Risuou

Submarines- Yay or nay?

285 posts in this topic

So we're talking T5 subs then? Would be a while to wait, but if we got into the extremely early Korean subs I don't think too many people would have a problem with that. After all, we have Korean War planes, so it is only fair that navies stretch as far. I doubt, however, that we will be able to get anything beyond Korean era. That is pretty much where T5 ends. 

 

But, enough rambling about what I think we both already know. Point being I was kindof surprised to hear about the fact that we are getting into nuclear subs, but if it is Korean era I suppose we should be good. 

With nuke subs you have to consider the fact that the latest subs to see actual combat were from WWII.*

Outside of that you just have military excersizes and maybe stray encounters with ill-fated terrorists, militias and/or pirates.

Oh, and accidents.

 

 

[spoiler]*It was never mentioned ever in my classes of World History and US History that we had sub combat in korea, vietnam, ect... Considering sub combat as Submarine Vs Submarine warfare where both parties involved took hits to their subs.[/spoiler]

Edited by Kazumi_
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With nuke subs you have to consider the fact that the latest subs to see actual combat were from WWII.*

Outside of that you just have military excersizes and maybe stray encounters with ill-fated terrorists, militias and/or pirates.

Oh, and accidents.

 

 

[spoiler]*It was never mentioned ever in my classes of World History and US History that we had sub combat in korea, vietnam, ect... Considering sub combat as Submarine Vs Submarine warfare where both parties involved took hits to their subs.[/spoiler]

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ARA_General_Belgrano#Sinking

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With nuke subs you have to consider the fact that the latest subs to see actual combat were from WWII.*

Outside of that you just have military excersizes and maybe stray encounters with ill-fated terrorists, militias and/or pirates.

Oh, and accidents.

 

 

[spoiler]*It was never mentioned ever in my classes of World History and US History that we had sub combat in korea, vietnam, ect... Considering sub combat as Submarine Vs Submarine warfare where both parties involved took hits to their subs.[/spoiler]

 

Good point. It does sortof go against the whole reason for including subs in the first place. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. It does sortof go against the whole reason for including subs in the first place. 

Subs played a major role in WWII. And before WWII, hell, they helped drag the United States into WWI with the sinking of a passenger ship. And now it seems someone has drawn up a sub combat thingy post WWII.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my answer is yes - cause they were a important! Without the Navy support were the chances to " the way of victory"  on Important operations/battles Like in France, Normandy not easy . Without their Naval support like Naval Artillary strike on the coasts of Normandy, "The march to Berlin" Took a few months long or years! Navy ships were even used to defend the airspace and used as patrol just off shore.

 

(My grammar is a puzzle sometimes  :facepalm: )

Edited by HardeKern
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my answer is yes - cause they were a important! Without the Navy support were the chances to " the way of victory"  on Important operations/battles Like in France, Normandy not easy . Without their Naval support like Naval Artillary strike on the coasts of Normandy, "The march to Berlin" Took a few months long or years! Navy ships were even used to defend the airspace and used as patrol just off shore.

 

(My grammar is a puzzle sometimes  :facepalm: )

 

I'm a little confused by your statement. The topic is whether or not subs should be included. I don't understand where naval artillery strikes fits into that picture. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


German Submarine Tech Tree (Example)


Tier 1

  • Seehund midget submarine (reserve/dirt cheap)

  • Type I-A submarine (requires purchase of Seehund)

Tier 2

  • Type II-B Submarine (requires purchase of Type I-A)

  • Type II-C Submarine (requires previous)

  • (Premium vessel) Type IID Submarine

Tier 3

  • Type VII-A Submarine (requires purchase of Type II-C)

  • Type VII-B Submarine (requires previous)

  • Type VII-C Submarine (requires previous)

  • Type VIIC/42 Submarine (requires previous)

  • Type VII-C “Flak Trap” Anti-Air Submarine

  • (Premium Vessel) Type VII-C/41 Submarine

Tier 4

  • Type IX-A (Requires Type VIIC/42)

  • Type IX-B (Requires previous)

  • Type IX-C (Requires Previous)

  • (Premium Vessel) Type IX-C/40

  • Type IX-D (Requires Type IX-C)

Tier V

  • Type XXI Submarine (Requires Type IX-D)


 

 

you can t build a tree just using the name of the submarines....

