Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6

[Halsey]

So, here's something to try.

If you put torp bombers on airfield attack, with a high naval search %.
Will the loadout definitely be bombs?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Have just redone the test with the standard armament for Betty's and H8K set to bombs - results were comparable to the KI-49, possibly slightly less because of a lower manuver, but hits none the less.

Conclusion: ASW bomb equipping for planes with a primary armament of torps is faulty. Until it is fixed some players might want to change the default armament for the H8K?

But how many spotted subs were actually torped in the war? It would seem to me the sub would have to be very shallow, unless those sort of torps have some diving and homing capabilities.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

But how many spotted subs were actually torped in the war? It would seem to me the sub would have to be very shallow, unless those sort of torps have some diving and homing capabilities.

You're missing his point: they switch from torpedoes to bombs when flying ASW. However, these "replacement" bombs seem to be not working, as matchwood didn't record a single hit.

[Charles2222]

So maybe they switch the load but the bombs behave like torps against subs? Maybe it's a training thing, that they set the torp planes with only torp training and are really bad bombing (no training). That is a bit illogical though, because why would you send out guys with no training with bombs, to hit a not terribly easy target to hit that way? The answer could be that you as commander are supposed to know that, and therefore even though they have ASW missions being possible, you shouldn't use them that way (long shot).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Summary of results from Leo's ASW stock test:

4 squadrons on full range ASW at 1000 feet over 30 turns:

9xH8K - 0 hits
27xG4M1 - 0 hits
27xJake - 1 hit
27xHelen - 30+ hits

There appears to be a problem with torp armed planes using bombs against subs? I have run this test several times and the results are always similar to above.

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.. Even the Allies weren't as good as those Helens until 1943/44...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.. Even the Allies weren't as good as those Helens until 1943/44...

I agree completely, in my PBEM games we have a house rule no ASW searches below 6000 feet and no more than 1 squadron in a CV task force can be set to ASW search. I'd be interested in the results for both NS and ASW search at that altitude.

But I agree with Mike, the Helens look like the problem to me, not the other planes. Do a 6 month test, if they each get 1 or 2 hits that'd be just about right.

Jim

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: matchwood

Summary of results from Leo's ASW stock test:

4 squadrons on full range ASW at 1000 feet over 30 turns:

9xH8K - 0 hits
27xG4M1 - 0 hits
27xJake - 1 hit
27xHelen - 30+ hits

There appears to be a problem with torp armed planes using bombs against subs? I have run this test several times and the results are always similar to above.

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.. Even the Allies weren't as good as those Helens until 1943/44...

Did the Japanese use Helens (or any other medium-type army bomber) as anti-sub platforms in the war? Part of the reason for the excessive number of hits in the test is likely due to the extremely ahistorical nature of the test scenario he is using. How many times did the US station 36 subs within 300 miles of a enemy base?

The test intentionally uses excessive targets to get a better sample in a reasonable amount of turns. If you want to test whether the Helens are over-producing hits, you'd need to reduce the US sub presence to something like 4 or 5 subs and re-run the test.

[spence]

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.

Actually if you subtract the US subs lost due to accidents, non-combat reasons and the sub hit by bombers in the Cavite shipyard on day 2 of the war the score for all forms of Japanese ASW (including mines) falls substantially below 1 per month.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: spence

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.

Actually if you subtract the US subs lost due to accidents, non-combat reasons and the sub hit by bombers in the Cavite shipyard on day 2 of the war the score for all forms of Japanese ASW (including mines) falls substantially below 1 per month.

With allied repair advantages I'm surprised if any of them sink, to wit, 30 hits do not generate 30 sinkings. With that many subs it was probably fortunate for IJ if two of them sank. 30 hits with 4-5 subs, possibly big trouble, even for the allies, but this many subs with 30 hits? - pfft.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: spence

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.

Actually if you subtract the US subs lost due to accidents, non-combat reasons and the sub hit by bombers in the Cavite shipyard on day 2 of the war the score for all forms of Japanese ASW (including mines) falls substantially below 1 per month.

But you have to include British and Dutch Subs lost as well..., I said Allied.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: spence

Given that Japanese ASW in ALL forms (planes, ships, mines, and shore batteries) managed to sink just over one Allied Sub a month during the real war...., I'd say that the problem is the number of "hits" by the Helens in a daily turn is about 2700% too large. You're talking about the wrong problem.

Actually if you subtract the US subs lost due to accidents, non-combat reasons and the sub hit by bombers in the Cavite shipyard on day 2 of the war the score for all forms of Japanese ASW (including mines) falls substantially below 1 per month.

With allied repair advantages I'm surprised if any of them sink, to wit, 30 hits do not generate 30 sinkings. With that many subs it was probably fortunate for IJ if two of them sank. 30 hits with 4-5 subs, possibly big trouble, even for the allies, but this many subs with 30 hits? - pfft.

