Yet the German U Boats occasionally managed similar feats in the Atlantic. They often attacked on the surface at night against a more formidable foe (when it comes to ASW) and didn't usually suffer 100% casualties. Indeed That was also without it being a maximum effort type engagement like trying to stop an invasion force.Really stretching credibility - 6 subs take down 8 transport with no loss - when there are 15 destroyers present? OTL one dutch managed to sneak into a bay and take 4 transports that were at rest , unloaded , with no destroyers present -, an amazig feat, although it was subsequently lost. OK so IJN ASW may not have been the best but even the speeds alone make this next to impossible. Were the Subs surfaaced? Ok - they they are fast enough to get multilpe attacks on moving transports in - but they are ALL DEAD. Submerged - absolute best 100% hits - one sub one transportmoving at speed - sub doig 6 or 7 knots, cannot fire on multiple targets (they are not handily going to be bunched up and the MK 8 torpedo goes in a straight line - you can adjust the speed to 2 settings in 1941 - that's it. Yes this is a What If - but this is the equivalent of the HE shells on those Pom Poms all taking out the 88mm AA/AT at Arras - whislt Rommel is standing next to them, and Mathilda's driving to Brussels. If Subs on convoys (when outnumbered at least 2 to 1 ) by desroyers then UK should surrender now as they must be losing 1M tonnnes a week from U boats. The Transposrts are faster then the Subs, the Destroyers much much faster.
If the captain stated he set the torpedo to run on the surface, with the angle of impact being around 45 degrees, very possiblyDoes anyone believe the US subs claims for their kills?
Sometimes the torpedoes did work. They weren't 100% bad. An intermittent failure is much harder to determine the true fault.If the captain stated he set the torpedo to run on the surface, with the angle of impact being around 45 degrees, very possibly
IIRC both of those were field-fixes captains used to make them more reliable and mitigate the weakness of the MkXIV to run too deep, and the peculiar sideways firing pin.Sometimes the torpedoes did work. They weren't 100% bad. An intermittent failure is much harder to determine the true fault.
And the US Fish had potential faults layered ontop one another.
not only that some of the subcrews were very inventive and modified their torpedoes (replace the firingpin with one made from salavaged japanese airframe duraluminium for example)Sometimes the torpedoes did work. They weren't 100% bad. An intermittent failure is much harder to determine the true fault.
And the US Fish had potential faults layered ontop one another.
Really stretching credibility - 6 subs take down 8 transport with no loss - when there are 15 destroyers present? OTL one dutch managed to sneak into a bay and take 4 transports that were at rest , unloaded , with no destroyers present -, an amazig feat, although it was subsequently lost. OK so IJN ASW may not have been the best but even the speeds alone make this next to impossible. Were the Subs surfaaced? Ok - they they are fast enough to get multilpe attacks on moving transports in - but they are ALL DEAD. Submerged - absolute best 100% hits - one sub one transportmoving at speed - sub doig 6 or 7 knots, cannot fire on multiple targets (they are not handily going to be bunched up and the MK 8 torpedo goes in a straight line - you can adjust the speed to 2 settings in 1941 - that's it. Yes this is a What If - but this is the equivalent of the HE shells on those Pom Poms all taking out the 88mm AA/AT at Arras - whislt Rommel is standing next to them, and Mathilda's driving to Brussels. If Subs on convoys (when outnumbered at least 2 to 1 ) by desroyers then UK should surrender now as they must be losing 1M tonnnes a week from U boats. The Transposrts are faster then the Subs, the Destroyers much much faster.
3-7. The Japanese repeatedly demonstrated facility in detecting and locating submerged submarines by using sonar. Their underwater listening gear was fairly good and could frequently pick up our submarines at ranges of 2,000 meters or more when the listening ship was stopped or proceeding at very slow speed. A damaged submarine with a high machinery noise level, such as a reduction gear click, could of course be heard at a far greater distance than an undamaged submarine running silent or creeping. Their echo-ranging equipment was of mediocre design, roughly corresponding to the early U.S. QC sonar of about 1937. The emphasis which the Japanese placed on sonar devices is clearly shown by the unnecessarily large amount of space allocated to such equipment in the already cramped quarters of their ships. At sea it was customary to man the hydrophone set continuously and to operate the echo-ranging gear at least fifteen minutes in every hour. Small escorts were generally provided only with listening gear, in some instances just a crude hydrophone lowered over the side. Japanese scientists were cognizant of density layers and temperature gradients in sea water and their effect on sound transmissions in echo-ranging detection work. However, anti-submarine vessels were not equipped with bathythermographs and no tactical use was apparently made of the small amount of information of operational value issued by the Japanese Hydrographic Office.
