Tactics against allied Subs?

[stuman]

Sorry, delayed post wierdness.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I'm playing the GUA scenario waiting for Patch 2 before a GC.  While subs are hard, they are far from impossible.  There are other threads here to explain how and following them works just fine for me.  I'm JAP this time so,

1.  Nettie's on Naval Search. low altitude, short range, narrow area.  Generate lots of sightings, keep the DL high.
2. 2 - 4 ship ASW, tight patrol zones, needs to be able to replenish frequently as exhaust DC loads FAST.
3. More Netties on ASW, low altitude, short range, narrow area.  More sightings and some hits. 

Takes 5 - 10 days to either kill or damage the sub sufficiently to drive it away.  During this time, it is so busy evading that it makes no attacks on my merchant traffic.

Loading up the US, I can see that I have not had many kills, but then I have only lost 1 ship to their subs.  I have damaged at least 7 USN subs, so I think the tactics suggested elsewhere are effective.

I really LOVE this! Using Japanese assets in a totally ahistorical manner for ASW work. I say ahistorical because while they certainly had the ability, they had neither the training, doctrine, or willingness to use them that way. Then again, just because the historic commanders made poor choices is no reason a player should have too... Right?

So I also assume that you have no problem with B-17's making naval attacks from 1000 feet... Right? They certainly could do it (and did on several occasions)..., so why put artificial restrictions on a player's tactics just because historically they tended to be too valuable for long ranged patrol and reccon to be risked it this manner.

Let's hear it for the marvelous mental flexibility of the JFB! [8|][8|][:(]

Why thank you Mike for the compliment. And feel free to take your planes and do whatever you want to with them [:)]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I'm playing the GUA scenario waiting for Patch 2 before a GC.  While subs are hard, they are far from impossible.  There are other threads here to explain how and following them works just fine for me.  I'm JAP this time so,

1.  Nettie's on Naval Search. low altitude, short range, narrow area.  Generate lots of sightings, keep the DL high.
2. 2 - 4 ship ASW, tight patrol zones, needs to be able to replenish frequently as exhaust DC loads FAST.
3. More Netties on ASW, low altitude, short range, narrow area.  More sightings and some hits. 

Takes 5 - 10 days to either kill or damage the sub sufficiently to drive it away.  During this time, it is so busy evading that it makes no attacks on my merchant traffic.

Loading up the US, I can see that I have not had many kills, but then I have only lost 1 ship to their subs.  I have damaged at least 7 USN subs, so I think the tactics suggested elsewhere are effective.

I really LOVE this! Using Japanese assets in a totally ahistorical manner for ASW work. I say ahistorical because while they certainly had the ability, they had neither the training, doctrine, or willingness to use them that way. Then again, just because the historic commanders made poor choices is no reason a player should have too... Right?

So I also assume that you have no problem with B-17's making naval attacks from 1000 feet... Right? They certainly could do it (and did on several occasions)..., so why put artificial restrictions on a player's tactics just because historically they tended to be too valuable for long ranged patrol and reccon to be risked it this manner.

Let's hear it for the marvelous mental flexibility of the JFB! [8|][8|][:(]

Mike,

Play your way and let others enjoy theirs. No reason for the petty sarcasm.

The game is about "what-if?" to many of us. If you want to re-create your "Golden Years" of USN domination, enjoy. No one will heckle you as you watch the world slowly play out history again and again and again and again. That's your idea of fun and I will be the last person to disallow you. Just please respect others in their manner of enjoyment.

And if I miss-interpreted your post, my sincere apologies.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I really LOVE this! Using Japanese assets in a totally ahistorical manner for ASW work.

Yeah. The final fate of Wahoo, among others, sunk by exactly the same combination of air patrol and ASW attacks diracted by it, attests how "ahistorical" it is.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I say ahistorical because while they certainly had the ability, they had neither the training, doctrine, or willingness to use them that way.

