Submarines, destroyers balance

There were a lot of ships used in WW2, but let's just take 2 of my favorites:

Iowa-class battleship

Class overview

Gato-class submarine

Class overview

Subs had to rely on ambush tactics. They were significantly slower than warships. They were able to keep up with some transports, when running at full speed using their diesel engines on the surface. A submerged sub running on battery power was quite slow. These are not today's SSBN's with nuclear reactors pumping power to their propeller blades

In terms of communication, a sub could go snoop around an enemy shore, then sail away and make a radio report. But during battle, a sub had to be submerged, it could not coordinate with other warships in real time. That's why I think they should not be able to stack or move together. Unlike say a transport carrying disassembled planes, there's no different between that and a transport carrying infantry or guns. They got those backwards.

Subs also came in different sizes, anywhere from small coastal patrol vessels that returned to port every day to large, ocean crossing fleet subs that could stay out for weeks at a time. The game treats all subs the same, but gives us lots of different armored vehicles and types of planes. There are lots of opportunities to make subs more interesting and more realistic.

z00mz00m wrote:

Subs had to rely on ambush tactics. They were significantly slower than warships. They were able to keep up with some transports, when running at full speed using their diesel engines on the surface. A submerged sub running on battery power was quite slow. These are not today's SSBN's with nuclear reactors pumping power to their propeller blades

z00mz00m wrote:

In terms of communication, a sub could go snoop around an enemy shore, then sail away and make a radio report. But during battle, a sub had to be submerged, it could not coordinate with other warships in real time. That's why I think they should not be able to stack or move together.

z00mz00m wrote:

Subs also came in different sizes, anywhere from small coastal patrol vessels that returned to port every day to large, ocean crossing fleet subs that could stay out for weeks at a time. The game treats all subs the same, but gives us lots of different armored vehicles and types of planes. There are lots of opportunities to make subs more interesting and more realistic.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Do you mean then must remain individual units, like they can't stack at all, or they just can't stack with any other type of ship?

I mean they should not be stackable with other warships. Similarly, strategic bombers should behave like nuclear bombers. Neither should stack with short-range, low-altitude planes.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

This is furthered by the fact that the sub is the only unique class: It is a sub-class, and yet it is the only unit in its class. Maybe we'll see a split of subs like they did for tacs into tacs and ABs, and perhaps an implementation of coastal waters/deep waters and such (I doubt it tbh). They could even have a separate sub for scouting and one for naval attacks or even convoy raiding.

And back to the DD versus SS comparison, a DD can kill a sub because it's fast and it can dodge a torpedo more easily than say a carrier or a battleship. This allows the DD to come in close and lob depth charges into the water. A battleship firing its big guns from long range can't do anything to a (submerged) sub. The only thing that will do is sink the friendly destroyer that's loitering directly over the sub

The fix is to change how subs take damage so only a destroyer or naval bomber can inflict damage on a sub. That would be more realistic, and it would finally give us a reason to build large numbers of destroyers. As it is, we use destroyers like modern AWACS planes. One per fleet is enough to spot the enemy unit from long range, and then other vessels with standoff weapons take it out before it can approach. That is not how surface ships fought subs in WW2. It was a lot more up close and personal

z00mz00m wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Do you mean then must remain individual units, like they can't stack at all, or they just can't stack with any other type of ship?

I mean they should not be stackable with other warships. Similarly, strategic bombers should behave like nuclear bombers. Neither should stack with short-range, low-altitude planes.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

This is furthered by the fact that the sub is the only unique class: It is a sub-class, and yet it is the only unit in its class. Maybe we'll see a split of subs like they did for tacs into tacs and ABs, and perhaps an implementation of coastal waters/deep waters and such (I doubt it tbh). They could even have a separate sub for scouting and one for naval attacks or even convoy raiding.

Exactly. There should be different kinds of subs, with different purposes. Just like there are small, cheap surface ships (destroyers) and large, expensive surface vessels (battleships).

