Submarines being able to attack land

[baron Münchhausen]

Women on board boost their torpedoes engine…

[Caesar-Seriona]

Well duh just like whiskey thins the mix gives you around 10 RPM more.

[CWO Marc]

@Caesar:

So deck guns firing surface targets, yay or nay?

Yea if the surface targets are ships, nay if they’re land targets.  WWII submarines did indeed carry deck guns, but their primary purpose was to give submarines a way to damage and/or sink enemy ships without wasting an expensive torpedo. (A German U-boat could carry 220 deck gun rounds, as opposed to just 14 torpedoes.)  A typical situation might be a case where an enemy ship would be crippled by a torpedo, then finished off with surface gunfire rather than with a second torpedo if it appeared to be sinking too slowly (or not sinking at all).  A WWII submarine could, in principle, shoot at a surface target on land, but there are several reasons why this would rarely have been done.

First, there’s the problem of range.  A U-boat’s deck gun had a maximum range of about 12 km, but probably had a shorter range in terms of effective accurately-aimed fire.  The closer a U-boat could get to a shoreline, the more accurate its gunnery would have been, but the more vulnerable the sub would be because subs don’t like shallow water (which restricts or even cancels out completely its ability to dive, an ability which is vitally important to a sub).

Second, there’s the question of the targets themselves.  By nature, they would be coastal targets (because sub deck guns can only reach inland for a short distance) and they would be fixed installations (because sub deck guns don’t have aiming mechanisms that are well suited to engaging moving targets on land, especially small ones).  In terms of targets with military value, this pretty much limits the choice to: a) fortifications such as bunkers; b) military bases, such as port facilities; and c) factories and similar industrial targets.  Attacking a) and b) with a sub would have been hazardous business.  As far as a) goes, there’s an old naval rule of thumb which says that warships should try to avoid getting into an artillery duel with shore fortresses because the shore fortresses, being fixed installations, can potententially have bigger guns and more ammunition than warships.  As far as b) goes, important facilities of this type in WWII might be protected by shore batteries and/or naval forces.  This would be hazardous for subs, because subs aren’t well suited to surface fights: they’re slow and not well armed compared with surface-combat ships.  As far as c) goes, this is actually more credible than a) or b) because factories would not have been as well defended as, say, naval bases.  In A&A terms, an IC on a shoreline might in principle be a submarine target…but there are a couple of potential objections too.  Just because an IC is in a territory with a shoreline doesn’t imply that the IC is built close enough to the seashore to be reachable by a U-boat’s guns.  Also, one has to wonder how much damage a U-boat’s deck gun would do to a factory, given its caliber.  Damage yes…but enough damage to downgrade or destroy an A&A IC?  That’s debatable.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@CWO:

@Caesar:

So deck guns firing surface targets, yay or nay?

Yea if the surface targets are ships, nay if they’re land targets.  WWII submarines did indeed carry deck guns, but their primary purpose was to give submarines a way to damage and/or sink enemy ships without wasting an expensive torpedo. (A German U-boat could carry 220 deck gun rounds, as opposed to just 14 torpedoes.)   A typical situation might be a case where an enemy ship would be crippled by a torpedo, then finished off with surface gunfire rather than with a second torpedo if it appeared to be sinking too slowly (or not sinking at all).  A WWII submarine could, in principle, shoot at a surface target on land, but there are several reasons why this would rarely have been done.

First, there’s the problem of range.  A U-boat’s deck gun had a maximum range of about 12 km, but probably had a shorter range in terms of effective accurately-aimed fire.  The closer a U-boat could get to a shoreline, the more accurate its gunnery would have been, but the more vulnerable the sub would be because subs don’t like shallow water (which restricts or even cancels out completely its ability to dive, an ability which is vitally important to a sub).

