A Wikipedia look up on Subs versus surface Naval Ships combat interactions

[Aethervox]

I was wondering how common Subs interacted with other surface naval ships in combat. Sure, the Wikipedia list may not be completely inclusive, however, these interactions are uncommon (or, even RARE):

For WW1: Subs sank 6 naval warships & there was 1 Sub sunk by another Sub.

For WW2: Subs sank 9 naval warships & there were 5 Subs sunk by a Sub (2 in a ram, both sank & the first & only underwater sinking).

How many warships were there in WW1 & WW2 that were Destroyers or larger?  What is that number compared to the 15 sunk by Subs? 

Even Sub versus Sub combat is rare.

Whatever design parameters WG is using for Subs in WoWS, these parameters have to be PURE FANTASY.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

28 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Whatever design parameters WG is using for Subs in WoWS, these parameters have to be PURE FANTASY.

This WHOLE game is PURE FANTASY, so you shouldn't be that surprised. Just look at all the CV mechanics for starters.

[Wolfswetpaws]

37 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

I was wondering how common Subs interacted with other surface naval ships in combat. Sure, the Wikipedia list may not be completely inclusive, however, these interactions are uncommon (or, even RARE):

For WW1: Subs sank 6 naval warships & there was 1 Sub sunk by another Sub.

For WW2: Subs sank 9 naval warships & there were 5 Subs sunk by a Sub (2 in a ram, both sank & the first & only underwater sinking).

How many warships were there in WW1 & WW2 that were Destroyers or larger?  What is that number compared to the 15 sunk by Subs? 

Even Sub versus Sub combat is rare.

Whatever design parameters WG is using for Subs in WoWS, these parameters have to be PURE FANTASY.

Good topic.
Here's something to add to the discussion.

"This submarine crew killed 5 destroyers in 4 days"
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/uss-harder-hero-world-war-ii-submarine/  

Edited to add:
"Top Ten US Navy Submarine Captains in WW2 By Number of Confirmed Ships Sunk"  
http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TopTenUSNavySubmarineCapt.html  
 

Edited November 18, 2024 by Wolfswetpaws

[Lady Anesjka]

30 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

I was wondering how common Subs interacted with other surface naval ships in combat. Sure, the Wikipedia list may not be completely inclusive, however, these interactions are uncommon (or, even RARE):

For WW1: Subs sank 6 naval warships & there was 1 Sub sunk by another Sub.

For WW2: Subs sank 9 naval warships & there were 5 Subs sunk by a Sub (2 in a ram, both sank & the first & only underwater sinking).

How many warships were there in WW1 & WW2 that were Destroyers or larger?  What is that number compared to the 15 sunk by Subs? 

Even Sub versus Sub combat is rare.

Whatever design parameters WG is using for Subs in WoWS, these parameters have to be PURE FANTASY.

I try to stay away from that site. Is alot of what is called "circle reporting" where is not a true citing of information but instead just something echoing a certain view.

even founder of Wikipedia say stay off the site.

[Admiral_Karasu]

31 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Without de-railing this topic, I'll just mention "Indianapolis" and "Taiho".

The Japanese submarine doctrine included the use of them against opposing fleets of warships.
The German doctrine may have been more "opportunistic", and as a result tended to try optimize the use of their limited number of torpedoes against the maximum number of opposing vessels of all types.
Pacific US Navy submarine doctrine also seems "opportunistic" in my opinion.  Whatever was a legitimate target would be detected/reported/tracked and fired-upon whenever feasible.
That being said, there's probably a lot of Submarine history that I'm unaware of.

I went by this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers

 

Nine Japanese carriers were sunk by US submarines. Out of these nine

7 were on convoy duty

1 was resupplying (Shokaku)

1 was sunk in battle (Taiho)

 

Four US carriers were sunk by submarines.

3 were sunk while on convoy duties, or while under tow (Yorktown)

1 was sunk while on ASW patrol

 

 

 

[Tricericon]

58 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

For WW1: Subs sank 6 naval warships & there was 1 Sub sunk by another Sub.