 

 

the type I-A were designed to be a real submarine, they were armed with 6 torpedoes ( 4 forward/2backward ) and hold more in storages, their speed is 18knots surfaced, 8 submerged, the type IX were based on it

 

the type IIs were training/coastal defence submarines, they were armed with 3 torpedoes, and have 2 in storage, their maximum surface speed is arround 12knots, it couldn't be anything except reserve.

 

 

you also understood that type IX is better than VII, this is totally wrong. 

 

the type VII was the most produced german sub, it is a medium range submarine, meant to cruise in mid atlantic and is able to reach the US coast ( C ).  it was improved all along the war.  armed with 5 torpedo tubes ( 4 forward/1 backward ), max speed with version B ( 19knots/8knots )  ( A has a weaker engines, C is bigger )

the last version C/42 has an improved pressure hull, allowing it to dive much deeper than any other german submarine ( except maybe XXI ) 

 

the type IX is a longer range submarine, based on the type I-A,  armed with 6 torpedo tubes ( 4 forward/2backward ) they hold more torpedoes than VII in storages thank to bigger external storage, max average speed is ( 18/7knots ).  they are bigger, slower while submerged, slower to dive, and far less manoeuvrable than VII 

-from a version to an other, the type IX are bigger and bigger,   the last version, D, have 3 time the range of B and twice the range of C,  they are way bigger ( 2 set of engines for cruise speed and max speed 20 knots ( only 6.5knots while submerged thought ), more fuel, more torpedoes ). 

 

those 2 types of U-boot had different purpose,  type VII ==> patrol in mid atlantic and in mediterrean sea / type IX ==> patrol in US's waters and south atlantic, then in indian ocean.  they were used in tandem like me109 and fw190.  the VII being more able to survive an escorter attack than IX. 

 

 

 

anyway, submarines won t appear in WT, they were not at all meant to be used in naval battles,  but to destroy ennemy's merchant fleet  and to strangle its economy ( german almost succeeded in 1942, the US did it in the pacific ).  their electrical torpedoes going 30knots at range from 3 to 5km are enough against merchants, but are slower than battleships.  their steam powered torpedoes could go up to 45knots, but at 5 km range, and could be seen by the ennemy ( and so were only used at night, against merchants... )

 

the few success of subs against warships were succeeded while they were cruising and went near a lucky sub.   only japanese tried to attack task forces, they had very little succeess compared to looses ( while they had the fastest and longest range torpedoes of the war, + kamikaze torpedoes in late war )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement A the few success of subs against warships were succeeded while they were cruising and went near a lucky sub.

Statement B Only japanese tried to attack task forces, they had very little succeess compared to looses ( while they had the fastest and longest range torpedoes of the war, + kamikaze torpedoes in late war )

 

To answer Statement A:

How about a list of Submarines that sunk warships? I'd hardly call it a "few." The sub name is listed, while the carrier it sunk is in parentheses. The list is organized by the country that sunk the ship. If the ship was not an aircraft carrier, its type is listed in brackets. This is not a complete list.

 

USA:

 USS Archer-Fish (IJN Shinano)

 USS Queenfish (IJN Akitsu Maru)

 USS Sailfish SS-192 (aka USS Squalus) (IJN Chuyo)

 USS Barb (IJN Unyo)

 USS Spadefish (IJN Shinyo)

 USS Cavalla (IJN Shokaku)

 USS Albacore (IJN Taiho)

 USS Redfish (IJN Unryu)

 USS Salmon (IJN Asashi [BB])

 USS Sealion (IJN Kongo [BB])

 

Germany:

U-81 (HMS Ark Royal, damaged and sunk later while under tow)

U-751 (HMS Audacity)

U-151 (HMS Avenger)

U-29 (HMS Courageous)

U-73 (HMS Eagle)

U-549 (USS Bock Island)

U-47 (HMS Royal Oak [BB])

U-331 (HMS Barham [BB])

U-124 (HMS Dunedin [Light Cruiser])

U-557 (HMS Galatea [Light Cruiser])

U-410 (HMS Penelope [Light Cruiser])

U-205 (HMS Hermione [Light Cruiser])

U-565 (HMS Naiad [Light Cruiser])

U-671 (HMS Welshman [Cruiser Minelayer])

U-405 (Kamikaze-rammed the USS Borie [DD])

U-371 (USS Bristol [DD])

U-616 (USS Buck [DD])

U-578 (USS Jacob Jones [DD])

U-275 (USS Leary [DD])

