Can we have a "Pacific Submarine War for Dummies" FAQ? - Page 2

Steeltrap · 11-02-06, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Every nation plays to it's strengths. For the Germans it was tactical finesse and excellent small unit leadership. For the Soviets, it was sheer brute manpower. For the British it was commando raids and regimental tradition. For the USA it was overwhelming industrial output. The result was an army that had a larger tooth-to-tail ratio than any other nation. An army where a lot of leg units confiscated their own 'unofficial' motor pool. An army where a jeep built for four usually carried only two..or one. Not to mention a huge amount of pilfering and waste and stuff ending up on the black market. But considering that the United States had the 16th largest army in the world in 1940 (after Portugal's) waste in the expansion department was probably inevitable. In retrospect, I'm sure World War 2 could have been fought a lot more efficently and smartly by all sides...but unlike a simulation there was only one go at it.

Spot on. Wasn't having a go at the USA, more saying that the icecream on subs was really a nothing compared with the supplies to a normal combat division when compared with other nations. Interestingly, in some respects the Soviets were superb logisticians and their divs fought very well on even lower supply requirements than the Germans. They also had a mania for camo and concealment, and were probably the best of anyone at achieving large-scale force movements in secret.

Would be interesting to speculate on what a division made up of the best aspects of the various combatants' forces would look like and how it would perform.

Torplexed · 11-02-06, 08:41 PM

[quote=Steeltrap]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Spot on. Wasn't having a go at the USA, more saying that the icecream on subs was really a nothing compared with the supplies to a normal combat division when compared with other nations. Interestingly, in some respects the Soviets were superb logisticians and their divs fought very well on even lower supply requirements than the Germans. They also had a mania for camo and concealment, and were probably the best of anyone at achieving large-scale force movements in secret.

Would be interesting to speculate on what a division made up of the best aspects of the various combatants' forces would look like and how it would perform.

Yeah I always wonder how the Soviets would have performed if Stalin hadn't basically beheaded the Red Army in the 1930s. There were some real armored warfare visionaries in the Soviet General Staff who got the axe. Somehow General Zhukov survived the purges to show what could have been.

Let's seeee. What we need in our mixed WW2 unit is the stoic toughness of the Russians....the stiff upper lip of the British officer corps...the tactical and initiative minded Germans....the wisecracking can-do spunk of the Americans...the martial fervor of the Japanese. The Aussies and Kiwis to add character. Probably have to put the Italians and the French in the quartermastering department. I'm just kiddin'......I have French-Canadian relatives I probably shouldn't post that publicly.

Whoa...I've gone way OoooTeee.

SmithN23 · 11-02-06, 09:48 PM

I wonder if the devs will implement the "May Incident" into the game, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May. This would definitely make the game harder after 1943. It would be cool if they implemented this and would definitely add to the realism.

Hylander_1314 · 11-02-06, 11:46 PM

Loose lips did sink ships........................

What a moron! What a complete idiot! He should have been made responcible for the letters home to those lost because of his big mouth, and the reason most likely why they were lost.

Soviet_Sharpshooter · 11-03-06, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmithN23

I wonder if the devs will implement the "May Incident" into the game, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May. This would definitely make the game harder after 1943. It would be cool if they implemented this and would definitely add to the realism.

*reads it*

They should of taken him out on the street and shoot him

fire-fox · 11-05-06, 04:46 AM

yep, but that wasn't the end of that ethere, there where similer insident's (of inbredness

) thoue out the war that put countles lives at risk in the US Pasific and Asiatic sub fleets.

Steeltrap · 11-05-06, 10:41 PM

I note the stupid bastard lived to be 85 or thereabouts, and served time for corruption until being pardoned.

Wretched politics. There's a law and a Supreme Court - why any politician (in this case the Presidnet of USA) should be able to grant pardons is beyond me (thankfully it doesn't happen here), and how they do it and maintain a separation between the judiciary and the executive is another interesting question.

Man should've been tried for treason - releasing sensitive material of direct benefit to the enemy in time of war.

