Japan ASW assets

[awaw]

I am going through some detailed naval planning for my retirement game.
Japan has several late war E class ships, I listed all those carrying Type 2 DC:
Ukuru
Type D
Type C
Can some kind soul help me rank them in terms of ASW effectiveness? Which is the one that was labeled "Super E?"

[Platoonist]

I believe they are all considered "Super E" since the opinion is that the kaibōkan as a whole tend to be more effective sub killers in the game than they were historically. The Shimushu class as configured at the start of the war being an exception.

[awaw]

Thank you for the prompt reply. What about the Etorofu and Mikuma class, how do they rank (in ASW ability) relative to the Ukuru class?

[Platoonist]

Thank you for the prompt reply. What about the Etorofu and Mikuma class, how do they rank (in ASW ability) relative to the Ukuru class?

Couldn't say. As Japan I've yet to get a game to last until 1944 versus the Allied AI as it's usually toast by early 1943. However, I've seen what damage they can do to even the deeper diving Balao-class subs when playing the Allies. From discussions here I believe the real issue is the Type 2 depth charge carried by E-ships and the way the ASW combat routine works. Even one hit from Type 2 DC is usually enough to cripple an Allied sub and send it packing back to port for repairs and the kaibōkans are blessed with a lot of DC mounts and throwers compared to most Japanese ships. I recall reading in one of Sardaukar's AARs that he even reduced the number of Type 2 DC throwers in these ships from 6 to 4 in the editor and found they were still quite deadly.

I think there are some mods that mitigated this issue a bit but can't recall which ones.

[Dili]

In general the number of DC racks/firing channels, distributed by stern and sides is a measure of ASW ship effectiveness in this game. Things are more complicated in Allies since there are different DC types but for Japan that is a straightforward evolution typ 95 > typ 96-2 > typ 2 . There i an AS mortar but that is too weak to be effective. Another thing that might matter is the anti ship radar.

Shimushu starts with only 1 rear rack, by 11/42 have 4 1 in each side and 2 rear,. An Ukuru class have by late war 4 in each side plus 1 stern for a total of 9 DC "fire channels" plus the AS mortar.

[Sardaukar]

I consider so called "Super-E" ships overpowered in ASW with Type 2 DCs.

I often vs. AI remove DC thrower numbers from 6 ->4. Basically with full compliment of DC throwers/racks, those ships start to kill USN subs at least 1 per week. Considering that historically (IIRC) USN lost 52 subs in whole war, that is bit too much.

That is in addition to damaged, 1 Type 2 DC hit puts sub into drydock, 2 usually kills her.

[awaw]

Etorofu/Mikura 6 DC launchers
TypeC/D 7 launchers
Ukuru 7 > 9 launchers

I guess that makes them "almost" the same in ASW capability, but the later ones will have very short lifespans in what I presume to be Allied infested waters

[Platoonist]

I guess that makes them "almost" the same in ASW capability, but the later ones will have very short lifespans in what I presume to be Allied infested waters

It depends on what the waters are infested with. In past games I've noticed the E types tend to fall victim to Allied bombs and shells far more than submarine torpedoes.

[Sardaukar]

Etorofu/Mikura 6 DC launchers
TypeC/D 7 launchers
Ukuru 7 > 9 launchers

I guess that makes them "almost" the same in ASW capability, but the later ones will have very short lifespans in what I presume to be Allied infested waters

Well, as far as I know, number of DC launchers have drastic effect, especially with Type 2 DCs. Basically, 9 launchers give over twice the chance of hit compared to e.g. 4 launchers. AFAIK, hits are calculated per weapon, not as one combined attack.

[awaw]

Thank you everyone for the valuable inputs

[HansBolter]

IIRC the so called Super Es were toned down long ago due to the vocal outrage expressed by many players due to how overpowered they were.

[Sardaukar]

IIRC the so called Super Es were toned down long ago due to the vocal outrage expressed by many players due to how overpowered they were.

They still are to some extent. In past they were ridiculously so.

I am still trying to find good compromise between somewhat historical and game results with them.

[Dili]

The problem is know what is the the "balance" when the player is waging an alternate story. Japan did not made hunter killer teams afaik , we don't know how much aerial search resources Japan deployed to fight submarines. instead if we can devote more resources , which will mean more "interceptions" what will be the result?

