Did the pacific war subs really do allot?? - Page 2

Nikita · 03-16-07, 03:48 PM

From the venerable manual of Microprose's Silent Service II (translated to English):
"60% of Japanese merchant marine tonnage were sunk by US subs. From a total of 9,228,116 tons, 4,859,634 were sunk by US subs (limited to ships from 500 tons or more)"

What U-Boot tried without success in the Atlantic was achieved by US subs in the Pacific

THE_MASK · 03-16-07, 04:45 PM

Why does everyone only speak of tonnage as an objective for SH4 ?

flyingdane · 03-16-07, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sober

Why does everyone only speak of tonnage as an objective for SH4 ?

Don't know, But us subs did more than just sink ships.

cdrsubron7 · 03-16-07, 09:23 PM

I see varying opinions about the US sub in the Pacific. With the US Pacific Fleet at a standstill after Pearl Harbor, the submarine fleet carried the war to the Japanese while the surface was being rebuilt. They sank 54% of all Japanese ships in the Pacific during WWII. They lost 52 subs and 3200 officers and crewman killed during the war. One out of every five men were killed who served in the "Silent Service". If you think the US subs did not contribute, try reading Clay Blair's "Silent Victory". This book can show you how much of an impact the US Submarines had on Japanese shipping, not to mention all the special missions they performed through out the war.

cdrsubron7

Torplexed · 03-16-07, 09:34 PM

This is what happens when Ubisoft puts out two Atlantic War subsims in a row. Pacific War? What Pacific War?

flyingdane · 03-16-07, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

This is what happens when Ubisoft puts out two Atlantic War subsims in a row. Pacific War? What Pacific War?

Agreed this is stupid.

XanderF · 03-16-07, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastfed

but people used to always say that the American Campaign was useless compared to the German one, pacific war was boring, nothing was really done there, all that stuff..

Well, let me try and maybe find where the flaw is, here.

Are you SURE they were talking about JUST the comparative submarine services? If so, as others in this thread have posted, that's utter nonsense. The US submarine war was FAR more effective than the German one.

Now, if they were talking about the ENTIRE THEATER...you have a better argument. Yes, the Pacific War was dynamic, had a lot of naval action, etc. But what a lot of us subsimmers (or naval simmers) tend to forget is that a difficult naval struggle does not make up an entire war.

IE., sure, lots more naval action in the Pacific than European War. Yet, still, US expenditure on the two fronts was WILDLY different. The US Army Air Force ALONE lost nearly as many people as the entire US Navy did during the entire Pacific War. The US Army in Europe was TRIPLE that number.

flyingdane · 03-16-07, 10:06 PM

And the topic of this post is the stupidist thing i have ever seen.

Get a grip on things people.

stabiz · 03-16-07, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingdane

And the topic of this post is the stupidist thing i have ever seen.

Get a grip on things people.

Whats your problem? Same spamming about idiots in several threads now. Give the man a break.

nikimcbee · 03-16-07, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Threadfin

If this thread was indeed posted with honest intentions, then I recommend you pick up a copy of Blair's Silent Victory. Read it, and form your own conclusions.

Quote:

but people used to always say that the American Campaign was useless compared to the German one, pacific war was boring, nothing was really done there, all that stuff.

People used to say this? You need a new source. Search up a few of the book threads here, pick up a few of the suggestions you find there and learn, if that's really what you're after.

Direct HIT!!! Read Volume I of Blair's U-Boat book in addition. He makes it very clear why the Germans failed.

Ark · 03-16-07, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingdane

And the topic of this post is the stupidist thing i have ever seen.

Get a grip on things people.

I'm beginning to think it is past somebody's feeding time.

cappy70 · 03-17-07, 12:20 AM

Errhmm talking about trolls,,another post from the topic-starter " Did the pacific war subs really do allot" in the topic: "Release date changed":

Quote: "
can I ask why you all freak out about ordering and stuff..

Actually let me just ask you all WHY you even pre-order a game when every single gamestop or EBGAMES will have plenty in stock, I bet walmart will have many of them on the 21st.

I would understand a pre-order for a popular game like the release of world of warcraft expansion..
But this game???"" ,,,end quote.....

cappy70 · 03-17-07, 12:35 AM

sorry fastfed

stabiz · 03-17-07, 12:36 AM

So little trolling at this site, that I almost take personal offense when I see it. Oh well, maybe the flying dane is just hungover or something.

On topic: I know next to nothing on this subject, so thanks for the book tips, girls! *off to amazon*

Zero Niner · 03-17-07, 12:36 AM

To put some perspective into this topic:
According to JANAC, US subs:

- sunk a total of 5,586,400 tons of merchant & naval shipping in the Pacific. Out of this, over 5m tons were merchant shipping, 1,178 ships of which were over 500 tons displacement.