Mostly they didn't have the ability. By the time subs became a real problem (it should be noted, that, unlike AE, the faulty torpedo problem wasn't completely fixed for most of 1943, and at this time Allied subs weren't in the range for effective patrols against convoys from SRA - the problem you can avoid by placing subs in chokepoints and not moving them, unless the opponent brings ASW taskforces to chase them out), tney were already overwhelmed by multiple threats and by the time their countermeasures started to appear in numbers, Allied airpower and surface forces already were in position to attack Japan's lines of communications (exhaustion of crews and shortages of everything, including fuel and time for training, also grew into a major factor).

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

So I also assume that you have no problem with B-17's making naval attacks from 1000 feet... Right?

If they are modded to their historical level of durability? No problem. Currently, that's a gamey tactics, because the game seems to be poor at modeling problems of high-altitude interception, therefore B-17s are made ahistorically tough to survive, therefore they actually can avoid unacceptable casualties when making such runs against even a large combat taskforce (or flying mid-to-low level bombing missions unescorted).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Mike,

Play your way and let others enjoy theirs. No reason for the petty sarcasm.

The game is about "what-if?" to many of us. If you want to re-create your "Golden Years" of USN domination, enjoy. No one will heckle you as you watch the world slowly play out history again and again and again and again. That's your idea of fun and I will be the last person to disallow you. Just please respect others in their manner of enjoyment.

And if I miss-interpreted your post, my sincere apologies.

There was "sarcasm" involved..., though I wasn't trying to be petty. Just pointing out a reality of this forum. Hardly anyone even squeaks when a suggestion is made that the Japanese be used in an unusual or a-historic manner to achieve an "edge" in play..., but if the Allied side finds a "loophole" then the roars of anguish are heard from He11 to Huddersfield.

I understand perfectly the desire to "role-play" alternatives to the historic events..., and that the Japanese side is very attractive in this sense as it allows "playing the underdog" (always the favorite role to play). I like to "role-play" in my head as much as anyone. I just find it more satisfying to do so within the historic constraints of the roles I play.

Personally, I have no objections to the strategy and tactics you suggest as a legitimate "what if". Had the IJN taken it's collective head out of it's behind and looked closely at the Battle of the Atlantic and not just Taranto, they would certainly have seen the need to beef up their ASW doctrine and assets.

And I try never to "abuse" Allied 4-engined bomber assets in my games. Do I ignore the 6,000 or 10,000 foot altitude "agreements" so beloved in "house rules"? You bet I do..., but only during the first 3-4 months of the campaign when the "try anything" phase of desperation is occurring in the East Indies. This is the historic reality of that time. After that it's just "driving a truck through a loophole" (a loophole which has been rapidly closing through every game patch). That I don't want to do...

Even in AE, Allied Admiral Phillips and Force Z are FORCED to sail into "harms way" at the outset of the game (excuse being that this is what Force Z did historically). But Japanese Admiral Nagumo suffers no such restraints in hanging around PH for a week (excuse being that he COULD have done so). This kind of dichotomy of rational drives me insane. Either FORCE historical actions on BOTH sides..., or allow players freedom of choice on BOTH sides.

That's my real point..., fairness. I'm all for closing rules loopholes that allow rediculously a-historic results on both sides. And I'm all for letting the players make choices on asset utilization when they don't involve "gaming the loopholes in the rules". If you go back to the discussions involving B-17 abuse in the original release of WITP, you will find me advocating a heavy reduction in the numbers available..., because 2by3 got it wrong and there were way to many in the game.

Today, when AE's rules allow the Japanese "Artillery Deathstar" to crush China I'm opposed to that as well. Garbage is garbage, no matter which side it helps.[8D]

[Bahnsteig]

Hi Mike,
take your hate elsewhere if you cannot follow the topic.
Subs sitting in enemy ports for days without being attacked is unhistorical or unrealistic, it doesnt matter.
If you have problems with the deathstar or with your B-17 start your own thread.
I dont wont to start the 1000thb AFBvsIFB story in here.

It isnt a problem when allied subs sink ships in the open sea, but its a problem with the game mechanics when the subs can sit in ports and shallow waters without any danger.

Right now I have enemy subs in Rabaul, Saporro, Tulagi and always on the same positions near Singapur, Balakapan and Hakodate, all mined and with ASW forces.
Its easy to find, almost impossible to damage them.
If its realistic or historical like some people think, the war should have been over in late 43.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I really LOVE this! Using Japanese assets in a totally ahistorical manner for ASW work. I say ahistorical because while they certainly had the ability, they had neither the training, doctrine, or willingness to use them that way. Then again, just because the historic commanders made poor choices is no reason a player should have too... Right?