U-967 (USS Fechteler [Destroyer Escort])

U-804 (USS Fiske [Destroyer Escort])

U-564 (USS Frederick C. Davis [Destroyer Escort])

U-255 (USS Leopold [Destroyer Escort])

U-214 (May have sunk the USS Dorado [Submarine])

Unknown (USS Redwing [Minesweeper])

U-230 (PC-558 [Submarine Chaser])

U-556 (USS Plymouth [Gunboat])

U-163 (USS Erie [Gunboat])

U-853 (USS Eagle 56 [Gunboat])

U-653 (USS Gannet [Seaplane Tender])

 

Japan:

 I-19 (USS Wasp, USS O'Brien [DD])

 I-175 (USS Lipscome Bay)

 I-58 (USS Indianapolis [Heavy Cruiser])

 I-26 (USS Juneau [Light Cruiser]) 

 I-168 (USS Hammann [DD], USS Yorktown)

 I-12 (May have sunk the USS Porter [DD])

 RO-41 (USS Shelton [Destroyer Escort])

 I-176 (USS Corvina [Submarine])

 

Britain:

 HMS Upholder (Libeccio [DD], Ammiraglio Saint [Submarine], Tricheco [Submarine], B-14 Maria [Minesweeper], an unknown U-boat)

There are many, many more British subs that sunk enemy ships, but the HMS Upholder has a record that's hard to top

 

Italy:

 Bagnolini (HMS Calypso [Light Cruiser])

 Ambra (HMS Bonaventure [Light Cruiser])

 Unknown (PC-496 [Submarine Chaser])

 
To answer Statement B:
That is incorrect. The US also mobilized wolf-packs against Japanese task forces, mainly carrier task forces. The Germans would often mobilize submarines against British task forces, and the Brits did likewise to the Germans.
Edited by peregrine22
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, the Soviet Submarines! No ships with less than an 8 kn submerged speed were included. Ordered in reverse chronological order, starting at the Romeo Class.

 

Romeo Class 15.2 knots surfaced 13 knots submerged

 

Quebec Class - 18 knots / 16 knots

 

Whiskey Class - 18.5 knots / 13 knots

 

Zulu Class- 18 knots / 16 knots (could also fire Scud missiles, extremely dangerous ASMs)

 

Soviet K class- 22.5 knots / 10 knots

 

Soviet S class- 19.5 knots / 9 knots

 

M-Class

   XV - 15 knots / 10 knots

   XII - 14.1 knots / 8.2 knots

 

Pravada Class- 20.5 knots / 11.8 knots

 

Leninets Class- 

Group 1+2:

14 knots (26 km/h) surfaced
9 knots (17 km/h) submerged
Group 3+4:
18 knots (33 km/h) surfaced
10 knots (19 km/h) submerged

 

Dekabrist Class- 14 knots / 9 knots

Edited by peregrine22
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, you guys can do exactly what they did on WoWS forums and continue to try to give reasons but the fact is, they are not going to be included.

 

They do not fit in a Naval "Match Making" Game.

 

To spell it out for all of you, Submarines killed "Targets of Opportunity" and in nearly all the cases of warships being sunk by Submarines 1 of 3 things happened.

 

1. They saw it on scope, but ignored it thinking it was something else due to poor training (HMS Barham)

2. They were without escort due to severe lack of vessels due to war shortages (IJN Shinano)

3. They were already damaged, escorting a convoy, and or were engaging the submarine and died while rushing it (All DD's and Escorts as well as Yorktown and many other Carriers)

 

Out of all of the Submarines, only a handful would operate in game due to the speed limitations and be even further hampered by combat radius of their torpedo's and the size of the maps. Submarine torpedo's on average have between 1/5th to 1/2 the range of a surface torpedo depending on the Navy in question, all on a vessel at MOST hitting 19 knots submerged vs a surface vessel hitting 30-40 knots. I also don't need to go over the issue that time and time again scout aircraft were able to spot them at a depth of as deep as 40 meters meaning at periscope depth, scout aircraft could easily locate and notify the fleet of their location.

 

When ever a submarine came into contact with a task force that was active they could not make an attack run on the vessels. The times they were able to hit them was when they egressed out of the area damaged and got into a lane that the submarine was already waiting in or they sunk them transiting a shipping lane while supporting troops, supply, or other transports.

 

The rare exception was with HMS Barham which they SAW IT ON THE SCOPE but the ASDIC crewmen was new and didn't know what he was looking at and took it as a false positive since only 1 DD was operating ASDIC at the time.