And back to the DD versus SS comparison, a DD can kill a sub because it's fast and it can dodge a torpedo more easily than say a carrier or a battleship. This allows the DD to come in close and lob depth charges into the water. A battleship firing its big guns from long range can't do anything to a (submerged) sub. The only thing that will do is sink the friendly destroyer that's loitering directly over the sub

The fix is to change how subs take damage so only a destroyer or naval bomber can inflict damage on a sub. That would be more realistic, and it would finally give us a reason to build large numbers of destroyers. As it is, we use destroyers like modern AWACS planes. One per fleet is enough to spot the enemy unit from long range, and then other vessels with standoff weapons take it out before it can approach. That is not how surface ships fought subs in WW2. It was a lot more up close and personal

Carking the 6th wrote:

I agree with almost everything said here. Only thing is that battleships and cruisers still could fight subs and did sink some (even some convoys managed) so it wouldn’t do them justice to make them completely useless against subs. Naval Bombers being able to spot submerged subs is a strange idea looking from IRL, but it’s understandable considering that game.

It makes sense once you consider that WW2 subs spent most of their time on the surface, or just below the surface (snorkel depth) so they could run their diesel engines. They had to do this, because their speed and range on battery power was extremely limited. This is again for a Gato class sub, a late-war American model:

• 21 knots (24 mph) surfaced^[3]
• 9 knots (10 mph) submerged^[3]

• 48 hours at 2 knots (2.3 mph) submerged^[3]

A naval bomber could fly around looking for shadows under the surface of the water, find the sub, and then call for destroyers or additional bombers to hunt it down. This wasn't some high-tech machinery. It just took spotters to look for periscope trails in the water or shadows beneath the surface. The sub had no choice. It couldn't stay deep under water for very long, and when it did, it couldn't move at sufficient speed to get anywhere.

Good point! I forget that subs in this time had to surface much more often than say the Cold War, and even then they couldn’t stay down forever…

The way we look at naval battles is probably wrong now that I think about it. It was a lot more whoever could guess where the others ships are and send the planes to sink them than huge battleships ducking it out at close range. Even battleship combat was more often a guy shooting at the other until hopefully one stops missing and lands a good hit on the others.

To really make subs work, they should only be detectable from a very short range, maybe the size of a view circle of a rocket flying toward its target? And subs should be very slow. That would make them good ambush units that take skill to use AND to counter.

I agree. You’d need destroyers to find them but you better be able to dodge or they will do a lot of damage! When a stack of 10 subs catches you it’s over, but it’s not that easy as the prey can always run away. Obviously ranged units being able to damage them should not work, but there would need to be a physical counter that can sink them. How would that happen?

The counter would be that subs are difficult to position. Once they are in place, the enemy has to make an effort to find them and either (1) sink them, or (2) chase them away. Imagine if the Germans had wolf packs of subs roaming the Normandy coast and the Allies made no effort to find them. What would happen? The subs would sink every bleeping ship in the invasion force!

What they need to do is make subs more effective, when not countered properly, and make rockets less effective overall. Subs made a substantial impact on the war. Rockets were just a way to terrorize civilians (iotw, lower morale).

YEESS SOMEONE HAS THE COURAGE TO SAY IT!

Rockets did little. Wunderwaffe would not save the Germans! My question is how do you damage them without getting up close and personal? Would ships be able to do their sub damage (reduced a bit as well) in that range? Or would they just have to use NB’s or melee them?

Also what does IOTW mean…?

IOTW = in other words

I think most ships would avoid subs, if they knew where they were. They would go around. Like if you are commanding a tank regiment and there's a forest full of AT guns in front of you, what do you do? Go around, and call on some other units to take care of the AT guns. Or if there's a big detachment of AA guns in a city, what does the air force do? Stay away, find another target.

To get rid of the subs, you either need to work on them with naval bombers (assuming they are in range), or bring enough destroyers to get close and personal and survive the experience.

The current system sucks. Ships should not be able to bombard subs from 50 km away, and subs should not be able to chase down battleships! Both mechanics are wrong.

This is probably the most serious thread that I've ever seen on the entire forum.

Zaktty wrote:

This is probably the most serious thread that I've ever seen on the entire forum.

How do we summon Freezy?

z00mz00m wrote:

How do we summon Freezy?

FREEZY, I SUMMON THEEE

z00mz00m wrote:

How do we summon Freezy?

You forgot a few things. For one, its bones must be used to create an incense that will be spread across the land. The ritual slaughter must be done with an adult male Grey Eurasian wolf’s jaw. Parts that won’t be eaten must be burned.

Carking the 6th wrote:

You forgot a few things. For one, its bones must be used to create an incense that will be spread across the land. The ritual slaughter must be done with an adult male Grey Eurasian wolf’s jaw. Parts that won’t be eaten must be burned.