For WW2: Subs sank 9 naval warships & there were 5 Subs sunk by a Sub (2 in a ram, both sank & the first & only underwater sinking).

Wow, wiki has fallen further than I thought.

I can name ten heavy surface warships sunk by subs in WW2 off-hand: Wasp, Ark Royal, Courageous, Barham, Kongo, Shokaku, Taiho, Royal Oak, Atago, Kako

[Lady Anesjka]

@Aethervox here,maybe I help to clear it more.


Uhhh, let us say, we go visit Wikipedia article of colour Blue

blahblahblahblah we know Blue is colour because of this "source"(1)

go to link of (1)

Is link to article that say Blue is colour thanks to this source "link"

Go to Link

That article say, we know colour is Blue because of this wikipedia article.


Circle reporting, no facts or true information, just everyone on a certain thinking.

[Aethervox]

12 minutes ago, Tricericon said:

wiki has fallen further than I thought.

I expect/suspect it is not being updated that much these days?  Nor did Wiki appear to include Sub versus DD interactions (or even Corvettes in WW2, for that matter).

[Aethervox]

11 minutes ago, Lady Anesjka said:

Circle reporting, no facts or true information, just everyone on a certain thinking grabbing each other's penises.

OK, I get your 'point', although, I still think most of their 'facts' are true - just, maybe not all the facts are there.

I doubt Wikipedia is intentionally malicious (unlike some other major social media platforms). TY, for your interpretation.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Aethervox

[Ensign Cthulhu]

23 minutes ago, Tricericon said:

Wow, wiki has fallen further than I thought.

I can name ten heavy surface warships sunk by subs in WW2 off-hand: Wasp, Ark Royal, Courageous, Barham, Kongo, Shokaku, Taiho, Royal Oak, Atago, Kako

Yorktown.

Yes, she'd already taken a pounding and been abandoned, but her failure to sink had resulted in reboarding with an intention to salvage, and that's when she was torpedoed. 

[Tricericon]

Just now, Aethervox said:

I expect/suspect it is not being updated that much these days?  Nor did Wiki appear to include Sub versus DD interactions (or even Corvettes in WW2, for that matter).

Honestly, it's probably either never had a proper list of warships losses to submarines in WW2 and it has several and you stumbled across a rudimentary one. This one, for instance, seems to include over 100 warships. Lady A's criticism of Wiki is, at a high level, a fact but shouldn't effect raw factual articles on topics that are not politically contentious too badly.

Wiki's history pages have always been hit and miss because of the primacy given to citations and the effect of editorial cliques. It's very, very slow to react to updated scholarship - a lot of the "classical history" pages are still glued to Gibbons, for instance, or at least they were the last time they were relevant to me.

More relevant to naval history, there was an edit war over the articles on Midway and Fuchida Mistuo about a decade ago between, on the one hand, the authors of Shattered Sword and, on the other, one Mr Bennett who wanted to make a glowing movie about Fuchida... P&T had their own excellent book, their opponent had Fuchida's autobio. P&T's later, very through and well cited takedown of Fuchida's personal credibility was basically a blog post on an obscure website and apparently not citable itself. Anyway, the originally excellent Midway article never recovered; the Fuchida article still links to Mr Bennett's movie project but not the combinedfleet analysis of his credibility.

Bottom line: Wiki is about as credible as GPT, so if the facts matter confirm them elsewhere.

[Tricericon]

7 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Yorktown.

Yes, she'd already taken a pounding and been abandoned, but her failure to sink had resulted in reboarding with an intention to salvage, and that's when she was torpedoed. 

I was just looking to get past nine, not trying to make any kind of comprehensive list, and I'm still embarrassed I missed that one. 

[HogHammer]

1 hour ago, Aethervox said:

I was wondering how common Subs interacted with other surface naval ships in combat.

That depends on what theatre of operations you look at during WW2. In the Atlantic, the focus was on merchant ships (shipping lanes) for the German Kriegsmarine, cutting off supplies heading to Europe for the war effort. In all, German U-Boats accounted for a little over 14 million tons of losses heading to the Allies. 