 

As for all of those British Dido class light cruisers sunk, they were hit for number 3 which put them into a shipping lane allowing the submarines to ambush it.

 

Unlike in RL where they didn't operate scouts all the time due to time to recover and refuel, this is a match maker game so expect them to be in the air 24/7 to locate enemy ships. Also as for that "20mm shells cannot damage a submarine", are you kidding me? Germany had serious issues with having to return to port with their U-boats due to those 20mm shells busting up their conning towers and due to the flooding of them making them incapable of attack operations because they were FLOODING from those 20mm AP rounds. It's not hard to penetrate 18-24mm of steel when you're hitting it with AP shells from 150m out on a strafing run.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, you guys can do exactly what they did on WoWS forums and continue to try to give reasons but the fact is, they are not going to be included. And you can be like the devs and continue to give reasons to ignore your player base, but the fact is, you're missing something important, and that is the crucial contribution of submarines to the outcome of WWII.

 

They do not fit in a Naval "Match Making" Game. That is only what you say. I would argue that SPAA do not fit into a tank "Match-making" game.

 

To spell it out for all of you, Submarines killed "Targets of Opportunity"... WT GF in a nutshell ...and in nearly all the cases of warships being sunk by Submarines 1 of 3 things happened.

 

1. They saw it on scope, but ignored it thinking it was something else due to poor training (HMS Barham) And how much training does the WT player base have?

2. They were without escort due to severe lack of vessels due to war shortages (IJN Shinano)

3. They were already damaged, escorting a convoy, and or were engaging the submarine and died while rushing it (All DD's and Escorts as well as Yorktown and many other Carriers) That sounds like you're proving my point.

 

Out of all of the Submarines, only a handful would operate in game due to the speed limitations and be even further hampered by combat radius of their torpedo's and the size of the maps. Large maps mean more ambush spots.

Submarine torpedo's on average have between 1/5th to 1/2 the range of a surface torpedo depending on the Navy in question, all on a vessel at MOST hitting 19 knots submerged vs a surface vessel hitting 30-40 knots. I would love to see where you got this information, not because I do not trust it, but because I want to read it, too.

I also don't need to go over the issue that time and time again scout aircraft were able to spot them at a depth of as deep as 40 meters meaning at periscope depth, scout aircraft could easily locate and notify the fleet of their location. This was only because the aircraft could spot the moonlight reflecting off of the trail from the periscope moving through the water. Seeing this in the daytime, when there is too much reflected light to see this effectively, or on a moonless night, or during a storm/fog would be impossible. And, before you ask, WT already has rain/storm/fog in the mechanics. Also, if a submarine stayed close to a slow friendly ship, then the wake would be obscured by the wake of the friendly.

 

When ever a submarine came into contact with a task force that was active they could not make an attack run on the vessels. The times they were able to hit them was when they egressed out of the area damaged and got into a lane that the submarine was already waiting in or they sunk them transiting a shipping lane while supporting troops, supply, or other transports. See: USS Sculpin, USS Sailfish, USS Searaven,...

 

The rare exception was with HMS Barham which they SAW IT ON THE SCOPE but the ASDIC crewmen was new and didn't know what he was looking at and took it as a false positive since only 1 DD was operating ASDIC at the time. Half of the WT player base in a nutshell.

 

As for all of those British Dido class light cruisers sunk, they were hit for number 3 which put them into a shipping lane allowing the submarines to ambush it. Could you clarify this phrase for me? Does this mean that they were hit in their No. 3 boiler?

 

Unlike in RL where they didn't operate scouts all the time due to time to recover and refuel, this is a match maker game so expect them to be in the air 24/7 to locate enemy ships. WoWS has already put in a mechanic for scout fuel limits/recovery time. Are you trying to tell me that WT, which is all about realism, is just going to ignore this?

