freq dist USN sub losses to cause

[mdiehl]

Historical causes of loss of USN submarines during WW2. See The Last Patrol, by Harry Holmes, Naval Inst Press, 1994.

Japanese naval aviation only: 2 (one of these was sunk at mooring in Cavite)
Japanese army aviation only: 1 (a Ki-51 Sonia on 6-8-1945)
Unspecified type Japanese aviation: 1
Detected and attacked by IJN aviation with IJN surface ship follow-up attacks: 3
Japanese surface ships only: 20
Japanese submarine: 1
Collision with friendly vessel: 1
Collision with enemy vessel: 1
Confirmed loss to mine: 3
Coastal Gunfire: 1
Grounded and scuttled: 4
Friendly fire: 1
Circular torpedo run: 3
Submerged and failed to surface during training exercise: 2
Atlantic theater: 1 (sunk either by a PBM or else a German U-boat)
Missing, Presumed Lost, no record of any Japanese attack on submarine in patrol area: 7

By month/year

12/41: 1
1/42: 2
2/42: 1
3/42: 1
6/42: 1
7/42: 1
8/42: 1
1/43: 1
2/43: 2
3/43: 2
4/43: 1
6/43: 1
7/43: 1
9/43: 3
10/43: 3
11/43: 2
12/43: 1
2/44: 2
3/44: 2
4/44: 1
6/44: 2
7/44: 2
8/44: 2
10/44: 4
11/44: 4
1/45: 1
2/45: 1
3/45: 2
4/45: 1
5/45: 1
6/45: 1
8/45: 1

[rominet]

Concerning subs sunk by jap aviation, the japaneses would prefer to play WitP than to make real war.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rominet

Concerning subs sunk by jap aviation, the japaneses would prefer to play WitP than to make real war.

not just concerning sinking subs... but I guess the Allied would have preferred WITP too because most PBEMs see the Allied in WITP achieving things in 44 what wasn´t achieved in real life before 45. Means the war would have ended a year earlier, at least in the Pacific.

[AcePylut]

In my game against the AI... It's March '43 and I'd lost a grand total of 1 submarine.  ONE.
 
And that's not because they've been in port... my subs have put a clamp on Japan and consistently sit 1 hex from their ports.

[Fallschirmjager]

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.
When little bytes die on your hard drive you don't have to write home to their mothers.

[bradfordkay]

"When little bytes die on your hard drive you don't have to write home to their mothers. "

I wish that I had known that!

Sorry, Chez, for taking do long at returning turns to you. My time has been taken up with all these letters of condolence I've beeen writing unnecessarily!  [;)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.
When little bytes die on your hard drive you don't have to write home to their mothers.

Senior grand Imperial poo-bahs (The imaginary position we fullfill in WITP) don't write letters to mothers, they have staff to do that.[:D] I find PBEM players if anything are less agressive in real life. Non-aggressive commanders in times of war tend to be replaced. [X(]

[mdiehl]

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.

Is it your contention that USN submarines were not regularly assigned patrol areas along Japanese major convoy routes?

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Most players use their subs (and all of their forces) in a much more agressive manner than the real war and it makes comparing losses to historical losses laughable.

Is it your contention that USN submarines were not regularly assigned patrol areas along Japanese major convoy routes?

Players tend to used them in shallow water hexes far more often, sit them several deep outside of major harbors and even penetrate into the sea of Japan in 1941. Players are far more agressive in every aspect of game play. Mainly for the reason I joked about. When you lose a lot of units in WitP you only have virtual blood on your hands so there is really nothing preventing you from being as agressive as possible with every unit at your disposal.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

In my game against the AI... It's March '43 and I'd lost a grand total of 1 submarine.  ONE.

And that's not because they've been in port... my subs have put a clamp on Japan and consistently sit 1 hex from their ports.

you used the magic word: AI. That´s why you haven´t lost more... [;)]

[ChezDaJez]

Let me provide a few details that may help from my game with Brad (bradfordkay). We are playing CHS mod 159 and we are in late May 1944. To date, the Allies have lost 31 subs to all causes and the Japanese 59 subs to all causes. Allied losses breakdown as follows:

Bombs: 4 (2 of these disbanded at Manila on turn 1)
Torps: 1 (Type 93 fired by a surface ship at sea)
Depth Charges: 22
Gunfire: 2 (1 sunk by naval bombardment while disbanded in port)
Mines: 2

Total: 31

Of the 31 allied subs lost to date, only 2 were sunk by aircraft while the sub was at sea. 2 were sunk by aircraft on turn one while inport Manila.

