chaos0xomega
Mongoose
Is the Surcouf class sub in the French fleet list? I hope so, as it is quite easily the coolest submarine eva!
Surcouf Class Submarine?
- Thread starter chaos0xomega
- Start date
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
No, but I have to agree, it's got to appear somewhere... Only problem is, it might actually WORK in VaS, which would be wildly inaccurate...chaos0xomega said:
Wulf
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
How is that wildly innacurate? It worked just fine in the real world, just not as well as it was hoped for/intended to.
Maybe an S&P addition?
DAMN I WANT A SURCOUF! I would have a fleet of Surcouf's. Who cares if their the bloody French, Surcouf's are cool!
Maybe an S&P addition?
DAMN I WANT A SURCOUF! I would have a fleet of Surcouf's. Who cares if their the bloody French, Surcouf's are cool!
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
She was top-heavy, slow diving, mechanically unreliable and leaked like a sieve. She was also too low in the water for observation over any useful distance (although carried an observation floatplane, which is pretty damn unusual, if not unique).chaos0xomega said:
Weird, yes, fascinating, yes, worth including, yes. But actually useful in reality? Nope.
Wulf
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
Thank you. And thank you again. Just for that, I will play a French fleet. I bet I'll be the only one too , damn frenchman...
Captain_Nemo
Mongoose
you're not the only frenchie on the seas ole boy. I have started a fleet
"por la Gloire de France" m'self
"por la Gloire de France" m'self
Par le vu France? (I really don't know how, except for what I can google, lol).
Vive flotte de ligne !!
See elsewhere for "frère aîné" ships to escort the Surcouf. Hint: keyword "Alsace". :wink:
Note to crew of Surcouf- Look both directions before crossing the Gulf of Mexico. :roll:
For chaos0xomega- The Japanese had some very large submarines that carried float planes in watertight deck hangers. After WW2 was over the Americans discovered records that stated a reconnaissance flight happened over Seattle, Washington looking for a ship buildup that might indicate an invasion of Japan from Alaskan waters. The thing that was interesting to the Americans was that we had no record anywhere of such an event. :roll: Oops!
Vive flotte de ligne !!
See elsewhere for "frère aîné" ships to escort the Surcouf. Hint: keyword "Alsace". :wink:
Note to crew of Surcouf- Look both directions before crossing the Gulf of Mexico. :roll:
For chaos0xomega- The Japanese had some very large submarines that carried float planes in watertight deck hangers. After WW2 was over the Americans discovered records that stated a reconnaissance flight happened over Seattle, Washington looking for a ship buildup that might indicate an invasion of Japan from Alaskan waters. The thing that was interesting to the Americans was that we had no record anywhere of such an event. :roll: Oops!
The big ones were the I-400 class but they also had air capable submarines at the start of the war (I think at least one was involved in pre-Pearl recce flights). IIRC there were several plans to use them for small scale surprise attacks, including a strike on the locks of the Panama Canal.
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
I know about the I-400's(the German's had them in the works to supposedly, as did the Italians, and even teh Americans(S-1?)), but the I-400's didn't have twin 8" guns mounted to thier topsides :twisted:
captainsmirk
Mongoose
What about the Royal Navy's M1?
That had a 12" gun...
But then again one 12" gun isn't really much use...
And it had to surface to reload...
And the gun housing was held on only by its own weight...
And it sank...
Oh dear...
Nick
That had a 12" gun...
But then again one 12" gun isn't really much use...
And it had to surface to reload...
And the gun housing was held on only by its own weight...
And it sank...
Oh dear...
Nick
captainsmirk
Mongoose
And the M1's sister the M2 which was converted to carry a floatplane in a hanger where the gun mounting used to be (following the loss of the M1).
But she sank as well...
Oh dear...
Strike two for the Royal Navy...
Nick
But she sank as well...
Oh dear...
Strike two for the Royal Navy...
Nick
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
Wow... the Brits really messed up with the M-1/2 huh?
chaos0xomega said:
This may come off as sounding like a joke, but I ask it quite seriously- Didn't they have an M-3?
---
DM is correct that the really big plane-carrying subs were the Japanese I-400s. They were very impressive, and carried 3 floatplanes that could be used for reconnassance and bombing. The only time the U.S. was ever bombed was by an IJN sub of a smaller class, the I-25 (carrying 1 plane). Here are some very interesting sites that explain better than I could of the details. BTW, I could drive from my home to one of the sites (Fort Stevens) in well under 1.5 hours. I need to ask my father again about it, but I remember him telling me when he was a teenager living in Oregon during the war that the FBI swore my grandfather to secrecy regarding one of the incendiary bombs that was discovered in the area dropped by an incendiary balloon attack. My grandfather's employer, a farmer, used my grandfather's phone (rare back then as not everyone had a phone) to call the FBI, who then called the Army. There were only a very few actual witnesses to these attacks from Japan, and the story still thrills me to this day. Anyway, here are those sites about the interesting submarines-
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a424eb87ae2.htm
This one is a very long page, but poke around a bit and you'll see the IJN sub and plane info.