 

Also as for that "20mm shells cannot damage a submarine", are you kidding me? Germany had serious issues with having to return to port with their U-boats due to those 20mm shells busting up their conning towers and due to the flooding of them making them incapable of attack operations because they were FLOODING from those 20mm AP rounds. It's not hard to penetrate 18-24mm of steel when you're hitting it with AP shells from 150m out on a strafing run. Shells do not travel well underwater, though. Also, remember that 20mm cannons cause the plane to vibrate when shooting (eg: Mustang Mk1 A), decreasing accuracy. Also, remember just how large a submarine is. It's like killing a Lancaster with 7.6 mm machine guns: It takes forever. Sure, it's possible, but so is killing the Lancaster. What is most likely going to happen is that the plane/SPAA is going get "hit" after "hit" after "hit," and maybe even a super-low damage "critical hit," but they aren't going to do anything besides turn stuff a pretty green colour on the hit display, and a pretty light pink colour on the player's damage display.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Seph, it was very easy to see the body of a submarine in the Pacific without a periscope up due to the color of the water and the light transition in the water. Yes in WOWS they did that, in this game, an aircraft can fly based on how much real fuel it has, not some set timer. So expect that player up in the air for a long time until either someone shoots them down or they go back to rearm/refuel, and I never said the 20mm hit them submerged, they were strafed as they were surfaced. Later in the war the aircraft just dropped depth charges and wing mounted mortar shells aka Hedgehogs to hit the Submarines.

 

Also, since you wanted to know about those "Torpedo's". Cut off date is 1951 on these torpedo's because so far the Dev's have stated the cut off date will be before the end of Korea and most likely before that due to the changes from Jet aircraft to prop based aircraft and the fact that Missiles will not be used.

 

So lets start with Japan

 

Submarine Torpedos

 

Type 92 (1932)

30 knots at 7km range

 

Type 95 Model 1 (1935)

47 knots at 12km range

51 knots at 9km range

 

Type 95 Model 2 (1942) (Larger Warhead)

47 knots at 7.5km range

51 knots at 5.5km range

 

Surface Torpedos

 

Type 93 (1933)

38 knots at 40km

42 knots at 32km

50 knots at 20km

 

Type 93 Model 3 (1942) (Larger warhead)

38 knots at 30km

42 knots at 25km

50 knots at 15km

 

Looks like a lot longer range for those surface torpedo's to me, but lets check over at UK and US next

 

British Commonwealth

 

Submarine Torpedos

 

Mark VIII (1925)

40 knots at 4.57km

 

Mark VIII Improved (1940)

45.5 knots at 4.57km

41 knots at 6.4km

 

Surface Torpedos

 

Mark XI (1928)

36 knots at 9.6km
30 knots at 12.35km

 

Mark XI Improved (1941)

41 knots at 10km
35 knots at 13.7km

 

So far it seems surface is at least keeping a 2x the range of submerged torpedo's, so lets hit up USA now.

 

US Navy

 

Submarine Torpedos

 

Mark 14 (1930)

46 knots at 4.1km

31 knots at 8.2km

 

Mark 16 (1944)

46 knots at 6.4km

46 knots at 10.5km (1953 version)

 

Mark 18 (1943)

29 knots at 3.65km

 

Mark 27 (1943)

12 knots at 4.57km (Homing torpedo)

 

Surface Torpedos

 

Mark 15 (1934)

45 knots at 5.5km

33.5 knots at 9.15km

26.5 knots at 13.7km

 

Mark 15 Mod 3 (1941) (Larger Warhead)

45 knots at 4.1km

33.5 knots at 8.2km

26.5 knots at 12.8km

 

Mark 17 (1944) (Surface version of Mark 16)

46 knots at 16.5km

 

So as you can see, with USA, it's not always 2x the range when you compare from Mark 15/14, but its nearly 2x the range.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Honestly, you guys can do exactly what they did on WoWS forums and continue to try to give reasons but the fact is, they are not going to be included. And you can be like the devs and continue to give reasons to ignore your player base, but the fact is, you're missing something important, and that is the crucial contribution of submarines to the outcome of WWII.

 

this crucial contribution of the submarines during WW2 was to strangle the ennemy's economy ( Britain was near to be about to fall in 1942 due to great success of the Wolf-Packs / the US subs greatly reduced the japan's merchant fleet )  the fact the Shinano, the HMS Barham... were sunk had no effect on the war, the fact HMS carriers were sunk had little effect on the war ( Malta didn t fall after all, and it was the main use of carriers in the european front,  the US won the war in the pacific, sending some more HMS Carrier would have had little to no effect....  )

 

Out of all of the Submarines, only a handful would operate in game due to the speed limitations and be even further hampered by combat radius of their torpedo's and the size of the maps. Large maps mean more ambush spots.  

 

how many battles in submarine when the enemy simply don t come close enough to be hit ?

