Submarines

[bortas1]

I'd vote for submarines only if we get Attack Force Z to go along with them.   

yeah!

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Furthermore, we'd finally have a reason to have the PBY Catalina/H8K Emily... sub hunting!

Indeed! 

[Mano]

+1.   


I vote for the USS Rustoleum (Down Periscope, WW2 Diesel Sub)

Subs could jump into action using the Pt Boat spawns if an enemy CV
is spotted. The deck guns could be used to shoot air fields, v bases or towns. Would be fun if other players
could attach like the gunners for bombers.

FBBob would plan a mission with 100 submarines.  ....launch an inflatable raft with troops ......
.......and pull it off successfully. Base captured. WTG FB's. (My imagination getting a little
carried away there).

German, US, or Japanese......doesn't matter. Would be a fun addition.


<S>

[Bino]

And if we get subs, what will you do with them?

I shall bomb them.  The semi-armor-piercing bombs of the 410 should do admirably. 

[Mano]

I shall bomb them.  The semi-armor-piercing bombs of the 410 should do admirably. 

Interesting.

With the new terrain engine to be released in the future, how far will we be able to see into the water? Would subs close to the surface (periscope depth) get bombed because they can be seen? Assuming of course subs will be introduced some day.


<S>

[Volron]

Interesting.

With the new terrain engine to be released in the future, how far will we be able to see into the water? Would subs close to the surface (periscope depth) get bombed because they can be seen? Assuming of course subs will be introduced some day.


<S>

That's the thing.  They ARE going to be introduced.  With this terrain update, it could be they will finally add water depth.  They may start simple, where gv's can traverse certain area's without the instant stuck we get now.  With that, there is the possibility that seaplanes will be introduced as well.  As is, I do not think the water can support seaplanes.  You would just get stuck or crash.  Only the HTC crew could say one way or the other on current water.


Oh I'm so hoping for the H6K.

[Sabre]

Interesting.

With the new terrain engine to be released in the future, how far will we be able to see into the water? Would subs close to the surface (periscope depth) get bombed because they can be seen? Assuming of course subs will be introduced some day.
<S>

Ideally, that would be the case, put would also depend on wave-state, water depth and what the seabed was composed of.  For instance, with even moderate seas in the North Atlantic, it was not easy to spot a sub at even periscope depth, especially of the periscope was down.  On the other hand, in the South Pacific, it was pretty easy to see a submerged sub in shallow water in broad daylight.  It was always a risk to come to shallow depth and linger there, at least in areas where a/c were known to patrol.  That's one of the reasons jeep carriers were so effective as convoy escorts.  The presence of a CVE meant that, at least during daylight hours, the convoy had the advantage against the sub.  I wonder if sea-states will be added, since it made a big difference in how had the advantage, the tin cans or the subs?

[smedddd]

The fire control solutions; and torp reload times would be painful.

[earl1937]

Interesting.

With the new terrain engine to be released in the future, how far will we be able to see into the water? Would subs close to the surface (periscope depth) get bombed because they can be seen? Assuming of course subs will be introduced some day.


<S>

Maybe then we could use the "Tin Can" escort's for something beside ack! I think it would be neat to hunt down a sub, drop depth charges and record a "kill"! Of course then, we would have to have the ability to detach a "Tin Can" from the CV group to hunt down and engage sub.
Now if we could get the LST to go along with this sub idea, then we could really have some sea/land battles. Just think, you could have a sub go ahead of the CV group, raise periscope, check for aircraft, surface and then start shelling town for base capture! What a "hoot" that would be!!

[Sabre]

The fire control solutions; and torp reload times would be painful.

Yes, it typically would take several minutes to reload, and doing so made noise. However, this was mitigated by the fact that a fleet boat generally had fore and aft torpedo rooms (6 forward, 4 aft, was a typical arrangement, IIRC).  And at least you could reload, unlike a PT boat. There would have to be some automation of the analog computer (can't recall the actual name of the US model, a "TDC" or something like that) used for torpedo targeting; a virtual torpedo officer, as it were. Basically, you estimated the targets course and speed from observations, input your boat's course and speed, and finally the bearing to the target as read off the periscope markings.  The TDC would output a recommended course and relative bearing at which to shoot.  You'd train the periscope out to that bearing and when the target hit your cross-hairs, you fired your torps. Typically, you'd fire a spread of several torps a few seconds apart, in hopes that one would hit the target.  At least, that's what I recall from reading about it.