While I'll be the first to admit that the game's "hit" reporting system looks ludicrous when talking about submarines (which rarely survived one "hit", and were often sunk by a "near miss")..., it's designed to report gunfire results and produces silly looking results when applied to submarines and depth charges. But the report quoted was for at most one DAY's activity, and we are talking about losses per MONTH. Sorry, but Japanese ASW is way too effective in the game. For one thing, it often hunts submarines instead of reacting only when a sub has made an attack. Even the Allies were only beginning to do this in 1942..., for the Japanese it shouldn't even begin until 1944. The Japanese may have been the masters at the surface torpedo attack when the war began---but they were "babes in the woods" in the field of ASW. Not that the Americans were much better in 12/41---but they had the British to take them by the hand and bring them along rapidly.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Sorry, but Japanese ASW is way too effective in the game.

In real life, how many bomber units did the Japanese have on ASW duty? How many US submarines were operating inside the effective range of those bomber units?

The game is not wrong here, nor is this an indication of anything wrong with the ASW-model, what we have here is simply a player using his forces smarter/better than his real life japanese counterparts.

Hindsight is always perfect, that will influence the japanese player and the game. The ahistorical effectiveness of Japanese ASW forces in the game has more to do with the player using his forces smarter and better than his real life counterpart, than any flaw in the game engine. It is not as if the Japanese pilots had a poor genetic setup, or that Japanese aircraft were inherently inferior when it comes to the ability to spot or attack a submarine on the surface, it is just that in real life, the japs prioritized other things than ASW combat.

ONE of the reasons for this lack of priority on ASW stuff is the fact that the US submarine fleet was virtually invisible in the Japanese shipping lanes during the opening months, even year of the war. The US subs did not leave Manilla en masse on December 8th 1941 to wreak havoc on Japanese shipping, instead the vast majority were pulled back from this area. Ask yourself...how often do you see an allied player doing that with his submarine force?

Ahistorical tactics and strategy cuts both ways. No need to code-wise try to tie both hands between the japs back here.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Sorry, but Japanese ASW is way too effective in the game.

In real life, how many bomber units did the Japanese have on ASW duty? How many US submarines were operating inside the effective range of those bomber units?

The game is not wrong here, nor is this an indication of anything wrong with the ASW-model, what we have here is simply a player using his forces smarter/better than his real life japanese counterparts.

ONE of the reasons for this lack of priority on ASW stuff is the fact that the US submarine fleet was virtually invisible in the Japanese shipping lanes during the opening months, even year of the war. The US subs did not leave Manilla en masse on December 8th 1941 to wreak havoc on Japanese shipping, instead the vast majority were pulled back from this area. Ask yourself...how often do you see an allied player doing that with his submarine force?

Ahistorical tactics and strategy cuts both ways. No need to code-wise try to tie both hands between the japs back here.

But the game already hamstrings US Submarines (even the ones that didn't have faulty torpedoes). So why give the Japanese an advantage they didn't have?

The game's ASW model stinks on ice..., generally modeling ASW activities as surface engagements. There are far to many "engagements" occuring with Japanese (and Allied) TF's attacking submarines that haven't DONE anything except exist in the same hex (over 3000 square miles of area). In 1941-42 even the Brits (who were the world's leading practitioners of ASW warfare) still made most of their attacks on subs in response to the sub making an attack on a convoy and not as roving "Hunter-Killer" TF's.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
So why give the Japanese an advantage they didn't have?

Because we want the game to be playable at all. We already give the Japanese an advantage they didnt have that is vastly more important and far-reaching than this ability to use ASW-forces better than in history. We have no IJA/IJN-rivalry in the game, and that is about as ahistorical as it gets. Still we need to have it this way, partly because the game becomes unplayable if we dont, and we want to give the player the ability to act as someone in supreme command of all his nations forces (that is also ahistorical).

In real life, the Japanese were abysmal on ASW. They had all the neccesary tools for ASW (DCs, aircraft, bombs, DDs, DEs, Sonars, etc), but they were crap at using them effectively. We put the player in the position of the supreme japanese commander, and he is able to use these assets to the best of his abilities. That is most often vastly much better than the historical japanese forces, but that doesnt mean the game is broken. Its just that he uses his forces better than in history. We cant hard code something like "max one sub-sinking per month". There are plenty of reasons why the results are different in game than in real life. Partly because of smarter use of assets by the japanese player, but also often aggressive/reckless usage of submarine forces by the allied player.

In 1941-42 even the Brits (who were the world's leading practitioners of ASW warfare) still made most of their attacks on subs in response to the sub making an attack on a convoy and not as roving "Hunter-Killer" TF's.

Lets use this example. The crux of our disagreement is this. You object to a japanese player creating hunter-killer ASW TFs early in the game. Partly because it leads to too large allied submarine losses compared to history, partly because the japanese didnt do that pre 44. My point is that the japs had the hardware to create these Hunter-Killer TFs, they just didnt have the doctrin for it. The creation of a Japanese Hunter-Killer TF in January 1942 is not against the laws of physics, its just that it didnt happen...partly because there was no need for it, partly because the japs lacked the tactical understanding of ASW warfare at the time.