 

 

The rare exception was with HMS Barham which they SAW IT ON THE SCOPE but the ASDIC crewmen was new and didn't know what he was looking at and took it as a false positive since only 1 DD was operating ASDIC at the time. Half of the WT player base in a nutshell.

 

but the player won't have to check all station at the same time, it would be auto, like gunners in bombers. 

 

 

 

Edited by Vilab
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Honestly, you guys can do exactly what they did on WoWS forums and continue to try to give reasons but the fact is, they are not going to be included. And you can be like the devs and continue to give reasons to ignore your player base, but the fact is, you're missing something important, and that is the crucial contribution of submarines to the outcome of WWII.

 

this crucial contribution of the submarines during WW2 was to strangle the ennemy's economy ( Britain was near to be about to fall in 1942 due to great success of the Wolf-Packs / the US subs greatly reduced the japan's merchant fleet )  the fact the Shinano, the HMS Barham... were sunk had no effect on the war, the fact HMS carriers were sunk had little effect on the war ( Malta didn t fall after all, and it was the main use of carriers in the european front,  the US won the war in the pacific, sending some more HMS Carrier would have had little to no effect....  )

 

Out of all of the Submarines, only a handful would operate in game due to the speed limitations and be even further hampered by combat radius of their torpedo's and the size of the maps. Large maps mean more ambush spots.  

 

how many battles in submarine when the enemy simply don t come close enough to be hit ?

 

 

The rare exception was with HMS Barham which they SAW IT ON THE SCOPE but the ASDIC crewmen was new and didn't know what he was looking at and took it as a false positive since only 1 DD was operating ASDIC at the time. Half of the WT player base in a nutshell.

 

but the player won't have to check all station at the same time, it would be auto, like gunners in bombers. 

 

 

 

 

 

How did you manage to quote Peregrine's quote and get the modifications in? When I quote a post that is entirely a quote, nothing shows up. Maybe you did it manually, but if there is a way to get someone's edits in a quote to show up, I would like to know, there are a number of occasions where that would be good to know.  

 

edit: nevermind. Looks like changes must have been made to the forums. I like them  :yes: . Never noticed that they changed it. 

Edited by starkwolf
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just quoted SeraphsWraith's post with the quote button

 

 

sometime it works, sometimes it doesn't   ( in the pinned submarine topic, i tried twice and it didn't work :dntknw: )

 

edit : i can't quote your post and have the 3 quotes in it by example...

Edited by Vilab
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I like to keep saying, people keep forgetting the other problem with submarines in this game. What if the last ship on your team is a battleship or a cruiser, and the last unit on the enemy team a submarine. Well guess what, those battleships and cruisers lack the means of detecting the sub through any means but visual. And they can't attack it due to lack of anti-submarine weapons. It is simply not balanced or fun.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I like to keep saying, people keep forgetting the other problem with submarines in this game. What if the last ship on your team is a battleship or a cruiser, and the last unit on the enemy team a submarine. Well guess what, those battleships and cruisers lack the means of detecting the sub through any means but visual. And they can't attack it due to lack of anti-submarine weapons. It is simply not balanced or fun.

 

Pretty sure at least some were armed with Hedgehogs. Can't think of any off the bat, but will look into it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I like to keep saying, people keep forgetting the other problem with submarines in this game. What if the last ship on your team is a battleship or a cruiser, and the last unit on the enemy team a submarine. Well guess what, those battleships and cruisers lack the means of detecting the sub through any means but visual. And they can't attack it due to lack of anti-submarine weapons. It is simply not balanced or fun.

 

it could be resolve like standart plane battle are.

 

an armed surface ship would "hold" the area, it is like in air battle,  who control the air isn t important, what is, is who control the ground ( or the surface, here )

 

a battleship at that time was a "deterrence force" ( google trad, sorry ), whereas a submarine was just a knife, it needed an ( important ) opposition to be useful.

 

 

edit : about hedgehogs, it needed an active sonar to be uselful, and a rather manoeuvrable ship, i don't know whether or not some cruisers had them, but it would be rather surprising because they would be far less efficient than destroyers at ASW,

 

edit :moreover, they are themself a rather prestigious target for subs 

 

and hedgehogs had little chances to destroy a submarine, they were more efficient than depth charges, because the ship was keeping sonar contact on the subs while he was firing them, but the explosive charge wasn't sure to destroy the pressure hull, just destroy some ballast, fuel tanks, and damage more and less the pressure hull,  often forcing the sub to surface and surrender 

edit : Taurevanime is right 

Edited by Vilab
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a surface ship needs to hold an objective, it becomes even easier for submarines to attack them, at the detriment of the surface combatant.

