Realistic sub tactics with aircraft

[G2B]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Oh! The cute widdew boat seem to have a pwobwem!

Is it something you ate?

Crew got into the chili, the head backed up, along with the gas levels, then somebody lit a match. It was horrible

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by sergei

Patrol means patrol.

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.

Originally Posted by sergei

More area covered means more contacts generated.

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.

Originally Posted by sergei

Regardless of whether you are searching by radar, sonar or eye, the more area you cover, the better chance you have of spotting something.

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

- 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.

- Surface radar can only see slightly beyond the horizon

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

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.

[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...

vanjast wrote:

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.

Wonder what could be the draw of running hard reality settings while ignoring actual USN tactics and doctrine in the game?

RR has repeatedly demonstrated around here that Cdr Fluckey's techniques worked in combat and they also work in SH4.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

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.

What are some good keywords? You post a lot and my search-fu is weak.

[Hitman]

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.

I'd like to throw another 2 cents in here

Stiebler did an excellent analysis of the efficiency of staying static vs. patrolling at different speeds in your patrol area (should be still available in pdf at his downloads web) and concluded that cruising around at 9 knots surfaced produced the best chances of detecting targets vs fuel economy, etc.,

BUT, BUT, BUT ...

the very same Richard O'Kane mentioned in his books (Specifically the one about USS Tang IIRC) that in his opinion, the results were the same if he stayed static in the proper point or patrolled around; only that he could conserve fuel and battery much better when being static.

Of course, NOT SUBMERGED, but static and surfaced.

I just wanted to throw this in, as this is not specifically about being submerged/surfaced, but it touches a sensible factor that has to do with them, and that is cruising speed vs area covered and battery depleted.

[abclkhan]

the stuff about the usage of energy from batteries to trim the boat and keep functional any other vital systems is interesting. I wonder if those expenditures weren´t already accounted in the underwater range of submarines in the game. If not, maybe someone could build a mod to drain energy while the sub is stopped.

I can imagine why yo yo strategy is more effective in late war. Targets were becoming fewer day after day. For realism purposes, I think its use is pertinent.

RR is correct about being kept underwater by planes while batteries are low and CO2 is high. We can easily experiment this situation playing OM in 1944-45.
But did the ostrich skippers stayed underwater until depleting completely its batteries? As Mr Spock would say , "that would be unwise".
But that is just talking.. I am far from knowing even 10% on this topic. Is there any online sources about the issue?

[sergei]

Originally Posted by Hitman

the very same Richard O'Kane mentioned in his books (Specifically the one about USS Tang IIRC) that in his opinion, the results were the same if he stayed static in the proper point or patrolled around; only that he could conserve fuel and battery much better when being static.

Really? That is interesting.
I have read quite a few books about the sub war in the PTO recently, but I have not read any by Dick O'Kane.
Well that's my next book purchase sorted!

[vanjast]

The funny thing is that I always have >75% battery power, and plenty fuel to do anything I want. Maybe I'm just more efficient at my energy usage, and thus use different tactics.

I also don't think you'll find anything in contravention to the orders, on paper.
If I was a sub skipper in WW2, I'd still use the same method, but lie in my patrol log to make it look like I was following orders. I'd would entrust this info only to few fellow skippers, as their lives and the crew are more important.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by vanjast

If I was a sub skipper in WW2, I'd still use the same method, but lie in my patrol log to make it look like I was following orders. I'd would entrust this info only to few fellow skippers, as their lives and the crew are more important.

Your non-productivity would result in your removal from command anyway. If you lived through your foolish tactics. All you're doing is gaming the game, proving nothing about the real subs. Many dozens of captains who felt as you do were removed from command. I have the figures.

[vanjast]

Presumptious non-the-less... but when the results prove otherwise..well, even admirals have been removed from service.

[Armistead]

To keep that amount of battery power you must be running at 1kt submerged. The results of this will be less targets. Certainly, it will mean less range you can travel overall in the game regardless of what formula you try to use.

Your going to cover more ground using less fuel on the surface. You'll also have more chances to find target using radar, visuals, than passive sonar alone.

Not to mention, you may find yourself in a position that even if you do surface, you'll not be able to get in attack position soon enough for fast TF's.

Patch up that bath plug and rise to the surface. Results that matter are number of ships sunk and I bet a skilled surface runner will outscore a bottom dwelling catfish anyday.

I remember O'Kane about to lose his mind aboard the Wahoo with his first skipper who refused to surface to get in attack positions. This Skipper stuck in WW1 tactics almost broke down several times, refusing to attack, afraid of death...........

[vanjast]

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.

The surfaced boat spotting the ship, visual or surface radar has to do the same thing.

---------------------------
As you can see, it's about 50/50 and luck also plays a part, and one method is not all together better than the other. But a good skipper who uses a bit of common sense is likely to be the one who scores.

BUT the submerged boat preserves his fuel for the chase/positioning phase where he'll charge his batteries at the same time.
The surfaced boat, has 100% battery power, but will be using fuel at a faster rate.

The end result, is that the submerged boat will be on station longer, therefore possibly account for more ships - you didn't think of this
The surfaced might also possibly account for the same amount of boats in a shorter time period, but ..

Starting Odds approx 50% for either method.
Time on station favours sumerged tactics = Higher contact possibilities.
Damaged/sub sinkings favour submerged tactics = Means Less subs sunk = more subs in the force = more enemy ship sinkings.
----------------------------------------------

It'll be interesting to see if this was even considered by that admiral you keep mentioning. Tell me this doesn't make sense !! (Wait for it )

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

Care to actually explain your conclusion?

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.

The surfaced boat spotting the ship, visual or surface radar has to do the same thing.

Except radar also gives you accurate range, so your intercept solution is more or less automatic unless the target changes course.

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by Apocal

Care to actually explain your conclusion?

Surface sub sails away from target and misses it (but will pick up the other ship which the submerged ship won't), Target sails towards submerged sub, which picks it up on passive sonar.

Originally Posted by Apocal

Except radar also gives you accurate range, so your intercept solution is more or less automatic unless the target changes course.

Depending on weather, which effects both radar and passive sonar ranges - Yes, but both have to get into strike position ahead of the target.
This usually requires a bit of flank/full surface speeds, using up a lot of fuel.

Any target course changes can ruin the setup phase, unless the course is towards the sub.