Surcouf Class Submarine?

[DM]

Thats not all that far from the stats I'd developed, although the guns only get a 14" range unless assisted by the spotter plane since the low position of the rangefinder only allowed them to engage targets out to 7 miles unless receiving external assistance.

"Skirmish" makes it the same as the German Type XXI, but I could be pursuaded to go for Patrol (although I reckon its meaner than a Type VII or Type IX)

Speed: 4”/2”
Turning: 2
Target: 6+
Armour: 2+
Damage: 5/2
Crew: 5/2
Special Traits: Submersible, Aircraft 1
In Service: 1934

Weapon Range AD DD Special
Turret (2x 8”) 14” 1 1 Slow loading
AAA 5 1 -
Forward Torpedoes 10” 2 3 AP, Slow-Loading
Port/Starboard Torpedoes 10” 2 2 AP, No reloads
Port/Starboard Torpedoes 10” 1 3 AP, No reloads

[erroneous tubes deleted ]

Length: 361 ft.
Displacement: 4304 tons
Speed: 18/10 kts.
Crew: 110

Special Rules

1) Sea plane – the sea plane (a Besson MB.411) can be launched at the start of the turn following the turn on which the boat surfaced. If the sea plane is in the air it can direct gunfire out to 30”
2) Gunfire – the boat’s 8” guns can be fired on the same turn that the boat surfaces (the guns were loaded whilst the boat was submerged)
3) Damage – the boat cannot submerge if it takes any damage.

Speed: 18/10 kts.
Crew: 110

Special Rules

1) Observation Aircraft – the plane can be launched at the start of the turn following the turn on which the boat surfaced. If the spotter plane is in the air it can direct gunfire out to 30”
2) Gunfire – the boat’s 8” guns can be fired on the same turn that the boat surfaces (the guns were loaded whilst the boat was submerged)
3) Damage – the boat cannot submerge if it takes any damage.

 

[DM]

A note about the torpedoes. This has been an area for some confusion, but I was pointed to a French language reference by an MN colleague (they should know I guess) which indicated the follwoing armament:

4 forward firing tubes (550mm) with 16 weapons carried

2 triple "turrets", each with one 550mm tube and two 400mm tubes, that were trainable but not reloadable. I rationalised these as two sets of trainable (Port/Starboard) tubes, one of 550mm (1AD, 3DD) and one of 400mm (2AD, 2DD).

Of course that source coudl be wrong - I think I've come across at least 5 different variants on her torpedo armamant so far! I have one reference in my library which I think is reliable but its not easily accessible right now.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

A note about the torpedoes.

4 forward firing tubes (550mm) with 16 weapons carried

2 triple "turrets", each with one 550mm tube and two 400mm tubes, that were trainable but not reloadable. I rationalised these as two sets of trainable (Port/Starboard) tubes, one of 550mm (1AD, 3DD) and one of 400mm (2AD, 2DD).

So... ah... why do your stats for her have Aft Torps? And can the 'turrets' be used while submerged?

Wulf

 

[DM]

B***r - 'cos I forgot to delete the aft torpedoes line

And, AFAIK the torpedo turrets could be used submerged.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Sounds like a really good sub, actually. Might need to cook up some special rules for its real-world failure...

 

[chaos0xomega]

WHat does trainable mean? Rotating?

Also question on the 8" rules, does that mean that both guns firing together = 1AD 1DD, or is that per gun meaning I can roll 2AD and 2DD? If so, then I can KIND of understand it, but still not sold.

While it does look a bit better than I expected, I am still having a rough time rationalizing skirmish PL. Especially considering the weaponry all being slow loading.

Also, here is a zoomable, grainy picture of the Surcouf model at some French museum, it might help you out.

I'm not really sure on why the main cannon is slow loading btw. It was reloaded from the inside, the shells aren't really that big, and from the looks of it, they had a small store of rounds stored by the gun, with the rest of the ammo being stored within easy reach.

Also, after compairing the Surcouf rules to the Russian fleet lists Patrol and Skirmish ships, I can safely say that the Surcouf is heavily outgunned in Skirmish PL but overgunned for Patrol. To me it seems like it's leaning more towards Patrol than Skirmish though, as a lot of those Skirmish ships(especially the Depth Charge armed Destroyers) could rip apart the Surcouf.