 

Also the hedgehog was far more effective than depth charges because it detonated on the hull, even with a smaller warhead, it pretty much assured a pressure hull rupture and thus kill of the submarine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nay

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a surface ship needs to hold an objective, it becomes even easier for submarines to attack them, at the detriment of the surface combatant.

 

 

it didn t thought about "holding" an objective ( like in tank ), but rather about " the ennemy has no important surface ship anymore ( cruisers/battleship/carriers )" ==> auto win, like what happen with ground units in air battle. 

 

+ an surface area domination ( still very large ), to prevent a lonely carrier/light cruiser in the losing team to run away in Z-99 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR: Subs aren't op as they were easily detected and destroyed but still were deadly weapons.

 

Well I would like to say that in OP standards no they aren't OP. Submarines were easily detected with Sonar equipment and were taken out fast with a well placed depth charge. That also brings in a very good weapon, depth charges. If a depth charge explodes under the submarine the submarine would have blown a lot of bolts and start to flood the submarine but they still had the advantage of silence. If you are really looking for something for submarines then try Silent Hunter 3, 4, or 5. All three of those games can catch you a glimpse on the U-Boats and the American Fleet Boats submarines but my personally opinion is that they should add them at some other point in time after the release of naval. This would be able to help get player feedback and see which things are overpowered and what needs under powering. Hope this helps in anyway for the time being.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR: Subs aren't op as they were easily detected and destroyed but still were deadly weapons.

 

Well I would like to say that in OP standards no they aren't OP. Submarines were easily detected with Sonar equipment and were taken out fast with a well placed depth charge. That also brings in a very good weapon, depth charges. If a depth charge explodes under the submarine the submarine would have blown a lot of bolts and start to flood the submarine but they still had the advantage of silence. If you are really looking for something for submarines then try Silent Hunter 3, 4, or 5. All three of those games can catch you a glimpse on the U-Boats and the American Fleet Boats submarines but my personally opinion is that they should add them at some other point in time after the release of naval. This would be able to help get player feedback and see which things are overpowered and what needs under powering. Hope this helps in anyway for the time being.

 

I wouldn't say "easily" detected. I will admit to a lack of sources on this, but my understanding is that sonar at the time was rather primitive, but could either detect a sub at full engine power at a reasonable distance, or detect a sub with its engines off or at low RPM ranges at almost point blank. 

That said, against I don't think subs being OP is the problem until the speed issue is resolved. Then it becomes a problem, depending some on how well the speed issue is resolved. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the current way War Thunder game mods are, I don't think submarines would be of any benefit for the game. The only way for submarines to work would be to have the naval aspect operate in a similar fashion to how the Silent Hunter series worked. Personally, I would really love to see submarines to relieve the nostalgia days of Destroyer Command and Silent Hunter II, but I don't really see that happening; however, maybe if a system was implemented similar to how Battlestations: Pacific worked, than could submarines be viable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say "easily" detected. I will admit to a lack of sources on this, but my understanding is that sonar at the time was rather primitive, but could either detect a sub at full engine power at a reasonable distance, or detect a sub with its engines off or at low RPM ranges at almost point blank. 

That said, against I don't think subs being OP is the problem until the speed issue is resolved. Then it becomes a problem, depending some on how well the speed issue is resolved. 

Yes you are very correct, sonar wasn't the best and I honestly don't think people would want to be pinging with sonar all the time to locate a sub unless it was the last thing to take out. I just hope there isn't a dumb inside view of the sub because in a sub you could actually here the destroyer heading right above your head. I've played Silent Hunter 3 and the best thing you could do in a situation when you are about to get depth charged is to go like this: Ahead Flank then go either Right Full Rudder or Left Full Rudder. There is the problem also that the subs were used mainly by UK, USA, Japan & Germany. Russia really didn't use subs because who wants to go to Russia all that often? Only when they got those Typhoons they were owning but that was a cold war anyways back to the point. Sonar was like beeping, hydrophones were when you would listen for enemy engines but any kind of noise your crew makes can be heard on those things so that was a disadvantage and I doubt that Gaijin would add Silent Running if they did add submarines. Just the things I could mention for the time being but subs... first balance the naval part of the game then add the subs if they are going to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.