Sinking ships in port

Harbor-Raiding...uhg!

I don't see any moral issues whatsoever with sinking ships anchored at port. As long as they are bearing enemy flag in wartime in disputed territory, that makes them active participants and thus fair game according to every rule of engagement known to mankind.

Perhaps in WW2 history it didn't happen so often because of the tactical disadvantages (even pre-MAD) involved for a sub to be in shallow coastal waters. Alternatively, I cannot think of any tactical advantages in waiting until freighters leave port with DD escorts to start sinking them. Hell, sink the DD's at port FIRST and come back later for the freighters...

[Father Goose]

Originally Posted by Rammstein0991

Hey, as long as they get sunk, thats supplies the Japanese wont be getting

Originally Posted by dharthoorn

I don't see any moral issues whatsoever with sinking ships anchored at port.

Apparently you skippers have never been called to the office of Admiral Armistead.

[Anthony W.]

You can't tell me you've never been right around Saipan with no contact in days and thought, ''There's 50,000 tons in there...''

[MarkCt]

The Tirante sank a ammunition ship and two escourts at anchorage in the northern shore of Quelpart island. Targets were getting scarce near the end of the war. There is even a film of it.

[Rammstein0991]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

You can't tell me you've never been right around Saipan with no contact in days and thought, ''There's 50,000 tons in there...''

Realistically speaking it would also be a morale blow, as the Japanese soldiers would be sitting there helpless watching their ammunition, food, and medical supplies be blown up with them helpless to do anything about it.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Rammstein0991

Realistically speaking it would also be a morale blow, as the Japanese soldiers would be sitting there helpless watching their ammunition, food, and medical supplies be blown up with them helpless to do anything about it.

Historically, the greatest blows to Japanese Army morale on Saipan took place on the high seas. On May 30th, 1944 a convoy of seven transports carrying more than 7,000 troops of the 43d Division sailed from Japan and headed south to reinforce Saipan. It was subjected to almost continuous submarine attack, and within three days five of the seven transports were sunk. The two remaining vessels picked up the survivors and steamed the rest of the way to the Marianas.

About 80% of the troops of this convoy were saved and landed on Saipan, but they arrived as demoralized survivors without artillery, tanks, weapons or equipment. The 118th Infantry Regiment lost about 850 men, and the survivors had virtually no resemblance to the organized fighting team that had left Japan. So little time was left before the American invasion that the regiment could not be reorganized and re-equipped sufficiently to raise its combat efficiency much above nil.

Sink the same ships in port in shallow water and likely most of the equipment can be recovered and far more troops survive. It's a lot easier to swim ashore from a few yards away, than thousands of miles away.

[TorpX]

I don't mean to pile on, but playing armchair admiral is about the only fun I have...

It comes back to the age-old question of whether to attack the enemy when he is on the march or when he is in a protected position. In land warfare, it is usually considered to be better to ambush the enemy on patrol, rather than attack a fortified place. Of course, there are successful commando attacks against heavily fortified places, but they are always fraught with risk.

Merchant ships, to do their job, must traverse the open seas, and thus are inherently vulnerable. Since you have the choice of where to attack them, isn't it easier and safer, to attack them while they are in transit?

Of course, it is different with air operations. With heavy or medium bomber operations, it was generally more worthwhile to attack ships in port, attacks against moving ships at sea, not being very successful.

[MarkCt]

If you were given a photo ops mission in a well protected harbor, and you did your very best to get in there without being detected, after taking the pictures, would you torpedo any of the ships or just try to slip back out?

Most of the harbors I did photo ops in just had a few patrol boats and freighters but one had a couple carriers, BB's and a sub. All the other times I would just take the photos and leave but that time the temptation was just too great.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by dharthoorn

I don't see any moral issues whatsoever with sinking ships anchored at port. As long as they are bearing enemy flag in wartime in disputed territory, that makes them active participants and thus fair game according to every rule of engagement known to mankind.

Perhaps in WW2 history it didn't happen so often because of the tactical disadvantages (even pre-MAD) involved for a sub to be in shallow coastal waters. Alternatively, I cannot think of any tactical advantages in waiting until freighters leave port with DD escorts to start sinking them. Hell, sink the DD's at port FIRST and come back later for the freighters...

The reason many players frown upon harbor raiding, is that the SH4 game harbors have weak and puny defenses. Both sides knew that their harbors had many valuable ships and protected them accordingly. It simply isn't realistic, the way the game allows one to waltz into a base and start sinking stuff.