Second, there’s the question of the targets themselves.  By nature, they would be coastal targets (because sub deck guns can only reach inland for a short distance) and they would be fixed installations (because sub deck guns don’t have aiming mechanisms that are well suited to engaging moving targets on land, especially small ones).  In terms of targets with military value, this pretty much limits the choice to: a) fortifications such as bunkers; b) military bases, such as port facilities; and c) factories and similar industrial targets.  Attacking a) and b) with a sub would have been hazardous business.  As far as a) goes, there’s an old naval rule of thumb which says that warships should try to avoid getting into an artillery duel with shore fortresses because the shore fortresses, being fixed installations, can potententially have bigger guns and more ammunition than warships.  As far as b) goes, important facilities of this type in WWII might be protected by shore batteries and/or naval forces.  This would be hazardous for subs, because subs aren’t well suited to surface fights: they’re slow and not well armed compared with surface-combat ships.  As far as c) goes, this is actually more credible than a) or b) because factories would not have been as well defended as, say, naval bases.  In A&A terms, an IC on a shoreline might in principle be a submarine target…but there are a couple of potential objections too.  Just because an IC is in a territory with a shoreline doesn’t imply that the IC is built close enough to the seashore to be reachable by a U-boat’s guns.  Also, one has to wonder how much damage a U-boat’s deck gun would do to a factory, given its caliber.  Damage yes…but enough damage to downgrade or destroy an A&A IC?  That’s debatable.

Okay then lets make a rule where Submarines can do a “raid” against factories, airfields, and ports.

[CWO Marc]

@Caesar:

Okay then lets make a rule where Submarines can do a “raid” against factories, airfields, and ports.

Um, my point was actually to argue against such raids, not for them.  I mentioned that such raids “would have been hazardous business” for the sub, and I stated various reasons for it.

To look at this from another angle, here’s a point that applies to both the concept above and to the recent discussion in another thread about AAA firing at infantry.  The point is that there is often an important difference between what a real-world unit can do (capability) and what a real-world unit normally does (application) – and that when certain capabilities are not applied in a given context, there’s usually a darn good reason for it.

Let’s take a non-military example, because the above concept doesn’t just apply to military hardware.  A subcompact automobile has the physical capacity to drive on a Formula One racetrack, and a Formula One racecar has the physical capacity to drive on a highway.  In practical terms, however, subcompact automobiles don’t normally (if ever) drive on a Formula One racetracks, and Formula One racecars don’t normally (if ever) drive on a highway, because that’s not where they belong and because that’s not what they’re designed for and because it would create a safety hazard for them to do so.  Yes, AAA guns do have the capability to shoot at infantry, and yes, submarines do have the capacity to shoot at coastal targets, and yes, these things were sometimes done during WWII.  The point is that it was rarely done, and that it was rarely done for darn good reasons.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Submarine attacks against ports wasn’t common at all, even if you ignore the deck gun and just picture torpedo attacks, it still happened. The point of this isn’t based on the fact if it happened or not. My goal is to add rules based on what DID happen and getting it to properly reflect on abilities in this game. Hence, why submarines having deck guns and trying to find an ability to use them.

[Herr Kaleunt]

I would guess secret agents or spies put ashore from submarines were both more common and had greater effect than a sub getting of a few rounds at a poorly seen land target, before it needs to flee.

[baron Münchhausen]

What was tried with minimal success and many Subs losses was to give a more powerful AA battery to some U-boats. Sometimes, Sub shot down a plane. But most of time, Subs were damaged and unable to dive and submerged by aircraft fire.

This special situation occurs more often than an ineffective shore attack with a single deck gun.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Caesar:

Submarine attacks against ports wasn’t common at all, even if you ignore the deck gun and just picture torpedo attacks, it still happened. The point of this isn’t based on the fact if it happened or not. My goal is to add rules based on what DID happen and getting it to properly reflect on abilities in this game. Hence, why submarines having deck guns and trying to find an ability to use them.