How does this compare to Japanese sub losses:

Bombs: 18 (4 inport)
Torps: 1 (Mk IX torpedo fired by Brit DD)
Depth Charges: 40
Gunfire: 0
Mines: 0

Total: 59

Of 59 Japanese submarines sunk, 14 were by aircraft while at sea and 4 by aircraft with the sub inport.

Brad has been very aggressive with his subs, camping on my merchant sea lanes with annoying frequency and effectiveness. So far, he has sunk over 110 AK, AP, AO and TKs. No mean feat when you figure he has only had good torpedoes for the last 18 months or so. Also consider that I have tried to avoid any area where I know subs exist whenever possible. I probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-500 aircraft across the map assigned to ASW, 50% of which are IJN floatplanes. The rest are a mix of IJN and IJA land-based bombers. I detect several subs each turn but my aircraft seldom attack. And it is even rarer still to hit one.

To recap... to date, 24% (14 of 59) of all Japanese subs sunk at sea have been by allied aircraft. In sharp contrast, only 7% (2 of 28) of Allied subs lost at sea have been by aircraft.

Is there a problem here? If there is, I don't see it.

Chez

[Puhis]

Isn't the all idea of this game to sort of create a different/alternative history? Good or lucky japanese player should be able to sink lot more subs than Japan did in real war.

US lost zero Essex-class carriers. So what?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Isn't the all idea of this game to sort of create a different/alternative history? Good or lucky japanese player should be able to sink lot more subs than Japan did in real war.

US lost zero Essex-class carriers. So what?

If this were the case, then the Allied player should be able to get either a worse or better result than history based on gameplay: i don't think an Allied player will even approach historical results given the game mechanics against any human player... look at the actual results of the USN subs against the IJN warships. How many players can come anywhere near that?*

Not to mention results against IJ shipping which strangled the Japanese economy... the way the economic model is now, i think the Japanese could have ~100 AKs** can still keep the civilian economy running along... this was certainly not the case in reality where at least 50% of Japanese shipping was needed for this...

i understand AE is going to address this (somewhat, at least).


*EDIT: There was a thread some months back looking at this... most Allied players considered themselves lucky to have sunk ONE IJ capitol ship with a sub (most have sunk none - i've never had it happen in a game)... certainly a far cry from what actually happened during WW2 where several carriers, several CAs and CLs (not capitol ship, but still) and at least one BB were sunk by USN subs.

**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.

Jesus.

Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.

Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Let me provide a few details that may help from my game with Brad (bradfordkay). We are playing CHS mod 159 and we are in late May 1944. To date, the Allies have lost 31 subs to all causes and the Japanese 59 subs to all causes. Allied losses breakdown as follows:

Bombs: 4 (2 of these disbanded at Manila on turn 1)
Torps: 1 (Type 93 fired by a surface ship at sea)
Depth Charges: 22
Gunfire: 2 (1 sunk by naval bombardment while disbanded in port)
Mines: 2

Total: 31

Of the 31 allied subs lost to date, only 2 were sunk by aircraft while the sub was at sea. 2 were sunk by aircraft on turn one while inport Manila.

How does this compare to Japanese sub losses:

Bombs: 18 (4 inport)
Torps: 1 (Mk IX torpedo fired by Brit DD)
Depth Charges: 40
Gunfire: 0
Mines: 0

Total: 59

Of 59 Japanese submarines sunk, 14 were by aircraft while at sea and 4 by aircraft with the sub inport.

Brad has been very aggressive with his subs, camping on my merchant sea lanes with annoying frequency and effectiveness. So far, he has sunk over 110 AK, AP, AO and TKs. No mean feat when you figure he has only had good torpedoes for the last 18 months or so. Also consider that I have tried to avoid any area where I know subs exist whenever possible. I probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-500 aircraft across the map assigned to ASW, 50% of which are IJN floatplanes. The rest are a mix of IJN and IJA land-based bombers. I detect several subs each turn but my aircraft seldom attack. And it is even rarer still to hit one.

To recap... to date, 24% (14 of 59) of all Japanese subs sunk at sea have been by allied aircraft. In sharp contrast, only 7% (2 of 28) of Allied subs lost at sea have been by aircraft.

Is there a problem here? If there is, I don't see it.