The Pacific theatre of ops was a little different for the U.S. submarine fleet.  The attack on Pearl Harbor decimated U.S. Naval operations in the Pacific.  Because of this, the U.S. sub fleet's primary objective was to "interfere" with the IJN's operations early on throughout the Pacific to do recon and land human assets on various Pacific islands covertly.  The next objective was to interfere (sink) Japanese merchant ships.  Here, a total of nearly 9 million tons of materials were lost are heading to resupply Japan.  The tactic of cutting off supplies has been used throughout warfare as far as you can go back.

The U.S. submarine fleet would have most likely had more success if it were not for the high failure rate of their torpedoes early on.

A great book on U.S. submarine warfare is "United States Submarine Operations in World War II" by Theodore Roscoe (a book I am currently about 3/4 through and will post a review in our Book section later).

As for how submarines fit in World of Warships.  Well, both subs and carriers existed during the period this game reflects and really should not be excluded if we are being honest.  In my opinion, carriers fit the various game modes rather well (how they are implemented is an entirely different topic for discussion).  Submarines, again, in my opinion, are best suited for certain operation scenarios, and I wish WG would invest time in improving sub-players options for enjoyment.  Random games ranked and even co-op, are a little tricky and really depend on the individual player.  Many maps really don't do justice to a sub-player, and the average length of battle also plays a significant part.  Most of the time, you will find sub-players at the top of the final ranking or near the bottom - rarely in the middle.  Again, a lot has to do with the ability and skills of a sub-player.

The "escort" modes in ops are nice, but I would like to see something more along the lines of a "wolfpack" by operation. Of course, one side would be predominantly subs, while the other side would be comprised of merchant ships, with destroyers and cruisers escorting and hunting the subs down.  That would be interesting.

 

[Aethervox]

58 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Here's something to add to the discussion.

The wiki page I referenced did not have Subs versus Destroyers information (which is perplexing as I typed 'Subs versus surface naval warships' as the search term & last time I looked U thought Destroyers are surface naval warships.

I'm sure there has to be many Sub versus Destroyer interactions. Nor did this page I referenced mention much about Subs versus merchant shipping other than a few infamous Convoys. Why these were there when I didn't search for Subs versus Merchant Shipping is kind of irrelevant now isn't it?

Subs versus Destroyers and Subs versus smaller naval vessels (such as Corvettes, etc) would be useful to research a bit for a WoWS 'convoy mode' - tho will WG ever include these smaller warship classes at this late date? Probably not.

TY, Wolfie for your links. 🙂

[Ensign Cthulhu]

11 minutes ago, Tricericon said:

I was just looking to get past nine, not trying to make any kind of comprehensive list, and I'm still embarrassed I missed that one. 

LOL. Sorry.

Who gets the credit for Yorktown? The sub that sank her, or the carrier that pounded her hard enough to leave her vulnerable?

I suspect the full credit for some kills will be argued till the mead in Valhalla runs dry.

[KJ82]

Another one to add to the list , soon to be in the game : Shinano.

[Aethervox]

33 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I suspect the full credit for some kills will be argued till the mead in Valhalla runs dry.

That would be around the time of Ragnorok wouldn't it? 😁

[Farmers_Only]

Here are numbers for US subs in the Pacific alone.

[Lord_Slayer]

2 hours ago, Tricericon said:

I can name ten heavy surface warships sunk by subs in WW2 off-hand: Wasp, Ark Royal, Courageous, Barham, Kongo, Shokaku, Taiho, Royal Oak, Atago, Kako

 

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Yorktown.

Yes, she'd already taken a pounding and been abandoned, but her failure to sink had resulted in reboarding with an intention to salvage, and that's when she was torpedoed. 

Without the sub attack, Yorktown likely would have been towed back and made whole. 

 

1 hour ago, KJ82 said:

Another one to add to the list , soon to be in the game : Shinano.

People....how can you forget USS Indianapolis?