As you tell, at 1h14min 50 sec, this US Sub destroyed a truck…
https://youtu.be/0p2JpYJpcFM

:-D :-D :-D

[General 6 Stars]

Don’t know if this kinda is what your looking for but have a rule where any sub next a factory and/or a base can do like a type of SBR or convoy attack. Just declare a sub attack on factory or base and defender pays 3 icp’s to the bank.

[Imperious Leader]

Subs having the ability to shoot land units is sound. I would add in AA capability ( getting one shot at every plane) and i would also add shore-bombardment capabilities, and lastly subs should get SBR capability. I would make them 4-4-2-6 units and they take 2 hits to sink. This would be commensurate with the capabilities of some planned sub that was in the planning stage. Thank You.

[General 6 Stars]

Sweet !

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

Subs having the ability to shoot land units is sound. I would add in AA capability ( getting one shot at every plane) and i would also add shore-bombardment capabilities, and lastly subs should get SBR capability. I would make them 4-4-2-6 units and they take 2 hits to sink. This would be commensurate with the capabilities of some planned sub that was in the planning stage. Thank You.

It should get a 1 Infantry troop transport capacity and a combined arms working as artillery unit +1 attack bonus to Infantry (as a morale booster).

After all, Japan use Subs to bring food to desperate hungry soldiers under Allies food and ammos blockade in Pacific Islands.
Ask Kurt…
:wink:

[Imperious Leader]

OK: attacks and defends @4, moves 3 spaces, SB @4, takes 2 hits, carry’s 2 planes, 2 infantry, shoots at tanks, 1 shot at every plane, can capture capitals, and costs 6 IPC.

5%474807374-67584(665656)-6565698696453722-2=1#$%^&*(=n/a).

Thats a sub i can buy!!

[Caesar-Seriona]

I might even abandon this idea, I am trying to add rules without adding actual new units. Like Japan creating the famous sub “carriers” that would launch a single fighter. They were going to use this to destroy the Panama Canal.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

OK: attacks and defends @4, moves 3 spaces, SB @4, takes 2 hits, carry’s 2 planes, 2 infantry, shoots at tanks, 1 shot at every plane, can capture capitals, and costs 6 IPC.

5%474807374-67584(665656)-6565698696453722-2=1#$%^&*(=n/a).

Thats a sub i can buy!!

Your my man IL!
I’LL totally take command for a few thousands units.
But the designer was a rebel spy and includes a little hole into it which blow it off when use under water.
Fatal flaw!

:-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Caesar:

I might even abandon this idea, I am trying to add rules without adding actual new units. Like Japan creating the famous sub “carriers” that would launch a single fighter. They were going to use this to destroy the Panama Canal.

Try it as a special Tech…

[General 6 Stars]

@Imperious:

OK: attacks and defends @4, moves 3 spaces, SB @4, takes 2 hits, carry’s 2 planes, 2 infantry, shoots at tanks, 1 shot at every plane, can capture capitals, and costs 6 IPC.

5%474807374-67584(665656)-6565698696453722-2=1#$%^&*(=n/a).

Thats a sub i can buy!!

I can’t figure out your subs values. Can I get a VANN formula result ?

[baron Münchhausen]

It would be 4.00 since it cost 6 IPCs, which is the benchmark.
But it is from Enigma formula: a new mint from Larrymarx formula built upon an older Vann formula.

Would you still purchase it, if you don’t get Vann number?

---

EDIT: I forgot IL built it with 2 hits instead of 1 hit…
Make your own calculation and multiply 4.00 by:
1.00 + 1.1 6 1 8 0 3 3 9 8 8 7 4 9 8 9 4 8 4 8 2 0 4 5 8 6 8 3 4 3 6 5 6 3 8 1 1 7 7 2 0 3 0 9 1 7 9 8 0 5 7 6 2 8 6 2 1 3 5 4 4 8 6 2 2 7 0 5 2 6 0 4 6 2 8 1 8 9 0 2 4 4 9 7 0 7 2 0 7 2 0 4 1 8 9 3 9 1 1 3 7 4 8 4 7 5 etc.
:wink:

[General 6 Stars]

Yes.