The way I see it, is exactly as you described but Patrol, or remove the slow loading on the turret and make it skirmish. But that's just me, and I am of course slightly biased.

Oh, and personal suggestion would be to make the Surcouf's turning 1, instead of 2. That would definitely make it more accurate IMO.

 

[DM]

I gave it slow loading because I have the impression that the working chamber was quite restricted, resulting in cramped operating conditions and thus a less-than-optimal rate of fire, but I guess it could be deleted to make the boat's surface potential a bit less limited.

I'm also not sure about the ability of the 8" turret to traverse; I suspect it shoudl be able to engage targets only in the front arc.

1AD, 1DD is for the mount (i.e. both guns), in common with other twin 8" turrets.

Other thoughts, from looking at a hi-res image of the French Naval Museum's model - the aft external torpedo "turret" looks as though it could train aft as well as to port and starboard.

Froma technical perspective the complexity of the pressure hull is quite amazing. We wouldn't dream of building anything like that today!

 

[Wulf Corbett]

And, AFAIK the torpedo turrets could be used submerged.

I only ask as that article I found for Avalanche Press said it was usable on the surface only. Like I said, not good practice to use one game as a source for another!

Wulf

 

[chaos0xomega]

I'm also not sure about the ability of the 8" turret to traverse; I suspect it shoudl be able to engage targets only in the front arc.

If by traverse you mean turn, then no it couldn't. It was built into the hull itself in a solid piece, so it was fixed in place.

But was does 'train' mean?

Anywhere here is(are) my take(s):

Patrol

Speed: 4”/2”
Turning: 1
Target: 6+
Armour: 2+
Damage: 5/2
Crew: 5/2
Special Traits: Submersible, Aircraft 1
In Service: 1934

Weapon Range AD DD Special
Turret (2x 8”) 14” 1 1 Slow loading, Front-Arc only
AAA 5 1 -
Forward Torpedoes 10” 2 3 AP, Slow-Loading
Port/Starboard Torpedoes 10” 2 2 AP, No reloads
Port/Starboard Torpedoes 10” 1 3 AP, No reloads

Length: 361 ft.
Displacement: 4304 tons
Speed: 18/10 kts.
Crew: 110

Special Rules

1) Sea plane – the sea plane (a Besson MB.411) can be launched at the start of the turn following the turn on which the boat surfaced. If the sea plane is in the air it can direct gunfire out to 30”
2) Gunfire – the boat’s 8” guns can be fired on the same turn that the boat surfaces (the guns were loaded whilst the boat was submerged)
3) Damage – the boat cannot submerge if it takes any damage.

Or:

Skirmish

Speed: 4”/2”
Turning: 2
Target: 6+
Armour: 2+
Damage: 5/2
Crew: 5/2
Special Traits: Submersible, Aircraft 1
In Service: 1934

Weapon Range AD DD Special
Turret (2x 8”) 14” 1 1 Front-Arc only
AAA 5 1 -
Forward Torpedoes 10” 2 3 AP, Slow-Loading
Port/Starboard Torpedoes 10” 2 2 AP, No reloads
Port/Starboard Torpedoes 10” 1 3 AP, No reloads

Length: 361 ft.
Displacement: 4304 tons
Speed: 18/10 kts.
Crew: 110

Special Rules

1) Sea plane – the sea plane (a Besson MB.411) can be launched at the start of the turn following the turn on which the boat surfaced. If the sea plane is in the air it can direct gunfire out to 30” or provide a +2 to targeting to targets within 14"
2) Gunfire – the boat’s 8” guns can be fired on the same turn that the boat surfaces (the guns were loaded whilst the boat was submerged)
3) Damage – the boat cannot submerge if it takes any damage.

Just my view of it.

Also, curious why the XXI is in Skirmish. I can see why it's fast load torps would make it dangerous, but the other stats for it, from my limited undrestanding, make it not all that great compared to other skirmish ships, especially surface ships that have several large high strength, long-range deck guns.