Also, think of how many ships were torpedoed and not sunk, yet were out of action for repairs.

Saratoga comes to mind.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Lord_Slayer

[Snargfargle]

None of the carriers were at "Battleship Row" during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Though 18 ships (including 8 battleships, 3 light cruisers, and 3 destroyers) were sunk or significantly damaged, the Arizona and Oklahoma were the only two ships that were permanently lost in the attack, everything else was re-floated, repaired, and put back into service. Over 100 ships of the Pacific fleet were not at Pearl Harbor during the attack, including 12 cruisers, 24 destroyers, and 3 aircraft carriers. The battleships Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Tennessee, the cruisers Honolulu and Helena, and the destroyer Helm were back in service within three months. Several other ships were back in service within six months. Suffering more significant damage, the Nevada re-entered service in October of 1942. The West Virginia began sea trials in July 1944 and returned to service in time to participate in the Philippines Campaign.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/non-ph.html

https://www.history.com/news/after-pearl-harbor-the-race-to-save-the-u-s-fleet

 

Edited November 18, 2024 by Snargfargle

[Sumseaman]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

LOL. Sorry.

Who gets the credit for Yorktown? The sub that sank her, or the carrier that pounded her hard enough to leave her vulnerable?

I suspect the full credit for some kills will be argued till the mead in Valhalla runs dry.

Well the CV got the spotting/direct damage while the sub got the 25% of Yorktowns HP pool in XP/Credits for the red ribbon. I checked the post battle stats for Midway.

Torping the Yorktown was a bit of a c*nt move. Can't blame them though after they lost four carriers.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Sumseaman

[Lady Anesjka]

4 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Well the CV got the spotting/direct damage while the sub got the 25% of Yorktowns HP pool in XP/Credits for the red ribbon. I checked the post battle stats for Midway.

 

That is funny but i feel uneasy about laughing about it.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Without de-railing this topic, I'll just mention "Indianapolis" and "Taiho".

The Japanese submarine doctrine included the use of them against opposing fleets of warships.
The German doctrine may have been more "opportunistic", and as a result tended to try optimize the use of their limited number of torpedoes against the maximum number of opposing vessels of all types.
Pacific US Navy submarine doctrine also seems "opportunistic" in my opinion.  Whatever was a legitimate target would be detected/reported/tracked and fired-upon whenever feasible.
That being said, there's probably a lot of Submarine history that I'm unaware of.

Expand  

I went by this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers

 

Nine Japanese carriers were sunk by US submarines. Out of these nine

7 were on convoy duty

1 was resupplying (Shokaku)

1 was sunk in battle (Taiho)

 

Four US carriers were sunk by submarines.

3 were sunk while on convoy duties, or while under tow (Yorktown)

1 was sunk while on ASW patrol

Source of my words (quoted above) was this post, in another topic.
https://www.devstrike.net/topic/5413-improved-ap-ammo-in-newest-devblog/page/4/#findComment-84646  
  

48 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

Without the sub attack, Yorktown likely would have been towed back and made whole. 

 

People....how can you forget USS Indianapolis?



Also, think of how many ships were torpedoed and not sunk, yet were out of action for repairs.

Saratoga comes to mind.

Indianapols was mentioned.  See the quoted text above.
Which, was quoted from this post in another topic.
https://www.devstrike.net/topic/5413-improved-ap-ammo-in-newest-devblog/page/4/#findComment-84646  
 

  

[Wolfswetpaws]

14 hours ago, Lady Anesjka said:

Edited by Staff.
 

 

 

I think it is important to learn and remember true history.  Thus, your point is well taken.

Edited November 19, 2024 by Admiral_Karasu

[Snargfargle]

Certain Wiki pages, especially those dealing with political subjects, should be taken with a grain of salt. Others, however, contain as good of information as you will find anywhere and are oftentimes written by experts in the field. The pages I've read on scientific and mathematical subjects are mostly top-notch. If you are in doubt as to the veracity of a Wiki page, read the literature cited.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Snargfargle