- total naval tonnage: 577,626 tons. 214 naval ships sunk, including 1 BB, 4 CVs, 4 CVEs, 3 CAs, 8 CLs, 43 DDs, 23 SSs.

Source: Pg 538, "Red Scorpion - The War Patrols of the USS Rasher" by Peter Sasgen, Pocket Star Books Feb 2005 ed

03-16-07, 09:23 PM	#19
cdrsubron7 Sink'em All Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Naperville, IL Posts: 2,150 Downloads: 305 Uploads: 1	I see varying opinions about the US sub in the Pacific. With the US Pacific Fleet at a standstill after Pearl Harbor, the submarine fleet carried the war to the Japanese while the surface was being rebuilt. They sank 54% of all Japanese ships in the Pacific during WWII. They lost 52 subs and 3200 officers and crewman killed during the war. One out of every five men were killed who served in the "Silent Service". If you think the US subs did not contribute, try reading Clay Blair's "Silent Victory". This book can show you how much of an impact the US Submarines had on Japanese shipping, not to mention all the special missions they performed through out the war. cdrsubron7 __________________ Head Deep and Keep'em Astern" - LtCDR Samuel D Dealy SHIV Guide \| Imperial Japanese Navy \| US Submarines

03-16-07, 09:34 PM	#20
Torplexed Let's Sink Sumptin' ! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,823 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	This is what happens when Ubisoft puts out two Atlantic War subsims in a row. Pacific War? What Pacific War? __________________ --Mobilis in Mobili--

03-16-07, 10:06 PM	#23
flyingdane Weps Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 355 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	And the topic of this post is the stupidist thing i have ever seen. Get a grip on things people. __________________ It denos't mtater waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, it's olny iprmoatnt taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelms.Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

03-17-07, 12:20 AM	#27
cappy70 Ensign Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: USA/Florida/Sweden Posts: 234 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Errhmm talking about trolls,,another post from the topic-starter " Did the pacific war subs really do allot" in the topic: "Release date changed": Quote: " can I ask why you all freak out about ordering and stuff.. Actually let me just ask you all WHY you even pre-order a game when every single gamestop or EBGAMES will have plenty in stock, I bet walmart will have many of them on the 21st. I would understand a pre-order for a popular game like the release of world of warcraft expansion.. But this game???"" ,,,end quote..... __________________ Specs Windows 10 64 bit Pro Asus Z - 97A Intel I7-4790K 4 Ghz 16 Gig Trident Claw DDR 3 2 x 760 GTX 2048 mem in SLI. WD 1T Hd Ultra/WD Black 640 Corsair 850W PSU

03-17-07, 12:35 AM	#28
cappy70 Ensign Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: USA/Florida/Sweden Posts: 234 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	sorry fastfed __________________ Specs Windows 10 64 bit Pro Asus Z - 97A Intel I7-4790K 4 Ghz 16 Gig Trident Claw DDR 3 2 x 760 GTX 2048 mem in SLI. WD 1T Hd Ultra/WD Black 640 Corsair 850W PSU

03-16-07, 03:48 PM	#16
Nikita Electrician's Mate Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Under the sea Posts: 140 Downloads: 119 Uploads: 0	From the venerable manual of Microprose's Silent Service II (translated to English): "60% of Japanese merchant marine tonnage were sunk by US subs. From a total of 9,228,116 tons, 4,859,634 were sunk by US subs (limited to ships from 500 tons or more)" What U-Boot tried without success in the Atlantic was achieved by US subs in the Pacific

03-16-07, 04:45 PM	#17
THE_MASK Ace of the deep . Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,226 Downloads: 901 Uploads: 73	Why does everyone only speak of tonnage as an objective for SH4 ?

03-17-07, 12:36 AM	#29
stabiz Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 4,224 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	So little trolling at this site, that I almost take personal offense when I see it. Oh well, maybe the flying dane is just hungover or something. On topic: I know next to nothing on this subject, so thanks for the book tips, girls! off to amazon __________________

03-17-07, 12:36 AM	#30
Zero Niner Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,033 Downloads: 69 Uploads: 0	To put some perspective into this topic: According to JANAC, US subs: - sunk a total of 5,586,400 tons of merchant & naval shipping in the Pacific. Out of this, over 5m tons were merchant shipping, 1,178 ships of which were over 500 tons displacement. - total naval tonnage: 577,626 tons. 214 naval ships sunk, including 1 BB, 4 CVs, 4 CVEs, 3 CAs, 8 CLs, 43 DDs, 23 SSs. Source: Pg 538, "Red Scorpion - The War Patrols of the USS Rasher" by Peter Sasgen, Pocket Star Books Feb 2005 ed