TheSatyr · 11-08-06, 09:09 PM

Reminds me of reading in a book about the Battle Of Midway about how a Chicago newspaper actually published an article right after the battle that stated quite plainly that we won because we broke the Japanese naval code. Fortunately,no other paper picked up on that...or the government told the other papers not to print it.

jason taylor · 11-20-06, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

The primary consenus circulating seem to be that the US Navy submariners had it pretty soft compared to the Germans, and that'll be a hard consensus to overcome. The truth of the matter was it was a different war in a different theater with different geography fought with different machines and naval philosophies.

Plus, we had those ice cream machines....that makes us look soft.

No, if you really want the USA to look soft, compare the amount of supplies required by a combat division of Germany and the USA......

Read "Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War (Hardcover) by John Ellis" for specifics, but the comparisons are scary indeed!

____________________________________________
Well what about looking soft? If you want to look tough join a biker gang. If you want to win a war, having more material then the enemy can be useful.

Steeltrap · 11-20-06, 07:45 PM

My comment was meant to convey the view that there are other comparisons that serve more effectively to make the USA look 'soft'.

I was not, nor ever would, suggesting that those who fought in any theatre of combat, from any side, were soft.

Your comment might be seen as rather self-evident, to a point. On the other hand, having more material might lead to profligacy with it, which is a problem when the material in question is manpower.....that is the essence of Ellis' book (I recommend it as a very thorough and interesting study).

Anyway, if there was any feeling that I was calling the forces of the USA soft, let me make it clear I was NOT.

JSF · 11-27-06, 12:32 AM

I am surprised at the perception by some in this forum of the American Forces during WW2. I am almost left with a sense the majority here share a common notion that America fumbled thier way to victory during the second world war. As if by some misfortune the Axis powers lost the war because the American lead Allies screwed up in reverse.

nightdagger · 11-27-06, 01:05 AM

I personally think that the Allies stumbled through until around 1942 or 1943 and the Axis didn't stumble after that...they were just laid out. Part of that is that nobody in power really expected a second "Great War" on the Allies' side and on the Axis side, they had been planning it for years.

Cpt. Stewker · 11-30-06, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Brief Summary of the Submarine War
During the Second World War, United States Submarines operating in
the Pacific sank 201 Japanese warships totalling 540,192 tons, including
one battleship, four large carriers, four small carriers, three heavy cruisers,
eight light cruisers, 43 destroyers, and 23 submarines.

Of greater importance to the war's outcome, the submarines sent to the
bottom 1,113 Japanese merchant ships of more than 500 tons each, for a
total tonnage of 4,779,902, only a million tons less than the entire
prewar Japanese merchant fleet.

Submarines sank 55 percent of all Japanese ships lost in the war,
more than the U.S. surface navy, its carrier planes,and the
Army Air Corps combined.

3,505 men and 52 submarines were lost.

The boat with the greatest number of sinkings was USS TANG, 24 ships
for 93,824 tons.

Some good information.

Some highlights:
US subs sank 5/6 of the entire Japanese Merchant fleet.
US subs sank over half of all Japanese vessels destroyed during WWII.
US subs suffered the lost of many brave men and good ships.

If you call that fumbling, you're an idiot and just one of those inherently biased people.

nightdagger · 12-01-06, 07:27 AM

But that is during the whole war. I'm not the expert on US subs in World War 2 so I can't tell you how many of those were sunk in the first years of the war. All I know is that, as a whole, the Allies didn't do well in the first 2 years.

elanaiba · 12-01-06, 08:57 AM

Well, Blair's "silent victory" doesn't paint a very nice picture of the US sub effort till 44. One could be forgiven for getting the impression they were amateurs, and probably at least partly they were.

On the other hand, I'm reading through "Wolfpack - the american submarine strategy that helped defeat Japan" and I get the impression that Blair's book concentrates too much on actual results. Behind the scenes, they were trying. Developing tactics, wargaming for results, writing doctrines, etc.

It is not the first time I hear/read this of the US army/navy/air force during WW2. At first, they were so bad they everybody thought there is no hope for them (for example both the Brits and the Germans in Africa). But they adapted, learned and improvized faster than many others, and became a force to be feared.