[Tinkles]

Yes, it typically would take several minutes to reload, and doing so made noise. However, this was mitigated by the fact that a fleet boat generally had fore and aft torpedo rooms (6 forward, 4 aft, was a typical arrangement, IIRC).  And at least you could reload, unlike a PT boat. There would have to be some automation of the analog computer (can't recall the actual name of the US model, a "TDC" or something like that) used for torpedo targeting; a virtual torpedo officer, as it were. Basically, you estimated the targets course and speed from observations, input your boat's course and speed, and finally the bearing to the target as read off the periscope markings.  The TDC would output a recommended course and relative bearing at which to shoot.  You'd train the periscope out to that bearing and when the target hit your cross-hairs, you fired your torps. Typically, you'd fire a spread of several torps a few seconds apart, in hopes that one would hit the target.  At least, that's what I recall from reading about it.

Then make them suffer while waiting on the reload!  Don't need to kill em fast all the time, that way they come back 

[EagleDNY]

I'm not sure a submarine would be capable of catching a CV group even on the surface.

Not even close - Subs are 20 knots +/- surfaced and a CV group is running around at 33 knots or so.   Unless they run the CV group over the top of you you have no chance. 
EVEN IF they get within a few K of you - they are moving just about as fast as your torpedoes and unless you have a damn fine computer making the calculation, good luck getting any hits.

We can't even get a basic surface torp sight for the PT boat. 

[Easyscor]

Actually, our TGs travel at 35 mph and there was one model of Sub that was almost as fast on the surfaces as our TGs. If I remember correctly, it was a Japanese boat. It was early in their production and discontinued later. I think they went with a different model because of its' limited range and torpedo reliability problems. Range and weapon reliability wouldn't be a problem in the MA.

While these Subs wouldn't be able to keep up with our 35 mph TGs, they would be able to shadow a TG on the surface for hours and when the TG stopped to attack a base, the TG would be vulnerable.

Even without destroyers, a Sub's deck guns vs a PT Boat's maneuverability and armament should be fun.

[EagleDNY]

Until the torpedoes get an update, they really are worthless with the TG moving at 35 knots all the time.   HT should really consider bumping up all the torpedo speeds to the max available in WW2 for each country as a compensating factor because task groups did not run around at full speed all the time.   For the US & Germany that means one of the 44-46 knot types, and a 48-50 knot type for the Japanese planes.   

Increase the air drop altitudes and entry speeds to the late war specs as well and we might actually see some torpedo bombing in the MA.

[Sabre]

Until the torpedoes get an update, they really are worthless with the TG moving at 35 knots all the time.   HT should really consider bumping up all the torpedo speeds to the max available in WW2 for each country as a compensating factor because task groups did not run around at full speed all the time.   For the US & Germany that means one of the 44-46 knot types, and a 48-50 knot type for the Japanese planes.   

Increase the air drop altitudes and entry speeds to the late war specs as well and we might actually see some torpedo bombing in the MA.

A topic for its own thread perhaps, but I too would like to see the CV ops a little more realistic.  The only time a CV typically ran flat out at 30+ knots was when launching and recovering A/C.  They also typically turned into the wind, especially when launching fully loaded strike a/c.  Perhaps the CV should only be doing 30+ knots when A/C are on deck for launch or within 1 nm. Otherwise, if one of the conditions listed is not met for, say 5 minutes, the CVBG slows down to 20 knots.  I'd also like to see a 10-knot surface wind throughout the arena, with a wind-indicator visible from the tower and from the CV deck.  Finally, I'd slow the CVBG down to 30 knots during launch and recovery ops, with a clipboard button a player on deck could click on to temporarily override the way-point course and turn the CV into the wind and hold it there for 1 minute.  It would then return to base course, unless the button was pressed again.  Just some possible suggestions to introduce some more realistic parameters on naval flight ops.