[castor troy]

One of the most important things is the number of ASW planes... means mostly IJA medium bombers (Helen, Sally or Lilly). When you put 100 of them at a base and on 100% naval search then every US (or Allied) sub is toast (not just damaged, but sunk) when those bombers have 80+ exp. So this is something that I would consider "strange", I avoid saying gamey.

In a stock PBEM that is in late 43 now, I "only" put max. 36 IJA medium bombers at a base on nav search - with the next daitai min 16 hexes away and still achieve so many hits on subs that I rendered the US subs useless, so in fact even those small numbers are killers if they are just exp. enough. And normally the Japanese has no exp problem in his bomber units at all if he doesn´t throw them away...

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

But the game already hamstrings US Submarines (even the ones that didn't have faulty torpedoes). So why give the Japanese an advantage they didn't have?

How specifically exactly are US subs hamstrung? I have two games going, one as Japan and one as Allies. I don't necessarily see how my US subs are hamstrung, particularly when compared to IJN boats, although I am admittedly only in early 1942 in both games.

I think there is a difference between the including the faulty torpedoes, which was a technical and manufacturing issue, and the poor IJN ASW tactics (not using planes more, underescorted convoys, etc.). The faulty torpedoe issue was out of the field commander's hands, even Nimitz's for the most part, whereas tactics are exactly the commander's duties.

Now something like the later war's knowledge by US sub commanders that they could outdive IJN depth charges (i.e. the Japanese depth charges could not be fused deep enough to hit a deep US sub), should drastically reduce the effectiveness of IJN destroyers. Maybe something like, if the sub isn't hit by the first barrage in a deep water hex, it won't ever be, probably should be included in the game, since that was technical issue unknown to the IJ during the war.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The game's ASW model stinks on ice..., generally modeling ASW activities as surface engagements. There are far to many "engagements" occuring with Japanese (and Allied) TF's attacking submarines that haven't DONE anything except exist in the same hex (over 3000 square miles of area). In 1941-42 even the Brits (who were the world's leading practitioners of ASW warfare) still made most of their attacks on subs in response to the sub making an attack on a convoy and not as roving "Hunter-Killer" TF's.

Couldn't at least some of those encounters in the game be described as a sub making an approach, but being spotted before torps are fired. So, there is no "attack", but not necessarily a situation where a destroyer was out combing an area to discover subs. And almost by definition, any air attack on a sub (the original point of this thread) is a surface attack.

Plus, it seems natural that subs would head towards any enemy shipping in a hex, so the chances of them coming into contact are not that unreasonable, especially US boats with radar.

[Hortlund]

For some perspective here, approx 250 german submarines were sunk by allied aircraft during the war. Roughly 40 more were sunk by aircraft and ships operating together.

That means that roughly 50 percent of all german submarine combat losses in ww2 were to aircraft.

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

For some perspective here, approx 250 german submarines were sunk by allied aircraft during the war. Roughly 40 more were sunk by aircraft and ships operating together.

That means that roughly 50 percent of all german submarine combat losses in ww2 were to aircraft.

The Battle of the Atlantic is a very good example that aircraft could be very effective at attacking and sinking submarines, but unfortunately, it is probably not directly applicable to the ASW routines in WitP, at least when looking at the potential ASW efforts from Japan. From what I remember, most of the U-boat sinkings by aircraft were in the latter half of the way after long-range maritime patrol aircraft were equipped with radar and other non-visual methods of detecting submarines. I don't think the aircraft in the test, particularly not the Helen, have any kind of radar installed.

It would be better to compare early war effectiveness of Allied efforts (1940-1942) with aircraft, and assume that IJN Betties, Nells and even the various IJA medium bombers could be just as effective, assuming that they were directed to develop the experience to do so.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

For some perspective here, approx 250 german submarines were sunk by allied aircraft during the war. Roughly 40 more were sunk by aircraft and ships operating together.

That means that roughly 50 percent of all german submarine combat losses in ww2 were to aircraft.

...and almost all of those losses were in 1943-45 to aircraft equipped with advanced radars and other equipment the Japanese NEVER developed.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

...and almost all of those losses were in 1943-45 to aircraft equipped with advanced radars and other equipment the Japanese NEVER developed.

And the reason for that was because the German submarines constantly strived to operate outside allied aircraft range. The reason all those losses came in the mid/late war was because by then there was no aircover-gap in the atlantic anymore.

Look at German submarine operating areas during the war, see how the battlegrounds move over the atlantic. The reason for the movement in operating areas is because the Germans were constantly trying to avoid operating in areas inside aircraft range.

Aircraft, radar or not, are deadly foes for non-schnorkel subs.