Chez

there surely isn´t a problem, at least not IMO. The reason for that is that you also use your bombers in reasonable numbers. You could also do different, means you put 200 Helens into one base near an area where you have spotted a couple of subs, put the bombers on 100 nav search and vacuum clean the ocean. Experienced that and often read about it in AARs. Do I like that? no. Do I think that it´s ok? no. Does it kill the fun of playing (or at least the fun of subwarfare)? yes

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
**REEDIT: iirc, i calculated how much shipping was required to run the "civilian" economy in CHS - it was around 100K tons worth of hauling capacity, or about 20 large AKs worth.

Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."

we shouldn´t speak about how many AKs have to be sunk if you want to strangle the Japanese industry (strangle means in this case to deny the Japanese a production capacity of 1500 first line fighters and 500 first line bombers a month from mid 42 until late 45). You should speak about TANKERS! In stock, sink 40-50 tankers and what happens? The Japanese are in big trouble. In Nikmod - with greatly reduced cargo capacity but the same number of ships - sink 25 tankers and see what happens...

There are enough resources in China, Manchuko and Japan that sinking AKs doesn´t really matter if speaking about strangling the industry. If there aren´t enough tankers around anymore then the Japanese have to think about what they produce and even more so in what NUMBERS they produce it.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: EUBanana




Jesus.



Well. Thats why you see Indian invasions so often right there.

[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."

we shouldn´t speak about how many AKs have to be sunk if you want to strangle the Japanese industry (strangle means in this case to deny the Japanese a production capacity of 1500 first line fighters and 500 first line bombers a month from mid 42 until late 45). You should speak about TANKERS! In stock, sink 40-50 tankers and what happens? The Japanese are in big trouble. In Nikmod - with greatly reduced cargo capacity but the same number of ships - sink 25 tankers and see what happens...

There are enough resources in China, Manchuko and Japan that sinking AKs doesn´t really matter if speaking about strangling the industry. If there aren´t enough tankers around anymore then the Japanese have to think about what they produce and even more so in what NUMBERS they produce it.

That is the military economy, and i mentioned it was quite possible to hurt it - but unlike what happened in the course of acutal events, you really can't hurt the civilian economy in WITP.

You CAN hurt the military economy do it by going after tankers IN STOCK... (and maybe NIKMOD - i haven't played a straight NIKMOD game)...

However, i was talking about CHS, and it is not oil but resources that are the "choke point" in CHS... you could put the "hurt" on the IJ economy through oil/tankers as well, but it would be much more difficult in CHS than in stock, (i think).

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rominet

Concerning subs sunk by jap aviation, the japaneses would prefer to play WitP than to make real war.

not just concerning sinking subs... but I guess the Allied would have preferred WITP too because most PBEMs see the Allied in WITP achieving things in 44 what wasn´t achieved in real life before 45. Means the war would have ended a year earlier, at least in the Pacific.

Olny because the "real Japanese" players did not give up and quit-and refuse to respond to any of my emails after losing six carriers in April 1942. They decided to play it out to the end.....l[:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


[:D]

It is possible to really put the crimp on the MILITARY economy by denying resources and/or oil to the Japanese economy, but it is very difficult... most Japanese players will laugh at you when you talk about sinking enough shipping to do this (edit - at least at the idea of sinking them by subs.)

EDIT: PS - i am going from memory here from calculations made about 2.5+ years ago... i could be off, but that's why i originally put in "~100 ships."

we shouldn´t speak about how many AKs have to be sunk if you want to strangle the Japanese industry (strangle means in this case to deny the Japanese a production capacity of 1500 first line fighters and 500 first line bombers a month from mid 42 until late 45). You should speak about TANKERS! In stock, sink 40-50 tankers and what happens? The Japanese are in big trouble. In Nikmod - with greatly reduced cargo capacity but the same number of ships - sink 25 tankers and see what happens...

There are enough resources in China, Manchuko and Japan that sinking AKs doesn´t really matter if speaking about strangling the industry. If there aren´t enough tankers around anymore then the Japanese have to think about what they produce and even more so in what NUMBERS they produce it.

That is the military economy, and i mentioned it was quite possible to hurt it - but unlike what happened in the course of acutal events, you really can't hurt the civilian economy in WITP.

You CAN hurt the military economy do it by going after tankers IN STOCK... (and maybe NIKMOD - i haven't played a straight NIKMOD game)...

However, i was talking about CHS, and it is not oil but resources that are the "choke point" in CHS... you could put the "hurt" on the IJ economy through oil/tankers as well, but it would be much more difficult in CHS than in stock, (i think).

is there a civilian economy in WITP?