http://www.combatreform.com/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm
This page is about interrogation info confirming that a reconnassance floatplane from a sub (I think it's I-25) that did an overflight of Seattle, Washington naval harbors looking for large concentrations of troop ships and combat ships in case the U.S. was building up forces for an attack on the Japanese home islands from Alaskan waters. Funny thing is that when the U.S. compared the records to their own, we didn't know anyone had flown over Seattle :roll: . A bit embarrassing, to be sure. :wink:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-20.html
Three boats of the M class were completed (the 4th was cancelled). M1 was sunk in a collosion with a Swedish freighter. M2 sank off Portland apparently as a result of atmosphere control problems (the crew were probably suffering from hypoxia and, whilst trying to beat their record for surfacing and launching their seaplane, opened the hangar doors too early resulting in the boat flooding and sinking). The third was converted to a minelayer.
Messing up tends to go hand in hand with innovation - remember the K Class (the first atempt at a fleet boat) and the post war "Explorer" class (unofficially known as the "Exploders"). Submarine design and development around the world is littered with tragic stories of good ideas (and bad) that went sour in the execution, often leading to the deatsh of many.
Messing up tends to go hand in hand with innovation - remember the K Class (the first atempt at a fleet boat) and the post war "Explorer" class (unofficially known as the "Exploders"). Submarine design and development around the world is littered with tragic stories of good ideas (and bad) that went sour in the execution, often leading to the deatsh of many.
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Ah the good old Excruciator and Exploder eh?
:lol:
Nick
:lol:
Nick
As far as I remember, all major navy try to make an "cruiser" submarine but the concept itself prouve to be too hard to make an effective thing.
Even if an efficient sub was made, it still be too big to avoid detection by escort, to weak to resist to return fire even of DD, to little to see anything.
The Surcouf was the only to worth keeping in the fleet because he was not to big so have a chance to operate, but he realy need the plane help.
( But remember that's dangerous because radio-emiting can give your location )
( U-boat's may have a use of them too but Goering didn't want to lend his toy )
At the end with all the allied's planes around U-boat were even forbiden to attack by guns.
Even if an efficient sub was made, it still be too big to avoid detection by escort, to weak to resist to return fire even of DD, to little to see anything.
The Surcouf was the only to worth keeping in the fleet because he was not to big so have a chance to operate, but he realy need the plane help.
( But remember that's dangerous because radio-emiting can give your location )
( U-boat's may have a use of them too but Goering didn't want to lend his toy )
At the end with all the allied's planes around U-boat were even forbiden to attack by guns.
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
So, how about sharing some more info on the rules of this thing? I assume you will be using a similar system to ACTA for fleet selection, so what priority level is the Surcouf at? Will I be able to have a fleet of just them? How many of them can I expect to have in an 'average' sized game?
I WANT DETAILS!!!! :twisted:
I WANT DETAILS!!!! :twisted:
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
Skirmish, huh? I was expecting Patrol. It is a submarine after all, the ultimate commerce raider and patrol vessel afaik.
I mean, it is bound to have crap-ass armour, as it is not meant for a direct fight, it has two 8" guns with a max effective range of 15mile(with horrible accuracy, requiring it's single unarmed recon plane to radio in coordinates), which in game terms probably translates into not a lot, it's slow as hell(18.5knots surfaced, 10 submerged), probably also unmanouverable as hell, and then of course torpedos. If you're staying true to it's real life self it would have 12 torpedo tubes(8 55cm tubes w/ `14 rounds, 4 40cm w/ 8 rounds) as far as I can tell all forward-firing. And then of course it had it's AA armament which I can't remember, but involved at least 5 machine guns.
Overall not too bad, but skirmish? Not so sure.
Moving less than 4" a turn on surface, and something like 2" below it(judging by the Soviet fleet knot-to-inch conversions), guns shooting about 27" (based on Soviet Tallinn, which had a range of about 20 miles in real life).
Yeah, just my view on it.
All of a sudden, the Surcouf isn't looking quite so cool...
I mean, it is bound to have crap-ass armour, as it is not meant for a direct fight, it has two 8" guns with a max effective range of 15mile(with horrible accuracy, requiring it's single unarmed recon plane to radio in coordinates), which in game terms probably translates into not a lot, it's slow as hell(18.5knots surfaced, 10 submerged), probably also unmanouverable as hell, and then of course torpedos. If you're staying true to it's real life self it would have 12 torpedo tubes(8 55cm tubes w/ `14 rounds, 4 40cm w/ 8 rounds) as far as I can tell all forward-firing. And then of course it had it's AA armament which I can't remember, but involved at least 5 machine guns.
Overall not too bad, but skirmish? Not so sure.
Moving less than 4" a turn on surface, and something like 2" below it(judging by the Soviet fleet knot-to-inch conversions), guns shooting about 27" (based on Soviet Tallinn, which had a range of about 20 miles in real life).
Yeah, just my view on it.
All of a sudden, the Surcouf isn't looking quite so cool...