Also matter the US player tactics are their more risky going to lower depth part of maps, does he move their boats if they are detected... etc etc.

[Sardaukar]

It is dangerous for subs to remain in station, even 1 turn if there is enemy air search presence.

Thus, always patrol zones with 0 loitering.

[BBfanboy]

The problem is know what is the the "balance" when the player is waging an alternate story. Japan did not made hunter killer teams afaik , we don't know how much aerial search resources Japan deployed to fight submarines. instead if we can devote more resources , which will mean more "interceptions" what will be the result?

Also matter the US player tactics are their more risky going to lower depth part of maps, does he move their boats if they are detected... etc etc.

IRL the problem wasn't so much a lack of ASW vessels as a lack of trained Captains and crews. ASW was seen as 'defensive' by the Japanese navy and no naval officer wanted to be seen as "non-aggressive". So it was late in the war when Japan's merchant marine was on its death bed before Japan paid serious heed to training ASW methods and tactics and assigning good captains to small vessels. When they did, they started to get results - but USN and British boats had better captains and better trained crews so the slaughter continued.

[Platoonist]

Certainly, a Japanese player with the benefit of historical hindsight will make a greater effort to properly escort his convoys from day one. By 1943 when the Japanese start to augment their motley ASW fleet of sub chasers, WWI-era destroyers and converted merchantmen for something akin to Allied destroyer-escorts with more and better DCs there is bound to be an uptick in Allied subs losses as there were historically.

I've always wondered if maybe heavier US sub losses aren't also due to the fact that you really don't need to consider the requirements of crew turnover, downtime and leave in the game. A mandatory two-weeks in port for most US subs. So, by 1944 the vast bulk of the burgeoning Allied submarine fleet tends to out on patrol at any one time with only a tiny minority in port tending to battle damage or fueling up to go out again. More subs on patrol, more ASW encounters.

[Sardaukar]

And more encounters, more experience IJN ASW ships get...

[RangerJoe]

Not to mention the fact that many Allied players move faster than what happened during the war, concentrating both the IJ ASW forces and the submarines into a smaller area.

[PaxMondo]

There are 2 aspects to ASW. Detection and Prosecution (primarily # of launchers). Very separate, and the ship designs can only impact the latter. Detection (by this I mean intrinsic detection of subs by the ship) is all under the hood, and very little has been shared. There are a number of devices that improve airborne detection, but on ships no discrete devices are involved. What we do know is that the allies appear to get 2 boosts to their ASW detection: once sometime in mid-43 and then again sometime in 44. We also know that IJ get little, if any, change to their detection capability (I'm pretty sure it is zero, but the devs have never actually told us).

What this means in game is that the "super E's" on their own will not be that much more effective any other ASW ship simply because they never detect anything, BUT in conjunction with air ASW can be very effective. You need the air component for detection.

Finally, as the IJ remember that in the late war, most USN subs can dive deeper than your best DC's; so shallow water is your friend. In deep water, even with perfect detection and tons of launchers don't be surprised at the paucity of hits .... the USN can simply dive below anything you can drop. For example in the waters around Wakkanai; generally I can chase the USN boats away, but I rarely ever get any hits. High detection levels will scare the AI away though this tactic will not work in a PBEM game.

[Cavalry Corp]

In my mod, I followed the principle ( as I read somewhere more than once) that ASW ships with speed under 20kt would use the earlier small DC as their speed was not enough to evade the possibility of damage from their own charges. So in my mod not many ships carry the more dangerous DC. A lot of J ASW ships are less that 16kt.

I also downgraded all J ASW capability until early 44, when it ramps up and finally to be better than stock by v late 44.

The key point in all games is that a detected sub is always in danger from any ship with any reasonable ASW, as is one in shallow water. I agree with Pax that Air detection seems to raise the chance of a good ship attack. In my mod, my allied opponent suffered a lot of SS casualties simply because of the non-moving detected subs, usually detected by air. It also seems to me that subs with radar and that is undetected pretty much always get the first shot. It seems pretty realistic to me.

Any ship that makes under 25kt always seems vulnerable to SS attack - also seems pretty realistic, and the bigger they are, the worse it is, like the slow BB also with low MVR.
Cav