Another reason why ALL subs should be Patrol(unless there is one that is the rough equivalent of an underwater battleship that I don't know about) is that it seems all Destroyers are in Skimrish, and destroyers=depth charges=dead submarines=submarines are impossible to be used effectively in a 'wulfpak' style unless there is numerical superiority against the destroyers, but even in a game of 6 subs v. 4 destroyers and 3 cruisers, the other side is going to have a big advantage. Therefore it would only make sense that they would be in patrol, so that they would be able to effectively wulfpak to victory/ not have to deal with destroyers roasting them in a 1-1 ratio match.

Just my take.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Another reason why ALL subs should be Patrol(unless there is one that is the rough equivalent of an underwater battleship that I don't know about)

The trouble is, subs have the equivalent of Stealth - you literally don't know they're there, usually, until they fire. And then they can melt away, unless you're good enough to detect them. And then they melt away... and Depth Charges aren't auto-kills either, they still have to HIT.

Subs aren't meant to fight Destroyers, they're primary job is to sink merchantmen - and they're good enough at that to make them Skirmish importance.

Wulf

 

[chaos0xomega]

Yeah, but this is an abstract wargame. I don't know the rules concerning subs in VaS, but I would assume that the models for the sub are on the table at all times denoting their true location, and that they simply get bonuses against being hit.

And while the purpose of a sub was not to fight destroyers, teh purpose of a destroyer was to hunt subs and protect merchantment, therefore a destroyer is going to be adept at doing that job and conflict between the two is inevitable.

Not just that but hunting merchantman is such a patrol priority type mission. Especially considering a submarine crew was normally given orders to PATROL a stretch of sea and engage targets at an opportune moment, a skirmish suggests something more along the lines of 'hey there is a convoy at xdegrees Lat, x degrees Long engage and destroy them all!!11!!1!!111one'

Again, just the way I see it. I just want my beautiful Surcouf to be awesome and I'm happy. Seriously, I don't know why we haven't raised it from the bottom of the sea and given it to me as a birthday gift :roll:

 

[DomSkelton]

With regard to the 8" guns, definitely front only; they're actually mounted in a fixed superstructure, not a real turret at all. There's a jolly good cutaway of her here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/MuseeMarine-Surcouf-FNFL-p1000460.jpg (Model in the Musee National de la Marine.)

For the torpedo tubes I'd agree that it's ten not twelve, and don't think that the rear trainable mount could fire aft; the "superstructure" (ie. the bit above the pressure hull that has the deck on top....) that contains the trainable mounts tapers to a point at the back; there doesn't seem to be anywhere to fit tube doors. As for firing submerged, I'd be dubious, as there's no obvious way of aiming them accurately.

Dom.

 

[DM]

I looked at the same picture and thought "limited trainable mount" since the pressure hull arrangement looks so cock-eyed in that area that the only explanation could be that the "turret" rotated, albeit only to a certain degree, and chatting to a sub historian friend last night in the pub (don't I have such an exiting life?) he recalls seeing a photograph of the guns traversed by as much as 90 degrees.

The model photo actually shows the aft tube aiming directly astern with no obstruction (the tubes were mounted on top of the casing and thus above the taper).

I'm happy to delete "slow loading" for the 8" guns to make them a bit more worthwhile and the boat a bit more fun to play (ROF was certainly higher than 1 shot every 6 minutes ) It doesn't make the guns "wonder weapons" and should still leave players thinking "why on earth did they do that?" when playing this boat (there were very good reasons why this boat was a one-off!!)

 

[DomSkelton]

"I looked at the same picture and thought "limited trainable mount" since the pressure hull arrangement looks so cock-eyed in that area that the only explanation could be that the "turret" rotated, albeit only to a certain degree, and chatting to a sub historian friend last night in the pub (don't I have such an exiting life?) he recalls seeing a photograph of the guns traversed by as much as 90 degrees. "

- Wow; I had no idea on that one.... That said, having had a good Google I've found this photo: http://groups.msn.com/Surcouf/surcoufconstruction.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=77 Looks like the bottom half of the turret assembly, and definitely designed to rotate....

"The model photo actually shows the aft tube aiming directly astern with no obstruction (the tubes were mounted on top of the casing and thus above the taper). "

- Yes and no; the deck that they're in seems to have a taper at the stern as well, which the model doesn't show; I'm cursing the lack of stern views of her at the moment, but this shot hints at it: http://groups.msn.com/Surcouf/moresurcouf.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=83

"I'm happy to delete "slow loading" for the 8" guns to make them a bit more worthwhile and the boat a bit more fun to play (ROF was certainly higher than 1 shot every 6 minutes ) It doesn't make the guns "wonder weapons" and should still leave players thinking "why on earth did they do that?" when playing this boat (there were very good reasons why this boat was a one-off!!)"