11-02-06, 09:48 PM	#18
SmithN23 Gunner Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 91 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I wonder if the devs will implement the "May Incident" into the game, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May. This would definitely make the game harder after 1943. It would be cool if they implemented this and would definitely add to the realism. __________________ The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Bruke

11-02-06, 11:46 PM	#19
Hylander_1314 Sea Lord Join Date: May 2006 Location: 5 Miles Inland West Of Lake Huron Posts: 1,936 Downloads: 139 Uploads: 0	Loose lips did sink ships........................ What a moron! What a complete idiot! He should have been made responcible for the letters home to those lost because of his big mouth, and the reason most likely why they were lost. __________________ A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. -John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ---------------------

11-05-06, 04:46 AM	#21
fire-fox Chief Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Peoples Republic of West Yorkshire Posts: 326 Downloads: 70 Uploads: 0	yep, but that wasn't the end of that ethere, there where similer insident's (of inbredness ) thoue out the war that put countles lives at risk in the US Pasific and Asiatic sub fleets. __________________ Running subs aground since SH1 and Silent Service Running SH5 @ 100% difficulty + TWoS 2.2.19(RealNav + BDU + port smoke + food) + Carotio_IntercontinentalRadioPack tweaked + The Little Ships of SH5 - Coaster Pack

11-05-06, 10:41 PM	#22
Steeltrap Grey Wolf Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 818 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I note the stupid bastard lived to be 85 or thereabouts, and served time for corruption until being pardoned. Wretched politics. There's a law and a Supreme Court - why any politician (in this case the Presidnet of USA) should be able to grant pardons is beyond me (thankfully it doesn't happen here), and how they do it and maintain a separation between the judiciary and the executive is another interesting question. Man should've been tried for treason - releasing sensitive material of direct benefit to the enemy in time of war.

11-08-06, 09:09 PM	#23
TheSatyr Captain Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 545 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Reminds me of reading in a book about the Battle Of Midway about how a Chicago newspaper actually published an article right after the battle that stated quite plainly that we won because we broke the Japanese naval code. Fortunately,no other paper picked up on that...or the government told the other papers not to print it.

11-20-06, 07:45 PM	#25
Steeltrap Grey Wolf Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 818 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	My comment was meant to convey the view that there are other comparisons that serve more effectively to make the USA look 'soft'. I was not, nor ever would, suggesting that those who fought in any theatre of combat, from any side, were soft. Your comment might be seen as rather self-evident, to a point. On the other hand, having more material might lead to profligacy with it, which is a problem when the material in question is manpower.....that is the essence of Ellis' book (I recommend it as a very thorough and interesting study). Anyway, if there was any feeling that I was calling the forces of the USA soft, let me make it clear I was NOT.

11-27-06, 12:32 AM	#26
JSF Engineer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 208 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I am surprised at the perception by some in this forum of the American Forces during WW2. I am almost left with a sense the majority here share a common notion that America fumbled thier way to victory during the second world war. As if by some misfortune the Axis powers lost the war because the American lead Allies screwed up in reverse.

11-27-06, 01:05 AM	#27
nightdagger Officer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 243 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I personally think that the Allies stumbled through until around 1942 or 1943 and the Axis didn't stumble after that...they were just laid out. Part of that is that nobody in power really expected a second "Great War" on the Allies' side and on the Axis side, they had been planning it for years.

12-01-06, 07:27 AM	#29
nightdagger Officer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 243 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	But that is during the whole war. I'm not the expert on US subs in World War 2 so I can't tell you how many of those were sunk in the first years of the war. All I know is that, as a whole, the Allies didn't do well in the first 2 years.

12-01-06, 08:57 AM	#30
elanaiba Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,058 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 3	Well, Blair's "silent victory" doesn't paint a very nice picture of the US sub effort till 44. One could be forgiven for getting the impression they were amateurs, and probably at least partly they were. On the other hand, I'm reading through "Wolfpack - the american submarine strategy that helped defeat Japan" and I get the impression that Blair's book concentrates too much on actual results. Behind the scenes, they were trying. Developing tactics, wargaming for results, writing doctrines, etc. It is not the first time I hear/read this of the US army/navy/air force during WW2. At first, they were so bad they everybody thought there is no hope for them (for example both the Brits and the Germans in Africa). But they adapted, learned and improvized faster than many others, and became a force to be feared.