Sometimes it takes ahistorical manners to get even historical results. [:)]

My observation is that japanese ASW is very bad. In my game it's 5/42, and only one allied sub is sunk (by I-boat). Depth carges are useless. I have tens of ASW attacks, hundreds of DC dropped, and only one hit so far... PBs, SCs, DDs, all useless. Allied don't have any problems sinking my I-boats.

So I'm going to try that ASW planes+ships combination.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig

Hi Mike,
take your hate elsewhere if you cannot follow the topic.

Personally, I have no objections to the strategy and tactics you suggest as a legitimate "what if". Had the IJN taken it's collective head out of it's behind and looked closely at the Battle of the Atlantic and not just Taranto, they would certainly have seen the need to beef up their ASW doctrine and assets.

What "hate"? I agree with you that the situation you describe is idiotic and calls for some creative thinking. But I also think the answer is to make subs operating in such a manner more vulnerable to ASW no matter who's side they are on. I've seen Japanese subs doing exactly the same thing..., and Allied ASW really was a lot better than the Japanese.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig

Subs sitting in enemy ports for days without being attacked is unhistorical or unrealistic, it doesnt matter.

It isnt a problem when allied subs sink ships in the open sea, but its a problem with the game mechanics when the subs can sit in ports and shallow waters without any danger.

I too think surface ASW, and air ASW, needs to be more lethal, for both sides. But I'll also note that the "port" hex is 40-miles across. It's perfectly possible to hide a WWII fleet boat in that much water, no matter the depth.

[Mike Scholl]

Couple of points on the effectiveness of Allied ASW vs. Japanese ASW.

During the "Battle of the Atlantic" Germany lost over 800 U-Boats to Allied ASW.  About 15,000 tons of Allied Shipping were lost for each U-Boat sunk...., basically about two ships sunk for each sub lost.

During the Pacific Campaign, American subs only managed to sink about 35% as much Japanese tonnage as the U-Boats had..., but for each US Sub sunk by the Japanese 122,000 tons of Japanese Merchant Shipping was lost (or given the smaller average size of Japanese ships, almost 40 ships sunk per sub lost).  This is even with the torpedo problems that hamstrung US subs for much of the war.

Clearly Allied ASW technique, tactics, and equipment were several magnitudes better than anything managed by the Japanese.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Clearly Allied ASW technique, tactics, and equipment were several magnitudes better than anything managed by the Japanese.

True, but IIRC, the U-boats were really mastered quite late into the war, when there were plenty of escort carriers and destroyers aplenty, sufficient to prosecute any contact relentlessly. So, 1944 or so.

I imagine if you look at U-boats lost over the whole war, 1944-1945 skews the statistics.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Clearly Allied ASW technique, tactics, and equipment were several magnitudes better than anything managed by the Japanese.

True, but IIRC, the U-boats were really mastered quite late into the war, when there were plenty of escort carriers and destroyers aplenty, sufficient to prosecute any contact relentlessly. So, 1944 or so.

I imagine if you look at U-boats lost over the whole war, 1944-1945 skews the statistics.

IIRC, the Kriegsmarine had a pretty black mid 1943 (May, June) too.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Clearly Allied ASW technique, tactics, and equipment were several magnitudes better than anything managed by the Japanese.

True, but IIRC, the U-boats were really mastered quite late into the war, when there were plenty of escort carriers and destroyers aplenty, sufficient to prosecute any contact relentlessly. So, 1944 or so.

I imagine if you look at U-boats lost over the whole war, 1944-1945 skews the statistics.

Actually, U-Boat losses started rising in the second half of 1942. Per year losses were:

1940......23 boats lost
1941......35 boats lost
1942......86 boats lost
1943.....236 boats lost
1944.....237 boats lost

So your "skew" begins in 1943, not 1944 (I'm only showing full years). The War in the Pacific pretty much begins with 1942, when it's pretty obvious that Allied ASW is "on the rise". By 1943 it was already quite deadly.