Is spamming subs a viable tactic in war?

>>32832125
Only when the enemy isn't equipped to fight them.

Yes.

Little subs sit on the bottom along the coasts. Waiting for something juicy like a carrier battlegroup.

Didn't work for Germany. They spammed HUNDREDS

Helicopters are cheaper than subs and totally dominate at ASW.

depends on what your goals are in war

>>32832125
Only if they can fly.

ASW operations aren't as easy as /k/ommandos seem to believe.

Considering a single sub can spam a shitload of nukes and tactical missiles, yeah it's viable.

>>32832147
Didn't work for the U.S. in the Pacific either. Submariners had the highest casualty rate in the entire war.

>>32832612
Submariners of any nation had super high casualty rates. The US effort was the most effective in crushing enemy merchant shipping though. Not to mention they sunk that 80,000 ton Jap supercarrier before they could get the real crew onboard.

>>32832612
>Didn't work for the U.S. in the Pacific either
they single-handedly blockaded all of japan, retard

>>32832156
>Helicopters are cheaper than subs and totally dominate at ASW.
what is loiter time? What is operational range? What is endurance.

Seriously, this board need to enforce a fucking IQ and education standard.

Based on the last game of Civ V I played, no. You can have the greatest navy in the world but you still need ground troops to finish Ghandi off.

>>32832612
It was one of the largest contributing factors to the defeat of Japan, the total and utter destruction of their merchant marine.

>>32832612
> implying that casualties are related to mission success
> If I die, we've totally lost
> disregard the completed objective

I bet you think that having the better infantry rifle will have a noticeable impact on a war, too.

>>32832125

Is it a viable tactic? No. Is spamming complex billion dollar warships strategically impossible? Yes.

>>32832141
This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea but proves to be retarded when confronted with reailty.

It turns out there is a whole lot of ocean out there, and submarines are slower then carriers. Getting into place undetected and waiting to ambush one is unworkable, unless it's transiting a narrow waterway..

And those are not places you can hide a sub.

>>32833092
how would we test iq and education?
why is education important some people are smart without education some people are stupid with education?
some people might score low on iq test but they might know a lot about weapons...

>>32833460
So you're saying spam satellites with hella targeting capabilities with some minute nuclear capabilities?

I like your style daddy.

>>32832125
>spamming
They're too expensive for spamming. If you can afford to build hundreds of those, you can afford to build a very fucking decent NAVY.

>>32832125

You zerg any thing with enough numbers, it is bound to work.

>>32833581
It's not about offering all potential candidates access. That's not practical. Its about improving the quality of the general poster population

>>32833460
Actually a modern diesel electric sun could sit at the entrance Persian gulf and not be detected until it was to late by a carrier group. Of course the sub would be destroyed in moments asoon as it fire

>>32833460
isn't that the whole point of under water demo teams

they swim close to subs attach there mines swim away and blow them up

>>32832125
go to bed Dönitz, the war is over

>>32832125
it worked in RA3

>>32832125
I think submarine combat was a quickly antiquated form of battle. With such sensitive sonar, radar and other signals advances in the recent future, there is almost no place to actually make use of a submarine worth its weight. I'm no military expert, but it just seems like they're more for recon/preemptive longrange missile attacks than anything else. Active combat against a carrier or frigate would mean almost certain annihilation of the sub.

>>32832125
yes

File: Midway.jpg (628KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1920x1200px

>>32835278
Why would a carrier be entering the persian gulf, other than to commit suicide?

>>32837170
>I'm no military expert,
Yep. You got that right.

Could submarines pull off their WWII duty today or would it just be a waste? I mean sinking tankers and cargo ships

>>32837424
Uhhh, carriers go into the Persian gulf all the fucking time.

>>32832823
Poor shinano.

Most amazing ship build by Nippon.

>>32832147
To be fair, it did work quite well until the allies figured out decent countermeasures.

By then, of course, Nazi Germany was having much bigger problems than losing the effectiveness of its submarines, and the allies capturing their Enigma code books didn't help either.

>>32835278
The US is introducing autonomous ASW ships. I'd imagine they would be deployed around a Fleet in large numbers.

>>32832823
>>32837686
The us forces kept and made records on the ship before they sunk it

>>32832125
>fighting sand-niggers in the desert armed with 70yo Kalashnikovs and improvised explosives.

Sure deep-sea submersible vehicles are the way to go.

>>32837568
Care to explain why I'm wrong?