File - WPac - Pearl Harbor Midget Submarine Action, Day of Infamy

[broncepulido]

File Name: Pearl Harbor Midget Submarine Action, Day of Infamy

File Submitter: broncepulido

File Submitted: 22 Aug 2012

File Category: WestPac

 

Midget Submarine Action in the Pearl Harbor Attack.

 

This scenario is designed to be played from the Japanese/Red side, or the American/Blue side, but is better to play first the Japanese side.

 

The Day of Infamy 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor is almost only remembered by the Japanese carrier-based air attack, but a very controversial, analysed and with few results midget submarine attack was in course a few hours earlier, and it was near to denial the surprise to the main Japanese attack. Later midget submarine actions against Sidney, Madagascar and other places were also a failure, and they were as consequence redeployed as last stance coastal defence.

In fact, the first shots and victory in the Pacific War was those of the DD-139 USS Ward (here represented by USS Kane) against one of the Japanese mini-submarines, sinking she.

This scenario is an essay to force the limits of the GE and the DB, and of probably impossible victory for the Red/Japanese player (Some hints: one solution can be to slown down the game to 10 or 30 seconds compression and reset the height to periscope deep each time the submarine surfaces, it's possible to penetrate the port and get again periscope depth in the interior bay).

As Hawaii is not present in the WestPac map, I used the wider Cavite Bay in representation of Pearl Harbor.

Also, I've replaced some few ship classes or configurations with other of similar characteristics.

 

Enrique Mas, August 2012.

 

Picture credit: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORY AND HERITAGE COMMAND

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-forn...apsh-h/ha19.htm

Updated 23 August 2012: modified course of groups AES and AIS to avoid going aground.

 

Click here to download this file

[donaldseadog]

Keen to see how this runs Enrnique.

I've always wanted to do the mini sub attack in Sydney harbour (WWII) but I think the map doesn;t give enough room.

[TonyE]

Keen to see how this runs Enrnique.

I've always wanted to do the mini sub attack in Sydney harbour (WWII) but I think the map doesn;t give enough room.

 

Wow, yes, Sydney Harbor is a pixel or two wide even using the BattleSet Builder.

 

Pearl Harbor is also a no-go, the following is about as good as I could do with the stock map in the BS Builder.

[broncepulido]

Thanks for your feedback and the beautiful map!

I was thinking also in the other raids of the minisubs (I'm not sure if they running semisubmerged in combat, but at Pearl Harbor entrance, as in the Cavite map of HCE, with only 12 meters deep, It was probably the case, if not the USS Ward cant shot historically at the minisub. I've read a lot about the case this week but they're not a lot wrote about the minisub attack, and discrepancies in the submerged speed of the minisub, between 19 and 24 knots).

As in other cases (as Western Sahara) I dont built a map to avoid complications in the game charge for newbies.

Also, as the WWII is nowadays limited in extension and some ASW details, I dont need a full historical map when I've not full historical ships

As I say, it's only an essay to test the DB limitations about WWII and WWI, I've some ideas and experiences on it, after in the day I will comment it with more time ...

[broncepulido]

The "later in the day" considerations (I'm going to work now, and I'dont know when I will return today, also, I'm almost "inspired").

 

ONE: ASW and sonar (I think we should reserve the term "sonar" only for active SONAR or ASDIC) and hydrophones:

- The midget submarines are BLIND only with periscope (as the other subs, I tested it some years ago in Harpoon Gold).

- The surface warships are uncapable of detect incoming torpedoes with only active sonar, an hydrophone can represent also a torpedo lookout.

- As consequence of the first two points, the game is unplayable.

- If we add a simple hydrophone the situation awareness changes radically, and the midget sub adquires targets consistently at eight nautical miles.

- Also, the surface warships detects, evade torpedoes and ideally counterattack the subs.

- Historically we can assume all the subs and surface warships are equipped with passive hydrophones from WWOne (The original crude hydrophones are very simple and cheap instruments). That's my personal opinion, and of course can be challenged.

- In this concrete case, and for other reads I think can be representative of other situations we can assume all the American warships present in the action are equipped with some hydrophone type, I've employed JK because it's the simpler and older in the WWIIDB (We can read the narrative about sonar contacts with warships teorically without sonar in this concrete action, not diferenced as active or passive, here: http://www.ww2pacific.com/japsubs.html , as example:

12:04 Gamble (DM-15) established sound contact with submarine and dropped three depth charges.

Chew (DD-106) reports 28 depth charges dropped on eight different sonic contacts south-west of entrance buoy. Evidence indicated that two submarines were sunk.

).

- Ever the Japanese midget submarines were equipped with hydrophones. The problem, historically, is the acoustic equipment of old submarines is very rarely mentioned on books about this matter. In this concrete case we can think the Type A were without hydrophones, but it was not the case. Its an issue elude by very diverse authors, but in this concrete case is clearly mentioned as equipped with "In addition to the periscope the Ko-Hyoteki was equipped with an Echo sounder (as the author says, a compromise to the operation discretion) and a primitive non-directional Hydrophone" in the book Midget Submarines of the Second World War by Paul Kemp, Chatham Publishing/Caxton Editions 1999, page 69 and sucessive and in concrete page 74, it's a data hard to find because the book structure).

- I assume this crude hydrophone has not CZ capability and shorter range than the "Midget Hydropone" for German midgets present in the DB, and I also employed the JK for the Japanese midgets,and the situation and game changes radically ... if not, I'm sure after port penetration, the subs sees nothing, ever the stopped battleships in the interior port

- The same for other submarines, the I-400 has not sonar or hydrophones in the books, ever in a monographic book about the I-400 ! It can't be the actual case ....

 

TWO: ASW and the game representation of depth charges:

- We can use successfully the depth charges in bearing only attacks, in this scenario with the Catalinas mainly.

- In my personal DBs I'v reduced the PH of depth charges from 15% to 1% to 3%, and succesfully also.

- I'm in retard, more later ...

[donaldseadog]

Keen to see how this runs Enrnique.

I've always wanted to do the mini sub attack in Sydney harbour (WWII) but I think the map doesn;t give enough room.

 

Wow, yes, Sydney Harbor is a pixel or two wide even using the BattleSet Builder.

 

Pearl Harbor is also a no-go, the following is about as good as I could do with the stock map in the BS Builder.

Some where in a kind of dream I see a tool that lets the building of a custom map of a small geographical area that doesn't rely on the inbuilt wolrd map:)

[broncepulido]

Tags added.