane several minutes before he gets to 5 miles from me, the furthest distance from which he can see me. I can leave the throttle on ahead standard, just hit the "d" button, crash diving is not necessary, and be below periscope depth before he has any possibility of seeing me. Knowing his worst case path, straight overhead, I can surface without pausing for a radar or periscope check if I just remain at 100' for five minutes and hit the "s" button. At that time, I know he is at least five miles the other side of me and no other plane can be within my danger zone of five miles away. I surface every time in complete safety, while you foolishly endanger your crew. When I submerge due to an airplane I do so knowing without a doubt that I have not been spotted. Every time I surface, I do so with 100% knowledge that I cannot be spotted.

Originally Posted by vanjast

- With Air radar you see a/c a long way off. If you've ever been up in an a/c you can see a lot further than those early radars - Some anecdotes of skippers relying more on the watch crews to spot planes.

Actually, in real life, crew watch crews were much more effective than our game crew watches. Fluckey had full confidence he could operate at will on the surface without radar with about the same safety that he had using radar. His standing orders that on sighting an airplane they were to stay on the surface, reduce speed and aspect ratio and observe the behavior of the plane before making any decisions on avoidance. And of course, he never engaged an aircraft. If there was danger of being seen, he submerged.

Originally Posted by vanjast

- Surface radar can only see slightly beyond the horizon

Surface radar can see about fifteen miles to an airplane. Sonar has no clue where the airplane is. The plane has to be five miles away to see you. What part of that equation gives you any doubt that no airplane can possibly ever see you? In over two years of real gameplay, I've never been seen by a single plane. I'd call that safe. You may call it coincidence if you wish to compete with Jay Leno. You don't have the jaw for it.

Originally Posted by vanjast

- Depending on your speed passive sonar is about 50% more effective than surface radar.

Then why do you develop more than 10 times more targets using said radar? This is a bait question, requiring your convoluted logic to be refuted by a real life admiral (who took Lockwood's place upon Lockwood's retirement) and and easy mathematical and thought experiment proof by me. Be very careful. Both arguments are irrefutable and their validity will be beyond question by everyone else reading our logical evidence. I've posted it before so you may want to research my position before losing. You'll find that I have significantly understated the advantage of yo-yo here and that when the real ratios are revealed you will look foolish.

With airplanes, surface radar can see about fifteen miles to an airplane. Sonar has no clue where the airplane is. Advantage: radar.

Originally Posted by vanjast

I'd imagine most people who talk of the YoYo method are running fleet boats - jump into an S18/43 and feel the difference at the hardest reality settings, as it should be.
This boat teaches you how to be stealthy, and sink as many ships.

In my S-Boat it is MORE important to use yo-yo, not less important, even though due to the ineffectiveness of game watch crews there is more danger of being spotted by a plane. That S-boat has the advantage of a slightly quicker dive time and better maneuverability underwater, so I feel confident in my avoidance strategy.

It is necessary to take on this additional risk because of the excruciatingly slow charge times for S-Boat batteries. Again, operating the boat realistically means you must keep some way on the boat. When you surface, you surface with already inferior batteries at partial charge. You are in no shape to fight. You again unnecessarily endanger your crew while reducing contacts by a significant factor.

War is to be fought. Fighting it entails absorbing some necessary risk. Brave men are assaulting beaches every day, taking entirely random chances of being killed every second. Captain, they don't have the option to be a coward and stick their head in the sand. They unselfishly bear their share of the risk so as not to endanger their buddies, knowing full well that each moment can be their last.

You, on the other hand, with much more control of your fate, choose to hide, and not only hide, but FOOLISHLY hide, actually INCREASING the chance that cowardly you and your brave crew of 90 or more others will die. Even worse than that, they will die in VAIN as you willingly have given up the possibility of 90% of your opportunity to attack the enemy and make a difference in the outcome of the war. Much more important than your personal survival is how many die every day this war continues! Last week at Tarawa we lost 1687 killed and 2296 wounded. When you do not bear your part of the sacrifice of war you kill our boys with as much guilt as our Japanese enemies bear. Your offense is not just an offense of ineffective cowardice, it is dereliction of duty bordering on treason.

Real captains who used your strategy were abysmally ineffective and were replaced just as quickly as men who were willing to do their duty could be trained. When they were replaced they were put in much more dangerous situations where they were not in any control of their own fate. I understand Iwo Jima is next on the dance card. You might just get a chance to cut a rug there...