- Seems reasonable to me. Only trouble is that I'm now intrigued enough that I'm seriously considering trying to find a not-too-extortionate copy of "Le croiseur sous-marin Surcouf (1926-1942)"

Dom.

 

[DM]

Dammit, we'll just have to get "Wreck Detectives" to do a dive and TV special on the boat so that we can find out for sure

 

[BuShips]

I would drop in a vote for "patrol" over "skirmish" from the perspective that not all uses of submarines were convoy attack, although that is certainly of great importance. As an example of a different "world view" of the proper use of submarines, take a look at the Japanese usage of their subs in WW2. They used them for scouting ahead of fleets and task forces quite a bit, and although they made good use of opportunities to use torpedoes their primary mission many times was for that of "fleet scout", thus Patrol. As a counter to this, you might see quickly that the German U-boats and USN fleet subs could be argued as possibly "skirmish" units because their primary role was to hunt merchantmen, with other duties becoming secondary to that. In other words, it's not the submarine itself, but the way in which it is deployed. With its cruiser guns as well as formidable torpedo load-out, the Surcouf could be argued either way to be fair, but I might nudge it toward Patrol from the middle point of the discussion. What ultimately matters is how it was used by it's "owners". As built by the French, the Surcouf was an "underwater cruiser, intended to seek and engage in surface combat." This would be great evidence that it should be "skirmish". The British used the sub however (manned by a Free French crew) in a patrol manner escorting convoys, so this points more toward a "patrol" role historically.

Hey DM, here are some facts regarding the main guns-

artillery : 2x203mm (8in) in a fore turret streamlined with the bridge, powered by
hydraulic engines
trainable +/-135deg in circular, 0 to 30deg in elevation, with 300
shells
---

Here is the source site (but maybe you knew about this already):

http://groups.msn.com/Surcouf/fromchristophechazot.msnw

 

[DM]

excellent! +/-135 degrees allows the 8" guns to shoot into port and starboard arcs as well

 

[BuShips]

Dammit, we'll just have to get "Wreck Detectives" to do a dive and TV special on the boat so that we can find out for sure

DM, I have been thinking the same thing in trying to learn more about the fate of the sub tonight. I might just ask Thomas Schmid to forward our concensus to James Cameron and see what transpires. I've got dibbs on the best seat in the mini-sub, ok? :lol: What with all of the myths and no clear end-story, this would make one hell of a story to film :!:

Oops, we have to find the sub first. :roll:

 

[BuShips]

excellent! +/-135 degrees allows the 8" guns to shoot into port and starboard arcs as well

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: (heh). BTW, I'm e-mailing Thomas in a few minutes (really!).

 

[BuShips]

OK, I did it. :roll: I e-mailed Thomas Schmid and asked him, quite casually you understand, to mention to James Cameron that he needs to take a look at making a docu-drama about the Surcouf, like he did for his Expedition Bismarck. In case any of you haven't checked out my gentle link to his website, Thomas has done work for James Cameron on that docu-drama as well as crewed one of the mini-subs that dived on the Bismarck (!). He is also working with the History Channel on the series Dogfights, which I have been enjoying. Now for those of you that wonder (as I did at first) why a mostly naval warship artist would be working on a show named "Dogfights", I have the answer. In an upcoming Dogfights episode called "Death of the Japanese Navy":

1944...the Pacific. It is one of the most amazing, lopsided naval battles in history: A mighty Japanese fleet let by the Yamato, the biggest battleship in the world - versus Taffy 3, a small U.S. task unit of tin can destroyers and baby flat-tops...ships too weak to fight and too slow to run. David battles Goliath in a fight for survival - with the lives of thousands of American soldiers in the balance.

This I've got to see, as my very favorite battle of all time is the Battle off Samar. Hollywood could never make up something even close to this, and this all happened! David vs. Goliath was a fair fight compared to this (yeah, I plagiarized it from several books I've read over the years- I can't help myself, heh).