The reason many players frown upon harbor raiding, is that the SH4 game harbors have weak and puny defenses. Both sides knew that their harbors had many valuable ships and protected them accordingly. It simply isn't realistic, the way the game allows one to waltz into a base and start sinking stuff.

I've tried to find evidence of what you say on the Net and Wiki but I can't find that much to support your claim. Which ASW defences *would* there have been at harbors like Saipan that would pose a serious threat to raiding subs even at night?

Planes had nothing but visual to go on at the start. I don't know if the Japanese had the resources to allow for continuous multiple DD patrols doing active sonar sweeps that would deter a sneaky sub raiding a port.

Also, even IF there would be well equipped ASW harbors I would assume not be ALL or even a LOT of them -barring perhaps Japanese Mainland ports- especially not at the start of the war (let's say pre '43).

History supports your claim in the sense that it didnt seem all that common. I just do not understand what the actual defences would have consisted of that would be so effective. Again, especially at the start of the war.

[Dread Knot]

The way I see it there are five factors in real life missing from the game that kept WW2 skippers from just nosing into a harbor when they got bored.

Lack of good maps. The ones in the game are perfect. You even have an optimal overhead GPS view of where you are all the time. In the actual war, there often were no good maps at all. When Mush Morton made his famous recon of Wewak, he had to rely on a crude blow-up from children's atlas that one of his crew had providentially brought aboard. A serious difficulty for both sides with naval operations in the Pacific was the lack of good hydrographic charts. In some cases, the only available charts were British Admiralty charts dating from the 19th century. These were reproduced and issued by the US Navy, but often with disastrous results as they were inaccurate and out of date.

Shallow Water. In SH4, the bottom is always flat, fairly constant and in reality, featureless like a swimming pool. All those rocks you see are simply graphics there for show. You can pass right through them. It's almost impossible to run aground unless you ram the beach. In the real world, the bottom of any harbor can be a minefield of unknown obstructions. Logs, coral heads, wrecks, reefs, rocks, planted obstacles, dredging spoils, sand bars, etc. Anyone of which could damage or hole a submarine. Shallow water always tends to be more subject to treacherous tides, eddies and currents probably all of unknown strength (due to poor charts) which would be difficult for the electric motors of a submerged submarine to overcome. There are none of these in SH4. In addition a submarine is far more visible against the bottom in shallow water by aircraft.

Harbors are busy. In SH4 most harbors (even the big ones) are rather thinly populated and lifeless. In the real world major ports are a crowded hive of constant activity. There are lighters, barges, auxiliaries, coasters, yard oilers, motor boats, tenders, coastal minesweepers, ferries, tugs constantly on the move, even at night. Most happily dedicated to putting out the alert if they spot periscopes or any strange activity. The game doesn't even begin the simulate the diverse number of small craft that took part in the war in the Pacific. Most Japanese mainland ports also had a dedicated contingent of shore patrols and searchlight posts manned by men who did nothing but scan the waters day and night.

Nets. Most large harbors had them, not only at the port entrance, but often deployed around important vessels as protection against torpedoes and frogmen as well. These harbor nets had dedicated tenders who would be another obstacle to dodge. In addition, most warships had a constant patrol conducted by armed members of the crew who would man a boat and row about the anti-torpedo net in shifts to maintain them.

The Unknown. In SH4 by living multiples lives and careers you learn the AI's predictable habits and which harbors are weak. In the real event, no one had anyway of knowing what sort of nasty surprise was waiting in any particular port. The US and Allied navies often assumed that Japanese harbor defence procedures were the same as their own (after Pearl Harbor quite stringent) and acted accordingly. A US skipper thinking of penetrating an enemy anchorage had only to dwell upon the well-publicized Japanese midget submarine operations into harbors which invariably ended in either suicide or captivity with little gain. That sobering fact probably wasn't lost on him.

[Sailor Steve]

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

What a well written answer.

Sure wouldn't want to run my sub aground in/around an enemy port...imagine the embarrassment. I'd could never go to a veteran party even if I survived the Jap prison camp.

Now I will just have to restrain myself next time I pass a harbor with a phat BB or bunch of freighters just sittin' there.

But come on man...it's like being in a strip club and having to look the other way. I wish there weren't any ships in port.

[merc4ulfate]

Very nicely written Dread Knot.

[Father Goose]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

Originally Posted by Father Goose

Harbor-Raiding...uhg!

I thought I summed it up well too.