3-9.There were only two types of depth charges in general use by the Japanese for surface ship launchings and both were almost exact copies of early British models of obsolete design. These were the Type 95, the Type 2, and the various modifications of each.6 The Type 95 was the regular issue depth charge until the development of the Type 2. Although the Type 2 charge was adopted in 1942, Type 95 charges are known to have still be manufactured up to 1943. Both charges were probably in use during 1943 until available supplies of the Type 95 were finally exhausted. The Type 95 depth charge was cylindrical in shape, 17.75 inches in diameter and 30.5 inches long. The Type 95, Mod. 0, was filled with 220 pounds of Type 887 explosive and a Shimose8 booster; the Mod. 1 with 325 pounds of Type 979 or Type 9810 explosive; and the Mod. 2 with 242 pounds on Type 111 explosive. The Type 2 depth charge was also cylindrical in shape, 17.56 inches in diameter and 30.5 inches long.The Type 2, Mod. 1, was filled with 357 pounds of Type 97 or Type 98 explosive and the Mod. 2 with 242 pounds of Type 1 explosive.
My former Norwegian flatmate from Tromso recalled her Grandad telling her they were ectastic when British ships arrived..only to see the soliders disembark in desert unform - wearing Khaki shorts ......in the snow. Bit of a snafu .... Hope the new Victor Tanks have a kettle onboard to brew up.a topical early war British balls up.
Context is that the last convoy got chewed up by a surface force only 7-10 days ago. They are thinking to protect the convoy from that not subs as the main threat.Brazen - all good points. RN started using Radar on escorts in March 41. But 15 destroyers (plus other corvettes sub chasers) guarding 11 transports? You are right in their best results Wolfpacks got results like these in the Happy Time but against Atlantic convoys that typicaly had 2 to 4 Destroyers guarding 30 to 40 ships. And the Germans had a lot of practice coordinating wolfpacks - many early attempts failed and they learnt that central coordination from Base was critical (albeit when Enigma cracked ultimately the weak point) The US/RN/Dutch force has none of that. Possible.. yes..but so is a stray Mosquito tire falling off over Berlin landing on the Reichstag and bouncing onto Goering's head. And no sub losses? Must be all the horsemeat they were eating......
Brazen - all good points. RN started using Radar on escorts in March 41. But 15 destroyers (plus other corvettes sub chasers) guarding 11 transports? You are right in their best results Wolfpacks got results like these in the Happy Time but against Atlantic convoys that typicaly had 2 to 4 Destroyers guarding 30 to 40 ships. And the Germans had a lot of practice coordinating wolfpacks - many early attempts failed and they learnt that central coordination from Base was critical (albeit when Enigma cracked ultimately the weak point) The US/RN/Dutch force has none of that. Possible.. yes..but so is a stray Mosquito tire falling off over Berlin landing on the Reichstag and bouncing onto Goering's head. And no sub losses? Must be all the horsemeat they were eating......
In re Wolfpacks; the Dutch strategy prewar strategy involved wolfpacks of snorkelling subs being guided onto an invasion convoy by aircraft, so for the Dutch at least, it won’t be a new thing.Brazen - all good points. RN started using Radar on escorts in March 41. But 15 destroyers (plus other corvettes sub chasers) guarding 11 transports? You are right in their best results Wolfpacks got results like these in the Happy Time but against Atlantic convoys that typicaly had 2 to 4 Destroyers guarding 30 to 40 ships. And the Germans had a lot of practice coordinating wolfpacks - many early attempts failed and they learnt that central coordination from Base was critical (albeit when Enigma cracked ultimately the weak point) The US/RN/Dutch force has none of that. Possible.. yes..but so is a stray Mosquito tire falling off over Berlin landing on the Reichstag and bouncing onto Goering's head. And no sub losses? Must be all the horsemeat they were eating......
They wouldn't do much good to the Japanese tin cans (sorry tanks) either, even though it's not what they or their ammunition are designed to do. Not that the Japanese will have that many left by now.Those 3inch CSW will be absolute murder on the Japanese. Particularly their infantry.